Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 89–107 | Cite as

Trends of progression of student level of reasoning and generalization in numerical and figural reasoning approaches in pattern generalization

  • Rabih El Mouhayar
Article
  • 101 Downloads

Abstract

This study explored progression of students’ level of reasoning and generalization in numerical and figural reasoning approaches across grades and in different pattern generalization types. An instrument that included four figural patterns was administered to a sample of 1232 students from grades 4 to 11 from five private schools. The findings suggest that there was progressive development in the level of reasoning and generalization in each reasoning approach across clusters of grades. The level of reasoning and generalization in figural approach was higher than that for numerical approach in each grade. In addition, the level of reasoning and generalization for each approach and in each grade was not limited to one level but to several levels. The type of generalization influenced the progression of students’ level of reasoning and generalization in each approach.

Keywords

Numerical reasoning approach Figural reasoning approach Pattern generalization Type of generalization Level of generalization Level of reasoning SOLO taxonomy Trends of progression 

References

  1. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1991). Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent behavior. Intelligence: Reconceptualization and measurement (pp. 57–76). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Broadway.Google Scholar
  3. Collis, K., Romberg, T., & Jurdak, M. (1986). A technique for assessing mathematical problem-solving ability. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. El Mouhayar, R., & Jurdak, M. (2015). Variation in strategy use across grade level by pattern generalization types. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(4), 553–569.Google Scholar
  5. El Mouhayar, R., & Jurdak, M. (2016). Variation of student numerical and figural reasoning approaches by pattern generalization type, strategy use and grade level. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47 (2), 197–215.Google Scholar
  6. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1999). Visual and symbolic reasoning in mathematics: Making connections with computers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Küchemann, D. (2010). Using patterns generically to see structure. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lannin, J., Barker, D., & Townsend, B. (2006). Algebraic generalisation strategies: Factors influencing student strategy selection. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(3), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McClelland, J. L. (2010). Emergence in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 751–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jurdak, M. & El Mouhayar, R. (2014). Trends in the development of student level of reasoning in pattern generalization tasks across grade-level. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(1), 75-92.Google Scholar
  12. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Radford, L. (2008). Iconicity and contraction: A semiotic investigation of forms of algebraic generalizations of patterns in different contexts. ZDM, 40(1), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Radford, L. (2010a). Algebraic thinking from a cultural semiotic perspective. Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Radford, L. (2010b). Layers of generality and types of generalization in pattern activities. PNA, 4(2), 37–62.Google Scholar
  16. Radford, L., Bardini, C., & Sabena, C. (2007). Perceiving the general: The multisemiotic dimension of students' algebraic activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 507–530.Google Scholar
  17. Rivera, F., & Becker, J. R. (2008). Middle school children’s cognitive perceptions of constructive and deconstructive generalizations involving linear F patterns. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rivera, F. D. (2010). Visual templates in pattern generalization activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalizing problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education, Faculty of Arts and SciencesAmerican University of BeirutBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations