THE CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF FRACTIONS AS PART OF A SET

AMONG YEAR 5 STUDENTS

Wong Lee Meng Pumadevi A/P Sivasubramaniam

Institute Pendidikan Guru Malaysia, Institute Pendidikan Guru Malaysia,
Raja Melewar Campus In Collaboration with Raja Melewar
Queensland University of Technology <puma_devi58@hotmail.com>
<lmeng_wong86@hotmail.com>

Abstract
This paper proposes a study on students conceptual understanding of fractions as part
of a set based on their textbook learning experience. The selections of examples and
activities in the textbook have adopted the prototypical view theory. The prototypical
view theory states that examples as prototypes are often acquired first and serve as a
basic for comparison when categorising both the examples and nonexamples. This
paper assumes that all students were taught the concept of fractions by using the
official Mathematics textbooks. 35 students from an urban school in Malaysia
participated in the study. A survey methodology was employed by giving a paper and
pencil test that comprised of questions on fractions as part of a set to collect data.
Students performance determined their understandings of the concept of fractions. The
overall performance of the group of students determined the adequacy of the examples
and activities incorporated in the textbook.

Problem Statement

Introduction
The Mathematics Curriculum at the primary level (KBSR) emphasizes the acquisition of basic
concepts and skills. The content is categorized into four interrelated areas, namely, Numbers,
Measurement, Shape and Space and Statistics. The topic of fractions is first introduced in Year 3 which
requires the students to understand and use the vocabulary related to fractions. The Malaysian primary
school syllabus covers several learning areas in the topic of fractions such as proper fractions, improper
fractions and equivalent fractions. Fraction, in the primary school, is defined as a part of a whole, where
all parts are of equal size. It is also defined as equal shares of a whole set (Curriculum Development
Centre, KPM, 2003).
Fractions are recognised to be a difficult topic in school-mathematics due to the written form of
the fractions being comparatively complicated. Fractions are used less in daily life and are less easily
described than natural numbers (Klaus Hasemamn,1981). A research in New Zealand shows that
childrens mathematical performance has improved over the years via the Numeracy Development
Project (NDP) (Holton, 2006) but the improvement in performance on proportion and ratio was lower
than expected (Young-Loveridge, 2006; Ward & Thomas, 2007). Proportion and ratios are topics related
to fractions. However, fractions, ratios, and proportions are essential concepts in the secondary school
curriculum, which take root and grow from the fundamental curriculum in primary school (Litwiller,
2002).
Many researches have been conducted on students understanding of fractions but most of the
researches investigate the understanding of fractions as part of a whole. The study proposed in this
paper aims to investigate the extent of Year 5 students conceptual understanding of fractions as part of
a sets of objects.
Issue
In Malaysia, the topic of fraction is one of the topics which brings challenge to both teachers
and students alike. Children have difficulties in understanding fractions because fractions involve
relations between quantities that are represented by natural numbers. They frequently make procedural
mistakes in answering the questions and research has shown that many of the errors made when working
with fractions are a consequences of childrens failure to understand that natural and rational numbers
involve different concepts (Nunes, Bryant, Hurry & Pretzlik; 2006).
The Year 3 text book has included the concept of fractions as part of a set of objects in the topic
on fractions. In fact, it is one of the fundamental concepts of fractions which form the foundation for
children to learn fractions. The Malaysia syllabus is the main guideline to prepare all teaching and
learning activity. The textbook examples and activities are also based on the demands of the syllabus.
However, there was only fruits (same size and shape) used as examples in our text books for the
development of the concept of fractions as part of a set may impede students understanding that items
other than fruits can form set. The question that arises is, are students able to transfer the knowledge of
fractions that they have learnt based on the primary school textbook to situations that are dissimilar to
the examples they have been exposed to.

Aim
The main aim of this study was to investigate the extent of Year 5 students conceptual understanding of
fractions as part of a set based on the examples and exercises the students have been exposed to in their
textbooks. Specifically, this study was conducted to fulfill the following objectives:
To determine students understanding of proper fractions as part of a whole set.
To determine whether children demonstrate understanding of improper fractions in a set of
objects.

Research Questions
This study attempts to answer the following questions:
i. To what extent do the examples and exercises used in the textbook enable students to
demonstrate their understanding of proper fraction in sets of objects dissimilar to those in
the textbook?
ii. To what extent do the examples and exercises used in the textbook enable students to
demonstrate their understanding of improper fraction in sets of objects?

Significance of the study

This study was apparently one of the first few attempts to investigate the level of conceptual
understanding on proper fractions and improper fractions as a part of a set of objects. This was very
important as the knowledge on fractions was significantly correlated with students number sense that is
essential when they continue to study Mathematics in secondary school.
Hence, this study provides useful information and evidences for teachers concerning the
conceptual understanding of fractions (proper and improper fractions) that students learn in primary
school Mathematics. This study also provides the Ministry of Education with information and evidences
whether the examples and exercises that cover only proper fractions for the concept of fractions as part
of a set of objects was adequate to achieve the objective that students understand the concept of
fractions.

So What?
If the result for the test shows 80% or more of the students are able to illustrate the
understanding of fractions in questions that are dissimilar to the examples they have been exposed to,
then the textbook example and exercise were consider adequate to allow the students to understand the
concept of fractions. However, if less than 80% of the students are able to illustrate the understanding of
fractions in questions that are dissimilar to the examples and exercise that they have been exposed to,
then the example and exercise of the textbook were consider inadequate to allow the students to
understand the concept of fractions

Limitations
There are some limitations in this study that need to be considered. The first limitation is the
sample. The samples researcher chose was from Year 5 students and it was taken from one class in a
school. So, the sample may not be a representation of the population of primary school students in
Malaysia. However, since the school provided all high achievers in Mathematics then generally the
sample is a close representation of the population of high achievers in Malaysia primary school.

Operational Definition
a. Set of objects
- The whole is made up of a group of objects. The subsets of the whole is the defined as fractional
parts. There are 3 types of sets in this study as follows:
Sets made up of objects of the same size and shape
Sets made up of objects of the same shape but of different sizes.
Sets made up of objects of the different shapes.
b. Conceptual understanding
- Refers to the ability of students to identify the correct number of objects in sets of objects that
represent a given proper or improper fraction.
c. Fraction

- , proper fraction (a<b); improper fraction (ab)

Literature Review

Conceptual understanding of fractions

Desmond Florence (1969) claims that mathematical concepts are best developed when children
are enabled to make their own abstractions from a variety of experiences and this calls for the provision
of situations in which children can meet real mathematics in concrete situations.
Understanding fractions involves the coordination of fractions with multiplication and division
in a way that emphasizes mathematical relationship (cf., Vergnaud, 1988), rather than relationships of
association between dividend and numerator, divisor and denominator, as suggested by Charles and
Nason (2000). Additionally, Thompson and Saldanha (2003) in a further study describe mature
understanding of fractions as a synthesis of childrens understanding of multiplication, division, and
ratio via measurement.
Conceptual understanding in mathematics develops when pupils see the connections among
concepts and procedures and can give arguments to explain why some facts are consequences of others
(NRC, 2001, p. 119). Facts are no longer isolated but become organized in coherent structures based on
the relationships, generalizations and patterns. Conceptual understanding has also been described as
conceptual knowledge (Anderson, 2000; Rittle-Johnson, Siegler, & Alibali, 2001) and relational
understanding (Skemp, 1986).
 For students to possess conceptual understanding, they need to be able to represent
mathematical situations in different ways, know how and when these different representations can be
used for different purposes (National Research Council, 2001).
Nevertheless, students understanding of fractions are very rote, limited, and dependent on the
representational form. Students have greater difficulty associating a proper fraction with a point of a
number line than associating a proper fraction with a part-whole model where the unit was either a
geometric region or a discrete set. Students who are able to associate a proper fraction on a number line
of length one often are not successful when the number line is of length two (i.e., they ignore the scaling
and treat the available length as the assumed unit) (Novillis, 1976). Finally, though able to form
equivalents for a fraction, students often do not associate the fractions 1/3 and 2/6 with the same point
on a number line (Novillis, 1980).

