The mental representations of fractions: adults' same-different judgments

Non-symbolic and symbolic number and the approximate number system

The distinction between non-symbolic and symbolic number is poorly addressed by the authors despite being relevant in numerical cognition, and even more important in light of the proposal that the approximate number system (ANS) represents rational numbers. Although evidence on non-symbolic number and ratios fits with ANS representations, the case for symbolic number and rational numbers is still open.

A Study on Congruency Effects and Numerical Distance in Fraction Comparison by Expert Undergraduate Students

School mathematics comprises a diversity of concepts whose cognitive complexity is still poorly understood, a chief example being fractions. These are typically taught in middle school, but many students fail to master them, and misconceptions frequently persist into adulthood. In this study, we investigate fraction comparison, a task that taps into both conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions, by looking at performance of highly mathematically skilled young adults. Fifty-seven Chilean engineering undergraduate students answered a computerized fraction comparison task, while their answers and response times were recorded. Task items were selected according to a number of mathematically and/or cognitively relevant characteristics: (a) whether the fractions to be compared shared a common component, (b) the numerical distance between fractions, and (c) the applicability of two strategies to answer successfully: a congruency strategy (a fraction is larger if it has larger natural number components than another) and gap thinking (a fraction is larger if it is missing fewer pieces than another to complete the whole). In line with previous research, our data indicated that the congruency strategy is inadequate to describe participants’ performance, as congruent items turned out to be more difficult than incongruent ones when fractions had no common component. Although we hypothesized that this lower performance for congruent items would be explained by the use of gap thinking, this turned out not to be the case: evidence was insufficient to show that the applicability of the gap thinking strategy modulated either participants’ accuracy rates or response times (although individual-level data suggest that there is an effect for response times). When fractions shared a common component, instead, our data display a more complex pattern that expected: an advantage for congruent items is present in the first experimental block but fades as the experiment progresses. Numerical distance had an effect in fraction comparison that was statistically significant for items without common components only. Altogether, our results from experts’ reasoning reveal nuances in the fraction comparison task with respect to previous studies and contribute to future models of reasoning in this task.

Eye movements reflect and shape strategies in fraction comparison

The comparison of fractions is a difficult task that can often be facilitated by separately comparing components (numerators and denominators) of the fractions—that is, by applying so-called component-based strategies. The usefulness of such strategies depends on the type of fraction pair to be compared. We investigated the temporal organization and the flexibility of strategy deployment in fraction comparison by evaluating sequences of eye movements in 20 young adults. We found that component-based strategies could account for the response times and the overall number of fixations observed for the different fraction pairs. The analysis of eye movement sequences showed that the initial eye movements in a trial were characterized by stereotypical scanning patterns indicative of an exploratory phase that served to establish the kind of fraction pair presented. Eye movements that followed this phase adapted to the particular type of fraction pair and indicated the deployment of specific comparison strategies. These results demonstrate that participants employ eye movements systematically to support strategy use in fraction comparison. Participants showed a remarkable flexibility to adapt to the most efficient strategy on a trial-by-trial basis. Our results confirm the value of eye movement measurements in the exploration of strategic adaptation in complex tasks.

Common magnitude representation of fractions and decimals is task dependent

Although several studies have compared the representation of fractions and decimals, no study has investigated whether fractions and decimals, as two types of rational numbers, share a common representation of magnitude. The current study aimed to answer the question of whether fractions and decimals share a common representation of magnitude and whether the answer is influenced by task paradigms. We included two different number pairs, which were presented sequentially: fraction-decimal mixed pairs and decimal-fraction mixed pairs in all four experiments. Results showed that when the mixed pairs were very close numerically with the distance 0.1 or 0.3, there was a significant distance effect in the comparison task but not in the matching task. However, when the mixed pairs were further apart numerically with the distance 0.3 or 1.3, the distance effect appeared in the matching task regardless of the specific stimuli. We conclude that magnitudes of fractions and decimals can be represented in a common manner, but how they are represented is dependent on the given task. Fractions and decimals could be translated into a common representation of magnitude in the numerical comparison task. In the numerical matching task, fractions and decimals also shared a common representation. However, both of them were represented coarsely, leading to a weak distance effect. Specifically, fractions and decimals produced a significant distance effect only when the numerical distance was larger.