Abstract
Understanding function is a critical aspect of algebraic reasoning, and building functional relationships is an activity encouraged in the younger grades to foster students’ relational thinking. One way to foster functional thinking is to leverage the power of students’ capabilities to reason with quantities and their relationships. This paper explicates the ways in which reasoning directly with quantities can support middle-school students’ understanding of linear and quadratic functions. It explores how building quantitative relationships can support an initial function understanding from a covariation perspective, and later serve as a foundation to build a more flexible view of function that includes the correspondence perspective.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bednarz, N., Kieran, C., & Lee, L. (1996). Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Buck, J. C. (1995). Fostering connections between classes of polynomial functions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics education (17th, Columbus, OH, October, 1995).
Bussi, M. G. B., & Mariotti, M. A. (1999). Semiotic mediation: From history to the mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 27–35.
Carlson, M. (1998). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III, Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 114–163.
Carlson, M., & Oehrtman, M. (2005). Key aspects of knowing and learning the concept of function. Mathematical Association of America Research Sampler.
Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 352–378.
Carlson, M. P., Smith, N., & Persson, J. (2003). Developing and connecting calculus students’ notions of rate of change and accumulation: The fundamental theorem of calculus. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 2, pp. 165–172). Honolulu, HI: CRDG, College of Education, University of Hawai’i.
Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2002, April). Designing and implementing early algebra activities: From finding unknowns to representing variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Las Vegas, NV.
Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond Formulas in Mathematics and Teaching: Dynamics of the High School Algebra Classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Chazan, D. (2006). “What if not?” and teachers’ mathematics. In F. Rosamund & L. Copes (Eds.), Educational Transformations: Changing Our Lives Through Mathematics; A Tribute to Stephen Ira Brown (pp. 3–20). Bloomington, Indiana: AuthorHouse.
Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1992). Function probe: Multi-representational software for Learning about functions. New York State Association for Computers and Technology in Education 6 (pp. 60–64).
Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1994). Exponential functions, rates of change, and the multiplicative unit. In P. Cobb (Ed.), Learning Mathematics (pp. 31–60). Dordrech, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 66–86.
Cooney, T., & Wilson, M. (1996). Teachers’ thinking about functions: Historical and research perspectives. In T. A. Romberg & E. Fennema (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions (pp. 131–158). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dreyfus, T., & Halevi, T. (1991). QuadFun: A case study of pupil computer interaction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 10(2), 43–48.
Ellis, A. B. (2007). The influence of reasoning with emergent quantities on students’ generalizations. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 439–478.
Ellis, A. B. (2009, April). A quantitative understanding of quadratic growth: What is DiRoG and why does it matter? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Ellis, A. B., & Grinstead, P. (2008). Hidden lessons: How a focus on slope-like properties of quadratic functions encouraged unexpected generalizations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(4), 277–296.
English, L., & Warren, E. (1995). General reasoning processes and elementary algebraic understanding: Implications for instruction. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(4), 1–19.
Farenga, S. J., & Ness, D. (2005). Algebraic thinking part II: The use of functions in scientific inquiry. Science Scope, 29(1), 62–64.
Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 515–556). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.
Kaput, J. (1995). Long term algebra reform: Democratizing access to big ideas. In C. Lacampagne, W. Blair, & J. Kaput (Eds.), The Algebra Initiative Colloquium (pp. 33–52). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Kieran, C. (1996). The changing face of school algebra. In 8th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Selected Lectures (pp. 271–286). S.A.E.M. THALES.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.
Lobato, J., Ellis, A. B., & Muñoz, R. (2003). How “focusing phenomena” in the instructional environment afford students’ generalizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(3), 1–36.
MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Seeing a pattern and writing a rule. In I. Hirabayashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu, & F. L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 181–188). Tsukuba, Japan: PME Program Committee.
Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to Algebra (pp. 65–86). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Mokros, J., Economopoulos, K., & Russel, S. J. (1995). Beyond Arithmetic: Changing Mathematics in the Elementary Classroom. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour.
Monk, S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The Concept of Function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy (pp. 175–193).
Monk, G. S., & Nemirovsky, R. (1994). The case of Dan: Student construction of a functional situation through visual attributes. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Shoenfield, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education I (Vol. 4, pp. 139–168). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Ogonowski, M. (1993). Children, additive change, and calculus (Working Paper 2-93). Cambridge: TERC.
Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Mathematics in the Streets and in Schools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Orton, A., & Orton, J. (1994). Students’ perception and use of pattern and generalization. In J. P. da Ponto & J. F. Matos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. III, pp. 407–414). Lisbon, Portugal: PME Program Committee.
Rasmussen, C. L. (2000). New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 55–87.
Romberg, T. A., Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1993). Toward a common research perspective. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions (pp. 1–9). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating students’ engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies of Learning (pp. 47–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schliemann, A. D., Araujo, C., Cassundé, M. A., Macedo, S., & Nicéas, L. (1998). Multiplicative commutativity in school children and street sellers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(4), 422–435.
Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., & Brizuela, B. M. (2001). When tables become function tables. In Proceedings of the XXV Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 145–152). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., Brizuela, B. M., Earnest, D., Goodrow, A., Lara-Roth, S., & Peled, I. (2003). Algebra in the elementary school. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PME-NA (Vol. 4, pp. 127–134). Honolulu, HI: CRDG, College of Education, University of Hawai’i.
Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., & Brizuela, B. (2007). Bringing Out the Algebraic Character of Arithmetic: From Children’s Ideas to Classroom Practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: Brakes or levers in learning the function concept? The role of computer tools. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(4), 362–390.
Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification: The case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191–228.
Slavit, D. (1997). An alternative route to the reification of functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 259–281.
Smith, E. (2003). Stasis and change: Integrating patterns, functions, and algebra throughout the K-12 curriculum. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 136–150).
Smith, E., & Confrey, J. (1994). Multiplicative structures and the development of logarithms: What was lost by the invention of function. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The Development of Multiplicative Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics (pp. 333–364). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Smith, J., & Thompson, P. (2007). Quantitative reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades (pp. 133–160). New York: Erlbaum.
Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1997). Building foundations for algebra. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 2(4), 253–260.
Steffe, L., & Izsak, A. (2002). Pre-service middle-school teachers’ construction of linear equation concepts through quantitative reasoning. In D. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. White, H. Wiegel, R. Bryant, & K. Noony (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 1163–1172). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Thompson, P. W. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The Development of Multiplicative Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics (pp. 181–234). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366.
Yerushalmy, M. (2000). Problem solving strategies and mathematical resources: A longitudinal view on problem solving in a function based approach to algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(2), 125–147.
Zandieh, M. J. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), CBMS Issues in Mathematics: Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education IV (Vol. 8, pp. 103–127). Providence: American Mathematical Society.
Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Conceptual obstacles in the Learning of quadratic functions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19(1), 20–44.
Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P., & Gadowsky, K. (2003). Conceptions of function translation: Obstacles, intuitions, and rerouting. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 435–448.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ellis, A.B. (2011). Algebra in the Middle School: Developing Functional Relationships Through Quantitative Reasoning. In: Cai, J., Knuth, E. (eds) Early Algebraization. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-17734-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-17735-4
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)