Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Merj 14 1 Forster
Merj 14 1 Forster
Merj 14 1 Forster
Interpretative Framework
Mathematical Understanding
Various types of mathematical understanding are distinguished in the
literature. In our analysis we rely on the categories operational understanding
and structural understanding (Sfard, 1991). Operational understanding entails
conceiving a mathematical notion to be the result of a sequence of processes,
algorithms and actions (p. 4). Structural understanding is indicated if a notion is
referred to as an object or static structure (p. 4). Typically, operational
understanding precedes structural understanding. However, development might
be in the reverse order, that is structural to operational, especially for geometry
17
18
19
20
21
/6
0
1 2 sin x dx .
2
6a-c
6d
1892
6.65 (60%)
29
1774
1.56 (52%)
814
Altogether, nearly 50% of candidates did not attempt Question 6(d), or scored
zero for it. Explanations that emerged in the interviews were that students:
Some scripts showed answers that were consistent with calculators set in
degree mode rather than the required radian mode. In summary, the results
highlight the importance of appreciating and understanding calculator
functionality, and show that half the candidature did not display the necessary
knowledge.
3cosx
2 + sin x
, x .
22
Solution:
(a) x = /2 [2 marks]
(b) Max stationary point = ( / 6, 3 ) [5 marks]
/ 2
(c) /2 3 cos x /(2 + sin x) dx = 3 30 (2 d.p.) [3 marks]
Number of students
(n = 435)
Mean score
Number who scored zero
% who gave exact values
7b
7c
Traditional Graphics
calculator
Traditional Graphics
calculator
311
99
73
300
4.1(81%)
8
89%
3.8(76%)
5
74%
1.9(63%)
14
-
2.5(84%)
17
-
Note. The 2 value for goodness of fit between sample and population data is 2 (8, N = 435) = 6.45.
entering into the calculator the function, together with the derivative
command, setting the expression equal to zero, and solving the equation in
a numerical solve facility; and
graphing the function (which could be done from the start) then using the
built-in capabilities of the calculator to obtain the co-ordinates of the
turning point (see Figure 1).
Derivatives that were not simplified in written answers and sketches of the
function indicated also a combination of methods.
An error with answers obtained analytically was to locate the maximum
point at x = /6 instead of at x = /6. However, the percentage of students who
failed to convert decimal approximations to exact values was greater for the
group who relied solely on a calculator solution, which explains the lower mean
mark. The interviewed students who did the conversion said they recognised the
23
24
For Question 8, we recorded the nature of students answers for the 240 scripts
that we marked and the results are summarised in Table 3. Incorrect answers for
the integral with a calculator evaluation (inferred from no working shown)
caught our attention and led to the data collection.
Table 3
Evaluation of an Integral for Volume (Question 8)
Traditional
Number of students
(n = 240)
Number with correct
evaluation
Graphics calculator
Part (a)
Correct
Part (a)
Incorrect
Part (a)
Correct
Part (a)
Incorrect
23
31
43
65
20
14
31
38
The proportion of the graphics calculator group with Part (a) correct who
evaluated the integral correctly was 72%. Further, of the students in the sample
who chose to use their graphics calculator to evaluate the integral that they had
obtained, only 64% succeeded in obtaining a value consistent with their integral.
Entry and/or syntax errors are salient.
The mean mark for the question as a whole for the cohort was low (3.78 out of
8, n = 1728).
Sample data were generated for 12c and are summarised in Table 4.
Calculator use was inferred from no working or the provision of a graph only.
Except for checking in 12b that would be impossible to infer, the other part
questions were calculator inactive, so were not considered in the data collection.
25
Table 4
Solving the Simple Harmonic Motion Equation (Question 12c)
Traditional
Graphics calculator
151
1.9(64%)
28
123
2.2(75%)
21
Note. The 2 value for goodness of fit between population and sample data is 2 (12, N=435) = 5.90 .
26
Sketching a Graph
2
Question 13: If f (x) = x + 3x 10 ,
2
x +x 6
(c) sketch the graph of f showing the intercepts, asymptotes and any other
distinguishing features.
f( x)
Solution:
(a) all reals -3 or 2 [2 marks]
(b) 7/5 [2 marks]
(c) Graph [6 marks]
5/3
-5
-3
( 2, 7/5 )
x
1
27
Table 5
Finding a Limit (Question 13b) and Sketching a Graph (Question 13c)
13b
13c
Traditional Graphics
calculator
Traditional Graphics
calculator
160
1.9(93%)
10
63
4.4(73%)
1
363
4.5(74%)
1
Note. The 2 value for goodness of fit between sample and population data for questions 13a+13b is 1.12
(4 df) and for question 13c is 2 = 2.11 (5 df)
Table 6
Features on the Graph of a Rational Function (Question 13c)
Number who included the feature
Horizontal
Asympt.
Vertical
Asympt.
Point
Discontinuity
50 (80%)
272(75%)
61(97%)
352(97%)
25(40%)
183(50%)
28
(t + 1)
(t + 1)
Part marks for questions 14a-c were recorded for the sample of students (see
Table 7) and whether students drew a graph in support of their answers.
29
Table 7
Finding a Derivative (Question 14a) and Interpreting a Graph (Question 14b-c)
14a
14b
14c
419
2.6 (88%)
16
380
1.3(63%)
102
368
1.2(59%)
122
Note. The 2 value for goodness of fit between sample and population data is 2 (7, N = 435) = 1.41 .
t < 0.64, which is consistent with knowing that the direction of travel
changes at v = 0, but incorrectly assumes that westerly travel involves
moving to the left on the graph;
0.64 < t < 1, which correctly recognises that the section below the
horizontal axis represents travel in the westerly direction but incorrectly
assumes that the relative minimum turning point is where the particle
turns round;
t = 0.64, which implies a misinterpretation of the question.
Recognising that the root of the velocity function was needed was less
problematic than determining the appropriate interval. Interviewed students
indicated that they used built-in capabilities of their calculators to determine
the root.
In relation to the maximum speed for 14c errors were:
30
to give maximum velocity (the highest point on the graph) for maximum
speed,
to give the speed at the minimum point but write it incorrectly as a
negative quantity, and
to omit the time.
1 cos(2t)
for t 0
t
0
fort = 0
f(t )
2
(117, 145)
1
t
-1
-2
31
Markers recorded part marks for question 20b and the method (traditional,
table of values, or a graph); and part marks for 20d and 20f, which required the
use of the calculator due to the non-routine nature of the function (see Table 8).
Few students conclusively established the value of the piecewise-defined
function at x = 0 and errors from 20a and 20b flowed into 20c. Of the students whose
method was recorded for the limit in 20b, about two thirds drew on standard
approaches for limits including application of LHpitals rule and the
properties of trigonometric limits. Some interviewed students noted that the
value of the limit was a known fact. The alternatives were a table of values or
graph, which potentially were both graphics calculator assisted. Mean scores
were noticeably higher for those students who used these approaches. However,
errors were:
some students did not provide sufficiently many values in their table to
adequately establish the limiting behaviour, an omission also noted for
the 1998 Calculus TEE (Forster & Mueller, 2001),
students correctly stated the limit of the function as t approached zero
from above and below zero, but incorrectly included f(0) = 0 in their
justification,
isolated instances of graphs with asymptotic behaviour at t = 0, which
was consistent with students keying the function 1 cos( 2t)/ t into their
calculators.
Table 8
Evaluating a Limit (20b), Sketching a Graph (20d) and Interpreting a Graph (20f)
20b
Traditional
No. of students (n = 435)
182
Mean score
1.7(58%)
Table
20d
20f
Graph
58
35
312
271
2.5(83%) 2.1(70%) 2.3(58%) 0.8(40%)
Note. The 2 value for goodness of fit between sample and population data is 2 (16, N = 435) = 13.15 .
32
function. Graphs typically lacked coordinates of a point to set the scales and
lacked scales on the axes, which is attributable to there being no scales on some
calculator graphs. In 20e, the interviewed students deduced the interval by:
using the extremum function on the graph to find the relative maxima
values,
tracing along the curve with the cursor and relying on the function value
outputs,
graphing f(x) = 0.25 and using the point of intersection capability to check
the allowable t values.
33
Table 9
Results by Question when Choosing Graphs, Table of Values or the Solve Facility
Application
7b
Mean Score %
99
311
76
81
123
151
75
64
160
223
93
90
13c
363
63
74
73
380
n.a.
63
n.a.
368
n.a.
59
n.a.
93
182
78
58
20d
312
n.a.
58
n.a.
271
n.a.
40
n.a.
20f
Graphing a trigonometric
function.
