Constructing Graphical Representations: Middle Schoolers' Intuitions and Developing Knowledge About Slope and Y-intercept

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 112, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 230-240

  Hattikudur, Shanta ^a   Prather, Richard W ^b   Asquith, Pamela ^a   Alibali, Martha W ^a   Knuth, Eric J ^a   Nathan, Mitchell ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b Indiana University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876018436     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00138.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ainley, J., Nardi, E., & Pratt, D. (2000). The construction of meanings for trend in active graphing. International journal of computers for mathematical learning, 5(2), 85–114.
2. Bell, A., & Janvier, C. (1981). The interpretation of graphs representing situations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2, 34–42.
3. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2004). Elementary grade students' capacity for functional thinking. In M. Jonsen Hoines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 135–142). Bergen, Norway: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Blume, G. W., & Heckman, D. S. (2000). Algebra and functions. In E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenny (Eds.), Results from the Seventh Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 269–300). Reston, VA: NCTM.
5. Botzer, G., & Yerushalmy, M. (2008). Embodied semiotic activities and their role in the construction of mathematical meaning of motion graphs. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(2), 111–132.
6. Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Duran, R., Reed, B. S., & Webb, D. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663–689.
7. Davis, J. D. (2007). Real-world contexts, multiple representations, student-invented terminology, and y-intercept. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 9(4), 387–418.
8. Demana, F. D., Schoen, H. L., & Waits, B. K. (1993). Graphing in the K-12 curriculum: The impact of the graphing calculator. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 11–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Donnelly, J. F., & Welford, A. G. (1989). Assessing pupils' ability to generalize. International Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 161–171.
10. Dugdale, S. (1993). Functions and graphs: Perspectives on student thinking. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 101–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Eraslan, A. (2008). The notion of reducing abstraction in quadratic functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39, 1051–1060.
12. Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124–158.
13. Goldenberg, E. P. (1987). Believing is seeing: How preconceptions influence the perception of graphs. In J. C.Bergeron, N. Herscovics & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 197–203). Montreal, Canada.
14. Hennessy, S., Fung, P., & Scanlon, E. (2001). The role of the graphic calculator in mediating graphing activity. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(2), 267–290.
15. Kalchman, M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Teaching and learning functions. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Mathematics in the classroom (pp. 351–393). Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.
16. Kaput, J. J. (1998). Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by “algebrafying” the K-12 curriculum. In S. Fennel (Ed.), The nature and role of algebra in the K-14 curriculum: Proceedings of a National Symposium (pp. 25–26). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17. Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. M. Hard (Ed.), Children's understanding of mathematics (pp. 102–119). London: John Murray.
18. Kieran, C. (2001). Looking at the role of technology in facilitating transition from arithmetic to algebraic thinking through the lens of a model of algebraic activity. In Helen Chick, Proceedings of the 12th Study Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 713–720). Melbourne, Australia: The University of Melbourne.
19. Krabbendam, H. (1982). The non-qualitative way of describing relations and the role of graphs: Some experiments. In G. Van Barnveld & H. Krabbendam (Eds.), Conference on functions (pp. 125–146). Enschede, The Netherlands: Foundation for Curriculum Development.
20. Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (1997). Cognitive-metacognitive training within a problem-solving based logo environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(4), 425–445.
21. Lappan, G., Fey, J., Fitzgerald, W., Friel, S., & Philips, E. (1998). Connected Mathematics Project. Menlo Park, CA: Dale Seymour.
22. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1–64.
23. Levert, B. (2003). We're poppin' for math. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31(4), 20–23.
24. Lobato, J., Ellis, A. B., & Muñoz, R. (2003). How “focusing phenomena” in the instructional environment support individual students' generalizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 1–36.
25. McKenzie, D. L., & Padilla, M. J. (1986). The construction and validation of the test of graphing in science (TOGS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 571–579.
26. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). From verbal descriptions to graphic representations: Stability and change in students' alternative conceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 229–263.
27. Moschkovich, J. N. (1998). Students' use of the x-intercept as an instance of a transitional conception. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 169–197.
28. Moschkovich, J. N., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representations of functions (pp. 69–100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Moses, P., Roe, K., Buxton, R. B., Wong, E. C., Frank, L. R., & Stiles, J. (2002). Functional MRI of global and local processing in children. Neuroimage, 16(2), 415–424.
30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
31. Nicolaou, C. T., Nicolaidou, I., & Zacharia, Z. (2007). Enhancing fourth graders' ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of microcomputer-based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity sequence. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(1), 75–99.
32. Noble, T., & Nemirovsky, R. (1995). Graphs that go backwards. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
33. Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., Dimattia, C., & Wright, T. (2004). Learning to see: Making sense of the mathematics of change in middle school. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(2), 109–167.
34. Nemirovsky, R., & Rubin, A. (1991). It makes sense if you think about how the graphs work. but in reality.. In F. Furunghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 3 (pp. 57–64). Assisi: University of Assisi.
35. Olive, J., Izsak, A., & Blanton, M. (2002). Investigating and enhancing the development of algebraic reasoning in the early grades (K-8): The Early Algebra Working Group. In D. S. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 119–120). Columbus, OH: ERIC.
36. Padilla, M. J., McKenzie, D. L., & Shaw, E. L. J. (1986). An examination of the line graphing ability of students in grades seven through twelve. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 20–26.
37. Schlieman, A., Carraher, D., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). Everyday cognition. In J. W. Berry, P. R. Dasen & T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 2nd ed. (Vol. 2, pp. 177–215) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
38. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 4. (pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Schwartz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: Brakes or levers in learning the function concept? The role of computer tools. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 30(4), 362–389.
40. Stokes, M. E., Davis, C. S., & Koch, G. G. (2000). Categorical data analysis using the SAS system (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
41. Stylianou, D. A., Smith, B., & Kaput, J. J. (2005). Math in motion: Using CBRs to enact functions. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(3), 299–324.
42. Swafford, J. O., & Brown, C. A. (1989). Variables and relations. In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.), Results from the fourth mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 55–63). Reston, VA: NCTM.
43. Swatton, P., & Taylor, R. M. (1994). Pupil performance in graphical tasks and its relationship to the ability to handle variables. British Educational Research Journal, 20, 227–243.
44. Turner, E. E., Wilhelm, J., & Confrey, J. (2000). Exploring rate of change through technology with elementary students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
45. Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21, 14–23.
46. Wavering, M. J. (1985). The logical reasoning necessary to make line graphs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick Springs, Indiana.
47. Wavering, M. J. (1989). Logical reasoning necessary to make line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 373–379.
48. Yerushalmy, M., & Schwartz, J. L. (1993). Seizing the opportunity to make algebra mathematically and pedagogically interesting. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 41–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.