Mental Representations in Fraction Comparison
Holistic Versus Component-Based Strategies
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the mental representations used in a fraction comparison task. Adults were asked to quickly and accurately pick the larger of two fractions presented on a computer screen and provide trial-by-trial reports of the types of strategies they used. We found that adults used a variety of strategies to compare fractions, ranging among just knowing the answer, using holistic knowledge of fractions to determine the answer, and using component-based procedures such as cross multiplication. Across all strategy types, regression analyses identified that reaction times were significantly predicted by numerical distance between fractions, indicating that the participants used a magnitude-based representation to compare the fraction magnitudes. In addition, a variant of the problem-size effect (e.g., Ashcraft, 1992) appeared, whereby reaction times were significantly predicted by the average cross product of the two fractions. This effect was primarily found for component-based strategies, indicating a role for strategy choice in the formation of mental representations of fractions.
References
(1992). Cognitive arithmetic: A review of data and theory. Cognition, 44, 75–106.
(2007). The mental representation of numerical fractions: Real or integer? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1410–1419.
(2003). Building on students’ intuitive strategies to make sense of cross multiplication. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9, 150–155.
(2001). Cognitive arithmetic across cultures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 299–315.
(1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44, 1–42.
(1998). Abstract representation of numbers in the animal and human brain. Trends in Neurosciences, 21, 355–361.
(1976). Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
(2007). Final report on the national survey of algebra teachers for the national math panel. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
(2009). The processing and representation of fractions within the brain. NeuroImage, 47, 403–413.
(2009). Notation-independent representation of fractions in the human parietal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 4652–4657.
(1988). Personal knowledge of rational numbers: Its intuitive and formal development. In , Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 162–181). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2007-480. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480.pdf.
(1996). Selection of procedures in mental addition: Reassessing the problem size effect in adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 216–230.
(2009). Rational numbers: Componential versus holistic representations of fractions in a magnitude comparison task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1598–1616.
(1984). Child as the measurer of all things: Measurement of procedures and the development of quantitative concepts. In , Origins of cognitive skills: The Eighteenth Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 193–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519–1520.
(1999). Establishing fraction benchmarks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 4, 530–532.
(1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition, 17, 759–769.
(2010). Representations of the magnitudes of fractions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1227–1238.
(1987). The perils of averaging over strategies: An example from children’s addition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 250–264.
(1997). Older and younger adults’ strategy choices in multiplication: Testing predictions of ASCM using the choice/no-choice method. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 71–92.
(2001). Does half a pizza equal half a box of chocolates? Proportional matching in an analogy task. Cognitive Development, 16, 811–829.
(1991). Children’s proportional judgments: The importance of “half”. Child Development, 62, 427–440.
(2006). The teaching and learning of fractions: A Japanese perspective. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12, 368–374.
(2005). What everyone finds: The problem-size effect. In , Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 331–345). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
