11 positive Bewertung00 negative Bewertungen

2K Ansichten40 SeitenMar 05, 2011

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

DOC, PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als DOC, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

2K Ansichten

11 positive Bewertung00 negative Bewertungen

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als DOC, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 40

shtml

You are using the online sample of the Teaching and Learning

about DecimalsCDROM. Not all linked pages are accessible in

this version. For further information about the complete

CDROM please click here.

Decimal Numbers

Misconceptions can be diagnosed by listening and watching carefully when a child

answers strategically designed tasks. One of the simplest and best tasks for this topic is

to select the larger from pairs of decimals. Because this is such a good task, the

misconceptions have been organized in three groups according to how the child orders

decimals. Other tasks useful for revealing students' thinking are presented in teaching.

Longer-is-larger misconceptions • Whole number thinking

These students generally think a longer • Column overflow thinking

decimal is a larger number than a • Zero makes small thinking

shorter decimal

• Reverse thinking

Shorter-is-larger misconceptions • Denominator focussed

These students generally think a shorter thinking

decimal is a larger number than a longer • Reciprocal thinking

decimal.

• Negative thinking

Apparent-expert behavior • Equalizing length with

These students can generally decide zeros

which of two decimals is larger but • Left to right comparison

sometimes not for the right reasons. • Money thinking

• Special difficulties with

zero

Do these misconceptions persist? Do they matter?

Longer-is-larger misconceptions

These students generally pick longer decimals to be larger numbers. There are a variety

of reasons why they do this. Some children have not adequately made the decimal-

fraction link and others have place value difficulties. The most common reasons for

longer-is-larger behavior are outlined below. Longer-is-larger misconceptions are most

common in primary school, with about 40% of Grade 5 students interpreting decimals

this way, diminishing to about 5% by Year 10 (see research data).

Learners with this way of thinking assume that digits after the decimal point make

another whole number. They have not effectively made the decimal-fraction link. Our

data indicates that 30% of Grade 5 students are thinking this way, although figures as

high as 60% of Grade 5 at some schools have been recorded.

At one extreme, some children see the decimal point as separating two quite separate

whole numbers. For example, instead of thinking of a decimal number such as 4.8 or

4.63 as a number between 4 and 5, they may see the numbers as two separated whole

numbers 4 and 8 or 4 and 63. If asked to circle the larger of the two numbers, such a

child might circle the 63 only, instead of either 4.8 or 4.63. These children are rare and

need individual remedial help.

More commonly, children who have not completely made the decimal-fraction link will

think of two different types of whole numbers making up a decimal such as 4.63:

perhaps as 4 "whole numbers" with a remainder of 63

perhaps as 4 "whole numbers" and 63 of another unit, rather like 4 goals and 63

behinds in Australian Rules football or even as 4 dollars and 63 cents.

Whole number thinkers are likely to expect that the number after 4.9 (4 wholes and 9

parts) is 4.10 (4 wholes and 10 parts). Click here to see how such a child is likely to

count. They are also likely to have difficulty coordinating the number of parts and the

size of the parts in a fraction, because they do not understand the decimal-fraction link.

If the predominant discussion in the classroom is with decimals of equal length, the

misconception is not challenged, and may continue to secondary school.

There are some variations in the way whole number thinkers order decimals. Sometimes

these students select just on length alone, e.g. they will pick 0.021 to be larger than 0.21

just because it is longer. Other students look more carefully at the decimal part as a

whole number, so that they will think that 0.21 and 0.0021 are equal, because the two

whole numbers 21 and 0021 are equal. Click here to see a case study of 'Caitlin', who is

a whole number thinker like this.

Some students will usually choose longer decimals as larger, but will make correct

choices when the initial decimal digits are zero. For example, these children will say

0.43 is greater than 0.5 but will know that 0.043 is smaller than 0.5. One group of these

students, called column overflow thinkers, have made the decimal-fraction link but have

trouble with fundamentals of place value. Column overflow thinkers have learnt the

correct column names for decimal numbers, but attempt to write too many digits into a

column. So 0.12 is 12 tenths (as there is no zero after the point) while 0.012 is 12

hundredths (as there is one zero after the point). In effect, they squeeze the number 12

into one column. This is why we call it column overflow.

Column overflow thinkers interpret 0.35 as 35 tenths, 0.149 as 149 tenths and 0.678912

as 678912 tenths, 0.035 as 35 hundredths, 0.0149 as 149 hundredths and 0.0043 as 43

thousandths. This thinking generally leads to choosing the longer decimals as larger

except when there are zeros in the first decimal places.

These difficulties are like the difficulties shown by small children learning to count who

often say:" . . sixty six, sixty seven, sixty eight, sixty nine, sixty ten, sixty eleven, sixty

twelve...".

Similarly when children first learn to add, they may put more than one digit in each

place value column:

14 +

58

___

612

Understanding how to rename this number from "sixty twelve" (arrived at by the

addition) to seventy two depends on understanding the relationships between the place

values of the columns. Ten in the units column gives one in the tens column. Column

overflow thinkers may have mastered this idea for whole numbers, but need to learn it

again for the decimal positions.

Column overflow thinking also arise simply by "forgetting" which column name to take

when describing the decimal as a fraction. Instead of getting the name from the

rightmost column (in this case the hundredths, as 0.35 is 35 hundredths) the student may

just take the name from the leftmost column (the tenths).

Some children who order decimals in the same way as column overflow thinkers (above)

actually seem to know little at all about place value. These zero-makes-small thinkers

may have very little idea of the decimal as representing a fractional part. They respond

to many of questions as do whole number thinkers. They know, however, just one thing

more than do whole number thinkers - that a decimal starting with zero in the tenths

column is smaller than one which does not. For example, they will know that 0.21 is

larger than 0.0021 or 0.012345. Unlike whole number thinkers, they therefore can

choose that 0.0762 is smaller than 0.53 correctly. A child with this misconception will

order decimals in the same way as a column overflow thinker, but talking to them will

reveal the differences.

Reverse Thinking

Some children do not know that the place value of the columns decreases when we move

to the right. They know there is a similarity between the patterns of column names on

the right and the left, but may assume they are the same. Occasionally this results in a

child thinking that the names for the place value columns are the same on both sides of

the decimal point:

tens + 8 hundreds if another ones column has been inserted after the decimal point "for

symmetry". These students might select 0.35 as larger than 0.41 because 53 is larger

than 14 or because 530 is larger than 140. Click here to see a case study of a reverse

thinker, 'Tuyet' .

There seem to be two causes for this thinking pattern. A few children, especially

younger children, may have very little idea of fractions and have not begun to appreciate

numbers less than one. More likely, hearing difficulties or language background is the

cause. Often a child with this misconception has not heard the "th" sound in the column

names; so rather than tenths, hundredths and thousandths, they believe that there are

more tens, hundreds and thousands to the right of the decimal point. Judgments about

the size of the decimal number are affected by what are perceived to be the columns

with the largest value, that is the most-right columns.

The final "ths" sound is often missed by children from language backgrounds where a

final "s" or "ths" is not a normal sound. Tenths sounds very similar

to tens, hundredths to hundredsetc. Teachers must be very clear in speech and

writing. Click here for more information.

Shorter-is-larger misconceptions

These students generally pick shorter decimals to be larger numbers. There are a variety

of reasons why they do this. The first reason is inability to coordinate the numerator and

denominator of a fraction; the others are related to students drawing false analogies with

fractions and negative numbers. Our research data shows that at any one time, about

10% of students in all grades from 5 to 10 have shorter-is-larger misconceptions.

These students often have a good knowledge of place value names, but they have

difficulty coordinating the size of the numerator and denominator of a fraction. They

understand, for example, that 0.4 =4 tenths and that 0.83= 83 hundredths. They also

know that tenths are larger than hundredths. They wrongly conclude that 0.4 is greater

than 0.83 because they think only about the size of the parts (the tenths or hundredths)

and cannot simultaneously consider how many parts there are. This is why we call them

"denominator-focussed" thinkers. These children need more help with coordinating the

influence of the numerator and denominator for fractions (see decimal-

fraction link).Click here to see a case study of 'Ricardo', a denominator focussed

thinker. Click here to see how he is likely to count with decimals.

Students who use denominator focussed thinking are aware of the place value of

decimals, but cannot readily move between the various forms of decimals that are

evident using expanded notation. For instance, Nesher and Peled (1986, p73) report an

interview with an Israeli denominator-focussed child who was explaining why 4.45 was

chosen as greater than 4.4502:

"Up to here (points to the 4.45 part) it's the same number, this zero doesn't make a

difference, but here the 2 (4.4502) is ten-thousandths and here (4.45) it's hundredths, so

hundredths that's bigger."

So the child has a strong vision of the decimal parts of the numbers as 45 hundredths and

4502 ten thousandths but doesn't also see the latter in the partially expanded form 45

hundredths + 2 ten thousandths.

in Grades 5 and 6 and then decreases to 1% of Year 10.

Reciprocal thinking

Another reason for shorter-is-larger thinking is that children are trying to interpret

decimal notation in terms of the more familiar fraction notation. They have made the

decimal-fraction link but, unlike the denominator-focussed thinkers above, they do not

consider place value. They see the decimal part as the denominator of a fraction, with

larger denominators creating smaller fractions. For example, they think that 0.12 is

something like 1/12 (they may not think it is really the same) and 0.3456 is something

like 1/3456. The consequence of this is that they act as if longer decimals give smaller

numbers.

so they know that 1/12 > 1/3456

so they conclude that 0.12 > 0.3456

Students with this misconception can be distinguished from others when they are asked

to choose the larger of two decimals of equal length such as 0.3 and 0.4. They choose

0.3 (because 1/3 is larger than 1/4). For this reason, we call them reciprocal thinkers.

(Seeglossaryfor reciprocal)

Such a student may interpret 2.6 as being like two and one sixth or as 2/6. For a question

which asked students to write a decimal to tell what part of a region was shaded, more

than 25% of Grade 7 students in a national survey of students in the USA wrote 1.5 for

1/5 and 1.4 for 1/4. (Hiebert, 1985). Many students exhibit confusion between fraction

and decimal notation. Carpenter et al (1981) report the results of a large sample of 13

year-old children in the USA On a multiple-choice question which asked for the decimal

equivalent of 1/5 only 38% answered correctly, whilst just as many students (38%)

chose 0.5.

Because decimals do not explicitly show the denominator, (the value is instead indicated

by the place), it is likely that some students will assume that the numbers written

represent the denominator, rather than the numerator of the associated fraction.

Click here to see a case study of 'Courtney' who thinks like this. Click here to see how

Courtney is likely to count.

Confusion between fractions and decimals/percents even happens in high places. When

President Clinton was opening the G8 summit in 1997 he was reported to make the

following statement about the USA, intending to show that it had more than a fair share

of wealth in the world, but saying, instead, that it has approximately a fair share.

"We are now slightly less than one-fifth of the world's population, but we have

slightly more than 20% of the world's wealth and income. This is not a matter

requiring Einstein to calculate."

The population of the USA is in fact slightly less than 5% of the world's population, not

one-fifth at all. Has someone important has confused 5% and 1/5?

Negative thinking

When Voula, a Year 9 student, was asked to indicate how long 0.9 of a metre was, she

paused for a long time before stretching out her arm and pointing to the left saying:

Voula was confusing the length 0.9m, with 9 metres in some sort of negative/opposite

direction.

Anita, a tertiary student, explained why she had chosen 0.20 to be larger than 0.35

"I was thinking along a number line and considering decimal numbers to be equivalent

to negative numbers. Therefore -20 was larger than -35".

"I felt more comfortable selecting the number with the least digits as I though the longer

the number, the further it was down the number line in the negative direction."

Irwin (1996) , working in New Zealand, also described children who were confused

about negatives and decimals. When they were asked to put numbers on a number line:

e.g. 1.43, 1.5, 1.4, 0.01, 0.1, 0.9, 0.5, 0, 1, 2

whereas others only put the "zero point " decimals below zero

e.g. 0.10, 0.01, 0.9 , 0.5, 0, 1, 2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.43

This confusion is obviously more likely to occur after students have worked with

negative numbers at school (Year 7/8 on), but it also occurs in younger children.

Elizabeth, a Grade 6 girl whose understanding of decimals otherwise appeared very

sound placed the numbers 0.149 and 0.65 on a number line in the positions of -0.149 and

-0.65.

Like reciprocal thinkers, these negative thinkers will generally choose shorter decimals

as larger.

so they know that -12 > -18

so they conclude that 0.12 > 0.18

Why might decimals and negatives be confused? We speculate that the reason for a

confusion of decimals/fractions and negatives is psycholinguistic in origin. They both

arise as opposites, as "inverses" of cognitively "positive" operations which make

numbers bigger. Decimals (and fractions) arise from division, the inverse of

multiplication. Negatives arise from subtraction, the inverse of addition. So, in a sense,

negatives and decimals/fractions are both ways of being opposite of positive and big.

Both 1/3 and -3 arise as "opposites" of 3, the primary quantity.

To stop this confusion, be sure that children's ideas of decimals become well

consolidated, e.g. by using decimals in many areas of mathematics. When teaching

about negative numbers, be especially sure not to use whole numbers only (i.e. -3, -4,

-10) but be certain to include a wide range of numbers ( -3.6, - 2/3, -0.01, -118.6) so that

the different concepts are juxtaposed. Paradoxically, keeping concepts isolated one from

the other can be a cause of confusion, rather than helping students to keep them separate

in their minds.

Negative thinkers may have forgotten about the decimal-fraction link; this having been

overtaken by interference from new knowledge, rather than have never having known

about it. Why should students confuse decimals and negatives? As noted elsewhere, the

place value names are, to an extent, symmetric around the ones column. This seems to

remind some older students of the way in which the positive and negative parts of the

number line are symmetric about zero. This may dispose some of them to interpret

decimals as negative numbers. (Click here for more information). Another way of

reducing this confusion is to use vertical as well as horizontal number lines.

To separate students using negative thinking from those using reciprocal thinking

requires the inclusion of comparisons with zero in a task. The Zero Test was devised to

do just this, and complements the original Decimal Comparison Test. Our research

data was collected using the original Decimal Comparison Test, however, so only the

combined incidence of these 2 groups can be reported, accounting for 5% to 8% of

students from Grade 5 to Year 10.

Apparent-expert behavior

Students in this category can generally decide which of two decimals is larger. Of

course, many of these students are true experts, with a good understanding of decimal

notation. Other students follow one of the two correct rules, (by equalizing with zeros or

comparing from left to right - see below) but discussion with them shows that the rules

are not supported by understanding. Others (such as the money thinkers and students

who have special difficulties with zero) may have good pragmatic skills, but in reality

very little understanding. A variety of tasks are needed to decide how much

understanding they possess. Our Australian research data shows that about a quarter of

Grade 5 students are experts but this rises to only about two thirds of Year 10 students.

Equalizing length with zeros is probably the most common strategy taught in Australian

schools, although it is used infrequently in other countries, such as Japan. To find out

which of two decimals is the larger, add zeros to the shorter until they have the same

lengths and then compare as whole numbers. For example, to compare 0.4 and 0.457,

add zeros to 0.4 to get three decimal places (0.400) and then compare 400 with 457. This

strategy always works for comparing decimals.

In our research, we have seen many well-taught children who correctly follow this rule

but talking to them reveals a wide range of misconceptions. They know the rule, but do

not understand it. Some will forget the rule fairly quickly if it is not taught with

understanding.

This correct strategy is to compare columns from left to right, until a digit in one

decimal is larger than the corresponding digit in the other (and the first will then be

larger than the second), OR until one decimal stops (which will then be the shorter one,

except in the case of zeros).

2 3 8 7 3

2 3 8 6

same same same top is larger so stop

Like the other correct strategies, this strategy can be taught as a rule to follow without

understanding. The Hidden Numbers computer game enables a teacher to see whether

children are using this strategy.

Money thinking

Some students may appear to be experts, but in reality have very little understanding of

decimal place value and its fractional aspects. These students are usually able to deal

with decimals in everyday life because they understand one and two decimal place

numbers well. Many of these students relate them to money. For example, they think of

4.63 as 4 dollars and 63 cents. They think of 4.8 as 4 dollars and 80 cents. With this as a

model, they are able to carry out many tasks.

Money thinkers apparently have a good understanding of the first two decimal places,

but are not sure of the order of other numbers on the number line. One tertiary student,

for example, when asked to place numbers between 3.14 and 3.15 on a number line drew

this, not realizing that she had omitted 3.141, 3.142, 3.143 and 3.144:

She repeatedly omitted some numbers in several similar tasks, and admitted that she was

unsure of her answers. Furthermore, she had little idea about the general relationships

between the place value columns. Other students have told us that numbers such as 4.45

and 4.4502 are really equal. These students (in fact some are adults) may believe that the

extra digits on the end are 'mis-hits' and shouldn't really be there; in effect their number

system is discrete with integer numbers of cents. Click here to see a case study of 'Maria'

who relies on the analogy with money.

Not all of these students think of money - some have other similar models such as

percentages. Many of them will not realise that they have a problem with decimals. They

do not appreciate that there are an infinite number of decimals between any two others

(density).

Money is a useful but limited way of thinking about decimals. Using the money analogy

can mask misunderstanding. Care needs to be taken in teaching decimals with

money. Click herefor more information on money as an analogy for decimals.

Amongst the group of students who seem to be very good with decimals, there are some

who have particular trouble with zero. They may be able to correctly describe the

relative sizes of all decimals except when one is equal to zero, when they reveal that

they think that all "zero point something" decimals are less than zero. This may be

negative thinking (described above) but it can also be due to overgeneralisation of place

value ideas and confusion of the place value columns with a number line.

These students may observe that the number 0 belongs to the "ones" column in place

value terms, and since this column is to the left of the decimal columns (tenths etc) it is

larger than numbers such as 0.6, which start in the tenths. These students may think that

0.6 is less than 0, but may know that 0.6 is greater than 0.0 or 0.00 etc. For these

students, the whole number 0 is different from the decimal 0.0 or 0.00. This

demonstrates the importance of teaching which presents a variety of examples and

numbers in many forms. The Zero Comparison Test was created to detect any such

difficulties that students may have.

0

0. 0 0

0. 6

It is often very surprising how closely students' answers follow the predictions made

above across a range of tasks. Many children are "hooked" onto their wrong ways of

thinking because, as has been shown above, they produce right answers to a lot of

questions. Students (and also teachers) can think that they have just "made a careless

mistake" on the other questions, without realizing how seriously flawed their ideas are.

usually do not appreciate all of its consequences. So their thinking may appear to be

inconsistent. For example, a column overflow thinker may think 0.03526 is 3526

hundredths and 0.35 is 35 tenths. However, they might decide that 3536 hundredths is

smaller than 35 tenths because they cannot coordinate the size of parts and the number

of parts of a fraction.

Often children hold a range of ideas - sometimes mutually contradictory - using them

according to circumstances. This makes diagnosing a child's difficulties more tricky, but

interesting. Partially formed ideas can change in the course of an interview with a

researcher or a discussion with a teacher.

on children's thinking in the hurly burly real-time events of

the classroom.

The misconception categories described above account for a very large proportion

of the students. However, there are other ways of combining ideas and drawing

analogies with other learning that are not fully described in this summary (several

others are given by Stacey and Steinle (1998)) and others that may not yet be

known.

Some students complete tasks such as the Decimal Comparison Test using rather vague

guiding principles, which vary from item to item and from the beginning of the task to

the end. Thinking about the task may make them adjust their ideas, so their thinking at

the end of the task is different to that at the beginning. About 30% of students

completing the Decimal comparison Test seem to waver between ideas, so that their

thinking cannot be classified (Seeresearch data.)

http://www.apa.org/education/k12/alternative-conceptions.aspx

MATHEMATICS

Money

A correct understanding of money embodies the value of coin currency as

non-corre¬lated with its size.

Misconception: At the PreK level, children hold a core misconception about money and

the value of coins. Students think nickels are more valuable than dimes because nickels

are bigger.

