Advertisement

Exploring Secondary Teacher Statistical Learning: Professional Learning in a Blended Format Statistics and Modeling Course

  • Sandra R. MaddenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

Providing opportunities for secondary teachers to develop the statistical, technological, and pedagogical facility necessary to successfully engage their students in statistical inquiry is nontrivial. Many mathematics and science teachers in the U.S. have not benefitted from sufficient opportunity to learn statistics in a sense-making manner. With statistics assuming a more prominent place in the secondary curriculum, it remains a priority to consider viable ways in which to reach and support the statistical learning trajectory of both pre- and in-service teachers. This study explores ways in which a course that blends face-to-face and virtual learning experiences impacted in-service teachers’ technological pedagogical statistical knowledge (TPSK) Results suggest the course positively impacted participants’ TPSK.

Keywords

Blended learning Professional development Statistics Teaching 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1136392. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). Australian curriculum consultation portal. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Home.
  2. Batanero, C., Burrill, G., & Reading, C. (2011). Teaching statistics in school mathematics—Challenges for teaching and teacher education: A joint ICMI/IASE study: the 18th ICMI study. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. College Board. (2015). Advanced placement biology: Course and exam description. Retrieved from https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-biology-course-and-exam-description.pdf.
  4. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2010). The mathematical education of teachers II (Vol. 17). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  5. Fendel, D., Resek, D., Alper, L., & Fraser, S. (2012). Interactive mathematics program. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  6. Finzer, W. (2005). Fathom 2TM dynamic data software. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  7. Franklin, C., Kader, G., Bargagliotti, A., Scheaffer, R., Case, C., & Spangler, D. (2015). Statistical education of teachers. Retrieved from American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/EDU-SET.pdf.
  8. Franklin, C., Kader, G., Mewborn, D., Moreno, J., Peck, R., Perry, M., et al. (2007). Guidelines for assessment and instruction in statistics education (GAISE) report: A Pre-K-12 curriculum framework. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  9. Groth, R. E. (2007). Toward a conceptualization of statistical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(5), 427–437.Google Scholar
  10. Hirsch, C. R., Fey, J. T., Hart, E. W., Schoen, H. L., & Watkins, A. E. (2015). Core-plus mathematics: Contemporary mathematics in context. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  11. Kadijevich, D. M., & Madden, S. R. (2015). Comparing approaches for developing TPCK. In: New directions in technological and pedagogical content knowledge research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 125–146): Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Keller, S. (2006). CPMP-tools. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University and Core-plus mathematics project.Google Scholar
  13. Konold, C., & Miller, C. (2005). TinkerplotsTM dynamic data exploration. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lappan, G., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S., & Phillips, B. (2009). Connected mathematics 2. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, H. S., & Hollebrands, K. (2011). Characterizing and developing teachers’ knowledge for teaching statistics with technology. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics—Challenges for teaching and teacher education: A joint ICMI/IASE study (pp. 359–369). Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, H. S., & Nickell, J. (2014). How a curriculum may develop technological statistical knowledge: A case of teachers examining relationships among variables using Fathom. In Paper presented at the Sustainability in Statistics Education. Ninth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS9), Flagstaff, AZ.Google Scholar
  17. Madden, S. R. (2008). High school mathematics teachers’ evolving understanding of comparing distributions. Dissertation. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University.Google Scholar
  18. Meyer, O., & Lovett, M. (2014). Using Carnegie Mellon’s open learning initiative (ODI) to support the teaching of introductory statistics: Experiences, assessments, and lessons learned. Paper presented at the International Conference on Teaching Statistics 9, Flagstaff, AZ.Google Scholar
  19. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 180(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.Google Scholar
  21. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009). Focus in high school mathematics: Reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Inc.Google Scholar
  23. National Research Council (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
  24. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–12). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  25. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaughnessy, J. M. (2007). Research on statistics learning and reasoning. In J. F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 957–1010). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry. International Statistical Review, 67, 223–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations