Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp 105–121 | Cite as

Should we continue to teach standard written algorithms for the arithmetical operations? The example of subtraction

  • Jean-Paul FischerEmail author
  • Bruno Vilette
  • Sophie Joffredo-Lebrun
  • Mireille Morellato
  • Céline Le Normand
  • Calliste Scheibling-Seve
  • Jean-François Richard
Article

Abstract

The question of teaching a standard written algorithm for the four arithmetical operations in the first years of elementary school is increasingly raised as a consequence of the possibility of using calculators, tablets, and computers. This article first presents arguments both against and for maintaining this teaching in the first school years. Then, it presents an analysis of the procedure—whether it implies the standard algorithm or not—used by second grade students to solve a subtraction verbal problem. The 4720 students involved in the research were divided in a control group (n = 2101) and an experimental group (n = 2619) in which the standard written algorithm (SWA) was taught, or not taught, respectively. The effectiveness of algorithm use was analyzed not only in terms of accuracy of the answers, but also for its influence on the choice of the correct arithmetical operation and for its choice by the students as a function of their ability. The SWA was strongly associated with the use of the false arithmetical operation (effect size ϕ = 0.79)—addition instead of subtraction—but was chosen by students of all levels of ability. The latter result suggests that the SWA is well suited for the most advanced students but far less for the others who use it mechanically and without reflection.

Keywords

Arithmetic teaching Standard algorithm Mental calculation Addition Subtraction Gender difference 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the children and teachers who took part in the experiment. We are also grateful to the experimenters, coders, and administrators for their invaluable help in organizing and conducting the experiment.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from France’s “Programme d’Investissements d’Avenir” (ANRU/DSDP/D14-2780).

References

  1. Brousseau, G., & Warfield, V. (2014). Didactical contract and the teaching and learning of science. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Chesné, J. F., & Fischer, J. P. (2015). Ce que nous apportent les évaluations nationales sur les connaissances des élèves dans le domaine des nombres et du calcul à l’école primaire. http://www.cnesco.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Acquis-des-%C3%A9l%C3%A8ves.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
  3. Csíkos, C. (2016). Strategies and performance in elementary students’ three-digit mental addition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dewi, J. D. M., Castel, C., Kerzel, D., Posada, A., & Thevenot, C. (2015). Strategies for written additions in adults. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 979–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dormal, V., Crollen, V., Baumans, C., Lepore, F., & Collignon, O. (2016). Early but not late blindness leads to enhanced arithmetic and working memory abilities. Cortex, 83, 212–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ehrlich, S. (1990). Sémantique et mathématique: Apprendre/Enseigner l’arithmétique simple. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, J. P. (2004). Les différences cognitives entre sexes: une autre approche et d’autres observations. Pratiques Psychologiques, 10, 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, J. P., & Koch, A. M. (2016). Mirror writing in typically developing children: A first longitudinal study. Cognitive Development, 38, 114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flores, R., Koontz, E., Inan, F. A., & Alagic, M. (2015). Multiple representation instruction first versus traditional algorithmic instruction first: Impact in middle school mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foxman, D., & Beishuizen, M. (2002). Mental calculation methods used by 11-year-olds in different attainment bands: A reanalysis of data from the 1987 APU survey in the UK. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuson, K. C., & Willis, G. B. (1989). Second grader’s use of schematic drawings in solve addition and subtraction word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kamii, C. (1994). Young children continue to reinvent arithmetic, 3rd grade. New York: Teachers College press.Google Scholar
  13. Kamii, C., & Dominick, A. (1997). To teach or not to teach algorithms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kamii, C., & Dominick, A. (2009). The harmful effects of “carrying” and “borrowing” in grades 1–4. http://www.bradthiessen.com/html5/m340/11%20TheHarmfulEffectsof%3FCarrying%3Fand%3FBorrowing%3F(2009).pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
  15. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Piaget, J. (1977). Recherches sur l’abstraction réfléchissante: 1/L’abstraction des relations logico-arithmétiques. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  17. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  18. Ramirez, G., Chang, H., Maloney, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). On the relationship between math anxiety and math achievement in early elementary school: The role of problem solving strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rourke, B. P. (1982). Central processing deficiencies in children: Toward a developmental neuropsychological model. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 4, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Selter, C. (2001). Addition and subtraction of three-digit numbers: German elementary children’s success, methods and strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 145–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sommet, N., & Morselli, D. (2017). Keep calm and learn multilevel logistic modeling: A simplified three-step procedure using Stata, R, Mplus, and SPSS. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Strang, J. D., & Rourke, B. P. (1985). Arithmetic disability subtypes: The neuropsychological significance of specific arithmetical impairment in childhood. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: Essentials of subtype analysis (pp. 167–193). New York (NY): Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Torbeyns, J., Hickendorff, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2017). The use of number-based versus digit-based strategies on multi-digit subtractions: 9-12-year-olds’ strategy use profiles and task performances. Learning and Individual Differences, 58, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Torbeyns, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). Efficient and flexible strategy use on multi-digit sums: A choice/no-choice study. Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Torbeyns, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2016). Mental computation or standard algorithm? Children’s strategy choices on multi-digit subtractions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Developmental PsychologyUniversity of LorraineNancy CedexFrance
  2. 2.Developmental Psychology, PSITEC LaboratoryUniversity of LilleLilleFrance
  3. 3.ATERUniversity NantesNantesFrance
  4. 4.MarseilleFrance
  5. 5.ToulonFrance
  6. 6.Department of Psychology, Paragraphe LaboratoryUniversity Paris 8Saint-DenisFrance

Personalised recommendations