An update to the design and delivery of an introductory statistics subject for a large student cohort with diverse educational backgrounds and chosen qualifications
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21100/msor.v24i3.1673Keywords:
Higher education, undergraduate statistics, flexible curriculum, diverse educational requirements, assessmentAbstract
This is a case study update on the design, delivery and performance of a first-year undergraduate statistics subject (or course/unit/module), entitled Making Sense of Data, at La Trobe University. This subject is taught both face-to-face and online to a large cohort of students across a number of domestic and international campuses. In order to support the diverse educational backgrounds and chosen qualifications of students, Making Sense of Data contains both a solid foundation of core statistics content, and a stream-specific component. All students cover the core content, and the stream content that best aligns with their chosen qualification(s). This flexible, accessible structure helps ensure that the subject’s intended learning outcomes are met whilst highlighting the relevance of statistics for each student’s field of study and allowing for stream-specific lectures, assessments and statistical software to be used. In this paper we discuss various feedback-based refinements implemented iteratively in Making Sense of Data in recent years, including adjustments to classes, learning content, assessments, and student support, as well as adjustments made in response to the emergence of Generative AI. We evaluate how these changes to the subject have impacted student outcomes in terms of engagement, satisfaction and performance.
References
American Statistical Association, 2016. Guidelines for assessment and instruction in statistics education (GAISE) college report. ASA. Available at: https://www.amstat.org/education/guidelines-for-assessment-and-instruction-in-statistics-education-(gaise)-reports [Accessed: 27 November 2025].
Bakker, A. and Gravemeijer, K., 2004. Learning to reason about distribution. In: D. Ben-Zvi and J. Garfield (eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking, pp.147-169. Springer.
Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., and Ajjawi, R., 2024. Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), pp.893-905. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321
Black, P. and Wiliam, D., 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), pp.7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Bergmann, J. and Sams, A., 2014. Flipped Learning Gateway to Student Engagement. Eugene: ISTE.
Borenstein, J., and Howard, A. 2021. Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education. Ai and Ethics (Online), 1(1), pp.61-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7
Chew, P.K. and Dillon, D.B., 2014. Statistics anxiety update: Refining the construct and recommendations for a new research agenda. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), pp.196-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613518077
Cobb, G.W., 2007. The introductory statistics course: a Ptolemaic curriculum? Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/T511000028
Chiesi, F. and Primi, C., 2010. Cognitive and non-cognitive factors related to students’ statistics achievement. Statistics Education Research Journal, 9(1), pp.6-26. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v9i1.385
Cotton, D.R.E., Cotton, P. and Shipway, J., 2023. Chatting and cheating: ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), pp.162-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
Cogniti (no date) Cogniti AI. [online]. Available at: https://cogniti.ai/ [Accessed: 23 November 2025].
Dunn, P. K. 2025. Generative AI may impact students’ marks: a case study from a large first-year statistics course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, pp.1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2025.2539711
Ertmer, P.A., and Newby, T.J., 1993. Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), pp.50-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x
Fielding, J., Makar, K., and Ben-Zvi, D. 2025. Developing students’ reasoning with data and data-ing: Developing students’ reasoning with data and data-ing. ZDM, 57(1), pp.1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01671-6
Folwell, E. J. and Brennan, J. D., 2025. Assessment by engagement: building confidence and autonomy in the first year. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(6), pp.819-832. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2483268
Garfield, J. and Ben-Zvi, D., 2007. How students learn statistics revisited: a current review of research. International Statistical Review, 75(3), pp.372-394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2007.00029.x
Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C., 2005. Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, pp.3-31. Available at: https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/3609/ [Accessed: 27 November 2025].
Hsu, Y.-C. 2024. Mapping the Landscape of Data Science Education in Higher General Education in Taiwan: A Comprehensive Syllabi Analysis. Education Sciences, 14(7), p.763. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070763
Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., and Martinez-Maldonado, R. 2025. Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines. Computers and Education. Artificial Intelligence, 8, Article 100348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K. et al., 2023. ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, p.102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274
Kuveke, R. E. H., Shaker, A. J., and Prendergast, L. 2024. Designing an introductory statistics subject for students with diverse educational backgrounds and chosen qualifications. MSOR Connections (Online), 22(3), pp.17-28. https://doi.org/10.21100/msor.v22i3.1480
Liu, D.Y.T., Bartimote-Aufflick, K., Pardo, A., and Bridgeman, A.J. 2017. Data-Driven
Personalization of Student Learning Support in Higher Education. In A. Peña-Ayala, ed. Learning
Analytics: Fundaments, Applications, and Trends. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31952977-6_5
Macher, D., Paechter, M., Papousek, I. and Ruggeri, K., 2012. Statistics anxiety, trait anxiety, learning behavior, and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(4), pp.483-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0090-5
McArthur, J., 2023, Rethinking authentic assessment: work, well-being, and society. Higher Education, 85(1), pp.85-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00822-y
Marshall, E., Shaker, A., Riach, A., and Haigney, D., 2022. Evaluating strategies used to reduce statistics anxiety. CETL-MSOR 2024. Arbertay University, UK, 1-2 September 2022.
Marshall, E.M., Staddon, R.V., Wilson, D.A. and Mann, V.E., 2017. Addressing maths anxiety within the curriculum. MSOR Connections, 15(3), p.28. https://doi.org/10.21100/msor.v15i3.555
Mattanah, J., Holt, L., Feinn, R., Bowley, O., Marszalek, K., Albert, E., Abduljalil, M., Daramola, D., Gim, J., Visalli, T., Boarman, R., & Katzenberg, C. 2024. Faculty-student rapport, student engagement, and approaches to collegiate learning: exploring a mediational model. Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 43(28), pp.23505-23516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06096-0
Neumann, R., 2001. Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), pp.135-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120052071
Nicol, D. J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D., 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp.199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Wilson, V.A., 2003. Statistics Anxiety: Nature, etiology, antecedents, effects, and treatments--a comprehensive review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), pp.195-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052447
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., 2004. Academic procrastination and statistics anxiety. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, pp.3-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000160384
Paechter, M., Macher, D., Martskvishvili, K., Wimmer, S. and Papousek, I., 2017. Mathematics anxiety and statistics anxiety: shared but also unshared components and antagonistic contributions to performance in statistics. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, p.1196. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01196
R Core Team, 2025. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 4.5.2). [Computer Software] R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/
Riach, A.C., Shaker, A.J., Marshall, E., Binkowski, K.P. and Kay, W.P., 2025. A comparison of strategies used by lecturers to improve students' perceived feelings toward statistics - A study that is Stat‐tastic!. Teaching Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1111/test.12408
Rumsey, D.J., 2002. Statistical literacy as a goal for introductory statistics courses. Journal of Statistics Education, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2002.11910678
Shaker, A., 2025, November 24. A framework for incorporating evaluative judgement of generative AI outputs in higher education statistics assessment. In J. Pettigrew, A. Shaker, and D. Shearman (Ed.), The 12th Delta conference on the teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics and statistics: Navigating the curves of undergraduate mathematics and statistics education proceedings. Meanjin Delta 2025.
Shaker, A.J., Hurst, P.S., and Marshall, E.M., 2021. The effect of Kahoot on undergraduate student anxiety and confidence when studying statistics. MSOR Connections, 19(2), pp.41-54. https://doi.org/10.21100/msor.v19i2.1245
Shaker, A.J., Riach, A., Marshall, E., Kuveke, R., El-Ayoubi, M., 2025. Low-stakes early assessment in Higher Education statistics: Reducing anxiety, building confidence and improving student performance [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Sallam, M., 2023. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel), 11, p.887. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887
The jamovi project, 2025. jamovi (Version 2.6) [Computer Software] The jamovi project. Available at: https://www.jamovi.org
Trassi, A.P., Leonard, S.J., Rodrigues, L.D., Rodas, J.A., and Santos, F.H., 2022. Mediating factors of statistics anxiety in university students: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1512(1), pp.76–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14746
Tishkovskaya, S. and Lancaster, G., 2012. Statistical education in the 21st century: a review of challenges, teaching innovations and strategies for reform. Journal of Statistics Education, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2012.11889641
Vicente, P.C., Pires, L.M., Martins, R. and Nascimento, J., 2025. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A DIGITAL APPLICATION TO SUPPORT THE LEARNING OF STATISTICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Approaches to Sustainable Development Goals-(Book of Proceedings), p.38.
Wild, C.J. and Pfannkuch, M., 1999. Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry. International Statistical Review, 67(3), pp.223–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.1999.tb00442.x
Zeidner, M., 1991. Statistics and mathematics anxiety in social science students: some interesting parallels. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(3), pp.319–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1991.tb00989.x
