Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Young students learning formal algebraic notation and solving linear equations: are commonly experienced difficulties avoidable?

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study looks at a mixed ability group of 21 Year 5 primary students (aged 9–10 years old) who had previously never had formal instruction using letters to stand for unknowns or variables in a mathematics context; nor had they been introduced to formal algebraic notation. Three lessons were taught using the computer software Grid Algebra where they began working with formal notation and were solving linear equations with some degree of success by the end of the lessons. The teaching was such that nothing was explained or justified by the teacher explicitly. The students appeared either not to meet, or to overcome quickly, some of the difficulties identified within previous research studies. They demonstrated remarkable confidence working with complicated linear algebraic expressions written in formal notation. A key feature of the software activities was that formal notation continually needed to be used and interpreted, and the software provided neutral feedback which enabled the students to educate their interpretation of the notation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Grid Algebra is available from the Association of Teachers of Mathematics (http://www.atm.org.uk/shop/products/sof071.html)

References

  • Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). Elementary grades students’ capacity for functional thinking. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 135–142). Bergan, Norway: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carraher, D., Schliemann, A., Brizuela, B., & Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 87–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carraher, D., Schliemann, A. D., & Brizuela, B. M. (2001). Can young students operate on unknowns? In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (Vol. 1) (pp. 130–140). Utrecht, The Netherlands: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., Swaminathan, S., & McMillen, S. (1997). Students’ development of length concepts in a Logo-based unit on geometric paths. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 28(1), 70–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, K. F. (1974). Cognitive development and mathematics learning. Paper presented at the Psychology of Mathematics Workshop. Centre for Science Education: Chelsea College, London.

  • Collis, K. F. (1975). The development of formal reasoning. Report of a Social Science Research Council sponsored project (HR 2434/1). Newcastle, NSW, Australia: University of Newcastle.

  • Cooper, T. J., Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Atwah, B., Pillay, H., Wilss, L., & Mutch, S. (1997). The transition from arithmetic to algebra: Initial understanding of equals, operations and variable. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol. 2 (pp. 89–96). Lahti, Finland: PME.

    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. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 167–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davydov, V. V. (1975). Logical and psychological problems of elementary mathematics as an academic subject. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Children’s capacity for learning mathematics. Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching mathematics, Vol. VII (pp. 55–107). Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, B. J., & Zilliox, J. (2003). Voyaging from theory to practice in teaching and learning: A view from Hawai’i. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education held jointly with the 25th conference of PME-NA, (Vol. 1) (pp. 17–23). Hawai’i, USA: PME.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations, the transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glidden, P. L. (2008). Prospective elementary teachers’ understanding of order of operations. School Science and Mathematics, 108(4), 130–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A proceptual view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 115–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herscovics, N. (1989). Cognitive obstacles encountered in the learning of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 60–86). Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, D. (1996). Mathematical fluency: The nature of practice and the role of subordination. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(2), 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, D. (1999). Arbitrary and necessary: Part 1 a way of viewing the mathematics curriculum. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(3), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, D. (2001). Arbitrary and necessary: Part 2 assisting memory. For the Learning of Mathematics, 21(1), 44–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M. (1990). Children and number. Difficulties in learning mathematics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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 & variable. ZDM, 37(1), 68–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. A., & Messner, S. J. (2000). Analysis of concatenations and order of operations in written mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 100(4), 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linsell, C., & Allan, R. (2010). Prerequisite skills for learning algebra. In M. M. F. Pinto & T. F. Kawasaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (Vol. 3) (pp. 217–224). Belo Horizonte, Brazil: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, H.-L. (2009). Characterizing students’ algebraic thinking in linear pattern with pictorial contents. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 49–56). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1997). Students’ understanding of algebraic notation: 11–15. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, L. (2010). Elementary forms of algebraic thinking in young students. In M. M. Pinto & T. F. Kawasaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4 (pp. 73–80). Belo Horizonte, Brazil: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sáenz-Ludlow, A., & Walgamuth, C. (1998). Third graders’ interpretations or equality and the equal symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 153–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schliemann, A., Carraher, D., Brizuela, B., Earnest, D., Goodrow, A., Lara-Roth, S., & Peled, I. (2003). Algebra in elementary school. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education held jointly with the 25th conference of PME-NA, (Vol. 4) (pp. 127–134). Hawai’i, USA: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeley Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    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), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and pitfalls of reification—the case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (1996). Symbolizing as a constructive activity in a computer microworld. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 113–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: SAGE publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahta, D. (1981). Some thoughts arising from the new Nicolet films. Mathematics Teaching, 94, 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tall, D. (2004). Thinking through three worlds of mathematics. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 281–288). Bergan, Norway: PME.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Amerom, B. A. (2003). Focusing on informal strategies when linking arithmetic to early algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(1), 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Jim Middleton for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Dave Hewitt

Authors
  1. Dave Hewitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dave Hewitt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hewitt, D. Young students learning formal algebraic notation and solving linear equations: are commonly experienced difficulties avoidable?. Educ Stud Math 81, 139–159 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9394-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9394-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation