Search for: All records

As computation becomes increasingly central to mathematics education, instructors must balance competing forces when choosing which computational tools to use in their courses. This is compounded in probability and statistics where computation is widely used. Grounded in a social constructivist perspective, we believe that tools mediate our activities and that different tools play different mediational roles. As such, this study explores how different computational tools mediate undergraduate students' mathematical activity of argumentation. Using Toulmin’s argument model, this research investigates how two classes in probability and statistics using different computational tools, R or Minitab, performed on a mirrored assignment. Through analysis of students’ assignments, a difference emerged across the classes use of visuals. Our findings suggest Minitab promoted more deliberate consideration and use of visuals than R, leading to a difference in arguments produced by the students.