Saltar para menu de navegação principal Saltar para conteúdo principal Saltar para rodapé do site
Logo Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa

Artículos

Vol. 23 N.º 1 (2020): Março

RELACIONES ENTRE PENSAMIENTO PROPORCIONAL Y PENSAMIENTO PROBABILÍSTICO EN SITUACIONES DE TOMA DE DECISIONES

DOI
https://doi.org/10.12802/relime.20.2311
Enviado
novembro 7, 2022
Publicado
2020-03-18

Resumo

tomar decisões é um ato diário no ser humano, quanto maior a incerteza, mais difícil é decidir. Em uma situação de aprendizado, que consiste em decidir entre dois jogos aleatórioscom dados, estuda-se a relação entre pensamento proporcionale pensamento probabilístico, três estados específicos para pensamento proporcional e três tipos de pensamento probabilístico. Sob o foco de um estudo de caso instrumental, são analisados argumentos de estudantes chilenos do ensino médio. os resultados indicam que existem relações benéficas e prejudiciais entre o pensamento proporcional e o probabilístico, e que as dificuldades na determinação das probabilidades não se devem necessariamente à ausência do uso de proporções. Recomenda-se o ensino que considera a argumentação e o aprendizado do espaço de amostra para canalizar o uso de recursos intuitivos.

Referências

  1. Alvarado, H., Estrella, S., Retamal, L., & Galindo, M. (2018). Intuiciones probabilísticas en estudiantes de ingeniería: implicaciones para la enseñanza de la probabilidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Matemática Educativa, 21(2), 131-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12802/relime.18.2121.
  2. Anway, D., & Bennett, E. (2004, August). Common misperceptions in probability among students in an Elementary Statistics class. En B. Chance (Conference chair), ARTIST Roundtable Conference on Assessment in Statistics held at Lawrence University (pp. 1-4). Recuperado desde http://www.rossmanchance.com/artist/proceedings/AnwayBennett.pdf
  3. Ashline, G., & Frantz, M. (2009). Proportional reasoning and probability. Synergy Learning Nov / Dec, 8-10. Recuperado desde https://web.archive.org/web/20071010023424/http://cf.synergylearning.org/displaygrade.cfm?selectedgrade=1
  4. Batanero, C., Chernoff, E., Engel, J., Lee, H., & Sánchez, E. (2016). Research on Teaching and Learning Probability. En Research on Teaching and Learning Probability. ICME-13 Topical Surveys. Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31625-3_1
  5. Batanero, C., Henry, M., & Parzysz, B. (2005). The nature of chance and probability. En Graham A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 16-42). Boston, MA: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24530-8_2
  6. Bellhouse, D. (2000). De Vetula: a medieval manuscript containing probability calculations. International Statistical Review, 68(2), 123-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1403664
  7. Bennett, D. (2014). Sticking to your guns: a flawed heuristic for probabilistic decision-making. En E.J. Chernoff & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Probabilistic Thinking (pp. 261-281). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7155-0_14
  8. Borovcnik, M. (2011). Strengthening the role of probability within statistics curricula. En C. Batanero, G. Burrill & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching Statistics in School MathematicsChallenges for Teaching and Teacher Education. A joint ICMI/IASE study: the 18th ICMI study (Vol. 14) (pp. 71-83). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1131-0_11
  9. Bryant, P., & Nunes, T. (2012). Children’s Understanding of Probability: A Literature Review (summary Report). London: Nuffield Foundation.
  10. Chernoff, E. J., & Zazkis, R. (2011). From personal to conventional probabilities: from sample set to sample space. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(1), 15-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9288-8
  11. Chiesi, F., & Primi, C. (2010). Cognitive and non-cognitive factors related to students’ statistics achievement. Statistics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 6–26. Recuperado desde http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/serj/SERJ9%281%29_Chiesi_Primi.pdf
  12. Chiesi, F., & Primi, C. (2014). The interplay among knowledge, cognitive abilities and thinking styles in probabilistic reasoning: a test of a model. En E.J. Chernoff & B. Sriraman, B. (Eds.), Probabilistic thinking (pp. 195-214). Dordrecht : Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7155-0_11
  13. D’Alembert, J. (1784). Croix ou Pile. Dans Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire Raisonne des Sciences, des Arts et des Metiers, Vol. 4, pp. 512-513. Paris: Societe des Gens de Lettres. Recuperado desde https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k505351/f1.item.r=alember
  14. Díaz, C., & Batanero, C. (2009). University student’s knowledge and biases in conditional probability reasoning. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(3), 131-162. Recuperado desde http://www.iejme.com/article/university-students-knowledgeand-biases-in-conditional-probability-reasoning
  15. Engel, J., & Orthwein, A. (2018). The Six Loses: Risky Decisions Between Probabilistic Reasoning and Gut Feeling. En C., Batanero & E., Chernoff (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Stochastics, Advances in Probability Education Research, ICME-13 Monograph (pp. 261-274). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72871-1_15
  16. Eriksson, K., & Simpson, B. (2010). Emotional reactions to losing explain gender differences in entering a risky lottery. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(3), 159. Recuperado desde http://journal.sjdm.org/10/10601/jdm10601.html
  17. Fielding-Wells, J. (2014). Where’s your evidence? Challenging young students’ equiprobability bias through argumentation. En T. Dunne (Conference chair), The 9th International Conference on Teaching Statistics (pp. 1-6). Recuperado desde https://iase-web.org/icots/9/proceedings/pdfs/ICOTS9_2B2_FIELDINGWELLS.pdf
  18. Fischbein, E., & Gazit, A. (1984). Does the teaching of probability improve probabilistic intuitions Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15(1), 1-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00380436
  19. Fischbein, E. (1975). The intuitive sources of probabilistic thinking in children. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1858-6
  20. Gal, I. (2005). Towards “probability literacy” for all citizens: Building blocks and instructional dilemmas. En Graham A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 39 63). Boston, MA: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24530-8_3
  21. Gandhi, H. (2018). Understanding Children’s Meanings of Randomness in Relation to Random Generators. En C., Batanero & E., Chernoff (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Stochastics, Advances in Probability Education Research, ICME-13 Monograph (pp. 181-200). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72871-1_11
  22. Garfield, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in learning basic concepts in probability and statistics: implications for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 44–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/749110
  23. Garfield, J., & Ben‐Zvi, D. (2007). How students learn statistics revisited: A current review of research on teaching and learning statistics. International Statistical Review, 75(3), 372-396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2007.00029.x
  24. Gauvrit, N., & Morsanyi, K. (2014). The equiprobability bias from a mathematical and psychological perspective. Advances in cognitive psychology, 10(4), 119-130. Recuperado desde https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310748/
  25. Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Decisiones Instintivas: la inteligencia del inconsciente. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel.
  26. Hoffrage, U., Krauss, S., Martignon, L., & Gigerenzer, G. (2015). Natural frequencies improve Bayesian reasoning in simple and complex inference tasks. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01473
  27. Jones, G., Langrall, C., Thornton, C., & Mogill, A. (1999). Students’ probabilistic thinking in instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(5), 487–519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/749771
  28. Kahneman, D. (2012). Pensar rápido, pensar despacio. Barcelona: Penguin Random House.
  29. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246(1), 160-173. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160
  30. Kruger, J., Wirtz, D., & Miller, D. (2005). Counterfactual thinking and the first instinct fallacy. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(5), 725-735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e413812005-243
  31. Laplace, P. (1814). Essai philosophique sur les probabilités. Paris: Mme Ve Courcier. Recuperado desde de https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/doi/10.3931/e-rara-3684.
  32. Lecoutre, M., Durand, J., & Cordier, J. (1990). A study of two biases in probabilistic judgments: Representativeness and equiprobability. En J. P. Caverni, J. M. Fabre & M. González (Eds.), Advances in Psychology: Cognitive Biases (pp. 563-575). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61343-6
  33. Martignon, L. (2014). Fostering children’s probabilistic reasoning and first elements of risk evaluation. En E. J. Chernoff & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Probabilistic Thinking (pp. 149-160). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7155-0_9
  34. Ministerio de Educación de Chile (2014). Comprender la categoría de desempeño. En Autor (Ed.), Guía para comprender la categoría de desempeño y orientar las rutas de mejora (pp. 13-26). Recuperado de http://archivos.agenciaeducacion.cl/guia_para_comprender_categoria_de_desempeno.pdf
  35. Ministerio de Educación de Chile (2015). Matemática. En Autor (Ed.), Bases Curriculares 7° básico a 2° medio (pp. 93-106). Recuperado de http://www.curriculumnacional.cl/614/articles-37136_bases.pdf
  36. Morsanyi, K., Primi, C., Chiesi, F., & Handley, S. (2009). The effects and side-effects of statistics education: Psychology students’(mis-) conceptions of probability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(3), 210-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.05.001
  37. Nikiforidou, Z. (2019). Probabilities and Preschoolers: Do Tangible Versus Virtual Manipulatives, Sample Space, and Repetition Matter?. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(6), 769-777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00964-2
  38. OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
  39. Pratt, D., & Kazak, S. (2018). Research on Uncertainty. En Ben-Zvi, D., Makar, K., & Garfield, J. (Eds.), International Handbook of Research in Statistics Education (pp. 193-227), Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66195-7_6
  40. Reyes- Gasperini, D., & Cantoral, R. (2016). Empoderamiento docente: la práctica docente más allá de la didáctica… ¿qué papel juega el saber en una transformación educativa? Revista de la Escuela de Ciencias de la Educación, 2(11), 155-176. Recuperado de http://www.revistacseducacion.unr.edu.ar/ojs/index.php/educacion/article/viewFile/265/248
  41. Reyes- Gasperini, D. (2016). Empoderamiento docente y Socioepistemología. Un estudio sobre la transformación educativa en Matemáticas. México: Gedisa.
  42. Sedlmeier, P. (1999). Improving statistical reasoning: Theoretical models and practical implications. New York: Psychology Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601247
  43. Stake, R. (2007). Investigación con estudio de casos. Madrid: Morata.
  44. Van Dooren, W. (2014). Probabilistic thinking: analyses from a psychological perspective. En E. J. Chernoff & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Probabilistic Thinking (pp. 123-126). Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7155-0_7
  45. Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. En R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 127-174). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  46. Vergnaud, G. (1997). The nature of mathematical concepts. En T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 5-28). Hove, England: Psychology Press.
  47. Watson, J., & Shaughnessy, M. (2004). Proportional Reasoning: Lessons from Research in Data and Chance. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(2), 104-109. Recuperado desde https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234667935_Proportional_Reasoning_Lessons_from_Research_in_Data_and_Chance
  48. Zhu, L., & Gigerenzer, G. (2006). Children can solve Bayesian problems: The role of representation in mental computation. Cognition, 98(3), 287-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.003

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Artigos Similares

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> 

Também poderá iniciar uma pesquisa avançada de similaridade para este artigo.

Artigos mais lidos do(s) mesmo(s) autor(es)