Research on rational numbers suggests that adults experience more difficulties in understanding the numerical magnitude of rational than natural numbers. Within rational numbers, the numerical magnitude of fractions has been found to be more difficult to understand than that of decimals. Using a number line estimation (NLE) task, the current study investigated two sources of difficulty in adults’ numerical magnitude understanding: number type (natural vs rational) and structure of the notation system (place-value-based vs non-place-value-based). This within-subjects design led to four conditions: natural numbers (natural/place-value-based), decimals (rational/place-value-based), fractions (rational/non-place-value-based), and separated fractions (natural/non-place-value-based). In addition to percentage absolute error (PAE) and response times, we collected eye-tracking data. Results showed that participants estimated natural and place-value-based notations more accurately than rational and non-place-value-based notations, respectively. Participants were also slower to respond to fractions compared with the three other notations. Consistent with the response time data, eye-tracking data showed that participants spent more time encoding fractions and re-visited them more often than the other notations. Moreover, in general, participants spent more time positioning non-place-value-based than place-value-based notations on the number line. Overall, the present study contends that when both sources of difficulty are present in a notation (i.e., both rational and non-place-value-based), adults understand its numerical magnitude less well than when there is only one source of difficulty present (i.e., either rational or non-place-value-based). When no sources of difficulty are present in a notation (i.e., both natural and place-value-based), adults have the strongest understanding of its numerical magnitude.
AshcraftM. H.MooreA. M. (2012). Cognitive processes of numerical estimation in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(2), 246–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.005
2.
BinzakJ. V.HubbardE. M. (2020). No calculation necessary: Accessing magnitude through decimals and fractions. Cognition, 199, Article 104219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104219
3.
DeWolfM.BassokM.HolyoakK. J. (2015). From rational numbers to algebra: Separable contributions of decimal magnitude and relational understanding of fractions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 133, 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.013
4.
DeWolfM.GroundsM. A.BassokM.HolyoakK. J. (2014). Magnitude comparison with different types of rational numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032916
5.
DeWolfM.VosniadouS. (2011). The whole number bias in fraction magnitude comparisons with adults. In CarlsonL.HoelscherC.ShipleyT. F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1751–1756). Cognitive Science Society.
6.
Di LonardoS. M.HuebnerM. G.NewmanK.LeFevreJ.-A. (2019). Fixated in unfamiliar territory: Mapping estimates across typical and atypical number lines. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819881631
7.
FusonK. C. (1990). Issues in place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction learning and teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.2307/749525
8.
HeineA.ThalerV.TammS.HawelkaS.SchneiderM.TorbeynsJ.. . . JacobsA. M. (2010). What the eyes already ‘know’: Using eye movement measurement to tap into children’s implicit numerical magnitude representations. Infant and Child Development, 19, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.640
9.
HowittD.CramerD. (2008). Introduction to statistics in psychology (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
10.
HuberS.KleinE.WillmesK.NuerkH-C.MoellerK. (2014). Decimal fraction representations are not distinct from natural number representations - evidence from a combined eye-tracking and computational modeling approach. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 172. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00172
HuberS.NuerkH. C.WillmesK.MoellerK. (2016). A general model framework for multisymbol number comparison. Psychological Review, 123(6), 667–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000040
13.
HurstM.CordesS. (2016). Rational-number comparison across notation: Fractions, decimals, and whole numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000140
14.
HurstM. A.CordesS. (2018). Children’s understanding of fraction and decimal symbols and the notation-specific relation to pre-algebra ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 168, 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.003
15.
HurstM.MonahanK. L.HellerE.CordesS. (2014). 123s and ABCs: Developmental shifts in logarithmic-to-linear responding reflect fluency with sequence values. Developmental Science, 17(6), 892–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12165
16.
IuculanoT.ButterworthB. (2011). Understanding the real value of fractions and decimals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(11), 2088–2098. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.604785
17.
LaskiE. V.SchiffmanJ.ShenC.VasilyevaM. (2016). Kindergartners’ base-10 knowledge predicts arithmetic accuracy concurrently and longitudinally. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.004
18.
LeFevreJ.-A.Jimenez LiraC.SowinskiC.CankayaO.KamawarD.SkwarchukS. L. (2013). Charting the role of the number line in mathematical development. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 641. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00641
19.
LiuF. (2017). Mental representation of fractions: It all depends on whether they are common or uncommon. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(9), 1873–1886. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1366532
20.
LuwelK.PeetersD.DierckxG.SekerisE.VerschaffelL. (2018). Benchmark-based strategy use in atypical number lines. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale, 72(4), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000153
21.
MacKayK. J.GermeysF.Van DoorenW.VerschaffelL.LuwelK. (2020). Comparing eye fixation and mouse cursor response modes in number line estimation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32(8), 827–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1817039
22.
MatthewsP. G.ChesneyD. L. (2015). Fractions as percepts? Exploring cross-format distance effects for fractions magnitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 28–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.01.006
23.
MiuraI. T.OkamotoY.KimC. C.ChangC. M.SteereM.FayolM. (1994). Comparisons of children’s cognitive representation of number: China, France, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17(3), 401–411.
24.
MoellerK.PixnerS.ZuberJ.KaufmannL.NuerkH. C. (2011). Early place—value understanding as a precursor for later arithmetic performance—A longitudinal study on numerical development. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(5), 1837–1851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.03.012
25.
MoralesN.DartnellP.GómezD. M. (2020). A study on congruency effects and numerical distance in fraction comparison by expert undergraduate students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1190. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01190
26.
NgS. S.RaoN. (2010). Chinese number words, culture, and mathematics learning. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364764
27.
NiY.ZhouY.-D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3
28.
ObersteinerA.Van DoorenW.Van HoofJ.VerschaffelL. (2013). The natural number bias and magnitude representation in fraction comparison by expert mathematicians. Learning and Instruction, 28, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.003
29.
PeetersD.VerschaffelL.LuwelK. (2017). Benchmark-based strategies in whole number line estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 108(4), 668–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12233
30.
ResnickI.RinneL.BarbieriC.JordanN. C. (2019). Children’s reasoning about decimals and its relation to fraction learning and mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(4), 604–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000309
31.
SchneiderM.HeineA.ThalerV.TorbeynsJ.De SmedtB.VerschaffelL.. . .SternE. (2008). A validation of eye movements as a measure of elementary school children’s developing number sense. Cognitive Development, 23(3), 424–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.07.002
32.
SieglerR. S. (2016). Magnitude knowledge: The common core of numerical development. Developmental Science, 19(3), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12395
33.
SieglerR.S.OpferJ.E. The development of numerical estimation: Evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychological Science, 14(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02438
34.
SieglerR. S.ThompsonC. A. (2014). Numerical landmarks are useful—Except when they’re not. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 120, 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.014
35.
SieglerR. S.ThompsonC. A.SchneiderM. (2011). An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology, 62(4), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.001
36.
StevensonH. W.LeeS. Y.ChenC. S.LummisM.StiglerJ.FanL.GeF. (1990). Mathematics achievement of children in china and the united states. Child Development, 61(4), 1053–1066.
37.
StevensonH. W.LeeS.StiglerJ. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science, 231(4739), 693–699.
ThomasM.MorwitzV. (2009). Heuristics in numerical cognition: Implications for pricing. In RaoV. R. (Ed.), Handbook of pricing research in marketing (pp. 132–149). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848447448.00015
40.
TianJ.SieglerR. S. (2018). Which type of rational numbers should students learn first?Educational Psychology Review, 30, 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9417-3
41.
VamvakoussiX.Van DoorenW.VerschaffelL. (2012). Naturally biased? In search for reaction time evidence for a natural number bias in adults. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.02.001
42.
Van HoofJ.DegrandeT.CeulemansE.VerschaffelL.Van DoorenW. (2018). Towards a mathematically more correct understanding of rational numbers: A longitudinal study with upper elementary school learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.010
43.
Van HoofJ.VamvakoussiX.Van DoorenW.VerschaffelL. (2017). The transition from natural to rational number knowledge. In GearyD.BerchD. B.OchsendorfR.Mann KoepkeK. (Eds.), Acquisition of complex arithmetic skills and higher-order mathematics concepts (pp. 101–123). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805086-6.00005-9
44.
van’t NoordendeJ. E.van HoogmoedA. H.SchotW. D.KroesbergenE. H. (2016). Number line estimation strategies in children with mathematical learning difficulties measured by eye tracking. Psychological Research, 80(3), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0736-z
45.
VarmaS.KarlS. R. (2013). Understanding decimal proportions: Discrete representations, parallel access, and privileged processing of zero. Cognitive Psychology, 66(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.01.002
46.
WangY. Q.SieglerR. S. (2013). Representations of and translation between common fractions and decimal fractions. Chinese Science Bulletin, 58(36), 4630–4640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-013-6035-4
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
