Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 97, Issue 2, pp 163–183 | Cite as

The role of perceptual similarity, context, and situation when selecting attributes: considerations made by 5–6-year-olds in data modeling environments

Article

Abstract

Classroom data modeling involves posing questions, identifying attributes of phenomena, measuring and structuring these attributes, and then composing, revising, and communicating the outcomes. Selecting attributes is a fundamental component of data modeling, and the considerations made when selecting attributes is the focus of this paper. A teaching experiment involving 2 teacher educators and 25 pre-service teachers (PSTs) was carried out with 24 young children (5–6-year-olds) as part of a 4-day data modeling investigation. Although perceptual features of the data influenced initial approaches to attribute selection, considerations of the problem situation influenced a shift from the perceptual and towards consideration of attributes such as taxonomy, habitat, behavior, and diet. Expertise in the data context (animal kingdom) and ability to collaborate and negotiate within groups supported children in their ability to switch attributes, attend to multiple situations presented by the problem, and modify and extend their categorizations of data.

Keywords

Data modeling Attribute selection Statistical inquiry Young children Teaching mathematics Statistics Elementary education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the work of all reviewers and editors of this manuscript who invested their time and energy in providing insightful and constructive feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

References

  1. Blair, M., & Somerville, S. C. (2009). The importance of differentiation in young children’s acquisition of expertise. Cognition, 112, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Chi, M. T. H., & Koeske, R. D. (1983). Network representation of a child’s dinosaur knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 19, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2003). Learning about statistical covariation. Cognition and Instruction, 21(1), 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., & McNeal, B. (1992). Characteristics of classroom mathematics traditions: An interactional analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 573–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darmody, M., & Smyth, E. (2012). Exploring school and classroom environments in Irish primary schools. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 178–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Metarepresentational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(1), 117–160.Google Scholar
  8. English, L. D. (2010). Young children’s early modelling with data. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. English, L. D. (2012). Data modelling with first-grade students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ertle, B., Chokshi, S., & Fernandez, C. (2001). Lesson planning tool. Retrieved November 28 2016, from www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/lessonstudy/doc/Lesson_Planning_Tool.pdf
  11. Fletcher-Janzen, E., Strickland, T. L., & Reynolds, C. (2000). Handbook of cross-cultural neuro-psychology. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615- 4219-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gelman, S. A. (2006). Early conceptual development. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 149–166). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Gelman, S. A., Chesnick, R., & Waxman, S. R. (2005). Mother-child conversations about pictures and objects: Referring to categories and individuals. Child Development, 76, 1129–1143.Google Scholar
  14. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.Google Scholar
  15. Gentner, D., & Namy, L. L. (1999). Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development, 14, 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hancock, C., Kaput, J. T., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanner, S., James, E., & Rohlfing, M. (2002). Classification models across grades. In R. Lehrer & L. Schauble (Eds.), Investigating real data in the classroom (pp. 99–117). New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  18. Hourigan, M., & Leavy, A. M. (2016). Practical problems: Introducing statistics to kindergarteners. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(5), 283–291.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, K. E., & Mervis, C. B. (1994). Microgenetic analysis of first steps in children’s acquisition of expertise on shorebirds. Developmental Psychology, 30, 418–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kinnear, V. (2013). Young children’s statistical reasoning: A tale of two contexts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  21. Kinnear, V., & Clarke, J. (2016). Young children’s abductive reasoning about data. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education. Hamburg, July 24–31. Retrieved from http://icme13.org/files/ICME13-Programme356_low36.pdf
  22. Leavy, A. M. (2015). Looking at practice: Revealing the knowledge demands of teaching data handling in the primary classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(3), 283–309.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-014-0138-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leavy, A. M., & Hourigan, M. (2015). Motivating inquiry in statistics and probability in the primary classroom. Teaching Statistics, 37(2), 41–47.  https://doi.org/10.1111/test.12062 Google Scholar
  24. Leavy, A. M., & Hourigan, M. (2016a). Crime scenes and mystery players! Using interesting contexts and driving questions to support the development of statistical literacy. Teaching Statistics, 38(1), 29–35.  https://doi.org/10.1111/test.12088
  25. Leavy, A. M., & Hourigan, M. (2016b). Using lesson study to support knowledge development in initial teacher education: Insights from early number classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 161–175.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.002
  26. Lehrer, R., Kim, M., & Schauble, L. (2007). Supporting the development of conceptions of statistics by engaging students in measuring and modeling variability. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Inventing data structures for representational purposes: Elementary grade students’ classification models. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 21(1&2), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2007). Contrasting emerging conceptions of distribution in contexts of error and natural variation. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 149–176). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  29. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (Eds.). (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  30. Lesh, R., & Kelly, A. (2000). Multitiered teaching experiments. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 197–230). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2003). Mathematical learning. In W. Reynolds & G. Miller (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology  (Vol. 7, pp. 357–390). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Paparistodemou, E., & Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2008). Enhancing reasoning about statistical inference in 8 year-old students. Statistics Education Research Journal, 7(2), 83–106.Google Scholar
  33. Petersen, L. A., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). Effects of perceptually rich manipulatives on preschoolers’ counting performance: Established knowledge counts. Child Development, 84(3), 1020–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (2005). They call it like they see it: Spontaneous naming and attention to shape. Developmental Science, 8, 182–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Uzzell, B. P., Ponton, M., & Ardila, A. (Eds.). (2013). International handbook of cross-cultural neuropsychology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Wild, C., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry (with discussion). International Statistical Review, 67(3), 223–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language, Literacy and Mathematics Education, Mary Immaculate CollegeUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations