{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,6]],"date-time":"2023-10-06T10:41:28Z","timestamp":1696588888942},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Editora e Distribuidora Educacional","issue":"1","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["JIEEM"],"abstract":"<jats:p>ResumoFrequentes dificuldades na compreens\u00e3o probabil\u00edstica exigem que se identifiquem cren\u00e7as intuitivas das crian\u00e7as para apoiar a promo\u00e7\u00e3o pedag\u00f3gica dessas aprendizagens. O presente estudo versa analisar as compreens\u00f5es de crian\u00e7as brasileiras e portuguesas acerca de justi\u00e7a em jogos, considerando demandas cognitivas da probabilidade referentes \u00e0 aleatoriedade, ao espa\u00e7o amostral e \u00e0 compara\u00e7\u00e3o de probabilidades. A pesquisa envolveu a an\u00e1lise de seis jogos e foi realizada por meio de uma entrevista cl\u00ednica com 15 crian\u00e7as brasileiras e 15 portuguesas, com m\u00e9dia de idade de 11 anos. Os resultados revelam que as crian\u00e7as apresentaram facilidade em avaliar um jogo injusto quando envolvia aleatorizadores viciados e em perceber a justi\u00e7a num jogo cujas regras mantinham equil\u00edbrio, permitindo que houvesse chances iguais para os jogadores. No entanto, observou-se que apresentaram incompreens\u00f5es acerca da independ\u00eancia de eventos, conduzindo a avalia\u00e7\u00f5es equivocadas sobre a justi\u00e7a em jogos. Nenhuma crian\u00e7a conseguiu apresentar justificativa coerente quando necess\u00e1rio comparar probabilidades considerando eventos de espa\u00e7os amostrais distintos. Tamb\u00e9m n\u00e3o conseguiram utilizar o racioc\u00ednio proporcional, e, portanto, n\u00e3o avaliaram corretamente a justi\u00e7a nesses jogos. Finalmente, os resultados n\u00e3o apontam para diferen\u00e7as substanciais nas compreens\u00f5es dos dois grupos estudados. S\u00f3 em termos de linguagem, as express\u00f5es mais utilizadas nas justificativas por ambos os grupos foi \u2018chance\u2019, mas as crian\u00e7as brasileiras usaram mais a \u2018sorte\u2019 e as portuguesas os termos \u2018possibilidade\u2019 e \u2018probabilidade\u2019. Estes resultados implicam a necessidade de viabilizar a\u00e7\u00f5es pedag\u00f3gicas interventivas realizadas com o apoio de jogos que se configuram num importante recurso para o redimensionamento das aprendizagens probabil\u00edsticas.&#x0D;\nPalavras-chave: Aleatoriedade. Espa\u00e7o Amostral. Compara\u00e7\u00e3o de Probabilidades. Justi\u00e7a em Jogos. Crian\u00e7as.&#x0D;\nAbstractFrequent difficulties in probabilistic understanding require the identification of children's intuitive beliefs to support the pedagogical promotion of these learnings. The present study focuses on analyzing Brazilian and Portuguese children understandings about fairness in games, considering cognitive demands of probability regarding randomness, sample space and comparison of probabilities. The research involved the analysis of six games and was carried out through a clinical interview with 15 Brazilian and 15 Portuguese children, with an average age of 11 years. The results reveal that the children were able to evaluate an unfair game when it involved addicted randomizers and to perceive justice in a game whose rules maintained balance, allowing the players to have equal chances. However, it was observed that they presented misunderstandings about the independence of events, leading to mistaken assessments of fairness in games. No child was able to present a coherent justification when there was a need to compare probabilities considering events from different sample spaces. They were also unable to use proportional reasoning, and therefore did not correctly assess justice in these games. Finally, the results do not point to substantial differences in the understandings of the two groups studied. Only in the language, the most used expressions in the justifications by both groups was \u2018chance\u2019, although Brazilian children used more \u2018luck\u2019 and Portuguese used \u2018possibility\u2019 and \u2018probability\u2019. These results imply the need to make feasible interventional pedagogical actions carried out with the support of games which are an important resource for the resizing of probabilistic learning.&#x0D;\nKeywords: Randomness. Sample Space. Comparison of Probabilities. Fairness in Games. Children.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.17921\/2176-5634.2021v14n1p02-13","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2021,4,30]],"date-time":"2021-04-30T14:30:31Z","timestamp":1619793031000},"page":"02-13","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Compreens\u00f5es Probabil\u00edsticas de Crian\u00e7as Brasileiras e Portuguesas Acerca de Justi\u00e7a em Jogos"],"prefix":"10.17921","volume":"14","author":[{"given":"Rita","family":"Batista","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Ana","family":"Henriques","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Rute","family":"Borba","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"7245","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2021,4,30]]},"container-title":["Jornal Internacional de Estudos em Educa\u00e7\u00e3o Matem\u00e1tica"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/jieem.pgsskroton.com.br\/article\/view\/9122\/5791","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,5]],"date-time":"2023-10-05T11:56:43Z","timestamp":1696507003000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/seer.pgsskroton.com\/index.php\/jieem\/article\/view\/9122"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2021,4,30]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2021,4,30]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17921\/2176-5634.2021v14n1p02-13","relation":{},"ISSN":["2176-5634"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2176-5634","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2021,4,30]]}}}