SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3

Investigating the Fraction Concept Image of Multilingual Students

Çok Dilli Öğrencilerde Kesir Kavram İmajının İncelenmesi

Berk Hasar(T.C. MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI)0000-0003-2463-6188
Devrim Üzel(BALIKESIR UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9254-0490
Pages
162–183
Publication Date
2026-10-06
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings indicate that the "part-whole" meaning, the most frequent image used by students to construct fractions, creates an image that hinders and suppresses the development of the ratio and operator meanings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to deeply investigate the fraction concept images of multilingual middle school students educated in different formal instructional languages (English, French, German).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Adopting a phenomenological multiple case study design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven students attending international schools in Belgium.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings indicate that the "part-whole" meaning, the most frequent image used by students to construct fractions, creates an image that hinders and suppresses the development of the ratio and operator meanings.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kavram imajı · kesirlerin farklı anlamları · çok dillilik

Abstract

The aim of this study is to deeply investigate the fraction concept images of multilingual middle school students educated in different formal instructional languages (English, French, German). Adopting a phenomenological multiple case study design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven students attending international schools in Belgium. Data were collected through semi-structured forms, student drawings, and reflective notes, and analyzed using directed content analysis. Findings indicate that the "part-whole" meaning, the most frequent image used by students to construct fractions, creates an image that hinders and suppresses the development of the ratio and operator meanings. Furthermore, while the dynamic "operator" meaning suppressed the static "measure" meaning, students were observed to experience concept image limitations such as the inability to keep the reference whole constant, difficulty taking more parts than the whole, difficulties in equally partitioning polygon/circle models, and procedural and symbolic dependence. Another result reveals that multilingual students' fraction images are shaped not only by these limitations but also by interlingual transition difficulties, fraction reading difficulties and phonetic similarities in their native language. This research offers theoretical and pedagogical implications for mathematics educators by highlighting mathematical concept images, the relationships between different fraction meanings, concept image limitations, and linguistic dynamics in multilingual contexts.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı örgün öğretim dillerinde (İngilizce, Fransızca, Almanca) eğitim gören çok dilli ortaokul öğrencilerinin kesirlere yönelik kavram imajlarını derinlemesine incelemektir. Olgubilimsel çoklu durum çalışması deseninin benimsendiği araştırmada, Belçika'daki uluslararası okullarda öğrenim gören 7 öğrenciyle yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler; yarı yapılandırılmış formlar, öğrenci çizimleri ve yansıtıcı notlar aracılığıyla toplanmış, yönlendirilmiş içerik analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, öğrencilerin kesirleri yapılandırmada kullandıkları en sık imaj olan "parça-bütün" anlamının, oran ve işlemci anlamının gelişimini engelleyen ve baskılayan bir imaj oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, dinamik "işlemci" anlamının statik "ölçü" anlamını baskıladığı görülürken öğrencilerin referans bütünü sabit tutamadıkları, bütünden fazla parça alma zorlukları, çokgen/daire modellerini eş bölme zorlukları, işlemsel ve simgesel bağımlılık gibi kavram imajı sınırlılıkları yaşadıkları görülmüştür. Çalışmanın bir diğer sonucu ise, çok dilli öğrencilerin kesir imajlarının sadece bu sınırlılıklar ile değil; diller arası geçiş zorlukları, kesir okuma zorlukları ve anadildeki fonetik benzeşimler ile de şekillendiğinin ortaya konmasıdır. Araştırma, çok dilli ortamlardaki matematiksel kavram imajlarına, kesrin farklı anlamları arasındaki ilişkiye, kavram imajı sınırlılıklarına ve dilsel dinamiklere dikkat çekerek matematik eğitimcilerine teorik ve pedagojik doğurgular sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Hasar, B., Üzel, D. (2026). Investigating the Fraction Concept Image of Multilingual Students. International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 162–183. https://doi.org/10.17278/ijesim.1941294

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (66)

  1. Abedi, J. ve Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219-234.
  2. Ahl, L. M. ve Helenius, O. (2024). Pedagogical content knowledge in prospective elementary teachers' descriptions of teaching and learning of fractions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2024.2362928
  3. Aktaş, D. G. (2019). Öğretmen ve öğrencilerin kesir ve rasyonel sayı kavram tanımları [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
  4. Atar, C. (2012). Do Turkish bilinguals of English process Turkish predictive conditionals different than Turkish monolinguals? [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Newcastle University.
  5. Baek, J. M., Wickstrom, M. H., Tobias, J. M., Miller, A. L., Safak, E., Wessman-Enzinger, N. ve Kirwan, J. V. (2017). Preservice teachers' pictorial strategies for a multistep multiplicative fraction problem. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 45, 1-14.
  6. Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T. ve Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio and proportion. D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning içinde (ss. 296-333). Macmillan Publishing.
  7. Behr, M. J., Lesh, R., Post, T. ve Silver, E. A. (1983). Rational number concepts. Acquisition of Mathematics Concepts and Processes, 91, 126.
  8. Bingolbali, E. ve Monaghan, J. (2008). Concept image revisited. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9112-2
  9. Bulduk, G. (2024). Kavram tanımı mı yoksa kavram imajı mı?: Matematiksel problem çözme sürecinde öğretmenlerin tercihleri [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi.
  10. Brousseau, G. (2002). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990. Springer Netherlands.
  11. Charalambous, C. Y. ve Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2007). Drawing on a theoretical model to study students’ understandings of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2
  12. Çetin, Y. (2019). İki dilli öğrencilerin matematik dersindeki öğrenme güçlüklerinin incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Marmara Üniversitesi.
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  14. Dare, E. A., Ellis, J. A. ve Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z
  15. Delice, A. ve Sür, B. (2015). Two faced mathematical words / İkiyüzlü matematiksel kelimeler. Journal of Human Sciences, 12(1), 831-850.
  16. DeWolf, M., Bassok, M. ve Holyoak, K. J. (2015). Conceptual structure and the procedural affordances of rational numbers: Relational reasoning with fractions and decimals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000034
  17. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking içinde (ss. 95-126). Springer Netherlands.
  18. Edwards, B. S. ve Ward, M. B. (2004). Surprises from mathematics education research: Student (mis)use of mathematical definitions. The American Mathematical Monthly, 111(5), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.2307/4145268
  19. Empson, S. B. (1999). Equal sharing and shared meaning: The development of fraction concepts in a first-grade classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 283-342.
  20. Esersin, S. (2024). 36-79 aylar arasında tipik ve atipik dil gelişimi gösteren Türkçe-Almanca iki dilli çocukların anlatı becerilerinin makro yapısal düzeyde incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  21. Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. A. E. Kelly ve R. A. Lesh (Ed.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education içinde (ss. 517-545). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  22. Goldin, G. A. ve Kaput, J. J. (2013). A joint perspective on the idea of representation in learning and doing mathematics. Theories of mathematical learning içinde (ss. 397-430). Routledge.
  23. Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0102_4
  24. Gunderson, E. A., Hamdan, N., Hildebrand, L. ve Bartek, V. (2019). Number line unidimensionality is a critical feature for promoting fraction magnitude concepts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 187, 104657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.06.010
  25. Hackenberg, A. J. (2007). Units coordination and the construction of improper fractions: A revision of the splitting hypothesis. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 27-47.
  26. Hurst, M. A. ve Cordes, S. (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
  27. Jäder, J. ve Johansson, H. (2025). Exploring students’ conceptual understanding through mathematical problem solving: students’ use of and shift between different representations of rational numbers. Research in Mathematics Education, 1-18.
  28. Kerslake, D. (1986). Fractions: Children's strategies and errors. A report of the strategies and errors in secondary mathematics project. NFER-NELSON Publishing Company.
  29. Kieren, T. E. (1976). On the mathematical, cognitive and instructional. Number and measurement: Papers from a research workshop içinde (s. 101). ERIC.
  30. Lee, J. E. ve Lee, M. Y. (2023). How elementary prospective teachers use three fraction models: Their perceptions and difficulties. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 26(4), 455-480.
  31. Leron, U. ve Hazzan, O. (2006). The rationality debate: Application of cognitive psychology to mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2), 105-126.
  32. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
  33. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255-276.
  34. Lortie-Forgues, H., Tian, J., & Siegler, R. S. (2015). Why is learning fraction and decimal arithmetic so difficult?. Developmental review, 38, 201-221.
  35. Macit, E. (2019). 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin kesirler konusundaki imajlarının kavram yanılgıları ve başarıları ile ilişkisinin incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. İnönü Üniversitesi.
  36. Mack, N. K. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/749454
  37. MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. J. F. Kroll ve A. M. B. de Groot (Ed.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches içinde (ss. 49-67). Oxford University Press.
  38. Martiniello, M. (2008). Language and the performance of English-language learners in math word problems. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 333-368.
  39. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
  40. Mısral, M. (2009). Kesrin farklı anlamlarına göre yapılan öğretimin ilköğretim altıncı sınıf öğrencilerinin kesirlerde toplama çıkarma ve çarpma işlemlerinde kavramsal ve işlemsel bilgi düzeylerine etkisi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Selçuk Üniversitesi.
  41. Miura, I. T., Okamoto, Y., Vlahovic-Stetic, V., Kim, C. C. ve Han, J. H. (1999). Language supports for children's understanding of numerical fractions: Cross-national comparisons. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74(4), 356-365.
  42. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications.
  43. Ni, Y. ve Zhou, Y. D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40, 27-52. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3
  44. Norton, A. ve Wilkins, J. L. M. (2009). A quantitative analysis of children's splitting operations and fraction schemes. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2-3), 150-161.
  45. Novita, R., Putra, M., Usman, ve Junita, S. (2025). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in students’ fraction division thinking: Insights from a hermeneutic phenomenological study. Journal on Mathematics Education, 16(4), 1233–1256. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v16i4.pp1233-1256
  46. Okumuş, S. ve Zeybek Şimşek, Z. (2021). Prospective mathematics teachers' use of linguistic signifiers in the context of angles formed by two lines cut by a transversal. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 63, 100890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100890
  47. Özdemir, U. (2021). Tek dilli ve iki dilli olan Türk çocuklarının çalışma belleği performanslarının karşılaştırılması [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  48. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  49. Pitkethly, A. ve Hunting, R. (1996). A review of recent research in the area of initial fraction concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(1), 5-38.
  50. Reeder, S. ve Utley, J. (2017). What is a fraction? Developing fraction understanding in prospective elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 117(7-8), 308-316.
  51. Resnick, L. B., Nesher, P., Leonard, F., Magone, M., Omanson, S. ve Peled, I. (1989). Conceptual bases of arithmetic errors: The case of decimal fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/749095
  52. Schadl, C. ve Lindmeier, A. (2025). Searching for efficient and informative instruments to digitally monitor fraction learning: Putting tests for fraction subconstruct knowledge and informal fraction knowledge on the test bench. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1367942. Frontiers Media SA.
  53. Skemp, R. R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. The Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3), 9-15.
  54. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1-36.
  55. Shehadeh, A. (2004). [Book review of the book Effects of the second language on the first, by V. Cook, Ed.]. System, 32, 1-4.
  56. Stafylidou, S. ve Vosniadou, S. (2004). The development of students’ understanding of the numerical value of fractions. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 503-518.
  57. Steffe, L. P. (2002). A new hypothesis concerning children's fractional knowledge. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(3), 267-307.
  58. Sweeney, T. P. ve Zorotovich, J. (2023). Examining the role of leisure in navigating spousal death: A phenomenological multi-case study of widowhood. Journal of Ageing and Longevity, 3(4), 483-493.
  59. Tall, D. ve Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305619
  60. Toluk, Z. (2002). İlkokul öğrencilerinin bölme işlemi ve rasyonel sayıları ilişkilendirme süreçleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 27(126), 44-52.
  61. Vig, R., Murray, E. ve Star, J. R. (2014). Model breaking points conceptualized. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9254-6
  62. Vinner, S. (1983). Concept definition, concept image and the notion of function. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 14(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739830140305
  63. Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning of mathematics. D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking içinde (ss. 65-81). Springer Netherlands.
  64. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X. ve Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change içinde (ss. 3-34). Routledge.
  65. Yebrem, S. (2020). Matematik terimlerinin semantik ve sentaks açıdan incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  66. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.