Difficulties in fraction
One of the main goals of mathematics education in the primary school is the acquisition of the
knowledge of fractions. Nevertheless, this goal is not being reached by a majority of children (Hart,
1981). It is known from many studies that students have difficulty in applying their mathematical
knowledge in meaningful ways in formal mathematics. This is also true for fractions.
This is because fractions are recognized to be a difficult and challenging topic in school-mathematics
(Klause Hasemann, 1981; Moss & Case, 1999; Pearn & Stephens, 2004). Unlike the situation of whole
numbers, a major source of difficulty for students learning fractional concepts is the fact that a fraction
can have multiple meanings-a part/whole, decimals, ratios, quotients, or measures (Kieren,
1988;Ohlsson, 1988).

Representative
A representation is any configuration (of characters, images, concrete objects, etc.) that can
denote, symbolize, or otherwise represent something else (Palmer, 1978, Kaput, 1985, Goldin, 1987,
1998). Such representing relationships are often two-way, so that the depiction or symbolization can be
interpreted in either direction (Goldin & Kaput, 1996; Vergnaud, 1998).
Various researchers have considered imagistic representation generally, and visual imagery in
particular, as a fundamental cognitive system of representation for mathematical learning and problem
solving (Bishop, 1989; English, 1997; Goldin, 1982, 1987, 1998; Goldin & Kaput, 1996; Owens, 1993;
Presmeg, 1985, 1986, 1998; Thomas & Mulligan, 1995; Thomas, Mulligan, & Goldin, 2002).
Teachers use instructional materials in the form of external representations to model and
represent mathematics concepts. Concrete materials such as counters, paper circles and squares, blocks
are often utilized as a learning aid for students. Pictures or diagrams including divided shapes, coloured
areas are often used to describe fractions along with pictures of collections of objects. Real world
situations such as sharing food and adjusting recipes are frequently used to exemplify the usefulness of
fractions and place it in a realistic context (Goldin & Shteingold, 2001; Lesh, Landau, & Hamilton,
1983).
In such context both concepts of fractions as part of a whole and part of a set come into play.
Fractions in these contexts involve proper and improper fractions. Unfortunately, our text books use
stereotype pictures (only fruits) to develop students understanding of fractions as part of a set. In
addition, the entire primary school syllabus totally ignores the illustration of improper fractions for the
part of a set concept of fractions.
Sets of Objects
According to James & Alan (1994), another use for fractions is to denote a selected number of
items to be considered as part of a group. The numerator refers to the select number of items to be
considered, and the denominator refers to the number of items in the whole group.
Set model is another model pertaining to the idea of whole vs. part, but from a different angle
than the area/region model. The set model consists of sets or groups of objects being compared instead
of comparison of areas/shapes. In this model the whole is understood to be a set of objects and the
subsets of the whole make up fractional parts (VDW, 297). For instance, the set of 15 circles (in Figure
1) is considered as the whole, while the red subset is considered the fractional part, in this case 1/3, or 5
out of 15 objects. This model usually uses different colors to represent the part within the whole because
the objects must be equal in size and shape to represent a fraction.

Figure 1
To effectively use this model to introduce a fraction concept, the students need to understand
that the collection of objects together in its entirety is actually the whole unit they are working with (or
the denominator). Then, students must be able to distinguish the subset in order to see the fraction
within the whole. Therefore, students can compare the subset to the whole group of objects in order to
visualize what the fraction looks like. This is more difficult than the area/region model in that it asks
students to take 2 groups and compare them in order to see a part-whole relationship within the object.
The region/area model is more concrete in that the comparison is already organized for easier access.
This model does offer extensive opportunities for manipulative use, which is important in student
growth and ability to make connections. Teachers can easily have students explore this model through
manipulatives such as buttons, pennies, or blocks.
However, it is important to note here that the set model of fractions need not have objects of the
same size and shape although starting from such examples lend a connection to the region or area model.
Hence, it is important that for the set model students are made aware that it is the number of items in a
set that play a role to determine fractions and not the size and shape of the items.

