Students’ reported justifications for their representational choices in linear function problems: an interview study

Thirty-six secondary school students aged 14–16 were interviewed while they chose between a table, a graph or a formula to solve three linear function problems. The justifications for their choices were classified as (1) task-related if they explicitly mentioned the to-be-solved problem, (2) subject-related if students mentioned their own characteristics as representational users, (3) context-related if contextual features surrounding the choice were mentioned and (4) representation-related if formal characteristics of the representations were pointed out. Justifications were mostly task- and subject-related, although contextual and representational features also played an important role. Some students (reportedly) tried to reconcile different (task-, subject-, context- and representation-related) factors before selecting a representation, which was interpreted as an attempt to use their meta-representational competence to make appropriate representational choices. The influence of the didactical contract and the experimental contract on students’ representational choices, as well as the tensions between them, are also discussed.

[1]  Yuri Uesaka,et al.  Active Comparison as a Means of Promoting the Development of Abstract Conditional Knowledge and Appropriate Choice of Diagrams in Math Word Problem Solving , 2006, Diagrams.

[2]  Lieven Verschaffel,et al.  Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education , 2002 .

[3]  Lieven Verschaffel,et al.  Analyzing and Developing Strategy Flexibility in Mathematics Education , 2011 .

[4]  L. Verschaffel,et al.  Flexible and adaptive use of strategies and representations in mathematics education , 2009 .

[5]  J. Elen,et al.  Conceptualising, investigating and stimulating representational flexibility in mathematical problem solving and learning: a critical review , 2009 .

[6]  Marlena Herman.  What Students Choose to Do and Have to Say About Use of Multiple Representations in College Algebra , 2007 .

[7]  Carmel M. Diezmann,et al.  The role of fluency in a mathematics item with an embedded graphic: interpreting a pie chart , 2009 .

[8]  A. Su,et al.  The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics , 1932, The Mathematical Gazette.

[9]  M. Ashcraft,et al.  Telling stories: the perils and promise of using verbal reports to study math strategies. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  R. Siegler,et al.  Older and younger adults' strategy choices in multiplication: testing predictions of ASCM using the choice/no-choice method. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  Brian Greer,et al.  Understanding probabilistic thinking: The legacy of Efraim Fischbein , 2001 .

[12]  L. Verschaffel,et al.  Representational flexibility in linear-function problems: a choice/no-choice study , 2010 .

[13]  Yan Zhang,et al.  Qualitative Analysis of Content by , 2005 .

[14]  Ian Spence,et al.  Judging Proportion with Graphs: The Summation Model , 1998 .

[15]  최영한,et al.  미국 NCTM의 Principles and Standards for School Mathematics에 나타난 수학과 교수,학습의 이론 , 2002 .

[16]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Meta-representation: an introduction , 2000 .

[17]  P. Cobb,et al.  Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, and Autonomy in Mathematics. , 1996 .

[18]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Multiple Factors that Determine Performance with Tables and Graphs , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Graham Crookes,et al.  The Utterance, and Other Basic Units for Second Language Discourse Analysis. , 1990 .

[20]  J. Greeno,et al.  Practicing Representation: Learning with and about Representational Forms , 1997 .

[21]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Students’ Criteria for Representational Adequacy , 2002 .