Advertisement

A Procedural Focus and a Relationship Focus to Algebra: How U.S. Teachers and Japanese Teachers Treat Systems of Equations

  • Margaret SmithEmail author
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)

Abstract

This chapter explores two contrasting ways of presenting algebra by looking at key differences across the presentation of simultaneous equations to students in eighth-grade. The examples are from a qualitative analysis of the 1995 TIMSS Video Study data including eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Japan and the United States covering topics on simultaneous equations. The U.S. lesson example shows a procedural approach to this topic, where students focus on getting answers through a series of routine steps. In contrast, the Japanese lesson highlights a strong focus on building generalized solution methods and understanding relationships represented in systems of equations. A discussion of key differences as they relate to important ideas in understanding algebra compared to how it was treated in the classrooms follows the examples.

Keywords

Classroom Instruction Simultaneous Equation Equal Sign American Educational Research Association Video Study 
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. Arafeh, S., & McLaughlin, M. (2002) Legal and Ethical Issues in the Use of Video in Education (NCES2002-01). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Google Scholar
  2. Arcavi, A. (2008). Algebra: Purpose and empowerment. In C. E. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and Algebraic Thinking in the Schools (pp. 37–49). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  3. Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2003, October). Developing elementary teacher’s “algebra eyes and ears.” Teaching Children Mathematics, 70–77. Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, T. P., & Levi, L. (1999, April). Developing conceptions of algebraic reasoning in the primary grades. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec. Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking Mathematically. Portsmouth, NH: Hienemann. Google Scholar
  6. Carraher, & Schliemann (2007). Early algebra and algebraic reasoning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 669–705). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  7. Chazan, D. (2008). The shifting landscape of school algebra in the United States. In C. E. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and Algebraic Thinking in the Schools (pp. 19–33). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  8. Falkner, K. P., Levi, L., & Carpenter, T. P. (1999). Children’s understanding of equality. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6, 232–236. Google Scholar
  9. Fujii, T., & Stephens, M. (2001). Fostering and understanding of algebraic generalization through numerical expressions; The role of “quasi-variables. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The Future of the Teaching and Learning of Algebra: The 12 th ICMI Study (pp. 259–264). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  10. Fujii, T., & Stephens, M. (2008). Using number sentences to introduce the idea of the variable. In C. E. Greenes & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), Algebra and Algebraic Thinking in the Schools (pp. 127–140). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  11. Gonzales, P., Guzmán, J. C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., & Williams, T. (2005). Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES 2005005). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Google Scholar
  12. Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2009). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context (NCES 2009001). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Google Scholar
  13. Jacobs, J. K., & Morita, E. (2002). Japanese and American teachers’ evaluations of videotaped mathematics lessons. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3(33), 154–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacobs, J. K., Hiebert, J., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D. (2006). Does eighth-grade mathematics teaching in the United States align with the NCTM Standards? Results from the TIMSS 1995 and 1999 Video Studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 5–32. Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs, J. K., Holligsworht, H., & Givvin, K. B. (2007). Video-based research made “easy”: Methodological lessons learned from the TIMSS Video Studies. Field Methods, 19(3), 284–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaput (2007). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In D. Carraher & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  17. Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 390–419). New York: MacGraw Publishing. Google Scholar
  19. Kieran, C. (2004). The equation/inequality connection in constructing meaning for inequality situations. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Bergen, Norway (pp. 143–147). Google Scholar
  20. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching of algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulations. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 707–762). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  21. Khng, K. H., & Khng, K. (2009). Inhibiting interference from prior knowledge: Arithmetic intrusions in algebra word problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 262–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knuth, E. J., Stephens, A. C., McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 297–312. Google Scholar
  23. Levin, M. (2008). The potential for developing algebraic thinking from purposeful guessing and checking. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merriënboer, P. Kirschner, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Utrecht, The Netherlands: ICLS. Google Scholar
  24. Lins, R., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). The early development of algebraic reasoning: The current state of the field. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The Future of the Teaching and Learning of Algebra: The 12 th ICMI Study (pp. 47–70). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  25. Malisani, E., & Spagnolo, F. (2009). From arithmetical thought to algebraic thought: The role of the variable. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(1), 19–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molina, M., Castro, E., & Castro, E. (2009). Elementary students understanding of the equal sign in number sentences. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(17), 341–368. Google Scholar
  27. Radford, L. (1996). Some reflections on teahing algebra trough generalization. In Bednarz et al. (Eds.), Approaches to Algebra (pp. 107–113). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  28. Smith, M. (2000). A comparison of the types of mathematics tasks and how they were completed during eighth-grade Mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware. Google Scholar
  29. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1999). Learning the algebraic method of solving problems. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 18(20), 149–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stigler, J. S., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom instruction: An overview of TIMSS Video Study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 14–21. Google Scholar
  31. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1998). Teaching is a cultural activity. American Educator, 22(4), 4–11. Google Scholar
  32. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  33. Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P. A., Kawanka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and Findings from an Exploratory Research Project on Eighth-Grade Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States (NCES 1999074). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Google Scholar
  34. Swafford, J. O., & Langrall, C. W. (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
  35. Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, Part 1: A teacher’s struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 279–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsIona CollegeNew RochelleUSA

Personalised recommendations