ZDM

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 849–857 | Cite as

Inhibiting natural knowledge in fourth graders: towards a comprehensive test instrument

  • Jo Van Hoof
  • Rianne Janssen
  • Lieven Verschaffel
  • Wim Van Dooren
Original Article
First Online:
Accepted:

Abstract

While understanding rational numbers forms an essential part of mathematical literacy, research has repeatedly shown that they form a stumbling block in education. A big source of difficulty is the inappropriate application of natural number knowledge. The research literature points at three main aspects where natural number knowledge is inappropriately applied: density, operations, and size. While there are numerous test instruments to assess each of these aspects, none of them combines all aspects in an integrated manner. By creating such a comprehensive test instrument and applying it to fourth graders, we found that the strength of the natural number bias was largest in density items, but still clearly present in items about size and operations. We further found that fourth graders’ rational number reasoning—more specifically their ability to inhibit the inappropriate use of natural number knowledge—can be described by a one-dimensional construct.

Keywords

Rational numbers Natural number bias Item response theory Conceptual change 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bailey, D.H., Siegler, R., Geary, D.C. (2014). Early predictors of middle school fraction knowledge. Developmental Science. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/desc.12155.
  2. Christou, K.P. (2014). Natural number bias in operations with missing numbers. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(5) (this issue).Google Scholar
  3. Cramer, K. A., Post, T. R., & delMas, R. C. (2002). Initial fraction learning by fourth- and fifth-grade students: a comparison of the effects of using commercial curricula with the effects of using the rational number project curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Nello, M., & Marino, M. (1985). The role of implicit models in solving problems in multiplication and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gelman, R. (2000). The epigenesis of mathematical thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 27–37. doi: 10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00048-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Dual processes in psychology of mathematics education and cognitive psychology. Human Development, 52(2), 95–108. doi: 10.1159/000202728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gómez, D., Jiménez, A., Bobadilla, R., Reyes, C., Dartnell, P. (2014). The interplay between inhibitory control, general mathematics achievement, and competence in comparing fractions in middle school children. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(5) (this issue).Google Scholar
  9. Greer, B. (2004). The growth of mathematics through conceptual restructuring. Learning and Instruction, 14, 541–548. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hasemann, C. (1981). On difficulties with fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 171–187. doi: 10.1007/BF00386047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li, Y., Chen, X., & An, S. (2009). Conceptualizing and organizing content for teaching and learning in selected Chinese, Japanese and US mathematics textbooks: the case of fraction division. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 809–826. doi: 10.1007/s11858-009-0177-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22. doi: 10.1093/biomet/73.1.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mamede, E., Nunes, T., Bryant, P. (2005). The equivalence and ordering of fractions in part-whole and quotient situations. In H.L. Chick, J.L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 281–288). Melbourne: PME.Google Scholar
  14. Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Devlin, K. T. (2008). Parts and ‘holes’: gaps in rational number sense among children with vs. without mathematical learning disabilities. Developmental Science, 11, 681–691. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00717.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meert, G., Grégoire, J., & Noël, M.-P. (2010). Comparing the magnitude of two fractions with common components: which representations are used by 10- and 12-year-olds? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 244–259. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.04.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change: towards a systemic model of the processes of change. Learning and Instruction, 14, 519–534. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moss, J. (2005). Pipes, tubes, and beakers: new approaches to teaching the rational-number system. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom (pp. 121–162). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y.-D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: the origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40, 27–52. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2008). Rational numbers and intensive quantities: challenges and insights to pupils’ implicit knowledge. Anales de Psicologia, 24(2), 262–270.Google Scholar
  20. Obersteiner, A., Van Dooren, W., Van Hoof, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). The natural number bias and magnitude representation in fraction comparison by expert mathematicians. Learning and Instruction, 28, 64–72. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research). Expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B. D. Wright. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Resnick, L. B., Nesher, P., Leonard, F., Magone, M., Omanson, S., & Peled, I. (1989). Conceptual bases of arithmetic errors: the case of decimal fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saxe, G. B., Diakow, R., & Gearhart, M. (2013). Towards curricular coherence in integers and fractions: a study of the efficacy of a lesson sequence that uses the number line as the principal representational context. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45, 343–364. doi: 10.1007/s11858-012-0466-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., et al. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23, 691–697. doi: 10.1177/0956797612440101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith, C. L., Solomon, G. E. A., & Carey, S. (2005). Never getting to zero: elementary school students’ understanding of the infinite divisibility of number and matter. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 101–140. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vamvakoussi, X., Christou, K. P., Mertens, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2011). What fills the gap between discrete and dense? Greek and Flemish students’ understanding of density. Learning and Instruction, 21, 676–685. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vamvakoussi, X., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2012). Naturally biased? In search for reaction time evidence for a natural number bias in adults. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 344–355. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosniadou, S. (2004). Understanding the structure of the set of rational numbers: a conceptual change approach. Learning and Instruction, 14, 453–467. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosniadou, S. (2010). How many decimals are there between two fractions? Aspects of secondary school students’ understanding about rational numbers and their notation. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 181–209. doi: 10.1080/07370001003676603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Dooren, W., Van Hoof, J., Lijnen, T., Verschaffel, L. (2012). Searching for a whole number bias in secondary school student—a reaction time study on fraction comparison. Proceedings of the 36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology in Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 187–194). Taipei: PME.Google Scholar
  31. Van Hoof, J., Lijnen, T., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2013). Are secondary school students still hampered by the natural number bias? A reaction time study on fraction comparison tasks. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 154–164. doi: 10.1080/14794802.2013.797747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Hoof, J., Vandewalle, J., Verschaffel, L., Van Dooren, W. (2014). In search for the natural number bias in secondary school students’ interpretation of the effect of arithmetical operations. Learning and Instruction. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.03.004.
  33. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jo Van Hoof
    • 1
  • Rianne Janssen
    • 2
  • Lieven Verschaffel
    • 1
  • Wim Van Dooren
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Instructional Psychology and TechnologyKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  2. 2.Center for Educational Effectiveness and EvaluationKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations