Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A boundary of the second multiplicative concept: the case of Milo

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Students entering sixth grade operate with three different multiplicative concepts that influence their reasoning in many domains important for middle school. For example, students who are operating with the second multiplicative concept (MC2 students) can begin to construct fractions as lengths but do not construct improper fractions as numbers. Students who are operating with the third multiplicative concept (MC3 students) can construct both proper and improper fractions as multiples of unit fractions. This paper is a case study of one seventh grade MC2 student, Milo, who demonstrated the most advanced reasoning of all MC2 students in a large project with 13 MC2 and 9 MC3 students. In working on problems involving fractional relationships between two unknowns, most MC3 students constructed reciprocal reasoning. In contrast, the MC2 students struggled with these problems. Similar to the MC3 students, Milo showed some evidence of reciprocal reasoning, and he used proper fractions as operators on unknowns with a rationale. However, Milo did not construct reciprocal reasoning. We account for his reasoning by showing how he used length meanings for proper fractions and how he coordinated two different two-levels-of-units structures. The study expands the mathematics for MC2 students, showing what learning may be possible for students like Milo, and it suggests a change to the theory of students’ multiplicative concepts. Specifically, advanced MC2 students are those who have constructed length meanings for fractions and can coordinate two different two-levels-of-units structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We put Milo’s exact writing in quotes.

  2. Four of the 13 MC2 students were absent for work on Two Unknowns Problems with relationship 2/5.

References

  • Acar, F., & Sevinc, S. (2021). Investigation of middle school students’ unit coordination levels in mathematics problems involving multiplicative relations. Elementary Education Online, 20(1), 90–114. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2021.01.016

  • Biddlecomb, B., & Olive, J. (2000). JavaBars [Computer software]. Retrieved June 4, 2002 from http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/welcome.html

  • Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/748434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602725

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. B. (2007). The influence of reasoning with emergent quantities on students’ generalizations. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 439–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701632397

  • Hackenberg, A. J. (2007). Units coordination and the construction of improper fractions: A revision of the splitting hypothesis. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackenberg, A. J. (2013). The fractional knowledge and algebraic reasoning of students with the first multiplicative concept. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 538–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.06.007

  • Hackenberg, A. J., & Lee, M. Y. (2015). Relationships between students’ fractional knowledge and equation writing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(2), 196–243. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.46.2.0196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackenberg, A. J., & Sevinc, S. (2020). The construction of reciprocal reasoning with quantitative unknowns [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Indiana University-Bloomington.

  • Hackenberg, A. J., Jones, R., Eker, A., & Creager, M. (2017). “Approximate” multiplicative relationships between quantitative unknowns. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 48, 38–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315097435

  • Kloosterman, P. (2016). Algebra. In P. Kloosterman, D. Mohr, & C. Walcott (Eds.), What mathematics do students know and how is that changing? Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Ch 4 of NAEP book (pp. 45–80). Information Age Publishing.

  • MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Cognitive models underlying students’ formulation of simple linear equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.2307/749345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

  • Ministry of National Education (MNE) (2018). Elementary and middle school mathematics program: Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Ministry of National Education.

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.

  • Norton, A., Boyce, S., Ulrich, C., & Phillips, N. (2015). Students’ units coordination activity: A cross-sectional analysis. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 39, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.05.001

  • Olive, J. (1999). From fractions to rational numbers of arithmetic: A reorganization hypothesis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(4), 279–314. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0104_2

  • Olive, J., & Çağlayan, G. (2008). Learners’ difficulties with quantitative units in algebraic word problems and the teacher’s interpretation of those difficulties. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9107-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P. (2010a). Articulation of the reorganization hypothesis. In L. P. Steffe & J. Olive (Eds.), Children’s fractional knowledge (pp. 49–74). Springer.

  • Steffe, L. P. (2010b). The partitioning and fraction schemes. In L. P. Steffe & J. Olive (Eds.), Children’s fractional knowledge (pp. 315–340). Springer.

  • Steffe, L. P. (2010c). Perspectives on children’s fraction knowledge. In L. P. Steffe & J. Olive (Eds.), Children’s fractional knowledge (pp. 13–26). Springer.

  • Steffe, L. P. (2017). Psychology in mathematics education: Past, present, and future. In E. Galindo & J. Newton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-ninth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA) http://www.pmena.org/pmenaproceedings/PMENA%2039%202017%20Proceedings.pdf

  • Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Erlbaum.

  • Telestream LLC [Computer software]. (2013). ScreenFlow. Retrieved from https://www.telestream.net/screenflow/

  • Thompson, P. W. (2011). Quantitative reasoning and mathematical modeling. In L. L. Hatfield, S. A. Chamberlin, & S. Belbase (Eds.), New perspectives and directions for collaborative research in mathematics education: Papers from a planning conference for WISDOMe [WISDOMe Monograph Volume 1] (pp. 33–57). University of Wyoming Retrieved from http://www.uwyo.edu/wisdome/_files/documents/qr_reasoningmathmodeling_thompson.pdf

  • Ulrich, C. (2016a). Stages in constructing and coordinating units additively and multiplicatively (part 2). For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(1), 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, C. (2016b). The tacitly nested number sequence in sixth grade: The case of Adam. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 43, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, C., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2017). Using written work to investigate stages in sixth-grade students’ construction and coordination of units. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, 4, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0085-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwanch, K., & Wilkins, J. L. (2021). Releasing the conceptual spring to construct multiplicative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 106(1), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09999-4

Download references

Funding

The research reported in this manuscript was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant no. DRL-1252575). The findings and statements in the paper do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Indiana University-Bloomington, Wright Education Building 3060, 201 N. Rose Ave, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Amy J. Hackenberg

  2. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Serife Sevinc

Authors
  1. Amy J. Hackenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Serife Sevinc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy J. Hackenberg.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hackenberg, A.J., Sevinc, S. A boundary of the second multiplicative concept: the case of Milo. Educ Stud Math 109, 177–193 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10083-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10083-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation