Examination of the Sixth-Grade Students’ Performances in Graphical Languages

Year 2019, Volume: 14 , 41 - 46, 20.09.2019

Sumeyra Dogan Coskun Nadide Yılmaz

Abstract

Graphical
languages are helpful for students as they facilitate the understanding of the
given data. Understanding these graphical languages is also important as students
encounter tasks containing graphics when compared to the tasks in the past
(Diezmann & Lowrie, 2008). The current study aims to investigate whether sixth-grade
students’ graphical language performances vary significantly considering gender.
It was also investigated whether there is a significant correlation between the
sixth-grade students’ performances among the six components of the graphical
language. The participants were 97 sixth-grade students in an elementary school in
Ankara, Turkey. To examine students’ performances in
graphical languages, a graphical languages test was adapted from Mackinlay’s
(1999) model of graphical languages. The results of the study showed that total
scores of the sixth-grade students’ graphical performances did not vary
significantly considering gender. However, when the students’ scores were examined
for each component of the graphical language test individually, it was found
that the students’ scores in the Axis and Miscellaneous components varied
significantly. This difference in the Axis component was found to be in favor
of the girls, while it was in favor of the boys in the Miscellaneous component.
Furthermore, there were significant correlations among the sixth-grade
students’ performances in graphical languages.

Keywords

Graphical Languages, Sixth-grade students’ performances

References

• Berg, C.A. & Philips, D.G. (1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 323-344. Bertin, J. (1980). The basic test of the graph: a matrix theory of graph construction and cartography. In P. A. Kolers, M. E. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma (Eds.), Processing of visible language 2 (pp. 585-604). New York: Plenum Press. Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics (W. J. Berg, Trans.). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. (Original work published 1967). Diezmann, C. M. & Lowrie, T. (2008). The role of information graphics in mathematical proficiency. In M. Goos, R. Brown & K. Makar (Eds.), Navigating currents and charting directions: Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 2, 647–650. Sydney: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Fry, E. (1984). A Theory of graphs for reading comprehension and writing communication. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 240 528) Gagatsis, A., & Elia, I. (2004). The effects of different modes of representation on mathematical problem solving. In M. Johnsen Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 447-454). Bergen, Norway: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Gal, I. (1993), "Reaching Out: Some Issues and Dilemmas in Expanding Statistics Education," in Introducing Data-Analysis in the Schools: Who Should Teach It and How?, ed. L. Pereira-Mendoza, Voorburg, Holland: International Statistics Institute. Guthrie, J. T., Weber, S., & Kimmerly, N. (1993). Searching documents: Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 186-221 Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-63 Lowrie, T., & Diezmann, C. M. (2005). Fourth-grade students’ performance on graphical languages in mathematics. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 3) (pp. 265–272). Melbourne: PME. Lowrie, T., & Diezmann, C. M. (2007). Solving graphics problems: student performance in the junior grade. Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 369–377. Mackinlay, J. (1999). Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. In S. K. Card, J. D. Mackinlay, & B. Schneiderman (Eds.), Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think (pp. 66-81). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. 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. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). Matematik Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar. Ankara, Türkiye. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM. 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. Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 159-194. Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 47–69. Tversky, B., & Schiano, D. J. (1989). Perceptual and conceptual factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(4), 387-398.