Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 107–126 | Cite as

Linear geometric number patterns: Middle school students’ strategies

  • Joyee Bishop
Articles

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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Australian Education Council. (1991).A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Carlton, VIC: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, J. (1997).Middle school students’ understanding of mathematical patterns and their symbolic representations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, Normal, IL.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, J., Otto, A., & Lubinski, C. (in press). Promoting algebraic reasoning using students’ thinking.Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.),Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25–41). Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall, (Ed.),Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–123).Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Küchemann, D. (1978). Children’s understanding of numerical variables.Mathematics in School, 7, 23–26.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A M. (1994).An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Sfard, A. (1994). Reification as the birth of metaphor.For the Learning of Mathematics, 14, 44–55.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joyee Bishop
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsEastern Illinois UniversityCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations