Conceptual versus procedural approaches to ordering fractions

Lynda R. Wiest 1 * , Frank O. Amankonah 2
More Detail
1 College of Education, University of Nevada, Reno, USA
2 Mathematics Department, Great Basin College, Winnemucca, Nevada, USA
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 61-72. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9534
OPEN ACCESS   2397 Views   1285 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This paper reports the performance of 30 rising seventh-grade girls on a task in which they were asked to order four fractions from least to greatest. Less than three-fifths attained correct answers. The performance gap was widest between students who attended Title I schools and those who did not, the latter being much more likely to attain correct answers. The achievement gap was less prominent by race/ethnicity, family socioeconomic status, and community type (suburban/urban versus rural). Participants tended to use conceptual and procedural approaches equally, but conceptual approaches were more successful. The most common conceptual strategy was making drawings that illustrated part-whole concepts, and the most common procedural strategy was converting fractions to equivalent fractions. The most problematic fractions to place in order of relative size were the two middle fractions, which were somewhat closer to each other in size than other adjacent pairs and were farthest from the benchmarks of 0 or 1. Based on these and other research findings, we conclude that it would benefit students to possess a greater repertoire of specific strategies, especially conceptual strategies such as use of number lines, benchmarks, and set models, for working with fractions.
Keywords: Fractions, Mathematics Performance, Mathematics Strategies, Middle School, Student Differences

CITATION

Wiest, L. R., & Amankonah, F. O. (2019). Conceptual versus procedural approaches to ordering fractions. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9534

REFERENCES

  • Bergsten, C., Engelbrecht, J., & Kagesten, O. (2017). Conceptual and procedural approaches to mathematics in the engineering curriculum–Comparing views of junior and senior engineering students in two countries. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(3), 533-553.
  • Bray, W. S., & Abreu-Sanchez, L. (2010). Using number sense to compare fractions. Teaching Children Mathematics, 17(2), 90-97.
  • Brown-Jeffy, S. (2009). School effects: Examining the race gap in mathematics achievement. Journal of African American Studies, 13(4), 388-405.
  • Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects of inequality, family and school on mathematics achievement: Country and student differences. Social Forces, 88(4), 1645-1676.
  • Clarke, D. M., & Roche, A. (2009). Students’ fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust understanding and possible pointers for instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 127-138.
  • Fennell, F. (2007, December). Fractions are foundational. NCTM News Bulletin, p. 3. Retrieved from: http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=13316
  • Gabriel, F., Coché, F., Szucs, D., Carette, V., Rey, B., & Content, A. (2012). Developing children’s understanding of fractions: An intervention study. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(3), 137-146.
  • Graham, S. E., & Provost, L. E. (2012). Mathematics achievement gaps between suburban students and their rural and urban peers increase over time. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Carsey Institute. Retrieved from http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB-Graham-Math-Achievement-K-8.pdf
  • Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2014). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  • Hallett, D., Nunes, T., & Bryant, T. (2010). Individual differences in conceptual and procedural knowledge when learning fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 395-406.
  • Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): 2007 Mathematics Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
  • Lamon, S. J. (2012). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding: Essential content knowledge and instructional strategies for teachers (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  • Lowry, R. (2013). Concepts and applications of inferential statistics. Retrieved from http://vassarstats.net/textbook/index.html
  • Meert, G., Grégoire, J., & Noël, M.-P. (2010). Comparing the magnitude of two fractions with common components: Which representations are used by 10- and 12-year-olds? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(3), 244-259.
  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
  • Pantziara, M..& Philippou, G. (2012). Levels of students’ “conception” of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(1), 61-83.
  • Siegler, R. S., & Pyke, A. A. (2013). Developmental and individual differences in understanding of fractions. Developmental Psychology, 49(10), 1994-2004.
  • Sprute, L., & Temple, E. (2011). Representations of fractions: Evidence for accessing the whole magnitude in adults. Mind, Brain, and Education, 5(1), 42-47.
  • Strother, S., Brendefur, J. L., Thiede, K. & Appleton, S. (2016). Five key ideas to teach fractions and decimals with understanding. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 3(2), 132-137.
  • Tularam, G. A., & Hulsman, K. (2013). A study of first year tertiary students’ mathematical knowledge–Conceptual and procedural knowledge, logical thinking and creativity. Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 9(3), 219-237.
  • Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.