Misconceptions in Measurement and Geometry and How to address them
Introduction
Mathematics is one thing that has been in use for many years. The early people used mathematics to communicate on various aspects of their life. They used various ways so as to attain out their mathematical needs. Mathematics developed and concepts such as measurement and geometry were developed (Confrey, 2007). Over time, learners have handled these concepts with various misconceptions. The misconceptions have been able to make things hard for the learners. However, this is not the end of learning measurement and geometry. There are several strategies that can be used to assist learners in understanding these concepts better and with ease.
Misconceptions in measurement and geometry
One of the main misconception in geometry is that all two dimensional figures have the same type of properties. This misconception has been giving students a hard time when trying to come up with the correct understanding or answers when it comes to geometry. This misconception goes against the general understanding that there different two dimensional figures have varied properties. This means that students should be able to group the figures into categories guided by the properties there in. This should be done by bearing in mind that all the properties belonging to a given category are also found in the related subcategories. It is worth noting that the categorization of the two dimensional figures should be done in a specific hierarchy depending on the properties (Thompson & Preston, 2004).
The second misconception regarding geometry that students have is that two dimensional figures are similar. Most students fail to get the aspect of these figures regarding how their similarity occurs. The learners fail to understand that two dimensional figures become similar depending on the level of rotations, reflections, translations and dilations. The students should be able to analyze the level involved so as to come up with the best decision regarding similarity.
Strategies to address the misconceptions
One of the things that need to be done is introducing students to things such as estimation and approximation (Schmidt, Houang & Cogan, 2002). These have been identified to be some of the most efficient tools in making mathematical education. They have been able to bring about a high level of competency in the field. The learners should be taught on the best way to come up with the best estimates in any mathematical problem.
According to Kennelly and Monrad (2007), to deal with the underlying misconceptions regarding measurement and geometry, students should be encouraged to make communication regarding how they make their mathematic decisions. This will be able to help the students get corrections and practice regarding these concepts. It will form a good forum for sharing and making the concepts sink in the minds of the learners. This will also help the educators in monitoring the extent to which the concepts have been understood for further guidance if needed.
Conclusion
It is important for all educators to ensure that learners perform well in mathematics. This calls for action to ensure that the learning process is made smooth for the learners. All concepts should be analyzed for identification of the underlying misconceptions. This will give an opportunity for educators to come up with proper solutions. The educators should be able to come up with working strategies so as to make the students have easy time learning (Ginsburg & Leinwand, 2009). The strategies should be developed depending on the analysis carried out on the existing misconceptions regarding measurement and geometry.
References
Confrey, J. (2007). Tracing the evolution of mathematics content standards in the United States: Looking Back and Projecting Forward toward National Standards.” Paper presented at the Conference on K–12 Mathematics Curriculum Standards, Arlington.
Ginsburg, A., & Leinwand, S. (2009). Informing Grades 1-6 Mathematics Standards Development: What Can BeLearned From High-Performing Hong Kong, Korea and Singapore? Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Kennelly, L., & Monrad, M. (Eds). (2007). Easing the Transition to High School: Research and Best Practices Designed to Support High School Learning. Washington, DC: National High School Center at the American Institutes for Research.
Schmidt, B., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26(2), 1-18.
Thompson, T. D., & Preston, R. V. (2004). Measurement in the middle grades: Insights from NAEP and TIMMS. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9, 514-519.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]