Students who could solve basic shape problems still showed misconceptions on composite shape problems mid-intervention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-29 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Test 2, students correctly solved basic shape problems but answered the composite shape problem incorrectly, e.g., by summing side lengths as perimeter or multiplying all side lengths. → Eunhye Flavin 2025

Evidence¶

Eunhye Flavin 2025¶

Flavin, E., Chung, M., Hwang, S., & Flavin, M. T. (2025). Augmented reality for area measurement reasoning of elementary students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 73(4), 2663–2697. doi:10.1007/s11423-025-10502-0

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Analysis of written Test 2 responses in the multiple-case study: although Myrlène and Daisy correctly solved basic shape problems, both answered the composite L-shape problem incorrectly; the authors say students "exhibited misconceptions when faced with composite shape problems".

"Myrlène calculated the perimeter of an L-shape (rather than an area) by summing all the side lengths (6 + 2 + 1 + 1). Daisy multiplied all the side lengths (6 × 2 × 9 × 7)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Measurement — outcome: instruction changes it
• Problem Solving — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• AR activities with an instructor facilitated elementary students' area measurement reasoning to the highest trajectory phase for both basic and composite shapes — related
• Walking the body-scale number line disrupted students' prior misconceptions and erroneous rules, which resurfaced when they returned to the desk-scale number line — related