Developing notions of inference using probability simulation tools

Journal of Mathematical Behavior

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 319-337

  Stohl, Hollylynne ^a   Tarr, James E ^b  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Concept formulation; Middle school; Probability; Sample size; Simulation; Statistics; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036399398     PISSN: 07323123     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00132-3     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Aspinwall, L., & Tarr, J. E. (2001). Middle school students' understanding of the role sample size plays in experimental probability. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 1-17.
2. Battista, M. T. (1998). Computer environments that engender students' construction of mathematical ideas and reasoning: a constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the ENC Technology and NCTM Standards 2000 Conference. Arlington, VA, June 5-6, 1998.
3. Biddlecomb, B. D. (1994). Theory-based development of computer microworlds. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8(2), 87-98.
4. Drier, H. S. (2000a). Children's probabilistic reasoning with a computer microworld. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia.
5. Drier, H. S. (2000b). Children's meaning-making activity with dynamic multiple representations in a probability microworld. In: M. Fernandez (Ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 691-696). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse of Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
6. Fischbein, E., & Schnarch, D. (1997). The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 96-105.
7. Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: theories, methods, and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 37-53.
9. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10. Metz, K. E. (1999). Why sampling works or why it can't: ideas of young children engaged in research of their own design. In: F. Hitt, & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of education (pp. 492-498). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse of Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
11. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
12. Pirie, S. I. B., Borgen, K., Manu, S. S., Jenner, D., Thom, J., & Martin, L. C. (2001). Theory, video and mathematical understanding: an examination of what different theoretical perspectives can offer. In: R. Speiser, C. A. Maher, & C. N. Walter (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of education (pp. 343-380). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse of Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
13. Powell, A. (2001). Inquiry into videotape analysis for studying the growth of mathematical understanding. In: R. Speiser, C. A. Maher, & C. N. Walter (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of education (pp. 84-86). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse of Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
14. Pratt, D. (2000). Making sense of the total of two dice. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 602-625.
15. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-145.
16. Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000) How students (mis-) understand science and mathematics: intuitive rules. New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
18. Stohl, H. (1999-2002). Probability Explorer. Software application distributed by author at http://www.probexplorer.com.
19. Tzur, R., & Simon, M. A. (1999). Postulating relationships between stages of knowing and types of tasks in mathematics teaching: a constructivist perspective. In: F. Hitt, & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-first annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of education (pp. 805-810). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse of Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
20. Voigt, J. (1996). Negotiation of mathematical meaning in classroom processes: social interaction and learning mathematics. In: L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. A. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 21-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Sensory experience, abstraction, and teaching. In: L. P. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 369-383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.