id: 06458047
dt: j
an: 2015e.00275
au: Radakovic, Nenad
ti: Pedagogy of risk: why and how should we teach risk in high school math
classes?
so: Math. Enthus. 12, No. 1-3, 307-329 (2015).
py: 2015
pu: Information Age Publishing (IAP), Charlotte, NC; University of Montana,
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Missoula, MT
la: EN
cc: D30 K90 C20 C60 K50 K70
ut: risk; decision making; stochastics; probability theory; statistics;
teaching; research; case studies; upper secondary; learning; risk
literacy; inquiry-based learning; rational numbers; number concepts;
number sense; risk estimation; mathematics and culture; deficit theory
of risk; pedagogical model of risk; role of context; role of content
knowledge; attitudes
ci:
li: http://www.math.umt.edu/tmme/vol12no1thru3/23_Radakovic.pdf
ab: Summary: Risk is everywhere yet the concept of risk is seldom investigated
in high school mathematics. After presenting arguments for teaching
risk in the context of high school mathematics, the article describes a
case study of teaching risk in two grade 11 classes in Canada-an
all-boy independent school (23 boys) and a publicly funded religious
school (19 girls and 4 boys). The findings suggest that the students
possessed intuitive knowledge that risk of an event should be assessed
by both its likelihood and its impact. Following and amending pedagogic
model of risk, the study suggests that pedagogy of risk should include
five components: 1) knowledge, beliefs, and values; 2) judgment of
impact; 3) judgment of probability; 4) representations; and 5)
estimation of risk. These components do not necessarily appear in the
instruction or studentsâ€™ decision making in chronological order;
furthermore, they influence each other. The implication for mathematics
education is that a meaningful instruction about risk should go beyond
mathematical representations and reasoning and include other components
of the pedagogy of risk. The article also illustrates the importance of
reasoning about rational numbers (rates, ratios, and fractions) and
their critical interpretation in the pedagogy of risk.
rv: