Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Logo Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa

Special Article

Vol. 17 No. 4(II) (2014): Diciembre

MATHEMATICAL WORKING SPACE RELATIONS WITH CONVERSIONS BETWEEN REPRESENTATIONS AND PROBLEM SOLVING IN FRACTION ADDITION

DOI
https://doi.org/10.12802/relime.13.17412
Submitted
July 5, 2023
Published
2014-12-30

Abstract

The present study is focused on the cognitive level of Mathematical Working Space (MWS) and the component of the epistemological level related to semiotic representations in fraction addition. A test measuring students’ conversion and problem - solving ability in fraction addition was developed and administered to 388 primary and secondary school students (about 11-14 years old) three times. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for repeated measures and implicative method revealed that the students’ performance improved as they move within primary school and within secondary school. A hiatus in performance progress is indicated, though, when the students moved from primary to secondary school. This finding is in line with a compartmentalized way of thinking indicated for this age group. Didactical implications are discussed.

References

  1. Adjiage R, & Pluvinage F. (2000). Un registre géométrique unidimensionnel pour expression des rationnels. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 20 (1), 41-88.
  2. Cramer, K., Wyberg, T. & Leavitt, S. (2008). The role of representations in fraction addition and subtraction. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 13 (8), 490-496.
  3. Deliyianni, E., Elia, I, Panaoura, A., & Gagatsis, A. (2007). The functioning of representations in Cyprus mathematics textbooks. In E. P. Avgerinos & A. Gagatsis (Eds.). Current Trends in Mathematics Education (pp. 155-167). Rhodes: Cyprus Mathematics Society & University of Aegean.
  4. Deliyianni, E., & Gagatsis, A. (2013). Tracing the development of representational flexibility and problem solving in fraction addition: A longitudinal study. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 33 (4). 427-442.
  5. DeWindt - King, A. M., & Goldin, G. A. (2003). Children’s visual imagery: aspects of cognitive representation in solving problems with fractions. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2 (1), 1-42.
  6. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103-131.
  7. Evapmib (2007). Une base se questions d’ evaluations en mathématiques. Retrieved March 25, 2007, from http://ctug48.univfcomte.fr/evapmib/siteEvapmib/accueil.php
  8. Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17 (1), 105-121.
  9. Gagatsis, A., Deliyianni, E., Elia, I., & Panaoura, A. (2011). Explorer la flexibilité : le cas du domaine numérique. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 16, 25-44.
  10. Gagatsis, A., & Shiakalli, M. (2004). Ability to translate from one representation of the concept of function to another and mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology, 24 (5), 645-657.
  11. Gras, R., Briand, H., & Peter, P. (1996). Structuration sets with implication intensity. In E. Diday, Y. Lechevallier & O. Opitz (Eds), Proceeding of the International Conference on Ordinal and Symbolic Data Analysis OSDA, 95. Springer: Paris.
  12. Hitt, F. (1998). Difficulties in the articulation of different representations linked to the concept of function. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17 (1), 123-134.
  13. Keijzer, R., & Terwel, J. (2003). Learning for mathematical insight: A longitudinal comparative study on behaviour. Learning and Instruction, 13, 285-304.
  14. Kuzniak, A. (2011). L’ espace de travail mathématique et ses genèses. Annales de didactique et de sciences cognitives, 16, 9-24.
  15. Strauss, S., & Stavy, R. (1982). U-shaped behavioural growth. New York: Academic.
  16. Whitley, J., Lupart, J., & Beran, T. (2007). Differences in achievement between adolescents who remain in a K-8 school and those who transition to a junior high school. Canadian Journal of Education, 30 (3), 649-669.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.