Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 635–657 | Cite as

Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

  • Vince WrightEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

A hypothetical learning trajectory Simon (Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145, 1995) based on Kieren’s (1980, 1988, 1993, 1995) sub-constructs for rational number was developed and used as a framework in a year-long design experiment in a New Zealand Middle School. Instructional sequences were designed using the trajectory. Case studies of six 12–13-year-old students provided evidence of their progression through phases of the hypothetical learning trajectory. The patterns of progress for individual students were displayed using visual maps which revealed considerable variability across the sub-constructs and predicted growth within sub-constructs. The findings supported the usefulness of the hypothetical learning trajectory as an instructional tool supported by other forms of pedagogical-content-knowledge. Developmental connections between the sub-constructs were also suggested.

Keywords

Hypothetical learning trajectory Rational number Pedagogical-content knowledge 

References

  1. Adjiage, R., & Pluvinage, F. (2007). An experiment in teaching ratio and proportion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 140–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alatorre, S. (2002). A framework for the study of intuitive answers to ratio comparison (probability) tasks. In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol. 2, pp. 33–40). Norwich, UK.:PME.Google Scholar
  3. Alatorre, S., & Figueras, O. (2004). Proportional reasoning of quasi-literate adults. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol. 2, pp. 9–16). Bergen, Norway:PME.Google Scholar
  4. Alatorre, S., & Figueras, O. (2005). A developmental model for proportional reasoning in ratio comparison tasks. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), 29th Annual Conference of the International Research Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol. 2, pp. 25–32). Melbourne, Australia: PME.Google Scholar
  5. Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2007). Effective pedagogy in mathematics: best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, D. B. (2000). Working on the inside: using one’s own practice as a site for studying teaching and learning. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 365–392). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, D. B., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it so special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on learning and teaching (pp. 83–104). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  9. Baroody, A. J., Cibulskis, M., Lai, M., & Li, X. (2004). Comments on the use of learning trajectories in curriculum development and research. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 227–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T., Lesh, R., et al. (1984). Rational numbers: towards a semantic analysis—emphasis on the operator construct. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 13–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Ben-Chaim, D., Key, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto, C., & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among 7th grade students with different curricula experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bobis, J., Clarke, B., Clarke, D., Gould, P., Thomas, G., Wright, R., et al. (2005). Supporting teachers in the development of young children’s mathematical thinking: three large scale case studies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: a case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17(1), 25–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Case, R. (1992). The mind’s staircase: stages in the development of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Chick, H., Baker, M., Pham, T., & Cheng, H. (2006). Aspects of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for decimals. In J. Novotna, H. Maraova, M. Kratka & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol. 2, pp. 297–304). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  17. Chick, H. L. (2007). Teaching and learning by example. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential Research, Essential Practice: 30th Annual Conference for the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 3–20). Hobart, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  18. Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2009). Students’ fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust understanding and possible pointers for instruction. Education Studies in Mathematics, 72, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clements, D. H., Wilson, D. C., & Sarama, J. (2004). Young children’s composition of geometric figures: a learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cobb, P. (2009). Individual and collective mathematical development: the case of statistical data analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Confrey, J., (2008) A synthesis of the research on rational number reasoning: a learning progressions approach to synthesis. Invited Lecture to the International Conference on Mathematics Instruction XI, Monterrey, Mexico.Google Scholar
  22. Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2010). The construction, refinement, and early validation of the equipartitioning learning trajectory. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol.1, pp. 968–975). Chicago, Ill: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1994). Splitting, co-variation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2/3), 135–164.Google Scholar
  24. Darr, C., Neill, A., & Stephanou, A. (2006). Progressive achievement test: Mathematics: teacher manual. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  25. DiSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird’s eye view of the “pieces vs. coherence” controversy. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (Vol. 1, pp. 35–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Dole, S., Clarke, D., Wright, T., & Hilton, G. (2012). Students’ proportional reasoning in mathematics and science. In T. Y. Tso (Ed.), 36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol.2, pp.195–201). Taipei, Taiwan: PME.Google Scholar
  27. Empson, S. B., & Jacobs, V. R. (2008). Learning to listen to children’s mathematics. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Eds.), Tools and processes in mathematics education (pp. 257–281). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  28. Gould, P. (2006). Year 6 students’ methods of comparing the size of fractions. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces: 28th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 394–400). Melbourne, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  29. Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Fostering a dialectic relation between theory and practice. In J. Anghileri (Ed.), Principles and practices in arithmetic teaching: innovative approaches in primary classrooms (pp. 49–63). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(4), 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hart, K. M. (1988). Ratio and proportion. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 198–219). Reston, VA.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates & Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  32. Hart, K. M., Kerslake, D., Brown, M. L., Ruddock, G., Kuchemann, D. E., & McCartney, M. (1981). Children’s understanding of mathematics (pp. 11–16). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  33. Hattie, J. A. C., Brown, G. T. L., Keegan, P. J., MacKay, A. J., Irving, S. E., Patel, P., et al. (2004). Assessment tools for teaching and learning (asTTle) Version 4, 2005: Manual. Wellington, NZ.: University of Auckland/Ministry of Education/Learning Media.Google Scholar
  34. Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: epistemic actions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 65–100). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Isoda, M., Stephens, M., Ohara, Y., & Miyakawa, T. (2007). Japanese lesson study in Mathematics: its impact, diversity and potential for educational improvement. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacob, L., & Willis, S. (2003). The development of multiplicative thinking in young children. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), 26th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 460–467). Geelong, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  38. Jansen, B. R. J., & van der Mass, H. L. J. (2002). The development of children’s rule use on the balance scale task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 383–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaput, J., & West, M. M. (1994). Missing value proportional reasoning problems: factors affecting informal reasoning patterns. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), Multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 235–287). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kieren, T. E. (1980). The rational number construct—its elements and mechanisms. In T. E. Kieren (Ed.), Recent research on number learning (pp. 125–149). Columbus, OH.: ERIC/SMEAR.Google Scholar
  41. Kieren, T. E. (1988). Personal knowledge of rational numbers: Its intuitive and formal development. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 53–92). Reston, VA.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  42. Kieren, T. E. (1993). Rational and fractional numbers: from quotient fields to recursive understanding. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 49–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Kieren, T. (1995). Creating spaces for learning fractions. In J. T. Sowder & B. P. Schappelle (Eds.), Providing a foundation for teaching mathematics in the middle grades (pp. 31–65). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding + It Up. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lachance, A., & Confrey, J. (2002). Helping students build a path of understanding from ratio and proportion to decimal notation. Journal of mathematical behaviour, 20, 503–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lamon, S. J. (2002). Part-whole comparisons with unitizing. In B. Litwiller & G. Bright (Eds.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions (pp. 79–86). Reston, VA.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  47. Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: towards a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: a project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 629–667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  48. Lesh, R., & Yoon, C. (2004). Evolving communities of mind—in which development involves several interacting and simultaneously developing strands. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lo, J., & Watanabe, T. (1997). Developing ratio and proportion schemes: a story of a fifth grader. Journal for research in mathematics education, 28(2), 216–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lobato, J. (1997). Transfer reconceived: how ‘sameness’ is produced in mathematical activity. Unpublished PhD, University of California, Berkley.Google Scholar
  51. Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: history, issues, and challenges for future research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lobato, J., & Siebert, D. (2002). Quantitative reasoning in a reconceived view of transfer. Journal of mathematical behaviour, 21, 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: the importance of knowing—to act in the moment. Education Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ministry of Education, (2003). Global Strategy Stage. Retrieved 12 February, 2007, from http://nzmaths.co.nz/gloss-forms?parent_node=.
  55. Mitchell, A., & Horne, M. (2011). Listening to children’s explanations of fraction pair tasks: when more than an answer and an initial explanation are needed. In J. Clark, B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer & S. Thornton (Eds.), Mathematics: Traditions and [new] practices(Vol.1, pp.515–522). Allice Springs, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  56. Mulligan, J., & Mitchelmore, M. (1997). Young children’s intuitive models of multiplication and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Noelting, G. (1980). The development of proportional reasoning and the ratio concept, part II—problem-structure at successive stages: problem-solving strategies and the mechanism of additive restructuring. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 331–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Olive, J. (1999). From fractions to rational numbers of arithmetic: a reorganisation hypothesis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(4), 279–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Olive, J., & Steffe, L. P. (2002). Schemes, schemas and director systems. In D. Tall & M. Thomas (Eds.), Intelligence, learning and understanding in Mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 97–130). Flaxton, Qld: Post Pressed.Google Scholar
  60. Panoutsos, C., Karantzis, I., & Markopoulos, C. (2009). 6th grade students’ strategies in ratio problems. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 289–296). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.Google Scholar
  61. Pearn, C., & Stephens, M. (2004). Why do you have to probe to discover what year 8 students really think about fractions? In I. Putt, R. Faragher & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millennium: Towards 2010: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol 2, pp. 430–437). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  62. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structure: the central problem of intellectual development (T. Brown & K. J. Trampy, Trans). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago (Original work published 1965).Google Scholar
  63. Post, T., Behr, M., Lesh, R., & Wachsmuth, I. (1986). Selected results from the rational number project. In L. Steefland (Ed.), 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 342–351). Antwerp, Netherlands: PME.Google Scholar
  64. Post, T., Lesh, R., Cramer, K., Harel, G., & Behr, M. (1993). Curriculum implications of research on the learning, teaching and assessing of rational number concepts. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 327–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  65. Resnick, L. B., & Singer, J. A. (1993). Protoquantitative origins of ratio reasoning. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 107–130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Roche, A., & Clarke, D. M. (2006). When successful comparison of decimals doesn’t tell the full story. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 425–432). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  67. Royer, J. M., Mestre, J. P., & Dufresne, R. J. (2005). Framing the transfer problem. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. vii–xxvi). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  68. Schwartz, J. (1988). Intensive quantity and referent transforming arithmetic operations. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 41–52). Reston, VA.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  69. Sherwin, B., & Fuson, K. (2005). Multiplication strategies and the appropriation of computational resources. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4), 347–395.Google Scholar
  70. Siegler, R. S. (2007). Cognitive variability. Developmental Science, 10(1), 104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Siemon, D., Izard, J., Breed, M., & Virgona, J. (2006). The derivation of a learning assessment framework for multiplicative thinking. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 113–120). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  72. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Steffe, L. P. (1983). Children’s algorithms as schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14(2), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Steffe, L. P. (2003). Fractional commensurate, composition, and adding schemes, learning trajectories of Jason and Laura: Grade 5. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 237–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Steffe, L. P. (2004). On the construction of learning trajectories of children: the case of commensurate fractions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetic meanings. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1998). Multiplicative and divisional schemes. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 16(1–2), 45–61.Google Scholar
  78. Steinle, V., & Stacey, K. (2004). A longitudinal study of students’ understanding of decimal notation: an overview and refined results. In I. Putt, R. Faragher & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third millennium: Towards 2010: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 541–548). Townsville, Australia.: MERGA.Google Scholar
  79. Steinthorsdottir, O. B. (2005). Girls journey towards proportional reasoning. In H. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.), 29th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol.4, pp. 225–232). Melbourne, Australia: PME.Google Scholar
  80. Streefland, L. (1993). Fractions: a realistic approach. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 289–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  81. Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Holt Wilson, P., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thompson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (2003). Fractions and multiplicative thinking. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), Research companion to the principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 95–114). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  83. Tourniaire, F., & Pulos, S. (1985). Proportional reasoning: a review of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2001). Realistic mathematics education in the Netherlands. In J. Anghileri (Ed.), Principles and practices in arithmetic teaching: innovative approaches for the primary classroom (pp. 49–64). Buckingham, PA.: Open University.Google Scholar
  85. Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching, 121–140.Google Scholar
  87. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. Washington, DC: Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2006). Seeing an exercise as a single mathematical object: using variation to structure sense-making. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2), 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wright, V. (2011). The development of multiplicative thinking and proportional reasoning: models of conceptual learning and transfer. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  90. Young-Loveridge, J. (2006). Patterns of performance and progress on the New Zealand numeracy project: looking back from 2005. In D. Holton (Ed.), Findings from the New Zealand numeracy projects 2005 (pp. 6–23). Wellington, NZ.: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  91. Young-Loveridge, J., & Wright, V. (2002a). Data from the Numeracy Development Project and the New Zealand Number Framework. In D. Fraser & R. Openshaw (Eds.), 2nd Biennial Conference of the Teacher Education Forum of Aotearoa New Zealand (TEFANZ)(Vol.1, pp. 233–251). Wellington: Kanuka Grove, Palmerston North.Google Scholar
  92. Young-Loveridge, J., & Wright, V. (2002b). Validation of the New Zealand Number Framework. In B. Barton, K. C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch & M. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics Education in the South Pacific: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research group of Australasia (Vol.2, pp. 722–729). Auckland: MERGA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics Education/School of Education/Faculty of EducationAustralian Catholic UniversityFitzroyAustralia

Personalised recommendations