Dimensions of Learning Probability Vocabulary

View More View Less
  • 1 Salisbury University

Normative discourse about probability requires shared meanings for disciplinary vocabulary. Previous research indicates that students’ meanings for probability vocabulary often differ from those of mathematicians, creating a need to attend to developing students’ use of language. Current standards documents conflict in their recommendations about how this should occur. In the present study, we conducted microgenetic research to examine the vocabulary use of four students before, during, and after lessons from a cycle of design-based research attending to probability vocabulary. In characterizing students’ normative and nonnormative uses of language, we draw implications for the design of curriculum, standards, and further research. Specifically, we illustrate the importance of attending to incrementality, multidimensionality, polysemy, interrelatedness, and heterogeneity to foster students’ probability vocabulary development.

Footnotes

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant DRL-1356001. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
  • 1.

    Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). Mathematics – Sequence of content. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Mathematics_-_Sequence_of_content.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Bakker A & van Eerde D (2015). An introduction to design-based research with an example from statistics education. In Bikner-Ahsbahs A Knipping C & Presmeg N (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 429466). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_16

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Cai J Morris A Hohensee C Hwang S Robison V & Hiebert J (2017). A future vision of mathematics education research: Blurring the boundaries of research and practice to address teachers’ problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(5), 466473. doi:https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.48.5.0466

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Certain. (n.d.). In Lexico: Powered by Oxford. Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/certain

  • 5.

    Chinn CA & Sherin BL (2014). Microgenetic methods. In Sawyer RK (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 171190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139519526.012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Confrey J Maloney AP Nguyen K Lee KS Panorkou N Corley D & Gibson T (2012). TurnOnCCMath.net: Learning trajectories for the K-8 Common Core State Math Standards. Retrieved from https://www.turnonccmath.net

  • 7.

    The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 58. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2003). Mathematics in context: Take a chance. Chicago, IL: Britannica.

  • 9.

    Fischbein E Nello MS & Marino MS (1991). Factors affecting probabilistic judgements in children and adolescents. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(6), 523549. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00312714

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Franke ML Webb NM Chan AG Ing M Freund D & Battey D (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380392. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109339906

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Gildea PM Miller GA & Wurtenberg CL (1990). Contextual enrichment by videodisc. In Nix D & Spiro R (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 129). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Glesne C (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

  • 13.

    Green DR (1983). A survey of probability concepts in 3000 pupils aged 11-16 years. In Grey DR Holmes P Barnett V & Constable GM (Eds.), Proceedings of the first International Conference on Teaching Statistics (pp. 766783). Sheffield, UK: Organising Committee of the First International Conference on Teaching Statistics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Greer B & Mukhopadhyay S (2005). Teaching and learning the mathematization of uncertainty: Historical, cultural, social and political contexts. In Jones GA (Ed.), Exploring probability in school (pp. 297324). New York, NY: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24530-8_13

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Groth RE Bergner JA Burgess CR Austin JW & Holdai V (2016). Re-imagining education of mathematics teachers through undergraduate research. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 36(3), 4146. doi:https://doi.org/10.18833/curq/36/3/6

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Groth RE Butler J & Nelson D (2016). Overcoming challenges in learning probability vocabulary. Teaching Statistics, 38(3), 102107. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/test.12109

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Halliday MAK (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Hiebert J & Lefevre P (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In Hiebert J (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203063538

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Hoffer WW (2016). Developing literate mathematicians: A guide for integrating language and literacy instruction into secondary mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Hunting RP & Davis GE (1991). Dimensions of young children’s conceptions of the fraction one half. In Hunting RP & Davis G (Eds.), Early fraction learning (pp. 2753). New York, NY: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3194-3

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Impossible. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster’s online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impossible

  • 22.

    Jones GA Langrall CW & Mooney ES (2007). Research in probability: Responding to classroom realities. In Lester FK Jr (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 909955). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Jones GA Thornton CA Langrall CW & Tarr JE (1999). Understanding students’ probabilistic reasoning. In Stiff LV & Curcio FR (Eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning in Grades K-12: 1999 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 146155). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Kaplan JJ Fisher DG & Rogness NT (2009). Lexical ambiguity in statistics: What do students know about the words association, average, confidence, random and spread? Journal of Statistics Education, 17(3), 119. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2009.11889535

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Konold C (1989). Informal conceptions of probability. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 5998. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0601_3

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Lakoff G & Johnson M (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Lamon SJ (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In Lester FK Jr (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Leung C (2005). Mathematical vocabulary: Fixers of knowledge or points of exploration? Language and Education, 19(2), 126134. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780508668668

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Lineback JE (2015). The redirection: An indicator of how teachers respond to student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 419460. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.930707

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Livers SD & Bay-Williams JM (2014). Vocabulary support: Constructing (not obstructing) meaning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(3), 152159. doi:https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.20.3.0152

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    McClain K & Cobb P (2001). Supporting students’ ability to reason about data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45(1–3), 103129. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013874514650

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    McKeown MG Beck IL Omanson RC & Pople MT (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522535. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/747940

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Miles MB Huberman AM & Saldaña J (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • 34.

    Moschkovich JN (1996). Moving up and getting steeper: Negotiating shared descriptions of linear graphs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(3), 239277. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0503_4

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Nacarato AM & Grando RC (2014). The role of language in building probabilistic thinking. Statistics Education Research Journal, 13(2), 93103. Retrieved from http://iase-web.org/documents/SERJ/SERJ13(2)_Nacarato.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Nagy WE & Scott JA (2000). Vocabulary processes. In Kamil ML Mosenthal PB Pearson PD & Barr R (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 269284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  • 38.

    National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.

  • 39.

    National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Norton RM (2001). Determining probabilities by examining underlying structure. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(2), 7882.

  • 41.

    Pimm D (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London, UK: Routledge.

  • 42.

    Presmeg NC (1998). Metaphoric and metonymic signification in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 2532. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)80059-5

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Rubenstein RN (2007). Focused strategies for middle-grades mathematics vocabulary development. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13(4), 200207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44.

    Schmitt N (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48(2), 281317. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00042

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45.

    Shaughnessy JM (2007). Research on statistics learning and reasoning. In Lester FK Jr (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 9571009). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46.

    Siegler RS & Crowley K (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606620. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.6.606

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47.

    Smit J & van Eerde HAA (2011). A teacher’s learning process in dual design research: Learning to scaffold language in a multilingual mathematics classroom. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 889900. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0350-5

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48.

    Tarr JE (2002). The confounding effects of “50-50 chance” in making conditional probability judgments. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 24(4), 3553.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49.

    Thompson DR & Rubenstein RN (2000). Learning mathematics vocabulary: Potential pitfalls and instructional strategies. Mathematics Teacher, 93(7), 568574.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50.

    Watson JM (2005). The probabilistic reasoning of middle school students. In Jones GA (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 145169). New York, NY: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24530-8_7

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51.

    Watson JM (2006). Statistical literacy at school: Growth and goals. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • 52.

    Watson JM & Moritz JB (2002). School students’ reasoning about conjunction and conditional events. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 33(1), 5984. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390110087615

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53.

    Watson JM & Moritz JB (2003). The development of comprehension of chance language: Evaluation and interpretation. School Science and Mathematics, 103(2), 6580. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18222.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 242 242 22
Full Text Views 147 147 3
PDF Downloads 95 95 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0