International Journal of Mathematical Education in

Science and Technology

ISSN: 0020-739X (Print) 1464-5211 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmes20

Building a computerized dynamic representation

as an instrument for mathematical explanation of
division of fractions

Klemer Anat, Rapoport Shirley & Lev-Zamir Hanna

To cite this article: Klemer Anat, Rapoport Shirley & Lev-Zamir Hanna (2019): Building a
computerized dynamic representation as an instrument for mathematical explanation of division
of fractions, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, DOI:
10.1080/0020739X.2019.1648888

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1648888

View supplementary material

Published online: 16 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmes20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1648888

NOTE

Building a computerized dynamic representation as an

instrument for mathematical explanation of division of
fractions
Klemer Anata,b , Rapoport Shirleya and Lev-Zamir Hannab
a Department of Education, Western Galilee College, Acre, Israel; b Department of Mathematics Education,
Oranim College of Education, Kiryat Tiv’on, Israel

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study describes a teaching process that offers teachers and Received 15 November 2018
pupils ways of constructing the division operation through illustra- KEYWORDS
tion based on defining the reference unit (divisor), the reference Arguments; division of
whole1 and the dividend. We introduce a computerized dynamic common fractions;
environment, using an Excel spreadsheet, in which both teachers and knowledge building;
pupils can independently construct the solution process in a man- technological pedagogical
ner that leads to meaningful learning. Nine pairs of teachers and content knowledge; visual
pupils underwent an intervention process using Excel, comparing representation
pupils’ understanding of division of fractions before and after the
learning process. Findings from the pupils indicate the Excel software
enabled them to portray and construct the meaning of the division
process while applying accurate mathematical terms. Specifically,
they could thoroughly understand the meaning of a word problem,
so as to explain another student’s mistake. Furthermore, teachers’
analyses of the pupils’ work indicate that the use of this computerized
dynamic environment helped the teachers develop mathematical
knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and technological pedagogical
knowledge.

Introduction
Division of common fractions
Division of common fractions is studied in school in two ways. One way is based on the
meaning of division as dividing into equal parts (sharing) and the second is based on the
meaning of division as grouping. In the case of integers, both situations – division into
equal parts and grouping – can easily be presented. However, when common fractions are
concerned, there are restrictions that depend on the divisor (for example, whether it is
an integer or a fraction smaller than 1). Unawareness of these distinctions leads more than
once to wrong intuitions and over-reliance on an algorithm and performance ability rather

CONTACT Klemer Anat anat.klemer@bezeqint.net Department of Education, Western Galilee College, 60/2
Iris Street, Nahariya, 22350, Acre, Israel
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at doi:10.1080/0020739X.2019.1648888

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 K. ANAT ET AL.

than on conceptual understanding (Gravemeijer & Galen, 2003; Tirosh, 2000). Sharon
and Swarthout (2015) stress the importance of visual representation for every situation in
accompaniment with the symbolic representation, and its connection to pupils’ previous
knowledge of natural numbers division. Lamon (1994) highlights the importance of defin-
ing the reference unit in the division of fractions operation. In the meaning of grouping,
the divisor becomes the reference unit for the dividend. Taking for example the problem
2 2
3 ÷ 5 , the quotient does not refer to the original whole. Rather, it is considered as the
number of times 25 is included in 23 of the original whole.
Developing an algorithm is an essential component of mathematics. Its advantage is the
automatic application that does not require thinking about the meaning at every stage;
however, herein resides also its disadvantage. Mathematics educators attribute importance
to pupils’ mastery of performance, but the pupils should actively construct it, as a process
based on their comprehension of the nature of the operation. Pupils should experience
‘inventing’ solution methods. Out of these ‘inventions’, with an informed mediation of the
teacher, the algorithm ‘will emerge’ (Gravemeijer & Galen, 2003).
The division of fractions operation at elementary school usually focuses on the appli-
cation of algorithms. Ashlock (1994), Grabber (1993) and Tirosh (2000) discuss the
weakness of an algorithm that is studied with no emphasis on understanding it. They
show a variety of mistakes classified into categories, such as wrong application of the
algorithm and errors resulting from perceptions and intuitions associated with the division
operation.2

Constructing a meaning to division of common fractions

Perlwitz (2005) claims cognitive conflict creates leverage for meaningful learning. She
describes college students’ solution methods when dividing an integer by a fraction. She
discusses their coping with a conflict between the solution obtained from implementing
an algorithm and the solution obtained by means of a visual representation. Below is the
pillowcases problem, followed by the solution of the pupil Christine and the dilemma of
the remaining part.
In Ms. Smith’s sewing class, students are making pillowcases for the open house exhibit.
Ms. Smith bought 10 yards of fabric for her class project. Each pillowcase requires 3/4 yard of
fabric. How many pillowcases can be cut from the fabric?
Christine: First I laid out 10 pieces of 1-yard material. Then I took out 3/4 from one piece
leaving 1/4 of a piece of fabric from each yard piece [see Figure 1]. Then I added up all 1/4
pieces to see how many groups of 3/4 I could make. The final answer is 13 pillowcases with 1/4-
piece leftover [pauses] or what I thought was 13 1/4. When I went to check it doing the invert-
multiply method of old days, the answer was 13 1/3 [seemingly perplexed]. I can’t understand
why.
In a study conducted by the Klemer, Rapoport, and Lev (2018), the teachers were asked
to solve the problem and explain how they arrived at the solution, referring to learning
processes based on meaning. Some teachers obtained the answer by using the inverse
multiplication algorithm 13 13 while others obtained the answer 13 14 by means of visual rep-
resentation. The conflict between the two different quotients led to meaningful learning,
relating to the meanings of the remaining part. One meaning was part of a yard and the
other was part of the material for one pillowcase.3
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3

Figure 1. Christine’s illustration (from Perlwitz, 2005, p. 279).

Figure 2. The pupil’s representation of the problem 1÷ 1

4 with Excel.

Figure 3. The pupil’s representation of the problem 1 ÷ 3

4 with Excel.

Teachers’ knowledge about computer-integrated division of fractions teaching

In order to teach common fractions, teachers are required to have specific content knowl-
edge that encompasses a wide variety of solution algorithms and the mathematical logic
behind them, in addition to the prevalent algorithm (inverse multiplication). They must
master the computational process proving the correctness of the inverse multiplication
algorithm and understand the underlying mathematical principles. Furthermore, teachers’
knowledge should include knowledge of visual representations.4
In recent decades, another specific knowledge for teaching that is associated with visual
representations and is considerably becoming more predominant is teachers’ technolog-
ical literacy. When striving for quality computer-integrated teaching, teachers should be
required to have certain aspects of knowledge. Effective use of computerized dynamic
instruments requires an interplay of mathematics content knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge (Escuder & Furner, 2011; Hughes, 2005). Mishra and Koehler (2006) refer to
this knowledge as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge – TPCK.
Tabach and Slutzky (2015) proposed a theoretical framework specifying teaching activ-
ities, which take place in a technological environment, relating to the knowledge compo-
nents of various teachers. Their theoretical framework is consisted of three layers: Teachers’
objective during the lesson, the chosen technological aid and the way it is implemented.
Teachers must acquire knowledge that allows them to be technologically literate in math-
ematics education, in order to integrate computerized aids when constructing terms and
mathematical operations, as well as adapt the aids to the pupils’ different ways of thinking.
Teachers who use computer-integrated teaching should ask themselves whether the aid
they use supports the mathematical insights they wish their pupils to obtain and whether
4 K. ANAT ET AL.

Figure 4. The pupil’s representation of the problem 1 ÷ 23 .

Figure 5. The pupil’s representation of the problem 3 ÷ 1

4 with Excel.

Figure 6. The pupil’s representation of the problem 3 ÷ 4

4 with Excel.

Figure 7. The pupil’s representation of the problem 34 ÷ 1

2 with the Excel.

it has an advantage over the non-computerized alternatives. The pedagogical objectives

have to be defined before making decisions about the technologies that will support learn-
ing (Offir, 2010). The situation whereby schools are ‘flooded’ with proposed computerized
environments before teachers have defined what they want to accomplish with them, is
not conducive to teaching practice. Offir (2010) formulated a model of decision-making
when adopting technologies in education. Its starting point is the pedagogical objectives
of the teacher who adopts the technology, whereas the latter is shaped in accordance to the
pedagogical objectives.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5

Choosing dynamic instruments for building the division of fractions operation

One of the reasons for the difficulty in understanding fractions and operations with them,
stems from the few opportunities pupils have to construct their representation as quan-
tities. Kent, Empson, and Nielsen (2015) argue that if pupils cannot see the fractions as
quantities, they will find it difficult to apply logic when performing operations with them.
Kent et al. (2015) discuss direct modelling, whereby pupils create strategies to integrate
a representation of all the quantities in a way that reflects the structure of the problem they
are facing. In the context of common fractions, these strategies are based on the preliminary
understanding of fractions as part of the whole as well as the pupils’ understanding of the
division operation as counting quantities. Other studies (Ferrucci, Yeap, & Carter, 2003)
describe and emphasize the importance of modelling in constructing a solution for mathe-
matical problems. The emphasis is on pupils’ ability to represent the quantities given in the
problems and the relations between them, aiming to visualize for themselves the abstract
mathematical relations.
Today, one can find on the Internet varied instruments by means of which the division
operation can be illustrated, particularly division of common fractions. These environ-
ments generally provide the instruments ‘ready for use’ and pupils are passive observers
in the process. On the other hand, there are open environments, such as Excel or Geoge-
bra and others (Dudamath) that enable building an illustration according to the pupils’
understanding. Building a model of division as grouping, using Excel or Geogebra, enables
illustration of the division operation both for natural numbers and for fractions. Construct-
ing such an illustration requires pupils to have a high level of thinking, described by Smith
and Stein (1998) as mathematical work striving for conceptual understanding. This work
requires pupils to understand terms and operations as well as reflect on their progress on
their way to accomplishing the goal.

Materials and methods

Research population
The participants were nine teachers in their second year of studies towards an M.Ed. degree
in mathematics education, and nine 5th and 6th grade pupils. The participating teachers
were students in an Israeli academic college of education. All of them had teaching experi-
ence of 5–15 years and they had been teaching mathematics in the 5th and 6th grades. They
all had experience in teaching division of fractions and in technology-integrated teaching.
Each teacher was asked to choose one pupil, a representative of the class she was teach-
ing, with whom she would work within the framework of the study. Eight teachers were
teaching the 6th grade; hence, eight pupils were 6th graders who had already learned to
solve division of fractions problems, using the inverse multiplication algorithm. The ninth
teacher was teaching the 5th grade and her chosen pupil was a 5th grader who had not
formally learned the division of fractions algorithm.

Research aim and research questions

This study explored the effect of using a dynamic computerized representation on pupils’
understanding and on the development of teachers’ knowledge – mathematics content
6 K. ANAT ET AL.

knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowl-

edge. The research aim gave rise to three research questions:

(1) How do 5th- and 6th-grade pupils cope with division of common fractions and how
do they relate to the dilemma of the remaining part following an incorrect solution
(see the pillowcases problem on page 3)?
(2) While engaging in learning based on representing a division of fractions problem by
means of Excel, how do 5th- and 6th-grade pupils cope with –
(a) Explaining the division process?
(b) Referring to the remaining part, when the quotient is not a natural number?
(c) Referring to the dilemma of the remaining part when presented with an incorrect
solution?
(3) What knowledge and insights do teachers acquire when engaging in learning based
on representing a division of fractions problem by means of Excel?

Research instruments
(1) Preliminary and Post-teaching pupil questionnaire – Presenting pupils with a division
of fractions problem – the pillowcases problem ((Perlwitz, 2005); see page 3). Then,
they were asked to explain Christine’s incorrect solution, following the dilemma of
the remaining part.
(2) Excel software tool – illustrating the components of the division of fractions problem.
An Excel file was prepared ahead of time for the purposes of this study, consisting of a
separate sheet for each division problem. The sheets included problems whose level of
difficulty gradually increased, from division of natural numbers to division of a natural
number by a fraction and then, division of a fraction by a fraction. In each problem,
the pupils built the given division situation and checked how many times the divisor
was fully contained in the dividend by copy and paste. At the stage of modelling the
problem, the pupils had to describe the reference whole from which the divisor was
‘cut’, and the dividend built accordingly (see Tables 2–4). The reference whole was
clearly presented in the Excel sheet, and the divisor and dividend were presented in
relation to it. In the case of a quotient that was not a natural number, the student
checked which part of the reference unit constituted the remaining part (see question
2 in Table 2).
The process of solving division problems using Excel was comprised of four parts (not
necessarily in the order presented here):
(a) Creating the whole (the reference whole)
(b) Creating the dividend.
(c) Creating the divisor (reference unit)
(d) Counting the number of times that the divisor (reference unit) is contained in the
dividend, namely the quotient.
(3) Teachers’ reflection Questionnaire – Containing three parts:
(a) Teachers were asked to describe their teaching process and share their insights.
For example, how did the pupil cope with using the Excel tool?; If there were
obstacles, how did they overcome them?; How did the pupil solve the dilemma of
the missing part before and after using the Excel tool?
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

(b) Teachers were asked to reflect on the process of teaching and learning when using
the Excel tool. They were asked to focus on constructing the meaning of division
of fractions, and the meaning of the missing part.
(c) Teachers were asked to reflect on the teaching process, and its implications for the
development of their knowledge as teachers (mathematics content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowl-
edge).

Research procedure
This qualitative research was comprised of a preliminary stage, whereby the teachers expe-
rienced representing division problems with Excel. It was followed by the teaching stage,
during which the teachers and pupils engaged in an Excel-integrated division of fractions
intervention. The pupils answered the pupil questionnaire before and after the interven-
tion and their answers were later compared. The final stage consisted of the teachers’ critical
reflection.
The Preliminary Stage – The teachers experienced solving division of common fractions
problems using an Excel representation. The relevant mathematical terms were defined
during the course of the study sessions: the reference unit (divisor), the original integer
(reference whole), the dividend and quotient (Lamon, 1994). The Excel tool facilitates rep-
resentation of division of fractions problems and helps to attribute meaning to these terms.
Representation of division problems using Excel has a benefit over a simple drawing, espe-
cially for division in the meaning of grouping. The user can accurately check how many
times the divisor is fully contained in the dividend by copying and pasting.
The Teaching Stage – Every teacher tutored one pupil of her choosing.

(a) The pupils were first presented with the pupil questionnaire, while the teachers
were present but did not intervene. Results provided an answer to the first research
question.
(b) After that, each pupil underwent the intervention process – four sessions in which
the pupils learned to represent division of fractions problems with Excel. At this
stage, they acquired insight about the meaning of division of fractions, linking their
insights to their previous knowledge of natural numbers division. The teacher chose
the presented division problems according to the pupil’s progress.
(c) About two weeks later, the pupil questionnaire was presented to the pupils again.
Results provided an answer to the second research question.

The Reflection Stage – At the end of the teaching stage, each teacher was requested to crit-
ically reflect on the process they had undergone, by answering the teachers’ questionnaire.
This stage responded to the third research question.

Data collection
The teacher-pupil discourse during the sessions was analysed based on the documenta-
tion of the sessions with the pupils (including recordings, transcription and photocopy
of examples). The discourse was analysed and the similarity and difference between the
8 K. ANAT ET AL.

pupils’ solutions was explored. Teachers’ citations, examples of their illustrations and visu-
alizations using the Excel tool were added to the analysis. The teachers’ reflections were
collected and analysed by reference to three categories of teachers’ knowledge.

Results
The description of research findings includes the pupils’ knowledge prior to the interven-
tion process, the insights they acquired during their experience with the Excel tool, and
the knowledge manifested at the end of the process. In conclusion, we present citations
from the teachers’ reflections, describing the contribution of the process to their profes-
sional development in three realms: mathematics content knowledge, pedagogical content
knowledge and technological pedagogical content knowledge.

The teaching stage – first part – preliminary pupil questionnaire

The eight teachers who worked with the 6th graders pointed out that the pupils had mas-
tered the solution to division problems by means of an inverse multiplication algorithm.
Hence, it was only natural for them to solve the problem by applying the familiar algorithm.
Below is a solution to a 6th grader and of a 5th grader.
An example of a 6th grader’s solution to the pillowcases problem:
10 ÷ 34 = 10 4 40 40
1 3 × = 3 . When he obtained the quotient 3 , he wrote on the page margin
a long division algorithm. At the end, he wrote the quotient 13 13 . This solution resulted in
the following discourse:

Teacher How did you know that the answer was 13 13 ?

Pupil Because the denominator of the fraction 40
3 is 3 and therefore the denominator
in the answer must also be 3.
Teacher What do you mean?
Pupil I divided and then transformed the improper fraction into a mixed number, and
therefore the denominator remained 3.

The other 6th graders’ solutions presented a similar picture; That is, a solution based on
an algorithm with a reasoning based on the result.
The teacher who worked with the 5th grader, who was not familiar with the inverse mul-
tiplication algorithm, described the pupil solving the problem in a way that was meaningful
to him.

Pupil: This is division. I don’t know how . . . I have not learnt it . . . It will be more than 10
but I cannot explain. Maybe I should write 34 + 34 + 34 . . . until I reach 10 . . . Just
a moment, 34 + 34 is 1 12 , 1 12 + 1 12 is 3. In each 3 yards we have 4 times. 3 yards more,
that is already 6 yards, so we already have 8 times . . . 3 yards more make it already
9 yards and this means 12 times. One yard is left which is one time 34 . So, the answer
is 13 and a little more.

Following this activity, the pupils were asked to refer to the dilemma of the remaining part.
The teachers presented to the pupils Christine’s way of solution (see Figure 1). The pupils’
answers are presented in Table 1.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9

Table 1. References to the remaining part dilemma.

The pupils’ reference to Christine’s solution No. of pupils
The correct answer is 13 13 . She made a calculation mistake Four 6th graders
When I divided, I moved the improper fraction to a mixed number and the denominator remained 3. It One 6th grader
must be 3. She is wrong, it cannot be 4.
Both answers are correct. It is 13 13 and also 13 14 . Two 6th graders
The figure shows that I was mistaken. It is strange because I solved the problem in the way I was One 6th grader
taught. I don’t understand what happened here.
Christine’s answer is correct One 5th grader

When the pupils were asked to solve the pillowcases problem (Perlwitz, 2005), all the
eight 6th graders applied the inverse multiplication algorithm. One pupil failed to explain
the conflict between his answer and that of Christine. The 5th grader solved the problem by
relying on grouping. His solution was close to the accurate answer, but he did include the
specific remaining part. He claimed that Christine’s answer was correct, because both his
and Christine’s answers were somewhat more than 13 and he saw no contradiction between
them. None of the pupils related to the incorrect answer while explaining the meaning of
the contradiction. Rather, they gave answers such as: ‘She made an incorrect calculation’,
‘Both answers are correct’, ‘I don’t understand . . . ’, ‘it must be . . . ’.

The teaching stage – second part – the computerised intervention process

The second research question was: ‘While engaging in learning based on representing a
division of fractions problem by means of Excel, how do pupils cope with –

(a) Explaining the division process?

(b) Referring to the remaining part, when the quotient is not a natural number?
(c) Referring to the dilemma of the remaining part when presented with an incorrect
solution?’

In response to the second research question, the intervention process and discourse
between one teacher and her student will be detailed. This description reflects to a great
extent the process transpiring between the other teachers and their pupils.

Teacher ‘The pupils are familiar with the Excel software but not for representing problems.
It took me about half an hour to explain the Excel software to the pupil, how
to ‘draw’, ‘cut’, ‘paste’ and ‘paint’. I used the Excel for illustrating a problem of
dividing a whole by a whole and then I asked the pupil to represent by himself a
similar problem. I asked him to create the dividend, divisor and quotient. Then
we went on to dividing a whole by a fraction and later to dividing a fraction by a
fraction (see Table 2). I asked the pupil to represent the problems with the Excel
tool, while directing him with questions. I told him that every time he should
represent the reference whole, the dividend and the reference unit (divisor). At
the first stage, I presented to the pupil the three following problems: 1 ÷ 14 , 1 ÷ 34
and 1 ÷ 23 , in all of them the dividend being one whole’.

Table 2 describes the intervention process and the dialogue between the teacher and her
pupil during their first session.
10 K. ANAT ET AL.

Table 2. First session with the pupil.

Representation of the solution in Excel and description of the
Number Problem process and teacher-pupil dialogue
1 1 ÷ 14 Teacher: How will you represent the whole in the problem 1 ÷ ?
Dividing a whole by a unit fraction Pupil: The whole will consist of four quarters, each square being
one quarter. I will check how many times a quarter is contained in
the whole.
(Figure 2)
The pupil represented the problem with Excel, wrote a correct
answer and said: ‘One can see that the divisor is contained 4 times
in the dividend’.
2 1 ÷ 34 The pupil represented the whole as four quarters, the divisor as
Dividing a whole by a fraction three squares (quarters).
whose numerator is greater than 1 Teacher: What do you want to check?
(Figure 3)
Pupil: how many times 3 squares are included in the whole. One
uncovered square is left and therefore the answer is 1 13 .
Teacher: Please explain how you arrived at 1 13 .
Pupil: There is one square of the dividend that I have not covered.
Three squares are my divisor and the remaining part is one out of
the three.
3 1÷ 2
3 The pupil explained verbally the process of solving the problem 1
÷ in the following way:
‘The whole (i.e. the reference whole) is three squares. Two squares
2
(3)
(namely the reference unit) are contained one time in the ’three
squares’ and I am left with one uncovered square, which is half of

the two squares (half of ) and therefore the answer is 1 12 .
(Figure 4)

In the second session, the teacher presented division problems in which the dividend
was a natural number greater than 1, namely 3 ÷ 14 3 ÷ 3 ÷ 34 , and 3 ÷ 38 .
Table 3 describes the intervention process and the discourse between the same teacher
and pupil in the second session.
In the third session, the following problems were presented: 34 ÷ 12 and 34 ÷ 14 , in which
both the dividend and the divisor are common fractions (see Table 4).

The teaching stage – third part – Post-teaching pupil questionnaire

After the intervention process, all pupils were asked to solve the pillowcases problem (Perl-
witz, 2005) and explain Christine’s mistake. All pupils, who underwent similar processes
of representing division problems with Excel, implemented a model they had created with
Excel or with a drawing when solving the problem and explaining the dilemma of the
remaining part. Below are two examples of 6th graders’ answers taken from the teachers’
documentation.

Pupil A ‘The divisor is 34 and the dividend is 10. Since the denominator of the divisor is
4, I will represent the whole as 4 quarters (blue in Figure 8)’.

The pupil represented the reference whole as 4 squares and the dividend as 40 squares.
She started copying and pasting groups of 3 squares in order to check how many groups
cover the dividend (how many times the divisor, i.e. the reference unit, is contained in
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11

Table 3. Second session with the pupil.

Representation of the solution in the Excel and description of the
Number Problem process and teacher-pupil dialogue
4 3 ÷ 14 Pupil: I know that is contained 12 times in 3 but I can also show
Dividing a natural number greater it with Excel. My whole (reference whole) is 44 . and therefore 3
than 1 by a unit fraction wholes (dividend) are 124 . The divisor is one square (quarter of
the whole).
The pupil counted 12 squares in the dividend and said: 3 ÷ 14 =
12
(Figure 5)
5 3 ÷ 34 In the following problem, the pupil created a rectangle containing
Dividing a natural number greater 4 squares to present the reference whole, and explained:
than 1 by a fraction whose ‘The dividend is 3, namely, a rectangle of 12 squares (3 times
numerator is greater than 1 the reference whole). The divisor is 34 . Namely, a rectangle
of 3 squares (reference unit)’. Then, the pupil ‘cut’ from each
horizontal line of the dividend 3 squares, counted 3 times the
reference unit in the dividend and was left with one group of
three in a vertical position that he had not yet counted. He
hesitated but several seconds later, cut each square of the three
vertical squares and re-arranged them, horizontally, under the
groups of three he obtained and indicated the quotient, 4.
Teacher: ‘Why did you have to cut the last group of three?’
The pupil thought for a while and said: ‘Ah . . . only now I have
realized I did not have to do it. Now I understand that I could
cut according to the columns and immediately obtain the same
quotient with less effort’.
(Figure 6)
After which, the pupil solved the problem by inverse multiplication,
found out that his answer is correct and was pleased with his
performance.
6 2÷ 3
8 Pupil: ‘every whole is 88 and therefore the dividend is twice the
whole, namely 16 squares (16 eighths). How many times a group
of 3 squares is contained in the 16? 5 times with a remainder of
1. Therefore, the answer is 5 18 .
While looking at the Excel representation, he identified a problem
and said: ‘Wrong, the remaining part is one out of the three that

constitute the reference unit and therefore the quotient is 5 13 .

the dividend). When she counted the groups of three, she gave an identical number to
each group (see Figure 8), answering that there are 13 groups of three and one uncovered
square. She said that the remaining part is part of the divisor and therefore, the answer is
13 13 .

Teacher ‘ . . . then how can we explain Christine’s mistake?’

Pupil ‘The divisor is 3 squares and therefore the remaining square is only 13 of it. Per-
haps Christine looked at the whole (reference whole) that comprises 4 parts and
because of that she was mistaken’.

Prior to the computerized intervention, this pupil was unable to identify the meaning of
the remaining part and failed to explain why Christine found it was 14 . After it, the pupil
understood the meaning of the remaining part, saw it visually and indicated it. She added:
‘This way is very easy, and it seems clearer, mainly the point of the remaining part’. The
pupil summed up the process of learning with Excel and said: ‘In my opinion it requires
too much time. I have to draw and then make the division. It is very tiresome. However,
12 K. ANAT ET AL.

Table 4. Third session with the pupil.

Representation of the solution in Excel and description of the
Number Problem process and teacher-pupil dialogue
3
4÷ 2
1
7 Pupil: ‘The whole (reference whole) should be divided by 2 and by 4
Dividing a fraction by fraction and therefore it is 88 . The dividend 34 is represented by 6 squares (6
eighths) and the reference unit, the half, is 4 squares (4 eighths). I
have to check how many times the 4 squares are contained in the
6 squares’.
The pupil started representing the problem with Excel. He wrote at
the bottom of the page: ‘Half is contained one time and another
half-time in six squares’, writing the answer 1 12 . (Figure 7)
3
8 4 ÷ 1
4 The pupil looked at the problem and said: ‘I know the answer without
the Excel, it’s 3 because 14 is contained 3 times in 34 . Then the pupil
used the Excel to present the whole, the divisor and the dividend
and said: ‘A quarter is one square and it is contained 3 times in
three quarters’.
Teacher: ‘Let’s connect between the two problems we solved now,
3
4 ÷ 2 = 1 2 and 4 ÷ 4 = 3.What can you say?’
1 1 3 1

Pupil: ‘In both problems the dividend is identical, 34 , and the divisor in
the second problem is half of the divisor in the first problem, 14 is half
of 12 .When looking at the quotient of both problems, the quotient
in the second problem is two times greater than the quotient in the
first problem. As we have learnt, for example, if the quotient of 24:8
is 3, then the quotient of 24:4 is two times greater, namely 6. In our
case too 1 12 is half of 3.

Figure 8. A pupil’s answer to the remaining part dilemma represented with Excel.

it is worthwhile to learn it one time with Excel and after understanding, you can solve it
simply’.
Pupil B gave an explanation based on previous knowledge and connected between nat-
ural numbers division and division of fractions. She pointed out: ‘The remaining part is
out of 34 because this is exactly like in natural numbers division. When I divide 11:5 = 2
(1), then the remaining part is 1 out of 5 (divisor) and in the case of division of fractions
the same principle applies, namely the remaining part is one quarter out of three quarter’,
namely 13 .
Before their experience with the Excel software, none of the pupils succeeded in explain-
ing the meaning of the remaining part in the dilemma and referring to Christine’s mistake.
Conversely, after the learning process, eight pupils managed to do it. Only one pupil had
to solve the problem by means of the inverse multiplication algorithm in order to explain
the meaning of the remaining part. All the other pupils did not need to.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13

Table 5. Sub-themes in teachers’ reflections regarding the development of mathematics content

knowledge.
Number of teachers
referring to the
Sub-theme Sub-theme Example
Importance of 5 out of 9 ‘ . . . teachers who teach division of fractions should be able to
representation correctly and accurately express and represent . . . . all the
components of the problem, as well as connect between them’
Reference whole and unit 7 out of 9 ‘Teachers should . . . represent both the divisor and the dividend
in relation to the whole unit that they have determined, the
reference whole. They should count the number of times the
reference unit (divisor) is contained in the dividend, find out
what is the remaining part, what part does it constitute out of
the reference unit and be able to write the quotient in a correct
mathematical form’.
Understanding of the 4 out of 9 ‘ . . . I was not really interested in the question of why it [inverse
operation multiplication] is correct. Today I can actually picture the problem
prior to its solution . . . ’.
Importance of using 9 out of 9 ‘Using mathematical language . . . is extremely important . . . Excel-
mathematical language integrated teaching will not have added value if teachers do not
apply the . . . accurate mathematical terms’

The reflection stage

The third research question related to the knowledge and insights that teachers acquired
when engaging in learning based on representing a division of fractions problem by means
of Excel.
As mentioned, each teacher documented the learning process with the pupil and at
the end of the process answered a teachers’ reflection questionnaire, in which they wrote
their reflections about the contribution of the process to the development of their knowl-
edge as a teacher. In their reflections, the teachers stressed the importance of using
accurate mathematical language and the adverse effect of teaching that relies only on an
algorithm. They also emphasized the importance of constructing learning processes that
develop understanding through dynamic representations. Their answers to the question-
naire were analysed by reference to three categories of teachers’ knowledge: Mathematics
content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and technological pedagogical content
knowledge.

Teachers’ reflections about the development of mathematics content

knowledge
The recurring themes reflected mostly a new understanding of the different parts of
the division operation, specifically the ‘reference whole’ and the ‘reference unit’ (divi-
sor). Teachers also mentioned the importance of representation and using mathematical
language (Table 5).

Teachers’ reflections about the development of pedagogical content

knowledge
The recurring themes reflected the relevance of seeing things from the pupil’s point of view.
The teachers stressed the importance of letting the pupil lead the way and build a concrete
14 K. ANAT ET AL.

Table 6. Sub-themes in teachers’ reflections regarding the development of pedagogical content knowl-
edge.
Number of teachers
referring to the
Sub-theme Sub-theme Example
Letting the pupil lead 9 out of 9 ‘It was interesting to see a pupil, who is not solving the problem by
the way inverse multiplication, cope with the assignment while mobilizing
his understanding and ability to obtain a logical answer. This gave
me the courage to be more daring and avoid thinking that if I have
not taught them, then the pupils will not be able to cope’.
Encouraging concrete 9 out of 9 ‘The instrument [Excel] enabled the pupil to present the problem in
representation a visual way. He had to be active in building the representation.
It was amazing to see him presenting problems, using correct
mathematical language, explaining every move he made as
well as being capable of explaining what are the difficulties he
encountered’.
Error analysis 7 out of 9 ‘Teachers who teach this topic should be connected to the pupils’
solution methods, both the correct and less correct ones, and
understand their source. They have to analyze the pupils’ mistakes,
particularly the thinking errors, when trying to lead the pupils to
in-depth understanding’.
Posing questions 8 out of 9 ‘Coping with pupils’ errors for the purpose of achieving appropriate
teaching and overcoming the errors, should be accompanied by
raising suitable questions that allow teachers to understand the
source of the error and properly deal with it’.

Table 7. Sub-themes in teachers’ reflections regarding the development of technological pedagogical

content knowledge.
Number of teachers
referring to the
Sub-theme Sub-theme Example
The teachers’ learning process 6 out of 9 ‘Following my experience with the assignment, I realized that
if I wanted to implement a certain way of teaching, I had
to understand it and thoroughly learn it. When I started
delivering the activity (implementing the intervention
process), I prepared myself for it. I represented problems
with the Excel in order to become familiar with the activity,
get connected to it and know the right questions to ask’.
The role of the computerized 7 out of 9 ‘Integrating the Excel in the teaching of division of fractions
tool in constructing an allows me as a teacher to illustrate the meaning of the
in-depth understanding division operation, present mathematical terms in a
clear manner, entailing the development of in-depth
understanding. After the process with my pupil, I felt that he
actually saw the quotient’.

representation of the problem. The teacher’s role is to analyse the pupil’s thinking errors
and deal with them, by posing questions and giving the pupil tools to construct an in-depth
understanding of the subject (Table 6).

Teachers’ reflections about the development of technological pedagogical

content knowledge
The recurring themes suggested that the teachers had undergone a learning process and
that the computerized tool is helpful in representing the problem and constructing an in-
depth understanding of the subject (Table 7).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15

Discussion
The current study strove to address two pressing issues. First, pupils’ and teachers’ limited
comprehension of division of fractions, and second, a wider problem, which is the ques-
tionable effectiveness of computerized teaching aids, when not properly integrated into the
teaching process.
The limited comprehension of division of fractions stems from over-reliance on teach-
ing the common solution algorithm, while not developing the ability of pupils and
teachers alike to visualize, explore and deeply understand division of fractions problems
(Gravemeijer & Galen, 2003; Kent et al., 2015; Sharon and Swarthout, 2015).
Regarding the effectiveness of computerized aids, this issue could be understood using
the theoretical framework suggested by Tabach and Slutzky (2015): Teaching activities
taking place in a technological environment must take into consideration three vari-
ables: Teachers’ objective during the lesson, the chosen technological aid and the way it
is implemented.
This study has predetermined the objective, which was to assist pupils in constructing
a meaning to division of fractions. The technological aid was also preselected – Excel –
because the way it is implemented is dynamic. It enables the pupils to build an illustration
according to their understanding (as opposed to ‘ready for use’ illustration tools, making
the pupils passive observers in the process). The choice of a flexible aid, while having a
predetermined objective, enables both pupils and teacher’s freedom to experiment and
construct new knowledge together.
Nine pairs of elementary school pupils and teachers participated in the study. Before
using the computerized aid, they were asked to address the dilemma of the remaining part
(Perlwitz, 2005). All students which have already learned division of fractions tried to solve
it by using the reverse-and-multiply
  algorithm but none could explain the conflict between
their solution 13 13 and the pupil’s wrong solution in the presented dilemma (13 14 ). It
seems that operational knowledge did not lead to comprehension.
After which, all pupils underwent the intervention process. The teachers acquainted
them with the Excel software, enabling them to illustrate a division of fractions problem
(division as grouping) by defining the reference whole, and in relation to it, determin-
ing and illustrating the dividend and divisor (Lamon, 1994; Shahbari and Peled, 2012). It
enabled the pupils to explain the division process, and specifically refer to the meaning of
the remaining part, when the quotient is not a natural number.
Following solving different division of fractions problems using the Excel software, the
pupils were again asked to address the dilemma of the remaining part. This time, they
came up with strictly different answers. They could indicate that the remaining part in the
problem referred to the reference unit and could even explain the source of Christine’s
mistake (Perlwitz, 2005). Furthermore, their explanations did not focus on determining
whether the solution was correct, but rather on their ability to understand the source of
the mistake.
The pupils’ new insights illustrate a change in their understanding of the quotient mean-
ing. It seems that the visual representation of the solution has eliminated their dependence
on the algorithm (Kamii & Dominick, 1998) and made room for critical reflection. It also
enhanced their ability to make a critical examination of a different answer than the one
they obtained, while supporting their determinations with explanations and arguments,
based on mathematical principles.
16 K. ANAT ET AL.

Hence, findings from the current study attest to the immense effect of computerized
teaching aids, when properly used, on pupil growth. Yet, not only pupils were con-
tributed by it, but also the teachers. As Ball (2010) claimed, teaching is a function of
teachers’ knowledge: mathematics content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge.
Furthermore, teachers should know how to make an informed integration of comput-
erized dynamic instruments in their teaching, namely technological pedagogical content
knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Tabach & Slutzky, 2015).
All teachers participating in the current study documented the teaching process and
wrote their reflection about its contribution to the development of their knowledge as
teacher. Their reflections indicate a development in their Mathematics Content Knowl-
edge. They wrote about teachers’ duty to represent all the components of the problem and
the connection between them, understand the meaning of the algorithm and use mathe-
matical language. Moreover, their reflections indicate a development in their Pedagogical
Content Knowledge. The teachers suggested that teaching should build on pupils’ intuitive
knowledge, and properly deal with difficulties and misconceptions while understanding
their source. They also commented on the problem in pupils’ dependence on the algorithm.
Lastly, their reflections indicate a development in their Technological Content Knowledge.
The teachers related to themselves as offering a technological environment in which both
they and the pupils are active. They also referred to the contribution of the instruments to
the understanding of the process by illustrating the solution, using mathematical terms and
developing the ability to ‘see’ the quotient. The teachers indicated the importance of using
visual representations (by technological instruments), distinguishing between applications
with which pupils act in a given framework and the Excel software, with which they ‘create’
the solution and manifest their understanding of the role of each ‘player’ in the problem.
These integrations require teachers’ experiencing on the way to a meaningful approach to
learning.
Attention should be paid to computer-integrated teaching that consists of an informed
choice of existing instruments and cultivation of an open dynamic environment in which
both teachers and pupils collaborate in building representations of terms and operations.
Building the computerized representation by teachers and pupils embodies a message that
both are assuming responsibility for the learning process and constructing their individual
knowledge. Teachers and pupils who collaborate in creating representations as dynamic
models and who can explain the operations in the mathematical problems they are facing,
might understand and be capable of defining strategies for a wide range of problems.
It is noteworthy that the essence of solution with Excel does not aim to inculcate the
inverse multiplication algorithm. Rather, it is designed to provide an instrument that
facilitates a visual presentation of division of fractions in the meaning of grouping, com-
prehension of the meaning of the quotient and particularly the meaning of the remaining
part when the quotient is not a natural number. We do not recommend using only the Excel
software; we only advocate the idea that the pupils construct the solution process using a
dynamic instrument.

Contribution of the research

Findings from the current study attest to the immense effect of computerized teaching
aids, when properly used, on both pupil and teacher growth. The current study suggests
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 17

that the best way to achieve this effect is using a dynamic representation of problems. Also,
and not less important, teachers should bring to the table content and pedagogical knowl-
edge and have a clear objective of what they would like to achieve when introducing the
computerized aid.

Research limitations
The study population was small and chosen by the participating teachers with no specific
guidance. In addition, there was no control group.
The research procedure could have involved more variables, such as the impact of
individualized teaching and the effect of the questions the teachers posed to the pupils
throughout the intervention process. Hence, it was difficult to attribute the changes in the
pupils’ knowledge only to the visual representation with the Excel.
This issue should be explored on a bigger scale, at the classroom level, and perhaps
by means of other technological instruments, as flexible as the excel tool but perhaps
friendlier, allowing the pupils to more swiftly represent mathematical problems.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes
1. The reference whole is mentioned by Shahbari and Peled (2012) in the context of percentage
problems. In their paper, they discuss a dynamic reference whole.
2. This issue is detailed in the paper of the Klemer et al. (2018).
3. It is noteworthy that the problem does indeed create a cognitive conflict. However, attention
should be paid to the fact that one quarter or one third of a pillowcase has no meaning. Hence,
when reconstructing a study, one has to present a problem in which the remaining part has a
meaning. For example: How many jars of ¼ l can be filled from a container of 10 l of jam. In the
case of a jar that is not full, then how much jam will the additional jar contain. In a question of
this type one can relate to the number of the full jars and the remaining part has a meaning.
4. See examples in the paper of Klemer et al. (2018).

References
Ashlock, R. B. (1994). Error patterns in computation (6th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Ball, D. L. (2010). Knowing mathematics well enough to teach it: From teachers’ knowledge to
knowledge for teaching. Presented at the Institute for Social Research Colloquium, Ann Arbor,
MI.
Escuder, A., & Furner, J. M. (2011). The Impact of GeoGebra in Math Teachers’ Professional Develop-
ment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics
Annual Conference, Denver, CO.
Ferrucci, B. J., Yeap, B. H. Y., & Carter, J. A. (2003). A modeling approach for Enhancing problem
solving in the middle grades. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8(9), 470–475.
Grabber, A. O. (1993). Misconceptions about multiplication and division. Arithmetic Teacher, 40(7),
408–411.
Gravemeijer, K., & Galen, F. V. (2003). Facts and algorithms as products of students’ own mathe-
matical activity. In W. G. Martin, J. Kilpatrick, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research 2003 Companion
to principles and Standards for school mathematics (pp. 114–122). Reston, VA: NCTM.
18 K. ANAT ET AL.

Hughes, J. E. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-
integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 377–402.
Kamii, C., & Dominick, A. (1998). The harmful effects of algorithms in grades 1–4. In L. J. Morrow,
& M. J. Kenney (Eds.), The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics: 1998 NCTM
yearbook (pp. 130–140). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kent, L. B., Empson, S. B., & Nielsen, L. (2015). The richness of children’s fraction strategies. Teaching
Children Mathematics, 22(2), 85–90.
Klemer, A., Rapoport, S., & Lev, Z. H. (2018). The missing link in teachers’ knowledge about common
fractions division. International Journal of mathematical education in science and technology.
Lamon, S. (1994). Ratio and proportion: Cognitive foundations in unitizing and norming. In
G. Harel, & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of
mathematics (pp. 89–122). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Offir, B. (2010). The process of change in education: Moving from descriptive to prescriptive research.
Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Perlwitz, M. D. (2005). Reconciling self-generated solutions with algorithmic answers. Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 10(6), 278–283.
Shahbari, G., & Peled, A. (2012). Modeling and cognitive conflict on the way to improve the
perception of the reference integer in fractions. Mispar Hazak (2000), 21, 23–30. [Hebrew].
Sharon, V. V., & Swarthout, M. B. (2015). How many in one? Mathematics in the Middle School, 20(5),
308–312.
Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to
practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350.
Tabach, M., & Slutzky, G. (2015). Former high-tech employees becoming high school mathematics
teachers in a computerised environment. In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, I. Blau, A. Caspi, N. Geri, Y. Kalman,
& V. Silber-Varod (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Chase Conference for the study of Innovation
and learning technologies: The learning Man in the technological Era. Raanana: Open University.
[Hebrew].
Tirosh, D. (2000). Enhancing prospective teachers’ knowledge of children’s conceptions: The case of
fractions division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 5–25.