Skip to main content

Rethinking Algebra: A Versatile Approach Integrating Digital Technology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
And the Rest is Just Algebra

Abstract

Many have thought deeply about the construction of the school algebra curriculum, but the question remains as to why we teach the topics we do in the manner we do, stressing manipulations of symbols, and why some other avenues are ignored. In this chapter we consider the basic constructs in the school algebra curriculum and the procedural approach often taken to learning them and suggest some reasons why certain topics may be excluded. We examine how particular tasks, including some that integrate digital technology into student activity, could be used to rethink the algebra curriculum content with a view to motivating students and promoting versatile thinking. Some reasons why these topics have often not yet found their way into the curriculum are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this chapter we make some use of calculus differentiation techniques. While calculus is usually not studied in school in the USA , many countries do include it in the curriculum from age 16 or 17. Since the primary aim of school algebra is to lead to calculus some minimal use seems reasonable.

References

  • Akkoc, H., & Tall, D. O. (2002). The simplicity, complexity and complication of the function concept. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 25–32). Norwich, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29(1), 14–17, 20–22, 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borowski, E. J., & Borwein, J. M. (1989). Dictionary of mathematics. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinnappan, M., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2003). Teachers’ function schemas and their role in modelling. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, L., Thomas, M. O. J., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Algebra, symbols and translation of meaning. In J. P. da Ponte & J. F. Matos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 240–247). Lisbon, Portugal: Program Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Alwis, A. (2012). Some curious properties and loci problems associated with cubics and other polynomials. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(7), 897–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–123). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. (2001). APOS: A constructivist theory of learning. In D. Holton (Ed.), The teaching and learning of mathematics at university level: An ICMI study (pp. 275–282). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernest, P. (2006). A semiotic perspective of mathematical activity: The case of number. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1984). From an arithmetical to an algebraic thought. In J. M. Moser (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of PME-NA (pp. 51–56). Madison: University of Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, D., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2008). Student perspectives on equation: The transition from school to university. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A. T., Pfannkuch, M., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2009). Versatile thinking and the learning of statistical concepts. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 681–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A. T., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2000). Building a versatile understanding of algebraic variables with a graphic calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(3), 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A. T., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2005). Representational versatility in learning statistics. International Journal of Technology in Mathematical Education, 12(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, O., & Grevholm, B. (2003). Preservice teachers’ conceptions about y = x + 5: Do they see a function? Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 25–32). Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heid, M. K., Thomas, M. O. J., & Zbiek, R. M. (2013). How might computer algebra systems change the role of algebra in the school curriculum? In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 597–642). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 330–351. doi:10.2307/30034819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgen, J., Brown, M., Küchemann, D., & Coe, R. (2010). Mathematical attainment of English secondary school students: A 30-year comparison. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, University of Warwick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgen, J., Coe, R., Brown, M., & Küchemann, D. E. (2014). Improving students’ understanding of algebra and multiplicative reasoning: Did the ICCAMS intervention work? In S. Pope (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth British Congress of Mathematics Education (BCME8) (pp. 1–8). University of Nottingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn, L. (1989, December). Solutions of x n + y n = z n+1. Mathematics Magazine, 342. doi:10.2307/2689491.

  • Hong, Y. Y., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2006). Factors influencing teacher integration of graphic calculators in teaching. In Proceedings of the 11th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 234–243). Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. Y., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2014). Graphical construction of a local perspective on differentiation and integration. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27, 183–200. doi:10.1007/s13394-014-0135-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. Y., Thomas, M. O. J., & Kwon, O. (2000). Understanding linear algebraic equations via super-calculator representations. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 57–64). Hiroshima, Japan: Programme Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(3), 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Küchemann, D. E. (1981). Algebra. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11-16 (pp. 102–119). London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. (1987). What do symbols represent? In C. Janvier (Ed.) Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1898). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. In J. Bucher (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosnick, P., & Clement, J. (1980). Learning without understanding: The effect of tutorial strategies on algebra misconceptions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 3(1), 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think. A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. Routledge: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skemp, R. (1971). The psychology of learning mathematics. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, S., & Thomas, M. O. J. (2010). Student learning of basis, span and linear independence in linear algebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(2), 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struik, D. J. (1969). A source book in mathematics, 1200-1800. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (2004). Building theories: The three worlds of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(1), 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O. (2008). The transition to formal thinking in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O., & Thomas, M. O. J. (1991). Encouraging versatile thinking in algebra using the computer. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 125–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. O., Thomas, M. O. J., Davis, G., Gray, E., & Simpson, A. (2000). What is the object of the encapsulation of a process? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J. (1988). A conceptual approach to the early learning of algebra using a computer. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Warwick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J. (1994). A process-oriented preference in the writing of algebraic equations. In G. Bell, B. Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Geake (Eds.), Challenges in mathematics education: Constraints on construction. Proceedings of the 17th Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Conference (pp. 599–606). Lismore, Australia: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J. (2002). Versatile thinking in mathematics. In D. O. Tall & M. O. J. Thomas (Eds.), Intelligence, learning and understanding in mathematics (pp. 179–204). Flaxton, Queensland, Australia: Post Pressed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J. (2003). The role of representation in teacher understanding of function. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 291–298). Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J. (2008a). Conceptual representations and versatile mathematical thinking. Proceedings of ICME-10 (CD version of proceedings). Copenhagen, Denmark, 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.icme10.dk/proceedings/pages/regular_pdf/RL_Mike_Thomas.pdf

  • Thomas, M. O. J. (2008b). Developing versatility in mathematical thinking. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(2), 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J., & Hong, Y. Y. (2005). Teacher factors in integration of graphic calculators into mathematics learning. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 257–264). Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J., & Palmer, J. (2013). Teaching with digital technology: Obstacles and opportunities. In A. Clark-Wilson, N. Sinclair, & O. Robutti (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era (pp. 71–89). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J., & Stewart, S. (2011). Eigenvalues and eigenvectors: Embodied, symbolic and formal thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(3), 275–296. doi:10.1007/s13394-011-0016-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. O. J., & Tall, D. O. (2001). The long-term cognitive development of symbolic algebra. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematical Instruction (ICMI) the Future of the Teaching and Learning of Algebra (pp. 590–597). Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. W. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. In E. Dubinsky, A. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education, I, Issues in mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 21–44). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandebrouck, F. (2011). Students’ conceptions of functions at the transition between secondary school and university. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & E. Swoboda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of European Researchers in Mathematics Education (pp. 2093–2102). Poland: Rzeszow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, S. (1981). Conservation of equation and function under transformations of variable. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 118–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. G. (1998). Using concept maps to assess conceptual knowledge of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(4), 414–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Thomas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thomas, M. (2017). Rethinking Algebra: A Versatile Approach Integrating Digital Technology. In: Stewart, S. (eds) And the Rest is Just Algebra. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45053-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45053-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45052-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45053-7

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics