Abstract
In this reflective paper, I explore the thinking of a group of pre-service teachers as they reason about experimental probability and theoretical probability. I am particularly interested in investigating whether pre-service teachers could construct a bidirectional link between the experimental probability and theoretical probability, similar to the tentative model I introduce elsewhere (2008) for coordinating the two perspectives on distribution. Overall, this research study contributes to understanding how pre-service students can build connections to help teachers conceptualize and support students to embrace elements that act as connections between the two approaches to probability.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These agents are not causal in the sense of direct cause and effect; they are called “quasi-causal” because they are invented by students while manipulating tools provided within a pseudo-real content: the computer-based basketball simulation used in the study.
References
Abrahamson, D., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Learning axes and bridging tools in a technology-based design for statistics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 12(1), 23–55. doi:10.1007/s10758-007-9110-6.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2010). Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. Version 1.1. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au.
Batanero, C., Henry, M., & Parzysz, B. (2005). The nature of chance and probability. In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 15–37). New York, NY: Springer.
Borovcnik, M. (2011). Strengthening the role of probability within statistics curricula. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics—challenges for teaching and teacher education, a joint ICMI/IASE study: The 18th ICMI study (pp. 71–83). New York, NY: Springer.
Borovcnik, M., Bentz, J., & Kapadia, R. (1991). A probability perspective. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 27–71). Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
Chaput, M., Girard, J.-C., & Henry, M. (2011). Frequentist approach: Modelling and simulation in statistics and probability teaching. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics—challenges for teaching and teacher education, a joint ICMI/IASE study: The 18th ICMI study (pp. 85–95). New York: Springer.
Drier, H. S. (2000). Children’s meaning-making activity with dynamic multiple representations in a probability microworld. In M. Fernandez (Ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-second annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 691–696). AZ: Tucson.
Fischbein, E. (1975). The intuitive sources of probabilistic thinking in children. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Friel, S. N., O’ Connor, W., & Mamer, J. D. (2006). More than “meanmedianmode” and a bar graph: What’s needed to have a statistical conversation? In G. F. Burrill (Ed.), Thinking and reasoning with data and chance: Sixty-eighth yearbook (pp. 117–137). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Hawkins, A., & Kapadia, R. (1984). Children’s conceptions of probability: A psychological and pedagogical review. Educational Studies in Mathematics., 15(4), 349–377. doi:10.1007/BF00311112.
Ireland, S., & Watson, J. (2009). Building a connection between experimental and theoretical aspects of probability. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(30), 339–370. Retrieved from IEJME website: http://www.iejme.com/032009/main.htm.
Langrall, C., & Mooney, E. (2005). Characteristics of elementary school students’ probabilistic reasoning. In G. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 95–119). New York, NY: Springer.
Nemetz, T. (1997). An overview of the teaching of probability in secondary schools. In B. Phillips (Ed.), Papers on statistical education presented at ICME9 (pp. 75–86). Hawthorn, Australia: Swinburne University.
New South Wales Board of Studies. (2011). Mathematics K-10 draft syllabus. Sydney, Australia: New South Wales Board of Studies.
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1992). Looking back and looking forward. In C. Hoyles & R. Noss (Eds.), Learning mathematics and logo (pp. 431–468). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: learning cultures and computers. London, UK: Kluwer Academic.
Parzysz, B. (2003). From frequency to probability. Some questions posed by the new French senior high school curricula. In Paper presented at the 54th International Statistical Institute, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/3/3193.pdf.
Pratt, D. (1998). The co-ordination of meanings for randomness. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(3), 2–11. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40248272?uid=3738664&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47699108835957.
Pratt, D. (2000). Making sense of the total of two dice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 602–625. doi:10.2307/749889.
Prodromou, T. (2007). Making connections between the two perspectives on distribution. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 801–810). Larnaca, Cyprus. Retrieved from http://ermeweb.free.fr/CERME5b/.
Prodromou, T. (2008). Connecting distribution (Unpublished doctoral thesis). UK: University of Warwick.
Prodromou, T. (2012). Students’ construction of meanings about the co-ordination of the two epistemological perspectives on distribution. International Journal of Statistics and Probability, 1(2). doi:10.5539/ijsp.v1n2pxx.
Prodromou, T., & Pratt, D. (2006). The role of causality in the coordination of two perspectives on distribution within a virtual simulation. Statistics Education Research Journal, 5(2), 69–88. Retrieved from http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/serj/SERJ5%282%29_Prod_Pratt.pdf.
Robson, C. (1993). Real world research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., Rochelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1466679?uid=3738664&uid=2&uid=4&sid=47699108883117.
Steinbring, H. (1991). The theoretical nature of probability in the classroom. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 135–168). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Stohl, H, S., Angotti, L. R., & Tarr, J. E. (2010). Making comparisons between observed data and expected outcomes: Students’ informal hypothesis testing with probability simulation tools. Statistics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 68–96. Retrieved from http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/serj/SERJ9(1)_Lee.pdf.
Stohl, H., & Tarr, J. E. (2002). Developing notions of inference with probability simulation tools. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(3), 319–337.
von Mises, R. (1952). Probability, statistics and truth (trans: Neyman, J., Scholl, O., & Rabinovtich, E.). London, UK: William Hodge and Company.
Watson, J. M. (2006). Statistical literacy at school: Growth and goals. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
The first group of tasks, including a full description of the game of Craps
Appendix 2
The second group of tasks
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prodromou, T. Connecting experimental probability and theoretical probability. ZDM Mathematics Education 44, 855–868 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0469-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0469-z