Advertisement

Perspectives on Children’s Fraction Knowledge

  • Leslie P. Steffe

Abstract

The separation of the study of whole numbers and fractions is historical and contributes to the legendary difficulty children experience in the learning of fractions that inspired Davis et al. (1993) to comment that “the learning of fractions is not only very hard, it is, in the broader scheme of things, a dismal failure” (p. 63). I cite Davis et al. not because I believe that the teaching and learning of fractions is by necessity a dismal failure, but rather to accentuate the historical difficulties children experience in learning fractions in mathematics education. These difficulties are quite unsettling because they have been known for a long time. For example, in his famous study on the grade placement of arithmetical topics, Washburne (1930, p. 669) reported that a mental age level of 9 years should be attained by children if at least three out of four of them are to make the very modest mastery represented by a retention test score of 80% on the meaning of “nongrouping” fractions. But, in the case of “grouping” fractions, the analogous mental age was 11 years 7 months.1

Keywords

Mathematical Knowledge School Mathematics Constructivist Learning Stick Figure Composite Unit 
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.

References

  1. Confrey J (1994) Splitting, similarity, and rate of change: a new approach to multiplication and exponential functions. In: Harel G, Confrey J (eds) The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp 291–330Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Foxman DD, Cresswell MJ, Ward M, Badger ME, Tuson JA, Bloomfield BA (1980) Mathematical development: primary survey report no. 1. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Freudenthal H (1983) Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. Guthrie ER (1942) Conditioning: a theory of learning in terms of stimulus, response, and association. In: Henry NB (ed) The Psychology of Learning. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 17–60Google Scholar
  6. Hoffman P (1987) The man who loves only numbers. The Atlantic Monthly 260:60–74Google Scholar
  7. Kerslake D (1986) Fractions: children’s errors and strategies. NFER-Nelson, Windsor, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  8. Kieren T (1993) Rational and fractional numbers: From quotient fields to recursive reasoning. In: Carpenter T, Fennema E, Romberg T (eds) Rational numbers: an integration of research. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 49–84Google Scholar
  9. Long C, DeTemple DW (1996) Mathematical reasoning for elementary teachers. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Piaget J (1937) The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Piaget J (1964) Development and learning. In: Ripple RE, Rockcastle VN (eds) Piaget rediscovered: a report of a conference on cognitive studies and curriculum development. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 7–19Google Scholar
  12. Piaget J (1980) Opening the debate. In: Piattelli-Palmarini M (ed) Language and learning: the debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–34Google Scholar
  13. Renshaw P (1992) The psychology of learning and small group work. In classroom oral language: reader. Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith J (1987, April). What is fraction conceptual knowledge? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Steffe LP (1988) Children’s construction of number sequences and multiplying schemes. In: Hiebert J, Behr M (eds) Number concepts and operations in the middle grades. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 119–140Google Scholar
  16. Steffe LP (1996) Social-cultural approaches in early childhood mathematics education: a discussion. In: Mansfield H, Pateman NA, Bednarz N (eds) Mathematics for tomorrow’s young children: international perspectives on curriculum. Kluwer, Boston, pp 79–99Google Scholar
  17. Steffe LP, Cobb P (with von Glasersfeld E) (1988) Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Steffe LP, Thompson PW (2000) Teaching experiment methodology: underlying principles and essential elements. In: Kelly AE, Lesh RA (eds) Research design in mathematics and science education. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 267–307Google Scholar
  19. Steffe LP, Wiegel H (1996) On the nature of a model of mathematical learning. In: Steffe LP, Nesher P, Cobb P, Goldin GA, Greer B (eds) Theories of mathematical learning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 477–498Google Scholar
  20. Steffe LP, von Glasersfeld E, Richards J, Cobb P (1983) Children’s counting types: philosophy, theory, and application. Praeger Scientific, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Stolzenberg G (1984) Can inquiry into the foundations of mathematics tell us anything interesting about mind? In: Watzlawick P (ed) The invented reality: how do we know what we believe we know?. W. W. Norton, New York, pp 257–309Google Scholar
  22. Thompson PW (1982) A theoretical framework for understanding young children’s concepts of numeration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
  23. Thompson PW (1994) The concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In: Harel G, Confery J (eds) The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 179–234Google Scholar
  24. von Glasersfeld E (1980) The concept of equilibration in a constructivist theory of knowledge. In: Benseler F, Hejl PM, Kock WK (eds) Autopoiesis, communication, and society. Campus, Frankfurt, Germany, pp 75–85Google Scholar
  25. Washburne C (1930) The grade placement of arithmetic topics. In: Whipple GM (ed) Report of the society’s committee on arithmetic (29th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 641–670Google Scholar
  26. Watzlawick P (1984) The fly and the fly-bottle. In: Watzlawick P (ed) The invented reality: how do we know what we believe we know?. W. W. Norton, New York, pp 249–256Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations