Reading Versus Doing: Methods of Teaching Problem-Solving in Introductory Statistics

IF 2.2 Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Statistics Education Pub Date : 2019-08-05 DOI:10.1080/10691898.2019.1637801
A. Brisbin, Erica Maranhao do Nascimento
{"title":"Reading Versus Doing: Methods of Teaching Problem-Solving in Introductory Statistics","authors":"A. Brisbin, Erica Maranhao do Nascimento","doi":"10.1080/10691898.2019.1637801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Practice problems and worked examples are both well-established teaching techniques. Research in math and physics suggests that having students study worked examples during their first contact with new material, instead of solving practice problems, can be beneficial to their subsequent performance, possibly due to the reduced cognitive load required to study examples compared to generating solutions. However, there is minimal research directly comparing these teaching methods in introductory statistics. In this study, we chose six pairs of introductory statistics topics of approximately equal difficulty from throughout the semester. After an initial mini-lecture, one topic from each pair was taught using practice problems; the other was taught by having students read worked examples. Using Bayesian and frequentist analyses, we find that student performance is better after reading worked examples. This may be due to worked examples slowing the process of forgetting. Surprisingly, there is also strong evidence from in-class surveys that students experience greater frustration when reading worked examples. This could indicate that frustration is not an effective proxy for cognitive load. Alternatively, it could indicate that classroom supports during in-class problem-solving were effective in reducing the cognitive load of practice problems below that of interpreting written statistical explanations.","PeriodicalId":45775,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Statistics Education","volume":"27 1","pages":"154 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10691898.2019.1637801","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Statistics Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2019.1637801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Abstract Practice problems and worked examples are both well-established teaching techniques. Research in math and physics suggests that having students study worked examples during their first contact with new material, instead of solving practice problems, can be beneficial to their subsequent performance, possibly due to the reduced cognitive load required to study examples compared to generating solutions. However, there is minimal research directly comparing these teaching methods in introductory statistics. In this study, we chose six pairs of introductory statistics topics of approximately equal difficulty from throughout the semester. After an initial mini-lecture, one topic from each pair was taught using practice problems; the other was taught by having students read worked examples. Using Bayesian and frequentist analyses, we find that student performance is better after reading worked examples. This may be due to worked examples slowing the process of forgetting. Surprisingly, there is also strong evidence from in-class surveys that students experience greater frustration when reading worked examples. This could indicate that frustration is not an effective proxy for cognitive load. Alternatively, it could indicate that classroom supports during in-class problem-solving were effective in reducing the cognitive load of practice problems below that of interpreting written statistical explanations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阅读与实践:统计学入门课程中问题解决的教学方法
实践问题和实例都是行之有效的教学方法。数学和物理学的研究表明,让学生在第一次接触新材料时学习工作实例,而不是解决实际问题,可能对他们随后的表现有益,这可能是因为与生成解决方案相比,学习示例所需的认知负荷减少了。然而,很少有研究直接比较这些教学方法在入门统计。在这项研究中,我们从整个学期中选择了六对难度大致相等的入门统计学主题。在最初的迷你讲座之后,每对学生用练习题讲授一个主题;另一种是通过让学生阅读工作实例来教授。使用贝叶斯和频率分析,我们发现学生在阅读工作实例后表现更好。这可能是由于工作实例减缓了遗忘的过程。令人惊讶的是,在课堂调查中也有强有力的证据表明,学生在阅读有用的例子时更容易感到沮丧。这可能表明挫败感并不是认知负荷的有效代表。或者,它可能表明课堂解决问题时的课堂支持有效地减少了练习题的认知负荷,低于解释书面统计解释的认知负荷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Statistics Education
Journal of Statistics Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The "Datasets and Stories" department of the Journal of Statistics Education provides a forum for exchanging interesting datasets and discussing ways they can be used effectively in teaching statistics. This section of JSE is described fully in the article "Datasets and Stories: Introduction and Guidelines" by Robin H. Lock and Tim Arnold (1993). The Journal of Statistics Education maintains a Data Archive that contains the datasets described in "Datasets and Stories" articles, as well as additional datasets useful to statistics teachers. Lock and Arnold (1993) describe several criteria that will be considered before datasets are placed in the JSE Data Archive.
期刊最新文献
Philosophy within Data Science Ethics Courses Teaching modeling in introductory statistics: A comparison of formula and tidyverse syntaxes Taking the Next Step in Exploring the Literary Digest 1936 Poll Open Case Studies: Statistics and Data Science Education through Real-World Applications Cultivating Critical Thinking Skills: a Pedagogical Study in a Business Statistics Course
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1