Abstract
An important goal in school algebra is to help students notice the covariational nature of functional relationships, how the values of variables change in relation to each other. This study explored 102 Year 7 (12 to 13-year-old) students’ covariational reasoning with their constructed graphs for figural growing patterns they had generalised. A sequence of figural pattern generalisation tasks was incorporated in their school’s linear equations topic, before formal introduction to linear graphs. The aim was to see if or how the students described covariation features of their graph and connected them to their generalisation. Evidence was found for a noticeable increase in both the students’ use of symbolic algebra for their pattern generalisation and knowledge of Cartesian plane graphing conventions, but not for increasing covariational reasoning with their graphs or connections to their generalisation. Possible implications and further research directions on graphing in a pattern generalisation context are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2017). The Australian curriculum: Mathematics. Retrieved December 1, 2017, from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Curriculum/F-10
Ayalon, M., Watson, A., & Lerman, S. (2016). Progression towards functions: Students’ performance on three tasks about variables from grades 7 to 12. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 1153–1173.
Bakker, A., & van Eerde, D. (2015). An introduction to design-based research with an example from statistics education. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 429–466). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Bieda, K. N., & Nathan, M. J. (2009). Representational disfluency in algebra: Evidence from student gestures and speech. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41(5), 637–650.
Boote, S. K., & Boote, D. N. (2017). Leaping from discrete to continuous independent variables: Sixth graders’ science line graph interpretations. The Elementary School Journal, 117(3), 455–484.
Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2008). Multiple notational systems and algebraic understandings: The case of the “best deal” problem. In J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 273–301). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
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, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1994). Exponential functions, rates of change, and the multiplicative unit. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 135–164.
Dörfler, W. (2008). En route from patterns to algebra: Comments and reflections. ZDM– The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 143–160.
Gravemeijer, K., & Van Eerde, D. (2009). Design research as a means for building a knowledge base for teachers and teaching in mathematics education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 510–524.
Hodgen, J., Küchemann, D., & Brown, M. (2010). Textbooks for the teaching of algebra in lower secondary school: Are they informed by research? Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(3), 187–201.
Kaput, J. 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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Knuth, E. J. (2000). Student understanding of the Cartesian connection: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 500–507.
Küchemann, D. (2010). Using patterns generically to see structure. Pedagogies, 5(3), 233–250.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.
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.
Markovits, Z., Eylon, B., & Bruckheimer, M. (1986). Functions today and yesterday. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(2), 18–28.
Markworth, K. A. (2010). Growing and growing: Promoting functional thinking with geometric growing patterns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED519354).
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, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mason, J. (2017). Overcoming the algebra barrier: Being particular about the general, and generally looking beyond the particular, in homage to Mary Boole. In S. Stewart (Ed.), And the rest is just algebra (pp. 97–117). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moss, J., Beatty, R., Barkin, S., & Shillolo, G. (2008). “What is your theory? What is your rule?” Fourth graders build an understanding of function through patterns and generalising problems. In C. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (70th yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 155–168). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Orton, J., Orton, A., & Roper, T. (1999). Pictorial and practical contexts and the perception of pattern. In A. Orton (Ed.), Pattern in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 121–136). London, England: Redwood Books Ltd..
Radford, L. (2010). Layers of generality and types of generalization in pattern activities. PNA, 4(2), 37–62.
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.
Rivera, F. (2010). Visual templates in pattern generalization activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(3), 297–328.
Schwartz, J., & Yerushalmy, M. (1992). Getting students to function in and with algebra. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy. MAA Notes (Vol. 25, pp. 261–289). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36.
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, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(2), 147–164.
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, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, 1, issues in mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 21–44). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
Thompson, P. W., & Carlson, M. (2017). Variation, covariation, and functions: Foundational ways of thinking mathematically. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 421–456). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
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, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
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.
Wilkie, K. J. (2016). Students’ use of variables and multiple representations in generalizing functional relationships prior to secondary school. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(3), 333–361.
Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2008). Generalising the pattern rule for visual growth patterns: Actions that support 8 year olds’ thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 171–185.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 5828 kb)
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilkie, K.J. Investigating Students’ Attention to Covariation Features of their Constructed Graphs in a Figural Pattern Generalisation Context. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 315–336 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09955-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09955-6