Commentary on Probabilistic Thinking: Presenting Plural Perspectives

  • Egan J. Chernoff
  • Bharath Sriraman
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)


Those of you familiar with research investigating probabilistic thinking in the field of mathematics education, might, at this point in the book, be expecting a “wish list” for future research, which has become customary (e.g., Kapadia and Borovcnik 1991; Jones et al. 2007; Shaughnessy 1992); however, we will not be adding to the list of wish lists. Instead, we have decided to, in this commentary, highlight some of the overarching themes that have emerged from the significant amount of research housed in this volume. Themes emerging from each of the four main perspectives—Mathematics and Philosophy, Psychology, Stochastics and Mathematics Education—are now commented on in turn.


Mathematics Education Subjective Probability Mathematics Education Research Overarch Theme Philosophical Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Chernoff, E. J. (2012). Recognizing revisitation of the representativeness heuristic: an analysis of answer key attributes. ZDM. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(7), 941–952. doi: 10.1007/s11858-012-0435-9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Dual-processes in the psychology of mathematics education and cognitive psychology. Human Development, 52(2), 95–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  5. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Google Scholar
  6. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kapadia, R., & Borovcnik, M. (1991). Looking forward. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), Chance encounters: probability in education (pp. 255–256). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Khovanova, T. (2011). Martin Gardner’s mistake. arXiv:1102.0173v1 [math.PR] arXiv.
  9. Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2006). The rationality debate: application of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2), 105–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leron, U., & Hazzan, O. (2009). Intuitive vs. analytical thinking: four perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 263–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 465–494). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  12. Tzur, R. (2011). Can dual processing theories of thinking inform conceptual learning in mathematics? The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8(3), 597–636. Google Scholar
  13. Vazsonyi, A. (1999). Which door has the Cadillac? Decision Line, 30(1), 17–19. Retrieved from Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.The University of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations