Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 100, Issue 1, pp 61–82 | Cite as

The empirical law of large numbers and the hospital problem: systematic investigation of the impact of multiple task and person characteristics

  • Simon WeixlerEmail author
  • Daniel Sommerhoff
  • Stefan Ufer
Article

Abstract

The empirical law of large numbers is an important content in secondary school mathematics. Tasks used to analyze students’ understanding of this law are often based on the hospital problem, but vary in various features, leading to mixed and conflicting empirical results. To identify task features that support students when approaching this type of task, we systematically investigated the impact of multiple task and person characteristics on the accuracy of students’ responses in a cross-sectional study with N = 242 mathematics teacher education students. Students answered several variants of the hospital problem in different sequences. Our assumption was that differences in performance between tasks could be traced back to the salience of relevant task features and the sequence of the tasks. Results of GLMM analyses of our data support that in particular larger deviations from the expected relative frequency and a bigger ratio between the large and small sample size increase solution rates. Moreover, a verbal presentation of a 100% frequency in the case of maximal deviation increased solution rates. A within-subject analysis revealed that effects of task characteristics were more pronounced for the first task and weakened substantially for subsequent tasks. Finally, we found that 100% frequency tasks have a positive cueing effect, supporting students to solve subsequent tasks, even if the relevant features are less salient there. These tasks thus seem to be a promising starting point to connect the empirical law of large numbers with students’ prior intuitions.

Keywords

Empirical law of large numbers Hospital problem Task characteristics Person characteristics Task sequences 

References

  1. Afantiti-Lamprianou, T., & Williams, J. (2003). A scale for assessing probabilistic thinking and the representativeness tendency. Research in Mathematics Education, 5(1), 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Hillel, M. (1982). Studies of representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 69–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batanero, C., Serrano, L., & Garfield, J. B. (1996). Heuristics and biases in secondary school students’ reasoning about probability. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 43–50). Valencia: PME group.Google Scholar
  4. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox, C., & Mouw, J. T. (1992). Disruption of the representative heuristic: Can we be perturbed into using correct probabilistic reasoning? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elia, I., & Philippou, G. (2004). The functions of pictures in problem solving. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 327–334). Bergen: University College.Google Scholar
  7. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engel, J., & Sedlmeier, P. (2005). On middle-school students’ comprehension of randomness and chance variability in data. ZDM, 37(3), 168–177.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Dusoir, A. E. (1977). Proportionality and sample size as factors in intuitive statistical judgement. Acta Psychologica, 41(2), 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  14. Fischbein, E. (1999). Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1), 11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischbein, E., & Gazit, A. (1984). Does the teaching of probability improve probabilistic intuitions? – An exploratory research study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischbein, E., & Schnarch, D. (1997). The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., Beatty, J., & Krueger, L. (1989). The empire of chance: How probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D. (2000). A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a diagnostic of mental processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 681–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgement of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lem, S. (2015). The intuitiveness of the law of large numbers. ZDM, 47(5), 783–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lem, S., van Dooren, W., Gillard, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2011). Sample size neglect problems: A critical analysis. Studia Psychologica, 53(2), 123–135.Google Scholar
  23. Murray, J., Iding, M., Farris, H., & Revlin, R. (1987). Sample-size salience and statistical inference. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(5), 367–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Noll, J., & Sharma, S. (2014). Qualitative meta-analysis on the hospital task: Implications for research. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(2).Google Scholar
  25. Nussbaum, E. M. (2015). Categorical and nonparametric data analysis: Choosing the best statistical technique. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Pelham, B. W., & Neter, E. (1995). The effect of motivation of judgment depends on the difficulty of the judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rasfeld, P. (2004). Verbessert der Stochastikunterricht intuitives stochastisches Denken? Ergebnisse aus einer empirischen Studie [Does stochastic education improve intuitive stochastic thinking? Results of an empirical study]. Journal für Mathematikdidaktik, 25, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reaburn, R. (2008). The hospital problem revisited. Tertiary students’ perceptions of a problem involving the binomial distribution. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 415–419). Brisbane: MERGA.Google Scholar
  29. Reagan, R. T. (1989). Variations on a seminal demonstration of people’s insensitivity to sample size. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roth, B., Becker, N., Romeyke, S., Schäfer, S., Domnick, F., & Spinath, F. M. (2015). Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rubel, L. H. (2009). Middle and high school students’ thinking about effects of sample size: An in and out of school perspective. In S. L. Swars, D. W. Stinson, & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 636–643). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.Google Scholar
  32. Schnell, S., & Prediger, S. (2012). From “everything changes” to “for high numbers, it changes just a bit” – Theoretical notions for a microanalysis of conceptual change processes in stochastic contexts. ZDM, 44(7), 825–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1997). Intuitions about sample size: The empirical law of large numbers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stanovich, K. E. (2012). On the distinction between rationality and intelligence: Implications for understanding individual differences in reasoning. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 343–365). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd rev. ed.). New York/Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Watson, J. (2000). Intuition versus mathematics: The case of the hospital problem. In J. Bana & A. Chapman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 640–647). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  37. Watson, J., & Callingham, R. (2013). Likelihood and sample size: The understandings of students and their teachers. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 660–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät 16, Mathematisches Institut, Didaktik der MathematikLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations