Robert H. Carver Stonehill College/Brandeis University Session ST-18 DSI2007 Phoenix AZ 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 20 November 2007 2 • 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 20 November 2007 3 Low A.T.? High AT? “Never, ever, think outside the box” 20 November 2007 4 AMBIGUITY TOLERANCE STATISTICAL THINKING When AT is low, Drawing actionable people tend to cling to preconceived notions, reluctant to process contrary information 20 November 2007 conclusions based on incomplete information Methods for incorporating new information with preexisting assumptions 5 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) 20 November 2007 6 Ignore Allow for •Fail to detect? •Overlook? •FLEE!? •Anticipate •Design safeguards Control •Change system to reduce or manage Adapted from Wild & Pfannkuch, 1999 20 November 2007 7 Is ambiguity tolerance (AT) a predictor of success in a student’s 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? • 20 November 2007 8 Sample: • 85 undergraduates enrolled over 2 semesters • Differences among sections Technology: Minitab vs. SAS (Learning Ed.) Ordinary, Learning Community, Honors 20 November 2007 9 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… • 20 November 2007 10 Post vs. Pre-test Scores 100 CAOSPost 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 60 40 80 100 CAOSPre 20 November 2007 11 Independent Measures & variables: • McLain’s AT scale: 22 question instrument 7-point Likert Scales Max score for extreme tolerance = 74 Min score for extreme intolerance = - 58 Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.897 In this sample a = 0.872 Did not predict performance on the pre-test 20 November 2007 12 • • • • • • • • • 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 20 November 2007 13 Variable Constant Coeff Signif -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 -3.946 0.035 19.46 0.000 Prior course dummy F 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 20 November 2007 14 • 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? 20 November 2007 15 “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? 20 November 2007 16 • Contact me… rcarver@stonehill.edu rcarver@brandeis.edu http://faculty.stonehill.edu/rcarver/ 20 November 2007 17