Examples used in text book (Conceptual Framework)

Zodik & Zaslavsky (2008) mentions that examples are integral part of mathematical thinking,
learning and teaching, particularly with respect to conceptualization, generalization, abstraction,
argumentation, and analogical thinking. By examples we mean a particular case of a larger class, from
which one can reason and generalize.
The widespread use of example in mathematics text books from the earliest recorded time is a
manifestation of the common insight that it is through the appreciation of familiar examples that
abstractions become reified (Sfard, 1994).
Examples can usefully be seen as cultural mediating tools between learners and mathematical
concepts, theorems and techniques. They are major means for making contact with abstract ideas a
major means of mathematical communication, whether with oneself, or with others. In addition,
examples can also provide context, while the variation in examples can help learner distinguish essential
from incidental features and, if well selected, the range over which that variation is permitted
(Goldenberg & Mason, 2008).
Dienes (1963) also claimed that learners need at least three examples in order to get a sense of a
concept. Variation theory suggests that where learners depends on examples in order to locate
dimensions of possible variation, those examples must be chosen very carefully so as to prompt learners
to discern which aspects can vary and which are structural.
Prototypical view
Prototypical view proposes the existence of ideal examples, known as prototypes, to be acquired
first and use these to serve as a basic for comparison when categorizing additional examples and
nonexamples (Attneave, 1957; Posner and Keele, 1968; Reed, 1972; Rosch, 1973).
A prototypical example is intuitively accepted as representative of the concept. Intuitively
accepted cognitions may cause obstacles as they have a coercive impact on our interpretations and
reasoning strategies (Fischbein, 1993, p. 233). In addition, mathematics educators have come to
recognize that prototypical examples are both a help and a hindrance to the formation of concepts. In
contrast, prototypical examples are easily recognizable, aiding in the initial formation of concepts
(Wilson, 1990).
Hershkowitz (1989) claimed that in addition to the necessary and sufficient (critical) attributes
that all examples share, prototypical examples of a shape have special (non-critical) attributes which
are dominant and draw our attention (p. 73). Initially, childrens concepts images consist of
prototypical examples. Hershkowitz (1989) found that even when an invented concept is introduced
solely by a verbal definition, a prototypical shape emerges from students drawings. Simith et al. (1974)
argued that some examples are rapidly identifiable as an example of the category, whereas other
examples may take longer to identify.
Some studies have suggested that overexposure to prototypes may impede the growth of fuller
concept acquisition. Prototypes are formed when certain non-critical attributes of a shape appear
frequently in examples and students begin to associate these non-critical attributes with examples of the
shape (Kellogg, 1980). Wilson (1986) advocated the use of nonexamples in order to lessen the negative
effects of prototypes. By exposing students to nonexamples with the same non-critical attributes,
students may differentiate between critical and non-critical attributes.
Our text books using fruits alone for the development of the concept of fractions as part of a set
may impede students understanding that items other than fruits can form sets. Hence, the fruits although
not meant to be prototypes, appear to serve this function. Another feature of the fruits used in the
textbook is that they are of the same size and shape. The same size and shape are critical attributes of
the part-whole concept of fractions but non-critical attributes of the part of a set concept of fractions.
Therefore, this may impede the growth of a student acquiring the full understanding of the concept of
fractions as a part of a set. The illustrations in the textbooks are such because the syllabus does not
demand the use of different objects in a set or different size objects in a set. The lack of the use of sets
for developing the concepts of improper fractions is yet another deficiency in our syllabus. To what
extent this has an effect on students understanding of the concept of fractions will be investigate in this
study.

Methodology

Piloting test
A pilot test on fractions as part of a set was done with a group of students which consist of 10
students. The pilot test was carried out to investigate the time needed for the pupils to complete the
questions and to check if the instrument was appropriate. The piloting showed that the pupils were able
to complete the questions within the time given and that this could understand the questions clearly.
Hence, the piloting showed that the research method and instrument required no further modification.
Actual test
Subjects
In this study, thirty-five of Year 5 students from an urban school in Malaysia sat for a test on the
knowledge of fractions as a part of a set of objects. The sample chosen for this study were between 10
and 11 years olds and there was an equal number of boys and girls. High achievers recommended by the
school Mathematics teacher participate in this study. The criteria for the selection however, required
that the high achievers were students who could do any text book problems on fractions which involve
part of a set.

Survey design
The survey method used in this study can be completed in a short period of time. The teaching
and learning process on the topic of fractions may or may not be dependent on the use of textbooks and
workbooks alone. However, teaching Mathematics using only the textbook is very common among the
Malaysian primary school teachers. Thus, the assumption where students were exposed to a learning
experience that is based on the textbook can be made. Therefore, the participants that researcher had
chosen for this study should have developed the notion of fractions through the examples and activities
incorporated in their textbook. A paper and pencil test was conducted to collect data for this study. The
test was administered in a formal assessment setting for a duration of one hour. Students were required
to work out the answers in the test without seeking for help from teachers or peers. The questions in the
test had been checked by an expert and several expert teachers to make sure that the questions were
suitable for this study.

Instrument
A paper and pencil test was used as the instrument to collect data for this study. The test
consists of 20 questions. The test involves 10 questions on proper fractions and 10 questions on
improper fractions (include whole numbers). Objects used to form sets in the questions were:
All the same for questions (a), (b), (d), (j), (n), (p) and (q)

The same object but of different size for question (g), (h), (m), (o), (s) and (t).

Different objects for question (c), (e), (f), (j), (k), (l) and (r)

The purpose of posing the questions in this test with different size objects in the set and
different objects in a set was to test if students were aware that the set model of fractions need not have
objects of the same size and shape.
 Data collection
Data for this study was obtained from the answers given. In order to ensure the reliability and
the validity of the data obtained, students were required to work out the answers in the test without
seeking help from both the teachers and their peers. No discussion was allowed during the test.
The data collected, however, cannot be used to claim that the examples and exercises in the
textbook are adequate to enable students in illustrating their understanding of fractions even if the
obtained result or data shows that the students have actually conceptualise the concept of fractions. This
is because students may have been taught by different teachers and hence different classroom teaching
processes may result in different learning experiences for students. Moreover, teachers may have used
supplementary teaching and learning aids in conducting the textbook activities in order to achieve the
learning objectives. These aspects are not known to the researcher.
This study was based on the fact that although many factors may have influence the learning
process, all the selected students were actually sharing one common factor that is being exposed to the
same examples and activities in the textbook. However, the demonstration of conceptual understanding
cannot be solely attributed to the learning experiences provided by the examples and exercises used in
the textbook. However, if the data shows that the students are unable to answer correctly the questions
given, then we are in a position to truly say that the failure of demonstrating the understanding can be
definitely attributed to the textbook as textbook provides common learning experience to all primary
school students in Malaysia.

Performance measures
Descriptive statistic, namely percentage will be used to analyze data collected in this study. The
data was interpreted in the form of table and charts (for example, bar chart and pie chart).
If students were able to score 80% or more in the test, then they are classified as students who
understand the concept of fractions as part of a set. On the other hand, if students are only able to score
less than 80% of the test questions correctly, then they are classified as students who do not understand
the concept of fractions as part of a set.
If 80% or more of the students fall in the category of understanding the concept of fractions as
part of a set, then the examples and activities in the text book are adequate to develop the conceptual
understanding of fractions among primary school students in Malaysia. In contrast, if less than 80% of
the students fall in the category of understanding the concept of fractions as part of a set, then the
examples and activities in the text book are inadequate to develop the conceptual understanding of
fractions among primary school students in Malaysia. Then, the examples and activities in the text book
must be supplemented by other means.
80% but not 100% was used due to the fact that there was a range of students ability even
thought they were classified as elite students. As sampling was based on their achievement on the
average score in the general Mathematics test paper, students genuine understandings in the topic of
fractions is uncertain. Hence, researcher choose 80% as the benchmark to assess the understanding of
fractions by assuming that they may make mistakes up to 4 questions which carry 20% of the scene.

The Interview
Interview was conducted with selected students. Researcher chose the students for interview
based on students performance in the test given. There were three categories namely high achiever (18-
20 of correct answers), moderate achiever (15-17 of correct answers) and low achiever (below 15 of
correct answer).
Data analysis and discussion

Data Analysis
Forms of questions Proper fraction Improper fraction

, a<b , a=b , a>b p , a<b and p is

a whole number

Percentage (%) 100% 42.9% 94.3%

Overall percentage (%) 100% 89%

Table 1: Percentage of correct responses to proper and improper fractions

PART 1 Proper Fractions

Analysis on Proper Fraction questions
Sets made up of objects of
Category A: same size & Category B: Category C: different shape
shape same shape
but different
Question size
a b d i g h c e f j
Correct answer 100 100 100 100 100 94.3 100 100 97.1 100
(%)
Table 2: Analysis for each proper fraction questions.
Table 2 shows the results of the proper fraction questions in the pencil and paper test. All
students (n=35) were able to answer questions in Category A correctly (Question a, Question b,
Question d and Question i). Hence, the data shows that students do not have problems in answering
questions which involve objects of the same shape and size in a set. Besides that, all students (n=35)
answered Question g correctly while 94.3% of the students (n=33) answered Question h correctly in
Category B. This shows that students do not have a major problem with the questions that involve sets
made up of the objects of the same shape but different sizes.
There were four questions designed based on the sets made up of different shapes. 34 students
were able to answer all questions in Category C and the one remaining student gave an incorrect
response for question f.
From Table 1, it shows that all the students (n=35) scored above 80% (8 questions out of 10
questions or above) in the proper fraction section. Thus, the findings indicate that students had
demonstrated good conceptual understanding of proper fractions as part of a set.
The notion of proper fractions in sets of objects is covered in examples and practices in the text
book. Hence, students do not face difficulties in this kind of questions although the pictorial
representations adopted were dissimilar with the examples used in their text book. This is because the
practices used in the text book were able to help the student in developing the understanding on proper
fraction as part of a set of objects.
PART 2 Improper Fractions
Analysis on Improper Fractions questions
Sets made up of objects of
same size & shape same shape but different different shape
size
Question n p q m o s t k l r
Correct 48.6 94.3 97.1 88.6 100 100 94.3 0 97.1 97.1
answer (%)
Table 3: Analysis for each improper questions. (Note: Question n included the concept of equivalence.)
The findings show that some of the students were not performing well in questions which
involve improper fractions. All students could answered the questions of the form of (a=b), namely
Question o and Question s. This may be because students could respond based on either the numerator
or denominator.
Only about 49% of the students gave the correct response to Question n. This may because the
majority of students were careless or were not aware that they had to convert the fraction into an
equivalent form before they answered the question. Students who gave the correct response to this
question had realised that they have to multiply the denominator of 2 with 2 to get the denominator of
4 because each set has 4 burgers.
Student A

Question n:
The data shows that students were competent in questions that involve improper fractions
because about 89% of the students were able to answer improper fraction questions which did not
involve equivalent fraction. Obviously, students were capable to make connections between the pictorial
and symbolic representations when they answered those questions but however they related their
answers to the numerator and ignored the denominator. Evidence is provided from the interview of
student A.
(question m, )
Interviewer : How many caps did you circle?
Student A : Eight caps.
Interviewer : Why?
Student A : Because. Because the number (points to the numerator of the question) want
eight caps.

About 95% of the students were able to answer mixed number but some students perceive the whole
number 1 and the fraction as two separate entities. This is illustrate in the response of the students
as shown below.
 Student B

Question l:
Student C

Question p:

89% of students scored above 80% for the improper fraction questions. Hence, the examples
and activities adopted in the official text book has allowed the students to understand the concept of
improper fractions as part of a set, thus they were able to apply their knowledge aptly.

Analysis on the final scores of the fractions test

Chart 1: Final scores of the fractions test

The final scores of the pencil and paper test are depicted in the chart above. Respondents of this
test constituted of 11 males and 24 females. From the Chart 1 and the analysis on the final scores of the
fractions test given, there were 34 students (97%) scored above 80% (80% to 100%) and only 1 student
(3%) scores 60% which is below the set benchmark. The analysis of the final scores show that the
majority of the students (more than 80% of students scored 80%) were able to illustrate the knowledge
of fractions (proper fractions and improper fractions) in the mathematical problems that required them
to make connections between the pictorial and symbolic representations.

Discussion
The questions in the test play a role to investigate whether the examples and activities used in
the Mathematics textbook can enable students to deal with dissimilar examples of fractions as part of a
set of objects. Although in the Malaysian textbook, the prototype only involved fruits in developing the
concept of fractions as part of a set, this did not impede the growth of the conceptual understanding. It
was expect that the fruit used as the prototypes may result in students associating the non-critical
attributes with the concept of fractions as part of a set. However, this study showed that the use of only
fruits did not have any major effects on the conceptual understanding of fractions as part of a set.
Conclusion

Conclusion
This study reveals that the examples and exercises used in the textbook enable students to
demonstrate their understanding of proper fraction in sets of objects dissimilar to those in the textbook.
It also shows that the examples and exercises used in the textbook enable students to demonstrate their
understanding of improper fraction in sets of objects. As a conclusion, text book used currently is
adequate for students to learn the concept of fractions as part of a set.

Implications
The study however shows that some children have difficulties with mixed number and fractions
as part of a set. Thus, teacher should use complementary resources to develop this aspect of the concept
of fraction as part of a set more clearly for students.

References

Attneave, F. (1957). Transfer of experience with a class scheme to identification of patterns and shapes.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 81-88.

Bergeson, T., Fitton, R., Bylsma, P., Neitzel, B. & Stine, M. A. (2000). Using Research to shift From
the Yesterday Mind to the Tomorrow Mind. Teaching and learning Mathematics, 1-103.
[online] www.k12.wa.us/research/pubdocs/pdf/mathbook.pdf

Bishop, A.J. (1989), Review of research on visualization in mathematics education. Focus on Learning
Problems in Mathematics, 11 (1), 7-15.

Curriculum Development Centre (2003). Year 3 Mathematics Curriculum Specifications. Selangor:

Ministry of Education Malaysia.

DeWindt-King, A. M. & Goldin, G. A. (2003). Childrens Visual Imaginary: Aspects of Cognitive

Representation in Solving Problems with Fractions. In Mediterranean Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1-42.

Dienes, Z. (1963). An experimental study of mathematics-learning. London: Hutchinson Educational.

Empson, S., Junk, D., Dominguez, H. & Turner, E. (2005). Fractions as the coordination of
multiplicatively related quantities: A cross-sectional study of childrens thinking. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 63: 1-28.

English, L., ed. (1997), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Fischbein, E. (1993). The interaction between the formal, the algorithmic an the intuitive components in
a mathematical activity. In R. Biehler, R. Scholz, R. Strasser, & B.
Goldenberg, P. & Mason, J. (2008). Shedding light on and with example space. Educ Stud Math
69:183-194.

Goldin, G.A. (1982), Mathematical language and problem solving. Visible Language 16 (3), 221-238.

Goldin, G.A. (1987), Cognitive representational systems for mathematical problem solving, in C.
Janvier (ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 125-145.

Goldin, G.A. (1998), Representational systems, learning, and problem solving in mathematics. J. Math.
Behavior 17 (2), 137-165.

Goldin, G.A. & Kaput, J.J. (1996), A joint perspective on the idea of representation in learning and
doing mathematics, in L. Steffe et al. (eds.), Theories of mathematical learning. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum, 397-430.

Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of Representations and the Development of Mathematical
Concepts. In A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school
mathematics (pp. 1-23). Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Hart, K. M. (1981). Childrens Understandings of Mathematics. London: John Murray.

Hasemann, K. (1981). On difficulties with fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematical 12, 71-87.

Hershkowitz,R. (1989). Visualozation in geometry two sides of the coin. Focus n Learning Problems
in Mathematics, 11(1), 61-76.

Kaput, J.J. (1985). Representation and problem solving: methodological issues related to Teaching and
Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: modeling. In Edward A. Silver (Ed.), Multiple
Research Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 381-398.

Kellogg, R. (1980). Feature frequency and hypothesis testing in the acquisition of rule-governed
concepts. Memory & Cognition, 8, 297-303.

Kieren, T. Personal Knowledge of Rational Numbers: Its Intuitive and Formal Development. In J.
Hiebert and M. Behr (eds.)Number Concepts and Operations in the Middle Grades. Hillsdale
(NJ): LEA, 1988.

Lesh, R. A., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual Models and Applied Mathematical
Problem-Solving Research. In R. A. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds), Acquisition of mathematics
concepts and processes (pp. 263-341). Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Nik Pa, N.A. (1989). Research on Childrens Conceptions of fractions. Focus on Learning Problems in
Mathematics, 11(3), 3-25

Novillis, C. (1976). An Analysis of the Fraction Concept into a Hierarchy of Selected Subconcepts
and the Testing of the Hierarchical Dependencies.! Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 7: 131-144

Novillis, C. (1980). Seventh-Grade Students Ability to Associate Proper Fractions with Points on the
Number Line. In T. Kieren (ed.)Recent Research on Number Learning. Columbus (OH):
ERIC Clearinghouse.

Ohlsson, S. Mathematical Learning and Applicational Meaning in the Semantics o Fractions and
Related Concepts. In J. Hiebert and M. Behr (eds.)Number Concepts and Operations in the
Middle Grades. Hillsdale (NJ): LEA, 1988.

Owens, K. (1993), Spatial thinking processes employed by primary school students engaged in
mathematical problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Deakin University, Australia.

Palmer, S.E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd (Eds.),
Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 259-303.

Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 77, 353-363.

Presmeg, N.C. (1985), The role of visually mediated processes in high school mathematics: A
classroom investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge University, England.

Presmeg, N.C. (1986) Visualisation in high school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics 6(3),
42-46.

Presmeg, N.C.(1998), Metaphoric and metonymic signification in mathematics. J. Math. Behavior 17

(1), 25-32.

Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 382-407.

Rosch, E. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-250.

Schwartz, J. E. & Riedesel, C. A, (1994). Essentials of Classroom Teaching: Elementary Mathematics.

Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

Smith, E., Shoben, E., & Rips, L. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: a featural model
for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214-241.

Thomas, N. & Mulligan, J. (1995), Dynamic imagery in childrens representations of number.Math.

Educ. Res. Journal 7 (1), 5-25.
Thomas, N., Mulligan, J., & Goldin, G. A. (2002), Childrens representation and structuraldevelopment
of the counting sequence 1-100. J. Math. Behavior 21, 117-133.

Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., & Levenson, E. (2008). Intuitive nonexamples: the case of triangles, 81-95.

Van de Walle, John A (n.d). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics (Teaching Developmentally)
Sixth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 293-303, 309-311.

Wong, M., & Evans, D. (2007). Students Conceptual Understanding of Equivalent Fractions.
Mathematics: Essential Research, Essential Practice, 2, 824-833. [online]
www.merga.net.au/publications/counter.php?pub=pub_conf&id=450

Wong, M., & Evans, D. (2007). Assessing Students Understanding of Fraction Equivalence.
EARCOME 4, 119-127.

Wilson, S. (1986). Feature frequency and the use of negative instances in a geometric task. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 130-139.

Wilson, S. (1990). Inconsistent ideas related to definitions and examples. Focus on Learning Problems
in Mathematics, 12, 31-47.

Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline (pp. 231-245). Dordrech. The
Netherlands: Kluwer.

Zodik, I. & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Charateristics of teachers choice of examples in and for the
mathematics classroom. Educ Stud Math 69:162-182.