Abstract
Authentic context is a physical environment reflecting the knowledge application in the real world. In this study, we developed a tablet-based application, Ubiquitous Fraction (U-Fraction), to help fractions learning with authentic contextual support. Three topics were designed to learn fractions concept, fractions simplification, and fractions addition/subtraction. The learning achievement was evaluated by three variables: understanding fraction and fraction representation to evaluate fractions concept and fractions simplification, and problem solving to evaluate the three topics. This study used two groups of experimental research. The experimental group (EG) learned fractions using U-Fraction in authentic contexts, while the control group (CG) learned fractions using the traditional teaching method and paper-based assignment. The results showed that EG significantly outperformed CG. Furthermore, it was found that learning behaviors of EG had significant correlation among quantity of assignment, annotations of assignment, and post-test. Two assessment mechanisms, peer and teacher assessments using scaffoldings based on multiple representations (i.e., linguistic, logic mathematics, and visual representation), were employed to help assessment and improve the assessment results. It was found that the scaffoldings can help both peer and teacher assessments, which significantly correlated with post-test. Therefore, multiple representations and scaffoldings were helpful to improve students’ learning and peer assessment. Students also perceived positively toward using U-Fraction in terms of usefulness, ease of use, ease of learning, and satisfaction of the usability questionnaire. These imply that fraction learning should be designed in a way that students can apply their knowledge in authentic contexts by taking pictures and making multiple representations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data and materials as well as a software application or custom code support their published claims and comply with field standards.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Bano, M., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2018). Mobile learning for science and mathematics school education: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Computers & Education, 121, 30–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.006
Behr, M. J., Post, T. R., Harel, G., & Lesh, R. (1993). Rational numbers: Toward a semantic analysis - emphasis on the operator construct. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beşevli, C., Salman, E., Goksun, T., Urey, H., & Özcan, O. (2019). MaR-T: Designing a projection-based mixed reality system for nonsymbolic math development of preschoolers: Guided by theories of cognition and learning. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC), 280–292. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323147
Booker, G., Bond, D., Sparrow, L., & Swan, P. (2014). Teaching primary mathematics. Pearson Australia.
Brizuela, B. M. (2006). Young children’s notations for fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9003-3
Chang, C.-C., Tseng, K.-H., & Lou, S.-J. (2012). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a Web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computers & Education, 58(1), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.005
Cramer, K., Post, T., & DelMas, R. (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(2), 111–144. https://doi.org/10.2307/749646
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving: A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9026-4
Fan, K. K., Xiao, P. W., & Su, C. H. (2015). The effects of learning styles and meaningful learning on the learning achievement of gamification health education curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1413a
Fessakis, G., Karta, P., & Konstantinos, K. (2018). Designing math trails for enhanced by mobile learning realistic mathematics education in primary education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 8(2), 49–63.
Gao, M., Kortum, P., & Oswald, F. (2018). Psychometric Evaluation of the USE (Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use) Questionnaire for Reliability and Validity. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1414–1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621322
Goldin, G. A. (2014). Mathematical representation. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer.
Google (2019). Google Maps education. Google Maps. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://www.google.com/help/maps/education/learn/
Green, L. S., Hechter, R. P., Tysinger, P. D., & Chassereau, K. D. (2014). Mobile app selection for 5th through 12th grade science: The development of the MASS rubric. Computers & Education, 75, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.007
Haydon, T., Hawkins, R., Denune, H., Kimener, L., McCoy, D., & Basham, J. (2012). A comparison of iPads and worksheets on math skills of high school students with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders, 37(4), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291203700404
Hegedus, S. J., Dalton, S., & Tapper, J. R. (2015). The impact of technology-enhanced curriculum on learning advanced algebra in US high school classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9371-z
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319856
Horn, M. B. (2018). Why Google Maps not Netflix or Amazon points to the future of education. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-05-14-why-google-maps-not-netflix-or-amazon-points-to-the-future-of-education
Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019
Huang, C., Su, A., Yang, S., & Liou, H.-H. (2017). A collaborative digital pen learning approach to improving students’ learning achievement and motivation in mathematics courses. Computers & Education, 107, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.014
Hurst, M. A., & Cordes, S. (2018). Children’s understanding of fraction and decimal symbols and the notation-specific relation to pre-algebra ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 168, 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.003
Hwang, W.-Y., Chen, N.-S., Shadiev, R., & Li, J.-S. (2011). Effects of reviewing annotations and homework solutions on math learning achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 1016–1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01126.x
Hwang, W.-Y., Utami, I. K., Purba, S. W. D., & Chen, H. S. L. (2019). Effect of ubiquitous fraction app on mathematics learning achievements and learning behaviors of Taiwanese students in authentic contexts. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(3), 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2019.2930045
Hwang, W.-Y., Shadiev, R., Tseng, C.-W., & Huang, Y.-M. (2015). Exploring effects of multi-touch tabletop on collaborative fraction learning and the relationship of learning behavior and interaction with learning achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 459–473. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.4.459
Hwang, W.-Y., Hariyanti, U., Chen, N.-S., & Purba, S. W. D. (2021). Developing and validating an authentic contextual learning framework: promoting healthy learning through learning by applying. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1876737
Hwang, W.-Y., Nguyen, V.-G, & Purba, S. W. (2022). Systematic survey of anything‑to‑text recognition and constructing its framework in language learning. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11112-6
Ingram, N., Williamson-Leadley, S., & Pratt, K. (2016). Showing and telling: Using tablet technology to engage students in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90179-4_17
Jordan, N. C., Hansen, N., Fuchs, L. S., Siegler, R. S., Gersten, R., & Micklos, D. (2013). Developmental predictors of fraction concepts and procedures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.001
Kallo, V. & Mohan, P. (2012). MobileMath: An innovationsolution to the problem of poor matehmatics performance in the Carribbean. Carribean Teaching Scholar, 2(1), 5–18. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://journals.sta.uwi.edu/ojs/index.php/cts/article/view/27
Kara, F., & Incikabi, L. (2018). Sixth grade students’ skills of using multiple representations in addition and subtraction operations in fractions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(4), 463–474.
Kieren, T. E. (1988). Personal knowledge of rational numbers: its intuitive and formal development. In J. H & M. B (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Education Technology Research and Development, 61, 549–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9266-1
Koh, N. K., & Low, H. K. (2010). Learning mathematical concepts through authentic learning. Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 305–311). Fremantle.
Kong, S. C., & Kwok, L. F. (2003). A graphical partitioning model for learning common fraction: Designing affordances on a web-supported learning environment. Computers & Education, 40(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00118-5
Kopcha, T. J., Otumfuor, B. A., & Wang, L. (2015). Effects of spatial ability, gender differences, and pictorial training on children using 2-D and 3-D environments to recall landmark locations from memory. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.967536
Lai, C.-L., & Hwang, G.-J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students’ art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.011
Laru, J., Järvelä, S., & Clariana, R. B. (2012). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: A case study with K-12 learners. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494821003771350
Li, H.-C. (2014). A comparative analysis of British and Taiwanese students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of fraction addition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(7), 968–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2014.892163
Lortie-Forgues, H., Tian, J., & Siegler, R. S. (2015). Why is learning fraction and decimal arithmetic so difficult? Developmental Review, 38, 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.008
Lund, A. M. (2001). Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface, 8(2), 3–6.
Marichal, S., Rosales, A., Sansone, G., Pires, C., Bakala, B., Perilli, F. G., & Blat, J. (2017). CETA: Open, affordable and portable mixed-reality environment for low-cost tablets. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 1–7). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3125435
McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.005
Nakahara, T. (2007). Cultivating mathematical thinking through representation: Utilizing the representational system. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/math/apec/apec2008/papers/PDF/1.Keynote(Dec.9)_Tadao_Nakahara_Japan.pdf
Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2008). How pictorial knowledge representations mediate collaborative knowledge construction in groups. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2008.10782512
Ni, Y. J. (2001). Semantic domains of rational numbers and the acquisition of fraction equivalence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 400–417. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1072
Nicolaidou, I. (2013). E-portfolios supporting primary students’ writing performance and peer feedback. Computers & Education, 68, 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.004
Nicolaou, A. A., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2016). Hierarchical levels of abilities that constitute fraction understanding at elementary school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 757–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9603-4
Ofsted. (2008). Learning outside classroom. Alexandra House.
OpenCV. (2019). About OpenCV. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://opencv.org/about/
Ott, N., Brünken, R., Vogel, M., & Malone, S. (2018). Multiple symbolic representations: The combination of formula and text supports problem solving in the mathematical field of propositional logic. Learning and Instruction, 58, 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.0
Panko, R. (2018). The popularity of Google Maps: Trends in navigation apps in 2018. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from https://themanifest.com/app-development/popularity-google-maps-trends-navigation-apps-2018
Rau, M. A., & Matthews, P. G. (2017). How to make ‘more’ better? Principles for effective use of multiple representations to enhance students’ learning about fractions. ZDM, 49, 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0846-8
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2013). Interleaved practice in multi-dimensional learning tasks: Which dimension should we interleave? Learning and Instruction, 23, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.003
Ross, A., & Willson, V. L. (2017). Basic and advanced statistical tests. SensePublishers.
Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
Shadiev, R., Liu, T., & Hwang, W.-Y. (2020). Review of research on mobile-assisted language learning in familiar, authentic environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51, 709–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12839
Shin, M., Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., McKenna, J. W., Hou, F., & Ok, M. W. (2017). Virtual manipulatives: Tools for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(3), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216644830
Siegler, R. S., & Lortie-Forgues, H. (2017). Hard lessons: Why rational number arithmetic is so difficult for so many people. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417700129
Siegler, R. S., Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., & Zhou, X. (2013). Fractions: The new frontier for theories of numerical development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.11.004
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Topping, K. (2017). Peer assessment: Learning by judging and discussing the work of other learners. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 1(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.31532/InterdiscipEducPsychol.1.1.007
Trigueros, M., Sandoval, I., & Lozano, M.-D. (2020). Ways of acting when using technology in the primary school classroom: Contingencies and possibilities for learning. ZDM, 52, 1397–1409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01171-9
Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosniadou, S. (2010). Understanding the structure of the set of rational numbers: A conceptual change approach. Learning and Instruction, 14, 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.013
Vaughn, D., & Callicott, B. (2003). Broccoli Librarianship and Google-Bred Patrons, or What’s Wrong with Usability Testing? College & Undergraduate Libraries, 10(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J106v10n02_01
Wang, J. Y., Wu, H. K., Chien, S. P., Hwang, F. K., & Hsu, Y. S. (2015). Designing applications for physics learning: Facilitating high school students’ conceptual understanding by using tablet pcs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(4), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.4.d
Ye, A., Resnick, I., Hansen, N., Rodrigues, J., Rinne, L., & Jordan, N. C. (2016). Pathways to fraction learning: Numerical abilities mediate the relation between early cognitive competencies and later fraction knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.08.001
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Examples of the question items in pre-test.
Understanding fraction | 1. Which rectangle is not divided into four equal parts?
|
Fraction Representation | 5. Which is greater than one: \(\left(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2}{4}\right)\) or \(\left(\frac{2}{3}+\frac{2}{5}\right)\) (use diagram representation to explain your answer) |
Problem Solving | 10. A sausage has been sliced into 28 slices of the same size. How many slices would equal \(\frac{3}{7}\) of the sausages. Use picture to demonstrate your answer |
Examples of the question items in post-test.
Understanding fraction | 1. Which shows \(\frac{2}{5}\) of the picture shaded?
|
Fraction Representation | 5. Which is greater than one: \(\left(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{3}{4}\right)\) or \(\left(\frac{5}{3}-\frac{6}{9}\right)\) (use diagram representation to explain your answer) |
Problem Solving | 10. A sausage has been sliced into 32 slices of the same size. How many slices would equal \(\frac{3}{8}\) of the sausages. Use picture to demonstrate your answer |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hwang, WY., Luthfi, M.I., Hariyanti, U. et al. Evaluation of fraction learning in authentic context using Ubiquitous Fraction App. Educ Inf Technol 28, 6755–6779 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11453-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11453-2