The Exclusion of the Students’ Dynamic Misconceptions in

College Algebra: a Paradigm of Diagnosis and Treatment

Mohammad A. Yazdani, Ph.D. †

Abstract

We refer to dynamic misconceptions in college algebra as systematic errors,

which are the consequences of misapprehensions and misconstructions of algebraic
concepts and skills. In summer of 2004 an experimental study was designed and
implemented to identify students’ misconceptions in college algebra. In addition, a
method was devised to eliminate the misconceptions. We employed a selected response
assessment instrument to evaluate the students’ knowledge in college algebra.
Furthermore, we utilized an uncomplicated approach to measure the participants’ degree
of certainty of their selections. An item analysis of each answer in conjunction with the
degree of certainty for that response directed us to determine the student’s
miscomprehension and/or misinterpretations of the concepts. As a result we identified
the participant’s level of knowledge (appropriate, improper, or misconception) with
reference to the measured information and/or skills. We utilized a combination of
instructional strategies such as individual tutoring, peer tutoring, cooperative learning
groups, and related computer programs to assist the students to discern their
misconceptions. As a final point, we re-taught the misunderstood concepts and skills.

Background

The literature suggests that assessment of students’ advancement in mathematics

is interwoven with the learning and teaching of this discipline. Stiggins (1997) writes,
“Assessment and instruction can be one and the same if and when we want them to be”.
Glatthorn, et al. (1998) state, “the achievement cycle begins with curriculum and moves
from there to assessment and then into instruction”. De Lange (1999) expresses, “New
views of assessment call for tasks that are embedded in the curriculum, the notion being
that assessment should be an integral part of learning process rather than an interruption
of it”. The objectives of assessment in mathematics are the followings:
• To accumulate data regarding students’ learning and achievement in
mathematics.
• To analyze this information for feasible revising of the instructional design,
delivery, and possible re-teaching of the concepts which students did not attain
the expected proficiency in.
• To provide feedback to students, parents or guardians, and school
administrators.
The widely used instruments to assess students’ knowledge and achievement in
a subject matter are standardized test in the form of Selected Response Assessment
(multiple choice). These instruments are constructed using a psychometric model. The
aim of this model is to be as objective as possible. Nevertheless, there always remains a
doubt en route for the possibility of guessing the correct answer or unintentionally
choosing the proper response by the student. Taking into consideration the 20%
probability of guessing or coincidently selecting the correct response in a multiple choice

Journal of Mathematical Sciences & Mathematics Education 32

question with five possible answers, the scores obtaining from such instruments would
not endow us with a precise assessment of students’ achievement in mathematics.
Consequently, we are unable to present an accurate feed back to students, parents or
school administrators. Moreover, it would not supply us with adequate information to
assist students to triumph over their deficiencies by revisiting the contents. The precise
information is essential to analyze and demonstrate student’s mastery of required
concepts and skills discussed in such instruments. To re-teach a mathematical skills
effectively we should investigate if the deficiency is the end result of students’ lack of
knowledge or it is the consequence of their misapprehensions of the mathematical
concepts and skills. In the present document we refer to such misapprehensions and
misinterpretations as misconceptions. Since misconceptions in all probability are
components of an imperfect cognitive structure shaped because of erroneous knowledge
instructed to the students by educators and/or students’ life experience, it is indispensable
to determine the sources of students’ misconceptions. Mestre, J. (1989) writes,
“Misconceptions are a problem for two reasons. First they interfere with the learning
when students use them to interpret new experiences. Second, students are emotionally
and intellectually attached to their misconceptions, because they have actively
constructed them. Hence, students give up their misconceptions, which can have such a
harmful effect on learning, only with great reluctance”. Hasan, et al. (1999) claim,
“Misconceptions are strongly held cognitive structures that are different from the
accepted understanding in a field and that are presumed to interfere with the acquisition
of new knowledge”. The treatment to prevail over lack of knowledge requires re-
teaching, reconstructing, and reinforcing the concepts and skills which students are
deficient in. Meanwhile, the treatment to overcome the misconception requires the
elimination of the misconception followed by re-teaching, reconstructing and reinforcing
the correct concept and skills.
As mathematics educators it was of our interest to search for a reliable and an
effective strategy to assist us to interpret the information obtained from the Selected
Response Assessment instruments. Furthermore, we were concerned to not only discover
a strategy to eradicate the possibility of guessing the correct response by students, yet
assist us in identifying the students’ deficiencies as well.

The Method

To achieve this goal we employed a method to measure the students’ degree of

certainty (DC) regarding to the correctness of their responses. We requested the students
select a response for each question, as well as, indicate, on a scale 1-4, how assured they
were of their choices. We asked the students to enter a numerical code, 1 through 4, in a
space provided beneath each question to indicate their degree of certainty for that
particular question. Table I illustrates the characteristics for any given entry code.

Table I
The Characteristic of Responses for Various Entry Degrees of Certainty
Entry Code Characteristic of the Response
1 They were guessing the response
2 They were not sure about the correctness of the answer
3 They were almost sure with reference to the correctness of the reply
4 They were certain of the correctness of the response

Journal of Mathematical Sciences & Mathematics Education 33

 There are 8 possible combinations of different answers collectively with various
degrees of certainty for each distinct question in this scheme. Table II demonstrates the
possibilities of a student’s response in conjunction with the degree of certainty (DC) for a
particular question. The table also illustrates the diagnosis of the student’s deficiency as
well as the appropriate treatment.

Table II
The Possible Combinations of a Student’s Response with Various Degrees of
Certainty as well as Diagnosis and Treatment for Each Distinct Case
P Answer DC Diagnosis Suggested Treatment
1 Correct 1 No Knowledge Re-Teach the Concept
2 Wrong 1 No Knowledge Re-Teach the Concept
3 Correct 2 No Knowledge Re-Teach the Concept
4 Wrong 2 No Knowledge Re-Teach the Concept
5 Correct 3 Proper Knowledge No Treatment Necessary
6 Wrong 3 Misconception Remove the Misconception, Re-Teach
7 Correct 4 Proper Knowledge No Treatment Necessary
8 Wrong 4 Misconception Remove the Misconception, Re-Teach
P= Possibility DC= Degree of Certainty

Item analysis of a group of students’ responses to each particular problem

directed us to 4 possible combinations of answers in concert with the mean of various
degrees of certainty. We employed the following formula to calculate the average degree
⎛ n ⎞
of certainty of a group of students for any particular question: ADC = n ⎜ ∑ DC ⎟ .
−1

⎝ 1 ⎠
Where ADC is the group’s average degree of certainty for any given response, DC is the
degree of certainty of any single student for that particular response, and n is the number
of the students forming the group. Table III demonstrates different possibilities of ADC
in conjunction with the response for any particular question. The table also indicates the
diagnosis and suggested treatments for each possibility.

Table III
The Possible Combinations of a Group’s Responses with Average Degrees of
Certainty as well as Diagnosis and Suggested Treatment for Each Distinct Case
P Answer ADC Diagnosis Suggested Treatment
1 Correct ADC<2.50 No Knowledge Re-Teach the Concept
2 Wrong ADC<2.50 No Knowledge Re-Teach the Concept
3 Correct ADC>2.51 Proper Knowledge No Treatment Necessary
4 Wrong ADC>2.51 Misconception Remove the Misconception &
Re-teach
P=Possibility ADC= Average Group’s Degree of Certainty

Journal of Mathematical Sciences & Mathematics Education 34

 The Experimental Study
Two classes of College Algebra students participated in our experimental study
(54 students). The instrument used in the study was selected from the college algebra
textbook publisher’s recommended assessment. The instrument was consistent with the
content information that was presented to the students. Therefore, the instrument was
valid because it exactly measured what it was supposed to measure. The test consisted of
Polynomials and Rational Functions, Exponential Functions and Their Applications, and
logarithmic Functions and Their Applications. The instrument contained 25 multiple
choice questions with maximum possible score of 25 points. We assigned the numerical
value of “1” for each correct response and “0” for every wrong answer. The followings
are samples of the instrument as well as the direction used in the present study:

Direction: Mark the one alternative that best answerers the question. For each selected
response provide a degree of certainty from 1 – 4 such that (1) represents total guessing,
(2) not being sure, (3) being almost sure, and (4) being certain of your response.
Solve for x: ( x − 0.75) = 32
2.5
•
(a) 32
0.4
+ 0.75
(b) 32
0.4
− 0.75
(c) 32 − 0.75
2.5

(d) 32 + 0.75
2.5

(e) 32 + 1.25
2.5

Degree of Certainty: 1 2 3 4

• We increase the length of a cubic container by 3 and decrease its height by

1. Calculate the width of the container if its volume is 6 cm3.
(a) 3
(b) 9
(c) 2
(d) - 3
(e) 1

Degree of Certainty: 1 2 3 4

• We deposit $15000 in a saving account. The monthly compounding interest

is 2.1%. Calculate the amount of the interest we will earn after 9 years.
(a) $ 18120.61
(b) $ 3161.21
(c) $ 3120.61
(d) $ 1866.16
(e) $ 4077.23

Degree of Certainty: 1 2 3 4
Journal of Mathematical Sciences & Mathematics Education 35
 • It takes 100,000 years for 20 grams of a radioactive element to be reduced
to 18 grams. Calculate the half-life of this element.
(a) 526820 years
(b) 326941 years
(c) 1053651 years
(d) 657881 years
(e) 693147 years

Degree of Certainty: 1 2 3 4

We assessed the students’ responses; in addition, we evaluated their answers in

conjunction with their degrees of certainty. Table IV displays the item analysis for one
individual student. Table V exhibits the item analysis for a group of students.

Table IV
A Sample of Item Analyses of a Student’s Responses Combine with Degree of
Certainty as well as Diagnosis and Treatment
Q G DC Diagnosis Suggested Treatment
1 1 4 Proper Knowledge None
2 1 4 Proper Knowledge None
3 1 4 Proper Knowledge None
4 1 4 Proper Knowledge None
5 1 4 Proper Knowledge None
6 0 4 Misconception Remove the Misconception, Re-Teach
7 1 3 Proper Knowledge None
8 1 3 Proper Knowledge None
9 1 3 Proper Knowledge None
10 1 3 Proper Knowledge None
11 1 3 Proper Knowledge None
12 1 4 Proper Knowledge None
13 1 4 Proper Knowledge None
14 1 3 Proper Knowledge None
15 1 3 Proper Knowledge None
16 1 2 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
17 0 1 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
18 0 4 Misconception Remove the Misconception, Re-Teach
19 0 4 Misconception Remove the Misconception, Re-Teach
20 1 3 Proper Knowledge None
21 0 1 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
22 0 3 Misconception Remove the Misconception, Re-Teach
23 0 3 Misconception Remove the Misconception, Re-Teach
24 0 4 Misconception Remove the Misconception, Re-Teach
24 1 2 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
24 0 1 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
Q = question G = Grade DC = Degree of Certainty

Journal of Mathematical Sciences & Mathematics Education 36

 Table V
The Item Analyses of a Group’s Responses Combine with Average Degree of
Certainty as well as Diagnosis and Treatment
Q AG ADC Diagnosis Suggested Treatment
1 1.00 3.82 Proper Knowledge None
2 1.00 4.00 Proper Knowledge None
3 1.00 4.00 Proper Knowledge None
4 0.96 3.00 Proper Knowledge None
5 0.88 3.62 Proper Knowledge None
6 0.16 3.20 Misconception Remove the Misconception & Re-Teach
7 0.78 3.41 Proper Knowledge None
8 0.81 3.50 Proper Knowledge None
9 0.82 3.71 Proper Knowledge None
10 0.76 3.64 Proper Knowledge None
11 0.96 3.82 Proper Knowledge None
12 0.68 3.42 Proper Knowledge None
13 0.82 2.82 Proper Knowledge None
14 0.98 3.12 Proper Knowledge None
15 0.78 2.88 Proper Knowledge None
16 0.10 2.02 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
17 0.42 1.12 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
18 0.56 3.80 Misconception Remove the Misconception & Re-Teach
19 0.43 3.64 Misconception Remove the Misconception & Re-Teach
20 0.96 3.50 Proper Knowledge None
21 0.23 1.16 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
22 0.38 3.20 Misconception Remove the Misconception & Re-Teach
23 0.42 3.74 Misconception Remove the Misconception & Re-Teach
24 0.42 2.12 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
24 0.10 1.36 No Knowledge Re-Teach the concept
Q=Question AG=Average Grade ADC=Average Degree of Certainty

The data, suggested that the majority of our students had misconceptions
regarding the mastery of the subject matters discussed in items # 6, 18, 19, 22, and 23. In
the present investigation the misconceptions were gave an account for the items involving
the Exponential and Logarithmic Functions and Their Applications. The item analysis
indicated that many of the subjects misunderstood the rules of logarithms and failed to
employ the correct rules in problem solving. Our task was to remove these
misapprehensions and misinterpretations. As mathematics educators and classroom
teachers we have experienced the students’ resistance to discern their misconceptions.
Furthermore, re-teaching the concepts and skills requires us to differentiate between the
students’ misconception and their improper knowledge. We modified the design of our
Journal of Mathematical Sciences & Mathematics Education 37
instructional content and delivery. Moreover, we employed such learning strategies as:
small cooperative group, peer tutoring, individual tutoring, and utilized related
instructional software to further encourage the students to allow their misconceptions to
surface. Finally we presented the students with the correct concepts and skills.
A remarkable characteristic of the present study was its simplicity and
straightforwardness. This attribute encouraged the students to unveil their misconceptions
as a part of their assessment. Hence, they assisted us to discover and extract the
misconceptions. We strongly recommend that mathematics educators of grades 9 – 16
utilize this strategy to examine the students’ genuine mathematical knowledge and to
identify their misconceptions.

† Mohammed A. Yazdani, Ph.D., University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA, USA

References

De Lange, J. (1999). Framework for Classroom Assessment in Mathematics. National

Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and
Science. Madison, Wisconsin. Freudental Institute.
Dugopolski, M. (2003). College Algebra. Boston, Massachusetts, Pearson Education, Inc.
Glatthorn, A., et. al (1998). Performance Assessment and Standard-Based Curricula: The
Achievement Cycle. Larchmont. New York, Eye On Education, Inc.
Hasan, S., et. al (1999). Misconceptions and the Certainty of Response Index. Teaching
Physics. September 1999. Physics Education 34 294 – 299
Mestre, J. (1989). Hispanic and Anglo Students’ Misconceptions in Mathematics. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools Charleston WV.1989-03-00
Stiggins, R. (1997). Student-Centered Classroom Assessment. Upper Saddle River,
NewJersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Journal of Mathematical Sciences & Mathematics Education 38