The Partitioning and Fraction Schemes

  • Leslie P. Steffe


As stated at the beginning of the first chapter, the basic hypothesis that guided our work is that children’s fraction schemes can emerge as accommodations in their numerical counting schemes. We explained our way of understanding this hypothesis as follows. The child constructs the new schemes by operating on novel material in situations that are not a part of the situations of the preceding schemes. The child uses operations of the preceding schemes in ways that are novel with respect to the situations of the schemes as well as operations that may not be a part of the operations of the preceding schemes. The new schemes that are produced solve situations that the preceding schemes did not solve, and they also serve purposes the preceding schemes did not serve. But the new schemes do not supersede the preceding schemes because they do not solve all of the situations the preceding schemes solved. They might solve situations similar to those solved by the preceding schemes in the context of the new situations, but the preceding schemes are still needed to solve their situations. Still, the new schemes can be regarded as reorganizations of the preceding schemes because operations of the preceding schemes emerge in a new organization and serve different purposes.


Fourth Grade Recursive Partitioning Partitioning Scheme Splitting Scheme Fraction Scheme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackermann E (1995) Construction and transference of meaning through form. In: Steffe LP, Gale J (eds) Constructivism in education. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 341–354Google Scholar
  2. Biddlecomb BD (2002) Numerical knowledge as enabling and constraining fraction knowledge: an example of the reorganization hypothesis. J Math Behav 21:167–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Confrey J (1991) Learning to listen: a student’s understanding of powers of ten. In: von Glasersfeld E (ed) Radical constructivism in mathematics education. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 111–138Google Scholar
  4. Davis G, Hunting RP, Pearn C (1993) What might a fraction mean to a child and how would a teacher know? J Math Behav 12:63–76Google Scholar
  5. Hunting RP, Sharpley CF (1991) Pre-fraction concepts of preschoolers. In: Hunting RP, Davis G (eds) Early fraction learning. Springer, New York, pp 9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lamon SJ (1996) The development of unitizing: its role in children’s partitioning strategies. J Res Math Educ 27:170–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Maturana H (1988) Reality: a search for a compelling argument. Irish J Psychol 9(3):25–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Piaget J, Inhelder B, Szeminska A (1960) The child’s conception of geometry. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Tzur R (2007) Fine grain assessment of students’ mathematical understanding: participatory and anticipatory stages in learning a new mathematical conception. Educ Stud Math 66:273–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations