Preservice teachers’ understanding of the relation between a fraction or integer and its decimal expansion

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 5-28

  Weller, Kirk ^a   Arnon, Ilana ^b   Dubinsky, Ed ^c  

^a FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Florida International University ^*  (Israel)

^c FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959498139     PISSN: 14926156     EISSN: 19424051     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14926150902817381     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Asiala, M., Brown, A., DeVries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. In J. Kaput, A. H. Schoenfeld, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education II (pp. 1-32). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
2. Beswick, K. (2004). Why does 0.999… = 1? A perennial question and number sense. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 60(4), 7-9.
3. Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 153-166). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K., Thomas, K., & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process schema. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 167-192.
5. De Castro, B. (2004). Pre-service teachers’ mathematical reasoning as an imperative for codified conceptual pedagogy in algebra: A case study in teacher education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 157-166.
6. Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. A. (2001). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning in undergraduate mathematics education research. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 273-280). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
7. Dubinsky, E., Weller, K., McDonald, M. A., & Brown, A. (2005a). Some historical issues and paradoxes regarding the concept of infinity: An APOS based analysis: Part 1. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 335-359.
8. Dubinsky, E., Weller, K., McDonald, M. A., & Brown, A. (2005b). Some historical issues and paradoxes regarding the concept of infinity: An APOS based analysis: Part 2. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 253-266.
9. Duckworth, E. (1964). Piaget rediscovered. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 172-175.
10. Edwards, B., & Ward, M. (2004). Surprises from mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of mathematical definitions. American Mathematical Monthly, 111(5), 411-425.
11. Gardiner, T. (1985). Infinite processes in elementary mathematics: How much should we tell them? The Mathematical Gazette, 69, 77-87.
12. Hewitt, S. (1984). Nought point nine recurring. Mathematics Teaching, 99, 48-53.
13. Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Hirst, K. (1990). Exploring number: Point nine recurring. Mathematics Teaching, 111, 12-13.
15. Khoury, H. A., & Zazkis, R. (1994). On fractions and non-standard representations: Pre-service teachers’ concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 191-204.
16. Nesher, P. (1986). Are mathematical understanding and algorithmic performance related? For the Learning of Mathematics, 6, 3.
17. O’Connor, M. C. (2001). “Can any fraction be turned into a decimal?” A case study of a mathematical group discussion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1/3), 143-185.
18. Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-180.
19. Piaget, J. (1968). Le point de vue de Piaget. Journal, International de Psychologie, 3(4), 281-299.
20. Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory (G. Gellerier & J. Langer, Trans.). In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichaels manual of child psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 703-732). New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
21. Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
22. Piaget, J. (1979). Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks. Archives de Psychologie, 47, 237-249.
23. Putt, I. (1995). Preservice teachers ordering of decimal numbers: When more is smaller and less is larger. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(3), 1-15.
24. Resnick, L., Nesher, P., Leonard, F., Magone, M., Omanson, S., & Peled, I. (1989). Conceptual bases of arithmetic errors: The case of decimal fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 8-27.
25. Richman, F. (1999). Is 0.999… = 1? Mathematics Magazine, 72(5), 396-401.
26. Sierpinska, A. (1987). Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 371-397.
27. Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20-26.
28. Sonnabend, T. (2004). Mathematics for teachers: An interactive approach for grades K-8 (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.
29. Stenger, C., Weller, K., Arnon, I., Dubinsky, E., & Vidakovic, D. (2008). A search for a constructivist approach for understanding the uncountable set P(N). Revista Latinoamericana de Investigation en Mathematica Educativa, 11(1), 93-125.
30. Tall, D., & Schwarzenberger, R. (1978). Conflicts in the learning of real numbers and limits. Mathematics Teaching, 82, 44-49.
31. Thipkong, S., & Davis, E. J. (1991). Preservice elementary teachers’ misconceptions in interpreting and applying decimals. School Science and Mathematics, 91(3), 93-99.
32. Vinner, S., & Kidron, I. (1985). The concept of repeating and non-repeating decimals at the senior high level. In L. Steefland (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 357-361). Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
33. Weller, K., Brown, A., Dubinsky, E., McDonald, M., & Stenger, C. (2004). Intimations ofInfinity. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 51(7), 741-750.
34. Weller, K., Clark, J., Dubinsky, E., Loch, S., McDonald, M., & Merkovsky, R. (2003). Studentperformance and attitudes in courses based on APOS theory and the ACE teaching cycle. In A. Selden, E. Dubinsky, G. Harel, & F. Hitt (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education V (pp. 97-131). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
35. Williams, S. (1991). Models of limits held by college calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22,219-236.
36. Williams, S. (2001). Predications of the limit concept: An application of repertory grids. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 341-367.