Advertisement

Functional Thinking as a Route Into Algebra in the Elementary Grades

  • Maria L. Blanton
  • James J. Kaput
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)

Abstract

This chapter explores how elementary teachers can use functional thinking to build algebraic reasoning into curriculum and instruction. In particular, we examine how children think about functions and how instructional materials and school activities can be extended to support students’ functional thinking. Data are taken from a five-year research and professional development project conducted in an urban school district and from a graduate course for elementary teachers taught by the first author. We propose that elementary grades mathematics should, from the start of formal schooling, extend beyond the fairly common focus on recursive patterning to include curriculum and instruction that deliberately attends to how two or more quantities vary in relation to each other. We discuss how teachers can transform and extend their current resources so that arithmetic content can provide opportunities for pattern building, conjecturing, generalizing, and justifying mathematical relationships between quantities, and we examine how teachers might embed this mathematics within the kinds of socio-mathematical norms that help children build mathematical generality.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Behr, M. J., Lesh, R., Post, T. R., & Silver, E. A. (1983). Rational-number concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of Mathematics Concepts and Processes (pp. 91–126). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  2. Blanton, M. (2008). Algebra and the Elementary Classroom: Transforming Thinking, Transforming Practice. Portsmouth, NA: Heinemann. Google Scholar
  3. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2000). Generalizing and progressively formalizing in a third grade mathematics classroom: Conversations about even and odd numbers. In M. Fernández (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Columbus, OH, ERIC Clearinghouse (pp. 115–119). Google Scholar
  4. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2003). Developing elementary teachers’ algebra eyes and ears. Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(2), 70–77. Google Scholar
  5. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2004). Elementary grades students’ capacity for functional thinking. In Proceedings of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 135–142). Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College. Google Scholar
  6. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2005). Characterizing a classroom practice that promotes algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 412–446. Google Scholar
  7. Boyer, C. (1946). Proportion, equation, function: Three steps in the development of a concept. Scripta Mathematica, 12, 5–13. Google Scholar
  8. Brizuela, B., & Earnest, D. (2008). Multiple notational systems and algebraic understandings: The case of the “Best Deal” problem. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  9. Brizuela, B., & Schliemann, A. (2003). Fourth-graders solving equations. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PME-NA (Vol. 2, pp. 137–143). Honolulu, HI: College of Education. Google Scholar
  10. Brizuela, B., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2000). Mathematical notation to support and further reasoning (“to help me think of something”). Paper presented at the NCTM Research Pre-Session. Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1999). Children’s Mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Google Scholar
  12. Carpenter, T., Franke, M., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking Mathematically: Integrating Arithmetic and Algebra in Elementary School. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Google Scholar
  13. Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., & Schwarz, J. L. (2008). Early algebra ≠ algebra early. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis Group & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  14. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1991). A framework for functions: Prototypes, multiple representations, and transformations. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Blacksburg, VA (Vol. 1, pp. 57–63). Google Scholar
  15. Cramer, K. (2001). Using models to build an understanding of functions. Mathematics Teaching in Middle School, 2(4), 310–318. Google Scholar
  16. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative growth: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 653–690. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freudenthal, H. (1982). Variables and functions. In G. V. Barneveld & H. Krabbendam (Eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Functions (pp. 7–20). Enschede, The Netherlands: National Institute for Curriculum Development. Google Scholar
  18. Goldin, G., & Shteingold, N. (2001). Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts. In A. A. Cuoco & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics. NCTM 2001 Yearbook (pp. 1–23). Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  19. Hamley, H. R. (1934). Relational and functional thinking in mathematics. In The 9th Yearbook of NCTM. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. Google Scholar
  20. Kaput, J. (1995). A research base for algebra reform: Does one exist. In D. Owens, M. Reed, & G. M. Millsaps (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 71–94). Columbus, OH: The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Google Scholar
  21. Kaput, J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis Group & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  22. Kaput, J., & Blanton, M. (2005). Algebrafying the elementary mathematics experience in a teacher-centered, systemic way. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  23. Lins, R., & Kaput, J. (2004). The early development of algebraic reasoning: The current state of the field. In H. Chick & K. Stacy (Eds.), The Future of the Teaching and Learning of Algebra: The 12th ICMI Study. London: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  24. Mason, J. (2008). Making use of children’s powers to produce algebraic thinking. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis Group & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  25. Moss, J., Beatty, R., Shillolo, G., & Barkin, S. (2008). What is your theory? What is your rule? Fourth graders build their understanding of patterns and functions on a collaborative database. In C. Greenes (Ed.), Algebra and Algebraic Thinking in School Mathematics: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 70th Yearbook (2008) (pp. 155–168). Reston, VA: NCTM. Google Scholar
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Google Scholar
  27. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
  28. National Research Council (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  29. Romberg, T., & Kaput, J. (1999). Mathematics worth teaching, mathematics worth understanding. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics Classrooms that Promote Understanding (pp. 3–32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  30. Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (2002). The evolution of mathematical understanding: Everyday versus idealized reasoning. Developmental Review, 22(2), 242–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., & Brizuela, B. (2001). When tables become function tables. In M. Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Utrecht, The Netherlands (Vol. 4, pp. 145–152). Google Scholar
  32. Schwartz, J. (1990). Getting students to function in and with algebra. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The Concept of Function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy (pp. 261–289). Washington, DC: Mathematics Associations of America. Google Scholar
  33. 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 of School Mathematics (pp. 136–150). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  34. Smith, E. (2008). Representational thinking as a framework for introducing functions in the elementary curriculum. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, A. G., Philipp, R. A., Thompson, P. W., & Boyd, B. A. (1994). Calculational and conceptual orientations in teaching mathematics. In A. Coxford (Ed.), 1994 Yearbook of the NCTM (pp. 79–92). Reston, VA: NCTM. Google Scholar
  36. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (E. Hanfmann and G. Vakar, Trans. Original work published in 1934). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.STEM DepartmentUniversity of Massachussetts at DartmouthDartmouthUSA

Personalised recommendations