Most and Least: Differences in Integer Comparisons Based on Temperature Comparison Language

  • Laura BofferdingEmail author
  • Sherri Farmer


The language involved in de-contextualized integer comparisons poses challenges, as students may interpret “most” based on absolute values rather than on order. Using the context of temperature, we explored how students’ integer value comparisons differed based on question phrasing (which temperature is hottest, most hot, least hot, coldest, most cold, least cold) and on numbers presented (positive, negative, mixed). Participants included 88 second graders and 70 fourth graders from a rural school district in the Midwestern USA, and each student solved 36 integer comparisons. For comparisons with positive number choices, students had more difficulty with “coldest” than “hottest”; however, the results were reversed for comparisons with only negative number choices. When working with mixed comparisons, students often chose the least of the cold as opposed to the least cold, suggesting that they saw hot and cold as categorical opposites rather than opposites on a continuum, with zero as a boundary.


Integers Language Number comparisons Temperature 



This research was supported by NSF CAREER award DRL-1350281. The authors would like to thank the schools, teachers, and students involved in the research for their participation and support. The authors give thanks especially to Mahtob Aqazade for her review of the paper.


  1. Adetula, L. O. (1990). Language factor: Does it affect children’s performance on word problems? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(4), 351–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Compositionality and statistics in adjective acquisition: 4-year-olds interpret tall and short based on the size distributions of novel noun referents. Child Development, 79(3), 594–608. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, A. (1984). Short and long term learning—Experiments in diagnostic teaching design. In B. Southwell (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 55–62). Sydney, Australia: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  5. Bofferding, L. (2014). Negative integer understanding: Characterizing first graders’ mental models. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(2), 194–245. Scholar
  6. Bofferding, L. & Hoffman, A. (2015). Comparing negative integers: Issues of language. In K. Beswick, T. Muir, & J. Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, p. 150). Hobart, Australia: PME.Google Scholar
  7. Case, R. (1996). Introduction: Reconceptualizing the nature of children’s conceptual structures and their development in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2), 1–26.Google Scholar
  8. Cheshire, J. (1998). Double negatives are illogical. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language myths (pp. 113–122). New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, Inc..Google Scholar
  9. Clark, E. V. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(3), 266–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson, M., & Balfour, G. (1968). Less is more: A study of language comprehension in children. British Journal of Psychology, 59(4), 461–471. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dougherty, B. J. (2010). Developing essential understanding of number and numeration for teaching mathematics in prekindergarten–grade 2. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  13. Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., & Landis, J. (1996). Level in conceptualizing and solving addition and subtraction compare problems. Cognition and Instruction, 14(3), 345–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gobbo, C., & Agnoli, F. (1985). Comprehension of two types of negative comparisons in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(3), 301–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffiths, J. A., Shantz, C. A., & Sigel, I. E. (1967). A methodological problem in conservation studies: The use of relational terms. Child Development, 38(3), 841–848. Google Scholar
  16. Klatzky, R. L., Clark, E. V., & Macken, M. (1973). Asymmetries in the acquisition of polar adjectives: Linguistic or conceptual? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 16(1), 32–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lean, G. A., Clements, M. A., & Del Campo, G. (1990). Linguistic and pedagogical factors affecting children’s understanding of word problems: A comparative study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(2), 165–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murray, J. C. (1985). Children’s informal conceptions of integer arithmetic. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 147–153). Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  19. Murray, P. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Preschool children’s judgments of number magnitude. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 206–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved from
  21. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from
  22. National Research Council (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics. In C.T. Cross, T.A. Woods & H. Schweingruber (Eds.), Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. Peled, I., Mukhoadhyay, S., & Resnick, L. (1989). Formal and informal sources of mental models for negative numbers. In G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalski, & M. Artique (Eds.), The international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 106–110). Paris: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  24. Pratt, D., & Simpson, A. (2004). McDonald’s vs Father Christmas. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 9(3), 4–9.Google Scholar
  25. Ryalls, B. O. (2000). Dimensional adjectives: Factors affecting children’s ability to compare objects using novel words. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76(1), 26–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwartz, B. B., Kohn, A. S., & Resnick, L. B. (1993-1994). Positives about negatives: A case study of an intermediate model for signed numbers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(1), 37–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shire, B., & Durkin, K. (1989). Junior school children’s responses to conflict between the spatial and numerical meanings of ‘up’ and ‘down’. Educational Psychology, 9(2), 141–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegler, R. S., & Robinson, M. (1982). The development of numerical understandings. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lisitt (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 242–312). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, L. B., Rattermann, M. J., & Sera, M. (1988). “Higher” and “lower”: Comparative and categorical interpretations by children. Cognitive Development, 3(4), 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sophian, C. (1987). Early developments in children’s use of counting to solve quantitative problems. Cognition and Instruction, 4(2), 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stephan, M., & Akyuz, D. (2012). A proposed instructional theory for integer addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(4), 428–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Swanson, P. E. (2010). The intersection of language and mathematics. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15(9), 516–523.Google Scholar
  33. Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosnaidou, S. (2012). Bridging the gap between the dense and the discrete: The number line and the “rubber line” bridging analogy. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14(4), 265–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Varma, S., & Schwartz, D. L. (2011). The mental representation of integers: An abstract-to-concrete shift in the understanding of mathematical concepts. Cognition, 121, 363–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verschaffel, L. (1994). Using retelling data to study elementary school children’s representations and solutions of compare problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 141–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vosnaidou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Wessman-Enzinger, N. M., & Mooney, E. S. (2014). Making sense of integers through storytelling. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(4), 202–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitacre, I., Azuz, B., Lamb, L. L. C., Bishop, J., Schappelle, B. P., & Philipp, R. A. (2017). Integer comparisons across the grades: Students’ justifications and ways of reasoning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 45, 47–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Whitacre, I., Bishop, J. P., Philipp, R. A., Lamb, L. L., & Schappelle, B. P. (2015). Dollars & sense: Students’ integer perspectives. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(2), 84–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Widjaja, W., Stacey, K., & Steinle, V. (2011). Locating negative decimals on the number line: Insights into the thinking of pre-service primary teachers. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30, 80–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations