Advertisement

Sixth Grade Students’ Performance, Misconceptions, and Confidence When Judging the Reasonableness of Computational Results

  • Der-Ching Yang
  • Iwan Andi J. Sianturi
Article

Abstract

Judging the reasonableness of computational results is pivotal for students to understand mathematical concepts. This domain is the most sensitive to the presence of misconceptions in mathematics. Confidence ratings can serve as a measure of the strength of students’ conceptual understanding. This study investigated the performance, misconceptions, and confidence ratings of 942 Hong Kong sixth grade students when they were asked to judge the reasonableness of computational results. The results showed that the students performed unsatisfactorily at judging the reasonableness, with an average score of 3.45 (out of 8). Slightly more than half of the students (53.72%) selected the correct computational results, but more than 60% of those students could not judge the reasonableness of the computational results (49.71% had misconceptions and 11.24% simply guessed the answers). In addition, only 20.82% and 18.23% of the students could apply number-sense- and rule-based methods to judge the reasonableness, respectively. Moreover, only 5.73% of the students showed high performance with a high confidence rating, 3.18% exhibited low performance with a low confidence rating, and 35.46% of them showed low performance with a high confidence rating. Furthermore, this study discusses students’ misconceptions, the implications of the study, and suggestions for future research.

Keywords

Confidence Hong Kong Reasonableness Misconceptions Performance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article was a part of a research project supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, with grant no. MOST 105-2511-S-415-003-MY3. Any opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Council, Taiwan (Republic of China). The authors thank Dr. Ka Luen Cheung (The Education University of Hong Kong) and Cheng-Yi Chuang, M.Ed. (National Chiayi University, Taiwan) for their support in handling the data for the study.

