Abstract
Our didactical research perspective focuses on stochastic teaching–learning processes in a systematically designed teaching–learning arrangement. Embedded in the methodological framework of Didactical Design Research, this perspective necessitates the iterative interplay between theoretically guided design of the teaching–learning arrangement and empirical studies for investigating the initiated learning processes in more and more depth. For investigating the micro-level of students’ processes, we provide a theoretical framework and some exemplary results from a case study on students (in grade 6) approaching the distinction between short term and long term in the teaching–learning arrangement “Betting King”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aspinwall, L., & Tarr, J. E. (2001). Middle school students’ understanding of the role sample size plays in experimental probability. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 229–245.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (Eds.) (2004). Special issue: design-based research: clarifying the terms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1).
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Burkhardt, H. (2006). From design research to large-scale impact. Engineering research in education. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 121–150). London: Routledge.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science and programming. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 3–56).
diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3), 105–225.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.
Fischbein, E. (1982). Intuition and proof. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(2), 9–19.
Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.
Gropengießer, H. (2001). Didaktische Rekonstruktion des Sehens. Wissenschaftliche Theorien und die Sicht der Schüler in der Perspektive der Vermittlung. Oldenburg: DIZ.
Hußmann, S., & Prediger, S. (2009). Je größer die Wurfanzahl, desto sicherer die Wette: Mit dem Spiel Wettkönig den Zufall auf lange Sicht erkunden [The larger the throw total, the more secure is the bet: Exploring chance in the long term with the game Betting King]. PM. Praxis der Mathematik in der Schule, 51(25), 24–29.
Hußmann, S., Leuders, T., Prediger, S., & Barzel, B. (2011). Kontexte für sinnstiftendes Mathematiklernen (KOSIMA)—ein fachdidaktisches Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprojekt. Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht 2011 (pp. 419–422). Münster: WTM Verlag.
Kattmann, U., & Gropengießer, H. (1996). Modellierung der didaktischen Rekonstruktion. In R. Duit & C. v. Rhöneck (Eds.), Lernen in den Naturwissenschaften (pp. 180–204). Kiel: IPN.
Komorek, M., & Duit, R. (2004). The teaching experiment as a powerful method to develop and evaluate teaching and learning sequences in the domain of non-linear systems. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 619–633.
Konold, C. (1989). Informal conceptions of probability. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 59–98.
Moore, D. S. (1990). Uncertainty. In L. S. Steen (Ed.), On the shoulders of giants: new approaches to numeracy (pp. 95–137). Washington: National Academy Press.
Plaga, V. (2008). Ein Spiel des Zufalls—Analyse von Erkundungen stochastischer Prinzipien durch Grundschüler. Master equivalent thesis, University of Dortmund. Supervised by S. Prediger.
Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2002). The micro-evolution of mathematical knowledge: the case of randomness. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 453–488.
Prediger, S. (2005). Auch will ich Lernprozesse beobachten, um besser Mathematik zu verstehen. Didaktische Rekonstruktion als mathematikdidaktischer Forschungsansatz zur Restrukturierung von Mathematik. Mathematica Didactica, 28(2), 23–47.
Prediger, S. (2008). Do you want me to do it with probability or with my normal thinking? Horizontal and vertical views on the formation of stochastic conceptions. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(3), 126–154.
Prediger, S., & Link, M. (2012). Fachdidaktische Entwicklungsforschung—Ein lernprozessfokussierendes Forschungsprogramm mit Verschränkung fachdidaktischer Arbeitsbereiche. In H. Bayrhuber, U. Harms, B. Muszynski, B. Ralle, M. Rotangel, L.-H. Schön, H. J. Vollmer, & H.-G. Weigand (Eds.), Formate Fachdidaktischer Forschung. Empirische Projekte–historische Analysen–theoretische Grundlegungen (pp. 29–46). Münster: Waxmann.
Prediger, S., & Rolka, K. (2009). Using betting games for initiating conceptual change. Asian Journal of Educational Research and Synergy, 1(1), 61–71.
Prediger, S., & Hußmann, S. (2014, in press). Spielen, Wetten, Voraussagen—Dem Zufall auf die Spur kommen. In T. Leuders, S. Prediger, B. Barzel, & S. Hußmann (Eds.), Mathewerkstatt 7, Berlin: Cornelsen. (Textbook for German middle schools.)
Ron, G., Dreyfus, T., & Hershkowitz, R. (2010). Partially correct constructs illuminate students’ inconsistent answers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(1), 65–87.
Schnell, S. (2013). Muster und Variabilität entdecken. Konstruktionsprozesse kontextspezifischer Vorstellungen zum Phänomen Zufall. Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum. PhD Thesis, TU Dortmund University (Supervisor: S. Prediger).
Schnell, S., & Prediger, S. (2012). From “everything changes” to “for high numbers, it changes just a bit” theoretical notions for a microanalysis of conceptual change processes in stochastic contexts. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(7), 825–840.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Design experiments. In P. B. Elmore, G. Camilli, & J. Green (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 193–206). Washington & Mahwah: American Educational Research Association and Erlbaum.
Schwarz, B., Dreyfus, T., & Hershkowitz, R. (2009). The nested epistemic actions model for abstraction in context. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 11–41). London: Routledge.
Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics: reflections and directions. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 465–494). New York: MacMillan.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteurs quadrant. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110.
Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, S. (Eds.) (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). Can scientific research answer the ‘what’ question of mathematics education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(1), 35–53.
Wittmann, E. Ch. (1995). Mathematics education as a ‘design science’. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 355–374.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Prediger, S., Schnell, S. (2014). Investigating the Dynamics of Stochastic Learning Processes: A Didactical Research Perspective, Its Methodological and Theoretical Framework, Illustrated for the Case of the Short Term–Long Term Distinction. In: Chernoff, E., Sriraman, B. (eds) Probabilistic Thinking. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7155-0_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7155-0_29
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7154-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7155-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)