Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
This study examined how 12- and 13-year-old students’ mathematics and science background knowledge affected line graph interpretations and how interpretations were affected by graph question levels. A purposive sample of 14 students engaged in think aloud interviews while completing an excerpted Test of Graphing in Science. Data were collected and coded using a rubric of previously cited factors, categorized by Bertin’s (Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps. The University of Wisconsin Press, Ltd., Madison, 1983) theory of graph interpretation. Data analysis revealed responses varied by graph question level. Across levels, students interpreted graphs in one or more of the three ways: mathematical word problems (focusing on an algorithm), science data to be analyzed (incorporating science knowledge), or no strategy. Although consistently used across levels, the frequency and usefulness of approaches varied by question level.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Aberg-Bengtsson, T., & Ottosson, T. (2006). 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, 43(1), 43–62. CrossRef
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Bell, A., & Janvier, C. (1981). The interpretation of graphs representing situations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2(1), 34–42.
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(6), 527–554. CrossRef
Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps (W. J. Berg, Trans.). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, Ltd.
Bertin, J. (2001). Matrix theory of graphics. Information Design Journal, 10(1), 5–19. CrossRef
Bostock, M., & Heer, J. (2009). Protovis: A graphical toolkit for visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 15(6), 1121–1128. CrossRef
Bowen, G. M., Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Towards a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1020–1043. CrossRef
Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 155–166. CrossRef
Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 4(2), 75–100. CrossRef
Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2), 187–215. CrossRef
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Retrieved September 6, 2012, from http://www.corestandards.org/.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Curcio, F. R. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(5), 382–393. CrossRef
Davis, R. B. (1982). Teaching the concept of function: Method and reason. In G. Van Barnveld & H. Krabbendam (Eds.), Conference on functions, foundation for curriculum development (Vol. 1, pp. 47–55). The Netherlands: Enschede.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Florida Department of Education. (2006). Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) 2005: State report of district results of science grade 5. Retrieved October 15, 2005, from http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcat/fcatscor.htm.
Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions [about the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test]. Retrieved July 19, 2006, from http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcat/pdf/fcatfaq1.pdf.
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. CrossRef
Gal, I. (1993). Reaching out: Some issues and dilemmas in expanding statistics education. In L. Pereira-Mendoza (Ed.), Introducing data-analysis in the schools: Who should teach it and how? (pp. 189–203). Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistics Institute.
Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: A review of the literature. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183–210. CrossRef
Heer, J., Kong, N., & Agrawala, M. (2009). Sizing the horizon: The effects of chart size and layering on the graphical perception of time series visualizations. In ACM CHI’s proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1303–1312). Boston, MA.
Jackson, D. F., Edwards, B. J., & Berger, C. F. (1993). Teaching the design and interpretation of graphs through computer-aided graphical data analysis. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 483–501.
Janvier, C. (1987). Conceptions and representations: The circle as an example. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in mathematics learning and problem solving (pp. 147–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, S. K. (2008). Levels of line graph question interpretation with intermediate elementary students of varying scientific and mathematical knowledge and ability: A think aloud study. Orlando: University of Central Florida.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C. M., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64. CrossRef
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358. CrossRef
McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting students’ ability to reason about data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 103–129. CrossRef
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(7), 571–579. CrossRef
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20–30. CrossRef
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Mitchell, P., Ware, C., & Kelley, J. (2009). Investigating flow visualizations using interactive design space hill climbing. In Proceedings 2009 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (pp. 355–361). San Antonio, TX.
Parmar, R. S., & Signer, B. R. (2005). Sources of error in constructing and interpreting graphs: A study of fourth- and fifth-grade students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(3), 250–261. CrossRef
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Preece, J., & Janvier, C. (1992). A study of the interpretation of trends in multiple curve graphs of ecological situations. School Science and Mathematics, 92(6), 299–306. CrossRef
Putnam, R. T., Lampert, M., & Peterson, P. L. (1990). Alternative perspectives on knowing mathematics in elementary schools. Review of Educational Research, 16, 57–150.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (1994). Mathematization of experience in a grade 8 open-inquiry environment: An introduction to the representational practices of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 293–318. CrossRef
Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 159–194. CrossRef
Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive ability or practice? Science Education, 81(1), 91–106. CrossRef
Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59. CrossRef
Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47–69. CrossRef
Stein, M. K., & Leinhardt, G. (1989). Interpreting graphs: An analysis of early performance and reasoning. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Centre, PA.
Tairab, H. H., & Khalaf Al-Naqbi, A. K. (2004). How secondary school science students interpret and construct scientific graphs. Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 119–124.
Trickett, S. B., & Trafton, J. G. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of graph comprehension: Making the case for spacial cognition. In D. Barker-Plummer, R. Cox, & N. Swoboda (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 286–300). Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21(1), 14–23. CrossRef
Wu, H.-K., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Inscriptional practices in two inquiry-based classrooms: A case study of seventh graders’ use of data tables and graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 63–95. CrossRef
- Assessing and Understanding Line Graph Interpretations Using a Scoring Rubric of Organized Cited Factors
Stacy K. Boote
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta