ISSN 2087-8885

E-ISSN 2407-0610

Journal on Mathematics Education

Volume 12, No. 1, January 2021, pp. 1-16

A LEARNING TRAJECTORY FOR PROBABILITY: A CASE OF

GAME-BASED LEARNING

Ariyadi Wijaya1, Elmaini2, Michiel Doorman3

1Universitas
Negeri Yogyakarta, Jl. Colombo Yogyakarta No. 1, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2SMP Negeri 14 Tanjung Jabung Timur, Jl. Siswa Kampung Baru Mendahara Ilir, Jambi, Indonesia
3Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, 3584 CS Utrecht, Netherlands

Email: a.wijaya@uny.ac.id

Abstract
This research is aimed to describe a learning trajectory for probability through game-based learning. The research
employed design research consisting of three stages: preparing for the experiment, design experiment, and
retrospective analysis. A hypothetical learning trajectory (HLT) using Sudoku and Snake-and-ladder games was
developed by collecting data through documentation, interviews, and classroom observations. The HLT was
implemented in the classroom to investigate students’ actual learning trajectory. The results of this research
indicate that the games helped students understand the concept of probability. The learning trajectory for
probability based on game-based learning is seen from the perspective of four levels of emergent modeling. In
the first level – ‘situational level’ – Sudoku and Ladder-and-Snake games were played by students. The second
level is the ‘referential level’ where the rules of the games were used as a starting point to learn the concept of
probability. Communication during game playing stimulated students' knowledge about random events, sample
spaces, sample points, and events. At the third level – ‘general level’ – students used tree and table diagrams to
generalize possible outcomes of an experiment and develop an understanding of sample spaces and sample
points. Lastly, at the ‘formal level’ students developed their informal knowledge into formal concepts of
probabilities.
Keywords: design research, four levels of modelling, game-based learning, learning trajectory, probability

Abstrak
Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mendeskripsikan lintasan belajar (learning trajectory) untuk topik peluang yang
dikembangkan dalam suatu pembelajaran berbasis permainan. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian desain
yang terdiri dari tiga tahap: persiapan eksperimen, desain eksperimen, dan analisis retrospektif. Suatu
hypothetical learning trajectory (HLT) yang menggunakan permainan Sudoku dan Ular Tangga dikembangkan
dengan menggunakan data dari dokumentasi, wawancara, dan observasi kelas. HLT tersebut diimplementasikan
di kelas untuk menyelidiki lintasan belajar siswa yang aktual. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa permainan
dapat membantu siswa memahami konsep peluang. Lintasan belajar berdasarkan pembelajaran berbasis
permainan ini dilihat dari perspektif empat level pemodelan. Level pertama adalah ‘level situasional’ dimana
Sudoku dan Ular tangga dimainkan oleh siswa. Pada level kedua – ‘level referensial’ aturan permainan dijadikan
sebagai titik awal untuk mempelajari konsep peluang. Komunikasi selama permainan menstimulasi munculnya
pemahaman siswa tentang kejadian acak, ruang sampel, titik sampel, dan kejadian. Pada tahap ketiga– ‘level
general’ – siswa menggunakan diagram pohon dan tabel untuk menggeneralisasi luaran yang mungkin dari suatu
eksperimen dan mengembangkan pemahaman tentang ruang sampel dan titik sampel. Pada tahap terakhir – ‘level
formal’, siswa mengembangkan pengetahuan informal mereka menjadi konsep formal tentang peluang.
Kata kunci: desain riset, empat level pemodelan, pembelajaran berbasis permainan, lintasan belajar, peluang

How to Cite: Wijaya, A., Elmaini, & Doorman, M. (2021). A Learning Trajectory for Probability: A Case of
Game-Based Learning. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1-16.
http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.1.12836.1-16

Probability is a domain in mathematics that studies the size of the uncertainty of an event that exists in
life (Smith, 1998). Understanding probability is important because, according to OECD (2016, p. 74),
uncertainty is “a phenomenon at the heart of the mathematical analysis of many problem situations.”
Furthermore, decision making involving uncertainty has become an integral part of modern society

1
2 Journal on Mathematics Education, Volume 12, No. 1, January 2021, pp. 1-16

today. Knowledge of uncertainty or probability can empower students to make wise decisions when
facing various situations (Kennedy, Tipps & Johnson, 2008).
A good understanding about probability also helps individual to understand the risks and possible
benefits of an action and also ensure fairness in everyday lives (Bryant & Nunes, 2012). Considering
the importance of probability, many countries place probability as a part of mathematics school
curriculum. Moreover, there was a movement that introduced probability earlier at the primary school
level (Jun, 2000; Frykholm, 2001). In the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),
probability is also considered as one of the important mathematical content categories to assess
students’ mathematical literacy (see OECD, 2009).
The great attention to uncertainty or probability in the curriculum document needs to be supported
by effective classroom practices. An effective mathematics teaching should consider ‘where students
are‘ and help students to build their mathematical knowledge in their own way (Clements & Sarama,
2009). Helping students build knowledge means it is crucial for a teacher to understand students’
thinking for which conceptual analysis and conjectures of students’ actions and thoughts are required
(Amador & Lamberg, 2013). Teachers’ insight into students’ understanding serves as an important base
for teachers to develop appropriate learning activities including conjectures of students’ responses to
the learning activities (Simon, 1995). With this respect, several studies consider a so-called hypothetical
learning trajectory or learning trajectory. A hypothetical learning trajectory is a means to understand
students’ thinking and to develop tasks and activities based on conjectures of students’ way of thinking.
A hypothetical learning trajectory provides conjectures of students’ learning route when they learn
particular topic (de Beer, Gravemeijer, & van Eijk, 2017; Clements & Sarama in Daro, et al., 2011;
Mojica & Confrey, 2009). A hypothetical learning trajectory comprised three main components, i.e.
learning goals, learning activities, and hypothesis of students’ learning process (Simon, 1995). Learning
goals are the first component to indicate the outcomes to be achieved at the end of the lesson. The
learning goals are used to formulate possible learning activities as a ‘road’ to achieve these learning
goals. The last component is conjectures or hypothesis of students’ learning process. This last
component is useful for designing alternative actions or strategies to address students’ problems or
responses that might occur during the learning activities.
Regarding the teaching of probability, Fischbein (2002) suggested that teachers should not
emphasize on teaching procedural skills. Instead, teachers need to give students experiences to
understand probabilistic situations through an experiment. When the experiment is contextual, this
context can provide a meaningful starting point for learning by students and help them develop their
knowledge of mathematics concepts. One of possible contexts for teaching mathematics is in the form
of games. Wijaya, Doorman, and Keijzer (2011) used traditional games to teach the topic of linear
measurement for second graders. The results of their study showed that the traditional games helped
students grasping the notion of measurement of length. Furthermore, the discussion about the games
also naturally raised students’ need for a standard measurement unit. The transition from non-standard
 Wijaya, Elmaini, & Doorman, A Learning Trajectory for Probability …. 3

measurement unit to standard measurement unit emerged from students themselves. At the end of the
lesson series, students successfully perceived the measurement of length as concept, not merely as a
procedure. A study of Perry dan Dockett (2002) also shows how game techniques could effectively
support students’ development in mathematics. An important key of a game-based learning is how
students’ informal notion of mathematics concepts is brought to formal understanding of the concepts.
In this respect, Gravemeijer’s (1994) level of emergent modeling can be seen as an important
framework. Gravemeijer proposed four levels of models, i.e. situational, referential, general, and
formal. The situational level of a game-based learning starts when students are playing the game. At
this level, students’ discussion and thinking process are mainly within the context of the games while
they are playing the games. In the second level, i.e. the referential level, students no longer play the
games, but during their discussion the students make reference to the games, such as the rule of the
games. Students’ discussion starts to discard the context of the games when students achieve the general
level. Lastly, in the formal level students discuss the mathematical properties concerning the topics.
Learning trajectories are important references for teachers to connect student-centered instruction
with domain-specific understandings of students’ thinking (Nickerson & Whitacre, 2010; Sztajn,
Confrey, Wilson, & Edgington, 2012; Wilson, Sztajn, Edgington, & Myers, 2015). Therefore, sufficient
and appropriate learning trajectories are crucial to support students’ conceptual understanding. In this
respect, this study highlights the importance of learning trajectory for learning probability and the
potential use of game-based learning. The present study is aimed to better understand how to support
students’ learning trajectory for probability when students learn mathematics through a game-based
learning approach.

METHOD
Research Procedure
This study employed the design research approach of Gravemeijer and Cobb (2013) because the
intention of the present study was to develop a theory about the process of learning a particular concept
and the instructional design to support that learning. This design research approach comprised three
phases: (1) preparation for the experiment, (2) design experiment, and (3) retrospective analysis (review
analysis). In the first phase, initial ideas for a set of instructional activities were explored through
reviewing literature and interviewing teacher. The literature review was aimed to see theoretical
perspectives. The interview involved only one mathematics teacher from the school where the
experiment was conducted. This teacher was selected because she was the only teacher who taught
probability during the period of data collection. The intention of the interview was to identify teacher’s
factual teaching practices in particular about students’ difficulties in learning probability and to explore
conjectures of students’ thinking. Following the idea of Simon and Tzur (2004) and Schneider and
Gowan (2013), teacher’s understanding of students’ learning processes is considered in developing a
basis to solve pedagogical problems. The combination of theoretical and factual perspectives served as
4 Journal on Mathematics Education, Volume 12, No. 1, January 2021, pp. 1-16

the basis for designing a hypothetical learning trajectory (HLT). The HLT comprised three elements,
i.e. learning objectives, learning activities, and conjectures of students’ learning process.
In the second phase – i.e. design experiment phase – the hypothetical learning trajectory was
implemented in two stages of experiment: pilot experiment and teaching experiment. The pilot
experiment involved 32 eight graders and was set as a bridge between the initial design phase and
teaching experiment. The focus of the pilot experiment was to see the feasibility of the initial design in
the HLT and to collect data that might be needed to revise the HLT. After the pilot experiment, a
teaching experiment involving other 32 eight graders were performed to investigate how the revised
HLT helped students learn probability. Students’ thoughts were observed from their works and
interviews with 18 students. An interview was conducted after every activity and involved three students
representing low, medium, and high ability students. The interviews were aimed to explore students’
learning opportunity and learning obstacles.
The last phase of this design research was retrospective analysis. In this phase, all data obtained
in the design experiment phase were analyzed by focusing on the comparison between the HLT and the
actual learning process of students. This analysis also included analyzing possible causes and
synthesizing possibilities that can be done to improve the HLT.
The essence of this design research is a cyclic process. The thought experiment in the first phase
– which in this study was in the form of initial HLT for probability – was implemented as an
instructional experiment, i.e. pilot experiment and teaching experiment. The results of the instructional
experiment were analyzed through a retrospective analysis resulting new thought experiment.

Subjects
For the design experiment phase, a total of 64 eight graders (14 years old) at a public junior high
school located in urban area in Indonesia participated in the study. Thirty-two students participated in
the pilot experiment and 32 students participated in the design experiment. In addition to these 64
students, a mathematics teacher was also involved in the study, i.e. in an interview prior to the design
process and in implementing the instructional activities.

Hypothetical Learning Trajectory

As mentioned earlier, a HLT comprising learning objectives, learning activities, and conjectures of
students’ learning process was designed during the thought experiment stage (see Figure 1). The
learning objectives were formulated by referring to the Indonesian mathematics curriculum and the
theoretical structure of the concept of probability because according to Clements, Wilson, and Sarama
(2004), existing research serves as a primary means to construct the first draft of learning trajectories.
The learning activities consisted of five activities situated in game-based learning which was arranged
from simple activity such as deciding the rule of the games to discussing the results of game playing.
Sudoku and snake-and-ladder games were chosen for the learning activities these games because the
 Wijaya, Elmaini, & Doorman, A Learning Trajectory for Probability …. 5

use of rolling die and the rules of the games were relevant to the topic probability, e.g. the rolling die
was related to random events. Another consideration for choosing the two games was students’
familiarity with the games because these games were famous among students. Familiarity is an
important aspect for a meaningful learning. Familiar contexts could change the students’ mindset from
mathematics as an isolated concept to an integrated part of life (Risdiyanti & Prahmana, 2020). By using
the games, they were already familiar with, students could build their understanding on new concepts
because as mentioned by Mayer (2002), a meaningful learning occurs when students can connect their
existing knowledge and experience to the new knowledge. Lastly, students’ learning processes were
conjectured on the basis of theoretical prediction and teacher’s responses during the interview.

Understanding random Activity 1:

Non-standard • Rock-paper-
event Deciding a fair rule to scissors
experimental tool
determine the first player • A coin
and prediction
of the games • A die

• Tossing a coin
Understanding sample Activity 2: Standard and a die
points and sample space Tossing coins and dice experimental tool • Writing the
and prediction results of
tossing as a set

Activity 3:
Determining sample Corresponding • Two coins (or
points and sample space Arranging expected
favorable outcomes of more)
events in tree
using tree diagram and two or more • Two dice (or
table diagram and table
experimental tools (e.g. more)
coins and dice)

Determining empirical Performing • Various

Activity 4: repeated experiment occurrences
probability
Playing Sudoku and and counting the • Comparing
Ladder-and-Snake games frequency of results
occurrence (occurrences)
Determining theoretical
probability Activity 5:
Calculating ratio of the Performing 𝑛(𝐸)
number of favorable • P(E) =
calculation 𝑛(𝑆)
outcomes to the number of
possible outcomes

Conjecture of
Learning objectives Learning activities
students’ learning

Figure 1. A game-based hypothetical learning trajectory for probability

Data Collection and Data Analysis

This study used qualitative data obtained through interview, observation, and documents.
Teacher interview was conducted to explore teacher’s regular teaching practices and to identify
students’ difficulties in learning probability and conjectures of students’ learning. The interview was
performed in a semi-structure way in which three aspects – i.e. teaching practices, students’ learning
6 Journal on Mathematics Education, Volume 12, No. 1, January 2021, pp. 1-16

difficulties, and conjectures of students’ thinking – were used as a guideline, but teacher’s responses
were elaborated into more detailed aspects. Interviews with students were also conducted to explore
students’ learning potential and learning obstacles during the learning activities. With regard to the
observation, the researchers focused on students’ actual learning processes, which were later, compared
to the conjectures in the HLT. Lastly, the documentation was done by collecting students’ works.
Following the phases of design research (see Gravemeijer & Cobb, 2013), the data was analyzed
retrospectively by using the HLT as the guideline for the analysis. The first step of the analysis focused
on the implementation of the learning activities to check whether they were implemented according to
the design. In the next step, students’ actual learning process as obtained from empirical observations
was compared to the learning objectives to see to what extent the learning objectives were achieved and
how students gained their understanding of probability. Furthermore, students’ actual learning process
was compared to the conjectures or predictions of students’ learning process in the HLT. Analyzing the
interplay between the HLT and empirical observations served as the basis for developing an
instructional theory. After the retrospective analysis, the initial HLT was adjusted to obtain a new HLT.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of this study concern the development of students’ notion about probability that was
gained through a game-based learning, i.e. from Activity 1 to Activity 5. The description of this
development is elaborated in the following sub-sections.
Activity 1: Deciding A Fair Rule to Determine the First Player of Sudoku and Snake-and-Ladder Game
The first activity was about deciding a fair rule to determine the first player of games. This
activity was aimed to introduce the concept of random event to students. The random event here was
connected to the idea that the rule for determining first player is said to be fair if none of the players
know in advance who will be the first player. This idea of fair game is close to the concept of random
event, i.e. an event or process that cannot be made exact or whose outcome cannot be predicted, e.g.,
the numbers showed on two rolled dice.
In pairs, the students were asked to discuss rules to fairly determine the first player of the games.
The observed classroom activities showed that the students did not have difficulty in Activity 1. They
could find fair ways to determine the first player of the games. They said that the first player could be
determined by tossing a coin, tossing a die, or using rock-paper-scissors game. At the beginning, it was
not clear whether the chosen strategies or rules was simply due to students’ familiarity of the games or
the students really understood the idea of the ‘unpredictability of the outcomes of the strategy’.
Therefore, random students were asked about their reasons for choosing particular methods. It was
revealed that the students could explain that a fair way meant “not knowing or being uncertain about
the result of tossing a coin, tossing a die, or playing rock-paper-scissors, which therefore every player
would get the same opportunity for being chosen as the first player.” Figure 2 shows an example of
students’ response to problems about tossing a coin that was provided in the worksheet.
 Wijaya, Elmaini, & Doorman, A Learning Trajectory for Probability …. 7

1. What are possible outcomes of tossing

a coin?
The possible outcomes are ‘number’ or
‘image’
2. How many possible outcomes of
tossing a coin?
There are two possible outcomes

Figure 2. Example of a student's work

In order to know students’ arguments or reasons for their answers to the worksheet, the researcher
interviewed three students representing low, medium, and high ability students to get a confirmation.
The following excerpt shows an interview with a student.

Researcher : “... why did Dian use the word ‘possibly’?”

Dian : “Because a coin has two faces which are of ‘number’ or ‘image’, so we
cannot know which face will come on top if we toss the coin. The result of
tossing a coin could be the ‘number’ or the ‘image’.”

The abovementioned excerpt indicates the students’ notion about random event that was
presented as fairness in the games. It was found that the term ‘fair way’ [to determine the first player of
the games] can potentially be used as the starting point to discuss and learn the concept of random event.
In this regard, the students perceived that a random event was the situation at which we could not predict
the result of tossing a coin, tossing a die, or playing rock-paper-scissors.

Activity 2: Tossing Coin(s) and Rolling Dice

Activity 2 was about tossing coins and rolling dice and then recording the results. The learning
objective of Activity 2 was to develop students’ understanding on the concept of sample point, sample
space and events of an experiment. At the beginning of this activity, the students were asked to revisit
the concept of random event they developed in Activity 1, e.g. what were possible outcomes of tossing
a coin or rolling dice. In Activity 2, the students worked in pairs to work on worksheet that elicited the
concept of sample point, sample space and events. To solve problems in the worksheet, the students
were provided with dice and coins – which in the next activity were used as tools to play the games –
so that they could directly experimented the tossing. The students were asked to toss the coins and roll
the dice and then mention all possible outcomes. The students could successfully complete the
worksheet with the help of dice and coin. Figure 3 shows an example of students’ works.
From Figure 3, it can be seen that the students could determine all possible results of rolling a die
which in the snake-and-ladder game represents the number of steps taken by a player. The students
could correctly list all possible outcomes from tossing a die, i.e. is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Furthermore, the
students could also write down a set containing all possible outcomes of tossing a die. The results of
Activity 3 indicate that the students started to grab the idea of sample point and sample space.
8 Journal on Mathematics Education, Volume 12, No. 1, January 2021, pp. 1-16

Figure 3. Tossing a die and a coin to learn sample point and sample space

Activity 3: Corresponding Favorable Outcomes of Two or More Experimental Tools (e.g. Coins and Dice)
In Activity 3 the students had not yet played the Sudoku and Snake-and-ladder games. In this
activity, the students still continued playing with dice and coins without involving the Sudoku and
Snake-and-ladder games. The aim of this activity was to support students learned to determine sample
point and sample space by using tree diagram and table. Classroom activities were commenced by
recalling sample point, sample space, and random event of tossing dice and coins in the previous
meeting. In Activity 1 and Activity 2 the students mostly worked in situational level and referential (see
Gravemeijer, 1994), i.e. the situation of games, whereas in Activity 3 the students were brought into the
higher level, i.e. general level. In this general level the students were introduced ‘formal tools’ – i.e.
tree diagram and table – to tabulate sample points resulted from tossing dice and coins (Figure 4). Tree
diagram and table are tools which were potential to guide students into formal procedure. After tossing
a die or coins, students were asked to record their results in tree diagram and table.
a. Tree diagram b. Using table
Possible
Coin 2 outcomes Coin 1
Coin 1 A G
A (A, A)
Coin 2

A A (A, A) (..., ...)

G (..., ...)
Start G (..., ...) (..., ...)
G A (..., ...)
G (..., ...)
The sample points are: (...., ....), (...., ....), (...., ....), (...., ....)
The sample points are: (...., ....), (...., ....), (...., ....), (...., ....)
The sample space = S = {(...., ....), (...., ....), (...., ....), (...., ....)}
The sample space = S = {(...., ....), (...., ....), (...., ....), (...., ....)}
The number of the sample space’s elements = n(S) = .... The number of the sample space’s elements = n(S) = ....

Figure 4. Tree diagram and table as formal tools to present sample points

Students did not have difficulties in using tree diagram and table to tabulate the possible outcomes
of tossing dice and coins because they have developed the notion about sample points, sample space,
and random event from previous activities. After students tossed coins and rolled dice to fill in the table
and tree diagrams, students were asked to mention possible outcomes of an event by completing tree
diagram and table without using any coin or die, such as rolling three dice. Students’ works also indicate
that the students have developed their notion about sample points, sample space, and random event into
higher and more formal form because they no longer relied on real experiment with coins and dice.
 Wijaya, Elmaini, & Doorman, A Learning Trajectory for Probability …. 9

Activity 4: Playing Sudoku and Ladder-and-Snake Games

In Activity 4 students played Sudoku and Snake-and-ladder games. While playing the games, the
students were asked to pay attention to the ways to determine the first player for the case of Sudoku and
to determine the number of steps in Snake-and-ladder. Furthermore, the students were asked to record
the game playing in tables (see Figure 5). The intention of Activity 4 was to introduce the concept of
empirical probability. Therefore, after filling in the tables the students were asked whether tossing a
coin twice would definitely give them both faces of the coin, i.e. face and number. Some students indeed
could get the two faces of a coin after tossing the coin twice. Therefore, a next question was posed to
narrow down the focus of students to empirical probability, i.e. “if we tossed the coin six times, did we
certainly get the ‘number’ three times?”. Similarly, for the case of rolling a die the students were asked
whether rolling a die six times would make all numbers from 1 to 6 appear.
The aforementioned guiding questions were posed to help students realize the uncertainty of
tossing a coin or rolling a die. As shown in Figure 5, after rolling a die 60 times the students got
unbalanced appearance of the faces of the die; for example, number ‘2’ was the most frequently
appeared face, whereas number ‘1’ was the least frequently appeared face. In the next step, the students
were asked to focus on the ratio of the occurrence of a particular face of the die to the total occurrences.
The term ‘empirical probability’ was introduced to the students to label the ratio they got. The students
were guided to construct their understanding about empirical probability to represent the probability of
a particular event which is obtained from an experiment.

Event Tally Frequency (f)

Face “1”

Face “2”

Face “3”

Face “4”

Face “5”

Face “6”

Total number of tossing n (P)

Figure 5. A table to record the game playing

Activity 5: Calculating Ratio of the Number of Favorable Outcomes to the Number of Possible Outcomes
The objective of Activity 5 was to introduce the concept of theoretical probability of a particular
event. After the students grasped the idea of empirical probability as the result from an experiment, they
were guided towards the idea of theoretical probability. For this purpose, a connection to Activity 4 was
made, such as “you could determine the occurrence of face ‘1’ after rolling the die 60 times. The
10 Journal on Mathematics Education, Volume 12, No. 1, January 2021, pp. 1-16

question now is how many times will face ‘1’ appear if we roll the die for 1000 times?” A thousand of
rolling was chosen on purpose because it was not easy to roll a die 1000 times manually. Therefore, it
triggered the students to estimate the possible number of occurrences of face ‘1’. The students might
narrow down from 1000 times of rolling to 500 times or even smaller number and at the end of the
activity the students arrived at predicting the probability for face ‘1’ to occur when the die was rolled
once. Worksheet was used to help students grasp the idea of theoretical probability from rolling a die
(Figure 6).

The Number of Theoretical

Sample An event sample sample probability
Experiment n(S)
space S X point of point(s) 𝑛 (𝑋)
𝑃 𝑋 =
event X n(X) 𝑛 (𝑆)

Tossing a Face 1
{A, G} 2 A 1
coin ‘number’ 2

Tossing (A,A,A),
... ... ... ... ...
three coins (G,G,G)

Tossing two 1
... ... ... ... ...
dice 18

Figure 6. An example of task in the worksheet for Activity 5

In Activity 5 the students have arrived at Graveimejer’s (1994) formal level at which the students
mostly worked with mathematical representation and concept. In general, the students did not have
difficulties in solving tasks addressing theoretical probability of an event. It was confirmed during an
interview with students. The following excerpt is example of conversation between the researcher and
a student.

Researcher : “Nando, why did you choose ‘dice’s faces showing a total of 3’ for this
event” [pointing to a task in the worksheet that had a theoretical probability
of 1/18]
Nando : “Because there two sample points, Mam. These two refers to dice’s face
showing a total of 3”
Researcher : “Where did 2 come from?”
Nando : “The theoretical probability is 1/18 and we have two dice with 36 elements
of the sample space. It means 18 is a half of 36, so the sample point is 1
multiplied by 2”
Researcher : “What are these two events (sample points)?”
Nando : “Here they are” [pointing to (1,2) and (2,1) on the worksheet]

The students’ works, observation and the results of observation and interview indicate that the students
have gained their understanding about theoretical probability.

Learning Trajectory for Probability: An Emergent Modeling from Game-Based Learning

The result of this study was in the form of students’ trajectory in learning probability through a
 Wijaya, Elmaini, & Doorman, A Learning Trajectory for Probability …. 11

game-based learning. Combining the results from the five activities, the learning trajectory can be
focused on four levels of modelling: situational level, referential level, general level, and formal level.
In the situational level the students grabbed an early notion about random event, sample points, sample
space, and empirical probability directly from the game playing. The notion of random event emerged
when the students were discussing the ways to fairly determine the first player of the games, i.e. a fair
rule is when none of the players know in advance who will be the first player which in terms of
probability it refers to the concept of random event. Coins and dice played a crucial role in this situation
because as highlight by Paparistodemou, Noss, and Pratt (2008), because they are popular for children
and “incorporate both apparent and unsteerable flavours of fairness” (p. 107). Students’ notion about
sample space was visible when they were discussing the possible number of steps can be taken by a
player in Snake-and-ladder game. These possible number of steps were the results of rolling a die. When
discussing the fair game rule and possible number of steps in Snake-and-ladder game, students still
positioned themselves in game situation. Therefore, the students were still at situational level.
Students’ early notion about the concepts of random event, sample points, sample space was
strengthened in the referential level. In the referential level the students were asked to refer to the rules
and their communication during the game playing. For example, regarding the ways to determine the
first player of the games, the students were asked what ‘fair’ meant and what ways they used to fairly
determine the first player. From the classroom discussion, it was revealed that the term ‘fair’ has led
students to the concept of random event. This result is quite similar to the study of Wijaya et al. (2011)
which found how the term ‘fair’ led students to the concept of standard measurement. Such process is
quite close to the idea of ‘lateral learning’ in which students used their current schemes in new situations
or ways to establish new schemes (Steffe, 2004). Another term which stimulated students to grab a
mathematics concept was the term ‘possible outcomes’. During the classroom discussion, this term
strengthened students’ conception of sample points and sample space.
After the students had a good understanding of the concepts, in the general level some
mathematical tools were introduced to the students. Tree diagram and table were used to present the
outcomes of tossing coins and a die. These tools were used to generalize possible outcomes of various
events which were not directly experienced or experimented by the students; such as tossing a coin and
a die or rolling three dice. Furthermore, the tree diagram and table were used to highlight the concept
of sample points and sample space. As revealed by Doorman and Gravemeijer (2009) and Gravemeijer,
Bowers, and Stephan (2003), there is a positive interaction between the tools that are used by students
and students’ acquisition of mathematics concepts. Similarly, Shanty (2016) found that informal tools
used by students are gradually developed into a more formal mathematics.
In the formal level students already worked with mathematical concept and representation. In this
level, the students determined the empirical probability and theoretical probability of particular events.
In this matter, the actual results of Sudoku and Snake-and-ladder games were used to help the students
grabbed the idea of empirical probability. In the next step, the games were used to help the students
12 Journal on Mathematics Education, Volume 12, No. 1, January 2021, pp. 1-16

constructed the notion of theoretical probability. The notion of theoretical probability was built upon
students’ understanding of empirical probability combined with a guiding question to give a kind of
cognitive conflict that triggered and help students constructed new understanding.
One of the main ideas of HLT is to develop a set of learning activities based on a teacher’s
conjectures regarding his or her students’ current understanding of a targeted mathematics concept
including potential obstacles or challenges experienced by students (Lobato & Walters, 2017). In line
with this idea, the results of this study indicate how a game-based learning could support the
development of students’ conceptual understanding of the concept of probability. Furthermore, the
alignment between the learning activities and the progress of students’ conceptual understanding can
be framed as a process of emergent modelling (see Gravemeijer, 1994) from situational level to formal
level. Students’ learning trajectory from the situational level to formal level in understanding the
concept of probability taught in a game-based learning was presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Learning trajectory for probability situated in a game-based learning

The present study is aimed to contribute to the development of a local instruction theory
for the teaching and learning of probability through a game-based learning. It is revealed that
the use of games and their tools can support students develop their understanding of the concept
 Wijaya, Elmaini, & Doorman, A Learning Trajectory for Probability …. 13

of probability. Students’ understanding of probability emerges gradually through four levels of

modelling: situational level, referential level, general level, and formal level. The use of ‘tools’
– both game-based tools (such as coin and dice) and mathematical tools (such as table and
diagram) – helped students gain their understanding of probability concept and move from one
level to a higher level of modeling. Furthermore, this study reveals that terminologies and
interactions used in game playing can stimulate students’ notion of mathematics concept. As
an example, is the term ‘fair’ that leads students to the idea of random event. In the situational
and referential stages students often used their informal knowledge which underlying
mathematical notion. Students’ acquisition of concept resulted from the game playing needs to
be transformed into more formal level of mathematics. In the general level, mathematical tools
– i.e. tree diagram and table – can be used to present students’ notion of the mathematics
concepts in more formal notation or representation. Finally, in the formal level the students can
be guided to see relations between mathematics concepts, e.g. empirical probability and
theoretical probability.

CONCLUSION
The learning trajectory resulted in this study can be considered as an alternative way or a
framework of reference for teachers to design a set of learning activities that support the development
of students’ conceptual understanding of mathematics concept. Nevertheless, generalizing the findings
of this study might be done with cautions because different games might give different results.
Furthermore, cultural aspects might influence the game playing and the interaction during the games.
Therefore, a challenge for further studies is to develop learning trajectories that can work in more
general situations. Another future challenge is teachers’ competence in developing learning trajectories
that fit their own classroom. In this respect, there are important aspects to consider including teachers’
knowledge of mathematics, teachers’ knowledge of mathematical activities, teachers’ knowledge on
mathematics teaching, teachers’ knowledge of students’ learning of a particular topic, and also teachers’
ability to hypothesize students’ knowledge and learning obstacles.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to express our gratitude to the principal, teacher, and students of SMP N 31 Padang
for giving us opportunity to conduct the research. We would also like to thank Dr. Sugiman and Dr. Ali
Mahmudi for fruitful and valuable feedback on our hypothetical learning trajectory.
14 Journal on Mathematics Education, Volume 12, No. 1, January 2021, pp. 1-16

REFERENCES
Amador, J., & Lamberg, T. (2013). Learning trajectories, lesson planning, affordances, and constraints
in the design and enactment of mathematic teaching. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
15(2), 146-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2013.770719
Bryant, P., & Nunes, T. (2012). Children’s understanding of probability A literature review (summary
report). London: Nuffield Foundation.
Clements, D. H., Wilson, D. C., & Sarama, J. (2004). Young Children's Composition of Geometric
Figures: A Learning Trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 163-184.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_5
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories
approach. New York: Routledge.
Daro, P., Mosher, F. A., & Corcoran, T. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics. A foundation for
standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
de Beer, H., Gravemeijer, K., & van Eijck, M. (2017). A proposed local instruction theory for teaching
instantaneous speed in grade five. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 14(1), 435-468. Available at:
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/tme/vol14/iss1/24
Doorman, L. M., & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2009). Emergent modelling: Discrete graphs to support the
understanding of change and velocity. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education,
41(1), 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0130-z
Fischbein, E. (2002). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Doordrecht: Springer.
Frykholm, J. A. (2001). Building on intuitive notions of chance. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(2), 112-117.
Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht: Freudenthal Institute.
Gravemeijer, K., Bowers, J., & Stephan, M. (2003). A hypothetical learning trajectory on measurement
and flexible arithmetic. In M. Stephan, J. Bowers, P. Cobb & K. Gravemeijer (Eds.), Supporting
students’ development of measuring conceptions: Analyzing students’ learning in social context
(pp. 51-66). JRME Monograph 12. Reston, VA: National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.
Gravemeijer, K. & Cobb, P. (2013). Design research from a learning design perspective. In T. Plomp
& N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17-51). London: Routledge.
Jun, L. (2000). Chinese students’ understanding of probability. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
Kennedy, L. M., Tipps, S., & Johnson, A. (2008). Guiding children’s learning of mathematics. Belmont:
Thomson Higher Education.
Lobato, J., & Walters, C. D. (2017). A taxonomy of approaches to learning trajectories and progressions.
In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 74-101). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teacher of Mathematics.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into practice, 41(4), 226-232.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4
Mojica, G. F., & Confrey, J. (2009). Pre-service elementary teachers’ understanding of an equipartitioning
learning trajectory. Proceeding of the 31st annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Atlanta: George State University.
 Wijaya, Elmaini, & Doorman, A Learning Trajectory for Probability …. 15

Nickerson, S. D. & Whitacre, I. (2010). A local instruction theory for the development of number sense.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(3), 227-252.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10986061003689618
OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework - Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics and
Science. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and
Financial Literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-008-9132-8
Perry, B. & Dockett, S. (2002). Young children’s access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D.
English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 81-112).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Risdiyanti, I., & Prahmana, R.C.I. (2020). The learning trajectory of number pattern learning using
Barathayudha war stories and Uno Stacko. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(1), 157-166.
http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.1.10225.157-166
Schneider, M. C., & Gowan, P. (2013). Investigating teachers’ skills in interpreting evidence of student learning.
Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2013.793185
Shanty, N. O. (2016). Investigating students’ development of learning integer concept and integer
addition. Journal on Mathematics Education, 7(2), 57-72.
https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.7.2.3538.57-72
Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.26.2.0114
Simon, M. A. & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the Role of Mathematical Tasks in Conceptual Learning:
An Elaboration of the Hypothetical Learning Trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
6(2), 91-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_2
Smith, G. (1998). Introduction to statistical reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill Science, Engineering
& Mathematics.
Steffe, L. P. (2004) On the construction of learning trajectories of children: The case of commensurate
fractions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 129-162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_4
Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction:
Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147-156.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12442801
Wijaya, A., Doorman, M. L., & Keijzer, R. (2011). Emergent modelling: From traditional Indonesian
games to a standard unit of measurement. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in
Southeast Asia, 34(2), 149-173.
Wilson, P. H., Sztajn, P., Edgington, C., & Myers, M. (2015). Teachers’ uses of a learning trajectory in
student-centered instructional practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(3), 227-244.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115574104
16 Journal on Mathematics Education, Volume 12, No. 1, January 2021, pp. 1-16