Encountering Algebraic Reasoning in Contemporary Classrooms: Epilogue



The analyses in the chapters have taken us into a variety of classrooms at the particular point in time when students are introduced to algebra. There are similarities as well as differences between the classrooms documented in terms of the instructional practices that unfold and the cultures of learning they represent. The empirical results show how teachers, on the basis of their experiences and conceptions about what it means to learn algebra, design classroom activities that they consider conducive to introducing algebra. At the same time, it is obvious that students struggle with the new concepts and procedures and the requirements of modeling problems in the expected mathematical format. In these learning trajectories, there are signs that students are accustomed to arithmetic procedures and a focus on arriving at numerical answers; experiences and assumptions which seem to make it difficult for them to take on tasks that require algebraic forms of reasoning.


  1. Balacheff, N. (2001). Symbolic arithmetic vs algebra the core of a didactical dilemma. Postscript. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on school algebra (pp. 249–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 19–25.Google Scholar
  3. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. Scholar
  4. Harel, G. (2000). Three principles of learning and teaching mathematics. In J. L. Dorier (Ed.), On the teaching of linear algebra. Mathematics education library (Vol. 23, pp. 177–189). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Küchemann, D. (1978). Children’s understanding of numerical variables. Mathematics in School, 9, 23–26.Google Scholar
  6. Küchemann, D. (1981). Algebra. In K. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11-16 (pp. 102–119). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  7. Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., et al. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In A. Clear & R. Lister (Eds.), Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Nyman, R., & Kilhamn, C. (2014). Enhancing engagement in algebra: Didactical strategies implemented and discussed by teachers. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(6), 623–637. Scholar
  10. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory. In Description in mathematics instruction—The Wiskobas Project. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  11. Vlassis, J. (2002). The balance model: Hindrance or support for the solving of linear equations with one unknown. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 341–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. Scholar
  14. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationCommunication and Learning, University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional StudiesUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations