Author :
Abstract
In this study, children’s strategies for solving concrete and symbolic problem types in addition and subtraction were examined. The researchers sought to determine whether inversion strategies were used, and if so operationalization of these strategies. Four third grade students, two girls and two boys, participate in the study through clinical interviews, the strategies and methods they use when solving problems are understood. The interviews and the problems solved are examined using discourse and content analyses. According to the results obtained, the students use shortcuts for the solution of all the concrete problems, which shows that they know the inversion strategy, whereas they perceive operation properties instrumentally for the solution of the problems defined as “symbolic” (particularly problems in the form of (a – b + b) and use operation strategies instead of inversion shortcuts. © 2018 IOJES. All rights reserved
Keywords
Abstract
In this study, children’s strategies for solving concrete and symbolic problem types in addition and subtraction were examined. The researchers sought to determine whether inversion strategies were used, and if so operationalization of these strategies. Four third grade students, two girls and two boys, participate in the study through clinical interviews, the strategies and methods they use when solving problems are understood. The interviews and the problems solved are examined using discourse and content analyses. According to the results obtained, the students use shortcuts for the solution of all the concrete problems, which shows that they know the inversion strategy, whereas they perceive operation properties instrumentally for the solution of the problems defined as “symbolic” (particularly problems in the form of (a – b + b) and use operation strategies instead of inversion shortcuts. © 2018 IOJES. All rights reserved
Keywords
- Baroody, A. (1999). Children’s relational knowledge of additional and subtraction. Cognition Instruction, 17 (2), 137-175.
- Baroody, A. J. , Ginsburg, H.P., & Waxman, B. (1983) . Children’s use of mathematical structure. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14 (3), 156-168.
- Bryant, P. (1992). Arithmetic in the cradle. Nature, 358 (6389), 712-713.
- Bryant, P., Christie, C., & Rendu, A. (1999). Children’s understanding of the relation between addition and subtraction: Inversion, identity, and decomposition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74 (3), 194-212.
- Canobi, K. H. & Bethune, N. E. (2008). Number words in young children’s conceptual and procedural knowledge of addition, subtraction and inversion. Cognition, 108 (3), 675-686.
- Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L. & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s Mathematics- Cognitively Guided Instruction, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Developmental Science, 13 (3), 508–520.
- Dowker, A. D. (1998). Individual differences in arithmetical development. In C. Donlan (Eds.) The Development of mathematical skills (pp. 275-302) . London: Taylor and Francis.
- Dowker, A. (2009). Use of derived fact strategies by children with mathematical difficulties, Cognitive Development, 24 (4), 401-410.
- Dube, A. K. & Robinson, K. M. (2010). The relationship between adult’s conceptual understanding of inversion and associativity. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64 (1), 60-66.
- Gilmore, C. K. (2006). Investigating children’s understanding of inversion using the missing number paradigm. Cognitive Development, 21 (3), 301-316.
- Gilmore, C. K. & Bryant, P. (2006). Individual differences in children's understanding of inversion and arithmetical skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (2), 309-331.
- Gilmore, C. K. & Spelke, E. (2008). Children's understanding of the relationship between addition and subtraction. Cognition, 107 (3), 932-945.
- Gilmore, C. K. & Bryant, P. (2008). Can children construct inverse relations in arithmetic? Evidence for individual differences in the development of conceptual understanding and computational skill. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 26 (3), 301-316.
- Öcalan, T. (2004). İlköğretimde Matematik Öğretimi, Ankara: Yeryüzü Yayınevi.
- Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. USA: Sage Publications.
- Piaget, J. (1952). The child’s conception of number. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
- Rasmussen, C. , Ho, E. & Bisanz, J .(2003). Use of the mathematical principle of inversion in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85 (2), 89-102.
- Robinson, K. M. , Ninowski, E. J. & Gray L. M. (2006). Children’s understanding of the arithmetic concepts of inversion and associativity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94 (4), 346-362.
- Robinson, K. M. & Ninowski, E . J . (2003). Adult’s understanding of inversion concepts: How does performance on addition and subtraction inversion problems compare to performance on multiplication and division inversion problems? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57 (4), 321-330.
- Russ, R. S. , Lee, V . R. , & Sherin, B . L. (2012). Framing in cognitive clinical interviews about intuitive science knowledge: Dynamic student understandings of the discourse interaction. Science Education, 96 (4) , 573-599.
- Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26 (3), 9- 15.
- Van de Walle, J. A. , Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J . M. (2012). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally – The Professional Development Edition. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
- Zazkis, R. & Hazzan, O. (1999). Interviewing in Mathematics Education Research: Choosing the questions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17 (4), 429 – 439.
- Wyness, M. (2010). Children’s and young people’s participation within educational and civic settings-a comparative case study approach to research. In D. Hartas (Eds.), Educational research and inquiryqualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 159-167). London, New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
