# Linear geometric number patterns: Middle school students’ strategies

Articles

- 235 Downloads
- 5 Citations

## Abstract

In this study, 23 seventh- and eighth-grade students were interviewed as they solved problems related to four linear geometric number patterns involving perimeter and area. In particular, they developed symbolic expressions for the pattern relationships and assessed the validity of given expressions. The strategies indicated in the responses suggest four levels of thinking about linear geometric number patterns: (1) concrete modelling and counting, (2) inappropriate use of proportion, (3) focus on recursive relationships, and (4) analysis of the functional relation between a perimeter or area and the shape number.

## Keywords

Middle School Student Symbolic Representation Proportional Reasoning Symbolic Expression Mathematical Symbol
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Australian Education Council. (1991).
*A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools*. Carlton, VIC: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar - Bishop, J. (1997).
*Middle school students’ understanding of mathematical patterns and their symbolic representations*. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, Normal, IL.Google Scholar - Bishop, J., Otto, A., & Lubinski, C. (in press). Promoting algebraic reasoning using students’ thinking.
*Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School*.Google Scholar - Committee on the Mathematical Education of Teachers. (1991).
*A call for change: Recommendations for the mathematical preparation of teachers of mathematics*. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar - Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.),
*Advanced mathematical thinking*(pp. 25–41). Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar - Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall, (Ed.),
*Advanced mathematical thinking*(pp. 95–123).Boston, MA: Kluwer.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, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27*, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kaput, J. J. (1987a). Representation systems and mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.),
*Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics*(pp. 19–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Kaput, J. J. (1987b). Towards a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.),
*Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics*(pp. 159–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Kaput, J. J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.),
*Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra*(pp. 167–194). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Kieran, C. (1990). Cognitive processes involved in learning school algebra. In E. P. Nesher, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.),
*Mathematics and cognition*(pp. 96–112). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Küchemann, D. (1978). Children’s understanding of numerical variables.
*Mathematics in School, 7*, 23–26.Google Scholar - Küchemann, D. (1981). Algebra. In K. M. Hart (Ed.),
*Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11–16*(pp. 102–119). London, England: John Murray.Google Scholar - 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*(pp. 87–106). Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar - MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Seeing a pattern and writing a rule. In I. Hirayabashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu, & F.-L. Lin (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 1, pp. 181–188). Tsukuba, Japan: Program Committee.Google Scholar - MacGregor, M. & Stacey, K. (1995). The effects of different approaches to algebra on students’ perception of functional relationships.
*Mathematics Education Research Journal, 7*, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1998). Cognitive models underlying algebraic and nonalgebraic solutions to unequal partition problems.
*Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10*(2),46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mason, J. (1989). Mathematical abstraction as the result of a delicate shift of attention.
*For the Learning of Mathematics, 9*(2), 2–8.Google Scholar - 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). Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar - Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A M. (1994).
*An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).
*Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics*. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar - National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
- Orton, A, & Orton, J. (1994). Students’ perception and use of pattern and generalization. In J. P. da Ponte, & J. F. Matos (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 3, pp. 404–414). Lisbon, Portugal: Program Committee.Google Scholar - Orton, J., & Orton, A (1996). Making sense of children’s patterning. In L. Puig & A. Guitiérrez (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(Vol. 4, pp. 83–90). Valencia, Spain: Program Committee.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*, 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sfard, A. (1994). Reification as the birth of metaphor.
*For the Learning of Mathematics, 14*, 44–55.Google Scholar - Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification: The case of algebra.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26*, 191–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20*, 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).
*Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and techniques*. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar - Swafford, J. O. & Langrall, C. W. (2000). Grade 6 students’ preinstructional use of equations to describe and represent problem situations.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31*, 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thompson, A. G., & Thompson, P. W. (1995). A cognitive perspective on the mathematical preparation of teachers: The case of algebra. In C. B. Lacampagne, W. Blair, & J. Kaput (Eds.),
*The algebra initiative colloquium*(Vol. I, pp. 95–116). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar - White, P., & Mitchelmore, M. (1996). Conceptual knowledge in introductory calculus.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27*, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 2000