Visualizing Chance: Tackling Conditional Probability Misconceptions
Probabilistic reasoning is essential for operating sensibly and optimally in the 21st century. However, research suggests that students have many difficulties in understanding conditional probabilities and that Bayesian-type problems are replete with misconceptions such as the base rate fallacy and confusion of the inverse. Using a dynamic pachinkogram, a visual representation of the traditional probability tree, we explore six undergraduate probability students’ reasoning processes as they interact with this tool. Initial findings suggest that in simulating a screening situation, the ability to vary the branch widths of the pachinkogram may have the potential to convey the impact of the base rate. Furthermore, we conjecture that the representation afforded by the pachinkogram may help to clarify the distinction between probabilities with inverted conditions.
KeywordsBayesian-type problems Conditional probability Dynamic visualizations
This work is supported by a grant from the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (http://www.tlri.org.nz/).
- Arnold, P., Pfannkuch, M., Wild, C., Regan, M., & Budgett, S. (2011). Enhancing students’ inferential reasoning: From hands-on to “movies”. Journal of Statistics Education, 19(2), 1–32. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v19n2/pfannkuch.pdf.
- Bakker, A. (2004). Reasoning about shape as a pattern in variability. Statistics Education Research Journal, 3(2), 64–83.Google Scholar
- Batanero, C., Chernoff, E., Engel, J., Lee, H., & Sánchez, E. (2016). Research on teaching and learning probability. In Proceedings of Topic Study Group 14 at the 13th International Conference on Mathematics Education (ICME), Hamburg, Germany (pp. 1–33). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31625-3_1.Google Scholar
- Bea, W. (1995). Stochastisches denken [Statistical reasoning]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
- Binder, K., Krauss, S., & Bruckmaier, G. (2015). Effects of visualizing statistical information—An empirical study on tree diagrams and 2 × 2 tables. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1186). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01186.
- Böcherer-Linder, K., Eichler, A., & Vogel, M. (2016). The impact of visualization on understanding conditional probabilities. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education,Hamburg (pp. 1–4). Retrieved from http://iase-web.org/documents/papers/icme13/ICME13_S1_Boechererlinder.pdf.
- Borovnick, M. (2011). Strengthening the role of probability within statistics curricula. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics—Challenges for teaching and teacher education: A joint ICMI/IASE study: The 18th ICMI study (pp. 71–83). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Budgett, S., Pfannkuch, M., Regan, M., & Wild, C. J. (2013). Dynamic visualizations and the randomization test. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 7(2), 1–21. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9dg6h7wb.
- Coppell, K. J., Mann, J. I., Williams, S. M., Jo, E., Drury, P. L., Miller, J., et al. (2013). Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes in New Zealand: Findings from the 2008:2009 Adult Nutrition Survey. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 126(1370), 23–43.Google Scholar
- Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk savvy: How to make good decisions. New York, NY: Viking.Google Scholar
- Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 684–704.Google Scholar
- Greer, B., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2005). Teaching and learning the mathematization of uncertainty: Historical, cultural, social and political contexts. In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 297–324). New York, NY: Kluwer/Springer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
- Konold, C., & Kazak, S. (2008). Reconnecting data and chance. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 2(1). Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/38p7c94v.
- Lane, D. M., & Peres, S. C. (2006). Interactive simulations in the teaching of statistics: Promise and pitfalls. In B. Phillips (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Cape Town, South Africa. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
- Lefevre, R. J., Pfautz, J., & Jones, K. (2005). Weather forecast uncertainty management and display. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Interactive Information Processing Systems (UPS) for Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/82400.pdf.
- Makar, K., & Confrey, J. (2005). “Variation-Talk”: Articulating meaning in statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 4(1), 27–54.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moore, D. (1997). Probability and statistics in the core curriculum. In J. Dossey (Ed.), Confronting the core curriculum (pp. 93–98). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
- Neumann, D. L., Hood, M., & Neumann, M. M. (2013). Using real-life data when teaching statistics: Student perceptions of this strategy in an introductory statistics course. Statistics Education Research Journal, 12(2), 59–70. Retrieved from https://iase-web.org/documents/SERJ/SERJ12(2)_Neumann.pdf.
- Pfannkuch, M., Budgett, S., & Arnold, P. (2015). Experiment-to-causation inference: Understanding causality in a probabilistic setting. In A. Zieffler & E. Fry (Eds.), Reasoning about uncertainty: Learning and teaching informal inferential reasoning (pp. 95–127). Minneapolis, MN: Catalyst Press.Google Scholar
- Pfannkuch, M., Budgett, S., Fewster, R., Fitch, M., Pattenwise, S., Wild, C., et al. (2016). Probability modelling and thinking: What can we learn from practice? Statistics Education Research Journal, 11–37. Retrieved from http://iase-web.org/documents/SERJ/SERJ15(2)_Pfannkuch.pdf.
- Sacristan, A., Calder, N., Rojano, T., Santos-Trigo, M., Friedlander, A., & Meissner, H. (2010). The influence and shaping of digital technologies on the learning—and learning trajectories—of mathematical concepts. In C. Hoyles, & J. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study (pp. 179–226). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Schoenfeld, A. (2007). Method. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 96–107). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
- Shaughnessy, M. (2007). Research on statistics learning and reasoning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. 2, pp. 957–1009). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
- Spiegelhalter, D. J. (n.d.). Screening tests. Retrieved from Understanding Uncertainty: https://understandinguncertainty.org/screening.
- Sturm, A., & Eichler, A. (2014). Students’ beliefs about the benefit of statistical knowledge when perceiving information through daily media. In K. Makar, B. de Sousa, & R. Gould (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS9), Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
- Thomas, M. O. (2008). Conceptual representations and versatile mathematical thinking. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress in Mathematics Education, Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 1–18).Google Scholar
- Ware, C. (2008). Visual thinking for design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
- Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Witteman, H. O., Dickson, M., Fuhrel-Forbis, A., Khan, V. C., Exe, N. L., et al. (2014). Blocks, ovals, or people? Icon type affects risk perceptions and recall of pictographs. Medical Decision Making, 34, 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13511706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar