Using data comparison to support a focus on

distribution: Examining preservice teachers’

understandings of distribution when engaged

in statistical inquiry

 

Aisling Leavy

University of Maryland

aleavy@umd.edu

 

ABSTRACT

 

This exploratory study, a one group pretest-posttest design, investigated the development of elementary preservice teachers’ understandings of distribution as expressed in the measures and representations used to compare data distributions. During a semester-long mathematics methods course, participants worked in small groups on two statistical inquiry projects requiring the collection, representation, analysis and reporting of data with the ultimate goal of comparing distributions of data. Many participants shifted from reporting descriptive exclusively to the combined use of graphical representations and descriptive statistics which supported a focus on distributional shape and coordinated variability and center. Others gained skills and understandings related to statistical measures and representations yet failed to utilize these when comparing distributions. Gaps and misconceptions in statistical understanding are discussed. Recommendations for supporting the development of conceptual understanding relating to distribution are outlined.

 

Keywords: Statistics education research; preservice teacher education; distribution; statistical inquiry, data comparison, teacher knowledge

 

 

__________________________

Statistics Education Research Journal, 5(2), 89-113, http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/serj

Ó International Association for Statistical Education (IASE/ISI), November, 2006

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT: Abex.

Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 437-449). New York: Macmillan.

Ben-Zvi, D. (2003). The emergence of reasoning about variability in comparing distributions: A case study of two seventh grade students. In C. Lee (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Forum on Statistical Reasoning, Thinking, and Literacy (SRTL-3). [CD ROM with video segments]. Mount Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University.

Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194-222.

Cai, J. (2000). Understanding and representing the arithmetic averaging algorithm: An analysis and comparison of US and Chinese students’ responses. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(6), 839-855.

Canada, D. (2004). Preservice teachersunderstanding of variation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Portland State University.

[Online: www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/dissertations/dissertations.php]

Cobb, P. (1999). Individual and collective mathematical development: The case of statistical data analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 5-43.

Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K. P. E., Bowers, J., & McClain, K. (1997). Statistical Minitools. Designed for Vanderbilt University, TN, USA. Programmed and revised (2001) at the Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 124–158.

Friel, S. N., Mokros, J. R., & Russell, S. J. (1992). Used numbers. Statistics: Middles, means, and in-betweens. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.

Gfeller, M. K., Niess, M. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Preservice teachers’ use of multiple representations in solving arithmetic mean problems. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 250-257.

Hammerman, J., & Rubin, A. (2004). Strategies for managing statistical complexity with new software tools. Statistics Education Research Journal, 3(2), 17-41.

[Online: www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/serj]

Hancock, C. (1995). TableTop Software. Novato, CA: Broderbund Software Direct.

Hancock, C., Kaput, J. J., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 337-364.

Heaton, R. M., & Mickelson, W. T. (2002). The learning and teaching of statistical investigation in teaching and teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 35-59.

Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Konold, C. (1998). Tinkerplots: Tools and curricula for enhancing data analysis in the middle school. Grant proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation (# ESI-9818946). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Konold, C., & Miller, C. (2001). Tinkerplots (version 0.23). Data Analysis Software. University of Massachusetts, Amherst (USA).

Konold, C., & Pollatsek, A. (2002). Data analysis as the search for signals in noisy processes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 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: 1996 Proceedings of the 1996 IASE Round Table Conference (pp. 151-167). Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.

Lajoie, S. P. (1997). The use of technology for modelling performance standards in statistics. In J. Garfield & G. Burrill (Eds.), Research on the Role of Technology in Teaching and Learning Statistics (pp. 57-70). Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.

Lajoie, S. P., & Romberg, T. A. (1998). Identifying an agenda for statistics instruction and assessment in K–12. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Reflections on statistics: Learning, teaching, and assessment in grades K–12 (pp. vii–xxi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lappan, G., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. F., Friel, S. N., & Phillips, E. D., (2002). Connected Mathematics Project. Needham, MA: Prentice Hall.

Leavy, A. M., & O’Loughlin, N. (2006). Moving beyond the arithmetic average: Preservice teachers understanding of the mean. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 53-90.

Lehrer, R., & Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children’s data modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 69-108.

Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative refinement cycles for videotape analyses of conceptual change. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. (pp. 665-708). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluewer Academic Press.

Lubienski, S. T., & Bowen, A. (2000). Who’s counting? A survey of mathematics education research 1982-1998. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 626-633.

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Makar, K., & Confrey, J. (2002, July). Comparing two distributions: Investigating secondary teachers' statistical thinking. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Cape Town, South Africa.

Makar, K., & Confrey, J. (2005). “Variation-Talk”: Articulating meaning in statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 4(1), 27-54.

[Online: www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/serj]

Mathematical Sciences Advisory Committee, 1984-1985. Academic preparation in mathematics: Teaching for transition from high school to college. Cited in: Beres, R.J. (1988). Statistics for college bound students: Are the secondary schools responding? School Science and Mathematics, 88(3), 200-209.

McGatha, M., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2002). An analysis of students’ initial statistical: Developing a conjectured learning trajectory. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 339-335.

Mevarech, Z. R. (1983). A deep structure model of students’ statistical misconceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, 415-429.

Mokros, J., & Russell, S. J. (1995). Children’s concept of average and representativeness. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 20-39.

National Center for Research in Mathematical Sciences at the University of Wisconsin/Madison and Freudenthal Institute at the University of Utrecht (1997-1998). Mathematics in context. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Commission on Standards for School Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Pollatsek, S. J., Lima, S., & Well, A. D. (1981). Concept or understanding: Students’ understanding of the mean. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 191-204.

Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematical teaching and learning (pp. 465-494). New York: McMillan.

Shaughnessy, J. M. (1997). Missed opportunities in research on the teaching and learning of data and chance. In F. Biddulph & K. Carr (Eds.), People in mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 6-22). Waikato, New Zealand: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

Simon, M. A. (2000). Research on mathematics teacher development: The teacher development experiment. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kleuwer Academic Press.

Skemp, R. R. (1979). Intelligence, learning and action: A new model for the theory and practice in education. New York: Wiley.

Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-306). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kleuwer Academic Press.

Stein, M. K., Baxter, J., & Leinhardt, G. (1990). Subject-matter knowledge and elementary instruction: A case from functions and graphing. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 639-663.

Strauss, S., & Bichler, E. (1988). The development of children’s concept of the arithmetic average. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 64-80.

Technical Education Research Centers and Lesley College (1989). Used numbers: Real data in the classroom. Menlo Park, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.

TERC (1998). Investigations in number, data, and space. Menlo Park, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.

Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire: Graphics Press.

Watson, J. M., & Kelly, B. A. (2002, August). Can grade 3 students learn about variation? Paper presented at The Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Cape Town, South Africa.

Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry. International Statistical Review, 67, 223-265.

 

Aisling Leavy

R124 Mary Immaculate College, South Circular Road

University of Limerick

Limerick, Ireland