# Implementing a Framework for Early Algebra

## Abstract

In this chapter , we discus s the algebra framework that guides our work and how this framework was enacted in the design of a curricular approach for systematically developing elementary-aged students’ algebraic thinking. We provide evidence that, using this approach, students in elementary grades can engage in sophisticated practices of algebraic thinking based on generalizing, representing, justifying, and reasoning with mathematical structure and relationships. Moreover, they can engage in these practices across a broad set of content areas involving generalized arithmetic; concepts associated with equivalence, expressions, equations, and inequalities; and functional thinking.

## Keywords

Algebraic thinking Randomized study Early algebra Learning progressions Qualitative methods Curriculum## Notes

### Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under DRK-12 Awards #1207945, 1219605, 1219606, 1154355 and 1415509 and by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A140092. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the National Science Foundation or of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education.

## References

- Barrett, J. E., & Battista, M. T. (2014). Two approaches to describing the development of students’ reasoning about length: A case study for coordinating related trajectories.
*Learning over time: Learning trajectories in mathematics education*(pp. 97–124). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar - Battista, M. T. (2004). Applying cognition-based assessment to elementary school students’ development of understanding area and volume measurement.
*Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6*(2), 185–204.Google Scholar - Battista, M. T. (2011). Conceptualizations and issues related to learning progressions, learning trajectories, and levels of sophistication.
*The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8*(3), 507–570.Google Scholar - Blanton, M. L., Levi, L., Crites, T., & Dougherty, B. J. (2011).
*Developing essential understandings of algebraic thinking, Grades 3–5*. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Blanton, M. L., Brizuela, B. M., Gardiner, A., Sawrey, K., & Newman-Owens, A. (2015a). A learning trajectory in six-year-olds’ thinking about generalizing functional relationships.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46*(5), 511–558.Google Scholar - Blanton, M., Stephens, A., Knuth, E., Gardiner, A., Isler, I., & Kim, J. (2015b). The development of children’s algebraic thinking: The impact of a comprehensive early algebra intervention in third grade.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46*(1), 39–87.Google Scholar - Blanton, M., Brizuela, B., Gardiner, A., Sawrey, K., & Newman-Owens, A. (2017a). A progression in first-grade children’s thinking about variable and variable notation in functional relationships.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95*(2), 181–202. doi: 10.1007/s10649-016-9745-0. - Blanton, M., Isler, I., Stroud, R., Stephens, A., Knuth, E., Gardiner, A. (2017b).
*A longitudinal study of the development of children’s algebraic thinking in elementary grades*. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar - Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2008). Multiple notational systems and algebraic understandings: The case of the “best deal” problem. In J. J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.),
*Algebra in the early grades*(pp. 273–301). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Brizuela, B. M., Blanton, M., Sawrey, K., Newman-Owens, A., & Gardiner, A. (2015). Children’s use of variables and variable notation to represent their algebraic ideas.
*Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17*, 1–30.Google Scholar - Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003).
*Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in the elementary school*. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar - Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra and algebraic reasoning. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.),
*Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(Vol. 2, pp. 669–705). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar - Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., & Schwartz, J. L. (2008). Early algebra is not the same as algebra early. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher & M. L. Blanton (Eds.),
*Algebra in the early grades*(pp. 235–272). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Cassidy, M., Stroud, R., Stylianou, D., Blanton, M., Gardiner, A., Knuth, E., & Stephens, A. (to appear). Examining the fidelity of implementation of early algebra intervention and student learning. To appear in the
*Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*, Indianapolis, IN. Google Scholar - Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education.
*Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6*(2), 81–89.Google Scholar - Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning trajectories: Foundations for effective, research-based education. In A. P. Maloney, J. Confrey, & K. H. Nguyen (Eds.),
*Learning over time: Learning trajectories in mathematics education*(pp. 1–30). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar - Cooper, T., & Warren, E. (2011). Year 2 to Year 6 students’ ability to generalize: Models, representations and theory for teaching and learning. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.),
*Early Algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives,*(pp. 187–214). New York: Springer.Google Scholar - Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K., Thomas, K., & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process scheme.
*Journal of Mathematical Behavior*,*15*(2), 167–192. doi: 10.1016/S0732-3123(96)90015-2. - Daro, P., Mosher, F., & Corcoran, T. (2011).
*Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction*(CPRE Research Report #RR-68). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. doi: 10.12698/cpre.2011.rr68. Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/learning-trajectories-mathematics-foundation-standards-curriculum-assessment-and-instruction. - Duncan, R. G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
*Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46*(6), 606–609.Google Scholar - Fonger, N., Stephens, A., Blanton, M., Isler, I., Knuth, E., & Gardiner, A. (in press). Developing a learning progression for curriculum, instruction, and student learning: An example from early algebra research.
*Cognition and Instruction*.Google Scholar - Gilmore, C., & Inglis, M. (2008). Process- and object-based thinking in arithmetic. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of 32nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME) and PME-NA XXX*(Vol. 3, pp. 73–80). Morélia, Mexico: PME & PME-NA.Google Scholar - Isler, I., Strachota, S., Stephens, A., Fonger, N., Blanton, M., Gardiner, A., & Knuth, E. (2017).
*Grade 6 students’ abilities to represent function rules*. Paper presented at the Tenth Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar - Kaput, J. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.),
*Mathematical classrooms that promote understanding*(pp. 133–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Kaput, J. J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher & M. L. Blanton (Eds.),
*Algebra in the early grades*(pp. 5–17). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Kaput, J., & Blanton, M. (2005). Algebrafying the elementary mathematics experience in a teacher–centered, systemic way. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.),
*Understanding mathematics and science matters*(pp. 99–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Kaput, J. J., Blanton, M. L., & Moreno, L. (2008). Algebra from a symbolization point of view. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.),
*Algebra in the early grades*(pp. 19–55). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., McNeil, N. M., Weinberg, A., & Stephens, A. C. (2005). Middle school students’ understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equivalence and variable.
*ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education*,*37*, 1–9.Google Scholar - Küchemann, D. E. (1981). Algebra. In K. Hart (Ed.),
*Children’s understanding of mathematics*(pp. 102–119). London, UK: Murray.Google Scholar - Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.),
*Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching*(pp. 65–86). New York: Springer.Google Scholar - McNeil, N. M., Weinberg, A., Hattikudur, S., Stephens, A. C., Asquith, P., Knuth, E. J., & Alibali, M. W. (2010). A is for apple: Mnemonic symbols hinder the interpretation of algebraic expressions.
*Journal of Educational Psychology, 102*(3), 625–634.Google Scholar - Morris, A. K. (2009). Representations that enable children to engage in deductive arguments. In D. Stylianou, M. Blanton, & E. Knuth (Eds.),
*Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective*(pp. 87–101). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar - Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001).
*Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights.*Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000).
*Principles and standards for school mathematics*. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar - National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA & CCSSO]. (2010).
*Common core state standards for mathematics*. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf. Accessed: 23 February 2017. - Nathan, M. J., Long, S. D., & Alibali, M. W. (2002). The symbol precedence view of mathematical development: A corpus analysis of the rhetorical structure of algebra textbooks.
*Discourse Processes, 33*(1), 1–21.Google Scholar - RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003).
*Mathematical proficiency for all students: A strategic research and development program in mathematics education.*Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar - Resnick, L. B. (1982). Syntax and semantics in learning to subtract. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.),
*Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective*(pp. 136–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Schifter, D. (2009). Representation-based proof in the elementary grades. In D. Stylianou, M. Blanton, & E. Knuth (Eds.),
*Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K–16 perspective*(pp. 71–86). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar - Schoenfeld, A. (1995). Report of working group 1. In C. Lacampagne, W. Blair, & J. Kaput (Eds.),
*The algebra initiative colloquium*(Vol. 2: Working Group papers, pp. 11–12). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar - 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.Google Scholar - Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification--the case of algebra
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26*, 191–228.Google Scholar - Shin, N., Stevens, S. Y., Short, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009).
*Learning progressions to support coherence curricula in instructional material, instruction, and assessment design.*Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar - Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Coherence as a design principle.
*The Elementary School Journal, 109*(2), 199–219.Google Scholar - Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26*(2), 114–145.Google Scholar - Stephens, A. C., Fonger, N. L., Strachota, S., Isler, I., Blanton, M., Knuth, E., & Gardiner, A. (in press). A learning progression for elementary students’ functional thinking.
*Mathematical Thinking and Learning.*Google Scholar - Stigler, J.W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999).
*The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States.*U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics: NCES 99–074. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar