Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 93, Issue 1, pp 67–85 | Cite as

Transfer of solutions to conditional probability problems: effects of example problem format, solution format, and problem context

Article

Abstract

This study reports the results of a study examining how easily students are able to transfer frequency solutions to conditional probability problems to novel situations. University students studied either a problem solved using the traditional Bayes formula format or using a natural frequency (tree diagram) format. In addition, the example problem and the target problem presented for solution had matched or mismatched context. The results found better performance when students studied frequency solutions and when the content of the study problem and target problem were matched. Beyond solution to the target problem, students did not show any differences in performance on a subsequent multiple choice task. Results are discussed in light of Gigerenzer and Hoffrage’s Psychological Review, 106, 425–430 (1999) claims about the effectiveness of using frequency solutions to help teach Bayesian conditional probability concepts.

Keywords

Conditional probability Frequency Bayes 

References

  1. Anderberg, E. (2000). Word meaning and conceptions. An empirical study of relationships between students’ thinking and use of language when reasoning about a problem. Instructional Science, 28, 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appaji, A., & Kulkarni, R. (2012). Multiple choice questions as a teaching learning tool in addition to assessment method. National Journal of Integrated Research in Medicine, 3(4), 91–95.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, M. M., & Goldman, C. (1995). Expanding the contextual analysis of clinical problems. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 2, 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Base-rate respect: From ecological rationality to dual processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 241–297.Google Scholar
  5. Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 153–166.Google Scholar
  6. Bayes, T. (1763). An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 53, 370–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brase, G. L. (2007). The (in) flexibility of evolved frequency representations for statistical reasoning: Cognitive styles and brief prompts do not influence Bayesian inference. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 398–405.Google Scholar
  8. Brase, G. L., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1998). Individuation, counting, and statistical inference: The role of frequency and whole-object representations in judgement under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brase, G. L., Fiddick, L., & Harries, C. (2006). Participant recruitment methods and statistical reasoning performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 965–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day, S., & Goldstone, R. (2011). Analogical transfer from a simulated physical system. Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 551–567.Google Scholar
  11. Denyer, G. & Hancock, D. (2012). Multiple choice questions to combat plagiarism and encourage conceptual learning. Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference) (pp. 31–36). Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  12. Even, R., & Kvatinsky, T. (2010). What mathematics do teachers with contrasting teaching approaches address in probability lessons? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faize, F., Dahar, M., & Niwaz, A. (2010). Improving students performance on multiple-choice questions in physics – Practice in justifying the options. International Journal of Academic Research, 2, 204–207.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, J. (2008). Mulliple choice: Choosing the best option for more effective and less frustrating law school testing. Capital University Law Review, 37, 119–136.Google Scholar
  15. Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Calculated risks. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  17. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1999). Overcoming difficulties in Bayesian reasoning: A reply to Lewis and Keren (1999) and Mellers and McGraw (1999). Psychological Review, 106, 425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartman, J., & Lin, S. (2011). Analysis of student performance on multiple-choice questions in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 88, 1223–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffrage, U., Lindsey, S., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Communicating statistical information. Science, 290, 2261–2262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Novick, L. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 398–415.Google Scholar
  23. Pantziara, M., & Philippou, G. (2012). Levels of students’ “conception” of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79, 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reed, S. K. (1989). Constraints on the abstraction of solutions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 532–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richland, L., Stigler, J., & Holyoake, K. (2012). Teaching the conceptual structure of mathematics. Educational Psychology, 47(3), 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 380–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tiemeier, A., Stacy, Z., & Burke, J. (2011). Using multiple choice questiosn written at various Bloom’s Taxonomy levels to evaluate student performance across a Therapeutics Sequence. Innovations in Pharmacy, 2(2), 1–11.Google Scholar
  29. Van Haneghan, J., & Chow, A. (2007). Transferring frequencies solutions to conditional probability problem. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Mitchell College of BusinessUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA
  2. 2.Department of Professional Studies, College of EducationUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA

Personalised recommendations