International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education
Year 11 Students’ Informal Inferential Reasoning: A Case Study about the Interpretation of Box Plots
APA
In-text citation: (Pfannkuch, 2007)
Reference: Pfannkuch, M. (2007). Year 11 Students’ Informal Inferential Reasoning: A Case Study about the Interpretation of Box Plots. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(3), 149-167. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/181
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Pfannkuch M. Year 11 Students’ Informal Inferential Reasoning: A Case Study about the Interpretation of Box Plots. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2007;2(3), 149-167. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/181
Chicago
In-text citation: (Pfannkuch, 2007)
Reference: Pfannkuch, Maxine. "Year 11 Students’ Informal Inferential Reasoning: A Case Study about the Interpretation of Box Plots". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2007 2 no. 3 (2007): 149-167. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/181
Harvard
In-text citation: (Pfannkuch, 2007)
Reference: Pfannkuch, M. (2007). Year 11 Students’ Informal Inferential Reasoning: A Case Study about the Interpretation of Box Plots. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(3), pp. 149-167. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/181
MLA
In-text citation: (Pfannkuch, 2007)
Reference: Pfannkuch, Maxine "Year 11 Students’ Informal Inferential Reasoning: A Case Study about the Interpretation of Box Plots". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 2, no. 3, 2007, pp. 149-167. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/181
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Pfannkuch M. Year 11 Students’ Informal Inferential Reasoning: A Case Study about the Interpretation of Box Plots. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2007;2(3):149-67. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/181

Abstract

Year 11 (15-year-old) students are not exposed to formal statistical inferential methods. When drawing conclusions from data, their reasoning must be based mainly on looking at graph representations. Therefore, a challenge for research is to understand the nature and type of informal inferential reasoning used by students. In this paper two studies are reported. The first study reports on the development of a model for a teacher’s reasoning when drawing informal inferences from the comparison of box plots. Using this model, the second study investigates the type of reasoning her students displayed in response to an assessment task. The resultant analysis produced a conjectured hierarchical model for students’ reasoning. The implications of the findings for instruction are discussed.

References

  • Bakker, A. (2004). Design research in statistics education: On symbolizing and computer tools. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-ß Press, Center for Science and Mathematics Education.
  • Bakker, A., Biehler, R., & Konold, C. (2005). Should young students learn about boxplots? In G. Burrill, & M. Camden (Eds.), Curricular Development in Statistics Education: International Association for Statistical Education 2004 Roundtable (pp. 163-173). Voorburg, the Netherlands: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education. On line: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications.
  • Bakker, A., Derry, J., & Konold, C. (2006). Using technology to support diagrammatic reasoning about center and variation. In A. Rossman & B. Chance (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Salvador, Brazil: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education. Online: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase.
  • Bakker, A., & Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Learning to reason about distribution. In D. Ben-Zvi, & J. Garfield (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking (pp. 147-168). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Begg, A. (2002). Rethinking curriculum: A developer’s perspective. In B. Barton, K.C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch, & M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics education in the South Pacific. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 123-130). Sydney, NSW: MERGA.
  • 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, Salvador, Brazil: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education. Online: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase.
  • Biehler, R. (1997). Students’ difficulties in practicing computer-supported data analysis: Some hypothetical generalizations from results of two exploratory studies. In J. Garfield & G. Burrill (Eds.), Research on the role of technology in teaching and learning statistics (pp. 169-190). Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education. On line: http://www. stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications.
  • Biehler, R. (2004). Variation, co-variation, and statistical group comparison: Some results from epistemological and empirical research on technology supported statistics education. Paper presented at the Tenth International Congress on Mathematics Education, Copenhagen, July, 2004.
  • Bright, G., & Friel, S. (1998). Graphical representations: Helping students interpret data. In S. Lajoie (Ed.), Reflections on statistics: Learning, teaching, and assessment in Grades K-12, (pp. 63-88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Carr, J., & Begg, A. (1994). Introducing box and whisker plots. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Research papers from the Fourth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS 4) Marrakech, Morocco, July, 1994: Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
  • Friel, S. (1998). Comparing data sets: How do students interpret information displayed using box plots? In S. Berenson, K. Dawkins, M. Blanton, W. Coulombe, J. Kolb, K. Norwood, & L. Stiff (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting, North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 365-370). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
  • Friel, S., Curcio, F., & Bright, G. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124-159.
  • Gravemeijer, K. (1998). Developmental research as a research method. In A. Sierpinska and J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (Book 2, pp. 277-295). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Hammerman, J., & Rubin, A. (2006). Saying the same (or a different) thing: How shape affects ideas about distribution in a software exploration environment. In A. Rossman, & B. Chance (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Salvador, Brazil: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education. Online: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase.
  • Key Curriculum Press Technologies (2000). Fathom. Emeryville, CA: Author.
  • 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.
  • Pfannkuch, M. (2005). Probability and statistical inference: How can teachers enable learners to make the connection? In G. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 267-294). New York: Springer.
  • Pfannkuch, M. (2006). Comparing box plot distributions: A teacher’s reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal, 5(2), 27-45. On line: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase.
  • Pfannkuch, M., & Horring, J. (2005). Developing statistical thinking in a secondary school: A collaborative curriculum development. In G. Burrill & M. Camden (Eds.), Curricular Development in Statistics Education: International Association for Statistical Education 2004 Roundtable (pp. 204-218). Voorburg, the Netherlands: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education. On line: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications.
  • Pratt, D. (2005). Personal communication at The Fourth International Forum on Statistical Reasoning, Thinking, and Literacy on Reasoning about Distribution, Auckland, New Zealand, July 2-7, 2005.
  • Rubin, A., Hammerman, K., & Konold, C. (2006). Exploring informal inference with interactive visualization software. In A. Rossman & B. Chance (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Salvador, Brazil: International Statistical Institute and International Association for Statistical Education. Online: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase.
  • Saldanha, P., & Thompson, P. (2007). Exploring connections between sampling distributions and statistical inference: An analysis of students’ engagement and thinking in the context of instruction involving repeated sampling. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, this issue.
  • Skovsmose, O., & Borba, M. (2000). Research methodology and critical mathematics education. (Publication No. 17). Roskilde, Denmark: Centre for Research in Learning Mathematics, Roskilde University.
  • Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry (with discussion). International Statistical Review, 67(3), 223-265.
  • Wittmann, E. (1998). Mathematics education as a ‘design science’. In A. Sierpinska and J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (Book 1, pp. 87-103). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.