The Classicist and the Frequentist Approach to Probability within a

TinkerPlots2 Combinatorial Problem

Theodosia Prodromou
The University of New England
<tprodrom@une.edu.au>

This article seeks to address a pedagogical theory of introducing the classicist and the
frequentist approach to probability, by investigating important elements in 9th grade
students’ learning process while working with a TinkerPlots2 combinatorial problem. Results
from this research study indicate that, after the students had seen the systematic construction
of the event space via combinatorial analysis, they viewed the sample space as an essential
property that regulated the results of the distribution of each sum’s theoretical frequency.

Introduction
The biggest leaps forward in the next several decades- in business, and society at large-
will come from insights gained through understanding data. It is of paramount importance to
acquire the mathematical skills and understandings required to enable citizens to become
informed about our world and to understand the data that politicians, advertisers and other
advocated are using to promote particular causes that will impact on the future of our planet.
This embraces the capacity of not only understanding the underlying messages that the data
attempt to reveal but also critically examining the probabilistic statements presented in news
media in terms of data and data representations such as charts, tables, and graphs.
These skills and everyday understanding of mathematics might be best described as
quantitative literacy (Steen, 1997). Quantitative literacy was defined as “an aggregate of
skills, knowledge, beliefs, habits of mind, communication capabilities, and problem-solving
skills that people need in order to engage effectively in quantitative situations arising in life
and work” (Steen, 2001, p. 7). Statistical literacy is an important part of quantitative literacy
skills. As Wallman (1993) suggested in her Presidential Address to the American Statistical
association, there is a need to enhance citizens’ “ability to understand and critically evaluate
statistical results that permeate daily life and to acknowledge the contributions that
statistical thinking can make in public and private, professional and personal decisions.” (p.
1).
Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority K-10 (ACARA, 2010) recognizes that
the twenty-first century world is information driven, and through Statistics and Probability
students can make informed judgments about events involving chance. The role of
probability as a central component for statistical investigations has engendered the need for
“probability literacy” to deal with a variety of real-world situations that encompass
interpretation or generation of probabilistic messages as well as decision-making. Elements
of probability-related knowledge and some dispositions that may be the building blocks
comprise probability literacy were proposed by (Gal, 2005), but they have received little
explicit attention in discussions of people’s numeracy and statistical literacy. Gal (2005)
listed these elements as follows: (1) several foundational big ideas such as randomness,
independence, and variation; (2) Figuring probabilities of events in order to estimate the
probabilities of events, (3) Language of chance, that is the terms and phrases related to
chance and the various ways to represent and communicate about actual events; (4)
Understanding the role and the implications of probabilistic issues and messages in different

In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: Expanding horizons (Proceedings of the 35th annual
conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia). Singapore: MERGA.
© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2012
contexts and in personal and public discourse; and (5) Critical questions to reflect upon
when dealing with probabilities.
The proposed view of probability literacy illustrates a “scope of probability at the school
level to reflect the study of random events, the development of appropriate probabilistic
intuitions, a basic understanding of language and simple events, an appreciation of
distribution and the addressing of misconceptions” (Watson, 2006, p. 127-128). This scope
can be seen as consistent with the tendency to place less emphasis on the knowledge
pertaining to theoretical probability when addressing important issues relevant to teaching
data-based statistics (Moore, 1997). Watson (2006) claims that the aim in statistics teaching
is to enhance data handling through an empirical frequency-based approach to probability
that is an essential foundation for later work in the study of theoretical probability based on
sample spaces. Continuous classroom-based investigations based on frequencies may
reinforce the building of an appreciation of a frequency approach to probability when
performing trials and comparing favourable outcomes to total outcomes. Watson (2006) also
claims that it is not always appropriate to introduce an experiment to calculate relative
frequencies before suggesting a theoretical model based on the possible outcomes of a
sample space. Ultimately, introducing the environment of theoretical probability where data
will be collected should not be left behind or dismissed. Hands-on simulations and
simulation software provide students with opportunities to explore the nature of the sample
space and probability distributions, particularly in the light of refining understanding of
variation.
In order to better understand pedagogical theory, we have developed an experiment that
uses Watson’s theory of pedagogy, and will analyse the students’ behaviour using Radford’s
(2009) theory of cognition to guide our attention to important elements in the students’
learning processes. Hence, this article examines Watson’s (2006) claim, by having students
explore the generation of a sample space within Tinkerplots2.
Radford’s (2009) theory of cognition is the knowledge objectification, a theoretical
perspective on teaching and learning in which learning is taking place as a social process
through which students become progressively conversant with cultural forms of reflection
(Radford, 2009). Within the theory of objectification, the distinctive sensuous and artefact-
mediated nature of thinking emphasizes the semiotic means of objectification through which
knowledge is objectified. The semiotic means of objectification include kinaesthetic actions,
gestures, signs (e.g. mathematical symbols, graphs, inscriptions, written and spoken
language), and artefacts (e.g. rulers, calculators). Thus, in what follows, in the practical
investigation of 9th grade students’ probabilistic thinking, attention will be paid to important
elements in the students’ learning processes when students explore the generation of a
sample space within Tinkerplots2.

Data Collection
The data come from an ongoing research study conducted in a rural secondary school.
The data have been collected during regular mathematics lessons. In these lessons the
students spent extensive time working in pairs. The researcher interacted continuously with
the pairs of students during the pair work phase in order to probe the reasons that might
explain their thinking. The data collected included audio recordings of each pair’s voices
and video recordings of the screen output on the computer activity using Camtasia software.
When students’ body language or facial expression appeared to be indicative of their
conceptual evolution, notes were kept. The researcher (Re) prompted students to use the
mouse systematically to point to objects on the screen when they reasoned about computer-
based phenomena in their attempt to explain their thinking. Plain paper was also available

611
for students’ use in case students needed to explain their thinking in a written form. This
article focuses on one pair of students, Rafael (Ra) and George (Ge).

Data Analysis
In the first lesson, students watched an instructional movie that shows how to use
TinkerPlots2 features to build a simulation of rolling two dice. They then built a simulation
of rolling four dice where the dice were presented by spinners (top right in Figure 1). They
ran the simulation many times and graphed the sum of four dice (bottom in Figure 1).

Figure 1. Simulation of rolling four dice in TinkerPlots2 and the graph the sum of four dice.

In the second lesson, students watched a TinkerPlots2 movie. TinkerPlots2 provides a

sampler that is essentially a non-conventional form of probability distribution. The
TinkerPlots2 movie showed how to use two counters to generate a sample space of rolling
two dice (Figure 2). Each counter had numbers one through six. As the simulation ran, the

Figure 2. Two counters generate a sample space of rolling two dice

right counter circled though the numbers one through six, but the left counter stayed on one.
Then the left counter advanced to two and the right counter circled through one to six again
until all the possible outcomes were produced. The students observed the systematic listing
of all possible outcomes of rolling two dice and the creation of a graph that shows the sum
of two dice and the use of the sample space to calculate theoretical probabilities. The
students were asked to use counters to build a sample space of rolling four dice (Figure 3)
and then, after answering some questions, to come up with general rules applied.

612
 Figure 3. A sample space of rolling four dice

In tune with our theoretical framework, a multi−semiotic data analysis was conducted to
investigate students’ probabilistic thinking. At the first stage, the audio recordings were
fully transcribed and screenshots were incorporated as necessary to make sense of the
transcription. The most salient episodes of the activities were selected. Focusing on the
selected episodes with the support of the transcript, along with a detailed account of
significant actions, gestures, and artefacts used; I study the role of spoken language with the
gestures including students’ actions when pointing to objects on the computer screen and
artefacts.

Results
The students built a simulation of rolling four dice and made a graph showing the sum
of four dice (left, in Figure 4). They ran the simulation and observed the possible outcomes
of rolling four dice. The researcher spent the rest of the first day discussing with the students
the graph that showed the sum of four dice. They run the simulation 80 times.
1. Ra: We see 14 is the most likely sum. (Gesture−uses the mouse to point to the 14th
column of the graph on the screen)
2. Ge: Run the simulation again.
3. Ra: This time it’s 15. (G− uses the mouse to point to the 15th column of the graph
on the screen)
4. Ge: Run it again, 80 times.
5. Ra: Okay, it’s16 now. (G− uses the mouse to point to the 16th column of the graph
on the screen)
6. Ge: It’s a bit inaccurate.
7. Ra: It’s in that general area. 13, 14, 15, 16 but they’re not all high values. Like see,
14, 15 taken a drop here (right, Figures 4). (G-uses the thumb and the index finger of
his right hand to point to the interval from the 13th to 16th columns and then uses
the mouse to point to the 14th and 15th columns of the graph individually).
Rafael changed from using the mouse to point to individual columns of the graph, to
using two fingers (the thumb and the index) to indicate and emphasize an interval on the
graph and then again he used the mouse to point to individual columns of the graph.
Gestures dominated Rafael’s respond to the researcher’s question about the most likely 4-
dice sum or a range of 4-dice sums. The coordinated use of spoken language and the use of
gestures served as semiotic means of objectification for Rafael. The boys continued their
discussion about the most likely 4-dice sum.

613
 Figure 4. Graphs of the sum of four dice

8. G: Um, probably 14 because the first time it was the highest. (G− uses the mouse to
point to the 14th column of the graph on the screen)
9. Ra: It’s remained constant.
10. G: Second time wasn’t yeah. It’s remained constantly fairly high.
11. Ra: It’s, um, generally it’s usually the same area most likely so that would seem the
most likely one that would come up. 13, 14, 15, 16 yeah, but particularly 14’s
always stayed constant. Like even though it’s not the highest here, it’s always stayed
in the range of the top highest.
12. G: Yeah, it’s in the top 3.
The boys reflected on previously observed graphs. Rafael became consciously aware of
a region in which the most likely outcomes were included. This region was placed around
the 14th column of the graph. Although the 14th column was not always the highest, it was,
according to the boys, constantly included in that region. The boys continued to observe
features of the graph while running the simulation several times (100 rolls each time).
13. Ra: Yeah, but 13, 14, 15, 16 they always get high. (G-uses the thumb and the index
finger of his right hand to point to the interval from 13th to 16th column).
14. G: When 15 was our highest, 15 was the most likely outcome by overall.
15. Ra: If you’re viewing in consistency standards, it would be 14. It seems to be the
most consistently high, or the most consistently high or most consistent and reliably
one to stay around that level or that range.
16. Re: Are you talking about the distribution of the outcomes.
17. Ra: Well it’s generally seems to stay between um… 12, 13-ish to about 17. (G-uses
the thumb and the index finger of his right hand to point to the interval from 12th to
17th column).
The boys ran the simulation several times increasing the number of rolls from 200 to 250. They
both concluded that 14, 15, 16 have the highest consistency. George added:
18. G: That seems to be what’s happened. That they are the most likely you’re going to
get.
The next day (2rd lesson) the researcher drew students’ attention to permutations without using
any explicit mathematical terminology.
19. R: Which 4-dice sum can be made up by adding different ordered numbers?
20. Ra: It should be … There is only 4 chances out of the possible outcomes. Like if I
was to get 24 I would have to get 4 six’s
21. G: That’s very unlikely. We didn’t get it there (referring to the graph they observed
during the previous lesson).
22. Ra: The reason, the range of those numbers (14 to 15 range)…. were so high
because there’s so many dice. You don’t need to get much of each dice. Those
numbers there allow you to have a wider variety of combinations like um if I… 13,
14, 15 being the highest ones.

614
 The boys were able to appreciate the connection between the outcomes from the
previously observed graphs, with the different faces of 4 dices that summed up to those
outcomes. While they attended to the shape of the graph, the permutations were not
perceptually distinguishable as actual experimental outcomes. When the researcher asked
students to list (on paper) those permutations that added up to 15, the boys began to
randomly list the possible outcomes for rolling four dice.
23. Ra: If I write it down once, do you want me to write it down every other way I could
write it down? I mean if I have, I have 6 – 4 – 3 – 2 do you want me to also write 3 –
4 – 6 – 2? Is it important?
24. Re: Yes. The order of the inscriptions is important. Why do you think that the order
is important?
25. Ra: I’m thinking, I guess, I’m trying to like answer but I don’t know if it’s right but
it’s like it’s, they vary…
26. Ra: … it’s just umm, like the fact that it’s variabled. Like it’s varied umm, I think is
important because like there is a better chance of getting that because the amount if
variables that you get with the equation that equals up to 15….If that sort of makes
sense, I don’t know, I’m just thinking.
As the previous dialogue shows, Rafael seemed able to understand the uniqueness of
permutations (i.e., that [3,5,6,1] and [5,3,1,6] were distinct) but he was unable to articulate
why permutations are distinct. When the researcher mentioned that the order of inscriptions
is important, Rafael seemed aware of the significance, but was unable to explain it. The
researcher instead of impressing upon the students the importance of the ordered outcomes
in a combinatorial experiment, asked students to watch a TinkerPlots movie which showed
how to use two counters to generate a sample space of rolling two dice. The students
observed the systematic listing of all possible outcomes of rolling four dice and made the
graph that showed the sum of four dice (Figure 5).
27. Ra: That’s how I would have worked out the four but I would have never ... it would
take someone too long to do by hand anyway. And I suppose they also do this with
locks and stuff. Yeah, when you get your bike lock. The 4 combinations 1 to 6. It
says how many combinations. I honestly never thought there would be that many.
Pretty, amazing!
When Rafael was previously asked to list all the possible outcomes of the sample space

Figure 5. The that showed the theoretical outcomes of the sum of four dice

he had difficulties with constructing combinatorial type outcomes, because he either did not
exhaust the sample space or duplicated possibilities. When Rafael watched how TinkerPlots
features systematically listed all the possible outcomes of rolling four dice using the
odometer strategy, he was surprised by the number of possible outcomes. The animated
generation of a sample space made it possible for the students to see the use of various
representations in solving the combinatorial problem situation including the use of
animations, systematic listings, and a table holding the all possible outcomes of rolling 4-

615
dice; these are semiotic means of objectification. When the students attempted to talk about
the graph that showed the theoretical outcomes (as opposed to the histograms generated by
running a sample, like they were looking at earlier in the paper):
28. Ra: Look at this peak, being 13, 14, 15 high (G-uses the thumb and the index finger
of his right hand to point to the interval from 13th to 16th column). We noticed that
before (refers to the graph they observed during the first lesson).
29. G: The difference between these two is that one (the graph created using all the
outcomes of the sample space) is a lot more accurate as it’s going through every
single stage compared to the other one.
30. Ra: This is a lot more thorough, as it goes through every single possibility you could
have … It would probably be really helpful if you knew this, if you were gambling
or placing bets… It shows you the possible outcomes if you’re playing a game of
chance. If you want to know the possible outcomes of the ace coming up. Like you
want to know if there is more chance than it won’t come up, than it will not. You
could do that also, at horses.
The gesture (uses the thumb and the index finger of his right hand to point to the interval
from 13th to16th column) reminded boys of the previously observed graph, so they began
comparing the two graphs before the researcher would ask them (the researcher intended to
ask such a question). After this interplay, we observe that although R and G had never been
taught at school about the classicist and frequentist approaches to probability, the means of
objectification helped them to develop understandings about the two approaches to
probability. The students expressed a preference for using the classicist approach to
conceptualise the probabilistic experiment. They viewed the classicist approach as a “more
accurate” process, because it is based on all the possible outcomes of the sample space. The
sample space appeared to the students as an essential property that can regulate the results of
the graph, which shows the theoretical frequencies of the possible sums of 4-dice. After the
students had seen the systematic construction of the event space via combinatorial analysis
performed by features of TinkerPlots2, both Rafael and George made sense of the role of
the event space in relation to the experiment it is said to model. They saw connections
between the classicist approach and games of chance and suggested how to apply such a
probabilistic approach to the solution of new problems.

Discussion
Our data offer an initial glimpse of the development of probabilistic thinking about
combinatorial problems. It shows how the TinkerPlots2 combinatorial problem
implemented the pedagogical objective of enabling Grade 9 students with minimal
probabilistic knowledge to understand the generation of the event space of rolling four dice.
Students’ “spontaneous” perception was successfully transformed through the interaction of
students with the TinkerPlots2 combinatorial problem and the systematic listing of all
possible outcomes of rolling four dice. This interaction might be conceptualized as
occurring in the zone of proximal development out of which the students constructed new
understandings about the relevance of order (permutations) in the construction of the event
space. The researcher questioned students as they explored the combinatorial problem, to
promote students’ combinatorial understanding. The interaction of spoken language with
gestures (using fingers to point to the graph, using the mouse to point to the graph on the
screen), signs (graphs, written inscriptions, tables) and artefacts (computer animation) led
students to modify, or refine some of their original structuring relationships between the
semiotic means of objectification, or to consolidate new structuring relationships and

616
understandings of probabilistic concepts related to both the classicist and frequentist
approaches.
In this paper, there is evidence that the students expressed a preference for using the
classicist approach to conceptualise the probabilistic experiment. The results should not be
interpreted to indicate that activities that enable students to encounter classicist approaches
to key principles of combinatorial concepts are sufficient to achieve desired pedagogical
objectives.

References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). Australian Curriculum: Mathematics.
Version 1.1. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.acara.edu.au
Gal, I. (2005). Towards “probability literacy” for all citizens: building blocks and instructional dilemmas. In
G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring Probability in School: Challenges for Teaching and Learning (p. 39-63).
New York: Springer.
Moore, D. S. (1997). New pedagogy and new content: The case of statistics. International Statistical Review,
65(2), 123-165.
Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical
meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 111-126.
Steen, L. A. (Ed.). (1997). Why numbers count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrow’s America. New York:
College Entrance Examination Board.
Steen, L. A. (Ed.). (2001). Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative literacy. Washington DC:
Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation.
Wallman, K. K. (1993). Enhancing statistics literacy: Enriching our society. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 88, No. 421, 1-8.
TinkerPlots: Dynamic data exploration (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Emeryville: CA: Key Curriculum
Press.
Watson, J. M. (2006). Statistical literacy at school: Growth and goals. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

617