Children’s estimates of equivalent rational number magnitudes are not equal: Evidence from fractions, decimals, percentages, and whole numbers

IF 1.8 2区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
{"title":"Children’s estimates of equivalent rational number magnitudes are not equal: Evidence from fractions, decimals, percentages, and whole numbers","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Integration of rational number knowledge with prior whole number knowledge has been theorized as critical for mathematical success. Fractions, decimals, and percentages are generally assumed to differ in difficulty based on the degree to which their structure is perceptually similar to whole numbers. Specifically, percentages are viewed as most similar to whole numbers with their fixed unstated denominator of 100. Decimals are often assumed to be easier than fractions because their place-value structure is an extension of the base-ten system for whole numbers, unlike fractions, which have a bipartite structure (i.e., <em>a</em>/<em>b</em>). However, there has been no comprehensive investigation of how fraction, decimal, and percentage knowledge compares with whole number knowledge. To assess understanding of the four notations, we measured within-participants number line estimation of equivalent fractions and decimals with shorter string lengths (e.g., 8/10 and 0.8) and longer string lengths (e.g., 80/100 and 0.80), percentages (e.g., 80%), and proportionally equivalent whole numbers on a 0–100 scale (e.g., 80.0). Middle school students (<em>N</em> = 65; 33 female) generally underestimated all formats relative to their actual values (whole numbers: 3% below; percentages: 2%; decimals: 17%; fractions: 5%). Shorter string-length decimals and fractions were estimated as smaller than equivalent longer string-length equivalents. Overall, percentages were estimated similarly to corresponding whole numbers, fractions had modest string-length effects, and decimals were the most underestimated, especially for single-digit decimals. These results highlight the strengths and weaknesses of children’s understanding of each notation’s magnitudes and challenge the assumption that decimals are easier than fractions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48391,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Child Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Child Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002209652400170X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Integration of rational number knowledge with prior whole number knowledge has been theorized as critical for mathematical success. Fractions, decimals, and percentages are generally assumed to differ in difficulty based on the degree to which their structure is perceptually similar to whole numbers. Specifically, percentages are viewed as most similar to whole numbers with their fixed unstated denominator of 100. Decimals are often assumed to be easier than fractions because their place-value structure is an extension of the base-ten system for whole numbers, unlike fractions, which have a bipartite structure (i.e., a/b). However, there has been no comprehensive investigation of how fraction, decimal, and percentage knowledge compares with whole number knowledge. To assess understanding of the four notations, we measured within-participants number line estimation of equivalent fractions and decimals with shorter string lengths (e.g., 8/10 and 0.8) and longer string lengths (e.g., 80/100 and 0.80), percentages (e.g., 80%), and proportionally equivalent whole numbers on a 0–100 scale (e.g., 80.0). Middle school students (N = 65; 33 female) generally underestimated all formats relative to their actual values (whole numbers: 3% below; percentages: 2%; decimals: 17%; fractions: 5%). Shorter string-length decimals and fractions were estimated as smaller than equivalent longer string-length equivalents. Overall, percentages were estimated similarly to corresponding whole numbers, fractions had modest string-length effects, and decimals were the most underestimated, especially for single-digit decimals. These results highlight the strengths and weaknesses of children’s understanding of each notation’s magnitudes and challenge the assumption that decimals are easier than fractions.

儿童对等量有理数大小的估计不相等:来自分数、小数、百分比和整数的证据
理论认为,将有理数知识与先前的整数知识结合起来对数学学习的成功至关重要。一般认为,分数、小数和百分数的难度不同,取决于它们的结构与整数在知觉上的相似程度。具体地说,由于百分数的固定分母是 100,因此被认为与整数最为相似。小数通常被认为比分数更容易,因为小数的位值结构是整数十进制的延伸,而分数则不同,分数的位值结构是双位结构(即 a/b)。然而,对于分数、小数和百分数知识与整数知识的比较,还没有进行过全面的调查。为了评估学生对这四种符号的理解,我们测量了学生对较短字符串长度(如 8/ 10 和 0.8)和较长字符串长度(如 80/100 和 0.80)的等价分数和小数、百分比(如 80%)以及 0-100 比例等价整数(如 80.0)的数列估计。初中学生(人数 = 65;33 名女生)普遍低估了所有格式的实际值(整数:低估 3%;百分比:2%;小数:17%;分数:5%)。字符串长度较短的小数和分数的估计值小于字符串长度较长的相应数值。总体而言,百分数的估算结果与相应的整数相似,分数的字符串长度影响不大,而小数的估算结果最被低估,尤其是个位小数。这些结果凸显了儿童对每种符号的大小理解的优缺点,并对小数比分数更容易的假设提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
190
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Child Psychology is an excellent source of information concerning all aspects of the development of children. It includes empirical psychological research on cognitive, social/emotional, and physical development. In addition, the journal periodically publishes Special Topic issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信