Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 75–92 | Cite as

Trends in the development of student level of reasoning in pattern generalization tasks across grade level



This paper explored (1) the developmental trend of student level of reasoning across grade level in pattern generalization; (2) the mediatory role of task variables in the developmental trend of student level of reasoning within and across tasks; and (3) developmental trend of student level of reasoning associated with strategy use across grade level. A test designed to measure student level of reasoning was given to a sample of 1232 students from grades 4 to 11 from 5 schools in Lebanon. The Structure of the Learned Outcomes or Responses (SOLO) was used as a theoretical model. Results show that student level of reasoning exhibited an increasing trend across clusters of grade levels and that there were several SOLO levels in each cluster of grade levels. Type of task (immediate, near, far) and function type (linear, non-linear) seem to mediate the development of level of reasoning across grade level but the complexity of the task (simple, more complex) did not. Students used several strategies in each cluster of grade levels and the developmental trends of student level of reasoning associated with strategy use were not uniform and varied across clusters of grade levels, thus supporting a neo-Piagetian interpretation of the results.


Level of reasoning Type of generalization Type of functional relationship Complexity of a task SOLO taxonomy Developmental trends 


  1. Amit, M., & Neria, D. (2008). Rising the challenge: Using generalization in pattern problems to unearth the algebraic skills of talented pre-algebra students. ZDM, 40, 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, J., & Rivera, F. (2005). Generalization strategies of beginning high school algebra students. In H. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 121–128). Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1991). Multimodal learning and the quality of intelligent behavior. Intelligence: Reconceptualization and measurement (pp. 57–76). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Broadway.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, J. (2000). Linear geometric number patterns: Middle school students’ strategies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(2), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD). (1997). Manahij Ata'alim Ala'am wa Ahdafuha [Curricula and Objectives of General Education]. Beirut: CERD.Google Scholar
  7. Chue, B. (2009). Features of generalizing tasks help or hurdle to expressing generality? Australian Mathematics Teacher, 2, 18–24.Google Scholar
  8. Collis, K., Romberg, T., & Jurdak, M. (1986). A technique for assessing mathematical problem-solving ability. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carraher, D. W., Martinez, M. V., & Schliemann, A. D. (2008). Early algebra and mathematical generalization. ZDM, 40, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebersbach, M., & Wilkening, F. (2007). Children’s intuitive mathematics: The development of knowledge about nonlinear growth. Child Development, 78, 296–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis, A. (2007). The influence of reasoning with emergent quantities on students’ generalizations. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 439–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, A. (2011). Generalizing-promoting actions: how classroom collaborations can support students’ mathematical generalizations. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 42(4), 308–345.Google Scholar
  13. English, L., & Warren, E. (1998). Introducing the variable through pattern exploration. The Mathematics teacher, 91, 166–170.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  15. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1999). Visual and symbolic reasoning in mathematics: Making connections with computers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, G., Langrall, C., Thornton, C., & Mogill, T. (1997). A framework for assessing and nurturing young children’s thinking in probability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krebs, A. (2003). Middle grade students’ algebraic understanding in a reform curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 103, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krebs, A. S. (2005). Take time for action: Studying students’ reasoning in writing generalizations. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(6), 284–287.Google Scholar
  19. Küchemann, D., & Hoyles, C. (2001). Investigating factors that influence students’ mathematical reasoning. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 85–92). Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  20. Lannin, J. K. (2005). Generalization and justification: The challenge of introducing algebraic reasoning through patterning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(3), 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lannin, J., Barker, D., & Townsend, B. (2006). Algebraic generalisation strategies: Factors influencing student strategy selection. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(3), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lin, F., & Yang, K. L. (2004). Differentiation of students’ reasoning on linear and quadratic geometric number patterns. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fugelstad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 457–464). Bergen: Bergen University College.Google Scholar
  23. McClelland, J. (2010). Emergence in cognitive science. Topics in cognitive science, 2, 751–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nathan, M., & Kim, S. (2007). Pattern generalization with graphs and words: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of middle school students’ representational fluency. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Radford, L. (2008). Iconicity and construction: A semiotic investigation of forms of algebraic generalizations of patterns in different contexts. ZDM, 40, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rivera, F. (2010). Visual templates in pattern generalization activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73, 297–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rivera, F., & Becker, J. R. (2008). Middle school children’s cognitive perceptions of constructive and deconstructive generalizations involving linear figural patterns. ZDM, 40(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Romberg, T., Jurdak, M., Collis, K., & Buchanan, A. (1982). Construct validity of a set of mathematical Superitems. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
  31. Sasman, M., Olivier, A., & Linchevski, L. (1999). Factors influencing students’ generalization thinking processes. In O. Zaslavski (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23th International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 161–168). Haifa: Israel.Google Scholar
  32. Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Siegler, R. S. (2000). The rebirth of children’s learning. Child Development, 71(1), 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steele, D. (2008). Seventh-grade students’ representations for pictorial growth and change problems. ZDM, 40, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steele, D., & Johanning, D. (2004). A schematic-theoretic view of problem solving and development of algebraic thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2008). Generalising the pattern rule for visual growth patterns: Actions that support 8 year olds’ thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watson, J., & Moritz, J. (1999). The beginning of statistical inference: Comparing two data sets. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Watson, J., Collis, K., & Moritz, J. (1997). The development of chance measurement. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yeap, B.-H., & Kaur, B. (2008). Elementary school students engaging in making generalisation: A glimpse from a Singapore Classroom. ZDM, 40, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American University of BeirutBeirutLebanon

Personalised recommendations