Generalising the pattern rule for visual growth patterns: Actions that support 8 year olds' thinking

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 171-185

  Warren, Elizabeth ^a   Cooper, Tom ^b  

^a AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Algebraic thinking; Elementary students; Semiotics; Student thinking; Teaching actions; Visual growth patterns

Indexed keywords

EID: 38349184283     PISSN: 00131954     EISSN: 15730816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-007-9092-2     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Arzarello, F. (1998). The role of natural language in prealgebraic and algebraic thinking. In H. Steinbring, M. Bussi, & A. Sierpinska (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 249-261). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
2. Bennett, A. (1988). Visual thinking and number relationships. Mathematics Teacher, 81(4), 267-272.
3. Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2004). Elementary grades students' capacity for functional thinking. In M. J. Hoynes & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 135-142). Oslo.
4. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. W. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
5. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307-333). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
6. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
7. Confrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-drive research design. In A. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231-265). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
8. Ernest, P. (2002). A semiotic perspective of mathematical activity. Paper presented at PME 26 2002, Norwich.
9. Johnassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
10. Harel, G. (2001). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DRN based instruction. In S. Campbell & R. Zaskis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory, journal of mathematical behavior (pp. 185-212). New Jersey: Albex.
11. Kaput, J., & Blanton, M. (2001). Algebrafying the elementary mathematics experience. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent, & J. Vincent (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra. Proceedings of the 12th ICMI study conference (vol. 1, pp. 344-352). Melbourne: ICMI.
12. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1996). Origins of students' interpretation of algebraic notation. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 3, pp. 289-296). Valencia.
13. Malara, N., & Navarra, G. (2003). ArAl Project: Arithmetic pathways towards favouring pre-algebraic thinking. Bologna: Pitagora Editrice.
14. Otte, M. (2001). Mathematical expistemology from a semiotic point of view. Paper presented in the Discussion Group for Semiotics in Mathematics Education at PME 25, Utrecht.
15. Otte, M. (2006). Mathematical epistemology from a Peircean semiotic point of view. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 11-38.
16. Peirce, C. S. (1960). Collected papers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: Columbia University Press.
18. Presmeg, N. (1997). A semiotic framework for linking cultural practice and classroom mathematics. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 425 257.
19. Radford, L. (2001). On the relevance of semiotics in mathematics education. Paper presented in the Discussion Group for Semiotics in Mathematics Education at PME 25, Utrecht.
20. Redden, T. (1996). "Wouldn't it be good if we had a symbol to stand for any number": The relationship between natural language and symbolic notation in pattern description. In L. Puig & A. Gutierrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference, Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, pp. 195-202). Valencia.
21. Saenz-Ludlow, A. (2001). Classroom mathematics discourse as an evolving interpreting game. Paper presented in the Discussion Group for Semiotics in Mathematics Education at PME 25, Utrecht.
22. Saenz-Ludlow, A. (2006). Classroom interpreting games with an illustration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(2), 183-218.
23. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical concepts: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 191-228.
24. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1995). The effect of different approaches to algebra on students' perceptions of functional relationships. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 7, 69-85.
25. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-306). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
26. Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
27. Warren, E. (1996). Interaction between instructional approaches, students' reasoning processes, and their understanding of elementary algebra. Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology.
28. Warren, E. (2000). Visualisation and the development of early understanding in algebra. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Ed.), Proceedings of the 24th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, pp. 273-280). Hiroshima.
29. Warren, E. (2006). Learning comparative mathematical language in the elementary school: A longitudinal study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(2), 169-189.