Addressing the multiplication makes bigger and division makes smaller misconceptions via prediction and clickers

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

Volumn 42, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1081-1106

  Lim, Kien H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

Author keywords

Clickers; Error eliciting problems; Misconceptions; Personal response system; PowerPoint; Prediction; Technology; Visual representations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857872348     PISSN: 0020739X     EISSN: 14645211     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2011.573873     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2000. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, VA:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
2. Knuth, EJ, and Harmann, CE. 2005. “ Using technology to foster students’ mathematical understandings and intuitions ”. In Technology-Supported Mathematics Learning Environments:Sixty-Seventh Yearbook, Edited by:Masalski, JW, and Elliott, PC. 151–164. Reston, VA:National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
3. Bell, A, Swan, M, and Taylor, G. 1981. Choice of operations in verbal problems with decimal numbers. Educ. Stud. Math., 12:399–420.
4. Ekenstam, A, and Greger, K. 1983. Some aspects of children's ability to solve mathematical problems. Educ. Stud. Math., 14:369–384.
5. Greer, B. 1987. Nonconservation of multiplication and division involving decimals. J. Res. Math. Educ., 18:37–45.
6. Tirosh, D, and Graeber, AO. 1989. Preservice elementary teachers’ explicit beliefs about multiplication and division. Educ. Stud. Math., 20:79–96.
7. Fischbein, E, Deri, M, Nello, MS, and Marino, MS. 1985. The role of implicit models in solving verbal problems in multiplication and division. J. Res. Math. Educ., 16:3–17.
8. J. Sowder, L. Sowder, and S. Nickerson, Reconceptualizing Mathematics for Elementary and Middle School Teachers, preliminary ed., W.H. Freeman, New York, 2008
9. Prediger, S. 2008. The relevance of didactic categories for analyzing obstacles in conceptual change:Revisiting the case of multiplication of fractions. Learn. Instr., 18:3–17.
10. Lim, KH, Buendía, G, Kim, OK, Cordero, F, and Kasmer, L. 2010. The role of prediction in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Tech., 41:595–608.
11. Lim, KH. 2008. Students’ Mental Acts of Anticipating:Foreseeing and Predicting while Solving Problems involving Algebraic Inequalities and Equations, Saarbrücken, Germany:VDM Verlag.
12. Fischbein, E, and Grossman, A. 1997. Schemata and intuitions in combinatorial reasoning. Educ. Stud. Math., 34:27–47.
13. Caldwell, JE. 2007. Clickers in the large classroom:Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sci. Educ., 6:9–20.
14. Cline, KS. 2006. Classroom voting in mathematics. Math. Teach., 100:100–104.
15. Bode, M, Drane, D, Kolikant, YB, and Schuller, M. 2009. A clicker approach to teaching calculus. Not. AMS., 56:253–256.
16. Lucas, A. 2009. Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. PRIMUS, 19:219–231.
17. Miller, RL, Santana-Vega, E, and Terrell, MS. 2007. Can good questions and peer discussion improve calculus instruction?. PRIMUS, 16:193–203.
18. Kjeldsen, JE. Retrieved May 13 2009. The rhetoric of PowerPoint, Retrieved May 13, seminar.net—Int. J. Media Technol. Lifelong Learn. 2 (2006). Available at http://www.seminar.net/files/Kjeldsen_powerpoint.pdf
19. Rankin, EL, and Hoaas, DJ. 2001. The use of PowerPoint and student performance. Atlantic Econ. J., 29:113
20. Szabo, A, and Hastings, N. 2000. Using IT in the undergraduate classroom. Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint?. Comp. Educ., 35:175–187.
21. Mayer, RE, and Anderson, RB. 1991. Animations need narrations:An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. J. Educ. Psychol., 83:484–490.