Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 39–53 | Cite as

Algebraic thinking with and without algebraic representation: a three-year longitudinal study

  • Murray S. Britt
  • Kathryn C. Irwin
Original article

Abstract

An Algebraic Thinking Test was given to 116 students aged 12–14, at the end of each of three years. This age span crosses two levels of school in New Zealand. This test assessed their ability to represent compensation in the four arithmetic operations both numerically and with letters for variables. The analyses of these results, together with the results from separate interviews designed to report individual progress of students in the New Zealand Numeracy Project, showed that students who had developed advanced mental strategies for dealing with additive, multiplicative and proportional operations, were the students who were capable of making full use of the alphanumeric symbols of algebra. These results, taken together with earlier studies by the authors, led to a proposal for a “pathway for algebraic thinking” accessible to all students.

Keywords

Operational Strategy Professional Development Program Lead Teacher Algebraic Thinking Decimal Fraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Ministry of Education for funding this research project. We also express our thanks to R. J. Irwin for some of the statistical analysis.

References

  1. Ball, D.L. (2002). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Relations between research and practice. Mathematics and Education Reform Newsletter, 14(3), 1–5.Google Scholar
  2. Carraher, D.W., Schliemann, A.D., Brizuela, B.M., Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 2, 87–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: the transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 19–25.Google Scholar
  4. Fujii, T., & Stephens, M. (2001). Fostering an understanding of algebraic generalizations through numerical expressions. In: Proceedings of the 12th conference of the international commission on mathematical instruction: the future of the teaching and learning of algebra. Vol. 1, (pp. 258–264). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  5. Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hewitt, D. (1998). Approaching arithmetic algebraically. Mathematics Teaching, 163, 19–29.Google Scholar
  7. Irwin, K.C. (1996). Children’s understanding of the principles of compensation and covariation in part-whole relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Irwin, K. C. (2004). An evaluation of the Numeracy Project for Years 7–9 2003. Final report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  9. Irwin, K. C., & Britt, M. S. (2004). Operating with decimals as a part-whole concept. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Group of Australasia. Vol. 2, (pp. 312–319). Townsville/Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  10. Irwin, K.C., & Britt, M.S. (2005a). The algebraic nature of students’ numerical manipulation in the New Zealand Numeracy Project. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Irwin, K. C., & Britt, M. S. (2005b). Algebraic thinking in the Numeracy Project: year one of a three-year study. In: J. Higgins, K. C. Irwin, G. Thomas, T. Trinick, & J. Young-Loveridge (Eds.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects 2004 (pp. 47–55). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  12. Irwin, K. C., & Britt, M. S. (2006). Algebraic thinking in the Numeracy Project: year two of a three-year study. In: F. Ell, J. Higgins, K. C. Irwin, G. Thomas, T. Trinick, & J. Young-Loveridge (Eds.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects 2005 (pp. 46–54). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  13. Irwin, K. C., & Britt, M. S. (2007). The development of algebraic thinking: results of a three-year study. In: B. Annan, F. Ell, J. Fisher, N. Hawera, J. Higgins, K. C. Irwin, A. Tagg, G. Thomas, T. Trinick, J. Ward, & J. Young-Loveridge (Eds.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects 2006 (pp. 33–43). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  14. Irwin, K. C., & Niederer, K. (2002). An evaluation of the Numeracy Exploratory Study (NEST) and the associated Numeracy Exploratory Study Assessment (NESTA) Years 7–10, 2001. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  15. Kieran, C. (2001). Looking at the role of technology in facilitating the transition from arithmetic to algebraic thinking through the lens of a model of algebraic activity. In: Proceedings of the 12th conference of the international commission on mathematical instruction: the future of the teaching and learning of algebra. Vol. 3, (pp. 713–719). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  16. Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. McIntosh, A., Reys, B.J., & Reys, R.E. (1992). A proposed framework for examining basic number sense. For the Learning of Mathematics 12(3), 2–8.Google Scholar
