Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Math Image Description project
Who we areRob Wall Emerson, Dawn Anderson
Western Michigan University
Under contract from MeTRC (Mathematics eText Research Center) at University of OregonMark Horney
What we are looking atHow best to describe the image components
found in typical math textbooks (not the math equations)What types of images require what level of
description? Are there types of images whose content cannot be
adequately conveyed by any description?
We are not looking technological solutions but try to present material in a way as close as possible to a common student educational experience
Identifying image categoriesWe categorized images in representative
math texts from grades 5, 8, and 11.Identified 21 exhaustive and mutually
exclusive image categories Some were more common than others (e.g.,
line graphs and tables more common than pie charts and models)
To control the study we limited use to “math heavy” categories
Category frequencyFirst tier categories appear either on nearly every page of a text or several times on a page within certain areas of a text. Second tier images are more specific and appear occasionally, usually to serve a specific purpose. Third tier images appear infrequently. Note: 4465 pages of text were involved in the counting. The most commonly occurring image categories (from most to least) in the first tier were: 1. Side images (background picture, graphic unrelated to
question, organizational banners, headers, icons, extra features notation)
2. balloon/sidebar 3. shapes/2D or 3D representation 4. question specific image (1926) 5. table (1785) 6. scatterplot/line graph (1305)
7. equation (1109)
The most commonly occurring image categories (from most to least) in the second tier were: 1. models (used to indicate similarity) (755) 2. ray/line diagram (722) 3. calculator stuff (509)
4. organizational aid (397 5. procedural aid (266)
6. number line (252) 7. directions/illustrations of a physical task (197) The most commonly occurring image categories (from most to least) in the third tier were: 1. pattern/series (101)
2. pie chart (92) 3. screen shot (87) 4. bar graph (87) 5. flow chart (72) 6. maps (50) 7. picture in a picture (9)
Meta categories4 “meta categories” represent context for the
imagesintroducing conceptsguided exampleshort questionreal world manipulative
Differences between gradeMinor variations between texts for different
gradesMain differences were that grade 5 used
more models, procedural aids, and number lines
Grade 8 and 11 used more calculator stuff, line graphs, and ray/line diagrams
Playing the filesWord documents were created that mirrored
the physical page in layout and coloring.Each file contains images and ancillary text
to provide context.Math content that was not image related was
translated using MathML and MathType and the entire file spoken using JAWS.
Our basic approachFiles had varying levels of description.
None (“image”)Terse (“image of a graph”)NCAM standard Extended
Files longer than 90 seconds were eliminated after pilot trials
Students were assessed on capture of content, ease of capture of audible material, and preference of presentation.
Students each performed between 9 and 20 trials
Participants44 students, mainly in grades 8 and 11 (3 in
grade 5)
5 in Illinois, 31 in Texas, 8 in TennesseeOnly 16 of the 44 were caucasianBased on their reading format, 25 were braille
users (used as a proxy for blind), 19 used some form of print (used as a proxy for low vision)
Their relationship with math25 were positive about math, 11 were
negative32 felt they were good at math
18 had no issues with their texts. Of the others, most common complaints were braille errors in the text and graphs or images not made correctly or not read out
34 had no issues with assessments. Only 3 mentioned issues with inability to access graphs or images
Good and bad impressionsKeeping it short was good, not enough info
givenGiving detailed information, giving too much
informationVoice changed to illustrate text changes,
voice changed too muchVoice was easy to understand, voice was
confusingThings were described well, things were not
described well
What needs more description?Pictures 16Graphs 16Maps 4Tables 4Shapes and lines 2Everything 2Page formatting 1Angles 1Histograms 1Pie charts 1
What needs less description?Nothing 13One picture 7I don’t know 4Graphs with extra info 4Words, letters 3Irrelevant stuff 3Equations, formulas 2Some diagrams 1Tables 1Maps 1A couple of pictures 1Line segments 1
Would you like everything described?Yes 22No 13Maybe 7
Results of first content question (I don’t know = wrong)
χ2(3) = 20.91, p < .0001
Wrong Right
Control 124 22
Terse 125 19
NCAM 105 43
Extended 106 46
Results of first content question (I don’t know = wrong)
χ2(3) = 9.12, p = .028 (with manipulative group)
χ2(2) = 8.05, p = .018 (without manipulative group)
Wrong Right
Intro 150 53
Short example 189 35
Guided example
112 37
Manipulative 10 5
Results of first content question (I don’t know = wrong)
χ2(10) = 31.61, p < .0001 (with manipulative group)χ2(9) = 28.43, p = .001 (without manipulative group)
Wrong Right
Question specific image 67 12
Equation 33 2
Shapes 41 12
Table 34 16
Line graph 45 22
Bar graph 49 14
Manipulative 6 5
Pie chart 37 6
Number line 23 16
Ray diagram 59 14
Map 67 11
General findingsFor many images more description is counter
productive (especially tables and line graphs)It is surprising how much students do not
know what they do not knowStudents often do not realize they are
missing key informationWhen only the word “image” is presented,
they often think that what comes next is a description of the image, causing further confusion
Multi modal presentationA major trend seems to be that many
image categories would benefit from a multi-modal presentation of content
Have an audio version with description and for image related content, also have a braille version of the “description” and a tactile image.
Thank you
Robert Wall EmersonWestern Michigan UniversityDepartment of Blindness and Low Vision [email protected]
Dawn AndersonWestern Michigan UniversityDepartment of Blindness and Low Vision [email protected]
