Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 169–189 | Cite as

Comparative Mathematical Language in the Elementary School: A Longitudinal Study

  • Elizabeth WarrenEmail author


This paper examines the change in young children’s understanding of ‘equal’, ‘more’, ‘less’, and ‘between’, words commonly used in equivalent and non-equivalent situations, over a 3-year period. Seventy-six children participated in the longitudinal study. Each year they were asked to share their understanding of these four words. Past research has indicated that many children have limited understanding of ‘equal’ as quantitative sameness. The results of this research suggested that many children also have limited understanding of ‘more’ and ‘less’ and that these understandings did not significantly change over the 3-year period.

Key Words

algebra early arithmetic language of mathematics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler, J.: 1995, ‘Dilemmas and a paradox – secondary mathematics teachers' knowledge of their teaching in multilingual classrooms’, Teaching and Teacher Education 11(3), 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anghileri, J.: 1995, ‘Language, arithmetic, and the negotiation of meaning’, For the Learning of Mathematics 15(3), 10–14.Google Scholar
  3. Baroody, A.J. and Ginsburg, H.P.: 1983, ‘The effects of instruction on children's understanding of the equals sign’, Elementary School Journal 84(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baroody, A. and Standifer, D.: 1993, ‘Addition and subtraction in the primary grades’, in R. Jensen (ed.), Research Ideas for Classroom: Early Childhood Mathematics, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Baturo, A., Warren, E. and Cooper, T.J.: 2004, Strategic numeracy research and development project: Issues with respect to mathematics student learning outcomes. Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Behr, M., Erlwanger, S. and Nichols, E.: 1980, ‘How children view the equals sign’, Mathematics Teaching 92, 13–18.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, A.: 1992, ‘Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice’, Prospect 7(3), 57–65.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, T.P. and Levi, L.: 2000, ‘Developing conceptions of algebraic reasoning in the primary grades’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, T., Franke, M. and Levi, L.: 2003, Thinking Mathematically; Integrating Arithmetic and Algebra in Elementary School, Heinemann, Portsmouth.Google Scholar
  10. Christou, C. and Philippou, G.: 1998, ‘The developmental nature of ability to solve one-step word problems’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 29(4), 436–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke, D.J.: 1993, ‘Probing the structure of mathematical writing’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 25(3), 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conroy, J.S.: 1981, ‘Learning language and mathematical structure in the infants school’, Research in Mathematics Education in Australia 2, 203–212.Google Scholar
  13. Davydov, V.V.: 1982, ‘The psychological characteristics of the formation of elementary mathematical operations in children’, in T.P. Carpenter, J.M. Moser, and T.A. Romberg, (eds.), Addition and Subtraction: A Cognitive Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 224–239.Google Scholar
  14. Davydov, V.V.: 1990, ‘The problem of generalization in traditional psychology and didactics’, in J. Kilpatrick (ed.), Types of Generalization in Instruction: Logical and Psychological Problems in the Structuring of School Curricula. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Va.Google Scholar
  15. DeCorte, E., Verschaffel, L. and Win, L.D.: 1985, ‘Influence of rewording verbal problems on children's problem representations and solutions’, Journal of Educational Psychology 77(4), 460–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ernest, P.: 1999, ‘Forms of knowledge in mathematics and mathematics education: Philosophical and rhetorical perspectives’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 38(1–3), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Filloy, E. and Rojano, T.: 1989, ‘Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra’, For the Learning of Mathematics 9(2), 19–25.Google Scholar
  18. Filloy, E. and Sutherland, R.: 1996, ‘Designing curricula for teaching and learning algebra’, in A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick and C. Laborde (eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Press, Dortrecht, pp. 139–160.Google Scholar
  19. Fischbein, E.: 1999, ‘Intuitions and schemata in mathematical reasoning’, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freudenthal, H.: 1983, Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures. Mathematics Education Library, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  21. Gal, I.: 1999, ‘Links between literacy and numeracy’, in D. Wagner, R. Venezky and B. Street (eds.), Literacy: An International Handbook, Westview Press, Colarado, pp. 227–231.Google Scholar
  22. Halford, G.: 1993, Children's Understanding: The Development of Mental Models,Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. Halliday, M.A.K.: 1979, Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation ofLanguage and Meaning, Edward Arnold Publishing, London.Google Scholar
  24. Hudson, T.: 1983, ‘Correspondences and numerical differences between disjoint sets’, Child Development 54, 94–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kieran, K. and Chalouh, L.: 1992, ‘Prealgebra: The transition from arithmetic to algebra’, in T.D. Owens (ed.), Research Ideas for the Classroom: Middle Grades Mathematics, Macmillan, New York, pp. 179–198.Google Scholar
  26. Laborde, C.: 1990, ‘Language and mathematics’, in P. Nesher and J. Kilpatrick (eds.), Mathematics and Cognition: A Research Synthesis by the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 53–69.Google Scholar
  27. Lopez-Real, F.: 1997, ‘Effect of different syntactic structure of English and Chinese in simple algebraic problems’, in F. Biddulph and K. Carr (eds.), People in Mathematics Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Rotorua, New Zealand, pp. 317–323.Google Scholar
  28. MacGregor, M. and Stacey, K.: 1998, ‘Cognitive models underlying algebraic and non-algebraic solutions to unequal partition problems’, Mathematics Education Research Journal 10(2), 46–60.Google Scholar
  29. Nisbet, S. and Warren, E.: 2000, ‘Primary school teachers' beliefs relating to mathematics, teaching and assessing mathematics and factors that influence these beliefs’, Mathematics Teacher Education and Development 2, 34–47.Google Scholar
  30. Pirie, S. and Kieren, T.: 1994a, ‘Beyond metaphor. Formalising in mathematical understanding within constructivist environments’, For the Learning of Mathematics 14(1), 39–43.Google Scholar
  31. Pirie, S. and Kieren, T.: 1994b, ‘Growth in mathematical understanding. How can we characterize it and how can we represent it?’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pillay, H., Wills, L. and Boulton-Lewis, G.: 1998, ‘Sequential development of algebra knowledge: A cognitive model’, Mathematics Education Research Journal 10(2), 87–102.Google Scholar
  33. Sáenz-Ludlow, A. and Walgamuth, C.: 1998, ‘Third graders' interpretations of equality and the equal symbol’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 35(2), 153–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sáenz-Ludlow, A.: 2001, ‘Classroom mathematics discourse as an evolving interpreting game’, Paper presented at 25th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 11–17, 2001.$\sim$sae/.
  35. Silver, E.: 2004, Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Meeting of the National Council for Teaching Mathematics Annual Conference, Research Pre-session, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  36. Slavit, D.: 1998, ‘The role of operation sense in transitions from arithmetic to algebraic thought’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 37(3), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steinberg, R.M., Sleeman, D.H. and Ktoriza, D.: 1991, ‘Algebra students' knowledge of equivalence of equations’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22(2), 112–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsamir, P. and Almog, N.: 2001, ‘Student's strategies and difficulties, the case of algebraic inequalities’, International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology 32(4), 513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsamir, P. and Bazzini, L.: 2001, ‘Investigation of the influence of the intuitive rules in Israel and in Taiwan’, in M. Heuvel-Panhuizen (ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, pp 303–311.Google Scholar
  40. Verschaffel, L. and De Corte, E.: 1996, ‘Number and arithmetic’, in A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick and C. Laborde (eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 99–137.Google Scholar
  41. Walkderine, V.: 1988, Democracy in the Kitchen, Virago Press, London.Google Scholar
  42. Walkerdine, V.: 1990, ‘Different cognition and mathematics education’, For the Learning of Mathematics 10(3), 51–56.Google Scholar
  43. Warren, E.: 2001, ‘Algebraic understanding and the importance of operation sense’, in M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Utrecht, The Netherlands, July 11–17, 2001, Vol. IV, pp. 399–406.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Catholic UniversityBanyoAustralia

Personalised recommendations