STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING STATISTICAL COMPLEXITY WITH
NEW SOFTWARE TOOLS
JAMES K. HAMMERMAN AND ANDEE RUBIN
TERC
Jim_Hammerman@terc.edu; Andee_Rubin@terc.edu
SUMMARY
New software tools for data analysis provide rich opportunities for representing and understanding data. However, little research has been done on how learners use these tools to think about data, nor how that affects teaching. This paper describes several ways that learners use new software tools to deal with variability in analyzing data, specifically in the context of comparing groups. The two methods we discuss are 1) reducing the apparent variability in a data set by grouping the values using numerical bins or cut points and 2) using proportions to interpret the relationship between bin size and group size. This work is based on our observations of middle- and high-school teachers in a professional development seminar, as well as of students in these teachers’ classrooms, and in a 13-week sixth grade teaching experiment. We conclude with remarks on the implications of these uses of new software tools for research and teaching.
Keywords: Representations; Software tools; Variability; Proportional reasoning;
Group comparison; Covariation; “Binning”
__________________________
Statistics Education Research Journal,
3(2), 17-41, http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/serj
Ó International Association for Statistical Education (IASE/ISI), November, 2004
References
Bakker, A. (2004). Design research in statistics education: On symbolizing and computer tools. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
Bakker, A., & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2004). Learning to reason about distribution. In J. B. Garfield & D. Ben-Zvi (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking (pp. 147–168) Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. II, pp. 1–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.
Ball, D. L. (2000). Working on the inside: Using one’s own practice as a site for studying teaching and learning. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 365–402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, D. L. (2001). Teaching with respect to mathematics and students. In T. Wood, B. S. Nelson & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 11–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Schilling, S. G. (2002). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge for teaching: Elementary mathematics release items, 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Study of Instructional Improvement.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 35–65). New York: Teachers College Press.
Case, R. (1978). Implications of developmental psychology for the design of effective instruction. In A. M. Lesgold, J. W. Pelligrino, S. D. Fokkema & R. Glaser (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction (pp. 441–463). New York: Plenum Press.
Case, R. (1980). Intellectual development and instruction: A neo-Piagetian view. In A. E. Lawson (Ed.), 1980 AETS yearbook: The psychology of teaching for thinking and creativity, (pp. 59–102). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cobb, P. (1999). Individual and collective mathematical development: The case of statistical data analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 5–43.
Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting classroom teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K. P. E., Doorman, M., & Bowers, J. (1999). Computer Mini-tools for exploratory data analysis (Version Prototype). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Cobb, P., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2003). Learning about statistical covariation. Cognition and Instruction, 21(1), 1–78.
Duckworth, E. (1996). “The having of wonderful ideas” and other essays on teaching and learning (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hancock, C. (1995). Tabletop. Cambridge, MA: TERC/ Brøderbund Software.
Hancock, C., Kaput, J. J., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic enquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 337–364.
Harel, G., & Confrey, J. (Eds.). (1994). The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s Mathematics Professional Development Institutes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Key Curriculum Press. (2000). Fathom™ Dynamic Statistics™ Software (Version 1.0). Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
Konold, C. (2002). Alternatives to scatterplots. In B. Phillips (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Cape Town, South Africa. [CDROM] Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.
Konold, C., & Higgins, T. L. (2002). Highlights of related research. In S. J. Russell, D. Schifter & V. Bastable (Eds.), Developing mathematical ideas (DMI): Working with data casebook, (pp. 165–201). Parsippany, NY: Dale Seymour Publications.
Konold, C., Higgins, T. L., Russell, S. J., & Khalil, K. (2003). Data seen through different lenses. Unpublished manuscript, Amherst, MA.
Konold, C., & Miller, C. (2004). TinkerPlots™ Dynamic Data Exploration (Version Beta 1.0). Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
Konold, C., & Pollatsek, A. (2002). Data analysis as the search for signals in noisy processes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4), 259–289.
Konold, C., Pollatsek, A., Well, A., & Gagnon, A. (1997). Students analyzing data: Research of critical barriers. In J. B. Garfield & G. Burrill (Eds.), Research on the Role of Technology in Teaching and Learning Statistics: Proceedings of the 1996 IASE Round Table Conference. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.
Konold, C., Robinson, A., Khalil, K., Pollatsek, A., Well, A., Wing, R., & Mayr, S. (2002). Students’ use of modal clumps to summarize data. In B. Phillips (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Cape Town, South Africa. [CDROM] Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.
Lamon, S. J. (1994). Ratio and proportion: Cognitive foundations in unitizing and norming. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics, (pp. 89–120). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Meletiou, M., & Lee, C. (2002). Student understanding of histograms: A stumbling stone to the development of intuitions about variation. In B. Phillips (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Cape Town, South Africa. [CDROM] Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Mokros, J., & Russell, S. J. (1995). Children’s concepts of average and representativeness. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 20–39.
Mooney, E. S. (2002). A framework for characterizing middle school students’ statistical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(1), 23–63.
Mooney, E. S., Hofbauer, P. S., Langrall, C. W., & Johnson, Y. A. (2001). Refining a framework on middle school students’ statistical thinking. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Snowbird, UT.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rubin, A. (1991). Using computers in teaching statistical analysis: A double-edged sword. Unpublished manuscript, Cambridge, MA.
Rubin, A. (2002). Interactive visualizations of statistical relationships: What do we gain? In B. Phillips (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Cape Town, South Africa. [CDROM] Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.
Rubin, A., & Bruce, B. (1991). Using computers to support students’ understanding of statistical inference. New England Mathematics Journal, 13(2).
Rubin, A., Bruce, B., & Tenney, Y. (1990). Learning about sampling: Trouble at the core of statistics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Rubin, A., & Rosebery, A. S. (1988). Teachers’ misunderstandings in statistical reasoning: Evidence from a field test of innovative materials. In A. Hawkins (Ed.), Proceedings of the ISI Round Table Conference, Training Teachers to Teach Statistics, Budapest, Hungary.
Russell, S. J., Schifter, D., Bastable, V., with Higgins, T. L., Lester, J. B., & Konold, C. (2002). DMI Working with data: Casebook & facilitator’s guide. Parsippany, NJ: Dale Seymour Publications.
Russell, S. J., Schifter, D., Bastable, V., Yaffee, L., Lester, J. B., & Cohen, S. (1995). Learning mathematics while teaching. In B. S. Nelson (Ed.), Inquiry and the development of teaching: Issues in the transformation of mathematics teaching (pp. 9–16). Newton, MA: Center for the Development of Teaching, Education Development Center.
Saldanha, L., & Thompson, P. (2002). Conceptions of sample and their relationship to statistical inference. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 257–270.
Schifter, D. (1997). Learning mathematics for teaching: Lessons in/from the domain of fractions. Newton, MA: Center for the Development of Teaching at Education Development Center, Inc.
Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Intuitions about sample size: The empirical law of large numbers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 33–51.
Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 465–494). New York: MacMillan.
Sowder, J. T., Philipp, R. A., Armstrong, B. E., & Schappelle, B. P. (1998). Middle-grade teachers’ mathematical knowledge and its relationship to instruction: A research monograph. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Watson, J. M., & Moritz, J. B. (1999). The beginning of statistical inference: Comparing two data sets. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 145–168.
Watson, J. M., & Moritz, J. B. (2000). Developing concepts of sampling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 44–70.
JAMES K. HAMMERMAN & ANDEE RUBIN
TERC
2067 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA, 02140
USA