Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-09
The impact of two different types of instructional tasks on students’ development of early algebraic thinking ( El impacto de dos tipos diferentes de tareas instruccionales en el desarrollo del pensamiento algebraico temprano de los estudiantes )
In this paper, we discuss the theoretical foundation and implementation of two alternative instructional courses that aimed to support the development of elementary school students’ early algebraic thinking. Both courses approached three basic algebra content strands: generalized arithmetic, functional thinking and modelling languages. The courses differed according to the characteristics of the tasks that were used. The first course involved ‘pure mathematical guided investigations’ emphasizing scaffolding steps in pure mathematics contexts. The second course focused on ‘applied open explorations’ underlining more open questions in applied everyday contexts. The courses were compared in respect to students’ learning outcomes. The findings, yielded from the analysis of pre-test and post-test data, indicated that the second course had better learning outcomes compared to the first.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlibaliM. W.KnuthE.HattikudurS.McNeilN. M.StephensA. (2007). A longitudinal examination of middle school students’ understanding of the equal sign and equivalent equations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9, 221–247.
2.
AltieriM. B.BalkaD. S.DayR.GonsalvesP. D.GraceE. C.KrulikS.MalloyC. E.Molix-BaileyR. J.MoseleyL. G.MowryB. (2008). California mathematics. Concepts, skills, and problem solving 4. Gleonce: McGrawHill.
3.
BastableV.SchifterD. (2008). Classroom stories: Examples of elementary students engaged in early algebra. In KaputJ.CarraherD. W.BlantonM. L. (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 165–184). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BlantonM.BrizuelaB. M.GardinerA. M.SawreyK.Newman-OwensA. (2017). A progression in first-grade children’s thinking about variable and variable notation in functional relationships. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95, 181–202.
5.
BlantonM.KaputJ. (2005). Characterizing a classroom practice that promotes algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 412–446.
6.
BlantonM.StephensA.KnuthE.GardinerA.IslerI.KimJ. S. (2015). The development of children’s algebraic thinking: The impact of a comprehensive early algebra intervention in 3rd grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46, 39–87.
BrittM. S.IrwinK. C. (2011). Algebraic thinking with and without algebraic representation: A pathway for learning. In CaiJ.KnuthE. (Eds.), Early algebraization. Advances in mathematics education (pp. 137–159). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4_10
9.
BrizuelaB. M.SchliemannA. D. (2004). Ten-year-old students solving linear equations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 24, 33–40.
10.
CallejaJ. (2013). Mathematical investigations: The impact of students’ enacted activity on design, development, evaluation and implementation. In MargolinasC. (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of ICMI study 22 (pp. 163–171). Oxford: ICMI.
11.
CarraherD. W.SchliemannA. D.BrizuelaB. M.EarnestD. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 87–115.
12.
ChimoniM.Pitta-PantaziD.ChristouC. (2018). Examining early algebraic thinking: Insights from empirical data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 98, 57–76.
13.
DoyleW. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.
14.
EllisA. B. (2007). Connections between generalizing and justifying students’ reasoning with linear relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 194–229.
15.
EnglishL. D. (2011). Complex learning through cognitively demanding tasks. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 8, 483–506.
16.
FreudenthalH. F. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
17.
FujiiT.StephensM. (2008). Using number sentences to introduce the idea of variable. In GreenesC.RubensteinR. (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics. 70th yearbook (pp. 127–140). Reston, VA: NCTM.
18.
GoodrawA.SchliemannA. D. (2003). Linear function graphs and multiplicative reasoning in elementary school. In PatemanN. A.DoughertyB. J.ZillioxJ. T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th international group for the psychology of mathematics education conference held jointly with the 25th PME-NA conference (Vol. 4, pp. 261). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.
19.
HegedusS.KaputJ. (2003). The effect of SimCalc connected classrooms on students’ algebraic thinking. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education held jointly with the 25th Conference of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 47–54). Honolulu, HI: College of Education, University of Hawaii.
20.
HewittD. (2014). A symbolic dance: The interplay between movement, notation, and mathematics on a journey toward solving equations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16, 1–31.
21.
IEA. (2013). Timss 2011 user guide for the international database. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center
22.
IslerI.StephensA.GardinerA.KnuthE.BlantonM. (2013). Third graders generalization about even and odd numbers: The impact of an early algebra intervention. In MartinezM.SuperfineA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annoual meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, North American chapter (pp. 140–143). Chigago, IL: Eric Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental education.
23.
JeannotteD.KieranC. (2017). A conceptual model of mathematical reasoning for school mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96, 1–16.
24.
JonesK.PepinB. (2016). Research on mathematics teachers as partners in task design. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19, 105–121.
25.
KaputJ. (2000). Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by “algebrafying” the K-12 curriculum. Dartmouth, MA: National Centre for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.
26.
KaputJ. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In KaputJ.CarraherD. W.BlantonM. L. (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 5–17). New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
KieranC. (2004). The core of algebra: Reflections on its main activities. In StaceyK.ChickH.KendalM. (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study (pp. 21–34). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
28.
KieranC.DoormanM.OhtaniM. (2015). Frameworks and principles for task design. In WatsonA.OhtaniM. (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education. New ICMI study series (pp. 19–82). Cham: Springer.
29.
KieranC.PangJ.SchifterD.NgS. F. (2016). Early algebra: Research into its nature, its learning, its teaching. Hamburg: Springer Open.
30.
LavieI.SteinerA.SfardA. (2018). Routines we live by: From ritual to exploration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1–24. doi:10.1007/s10649-018-9817-4
MatthewsP. G.Rittle-JohnsonB.McEldoonK. L.TaylorR. T. (2012). Measure for measure: What combining diverse measures reveals about children’s understanding of the equal sign as an indicator of mathematical equality. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 316–350.
34.
MayerR. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.
PangJ.KimJ. (2018). Characteristics of Korean students’ early algebraic thinking: A generalized arithmetic perspective. In KieranC. (Ed.), Teaching and learning algebraic thinking with 5- to 12-year-olds. ICME-13 monographs (pp. 141–165). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68351-5_6
37.
PonteJ. P. (2007). Investigations and explorations in the mathematics classroom. ZDM, 39, 419–430.
PonteJ. P.Mata-PereiraJ.HenriquesA. C.QuaresmaM. (2013). Designing and using exploratory tasks. In MargolinasC. (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of ICMI study 22 (pp. 491–499). Oxford: ICMI.
40.
RadfordL. (2004). Syntax and meaning. In HøinesM. J.FuglestadA. B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group of psychology of mathematics education, 1 (pp. 161–165). Bergen: PME.
41.
RadfordL. (2008). Iconicity and contraction: A semiotic investigation of forms of algebraic generalizations of patterns in different contexts. ZDM, 40, 83–96.
42.
RadfordL. (2014). The progressive development of early embodied algebraic thinking. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26, 257–277.
43.
RakesC. R.JeffreyC. V.McGathaM. B.RonauR. N. (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80, 372–400.
44.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 529–544.
45.
RiveraF.BeckerJ. (2007). Abduction – Induction (generalization) processes of elementary majors on figural patterns of algebra. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 140–155.
46.
RussellJ.SchifterD.BastableV. (2011). Developing algebraic thinking in the context of arithmetic. In CaiJ.KnuthE. (Eds.), Early algebraization. A global dialogue from multiple perspectives, Part 1 (pp. 43–59). Berlín: Springer-Verlag.
47.
SchifterD. (2018). Early algebra as analysis of structure: A focus on operations. In KieranC. (Ed.), Teaching and learning algebraic thinking with 5- to 12-year-olds. ICME-13 monographs (pp. 309–327). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68351-5_13
48.
SchwartzJ. (1997). Shuttling between the particular and the general. In PerkinsD.SchwartzJ.WestM.WiskeS. (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 93–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
SmithE. (2008). Representational thinking as a framework for introducing functions in the elementary curriculum. In KaputJ. L.CarraherD. W.BlantonM. L. (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 133–160). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
50.
SmithM. S.SteinM. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3, 344–350.
51.
StephensA. C.EllisA. B.BlantonM.BrizuelaM. B. (2017). Algebraic thinking in the elementary and middle grades. In CaiJ. (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 386–420). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
52.
StephensA. C.FongerN.StrachotaS.IslerI.VlantonM.KnuthE.GardinerA. M. (2017). A learning progression for elementary students’ functional thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19, 143–166.
53.
SullivanP.ClarkeD.ClarkeB. (2013). Teaching with tasks for effective mathematics learning. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4681-1
54.
SutherlandR.RojanoT. (1993). A spreadsheet algebra approach to solving algebra problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 353–383.
55.
WarrenE.CooperT. (2008). Generalising the pattern rule for visual growth patterns: Actions that support 8 year olds’ thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 171–185.
56.
WarrenE.CooperT. (2009). Developing mathematics understanding and abstraction: The case of equivalence in the elementary years. Mathematics Education Research Journal21, 76–95.
57.
WatsonA.OhtaniM.AinleyJ.Bolite FrantJ.DoormanM.KieranC.LeungA.MargolinasC.SullivanP.ThompsonD.YangY. (2013). Introduction In MargolinasC. (Ed.), Task design in mathematics education. Proceedings of ICMI study 22 (pp. 9–16). Oxford: ICMI.
58.
WijersM.RoodhardtA.van ReeuwijkM.DekkerT.BurrillG.ColeB. R.PliggeM. A. (2006). Mathematics in Context - Building Formulas. Chigago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
59.
YeoJ. B. W.YeapB. H. (2010). Characterising the cognitive processes in mathematical investigation. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cimt.org.uk/journal/
