Using Concept Maps and Vee Diagrams to Analyse the “Fractions” Strand in Primary Mathematics

  • Karoline Afamasaga-Fuata’i

The chapter presents data from Ken, a post-graduate student who participated in a case study to examine the value of concept maps and vee diagrams as means of communicating his conceptual analyses and developing understanding of the “Fractions” content strand of a primary mathematics syllabus. Ken’s work required that he analysed syllabus outcomes and related mathematics problems and to display the results on concept maps and vee diagrams (maps/diagrams) to illustrate the interconnectedness of key and subsidiary concepts and their applications in solving problems. Ken’s progressive maps/diagrams illustrated how his pedagogical understanding of fractions evolved over the semester as a consequence of social critiques and further revision. Progressive vee diagrams also illustrated his growing confidence to justify methods of solutions in terms of mathematical principles underlying the main steps.


Pedagogical Content Knowledge Word Problem Bottom Section Concept Hierarchy Equivalent Fraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT). (2007). AAMT standards for excellence in teaching mathematics in Australian schools. Retrieved October 6, 2007, from
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). Research commentary: An alternative reconceptulization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 115–131.Google Scholar
  4. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2000, October). Generalizing and progressively formalizing in a third-grade mathematics classroom: Conversations about even and odd numbers. In M. L. Fernandez (Ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 115–119). Columbus, OH: The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ellis, A. B. (2007). Connections between generalizing and justifying: Students’ reasoning with linear relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 194–229.Google Scholar
  7. Feldman, A. (1996). Enhancing the practice of physics teachers: Mechanisms for the generation and sharing of knowledge. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from
  8. Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Hierbert, J., & Wearne, D. (1986). Procedures over concepts: The acquisition of decimal number knowledge. In J. Hierbert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 199–223). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Jiygel, K., & Afamasaga-Fuata’i, K. (2007). Students’ conceptions of models of fractions and equivalence. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 63(4), 17–25.Google Scholar
  11. Kaput, J. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra with understanding. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding(pp. 390–419). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.) (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view.San Diego, California, London: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2007). Executive summary. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved October 4, 2007 from
  14. New South Wales Board of Studies (NSWBOS). (2002). K-10 Mathematics syllabus. Sydney, Australia: NSWBOS.Google Scholar
  15. Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (LIPHs) leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education, 86(4), 548–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them (Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01). Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2006, available at TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
  17. Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2 February), 4–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karoline Afamasaga-Fuata’i
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Education, University of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations