Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 245–275 | Cite as

Learning to teach upper primary school algebra: changes to teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching functional thinking

Original Article

Abstract

A key aspect of learning algebra in the middle years of schooling is exploring the functional relationship between two variables: noticing and generalising the relationship, and expressing it mathematically. This article describes research on the professional learning of upper primary school teachers for developing their students’ functional thinking through pattern generalisation. This aspect of algebra learning has been explicitly brought to the attention of upper primary teachers in the recently introduced Australian curriculum. Ten practising teachers participated over 1 year in a design-based research project involving a sequence of geometric pattern generalisation lessons with their classes. Initial and final survey responses and teachers’ interactions in regular meetings and lessons were analysed from cognitive and situated perspectives on professional learning, using a theoretical model for the different types of knowledge needed for teaching mathematics. The teachers demonstrated an increase in certain aspects of their mathematical knowledge for teaching algebra as well as some residual issues. Implications for the professional learning of practising and pre-service teachers to develop their mathematics knowledge for teaching functional thinking, and challenges with operationalising knowledge categories for field-based research are presented.

Keywords

Teacher professional learning Content knowledge Pedagogical content knowledge Algebra Pattern generalisation Functional thinking Middle years of schooling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge with appreciation the teacher participants and School Mathematics Leaders from the Contemporary Teaching and Learning of Mathematics project, funded by the Catholic Education Office, Melbourne, who contributed to the study on which this article is based.

References

  1. Adler, J., Davis, Z., Kazima, M., Parker, D., & Webb, L. (2005). Working with learners’ mathematics: exploring a key element of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In H. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 1–8). Melbourne, Australia: PME.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Council for Educational Research. (2010). Released items: future teacher mathematics content knowledge (MCK) and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge (MPCK)—Primary Teacher Education Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): TEDS-M International Study Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, US.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2009, January, 2011). The Australian curriculum: mathematics. Retrieved Oct. 1, 2011, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics/Curriculum/F-10
  4. Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reform: what we think we know and what we need to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 500–508.Google Scholar
  5. 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 the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83–104). Westport, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. doi: 10.1177/0022487108324554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumgartner, E., Bell, P., Hoadley, C., Hsi, S., Joseph, D., Orrill, C., & Tabak, I. (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2008). Building district capacity for teacher development in algebraic reasoning. In J. L. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 361–388). New York: Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  9. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.-P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: an experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531. doi: 10.3102/00028312026004499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra and algebraic reasoning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 669–705). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1994). Exponential functions, rates of change, and the multiplicative unit. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2/3), 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: a systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and teacher education, 34, 12-25. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001
  19. English, L. D., & Warren, E. (1998). Introducing the variable through pattern exploration. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(2), 166–170.Google Scholar
  20. Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes profession development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goulding, M., Rowland, T., & Barber, P. (2002). Does it matter? Primary teacher trainees’ subject knowledge in mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 28(5), 689–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenes, C., Cavanagh, M., Dacey, L., Findell, C., & Small, M. (2001). Navigating through algebra in prekindergarten—grade 2. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: lessons from the TIMSS video study. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill, H., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill, H., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: conceptualising and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  28. Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 111–155). Charlotte, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Hodgen, J., Küchemann, D., & Brown, M. (2010). Textbooks for the teaching of algebra in lower secondary school: are they informed by research? Pedagogies, 5(3), 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jakobsen, A., Thames, M. H., & Ribeiro, C. M. (2013). Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME-8). Antalya: Turkey. Delineating issues related to Horizon Content Knowledge for mathematics teaching. Google Scholar
  31. Kaput, J. J. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 133–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. 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 and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  33. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390–419). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Kieran, C. (2004). Algebraic thinking in the early grades: what is it? The Mathematics Educator, 8(1), 139–151.Google Scholar
  35. 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, NC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Kruteskii, V. (1976). The psychology of mathematical ability in school children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(3), 149–164. doi: 10.1207/s15327884mca0303_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, L., & Freiman, V. (2004, October). Tracking primary students’ understanding of patterns. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting—Psychology of Mathematics and Education of North America, Toronto, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Lins, R., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). The early development of algebraic reasoning: the current state of the field. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (pp. 47–70). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Markworth, K. A. (2010). Growing and growing: promoting functional thinking with geometric growing patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Available from ERIC (ED519354).Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. 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 (pp. 155–168). Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics: algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics.Google Scholar
  45. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report Findings from IEAs Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Lynch School of Education, Boston College: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center.Google Scholar
  46. Nathan, M. J., & Koellner, K. (2007). A framework for understanding and cultivating the transition from arithmetic to algebraic reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  48. O’Toole, J., & Beckett, D. (2010). Educational research: creative thinking and doing. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Petrou, M., & Goulding, M. (2011). Conceptualising teachers’ mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge in teaching (pp. 9–25). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Radford, L., & Peirce, C. S. (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, México: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.Google Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rule, A., & Hallagan, J. (2007). Using hands-on materials to write algebraic generalizations (Grades 5–8). Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Mathematics Teachers of New York State. NY: Saratoga Springs.Google Scholar
  53. Saul, M. (2008). Algebra: the mathematics and the pedagogy. In C. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 63–79). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  54. Senk, S., Tatto, M., Reckase, M., Rowley, G., Peck, R., & Bankov, K. (2012). Knowledge of future primary teachers for teaching mathematics: an international comparative study. ZDM, 40, 307–324. doi: 10.1007/s11858-012-0400-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13. doi: 10.3102/0013189x027002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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 and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  58. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Steele, M. D., Hillen, A. F., & Smith, M. S. (2013). Developing mathematical knowledge for teaching in a methods course: the case of function. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(6), 451–482. doi: 10.1007/s10857-013-9243-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sutherland, R. J. (2002). A comparative study of algebra curricula: qualifications and curriculum authority.Google Scholar
  62. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries: findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  63. 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.Google Scholar
  64. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2007). Victorian Essential Learning Standards: mathematics. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vels/maths.html
  65. Warren, E. (2006). Supporting learning in early algebra: a model of professional learning. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces (Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (Vol. 2, pp. 535–542). Canberra: MERGA.Google Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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. doi: 10.1007/s10857-013-9251-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilkie, K. J., & Clarke, D. M. (2015). Pathways to professional growth: investigating upper primary school teachers’ perspectives on learning to teach algebra. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 87–118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations