Progression Towards Functions: Students’ Performance on Three Tasks About Variables from Grades 7 to 12

  • Michal Ayalon
  • Anne Watson
  • Steve Lerman


Identifying and expressing relations between quantities is a key aspect of understanding and using functions. We are aiming to understand the development of functions understanding throughout school years in Israel. A survey instrument was developed with teachers and given to 20 high and average achieving students from each of years 7–11 and to 10 high achieving students from year 12, a total of 110 students. Our analytical approach is to identify qualitatively what students appeared to do and whether their approaches led to complete solutions. We look for progress in understanding variables and relations between them, and we found that there does not appear to be a strong link between curriculum and informal understandings of variables and covariation, but there are other strengths.


Covariation Correspondence Functions Rate of change Variables 


  1. Ayalon, M., Lerman, S. & Watson, A. (2013). Development of students’ understanding of functions throughout school years. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 33(2), 7–12.Google Scholar
  2. Ayalon, M., Lerman, S. & Watson, A. (2014a). Progression towards understanding functions: What does spatial generalization contribute? Proceedings of BCME 8, 17–24.Google Scholar
  3. Ayalon, M., Lerman, S. & Watson, A. (2014b). Graph-matching situations: Some insights from cross years survey in the UK. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 73–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanton, M. L. & Kaput, J. J. (2011). Functional thinking as a route into algebra in the elementary grades. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 5–23). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Confrey, J. & Smith, E. (1994). Exponential functions, rates of change, and the multiplicative unit. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Confrey, J. & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreyfus, T. & Eisenberg, T. (1982). Intuitive functional concepts: A baseline study on intuitions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(5), 360–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldenberg, E. P. (1987). Believing is seeing: How preconceptions influence the perceptions of graphs. In J. Bergeron, N. Herscovits & C. Kieran (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 197–203.Google Scholar
  10. Herbert, S. & Pierce, P. (2012). Revealing educationally critical aspects of rate. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Janvier, C. (1981). Use of situations in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O. & Stein, M. (1990). Functions, graphs and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mevarech, Z. & Kramarsky, B. (1997). From verbal descriptions to graphic representations: Stability and change in students’ alternative conceptions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 229–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ministry of Education (2009). Math curriculum for grades 7–9. Retrieved from (in Hebrew)
  15. Orton, A. (1983). Students’ understanding of differentiations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Orton, J., Orton, A. & Roper, T. (1999). Pictorial and practical contexts and the perception of pattern. In A. Orton (Ed.), Patterns in the teaching and learning of mathematics. London, England: Cassell.Google Scholar
  17. Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Radford, L. (2008). Iconicity and contraction: A semiotic investigation of forms of algebraic generalizations of patterns in different contexts. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 88–96.Google Scholar
  19. Rivera, F. D. & Becker, J. R. (2008). Middle school children’s cognitive perceptions of constructive and deconstructive generalizations involving linear figural patterns. ZDM: International Journal in Mathematics Education, 40, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sajka, M. (2003). A secondary school student’s understanding of the concept of function—A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schultz, K., Clement, J. & Mokros, J. (1986). Adolescents’ graphing skills: A descriptive analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  22. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalizing problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swan, M. (1980). The language of functions and graphs. Nottingham: Shell Centre for Mathematical Education. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
  24. Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D. & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not everything is proportional: Effects of age and problem type on propensities for overgeneralization. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vinner, S. & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 356–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilmot, D. B., Schoenfeld, A. H., Wilson, M., Champney, D. & Zahner, W. (2011). Validating a learning progression in mathematical functions for college readiness. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(4), 259–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.London South Bank UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations