Students’ development of structure sense for the distributive law
After being introduced to the distributive law in meaningful contexts, students need to extend its scope of application to unfamiliar expressions. In this article, a process model for the development of structure sense is developed. Building on this model, this article reports on a design research project in which exercise tasks support students in developing their structure sense for the distributive law by means of structural mappings and guiding examples. A design experiment was conducted in six groups, each consisting of two eighth graders. Two contrasting cases are qualitatively analyzed and compared in terms of the development of the students’ structure sense for the distributive law. Theoretically, this article provides a development model for structure sense. Empirically, six characteristics of these development processes are reconstructed. Under certain conditions that are discussed in the end, the exercise tasks can help students to develop their structure sense for the distributive law.
KeywordsAlgebra Design research Distributive law Structure sense
I would like to thank Susanne Prediger and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive feedback on previous versions of this paper.
- Bills, L., Dreyfus, T., Mason, J., Tsamir, P., Watson, A., & Zaslavsky, O. (2006). Exemplification in mathematics education. In H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & A. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, pp. 126–154). Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar
- Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Didactique des Mathématiques, 1970–1990. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Hoch, M., & Dreyfus, T. (2005). Students’ difficulties with applying a familiar formula in an unfamiliar context. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 3, pp. 145–152). Melbourne: PME.Google Scholar
- Jungwirth, H. (2003). Interpretative Forschung in der Mathematikdidaktik – Ein Überblick für Irrgäste, Teilzieher und Standvögel [Interpretative research in mathematics education – An overview for vagrants, partial migrants and sedentary birds]. ZDM Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 35(5), 189–200.Google Scholar
- Küchemann, D. (1981). Algebra. In K. Hart, M. L. Brown, D. E. Kuchemann, D. Kerslake, G. Ruddock, & M. McCartney (Eds.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16 (pp. 102–119). London: Murray.Google Scholar
- Malle, G. (1993). Didaktische Probleme der elementaren Algebra [Didactical problems of elementary algebra]. Wiesbaden: Vieweg.Google Scholar
- Mariotti, M. A., & Cerulli, M. (2001). Semiotic mediation for algebra teaching and learning. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education (vol. 3, pp. 225–232). Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
- Mason, J. (2008). Doing = construing and doing + discussing = learning: The importance of the structure of attention. In M. Niss (Ed.), Proceedings of ICME 10 (CD). IMFUFA: Roskilde.Google Scholar
- Mason, J., Graham, A., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2005). Developing thinking in algebra. London: Open University.Google Scholar
- Matz, M. (1982). Towards a process model for high school algebra errors. In D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 25–50). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Meyer, A. (2014). Students’ transformation of algebraic expressions as ‘recognizing basic structures’ and ‘giving relevance’. In P. Liljedahl, C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (vol. 4, pp. 209–216). Vancouver: PME.Google Scholar
- Prediger, S., & Zwetzschler, L. (2013). Topic-specific design research with a focus on learning processes: The case of understanding algebraic equivalence in grade 8. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research - part B illustrative cases (pp. 407–424). Enschede: SLO.Google Scholar
- Radford, L. (2006). Elements of a cultural theory of objectification. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa, Special Issue on Semiotics, Culture and Mathematical Thinking, 103–129. Retrieved from http://www.luisradford.ca/pub/57_Objectification3Eng.pdf.