References

  1. Alajmi, A., & Reys, R. (2007). Reasonable and reasonableness of answers: Kuwaiti middle school teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(1), 77–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9042-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alajmi, A., & Reys, R. (2010). Examining eighth grade Kuwaiti students’ recognition and interpretation of reasonable answer. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 117–139.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9165-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batanero, C., & Sanchez, E. (2005). What is the nature of high school students’ conception and misconceptions about probability? In G. A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring probability in school: Challenges for teaching and learning (pp. 241–266). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Implications for children with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 333–339.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380040901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonotto, C. (2005). How informal out-of-school mathematics can help students make sense of formal in-school mathematics: The case of multiplying by decimal numbers. Mathematical Thinking & Learning: An International Journal, 7(4), 313–344.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl07043.
  6. Bragg, L. A., & Herbert, S. (2017). A “true” story about mathematical reasoning made easy. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 22(4), 3–6.Google Scholar
  7. Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939–961.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cetin-Dindar, A., & Geban, O. (2011). Development of a three-tier test to assess high school students’ understanding of acids and bases. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(2011), 600–604.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheung, K. L., & Yang, D. C. (2018). Examining the differences of Hong Kong and Taiwan students’ performance on the number sense three-tier test. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 3329–3345.  https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, D. M., Clarke, D. J., & Sullivan, P. (2012). Reasoning in the Australian curriculum: Understanding its meaning and using the relevant language. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(3), 28–32.Google Scholar
  11. Clement, J., Brown, D., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding anchoring conceptions for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 554–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devlin, K. (2017). Number sense: The most important mathematical concept in 21st Century K-12 Education. HUFFPOST. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/number-sense-the-most-important-mathematical-conceptus58695887e4b068764965c2e0. Accessed 11 April 2018.
  13. Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students’ misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001–1015.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fan, L. (2013). Textbook research as scientific research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(5), 765–777.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0530-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  16. Gagne, R. M. (1983). Some issues in the psychology of mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Green, M., Piel, J., & Flowers, C. (2008). Reversing education majors’arithmetic misconceptions with short-term instruction using manipulatives. Charlotte, NC: Heldref Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Hiebert, J. (1992). Mathematical, cognitive, and instructional analyzes of decimal fractions. In G. Leinhardt, R. Putman, & R. Hattrup (Eds.), Analysis of arithmetic for mathematics teaching (pp. 283-322). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  19. Kaltakci Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 989–1008.  https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a.Google Scholar
  20. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  21. Liu, S., & Meng, L. (2010). Re-examining factor structure of the attitudinal items from TIMSS 2003 in cross-cultural study of mathematics self-concept. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 30, 699–712.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.501102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Markovits, Z., & Sowder, J. T. (1994). Developing number sense: An intervention study in grade 7. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(1), 4–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McIntosh, A., Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (1992). A proposed framework for examining basic number sense. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12, 2–8.Google Scholar
  24. McIntosh, A., Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., Bana, J., & Farrel, B. (1997). Number sense in school mathematics: Student performance in four countries. Perth, Australia: Edith Cowan University.Google Scholar
  25. McIntosh, A., & Sparrow, L. (2004). Beyond written computation. Perth, Australia: Mathematics, Science & Technology Education Centre (MASTEC).Google Scholar
  26. McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76(4), 883–899.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00884.x.
  27. Menon, R. (2004). Elementary school children’s number sense. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved 12 Aug 2016 from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm.
  28. Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2002). Conceptual change in mathematics: Understanding the real numbers. In M. Limo’n & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 233–258). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change: Towards a systemic model of the processes of change. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 519–534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics. Retrieved 11 April 2018 from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS international study center website: http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/international-results/. Accessed 11 April 2018.
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  32. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2017). Instructional programs from prekindergarten through grade 12. Retrieved 18 December 2017 from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/Algebra/.
  33. Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development [OECD]. (2016). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  34. Pesman, H., & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208–222.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reys, R. (1985). Estimation. Arithmetic Teacher, 32, 37–41.Google Scholar
  36. Reys, R. E., & Noda, N. (1994). Computational alternative for the 21th century: Cross cultural perspectives from Japan and the United States. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  37. Reys, R. E., & Yang, D. C. (1998). Relationship between computational performance and number sense among sixth- and eighth-grade students in Taiwan. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riccomini, P. J. (2005). Identification and remediation of systematic error patterns in subtraction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(3), 233–242.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1593661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shen, C. (2002). Revisiting the relationship between students’ achievement and their selfperceptions: A cross-national analysis based on the TIMSS 1999 data. Assessment in Education, 9(2), 161–184.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594022000001913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sowder, J. (1992). Estimation and number sense. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 371–389). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Stacey, K., & Steinle, V. (1998). Refining the classification of students’ interpretations of decimal notation. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 6, 49–59.Google Scholar
  42. Stafylidou, S., & Vosniadou, S. (2004). The development of students’ understanding of the numerical value of fractions. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 503–518.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stankov, L., & Crawford, J. D. (1997). Self-confidence and performance on tests of cognitive abilities. Intelligence, 25(2), 93–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90047-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stankov, L., Morony, S., & Lee, Y. P. (2014). Confidence: The best non-cognitive predictor of academic achievement? Educational Psychology, 34, 9–28.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.814194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Steinle, V., & Stacey, K. (2003). Grade-related trends in the prevalence and persistence of decimal misconceptions. In N. A. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 joint meeting of PME and PMENA (pp. 259–266). Honolulu, HI: CRDG, College of Education, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  46. Swan, M. (2001). Dealing with misconceptions in mathematics. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues in mathematics teaching (pp. 147–165). London, England: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  47. Tornroos, J. (2005). Mathematics textbooks, opportunity to learn and student achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(4), 315–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosniadou, S. (2004). Understanding the structure of the set of rational numbers: A conceptual change approach. Learning and Instruction, 14, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Depaepe, F., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2003). The illusion of linearity: Expanding the evidence towards probabilistic reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(2), 113–138.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025516816886.
  50. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2007). Whole number concepts and operations. In F. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 557–628). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Vlassis, J. (2004). Making sense of the minus sign or becoming flexible in “negativity”. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 469–484.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.012.
  52. Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 445–451.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xin, Y. P. (2007). Word problem solving tasks in textbooks and their relation to students’ performance. Journal of Educational Research, 100(6), 347–359.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.6.347-360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yang, D. C. (2005). Number sense strategies used by 6th-grade students in Taiwan. Educational Studies, 31(3), 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang, D. C. (2017). Performance of fourth graders when judging the reasonableness of a computational result. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9862-y.
  56. Yang, D. C., & Wu, W. R. (2010). The study of number sense realistic activities integrated into third-grade math classes in Taiwan. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(6), 379–392.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang, D. C., & Lin, Y. C. (2015). Assessing 10- to 11-year-old children’s performance and misconceptions in number sense using a four-tier diagnostic test. Educational Research, 57(4), 368–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang, D. C., Li, M. N., & Lin, C. I. (2008). A study of the performance of 5th graders in number sense and its relationship to achievement in mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(4), 789–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Mathematics and Science EducationNational Chiayi UniversityChiayiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations