Korean Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Abilities to Identify Equiprobability Bias and Teaching Strategies
Equiprobability bias (EB) is one of the frequently observed misconceptions in probability education in K-12 and can be affected by a problem context. As future teachers, preservice teachers need to have a stable understanding of probability and to have the knowledge to identify EB in their students regardless of the problem context. However, there are few studies to explore how preservice teachers identify students’ EB and how they respond to students’ EB. This study investigated Korean preservice elementary school teachers’ abilities to identify students’ EB in two problem contexts, marble and baseball problems, as well as their teaching strategies for correcting students’ EB within each problem. Ninety-six preservice elementary school teachers participated in this study. They were presented with two problems with students having EB and were asked to write lesson plays. From the analysis of their lesson plays, it was found that 87% of the preservice teachers identified students’ EB in both problems, and in the baseball problem, 13% of them did not. Three teaching strategies for correcting students’ EB in each problem were found. Based on the results, implications for preservice elementary teacher education were discussed.
KeywordsChance Equiprobability bias Lesson play Preservice elementary school teachers Problem context
- Anway, D. & Bennett, E. (2004, August). Common misperceptions in probability among students in an elementary statistics class. Paper presented at the ARTIST Roundtable Conference on Assessment in Statistics, Lawrence University.Google Scholar
- Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015). Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved from http://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/Mathematics_-_Sequence_of_content.pdf.
- Batanero, C., Chernoff, E. J., Engel, J., Lee, H. S. & Sánchez, E. (2016). Research on teaching and learning probability. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-31625-3.
- Batanero, C., Godino, J. D. & Cañizares, M. J. (2005). Simulation as a tool to train pre-service school teachers. In J. Addler (Ed.), Proceedings of ICMI First African Regional Conference. Retrieved from http://www.ugr.es/~batanero/pages/ARTICULOS/CMIRCr.pdf.
- Biehler, R. (2016). Professional development for teaching probability and inference statistics with digital tools at upper secondary level. Paper presented at the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Hamburg.Google Scholar
- Callaert, H. (2004). In search of the specificity and the identifiability of stochastic thinking and reasoning. In M. A. Mariotti (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Retrieved from http://www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/~erme/CERME3/Groups/TG5/TG5_callaert_cerme3.pdf.
- Fielding-Wells, J. (2014, July). Where’s your evidence? Challenging young students’ equiprobability bias through argumentation. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS9), Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312069236_Where's_your_evidence_Challenging_young_students'_equiprobability_bias_through_argumentation.
- Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
- Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W. & Mooney, E. S. (2007). Research in probability: Responding to classroom realities. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 909–955). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc..Google Scholar
- Li, J. (2000). Chinese students’ understanding of probability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
- Li, J. & Pereira-Mendoza, L. (2002, July). Misconceptions in probability. In B. Phillips (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS6). Retrieved from https://iase-web.org/documents/papers/icots6/6g4_jun.pdf.
- Ministry of Education (2014). The New Zealand Curriculum. Retrieved from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Mathematics-and-statistics.
- Ministry of Education (2015a). Mathematics Curriculum (Notification No. 2015-74, Appendix 8). Seoul, Korea: Author.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Education (2015b). Mathematics teachers’ guidebook 6–1. Seoul, Korea: Chunjae Education.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Education (2015c). Mathematics textbook 6–1. Seoul, Korea: Chunjae Education.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2011). Mathematics Curriculum (Notification No. 2011-361, Appendix 8). Seoul, Korea: Author.Google Scholar
- Moritz, J. B., Watson, J. M. & Collis, K. F. (1996). Odds: Chance measurement in three contexts. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in Mathematics Education: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 390–397). Melbourne, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
- Oliveira, H. & Hannula, M. S. (2008). Individual prospective mathematics teachers: Studies on their professional growth. In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education (pp. 13–34). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Polya, G. (1971). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (Original work published 1957).Google Scholar
- Rubel, L. H. (2007). Middle school and high school students’ probabilistic reasoning on coin tasks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(5), 531–556.Google Scholar
- Statistics Training Institute (2017). “Development of teaching-learning materials for high school practical statistics” to enhance statistical recognition. Seoul, Korea: Statistics Training Institute, Statistics Korea.Google Scholar
- Tarr, J. E. (2002). Confounding effects of the phrase “50-50 chance” in making conditional probability judgments. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 24(4), 35–53.Google Scholar