Professionals Read Graphs: A Semiotic Analysis

Roth, Wolff‐Michael; Bowen, G. Michael

doi:10.2307/749672

Cited by 127 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to the psychological literature, the sociocultural tradition presents graphing as socially situated and inexorably contextualized (Roth & Bowen, 2001). In a study that contrasted the interpretive practices of novices and experts (i.e., undergraduates and practicing scientists), Bowen, Roth, and McGinn (1999) presented groups the same graphs in a think aloud study (Ericsson & Simon, 1993).…”

Section: Sociocultural Studies Of Graphing In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies on graph interpretation have examined the role of science content knowledge using college students and professionals (Carpenter & Shah, 1998;Roth & Bowen, 2001;Shah & Hoeffner, 2002;Trickett & Trafton, 2006) ignoring younger students (Jackson, Edwards, & Berger, 1993;Preece & Janvier, 1992). Other studies have examined graph interpretation by elementary and middle school students during inquiry (Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, 1999;Roth & Bowen, 1994;Wu & Krajcik, 2006), but the naturalistic methods used were not capable of isolating the specific background knowledge skills needed to analyze data or interpret graphs.…”

Section: Science Knowledge During Graph Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In conclusion, graphing is a generalizable skill used across many academic domains (Roth & Bowen, 2001), but this study's data show that successful graph interpretation sometimes requires domain specific knowledge depending on graph question level (Bertin, 1983). The ideas shared in this paper may help teachers and researchers more effectively use the Common Core Standards (2010) to increase classroom expectations and better understand how to support students in this endeavor.…”

Section: Practical Implications and Future Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing and Understanding Line Graph Interpretations Using a Scoring Rubric of Organized Cited Factors

Boote

2014

Journal of Science Teacher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined how 12-and 13-year-old students' mathematics and science background knowledge affected line graph interpretations and how interpretations were affected by graph question levels. A purposive sample of 14 students engaged in think aloud interviews while completing an excerpted Test of Graphing in Science. Data were collected and coded using a rubric of previously cited factors, categorized by Bertin's (1983) theory of graph interpretation. Data analysis revealed responses varied by graph question level. Across levels, students interpreted graphs in one or more of three ways: mathematical word problems (focusing on an algorithm), science data to be analyzed (incorporating science knowledge), or no strategy. Although consistently used across levels, the frequency and usefulness of approaches varied by question level.

show abstract

Section: Sociocultural Studies Of Graphing In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Science Knowledge During Graph Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practical Implications and Future Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing and Understanding Line Graph Interpretations Using a Scoring Rubric of Organized Cited Factors

Boote

2014

Journal of Science Teacher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, case studies on students' understanding of graphs in mathematics classrooms revealed that particularly conversational resources such as the use of reference objects, spatial metaphors, and coordinated gestures and talk were fundamental to mathematically productive learning trajectories (e.g., Moschkovich 1996). More so, when professional scientists, who are considered experienced in graphing, are asked to interpret graphs that are uncommon in regard to their specific area of expertise, they exhibit difficulties with graphing of the same nature as inexperienced students (Roth and Bowen 2001). These outcomes parallel findings on the role of context in which individuals engage when accomplishing mathematical tasks (Lave 1988).…”

Section: Graphing As Cognitive Abilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Polysemy in the Domain-Specific Pedagogical Use of Graphs in Science Textbooks: The Case of an Electrocardiogram

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polysemy in graph-related practices is the phenomenon that a single graph can sustain different meanings assigned to it. Considerable research has been done on polysemy in graph-related practices in school science in which graphs are rather used as scientific tools. However, graphs in science textbooks are also used rather pedagogically to illustrate domain-specific textbook content and less empirical work has been done in this respect. The aim of this study is therefore to better understand polysemy in the domain-specific pedagogical use of graphs in science textbooks. From socio-cultural and cultural-historical perspectives, we perceive polysemy as irreducible to either the meaning-making (semiotic) resources provided by the graph or its readers who assign meaning to it. Departing from this framework, we simultaneously investigated: (a) the meanings 44 pre-university biology students assigned to the Cartesian plane of a graph that is commonly used as a pedagogical tool in Dutch high school biology textbooks (an electrocardiogram); (b) the semiotic resources provided by this graph; and (c) the educational practices of which it is supposedly a part according to the actions constituted by the textbooks that were to be conducted by students. Drawing on this case, we show polysemy in the pedagogical use of graphs in science textbooks. In turn, we show how this polysemy can be explained dialectically as the result of both the meaning-making resources provided by the textbooks and the graphrelated practices in which students supposedly engaged by using their textbooks. The educational implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…In terms of Peircean semiotics, this translation can therefore be understood in two quite different relations: (a) a relation between sign (graph) and referent (situation) or (b) sign and interpretant, that is, another sign that elaborates the relation between the original sign and its referent (Roth & Bowen, 2001). The first relation defines meaning in terms of reference, the second in terms of sense.…”

Section: Meaning and Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%