Algebra is an important branch of mathematics which applies to many fields related to mathematics. However, many studies show algebra as posing problems even to the most gifted students. This phenomenon, therefore, necessitates more studies to be conducted in this area. As such, the study explored the types of errors that Grade 8 learners committed in simplifying algebraic expressions and the misconceptions that might have given rise to such errors. Ninety-five Grade 8 learners were selected as the subjects of the study at one high school in Lesotho. Within the framework of the Qualitative case study design, the study used tasks and interviews for data collection. The thematic approach to data analysis within the framework of the constructivist theory was adopted. The study identified most errors committed by the learners as persistent. Overgeneralizing the rules of prior knowledge to new knowledge, particularly in different contexts, was the most frequent cause of the errors. In addition to this was the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of correct meanings in the given context. Some of the identified errors overlapped with those in the reviewed literature while others did not.
This article explores argumentation using indigenous language as a strategy to reduce misconceptions in addition and subtraction of directed numbers. Within a social constructivism theory, the study was a quasi-experimental design. The two groups, the experimental group (n=39) and control group (n=39), wrote a pre-test and post-test. The pre-test was analysed to find the persistent errors that the students made and were interviewed to find their misconceptions. The finding of the study has revealed that the students have the misconception of an overgeneralization, misconception of direct translation and commutative misconception. During the intervention, both groups were familiarised with scientific argumentation, the control group argues in English and the experimental groups were introduced to argumentation in their native language (Sesotho). After using the statistical package for social science (SPSS) the experimental group’s performance on the post-test was significantly better than that of the control group. The number of misconceptions for the experimental group was reduced. Lastly, the study’s finding has shown that the arguments were longer, clear, and more meaningful in their indigenous language. The students’ performance was even positively influenced by indigenous language argumentation. It is, therefore, recommended that the students’ homegrown language be used as an alternative language of instruction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.