How do students misunderstand number representations?

Computer Science Education

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 289-312

  Herman, Geoffrey L ^a   Zilles, Craig ^b   Loui, Michael C ^a  

^a University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Concept inventory; Misconceptions; Number representations; Pedagogy

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052823857     PISSN: 08993408     EISSN: 17445175     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08993408.2011.611712     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ben-Ari, M. (2005, February). The Concorde doesn't fly anymore. Keynote address, presented at the technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE). Retrieved from http://stwww.weizmann.ac.il/g-cs/benari/articles/concorde.pdf
2. Brown, S., & Vranesic, Z. (2009). Fundamentals of digital logic with VHDL design. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
3. Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(1), 16-30.
4. Clement, J. (2004). A call for action (research): Applying science education research to computer science instruction. Computer Science Education, 14, 343-364.
5. Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Evans, D.L., Gray, G.L., Krause, S., Martin, J., Midkiff, C., Notaros, B.M., Wage, K. (2003). Progress on concept inventory assessment tools. In Proceedings of the 33rd ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference (pp. T4G1-T4G8). New York, NY: IEEE.
7. Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Nello, M., & Marino, M. (1985). The role of implicit models in solving problems in multiplication and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 3-17.
8. Givone, D.D. (2003). Digital principles and design. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
9. Goldman, K., Gross, P., Heeren, C., Herman, G., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M.C. & Zilles, C.B. (2010). Setting the scope of concept inventories for introductory computing subjects. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10, 1-29.
10. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
11. Halloun, I.A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043-1055.
12. Hellerman, H. (1967). Digital computer system principles. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
13. Herman, G.L., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M.C., & Zilles, C. (2008). Proof by incomplete enumeration and other logical misconceptions. In ICER'08: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research (pp. 59-70). Sydney, Australia: ACM.
14. Herman, G.L., Kaczmarczyk, L., Loui, M.C., & Zilles, C. (2011). Describing the what and why of students' difficulties in Boolean logic. Transactions on Computing Education (in press).
15. Herman, G.L., Loui, M.C., & Zilles, C. (2010a). Creating the digital logic concept inventory. In Proceedings of the 41st annual ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 102-106). Dallas, TX: ACM.
16. Herman, G.L., Loui, M.C., & Zilles, C. (2010b). Work in progress: How do engineering students misunderstand number representations? In Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference (pp. T3G1-T3G2). Arlington, VA: IEEE.
17. Herman, G.L., Loui, M.C., & Zilles, C. (2011a). Flip-Flops in students' conceptions of state. IEEE Transactions on Education (in press). DOI: 10.1109/TE.2011.2140372
18. Herman, G.L., Loui, M.C., & Zilles, C. (2011b). Students' misconceptions about medium-scale integrated circuits. IEEE Transactions on Education (in press). DOI: 10.1109/TE.2011.2104361
19. Herman, G.L., Zilles, C., & Loui, M.C. (2009). Work in progress: Students' misconceptions about state in digital systems. In Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/ IEEE frontiers in education conference (pp. T4D1-T4D2). San Antonio, TX: IEEE.
20. Herman, G.L., Zilles, C., & Loui, M.C. (2011). Administering a digital logic concept inventory at multiple institutions. In Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition (Paper #: AC 2011-1800). Washington, DC: ASEE.
21. Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I.A. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller. The Physics Teacher, 33, 502-506.
22. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
23. Hwang, E.O. (2006). Digital logic and microprocessor design with VHDL. Toronto: Thomson.
24. Irwin, J.D. & Jr., D.V.K. (1995). Introduction to electrical engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25. Khoury, H.A., & Zazkis, R. (1994). On fractions and non-standard representations: Preservice teachers' concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 191-204.
26. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Mano, M.M., & Kime, C. (2008). Logic and computer design fundamentals (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
28. Marcovitz, A.B. (2008). Introduction to logic and computer design. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
29. McCracken, M., Almstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y.B.D., Wilusz, T. (2001). A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students. In ITiCSE-Working Group Reports (WGR) (pp. 125-180). New York, NY: ACM.
30. Merenluoto, K., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Number concept and conceptual change: Outlines for new teaching strategies. Learning and Instruction, 14, 519-534.
31. Mestre, J.P. (2005). Facts and myths about pedagogies of engagement in science learning. Peer Review, 7, 24-27.
32. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
33. Moloney, K., & Stacey, K. (1997). Changes with age in students' conceptions of decimal notation. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 25-38.
34. Moskal, B.M., & Magone, M.E. (2000). Making sense of what students know: Examining the referents, relationships, and modes students displayed in response to a decimal task. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 313-335.
35. Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y.D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: the origins and implications the whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 27-52.
36. 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, 143-185.
37. Patt, Y.N., & Patel, S.J. (2003). Introduction to computing systems: From bits and gates to C and beyond. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
38. Sackur-Grisvard, C., & Leonard, F. (1985). Intermediate cognitive organization in the process of learning a mathematical concept: The order of positive decimal numbers. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 157-174.
39. Stafylidou, S., & Vosniadou, S. (2004). Students' understanding of the numerical value of fractions: A conceptual change approach. Learning and Instruction, 14, 503-518.
40. Steinle, V. (2004). Changes with age in students misconception of decimal numbers. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Science and Mathematics Education, University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://eprints.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00001531/
41. Steinle, V., & Stacey, K. (1998). The incidence of misconceptions of decimal notation amongst students in Grades 5 to 10. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds), Teaching mathematics in new times. Proceedings of the 21st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 548-555). Brisbane: MERGA.
42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Vahid, F. (2006). Digital design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
44. Vamvakoussi, X., & Vosniadou, S. (2007). How many numbers are there in a rational numbers interval? Constraints, synthetic models and the effect of the number line. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 265-282). Oxford: Elsevier.
45. Wakerly, J.F. (2006). Digital design: Principles and practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
46. Wollman, W. (1983). Determining the sources of error in a translation from sentence to equation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 169-181.