The Korea Society Of Educational Studies In Mathematics

Current Issue

Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics - Vol. 31, No. 2

[ Original Article ]
Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics - Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.179-210
Abbreviation: JERM
ISSN: 2288-7733 (Print) 2288-8357 (Online)
Print publication date 31 May 2021
Received 01 Apr 2021 Revised 26 Apr 2021 Accepted 29 Apr 2021

Introduction of Conditional Probability with the Relative Frequency Approach: Focus on the Use of the Frequency Tree Diagram and Simulation
Inyong Choi
Teacher, Hansung Science High School, South Korea

Correspondence to : Inyong Choi,

Copyright © The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


The purpose of this study is to propose and discuss the pedagogical idea of introducing conditional probability with the relative frequency approach. This study developed a learning activity and simulation using the frequency tree diagram and implemented them. The first-year high school students (n=14) were able to construct the concept of conditional probability through a frequency perspective of sequentially obtaining the conditional relative frequency, the limit of the relative frequency, and the theoretical probability. The implications for teaching and curriculum were presented.

Keywords: conditional probability, relative frequency approach, natural frequency, tree diagram, simulation


No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article wasr eported.

1. Batanero, C., & Borovcnik, M. (2016). Statistics and probability in high school. Springer.
2. Batanero, C., & Sanchez, E. (2005). What is the Nature of High School Students’ Conceptions and Misconceptions About Probability?. In Exploring probability in school (pp. 241-266). Springer, Boston, MA.
3. Biehler, R. (1991). Computers in probability education. Chance encounters: Probability in education, 169-211.
4. 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.
5. Borovcnik, M. (2012). Multiple perspectives on the concept of conditional probability. Avances de Investigación en Educación Matemática, (2).
6. Borovcnik, M., & Bentz, H. J. (1991). Empirical research in understanding probability. In Chance encounters: Probability in education (pp. 73-105). Springer, Dordrecht.
7. Chance, B., Ben-Zvi, D., Garfield, J., & Medina, E. (2007). The role of technology in improving student learning of statistics. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 1(1).
8. Chaput, B., Girard, J. C., & Henry, M. (2011). Frequentist approach: Modelling and simulation in statistics and probability teaching. In Teaching Statistics in school mathematics-Challenges for teaching and teacher education (pp. 85-95). Springer, Dordrecht.
9. Cho, C. M. (2010). A Study on Conditional Probability. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 20(1), 1-20.
10. Choi, I. Y. & Cho, H. H. (2017). An Anaylsis of Middle School Student’s Eye Movements in the Law of Large Numbers Simulation Activity. The Mathematical Education, 56(3), 281-300.
11. Díaz, C., & Batanero, C. (2009). University students’ knowledge and biases in conditional probability reasoning. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(3), 131-162.
12. Eichler, A., & Vogel, M. (2014). Three approaches for modelling situations with randomness. In Probabilistic thinking (pp. 75-99). Springer, Dordrecht.
13. Falk, R. (1986). Conditional probabilities: insights and difficulties. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Teaching Statistics (pp. 292-297).
14. Finzer, W., Erickson, T., & Binker, J. (2000), Fathom. Key Curriculum Press.
15. Fischbein, H. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media.
16. Fischbein, E., & Gazit, A. (1984). Does the teaching of probability improve probabilistic intuitions?. Educational studies in mathematics, 15(1), 1-24.
17. Fischbein, E., & Schnarch, D. (1997). Brief report: The evolution with age of probabilistic, intuitively based misconceptions. Journal for research in mathematics education, 28(1), 96-105.
18. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychological review, 102(4), 684.
19. Gras, R., & Totohasina, A. (1995). Chronologie et causalité, conceptions sources d’obstacles épistémologiques a la notion de probabilité conditionnelle. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques (Revue), 15(1), 49-95.
20. Ireland, S., & Watson, J. (2009). Building a connection between experimental and theoretical aspects of probability. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(3), 339-370.
21. Jones, G. A., Langrall, C. W., Thornton, C. A., & Mogill, A. T. (1999). Students’ probabilistic thinking in instruction. Journal for research in mathematics education, 487-519.
22. Kolmogorov, A. N. (1956). Foundations of the theory of probability.
23. Konold, C., & Kazak, S. (2008). Reconnecting data and chance. Technology innovations in statistics education, 2(1).
24. Kim, W. K., Lim, S. H., Kim, D. H., Kang, S. J., Cho, M. S., Bang, K. S., Yoon, J. K., Shin, J. H., Kim, K. T., Park, H. J., Sim,J. S., Oh, H. J., Lee, D. K., Jung, J. H., & Heo, N. K. (2018). Probability and Statistics. Seoul: Bi-Sang Edu.
25. Ku, N., Tak, B., Choi, I., & Kang, H-Y. (2019). An analysis of preservice mathematics teachers’ reading of curriculum materials: Focused on conditional probability. The Mathematical Education, 58(3), 347-365.
26. Ku, N., Tak, B., Choi, I., & Kang, H-Y. (2020). An Analysis of Inservice Mathematics Teachers’ Reading of Curriculum Materials: Focused on Conditional Probability. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 30(3), 487-508.
27. Lee, J. Y. (2005). Study on the understanding of conditional probability concept (Masters dissertation). Seoul National University, Seoul.
28. Lee, J. Y., Choi, B. R., Kim, D. J., Jeon, C., Chang, H. S., Sogn, Y. H., Song, J., & Kim, S. C. (2018). Probability and Statistics. Seoul: Chun-Jae textbook.
29. Lee, J. Y. & Woo, J. H. (2009). A Didactic Anaylsis of Conditional Probability. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 19(2), 233-256.
30. Lee, Y. K. & Cho, J. S. (2015). An Anaylsis on Abduction Type in the Activities Expol ring ‘Law of Large Numbers’. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 25(3), 323-345.
31. Maxara, C., & Biehler, R. (2006, July). Students’ probabilistic simulation and modeling competence after a computer-intensive elementary course in statistics and probability. In Proceeding of the Seventh International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics (pp. 1-6).
32. McDowell, M., & Jacobs, P. (2017). Meta-analysis of the effect of natural frequencies on Bayesian reasoning. Psychological bulletin, 143(12), 1273.
33. Ministry of Education. (2015). Mathematics curriculum. Ministry of Education Notice, No. 2015-74 [Separate issue 8].
34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
35. Pollatsek, A., Well, A. D., Konold, C., Hardiman, P., & Cobb, G. (1987). Understanding conditional probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40(2), 255-269.
36. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (2001). Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 130(3), 380.
37. Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992). Research in probability and statistics: Reflections and directions.
38. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Stohl, H., & Tarr, J. E. (2002). Developing notions of inference using probability simulation tools. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(3), 319-337.
40. Tarr, J. E., & Lannin, J. K. (2005). How can teachers build notions of conditional probability and independence?. In Exploring Probability in School (pp. 215-238). Springer, Boston, MA.
41. Tarr, J. E., & Jones, G. A. (1997). A framework for assessing middle school students’ thinking in conditional probability and independence. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 39-59.
42. Tomlinson, S., & Quinn, R. (1997). Understanding conditional probability. Teaching Statistics, 19, 2-7.
43. Watson, J. (2005). The probabilistic reasoning of middle school students. In Exploring probability in school (pp. 145-169). Springer, Boston, MA.
44. Watson, J. M. (2013). Statistical literacy at school: Growth and goals. Routledge.
45. Watson, J. M., & Kelly, B. A. (2007). The development of conditional probability reasoning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(2), 213-235.
46. Watson, J. M., & Moritz, J. B. (2002). School tsudents’ reasoning about conjunction and conditional events. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 33(1), 59-84.
47. Wilensky, U. (1997). What is normal anyway? Therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educational studies in mathematics, 33(2), 171-202.
48. Woo, J. H. (2017). Educational Foundation of School Mathematics (3). Seoul: Seoul National University Publishing Co.
49. Woo, J. H., Jung, Y. Y., Park, K. M., Lee, K. H., Kim, N. H., Na, K. S., & Yim, J. H. (2006). Research methodology in mathematics education. Seoul: KyungMoonSa.
50. Yáñez, G. (2002). Students’ difficulties and strategies in solving conditional probability problems with computational simulation.
51. Zhu, L., & Gigerenzer, G. (2006). Children can solve Bayesian problems: The role of representation in mental computation. Cognition, 98(3), 287-308.