# Teaching Fractions

## Teaching Fractions: New Methods, New Resources.

The teaching of fractions continues to hold the attention of mathematics teachers and education researchers worldwide. In what order should various representations be introduced? Should multiple representations be introduced early, or one representation pursued in depth once? Does it matter if fractions are introduced as counting or as measurement? What is the relative importance of procedural, factual, and conceptual knowledge in success with fractions? These and other questions remain debated in the literature.

Following an overview of recent research on teaching and learning fractions, suggestions are offered for practice, for locating resources having direct application in the classroom, and for further reading in the research literature.

### STUDENT CONCEPTIONS

Taking a psychological approach Moss and Case (1999) suggest that for whole numbers children have two natural schema, one for verbal counting and the other for global quantity comparison. In the realm of rational numbers they also see children as having two natural schema: one global structure for proportional evaluation and one numerical structure for splitting/doubling. They propose, then, as a plan for learning that teachers need to refine and extend naturally occurring processes.

Hunting’s (1999) study of five-year-old children focused on early conceptions of fractional quantities. He suggested that there is considerable evidence to support the idea of “one half” as being well established in children’s mathematical schema at an early age. He argues that this and other knowledge about subdivisions of quantities forming what he calls “prefraction knowledge” (p.80) can be drawn upon to help students develop more formal notions of fractions from a very early age. Similarly, based on her successful experience of teaching addition and subtraction of fractions and looking for a way to teach multiplication of fractions, Mack (1998) stresses the importance of drawing on students’ informal knowledge. She used equal sharing situations in which parts of a part can be used to develop a basis for understanding multiplication of fractions; e.g. sharing half a pizza equally among three children results in each child getting one half of one third. Mack noted that students did not think of taking a part of part in terms of multiplication but that their strong experience with the concept could be developed later.

Taking an information-processing approach (Hecht, 1998) divides knowledge about rational numbers into three strands: procedural knowledge, factual knowledge, and conceptual knowledge. Hecht’s study isolated the contribution of these types of knowledge to children’s competencies in working with fractions. He made two major conclusions: (a) conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge uniquely explained variability in fraction computation solving and fraction word problem set up accuracy, and (b) conceptual knowledge uniquely explained individual differences in fraction estimation skills. The latter conclusion supports the general consensus in current research that a holistic approach to teaching of fractions is necessary with recommendations for a move away from attainment of individual tasks and towards a development of global cognitive skills.

### MISTAKES TEACHERS MAKE

### NEW TEACHING APPROACHES

Moss and Case’s (1999) own approach was designed to address all four of the identified problems and was characterized by several qualities distinguishing it from previous approaches. They started with beakers filled with various levels of water and asked students to label beakers from 1 to 100 based on their fullness or emptiness. They emphasized two main strategies: halving (100 -> 50 -> 25) and composition (50 + 25 =75) in determining appropriate levels. Refining this approach they developed the notion of two place decimals with five full beakers and one three-quarter full beaker making 5.75 beakers. Four place decimals were then introduced with 5.2525 (initially, spontaneously denoted as 5.25.25 by the students) characterized as lying one quarter of the way between 5.25 and 5.26. Students eventually went on to work on exercises where fractions, decimals and percentages were used interchangeably. Moss and Case found that this approach produced deeper, more proportionally based, understanding of rational numbers. They see their approach as having four distinctive advantages over traditional approaches: (a) a greater emphasis on meaning (semantics) over procedures, (b) a greater emphasis on the proportional nature of fractions highlighting differences between the integers and the rational numbers, (c) a greater emphasis on children’s natural ways of solving problems, and (d) use of alternative forms of visual representation as a mediator between proportional quantities and numerical representations (i. e. an alternative to the use of pie charts).

### REFERENCES

Hunting, Robert P. (1999). Rational-number learning in the early years: what is possible?. In J. V. Copley. (Ed.), “Mathematics in the early years”, (pp 80-87). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Mack, Nancy K. (1998). Building a Foundation for Understanding the Multiplication of Fractions. “Teaching Children Mathematics”. 5 (1) 34-38.

Moss, Joan & Case, Robbie. (1999). Developing Children’s Understanding of the Rational Numbers: A New Model and an Experimental Curriculum. “Journal for Research in Mathematics Education”. 30 (2) 122-47

Tirosh, Dina. (2000). Enhancing Prospective Teachers’ Knowledge of Children’s Conceptions: The Case of Division of Fractions. “Journal for Research in Mathematics Education”. 31 (1) 5-25.

Tzur, Ron. (1999). An Integrated Study of Children’s Construction of Improper Fractions and the Teacher’s Role in Promoting That Learning. “Journal for Research in Mathematics Education”. 30 (4) 390-416.

**ERIC Identifier:** ED478711

**Publication Date:** 2002-06-00

**Author:** Meagher, Michael

**Source:** ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education Columbus OH.