Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 135–157 | Cite as

Analogical reasoning and the development of algebraic abstraction

  • Lyn D. English
  • Patrick V. Sharry
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a theory of the development of algebraic abstraction which extends Sfard's (1991, 1994a,b) and Mason's (1982, 1989) ideas on the learner's progress from operational or process-oriented thinking to the abstract or structural perspective. The theory incorporates a process of analogical reasoning to account for the means by which the learner might construct expressions of generality and subsequently manipulate them as mathematical objects. Such reasoning entails similarity comparisons in which a mapping is made between the corresponding relational properties of algebraic examples. These comparisons may firstly entail “unpacking the relations” in the examples in order to highlight the structural commonalities. The common relational structure is subsequently extracted to form a knowledge basis, namely, the construction of a mental model or representation that expresses the observed generalisation. The theory is applied to an analysis of secondary school students' approaches to classifying a set of complex equations. A student who appeared capable of algebraic abstraction within the domain of the task is contrasted with two students who were at a “pseudostructural” stage, where their focus on syntactic surface structures prevented them from forming the relational mappings needed for the construction of generalised models of the equation types.

Keywords

Knowledge Basis Surface Structure Mental Model Relational Property Relational Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, P.A., White, C.S. and Daugherty, M.: forthcoming, ‘Children's use of analogical reasoning in early mathematics’, in L.D. English (ed.), Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors, and Images, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. BoothL.R.: 1988, ‘Children's difficulties in beginning algebra’, in A.F.Coxford and A.P.Shulte (eds.), The ideas of algebra, K-12, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, pp. 20–32.Google Scholar
  3. BoothL.R.: 1989, ‘A question of structure’, in S.Wagner and C.Kieran (eds.), Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, pp. 57–59.Google Scholar
  4. ClementJ.: 1993, ‘Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students' preconceptions in physics’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30 (10), 1241–1257.Google Scholar
  5. DavisR.B.: 1988, ‘The interplay of algebra, geometry, and logic’, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7, 9–28.Google Scholar
  6. English, L.D. (ed.): forthcoming, Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors, and Images, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. EnglishL.D. and HalfordG.S.: 1995, Mathematics Education: Models and Processes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  8. FilloyE. and RojanoT.: 1989, ‘Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra’, For the Learning of Mathematics 9 (2), 19–25.Google Scholar
  9. GentnerD.: 1983, ‘Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy’, Cognitive Science 7, 155–170.Google Scholar
  10. GentnerD.: 1988, ‘Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift’, Child Development 59, 47–59.Google Scholar
  11. GentnerD.: 1989, ‘The mechanisms of analogical learning’, in S.Vosniadou and A.Ortony (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 199–241.Google Scholar
  12. Gentner, D. and Markman, A.B.: 1993, ‘Similarity is like analogy: Structural alignment in comparison’, in C. Cacciari (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Similarity at the University of San Marino, Milan, Italy, Bompiani.Google Scholar
  13. GentnerD. and RattermannM.J.: 1991, ‘Language and the career of similarity’, in S.A.Gelman and J.P.Byrnes (eds.), Perspectives on Language and Thought: Interrelations in Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 225–277.Google Scholar
  14. GentnerD., RattermannM.J. and ForbusK.: 1994, ‘The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness’, Cognitive Psychology 25 (4), 524–575.Google Scholar
  15. GoldstoneR.L. and MedinD.L.: 1994, ‘Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping: An overview’, in K.J.Holyoak and J.A.Barnden (eds.), Advances in Connectionist and Neural Computation Theory, Vol. 2, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, pp. 321–362.Google Scholar
  16. GoswamiU.: 1991, ‘Analogical reasoning: what develops?’, Child Development 62 (1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  17. HalfordG. S.: 1993. Children's Understanding: The Development of Mental Models, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  18. HolyoakK.J. and ThagardP.: 1993, Mental Leaps, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. KaputJ.K.: 1987, ‘Towards a theory of symbol use in mathematics’, in C.Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 159–195.Google Scholar
  20. KieranC.: 1992, ‘The learning and teaching of school algebra’, in D.A.Grouws (ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, pp. 390–419.Google Scholar
  21. KuchemannD.E.: 1981, ‘Algebra’, in K.Hart (ed.), Children's Understanding of Mathematics 16, John Murray, London, pp. 102–119.Google Scholar
  22. MasonJ.: 1987, ‘What do symbols represent?’ in C.Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 73–81.Google Scholar
  23. MasonJ.: 1989, ‘Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention’, For the Learning of Mathematics 9 (2), 2–8.Google Scholar
  24. Kotovsky, L. and Gentner, D.: 1990, ‘Pack light: you will go farther’, in D. Gentner (chair), Similarity as Structural Alignment, Symposium conducted at the 2nd Midwest Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference, Carbondale, IL.Google Scholar
  25. NovickL.R.: 1992, ‘The role of expertise in solving arithmetic and algebra word problems by analogy’, in J.I.D.Campbell (ed.), The Nature and Origins of Mathematical Skills, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 155–188.Google Scholar
  26. PierceK.A. and GholsonB.: 1994, ‘Surface similarity and relational similarity in the development of analogical problem solving: isomorphic and nonisomorphic transfer’, Developmental Psychology 30 (5), 724–737.Google Scholar
  27. SierpinskaA.: 1994, Understanding Mathematics, The Falmer Press, London.Google Scholar
  28. SfardA.: 1991, ‘On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 22, 1–36.Google Scholar
  29. SfardA.: 1994a, ‘The gains and the pitfalls of reification—the case of algebra’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, 191–228.Google Scholar
  30. SfardA.: 1994b, ‘Reification as the birth of a metaphor’, For the Learning of Mathematics 14 (1), 44–55.Google Scholar
  31. SfardA. and LinchevskiL.: 1994. ‘The gains and the pitfalls of reification: the case of algebra’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, 191–224.Google Scholar
  32. SkempR.: 1982, ‘Communicating Mathematics: Surface and Deep Structures’, Visible Language 16, 281–288.Google Scholar
  33. StavyR. and TiroshD.: 1993, ‘When analogy is perceived as such’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30 (10), 1229–1239.Google Scholar
  34. VinnerS. and DreyfusT.: 1989, ‘Images and definitions for the concept of function’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20 (4), 356–366.Google Scholar
  35. vonGlasersfeldE.: 1987, ‘Preliminaries to any theory of representation’, in C.Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 215–225.Google Scholar
  36. VosniadouS.: 1989, ‘Analogical reasoning as a mechanism in knowledge acquisition: A developmental perspective’, in S.Vosniadou and A.Ortony (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 413–437.Google Scholar
  37. VygotskyL.S.: 1962, Thought and Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lyn D. English
    • 1
  • Patrick V. Sharry
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Mathematics and Science EducationQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia + 059

Personalised recommendations