Vol.

2-118

PME-NA 2006 Proceedings

SUPPORTING ALGEBRAIC THINKING AND GENERALIZING ABOUT FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP THROUGH PATTERNING IN A SECOND GRADE CLASSROOM Susan London McNab OISE/UT smcnab@oise.utoronto.ca This paper reports on a teaching study in a second grade classroom, in which functional relationship was explored through an investigation of growing patterns by explicitly integrating visual/spatial and numeric representations of pattern to promote algebraic thinking. Findings focus on three aspects of generalization: integration of representations, translation and application across representations, and generalization as also the abstraction of abstractions. Introduction The ability to generalizethat is, to distill from a collection of particular instances a relational abstraction transferable to new applicationshas been ascribed to algebraic thinking, itself a term that Kieran (1996) explicitly broadened beyond algebra to the use of any of a variety of representations that handle quantitative situations in a relational way. Recent research has challenged the assumed hierarchy of representations of mathematical ideas that has conventionally ranked numeric over visual/spatial (e.g.Noss & Healy, 1997; Lee, 1996; Mason, 1996; Nemirovsky, 1996). Case (e.g. Moss & Case, 1999; Case, 1998; Griffin & Case, 1997; Case, 1985) further contended that it is the integration of visual/spatial and numeric schemas within a given mathematical domain that allows children to establish what he referred to as a new central conceptual structure. The study reported here sought to explore the notion that childrens full understanding of and ability to engage in mathematical generalization may in fact rely on a critical integration of more than one form of representation of a mathematical idea. This may more specifically be described as involving childrens ability to move fluidly and fluently back and forth across multiple representations in both interpreting and applying a mathematical generalization. Further, generalization may go beyond the directly experiential quantitative instances described by Kieran, to include abstractions as instances themselves where a generalization describes the relationship amongst these abstractions; this relies for illumination on Piagets (2001[1977]) differentiation of empirical abstraction from reflecting abstraction. An exploration of these three aspects of generalization (integration of representations, translation and application across representations, and generalization as the abstraction of abstractions) will be the focus of this paper, drawn from a teaching study of algebraic thinking about functional relationship in pattern work with second grade children. Context and Methods This classroom teaching intervention took place in an intact second grade classroom of 22 students at a university laboratory school. This study is part of an larger ongoing international research project exploring algebraic thinking of students in second through sixth grades. The twelve research lessons were presented during regularly scheduled math periods as part of the normal school day, three times a week over a period of four weeks. All lessons were videotaped and written transcriptions made. Digital photographs were taken of childrens
_____________________________ Alatorre, S., Cortina, J.L., Siz, M., and Mndez, A.(Eds) (2006). Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Mrida, Mxico: Universidad Pedaggica Nacional.

Algebraic Thinking

Vol.2-119

activities and constructions, and their classroom work was collected as artifacts for data interpretation. Field notes were made by the researcher, classroom teacher and research assistants. Prior to the start of the research lessons, Number Knowledge Task (Case & Okamoto, 1996) was administered individually as an assessment of numeracy level. Pre- and post-assessments of nine patterning items in multiple representations were administered in individual interviews. Further post-interviews were conducted with pairs of students attempting two standard algebraic reasoning tasks; these interviews were video-taped and written transcriptions made. The research lessons: Integration of representations The lessons began with visual/spatial representations by presenting the students with a sequence of positions in a geometric growing pattern. These were made of square tiles placed in arrays that grew by a constant coefficient. The children were not taught multiplication prior to or during this study; however, they invented it as needed over the four weeks of research lessons (Schliemann, Carrahar & Brizuela, 2001). To introduce integration of numeric with geometric representations, an ordinal position number was placed below the geometric array that represented that position of the pattern. This helped to make clear the functional relationship between, for example, the position number 1 and one row of 3 square tiles, and the position number 2 and two rows of 3 square tiles each or 6 tiles altogether. Numeric representations of functions were then explored using a function machine (Carrahar & Earnest, 2003; Rubenstein, 2002; Willoughby, 1997). Students took turns creating functional rules, creating non-sequential examples as clues, to challenge their classmates to guess my rule. The children solving the challenge recorded on T-tables the input and output numbers, and their conjectures for what the rule might be. These numeric examples were non-sequential to allow a focus on the across (on a T-table) or functional rule rather than on the down pattern or what comes next differencing strategy identified as interfering in reaching a functional generalization in numeric patterns (Schliemann, Goodrow & Lara-Roth, 2001; Orton & Orton, 1998; Orton, Orton & Roper, 1998). The students then integrated all aspects of the previous activities, by building non-sequential geometric pattern positions from a secret rule (composite function) on a pattern sidewalk, a large counting line with ordinal position numbers on each section of the sidewalk. They would build, for example, positions 2, 4 and 9; other students would then guess the rule by trying to build the pattern correctly on, for instance, position 7. Finally, the students in pairs made up their own mystery rules, and built several sequenced positions of their own patterns out of a variety of construction materials, for other students to guess the rule. These were photographed and a booklet made; students reasoned in writing about what the pattern rules might be, agreeing, disagreeing, or elaborating on one anothers written conjectures. In this activity, an unexpected revelation was the spontaneous introduction by some of the students of the zero position of the pattern, which they explained was a big clue to guessing the rule because it isolated the bump or the constant. Preliminary findings: Translation and application across representations There is some debate in the field regarding whether to use correct mathematical terminology right from the start, or to rely on invented informal language with young children. In this study, because the concept of a function was first presented through geometric arrays, the informal term bump evolved for the constant because it appeared as an incomplete row above the array, that

Vol.2-120

PME-NA 2006 Proceedings

looked like a bump. The strong visual/spatial reference and experiential grounding that gave rise to this term supported the decision to stay with this, and see where it led. In post assessments and interviews, all children were able to recognize and describe a reasonable general functional rule for the pattern that was presented, and had strategies for applying their rule to find extensions of the pattern, in all representations except one: skip counting (by 3s). This was despite the fact that throughout the intervention many patterns had frequently been described by the students as a counting by [3]s pattern. This invites conjecture regarding the potential for interference of the conventional rote approach to skip counting done from Kindergarten. Other representations with which the students were more successful included arrays, drawings, and T-tables with which they were familiar, as well as narrative, twodimensional standard algebraic reasoning task (square tables problem) and three-dimensional standard algebraic reasoning task (cube sticker problem) representations with which they were not familiar. Within the narrative format (which describes a child with $10 saved for a scooter, who walks a neighbours dog to earn $5 each day), all but two children showed an understanding of the rule as being a composite function with some recognition of the constant, so clearly the concept of a bump had transcended its geometric beginnings. One child explained, The bumps are the extra ones that will always stay there. This understanding cut across all numeracy levels as determined by the Number Knowledge Task. However, the childrens strength in applying this understanding varied. Seven children expressed clear correct generalizations, in more and less formal language, that identified both the constant and the coefficient. One of these children, who was considered highly distractible and low achieving, responded, Its counting by 5s with a 10 bump, even though he lost interest in calculating the far transfer positions. A mid-level child responded, Oh, I get itits a groups of 5 pattern with a 10 bump. A highly capable high achieving student went on to notice that the constant was larger than the coefficient (not part of the original geometric representation): Its always the day [ordinal position number] times 5, plus 10. So theres 10 bumps and 5 normal things, more bumps than normal thingsthats weird! A further eight students were able to apply their conceptual understanding of an implicit function rule to predict near and far positions, without being able articulate the general rule they were nonetheless expressing in working through the particular positions asked for. The remaining five included a constant at first, but lost sight of it as the magnitude of the numbers they were working with increased (Stacey, 1989), and incorrectly applied a whole object strategy in doubling the 5th to get the 10th position (Lannin, 2002; Orton & Orton, 1998). The two children who did not recognize the constant at any point in this task, explicitly or implicitly, were still able to identify the correct coefficient and make the generalization that the narrative presented a counting by 5s pattern. They were able to apply their incomplete rule correctly to both near and far positions. Interviews: Generalization as the abstraction of abstractions The children were interviewed in pairs, and presented with first the square tables problem which asks if square tables are arranged in a line, with one chair at each open side of a table, how many chairs would there be for increasing numbers of tables. All pairs of students, organized by either same numeracy level or friendships (with the aim of student comfortability to promote discussion), were able to articulate a general rule, in informal or more formal language. Several pairs immediately saw the pattern; these students were encouraged to consider what would happen if the tables were trapezoids instead of squares (this was drawn). Responses included a

Algebraic Thinking

Vol.2-121

surprising sophisticated consideration of multiple ways of expressing the functional rule: It could be the number [of tables] plus 1 more, then times by 3, but then you have to take away 1, in recognition of the 2 end seats that were 1 seat shy of being the same as an extra table. The same pairs were then presented with the cube sticker problem which asks if cubes are linked together, and a sticker applied to each cube face that was still showing, how many stickers would there be for increasing numbers of cubes. All pairs were also able to work this out, with solutions ranging from linking actual cubes and counting sides, to clear generalizations (Its a groups of 4, and then 2 at the ends. In a very interesting leap to an abstraction of abstractions, one child recognized that these problems represented two-dimensional and three-dimensional versions of the same type of generalization: Its [cubes] like the other one [tables], except times 4, because theres 4 sides. Conclusion Implications of this study for future work in understanding the role of generalizing and algebraic thinking in the mathematics learning of young children are many. Among them is the conceptual illumination of skip counting through a three-tiered pattern sidewalk, where the functional relationship between the position number and the number of elements in that position is made clear through the medium of geometric constructions. Further, the link between repeating and growing patterns has yet to be explicitly explored within the integrative framework of this research, where it would seem that repeating patterns can be thought of as more complex articulations of growing patterns. The rich territory of mathematical modeling, largely unexplored for elementary mathematics students (e.g. London McNab, Moss, Woodruff & Nason, 2004; Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2004; Lesh & Doerr, 2000), is described in many of the same ways that help us to understand key aspects of algebraic reasoning; clearly the importance of multiple representations stands out. It seems a natural further direction to consider how these two approaches may be merged to the greater benefit of the learner. Finally, for reasons that bear further thought, this approach supported engagement in activities that the students found meaningful by including what Weininger (1981) would describe as educational play. As one child explained, I dont really feel like its math. I think it kind of feels like its some fun stuff. Its kind of like youre half man, half horse; its kind of like half fun, half math. Its like you change the gear into fun!. References Carraher, D., & Earnest, D. (2003). Guess my rule revisited. . In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 173-180). Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii. Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of childrens thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61, (1-2, Serial No. 246). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York: Academic Press. Case, R. (1998, April). A psychological model of number sense and its development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. English, L. & Warren, E.A. (1998). Introducing the variable through pattern exploration. The Mathematics Teacher. 91(2), 166-170

Vol.2-122

PME-NA 2006 Proceedings

Griffin, S., & Case, R. (1997). Re-thinking the primary school math curriculum an approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education, 3 (1), 1-49. Kieran, C. (1996, July). The changing face of school algebra. Invited lecture for Eighth Congress of the International Congress in Math Education, Seville, Spain. Lannin, J. (2002, April). Developing middle school students understanding of recursive and explicit reasoning. paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana Lee, L. (1996). An Initiation into Algebraic Culture through Generalization Activities. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 87106). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Lesh, R. & Doerr, H.M. (2000). Symbolizing, communicating and mathematizing: Key components of models and modelling. In P. Cobb & E. Yackel (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 361-383). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. London McNab, S., Moss, J., Woodruff, E. & Nason, R. (2004). Investigating fairness in ranking commonwealth games performance: Collaborative mathematical modelling in a Grade 5/6 classroom. Conference proceedings: ICMI Study 14: Applications and modelling in mathematics education. Moss, J., and Case, R. (1999). Developing childrens understanding of rational numbers: A new model and experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 122147. Nemirovsky, R. (1996). A functional approach to algebra: Two issues that emerge. In Bednarz, K., et al. (Eds). Approaches to algebra. 295-313. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Noss, R., & L. Healy. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics 33: 203=233, 1997. Orton, A. & Orton, J., (1998). Pattern and the approach to algebra. Pattern in the Teaching and Learning of Maths (pp. 104-120) U.S.A. Continuum International Publishing. Orton, J., Orton, A. & Roper, T., (1998). Pictorial and Practical Contexts and the Perception of Pattern. Pattern in the Teaching and Learning of Maths. (pp. 121-136) U.S.A. Continuum International Publishing. Piaget, J. (2001[1977]). Studies in reflecting abstraction. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis Inc. Rubenstein, R., (2002). Building Explicit and Recursive Forms of Patterns with the Function Game. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(8), 426-452 Schliemann, A.D., Carraher, D.W. & Brizuela, B.M. (2001). When tables become function tables. Proceedings of the XXV Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Utrecht, The Netherlands, Vol. 4, 145-152. Schliemann, A.D., Goodrow, A. & Lara-Roth, S. (2001). Functions and Graphs in Third Grade. Symposium Paper at the NCTM 2001 Research Presession, Orlando, FL. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2004) Shifts in understandingthe didactical use of models in mathematics education. Conference proceedings: ICMI Study 14: Applications and modelling in mathematics education. Weininger, O. (1991). Third-R structures: The math research program in primary grades. OISE Press: Toronto. Willoughby, S., (1997). Functions from Kindergarten through Sixth Grade. Teaching Children Mathematics 3 (February), 31418.