Advertisement

Assessing young children’s ability to compare probabilities

  • Anne-Sophie SupplyEmail author
  • Wim Van Dooren
  • Stephanie Lem
  • Patrick Onghena
Article

Abstract

Comparing probabilities is a useful skill in life. Binary choice tasks are popular means in research on probabilistic reasoning. Falk, Yudilevich-Assouline, and Elstein (Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(2), 207–233 2012) noted that many of these tasks contain design flaws. We designed and evaluated an extended and improved binary choice item set. In each trial, children were shown two boxes containing desired and undesired elements and had to identify the best box to blindly draw from. We took into account four necessary item set characteristics: (un)desired elements in the correct box, total number of elements in the correct box, and difference between desired and undesired elements in the correct box. Furthermore, some extensions to Falk et al.’s design (2012) were implemented: items in which one box certainly provided a desired element, items with three competing colors of elements, and items with lower “countability” of the elements. Results showed that extensions added to the design did not imperil internal consistency and validity. Younger children were more likely to give correct answers when the correct box contained more desired elements and older children are better at comparing probabilities than younger ones overall.

Keywords

Mathematical development Probabilistic reasoning Ratio comparison Uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Grant KU Leuven project C16/16/001 “Development and stimulation of core mathematical competencies.”

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the social and societal ethics committee of KU Leuven (G-2016 07 591).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all parents of individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10649_2019_9917_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (373 kb)
ESM 1 (PPTX 373 kb)
10649_2019_9917_MOESM2_ESM.sav (46 kb)
ESM 2 (SAV 46 kb)

References

  1. Bryant, P. & Nunes, T. (2012). Children’s understanding of probability: A literature review (full Report). Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Canizares, M. J., Batanero, C., Serrano, L., & Ortfz, J. J. (1997). Subjective elements in children’s comparison of probabilities. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 49–56). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki: Columbus, OH: Eric Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  3. Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2014). The origins of probabilistic inference in human infants. Cognition, 130(3), 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Falk, R., Falk, R., & Levin, I. (1980). A potential for learning probability in young children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Falk, R., Yudilevich-Assouline, P., & Elstein, A. (2012). Children’s concept of probability as inferred from their binary choices—revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(2), 207–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fontanari, L., Gonzalez, M., Vallortigara, G., & Girotto, V. (2014). Probabilistic cognition in two indigenous Mayan groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48), 17075–17080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Girotto, V., Fontanari, L., Gonzalez, M., Vallortigara, G., & Blaye, A. (2016). Young children do not succeed in choice tasks that imply evaluating chances. Cognition, 152, 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, D. R. (1991). A longitudinal study of pupil’s probability concepts. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Teaching Statistics (vol. 1, pp. 320–328). The Hague, the Netherlands: Isi Publications in Statistical Education.Google Scholar
  9. Hoemann, H. W., & Ross, B. M. (1971). Children’s understanding of probability concepts. Child Development, 221-236.Google Scholar
  10. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1975). The origin of the idea of chance in children. Norton, New York: Routledge (Original work published 1951).Google Scholar
  11. Prenzel, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Lehmann, R., Leutner, D., Neubrand, M., … Schiefele, U. (2004). PISA 2003: Der bildungsstand der jugendlichen in Deutschland - Ergebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs. Munster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Siegler, R. S., Strauss, S., & Levin, I. (1981). Developmental sequences within and between concepts. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(2), 1–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Vlaams Ministerie van Onderwijs en Vorming (2010). Ontwikkelingsdoelen en eindtermen voor het gewoon basisonderwijs. [Attainment goals and standards for elementary education]. Retrieved from http://ebl.vlaandren.be/publications/documents/36473

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Instructional Psychology and TechnologyKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.PXL University of Applied Sciences and ArtsHasseltBelgium
  3. 3.Methodology of Educational Sciences Research GroupKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations