"We want a statement that is always true": Criteria for good algebraic representations and the development of modeling knowledge

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 191-227

  Izsák, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Algebra; Clinical interviews; Intermediate middle grades; Knowledge; Learning theories; Problem solving; Representations, modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037986501     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/30034778     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Asiala, M., Brown, A., Devries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curriculum development in undergraduate mathematics education. CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education: Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 6, 1-32.
2. Azevedo, F. (2000). Designing representations of terrain: A study in meta-representational competence. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 443-480.
3. Booth, L. R. (1981). Child-methods in secondary mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 29-41,
4. Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J., & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247-285.
5. Chaiklin, S. (1989). Cognitive studies of algebra problem solving and learning. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and leaching of algebra (pp. 93-114). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
7. Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 16-30.
8. Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11 (2), 77-87.
9. Cobb, P. (1996). Emergent and sociocultural views of mathematical learning. In L. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 3-19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K., Thomas, K., & Vidakovic, D. (1996). Understanding the limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process scheme. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 167-192.
11. Coxford, A., Fey, J., Hirsch, C., Schoen, H., Burrill, G., Hart, E., Watkins, A. (with Messenger, M., & Ritsema, B.) (1998). Contemporary mathematics in context: A unified approach, Chicago: Everyday Learning.
12. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
13. diSessa, A. A. (in press). Students' criteria for representational adequacy. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
14. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117-160.
15. Doerr, H. M., & Tripp, J. S. (1999). Understanding how students develop mathematical models. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 231-254.
16. Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25-41). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
17. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95-123). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
18. Dubinsky, E., Dautermann, J., Leron, U., & Zazkis, R. (1994). On learning fundamental concepts of group theory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 267-305.
19. Dubinsky, E., & Harel, G. (1992). The nature of the process conception of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (Vol. 25, MAA Notes, pp. 85-106). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
20. English, L., & Halford, G. (1995). Mathematics education: Models and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Greeno, J. (1993). For research to reform education and cognitive science. In L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M. Knoff, & D. L. Nelson (Eds.), The challenge in mathematics and science education: Psychology's response (pp. 153-192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
22. Greeno, J. (1995). Understanding concepts in activity. In C. A. Weaver, S. Mannes, & C. Fletcher (Eds.), Discourse comprehension: Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 65-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Hall, R. (1990). Making mathematics on paper: Constructing representations of stories about related linear functions (Technical Report No. 90-17). Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine.
24. Hall, R., Kibler, D., Wenger, E., & Truxaw, C. (1989). Exploring the episodic structure of algebra story problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 223-283.
25. Harper, E. (1987). Ghosts of diophantus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18, 75-90.
26. Heid, M. K. (1996). A technology-intensive functional approach to the emergence of algebraic thinking. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra (pp. 239-255). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
27. Hines, E. (2002). Developing the concept of linear function: One student's experiences with dynamic physical models. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 337-361.
28. Izsák, A. (2000). Inscribing the winch: Mechanisms by which students develop knowledge structures for representing the physical world with algebra. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 (1), 31-74.
29. Izsák, A. (2002). Students' coordination of knowledge when learning to model physical situations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
30. Janvier, C. (1987). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 27-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Kaput, J. (1991). Notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 53-74). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
32. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390-419). New York: Macmillan.
33. Koedinger, K., & Nathan, M. (in press). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences.
34. Küchemann, D. (1981). Algebra. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children's understanding of mathematics: 11-16 (pp. 102-119). London: John Murray.
35. Lappan, G., Fey, J., Fitzgerald, W., Friel, S., & Phillips, E. (Eds.). (1998). Connected mathematics. Menlo Park, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.
36. Larkin, J. (1989). Robust performance in algebra: The role of the problem representation. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (pp. 120-134). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Lehrer, R., & Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children's data modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 69-108.
38. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Inventing data structures for representational purposes: Elementary grade students' classification models. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2 (1 & 2), 51-74.
39. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
40. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Matz, M. (1982). Towards a process model for high school algebra errors. In D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 25-50). New York: Academic Press.
42. McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M., & van Zee, E. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503-513.
43. Meira, L. (1995). The microevolution of mathematical representations in children's activities. Cognition and Instruction, 75, 269-313.
44. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 121-142.
45. Monk, S., & Nemirovsky, R. (1994). The case of Dan: Student construction of a functional situation through visual attributes. In A. Schoenfeld, E. Dubinsky, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 139-168). Washington, DC: American Mathematics Association.
46. Moschkovich, J. (1998). Resources for refining mathematical conceptions: Case studies in learning about linear functions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 209-237.
47. Moses, R., & Cobb, Jr., C. (2001). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Boston: Beacon.
48. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
49. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
50. Nemirovsky, R. (1994). On ways of symbolizing: The case of Laura and the velocity sign. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13, 389-422.
51. Piaget, J., Grize, J., Szeminska, A., & Bang, V. (1977). Epistemology and psychology of functions. (F. X. Castellanos & V. D. Anderson, Trans.). Dordrecht: Reidel. (Original work published 1968).
52. Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1992). Watching Sandy's understanding grow. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 243-257.
53. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54. Sfard, A. (2000a). Steering (dis)course between metaphors and rigor: Using focal analysis to investigate an emergence of mathematical objects. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 296-327.
55. Sfard, A. (2000b). Symbolizing mathematical reality into being - or how mathematical discourse and mathematical objects create each other. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communication in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 37-98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994), The gains and the pitfalls of reification: The case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191-228.
57. Sherin, B. (2000). How students invent representations of motion: A genetic account. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 399-441.
58. Sherin, B. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 479-541.
59. Sierpinska, A. (1992). On understanding the notion of function. In G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The concept of function: Aspects of epistemology and pedagogy (Vol. 25, MAA Notes, pp. 25-58). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
60. Sierpinska, A. (1994). Understanding in mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Falmer.
61. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115-163.
62. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (2000). Learning the algebraic method of solving problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18, 149-167.
63. 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, 89-112.
64. Thompson, P. (1988). Quantitative concepts as a foundation for algebraic reasoning: Sufficiency, necessity, and cognitive obstacles. In M. Behr, C. Lacampange, & M. Wheeler (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 163-170). DeKalb: Northern Illinois University.
65. Thompson, P. (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. 179-234). Albany: State University of New York Press.
66. The University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1990). Algebra Lesson Masters. Glenview. IL: Scott Foresman.
67. The University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1993). Algebra. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
68. van Hiele, P. M. (1957). De problematiek van het inzicht. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (includes English summary). University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
69. van Hiele-Geldof, D. (1957). De didaktiek van de meetkunde de eerste klass van het V.H.M.O. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (includes English summary). University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
70. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.