Abstract
AbstractWe posit a dual approach to digital task design: to engineer opportunities for students to conceive of graphs as representing relationships between quantities and to foreground students’ reasoning and exploration, rather than their answer-finding. Locally integrating Ference Marton’s variation theory and Patrick Thompson’s theory of quantitative reasoning, we designed digital task sequences, in which students were to create different graphs linked to the same video animations. We report results of a qualitative study of thirteen secondary students (aged 15–17), who participated in digital, task-based, individual interviews. We investigated two questions: (1) How do students conceive of what graphs represent when engaging with digital task sequences? (2) How do student conceptions of graphs shift when working within and across digital task sequences? Two conceptions were particularly stable – relationships between quantities and literal motion of an object. When students demonstrated conceptions of graphs as representing change in a single quantity, they shifted to conceptions of relationships between quantities. We explain how a critical aspect: What graphs should represent, intertwined with students’ graph-sketching. Finally, we discuss implications for digital task design to promote students’ conceptions of mathematical representations, such as graphs.
Funder
National Science Foundation
University of Colorado Denver
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference36 articles.
1. Bell, A., & Janvier, C. (1981). The interpretation of graphs representing situations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2(1), 34–42.
2. Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352–378.
3. Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1/2), 77–87.
4. Drijvers, P. (2015). Digital technology in mathematics education: Why it works (or doesn’t). In S. Cho (Ed.), Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 135–151). Cham: Springer.
5. Duijzer, C., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Veldhuis, M., Doorman, M., & Leseman, P. (2019). Embodied learning environments for graphing motion: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 597–629.
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献