Abstract
In prior work we1 observed that, while designing representations, students employed an iterative process of innovating, critiquing, selecting, refining, and combining representations. Prior work also cataloged a rich set of ideas for representational innovation. This chapter focuses on the ability to judge and critique the quality of representations. In a study of high school students’ critical abilities, we investigated three main hypotheses: (1) Students’ ability to critique representations is rich and generative. (2) Students’ critical capabilities are, by and large, relatively reactive and inarticulate. (3) Students’ critical capabilities are design-linked; that is, competence does not appear equally in all contexts, but shines particularly in the context of design. Data from our study support all these hypotheses, with qualifications. Most unequivocally, students seem to have a strong, uninstructed, yet scientifically cogent competence to judge the quality of representations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Azevedo, F. S. (2000). “Designing Representations of Terrains: A Study in Meta-Representational Competence.” Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19.4, pp. 423-480.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). “Toward an Epistemology of Physics.” Cognition and Instruction 10.2-3, pp. 105-225; “Responses to Commentary”, pp. 261-280. (Cognition and Instruction, Monograph No. 1.)
diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
diSessa, A. A. (in press). “Meta-Representation: Native Competence and Targets for Instruction.” In S. Strauss (Ed.), The Development of Notational Representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
diSessa, A. A. (1991). Hammer, D., Sherin, B. & Kolpakowski, T. “Inventing Graphing: Meta-Representational Expertise in Children.” Journal of Mathematical Behavior 10. 2, pp. 117–160.
diSessa, A. A. & Sherin, B. L. (1998). “What Changes in Conceptual Change?” International Journal of Science Education 20.10, pp. 1155-1191.
diSessa, A. A. & Sherin, B. L. (2000). “Meta-Representation: An Introduction.” Journal of Mathematical Behavior 19.4, pp. 385-398.
Friedman, J. & diSessa, A. A. (1999). “What Should Students Know about Technology? The Case of Scientific Visualization.” International Journal of Technology and Science Education 9.3, pp. 175196.
Granados, R. (2000). “Constructing Intersubjectivity in Representational Design.” Journal of Mathematical Behavior 19.4, pp. 503-530.
Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1997). Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and Psychological Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sherin, B. L. (2000). “How Students Invent Representations of Motion.” Journal of Mathematical Behavior 19.4, pp. 399-441.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
diSessa, A.A. (2002). Students’ Criteria for Representational Adequacy. In: Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., Van Oers, B., Verschaffel, L. (eds) Symbolizing, Modeling and Tool Use in Mathematics Education. Mathematics Education Library, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3194-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3194-2_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6180-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3194-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive