Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stimulating proportional reasoning through questions of finance and fairness

  • Published:
Mathematics Education Research Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What could two people stand to gain from sharing a taxi ride? We aimed to explore the extent to which this challenging yet accessible financial context might stimulate students’ mathematical exploration of multiplicative thinking and proportional reasoning. Through teaching experiment methodology, data were collected from 37 Year 5 and 6 students (10–12 years of age) in suburban Melbourne. The findings reveal that the majority of the students had some intuitive understanding of how to solve a financial problem that involved rate, and at least half of them used either multiplicative thinking or proportional reasoning. While the study reported is small and cannot claim to be representative, the findings confirm that well-designed financial problems have the potential to unveil sophisticated mathematical understandings among primary school students. This research demonstrates what young adolescents can do prior to formal exposure to ratio and proportion as part of the curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The EPMC project was funded through an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP110101027).

References

  • Askew, M. (2018). Multiplicative reasoning: teaching primary pupils in ways that focus on functional relations. The Curriculum Journal, 29, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1433545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2017). F-10 curriculum: mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/mathematics. Accessed 12 Jan 2018

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (2018). F-10 curriculum: general capabilities. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/. Accessed 12 Jan 2018

  • Behr, M. J., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296–333). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, B., & Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 243–307). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dole, S., Wright, T., Clarke, D., & Hilton, G. (2012). The MC SAM Project: an integration of science and mathematics explorations. Retrieved from http://www.proportionalreasoning.com/uploads/1/1/9/7/11976360/mcsamproportionalreasoning.pdf

  • Downton, A., & Sullivan, P. (2017). Posing complex problems requiring multiplicative thinking prompts students to use sophisticated strategies and build mathematical connections. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95(3), 303-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9751-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L., & Sriraman, B. (2010). Problem solving for the 21st century. In L. English & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Theories of mathematics education: seeking new frontiers (Advances in Mathematics Education series) (pp. 263–290). Heidelberg: Springer Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenthal, H. (1971). Geometry between the devil and the deep sea. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3, 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, P., Stillman, G., & Brown, J. P. (2006). Identifying key transition activities for enhanced engagement in mathematical modelling. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces (Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 237–245). Canberra: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (2007). Children’s cognitive development and learning (primary review research survey 2/1A). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education Retrieved from www.primaryreview.org.uk/Publications/Interimreports.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: a calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, B. (1988). Non-conservation of multiplication and division: analysis of a symptom. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 7(3), 281–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., Goos, M., & O’Brien. (2012). Evaluating middle years students’ proportional reasoning. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: expanding horizons (Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 330–337). Singapore: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., & Goos, M. (2016). Promoting students’ proportional reasoning skills through an ongoing professional development program for teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(2), 193–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamon, S. J. (1993). Ratio and proportion: connecting content and children’s thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lappan, G., Fey, T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S., & Phillips, E. D. (2006). Connected mathematics 2: implementing and teaching guide. Boston: Pearson, Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R., & Harel, G. (2003). Problem solving, modelling and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(2 & 3), 157–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, J. A. (1995). A Study of Intrinsic Motivation in the Mathematics Classroom: A Personal Constructs Approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(3), 254-279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en.

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017a). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. Revised edition. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017b). PISA 2015 results (Volume IV): Students’ financial literacy. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270282-en.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parish, L. (2010). Facilitating the development of proportional reasoning through teaching ratio. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education (Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 469–476). Fremantle: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrenet, J., & Zwaneveld, B. (2012). The many faces of the modelling cycle. Journal of Modelling and Application, 1(6), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgado, F. A. (2016). Investigating the impact of contexts on students’ performance. In B. White, M. Chinnappan, & S. Trenholm (Eds.), Opening up mathematics education research (Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 102–109). Adelaide: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawatzki, C. (2014). Connecting social and mathematical thinking: The use of “real life” contexts. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice. (Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 557–564). Sydney: MERGA.

  • Sawatzki, C. (2017). Lessons in financial literacy task design: Authentic, imaginable, useful. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 29(1), 25-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawatzki, C., & Goos, M. (2018). Cost, price and profit: What influences students’ decisions about fundraising? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(1), 1-20.

  • Siemon, D., Izard, J., Breed, M., & Virgona, J. (2006). The derivation of a learning assessment framework for multiplicative thinking. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Mathematics in the centre. Proceedings of the 30th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 113–120). Prague: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, P. (2000). Understanding the concept of proportion and ratio constructed by two grade six students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14(3), 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discussions. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, K. (2015). The real world and the mathematical world. In K. Stacey & R. Turner (Eds.), Assessing mathematical literacy: the PISA experience (pp. 57–84). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P. (1994). Children’s multiplying schemes. In: Harel G. & Confrey J. (eds.) The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 3–39). New York: SUNY Press.

  • Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–307). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stillman, G. (2000). Impact of prior knowledge of task context on approaches to applications tasks. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(3), 333-361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching mathematics: using research informed strategies. Australian Education Review. Melbourne: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P., Zevenbergen, R., & Mousley, J. (2003). The contexts of mathematics tasks and the context of the classroom: are we including all students? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P., Clarke, B., Cheeseman, J., Mornane, A., Roche, A., Sawatzki, C., & Walker, K. (2014). Students’ willingness to engage with mathematical challenges: Implications for classroom pedagogies. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: Research guided practice (Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 597–604). Sydney: MERGA.

  • Sullivan, P. A., Askew, M., Cheeseman, J., Clarke, D. M. Mornane, A., Roche, A., & Walker, N., (2015). Supporting teachers in structuring mathematics lessons involving challenging tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(2), 123-140.

  • Sullivan, P., Holmes, M., Ingram, N., Linsell, C., Livy, S., & McCormack, M. (2016). The intent and processes of a professional learning initiative seeking to foster discussion around innovative approaches to teaching. In B. White, M. Chinnappan, & S. Trenholm (Eds.), Opening up mathematics education research. (Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 669–673). Adelaide: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). The role of contexts in assessment problems in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2, 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschaffel, L., de Corte, E., & Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic considerations in mathematical modelling of school arithmetic word problems. Learning and Instruction, 4, 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zbiek, R. M., & Conner, A. (2006). Beyond motivation: exploring mathematical modeling as a context for deepening students’ understandings of curricular mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9002-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Arts and Education, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia

    Carly Sawatzki

  2. Faculty of Education, Monash University, 19 Ancora Imparo Way, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Ann Downton & Jill Cheeseman

Authors
  1. Carly Sawatzki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann Downton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jill Cheeseman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carly Sawatzki.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sawatzki, C., Downton, A. & Cheeseman, J. Stimulating proportional reasoning through questions of finance and fairness. Math Ed Res J 31, 465–484 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00262-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00262-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation