Advertisement

Connecting Whole Number Arithmetic Foundations to Other Parts of Mathematics: Structure and Structuring Activity

  • Hamsa VenkatEmail author
  • Sybilla BeckmannEmail author
  • Kerstin Larsson
  • Yan Ping Xin
  • Alessandro Ramploud
  • Limin Chen
Chapter
Part of the New ICMI Study Series book series (NISS)

Abstract

In this chapter, we attend to presentation/discussion of structure and structuring activities as two key routes through which whole number arithmetic can be connected to other mathematical content areas and to central mathematical processes and products like defining/definitions and generalizing/generalization. In the body of the chapter, we use literature to distinguish between approaches focused more on the presentation of structure and those oriented towards structuring activities, before presenting an overview and discussion of studies geared more towards one or other of these approaches. We incorporate studies that have been directed towards both students’ mathematical learning and mathematical (and pedagogical) teacher learning and conclude with commentary on biases towards structure-based or structuring activity-based approaches across these contexts. Our argument is that both approaches show promise for building towards stronger connections between whole number arithmetic and other mathematical areas, with a number of examples in each category included. Given the evidence of difficulties for so many children in many parts of the world in moving beyond the terrain of whole number, our findings suggest that attention to structure and structuring can provide important routes for bridging this chasm.

Supplementary material

Video 13.1

(M4V 56925 kb)

References

  1. Adler, J., & Ronda, E. (2015). A framework for describing mathematics discourse in instruction and interpreting differences in teaching. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(3), 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artigue, M. (2011). Challenges in basic mathematics education. Retrieved from Paris: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001917/191776e.pdf.
  3. Askew, M. (2005). BEAM’s big book of word problems for years 3 & 4. London: BEAM Education.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhurst, D. (1991). Consciousness and revolution in Soviet philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastable, V., & Schifter, D. (2008). Classroom stories: Examples of elementary students engaged in early algebra. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 165–184). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  7. Beckmann, S., & Izsák, A. (2015). Two perspectives on proportional relationships: Extending complementary origins of multiplication in terms of quantities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blomhøj, M. (2004). Mathematical modelling – A theory for practice. In B. Clarke et al. (Eds.), International perspectives on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 145–159). Göteborg: National Center for Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  9. Cai, J., & Knuth, E. (Eds.). (2011). Early algebraization. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Corry, L. (1992). Nicolas Bourbaki and the concept of mathematical structure. Synthèse, 92(3), 315–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davydov, V. V. (1982). The psychological characteristics of the formation of elementary mathematical operations in children. In T. P. Carpenter et al. (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 224–238). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Dougherty, B. J., & Slovin, H. (2004). Generalized diagrams as a tool for young children’s problem solving. In Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 295–302).Google Scholar
  13. Dole, S., Clarke, D., Wright, T., & Hilton, G. (2012). Students’ proportional reasoning in mathematics and science. In T. Tso (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th conference of the International Group for the PME (Vol. 2, pp. 195–202). Taipei: PME.Google Scholar
  14. Driscoll, M.J. (1999). Fostering algebraic thinking: A guide for teachers grades 6–10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  15. Ellis, A. B. (2007). The influence of reasoning with emergent quantities on students' generalizations. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 439–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. Gravemeijer, K., & Stephan, M. (2011). Emergent models as an instructional design heuristic. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, and L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 145–169). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hewitt, D. (1992). Trainspotters’ paradise. Mathematics Teaching, 140, 6–8.Google Scholar
  19. Kaput, J. J., & West, M. M. (1994). Missing-value proportional reasoning problems: Factors affecting informal reasoning patterns. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 235–287). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larsson, K. (2015). Sixth grade students’ explanations and justification of distributivity. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 295–301). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education and ERME.Google Scholar
  22. Lesh, R., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual models in applied mathematical problem solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts & processes (pp. 263–343). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mason, J., Stephens, W., & Watson, A. (2009). Appreciating mathematical structure for all. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ni, Y., & Zhou, Y.-D. (2005). Teaching and learning fraction and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Barros, R., & Sylva, K. (2012). The relative importance of two different mathematical abilities to mathematical achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 136–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schifter, D. (2011). Examining the behavior of operations: Noticing early algebraic ideas. In M.G. Sherin, V.R. Jacobs, & R.A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 204–220). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of ‘well-taught’ mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, J. P., III, & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Quantitative reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 95–132). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  30. Stephens, M. (2004). The importance of generalisable numerical expressions. In B. Clarke et al. (Eds.), International perspectives on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 97–111). Göteborg: National Centre for Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  31. Tabulawa, R. (2003). International aid agencies, learner-centred pedagogy and political democratization: A critique. Comparative Education, 39(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Drijvers, P. (2014). Realistic mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 521–525). Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Vleugels, K., & Verschaffel, L. (2010). Just answering…or thinking? Contrasting pupils’ solutions and classifications of missing-value word problems. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 12(1), 20–35. doi: 10.1080/109860600903465806.
  34. van Hoof, J., Lijnen, T., Verschaffel, L., & van Dooren, W. (2013). Are secondary school students still hampered by the natural number bias? A reaction time study on fraction comparison tasks. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 154–164. doi: 10.1080/1479802.2013.797747.
  35. Venkat, H., Askew, M., & Runesson, U. (2014). Definitional vs strategic example spaces for mental strategies. Sep 1st – 3rd. EARLI SIG 9 conference: Phenomenography and variation theory: Oxford.Google Scholar
  36. Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2009). Developing understanding and abstraction: The case of equivalence in the elementary years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 76–95. doi: 10.1007/BF03217546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: Learners generating examples. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Wright, R. J., Stanger, G., Stafford, A. K., & Martland, J. (2006). Teaching number in the classroom with 4–8-year-olds. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Xin, Y. P. (2012). Conceptual model-based problem solving: Teach students with learning difficulties to solve math problems. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xin, Y. P., Zhang, D., Park, J. Y., Tom, K., Whipple, A., & Si, L. (2011). A comparison of two mathematics problem-solving strategies: Facilitate algebra-readiness. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cited papers from Sun, X., Kaur, B., & Novotna, J. (Eds.). (2015). Conference proceedings of the ICMI study 23: Primary mathematics study on whole numbers. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from www.umac.mo/fed/ICMI23/doc/Proceedings_ICMI_STUDY_23_final.pdf

  1. Baldin, Y., Mandarino, M. C., Mattos, F. R., & Guimaraes, L. C. (2015). A Brazilian project for teachers of primary education: Case of whole numbers (pp. 510–517).Google Scholar
  2. Beckmann, S., Izsák, A., & Ölmez, I.B. (2015). From multiplication to proportional relationships (pp. 518–525).Google Scholar
  3. Chen, L., van Dooren, W. Jing, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2015). Effect of learning context on students understanding of the multiplication and division rule for rational numbers (pp. 526–533).Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, J. (2015). Combining mathematical and educational perspectives in professional development (pp. 526–533).Google Scholar
  5. Dole, S., Hilton, A., Hilton, G., & Goos, M. (2015). Proportional reasoning: An elusive connector of school mathematics curriculum (pp. 534–541).Google Scholar
  6. Eraky, A., & Guberman, R. (2015). Generalisation ability of 5th–6th graders for numerical and visual-pictorial patterns (pp. 542–549).Google Scholar
  7. Ferrara, F., & Ng, O.-L. (2015). A materialist conception of early algebraic thinking (pp. 550–558).Google Scholar
  8. Kaur, B. (2015). The model method: A tool for representing and visualizing relationships (pp. 448–455).Google Scholar
  9. Larsson, K., & Pettersson, K. (2015). Discerning multiplicative and additive reasoning in co-variation problems (pp. 559–566).Google Scholar
  10. Mellone, M., & Ramploud, A., (2015). Additive structure: An educational experience of cultural transposition (pp. 567–574).Google Scholar
  11. Venenciano, L., Slovin, H., & Zenigami, F. (2015). Learning place value through a measurement context (pp. 575–582).Google Scholar
  12. Venkat, H. (2015). Representational approaches to primary teacher development in South Africa (pp. 583–588).Google Scholar
  13. Xin, Y.P. (2015). Conceptual model-based problem solving (pp. 589–596).Google Scholar
  14. Zhang, J., Meng, Y., Hu, B., Cheung, S.K., Yang, N., & Jiang, C. (2015). The role of early language abilities on math skills among Chinese children (pp. 597–602).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  5. 5.Scuola Primaria LeopardiReggio EmiliaItaly
  6. 6.Shenyang Normal UniversityShenyangChina

Personalised recommendations