Advertisement

Design for Reasoning with Uncertainty

  • Hana Manor BrahamEmail author
  • Dani Ben-Zvi
Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

The uncertainty involved in drawing conclusions based on a single sample is at the heart of informal statistical inference. Given only the sample evidence, there is always uncertainty regarding the true state of the situation. An “Integrated Modelling Approach” (IMA) was developed and implemented to help students understand the relationship between sample and population in an authentic context. This chapter focuses on the design of one activity in the IMA learning trajectory that aspires to assist students to reason with the uncertainty involved in drawing conclusions from a single sample to a population. It describes design principles and insights arising from the implementation of the activity with two students (age 12, grade 6). Implications for research and practice are also discussed.

Keywords

Informal statistical inference Model and modeling Sample and population Statistics education Uncertainty 

References

  1. Ainley, J., Gould, R., & Pratt, D. (2015). Learning to reason from samples: Commentary from the perspectives of task design and the emergence of “big data”. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(3), 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainley, J., & Pratt, D. (2010). It’s not what you know, it’s recognising the power of what you know: Assessing understanding of utility. In C. Reading (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics (ICOTS). Ljubljana, Slovenia: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education. Retrieved from http://www.Stat.Auckland.Ac.Nz/˜IASE/Publications.
  3. Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aridor, K., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2018). Statistical modeling to promote students’ aggregate reasoning with sample and sampling. ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0994-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold, P., Confrey, J., Jones, R. S., Lee, H. S., & Pfannkuch, M. (2018). Statistics learning trajectories. In D. Ben-Zvi, K. Makar, & J. Garfield (Eds.), International handbook of research in statistics education (pp. 295–326). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Bakker, A. (2004). Design research in statistics education: On symbolizing and computer tools. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-β Press, Center for Science and Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  7. Bakker, A. (2007). Diagrammatic reasoning and hypostatic abstraction in statistics education. Semiotica, 2007(164), 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben-Zvi, D. (2006). Scaffolding students’ informal inference and argumentation. In A. Rossman & B. Chance (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics (CD-ROM), Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, July 2006. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education.Google Scholar
  9. Ben-Zvi, D., & Arcavi, A. (2001). Junior high school students’ construction of global views of data and data representations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 35–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ben-Zvi, D., Aridor, K., Makar, K., & Bakker, A. (2012). Students’ emergent articulations of uncertainty while making informal statistical inferences. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(7), 913–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ben-Zvi, D., Gil, E., & Apel, N. (2007). What is hidden beyond the data? Helping young students to reason and argue about some wider universe. In D. Pratt & J. Ainley (Eds.), Reasoning about informal inferential statistical reasoning: A collection of current research studies. Proceedings of the Fifth International Research Forum on Statistical Reasoning, Thinking, and Literacy (SRTL5), University of Warwick, UK, August 2007.Google Scholar
  12. Ben-Zvi, D., Gravemeijer, K., & Ainley, J. (2018). Design of statistics learning environments. In D. Ben-Zvi, K. Makar, & J. Garfield (Eds.), International handbook of research in statistics education (pp. 473–502). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chinn, C. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2014). Microgenetic methods. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 171–190). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edelson, D. C., & Reiser, B. J. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners: Design challenges and strategies. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Garfield, J., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008). Developing students’ statistical reasoning: Connecting research and teaching practice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Garfield, J., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2009). Helping students develop statistical reasoning: Implementing a statistical reasoning learning environment. Teaching Statistics, 31(3), 72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garfield, J., Chance, B., & Snell, J. L. (2000). Technology in college statistics courses. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 357–370). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 128–150). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horvath, J. K., & Lehrer, R. (1998). A model-based perspective on the development of children’s understanding of chance and uncertainty. In S. P. LaJoie (Ed.), Reflections on statistics: Agendas for learning, teaching and assessment in K-12 (pp. 121–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Konold, C., Higgins, T., Russell, S. J., & Khalil, K. (2015). Data seen through different lenses. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88(3), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Konold, C., & Kazak, S. (2008). Reconnecting data and chance. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 2(1). http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclastat/cts/tise/vol2/iss1/art1/.
  25. Konold, C., & Miller, C. (2011). TinkerPlots™ 2.0. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, G., & Kwon, J. (2001). What do we know about students’ cognitive conflict in science classroom: A theoretical model of cognitive conflict process. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Costa Mesa, CA, January 18–21, 2001.Google Scholar
  28. Lehrer, R., & Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children’s data modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 69–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Makar, K., Bakker, A., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2011). The reasoning behind informal statistical inference. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(1–2), 152–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Makar, K., & Rubin, A. (2009). A framework for thinking about informal statistical inference. Statistics Education Research Journal, 8(1), 82–105.Google Scholar
  32. Makar, K., & Rubin, A. (2018). Learning about statistical inference. In D. Ben-Zvi, K. Makar, & J. Garfield (Eds.), International handbook of research in statistics education (pp. 261–294). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Manor Braham, H., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2015). Students’ articulations of uncertainty in informally exploring sampling distributions. In A. Zieffler & E. Fry (Eds.), Reasoning about uncertainty: Learning and teaching informal inferential reasoning (pp. 57–94). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Catalyst Press.Google Scholar
  34. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moore, D. (2007). The basic practice of statistics (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  36. Pfannkuch, M. (2006). Informal inferential reasoning. In A. Rossman & B. Chance (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS) [CD-ROM], Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.Google Scholar
  37. Pfannkuch, M. (2008, July). Building sampling concepts for statistical inference: A case study. In The 11th International Congress on Mathematics Education. Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar
  38. Pfannkuch, M., Ben-Zvi, D., & Budgett, S. (2018). Innovations in statistical modeling to connect data, chance and context. ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0989-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pfannkuch, M., & Wild, C. (2004). Towards an understanding of statistical thinking. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking (pp. 17–46). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pfannkuch, M., Wild, C., & Parsonage, R. (2012). A conceptual pathway to confidence intervals. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(7), 899–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pratt, D. (2000). Making sense of the total of two dice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 602–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pratt, D., & Ainley, J. (2008). Introducing the special issue on informal inferential reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal, 7(2), 3–4.Google Scholar
  44. Prodromou, T., & Pratt, D. (2006). The role of causality in the co-ordination of two perspectives on distribution within a virtual simulation. Statistics Education Research Journal, 5(2), 69–88.Google Scholar
  45. Saldanha, L., & McAllister, M. (2014). Using re-sampling and sampling variability in an applied context as a basis for making statistical inference with confidence. In K. Makar, B. de Sousa, & R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in statistics education. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS-9).Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education.Google Scholar
  46. Saldanha, L., & Thompson, P. (2002). Conceptions of sample and their relationship to statistical inference. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(3), 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). Method. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 69–107). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Shaughnessy, M. (2007). Research on statistics learning and reasoning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. 2, pp. 957–1009). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. West & L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 259–266). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, P. W., Liu, Y., & Saldanha, L. A. (2007). Intricacies of statistical inference and teachers’ understandings of them. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 207–231). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  51. Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry (with discussion). International Statistical Review, 67, 223–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationThe University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations