Using Tree Diagrams as an Assessment Tool in Statistics Education

Educational Assessment

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 22-49

  Yin, Yue ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863588852     PISSN: 10627197     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2012.697850     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ausubel, D. P. 1968. Educational psychology: A cognitive view New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2. Ball, D. L. 1993. With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93: 373-397.
3. Baxendell, B. W. 2003. Consistent, coherent, creative: The 3 C's of graphic organizers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(3): 46-53.
4. Baxter, G. P., Elder, A. D. and Glaser, R. 1996. Knowledge-based cognition and performance assessment in the science classroom. Educational Psychologist, 31: 133-140.
5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. and Cocking, R. R., eds. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Braselton, S. and Decker, B. C. 1994. Using graphic organizers to improve the reading of mathematics. Reading Teacher, 48: 276-281.
7. Broers, N. J. 2009. Using propositions for the assessment of structural knowledge. Journal of Statistics Education, 17(2)
8. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R. and Far, M. J. 1988. The nature of expertise Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. DiCecco, V. M. and Gleason, M. M. 2002. Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35: 306-320.
10. Dunston, P. J. 1992. A critique of graphic organizer research. Reading Research and Instruction, 32: 57-65.
11. Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Garfield, J. 2002. The challenge of developing statistical reasoning. Journal of Statistics Education, 10(3)
13. Griffin, C. C., Malone, L. D. and Kameenui, E. J. 1995. Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 89: 98-107.
14. Guri-Rozenblit, S. 1989. Effects of tree diagram on students' comprehension of main ideas in an expository text with multiple themes. Reading Research Quarterly, 24: 236-247.
15. Hawk, P. P. 1986. Using graphic organizers to increase achievement in middle school life science. Science Education, 70(1): 81-87.
16. Herl, H. E., O'Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K. W. K. and Schacter, J. 1999. Reliability and validity of a computer-based knowledge mapping system to measure content understanding. Computer in Human Behavior, 15: 315-333.
17. Ives, B. 2007. Graphic organizers applied to secondary algebra instruction for students with learning disorders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22: 110-118.
18. Katayama, A. D. and Robinson, D. H. 2000. Getting students "partially" involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68: 119-133.
19. Lavigne, N. C. 2005. Mutually informative measures of knowledge: Concept maps plus problem sorts in statistics. Educational Assessment, 10(1): 39-71.
20. McClure, J. R., Sonak, B. and Suen, H. K. 1999. Concept map assessment of classroom learning: Reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36: 475-492.
21. Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63: 81-97.
22. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H. and Novak, J. D. 1997. Teaching science for understanding San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. Nesbit, J. C. and Adesope, O. O. 2006. Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76: 413-448.
24. Nitko, A. J. and Lane, S. Solving problems is not enough: Assessing and diagnosing the ways in which students organise statistical concepts. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Edited by: Vere-Jones, D. Vol.1, pp.467-474. The Hauge: I.S.I.
25. Novak, J. D. 1990. Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27: 937-949.
26. Novak, J. D. and Gowin, D. B. 1984. Learning how to learn New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27. Paas, F. and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. 1994. Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6: 51-71.
28. Rice, D. C., Ryan, J. M. and Samson, S. M. 1998. Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35: 1103-1127.
29. Roberts, L. 1999. Using concept maps to measure statistical understanding. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 30: 707-717.
30. Robinson, D. H. and Schraw, G. 1994. Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19: 399-415.
31. Robinson, D. H. and Skinner, C. H. 1996. Why graphic organizers facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computationally efficient indexing?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21: 166-180.
32. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Iverson, H. and Yin, Y. Evaluating concept maps as a formal formative assessment tool. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
33. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Schultz, S. E., Li, M. and Shavelson, R. J. 2001. Comparison of the reliability and validity of scores from two concept-mapping techniques. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38: 260-278.
34. Ruiz-Primo, M. A. and Shavelson, R. J. 1996. Problem and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33: 569-600.
35. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Li, M. and Schultz, S. E. 2001. On the validity of cognitive interpretations of scores from alternative concept-mapping techniques. Educational Assessment, 7: 99-141.
36. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J. and Schultz, S. 1996. Concept map-based assessment in science: Two exploratory studies. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing/UCLA.
37. Schau, C. and Mattern, N. 1997. Use of map techniques in teaching applied statistics courses. The American Statistician, 51: 171-175.
38. Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A. and Wiley, E. W. 2005. Windows into the mind. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 49: 413-430.
39. Spiegel, G. F. and Barufaldi, J. P. 1994. The effects of a contribution of text structure awareness and graphic postorganizers on recall and retention of science Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31: 913-932.
40. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G. and Paas, F. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10: 251-296.
41. Williams, J. P., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Pollini, S., Stafford, K. B., Garcia, A. and Snyder, A. E. 2007. Teaching cause-effect text structure through social studies content to at-risk second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40: 111-120.
42. Wolf, M. M. 1978. Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11: 203-214.
43. Yin, Y. and Shavelson, R. J. 2008. Application of generalizability theory to concept map assessment research. Applied Measurement in Education, 21: 273-291.
44. Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C. and Shavelson, R. J. 2005. Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42: 166-184.