What lies behind graphicacy? Relating students' results on a test of graphically represented quantitative information to formal academic achievement

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 43-62

  Åberg Bengtsson, Lisbeth ^a   Ottosson, Torgny ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^b KRISTIANSTAD UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; FORMAL LANGUAGES; NUMERICAL METHODS; STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS; GRAPHICACY-TEST FACTOR (GEN); NARRATIVE DIMENSION; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING TECHNIQUE;

DRAWING (GRAPHICS);

EID: 33645689341     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20087     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (1998). Entering a graphicate society: Young children learning graphs and charts (Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 127). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
2. Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (1999). Dimensions of performance in the interpretation of diagrams, tables, and maps: Some gender differences in the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 565-582.
3. Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (in press). Separating quantitative and analytic dimensions in the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
4. Åberg-Bengtsson, L. & Erickson, G. (2004). Dimensions of national test performance in language and mathematics: A two-level approach. Manuscript submitted.
5. Åberg-Bengtsson, L. & Ottosson, T. (2004). Students' ways of making sense of line graphs and scatter plots in open-ended questions. Manuscript submitted.
6. Ainley, J. (2000). Transparency in graphs and graphing tasks: An iterative design process. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 365-384.
7. Andersson, A. (1998). The dimensionality of the leaving certificate in the Swedish compulsory school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42, 25-40.
8. Arbuckle, J.L. (1997). Amos users' guide, version 3.6. Chicago, IL: Small Waters Corporation.
9. Beniger, J.R. & Robyn, D.L. (1978). Quantitative graphics in statistics: A brief history. The American Statistician, 32, 1-11.
10. Berg, C.A. & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple choice and free response instruments. Science Education, 78, 527-554.
11. Bowen, G.M., Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M.K. (1999). Interpretation of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Toward a social practice view of scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1020-1043.
12. Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 77-87.
15. Eriksson, L. (1998). Världen i siffror: Upplaga 98 [The world in numbers: Year 1998.] (6th ed.) Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
16. Goldberg, F.M. & Anderson, J.H. (1989). Student difficulties with graphical representations of negative values of velocity. Physics Teacher, 27, 254-260.
17. Guthrie, J.T., Weber, S., & Kimmerly, N. (1993). Searching documents: Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 186-221.
18. Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988a). Hierarchical models of individual differences and cognitive abilities. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (vol. 4, pp. 35-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988b). Models of intelligence. In P.J. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 437-441). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
20. Gustafsson, J.-E. & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407-434.
21. Gustafsson, J.-E. & Stahl, P.A. (2000). STREAMS user's guide: Version 2.5 for Windows. Mölndal, Sweden: MultivariateWare.
22. Gustafsson, J.-E. & Undheim, J.O. (1996). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 186-242). New York: Macmillan.
23. Gustafsson, J.-E. Wedman, I., & Westerlund, A. (1992). The dimensionality of the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 21-39.
24. Halpern, D.K. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Horn, J.L. & Cattell, R.B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.
26. Jones, G.A., Thornton, C.A., Langrall, C.W., Mooney, E.S., Wares, A., Perry, B., & Putt, I. (2000). A framework for characterizing children's statistical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 269-307.
27. Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user's reference guide (2nd ed.) Chicago: Scientific Software International.
28. Kealy, W.A. & Webb, J.M. (1995). Contextual influences of maps and diagrams on learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 340-358.
29. Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. Hart (Ed.), Children's understanding of mathematics: 1-16 (pp. 120-136). London: John Murray.
30. Köhler, P.O. (1994). Skolans tabeller: Tabeller och diagram for grundskolans orienter-ingsämnen [School statistics: Tables and diagrams for social subjects in primary school] (2nd ed.) Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
31. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R.E. (2002). Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 47-77.
32. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M.K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
33. Lewandowsky, S. & Spence, I. (1989). The perception of statistical graphs. Sociological Methods and Research, 18, 200-242.
34. Lindwall, O. (1998). Samarbete och problemlösande i mikrodatorbaserade laborationer [Collaboration and problem solving in micro computer based laboratory lessons] (Magister-uppsatser från Tema K, 1998:2). Linköping: Linköping University, Tema K.
35. Lindwall, O. & Ivarsson, J. (2004). What makes the subject matter matter? Contrasting probeware with graphs & tracks. Manuscript submitted.
36. Linn, M.C., Layman, J.W., & Nachmias, R. (1987). Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: Graphing skills development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 244-253.
37. Lowe, R.K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157-176.
38. Nemirovsky, R. & Noble, T. (1997). On mathematical visualization and the place where we live. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 99-131.
39. Nemirovsky, R. & Tierney, C. (2001). Children creating ways to represent changing situations: On the development of homogenous space. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 67-102.
40. Nemirosky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 119-172.
41. Ottosson, T. (1987). Map-reading and wayfinding (Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 65). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
42. Ottosson, T. (1988). What does it take to read a map? Cartographica, 25, 28-35.
43. Ottosson, T. & Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (1995, August). Children's understanding of graphically represented quantitative information. Paper presented at the sixth EARLI conference, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
44. Preece, J. (1983). Graphs are not straightforward. In T.R.G. Green, S.J. Payne, & G.C. van der Veer (Eds.), The psychology of computer use (pp. 41-56). London: Academic Press.
45. Roth, W.-M. (2003). Toward an anthropology of graphing: Semiotic and activity theoretic perspectives. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
46. Roth, W.-M. & McGinn, M.K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 35-59.
47. Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
48. Skolverket [the Swedish National Agency for Education], (2003). The Swedish school system. [From the official homepage of the Swedish National Agency for Education.] Available: http://www.skolverket.se/english/system/index. shtml (June 2003).
49. Stage, F.K. (1990). LISREL: An introduction and application in higher education research. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and research (vol. 6). New York: Agathon Press.
50. Tufte, E.R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
51. Verdi, M.P., Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A., Rittschof, K.A., & Johnson, J.T. (1996). Text learning using scientific diagrams: Implications for classroom use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 487-499.
52. Veriki, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychological Review, 14, 261-312.
53. Wainer, H. (1980). A test of graphicacy in children. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 331-340.
54. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211-247.
56. Winn, W. (1993). An account of how readers search for information in diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 162-185.
57. Winn, W. & Holliday, W. (1982). Design principles for diagrams and charts. In P.M. Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of texts (vol. 1, pp. 277-299). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.