My research interests over the past few years have varied.
However, research and scholarly activity allows me to reflect upon
how I teach as well as how students learn. Primarily my research
interests fall within the realm of mathematics/statistics
education. However, I have had some research interests that lie
beyond mathematics/statistics education. On this page, you will
find some information about my current projects as well as some past
projects.
My current research in mathematics/statistics education entails
multiple projects.
My primary research (i.e. my dissertation) focuses on conceiving of the distribution of a random variable as the accumulation of outcomes of a random process with respect to the value of the random variable under study. Through my research I'm attempting to identify progress measures that I can use to inform a hypothetical learning trajectory for my proposed conception of the distribution of a random variable. Potential sites for progress measures include students' conceptions of the following: a trial/case, a random process, randomness and independence, a random variable, accumulation, and probability. As my research progresses, I will make as much available as I can here.
I made the following animation to show how I think about Statistics.
For the past five years, I've worked with Dr. Pat Thompson on
Project Aspire (NSF funded grant) with several other colleagues. The
aim of the project is to develop two instruments centered on
secondary high school teachers' mathematical meanings for teaching.
We intend for the first instrument (called the MMTsm) to allow
insight into the nature of the mathematical meanings that teacher
has for different mathematical concepts within the
algebra/pre-caluclus secondary curriculum. The mathematical areas
that we examine in the MMTsm include: co-variation (including
variation and variables), functions (functions, functions as models,
and function notation), frames of reference, rate of change,
proportionality, reasoning with magnitudes, and representational
equivalence (structure sense). The second instrument is an
extension of the Instructional Quality Assessment with the aim to
help us capture mathematical meanings that a teacher presents during
the course of instruction. While I work on many of the different
aspects of the project, I spend a fair amount of time looking at
teachers' meanings and use of syntactic structure within
mathematics. (Also on the grant are Dr. Marilyn Carlson, Dr. Mark
Wilson (Berkeley), Karen Draney (Berkeley), Dr. Stacy Musgrave
(post-doc), and fellow graduate students Cameron Byerley, Hyunkyoung
Yoon, and Surani Joshua.)
Within the context of Project Aspire, I'm involved in examining areas dealing with representational equivalence, functions (in particular function notation), and frames of reference. While these areas seem very different from my primary research area of statistics education, I find that paying attention to students' conceptions within each of these areas is of vital importance in statistics education. Given that statistics are functions from $\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, how students understand and think about functions and function notation becomes central starting with descriptive statistics. Recognizing that the sample arithmetic mean is a function and not a value is often glossed over in many introductory statistics courses. Representational equivalence (an aspect of structure sense) plays roles in introductory statistics courses, upper-division and graduate-level calculus based courses. The two sides of representational equivalence, equality-preserving transformations and the substitution principle, assist student in parsing and building meaning for expressions as well as recognizing potential transformations (e.g. recognizing the kernel of a particular probability density function). Finally, how students' think within frames of reference plays an role in hypothesis testing and design of experiments. Any time use a test involving differences, students must commit to thinking within a frame of reference that way the values of the differences for the observations all have consistent and coherent meanings. Additionally, students must reconcile one-tailed hypothesis with the frame of reference they constructed when dealing with the data.
Consider the following example: A researcher collected $n$ observations on the same attribute for two populations, say $X$ and $Y$. The researcher has reason to believe that for some parameter of interest, say $\theta$, the value of this parameter will be greater for the $X$ population than the $Y$ population. Thus, the researcher tests $H_0:\theta_X =\theta_Y$ vs. $H_1: \theta_X>\theta_Y$. If the researcher thinks with the frame of reference where $Y-X$, then the researcher will end up doing a "lower-tail test". However, if the researcher thinks within an alternate frame of reference where $X-Y$, then the researcher does an "upper-tail test". The reconciliation between a hypothesis and how the student/researcher thinks in terms of a frame of reference becomes important area that is often left out of statistics courses.
I've found myself drawn to the field of Communication time and time again. This partially stems from my experiences in competing in forensics during my undergraduate career. I've dabbled with two lines of research dealing with communication and mathematics; reading/writing and discussion groups.
Early in my career as a mathematics education researcher, I found
myself drawn to not only researching how we teach mathematics, but
also how we teach mathematics communication skills. (This is
probably where my speech geek comes out to play.) I believe that it
is well-worth our time and effort as educators to study how we
communicate as mathematicians and how we can get students of all
levels to communicate mathematically and effectively. We should not
limit ourselves to only working on getting mathematics majors to
improve their mathematical communication skills, but also work on
getting all students to improve their mathematical communication
skills.
To this end, I have began my research career by looking into the
blending of mathematics pedagogy with reading instruction, writing
instruction, and reading and writing instruction. This gave birth
to the research project entitled "Investigation into Mathematics
Teaching Strategies Blending Reading and Writing" that I conducted
in Spring 2010. This study worked with developmental, undergraduate
students at a medium-sized Midwest university. I spoke on the
theoretical underpinnings and some preliminary results stemming from
this research at the 2010 Missouri Section meeting of MAA. I then
presented the final results from this project at the 2011 NCTM
Annual Meeting and Exposition in Indianapolis, IN.
I learned a significant amount from this project; particularly about
getting students to read mathematics effectively. I have continued
with this idea during the Fall 2010 semester to see what developed
further. This research project helped me discover that I am truly
passionate about mathematics education research. I enjoyed it.
In the spring of 2011, I began to study the effect of weekly
discussion of the mathematics being presented to undergraduate
students. I was curious about the effect of the number of "expert
presenters" that were present during the discussion. Based off of
an initial wave of research, I initiated a research project based
off the concept of Literature Circles (as framed by Harvey
Daniels). I worked with a developmental mathematics class
(Intermediate Algebra). The research project looked at a control
group as well as three discussion groups. There was one discussion
group that had two experts, one group that had three experts and one
discussion group that had just one expert. Data collection finished
in May 2011. However, starting my Ph.D. program has put a hold on
this research project. I do intend to return to this project and
conduct quantitative and qualitative analysis on the collected data.