Measuring length

August 2009

Young children are inherent measurers and this is reflected strongly in everyday language when they compare, order and match I can swim right across the pool now; its too big for me to lift; it wont fit in the box; my hand is bigger than your hand. Personal experiences, such as playing with toys, interactions with other children, conversations with parents, all reinforce childrens early development of the concept of attributes that can be measured. As indicated on the Mathematics Developmental Continuum, teaching about each of the measurement attributes for objects (such as length, area, volume, capacity, mass, angle, temperature) and for events (such as time and chance) can be represented in terms of three broad phases:

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/maths/mathscontinuum/mcd/meas phases.htm

This reading will focus mainly on the first two of these phases, drawing on examples from the attribute of length.

Identifying the attribute of length

Battista (2006) claims that the concept of length, while seemingly simple for adults, can be difficult for young children to understand. The length of a journey may be interpreted in terms of the journey time or the effort involved. Walking from home to school, for example, may seem to the child a greater distance than driving from home to the next town. In fact the expression how long does it take may add to a students difficulty in grasping the concept of length as a distance between two points. Then there is the distinction between the straight line distance between two points (as indicated by the dotted line between the ends of a piece of bent wire), and the distance along the wire, that is, the length of the bent wire. Children may initially consider these as the same. It is important that this distinction is made between the length of an object and distance between two points.

Learning to measure
Conservation and transitivity Battista (2006) contrasts nonmeasurement reasoning that involves visual judgments and comparisons (for example, students might compare lengths of objects by placing them next to each other) and measurement reasoning, where students use counting and units. He claims that the most sophisticated reasoning about length involves the integration of nonmeasurement reasoning and measurement reasoning (p. 141). Piaget, Inhelder and Szeminska (1960) identified the reasoning concepts of conservation (for example, understanding that the length of an object is not changed by changing its position) and transitivity (the ability to infer that one object is longer than another by making direct comparisons of each with a third object). Hiebert (1981) notes that it is commonly believed that children are not ready to learn certain linear measurement concepts until they have developed these basic logical reasoning processes of conservation and transitivity. However, in a study with first-grade children, Hiebert concluded that the absence of conservation and transitive reasoning does not seem to limit the childrens learning of most measurement concepts, although those who are capable of such reasoning tend to be more successful. It would be more productive to involve children in a variety of concrete measuring activities than to wait until they develop these reasoning concepts. For most students, understanding of conservation and transitivity will develop alongside their understanding of measurement. Additivity Hiebert (1984) reports that many first-grade children were able to learn measurement concepts through concrete activities. Children were given the representation of a road made from Cuisenaire rods of different lengths placed to form a right angle. They were then asked to make a straight road that would be just as far to walk as on the bending road. Some children approached the task by covering the bent road with a collection of rods then placing a finger at each end of a straight section and trying to physically move it to join the other section. Often this resulted in the rods flying apart, but the children soon realised that they could simply collect all the rods together again and place them end to end to form the straight road. They often placed them in a different order from before, indicating that they recognized that the total length is the sum of the individual linear segments and that length is conserved even when the segments come apart and are rearranged (p. 20).

In another activity, on a background picture of trees, two rectangles of different lengths represented logs. The children were given scissors and a single Cuisenaire rod and asked to saw the longer log to make it the same length as the other. Hiebert reports that almost all of them understood that an equal number of units meant equal lengths (p. 21). Most of the errors were due to difficulties in physically placing the unit rod so the beginning of each unit exactly matched the endpoint of the previous one. Same sized units Students frequently see no problem with using different units (for example, a paper clip and a pencil, or two different sized paper clips) as long as they cover the entire length of the object in some way. Curry, Mitchelmore and Outhred (2006) investigated development of childrens understanding of length, area and volume measurement in grades 14. They found that students often rejected the use of different sized units when measuring area or volume but did not see a problem with using different sized units for length. It became clear that the students choice of identical units for measuring area or volume was based on incorrect reasons, such as the physical impossibility of fitting together different sized tiles to cover an area. Curry, Mitchelmore and Outhred note that young students appear to have a much poorer understanding of the need for identical units that leave no gaps than teachers often assume, and they may indeed have no clear concept of what they are measuring (p. 383). The importance of using the same sized unit should be emphasised along with the development of students conceptual understanding of why this is necessary. In the first year of a three year longitudinal study of children initially in years 1 to 3, Lehrer, Jenkins and Osana (1998) found that over 80% of the children saw no problem with mixing two differentlength paper clips. Over time, however, 80% of children in grades 4 and 5 said that the units needed to be the same. Standard versus arbitrary units Boulton-Lewis, Wilss and Mutch (1996) acknowledge the widely held view that children should begin by measuring with non-standard (arbitrary) units such as paper clips, handspans or blocks, a view that is based on the belief that this will help students to recognise the need for a standard unit. However, they also note that this does not allow students to believe that they are really measuring as they see adults around them doing. In a study of 70 Brisbane children in the first three years of school, Boulton-Lewis, Wilss and Mutch observed that children preferred to use a standard measure such as a ruler rather than non-standard units even though they did not necessarily use the ruler accurately. Boulton-Lewis, Wilss and Mutch recommend that children be encouraged to measure directly and indirectly with both standard measures and arbitrary units from the first year of school (p. 345). For those children who prefer to use standard measures, Boulton-Lewis, Wilss and Mutch believe that measurement activities would perhaps be more enjoyable and meaningful, but that it would be necessary for teachers to discuss explicitly how people use standard measures, for example, how to deal with the gap at the end of a ruler. They do, however, indicate that discussion of the need for standard measuring devices should be left until children are 8 or 9 years of age.

