Advertisement

Formation of Pattern Generalization Involving Linear Figural Patterns Among Middle School Students: Results of a Three-Year Study

  • F. D. RiveraEmail author
  • Joanne Rossi Becker
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)

Abstract

This chapter provides an empirical account of the formation of pattern generalization among a group of middle school students who participated in a three-year longitudinal study. Using pre-and post-interviews and videos of intervening teaching experiments, we document shifts in students’ ability to pattern generalize from figural to numeric and then back to figural, including how and why they occurred and consequences. The following six findings are discussed in some detail: development of constructive and deconstructive generalizations at the middle school level; operations needed in developing a pattern generalization; factors affecting students’ ability to develop constructive generalizations; emergence of classroom mathematical practices on pattern generalization; middle school students’ justification of constructive standard generalizations, and; their justification of constructive nonstandard generalizations and deconstructive generalizations. The longitudinal study also highlights the conceptual significance of multiplicative thinking in pattern generalization and the important role of sociocultural mediation in fostering growth in generalization practices.

Keywords

Middle School Clinical Interview Teaching Experiment Middle School Student Linear Pattern 
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. Becker, J. R., & Rivera, F. (2005). Generalization strategies of beginning high school algebra students. In H. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 121–128). Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne. Google Scholar
  2. Becker, J. R., & Rivera, F. (2006). Establishing and justifying algebraic generalization at the sixth grade level. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 465–472). Prague: Charles University. Google Scholar
  3. Becker, J. R., & Rivera, F. (2007). Factors affecting seventh graders’ cognitive perceptions of patterns involving constructive and deconstructive generalization. In J. Woo, K. Park, H. Sew, & D. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31 st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 129–136). Seoul, Korea: The Korea Society of Educational Studies in Mathematics. Google Scholar
  4. Becker, J. R., & Rivera, F. (2008). Nature and content of generalization of 7th- and 8th-graders on a task that involves free construction of patterns. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and PMENA XXX (Vol. 4, pp. 201–208). Morelia, Mexico: Cinvestav-UMSNH. Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, J. (2000). Linear geometric number patterns: Middle school students’ strategies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(2), 107–126. Google Scholar
  6. Davydov, V. (1990). Types of Generalization in Instruction: Logical and Psychological Problems in the Structuring of School Curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (J. Teller, Trans.). Google Scholar
  7. Dörfler, W. (1991). Forms and means of generalization in mathematics. In A. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen, & J. van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical Knowledge: Its Growth Through Teaching (pp. 63–85). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  8. Dörfler, W. (2008). En route from patterns to algebra: Comments and reflections. ZDM, 40(1), 143–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dretske, F. (1990). Seeing, believing, and knowing. In D. Osherson, S. M. Kosslyn, & J. Hollerback (Eds.), Figural Cognition and Action: An Invitation to Cognitive Science (pp. 129–148). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  10. Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking process. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 25–41). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  11. Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives in the Teaching of Geometry for the 21 st Century (pp. 29–83). Boston: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  12. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1&2), 103–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. English, L., & Warren, E. (1998). Introducing the variable through pattern exploration. Mathematics Teacher, 91, 166–170. Google Scholar
  14. Garcia-Cruz, J. A., & Martinón, A. (1997). Actions and invariant schemata in linear generalizing problems. In Proceedings of the 23 rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 161–168). Haifa: Israel Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  15. Gelman, R. (1993). A rational-constructivist account of early learning about numbers and objects. In D. Medin (Ed.), Learning and Motivation (Vol. 30) New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  16. Gelman, R., & Williams, E. (1998). Enabling constraints for cognitive development and learning: Domain specificity and epigenesis. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, Perception, and Language (5th ed., pp. 575–630). New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  17. Gravemeijer, K. P. E., & Doorman, L. M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1–3), 111–129. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hartnett, P., & Gelman, R. (1998). Early understandings of numbers: Paths or barriers to the construction of new understandings? Learning and Instruction: The Journal of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, 8(4), 341–374. Google Scholar
  19. Hershkovitz, R. (1998). About reasoning in geometry. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21 st Century (pp. 29–37). Boston: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  20. Iwasaki, H., & Yamaguchi, T. (1997). The cognitive and symbolic analysis of the generalization process: The comparison of algebraic signs with geometric figures. In E. Pehkonnen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 105–113). Lahti, Finland. Google Scholar
  21. Knuth, E. (2002). Proof as a tool for learning mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 95(7), 486–490. Google Scholar
  22. Lannin, J. (2005). Generalization and justification: The challenge of introducing algebraic reasoning through patterning activities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(3), 231–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lannin, J., Barker, D., & Townsend, B. (2006). Recursive and explicit rules: How can we build student algebraic understanding. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 299–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, L. (1996). An initiation into algebra culture through generalization activities. In C. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching (pp. 87–106). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  25. Lobato, J., Ellis, A., & Muñoz, R. (2003). How “focusing phenomena” in the instructional environment support individual students’ generalizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 1–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1992). A comparison of pattern-based and equation-solving approaches to algebra. In B. Southwell, K. Owens, & B. Perry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Austalasia (pp. 362–371). Brisbane, Australia: MERGA. Google Scholar
  27. Martino, A. M., & Maher, C. A. (1999). Teacher questioning to promote justification and generalization in mathematics: What research has taught us. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(1), 53–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  29. Mason, J., Graham, A., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2005). Developing Thinking in Algebra. London: The Open University. Google Scholar
  30. Mathematics in Context Team (2006a). Building Formulas: Algebra. Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc. Google Scholar
  31. Mathematics in Context Team (2006b). Expressions and Formulas: Mathematics in Context. Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc. Google Scholar
  32. Metzger, W. (2006/1936). Laws of Seeing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  33. Orton, A., & Orton, J. (1999). Pattern and the approach to algebra. In A. Orton (Ed.), Patterns in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 104–123). London: Cassell. Google Scholar
  34. Orton, J., Orton, A., & Roper, T. (1999). Pictorial and practical contexts and the perception of pattern. In A. Orton (Ed.), Patterns in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 121–136). London: Cassell. Google Scholar
  35. Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students’ emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 237–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Radford, L. (2001). Factual, contextual, and symbolic generalizations in algebra. In M. van den Hueuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 81–88). Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute. Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Radford, L. (2006). Algebraic thinking and the generalization of patterns: A semiotic perspective. In S. Alatorre, J. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A. Méndez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 2–21). México: UPN. Google Scholar
  39. Radford, L. (2008). Iconicity and contraction: A semiotic investigation of forms of algebraic generalizations of patterns in different context. ZDM, 40(1), 83–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richland, L., Holyoak, K., & Stigler, J. (2004). Analogy use in eight-grade mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 37–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rivera, F. (2010a). Visual templates in pattern generalization activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(3), 297–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rivera, F. (2010b). Toward a Visually-Oriented School Mathematics Curriculum: Research, Theory, Practice, and Issues. Mathematics Education Library, Vol. 49. New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar
  43. Rivera, F., & Becker, J. R. (2003). The effects of figural and numerical stages on the induction processes of preservice elementary teachers. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting PME and PMENA (Vol. 4, pp. 63–70). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii. Google Scholar
  44. Rivera, F., & Becker, J. (2008). Sociocultural intimations on the development of generalization among middle school learners: Results from a three-year study. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and PMENA XXX (Vol. 4, pp. 193–200). Morelia, Mexico: Cinvestav-UMSNH. Google Scholar
  45. Rivera, F., & Becker, J. (2009a). Developing generalized reasoning in patterning activity. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. Google Scholar
  46. Rivera, F., & Becker, J. (2009b). Visual templates in pattern generalization. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33 rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 473–480). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME. Google Scholar
  47. Sasman, M., Olivier, A., & Linchevski, L. (1999). Factors influencing students’ generalization thinking processes. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23 rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 161–168). Haifa: Israel Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  48. Stacey, K. (1989). Finding and using patterns in linear generalizing problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 147–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stacey, K., MacGregor M. (2001). Curriculum reform and approaches to algebra. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on School Algebra (pp. 141–154). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Swafford, J., & Langrall, C. (2000). Grade 6 students’ preinstructional use of equations to describe and represent problem situations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 89–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taplin, M. L., & Robertson, M. E. (1995). Spatial patterning: A pilot study of pattern formation and generalization. In Proceedings of the 19 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 273–280), Recife, Brazil. Google Scholar
  53. Treffers, A. (1987). Three Dimensions: A Model of Goal and Theory Description in Mathematics Education. Reidel: Dordrecht. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsSan José State UniversitySan JoséUSA

Personalised recommendations