Advertisement

Algebra in the Middle School: Developing Functional Relationships Through Quantitative Reasoning

  • Amy B. Ellis
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)

Abstract

Understanding function is a critical aspect of algebraic reasoning, and building functional relationships is an activity encouraged in the younger grades to foster students’ relational thinking. One way to foster functional thinking is to leverage the power of students’ capabilities to reason with quantities and their relationships. This paper explicates the ways in which reasoning directly with quantities can support middle-school students’ understanding of linear and quadratic functions. It explores how building quantitative relationships can support an initial function understanding from a covariation perspective, and later serve as a foundation to build a more flexible view of function that includes the correspondence perspective.

Keywords

Middle School Functional Relationship Function Concept Gear Ratio Gear Pair 
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. Bednarz, N., Kieran, C., & Lee, L. (1996). Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  2. Buck, J. C. (1995). Fostering connections between classes of polynomial functions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics education (17th, Columbus, OH, October, 1995). Google Scholar
  3. Bussi, M. G. B., & Mariotti, M. A. (1999). Semiotic mediation: From history to the mathematics classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 27–35. Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, M. (1998). A cross-sectional investigation of the development of the function concept. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III, Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Issues in Mathematics Education, 7, 114–163. Google Scholar
  5. Carlson, M., & Oehrtman, M. (2005). Key aspects of knowing and learning the concept of function. Mathematical Association of America Research Sampler. Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 352–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson, M. P., Smith, N., & Persson, J. (2003). Developing and connecting calculus students’ notions of rate of change and accumulation: The fundamental theorem of calculus. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 2, pp. 165–172). Honolulu, HI: CRDG, College of Education, University of Hawai’i. Google Scholar
  8. Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2002, April). Designing and implementing early algebra activities: From finding unknowns to representing variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Las Vegas, NV. Google Scholar
  9. Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond Formulas in Mathematics and Teaching: Dynamics of the High School Algebra Classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
  10. Chazan, D. (2006). “What if not?” and teachers’ mathematics. In F. Rosamund & L. Copes (Eds.), Educational Transformations: Changing Our Lives Through Mathematics; A Tribute to Stephen Ira Brown (pp. 3–20). Bloomington, Indiana: AuthorHouse. Google Scholar
  11. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1992). Function probe: Multi-representational software for Learning about functions. New York State Association for Computers and Technology in Education 6 (pp. 60–64). Google Scholar
  12. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1994). Exponential functions, rates of change, and the multiplicative unit. In P. Cobb (Ed.), Learning Mathematics (pp. 31–60). Dordrech, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  13. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 66–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooney, T., & Wilson, M. (1996). Teachers’ thinking about functions: Historical and research perspectives. In T. A. Romberg & E. Fennema (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions (pp. 131–158). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  15. Dreyfus, T., & Halevi, T. (1991). QuadFun: A case study of pupil computer interaction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 10(2), 43–48. Google Scholar
  16. Ellis, A. B. (2007). The influence of reasoning with emergent quantities on students’ generalizations. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 439–478. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellis, A. B. (2009, April). A quantitative understanding of quadratic growth: What is DiRoG and why does it matter? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
  18. Ellis, A. B., & Grinstead, P. (2008). Hidden lessons: How a focus on slope-like properties of quadratic functions encouraged unexpected generalizations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(4), 277–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. English, L., & Warren, E. (1995). General reasoning processes and elementary algebraic understanding: Implications for instruction. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(4), 1–19. Google Scholar
  20. Farenga, S. J., & Ness, D. (2005). Algebraic thinking part II: The use of functions in scientific inquiry. Science Scope, 29(1), 62–64. Google Scholar
  21. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 515–556). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing. Google Scholar
  22. Kaput, J. (1995). Long term algebra reform: Democratizing access to big ideas. In C. Lacampagne, W. Blair, & J. Kaput (Eds.), The Algebra Initiative Colloquium (pp. 33–52). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
  23. Kieran, C. (1996). The changing face of school algebra. In 8th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Selected Lectures (pp. 271–286). S.A.E.M. THALES. Google Scholar
  24. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64. Google Scholar
  25. Lobato, J., Ellis, A. B., & Muñoz, R. (2003). How “focusing phenomena” in the instructional environment afford students’ generalizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(3), 1–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Seeing a pattern and writing a rule. In I. Hirabayashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu, & F. L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 181–188). Tsukuba, Japan: PME Program Committee. Google Scholar
  27. Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to Algebra (pp. 65–86). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  28. Mokros, J., Economopoulos, K., & Russel, S. J. (1995). Beyond Arithmetic: Changing Mathematics in the Elementary Classroom. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour. Google Scholar
  29. Monk, S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The Concept of Function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy (pp. 175–193). Google Scholar
  30. Monk, G. S., & Nemirovsky, R. (1994). The case of Dan: Student construction of a functional situation through visual attributes. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Shoenfield, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education I (Vol. 4, pp. 139–168). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Google Scholar
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Google Scholar
  32. Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Ogonowski, M. (1993). Children, additive change, and calculus (Working Paper 2-93). Cambridge: TERC. Google Scholar
  33. Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Mathematics in the Streets and in Schools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  34. Orton, A., & Orton, J. (1994). Students’ perception and use of pattern and generalization. In J. P. da Ponto & J. F. Matos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. III, pp. 407–414). Lisbon, Portugal: PME Program Committee. Google Scholar
  35. Rasmussen, C. L. (2000). New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 55–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Romberg, T. A., Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1993). Toward a common research perspective. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions (pp. 1–9). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  37. Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating students’ engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies of Learning (pp. 47–75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Google Scholar
  38. Schliemann, A. D., Araujo, C., Cassundé, M. A., Macedo, S., & Nicéas, L. (1998). Multiplicative commutativity in school children and street sellers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(4), 422–435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., & Brizuela, B. M. (2001). When tables become function tables. In Proceedings of the XXV Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 145–152). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  40. Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., Brizuela, B. M., Earnest, D., Goodrow, A., Lara-Roth, S., & Peled, I. (2003). Algebra in the elementary school. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PME-NA (Vol. 4, pp. 127–134). Honolulu, HI: CRDG, College of Education, University of Hawai’i. Google Scholar
  41. Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., & Brizuela, B. (2007). Bringing Out the Algebraic Character of Arithmetic: From Children’s Ideas to Classroom Practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  42. Schwarz, B. B., & Hershkowitz, R. (1999). Prototypes: Brakes or levers in learning the function concept? The role of computer tools. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(4), 362–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Slavit, D. (1997). An alternative route to the reification of functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 259–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, E. (2003). Stasis and change: Integrating patterns, functions, and algebra throughout the K-12 curriculum. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 136–150). Google Scholar
  46. Smith, E., & Confrey, J. (1994). Multiplicative structures and the development of logarithms: What was lost by the invention of function. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The Development of Multiplicative Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics (pp. 333–364). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Google Scholar
  47. Smith, J., & Thompson, P. (2007). Quantitative reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades (pp. 133–160). New York: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  48. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1997). Building foundations for algebra. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 2(4), 253–260. Google Scholar
  49. Steffe, L., & Izsak, A. (2002). Pre-service middle-school teachers’ construction of linear equation concepts through quantitative reasoning. In D. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. White, H. Wiegel, R. Bryant, & K. Noony (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 1163–1172). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, P. W. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The Development of Multiplicative Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics (pp. 181–234). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Google Scholar
  51. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yerushalmy, M. (2000). Problem solving strategies and mathematical resources: A longitudinal view on problem solving in a function based approach to algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(2), 125–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zandieh, M. J. (2000). A theoretical framework for analyzing student understanding of the concept of derivative. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), CBMS Issues in Mathematics: Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education IV (Vol. 8, pp. 103–127). Providence: American Mathematical Society. Google Scholar
  54. Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Conceptual obstacles in the Learning of quadratic functions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19(1), 20–44. Google Scholar
  55. Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P., & Gadowsky, K. (2003). Conceptions of function translation: Obstacles, intuitions, and rerouting. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 435–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations