Document extract

Title of chapter/article Assessing Students’ Understanding of Fraction

Equivalence
Author(s) Monica Wong & David Evans

Copyright owner The Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers

(AAMT) Inc.
Published in Fractions: Teaching for Understanding

Year of publication 2011

Page range 81–90

ISBN/ISSN 978-1-875900-68-8

This document is protected by copyright and is reproduced in this format with permission
of the copyright owner(s); it may be copied and communicated for non-commercial
educational purposes provided all acknowledgements associated with the material are
retained.

AAMT—supporting and enhancing the work of teachers

The Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers Inc.

ABN 76 515 756 909
POST GPO Box 1729, Adelaide SA 5001
PHONE 08 8363 0288
FAX 08 8362 9288
EMAIL office@aamt.edu.au
INTERNET www.aamt.edu.au
 CHAPTER 8.

ASSESSING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING

OF FRACTION EQUIVALENCE*

MONICA WONG DAVID EVANS

University of Sydney University of Sydney
<monica.wong@sydney.edu.au> <david.evans@sydney.edu.au>

L
earning is a process that builds upon students’ prior knowledge.
Children’s existing understandings guide their interpretation,
understanding and incorporation of new information (National
Research Council, 2001a). Teachers need to understand and investigate the
mathematical thinking that students utilise to solve fraction problems, in
order that they may advance students’ knowledge and understanding. Many
teachers frequently observe students in their classrooms use inappropriate
whole number strategies when solving fraction problems. When students
exhibit these errors, they provide opportunities for teachers to adapt their
lessons to address such errors and guide students’ mathematical thinking
towards improved understanding.
We can identify students’ misconceptions by posing tasks that provide
insight into their thinking. This chapter focuses on the assessment of
students’ knowledge and conceptual understanding of equivalent fractions
using tasks from a pencil and paper assessment instrument. The tasks were
developed as part of a project involving over two years of research and 640
students from Years 3 to 6 (approximately 8 to 12 years of age). First, we
describe what conceptual understanding of equivalent fractions
encompasses. This is followed by the presentation of four tasks that
teachers can use to assess students’ knowledge. The tasks require students
to represent equivalent fractions using area models and to construct
symbolic equivalents. They incorporate both “skill” questions that require

* This chapter is based on research findings presented in Wong, M. & Evans. D. (2007). Students’ conceptual

understanding of equivalent fractions. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds), Mathematics: Essential research,

essential practice (Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Group of

Australasia, pp. 824–833). Adelaide: MERGA.

FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 81

WONG & EVANS

the application of a practised routine or procedure, and “conceptual”

questions that require students to apply their knowledge and explain their
actions. Included with these tasks are the common errors exhibited by
students, accompanied by examples of students’ work or excerpts of their
explanations from interviews.

Understanding fraction equivalence

Ni (2001) contends that in many mathematics classrooms, understanding of

fraction equivalence is considered mastery of the rule, “multiply or divide
the numerator and denominator of a fraction by the same number” (p. 413).
Research shows that it is much more (e.g., Lamon, 2005). Understanding
fraction equivalence necessitates students recognise that two or more
fractions can represent the same quantity, thus belonging to an equivalence
3
set. For example, the equivalence set for the fraction 4 can be represented
symbolically as
⎧⎪ 3 6 9 12 ⎫⎪
⎨
,
,
,
,
…⎬ .

⎪⎩
4
8
12 16
⎪⎭

Each fraction within the set is interchangeable with another as they refer to
the same relative amount—three-quarters (Cathcart, Pothier, Vance, &
Bezuk, 2006). This relationship can be represented using manipulatives,
spoken language, written language including symbolic notation, real life
scenarios and pictorial images (Lesh, Landau, & Hamilton, 1983) including
area, number line, collection and segment models (Cathcart et al., 2006;
Niemi, 1996). Students who possess conceptual understanding of fraction
equivalence can seamlessly link and manipulate differing representations.
They “see the connections among concepts and procedures and can give
arguments to explain why some facts are consequences of others” (National
Research Council, 2001b, p. 119).

Pictorial representations

Pictorial representations of part/whole area models can be described as

“simple representations” when the total number of equal parts in the
representation matches the fraction denominator. The shaded part is
associated with the numerator and the entire representation is associated
with the denominator. For example, the fraction three-quarters is shown in
Figure 8.1(a). Equivalent pictorial representations occur when the number
of equal parts of the whole is a multiplicative factor less than or greater
than the denominator (Niemi, 1996) as shown in Figures 8.1(b) and 8.1(c).

82 FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING

 8. ASSESSING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF FRACTION EQUIVALENCE

The area of the whole and shaded part never changes, but the number of
equal parts into which the whole is divided can alter. Thus different fraction
names can be offered for the shaded area and elements within an
equivalence set identified.

(a) original (b) partitioned (c) partitioned again (d) unequal parts

Figure 8.1. Pictorial representations for three-quarters and

an unconventional representation for one-eighth.

Alternatively, if the representation of twelve-sixteenths is provided, the

process of “chunking” by constructing larger parts could be applied to help
solve tasks involving equivalence (Lamon, 2005). Chunking allows the whole
to be subdivided into equal-sized parts with no remainders. If the chunk
was a column, as shown in Figure 8.1(c), then the horizontal lines could be
ignored and the fraction three-quarters recognised. In all instances, the
referent unit or whole does not alter. Additionally, students must recognise
that naming a fraction requires the division of the whole into equal-sized
parts. Errors can arise in naming the correct fraction if the significance of
equal-sized parts is not recognised. For instance, students frequently
suggest the fraction shaded in Figure 8.1(d) represents one-fifth.

Thinking exhibited

Representations for “a whole”

In this section, four equivalent fraction tasks are presented and discussed in
terms of the typical strategies students employ to complete each type of
task. The first two tasks (see Figure 8.2) examine students’ knowledge of
one or a whole. Task 1 is a “skill” question and can be answered by the
application of a practised routine or procedure. Task 2 represents a
“conceptual” question that requires students to apply their knowledge and
explain their actions.

FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 83

WONG & EVANS

Circle the fractions that are equal to 1.

2
8
1 1 Shade in of the shape below?
8 100 2

1 9 4
1 10 4
1 9
1
8 8
7 10
8 9

How did you work this out?

(a) Task 1 — procedural (b) Task 2 — conceptual

Figure 8.2. Equivalence tasks examining the notion of one or a whole.

Students’ strategies for solving Task 1 can be obtained by asking the

question, “How did you work it out?” Incorrect responses often result when
students consider the individual digits in a fraction rather than considering
the value of the fraction in its entirety. In our study, a Year 3 student wrote,
“I got all the numbers that had 1 in it”, whilst another Year 3 student
explained, “If it has 1 on the side or on the top it is equal to 1”. These
students applied flawed procedural knowledge and exhibited limited
understanding.
Correct strategies employed by students are listed in Figure 8.3. The
procedural strategy to compare the numerator and denominator was
observed, but students considered the two numbers together. Some students
linked their knowledge from other domains to improve their understanding
of fractions (e.g., see Sam’s response in Figure 8.3). In contrast, other
students attempted to develop further understanding by creating an
appropriate image (e.g., Julie). Indeed, correct strategies that students
employ offer teachers instructional ideas for rectifying other students’
misunderstandings.

Strategy and examples of students’ explanations

Compare numerator and denominator:
1
“Well I worked it out by looking if the two numbers are the same like 1
” (Max)
“The numbers with the same number top and bottom are wholes” (Abbie)
“I looked at the numerator and denominator and checked if both numerator and
denominator have the same numbers” (Kristen)
Linking to other related mathematical domains:
“Because everyone circled is 100% which is equal to 1” (Sam)
Creating an image:
8
“I pictured a circle in my mind and thought if 8
is the hole [sic] circle coloured than it
must be a hole [sic]” (Julie)

Figure 8.3. Correct strategies employed to identify all fractions equal to 1.

84 FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING

 8. ASSESSING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF FRACTION EQUIVALENCE

The stability of students’ knowledge and an indicator of their

1 2 3
{
understanding of the equivalence set one 1 ,
2 ,
3 ,
… , was inferred from a }
review of responses for both tasks. Many students were able to identify
symbolic fractions equal to one, but, were unable to apply their knowledge
to equivalent pictorial representations. The most common error was to
shade two of the parts or half of the shape provided in Task 2. A Year 4
student wrote, “I looked at the numerator and denominator to see if it is the
2
same.” Yet she was unable to represent 2 . She stated in the interview: “I
2
found this hard, because this [pointing to 2 ] is actually one whole [motions
hand across the length of the entire shape shown in Task 2], but it has four
pieces in it…”. She shaded two of the partitions and recognised it as one
half, yet she was unable to reconcile the discrepancy in her symbolic
knowledge of fractions and pictorial images. She eventually offered the
reason, “Because there’s only four pieces and if the numerator says two and
the denominator says two, so that’s why I had it as two.”
It is important to ascertain students’ thinking as a correct answer does
not always reflect correct reasoning. A Year 5 student correctly selected all
the fractions equal to 1, “because whole numbers equal 1”. However, he
shaded only half of the shape in Task 2. During the interview, he was asked
whether shading two of the four parts was correct. Although he was unsure,
he said it was wrong and then incorrectly reasoned: “And it says two twos,
two over two. Oh. Now I get the answer! ’Cause two [points to the
numerator and two parts] over two [points to the denominator and the
remaining two parts]. One whole. So cover all of them.” Hence, not only is it
important to examine students’ responses to procedural and conceptual
written tasks, it is equally important to ascertain their thinking as flawed
reasoning can result in the correct answer.
Applying understanding of fraction equivalence
Task 3 and Task 4, (see Figure 8.4) are generally suitable for students in
Years 3 and 4 or Years 5 and 6 respectively. For each task, students are
required to apply their understanding of fraction equivalence and integrate
suitable diagrams to explain their reasoning.

Using pictures and words, explain how Using pictures and words, explain how you
you would work out which of these would work out which of these fractions is
fractions is smallest. smallest.
1 1 1 2 1 2





















8 2 4 6 2 3

(a) Task 3 for Years 3 and 4 (b) Task 4 for Years 5 and 6

Figure 8.4. Questions requiring students to apply their understanding of fraction equivalence.

FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 85

WONG & EVANS

A review of responses to Task 3 by students in our study is shown in

Figure 8.5.

Correct Incorrect
Consistent-sized referent unit Incorrect partitioning

Or Different-sized referent units

and

Mixing fraction models

Appropriate use of collection model Inappropriate use of collection models

Figure 8.5. Pictorial representations employed to identify the smallest fraction.

Overall, responses highlight the importance of starting with an equally

divided referent unit. In particular, incorrect responses show students’ lack

86 FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING

 8. ASSESSING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF FRACTION EQUIVALENCE

of understanding of the importance of a standard referent unit when

comparing fraction quantities. For Task 3, the appropriate referent unit is
1 1
eighths, since both 2 and 4 can be conveniently converted to eighths.
Different-sized referent units, a mixture of collection and area models, and
inappropriate use of collection models were among the errors made by
students. From an instructional perspective, a common referent unit is a
fundamental concept necessary for understanding fraction equivalence
across all grades.
Although Tasks 3 and 4 requested students use pictures to explain their
answers, they were absent from many responses. Strategies that were
considered correct in the absence of pictures are listed in Figure 8.6 and
were similar to those found by other researchers (e.g., Behr, Wachsmuth,
Post, & Lesh, 1984; Smith, 1995). Explanations used to compare the size of
fractions incorporated “a quantitative notion, or awareness of the ‘bigness’ of
fractions” (Bezuk & Bieck, 1993, p. 127). The development of quantitative
understanding of fractions allows students to: (a) judge the relative size of
fractions and in relation to a single reference point, whether it is the
fraction one-half or another fraction, and (b) view fractions as a smaller part
of a unit or a measure of a quantity which has been divided into smaller
parts. In contrast, the mathematical language for other strategies used by
students—checking the numerator and/or denominators—varied. Most
explanations incorporated the notion of “the bigger the denominator, the
smaller the parts”. It is also possible that these two strategies relied more
on the use of procedural knowledge and that students do not possess enough
understanding to incorporate pictorial representations.

Strategy and examples of student explanations

Comparing size:
“One eighths is two quarters and if one half is two quarters”
“One eighth because two and one eighth is one quarter and two and one quarter is one half”
“Well one half is pretty big and one quarter is half of that and one eighth is half of that”
Check numerators and denominators:
“If the numerators are the same, then the largest denominator is the smallest fraction.
Therefore one eighth is the smallest.”
“First you look how small the numbers are on the top and find the biggest number on the
bottom”
“On the numerator it is one. But on the denominator is different. The more bigger
denominator, the smaller. But if the numerator is like four. Then it could be bigger.”
Check denominators:
“I know because the highest number on the bottom means more smaller pieces”
“By finding the highest number being cut into smaller blocks”

Figure 8.6. Written explanations for identifying the smallest fraction correctly without
accompanying diagrams.

FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 87

WONG & EVANS

Pictorial and symbolic strategies employed by students from Year 5 and 6

to select the smallest fraction from those listed in Task 4 included those
strategies used by Year 3 and 4 students in answering Task 3. However,
written explanations also incorporated the common denominator strategy:
1 3 2 4
“Change all the denominators to six and make 2 into 6 , 3 into 6 and keep
2
6
the same” (Year 6 student). This strategy was absent from Year 3 and 4
student responses, most likely due to Task 3 incorporating unit fractions
(i.e., fractions with a numerator of 1). A reference point strategy was
1
employed by Year 5 and 6 students in which 2 was used as a reference point
and the remaining two fractions were changed to a common denominator. A
Year 6 student, for example wrote, “Well one half is one half and two thirds
2
are two thirds but 6 is equivalent to one third and one third is smaller than
2
one half and 3 ”. Other students used half as a reference point without
changing the remaining fractions, possibly showing a greater understanding
2 2
of the size of the fractions 6 and 3 . For example, a Year 5 student wrote, “2
over 6 is the smallest, because half is more, and two thirds is more than
half”. These students exhibit a quantitative understanding of fractions that
is crucial for evaluating the reasonableness of fraction computations (Bezuk
& Bieck, 1993).
Incorrect written explanations are listed in Figure 8.7. All explanations
exhibit some form of whole number reasoning in which the fraction
numerals are decomposed into separate numbers and mathematical
comparisons are applied to the individual digits.

Strategy and examples of student explanations

Whole number reasoning:
Considering both numerator and denominator
“ 1 are smallest because they are lower numbers”
2

111
“Because they all have one up the top so it goes like this ”
248

Comparing denominators
“ 1 I know because 2 is smaller than 4 and 8 is bigger than 4”
2

Adding numerator and denominator

“ 1 because all they do is add up to 3”
2

Incomplete reasoning:
“ 1 even though it is a small number it takes up the most space than 1
and 1
.”
2 8 4

Figure 8.7. Written explanations of strategies resulting in an incorrect answer.

88 FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING

 8. ASSESSING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF FRACTION EQUIVALENCE

Overall, we found that students used procedural knowledge when

answering equivalent fraction problems presented in symbolic form. In some
instances, whole number reasoning was demonstrated in the procedures
they used. Many students were unable to represent a symbolic fraction
using an equivalent area diagram. Students who successfully linked
symbolic and pictorial part/whole area interpretations for one whole
demonstrated their deeper understanding by applying their knowledge to
equivalent area models. Furthermore, students who were able to answer
either Task 3 or Task 4 correctly were able to select the appropriate
pictorial representation to illustrate their reasoning. Importantly, these
students understood the need for a common referent unit. Students who did
not incorporate a pictorial representation in their explanation, but exhibited
a quantitative understanding of fractions, demonstrated that they possessed
conceptual understanding of fraction equivalence.

Implications for teaching

An examination of students’ responses to the tasks presented here, show

that students who incorporate:
(a) the notion that a fraction represents a quantity;
(b) mathematical terminology in a correct context;
(c) comparison of fraction quantities;
(d) meaningful use of pictures; and
(e) comprehensive explanations;

exhibit greater levels of conceptual understanding of fraction equivalence.

Consequently, students who possess these essential understandings are able

to apply their knowledge and explain their actions demonstrating strong

links between a range of skills and knowledge, and mathematical

representations of fractions.

Students’ conceptual understanding of fraction equivalence or any other

mathematical concept needs to be ascertained from a variety of carefully
considered tasks. The four pencil and paper tasks described in this chapter
have been shown to be effective in identifying students with limited and/or
incomplete knowledge of fractions. Notwithstanding, it is equally important
for teachers to ask students to explain their thinking during regular
classroom activities to confirm their understanding (Siegler et al., 2010).
Carefully chosen tasks, combined with good questioning, can reveal useful
information about students’ thinking and strategies that can be used by
teachers to plan learning experiences to consolidate correct reasons, expand
their repertoire of strategies or correct misconceptions and incomplete
reasoning.

FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING 89

WONG & EVANS

References
Behr, M. J., Wachsmuth, I., Post, T. R., & Lesh, R. A. (1984). Order and equivalence of rational
numbers: A clinical teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15,
323–341.
Bezuk, N. S. & Bieck, M. (1993). Current research on rational numbers and common fractions:
Summary and implications for teachers. In D. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom:
Middle grades mathematics (pp. 118–136). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Cathcart, W. G., Pothier, Y., Vance, J. H., & Bezuk, N. S. (2006). Learning mathematics in elementary
and middle schools: A learner-centred approach (4th ed., Multimedia ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lamon, S. J. (2005). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R. A., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual models and applied mathematical
problem-solving research. In R. A. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds), Acquisition of mathematics concepts
and processes (pp. 263–341). New York: Academic Press.
National Research Council. (2001a). Knowing what students know: The science and design of
educational assessment. J. W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds). Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2001b). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Ni, Y. (2001). Semantic domains of rational numbers and the acquisition of fraction equivalence.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 400–417.
Niemi, D. (1996). Instructional influences on content area explanations and representational
knowledge: Evidence for the construct validity of measures of principled understanding (CSE
Technical Report 403). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing, University of California.
Siegler, R., Carpenter, T., Fennell, F., Geary, D., Lewis, J., Okamoto, Y., Thompson, L., & Wray, J.
(2010). Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade: A practice
guide (NCEE #2010-4039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Retrieved
from http:// whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.
Smith, J. P. (1995). Competent reasoning with rational numbers. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 3–50.

90 FRACTIONS: TEACHING FOR UNDERSTANDING