  18. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1999). A flying start to algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(2), 78–85.Google Scholar
  19. Mason, J., Graham, A., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2005). Developing thinking in algebra. London: The Open University.Google Scholar
  20. Ministry of Education. (1992). Mathematics in the New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Education. (2006a). Book 1, The Number Framework. Numeracy professional development projects. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Education. (2006b). The New Zealand curriculum. Draft for consultation. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  23. Ministry of Education. (2007). New Zealand Numeracy Projects, Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/numeracy/index.htm.
  24. Orton, A., & Orton, J. (1994). Students’ perception and use of pattern and generalization. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4, (pp. 407–114). Lisbon: Portugal.Google Scholar
  25. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1989). A recursive theory of mathematical understanding. For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(1), 7–11.Google Scholar
  26. Pirie, S.E.B., & Kieren, T.E. (1994). Beyond metaphor: formalising in mathematical understanding within constructivist environments. For the Learning of Mathematics 14(1), 39–43.Google Scholar
  27. Radford, L. (2006). Algebraic thinking and the generalization of pattern: a semiotic perspective. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional Vol. 1 (pp. 2–21). Mérida, Mexico.Google Scholar
  28. Resnick, L.B. (1992). From proto-quantitative to operators: Building mathematical competence on a foundation of everyday knowledge. In: L. G. Leinhardt, R. Putnam, & R. A. Hatrup (Eds.), Analysis of arithmetic for mathematics teaching (pp. 373–430). Hillsdale: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Rivera, F. (2006). Structures of elementary algebraic thinking: evidence from sixth grade students and implications for classroom practice. Intersection, 7(2), 2–13.Google Scholar
  30. Slavit, D. (1999). The role of operation sense in transitions from arithmetic to algebraic thought. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steffe, L. P. (2001). What is algebraic about children’s numerical operating? In: Proceedings of the 12th conference of the international commission on mathematical instruction: the future of the teaching and learning of algebra. The University of Melbourne, Vol. 2, (pp. 556–563). Melbourne: Australia.Google Scholar
  32. Tagg, A., & Thomas, G. (2006a). Secondary Numeracy Project knowledge test analysis. In: R. Harvey, J. Higgins, A, Tagg, & G. Thomas (Eds.), Evaluations of the 2005 Secondary Numeracy Pilot Project and the CAS Pilot Project. (pp. 5–11). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  33. Tagg, A., & Thomas, G. (2006b). Performance on the Number Framework. In: R. Harvey, J. Higgins, A. Tagg, & G. Thomas (Eds.), Evaluations of the 2005 Secondary Numeracy Pilot Project and the CAS Pilot Project (pp. 12–35). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  34. Thomas, G., Tagg, A., & Ward, J. (2006). Numeracy assessment: how reliable are teachers’ judgments? In: F. Ell, J. Higgins, K. C. Irwin, G. Thomas, T. Trinick, & J. Young-Loveridge (Eds.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects, 2005 (pp. 91–102). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  35. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analyses: modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Warren, E., & Cooper, T. J. (2002). Arithmetic and quasi-variables: a year 2 lesson to introduce algebra in the early years. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia, The University of Auckland, Vol. 2, (pp. 673–681). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  37. Wright, R. (1994). Mathematics in the lower primary years: a research-based perspective on curricula and teaching practice. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 6, 23–36.Google Scholar
  38. Young-Loveridge, J. M. (2004). Patterns of performance and progress on Numeracy Projects 2001–2003: further analysis of Numeracy Data. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  39. Young-Loveridge, J. M. (2006). Patterns of performance and progress on the Numeracy Development Project: Looking back from 2005. In: F. Ell, J. Higgins, K. C. Irwin, G. Thomas, T. Trinick, & J. Young-Loveridge (Eds.), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Projects 2005 (pp. 6–21). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations