Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:23:16.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagnostic and Remedial Work in Arithmetic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2016

Doris M. Lee
Doris M. Lee*
Affiliation:
Institute of Education, University of London
Get access

Extract

Many everyday events give rise to a need for quantitative thinking, thus leading to the creation of numbers and number relations in living experience. Such development of number in the normal spheres of human activity is one of the fundamental modes of human thought, and early consideration of this initial number work may be confined to verbal form. At this stage, situations requiring number thought can be discussed as they arise, and two consecutive situations often have no more in common than the use of number itself. It is this realisation which enables number-learning to take place. Increasing awareness of number and number-relations brings greater complexity, and it is then that the notation of number is needed. This notation has to be learned in relation to the ideas represented, and there are two major forms :

(i) The figures 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and the notion of place position to represent other numbers.

(ii) The use of a standard measure to facilitate comparisons between certain similar quantities such as length and weight.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Mathematical Gazette , Volume 39 , Issue 330 , December 1955, pp. 265 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © The Mathematical Association 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Attainment tests in Arithmetic are available for different age-groups. Examples are:Google Scholar
(i) Fleming, C.M., Kelvin Measurement of Arithmetical Ability (8–12 yrs.). Cotswold Measurement of Arithmetic Ability (10–12 yrs.). Robert Gibson and Sons Ltd., Glasgow.Google Scholar
(ii) Schoneil, F.J., Essential Mechanical Arithmetic Tests. Form A (7–12 yrs.), Form B (7–11 yrs.). Essential Problem Arithmetic Tests. Forms A and B (7–14 yrs.). Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., Edinburgh and London Google Scholar
(iii) Vernon, P.E., Graded Arithmetic-Mathematics Test.(Arithmetic Ages 7–21 yrs.). University of London Press, Ltd.Google Scholar
2. Fleming, C.M., A Series of Fifty Diagnostic Tests. Ginn and Company Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Schonell, F.J., (1936), Schonell Diagnostic Arithmetic Tests. Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., Edinburgh and London.Google Scholar
3. Fleming, C.M., loc. cit., Tests 1–4, 8-9, 13-14.Google Scholar
4. Schonell, F.J., loc. cit., Tests 1–5.Google Scholar
5. Fleming, C.M., loc. cit., Tests 5, 7, 10, 15–18, 21–24, 27–28, 32–33, 38–40, 42–50.Google Scholar
6. Schonell, F.J., loc. cit., Tests 6–11.Google Scholar
7. Scottish Council for Research in Education, (1941), Studies in Arithmetic Volume II University of London Press, Ltd., Gardner, P.A.D. An Analysis of Errors in Fractions, p. 135.Google Scholar
8. Fleming, C.M., loc. cit., Tests 6, 11–12, 19–20, 25, 26, 29, 30–31, 34–35, 36–37, 41, covering money, weight, length and capacity,Google Scholar
9. Schonell, F.J., (1937), Diagnosis of Individual Difficulties in Arithmetic. Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., London and Edinburgh, p. 38.Google Scholar
10. Schonell, F.J., loc. cit., pp. 14, 15, 17.Google Scholar
11. The pupils were selected on three grounds:Google Scholar
(i) Those with high intelligence scores and low academic attainment in all subjects.Google Scholar
(ii) Those with high intelligence scores and low attainment in Arithmetic onlyGoogle Scholar
(iii) Those with low intelligence scores and low academic attainment in all subjects.Google Scholar
12. This table is included by permission of Dr.King, W.H., University of London Institute of Education, who conducted the testing jointly with the author. Institute of EducationGoogle Scholar