学生思考统计设计的资源和紧张关系

Q3 Social Sciences

Statistics Education Research Journal Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.52041/serj.v22i3.662

Kelly Findley, Brein Mosely, Aaron Ludkowski

{"title":"学生思考统计设计的资源和紧张关系","authors":"Kelly Findley, Brein Mosely, Aaron Ludkowski","doi":"10.52041/serj.v22i3.662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reform efforts in statistics education emphasize the need for students to develop statistical thinking. Critical to this goal is a solid understanding of design in the process of collecting data, evaluating evidence, and drawing conclusions. We collected survey responses from over 700 college students at the start of an introductory statistics course to determine how they evaluated the validity of different designs. Despite preferring different designs, students offered a variety of productive arguments supporting their choices. For example, some students viewed intervention as a weakness that disrupted the ability to generalize results, whereas others viewed intervention as critical for identifying causality. Our results highlight that instruction should frame design as the balancing of different priorities: namely causality, generalizability, and power.","PeriodicalId":38581,"journal":{"name":"Statistics Education Research Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RESOURCES AND TENSIONS IN STUDENT THINKING ABOUT STATISTICAL DESIGN\",\"authors\":\"Kelly Findley, Brein Mosely, Aaron Ludkowski\",\"doi\":\"10.52041/serj.v22i3.662\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reform efforts in statistics education emphasize the need for students to develop statistical thinking. Critical to this goal is a solid understanding of design in the process of collecting data, evaluating evidence, and drawing conclusions. We collected survey responses from over 700 college students at the start of an introductory statistics course to determine how they evaluated the validity of different designs. Despite preferring different designs, students offered a variety of productive arguments supporting their choices. For example, some students viewed intervention as a weakness that disrupted the ability to generalize results, whereas others viewed intervention as critical for identifying causality. Our results highlight that instruction should frame design as the balancing of different priorities: namely causality, generalizability, and power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38581,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistics Education Research Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistics Education Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v22i3.662\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics Education Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v22i3.662","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

统计教育改革强调学生需要发展统计思维。在收集数据、评估证据和得出结论的过程中，对设计的扎实理解是实现这一目标的关键。我们在统计学入门课程开始时收集了 700 多名大学生的调查反馈，以确定他们如何评价不同设计的有效性。尽管学生们偏好不同的设计，但他们提供了各种富有成效的论据来支持自己的选择。例如，一些学生认为干预是一个弱点，会破坏归纳结果的能力，而另一些学生则认为干预对于确定因果关系至关重要。我们的研究结果突出表明，教学应将设计作为平衡不同优先事项的框架：即因果性、可推广性和力量。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

RESOURCES AND TENSIONS IN STUDENT THINKING ABOUT STATISTICAL DESIGN

Reform efforts in statistics education emphasize the need for students to develop statistical thinking. Critical to this goal is a solid understanding of design in the process of collecting data, evaluating evidence, and drawing conclusions. We collected survey responses from over 700 college students at the start of an introductory statistics course to determine how they evaluated the validity of different designs. Despite preferring different designs, students offered a variety of productive arguments supporting their choices. For example, some students viewed intervention as a weakness that disrupted the ability to generalize results, whereas others viewed intervention as critical for identifying causality. Our results highlight that instruction should frame design as the balancing of different priorities: namely causality, generalizability, and power.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Statistics Education Research Journal Social Sciences-Education

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： SERJ is a peer-reviewed electronic journal of the International Association for Statistical Education (IASE) and the International Statistical Institute (ISI). SERJ is published twice a year and is free. SERJ aims to advance research-based knowledge that can help to improve the teaching, learning, and understanding of statistics or probability at all educational levels and in both formal (classroom-based) and informal (out-of-classroom) contexts. Such research may examine, for example, cognitive, motivational, attitudinal, curricular, teaching-related, technology-related, organizational, or societal factors and processes that are related to the development and understanding of stochastic knowledge. In addition, research may focus on how people use or apply statistical and probabilistic information and ideas, broadly viewed. The Journal encourages the submission of quality papers related to the above goals, such as reports of original research (both quantitative and qualitative), integrative and critical reviews of research literature, analyses of research-based theoretical and methodological models, and other types of papers described in full in the Guidelines for Authors. All papers are reviewed internally by an Associate Editor or Editor, and are blind-reviewed by at least two external referees. Contributions in English are recommended. Contributions in French and Spanish will also be considered. A submitted paper must not have been published before or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.