Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 333–361 | Cite as

Students’ use of variables and multiple representations in generalizing functional relationships prior to secondary school

Article

Abstract

Algebra has been explicit in many school curriculum programs from the early years but there are competing views on what content and approaches are appropriate for different levels of schooling. This study investigated 12–13-year-old Australian students’ algebraic thinking in a hybrid environment of functional and equation-based approaches to learning algebra. This article reports on a survey of 102 students examining their generalization ability and knowledge of multiple representations and variables prior to formal study of algebraic expressions and equations at secondary school. Nearly half of the students demonstrated the ability to generalize explicitly with one fifth able to construct a symbolic functional rule. Nearly half were able to represent a real-life scenario of a linear relationship algebraically. There was little evidence yet of connecting a growing pattern or real-life scenario to an appropriate graphical representation. Level of pattern generalization ability was found to be associated with flexible thinking for exploring functional relationships in reverse and with explaining the inappropriateness of proportional reasoning for linear functions with a constant. Implications for the teaching and learning of algebra are presented.

Keywords

Algebra teaching and learning Functional thinking Multiple representations Variables Middle years of schooling 

References

  1. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2009/2011, January). The Australian curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Curriculum/F-10
  2. Bardini, C., Pierce, R., & Vincent, J. L. (2013). First year university students’ understanding of functions: Over a decade after the introduction of CAS in Australian high schools, what is new? Paper presented at the Lighthouse Delta 2013: The 9th Delta Conference on teaching and learning of undergraduate mathematics and statistics, Kiama, New South Wales.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, J. R., & Rivera, F. (2004). An investigation of beginning algebra students’ ability to generalize linear patterns. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 286–293). Bergen: PME.Google Scholar
  4. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2004). Elementary grades students’ capacity for functional thinking. In M. Høines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 135–142). Bergen, Norway: IGPME.Google Scholar
  5. Brizuela, B. M., Blanton, M., Sawrey, K., Newman-Owens, A., & Murphy Gardiner, A. (2015). Children’s use of variables and variable notation to represent their algebraic ideas. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17(1), 34–63. doi: 10.1080/10986065.2015.981939
  6. Cai, J., & Moyer, J. (2008). Developing algebraic thinking in earlier grades: some insights from international comparative studies. In C. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 169–180). Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  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: 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.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, J. D. (2007). Real-world contexts, multiple representations, student-invented terminology, and y-intercept. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(4), 387–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. Curcio (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics (pp. 1–23). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  13. Gonzales, P., Pahlke, E., Guzman, J. C., Partelow, L., Kastberg, D., Jocelyn, L., & Williams, T. (2004). Pursuing excellence: Eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement in the United States and other countries from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 2005–007). Washington, DC: US Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  14. Greenes, C., Cavanagh, M., Dacey, L., Findell, C., & Small, M. (2001). Navigating through algebra in prekindergarten–grade 2. Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  15. Kaput, 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Kaput, J. J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. L. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 5–17). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  17. Kaput, J., Blanton, M., & Moreno, A. L. (2008). Algebra from a symbolization point of view. In J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 19–56). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Kieran, C. (2004). Algebraic thinking in the early grades: What is it? The Mathematics Educator, 8(1), 139–151.Google Scholar
  19. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 707–762). Charlotte: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Knuth, E. J. (2000). Student understanding of the cartesian connection: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 500–507.Google Scholar
  21. Kruteskii, V. (1976). The psychology of mathematical ability in school children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kuchemann, D. (2010). Using patterns generically to see structure. Pedagogies, 5(3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lannin, J., Townsend, B., & Barker, D. (2006). The reflective cycle of student error analysis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26(3), 33–38.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, L., & Freiman, V. (2004). Tracking primary students’ understanding of patterns. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting - Psychology of Mathematics & Education of North America, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Lesh, R. (1981). Applied mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Markworth, K. A. (2010). Growing and growing: Promoting functional thinking with geometric growing patterns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Available from ERIC (ED519354).Google Scholar
  28. 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 Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mason, J. (2008). Making use of children’s powers to produce algebraic thinking. In J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 57–94). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  30. McPhan, G., Morony, W., Pegg, J., Cooksey, R., & Lynch, T. (2008). Maths? Why not? Final report prepared for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). Retrieved from http://www.aamt.edu.au/index.php/Activities-and-projects/Previous-projects/Maths-Why-Not
  31. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  34. O’Toole, J., & Beckett, D. (2010). Educational research: Creative thinking & doing. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Radford, L. (2006). Algebraic thinking and the generalization of patterns: A semiotic perspective. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A. Méndez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, North American chapter (Vol. 1, pp. 2–21). Mérida: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.Google Scholar
  36. Radford, L. (2010a). Algebraic thinking from a cultural semiotic perspective. Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Radford, L. (2010b). Layers of generality and types of generalization in pattern activities. PNA, 4(2), 37–62.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Rakes, C. R., Valentine, J. C., McGatha, M. B., & Ronau, R. N. (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 372–400. doi: 10.3102/0034654310374880
  40. Rivera, F. (2010). Visual templates in pattern generalization activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(3), 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Romberg, T. A., Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1993). Toward a common research perspective. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & E. Fennema (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 1–9). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. 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: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  43. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalizing problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  45. Sutherland, R. (2002). A comparative study of algebra curricula: London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.Google Scholar
  46. Swafford, J. O., & Langrall, C. W. (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
  47. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: How Australia measures up. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  48. Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2009). Understanding motivation in mathematics: What is happening in classrooms? In K. Wentzel & D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 527–552). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. 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: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  50. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2007/2011, February 22). Victorian essential learning standards: Mathematics. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vels/maths.html
  51. Walkington, C., Petrosino, A., & Sherman, M. (2013). Supporting algebraic reasoning through personalized story scenarios: How situational understanding mediates performance. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15(2), 89–120. doi: 10.1080/10986065.2013.770717
  52. Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2008). Generalizing the pattern rule for visual growth patterns: Actions that support 8 year olds’ thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. Wilkie, K. J., & Clarke, D. M. (2015). Developing students’ functional thinking in algebra through different visualizations of a growing pattern’s structure. Mathematics Education Research Journal. Advance online publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics EducationMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations