View related sites
The trouble with graphs
It’s tempting to assume that constructing graphs of data is a relatively straightforward task, requiring students to learn a small set of rules for each type of graph, to be used with a multitude of data sets - in some senses an algorithmic approach. However, maths teachers’ experiences suggest otherwise. Students seem to come up with a plethora of problems and misconceptions when faced with any task involving graph construction; for example unusually inconsistent axes and best fit lines that are in fact quite the opposite.
Much of this difficulty can be traced back to two specific and related problems. Firstly, teaching the mechanics of graph construction encourages students to attend to the ‘how’ without considering the ‘what’, the ‘where’ or the ‘why’ of the different features. What does each axis represent? Where are the individual data values represented? Why is this representation appropriate for this data?
Secondly, because each graph rule seems simple, it is easy to ignore the fairly deep mathematical ideas that underpin each one. Students whose broader mathematical knowledge is insecure may be forced to learn graphing rules by rote, rather than understanding their meaning and relationship to the wider mathematical ecosystem.
Let’s start by focusing on what is generally considered to be one of the most straightforward charts: a bar chart for a small categorical data set such as ‘favourite colour of students in my class’. What concepts are necessary to understand the various non-arbitrary features of such an entity?
Other types of chart will share some of these conceptual underpinnings, but many will differ. Students who are taught the mechanics of drawing graphs without attending to these underlying concepts find the rules more confusing and inconsistent the more charts they are shown. The exclusion principle, for example, does not apply in a scatter graph. What reason might a student give for this?
There is an increasing volume of evidence that students’ graphical literacy is enhanced by creating and refining their own representations rather than by being taught specific chart types, but this is not a panacea. Research shows that time must be spent critiquing and analysing students’ own representations, and the representations of other students, in order to reach a consensus that resolves toward the more standard graphs. The process of designing and critiquing graphical representation encourages students to attend to the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of data representation, and may support graphical literacy when interpreting unfamiliar graphs both in school and in the wider world beyond. A further point may be considered: if we would like students to be able to work creatively with data presentation, they need to be able to traverse design decisions orthogonally too, in both the aesthetic and the mathematical directions.
"this is a representation of me amongst others"
"this could also be me and I have no way of telling from the graph"
"I can't count these because they're in a big messy pile"
THE NUMBER LINE:
"I can see a number line here"
REPRESENTING A COUNT BY LENGTH:
"I can look at the height instead of counting every one"
VISUALISATION OF AN ORTHOGONAL GRID:
"I have to extend the y-axis across but also keep it straight"
Download this visual
If you'd like to print or display this resource, then you can download our A3 printable version.
Join the conversation: You can tweet us @CambridgeMaths or comment below.