Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 523–545 | Cite as

Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic instrument to assess middle-years students’ proportional reasoning

  • Annette Hilton
  • Geoff Hilton
  • Shelley Dole
  • Merrilyn Goos
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Proportional reasoning involves the use of ratios in the comparison of quantities. While it is a key aspect of numeracy, particularly in the middle years of schooling, students do not always develop proportional reasoning naturally. Research suggests that many students do not apply proportional methods appropriately and that they often erroneously apply both multiplicative and additive thinking. Further, students cannot always distinguish non-proportional situations from those that are proportional. Understanding the situations in which students mistakenly use additive or multiplicative thinking and the nature of the proportional reasoning that students apply to different problem types is important for teachers seeking to support their students to develop proportional reasoning in the classroom. This paper describes the development and use of a two-tier diagnostic instrument to identify situations in which students could and could not apply proportional reasoning and the types of reasoning they used. It presents data from an Australian study involving over 2000 middle-years students (Years 5 to 9) as a means of illustrating the use of the instrument for diagnosing students’ reasoning in different situations. The findings showed that the instrument was useful for identifying problem types in which students of different ages were able to apply correct reasoning. It also allowed identification of the types of incorrect reasoning used by students. The paper also describes useful applications of the instrument, including its use as a diagnostic instrument by classroom teachers and its use in the design of classroom activities included in teacher professional learning workshops.

Keywords

Proportional reasoning Middle-school mathematics Diagnostic testing Two-tier testing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ahl, V. A., Moore, C. F., & Dixon, J. A. (1992). Development of intuitive and numerical proportional reasoning. Cognitive Development, 7, 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akatugba, A. H., & Wallace, J. (2009). An integrative perspective on students’ proportional reasoning in high school physics in a West African context. International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1473–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyer, T. W., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Development of proportional reasoning: Where young children go wrong. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1478–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bright, G. W., Joyner, J. M., & Wallis, C. (2003). Assessing proportional thinking. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(3), 166–172.Google Scholar
  5. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2008). An evaluation of a teaching intervention to promote students’ ability to use multiple levels of representation when describing and explaining chemical reactions. Research in Science Education, 38, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cramer, K., & Post, T. (1993). Making connections: A case for proportionality. Arithmetic Teacher, 60(6), 342–346.Google Scholar
  7. Cramer, K., Post, T., & Currier, S. (1993). Learning and teaching ratio and proportion: Research implications. In D. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom (pp. 159–178). NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Dole, S., Wright, T., Clarke, D., & Hilton, G. (2007). Making connections science and mathematics: The MCSAM Project. In U. Cheah, Y. Wahyudi, R. Devadason, K. Ng, J. Chavez, & D. Mangao (Eds.), Redefining learning culture for sustainability (pp. 184–194). Second International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education, Penang, Malaysia, 13–16 November 2007.Google Scholar
  9. Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., Goos, M., & O’Brien, M. (2012). Evaluating middle years students’ proportional reasoning. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: Expanding horizons (pp. 300–307). Proceedings of the Thirty-fifth Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. (MERGA-35). Singapore: MERGA.Google Scholar
  11. Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., Goos, M., & O’Brien, M. (2013). Kitchen gardens: Contexts for developing proportional reasoning. Australian Primary School Mathematics Classroom, 18(2), 21–26.Google Scholar
  12. Howe, C., Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2010). Rational number and proportional reasoning: Using intensive quantities to promote achievement in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 391–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lamon, S. J. (1993). Ratio and proportion: Connecting content and children’s thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamon, S. J. (2005). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Langrell, C. W., & Swafford, J. (2000). Three balloons for two dollars: Developing proportional reasoning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(4), 254–261.Google Scholar
  16. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 93–118). Reston, VA: Lawrence Erlbaum & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  17. Misailidou, C., & Williams, J. (2003). Diagnostic assessment of children’s proportional reasoning. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 22, 335–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Modestou, M., & Gagatsis, A. (2007). Students’ improper proportional reasoning: A result of the epistemological obstacle of “linearity”. Educational Psychology, 27(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Modestou, C., & Gagatsis, A. (2010). Cognitive and metacognitive aspects of proportional reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 36–53.Google Scholar
  20. Nabors, W. (2003). From fractions to proportional reasoning: A cognitive schemes of operation approach. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 22(2003), 133–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Keefe, L., & O’Donoghue, J. (2011). The use of evidence based research on mathematics textbooks to increase student conceptual understanding. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 2(1), 304–311.Google Scholar
  22. Özmen, H. (2008). The influence of computer-assisted instruction on students’ conceptual understanding of chemical bonding and attitude toward chemistry: A case study for Turkey. Computers and Education, 51(1), 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Park, J. S., Park, J. H., & Kwon, O. N. (2010). Characterizing the proportional reasoning of middle school students. Seoul National University Journal of Education Research, 19(5), 119–144.Google Scholar
  24. Peterson, R. F., Treagust, D. F., & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate Grade-11 and -12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(4), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sowder, J., Armstrong, B., Lamon, S., Simon, M., Sowder, L., & Thompson, A. (1998). Educating teachers to teach multiplicative structures in the middle grades. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tamir, P. (1989). Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple-choice answers. Journal of Biological Education, 23, 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tan, K.-C. D., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Evaluating students’ understanding of chemical bonding. School Science Review, 81, 75–83.Google Scholar
  28. Tourniaire, F., & Pulos, S. (1985). Proportional reasoning: A review of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In S. M. Glynn & R. Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Treagust, D. F. (2006). Diagnostic assessment in science as a means to improving teaching, learning, and retention. Paper presented at the UniServe Science Symposium Proceedings Assessment in Science Teaching and Learning, Sydney, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
  31. Tüysüz, C. (2009). Development of two-tier diagnostic instrument and assess students’ understanding in chemistry. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(6), 626–631.Google Scholar
  32. Van De Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2010). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  33. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2010). From addition to multiplication … and back: The development of students’ additive and multiplicative reasoning skills. Cognition and Instruction, 28(3), 360–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: Effects of age and problem type on propensities for overgeneralisation. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annette Hilton
    • 1
    • 2
  • Geoff Hilton
    • 2
  • Shelley Dole
    • 2
  • Merrilyn Goos
    • 2
  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.The University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations