Advertisement

Commentary on Fractions

  • Sybilla Beckmann
Chapter
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)

Abstract

This commentary raises and discusses questions based on some of the agreements, disagreements, and themes found in the four chapters on fractions. It considers (1) the importance of tasks that are based in perception and readily available activity in light of an emphasis on problem solving in mathematics education, and the role that theories about thinking and learning play in designing such tasks; (2) some potential connections among various theories about thinking and learning as they relate to fractions; (3) the natural number bias and how ideas about natural numbers could serve as a foundation for fractions; and (4) the roles that magnitude, measurement, and linear representations of number play for fractions.

Keywords

Fractions Magnitude Measurement Multiplication Ratio Rational numbers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Andrew Izsák for helpful comments on a draft of this commentary. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-1420307. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

References

  1. Barrett, L. S., & Simmons, W. K. (2015). Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16, 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckmann, S. & Izsák, A. (2018a). Generating equations for proportional relationships using magnitude and substance conceptions. In A. Weinberg, C. Rasmussen, J. Rabin, M. Wawro, and S. Brown (Eds.). Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. (pp. 1215–1223). San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  3. Beckmann, S. & Izsák, A. (2018b). Two senses of unit words and implications for topics related to multiplication. In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg, and L. Sumpter (Eds.). Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 5, p. 205). Umea, Sweden: PME. Google Scholar
  4. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davydov, V. V., & TSvetkovich, Z. (1991). On the objective origin of the concept of fraction. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 13(1), 13–64.Google Scholar
  6. Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y. (2010). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 265–284.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01055.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Izsák, A. & Beckmann, S. (2018). Using equations to develop a coherent approach to multiplication and measurement. In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg, and L. Sumpter (Eds.). Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 3, pp. 155–162). Umea, Sweden: PME. Google Scholar
  9. Matthews, P. G. & Ziols, R. (this volume). What’s perception got to do with it? Re-framing foundations for rational number concepts.Google Scholar
  10. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
  11. Obersteiner, A., Dresler, T., Bieck, S. M., & Moeller, K. (this volume). Understanding fractions: Integrating results from mathematics education, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience.Google Scholar
  12. Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., … Chen, M. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612440101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Simon, M. A. (this volume). Developing a concept of multiplication of fractions: Building on constructivist and sociocultural theory.Google Scholar
  14. Simon, M. A., Kara, M., Norton, A., & Placa, N. (in press). Fostering construction of a meaning for multiplication that subsumes whole-number and fraction multiplication: A study of the learning through activity research program. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior.Google Scholar
  15. Simon, M. A., Placa, N., Avitzur, A., & Kara, M. (in press) Promoting a concept of fraction-as- measure: A study of learning through activity. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior.Google Scholar
  16. Spelke, E. S. (2017). Core knowledge, language, and number. Language Learning and Development, 13(2), 147–170.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2016.1263572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Spelke, E. S., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), 89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tzur, R. (this volume). Developing fractions as multiplicative relations: A model of cognitive reorganization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sybilla Beckmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations