Gaining insights from research for classroom planning

[Jess Bellingham]
Introduction (70-80 words)

The mathematical focus is algebra. Within primary schools, algebra is known mostly as algebraic thinking,
which involves recognising patterns and general mathematical relationships among numbers, objects and
geometric shapes (Windsor, 2010, p.665). Early algebra includes concepts such as patterns, functions,
equivalence, problem solving and generalisations, all of which develop a deeper level of mathematical
thinking (MacGregor & Stacey, 1999). The algebraic approach builds upon a childs ability to consider, see
and think (Windsor, 2010, p.667) about mathematical concepts they encounter.

[80 words]

Literature review (up to 800 words)

Algebraic thinking:
The ability of children to invent, learn, apply and justify, and otherwise reason about arithmetic problems,
demonstrates that algebraic thinking can be an implicit but significant component of primary childrens
learning of mathematics (Stephens & Armanto, 2010, pp.523-524). This statement describes algebraic
thinking as a deeper level of mathematical thinking, in the way of a child being able to adapt and justify or
prove their solutions to a problem, demonstrating their understanding of their own learning. This idea is
shared by Agudelo-Valderrama (2004), who describes algebraic thinking as children being able to generalise
about their learning strategies and understandings. Similarly, Chinnappan, Lawson & Nason (2000) state that
an understanding of principles, procedures, facts and concepts is a key aspect of mathematical understanding
and algebraic thinking. In response to these descriptions, algebraic thinking appears to be a way of

multiplicative thinking in which generalisations and an understanding of mathematical concepts are

employed to solve mathematical problems. In order for algebraic thinking to take place, children must be
able to find connections with other mathematical concepts and with the world (Agudelo-Valderrama, 2004,
pp.34). The connections with the world are exceptionally important as they allow for a deeper meaning and a
personal link with the student, ensuring future retention and understanding. In order to better facilitate
algebraic thinking, classrooms should offer an environment that values collaborative learning, student
discussions and the expression of mathematical ideas and concepts, so that every student feels catered for
and supported to explore mathematical concepts (Windsor, 2010).

Patterns:
MacGregor & Stacey (1999) state that algebra learning has its roots in the early grades, when children
notice regularities in the ways numbers work (pp.78). Similarly, Stephens & Armanto (2010) discuss how
finding these regularities is facilitating generalisations and the identification of patterns. Furthermore,
Warren (2005) explores the early use of patterns and the ability that students have to recognise these. Warren
(2005) expresses that abstracting patterns is the basis of structural knowledge, the goal of mathematics
learning in research literature (pp.759). In this, it is suggested that algebraic thinking within pattern is to go
beyond the basic repeating pattern, and to transition to viewing patterns as functions. According to Warren
(2005), research has shown that many young people struggle with grasping this transition, citing that early
classroom experiences with patterns had prominently focused exploring repeating patterns. Knowing how to
describe functions and patterns is listed as an essential aspect of number knowledge for learning algebra
(MacGregor & Stacey, 1999), emphasising the importance of this transition of viewing patterns and
functions, as growing patterns in particular play an important role to bridge the gap between arithmetic and
algebra in early adolescent classrooms (Warren, 2005, pp.765). Educators need to be aware of typical
student thinking, gaps in thinking or misconceptions in order to target their teaching to alleviate or prevent
any misconceptions (Steinle, Gvozdenko, Price, Stacey & Pierce, 2009).

Problem Solving:
When solving mathematical problems, students develop deeper understanding of mathematics because it
helps them to conceptualise the mathematics being learnt (Windsor, 2010, pp. 666). Windsor (2010) is
describing the key concept of algebraic thinking, a deeper understanding of concepts which lead to the ability
to generalise. MacGregor & Stacey (1999) express the language of algebra as a focusing on relationships,
as opposed to arithmetic which focuses on the answers. By participating in problem solving activities,
children are able to choose strategies and transformations that they can confidently use, while also exploring
new strategies, to find relationships and patterns within the problem (Stephens & Armanto, 2010). In support
of these findings, Windsor (2010) states that in extending mathematical problem solving to include the
developing algebraic thinking, educators can facilitate more divergent and adaptive ways of thinking
(pp.666).

Equivalence:
Stephens & Armanto (2010) state that children can recognise that equality is preserved if equivalent
transformations are made on both sides of a situation (pp.524), however, Cooper, Rixon & Burnett (1993)
list equality, and in particular, the meaning of the equals sign as a significant misconception. The
misconception is reported to be an incorrect meaning of the equals sign as meaning to do something,
indicating the location of the answer and to act as a separator symbol (Cooper, Rixon & Burnett, 1993,
pp.201). Cooper, Rixon & Burnett (1993) go on to extrapolate on the misconception, suggesting that children
expect equations to have a set written form, with the equals sign connecting the terms on the left of the
equation, and the answer on the right. In order to ensure that children understand equivalence and the
equals sign as a relational sign, it is important to establish foundations of equal within the younger years of
education (Stephens and Armanto, 2010).

[778 words]

Critique of the Curriculum (up to 360 words)

The term equivalent or equivalence is not mentioned within the Number and Algebra content of the
Australian Curriculum until level four (in regards to equivalent fractions) (Australian Curriculum and
Assessment Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2015). This is concerning as it was highlighted as a common
misconception of algebraic thinking and mathematical learning by Cooper, Rixon and Burnett (1993). It
appears to be an assumed knowledge for children, as by arithmetic, they are already able to solve addition,
subtraction and multiplication problems by level 4, giving the appropriate result. Though this is knowledge
appears to be learnt, there is no evidence of understanding of equality or the knowledge of equals as the
same as. In this way, though the curriculum is stating what children need to do within the topic, there is no
evidence of the opportunity for equivalence to be taught and learnt in a meaningful way.
Problem solving is first listed in level 2, stating that children will be able to solve problems by using
number sentence for addition or subtraction (ACARA, 2015). This is supported by Windsors (2010)
statement, When solving mathematical problems, students develop deeper understanding of mathematics
because it helps them to conceptualise the mathematics being learnt (pp. 666). By introducing problem
solving early on in the curriculum, it means that students are able to learn mathematical concepts in
meaningful way. This in turn, ensures that children are gaining a strong conceptual foundation, which is
essential for future learning.
Identifying patterns in mathematics according to the Australian curriculum, is first taught at the foundational
level, by being able to sort and classify familiar objects (ACARA, 2015). However there is no distinction
between repeating and growing patterns and when they are to be taught. At level four, it is stated that
children will be able to explore and describe number patterns resulting from performing multiplication
(ACARA, 2015) and this appears to be the first direct reference to growing patterns. Though there are
mathematical concepts that need to be known in order to recognise generalisations within growing patters,
such as multiplication, Warren (2005) suggested that many students were not confident with the idea of
patterns as functions, because of a lack of exposure in early learning.

[359 words]

Conclusion (70-80 words)

Both the written literature and the curriculum should be taken into account when teaching algebra within a
primary school setting. Misconceptions found in the literature should be used in conjunction with the
curriculum, ensuring that students are set up for success. Educators should create an environment which
allows for exploring concepts, choosing activities that are rich enough for every student to engage in
(Stephens & Armanto, 2010, pp.529), so that they will develop deeper mathematical thinking and a strong
understanding of the relevant mathematical concepts.

[80 words]

Total Word count= 1297

References
Agudelo-Valderrama, C. (2004). A novice teachers conception of the crucial determinant of his teaching of
beginning algebra. In I. Putt, R. Fargher & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics Education for the Third
Millennium: Towards 2010, Proceedings of the 27th Annual conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 31-38). Sydney, Australia: MERGA Inc.
Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority,. (2015). AusVELSMathematics.Ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au. Retrieved 7 October 2015, from
http://ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Print/AusVELS.pdf?
d=M&l=F&l=1&l=2&l=3&l=4&l=5&l=6&l=7&l=8&l=9&l=10&e=0&e=1&e=2&e=3&e=4&e=5
Chinnappan, M., Lawson, M. & Nason, R. (2000). The understanding and use of trigonometric/algebraic
knowledge during problem solving. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Mathematics
Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 165-171). Sydney, Australia: MERGA Inc.
Cooper, T., Rixon, K. & Burnett, L. (1993). Students understanding of the mathematical concepts of equal
and equivalence. In Proceedings of the 16th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp.201-203). Sydney, Australia: MERGA Inc.
MacGregor, M. & Kaye, S. (1999). A flying start to algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(2), 78.
Steinle, V., Gvozdenko, E., Price, B., Stacey, K. & Pierce, R. (2009). Investigating students numerical
misconceptions in algebra. In R. Hunter, B. Bikcnell & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing Divides,
Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia (Vol. 1, pp.491-498). Pamerston North: MERGA Inc.
Stephens, M. & Armanto, D. (2010). How to build powerful learning trajectories for relational thinking in
primary school years. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the Future of Mathematics
Education, Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 523-530). Fremantle, Australia: MERGA Inc.

Warren, E. A. (2005). Patterns supporting the development of early algebraic thinking. In P. Clarkson, A.
Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce & A. Roche (Eds.), Building Connections:
Theory, Research and Practice, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 759-766). Sydney, Australia: MERGA Inc.
Windsor, W. (2010). Algebraic thinking: a problem solving approach. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane & C. Hurst
(Eds.), Shaping the Future of Mathematics Education, Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 665-672). Fremantle, Australia: MERGA
Inc.