ZDM

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 409–423 | Cite as

Chance by design: devising an introductory probability module for implementation at scale in English early-secondary education

Original Article

Abstract

This paper reports the design of an introductory probability module intended for implementation at scale within the English educational system. It forms part of the Effecting Principled Improvement in STEM Education (epiSTEMe) programme of redesign research aimed at improving the teaching and learning of mathematics and science at early-secondary level. The approach taken by the module is informed by the research literatures on effective teaching (with a particular emphasis on blending teaching components and exploiting dialogic discussion) and probabilistic thinking (with a particular emphasis on triangulating epistemic approaches and deconstructing fallacious reasoning). Recognising that scalable innovation must take account of the current state and established norms of the educational system, module development was informed by such considerations. Advice and feedback from classroom teachers, as well as observation and recording of their lesson implementations, provided a basis for assessing the viability of proposed features of the module, and the adaptation required of teachers, so that guidance materials and professional development could be framed appropriately.

Keywords

Design research Dialogic teaching Early-secondary school England Improvement at scale Pedagogical design Teaching probability 

References

  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). York: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  2. Borovcnik, M., & Peard, R. (1996). Probability. In A. Bishop, et al. (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 239–288). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (2001). Framework for teaching mathematics: Years 7, 8 and 9. London: DfEE.Google Scholar
  5. Fischbein, E., & Gazit, A. (1984). Does the teaching of probability improve probabilistic intuitions? An exploratory research study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischbein, E., & Schnarch, D. (1997). The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franke, M., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–356). Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar
  8. Hawkins, A., & Kapadia, R. (1984). Children’s conceptions of probability: A psychological and pedagogical review. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(4), 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Howe, C., McWilliam, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Konold, C. (1989). Informal conceptions of probability. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 59–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Konold, C., & Kazak, S. (2008). Reconnecting data and chance. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 2(1).Google Scholar
  12. Lecoutre, M. (1992). Cognitive models and problem spaces in purely random situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(6), 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language & Education, 20(6), 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). (2008). Mathematics: Understanding the score. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  16. Pratt, D. (2005). How do teachers foster students’ understanding of probability? In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 171–190). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Prestage, S., & Perks, P. (2008). HMI Ofsted report for mathematics 2008, or why teenagers are maths dunces. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 28(3), 96–101.Google Scholar
  18. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (1999). Mathematics in the National Curriculum. London: QCA.Google Scholar
  19. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2007). Mathematics: Programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment targets. London: QCA.Google Scholar
  20. Ruthven, K. (1989). An exploratory approach to advanced mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(4), 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ruthven, K. (2011a). Research-informed pedagogical innovation at scale in school mathematics and science education. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association, London, 6–8 September 2011. http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/people/staff/ruthven/RuthvenBERA11paper.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2011.
  22. Ruthven, K. (2011b). Using international study series and meta-analytic research syntheses to scope pedagogical development aimed at improving student attitude and achievement in school mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 419–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ruthven, K., Hofmann, R., & Mercer, N. (2011). A dialogic approach to plenary problem synthesis. Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, 81–88.Google Scholar
  24. Ruthven, K., Howe, C., Mercer, N., Taber, K., Luthman, S., Hofmann, R., et al. (2010). Effecting Principled Improvement in STEM Education: Research-based pedagogical development for student engagement and learning in early secondary-school physical science and mathematics. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 30(1), 191–198.Google Scholar
  25. Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott, P., Mortimer, E., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis research. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slavin, R., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slavin, R., Lake, C., & Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 839–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Helping teachers learn to better incorporate student thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steinbring, H. (2006). What makes a sign a mathematical sign? An epistemological perspective on mathematical interaction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1/2), 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Threlfall, J. (2004). Uncertainty in mathematics teaching: The National Curriculum experiment in teaching probability to primary pupils. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(3), 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Watson, J. (2005). The probabilistic reasoning of middle school students. In G. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 145–169). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations