Advertisement

The Spreadsheet Affordances in Solving Complex Word Problems

  • Nélia AmadoEmail author
  • Susana Carreira
  • Sandra Nobre
Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the affordances of the spreadsheet in solving a complex word problem in light of the multiple conceptual models that students produce in their approaches to the solution with the digital medium. The empirical study carried out examines, through a qualitative analysis, a set of resolutions produced by a class of 8th grade students to a word problem involving multiple variables and conditions. The aim is to appreciate how the way in which the students take advantage of the spreadsheet can be related to their approaches to a problem that is algebraically translated into a system of simultaneous equations. We found that the spreadsheet offered students diverse ways of formulating relational conditions in solving a problem for which they had not yet learned the formal algebraic method. The affordances of the spreadsheet were fundamental for the success of the students in solving the problem. It provided them a representational medium for capturing the structure of the situation and it suggested ways of conceptually modelling the several conditions presented. In particular, the spreadsheet opened up opportunities for assigning meaning to and expressing the multiple conditions (equations and inequalities) that structure the problem.

Keywords

Problem solving Spreadsheet Affordances Conceptual models Algebraic thinking 

References

  1. Abramovich, S. (1998). Manipulative and numerical spreadsheet templates for the study of discrete structures. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29, 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainley, J., Bills, L., & Wilson, K. (2004). Constructing meanings and utilities within algebraic tasks. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th PME Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 1–8). Bergen, Norway: PME.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, A. (1996). Problem-solving approaches to algebra: Two aspects. In N. Berdnarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 167–185). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2005). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 412–446.Google Scholar
  5. Calder, N. (2010). Affordances of spreadsheets in mathematical investigation: Potentialities for learning. Spreadsheets in Education (eJSiE), 3(3), Article 4 (Online Journal).Google Scholar
  6. Carreira, S., Jones, K., Amado, N., Jacinto, H., & Nobre, S. (2016). Youngsters solving mathematical problems with technology: The results and implications of the problem@Web project. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dettori, G., Garuti, R., & Lemut, E. (2001). From arithmetic to algebraic thinking by using a spreadsheet. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A, Bishop, & R. Lins (Eds), Perspectives on school algebra (pp. 191–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Friedlander, A. (1998). An EXCELlent bridge to algebra. Mathematics Teacher, 91(50), 382–383.Google Scholar
  9. Gibson, J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Haspekian, M. (2005). An ‘instrumental approach’ to study the integration of a computer tool into mathematics teaching: The case of spreadsheets. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(2), 109–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hegedus, S. (2013). Young children investigating advanced mathematical concepts with haptic technologies: Future design perspectives. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(1 & 2), 87–108.Google Scholar
  12. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Johanning, D. (2004). Supporting the development of algebraic thinking in middle school: a closer look at students’ informal strategies. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaput, J. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra with understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 133–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Kieran, C. (1996). The changing face of school algebra. In C. Alsina, J. M. Alvares, B. Hodgson, C. Laborde, & A. Pérez (Eds.), International congress on mathematical education 8: Selected lectures (pp. 271–290). Seville: SAEM Thales.Google Scholar
  16. Kieran, C. (2006). Research on the learning and teaching of algebra. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 11–50). Rotherham: Sense.Google Scholar
  17. Kieran, C., & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Research on the role of technological environments in algebra learning and teaching. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study (pp. 95–152). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32, 366–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lesh, R., Behr, M., & Post, T. (1987). Rational number relations and proportions. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 41–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Mason, J. (2008). Making use of children’s powers to produce algebraic thinking. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 57–94). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Moreno-Armella, L., & Hegedus, S. (2009). Co-action with digital technologies. ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. (2008). From static to dynamic mathematics: Historical and representational perspectives. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  24. Nobre, S. (2016). O desenvolvimento do pensamento algébrico: Uma experiência de ensino com alunos do 9.º ano (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Lisboa: Universidade de Lisboa. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10451/25071.
  25. Rojano, T. (1996). Developing algebraic aspects of problem solving within a spreadsheet environment. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 137–146). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rojano, T. (2002). Mathematics learning in the junior secondary school: Students’ access to significant mathematical ideas. In L. English, M. B. Bussi, G. A. Jones, R. A. Lesh, & D. Tirosh (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 143–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Schoenfeld, A. (2008). Early algebra as mathematical sense making. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 479–510). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Slavitt, D. (1999). The role of operation sense in transitions from arithmetic to algebra thought. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (2000). Learning the algebraic method of solving problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wagner, S. (1983). What are these things called variables? Mathematics Teacher, 76, 474–479.Google Scholar
  31. Wilson, K. (2007). Naming a column on a spreadsheet. Research in Mathematics Education, 8, 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Windsor, W. (2010). Algebraic thinking: A problem solving approach. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education (Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 665–672). Freemantle, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  33. Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebra word problems with graphing software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 356–387.Google Scholar
  34. Zazkis, R., & Liljedahl, P. (2004). Understanding primes: The role of representation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(3), 164–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nélia Amado
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Susana Carreira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sandra Nobre
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidade do AlgarveFaroPortugal
  2. 2.UIDEF, Instituto de Educação da Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Schools Group of Paula NogueiraOlhãoPortugal

Personalised recommendations