Abstract
This chapter highlights findings from the LieCal Project, a longitudinal project in which we investigated the effects of a Standards-based middle school mathematics curriculum (CMP) on students’ algebraic development and compared them to the effects of other middle school mathematics curricula (non-CMP). We found that the CMP curriculum takes a functional approach to the teaching of algebra while non-CMP curricula take a structural approach. The teachers who used the CMP curriculum emphasized conceptual understanding more than did those who used the non-CMP curricula. On the other hand, the teachers who used non-CMP curricula emphasized procedural knowledge more than did those who used the CMP curriculum. When we examined the development of students’ algebraic thinking related to representing situations, equation solving, and making generalizations, we found that CMP students had a significantly higher growth rate on representing-situations tasks than did non-CMP students, but both CMP and non-CMP students had an almost identical growth in their ability to solve equations. We also found that CMP students demonstrated greater generalization abilities than did non-CMP students over the three middle school years.
The research reported in this chapter is part of a large project, Longitudinal Investigation of the Effect of Curriculum on Algebra Learning (LieCal Project). The LieCal Project is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (ESI-0454739). Any opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bailey, R., Day, R., Frey, P., Howard, A. C., Hutchens, D. T., McClain, K., Moore-Harris, B., Ott, J. M., Pelfrey, R., Price, J., Vielhaber, K., & Willard, T. (2006a). Mathematics: Applications and Concepts (teacher wraparound edition), course 1. Columbus, OH: The McGraw-Hill Company.
Bailey, R., Day, R., Frey, P., Howard, A. C., Hutchens, D. T., McClain, K., Moore-Harris, B., Ott, J. M., Pelfrey, R., Price, J., Vielhaber, K., & Willard, T. (2006b). Mathematics: Applications and Concepts (teacher wraparound edition), course 2. Columbus, OH: The McGraw-Hill Company.
Bailey, R., Day, R., Frey, P., Howard, A. C., Hutchens, D. T., McClain, K., Moore-Harris, B., Ott, J. M., Pelfrey, R., Price, J., Vielhaber, K., & Willard, T. (2006c). Mathematics: Applications and Concepts (teacher wraparound edition), course 3. Columbus, OH: The McGraw-Hill Company.
Bednarz, N., Kieran, C., & Lee, L. (Eds.) (1996). Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bruner, J. S. (1990/1998). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cai, J. (2004). Why do U.S. and Chinese students think differently in mathematical problem solving? Exploring the impact of early algebra learning and teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 135–167.
Cai, J., & Knuth, E. (Eds.) (2005). Developing algebraic thinking: Multiple perspectives. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik (International Journal on Mathematics Education), 37(1). Special Issue.
Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., & Nie, B. (2009). Learning from classroom instruction in a curricular content: An analysis of instructional tasks. In S. L. Swars, D. W. Stinson, & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 692–699). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.
Cai, J., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., & Nie, B. (April/May, 2010a). Impact of curriculum reform: Evidence of student learning outcomes in the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association. April 30–May 4, Denver, Colorado.
Cai, J., Wang, N., Nie, B., Moyer, J. C., & Wang, C. (April/May, 2010b). Student learning and classroom instruction using Standards-based and traditional curricula: An analysis of instructional tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association. April 30–May 4, Denver, Colorado.
Cai, J., Nie, B., & Moyer, J. C. (2010c). The teaching of equation solving: Approaches in Standards-based and traditional curricula in the United States. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5, 170–186.
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking Mathematically: Integrating Arithmetic and Algebra in Elementary School. Potsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chazan, D. (2008). The shifting landscape of school algebra in the United States. In C. E. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and Algebraic Thinking in School Mathematics (pp. 19–33). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Cocking, R. R., & Mestre, J. P. (Eds.) (1988). Linguistic and Cultural Influences on Learning Mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cuoco, A., Goldenburg, P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 375–402.
Detterman, D. K. (1993). Individual Differences and Cognition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180.
Gardner, H. (1991). The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. New York: Basic Books.
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.
Jones, G., Langrall, C., Thornton, C., & Nisbet, S. (2002). Elementary students’ access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 113–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kaput, J. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics Classrooms that Promote Understanding (pp. 133–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Katz, V. J. (Ed.) (2007). Algebra: Gateway to a Technological Future. Washington: The Mathematical Association of America.
Kieran, C. (1996). The changing face of school algebra. In C. Alsina, J. M. Alvarez, B. Hodgson, C. Laborde, & A. Pérez (Eds.), Eighth International Conference on Mathematics Education. Selected Lectures (pp. 271–290). Seville, Spain: S.A.E.M. Thales.
Kieran, C. (2007). 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 and Learning (pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing; Reston, VA. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kieran, C., & Chalouh, L. (1993). Prealgebra: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. In D. T. Owens (Ed.), Research Ideas for the Classroom: Middle Grades Mathematics (pp. 179–198). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Lappan, G., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S. N., & Phillips, E. D. (2002). Connected Mathematics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, L. (1996). An initiation into algebraic culture through generalization activities. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mathematical Sciences Education Board (1998). The Nature and Role of Algebra in the K-14 Curriculum: Proceedings of a National Symposium. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive Approach. Boston: Little & Brown.
Moyer, J. C., Cai, J., Laughlin, C., & Wang, N. (2009). The effect of curriculum type on middle grades instruction. In S. L. Swars, D. W. Stinson, & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 201–209). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.
Moyer, J. C., Cai, J., Wang, N., & Nie, B. (April/May, 2010). Impact of curriculum reform: Evidence of change in classroom practice in the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, April 30–May 4, Denver, Colorado.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (2006). Mathematics Framework for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council (1989). Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2004). On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. J. Confrey & V. Stohl (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nie, B., Cai, J., & Moyer, J. C. (2009). How a Standards-based mathematics curriculum differs from a traditional curriculum: With a focus on intended treatments of the ideas of variable. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik (International Journal on Mathematics Education), 41(6), 777–792.
Orton, A., & Orton, J. (1999). Pattern and the approach to algebra. In A. Orton (Ed.), Pattern in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 237–268). London: Cassell.
RAND Mathematics Study Panel (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education (MR-1643-OERI).
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13–19.
Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? American Psychologist, 50, 859–877.
Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (Eds.) (2003). Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What Are They? What Do Students Learn? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sfard, A. (1995). The development of algebra: Confronting historical and psychological perspectives. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 15–39.
Steen, L. A. (1988). The science of patterns. Science, 240, 611–616.
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.
Usiskin, Z. (1999, Winter). Which curriculum is best? UCSMP Newsletter, 24, 3–10.
Wozniak, R. H., & Fischer, K. W. (1993). Development in Context: Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zazkis, R., & Liljedahl, P. (2002). Arithmetic sequence as a bridge between conceptual fields. Canadian Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(1), 93–120.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cai, J., Moyer, J.C., Wang, N., Nie, B. (2011). Examining Students’ Algebraic Thinking in a Curricular Context: A Longitudinal Study. In: Cai, J., Knuth, E. (eds) Early Algebraization. Advances in Mathematics Education. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-17734-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-17735-4
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)