Exploiting lexical ambiguity to help students understand the meaning of Random

Statistics Education Research Journal

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 9-24

  Kaplan, Jennifer J ^a   Rogness, Neal T ^b   Fisher, Diane G ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Language; Statistics education research; Undergraduate students

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901667007     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15701824     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Adams, T. L., Thangata, F., & King, C. (2005). 'Weigh' to go: Exploring mathematical language. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(9), 444-448.
2. Albert, J. H. (2003). College students' conceptions of probability. The American Statistician, 57(1), 37-45.
3. Barwell, R. (2005). Ambiguity in the mathematics classroom. Language and Education, 19(2), 118-126.
4. Batanero, C., Godino, J. D., & Roa, R. (2004). Training teachers to teach probability. Journal of Statistics Education, 12(1). [Online: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v12n1/batanero.html]
5. Batanero, C., & Serrano. L. (1999). The meaning of randomness for secondary school students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(5), 558-567.
6. Dereshiwsky, M. (1999). Limitations and delimitations [electronic textbook]. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. [Online: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~mid/edr720/class/methodology/delimitations/]
7. Durkin, K., & Shire, B. (1991a). Lexical ambiguity in mathematical contexts. In K. Durkin & B. Shire (Eds.), Language in mathematical education: Research and practice (pp. 71-84). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
8. Durkin, K., & Shire, B. (1991b). Primary school children's interpretations of lexical ambiguity in mathematical descriptions. Journal of Research in Reading, 14(1), 46-55.
9. Falk, R. (1991). Randomness - an ill-defined but much needed concept. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(3), 215-218.
10. Garvin-Doxas, K., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2008). Understanding randomness and its impact on student learning: Lessons learned from building the Biology Concept Inventory (BCI). CBE Life Sciences Education, 7(2), 227-233.
11. Hahn, U., & Warren, P. A. (2009). Perceptions of randomness: Why three heads are better than four. Psychological Review, 116(2), 454-461.
12. Haudek, K. C., Kaplan, J. J., Knight, J., Long, T., Merrill, J., Munn, A., Nehm, R., Smith, M., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2011). Harnessing technology to improve formative assessment of student conceptions in STEM: Forging a national network. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 149-155. [Online: http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/10/2/149]
13. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an "academic vocabulary"? TESOL Quarterly 41(2), 235-252.
14. th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
15. Kaplan, J. J., Haudek, K. C., Ha, M., Rogness, N., & Fisher, D. (2013). Using lexical analysis software to assess student writing in statistics. Manuscript submitted for publication.
16. Kaplan, J. J., Fisher, D., & Rogness, N. (2009). Lexical ambiguity in statistics: What do students know about the words: association, average, confidence, random and spread? Journal of Statistics Education, 17(3), 1-19. [Online: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v17n3/kaplan.pdf]
17. Kaplan, J. J., Fisher, D., & Rogness, N. (2010). Lexical ambiguity in statistics: How students use and define the words: association, average, confidence, random and spread. Journal of Statistics Education, 18(2), 1-22. [Online: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v18n2/kaplan.pdf]
18. Kaplan, J. J., Rogness, N., & Fisher, D. (2012). Lexical ambiguity: Making a case against spread. Teaching Statistics, 34(2), 56-60.
19. Lavy, I., & Mashiach-Eizenberg, M. (2009). The interplay between spoken language and informal definitions of statistical concepts. Journal of Statistics Education, 17(1), 1-9. [Online: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v17n1/lavy.pdf]
20. Lecoutre M.-P., Rovira K., Lecoutre, B., & Poitevineau J. (2006). People's intuitions about randomness and probability: An empirical study. Statistics Education Research Journal, 5(1), 20-35. [Online: http://iase-web.org/documents/SERJ/SERJ_5(1)_Lecoutre_Rovira_Lecoutre_Poitevineau.pdf]
21. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
22. Makar, K., & Confrey, J. (2005). "Variation-talk": Articulating meaning in statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 4(1), 27-54. [Online: http://iase-web.org/documents/SERJ/SERJ4(1)_Makar_Confrey.pdf]
23. th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
24. Ochs, T. L. (1990). Nonrandom uses. Nature, 343(6246), 303.
25. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: HarperCollins Publisher.
26. Rangecroft, M. (2002). The language of statistics. Teaching Statistics, 24(2), 34-37.
27. Schaeffer, R. L., Gnanadesikan, M., Watkins, A., & Witmer, J. A. (1996). Activity-based statistics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
28. Shultz, T., & Pilon, R. (1973). Development of the ability to detect linguistic ambiguity. Child Development, 44(4), 728-733.
29. SPSS (2010). SPSS text analytics for surveys 4.0 user's guide, Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
30. Thompson, D., & Rubenstein, R. (2000). Learning mathematics vocabulary: Potential pitfalls and instructional strategies. Mathematics Teacher, 93(7), 568-574.
31. rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Brooks/Cole.
32. Wagenaar, W. (1991). Randomness and randomizers: Maybe the problem is not so big. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(3), 220-222.