Combining Multiple External Representations and Refutational Text: An Intervention on Learning to Interpret Box Plots
Box plots are frequently misinterpreted and educational attempts to correct these misinterpretations have not been successful. In this study, we used two instructional techniques that seemed powerful to change the misinterpretation of the area of the box in box plots, both separately and in combination, leading to three experimental conditions, next to a control condition. First, we used multiple external representations: Histograms were used as an overlay on box plots in order to give students a better insight in the way box plots represent data distributions. Second, we used refutational text to explicitly name and invalidate the area misinterpretation of box plots. Third, we combined multiple external representations and refutational text. A box plot test showed that students in the refutation and combination condition scored statistically significant better than students in the control condition with respect to the misinterpretation of interest. The condition with multiple external representations scored in between. The implications of these results for theory and educational practice are discussed.
KeywordsIntervention Multiple external representations Refutational text Box plots
Stephanie Lem holds a post-doctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO). This research was partially supported by grant GOA 2006/01 “Developing adaptive expertise in mathematics education” from the Research Fund KU Leuven, Belgium.
- Acevedo Nistal, A., Van Dooren, W., Clarebout, G., Elen, J. & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Conceptualising, investigating and stimulating representational flexibility in mathematical problem solving and learning: A critical review. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191–208). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Bakker, A. (2004). Design research in statistics education: On symbolizing and computer tools. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.Google Scholar
- Bakker, A., Biehler, R. & Konold, C. (2005). Should young students learn about box plots? In G. Burrill & M. Camden (Eds.), Curricular development in statistics education: International Association for Statistical Education 2004 Roundtable (pp. 163–173). Voorburg, The Northland: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
- Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K. P. E., Bowers, J. & Doorman, M. (1997). Statistical minitools [Computer software]. Nashville & Utrecht: Vanderbult University, TN & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University. Retrieved from www.wisweb.nl.
- Craeghs, B. (2012). Box plot, quartile plot en offset quartile plot: Verschillende externe representaties, dezelfde interpretatiemoeilijkheden? [Box plot, quartile plot and offset quartile plot: Different representations, the same interpretation difficulties?] (Unpublished master thesis). KU Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
- De Vries, E., Demetriadis, S. & Ainsworth, S. (2009). External representations for learning: Headed towards a digital culture. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. De Jong, A. Lazonder & S. Barnes (Eds.), External representations for learning (pp. 137–153). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
- Evans, J., St., B. T. & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and Reasoning. Hove, England: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Faul, F. & Erdfelder, E. (1992). G*Power (version 3.1.7) [Computer software]. Bonn: Bonn University.Google Scholar
- Landis, J. R. & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometric, 33, 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
- Lem, S., Onghena, P., Verschaffel, L. & Van Dooren, W. (2013a). External representations for data distributions: In search of cognitive fit. Statistics Education Research Journal, 12(1), 4–19.Google Scholar
- Lem, S., Onghena, P., Verschaffel, L. & Van Dooren, W. (2013c). Experts’ misinterpretation of box plots - a dual processing approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- Lem, S., Onghena, P., Verschaffel, L., Van Dooren, W. (2014). Interpreting histograms. As easy as it seems? European Journal of Psychology of Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10212-014-0213-x
- McCrudden, M. T. & Kendeou, P. (2012). Exploring the link between cognitive processes and learning from refutational text. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(S1), 1–25.Google Scholar
- Pierce, R., Chick, H. & Wander, R. (2014). Improving teachers’ professional statistical literacy. In H. MacGillivray, M. Martin & B. Phillips (Eds.), Topics from Australian Conferences on Teaching Statistics: OZCOTS 2008–2012 (pp. 295–309). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Sinatra, G. M. & Broughton, S. H. (2011, August). Understanding the refutation text effect in conceptual change research: Multiple perspectives. In W. Van Dooren (Chair), The Role of Refutational Texts in Achieving Conceptual Change. Symposium presented at the biannual meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Exeter, England.Google Scholar
- Stavy, R. & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, England: Graphic Press.Google Scholar