Generalization Abilities in Mathematics Author(s): Reuben S. Ebert Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Educational Research, Vol.

39, No. 9 (May, 1946), pp. 671-681 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27528729 . Accessed: 22/04/2012 23:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Educational Research.

http://www.jstor.org

GENERALIZATION ABILITIES IN MATHEMATICS*

Reuben State Teachers College, S. Ebert Buffalo, New York

is The building and generalizations Editor's Note: of meanings, concepts, an important author presents data The function of elementary mathematics. on these for a large group of elementary school pupils and the relations with other abilities. INTRODUCTION

concepts, developing meanings, establishing principles, dis and formulating and understanding cerning relationships, generalizations are interrelated aims in the teaching of elementary mathematics. The form ulation and the understanding of generalizations, sufficiently adequate for well be considered as culminations of the related learn intelligent use, may is not only computation and manipulation ings implied above. Mathematics is also understanding of the principles of computation and of symbols; it of the meanings of the symbols. It deals with not only important concrete
situations and experience, so very necessary for meaningful learnings, but

Building

also with useful

experience.

abstractions

and generalizations

which

grow out of concrete

The extent of achievement in mathematical generalization is not easily ascertained. This investigation makes an effort to procure direct evidence of such achievement among eighth-grade pupils by focusing attention upon of general formulation powers of observation, analysis of relationships, and illustration. It attempts also to discover relationships between statements, such generalization ability and both mental and reading ability. Interesting and stimulating information should result from such an investigation in an area of recognized importance, which, up to the present time, has received little attention by research workers.
PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

proposed to ascertain the extent to which eighth in the field of elementary grade pupils comprehend selected generalizations mathematics. More specifically, it set out to answer the following questions: This investigation
* An abstract of the degree of Doctor 1944. versity, a thesis submitted in partial of Philosophy in the School fulfillment of of Education the requirements of New York for Uni

671

672 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 1. To what

[Vol. 39, No. 9

extent can eighth-grade pupils? (a) Present correctly an additional similar illustration of a mathematical relationship after observation and analysis of several given illustrations of the relationship? a word statement of the general truth or fact (b) Write represented by several given illustrations, or specific cases, of amathematical relationship ? (c) Express in written form a specific illustration of a general truth or fact in elementary mathematics which was observed and studied in sentence form? exists between the mental ability of eighth relationship and their ability to generalize in mathematics? grade pupils 3. What relationship exists between the reading ability of eighth-grade in mathematics? pupils and their ability to generalize 4. What mathematics? 5. What similarities or differences exist in the abilities of eighth-grade to comprehend generalizations pupils relating to various areas of elementary mathematics ?
DEFINITIONS

2. What

is the relative

difficulty

of

some selected generalizations

in

is recognized as a highly complex "ability to generalize" for purposes of this study the term shall be limited to the following ability,
three aspects:

1. While

illustration exemplifying the (a) The ability to write a mathematical same relationship as in several given illustrations of the relationship. (b) The ability to write a word statement of the general truth or fact exemplified by several given illustrations of a mathematical relationship. (c) The ability to illustrate a word statement of a general truth or fact in mathematics by writing a mathematical relationship. 2. "Selected generalizations" shall mean the generalizations to be used in the generalization test constructed for this study. shall mean the degree of understanding 3. "Comprehension" of the
generalization in question, or of the aspect of generalization in question, as

evidenced
items.

by the evaluation

of pupil

responses

to the generalization-test the difficulty by the pupils.

4. "Relative difficulty" of a generalization shall mean revealed by the degree of comprehension of that generalization

May, 1946]
5. "Areas

GENERALIZATION ABILITIES IN MATHEMATICS

of mathematics" shall mean those areas

61$
into

elementary

test of this study shall which the generalizations used in the generalization such as, operations with be divided; integers, operations with common
fractions, measurement, CONSTRUCTION etc. OF TESTS AND SELECTION OF PUPILS

textbooks, courses of study, professional literature, and Elementary associates of the investigator suggested rules, principles, and other statements in mathematics. of relationship that could be considered as generalizations in word-statement form were thus selected, with special Sixty generalizations care given to clarity and and simplicity of statement, accuracy of meaning, of vocabulary of eighth-grade pupils. Practically all of the probable range in which the relationships selected were in pure mathematics, generalizations
are relatively certain. These generalizations were sent to twenty-six selected

judges in various parts of the United States, twenty-one of whom judged them as worthy, probably worthy, or of doubtful worth as knowledge for eighth-grade pupils. Only those generalizations judged worthy or probably worthy by seventy-five per cent or more of the judges were retained for test construction. Suggestions from judges assisted in the refinement of the statements and in the addition of a few. Each retained mathematical
sentence form. For

statement

relationship
example,

patterns
one

served as the basis for the creation of several the relationship stated in exemplifying
statement was worded as follows: "Two

numbers have the same sum regardless of the order in which are added.'* The to exemplify constructed patterns relationship were: particular generalization 3+ 2= = 2+ 3 5 5 2+3 + 4= 9 3+ 2+ 4=9 3+ 4+2 = 9 = 9 4+2+3 2+3+5+6=16 3+ 2+ 6+5=16 3+ 5 6+2=16 + 6+3+2+5=16

or more

they this

were constructed to Relationship patterns exemplify each retained sen tence statement, and were sent to selected teachers of mathematics, who had agreed to judge the patterns. Several professors of psychology, education, and mathematics judged the patterns also. Nineteen judges appraised the patterns of relationship as valid, probably valid, or not valid for purposes of evoking the thoughts and meanings in the sentence statements. Fifty-four patterns were thus judged valid or probably valid by seventy-five per cent or more of the judges, and were retained for testing purposes. As a result of criti

674 cisms

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

[Vol. 39, No. 9

and suggestions from judges, a few of the patterns were altered slightly to achieve greater total effectiveness and potency of the patterns. A preliminary study of the generalization test was made by admin it to fifty-five pupils in Bronxville, New York. This preliminary istering study provided an opportunity for consideration of such matters as, time necessary for the administration of such a test, vocabulary difficulties in the sentence statements, ambiguities or confusions resulting from the relationship patterns,
forms.

standards

for marking

pupils'

responses,

and possible

tabulation

After minor changes were made in the test, its reliability was ascer tained by administering it to a group of fifty-five pupils in Buffalo, New York upon two different occasions about six weeks apart. The two sets of scores yielded a reliability coefficient of .94, with a error of .01. probable Thus a test was constructed and refined for the evaluation of three defined phases of generalization in mathematics. Phase-A and phase-B evaluation were made possible by two kinds of responses to the fifty-four relationship patterns as test items, and phase-C evaluation by responses to
fifty-four sentence statements as items. Phase-A responses were the "imita

tions" of the relationship patterns, and phase-B responses were the written sentences indicating the general truths or facts exemplified by the relation ship patterns. Phase-C responses were the pupils' illustrations of the sentence
statements.

The tests used for ascertaining the mental ability and the reading ability of the pupils were the Henmon-Nelson Test of Mental Ability?Form A, 3-8, and the Advanced Reading Elementary School Examination?Grades Test: Form D of the Stanford Achievement Test. 900 eighth-grade pupils from five cities and villages Approximately of western New York participated in the study. Complete test data for 674 were obtained. The most statement that can be made re pupils descriptive garding the representativeness of this sample is that the participating com included a variety of social and economic groups, and that the munities revealed a wide range of mental ability and of reading ability. pupils
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TESTS

The administration of the generalization test to the approximately 900 eighth-grade pupils required five sittings of about forty-five minutes each on five different days. The first three sittings were on successive days during

May, 1946]

GENERALIZATION ABILITIES IN MATHEMATICS

615

one school week in March to individual schools. The

or April of 1943, depending on the convenience other two sittings were on successive days about two weeks after the first three sittings. At the first three sittings, pupils were given the fifty-four relationship patterns as test items in groups of eighteen and each, and were asked to write like patterns of relationship (phase ?) sentences which stated the general truths or facts exemplified by complete the patterns (phase B). After the two-week interval, which was regarded as a reasonable time during which pupils might forget the patterns, the fifty
four sentence statements were presented as test items in two groups of

illus twenty-seven each, and the pupils were asked to write mathematical trations of these statements (phase C). No rigid time limits were imposed. Pupils were allowed to work at convenient rates of speed and to finish at different times. For purposes of the study it was imperative that practically all pupils attempt all items of the test, and previous experimentation had indicated that the time allowed for each of the five sections of the test was sufficient for slowest pupils to finish. The test of mental ability and the reading test were administered at the convenience of the participating schools at about the same time in the school test was administered. Each of these tests year that the generalization required a working time of thirty minutes. test and the reading test were marked The mental-ability by the use of objective keys submitted by the publishers. All responses to the items of the test were marked on a generalization four-point scale as follows:
? 3 right and adequate ? 2 right, but not adequate 1 ?not right, yet not entirely ? 0 or omitted wrong

wrong

standards for each of the four intervals on this linear scale Descriptive had emerged during the preliminary study of the test and had been refined at the time of the reliability study. It is believed that they were sensibly adequate in classifying the pupils' responses numerically, as identified above. These descriptive standards were followed closely by the investigator and
a trained assistant, as the generalization RESULTS test papers were marked.

The following results are based upon test scores made by the 674 eighth grade pupils from the five Western New York communities that participated in this study, Schools A, B, H, K, and L.

676

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

[Vol. 39, No. 9

The sample of pupils ranged in mental age from 9 years 10 months to 18 years, with a mean mental age of 14 years 7 months. The range in reading age was from 9 years 10 months to probably about 19 years, depend ing on the validity of extrapolation of high reading ages. The mean reading
age was 14 years.

The mean mental age for the 324 boys was 14 years 4 months, and for the 350 girls was 14 years 9 months. The mean reading age for the boys was 13 years 11 months, and for the girls was 14 years 1 month. The mean mental ages for the five different schools ranged from 14 and the mean reading ages ranged from 13 years to 15 years 5 months, years 4 months to 15 years 6 months. The five schools ranked themselves in exactly the same order with respect to mean mental ages and the mean
reading ages.

scores ranged from 55 to 470, with a mean score generalization of 314.6. A total score of 486 would have been a perfect score. On any one of the three phases of the generalization test, a perfect score would have been 162. Phase-A scores ranged from 3 to 161, with a mean score of 123.3. Total
Phase-B scores ranged from zero to 155, with a mean score of 82.1, and

a mean score of 108.4. phase-C scores ranged from 30 to 159, with The difference between the mean phase-A score and the mean phase-B
score was 41.2. Between the mean phase-A score and the mean phase-C

score there was a smaller difference, 14.9, but the difference between the mean phase-B score and the mean score was 26.3. The critical phase-C ratios of these differences to their standard errors were greater than three. In the order of differences mentioned above, critical ratios were 23.5, 9.6, and 14.2. All differences between mean phase scores were statistically significant. Intercorrelations for phase scores were .72 for phase A and phase B, .68 for phase A and phase C, and .85 for phase B and phase C. The 674 pupils were divided into five mental-ability groups, each hav a range of ing approximately one-and-one-half years. Also, they were divided into five reading-ability groups, each group except the highest having a achievement by range of about one and one-half years. Total generalization to M-5 groups from M-l mental-ability (highest to lowest) was indicated by mean scores of 376.7, 339.7, 294.7, 254.3, and 189.3. All differences scores of the ten possible pairs of between the mean total generalization were statistically significant. Critical ratios ranged from mental-ability groups

May, 1946]

GENERALIZATION ABILITIES IN MATHEMATICS

611

on the three phases of generalization by mental 3.56 to 12.30. Achievement ability groups revealed differences in mean phase scores of which 27 out of the five 30 were statistically significant. As measured by group means, were convincingly different with respect to achievement mental-ability groups
in generalization.

scores for the five reading-ability groups The mean total generalization to R-5 (highest to lowest) were 373.5, 343.0, 315.0, 274.0 and from R-l 205.8. All differences between the ten possible pairs of mean scores were statistically significant, with critical ratios ranging from 3.26 to 14.29. With respect to achievement on the three phases of generalization by reading ability groups, the differences between mean phase scores were such that only three out of thirty were not statistically significant. As measured by group means, evidence was convincing that the reading-ability groups were different with respect to generalization achievement.
Correlations between mental scores and phase generalization scores

were

.45 for mental and phase A, .51 for mental and phase B, and .52 for mental and phase C. Correlation of mental scores with total generalization scores yielded a coefficient of .54. As compared with
scores, correlations

correlations between mental

reading scores and

scores and generalization

generalization scores were

between

slightly lower in one case and slightly higher in three cases. The correlation coefficient was .44 for reading and phase A, .54 for reading and phase B, and .53 for reading and phase C. Reading scores and total generalization scores produced a correlation coefficient of .56. None of these coefficients is sufficiently high to indicate strong reported relationships. the mean of 2,022 marks of 3, 2, 1 or 0 Using assigned to each gen eralization as an indication of achievement on a particular generalization, achievement scores varied from a high of 2.7 to a low of 1.2. Generalizations dealing with number relationships in one process were easiest for the pupils, and those dealing with common-fraction relationships were the most diffi cult. For the total group of for all mental-ability groups, and reading pupils, ability groups, phase A was easiest; phase C was next in difficulty; and phase B was the most difficult. The total generalization scores of the thirty-six pupils who made iden tical high scores of 86 on the mental test ranged from 167 to 470. The total scores of the eighteen generalization pupils who made identical low scores of 59 on the reading test ranged from 134 to 378. Similar wide variation

678

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

[Vol. 39, No. 9

in generalization ability was revealed in other very narrow mental-ability and reading-ability groups. groups Only a small difference was revealed between the mean generalization scores of boys and girls, and this difference was in keeping with the differ
ences in mean mental scores and mean reading scores.

scores Larger differences were revealed among the mean generalization for the different schools. The high mean score was 344.6 and the low was the five schools ranked themselves in exactly the same order 274.5. Although with respect to mean mental scores and mean reading scores, they ranked scores. themselves quite differently with respect to mean generalization CONCLUSIONS the findings of a particular investigation result in con applicable to other situations is an important sideration. It is somewhat difficult to state the degree of representativeness which may be assumed in this study. Certainly the eighth-grade pupils who participated are not representative of the nation at large or of New York State. Such factors as methods in teaching and time spent on the study of mathematics probably affected the generalizations test results of this inves but these factors were not evaluated. tigation, What may be said is that all teachers of these pupils attempted to fol and that the pupils, low the same State syllabus in elementary mathematics, all in a single grade, varied widely in mental ability and in reading ability. All conclusions pertain to the sample of pupils used in this investigation and are limited by the purposes, plans, and methods of the investigation. The following conclusions seem reasonable on the basis of evidence obtained in this investigation: The conclusions degree to which pertinent or 1. Generalization as defined, identified, and ability in mathematics, measured in this investigation, varies greatly among eighth-grade pupils. 2. Eighth-grade pupils differ widely in their ability to achieve on each of the three phases of generalization studied in this investigation. 3. For eighth-grade pupils, the writing of general truths or facts in sentence statements is by far the most difficult of the three phases of
generalization studied.

4. Eighth-grade the patterns exemplifying pupils write mathematical same relationship as in observed patterns much more than they illustrate easily
sentence statements by writing mathematical patterns.

May, 1946]

GENERALIZATION ABILITIES IN MATHEMATICS

679

5. Among eighth-grade pupils, and as measured by correlations of test scores, there is a very strong relationship between ability to write sentence statements of the general truths or facts in observed mathematical patterns, and ability to write mathematical illustrations of sentence statements. The relationships between each of the above stated abilities and the ability to write a mathematical pattern of the same relationship exemplified by several observed patterns are strong. 6. As measured scores of various groups, generalization by mean achievement as a composite of the three phases studied in this investigation, or as any single is convincingly different for different phase achievement, mental-ability groups and different reading-ability groups, always in favor of the higher ability groups. 7. Differences among mental-ability groups and reading-ability groups in the ability to write sentence statements of the general truths or facts in observed mathematical patterns are much more pronounced than in the other two phase abilities studied in this investigation. 8. As measured by correlations of test scores, significant relationships exist between generalization ability and mental ability and between general ization ability and reading ability. 9. Although abil significant relationships exist between generalization and mental ability and between generalization and reading ability, ity ability and although different groups and different reading-ability mental-ability in generalization groups differ significantly ability, there is considerable both mental-ability groups and overlapping among reading-ability groups in generalization ability.
10. As measured by mean achievement scores, the generalizations studied

in this investigation differ widely in difficulty. 11. As classified and evaluated in this investigation, generalizations dealing with number relationships in one process are easiest for eighth-grade pupils, and those dealing with common-fraction relationships are the most difficult.
GENERALIZATIONS USED IN THE STUDY

used as test items which called for generalizations illustration, and used as bases for construction of relationship patterns pupil are appended for reference. They are as follows:
1. Two or more numbers have the same sum

Word-statement

which

they are added.

regardless

of

the

order

in

680 2. Common
tracted.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH fractions that have the same denominators

[Vol. 39, No. 9 may be sub

3. The area of a rectangle equals the product of its length and width. the num a zero at the right of a whole number multiplies 4. Annexing ber by 10. 5. 50% of a number is one-half of the number. 6. The distance an object travels at a steady rate is the product of the
rate and the time.

7. Zero added to a number gives a sum which is the number itself. 8. Common fractions that have the same denominators may be added. 9. The perimeter of a square equals four times the length of one side. a zero from the right of a whole number divides the 10. Dropping number by 10. 11. 25% of a number is one-fourth of the number. 12. The cost of a number of things, when the price of each is the same, is the price of each multiplied by the number of things. 13. Two or more numbers have the same product regardless of the order used in multiplication. 14. Moving the decimal point one place to the left in a number divides the number by 10. 15. The value of a common fraction is not changed if the numerator and the denominator are each divided by the same number. 16. The perimeter of a rectangle equals the sum of two lengths and
two widths. 17. Per cent means hundredths.

18. The average cost of one thing, when the cost of a group of things is known, is the cost of the group divided by the number of things. is the 19. Zero subtracted from a number gives an answer which number itself. 20. The value of a common fraction is not changed if the numerator and the denominator are each multiplied by the same number. 21. The volume of a rectangular solid is equal to the product of its width, and thickness. length, 22. Annexing two zeros at the right of a whole number multiplies the number by 100. 23. 100% of a number is the number itself. 24. The average of a group of numbers is their total sum divided by
the number of numbers.

25. itself.

1 multiplied

by any number gives

product which

is the number

26. The value of a common fraction is, in general, changed if the same number (except zero) is added to the numerator and to the denominator. 27. Dropping two zeros from the right of a whole number divides the number by 100.
28. The area of a square is equal to the square of its side.

May, 1946]

GENERALIZATION ABILITIES IN MATHEMATICS

681

29. 200% of a number is twice the number. 30. Zero multiplied by any number gives a product of zero. the decimal point one place to the right in a number mul 31. Moving tiplies the number by 10. 32. Per cents may be changed to decimals by dropping the per cent the decimal point two places to the left. %, and moving sign, 33. The value of a common fraction is, in general, changed if the same number (except zero) is subtracted from the numerator and from the
denominator.

34. The area of a triangle equals one-half of the product of its base and altitude. 35. Multiplying by 100 and then dividing by 2 gives the same answer as by 50. multiplying 36. Decimals may be changed to per cents by moving the decimal point two places to the right and then annexing the per cent sign, %. times divisor equals dividend. 37. Quotient 38. When dividing by a fraction, the same answer is obtained by by the inverted fraction. multiplying the decimal point two places to the left in a number 39. Moving divides the number by 100. 40. The sum of the angles of any triangle is 180?. 41. In dividing any number by 1, the quotient is the number itself. 42. Dividing the numerator by the denominator changes a proper frac tion to a decimal fraction. the decimal point two places to the right in a number 43. Moving the number by 100. multiplies 44. The number of decimal a places in product is the sum of the number of decimal places in the multiplicand and in the multiplier. 45. Multiplying by 100 and then dividing by 4 gives the same answer as multiplying by 25. one number has been subtracted from another number, the 46. When
answer added to the subtracted number

47. A common fraction is an indicated division. 48. Annexing zeros to decimal fractions does not change the value of the decimal fractions. 49. The base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. 50. The value that a figure in a whole number represents depends upon its position in the number. 51. Dividing by 100 and then multiplying by 2 gives the same answer as dividing by 50.
52. A common fraction

equals

the

other

number.

53. Dividing by 100 and then multiplying by 4 gives the same answer as dividing by 25. 54. The rate at which an object moves is the distance divided by the
time.

expresses

a ratio.