An epidemic of influenza spreads through a city. The figure below is the graph of $I=f(w)$, where $I$ is the number of individuals (in thousands) infected $w$ weeks after the epidemic begins.
(Task from Functions Modeling Change: A Preparation for Calculus, Connally et al., Wiley 2010.)
The principal purpose of this task is to probe students' ability to correlate symbolic statements about a function using function notation with a graph of the function, and to interpret their answers in terms of the quantities between which the function describes a relationship. It can be used in assessment, or in instruction to bring out some common frailties of student understanding, such as not really understanding what it means for a point to lie on the graph of a function, and, in part (d), not being comfortable with interchanging a function value expressed in function notation and an expression for the function. As it is impossible to read exact numerical data from the graph, students will have to approximate coordinates of data points on the graph, providing a good opportunity for an instructor to address MP6 (attend to precision).
As stated above: "The purpose of this task is to probe students' ability to correlate symbolic statements about a function using function notation with a graph of the function, and to interpret their answers in terms of the quantities between which the function describes a relationship."
What exactly is the point of having even numbering scaling? The idea is to test function notation and not graphing interpretation, such as 1.5 weeks. Interpret above is used in context of function in-puts and out-puts not graphical scaling.
Am I missing some point?
Hi BooDrury,
Thanks for your comment. I don't think it's necessary to view the task as a "test," per se, though I agree that if you were to use this task for high-stakes assessment, you would want to think carefully about choosing what axes, tickmarks, etc., to display to students. It seems to me that asking a student to estimate the coordinate of a point from gridlines falls very reasonably within the bounds of practice standards about attending to precision and making use of the tools available. Of course, it's also true that graphical interpretation is a valuable skill in its own right, and reflects much of the content of the A-REI.D cluster. In the current task, that aspect is sufficiently minimal that it would be a stretch to align the task to any of those standards or to include it in the purpose of the task. Nevertheless, it never hurts to make things more explicit, so I've added some words to the commentary to address this idea. Thanks again.
log in if you'd like to leave a comment