Abstract
Many college instructors consider the final problem-solving steps in their respective disciplines as “just algebra”; however, for many college students, a weak foundation in algebra seems to be a source of significant struggle with solving a variety of mathematics problems. The purpose of this chapter is to reveal some typical algebra errors that subsequently plague students’ abilities to succeed in higher-level mathematics courses. The early detection and mindfulness of these errors will aid in the creation of a model for intervention that is specifically designed for students’ needs in each course.
… Although I couldn’t really prove a lot on the exams, I did learn how to solve calculus problems, unfortunately what held me back was the algebra.
—Calculus I Student
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Ashlock, R. B. (2010). Error patterns in computation: Using error patterns to improve instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Benander, L., & Clement, J. (1985). Catalogue of error patterns observed in courses on basic mathematics. Working Draft. Massachusetts: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 287 672).
Booth, J. L., Barbieri, C., Eyer, F., & Paré-Blagoev, E. J. (2014). Persistent and pernicious errors in algebraic problem solving. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7(1), 3.
Booth, J. L., & Newton, K. J. (2012). Fractions: Could they really be the gatekeeper’s doorman? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(4), 247–253.
Brown, G., & Quinn, R. J. (2007). Fraction proficiency and success in algebra: What does research say? Australian Mathematics Teacher, 63(3), 23–30.
Cornu, B. (1991). Limits. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 153–166). Boston: Kluwer.
De Morgan, A. (1910). On the study and difficulties of mathematics. Chicago: Open Court.
Drouhard, J. P., & Teppo, A. R. (2004). Symbols and language. In The future of the teaching and learning of algebra the 12th ICMI study (pp. 225–264). Boston: Kluwer.
Harel, G. (2007). The DNR system as a conceptual framework for curriculum development in instruction. In R. Lesh, J. Kaput, & E. Hamilton (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Harel, G., Fuller, E., & Rabin, J. (2008). Attention to meaning by algebra teachers. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27, 116–127.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2005). Advanced mathematical-thinking at any age: Its nature and its development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 27–50.
Hoch, M., & Dreyfus, T. (2004). Structure sense in high school algebra: The effects of brackets. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 49–56). Bergen, Norway: PME.
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.
Mason, J. (2002). Mathematics teaching practice: A guidebook for university and college lecturers. Chichester: Horwood.
Oehrtman, M. (2002). Collapsing dimensions, physical limitation, and other student metaphors for limit concepts: An instrumentalist investigation into calculus students’ spontaneous reasoning, Ph.D. dissertation.
Rice, J. A. (2007). Mathematical statistics and data analysis (3rd ed.). California: Thomson, Brooks/Cole.
Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification—The case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2), 191–228.
Stacey, K., Chick, H., & Kendal, M. (Eds.). (2004). The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study (Vol. 8). New York: Springer.
Stein, M. K., Kaufman, J. H., Sherman, M., & Hillen, A. F. (2011). Algebra a challenge at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 453–492.
Stewart, J. (2014). Calculus (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The condition of education 2004 (NCES 2004–077). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Williams, S. (1991). Models of limit held by college calculus students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 219–236.
Wu, H. (2001). How to prepare students for algebra. American Educator, 25(2), 10–17.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stewart, S., Reeder, S. (2017). Algebra Underperformances at College Level: What Are the Consequences?. In: Stewart, S. (eds) And the Rest is Just Algebra. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45053-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45053-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45052-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45053-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)