International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education Indexed in ESCI
Assessing the Difficulty of Mathematical Translations: Synthesizing the Literature and Novel Findings
APA
In-text citation: (Bossé et al., 2011)
Reference: Bossé, M. J., Adu-Gyamfi, K., & Cheetham, M. R. (2011). Assessing the Difficulty of Mathematical Translations: Synthesizing the Literature and Novel Findings. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 6(3), 113-133. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/264
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Bossé MJ, Adu-Gyamfi K, Cheetham MR. Assessing the Difficulty of Mathematical Translations: Synthesizing the Literature and Novel Findings. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2011;6(3), 113-133. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/264
Chicago
In-text citation: (Bossé et al., 2011)
Reference: Bossé, Michael J., Kwaku Adu-Gyamfi, and Meredith R. Cheetham. "Assessing the Difficulty of Mathematical Translations: Synthesizing the Literature and Novel Findings". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2011 6 no. 3 (2011): 113-133. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/264
Harvard
In-text citation: (Bossé et al., 2011)
Reference: Bossé, M. J., Adu-Gyamfi, K., and Cheetham, M. R. (2011). Assessing the Difficulty of Mathematical Translations: Synthesizing the Literature and Novel Findings. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 6(3), pp. 113-133. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/264
MLA
In-text citation: (Bossé et al., 2011)
Reference: Bossé, Michael J. et al. "Assessing the Difficulty of Mathematical Translations: Synthesizing the Literature and Novel Findings". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 6, no. 3, 2011, pp. 113-133. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/264
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Bossé MJ, Adu-Gyamfi K, Cheetham MR. Assessing the Difficulty of Mathematical Translations: Synthesizing the Literature and Novel Findings. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2011;6(3):113-33. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/264

Abstract

Students perennially demonstrate difficulty in correctly performing mathematical translations between and among mathematical representations. This investigation considers the respective difficulty of various mathematical translations based on student activity (defining mathematical errors during the translation process, teacher beliefs and instructional practices, student interpretive and translation activities, and the use of transitional representations) and the nature of individual representations (fact gaps, confounding facts, and attribute density). These dimensions are synthesized into a more complete model through which to analyze student translation work and delineate which mathematical translations are more difficult than others.

References

  • Adu-Gyamfi, K., Stiff, L., & Bossé, M. J. (2012, in press). Lost in translation: Examining translation errors associated with mathematics representations. School Science and Mathematics Journal.
  • Adu-Gyamfi, K., Bossé, M. J., & Cheetham, M. (2011a, under review). Situated interpretation: Reasoning and processes in mathematical representation.
  • Adu-Gyamfi, K., Bossé, M. J., & Cheetham, M. (2011b, under review). Situating student errors: Linguistic-to-algebra translation errors.
  • Adu-Gyamfi, K., Bossé, M. J., & Cheetham, M (2011c, under review). Student connection of mathematical representations: Differentiated by ability.
  • Bell, A., Brekke, G. and Swan, M. (1987). Diagnostic teaching: 4 graphical interpretations. Mathematics Teaching, 119, 56–60.
  • Bossé, M. J., Adu-Gyamfi, K., & Cheetham, M. (2011a, under review). Translation processes differentiated by student ability.
  • Bossé, M. J., Adu-Gyamfi, K., & Cheetham, M. (2011b). Translations among mathematical representations: Teacher beliefs and practices. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.cmit.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default. htm.
  • Brenner, M., E, Herman, S., Ho, H., & Zimmermann, J. (1999). Cross national comparison of representational competence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(5), 541-557. doi:10.2307/749773
  • Carlson, M. P. (1998). A cross sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. In E. Dubinsky, A. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education (Vol. 7, pp. 115-162). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
  • Clement, J., Lockhead, J., & Monk, G. S. (1981). Translation difficulties in learning mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 88, 287-290. doi:10.2307/2320560
  • Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Though processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 16-30. doi:10.2307/748434
  • Cunningham, R. F. (2005). Algebra teachers’ utilization of problems requiring transfer between algebraic, numeric and graphic representations. School Science and Mathematics, 105(2), 73-82. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18039.x
  • Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1987). On the deep structure of functions. In J. C. Bergeron, N. Herscovics, C. Kieran (Eds.). Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for the PME (Vol. I, pp. 190-196). Montreal, Canada.
  • Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103-131. doi:10.1007/s10649-006- 0400-z
  • Dunham, P., H., & Osborne, A. (1991). Learning how to see: Students’ graphing difficulties. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 13, 35-49.
  • 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(5), 645-657. doi:10.1080/0144341042000262953
  • Galbraith, P., & Haines, C. (2000). Conceptual mis(understandings) of beginning undergraduates. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(5), 651-678. doi:10.1080/002073900434350
  • Janvier, C. (1987). Translation process in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in mathematics learning and problem solving (pp. 27-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Kaput, J. J. (1987). Toward a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in mathematics learning and problem solving (pp. 159-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kaput, J. J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner, & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 167- 194). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
  • Kaput, J., & Sims-Knight, J. E. (1983). Errors in translations to algebraic equations: Roots and implications. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 5(3), 63-78.
  • Kaput, J. J., Sims-Knight, E. J., & Clement, J. (1985). Behavioral objections: A response to Wollman. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 56-63. doi:10.2307/748974
  • Kerslake, D. (1981), Graphs. In K. Hart (Ed.), Children's understanding of mathematics: 11- 16 (pp. 120-136). Oxford: John Murray.
  • Kieran, C. (1993). Functions, graphing, and technology: Integrating research on learning and instruction. In T. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 189-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Knuth, E. J. (2000). Student understanding of the Cartesian connection: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 500-508. doi:10.2307/749655
  • Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004.). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129-164. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1302_1
  • Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, K. M. (1990). Functions, graphs and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64. doi:10.3102/00346543060001001
  • Lesh, R., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual models in applied mathematical problem solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.). Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 263-343). New York: Academic Press.
  • Macgregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Cognitive models underlying students' formulation of simple linear equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(3), 217-232. doi:10.2307/749345
  • Mevarech, Z. & Kramarsky, B. (1997). From verbal descriptions to graphic representations: stability and change in students alternative conceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 229-263. doi:10.1023/A:1002965907987
  • Monk, S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G. Harel, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (175-193). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
  • Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 320-389. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0904_2
  • Porzio, D. T. (1999). Effects of differing emphasis on the use of multiple representations and technology on students’ understanding of calculus concepts. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 21(3), 1-29.
  • Preece, J. (1983). Graphs are not straightforward. In T. R. G. Green, & S. J. Payne (Eds.), The psychology of computer use: A European perspective, (pp. 41–50). Academic Press, London.
  • Pyke, C. (2003). The use of symbols, words, and diagrams as indicators of mathematical cognition: A causal model. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 406–432. doi:10.2307/30034794
  • Resnick, L., & Omanson, S. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R Glaser (Eds.), Advances in instructional psychology volume 3. (pp. 41-95). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
  • Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 159-194. doi:10.2307/749672
  • 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 (Eds.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55-175). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
  • Superfine, A. C., Canty, R. S., & Marshall, A. M. (2009). Translation between external representation systems in mathematics: All-or-none or skill conglomerate? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(4), 217-236. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2009.10.002
  • Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21, 14–23. doi:10.3102/0013189X021001014
  • Webb, N. M., Gold, K., Qi, S., & Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.) (1990). Translation between symbolic representations [microform] : relationship between instruction and performance. UCLA Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Wollman, W. (1983). Determining the sources of error in a translation from sentence to equation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(3), 169-181. doi:10.2307/748380
  • Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 42-57. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00223.x

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.