Subtraction (Brown & Burton, 1978; Siegler, 2003; Williams & Ryan, 2000)

Correct understanding of subtraction includes the notion that the columnar order (top to

bottom) of the problem cannot be reversed or flipped.

Misconception #1: Students (age 7) have a “smaller-from-larger” error (miscon¬ception)

that subtraction entails subtracting the smaller digit in each column from the larger digit

regardless of which is on top.

143 83

-28 -37

125 54

Misconception #2: When subtracting from 0 (when the minuend includes a zero), there

are two subtypes of misconceptions:

Misconception a - Flipping the two numbers in the column with the 0.

In problem “307-182,” 0 – 8 is treated as 8 – 0, exemplified by a student who wrote “8 ”

as the answer.

Misconception b - Lack of decrementing; or not decrementing the number to the left of

the 0 (due to first bug above, wherein nothing was borrowed from this column.) In

problem “307-182,” this means not reducing the 3 to 2.

Multiplication

Correct understanding of multiplication includes the knowledge that multiplication does

not always increase a num¬ber.

Misconception - Students have a misconception that multiplication always increas¬es a

number. For example, take the number 8:

3 x 8 = 24

5 x 8 = 40

This impedes students’ learning of the multiplication of a (positive) number by a fraction

less than one, such as ½ x 8 = 4.

Division

Misconception comes in the form of “division as sharing” (Nunes & Bryant, 1996), or the

“primitive, partitive model of division” (Tirosh, 2000). In this model, an object or collection

of objects is divided into a number of equal parts or sub collections (e.g., Five friends

bought 15 lbs. of cookies and shared them equally. How many pounds of cookies did

each person get?). The primitive partitive model places three constraints on the

operation of division:

1. The divisor (the number by which a dividend is divided) must be a whole

number;

2. The divisor must be less than the dividend; and

3. The quotient (the result of the division problem) must be less than the dividend.

Hence, children have difficulty with the following two problems because they vio¬late the

“dividend is always greater than the divisor constraint” (Tirosh, 2002):

1. “A five-meter-long stick was divided into 15 equal sticks. What is the length of

each stick?”

A common incorrect response to this problem is 15 divided by 5. (instead of the

correct 5 divided by 15).

2. “Four friends bought ¼ kilogram of chocolate and shared it equally. How much

chocolate did each person get?”

A common incorrect response to this problem is 4 x ¼ or 4 divided by 4 (instead

of the correct ¼ divided by 4).

Similarly, children have difficulty with the following problem because the primitive,

partitive model implies that “division always makes things smaller” (Tirosh, 2002).

3. “Four kilograms of cheese were packed in packages of ¼ kilogram each. How

many packages contained this amount of cheese?”

Because of this belief they do not view division as a possible operation for solv¬ing this

word problem. They incorrectly choose the expression “1/4 X 4 ” as the answer (See

Fischbein, Deri, Nello, & Marino, 1985).

This “primitive, partitive” model interferes with children’s ability to divide fractions –

because students believe you cannot divide a small number by a larger number, as it

would be impossible to share less among more.

Indeed, even teacher trainees can have this preconception of division “as shar¬ing.”

Teachers were unable to provide contexts for the following problem (Goulding. Rowland,

& Barber, 2002):

2 divided by ¼

Negative Numbers

(See Williams & Ryan, 2000)

The correct conception of negative numbers is that these are numbers less than zero.

They are usually written by indicating their opposite, which is a positive number, with a

preceding minus sign.

A Separation Misconception means treating the two parts of the number – the minus

sign and the number – separately. In number lines, the scale may be marked: -20, -30,

0, 10, 20...(because the ordering is 20 then 30, and the minus sign is at¬tached

afterwards) and later the sequence gets -4 inserted thus: -7, -4, 1,...(be¬cause the

sequence is read 1, 4, 7 and the minus sign is afterwards attached). Similarly, we can

explain: -4 + 7 = -11

Fractions

(See misconception examples above and Hartnett & Gelman, 1998)

The correct conception of a fraction is of the division of one cardinal number by another.

Children start school with an understanding of counting – that numbers are what one

gets when one counts collections of things (the counting principles). Students have

moved towards using counting words and other symbols that are numerically

meaningful. The numbering of fractions is not consistent with the counting principles,

including the idea that numbers result when sets of things are counted and that addition

involves putting two sets together. One cannot count things to generate a fraction. A

fraction, as noted, is defined as the division of one cardinal number by another.

Moreover, some counting principles do not apply to fractions. For example, one cannot

use counting based algorithms for ordering fractions – ¼ is not more than ½. In addition,

the nonverbal and verbal counting principles do not map to the tripartite symbolic

representations of fractions (two cardinal numbers separated by a line).

counting-based number theory, instead of viewing a fraction as a new kind of number.

Misconception #1: Student increase the values of denominator maps in order to increase

quantitative values.

This includes a natural number ordering rule for fractions that is based on cardinal

values of the denominator (See Hartnett & Gelman, 1998)

Misconception #2: When adding fractions, the process is to add the two numera¬tors to

form the sum’s numerator and then add the two denominators to form its denominator.

Example: Elementary and high school students think ¼ is larger than ½ because 4 is

more than 2 and they seldom read ½ correctly as “one half.” Rather, they use a variety

of alternatives, including “one and two, ” “one and a half,” “one plus two, ” “twelve,” and

“three.” (See Gelman, Cohen, & Hartnett, 1989, cited in Hartnett & Gelman, 1998),

Example ½ +1/3 = 2/5 (See Siegler, 2003)

Decimal/Place-Value

The correct understanding of the decimal system is of a numeration system based on

powers of 10. A number is written as a row of digits, with each posi¬tion in the row

corresponding to a certain power of 10. A decimal point in the row divides it into those

powers of 10 equal to or greater than 0 and those less than 0, i.e., negative powers of

10. Positions farther to the left of the decimal point correspond to increasing positive

powers of 10 and those farther to the right to increasing negative powers, i.e., to division

by higher positive powers of 10.

For example,

4,309=(4×103)+(3x102)+(0×101)+(9×100)=4,000+300+0+9, and

4.309=(4×100)+(3×10−1)+(0×10−2)+(9×10−3)=4+3/10+0/100+9/1000.

A number written in the decimal system is called a decimal, although sometimes this

term is used to refer only to a proper fraction written in this system and not to a mixed

number. Decimals are added and subtracted in the same way as in¬tegers (whole

numbers), except that when these operations are written in colum¬nar form, the decimal

points in the column entries and in the answer must all be placed one under another. In

multiplying two decimals, the operation is the same as for integers except that the

number of decimal places in the product (i.e., digits to the right of the decimal point) is

equal to the sum of the decimal places in the factors (e.g., the factor 7.24 to two decimal

places and the factor 6.3 to one decimal place have the product 45.612 to three decimal

places). In division, (e.g., 4.32|12.8), a decimal point in the divisor (4.32) is shifted to the

extreme right (i.e., to 432.) and the decimal point in the dividend (12.8) is shifted the

same number of places to the right (to 1280), with one or more zeros added before the

decimal to make this possible. The decimal point in the quotient is then placed above

that in the dividend, i.e., 432|1280.0 and zeros are added to the right of the decimal point

in the dividend as needed. The division proceeds the same as for integers.

Misconception #1: Students often use a “separation strategy,” whereby they separate

the whole (integer) and decimal as different entities. They treat the two parts before and

after the decimal point as separate entities. This has been seen in pupils (Williams &

Ryan, 2000), as well as in beginning pre-service teachers (Ryan & McCrae, 2005).

Example:

Division by 100:

300.62 divided by 100

Correct Answer = 3.0062

Misconception Answer = 3.62

Example: When given 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, students continue the scale with 7.10, 7.11.

Misconception #2: This relates to the ordering of decimal fractions from largest to

smallest (Resnick et al., 1989; Sackur-Grisvard, & Leonard, 1985). This miscon¬ception

is also seen in primary teacher trainees (Goulding et al., 2002). Here is an example of a

mistaken ordering:

0.203 2.35 X 10-2; two hundreths 2.19 X 10 -1; one fifth

A lack of connection exists in the knowledge base between different forms of numerical

expressions AND difficulties with more than two decimal places.

Misconception a: The larger/longer number is the one with more digits to the right of the

deci¬mal point, i.e. 3.214 is greater than 3.8 (Resnick et al., 1989; Sackur-Grisvard &

Leonard,1985; Siegler, 2003) This is known as the “whole number rule” because

children are using their knowledge of whole number val¬ues in comparing decimal

fractions (Resnick et al., 1989). Whole number errors derive from students’ applying

rules for interpreting multi-digit integers. Children using this rule appear to have little

knowledge of decimal numbers. Their repre¬sentation of the place value system does

not contain the critical information of column values, column names, and the role of zero

as a placeholder (see Resn¬ick et al., 1989).

Misconception b: The “largest/longest decimal is the smallest (the one with the fewest

digits to the right of decimal).” Misconception- given the pairs 1.35 and 1.2, 1.2 is viewed

as greater. 2.43 judged larger than 2.897 (Mason & Ruddock, 1986; cited in Goulding et

al., 2002, Resnick et al., 1989; Sackur-Grisvard & Leonard, 1985; Siegler, 2003; & Ryan

& McCrae) This is known as the “fraction” rule because children appear to be relying on

ordinary fraction notation and their knowledge of the relation between size of parts and

number of parts (Resnick et al., 1989). Fraction errors derive from children’s attempts to

interpret decimals as fractions. For instance, if they know that thousandths are smaller

parts than hun¬dredths, and that three-digit decimals are read as thousandths, whereas

two-digit decimals are read as hundredths, they may infer that longer decimals, because

they refer to smaller parts, must have lower values (Resnick et al., 1989). These children

are not able to coordinate information about the size of parts with in¬formation about the

number of parts; when attending to size of parts (specified by the number of columns)

they ignored the number of parts (specified by the digits).

Misconception c: Students make incorrect judgments about ordering numbers that

include decimal points when one number has one or more zeros immediate¬ly to the

right of the decimal point or has other digits to the right of the decimal point. Hence, in

ordering the following three numbers (3.214, 3.09, 3.8), a student correctly chooses the

number with the zero as the smallest, but then resorts to “the larger number is the one

with more digits to the right” rule (i. e., 3.09, 3.8, 3.214) (Resnick et al., 1989; Sackur-

Grisvard & Leonard, 1985). This is known as the “zero rule” because it appears to be

generated by children who are aware of the place-holder function of zero, but do not

have a fully developed place value structure. As a result, they apply their knowledge of

zero being very small to a conclusion that the entire decimal must be small (See Resnick

et al.,1989).

Misconception #3: Multiplication of Decimals Example: 0.3 X 0.24

Correct Answer = 0.072

Misconception Answer: Multiply 3 x 24 and adjust two decimal points. 0.72 (This is seen

in the beginning instruction of pre-service teachers as well.)

Misconception #4: Units, tenths and hundredths

Example: Write in decimal form: 912 + 4/100

Correct Answer = 912.04

Misconception Answer = 912.004

Misconception 4/100 is ¼ or 100 divided by 4 gives the decimal or 1/25 is 0.25 = 912.25

Overgeneralization of Conceptions Developed for ‘Whole Numbers’ (cited in Williams &

Ryan, 2000)

Misconception #1: Ignoring the minus or % sign.

Errors such as: 4 + - 7 = -11; -10 + 15 = 25

Misconception #2: Thinking that zero is the lowest number

Algebra

Misconception #1: Incorrect generalization or extension of correct rules

Siegler (2003) provides the following example:

The distributive principle indicates that

a x (b + c) = (a x b) + (a x c)

Some students erroneously extend this principle on the basis of superficial simi¬larities

and produce:

a + (b x c) = (a + b) x ( a + c)

Misconception #2: Variable Misconception

Correct understanding of variables means that a student knows that letters in equations

represent, at once, a range of unspecified numbers/values.

It is very common for middle school students to have misconceptions about core

concepts in algebra, including concepts of a variable (Kuchemann 78; Knuth, Alibali,

McNeil, Weinberg, & Stephens, 2005; MacGregor & Stacey, 1997; Rosnick, 1981). This

misconception can begin in the early elementary school years and then persist through

the high school years.

There are several levels or kinds of variable misconceptions:

1. Variable Misconception: Level 1

A letter is assigned one numerical value from the outset

2. Variable Misconception: Level 3

A letter is interpreted as a label for an object or as an object itself

Example:

At a university, there are six times as many students as professors. This fact

is represented by the equation S = 6P. In this equation, what does the letter

S stand for?

a. number of students (Correct)

b. professors

c. students (Misconception)

d. none of the above

Misconception #3: Equality Misconception

Correct understanding of equivalence (the equal sign) is the “relational” view of the equal

sign. This means understanding that the equal sign is a symbol of equivalence (i.e., a

symbol that denotes a relationship between two quantities).

Students exhibit a variety of misconceptions about equality (Falkner, Levi, & Carpenter,

1999; Kieran, 1981,1992; Knuth et al., 2005; McNeil & Alibali, 2005; Steinberg, Sleeman,

& Ktorza,1990; Williams & Ryan, 2000). The equality misconception is also evident in

adults, like college students (McNeil & Alibali, 2005).

a. Students do not understand the concept of “equivalent equations” and basic principles

of transforming equations. Often, they do not know how to keep both sides of the

equation equal. So, they do not add/subtract equally from both sides of the equal sign.

Example:

In solving x + 3 = 7, a next step could be

A. x + 3 – 3 = 7 – 3 (Correct)

B. x + 3 + 7 = 0

C. = 7 – 3 (Misconception)

D. .3x = 7

b. It is assumed that the answer (solu¬tion) is the number after the equal sign (i.e.,

answer on the right)

http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/87495

This module focuses on the work of pupil A to model the process of identifying,

predicting, uncovering and tackling misconceptions.

Examine pupil A's responses to his work in class, which are shown below.

Question 4 above gets to the heart of pupil A's difficulties with decimals. What do his

responses reveal?

The response to question 11 above reveals another major conceptual error. What is it?

What significant misconception concerning the ordering of fractions does the above

demonstrate?

In a few sentences, summarise pupil A's difficulties with fractions and decimals.

Pupil A has a misconception that often goes unrecognised. Most teachers are aware of

the tendency to ignore decimal points and treat decimals as if they are whole numbers.

Thus many pupils obtain such answers as 0.75 > 0.8. Here is evidence of the reverse

tendency, to say that numbers with more decimal places are smaller in value.

There are two common reasons why pupils might believe this. Firstly, they feel that, say,

0.45 goes into hundredths while 0.7 only goes into tenths. Thus 0.45 < 0.7 because

'tenths are bigger than hundredths'. Secondly (and this is the reason that is suggested

here), they believe that 0.45 is analogous or equivalent to 1/45.

Pupil A shows in his answers that he does understand one meaning of the denominator

in a fraction. He sees 3/8 as involving the cutting of a cake into 8 parts. He seems,

however, to ignore the value of the numerator when comparing fractions.

Both pupil A's responses and the researcher's analysis are available for printing

from Extras.

http://www.math.uga.edu/~sybilla/05Fall5020/DecimalMisconceptions.pdf

The following list describes some of the misconceptions or diﬃculties children can develop about

comparing decimal numbers. The list is based on the work of mathematics education researcher

Kaye Stacey, who has gathered data on thousands of children in Australia. Longer is larger

Children with this misconception seem to treat the portion of the number to the right of the

decimal point as a whole number, thus thinking that 2.352 > 2.1 because 352 > 1. Longer is

larger with exceptions This misconception is the same as the previous one except in the case of

intervening zeros, so that children with this misconception correctly identify that 3.6 > 3.07.

Shorter is larger Children with this misconception think that fewer digits to the right of a decimal

point always makes a decimal larger. For example, they would think that 6.31 > 6.482. These

children reason that any number of tenths is greater than any number of hundredths and that any

number of hundredths is greater than any number of thousandths, and so on.Reciprocal or

negative reasoning Children with this misconception also think that fewer digits to the right of a

decimal point always makes a decimal larger but they use “reciprocal reasoning” or “negative

reasoning”, thinking, for example, that 0.2 > 0.3 because 12 >13 or because −2 > −3, since 2 < 3.

Reversal Children with this misconception “correctly” order decimals but then reverse their

answers, so that all their answers become incorrect. These children may view decimals as less

than zero. Experts to the hundredths Children with this diﬃculty correctly order decimals as long

as there are no entries below the hundredths. They may reason by thinking about money. They

are unsure what to do when there are entries in the thousandths place or below, for example,

they may not know how to compare 3.64 and 3.6402. Put the following set of decimal numbers in

order from least to greatest. Then show how children with the misconceptions described above

might put the numbers in order. 3.62 3.4102 3.41 3.401 3.4 3.3

Shorter is larger:

Reversal:

http://www.ugru.uaeu.ac.ae/UGRUJournal/UGRUJournal_files/SR5/MIN.pdf

1 1

Misconceptions in Numbers

curriculum.

Here, we identify and review certain misconceptions that are most common among

primary and

Of the four basic arithmetic operations addition seems to present students with the least

challenges. Two of the most common errors relate to the positioning of the numbers in

the vertical

presentation of the addition and the process of ‘carrying’. Both of these errors are

symptomatic

In subtraction, Dickson & al (1984) cite Resnick (1982) summary of student’s most

common

refers to

the fact that students would take the smaller digit from the larger irrespective of the

position of

543

- 237

= 314

Clearly, the student subtracted 3 from 7 because 3 was the smaller digit. Here, the

assumption is

subtraction

will reduce the occurrence of such errors. Students should be made aware at an early

age of the

Of the four arithmetic operations, division presents students with the most challenges.

The first is

the belief that the divisor should always be smaller than the dividend. The extent of this

problem

was investigated by several researchers. Graeber and Baker (1992) put the following

question to

“Five pounds of trail mix was shared equally by fifteen friends. How many pounds

of

Twenty-four out of the group of 30 children responded by performing the operation 15÷5

and

giving 3 as the answer. Perhaps more worrying was the fact that 42 percent of a sample

of sixtyfive trainee elementary school teacher trainees gave the answer 15÷5.

The source of this misconception lies clearly in the students’ early encounters with

division. Such

encounters are almost always in situations where a whole number has to be divided by

one of its

factors. Thus, for the children, ‘this kind of problem always goes like that, the little into

the big.’

Further research (Graber and Baker 1988) suggests that throughout KS2 and KS3

students

encounter very few instances where the divisor is greater than the dividend.

There is a wide range of common errors that students make when they encounter zero

in

arithmetic operations. Perhaps the most common is the problem that students have in

‘borrowing’

from zero in the process of subtraction. The use of zero in multiplication and division is

also the

source of a large number of mistakes and misconceptions among students of all ages.

Multiplying by zero

One of the most common mistakes involving zero is the failure by many students to

realise that

multiplying any number by zero yields zero. Rees and Barr (1984) found that 52% of

8613

9 × 0 × 8 = 72

This failure stems probably from the difficulty that many students have in interpreting a

zero just

Often students are confused when trying to decide whether to write or omit zero. They

are often

told that zero at the end of a decimal number has no value and therefore can be omitted

without

Similarly, when dividing 1632 by 8, students are taught not to write the ‘0’ that 3 divided

by 8

would yield and divide 16 by 8 instead. As a result, many students become confused

and are

unable to determine exactly when should zero be written and when it should be omitted.

Thus,

24

8 1632

It is not difficult to see the rationale behind the result. Since 8 does not divide into 3,

students

often move on to divide 8 into 32 to obtain 4. Thus the zero that should have been

written

3. Decimals

More students have problems with decimals than with any other number concept. There

seems to

understanding of

decimal numbers. It’s ‘as if the introduction of the decimal point changes the nature of

the

number in a fundamental way’. Brown (1981b, 1981c) found that about half of 12 year-

old

students and a third of 15 year olds have difficulties understanding decimal notation.

Difficulties with decimal numbers range from comprehending place value after the

decimal to

proper use of the algorithm of addition and subtraction. Rees and Barr (1984) found that

10 yearold primary school students provided 100 different answers to the following task:

UGRU Journal Volume 5, Fall 2007

3 3

The most common (wrong) methods used by students when adding decimals include:

• Adding the numbers before the decimal points and the numbers after the decimal

points

separately and combining them in any one of a number of ways to form a single number.

• Mistakes in aligning the numbers vertically and using the addition algorithm.

Multiplication and division of decimal numbers are even more challenging to students.

Common

Many problems with decimal numbers stem from facts learned or perceived when

working with

natural numbers. Many properties of natural numbers are mechanically extended to

other real

numbers, leading to many erroneous beliefs. Prominent among these is the widespread

belief that

multiplication should always yield a number that is necessarily higher than those with

which we

Thus for many students it seems inconceivable that 5 × 0.4 should give 2 since 2 is

smaller than 5.

In the same way, they find it hard to accept that 10 ÷ 0.1 gives 100 since 100 is much

bigger than

10? For many children, to make a number bigger, you have to multiply it and to make it

smaller

Why do many students believe that multiplication makes bigger? The reasons are

multiple. First,

many everyday language expressions imply that it is the case. When plants or animal

reproduce

we talk of multiplication. The word ‘multiple’ itself carries a sense of many or a great

number.

The second reason for this misconception has to do with the fact that many students first

multiplication of

two numbers indeed results in a larger number. A third reason for this misconception is

suggested

a

repeated addition. This view carries many secondary effects of which the most

prominent is that

multiplication makes bigger. Other secondary effects include the difficulty that students

have in

dealing with multiplication of fractions, and dealing with multiplication with small

numbers.

4. Fractions

Kerslake (1986) found that students of thirteen to fourteen years relied heavily on rote

memory of

previously learned techniques when working with fractions. She believes that this is

mainly due

to the fact that “fractions do not form a normal part of a child’s environment and the

operations

on them are abstractly defined”. This abstraction and lack of feel for fractions lead

students to

have many misconceptions about fractions. The most common of these misconceptions

involve

Research shows that on the whole students cope well with multiplication of fractions.

This is

probably due to the fact that the rule of multiplication of fractions seems natural: multiply

the

numerators together and the denominators together. Cramer and Bezuk (1991) found

that even

the

same research also concluded that students have little or understanding of the concept

of

multiplication of fractions. This is partly due to the fact that multiplication with whole

numbers is

often viewed and understood by students as a repeated addition. When confronted with

an

operation of the type

2/3 × 3/5

focus

more on real situations involving a product of two fractions and the explication of why the

concretely

visualise a division of say, ¾ by ½. For most children, this kind of operation is simply

meaningless. In addition, often students fail to see the point or understand the logic

behind the

Addition of fractions poses a different sort of problem to children. While most will have

no

problems comprehending the meaning of ¼ + 2/3, often they will struggle to find the

right result.

When faced with the addition of fractions, often students choose the “easiest way out”.

Instead of

looking for equivalent fractions having the same denominator, they simply add the

numerators

and the denominators, thus using the following “rule”:

a+c

b+d

Hart (1981) found that 30% of 13 year olds were making this error, and notes that 15

year olds

were almost as likely to make this error as 13 year olds. This misconception is, at least

partially, a

Equivalent Fractions

For

example, if we wanted to know which is the larger of 3/5 and 4/7, one way of dealing

with this

would be to find fractions equivalent to the given ones, but having the same

denominator.

However, many students of all ages experience difficulties in their attempt to find

equivalent

fractions. Hart (1980) found that only 66 percent of 15 year olds could recognize that

3/10 was

larger than 1/5. In an American Survey (NAEP), only 3 percent of 13 year olds were to

finds

which of the fractions 1/4, 5/32, 5/16, 3/8 was nearest to 3/16. These results clearly

demonstrate

that students either do not know how to find equivalent fractions or do not make the

connection

5 5

Equivalence of fractions can also be used to find a fraction between two given fractions,

such as

1/2 and 2/3. Hart (1980) found that only 21 percent of 15 year olds were able to find

such a

fraction. Hart also found that students often do not realise that between two fractions on

the

number line there are many (infinitely many) fractions. The following table summarises

the

One 30%

Omit 17%

Brown (1981) confirms that students often do not know that the number line has no

‘empty

spaces’ when he asked students the question: ‘How many different numbers could you

write

5. Percentages.

Percentages, ratios and proportions present children, and indeed most people, with a

number of

challenges that appear quite daunting. Rees and Barr (1984) found that only half of a

sample of

8600 candidates could work out their new salary if their present salary increased by a

given

percentage. In another test, only 26% of twelve-year old students could work out how

much a pair

of jeans which normally costs £15 would cost after a 20% reduction. Thirty-three

different

answers were given to the question. The APU (1980) reports that only about half of 15

year olds

The wide range of answers shows that there is widespread confusion linked to

percentages. Any

basically a special

fraction or a decimal.

CONCLUSION

Misconceptions abound in mathematics. They are picked throughout the educational life

of a

child. Some are inherent to the subject, others are the results of teaching techniques that

misconceptions

are difficult to overcome. Thus it is more important for teachers to make sure that the

misconceptions do not arise in the first place. First, teachers should be aware of areas

that have

the potential to generate misconceptions in the minds of the children. Then enough

work, and UGRU Journal Volume 5, Fall 2007

REFERENCES

Graeber Anna O. and Kay M. Baker Little into Big is the Way it Always Is, Arithmetic

Teacher,

April 1992.

Mathematics A

Teacher’s guide to recent research, Holt, Rinhart and Winston for the Schools Council.

Psychology Press

(1997)

Steffe, Leslie, P. & Olive John. “The Problem of Fractions in the Elementary School” The

Ward, M. (1979) Mathematics and the 10-year old, Working Paper 61, Schools Council.

Evans/Methuen

Mathematics: 11-16

(Ed)

Division,

Mathematics

Resnick, L.B. (1982) Syntax and Semantics in Learning to Subtract. In Addition and

Subtraction:

A Cognitive Perspective (Ed) Carpenter, T.P. et al. New Jersey: Laurence Erlhaum

Concerning

Budapest,

Kerlake, Daphne. Fractions: Students’ Strategies and Errors. Windsor, England: NEFR-

Nelson,

7 7

November

1991.

Technical

http://ezinearticles.com/?Mathematics-Success---Common-Mistakes-in-

Mathematics&id=3643045

By Sesan Oguntade

www.satuvemma.com/elizabeth/

math course materials have not supplied for sometime now. It is going to

talk about an important problem that has made students not to perform at

their best in mathematics.

education. It is one of the core subjects that are needed for any human being

to attain any height in life. Right from the early days of a child, he or she is

expected to master the art of counting and adding. How well he or she does

this at this early stage can go along way to determine how good he or she

will be as a math student later on in life. Most students who are not doing

very well presently in math must have had bad background training and as a

result, they find it difficult coping with the subject as they grow. They only

struggle from one stage of their academic life to another building on a poor

foundation. We all know what the result of this venture will be - a poor math

result in their final examinations.

whenever they solve questions in higher classes. Some students in the

examination classes cannot even use the BODMAS rule to solve questions-

Yes this is how bad it is! Here are some common mistakes by our students in

math and the solutions provided. I hope this will be useful to you or your

child. I have provided the likely wrong solutions by students and what should

be the right solutions. Comments have also been included under each. Please

enjoy them.

QUESTION 1: Simplify - 6 - 5

Wrong solution:

-6 -5

= +30

Right solution:

- 6 -5

= -11

above as - 6 x -5, which is equal to + 30, because - multiply by - = + and 6

x 5 = 30. However, the question above does not involve multiplication, it is

simple addition. The solution to the problem can be approached this way; if

we use the idea of owing money (-) and having money (+). Owing is taken

as a negative (-) thing, while having is taken as a positive (+) thing.

Let us now use this idea to solve the question above and other subsequent

questions involving operations on directed numbers. -6 imply I owe six

quantities, -5 also imply I owe five quantities. So therefore, I owe eleven

quantities altogether i.e. -11 (it is negative eleven because I still owe).

QUESTION 2: Simplify -1 + 5 - 2 - 3

Right solution:

-1 + 5 - 2 - 3

= -1

COMMENT: Using the "Owing and having rule". I owed one quantity (-) and I

have five quantities (+5), when I pay back the one quantity I owe, I will

have four quantities (+4) left. I owe a further two quantities (-2) and a

further three quantities (-3) which equals five quantities (-5). So, when I pay

back four quantities (which I already have), I'll be owing one more quantity

(-1). So therefore, the result is -1.

QUESTION 3: Simplify -3 x -2 x +2

Wrong solution:

-3 x -2 x +2

= -12

Right solution:

-3 x - 2 x + 2

= +12

COMMENT: This problem involves multiplication and the rule of signs must

apply. It is necessary to simplify the signs first before the numbers (figures).

- x -= +, the resultant + sign multiplied by the last + sign = +. Now to the

figures, 3 x 2 x 2 = 12. Therefore, the result is +12.

You can obtain an exciting e-book that has treated over 70 common mistakes

in mathematics by students at an introductory price

athttp://www.rocktech.biz/math.html. Claim a free sample of the math

ebook, free mathematics newsletters, free mathematics worksheets, access

to my mathematics blog immediately.

You can obtain an exciting e-book that has treated over 70 common mistakes

in mathematics by students at an introductory price

athttp://www.rocktech.biz/math.html. Claim a free sample of the math

ebook, free mathematics newsletters, free mathematics worksheets, access

to my mathematics blog immediately.

http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/resources/help/miscon4.pdf

http://www.experiencefestival.com/mathematics_-_common_misconceptions

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-164525541.html

Why might a child have no trouble ordering this first set of decimals but have difficulty

with the second set?

First set0.4 0.9 0.3 0.7

(Steinle & Stacey, 2004) indicate many students treat decimals as another whole

number to the right of the decimal point. This "whole number thinking" leads

some students to believe, in the context of comparing decimals, that "longer is

larger"; e.g., 0.45 is larger than 0.8 because 0.45 has more digits. This

misconception (one of several major misconceptions) appears to be the most

prevalent and is likely to be persistent beyond Year 10.

These results and results from a research project (Roche & Clarke, 2004) indicate

some students misunderstand the decimal numeration system and that some

students use a rule to compare decimals possibly to the detriment of their

conceptual understanding. This rule provides a quick fix to students unable to

compare decimals accurately while continuing to encourage the "whole number

thinking" misconception. Also, students who are not dependent on this rule (and

successful in a decimal comparison task) are more likely to be able to solve more

difficult tasks involving the relative size of decimals.

A research project

where the mathematical focus was decimal knowledge and understanding.

During the analyses of these interviews I was able to follow the progress of

students who were successful on a decimal comparison task. The task included

nine decimal pairs, and the students were asked to say which was larger and

why. Patterns of errors suggested some students held the misconceptions

outlined by Steinle and Stacey (1998). The decimal comparison task was

implemented in an interview situation rather than a pencil and paper test, and I

was able to identify two strategies used by students who achieved no more than

one error on the decimal comparison task.

strategies to compare the decimals. For example: "0.567 is greater than 0.3

because five tenths is greater than three tenths, or 0.567 is more than a half and

0.3 is less than a half", or "0.87 is greater than 0.087 …

http://chekguisza.blogspot.com/2010/03/perpuluhan-cara-menambah-nombor_27.html

menambah nombor bulat. Yang perlu di utamakan ialah kedudukan titik

perpuluhannya. Adalah PENTING untuk memastikan yang titik perpuluhan

berada dalam satu garisan yang lurus sebelum penambahan nombor perpuluhan

dilakukan.

Menambahkan

Seperti biasa, aktiviti penambahan di mulai dengan nombor yang paling kanan

dan bergerak kepada lajur sebelah kiri.

Penambahan nombor perpuluhan yang tidak sama rata

Jika nombor anda menambah tidak mempunyai jumlah yang sama digit ke kanan

titik perpuluhan, anda masih perlu menyusun titik perpuluhan dalam satu

garisan lurus sebelum menambah.

Jika ada membawa (iaitu, jika menambah nombor yang membawa jawapan lebih

daripada 9) , ingat untuk menambah digit puluhan dari medan ke medan

seterusnya.

Kesalahan yang sering anak-anak lakukan ketika menambahkan

nombor perpuluhan.

http://www.mathsolutions.com/documents/978-1-935099-01-7_CH3.pdf

http://www.ied.edu.hk/primaryed/eproceedings/fullpaper/RN375.pdf

http://tlp.excellencegateway.org.uk/tlp/xcurricula/lmic/assets/documents/2175_17_sessio

n4_o.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29780579/Misconceptions-in-Math-Diagnostic-Teaching

http://books.google.com.my/books?

id=6DfkE5c4R3wC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=misconception+of+decimal+in+subtr

action&source=bl&ots=mCx0pwbj3A&sig=aaMreYJi5YymyU7puSKjENEsnyg&hl=en

&ei=KqNrTe3DG83trQeIvPTCCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=

0CE0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7786455/Misconception-in-mathematics

http://mathsisinteresting.blogspot.com/2009/08/misconception-of-percentage.html

- Pembahagian bagi nombor perpuluhan.

pembahagian bagi nombor perpuluhan ialah mereka mengabaikan titik

perpuluhan semasa melakukan proses pembahagian nombor perpuluhan. Ini

kerana bagi mereka, titik perpuluhan itu boleh menyukarkan dan mengelirukan

mereka untuk melakukan pembahagian nombor perpuluhan.

Contohnya:

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.