Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to improve statistical thinking: Choose the task representation wisely and learn by doing

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Attempts to teach statistical thinking usingcorrective feedback or a “rule-training” approach havebeen only moderately successful. A new trainingapproach is proposed which relies on the assumptionthat the human mind is naturally equipped to solvemany statistical tasks in which the relevantinformation is presented in terms of absolutefrequencies instead of probabilities. In aninvestigation of this approach, people were trained tosolve tasks involving conjunctive and conditionalprobabilities using a frequency grid to representprobability information. It is suggested that learningby doing, whose importance was largely neglected inprior training studies, has played a major role in thecurrent training. Study 1 showed that training thatcombines external pictorial representations andlearning by doing has a large and lasting effect onhow well people can solve conjunctive probabilitytasks. A ceiling effect prevented comparison of thefrequency grid and a conventional pictorialrepresentation (Venn diagrams) with respect toeffectiveness. However, the grid representation wasfound to be more effective in Study 2, which dealtwith the more difficult topic of conditionalprobabilities. These results suggest methods tooptimize the teaching of statistical thinking and thepresentation of statistical information in themedia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apple Computer, Inc. (1992). Macintosh Common Lisp Reference. Cupertino, CA.

  • Agnoli, F. & Krantz, D.H. (1989). Suppressing natural heuristics by formal instruction: the case of the conjunction fallacy. Cognitive Psychology 21: 515–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.R. (1995). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist 51: 355–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K. & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4: 167–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anzai, Y. & Simon, H.A. (1979). The theory of learning by doing. Psychological Review 86: 124–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkes, H.R. & Hammond, K.R., eds (1986). Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, M. & Falk, R. (1982). Some teasers concerning conditional probabilities. Cognition 11: 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benassi, V.A. & Knoth, R.L. (1993). The intractable conjunction fallacy: statistical sophistication, instructional set, and training. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality 8: 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyth-Marom, R. & Dekel, S. (1983). A curriculum to improve thinking under uncertainty. Instructional Science 12: 67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyth-Marom, R., Dekel, S., Gombo, R. & Shaked, M. (1985). An Elementary Approach to Thinking under Uncertainty. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biehler, R. (1991). Computers in probability education. In R. Kapadia & M Borovcnik, eds, Chance Encounters: Probability in Education. A Review of Research and PedagogicalPerspectives. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casscells, W., Schoenberger, A. & Grayboys, T. (1978). Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results. New England Journal of Medicine 299: 999–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist 45: 1304–1312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112: 155–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, W.G. (1988). Three graphic representations to aid Bayesian inference. Methods of Informatics in Medicine 27: 125–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition 58: 1–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, C.S. & Greenfield, B. (1986). Understanding the conjunction fallacy: a conjunction of effects? Social Cognition 4: 408–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R.M. (1988). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, D.M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky, eds, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pp. 249–267. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, K. (1988). The dependence of the conjunction fallacy on subtle linguistic factors. Psychological Research 50: 123–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbein, E. (1975). The Intuitive Sources of Probabilistic Thinking in Children. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisk, J.E. & Pidgeon, N. (1997). The conjunction fallacy: the case for the existence of competing heuristic strategies. British Journal of Psychology 88: 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, G.T. & Nisbett, R.E. (1991). Immediate and delayed transfer of training effects in statistical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 120: 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, G.T., Krantz, D.H. & Nisbett, R.E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology 18: 253–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, J. & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in learning basic concepts in probability and statistics: Implications for research. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 19: 44–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavanski, I. & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. (1991). Representativeness and conjoint probability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61: 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1994).Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is important for psychology (and vice versa). In G. Wright & P. Ayton, eds, Subjective Probability. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky (1996). Psychological Review 103: 592–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Ecological intelligence: An adaptation for frequencies. In D.E. Cummins & C. Allen, eds, The Evolution of Mind, pp. 9–29. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review 102: 684–704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction. Annual Review of Psychology 40: 631–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1992). Bully for Brontosaurus: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R. (1995). Why Dr. Gould' Homunculus Doesn't Think Like Dr. Gould: The “Conjunction Fallacy” Reconsidered. Konstanz: Hartung-Gorre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrage, U. & Gigerenzer, G. (1988). Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Academic Medicine 73: 538–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review 103: 582–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A., eds (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D. (1984). Transition processes in quantitative development. In R.J. Sternberg, ed., Mechanisms of Cognitive Development, pp. 101–140. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzmak, S.D. & Gelman, R. (1986). Young children' understanding of random phenomena. Child Development 57: 559–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legree, P.J. & Gillis, P.D. (1991). Product effectiveness evaluation criteria for intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 18: 57–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman, S.T., van den Brink, W.P. & Hoogstraten, J. (1988). Effect of feedback on base-rate utilization. Perceptual and Motor Skills 67: 343–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, G.R. (1996). Psychology will be a much better science when we change the way we analyze data. Current Directions in Psychological Science 5: 161–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. (1975). A framework of representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston, ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision, pp. 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neches, R. (1984). Learning through incremental refinement of procedures. In D. Klahr, P. Langley & R. Neches, eds, Production System Models of Learning and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulos, J.A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C.R., DuCharme, W.M. & Edwards, W. (1968). Sampling distributions and probability revision. Journal of Experimental Psychology 76: 236–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1975). The Origin of the Idea of Chance in Children (L. Leake, Jr., P. Burrel and H. D. Fishbein, trans.). New York: Norton & Company (Original work published 1951).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ploger, D. & Wilson, M. (1991). Statistical reasoning: What is the role of inferential rule training? Comment on Fong and Nisbett. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 120: 213–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollatsek, A., Well, A.D., Konold, C., Hardiman, P. & Cobb, G. (1987). Understanding Conditional Probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 40: 255–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T.M. (1986). The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820- 1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, L.M. & Weisberg, R.W. (1993). Abstract versus concrete information as the basis for transfer in problem solving: Comment on Fong and Nisbett (1991). Journal of Experimental Psychology 122: 125–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R.L. (1991). Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosnow, R.L. & Rosenthal, R. (1996). Computing contrasts, effect sizes, and counternulls on other people' published data: General procedures for research consumers. Psychological Methods 1: 331–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, R.E. (1976). The evaluation of individual and aggregated subjective probability distributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 17: 199–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F.L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods 1: 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier, P. (1993). Training zum Denken unter Unsicherheit [Training on thinking under uncertainty]. In W. Hell, K. Fiedler & G. Gigerenzer, eds, Kognitive Täuschungen (Cognitive Illusions), pp. 129–160. Heidelberg: Spektrum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier, P. (1996). Jenseits des Signifikanztest-Rituals: Ergänzungen und Alternativen [Beyond the ritual of significance testing: Alternative and supplementary methods]. Methods of Psychological Research Online 1(4) [http://www.hsp.de/MPR/].

  • Sedlmeier, P. (1997). BasicBayes: A tutor system for simple Bayesian inference. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 29: 328–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier, P. (1998). The distribution matters: Two types of sample size tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11: 281–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier, P. (1999). Improving Statistical Reasoning: Theoretical Models and Practical Implications. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier, P., & Robles de Acuña-Ponseti, J. (1992). “Intelligente” Hilfe beim Lösen von alltagsnahen Wahrscheinlichkeitsproblemen: Modellierung dynamischer Wissensinhalte für ein flexibles Tutorsystem. [“Intelligent” help in solving probability problems with everyday applications: Modeling of dynamic knowledge in a flexible tutor system]. Kognitionswissenschaft 3: 24–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier, P. & Wettler, M. (1998). Was muß ein Tutorsystem “wissen”? [What should a tutoring system “know”?] Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 12: 219–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaugnessy, J.M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions. In D.A. Grouws, ed., Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, pp. 465–494. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1977). Causal thinking in judgment under uncertainty. In R.E. Butts & J. Hintikka, eds, Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics, pp. 167–190. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90: 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolford, G., Taylor, H.A. & Beck, J.R. (1990). The conjunction fallacy? Memory & Cognition 18: 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X. & Simon, H.A. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction 4: 137–166.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität-GH Paderborn, FB 2 – Psychologie, 33095, Paderborn, Germany

    Peter Sedlmeier

Authors
  1. Peter Sedlmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sedlmeier, P. How to improve statistical thinking: Choose the task representation wisely and learn by doing. Instructional Science 28, 227–262 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003802232617

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003802232617

Search

Navigation