A Game-Based Approach to Examining Students’ Conceptual Knowledge of Fractions

  • Manuel NinausEmail author
  • Kristian Kiili
  • Jake McMullen
  • Korbinian Moeller
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10056)


Considering the difficulties many students and even educated adults face with reasoning about fractions, the potential for serious games to augment traditional instructional approaches on this topic is strong. The present study aims at providing evidence for the validity of a serious game used for studying students’ conceptual knowledge of fractions. A total of 54 Finnish fifth graders played the math game on tablet computers using tilt-control to maneuver an avatar along a number line for a total of 30 min. Results indicated that most of the hallmark effects of fraction magnitude processing as identified in basic research on numerical cognition were successfully replicated using our serious game. This clearly suggests that game-based approaches for fraction education (even using tilt-control) are possible and may be effective tools for assessing and possibly promoting students’ conceptual knowledge of fractions.


Number Line Conceptual Knowledge Comparison Task Numerical Magnitude Numerical Distance 
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.



The current research was supported by the Leibniz-Competition Fund (SAW) supporting Manuel Ninaus (SAW-2016-IWM-3) and Academy of Finland supporting Kristian Kiili.


  1. 1.
    Bailey, D.H., et al.: Competence with fractions predicts gains in mathematics achievement. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 113(3), 447–455 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Booth, J.L., Newton, K.J.: Fractions: could they really be the gatekeeper’s doorman? Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 37(4), 247–253 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyle, E.A., et al.: An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Comput. Educ. 94, 178–192 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen Kadosh, R., et al.: Interventions for improving numerical abilities: present and future. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2(2), 85–93 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeWolf, M., Vosniadou, S.: The representation of fraction magnitudes and the whole number bias reconsidered. Learn. Instr. 37, 39–49 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erhel, S., Jamet, E.: Digital game-based learning: impact of instructions and feedback on motivation and learning effectiveness. Comput. Educ. 67, 156–167 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer, U., et al.: Full-body movement in numerical trainings: a pilot study with an interactive whiteboard. Int. J. Serious Games 2(4), 23–35 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer, U., et al.: Math with the dance mat: on the benefits of embodied numerical training approaches. In: Lee, V. (ed.) Learning Technologies and the Body: Integration and Implementation in Formal and Informal Learning Environments, pp. 149–163. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gigerenzer, G.: Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You. Simon and Schuster, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Hoof, J., et al.: Are secondary school students still hampered by the natural number bias? A reaction time study on fraction comparison tasks. Res. Math. Educ. 15(2), 154–164 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Hoof, J., et al.: In search for the natural number bias in secondary school students’ interpretation of the effect of arithmetical operations. Learn. Instr. 37, 30–38 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huber, S., et al.: Adaptive processing of fractions — evidence from eye-tracking. Acta Psychol. (Amst) 148, 37–48 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ischebeck, A., et al.: The processing and representation of fractions within the brain: an fMRI investigation. Neuroimage 47(1), 403–413 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kucian, K., et al.: Mental number line training in children with developmental dyscalculia. Neuroimage 57(3), 782–795 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lawrence, M.A.: ez: Easy analysis and visualization of factorial experiments. R package version 4.3 (2015).
  16. 16.
    Link, T., et al.: Walk the number line - an embodied training of numerical concepts. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2(2), 74–84 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lumsden, J., et al.: Gamification of cognitive assessment and cognitive training: a systematic review of applications and efficacy. JMIR Serious Games 4(2), e11 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMullen, J., et al.: Modeling the developmental trajectories of rational number concept(s). Learn. Instr. 37, 14–20 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moeller, K., et al.: Computers in mathematics education – training the mental number line. Comput. Hum. Behav. 48, 597–607 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Mathematics Advisory Panel: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Foundations 37(9), 595–601 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ni, Y., Zhou, Y.-D.: Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: the origins and implications of whole number bias. Educ. Psychol. 40(1), 27–52 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ninaus, M., et al.: Game elements improve performance in a working memory training task. Int. J. Serious Games 2(1), 3–16 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ninaus, M., et al.: Neurofeedback and serious games. In: Connolly, T.M., et al. (eds.) Psychology, Pedagogy and Assessment in Serious Games, pp. 82–110. IGI Global, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Obersteiner, A., et al.: The natural number bias and magnitude representation in fraction comparison by expert mathematicians. Learn. Instr. 28(July), 64–72 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parsons, S., Bynner, J.: Does Numeracy Matter More?. NRDC, London (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R Core Team: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2016).
  27. 27.
    Schneider, M., Siegler, R.S.: Representations of the magnitudes of fractions. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 36(5), 1227–1238 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Siegler, R.S., et al.: An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cogn. Psychol. 62(4), 273–296 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siegler, R.S., et al.: Fractions: the new frontier for theories of numerical development. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17(1), 13–19 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Siegler, R.S., Ramani, G.B.: Playing linear numerical board games promotes low-income children’s numerical development. Dev. Sci. 11(5), 655–661 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Torbeyns, J., et al.: Bridging the gap: fraction understanding is central to mathematics achievement in students from three different continents. Learn. Instr. 37, 5–13 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vamvakoussi, X., et al.: Naturally biased? In search for reaction time evidence for a natural number bias in adults. J. Math. Behav. 31(3), 344–355 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wei, T., Simko, V.: corrplot: visualization of a Correlation Matrix. R package version 0.77 (2016).
  34. 34.
    Wickham, H.: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer, New York (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Ninaus
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kristian Kiili
    • 3
  • Jake McMullen
    • 4
  • Korbinian Moeller
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.Leibniz-Institut für WissensmedienTuebingenGermany
  2. 2.LEAD Graduate SchoolEberhard-Karls UniversityTuebingenGermany
  3. 3.TUT Game LabTampere University of TechnologyPoriFinland
  4. 4.Centre for Learning ResearchUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  5. 5.Department of PsychologyEberhard Karls UniversityTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations