A Content Analysis of Tasks Involving Two-Dimensional Cartesian Graphs in Grade 6–8 U. S. Textbooks

References

• Alajmi, A. H. (2012). How do elementary textbooks address fractions? A review of mathematics textbooks in the USA, Japan, and Kuwait. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9342-1
   Google Scholar
• Ayber, G., & Tanışlı, D. (2017). An analysis of middle school mathematics textbooks from the perspective of fostering algebraic thinking through generalization. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(6), 2001–2030. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.6.0506
   Google Scholar
• Berry, R. Q., III, Champagne, Z., Milou, E., Schielack, J. F., Wray, J. A., Charles, R. I., & Fennell, F. (2017a). enVisionmath 2.0 Grade (Vol. 6, Common Core ed.). Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, R. Q., III, Champagne, Z., Milou, E., Schielack, J. F., Wray, J. A., Charles, R. I., & Fennell, F. (2017b). enVisionmath 2.0 Grade (Vol. 6, 2 (Common Core ed.). Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, R. Q., III, Champagne, Z., Milou, E., Schielack, J. F., Wray, J. A., Charles, R. I., & Fennell, F. (2017c). enVisionmath 2.0 Grade (Vol. 7, Common Core ed.). Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, R. Q., III, Champagne, Z., Milou, E., Schielack, J. F., Wray, J. A., Charles, R. I., & Fennell, F. (2017d). enVisionmath 2.0 Grade (Vol. 7, 2 Common Core ed.). Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, R. Q., III, Champagne, Z., Milou, E., Schielack, J. F., Wray, J. A., Charles, R. I., & Fennell, F. (2017e). enVisionmath 2.0 Grade (Vol. 8, Common Core ed.). Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, R. Q., III, Champagne, Z., Milou, E., Schielack, J. F., Wray, J. A., Charles, R. I., & Fennell, F. (2017f). enVisionmath 2.0 Grade (Vol. 8, 2 Common Core ed.). Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bolch, C. A., & Jacobbe, T. (2019). Investigating levels of graphical comprehension using the LOCUS Assessments. Numeracy: Advancing Education in Quantitative Literacy, 12(1), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.12.1.8
   Google Scholar
• Carnegie Learning Texas. (2015a). Course 1: Middle school math series (Vol. 1). Carnegie Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Carnegie Learning Texas. (2015b). Course 1: Middle school math series (Vol. 2). Carnegie Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Carnegie Learning Texas. (2015c). Course 2: Middle school math series (Vol. 1). Carnegie Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Carnegie Learning Texas. (2015d). Course 2: Middle school math series (Vol. 2). Carnegie Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Carnegie Learning Texas. (2015e). Course 3: Middle school math series (Vol. 1). Carnegie Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Carnegie Learning Texas. (2015f). Course 3: Middle school math series (Vol. 2). Carnegie Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1–2), 77–87.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053
   Google Scholar
• Craven, L. M. (2019). 2018 NSSME+: Status of middle school mathematics. Horizon Research, Inc. Retrieved from: https://horizon-research.com/NSSME/2018-nssme/research-products/reports/2018-subject-reports.
   Google Scholar
• Dole, S., & Shield, M. (2008). The capacity of two Australian eighth-grade textbooks for promoting proportional reasoning. Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800801915863
   Google Scholar
• Earnest, D. (2015). From number lines to graphs in the coordinate plane: Investigating problem solving across mathematical representations. Cognition and Instruction, 33(1), 46–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2014.994634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientific research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(5), 765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0530-6
   Google Scholar
• Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/749671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattikudur, S., Prather, R. W., Asquith, P., Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E. J., & Nathan, M. (2012). Constructing graphical representations: Middle schoolers’ intuitions and developing knowledge about slope and y‐intercept. School Science and Mathematics, 112(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00138.x
   Google Scholar
• Herscovics, N. (1989). Cognitive obstacles encountered in the learning of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.) Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (Vol. 4 pp. 60–86). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315044378-6
   Google Scholar
• Howson, G., Keitel, C., & Kilpatrick, J. (1981). Curriculum Development in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon, O. N., Han, C., Lee, C., Lee, K., Kim, K., Jo, G., & Yoon, G. (2021). Graphs in the COVID-19 news: A mathematics audit of newspapers in Korea. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108(1–2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10029-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, K., Cabrera, J., Vitale, J. M., Madhok, J., Tinker, R., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Measuring graph comprehension, critique, and construction in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9621-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. Y., & Guajardo, L. R. (2020). An analysis of coordinate systems presented in grade 6-8 textbooks. In Proceedings of the 42th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 423–428). Mazatlan, Mexico.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H. Y., Hardison, H., & Paoletti, T. (2020). Foregrounding the background: Two uses of coordinate systems. For the Learning of Mathematics, 40(1), 32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education (2015a). Texas Math TEKS Course 1 (Vol. 1). McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education (2015b). Texas Math TEKS Course 1 (Vol. 1). McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education. (2015c). Texas Math TEKS Course 2 (Vol. 2). McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education. (2015d). Texas Math TEKS Course 2 (Vol. 2). McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education. (2015e). Texas Math TEKS Course 3 (Vol. 3). McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education. (2015f). Texas Math TEKS Course 3 (Vol. 3). McGraw-Hill Education.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education. (2015g). Texas Math: Mastering the TEKS and Assessment Masters Course 1.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education. (2015h). Texas Math: Mastering the TEKS and Assessment Masters Course 2.
   Google Scholar
• McGraw-Hill Education. (2015i). Texas Math: Mastering the TEKS and Assessment Masters Course 3.
   Google Scholar
• Mesa, V. (2004). Characterizing practices associated with functions in middle school textbooks: An empirical approach. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(2), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDUC.0000040409.63571.56
   Google Scholar
• Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarsky, B. (1997). From verbal descriptions to graphic representations: Stability and change in students’ alternative conceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(3), 229–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/3482634
   Google Scholar
• Moore, K. C., & Thompson, P. W. (2015). Shape thinking and students’ graphing activity. In T. Fukawa-Connelly, N. Infante, K. Keene, & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 782–789). Pittsburgh, PA: West Virginia University.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Oehrtman, M. C., Carlson, M. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students’ understandings of function. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 27–42). Mathematical Association of America. https://doi.org/10.5948/UPO9780883859759.004
   Google Scholar
• Ozmen, Z. M., Guven, B., & Kurak, Y. (2020). Determining the graphical literacy levels of the 8th grade students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(86), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.86.13
   Google Scholar
• Paoletti, T., Lee, H. Y., Rahman, Z., Vishnubhotla, M., & Basu, D. (2020). Comparing graphical representations in mathematics, science, and engineering textbooks and practitioner journals. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(7), 1815–1834. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1847336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ring, M., Brahm, T., & Randler, C. (2019). Do difficulty levels matter for graphical literacy? A performance assessment study with authentic graphs. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1787–1804. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1640915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W. M., Bowen, G. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in graph‐related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 977–1019. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<977:AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-V
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Swaminathan, S., McMillen, S., & González Gómez, R. M. (2003). Development of mathematical concepts of two–dimensional space in grid environments: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 3(3), 285–324. https://doi.org/10.2307/3233812
   Google Scholar
• Sayre, E. C., & Wittmann, M. C. (2008). Plasticity of intermediate mechanics students’ coordinate system choice. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.020105
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2018). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions (2nd ed.). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. W. (2011). Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling. In S. Chamberlin, L. L. Hatfield, & S. Belbase (Eds.), New perspectives and directions for collaborative research in mathematics education: Papers from a planning conference for WISDOM^e (pp. 33–57). Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar