Targeting consequences of variability as a cognitive resource in data literacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52041/iase24.505Abstract
Variability is core to statistical thinking but is often neglected in other disciplines such as engineering. Our previous study developed the concept of targeting: responding to the consequences of variability. That study found that practicing engineers targeted variability at a low rate (~51% of tasks). It was unclear, however, whether lack of targeting is a prevalent misconception, or if targeting is a cognitive resource that some have trouble deploying. The present study investigated the rate at which college engineering students targeted variability in everyday scenarios and piloted a survey instrument for the targeting behavior. We found that students in our sample targeted at a very high rate (~90% of tasks), suggesting targeting should be considered a cognitive resource. Practically, statistics and data science educators can use targeting as a bridge between statistical thinking and making decisions under variability in other domains.References
Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006
Bose, D., Segui-Gomez, ScD, M., & Crandall, J. R. (2011). Vulnerability of female drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes: An analysis of US population at risk. American Journal of Public Health, 101(12), 2368–2373. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300275
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
del Rosario, Z. (2024). Neglected, acknowledged, or targeted: A conceptual framing of variability, data analysis, and domain consequences. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 32(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2024.2308119
del Rosario, Z., Fenrich, R. W., & Iaccarino, G. (2021). When are allowables conservative? AIAA Journal, 59(5), 1760–1772. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J059578
Deming, W. E. (2018). Out of the crisis (Reissue). MIT Press.
diSessa, A. A. (2014). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 88–108). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.007
GAO. (2023). Vehicle safety: DOT should take additional actions to improve the information obtained from crash test dummies (GAO-23-105595). U.S. Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105595
Ginosar, R. (2003). Fourteen ways to fool your synchronizer. Ninth International Symposium on Asynchronous Circuits and Systems, 2003. Proceedings., 89–96. IEEE Computer Society https://doi.org/10.1109/ASYNC.2003.1199169
Hadley, K., & Oyetunji, W. (2022). Extending the theoretical framework of numeracy to engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(2), 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20453
Kay, M., Kola, T., Hullman, J. R., & Munson, S. A. (2016). When (ish) is my bus?: User-centered visualizations of uncertainty in everyday, mobile predictive systems. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5092–5103. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858558
Reinhart, A., Evans, C., Luby, A., Orellana, J., Meyer, M., Wieczorek, J., Elliott, P., Burckhardt, P., & Nugent, R. (2022). Think-aloud interviews: A tool for exploring student statistical reasoning. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 30(2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/26939169.2022.2063209
Rose, T. (2015). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness (First Edition). HarperOne.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed). SAGE.
Vo, K., Evans, A., Madan, S., & del Rosario, Z. (2023). A scoping review of engineering textbooks to quantify the teaching of uncertainty. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2013). Quality in interpretive engineering education research: Reflections on an example study. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20029
Wild, C. J., & Pfannkuch, M. (1999). Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry. International Statistical Review, 67(3), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.1999.tb00442.x
