Title: Addressing Ambiguity Tolerance Among Introductory Statistics Students
1Addressing Ambiguity Tolerance Among Introductory
Statistics Students
- Robert H. Carver
- Stonehill College/Brandeis University
- Session ST-18
- DSI2007 Phoenix AZ
2Outline
- What is Ambiguity Tolerance (AT)?
- Is it related to the development of statistical
reasoning skills? - Some empirical findings
- Methods
- Results
- Implications for more effective teaching
3What is Ambiguity Tolerance (AT)?
- Frenkel-Brunswik (1948)
- Some are stimulated by ambiguity, some are
threatened - Personality trait vs. preferred process
- Relationship to rigidity, uncertainty tolerance,
openness - Enduring personality attribute vs.
context-dependent -
4Low A.T.?
High AT?
Never, ever, think outside the box
5What's the connection?
- When AT is low, people tend to cling to
preconceived notions, reluctant to process
contrary information
- Drawing actionable conclusions based on
incomplete information - Methods for incorporating new information with
pre-existing assumptions
6Statistical Thinking
- Wild Pfannkuch (1999) 4 dimensions of
Statistical Thinking - Investigative (PPDAC)
- Types of thinking (critical, imaginative,
transnumerative) - Interrogative (critical assessment of
observations) - Dispositions (personal styles, qualities)
7Common Responses to Variation
Adapted from Wild Pfannkuch, 1999
8Research Questions
- Is ambiguity tolerance (AT) a predictor of
success in a students development of statistical
thinking skills? - Does AT interact with other success factors?
- If AT is a predictor of success, can we modify
our teaching approaches to anticipate it?
9Sample
- Sample
- 85 undergraduates enrolled over 2 semesters
- Differences among sections
- Technology Minitab vs. SAS (Learning Ed.)
- Ordinary, Learning Community, Honors
10Methods
- Dependent variable
- Score on Comprehensive Assessment of Outcomes for
a first course in Statistics (CAOS) post-test - Developed by Web ARTIST Project (U.Minnesota and
Cal Poly) team - Pre- and Post-test (40 items each)
- Note some questions are, themselves ambiugous
11CAOS post-test results
12Methods
- Independent Measures variables
- McLains AT scale
- 22 question instrument 7-point Likert Scales
- Max score for extreme tolerance 74
- Min score for extreme intolerance - 58
- Reliability Cronbachs alpha 0.897
- In this sample a 0.872
- Did not predict performance on the pre-test
13Covariates investigated
- Score on CAOS Pre-test
- Prior Stat Education (37 had some)
- Section dummy variables (Honors, L.C., etc.)
- Course Performance variables
- Attendance
- Gender dummy (49 female 51 male)
- First-year student dummy (61 1st year)
- Math SAT
- Selected interactions with AT
14FindingsCAOS Post-Test
Variable Coeff Signif
Constant -2.529 0.751
CAOS Pre-test score 0.437 0.000
AT scale 0.117 0.039
Course Cumulative Avg 0.473 0.000
Prior course dummy -3.946 0.035
F 19.46 0.000
Adj R2 48.9
AT score has a significant effect on Post-Test
reasoning score Also evidence of interaction
between AT PreTest score Slightly Better fit
with log-linear model
15Discussion If so, then what?
- Need to replicate
- Carolyn Dobler, Gustavus Adolphus
- Jennifer Kaplan, Michigan State
- Stonehill, Spring 2008 (75 students)
- Recognize and Confront this variation among
students - Differentiate from low effort/low aptitude/poor
attitude - Re-frame the value of statistical thinking for
low-AT context - Search for other personality variables with
similar effects?
16Final thoughts
- It seems that misconceptions are part of a way
of thinking about events that is deeply rooted in
most people, either as learned parts of our
culture or (in the extreme) even as brain
functions arising from natural selection in a
simpler time. - Garfield Ahlgren, 1988
- How shall we respond to this variation in our
students? - Allow for? Control? Ignore?
17Questions? Replication?
- Contact me
- rcarver_at_stonehill.edu
- rcarver_at_brandeis.edu
- http//faculty.stonehill.edu/rcarver/