Conceptualising, investigating and stimulating representational flexibility in mathematical problem solving and learning: A critical review

ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education

Volumn 41, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 627-636

  Nistal, Ana Acevedo ^a   van Dooren, W ^a   Clarebout, G ^a   Elen, J ^a   Verschaffel, L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Adaptivity; Choice; Flexibility; Multiple external representations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867366514     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-009-0189-1     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Acevedo Nistal, A., Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2008, September). Representational flexibility in the domain of linear functions: A choice/no-choice study. Paper presented at an international workshop of the FWO scientific network on developing critical and flexible thinking: Use of (external) representations in mathematical and scientific reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and improvement. Leuven: FWO Scientific Network.
2. Ainsworth, S. (1999). Designing effective multi-representational learning environments (SRC Tech. Rep. No. 58). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
3. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 25-61. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_2.
4. Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (1998). Analysing the costs and benefits of multi-representational learning environments. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 120-134). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
5. Borba, M. C., & Confrey, J. (1996). A student's construction of transformations of functions in a multiple representational environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 319-337. doi:10.1007/BF00376325.
6. Cheng, P. C. H. (2000). Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers & Education, 33, 109-130. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315 (99)00028-7.
7. Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (1996). Function probe. Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 86-87. doi:10.1145/232014.232036.
8. Cox, R. (1996). Analytical reasoning with multiple external representations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
9. DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem-solving: A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131-147. doi: 10.1007/s10649-006-9026-4.
10. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., & Reimann, P. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and math: The use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, T. de Jong, et al. (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
11. Demetriou, A. (1998). Cognitive development. In A. Demetriou, W. Doise, & C. Van Lieshout (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology (pp. 179-270). Chichester: Wiley.
12. Dienes, Z. P. (1960). Building up mathematics. London: Anchor Press, Hutchinson Educational.
13. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117-160.
14. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385-398.
15. Duval, R. (2002). The cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in the learning of mathematics. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1(2), 1-16.
16. Elia, I., Panaoura, A., Eracleous, A., & Gagatsis, A. (2007). Relations between secondary pupils' conceptions about functions and problem solving in different representations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 533-556.
17. Elia, I., Panaoura, A., Gagatsis, A., Gravvani, K., & Spyrou, P. (2006). An empirical four-dimensional model for the understanding of function. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, Vol. 3 (pp. 137-142). Prague: Charles University.
18. Ellis, S. (1997). Strategy choice in sociocultural context. Developmental Review, 17, 490-524.
19. Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 105-121.
20. Gagatsis, A., Christou, C., & Elia, I. (2004). The nature of multiple representations in developing mathematical relationships. Quaderni di Ricerca in Didattica, 14, 150-159.
21. Gagatsis, A., & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Ability to translate from one representation of the concept of function to another and mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology, 24, 645-657.
22. Gilmore, D. J., & Green, T. R. G. (1984). Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 31-48.
23. Goldin, G. A. (2000). Affective pathways and representation in mathematical problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 209-219.
24. Goldin, G. A. (2003). Representation in school mathematics: A unifying research perspective. In J. Kilpatrick, W. Gary Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 275-285). Reston, NJ: NCTM.
25. Grawemeyer, B. (2006). Evaluation of ERST-An external representation selection tutor. In D. Barker-Plummer, R. Cox, & N. Swoboda (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference: 4th international conference, diagrams 2006, Stanford, CA, USA, June 28-30, 2006, proceedings (pp. 154-167). New York: Springer.
26. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361-367.
27. Gruber, H., Graf, M., Mandl, H., Renkl, A., & Stark, R. (1995, August). Fostering applicable knowledge by multiple perspectives and guided problem solving. Paper presented at the 6th conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
28. Hollands, J. G., & Spence, I. (1998). Judging proportion with graphs: The summation model. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 173-190.
29. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan.
30. Kollöffel, B., de Jong, T., & Eysink, T. (2005, August). The effects of representational format in simulation-based inquiry learning. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.
31. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
32. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33. Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., Schillemans, V., Onghena, P., & Verschaffel, L. (in press). Strengths and weaknesses of the choice/no-choice method in research on strategy use. European Psychologist.
34. Meyer, J. (2000). Performance with tables and graphs: Effects of training and a visual search model. Ergonomics, 43, 1840-1865.
35. Meyer, J., Shinar, D., & Leiser, D. (1997). Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39, 268-286.
36. Nunes, T. N., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Ozgun-Koca, S. A. (2004). The effects of multiple linked representations on students' learning of linear relationships. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eǧitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 82-90.
38. Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 159-194.
39. Siegler, R. S., & Lemaire, P. (1997). Older and younger adults' strategy choices in multiplication: Testing predictions of ASCM using the choice/no-choice method. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 71-92.
40. Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 59-84). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
41. Sparrow, J. A. (1989). Graphical displays in information systems: Some data properties influencing the effectiveness of alternative formats. Behaviour & Information Technology, 8, 43-56.
42. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Tabachneck, H. J. M., Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (1994). Towards a theoretical account of strategy use and sense making in mathematical problem solving. In A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), 16th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 836-841). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44. Thomas, M. O. J. (2008). Developing versatility in mathematical thinking. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(2), 71-91.
45. Uesaka, Y., & Manalo, E. (2006). Active comparison as a means of promoting the development of abstract conditional knowledge and appropriate choice of diagrams in math word problem solving. In D. Barker-Plummer, R. Cox, & N. Swoboda (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference: 4th international conference, diagrams 2006, Stanford, CA, USA, June 28-30, 2006, proceedings (pp. 181-195). New York: Springer.
46. Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 335-359.
47. Vessey, I. (1991). Cognitive fit: A theory-based analysis of the graph versus tables literature. Decision Sciences, 22, 219-240.
48. Warner, L. B. (2005). Behaviors that indicate mathematical flexible thought. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
49. Watson, C. J., & Driver, R. W. (1983). The influence of computer graphics on the recall of information. MIS Quarterly, 7(1), 45-53.
50. Wickens, C. D., & Andre, A. D. (1990). Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space and objectness on information integration. Human Factors, 32, 61-78.
51. Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 42-57.
52. Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebra word problems with graphing software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 356-387.