Unit iteration Unit iteration is the ability to recognise that a unit length, for example a block, can be repeatedly placed along the length of an object. Although this seems obvious to adults, it is not necessarily obvious to students. Clements and Stephan (2004) report, for example, that primary students who were measuring the length of their classroom said they did not have enough metre rulers to lay down along the length, not recognising that they could use one iteratively-placed metre rule, provided they marked the position of the end of each successive placement of the ruler. Kamii and Clark (1997) note that unit iteration involves mentally making a part-whole relationship between the total length and the length of a smaller object viewed as a part of the whole length (p. 120). They observe that typical textbook measurement activities usually ask students to state how many units, and only motivate them to give a number as an answer. By contrast, activities that involve students in discussion can develop their transitive reasoning and understanding of unit iteration. Kamii and Clark describe a kindergarten class where students were challenged to make indirect measurements by finding out, for example, if a table would fit through the doorway. Lehrer (2003) notes that children may often iterate a unit leaving gaps between the units or even overlap the units. Clements and Stephan (2004) observed that for many children iterating a unit simply means the physical activity of placing units end-to-end rather than an activity of covering the space between two points with no gaps. Clements and Stephan note that when students count each unit iteration, teachers should focus students conversations on that to which they are referring. For example, if a student iterates a unit five times, the five represents five units of length. (p. 391). They note further that when using rulers to measure, for some students five represents the number beside the mark on the ruler rather than the amount of space covered by the five units: in this way, the marks on a ruler mask the intended conceptual understanding involved in measurement. Battista (2006) developed a conceptual framework with accompanying assessment tasks to understand young students thinking about length. In a task designed to check students correct unit iteration, the students were presented with a rectangle which had hash marks on the top and left sides, but none on the bottom and right sides. Battista describes how a grade one student drew and counted rods all the way around a rectangle, drawing the correct number of rods where there were hash marks, but not maintaining the unit size on the sides of the rectangle where there were no hash marks, similar to that shown in the following diagram. The student simply counted the units to obtain 21.

By contrast, a grade four student who completed the same task, carefully drew the units without gaps and maintained the correct unit size on the four sides of the rectangle, obtaining a correct length of 16 units. At a more sophisticated level, students are able to infer certain lengths without explicitly iterating every unit length. Battista noted that one student was able to look at the hash marks on the top and left side and infer that the bottom would also be 5 units and the right side would be 3 units because it wouldnt really be like a rectangle if they werent the same length (p. 144).

At the highest level of measurement reasoning, Battista notes that students were able to operate on numerical measurements, making complex, property-based visual inferences about measurements, often by making transformations or by using properties of geometric shapes (p. 145). In a shape such as the following, for example, these students would be able to deduce missing side lengths or to recognise that the perimeter of the shape would be the same as that of a rectangle 50 units by 30 units.

10 10 40 10 10 ?
This stage would seem to be representing a transition to the Measurement Calculation phase of the Mathematics Developmental Continuum. Zero point Lehrer (2003) notes that many children start with one rather than zero on a ruler. Only a minority of young children understand that any point on a scale can serve as a starting point provided they count the unit intervals corresponding to the length of the object they are measuring. Even older children, if working with a non-zero origin, will simply read off whatever number on the ruler corresponds with the end point of the object they are measuring. In the longitudinal study of children in years 1 to 3 referred to above, Lehrer, Jenkins and Osana (1998) presented children with an object 7 units long placed on a ruler with the ends of the object at the 2 unit and 9 unit marks. In the first year of the study, 21% of children focused on the endpoint of the object, stating the length as 9 units, or added 2 and 9 to state a length of 11 units. Another 41% of students used 1 as the zero point, stating the length as 8 units. This use of 1 as the zero point was equally common amongst students in grades 1, 2 and 3. It would seem when using rulers and other measuring instruments, many children believe they are counting by the numbers beside the hash marks rather than focusing on the units as the spaces between the hash marks. This difficulty with markers or spaces on rulers was highlighted in a study reported by Barrett, Jones, Thornton and Dickson (2003). Grade 2 students were given rulers with millimetre hash marks between the centimetre marks as shown:

30

1 cm

2 cm

The students had recognised that the small hash marks represented millimetres and were asked to use the ruler to find how many millimetres in one centimetre. One student claimed that there were 8 millimetres in one centimetre. The diagram below shows her method of counting, where she counted the hash marks, but ignored the longer mark at 5 millimetres. She then revised her answer to 11, by counting not only the 5 millimetre mark but the end marks as well. Such misconceptions are common.

1 cm 1

8 2 cm

These examples illustrate the need to emphasise to students that when they measure length they are looking at the end-to-end unit spaces, not counting hash marks. When using a ruler, it is important that students recognise that the first unit space is between the 0 and 1 marks, so the 0 mark is the starting point. Proportionality In Hieberts (1984) study, first grade children were presented with a curvy road made from five 7-cm Cuisenaire rods and then asked to build a straight road with 5-cm Cuisenaire rods so that there would be just as far to walk on the straight road as on the curvy road. Because their rods were shorter, they could not simply count, and because the given road was crooked, they could not complete the task by matching. The only way they could complete the task was by recognising that because their rods were shorter, they would need more of them. Any solution that contained more than five rods was considered appropriate. Hiebert reports that children who did not conserve or reason transitively had an especially difficult time with this taskThey used a simple counting strategy and simply laid down the same number of short rods as long ones (p. 22). Hiebert notes that in the study this concept was the only one that seemed to depend on conservation and transitive reasoning. Even students at secondary school level often have difficulty with the inverse relationship between size of unit and number of units measured. This becomes particularly evident when they convert between units, where they do not always recognise that if they are converting from centimetres to metres, there will be fewer metres, so they must divide by 100 rather than multiply by 100.

References Barrett, J. E., Jones, G., Thornton, C., & Dickson, S. (2003). Understanding childrens developing strategies and concepts for length. In D. H. Clements & G. Bright (Eds.). Learning and teaching measurement. 2003 yearbook., Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Battista, M. T. ((2006). Understanding the development of students thinking about length. Teaching Children Mathematics, October, 13(3), 140147. Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Wilss, L. A., & Mutch, S. L. (1996). An analysis of young childrens strategies and use of devices for length measurement. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 15, 329347. Clements, D. H. & Stephan, M. (2004). Measurement in pre-K to grade 2 mathematics. In D. H. Clements, Sarama, J. & A-M DiBiase, Engaging young children in mathematics, pp. 299 317, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Curry, M., Mitchelmore, M, & Outhred, L. (2006). Development of childrens understanding of length, area, and volume principles. In J. Novotn, H. Moraov, M. Krtk, & N. Stehlkov (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2, pp. 377384, Prague: PME. Hiebert, J. (1981). Cognitive development and learning linear measurement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12(3), 197211. Hiebert, J. (1984). Why do some children have trouble learning measurement concepts? Arithmetic Teacher, March, 3(7), 1924. Inhelder, B., Piaget, J., & Szeminska, A. (1960). The childs conception of geometry, pp. 104127. (E. A. Lunzer, Trans.). New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Kamii, C., & Clark, F. B. (1997). Measurement of length: the need for a better approach to teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 97, 116-121. Lehrer, R. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement. In Kilpatrick, J., Martin, W. G., & Schifter, D., A research companion to Principles and Standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Lehrer, R., Jenkins, M., & Osana, H. (1998). Longitudinal study of childrens reasoning about space and geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan, Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space, pp. 137167. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.