In the usual order of presentation of fractions, the concept of ratios is left until the upper primary years. I am not sure that approach is wise.

I have noticed that a fair proportion of those learning fractions (even at 11 years old) if asked to write the fraction shown by [X X X X X O O O] (really by a corresponding set of black / white circles, an image which I am too lazy to insert here) will write either 3/8 or 3/5.

A computer would mark both of these as incorrect.

Many teachers explain to the class that they expect students to count the coloured circles as the fractional part, and accept the 3/8 at least once, but mark the 3/5 as wrong. Few explain that the student has seen the ratio relationship – in the time constraints of class they say just that it is not the fraction. The unintended lesson hits – the ratio-perceivers’ perception is flawed, they do not “see” maths.

Consider a different approach: ask the class to “write the* fractions *shown by the image”. Touch on the darkened ones *traditionally *being the fraction numerator, and thus *the one they should use for teachers*. Welcome the 3/5, or 5/3,and explain that the student has noticed the ratio relationship – but that it should be written as 3:5, not 3/5 (we *traditionally *write the smaller first.) By using the vinculum we are saying that the bottom represents one set divided into that many parts and the top shows how many of these parts are in the subset we are examining, whereas the ratio (:) form says that the colon-separated sides add to make the whole. (This format allows for cooking ratios such as 1:1:2, basic biscuit and cake weights of butter / sugar/ flour.)

Aside: a topic for another time – like the technical terms “phone” ,”phoneme”, and “morpheme”, does the term “subset” belong in class before upper – primary?

Ask the class whether they want to investigate ratios as well as fractions, even if they are not on the curriculum for the year (a conspiracy of learning [1]).

What can this mean to the students? The non-standard forms are seen as mathematically sound, but not the *traditional *(and thus *preferred*) form – just a matter of presentation, and thus not a big error. The ratio perceivers have opened up an option for the class to explore – their perception is affirmed as being of an important mathematical relationship, though it is not the fractional one. They just have to learn which label we use for which relationship – again, a matter of presentation – and they can go home saying “I saw ratios, and most of the others hadn’t noticed them!” . Isn’t that better than “I suck at Maths!”?

In addition, there is the opportunity to re-emphasise that the key to fractions is that they are the relation of a current subset to the theoretical unit set, related by division of the unit set (into the number of parts shown in the denominator) and multiplication of the unit fraction by the numerator. This is a difficult concept, but can be examined using the excellent physical approach to fractions reported by Doug Clarke [2], explicitly forming fractions by sharing (i.e. division and multiplication). This is the key to grasping equivalent fractions rather than “doing the sums” without understanding.

Aside: this links to the concept of fractions as pure numbers (How big is a quarter? How big is one? One what? 1/4 cup is larger than 1/2 teaspoon.) Eventually, it also links to the concept of percentages as special fractions where the unit set is divided into a hundred parts, so we can have fractions or decimals as numerators. The excellent and widely used First Steps in Mathematics/Number [3], says that percentages are special ratios – and indeed, being a subset of the special ratios called “fractions”, they are – but I think it makes more sense to link them in the first place to the immediate superordinate set.

1. Louden, W, Rohl, M, & Hopkins, S. (2008). *Teaching For Growth: Effective teaching of literacy and numeracy*. Department of Education and Training, Western Australia http://www.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/615686/TFG_Final_Report.pdf.

2. Clarke, D. Fractions as division: The forgotten notion? * Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom* 11 (3) 2006

3. Willis,S., Jacob,L., Powell,B., Tomazos,D. & Treacy,K. (2004).

*“First Steps in Mathematics: Number – understand whole and decimal numbers, understand fractional numbers.”* Port Melbourne, Victoria: Rigby / Harcourt Education, 2004

## Pot, this is kettle… Sunday Times (W.A.) provides resource for English teachers. (3)

April 4, 2016Sometimes I do tell the Sunday Times of the writing I have found annoying. An example:

The Editor

The Sunday Times

C/- letters@pst.newsltd.com.au

In your B+S supplement (and, too often, the abbreviation letters are appropriate) of 03 April 2016 page 3, one of the suggestions for a healthier life is “Swap this… book for iPad.”

Reading on, one learns that sleep quality is likely to be better if one reads a paper text rather than reading on a tablet. In Standard Australian English, if I swap this for that, I dispose of this and receive that; if I substitute this for that I use this rather than that. Your paper often uses these incorrectly. In this case, the heading should have read “Swap this … iPad for book.”

This is one of a string of errors and malapropisms which have made your newspaper a valuable teaching resource. I believe that, in your efforts to cut costs, you have outsourced editing to people who are not truly familiar with English. My occasional telephone complaints have been brushed off with “You know what we meant,” and my written corrections have not changed your performance. This shows the general public that “You know what I mean!” is a valid response to criticism of one’s English usage. So why should students bother to learn correct usage?

Although I appreciate the chance to let primary school children correct adults’ published texts – ego-boosting editing practice – I think it is time you spent the money to employ literate editors. THEN you could complain about the quality of teaching in Australia.

Tags:journalism, literary criticism, Primary schooling, teachers, Unintended lessons

Posted in comments on media, Education | Leave a Comment »