The Study on the Performance of Data Processing of Sixth Graders with the Concept of the PPDAC Cycle

• Main Authors: Chung,Wen-Mao, 鐘文懋
• Other Authors: Chen,Hsing-Me
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2011
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/whj6y7

碩士 === 國立臺北教育大學 === 數學暨資訊教育學系(含數學教育碩士班) === 99 === The PPDAC (Problem, Plan, Data, Analysis, Conclusions) cycle includes 5 steps of statistical process: Framing the problem , Formulating the plan, Obtaining the data ; Analyzing the data, Delivering the conclusions. The statistical thinking is constantly applied in the PPDAC Cycle to consider about “What to do”, “How to do it” and “Why we should do”. Therefore, the PPDAC cycle is quite crucial in statistical process. This research compares PPDAC with Statistics and Probability of Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines in Mathematics, and discovering that Curriculum Guidelines only correlate with “Analyzing the data” (Analysis) in PPDAC investigative cycle. For more advanced research on student textbooks in Statistics and Probability in Taiwan, we found it even incoherent in the same step (Analysis). Further focusing on students accomplishment in data processing with the current curriculums and designs, this research takes PPDAC points of view to analyze the investigative cycle of elementary school students. A survey based on PPDAC is designed to test the 6th grade students, which covers 2 main parts: (Analysis) and (Conclusions). Meanwhile, (A) part is separated by “organizing the data” and “observing the trend”; (C) part is divided into “conclusions”, “new ideas” and “reflections”. The survey is conducted by 2 tests separately to find out the impact on 6th grade students proficiency. Each test differs in the question 1 format only: opening answers are allowed at the 1st test; while standard graphics are given at the 2nd test. The results are evaluated by 4 proficiency levels as followed: Level one: students at this level cannot organize the data and explain the trend correctly, neither proposing related problems nor making objective conclusions and reflections. Level two: students at this level can organize the data, but making mistakes some or less. The abilities to propose related problems, make objective conclusions and reflections are none to be detected. Level three: students at this level are the majority, who can organize the data correctly but somewhat in an inappropriate way. The performances in proposing related problems, making objective conclusions and reflections remain unstable. Level four: students at this level are the most minority, but with the best proficiency among others, who can organize the data, observe the trend, and make conclusions correctly. However, the ability to propose related problems is unstable. Based on the survey results above, we hereby make some advice to the current “Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines” as the conclusions of this research.