Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- PART I FOUNDATIONS
- PART II METHODOLOGIES
- 8 Learner-Centered Design
- 9 The Evolution of Design Studies as Methodology
- 10 Design-Based Research
- 11 Guiding Inquiry-Based Math Learning
- 12 Analyzing Collaborative Discourse
- 13 Assessing for Deep Understanding
- PART III THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE
- PART IV MAKING KNOWLEDGE VISIBLE
- PART V LEARNING TOGETHER
- PART VI LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
- Afterword: After How Comes What
- Epilogue: The Fundamental Issue in the Learning Sciences
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
11 - Guiding Inquiry-Based Math Learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- PART I FOUNDATIONS
- PART II METHODOLOGIES
- 8 Learner-Centered Design
- 9 The Evolution of Design Studies as Methodology
- 10 Design-Based Research
- 11 Guiding Inquiry-Based Math Learning
- 12 Analyzing Collaborative Discourse
- 13 Assessing for Deep Understanding
- PART III THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE
- PART IV MAKING KNOWLEDGE VISIBLE
- PART V LEARNING TOGETHER
- PART VI LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
- Afterword: After How Comes What
- Epilogue: The Fundamental Issue in the Learning Sciences
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter, we present a case study of a classroom approach whose development was inspired by learning sciences research. We conducted a sequence of classroom design experiments in urban seventh and eighth grade classrooms (see Barab, this volume, and Confrey, this volume, for discussions of design experiment methodology) focused on teaching and learning statistical data analysis. During this process, we formulated, tested, and revised specific conjectures about both the process of students' learning in the domain of statistics, and ways to scaffold that learning. The primary products of these design experiments were two sequences of instructional activities: one that focused on the analysis of univariate data and one on bivariate data, and three computer-based data analysis tools that were used in both. In this chapter, we restrict our focus to the first of the two classroom design experiments – the one focused on the analysis of univariate data.
We start by critically examining the traditional instructional goals of middle school math. Learning sciences research rejects a conception of knowledge as consisting of facts and procedures to be memorized; unfortunately, this traditional style of instruction still predominates in most mathematics classrooms. As part of this discussion, we briefly summarize recent developments in both the use of statistics in wider society and in statistics as a discipline. We then describe the initial assessments of students' statistical reasoning, and contrast them with the concluding assessments.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 171 - 186Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005
References
Bakker, A., & Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Learning to reason about distribution. In & (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking (pp. 147–168). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of multicultural education. Theory into Practice, 34, 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biehler, R. (1993). Software tools and mathematics education: The case of statistics. In & (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (pp. 68–100). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1991). Entdeckende statistik, stenget-und Blatter, Boxplots: Konzepte, Begrundungen and Enfahrungen eines Unterrichtsversuch es [Explorations in statistics, stem-and-leaf, boxplots: Concepts, justifications, and experience in a teaching experiment]. Der Mathematikunterricht, 37(6), 5–32.Google Scholar
, , & (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
, & (1997). Mathematics, statistics, and teaching. American Mathematical Monthly, 104, 801–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). Individual and collective mathematical learning: The case of statistical data analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2003). Learning about statistical covariation. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2000, April). Learning about data creation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
(1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1980). Democracy and education. In (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works, 1899 –1924, Vol. 9 (pp. 1–370). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dörfler, W. (1993). Computer use and views of the mind. In & (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (pp. 159–186). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-ß Press.Google Scholar
, , & (1992). Authentic inquiry with data: Critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educational Pyschologist, 27, 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaput, J. J. (1994). The representational roles of technology in connecting mathematics with authentic experience. In , , , & (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 379–397). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Konold, C., Pollatsek, A., Well, A., & Gagnon, A. (1997). Students' analyzing data: Research of critical barriers. In & (Eds.), Research on the role of technology in teaching and learning statistics: Proceedings of the 1996 International Association for Statistics Education Roundtable Conference (pp. 151–167). Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistics Institute.Google Scholar
, & (1996). Exploring children's data modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 69–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Penner, D. (2000). The inter-related development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In , , & (Eds.), Symbolizing, mathematizing, and communicating: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 325–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2002). Teacher's and students' understanding: The role of tool use in communication. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 217–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2001). Supporting students' ability to reason about data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClain, K., Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2000). Supporting students' ways of reasoning about data. In (Ed.), Learning mathematics for a new century (2001 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 174–187). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
, , & (2002). An analysis of students' initial statistical understandings: Developing a conjectured learning trajectory. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16, 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1999). Touching epistemologies: Statistics in practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40, 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Where is the context in contextual word problems? Mathematical practices and products in grade 8 students' answers to story problems. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 487–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1998). Understanding by design. Washington, DC: Association for Curriculum and Supervision.Google Scholar
(1997). What is normal anyway? Therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3
- Cited by