No abstract

The algebra-based introductory statistics course is the most popular undergraduate course in statistics. While there is a general consensus for the content of the curriculum, the recent Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE) have challenged the pedagogy of this course. Additionally, some arguments have been made that the curriculum should focus on a randomization approach to statistical inference instead of using asymptotic tests. We developed a preliminary version of a randomization based curriculum which we then implemented with 240 students in eight sections of introductory statistics in fall 2009. The Comprehensive Assessment of Outcomes in Statistics (CAOS) assessment test was administered to these students and showed that students learned significantly more about statistical inference using the new curriculum, with comparable learning on most other questions. The assessment results demonstrate that refining content, improving pedagogy and rethinking the consensus curriculum can significantly improve student learning. We will continue to refine both content and pedagogy resulting in improved student learning gains on CAOS items and other assessment measures.

Previous research suggests that a randomization-based introductory statistics course may improve student learning compared to the consensus curriculum. However, it is unclear whether these gains are retained by students post-course. We compared the conceptual understanding of a cohort of students who took a randomization-based curriculum (n = 76) to a cohort of students who used the consensus curriculum (n = 79). Overall, students taking the randomization-based curriculum showed higher conceptual retention in areas emphasized in the curriculum, with no significant decrease in conceptual retention in other areas. This study provides additional support for the use of randomization-methods in teaching introductory statistics courses. First published May 2012 at Statistics Education Research Journal: Archives

Science teachers' content knowledge is an important influence on student learning, highlighting an ongoing need for programs, and assessments of those programs, designed to support teacher learning of science. Valid and reliable assessments of teacher science knowledge are needed for direct measurement of this crucial variable. This paper describes multiple sources of validity and reliability (Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.8) evidence for physical, life, and earth/space science assessments-part of the Diagnostic Teacher Assessments of Mathematics and Science (DTAMS) project. Validity was strengthened by systematic synthesis of relevant documents, extensive use of external reviewers, and field tests with 900 teachers during assessment development process. Subsequent results from 4,400 teachers, analyzed with Rasch IRT modeling techniques, offer construct and concurrent validity evidence.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the interactive effects of gender, learning motivations, and pedagogy (Project-Based Learning [PBL] and conventional) on secondary mathematics learning. In order to measure their academic achievement and learning motivations, 165 secondary students were given a state standardized mathematics test and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Study results indicated that pedagogy and gender had no impact on academic achievement. Pedagogy played a stronger role in rehearsal, peer learning, and task value. Gender played a stronger role in test anxiety, organization, help seeking, and control of learning. PBL students seemed to value and actively engage in the mathematics more than did the conventional students.