Advertisement

Reasoning from an Eikosogram: an Exploratory Study

  • Maxine Pfannkuch
  • Stephanie Budgett
Article

Abstract

Although students’ understanding of frequency information presented in two-way tables was first explored in the 1990s, there is a surprising lack of research in this area. Furthermore, researchers and practitioners continue to highlight students’ difficulties in comprehending probability including concepts related to conditioning. Using an interactive eikosogram, a visual representation of a two-way table of information, we explore six introductory probability students’ reasoning, interaction and comprehension behaviours associated with the display. Our findings suggest that the eikosogram may have the potential to assist: proportional reasoning, ability to compare proportions, consideration of proportions in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions; the unlocking and verbalization of simple, conditional and joint probability stories from the data; and visualizing representations for independence. The students believed the eikosogram representation would be beneficial for learning probability. Improvements to the tool and task and implications of the research are discussed.

Keywords

Introductory probability Interactive visualizations Graphicacy Conditioning Probability education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by a grant from the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (http://www.tlri.org.nz/). We thank the anonymous reviewers of this paper for their very helpful comments.

References

  1. Anderson, O. R., & Contino, J. (2013). The role of visualization in conceptual learning and conceptual change. In K. D. Finson & J. E. Pederson (Eds.), Visual data and their use in science education (pp. 3–21). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Batanero, C., Estepa, A., Godino, J. D., & Green, D. R. (1996). Intuitive strategies and preconceptions about association in contingency tables. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Budgett, S., & Pfannkuch, M. (2016). Visualizing chance: tackling conditional probability misconceptions. The 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg, 24-31 July 2016. (accepted).Google Scholar
  4. Budgett, S., & Wild, C.J. (2014). Students’ visual reasoning and the randomization test. In K. Makar, B. de Sousa & R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in statistics education. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS9, July, 2014), Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute. http://iase-web.org/icots/9/proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_8A1_BUDGETT.pdf.
  5. Budgett, S., Pfannkuch, M., & Franklin, C. (2016). Building conceptual understanding of probability models: visualizing chance. In C. Hirsh & A. McDuffie (Eds.), Annual Perspectives in Mathematics Education: Mathematical Modeling and Modeling Mathematics, (pp. 37–49). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, J., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curcio, F. R. (1987). Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischbein, E. (1975). The intuitive sources of probabilistic thinking in children. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friel, S., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. (2001). Making sense of graphs: critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Froelich, A. G., & Stephenson, W. R. (2013). Does eye color depend on gender? It might depend on who or how you ask. Journal of Statistics Education, 21(2), 1–11. www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v21n2/froelich_ds.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2013). Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and patients. Social Science and Medicine, 83, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Calculated risks. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  13. Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk savvy: how to make good decisions. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 446–474. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofmann, H. (2000). Exploring categorical data: interactive mosaic plots. Metrika, 51(1), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., Thornton, C. A., & Mogill, A. T. (1997). A framework for assessing and nurturing young children’s thinking in probability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  19. Kapadia, R. (2014). The role of statistical inference in teaching and achievement of students. Proceedings of the 59th International Statistical Institute World Statistical Congress, 25-30 August 2013, Hong Kong, China. (pp. 1102–1107) The Hague, The Netherlands: ISI. http://2013.isiproceedings.org.
  20. 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/.
  21. Kosslyn, S. (1994). Elements of graph design. New York: W.H. Freeman and company.Google Scholar
  22. Nickerson, R. (2004). Cognition and chance: the psychology of probabilistic reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Oldford, R.W., & Cherry, W.H. (2006). Picturing probability: the poverty of Venn diagrams, the richness of eikosograms. Retrieved from http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~rwoldfor/papers/venn/eikosograms/paperpdf.pdf.
  24. Pfannkuch, M., & Budgett, S. (2014) Constructing inferential concepts through bootstrap and randomization-test simulations: a case study. In K. Makar, B. de Sousa & R. Gould (Eds.), Sustainability in statistics education. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS9, July, 2014), Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute. http://iase-web.org/icots/9/proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_8J1_PFANNKUCH.pdf.
  25. Pfannkuch, M., & Budgett, S. (2016). Markov processes: exploring the use of dynamic visualizations to enhance student understanding. Journal of Statistics Education (accepted).Google Scholar
  26. Pfannkuch, M., & Ziedins, I. (2014). A modeling perspective on probability. In E. Chernoff & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Probabilistic thinking: Presenting plural perspectives (pp. 101–116). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7155-0_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pfannkuch, M., Seber, G. A. F., & Wild, C. J. (2002). Probability with less pain. Teaching Statistics, 24(1), 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfannkuch, M. Budgett, S., Fewster, R., Fitch, M., Pattenwise, S., Wild, C., & Ziedins, I. (2016). Probability modelling and thinking: what can we learn from practice? Statistics Education Research Journal (accepted).Google Scholar
  29. Politzer, G. (2015). Deductive reasoning under uncertainty: a water tank analogy. Retrieved from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/ijn_01140941/document.
  30. Presmeg, N. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics: emergence from psychology. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 205–235). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Schoenfeld, A. (2007). Method. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 96–107). Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Shaughnessy, J. 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: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Simkin, D., & Hastie, R. (1987). An information-processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas, M. O. J. (2008). Conceptual representations and versatile mathematical thinking. Proceedings of the tenth International Congress on Mathematical Education. Copenhagen, Denmark, 1–18. http://www.icme10.dk/proceedings/pages/regular_pdf/RL_Mike_Thomas.pdf.
  36. Watson, J. M. (1995). Conditional probability: its place in the mathematics curriculum. Mathematics Teacher, 88, 12–17.Google Scholar
  37. Watson, J. M., & Callingham, R. (2014). Two-way tables: issues at the heart of statistics and probability for students and teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(4), 254–284. doi: 10.1080/10986065.2014.953019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watson, J. M., & Moritz, J. B. (2002). School students’ reasoning about conjunction and conditional events. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 33, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wickham, H., & Hofmann, H. (2011). Product plots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12), 2223–2230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry (with discussion). International Statistical Review, 67(3), 223–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of StatisticsThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations