Advertisement

The Fifth Lesson: Students’ Responses to a Patterning Task Across the Four Countries

Chapter
  • 267 Downloads

Abstract

The chapter reports a comparative analysis of problem-solving activities in classrooms in the four countries. The problem students work with is a patterning task, taken from a major international comparative study. The idea of analyzing this group work across countries is to see what traces of algebra learning may be discerned in the work of the students. The results show the complexities of early algebra learning by presenting in detail the obvious variations in how students tackle the problem in more or less algebraic ways. In the small-group work in classrooms, students pool their ideas allowing for the discourse to build on itself in a cumulative manner.

References

  1. Bednarz, N., & Janvier, B. (1996). Emergence and development of algebra as a problem-solving tool: Continuities and discontinuities with arithmetic. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 115–136). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg, C. V. (2009). Developing algebraic thinking in a community of inquiry: Collaboration between three teachers and a didactician. Diss., The University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.Google Scholar
  3. Carraher, D. W., Martinez, M. V., & Schliemann, A. D. (2008). Early algebra and mathematical generalization. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40(3), 349–361.Google Scholar
  4. Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. (2007). Early algebra and algebraic reasoning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics education (pp. 669–705). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., & Schwartz, J. (2008). Early algebra is not the same as algebra early. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 235–272). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Caspi, S., & Sfard, A. (2012). Spontaneous meta-arithmetic as a first step toward school algebra. International Journal of Educational Research, 51–52, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2012). Diagram, gesture, agency: Theorizing embodiment in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1984). From an arithmetical to an algebraic thought. In J. Moser (Ed.), Proceedings of PME-NA VI (pp. 51–56). Madison, WI: PME.Google Scholar
  9. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Gray, E., & Tall, D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A proceptual view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 115–141.Google Scholar
  11. Hitt, F., & González-Martín, A. S. (2016). Generalizations, covariation, functions, and calculus. In A. Gutiérrez, G. C. Leder, & P. Boero (Eds.), The second handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: The journey continues (pp. 3–38). Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaput, J. J. (2000). Teaching and learning a new algebra with understanding. Dartmouth, MA: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.Google Scholar
  13. 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, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Kieran, C. (2007b). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of research on mathematics teaching (pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Kieran, K. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching and learning algebraic thinking with 5- to 12-year-olds: The global evolution of an emerging field of research and practice. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and the roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra. Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 65–86). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nachlieli, T., & Tabach, M. (2012). Growing mathematical objects in the classroom. The case of function. International Journal of Educational Research, 51, 10–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nardi, E., Ryve, A., Stadler, E., & Viirman, O. (2014). Commognitive analysis of the learning and teaching of mathematics at university level: The case of discursive shifts in the study of calculus. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 182–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Radford, L. (2002). The seen, the spoken and the written. A semiotic approach to the problem of objectification of mathematical knowledge. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22(2), 14–23.Google Scholar
  21. Radford, L. (2009). Why do gestures matter? Sensuous cognition and the palpability of mathematical meanings. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Radford, L. (2010). Algebraic thinking from a cultural semiotic perspective. Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Radford, L. (2014). Towards an embodied, cultural, and material conception of mathematics cognition. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 46(3), 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Radford, L. (2018). The emergence of symbolic algebraic thinking in primary school. In C. Kieran (Ed.), Teaching and learning algebraic thinking with 5- to 12-year-olds: The global evolution of an emerging field of research and practice (pp. 1–23). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Reinhardtsen, J. (2012). The introduction of algebra: Comparative studies of textbooks in Finland, Norway, Sweden and USA (Master’s thesis at the University of Agder). Kristiansand: University of Agder.Google Scholar
  26. Reinhardtsen, J., Carlsen, M., & Säljö, R. (2015). Capturing learning in classroom interaction in mathematics: Methodological considerations. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1474–1481). Prague: Charles University in Prague.Google Scholar
  27. Remillard, K. S. (2014). Identifying discursive entry points in paired-novice discourse as a first step in penetrating the paradox of learning mathematical proof. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 34, 99–113.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, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification: The case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stephens, A. C., Ellis, A. B., Blanton, M., & Brizuela, B. M. (2017). Algebraic thinking in the elementary and middle grades. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 386–420). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  33. TIMSS & PIRLS. (2009). TIMSS 2007 user guide for the international database: Released items, mathematics eighth grade. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center: Boston College. Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss2007/items.html
  34. Vergnaud, G. (1982). Cognitive and developmental psychology and research in mathematics education: Some theoretical and methodological issues. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(2), 31–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations