• Renate Nitsch
  • Anneke Fredebohm
  • Regina Bruder
  • Augustin Kelava
  • Dominik Naccarella
  • Timo Leuders
  • Markus Wirtz


In the subject matter of functional relationships, a student’s ability to translate from one form of representation to another is seen as a central competence. In the course of the HEUREKO project (heuristic work with representations of functional relationships and the diagnosis of mathematical competencies of students), a theoretical competence structure model comprising five competence dimensions was developed. These are based on four types of representation (graph, numerical table, algebraic equation and situational description) and correspond to the skill to translate from one type of representation to another. The following study was aimed to examine the facets of the model. The 5-dimensional model was empirically tested with a sample of N = 645 students of grades 9 and 10. This was accomplished by comparing competing item response models with regard to model fit using information criteria measures. In comparison with other possible model structures, our postulated 5-dimensional model showed the best model fit, suggesting that all translations are relevant for competence assessment and development. Furthermore, in order to allow for the identification of structural components of cognitive actions, the employed tasks used in the empirical testing were divided into categories with regard to the different demands of cognitive action. Our results suggest that cognitive actions may have a specific dimensional structure. These findings can contribute to a better diagnostic approach concerning specific strengths and weaknesses and can therefore foster students’ competencies.

Key words

change of representation competence structure model elements of cognitive action item response theory representations of functional relationships 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adu-Gaymfi, K. (2007). Connections among representations: The nature of students’ coordinations on a linear function task. Doctoral dissertation, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  2. Adu-Gyamfi, K., Stiff, L. V. & Bossé, M. J. (2012). Lost in translation: Examining translation errors associated with mathematical representations. School Science and Mathematics, 112(3), 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A. & Wood, D. J. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed.). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397–479). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borromeo-Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling process. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(2), 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bossé, M. J., Adu-Gyamfi, K. & Cheetham, M. (2011). Assessing the difficulty of mathematical translations: synthesizing the literature and novel findings. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 6(3), 113–133.Google Scholar
  10. Bruder, R. & Brückner, A. (1989). Zur Beschreibung von Schülertätigkeiten im Mathematikunterricht—ein allgemeiner Ansatz. Pädagogische Forschung, Berlin, 30(6), 72–82.Google Scholar
  11. Confrey, J. & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreyfus, T. & Eisenberg, T. (1981). Function concepts: Intuitive baseline. In C. Comiti (Eds.). Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 183–188). Grenoble: IGPME.Google Scholar
  13. Duval, R. (1993). Registres de représentations sémiotiques et fonctionnement cognitif de la pensée. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives. Strasbourg: ULP, IREM 5, 37–65.Google Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A. & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, S.J. (2008). The effect of graphing calculators and a three-core representation curriculum on college students’ learning of exponential and logarithmic functions. Doctoral dissertation, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
  16. Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Gagatsis, A. & Elia, I. (2004). The effects of different modes of representation on mathematical problem solving. In M.J. Hoines & A.B. Fuglestad (Eds.) Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education: Vol. 2 (pp. 447–454). Bergen: Bergen University CollegeGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldin, G. A. (1998). Representational systems, learning and problem solving in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 137–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gonzalez, E. & Rutkowski, L. (2010). Principles of multiple matrix booklet designs and parameter recovery in large-scale assessments. IERI Monograph Series. Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments, 3, 125–156.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Janvier, C. (1987). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in mathematics learning and problem solving (pp. 27–32). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Kaput, J.J. (1985). Representation and problem solving, methodological issues related to modelling. In. E.A. Silver (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 381–398). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller, B. A. & Hirsch, C. R. (1998). Student preferences for representations of functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16 (pp. 120–136). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  25. Klieme, E., Hartig, J. & Rauch, D. (2008). The concept of competence in educational contexts. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 3–22). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  26. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O. & Stein, M. K. (1990). functions, graphs, and graphing: tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markovits, Z., Eylon, B. & Bruckheimer, M. (1986). Functions today and yesterday. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(2), 18–28.Google Scholar
  28. Moosbrugger, H. & Kelava, A. (Eds.). (2007). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  30. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research), expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B.D. Wright. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55–176). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Schwarz, B. & Eisenberg, T. (1993). Measuring integration of information in multirepresentational software. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(3), 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In E. Dubinsky & G. Harel (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (pp. 25–58). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  37. Swan, M. (1985). The language of functions and graphs. Nottingham: Shell Centre for Mathematical Education.Google Scholar
  38. Thomas, M. O. J., Wilson, A. J., Corballis, M. C., Lim, V. K. & Yoon, C. (2010). Evidence from cognitive neuroscience for the role of graphical and algebraic representations in understanding function. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(6), 607–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson, P. W. (1994). Images of rate and operational understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 229–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilmot, D. B., Schönfeld, A., Wilson, M., Champney, D. & Zahner, W. (2011). Validating a learning progression in mathematical functions for college readiness. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(4), 259–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson, M. (2008). Cognitive diagnosis using item response models. Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 74–88.Google Scholar
  42. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. & Haldane, S. (2007). ConQuest Version 2.0. St. Paul: Assessment Systems Corporation.Google Scholar
  43. Zaslavsky, O. (1987). Conceptual obstacles in the learning of quad atic functions. Doctoral dissertation, Technion, Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renate Nitsch
    • 1
  • Anneke Fredebohm
    • 1
  • Regina Bruder
    • 1
  • Augustin Kelava
    • 2
  • Dominik Naccarella
    • 3
  • Timo Leuders
    • 3
  • Markus Wirtz
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsTechnical University DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PsychologyUniversity TübingenTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Mathematics EducationUniversity of Education, FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  4. 4.Institute for PsychologyUniversity of Education, FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations