Skip to main content
Log in

The Fallacy of Composition: Prospective Mathematics Teachers’ Use of Logical Fallacies

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to address the lack of research on teachers’ knowledge of probability. As has been the case in prior research, we asked prospective mathematics teachers to determine which of the presented sequences of coin flips was least likely to occur. However, instead of using the traditional perspectives of heuristic and informal reasoning, we have utilized logical fallacies for our analysis of the results. From this new perspective, we determined that certain individuals’—those who provided normatively incorrect responses—utilized the fallacy of composition when making comparisons of relative likelihood. In addition, we discuss how our findings impact models established in the research literature (e.g., the representativeness heuristic) and, further, we suggest that logical fallacies should supplement heuristic and informal reasoning as potential perspectives for research investigating comparisons of relative likelihood.

Résumé

Le but de cet article est de combler en partie le manque de recherches sur les connaissances des enseignants dans le domaine des probabilités. Comme cela avait été fait dans des études précédentes, nous avons demandé à des futurs enseignants des mathématiques quelle était la moins probable parmi les séquences présentées de tirs à pile ou face. Toutefois, au lieu d’adopter les perspectives traditionnelles du raisonnement heuristique et informel, nous nous sommes servis de sophismes logiques pour analyser les résultats. Dans cette nouvelle perspective, nous avons constaté que certaines personnes—celles qui ont fourni des réponses incorrectes sur le plan normatif—se sont servies de sophismes de composition lorsqu’elles ont comparé les différents niveaux de probabilité. Par ailleurs, nous examinons les façons dont nos résultats peuvent avoir un impact sur les modèles établis dans la recherche actuelle (par exemple l’heuristique de représentativité), et nous proposons que les sophismes logiques soient utilisés pour complémenter le raisonnement heuristique et informel dans la recherche visant à analyser les comparaisons de probabilités relatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson, D. (2009). Orchestrating semiotic leaps from tacit to cultural quantitative reasoning—The case of anticipating experimental outcomes of a quasi-binomial random generator. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 175–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borovcnik, M., & Bentz, H. (1991). Empirical research in understanding probability. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 73–106) Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chernoff, E. J. (2009). Sample space partitions: An investigative lens. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(1), 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chernoff, E. J. (2011). Investigating relative likelihood comparisons of multinomial, contextual sequences. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 755–765) Rzeszów, Poland: University of Rzeszów.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernoff, E. J., & Russell, G. L. (2011). An investigation of relative likelihood comparisons: The composition fallacy. In B. Ubuz (Ed), Proceedings of the thirty fifth annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. II, pp. 225–232) Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, C., & Mouw, J. T. (1992). Disruption of the representativeness heuristic: Can we be perturbed into using correct probabilistic reasoning? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(2), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T., & Pollard, P. (1981). Statistical judgment: A further test of the representativeness heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 51, 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, L. S., & O’Donnell, A. M. (2001). Representativeness in statistical reasoning: Identifying and assessing misconceptions. Journal of Statistics Education, 9(2). Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v9n2/hirsch.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., & Mooney, E. S. (2007). Research in probability: Responding to classroom realties. In F. K. Lester (Ed), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 909–955) New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konold, C. (1989). Informal conceptions of probability. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 59–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konold, C., Pollatsek, A., Well, A., Lohmeier, J., & Lipson, A. (1993). Inconsistencies in students’ reasoning about probability. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(5), 392–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). Prediction and partial understanding of the law of large numbers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(4), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecoutre, M.-P. (1992). Cognitive models and problem spaces in “purely random” situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(6), 557–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, C. (1976). Some apparent violations of the representativeness heuristic in human judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4), 599–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubel, L. H. (2006). Students’ probabilistic thinking revealed: The case of coin tosses. In G. F. Burrill & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Thinking and reasoning with data and chance: Sixty-eighth yearbook (pp. 49–60) Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaughnessy, J. M. (1977). Misconceptions of probability: An experiment with a small-group, activity-based, model building approach to introductory probability at the college level. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8, 285–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohl, H. (2005). Probability in teacher education and development. In G. A. Jones (Ed), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 345–366) New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small number. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. M., Collis, K. F., & Moritz, J. B. (1997). The development of chance measurement. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9, 60–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Egan J. Chernoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chernoff, E.J., Russell, G.L. The Fallacy of Composition: Prospective Mathematics Teachers’ Use of Logical Fallacies. Can J Sci Math Techn 12, 259–271 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2012.704128

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2012.704128

Navigation