Addressing misconceptions in ratio and proportion: A constructivist approach for enhancing grade 9 learners' understanding
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58524/jasme.v5i1.569Keywords:
Constructivist approach, Mathematical misconceptions, Proportion, Ratio.Abstract
Backgorund: Proportionality, deeply rooted in the fundamental principles of ratio and proportion, is a core component of mathematics education that supports cognitive processes such as problem-solving and reasoning. Despite its inclusion in global curricula, empirical research suggests that students often face significant challenges in applying ratio and proportion in problem-solving scenarios. These challenges are largely attributed to the use of flawed cognitive strategies, resulting in persistent misconceptions.
Aim: This study examines the misconceptions regarding ratio and proportion among Grade 9 learners in the Lebowakgomo District, Limpopo Province, and aims to explore how these learners conceptualize and solve related mathematical problems through the lens of constructivist learning theory.
Method: Employing a qualitative case study approach, this research utilized tests and semi-structured interviews to gather data from 30 Grade 9 learners. A representative subset was selected for qualitative analysis, with five learners chosen for follow-up interviews to ensure diverse perspectives.
Results: The study revealed that learners struggled primarily with problems requiring proportional reasoning, resorting to incorrect strategies such as intuitive thinking, additive methods, incomplete problem-solving approaches, and erroneous use of cross-multiplication.
Conclusion: These misconceptions are primarily due to a lack of foundational mathematical skills and conceptual understanding, which impede learners' ability to engage in proportional reasoning. Based on these findings, the study advocates for enhancing teachers' pedagogical content knowledge in ratio and proportion to improve the instructional support provided to learners.
References
Abakah, F. (2019). Exploring mathematics learners’ problem-solving skills in circle geometry in South African schools: (a case study of a high school in the Northern Cape Province) (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Africa). https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000282
Agarwal, P.K. (2019). Retrieval practice & bloom’s taxonomy: Do students need fact knowledge before higher order learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 189.
Arsyad, S. N., Tangkin, W. P., Sumartono, S., & Astuti, B. (2024). Implications of bruner's cognitive theory on elementary school education in the 21st century. Klasikal: Journal of education, language teaching and science, 6(3), 697-704. https://doi.org/10.52208/klasikal.v6i3.1225
Aliustaoğlu, F., Tuna, A. & Biber, A.Ç. (2018). The misconceptions of sixth-grade secondary school students on fractions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(5), 591-599. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018541308
Bango, S. (2020). An investigation into Grade 7 learners’ knowledge of ratios (Master dissertation, University of Pretoria).
Beckmann, S., & Izsák, A. (2015). Two perspectives on proportional relationships: Extending complementary origins of multiplication in terms of quantities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.46.1.0017
Boye, E. S., & Agyei, D. D. (2023). Effectiveness of problem-based learning strategy in improving teaching and learning of mathematics for pre-service teachers in Ghana. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 7(1), 100453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100453
Brodie, K. (2010). Teaching mathematical reasoning in secondary school classrooms. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09742-8
Burgos, M. & Godino, J.D. (2020). Prospective primary school teachers’ competence in analysing the difficulties in solving proportionality problems. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00344-9
Burgos, M. & Godino, J.D. (2021). Prospective primary school teachers’ competence for the cognitive analysis of students’ solutions to proportionality tasks. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-021-00193-4
Cohen, L, Manion, L & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. 5th edition. Routledge Falmer, London, UK: Falmer.
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011). Curriculum and assessment Policy statement Grades 7-9. Mathematics. Pretoria, Department of Basic Education. 15(1).
Department of Basic Education (DBE). (2011a). Report on the annual national assessment of 2010. Pretoria: DBE.
Dougherty, B., Bryant, D.P., Bryant, B.R., & Shin, M. (2017). Promoting understanding of ratios and proportional reasoning for middle school students with persistent mathematics difficulties. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(2), 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916674897
Frimpong, T.I. (2021). An exploration of the extent Grade 9 mathematics teachers engages with learners’ errors in the teaching and assessment of mathematics. (Dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal).
Ginsburg, H. (1977). Children's arithmetic: The learning process. New York: D. Van Nostrand.
Hino, K. & Kato, H. (2019). Teaching whole-number multiplication to promote children’s proportional reasoning: a practice-based perspective from Japan. ZDM, 51(1), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0993-6
Jitendra, A. K., Harwell, M. R., Im, S. H., Karl, S. R., & Slater, S. C. (2019). Improving student learning of ratio, proportion, and percent: A replication study of schema-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 1045. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000335
Jitendra, A.K., Harwell, M.R., Karl, S.R., Im, S.H. & Slater, S.C. (2021). Investigating the generalizability of schema-based instruction focused on proportional reasoning: A multi-state study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89(4), 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1751580
Krishna S. O.R. (2002). Methodology of Research in Social Sciences. Delhi: Himalaya Publishing House.
Lestari, N.D.S. & Murtafiah, W. (2020, October). Exploring ethnomathematics activities in tobacco farmers’ community at Jember, East Java, Indonesia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1657(1), 012027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1657/1/012027
Machaba, F. M. (2016). The concepts of area and perimeter: Insights and misconceptions of Grade 10 learners. Pythagoras, 37(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v37i1.304
Mahlabela, P.T. (2012). Learner errors and misconceptions in ratio and proportion: a case study of grade 9 learners from a rural KwaZulu-Natal school. (Doctoral dissertation, University of KwaZulu Natal).
Mahlabela, P. T., & Bansilal, S. (2015). An exploration of learners' theorems-in-action used in problems on ratio and proportion. Pythagoras, 36(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v36i2.252
Malatjie, F. & Machaba, F. (2019). Exploring mathematics learners’ conceptual understanding of coordinates and transformation geometry through concept mapping. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(12), em1818. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110784
Misailidou, C., & Williams, J. (2003). Diagnostic assessment of children's proportional reasoning. Journal of Mathematics Behaviour, 22, 335-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(03)00025-7
Moyo, M. & Machaba, F.M. (2021). Grade 9 learners’ understanding of fraction concepts: Equality of fractions, numerator and denominator. Pythagoras, 42(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v42i1.602
Mufit, F., & Fauzan, A. (2023). The effect of cognitive conflict-based learning (CCBL) model on remediation of misconceptions. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 20(1), 26-49. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.003
Mullis, I. V., & Martin, M. O. (2017). TIMSS 2019 Assessment Frameworks. ERIC.
Nasir, R. (2018). Identifying the Students’ Proportional Reasoning. International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR), 8(2), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.24247/ijesrapr201811
Olivier, A. (1989). Handling pupils’ misconceptions. Pythagoras, 21, 10-19.
Pedersen, P.L. & Bjerre, M. (2021). Two conceptions of fraction equivalence. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(1), 135-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10030-7
Petit, M.M., Laird, R.E., Wyneken, M.F., Huntoon, F.R., Abele-Austin, M.D. & Sequeira, J.D. (2020). A focus on ratios and proportions: Bringing mathematics education research to the classroom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429353611
Phuong, N.T. & Loc, N.P. (2020). Solving word problems involving “ratio” concept of the fifth-Grade students: A study in Vietnam. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(7), 2937-2945. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080722
Piaget, J. (1964a). Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
Piekkari, R. & Welch, C. (2018). The case study in management research: Beyond the positivist legacy of Eisenhardt and Yin. The SAGE Handbook of qualitative business and management research methods: History and Traditions (pp. 345-358). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526430212.n21
Sibanda, E. (2021). Exploration of Grade 8 learners’ misconceptions in learning surface area and volume of prisms at a high school in Johannesburg East District (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Africa).
Smith, J. L. (2022). Student reasoning, argumentation, and positioning relative to identity in inquiry-oriented undergraduate mathematics. The Florida State University.
Thompson, P.W. & Harel, G. (2021). Ideas foundational to calculus learning and their links to students’ difficulties. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 53(3), 507-519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01270-1
TIMSS, P. (2018). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics. IEA Secretariat.
Tracey, K. (2020). ‘Several choice collections’ in geometry, astronomy, and chronology: Using and collecting mathematics in early modern England. In Reading Mathematics in early modern Europe (pp. 266-293). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003102557-12
Valsecchi, W. M., Delfino, J. M., Santos, J., & Faraj, S. E. (2024). A problem-based learning activity for enhancing inquiry skills and facilitating conceptual change in a biological chemistry course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(2), 438-457.
Van de Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2016). Elementary and middle school mathematics. London: Pearson Education UK.
Vanluydt, E., Verschaffel, L. & Van Dooren, W. (2022). The role of relational preference in early proportional reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 93, 102108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102108
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of LS Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology. Springer Science & Business Media.
Yin, R.K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013497081
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with Journal of Advanced Sciences and Mathematics Education agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Journal of Advanced Sciences and Mathematics Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
