# Investigating Students’ Attention to Covariation Features of their Constructed Graphs in a Figural Pattern Generalisation Context

• Karina J. Wilkie
Article

## Abstract

An important goal in school algebra is to help students notice the covariational nature of functional relationships, how the values of variables change in relation to each other. This study explored 102 Year 7 (12 to 13-year-old) students’ covariational reasoning with their constructed graphs for figural growing patterns they had generalised. A sequence of figural pattern generalisation tasks was incorporated in their school’s linear equations topic, before formal introduction to linear graphs. The aim was to see if or how the students described covariation features of their graph and connected them to their generalisation. Evidence was found for a noticeable increase in both the students’ use of symbolic algebra for their pattern generalisation and knowledge of Cartesian plane graphing conventions, but not for increasing covariational reasoning with their graphs or connections to their generalisation. Possible implications and further research directions on graphing in a pattern generalisation context are discussed.

## Keywords

Covariational reasoning Figural pattern generalisation Functions Graphs Middle years of schooling

## Supplementary material

10763_2019_9955_MOESM1_ESM.docx (5.7 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 5828 kb)

## References

1. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2017). The Australian curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved December 1, 2017, from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Curriculum/F-10
2. Ayalon, M., Watson, A., & Lerman, S. (2016). Progression towards functions: Students’ performance on three tasks about variables from grades 7 to 12. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 1153–1173.
3. Bakker, A., & van Eerde, D. (2015). An introduction to design-based research with an example from statistics education. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 429–466). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
4. Bieda, K. N., & Nathan, M. J. (2009). Representational disfluency in algebra: Evidence from student gestures and speech. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41(5), 637–650.
5. Boote, S. K., & Boote, D. N. (2017). Leaping from discrete to continuous independent variables: Sixth graders’ science line graph interpretations. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 455–484.
6. Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2008). Multiple notational systems and algebraic understandings: The case of the “best deal” problem. In J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 273–301). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
7. 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(5), 352–378.
8. Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (2003). On appreciating the cognitive complexity of school algebra: Research on algebra learning and directions of curricular change. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 123–135). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
9. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1994). Exponential functions, rates of change, and the multiplicative unit. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 135–164.
10. Dörfler, W. (2008). En route from patterns to algebra: Comments and reflections. ZDM– The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 143–160.
11. Gravemeijer, K., & Van Eerde, D. (2009). Design research as a means for building a knowledge base for teachers and teaching in mathematics education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 510–524.
12. Hodgen, J., Küchemann, D., & Brown, M. (2010). Textbooks for the teaching of algebra in lower secondary school: Are they informed by research? Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(3), 187–201.
13. Kaput, J. J. (1993). The urgent need for proleptic research in the representation of quantitative relationships. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & E. Fennema (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 279–312). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
14. Kaput, J. J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 5–17). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
15. Knuth, E. J. (2000). Student understanding of the Cartesian connection: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 500–507.
16. Küchemann, D. (2010). Using patterns generically to see structure. Pedagogies, 5(3), 233–250.
17. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.
18. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1995). The effect of different approaches to algebra on students’ perceptions of functional relationships. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 7(1), 69–85.
19. Markovits, Z., Eylon, B., & Bruckheimer, M. (1986). Functions today and yesterday. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(2), 18–28.Google Scholar
20. Markworth, K. A. (2010). Growing and growing: Promoting functional thinking with geometric growing patterns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED519354).Google Scholar
21. Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 65–86). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
22. Mason, J. (2017). Overcoming the algebra barrier: Being particular about the general, and generally looking beyond the particular, in homage to Mary Boole. In S. Stewart (Ed.), And the rest is just algebra (pp. 97–117). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
23. Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear functions and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & E. Fennema (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 69–100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
24. Moss, J., Beatty, R., Barkin, S., & Shillolo, G. (2008). “What is your theory? What is your rule?” Fourth graders build an understanding of function through patterns and generalising problems. In C. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (70th yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 155–168). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
25. Orton, J., Orton, A., & Roper, T. (1999). Pictorial and practical contexts and the perception of pattern. In A. Orton (Ed.), Pattern in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 121–136). London, England: Redwood Books Ltd..Google Scholar
26. Radford, L. (2010). Layers of generality and types of generalization in pattern activities. PNA, 4(2), 37–62.Google Scholar
27. Radford, L., Bardini, C., & Sabena, C. (2007). Perceiving the general: The multisemiotic dimension of students’ algebraic activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(5), 507–530.Google Scholar
28. Rivera, F. (2010). Visual templates in pattern generalization activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(3), 297–328.
29. Schwartz, J., & Yerushalmy, M. (1992). Getting students to function in and with algebra. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy. MAA Notes (Vol. 25, pp. 261–289). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
30. Sfard, A. (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), 1–36.
31. Smith, E. (2008). Representational thinking as a framework for introducing functions in the elementary curriculum. In J. L. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 133–160). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
32. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(2), 147–164.
33. Stacey, K., & Chick, H. (2004). What is the problem with algebra? In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (pp. 1–20). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
34. Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, 1, issues in mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 21–44). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
35. Thompson, P. W., & Carlson, M. (2017). Variation, covariation, and functions: Foundational ways of thinking mathematically. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 421–456). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
36. Usiskin, Z. (1988). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K-12: NCTM 1988 Yearbook (pp. 8–19). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
37. Wilkie, K. J. (2014). Upper primary school teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching functional thinking in algebra. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(5), 397–428.
38. Wilkie, K. J. (2016). Students’ use of variables and multiple representations in generalizing functional relationships prior to secondary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(3), 333–361.
39. Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2008). Generalising the pattern rule for visual growth patterns: Actions that support 8 year olds’ thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 171–185.