Browse > Article

An Analysis on Argumentation in the Task Context of 'Monty Hall Problem' at a High School Probability Class  

Lee, Yoon-Kyung (Graduate School, Yeungnam University)
Cho, Cheong-Soo (Yeungnam University)
Publication Information
School Mathematics / v.17, no.3, 2015 , pp. 423-446 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aims to look into the characteristics of argumentation in the task context of 'Monty Hall problem' at a high school probability class. As a result of an analysis of classroom discourses on the argumentation between teachers and second-year students in one upper level class in high school using Toulmin's argument pattern, it was found that it would be important to create a task context and a safe classroom culture in which the students could ask questions and refute them in order to make it an argument-centered discourse community. In addition, through the argumentation of solving complex problems together, the students could be further engaged in the class, and the actual empirical context enriched the understanding of concepts. However, reasoning in argumentation was mostly not a statistical one, but a mathematical one centered around probability problem-solving. Through these results of the study, it was noted that the teachers should help the students actively participate in argumentation through the task context and question, and an understanding of a statistical reasoning of interpreting the context would be necessary in order to induce their thinking and reasoning about probability and statistics.
Keywords
probability; statistical reasoning; argumentation; Toulmin's Argument Pattern; TAP; Monty Hall problem;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 강현영, 송은영, 조진우, 이경화 (2011). 통계적 논증활동을 강조한 통계수업의 효과에 대한 사례연구. 수학교육학연구, 21(4), 399-422.
2 김성도 (1998). 가추법의 화용론적 함의. 담화와 인지, 5(2), 23-40.
3 도모노 노리오 (2007). 행동경제학 (이명희 번역.). 서울: 지형. (원본출판 2006).
4 민병곤 (2001). 논증 이론의 현황과 국어 교육의 과제. 국어교육학연구, 12(1), 237-285.
5 박영신 (2006). 교실에서의 실질적 과학 탐구를 위한 과학적 논증 기회에 대한 이론적 고찰. 한국지구과학회지, 27(4), 401-415.
6 박정숙 (2014). 몬티홀 딜레마에 대한 학생들의 이해와 수업적용. 한국수학사학회지, 27(3), 211-231.   DOI
7 배식한 (2011). 논증과 논증행위: 비판적 사고 교육의 관점에서. 철학사상, 42, 151-183.
8 오택근, 박미미, 이경화 (2014). 수학적 토론에서 의사소통적 갈등과 인지 갈등의 관계. 수학교육학연구, 24(2), 125-143.
9 이윤경, 조정수 (2015). 고등학교 통계 수업 시간에 나타난 교사-학생간 수업담화 분석: Mehan의 이론을 중심으로. 학교수학, 17(2), 203-222.
10 이정아 (2012). 과학수업담화 연구의 배경과 전개. 한국초등교육, 23(4), 141-156.
11 이종학 (2011). 학교 수학에 활용 가능한 확률. 통계 영역에서의 역사적 패러독스. 한국수학사학회지, 24(4), 119-141.
12 한제준 (2013). 계절 변화 수업의 논증과정 및 논증적 담화 전략 분석. 미출판 박사학위논문, 한국교원대학교, 청주.
13 Anthony, G., & Hunter, R. (2010). Communities of mathematical inquiry to support engagement in rich tasks. In B. Kaur & J. Dindyal (Eds.), Mathematical applications and modelling: Yearbook 2010 (pp. 21-39). Toh Tuck Link, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
14 Ben-Zvi, D., & Garfield, J. B. (2004). The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15 Boero, P. (1999). Argumentation and mathematical proof: A complex, productive, unavoidable relationship in mathematics and mathematics education. International Newsletter on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Proof, 7(8).
16 Breton, P., & Gauthier, G. (2000). 논증의 역사 (장혜영 번역.). 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스. (원본 출판 2000).
17 Chaput, B., Girard, J. C., & Henry, M. (2011). Frequentist approach: Modelling and simulation in statistics and probability teaching. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematicschallenges for teaching and teacher education (pp. 85-95). New York: Springer.
18 Chinn, C., & Anderson, R. (1998). The structure of discussions inteded to promote reasoning. The Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368.
19 Crusius, T. W., & Channell, C. E. (1998). The aims of argument: A rhetoric and reader. Houston: Mayfield Publishing Company.
20 Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 258-277.   DOI
21 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.   DOI
22 Dunham, W. (2004). 수학의 천재들 (조정수 번역.). 서울: 경문사. (원본출판 1991).
23 Eichler, A. (2008). Teachers' classroom practice and students' learning. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, C. Reading, & A. Rossman (Eds.), Joint ICMI/IASE study: Teaching statistics in school mathematics. Challenges for teaching and teacher education. Proceedings of the ICMI Study 18 and 2008 IASE Round Table Conference. Monterrey, Mexico: International Commission on Mathematical Instruction and International Association for Statistical Education. Online: www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/-iase/publication
24 Eichler, A. (2011). Statistics teachers and classroom practices. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics-challenges for teaching and teacher education (pp. 175-186). New York: Springer.
25 Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.   DOI
26 Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shavelson, R. J., & Shemwell, J. T. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 175-196.   DOI
27 Garfield, J., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008b). Research on teaching and learning statistics. In J. Garfield & D. Ben-Zvi. (Eds.), Developing students statistical reasoning: Connecting research and teaching practice (pp. 21-43). New York: Springer.
28 GAISE (2005). Guidelines for assessment and instruction in statistics education (GAISE) college report. The American Statistical Association (ASA). Retrieved June 4, 2014, from www.amstat.org/education/gaise/GAISECollege.htm
29 Garfield, J. (2002). The challenge of developing statistical reasoning. Journal of Statistics Education, 10(3). www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v10n3/garfield.htm
30 Garfield, J., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008a). Developing students statistical reasoning: Connecting research and teaching practice. New York: Springer.
31 Garfield, J., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008c). Creating statistical reasoning environments. In J. Garfield & D. Ben-Zvi. (Eds.), Developing students statistical reasoning: Connecting research and teaching practice (pp. 45-63). New York: Springer.
32 Granberg, D., & Brown, T. A. (1995). The Monty Hall dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(7), 711-723.   DOI
33 Inglis, M., Mejia-Ramos, J. P., & Simpson, A. (2007). Modelling mathematical argumentation: The importance of qualification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 3-21.   DOI
34 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.   DOI
35 Khisty, L., & Chval, K. (2002). Pedagogic discourse and equity in mathematics: When teachers' talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14, 154-168.   DOI
36 Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.   DOI
37 Kopperschmidt, J. (1985). An analysis of argumentation. In T. A. Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis, vol 2 (pp. 159-168). New York: Academic Press.
38 Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229-269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39 Kutzler, B. (2003). CAS as pedagogical tools for teaching and learning mathematics. In T. Fey, A. Cuoco, C. Kieran, L. McMullin, R. M. Zbiek (Eds.), Computer algebra systems in secondary school mathematics education (pp. 53-71). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, INC.
40 Lovett, M. (2001). A collaborative convergence on studying reasoning processes: A case study in statistics. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 347-384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41 Magalhaes, M., & Martinho, M. H. (2012). The role of graphical calculator in developing mathematical argumentation. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education Topic Study Group 19 (pp. 3888-3897). Seoul, Korea.
42 Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.   DOI
43 Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.   DOI
44 Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.   DOI
45 McCrone, S. S. (2005). The development of mathematical discussion: An investigation in a fifth grade classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(2), 111-133.   DOI
46 Miller, M. (1987). Argumentation and cognition. In M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought (pp. 225-249). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
47 Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39). Amsterdam, NY: Teachers College Press.
48 Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.   DOI
49 Otte, M. (2006). Mathematical epistemology from a Peircean semiotic point of view. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1-2), 11-38.   DOI
50 Patterson, M. C., Harmel, B., & Friesen, D. (2010). A spreadsheet simulation of the Monty Hall Problem. American Journal of Business Education, 3(2), 1-14.
51 Pedemonte, B. (2007). How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 23-41.   DOI
52 Pedemonte, B., & Reid, D. (2011). The role of abduction in proving processes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(3), 281-303.   DOI
53 Salmon, W. C. (2008). 논리학 (곽강제 번역.). 서울: 박영사. (원본출판 1984).
54 Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols I-VI. C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55 Rosenhouse, J. (2009). The Monty Hall problem: The remarkable story of math's most contentious brain teaser. Madison, NY: Oxford University Press.
56 Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1995). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
57 Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.   DOI
58 Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59 Shaughnessy, J. M. (2007). Research on statistics learning and reasoning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: a project of the national council of teachers of Mathematics (pp. 957-1010). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
60 Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.   DOI
61 Sprenger, J. (2010). Probability, rational single-case decisions and the Monty Hall problem. Synthese, 174(3), 331-340.   DOI
62 Stephan, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 459-490.   DOI
63 Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher's role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathrmatics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516-551.   DOI
64 Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65 Vincent, J., Chick, H., & McCrae, B. (2005). Argumentation profile charts as tools for analysing students' argumentations. In H. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4 (pp. 281-288). Melbourne, Australia: IGPME.
66 Walpole, E. (2012). 핵심 확률 및 통계학. (로널드 월폴, 레이먼드 마이어스, 섀런 마이어스, 키잉 예, 김붕선, 유영관, 박종천, 이상호 번역.). New York: Pearson Education. (원본출판 2012).
67 Weber, K., & Alcock, L. (2005). Using warranted implications to understand and validate proofs. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(1), 34-51.
68 Weber, K., Maher, C., Powell, A., & Lee, H. S. (2008). Learning opportunities from group discussions: Warrants become the objects of debate. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(3), 247-261.   DOI
69 Yackel, E. (2001). Explanation, justification and argumentation in mathematics classrooms. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 9-23). Utrecht, Netherlands: IGPME.