Systematic Errors in Arithmetic of the teacher’s expected correct response.
Errors may be due to the
Some College Students36
Joel R. Noche
Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
Abstract
Knowledge of students’ systematic errors can improve
instruction and assessment. In this study, a basic number
skills test created by Somerset was administered to 125
college students in four intact sections during the first day of
their basic algebra class. The test contains mostly supply-
item questions involving: arithmetic on positive integers,
decimals, and fractions; conversions from fractions to
decimals; estimation of metric quantities; and number
problems presented verbally with a context. The results of
the test are summarized and the most common systematic
errors are identified.
Introduction
[F]rom the preschool years onward, children learn abstract
mathematical concepts and principles, as well as procedures and
facts. Fairly often, however, they either fail to grasp the concepts
and principles that underlie procedures or they grasp relevant
concepts and principles but cannot connect them to the procedures.
Either way, children who lack such understanding frequently
generate flawed procedures that generate systematic patterns of
errors. Depending on how one looks at it, these systematic errors
can be seen as either a problem or an opportunity. They are a
problem in that they indicate that children do not know what we
have tried to teach them. On the other hand, they are an
opportunity, in that their systematic quality points to the source of
the problem, and thus indicates the specific misunderstanding that
needs to be overcome. (Siegler, 2003, p. 221)
We first define some terms commonly used in the
mathematics education literature. In this study, if a teacher gives a
learner a task to perform, we assume that there is only one expected
correct response.37 An error is a learner’s response that differs from
36
Presented at the 2009 Bicol Mathematics Conference held at the Ateneo de
Naga University
37
More precisely, there is a known set of equivalent correct responses.
74 KAMAWOTAN vol. 3, nos. 1–2, May 2009
learner (not using a correct procedure, not having the correct
concepts, not understanding the task, and so on) or the teacher. In
this study, we focus on systematic errors—errors resulting from the
learner’s use of an incorrect procedure—in written arithmetic tasks
done without using notes or calculators.38
For example, let the task be answering the question “What is
19 ÷ 2 equal to?” The correct response is “9.5” (or “9 ½,” or “9 with
a remainder of 1,” and so on). Responses like “9.1,” “95,” “17,” “8,”
“1,” “quotient,” and no response are errors. We may consider the first
three of these as systematic errors; they can be explained as results of
incorrect procedures (using the decimal point to represent the word
remainder, misplacing the decimal point, using an incorrect
operation).
The fourth error (“8”) does not seem to be due to an incorrect
procedure. It seems to be an error in recalling a basic number fact.
(The learner has probably incorrectly recalled “18 ÷ 2 = 9”.) Errors
such as this are sometimes called “careless” (Somerset, 2002, p. 23)
or “unintentional mistakes” (VanLehn, 1986, p. 134). Somerset
(2002, p. 23) calls them calculation errors.
The fifth error (“1”) does not seem to be a systematic error or
a calculation error. Errors such as this (like the last two errors in the
list) are called basic errors (Somerset. 2002, p. 23).
There have been many studies on arithmetic systematic errors
(see, for example, the references cited in Riccomini (2005), VanLehn
(1986), and VanLehn (1990)). Of special interest to us is Somerset’s
(2002) survey of high school students in the Central Visayas Region
of the Philippines. A sample of 567 students (360 second year and
207 fourth year) from fifteen high schools (eleven regular public
schools, three private schools, and one science-augmented high
school) was obtained using random list sampling. Of the four
diagnostic tests given, we concern ourselves here only with the basic
number skills test.
The test contains mostly supply-item questions involving:
arithmetic on positive integers, decimals, and fractions; conversions
38
Some researchers use the term bug to indicate a small change to a correct
procedure (for example, VanLehn (1986, p. 134)). Thus, a systematic error
is the result of a correct procedure with one or more bugs.
College of Arts and Sciences, Ateneo de Naga University 75
from fractions to decimals; estimation of metric quantities; and Figure 1.. Percentage of correct responses for each question for the four
number problems presented verbally with a context. Somerset sections in this study
analyzed the responses for each question and classified them into as
many as ten groups—correct response, calculation error, no response,
other basic errors, and different kinds of systematic errors.
We administered Somerset’s test to some college students
(mostly freshmen) in one university in the Bicol Region of the
Philippines. We analyze the results and identify the most common
systematic errors.
Methodology
This study involved a convenience sample of four sections of
basic algebra taught by the researcher during the first semester of
school year 2008–2009. Section A had 39 respondents, section B had
31, section D had 27, and section N had 28. To assure the subjects
that the test was diagnostic in nature and that their performance on it
would not affect their grades in the course, age and gender were the
only personal information requested on the test instrument. The
subjects’ ages ranged from 15 to 34 years old, with a mean of 16.9.
(A majority were first-year students.) Of the 125 subjects, 59 were
males.
The test Somerset actually used in his study included two
selection-item questions (the occupations of the father and the mother
of the subject) that we did not include in the test for the present study.
Our test (see the Appendix) was given during the first day of class
and the participants were given the whole class period (one and a half
hours) to complete it. The actual instrument was printed back-to-back
on one 8.5” × 13” sheet of paper, with spaces in between the
questions where the participants were to show their solutions.
Participants were told not to use notes or calculators during the test.
The researcher classified the responses for each question
using the response coding scheme provided by Somerset (2002,
Annex B). In cases where a response fell into more than one category
(for example, the response included calculation and systematic
errors), it was classified under the error that occurred first.39 (This is
consistent with Somerset’s coding procedure (Somerset, 2002, pp. 25,
33).)

39
Admittedly, the coding is sometimes subjective.
76 KAMAWOTAN vol. 3, nos. 1–2, May 2009 College of Arts and Sciences, Ateneo de Naga University 77
Figure 2.. Percentage of correct responses for each question for all the Results
students in this study, the fourth-year
year high school students in Somerset’s
study, and the second-year
year high school students in Somerset’s study A few highlights of the results are presented here.40 Figure 1
shows the percentage of correct responses for each question for the
four sections in this study. Note that the percentages differ
significantly for questions 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, and 4c, effectively
creating two subgroups, with sections A and D outperforming
sections B and N.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of correct responses for each
question for all the students in this study, the fourth-year high school
students in Somerset’s study, and the second-year high school
students in Somerset’s study. (Somerset (2002) provides no data for
the responses to question 7b.) In general, the first-year college
students in this study performed better than the fourth-year high
school students in Somerset’s study, and the latter outperformed the
second-year high school students. For all three groups, the three
lowest percentages are for questions 5c, 5h, and 11b.
For the mechanical arithmetic on positive integers and
decimals part of the test (questions 1a to 1f), the three most common
errors were for questions 1g, 1e, and 1i. For the question “812 ÷ 4 =,”
44 students (35.2%) gave the response “23,” a split-dividend error.
(The students split the dividend 812 into two numbers, 8 and 12, and
carried out division on each term separately (Somerset, 2002, p. 26).)
For the question “47.1 − 0.65 =,” 40 students (32%) gave the
response “46.55.” Somerset (2002, p. 71) classifies this as a
calculation error, although Standiford, Klein, and Tatsuoka (1982)
classify this as a bug. (The student “‘brings down’ numbers in the
subtrahend if there are no corresponding digits in the minuend. This
may be a carry over from addition thinking that there is ‘nothing to
do.’” (Standiford, et al., 1982, p. 4))
For the question “2.05 × 0.52 =,” 24 students (19.2%) gave a
response with the correct digits but with the decimal point misplaced
(for example, “106.6”).
For mechanical arithmetic on fractions (questions 2a to 2c),
the three most common errors were for questions 2b and 2c. For the
question “2/5 + 1/4 =,” 33 students (26.4%) gave the response “3/9”

40
Interested readers may contact the author (jrnoche@adnu.edu.ph) for
complete details.
78 KAMAWOTAN vol. 3, nos. 1–2, May 2009 College of Arts and Sciences, Ateneo de Naga University 79
(or “1/3”), ignoring the fraction line and adding the numerators and
the denominators as if they were separate whole numbers (Somerset,
2002, p. 28).
For the question “2/5 × 1/4 =,” 29 students (23.2%) gave the
response “8/5” (or “5/8”) by “cross-multiplying” (or by inverting the
second term, then multiplying) while 11 students (8.8%) gave the
response “3/20” (or “13/20”) by calculating the least common
denominator, then adding the numerators without (or with)
conversion.
For decimals on a number line (questions 3a to 3d), a rather
large percentage of the responses were basic errors (16% for 3a,
16.8% for 3b, 23.2% for 3c, and 27.2% for 3d). For question 3b, 27
students (21.6%) gave the response “5.2,” counting single decimal
units for every tick mark from the left. For question 3c, 27 students
(21.6%) gave a response that was correct except for the second
decimal digit (“0.9,” “0.99,” or “0.09”).
For conversion from fractions to decimals (questions 4a to
4c), a large percentage had no response (14.4% for 4a, 14.4% for 4b,
and 18.4% for 4c). For the question “Convert 2/100 to a decimal,” 27
students (21.6%) gave a response with the correct digits but with the
decimal point misplaced (for example, “00.2”). For the question
“Convert 4/5 to a decimal,” 12% of the responses were basic errors.
Many participants divided the denominator by the numerator (11.2%
for 4a, 10.4% for 4b, 12% for 4c); these include those who made
calculation errors (for example, a response of “1.1” for question 4c).
For ordering positive integers and decimals (questions 5a to
5h), a large number of responses were decimal-point-ignored (DPI)
errors (ignoring the decimal point and treating the decimals as whole
numbers). For example, for question 5h (“Arrange 0.438, 0.4, and
0.44 in order, from the smallest to the largest”), 56 students (44.8%)
gave the response “0.4, 0.44, 0.438.” Many students also made DPI
errors for question 5c (39.2%) and 5g (16.8%).
A significant number of responses were reverse-order-of-
decimals (ROD) errors (ordering in the reverse direction to the whole
number order). For example, for question 5h, 30 students (24%) gave
the response “0.438, 0.44, 0.4.” The percentages of ROD errors for
the other questions are 21.6% for 5e, 19.2% for 5c, 16.8% for 5b, and
10.4% for 5g.
80 KAMAWOTAN vol. 3, nos. 1–2, May 2009
For the question “Arrange 0.07, 0.23, and 0.1 in order, from
the smallest to the largest,” 18 students (14.4%) gave the response
“0.07, 0.23, 0.1.” This response deserves further study.
For estimation of metric measures (questions 6 to 7b), 32
students (25.6%) estimated the weight of a pair of shoes to be 6 kg
while 22 students (17.6%) estimated it to be 6 g. The height of a
classroom door was estimated to be 20 m by 26 students (20.8%).
For the number application problems (questions 8 to 12), the
most common errors involved questions 8, 11, and 12. For the money
problem (question 8), 35 students (28%) made calculation errors (but
used the correct procedure). Common calculation errors were 19 ÷ 2
= 8 and 19 ÷ 2 = 9.1. (The latter was counted as a calculation error in
this instance to follow Somerset’s coding procedure.) For the land
measure problems (questions 11a and 11b), a large percentage of
students had no response (17.6% for 11a and 21.6% for 11b). In
answering the area problem (question 11b), 28 students (22.4%) used
incorrect procedures involving the multiplication of two lengths (for
example, A = 2L × 2W). For the percentage problem (question 12),
21 students (16.8%) calculated 20% of the initial weight, giving the
response “30 kg.”
Discussion
The results of this study are quite similar to those of
Somerset’s study. Questions that had a large percentage of correct
responses and questions that had a large percentage of errors were, in
general, the same for both groups. The kinds of systematic errors
most commonly found in both studies were also quite similar.41
The three questions with the lowest percentages of correct
responses were “Arrange 0.55, 0.8, and 0.14 in order, from the
smallest to the largest,” “Arrange 0.438, 0.4, and 0.44 in order, from
the smallest to the largest,” and “What is the area of the [irregularly
shaped] land for building the high school?” Although the participants
in this study had significantly better performance in the ordering
questions than the participants in Somerset’s study, their performance
in the area problem was unusually low. This implies that the solution
of non-standard problems is not being well taught to these students.
41
The interested reader is referred to Somerset (2002) for more details.
College of Arts and Sciences, Ateneo de Naga University 81
 Very noticeable in Figures 1 and 2 are the group differences
in correct response percentages for questions 3 and 4. This implies
that problems involving the labeling of points on a number line and
those involving conversion of fractions to decimals are good at
discriminating between those who have good basic number skills and
those who don’t.
Conclusion
The results of this study have implications for improving
instruction and assessment. Teachers should emphasize why certain
procedures work so that students will know under what conditions the
procedures are valid and under what conditions the procedures are
not. Students should be taught how to answer problems that cannot
be solved using ready-made formulas.
In order to see if students fully understand the concepts, a
wide variety of tasks should be given. The labeling of points on a
number line is a particularly good arithmetic-related task to give
students as it involves the concepts (and not just the procedures) of
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in one problem.
The test used in this study covers only basic concepts and
skills. It does not involve, for example, negative numbers and mixed
(non-decimal) numbers. The division operation is also not given
much emphasis. One incorrect procedure involving division that was
prevalent but not sufficiently analyzed in this study is the use of the
decimal point to represent the word remainder. Future studies should
address the identification of systematic errors in more complicated
operations.
We end by quoting Riccomini (2005, p. 234): “Educators
typically analyze students’ mathematical errors with the intent to
improve instruction and correct misconceptions. [...] Identification
and analysis of students’ arithmetic errors has the potential to
improve instructional planning and, ultimately, student performance.
[...] Although identification of errors in mathematics is an important
first step for remedial or corrective instruction, there is little evidence
to suggest that teachers are able to perform systematic error analysis
of students’ work.” We hope that by presenting some common
systematic errors in arithmetic of some college students, we are able
to help teachers identify and correct them.
82 KAMAWOTAN vol. 3, nos. 1–2, May 2009
References
Riccomini, P. (2005). Identification and remediation of systematic error
patterns in subtraction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(3):233–
242. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ725675)
Retrieved January 30, 2009, from ERIC database.
Siegler, R. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for
mathematics education. In J. Kilpatrick, W. Martin, and D. Schifter,
editors, A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics, chapter 20, pages 219–233. National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, USA.
Standiford, S., Klein, M., & Tatsuoka, K. (1982). Decimal fraction
arithmetic: Logical error analysis and its validation. Technical
report, Illinois University, Urbana. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED215907) Retrieved February 2, 2009, from ERIC
database.
Somerset, A. (2002). Basic Number Skills: Why Students Fail in Math: A
Diagnostic Survey of Fifteen High Schools in Central Visayas.
Quezon City, Philippines: National Institute for Science and
Mathematics Education Development, University of the
Philippines.
VanLehn, K. (1986). Arithmetic procedures are induced from examples. In J.
Hiebert, editor, Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case
of Mathematics, chapter 6, pages 133–179. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
VanLehn, K. (1990). Mind Bugs: The Origins of Procedural
Misconceptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Appendix: Basic number skills test42
June , 2008 • Age: _____ • Male Female
Answer the questions below. Please show your solution in full on the test
paper. Do not use other pieces of paper to calculate your answers.
1. Calculate:
a. 23 + 9 + 168 =
b. 5.07 + 1.3 =
c. 4138 − 753 =
d. 6.25 − 4 =
e. 47.1 − 0.65 =
42
The spaces between questions have been removed.
College of Arts and Sciences, Ateneo de Naga University 83
 f. 42.13 − 6.7 = c.
g. 812 ÷ 4 =
5. Arrange each group of three numbers in order, from the smallest to
h. 360 × 105 = the largest.
i. 2.05 × 0.52 = Examples: Smallest Largest
2. Calculate: 2 3 1 1 2 3

a. 9 2 7 2 7 9
Questions: Smallest Largest
b.
a. 6 9 5
c.
b. 0.3 0.1 0.6
3. In the box write the decimal number indicated by the arrow.
c. 0.55 0.8 0.14
d. 168 97 201
e. 0.37 0.1 0.23
f. 0.65 19 8.7
g. 0.07 0.23 0.1
h. 0.438 0.4 0.44
6. The height of a classroom door is about
20 cm 200 cm 20 m 200 m
7. The weight of a pair of shoes is about
6 kg 60 kg 6g 600 g
8. The temperature in a classroom is usually about
10 °C 30 °C 50 °C 70 °C
Answer these number problems in the space below each question. Show
your solution in full. Do not use other pieces of paper to calculate your
answers.
9. Here are the prices of some goods in Manang Tonya’s sari-sari
store:
Tea P 6.00 per pack
4. Convert the following fractions to decimals. Soap P 8.50 per bar
Salt P 2.00 per pack
a.
Toothpaste P 9.50 per tube
Sugar P 19.00 per kg
b.

84 KAMAWOTAN vol. 3, nos. 1–2, May 2009 College of Arts and Sciences, Ateneo de Naga University 85
 Maria wants to buy three bars of soap and ½ kg of sugar. What is
the total amount that Maria must pay?
10. On Sunday I left home to walk to the ricefield at 6:45 AM. I
arrived at the ricefield after walking for 25 minutes. At what time
did I arrive at the ricefield?
11. A doctor gave a patient 30 tablets, and told her to take 2 tablets, 3
times a day. After how many days will the tablets be all consumed?
12. Here is the plan of the land for building a new high school.

a. What is the perimeter of the land for building the high school?
b. What is the area of the land for building the high school?
13. Mang Doming has just completed harvesting. He wishes to dry 150
kg of paddy rice. When he dries the rice, it loses 20 % of its
original weight. How manyy kilos of dry rice does Mang Doming
get?

86 KAMAWOTAN vol. 3, nos. 1–2, May 2009