The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Teaching and Learning Fraction and Rational Numbers: The Origins and Implications of Whole Number Bias
Abstract
Many researchers agree that children's difficulty with fraction and rational numbers is associated with their whole number knowledge, but they disagree on the origin of the whole number bias. This article reviews three explanations of the nature of the bias. These accounts diverge on the questions of whether or not early quantitative representation originates from a numerical-specific cognitive mechanism, and whether or not the early quantitative representation privileges discrete quantity. The review suggests that there does not yet appear to be sufficient evidence to decide among the competing accounts as to the nature of the whole number bias. Yet, in the search for the understanding, two important issues have been brought up with regard to learning and teaching fraction and rational numbers. One question is related to how learning about fraction and rational numbers may be organized in such a way to be less strained for taking advantage of the prior knowledge of whole numbers. The second issue is concerned with what causes the gap between learning number symbols and learning number concepts. These issues have been explored by drawing upon both the accounts of whole number bias and insights from developmental studies, neuropsychological studies, and teaching experiments. The present review of literature has shown that the issues of whole number bias reflect not merely a matter of interference between prior and new knowledge in children's construction of fraction concepts, but a constellation of more general questions with regard to the origin and development of numerical cognition. How the bias is conceptualized therefore has theoretical and instructional significance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
Time required for Judgements of Numerical Inequality
MOYER, R. S., & LANDAUER, T. K. (1967) · Nature · doi:10.1038/2151519a0 · Cited by 2,068
Neuronal Plasticity That Underlies Improvement in Perceptual Performance
Zohary, E., Celebrini, S., Britten, K. H., & Newsome, W. T. (1994) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.8122114 · Cited by 247
Cited by
Kiili, K., Moeller, K., & Ninaus, M. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.012 · Cited by 119
Metadata
- Authors
- Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y.-D.
- Venue
- Educational Psychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-52
- ISSN
- 0046-1520 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6985
- OpenAlex
- W2002749349
- Cited by
- 666
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.