# Graded Pattern Generalization Processing of Elementary Students (Ages 6 Through 10 Years)

## Abstract

In this chapter, we focus on pattern generalization studies that have been conducted with elementary school children from Grades 1 through 5 (ages 6 through 10 years) in different contexts. Our contribution to the current research based on elementary students’ understanding of patterns involves extrapolating the graded nature of their pattern generalization schemes on the basis of their constructed structures, incipient generalizations, and the use of various representational forms such as gestures, words, and arithmetical symbols in conveying their expressions of generality. The gradedness condition foregrounds the dynamic emergence of parallel types of pattern generalization processing that is sensitive to a complex of factors (cognitive, sociocultural, neural, constraints in curriculum content, nature and type of tasks, etc.), where progression is seen not in linear terms but as states that continually evolve based on more learning. In a graded pattern generalization processing view, there are no prescribed stages or fixed rules but only states of conceptual coalescences and coherent covariations that change with more experiences. The chapter addresses different aspects of pattern generalization processing that matter to elementary school children. We also explore approximate and exact pattern generalizations along three dimensions, namely: whole number knowledge, shape sensitivity, and figural competence. We further discuss the representational modes that elementary students oftentimes use to capture their emergent structures and incipient generalizations. These modes include gestural, pictorial, verbal, and numerical. In another section, we address grade-level appropriate use and understanding of variables via the notions of intuited and tacit variables. We close the section with an analysis of the relationship between elementary children’s structural incipient generalizations and the natural emergence of their understanding of functions.

## Keywords

Function Table Elementary Student Elementary School Child Pattern Generalization Stage Number## References

- Alvarez, G., & Cavanagh, P. (2004). The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects.
*Psychological Science, 15*(2), 106–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ansari, D. (2010). Neurocognitive approaches to developmental disorders of numerical and mathematical cognition: The perils of neglecting development.
*Learning and Individual Differences, 20*, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Bhatt, R., & Quinn, P. (2011). How does learning impact development in infancy? The case of perceptual organization.
*Infancy, 16*(1), 2–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2004). Elementary grades students’ capacity for functional thinking. In M. Hoines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 2, pp. 135–142). Bergen, Norway: PME.Google Scholar - Cai, J., Ng, S. F., & Moyer, J. (2011). Developing students’ algebraic thinking in earlier grades: Lessons from China and Singapore. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.),
*Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives*(pp. 25–42). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Carpenter, T., Franke, M., & Levi, L. (2003).
*Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school*. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar - Carraher, D., Martinez, M., & Schliemann, A. (2008). Early algebra and mathematical generalization.
*ZDM, 40*, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cavanagh, P., & He, S. (2011). Attention mechanisms for counting in stabilized and in dynamic displays. In S. Dehaene & E. Brannon (Eds.),
*Space, time, and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought*(pp. 23–35). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Condry, K., & Spelke, E. (2008). The development of language and abstract concepts: The case of natural number.
*Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 137*(1), 22–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cooper, T., & Warren, E. (2011). Years 2 to 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). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Deacon, T. (1997).
*The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain*. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar - Dehaene, S. (1997).
*The number sense*. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision, and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 21st North American PME Conference*(pp. 3–26). Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico: PMENA.Google Scholar - Feigenson, L. (2011). Objects, sets, and ensembles. In S. Dehaene & E. Brannon (Eds.),
*Space, time, and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought*(pp. 13–22). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Feigenson, L., & Carey, S. (2003). Tracking individuals via object-files: Evidence from infants’ manual search.
*Developmental Science, 6*, 568–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gal, H., & Linchevski, L. (2010). To see or not to see: Analyzing difficulties in geometry from the perspective of visual perception.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74*, 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Goldstone, R., Son, J., & Byrge, L. (2011). Early perceptual learning.
*Infancy, 16*(1), 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Heeffer, A. (2008). The emergence of symbolic algebra as a shift in predominant models.
*Foundations of Science, 13*, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hill, C., & Bennett, D. (2008). The perception of size and shape.
*Philosophical Issues, 18*, 294–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Katz, V. (2007). Stages in the history of algebra with implications for teaching.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66*, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kvasz, L. (2006). The history of algebra and the development of the form of its language.
*Philosophia Mathematica, 14*, 287–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Le Corre, M., & Carey, S. (2007). One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles.
*Cognition, 105*, 395–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lee, L. (1996). An initiation into algebra culture through generalization activities. In C. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.),
*Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching*(pp. 87–106). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lipton, J., & Spelke, E. (2005). Preschool children master the logic of number word meanings.
*Cognition, 20*, 1–10.Google Scholar - Luck, S., & Vogel, E. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions.
*Nature, 390*, 279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mulligan, J., Prescott, A., & Mitchelmore, M. (2003). Taking a closer look at young students’ visual imagery.
*Australian Primary Mathematics, 8*(4), 175–197.Google Scholar - Pothos, E., & Ward, R. (2000). Symmetry, repetition, and figural goodness: An investigation of the weight of evidence theory.
*Cognition, 75*, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs: A semiotic-cultural approach to students’ types of generalization.
*Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5*(1), 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Radford, L. (2010). The eye as a theoretician: Seeing structures in generalizing activities.
*For the Learning of Mathematics, 30*(2), 2–7.Google Scholar - Rivera, F. (2011).
*Toward a visually-oriented school mathematics curriculum: Research, theory, practice, and issues (Mathematics Education Library Series 49)*. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Schliemann, A., Carraher, D., & Brizuela, B. (2007).
*Bringing out the algebraic character of arithmetic: From children’s ideas to classroom practice*. New York, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Schyns, P., Goldstone, R., & Thibaut, J.-P. (1998). The development of features in object concepts.
*The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21*, 1–54.Google Scholar - Stavy, R., & Babai, R. (2008). Complexity of shapes and quantitative reasoning in geometry.
*Mind, Brain, and Education, 2*(4), 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tanisli, D. (2011).
*Functional thinking ways in relation to linear function tables of elementary school students, 30*(3), 206–223.Google Scholar - Taylor-Cox, J. (2003). Algebra in the early years?
*Young Children, 58*(1), 15–21.Google Scholar - Triadafillidis, T. (1995). Circumventing visual limitations in teaching the geometry of shapes.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15*, 151–159.Google Scholar - Vale, I., & Pimentel, T. (2010). From figural growing patterns to generalization: A path to algebraic thinking. In M. Pinto & T. Kawasaki (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 34*^{th}*conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME)*(Vol. 4, pp. 241–248). Belo Horizante, Brazil: PME.Google Scholar - Wallis, G., & Bülthoff, H. (1999). Learning to recognize objects.
*Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3*(1), 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2007). Repeating patterns and multiplicative thinking: Analysis of classroom interactions with 9-year-old students that support the transition from the known to the novel.
*Journal of Classroom Interaction, 41*(2), 7–17.Google Scholar