Percents are not natural numbers

Abstract

Adults are prone to treating percents, one representational format of rational numbers, as novel cases of natural number. This suggests that percent values are not differentiated from natural numbers; a conceptual shift from the natural numbers to the rational numbers has not yet occurred. This is most surprising, considering people are inundated with rational numbers all around them, from the “% Daily Values” on nutrition labels to sales and discounts in stores to the constant ups and downs of gas prices. From an early age, humans have a rather robust concept of natural number, but this earlier knowledge seems to act as a barrier to future learning of rational number. While participants performed better on one-statement problems with a single percent, they ignored the principles of rational number when presented with two-statement percent problems. For example, using rational numbers involves dropping the successor principle, a principle that applies to the natural numbers. Problems presented algebraically gave participants great difficulty, though performance improved when subjects were able to replace the variable y with a natural number. When using a numerical hint, participants still did not improve their performance on algebra problems in posttest. Error analyses revealed a strong tendency for students to interpret the problems as novel examples of natural number problems. This research discusses the failure to understand percents in light of overuse or failure to apply the natural number successor principle, division, false cognates, and the absence of knowledge that relates multiple rational number representations to a common underlying knowledge structure. The amount of previous math experience is also correlated with the ease of moving between natural number and rational number concepts.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,283

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Frege meets dedekind: A neologicist treatment of real analysis.Stewart Shapiro - 2000 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 41 (4):335--364.
Reference to numbers in natural language.Friederike Moltmann - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (3):499 - 536.
From numerical concepts to concepts of number.Lance J. Rips, Amber Bloomfield & Jennifer Asmuth - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (6):623-642.
What is a natural number?Noel Balzer - 1988 - Journal of Value Inquiry 22 (2):103-113.
Why cardinalities are the “natural” natural numbers.Mathieu Le Corre - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (6):659-659.
Counting and the natural numbers.Jeffrey F. Sicha - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (3):405-416.
What are numbers?Zvonimir Šikić - 1996 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (2):159-171.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-12-05

Downloads
20 (#771,402)

6 months
5 (#648,432)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references