You are using the online sample of the Teaching and Learning about Decimals CDROM.
Not all linked pages are accessible in this version. For further information about the
complete CDROM please
click here.
Incidence and Persistence of Misconceptions: Years 4 to 10
This page shows the prevalence of the misconceptions about decimals
and how this changes as students progress through school. The
data was collected by Kaye Stacey and Vicki Steinle as part of
the Learning Decimals
Project conducted from 1995 to 1999. The 3204 students came from
12 schools in Victoria, Australia and ranged from Year 4 to Year
10.
Incidence of misconceptions Yrs 4-10
The graph above shows the percentage of students at each year
level who perform expertly (red) and show the major misconceptions.
The red regions show that the percentage of experts is very small
in Year 4, but grows rapidly in Years 5,6 and 7. Throughout the
early years of secondary school the growth is slow and only about
two thirds of students are expert by Year 10. The blue regions
represent the longer-is-larger
thinkers. Most of the younger students think like this, but this
misconception quickly disappears. The yellow regions stay quite
constant, indicating that at all ages about 15% of the population
have a shorter-is-larger misconception.
Similarly the percentage of students who do not answer according
to a consistent known rule is about 20% and fairly constant.
The data was collected using a 30 item decimal
comparison test and testing was conducted approximately every
6 months for four years. The data displayed in the graph is also
given in the table below. This indicates the large number of students
tested. The 12 schools were in areas with very low, medium and
high socioeconomic status.
| Year level |
Yr 4 |
Yr 5 |
Yr 6 |
Yr 7 |
Yr 8 |
Yr 9 |
Yr 10 |
| No. of students |
336 |
481 |
262 |
1147 |
385 |
310 |
283 |
| Task Expert |
4% |
24% |
31% |
48% |
43% |
55% |
60% |
| Other |
13% |
16% |
18% |
18% |
24% |
26% |
23% |
| Shorter-is-larger |
9% |
14% |
19% |
17% |
18% |
13% |
10% |
| Longer-is-larger |
75% |
46% |
33% |
17% |
15% |
6% |
6% |
To top
Incidence of misconceptions - fine classification
The major misconception groups used above clump together some
very different ways of interpreting decimal notation. Understanding
these differences is a key to helping students. Therefore it is
useful to split the groups up into more precise ways of interpreting
decimals. The following table lists the percentage of students
using longer-is-larger and shorter-is-larger misconceptions for
Year 4 and Year 10, as well as a breakdown into ways of thinking.
Click here for a description
of each of these ways of thinking.
Some of the ways of thinking have been detected in only a small
percentage of the students by using the Decimal Comparison Test,
but their inclusion is warranted as they have consistently appeared
in interviews of primary, secondary or tertiary students. This
is because different tasks prompt different knowledge, when it
is not well consolidated.
|
Misconception
|
Year
4 |
Year
10
|
|
Longer-is-larger (26% Overall) |
46% |
6% |
|
whole
number thinking
reverse thinking
column overflow/zero makes small thinking
|
35%
1%
5%
|
3%
0%
1%
|
|
Shorter-is-larger (15% Overall) |
14%
|
11%
|
|
denominator
focussed thinking
reciprocal/negative thinking
|
4%
6%
|
|
|
Apparent-expert behavior (47% Overall) |
28%
|
70%
|
|
expert
thinking
money thinking
|
24%
2%
|
|
|
Unclassified (12% Overall) |
12% |
14% |
These figures are averages from the 12 schools involved in the
Learning Decimals Project. Incidence in individual schools
and classes varies widely, reflecting teaching. For example
|

|
65% of Year 5 at one school were whole number thinkers
|
|

|
15% of Year 6 at one school showed column overflow or zero
makes small thinking
|
|

|
37% of Year 6 at one school had shorter-is-larger misconceptions
|
|

|
27% of Year 6 at one school showed reciprocal or negative
thinking
|
|

|
8% of Year 8 at one school demonstrated money thinking.
|
For technical reasons, this data underestimates the percentage
of money thinkers:
"John" was a Year 7 student when he was first tested
and in Year 9 for his 5th test. John tested as a task expert on
the first test, but then a money thinker on the next test. On
John's third test he again tested as a task expert and then as
a money thinker on the fourth. His last test was answered again
as a task expert. We think that John was probably a money thinker
for all of this time. This is because the test we used
was not able to identify money thinkers who make lucky guesses.
For this reason, the incidence of task expert is overestimated
in the table above and the incidence of money thinking is underestimated
by the test: it might be double the percentages indicated. Even
using this underestimating test, in one of the secondary schools,
14% of the 612 students were classified as money thinkers at some
time in the project and this thinking appears to be very prevalent
amongst adults.
To top
Persistence of misconceptions
The data revealed that students with misconceptions tend to hold
on to them. This section shows that over six or more months, there
is a chance of between a third and a half that a student's misconception
category is unchanged.
There were 63 students in the project who tested as Longer-is-larger
(L) on 4 or more consecutive tests. Sally was one of these; her
6 test results are given below. Over three years, Sally's ideas
have only oscillated around in the longer-is-larger group of misconceptions.
|
|
|
Yr 4
|
Whole Number thinking
|
|
Yr 5
|
Column Overflow or Zero Makes Small thinking
|
|
Yr 5
|
Whole Number thinking
|
|
Yr 6
|
Whole Number thinking
|
|
Yr 6
|
Column Overflow or Zero Makes Small thinking
|
|
Yr 7
|
Whole Number thinking
|
There were 27 students in the project who tested as Shorter-is-larger
on 4 or more consecutive tests. Bob was one of these; his 6 test
results are given below. From Year 6 to Year 9 his ideas were
basically unchanged.
|
|
|
Yr 6
|
Shorter-is-larger but unclear which type
|
|
Yr 7
|
Reciprocal or Negative thinking
|
|
Yr 7
|
Reciprocal or Negative thinking
|
|
Yr 8
|
Reciprocal or Negative thinking
|
|
Yr 8
|
Reciprocal or Negative thinking
|
|
Yr 9
|
Reciprocal or Negative thinking
|
Overall, the likelihood of a student retesting as Longer-is-larger
(L) on the next test was found to be 0.44 (based on 1257 pairs
of tests). A breakdown by year is shown below.

Similarly, the overall likelihood of a student retesting as Shorter-is-larger
(S) on the next test is 0.38 (based on 847 pairs of tests). A
breakdown by year level is shown below. Note the rise to 0.49
at Year 8 - we think this may be due to the interference of new
learning about negative numbers (negative thinking is one of the
S-type misconceptions).

To top
Teaching makes a difference!
The sections above show that many students continue to hold misconceptions
for very long periods of time or they waver between different
misconceptions as they struggle to sort out ideas. However, the
data above also shows big variation between classes, which demonstrates
that teachers can make a big difference. Misconceptions arise
naturally, from students' being unable to assemble all the relevant
ideas together or from limited teaching, but students can easily
be helped to expertise.
Even a small amount of targeted teaching makes a difference.
In one experiment (Helme &
Stacey, 2000a & 2000b) all four teachers of the Year 5
and Year 6 classes at one school attended a one hour session on
how to use LAB to teach the
meaning of decimal notation. A total of 87 children from these
four different classes were tested twice and the data below is
only for these students. Data collected earlier by the Learning
Decimals Project over a period of three years (1996-1998)
indicated that, for this school, 41% of Year 6 students tested
as expert in decimal notation. In the cohort of 1999, 46 children
(53%) tested as experts on the pretest, a slightly higher proportion
than previously.
As it happened, the teachers of Class M and S each gave a couple
of lessons using LAB, whilst the teachers of Class X/Y and Class
Z were unable to spare the time. About three months later the
classes were tested again. As the table below shows, a lot of
children in Classes M and S had become experts, but no-one in
Classes X/Y or Z did. A little bit of teaching made a large difference.
Numbers and percentages of experts by class on pre- and post-
tests.
|
Class M |
Class S |
Class X/Y |
Class Z |
Total |
|
pre |
post |
pre |
post |
pre |
post |
pre |
post |
pre |
post |
| No of
students |
24 |
24 |
23 |
23 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
87 |
87 |
| No of
experts |
8 |
15 |
19 |
23 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
9 |
46 |
57 |
| % of
experts |
33% |
63% |
83% |
100% |
50% |
50% |
45% |
45% |
53% |
66% |
| % gain |
30% |
17% |
0% |
0% |
13% |
To top
|