Finding the no. of solutions to
simultaneous equations.
Conclusion
In this paper we have described students performance in relation to graphics
calculator use on selected questions from the 1999 Calculus TEE. Based on the
methods that the interviewed students articulated, we have identified how
graphs can assist problem-solving because they display the structure of functions.
For example, a periodic structure (Question 12) and the existence of turning points
(in Questions 7, 12, 14 and 20). Importantly, though, domains and scales need to be
carefully selected so that features are displayed. Optimal selection can involve
34
restricting the domain to values specified in the question (Question 12), and a
trigonometric rather than decimal scale (Question 7). Even so, some features
might not be visible, the structure displayed might be inconsistent with
conventional graphing, and the structure might bear little resemblance to the
phenomena it is representing. Examples are, respectively, point discontinuities
(Questions 13 and 20), branches of a curve stopping on asymptotes (Question 13),
and spatial relationships on a velocity time graph (Question 14). Therefore,
exploratory work is recommended.
We established that exploration meant prediction of graphical features from
the function expression and previous part questions; reading along the branches of
a graph and judging the function values; and accessing the table of values to
determine or check function values. Thus, ideally, structural understanding (of
functions as wholes), operational understanding (of the ways function values
depend on x) and procedures for accessing function values are brought to bear in
interpreting the graphs; and contexts need to be accommodated.
Specifically, operational understanding was elicited and incomplete
understanding revealed by some (relatively few) students in their calculatorbased determination and justification of a limit (Question 20). Students scores
indicate the demands of graphical interpretation were particularly high with
the velocity function (Question 14), but difficulty with interpreting graphs of a
derivative function is not limited to calculator graphs.
Once the graphical features that are relevant to an examination question
have been determined, students can use the automated calculation facilities on
the calculator to produce numerical answers. The automation is compensation for
the demanding work of graphical interpretation. The interviewed students
indicated use of automated facilities for roots (Question 14), coordinates of
turning points (Questions 7, 14 and 20), and coordinates of points of intersection
(Questions 12 and 20). The table of values and trace facility were also accessed.
A final step in the graphical solution is transcription of the graph or the
numerical values from the graph, onto the examination script. Attention needed
to be given (and was not always) to clearly identifying graphical features
(Question 13); to compensating for limitations of the calculator graph (by, for
example, not joining branches across a vertical asymptote) (Question 13); to
providing scales on the axes (Question 20); and to converting decimals from the
calculator to exact values (Question 7).
Implications for teaching are that procedures associated with graphical
solutions need to be the subject of instruction. These include procedures for (a)
setting up the calculator for an adequate graph, (b) enhancing graphical
interpretation, (c) obtaining numerical outputs and (d) ensuring written answers
are adequate. In particular, the moving between the different sources of
information while interpreting the graph might not fall into our conventional
definition of algorithmic, but is a learnt skill that needs to be explicitly
addressed in class. In other words, different operational and structural
interpretations of graphs and other symbolic forms need to be encountered in class
and students encouraged to integrate them. As well, operational views need to be
revisited so that pseudo-structural thinking (Sfard & Linchevski, 1994), the
application of procedures without knowing the true nature of the concept to
35
References
Alguire, H., & Forster, P. A. (1999). Promoting mathematical understanding through the use of
graphics calculators. Proceedings of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Certification Authorities Conference (pp. 131-144). Perth: Curriculum Council..
Anderson, M., Bloom, L., Mueller, U., & Pedler, P. (1997). Graphics calculators: Some
implications for course content and examination. Paper presented at the third Asian
Technology Conference in Mathematics. Available: http://www.runet.edu/~atcm/
atcm97.html
Berger, M. (1998). Graphics calculators: An interpretative framework. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 18 (2), 13-20.
Boers, M. A. M., & Jones, P. L. (1994). Students use of graphics calculators under
examination conditions. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and
Technology, 25 (4), 491-516.
Brown, R., & Neilson, B. (2001). What algebra is required in high stakes system wide
36
Authors
Patricia A. Forster, Faculty of Community Services, Education and Social Sciences, Edith
Cowan University, 2 Bradford Street, Mt Lawley, Western Australia 6050. E-mail:
<forster@iinet.net.au>
Ute Mueller, School of Engineering and Mathematics, Edith Cowan University, 100
Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027. E-mail: <u.mueller@ecu.edu.au>