Abstract
The chapter describes how children use an expressive microworld to articulate ideas about how to make a game seem fair or not with the use of randomness. An open computer game was designed for children to express understanding of randomness as formal conjectures, so that they were able to examine the consequences of their understanding. The study investigates how 23 children, aged between \(5\frac{6}{12}\) and 8 years, engaged in constructing a crucial part of a mechanism for a fair or not spatial lottery machine (microworld). In particular, the children tried to construct a fair game given a situation in which the key elements happened randomly. The children could select objects, determine their properties, and arrange their spatial layout in the machine. The study is based on task-based interviewing of children who were interacting with the computer game. The findings identify children’s initial meanings for expressing stochastic phenomena and describe how the computer tool-based game helped shift children’s attempts to understand randomness from looking for ways to control random behaviour, towards looking for ways to control events. Evidence is presented that the children constructed a set of situated abstractions (Noss 2001) for ideas such as the Law of Large Numbers. The computer game offered children the opportunity to make their own constructions of a sample space and distribution. The children used spontaneously five distinct strategies to express the idea that their construction could only be judged with respect to a large number of trials. It is apparent that the game provided children the opportunity to express the idea that stability can come from increasing outcomes with different strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This study is based on aspects of my doctoral research (Paparistodemou 2004). I acknowledge Professor Richard Noss and Professor Dave Pratt for their help and support throughout this study.
References
Abrahamson, D. (2009). Embodied design: constructing means for constructing meaning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 27–47.
Acredolo, C., O’Connor, J., Banks, L., & Horobin, K. (1989). Children’s ability to make probability estimates: skills revealed through application of Anderson’s functional measurement methodology. Child Development, 60, 933–945.
Ben-Zvi, D., & Arcavi, A. (2001). Junior High school students’ constructions of global views of data and data representations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 35–65.
Borovcnik, M., & Bentz, H. (1991). Empirical research in understanding probability. In R. Kapadia & M. Borovcnik (Eds.), Chance encounters: probability in education (pp. 73–105). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Burgess, R. (1984). In the field. New York: Routledge.
Chernoff, E., & Zazkis, E. (2011). From personal to conventional probabilities: from sample set to sample space. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77, 15–33.
diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Even, R., & Kvatinsky, R. (2010). What mathematics do teachers with contrasting teaching approaches address in probability lessons? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74, 207–222.
Falk, R., Falk, R., & Levin, I. (1980). A potential for learning probability in young children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 181–204.
Fischbein, E. (1975). The intuitive sources of probabilistic thinking in children. London: Reidel.
Gal, I. (2005). Towards “Probability Literacy” for all citizens: building blocks and instructional dilemmas. In G. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: challenge for learning and teaching (pp. 39–63). New York: Springer.
Heyman, B., & Henriksen, M. (1998). Probability and health risks. Risk, health and health care (pp. 65–105). London: Arnold.
Jones, G., Langrall, C., Thornton, C., & Mogill, A. (1997). A framework for assessing and nurturing young children’s thinking in probability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 101–125.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11, 123–141.
Konold, C., & Pollatsek, A. (2002). Data analysis as the search for signals in noisy processes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4), 259–289.
Konold, C., Pollatsek, A., Well, A., Lohmeier, J., & Lipson, A. (1993). Inconsistencies in probabilistic reasoning of novices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 392–414.
Langrall, C., & Mooney, E. (2005). Characteristics of elementary school students’ probabilistic reasoning. In G. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: challenge for learning and teaching (pp. 95–119). New York: Springer.
Metz, K. (1998). Emergent understanding and attribution of randomness: comparative analysis of reasoning of primary grade children and undergraduates. Cognition and Instruction, 16(3), 285–365.
Noss, R. (2001). For a learnable mathematics in the digital culture. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 21–46.
Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 95–123.
Paparistodemou, E. (2004). Children’s expressions of randomness: constructing probabilistic ideas in an open computer game. PhD Dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London.
Paparistodemou, E., & Noss, R. (2004). Designing for local and global meanings of randomness. In Proceedings of the twenty eighth annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, Bergen, Norway (Vol. 3, pp. 497–504).
Paparistodemou, E., Noss, R., & Pratt, D. (2008). The interplay between fairness and randomness in a spatial computer game. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(2), 89–110.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1975). The origin of the idea of chance in children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pratt, D. (2000). Making sense of the total of two dice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 602–625.
Pratt, D., & Noss, R. (2002). The micro-evolution of mathematical knowledge: the case of randomness. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 453–488.
Ross, S. (2002). A first course in probability (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Rubin, A. (2002). Interactive visualizations of statistical relationships: what do we gain? In B. Phillips (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on teaching of statistics (ICOTS 6), Cape Town. Voorburg: International Statistical Institute.
Stohl, H., & Tarr, J. (2002). Developing notions of inference using probability simulations tools. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(3), 319–337.
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–18.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Paparistodemou, E. (2014). Children’s Constructions of a Sample Space with Respect to the Law of Large Numbers. In: Chernoff, E., Sriraman, B. (eds) Probabilistic Thinking. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7155-0_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7155-0_32
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7154-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7155-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)