Advertisement

Implementing a Framework for Early Algebra

  • Maria Blanton
  • Bárbaras M. Brizuela
  • Ana Stephens
  • Eric Knuth
  • Isil Isler
  • Angela Murphy Gardiner
  • Rena Stroud
  • Nicole L. Fonger
  • Despina Stylianou
Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in the elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Küchemann, D. E. (1981). Algebra. In K. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics (pp. 102–119). London, UK: Murray.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Blanton
    • 1
  • Bárbaras M. Brizuela
    • 2
  • Ana Stephens
    • 3
  • Eric Knuth
    • 4
  • Isil Isler
    • 5
  • Angela Murphy Gardiner
    • 1
  • Rena Stroud
    • 1
  • Nicole L. Fonger
    • 6
  • Despina Stylianou
    • 7
  1. 1.TERCCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Tufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  3. 3.Wisconsin Center for Education ResearchMadisonUSA
  4. 4.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  5. 5.Middle East Technical UniversityCankayaTurkey
  6. 6.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  7. 7.The City College of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations