School Mathematics (대한수학교육학회지:학교수학)

The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics (대한수학교육학회)
권호 표지

An Analysis Modes Related to Use of Graph and Flexibility of Representation Shown in a Quadratic Function Representation of High School Students

고등학생의 이차함수 표상에서 나타난 그래프 사용 모드 및 표상의 유연성 분석

  • Received : 2016.02.10
  • Accepted : 2016.03.05
  • Published : 2016.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzes modes related to use of graph representation that appears to solve high school students quadratic function problem based on the graph using modes of Chauvat. It was examined the extent of understanding of the quadratic function of students through the flexibility of the representation of the Bannister (2014) from the analysis. As a result, the graph representation mode in which a high school students are mainly used is a nomographic specific mode, when using operational mode, it was found to be an error. The flexibility of Bannister(2014) that were classified to the use of representation from the point of view of the object and the process in the understanding of the function was constrained operation does not occur between the two representations in understanding the function in the process of perspective. Based on these results, the teaching on use graph representation for the students in classroom is required and the study of teaching and learning methods can understand the function from various perspectives is needed.

본 연구는 Chauvat의 그래프 사용 모드에 근거하여 고등학교 1학년 학생의 이차함수 문제해결에서 나타나는 그래프 표상의 사용 모드를 분석하고자 한다. 이 분석으로부터 Bannister (2014)의 표상의 유연성을 통해 연구 참여 학생들의 이차함수 이해 정도를 조사하였다. 그 결과 고등학교 1학년 학생들이 주로 사용하는 그래프 표상 모드는 계산 도표학적 모드이며, 조작적 모드를 사용할 경우에는 오류를 발생하는 것을 알 수 있었다. 그리고 함수의 이해를 대상과 과정 관점에서 표상의 사용으로 분류한 Bannister(2014)의 유연성의 분류에서는 과정 관점으로 함수를 이해하고 두 표상 사이에 조작이 일어나지 않는 경직된 형태를 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 교실에서 학생들을 위한 그래프 표상 사용에 대한 교육 및 다양한 관점으로 함수를 이해할 수 있는 교수 -학습 방법에 대한 연구가 필요할 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김남희, 나귀수, 박경미, 이경화, 정영옥, 홍진곤(2006). 수학교육과정과 교재연구. 서울: 경문사.
  2. 류희찬(2004). 수학교육에서 탐구형 소프트웨어의 활용방안. 청람수학교육, 14, 1-15. 한국교육대학교 수학교육연구소.
  3. 이광상, 조민식, 류희찬(2006). 엑셀의 활용이 일차함수 문제해결에 미치는 효과. 학교수학, 8(3), 265-290.
  4. Bannister, V. R. P. (2014). Flexible conceptions of perspectives and representations: an examination of pre-service mathematics teachers' knowledge. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 2(3), 223-233.
  5. Blume, G. W. & Heckman, D. S. (1997). What do students know about algebra and function? In P. Kenney & E. Silver (Eds.), Results from the sixth mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 225-277). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  6. Dubinsky, E. & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of process of function. In E. Dubinsky, & G. Harel(Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (MAA Notes No. 25, pp. 85-106). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
  7. Eisenberg, T. (1992). On the development of a sense for functions. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 153-174). Mathematical Association of America.
  8. Eisenberg, T. & Dreyfus, T. (1994). On understanding how students learn to visualize function transformations. Research on Collegiate Mathematics Education, 1, 45-68.
  9. Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)80063-7
  10. Friedlender, A. & Tabach, M. (2001). Promoting multiple representation in algebra, In A. A. Cuoco (Ed.), The roles of representation in school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  11. Goldin, G. A. (1987). Cognitive representational systems for mathematical problem solving. In Claude Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 125-146). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Hitt, F. (1998). Difficulties in the articulation of different representations linked to the concept of function. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 123-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)80064-9
  13. Janvier, C. (1987). Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  14. Kleiner, I. (1989). Evolution of the function concept: A brief survey. College Mathematics Journal, 20, 282-300. https://doi.org/10.2307/2686848
  15. Lamon, S. J. (2001). Presenting and representing: From fractions to rational numbers. In A. Cuoco (Ed.), The roles of representation in school mathematics. 2001 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 41-52). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  16. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In Claude Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Maria T. & Rafael M. P. (2010). Geometrical representations in the learning of two-variable functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3-19.
  18. Maria, M. D. & Vanessa, S. T. (2012). The role of visual representations for structuring classroom mathematical activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 413-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9358-6
  19. Monk, G. S. (1988). Students' understanding of functions in calculus courses. Humanistic Mathematics Network Newsletter, 2.
  20. Monk, S. & Nemirovsky, R. (1994). The case of Dan: Student construction of a functional situation through visual attributes. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 4, 139-168.
  21. Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of function (pp. 69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  22. Romberg, T., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1993). Toward a common research perspective. In T. Romberg, E. Fennema & T. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of function. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy, 25, 23-58.
  24. Selden, A. & Selden, J. (1992). Research perspectives on conceptions of fuction summary and overview. In E. Dubinsky, & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (MAA Notes No. 25, pp. 133-150). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
  25. Yavuz, I. (2010). What does a graphical representation mean for students at the beginning of function teaching? International journal of mathematical education in science and technology, 41(4), 467-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390903477442
  26. Yerushalmy, M. & Schwartz, J. (1993). Seizing the opportunity to make algebra mathematically and pedagogically interesting. In T. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of function (pp. 69-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  27. Yerushalmy, M. & Swidan, O. (2012). Signifying the accumulation graph in dynamic and multi-representation environment. Educational Studies Mathematics, 80, 287-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9356-8