Advertisement

Abstract Algebra and Secondary School Mathematics Connections as Discussed by Mathematicians and Mathematics Educators

  • Ashley L. SuominenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)

Abstract

Most certification programs in the USA for secondary mathematics require coursework in abstract algebra. Yet several researchers have shown that most undergraduate students struggle to understand even the most fundamental concepts of this course. Perhaps more troubling is that the participants in these studies were unable to articulate hardly any connections between abstract algebra and secondary school mathematics upon completion of the course. In this chapter, I elaborate on the results of a study involving interviews with 13 mathematicians and mathematics educators that research and teach abstract algebra. The aim of these interviews was to understand how field experts describe connections between abstract algebra and secondary mathematics. In my findings, I discuss the differences in the participants’ descriptions of connections as reflected by their experiences with the secondary curriculum and their individual conceptualizations of abstract algebra.

Keywords

Abstract algebra Connections Mathematicians Mathematics educators Secondary school mathematics 

References

  1. Asiala, M., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D. M., Morics, S., & Oktaç, A. (1997). Development of students’ understanding of cosets, normality, and quotient groups. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(3), 241–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boaler, J. (2002). Exploring the nature of mathematical activity: Using theory, research and “working hypotheses” to broaden conceptions of mathematics knowing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, A. (1990). Writing to learn and communicate mathematics: An assignment in abstract algebra. In A. Sterrett (Ed.), Using writing to teach mathematics (pp. 131–133). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  4. Bukova-Güzel, E., Ugurel, I., Özgür, Z., & Kula, S. (2010). The review of undergraduate courses aimed at developing subject matter knowledge by mathematics student teachers. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2233–2238.Google Scholar
  5. Businskas, A. M. (2008). Conversations about connections: How secondary mathematics teachers conceptualize and contend with mathematical connections. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Burnaby, BC, Canada: Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  6. Chappell, M. F., & Strutchens, M. E. (2001). Creating connections: Promoting algebraic thinking with concrete models. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(1), 20–25.Google Scholar
  7. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Cofer, T. (2015). Mathematical explanatory strategies employed by prospective secondary teachers. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1(1), 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2001). The mathematical education of teachers (Issues in mathematics education) (Vol. 11). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II (Issues in mathematics education) (Vol. 17). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, J. P. (2012). A guided reinvention of ring, integral domain, and field. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3517320).Google Scholar
  12. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices Author.Google Scholar
  13. Coxford, A. F. (1995). The case for connections. In P. A. House & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Connecting mathematics across the curriculum (pp. 3–12). Reston, VA: National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  14. Cuoco, A. (2001). Mathematics for teaching. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 48(2), 168–174.Google Scholar
  15. Czerwinski, R. (1994). A writing assignment in abstract algebra. Primus, 4, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dubinsky, E., Dautermann, J., Leron, U., & Zazkis, R. (1994). On learning fundamental concepts of group theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 267–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Findell, B. (2001). Learning and understanding in abstract algebra. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  18. Freedman, H. (1983). A way of teaching abstract algebra. American Mathematical Monthly, 90(9), 641–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallian, J. A. (1976). Computers in group theory. Mathematics Magazine, 49(1), 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallian, J. A. (1990). Contemporary abstract algebra (2nd ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  21. Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hazzan, O., & Leron, U. (1996). Students’ use and misuse of mathematical theorems: The case of Lagrange’s theorem. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(1), 23–26.Google Scholar
  23. 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. 127–146). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Hodgson, T. R. (1995a). Connections as problem-solving tools. In P. A. House & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Connecting mathematics across the curriculum (pp. 13–21). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  25. Hodgson, T. R. (1995b). Reflections on the use of technology in the mathematics classroom. Primus, 5, 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huetinck, L. (1996). Group theory: It’s a SNAP. Mathematics Teacher, 89(4), 342–346.Google Scholar
  27. Larsen, S. (2004). Supporting the guided reinvention of the concepts of group and isomorphism: A developmental research project. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  28. Larsen, S. (2009). Reinventing the concepts of group and isomorphism: The case of Jessica and Sandra. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(2–3), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leganza, K. (1995). Writing assignments in an abstract algebra course. Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal, 11, 29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leitzel, J. R. C. (Ed.). (1991). A call for change: Recommendations for the mathematical preparation of teachers of mathematics (MAA Reports No. 3). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  31. Leron, U., & Dubinsky, E. (1994). Learning abstract algebra with ISETL. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. Leron, U., & Dubinsky, E. (1995). An abstract algebra story. American Mathematical Monthly, 102(3), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leron, U., Hazzan, O., & Zazkis, R. (1995). Learning group isomorphism: A crossroads of many concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  35. Papick, I., Beem, J., Reys, B., & Reys, R. (1999). Impact of the Missouri Middle Mathematics Project on the preparation of prospective middle school teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Pedersen, J. J. (1972). Sneaking up on a group. Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, 3(1), 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Selden, A. & Selden, J. (1987). Errors and misconceptions in college level theorem proving. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics, (Vol. 3, pp. 457–470). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  40. Singletary, L. M. (2012). Mathematical connections made in practice: An examination of teachers’ beliefs and practices. (Unpublished dissertation). Athens, GA: University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  41. Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  42. Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Usiskin, Z. (1974). Some corresponding properties of real numbers and implications for teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 5, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Usiskin, Z. (1975). Applications of groups and isomorphic groups to topics in the standard curriculum, grades 9–11. Mathematics Teacher, 68(3), 99–106 235–246.Google Scholar
  46. Usiskin, Z. (1988). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. In A. F. Coxford (Ed.), The ideas of algebra, K–12: NCTM 1988 yearbook (pp. 8–19). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  47. Usiskin, Z. (2001). Teachers’ mathematics: A collection of content deserving to be a field. The Mathematics Educator, 6(1), 86–98.Google Scholar
  48. Zazkis, R. (2000). Factors, divisors, and multiples: Exploring the web of students’ connections. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education, 8, 210–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zazkis, R., & Hazzan, O. (1998). Interviewing in mathematics education research: Choosing the questions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(4), 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Liberal ArtsSavannah College of Art and DesignAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations