Knowledge building in mathematics: Supporting collaborative learning in pattern problems

Article

Abstract

While it has been suggested that patterning activities support early algebra learning, it is widely acknowledged that the shift from perceiving patterns to understanding algebraic functions—and correspondingly, from reporting empirical patterns to providing explanations—is difficult. This paper reports on the collaborations of grade 4 students (n = 68) from three classrooms in diverse urban settings, connected through a knowledge-building environment (Knowledge Forum), when solving mathematical generalizing problems as part of an early algebra research project. The purpose of this study was to investigate the underlying principles of idea improvement and epistemic agency and the potential of knowledge building—as supported by Knowledge Forum—to support student work. Our analyses of student-generated collaborative workspaces revealed that students were able to find multiple rules for challenging problems and revise their own conjectures regarding those rules. Furthermore, the discourse was sustained over 8 weeks and students were able to find similarities across problem types without the support of teachers or researchers, suggesting that these grade-4 students had developed a disposition for evidence use and justification that eludes much older students.

Keywords

Early algebra Collaborative mathematical discourse Patterns and generalizing problems Knowledge building Knowledge forum Epistemic agency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beatty, R., & Moss, J. (2006). Grade 4 generalizing through online collaborative problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Bednarz, N., Kieran, C., & Lee, L. (1996). Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 3–12). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 361–392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  6. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2004). Elementary grades students’ capacity for functional thinking. In M. Jonsen Hoines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 2, 135–142.Google Scholar
  7. Carraher, D., & Earnest, D. (2003). Guess my rule revisited. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-seventh international conference for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 2 (pp. 173–180). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  8. Carraher, D., Schlieman, A., Brzuella, B., & Enrnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 87–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, (1–2, Serial No. 246). Chicago: Universlity of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, M., & Sakane, H. (1986). Comparative experimental study of children’s strategies with deriving a mathematical law. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference for the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 410–414). London: University of London, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  11. Cuevas, G. J., & Yeatts, K. (2001). Navigating through algebra in grades 3–5. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  12. English, L. D., & Warren, E. (1998). Introducing the variable through pattern exploration. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(2), 166–171.Google Scholar
  13. Ferrini-Mundy, J., Lappan, G., & Phillips, E. (1997). Experiences with patterning. Teaching children mathematics, algebraic thinking focus issue (pp. 282–288). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  14. Greenes, C., Cavanagh, M., Dacey, L., Findell, C., & Small, M. (2001). Navigating through algebra in prekindergarten—Grade 2. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  15. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1999). Visual and symbolic reasoning in mathematics: Making connections with computers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoyles, C. (1998). Lessons we have learnt: Effective technologies for effective mathematics. Paper prepared for the conference on Technology in the Standards, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Hurme, T., & Jarvela, S. (2005). Students’ activity in computer-supported collaborative problem solving in mathematics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10, 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobs, K., Hiebert, J., Bogard Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D. (2006). Does eighth-grade mathematics teaching in the United States align with the NCTM Standards? Results from the TIMSS 1995 and 1999 video studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
  19. Kaput, J. (1998). Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by “algebrafying” the K-12 curriculum. In S. Fennel (Ed.), The nature and role of algebra in the K-14 curriculum: Proceedings of a national symposium (pp. 25–26). Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), The handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390–419). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Lee, L. (1996). An initiation into algebraic culture through generalization activities. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 65–86). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, L., & Wheeler, D. (1987) Algebraic thinking in high school students: Their conceptions of generalisation and justification (Research report). Montreal, Canada: Concordia University.Google Scholar
  23. London McNab, S., & Moss, J. (2006). Making connections: fostering fluency across geometric and numeric patterns. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  24. 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: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  25. Moses, B. (1997). Algebra for a new century. Teaching children mathematics, algebraic thinking focus issue (pp. 264–265). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  26. Moss. (2005). Integrating numeric and geometric patterns: A developmental approach to young students’ learning of patterns and functions. Paper presented at the Canadian mathematics education study group 29 Annual Meeting, Ottowa, Canada.Google Scholar
  27. Moss, J., & Beatty, R. (2005). Grade 4 children work together to build their understanding of mathematical functions. Paper presented at the Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Moss, J., & Case, R. (1999). Developing Children’s Understanding of Rational Numbers: A New Model and Experimental Curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 122–147, 119.Google Scholar
  29. Moss, J., Beatty, R., Barkin, S., & Shillolo, G. (to publish in 2008). What is your theory? What is your rule? Fourth graders build their understanding of patterns. In C. Greenes (Ed.), NCTM yearbook for algebraic reasoning. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  30. Moss, J., Beatty, R., & London McNab, S. (2006). Design for the development and teaching of an integrated patterning curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  31. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, L. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nason, R., & Woodruff, E. (2002). New ways of learning mathematics: Are we ready for it? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE) (pp. 1536–1537). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standardsfor school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  34. Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  36. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (OMET) (2003) Early math strategy: The report of the expert panel on early math in Ontario. Ontario, CA: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
  37. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training (OMET) (2005). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1–8: Mathematics, revised. Ontario, CA: Queen’s Printer.Google Scholar
  38. Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Murayama, I., Inagaki, S., Takenaka, M., Yamamoto, T., et al. (2006). Knowledge-building activity structures in Japanese elementary science pedagogy. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Radford, L. (1999). The rhetoric of generalization. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 4 (pp. 89–96). Haifa: Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  40. Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(3), 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rubenstein, R. (2002). Building explicit and recursive forms of patterns with the function game. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(8), 426–431.Google Scholar
  42. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  43. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge forum®. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183–192). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Lamon, M. (1996). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  45. Seo, K. H., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2004). What is developmentally appropriate in early childhood mathematics education? Lessons from new research. In D. H. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 91–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Sfard, A. (1995). The development of algebra: Confronting historical and psychological perspectives. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 353–383.Google Scholar
  47. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steele, D. (2005). Using writing to access students’ schemata knowledge for algebraic thinking. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steele, D., & Johanning, D. (2004). A schematic–theoretic view of problem solving and development of algebraic thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Swafford, J., & Langrall, C. (2000). Grade 6 students’ preinstructional use of equations to describe and represent problem situations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Warren, E. (1996). Interaction between instructional approaches, students’ reasoning processes, and their understanding of elementary algebra. Unpublished dissertation, University of Technology, Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  52. Warren, E. (2000). Visualisation and the development of early understanding in algebra. In M. V. D. Heuvel-Penhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 24th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 4 (pp. 273–280). Hiroshima, Japan.Google Scholar
  53. Willoughby, S. (1997). Functions from kindergarten through sixth grade. Teaching Children Mathematics, 3, 314–318, February.Google Scholar
  54. Zazkis, R., & Liljedahl, P. (2002). Generalization of patterns: The tension between algebraic thinking and algebraic notation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations