LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING OF PATTERNS IN MULTIPLE

REPRESENTATIONS
Stalo Michael, Iliada Elia, Athanasios Gagatsis, Athina Theoklitou, Andreas Savva
Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Cyprus
This study explores the influence of different forms of representations on pupils
performance in complex and simple structured patterns at activities which involved
continuing a pattern, predicting terms in further positions and formulating a
generalization. Data were obtained from pupils in grades 5 and 6 on the basis of a
test. Three levels of cognitive complexity (CC) of the understanding of mathematical
relations in patterns were validated based on pupils performance: empirical
abstraction of mathematical relations, implicit use of a general rule and explicit use
of a general rule. Findings also revealed that the initial representational form
affected pupils performance especially at complex patterns. Pupils dealt more
efficiently with the pictorial form of representation relative to the verbal one.
INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Schoenfeld (1992) describes Mathematics as the science of patterns. Like patterns,
which involve a series of components progressing in a clear and consistent way,
mathematics involve a systematic attempt to discover the nature of the principles and
laws that characterize in a rational and consistent manner different theoretical
systems or real world models. This commonality indicates that pattern tasks, i.e.
recognizing patterns, formulating generalizations, provide the opportunity for a
genuine and substantial mathematical activity.
During the past 20 years research has focused on a great number of possible methods
that increase the meaning of the algebraic procedure and objects (Arcavi, 1994). The
fact that many countries have introduced an algebra chapter in their new syllabuses
from preschool years proves the increasing interest in the subject, as well as the
importance and need for the development of algebraic thinking from a young age. In
particular, Blanton and Kaput (2005) maintain that incorporating algebra in
elementary school helps in the conceptual development of complex mathematics in
childrens thinking. It offers pupils the chance to observe and articulate the
generalizations and express them in a symbolic way. The use of tasks through which
pupils of the elementary and high school are lead to generalizations through patterns
is considered important for achieving the transition to typical algebra (Lannin, 2005;
Zaskis & Liljedahl, 2002).
Representations and the understanding of patterns
Pupils come across a variety of representations in mathematics classes every day at
school. These representations are necessary to present and communicate
mathematical ideas such as patterns, and can take on one or more forms: verbal,
symbolic, pictorial, etc (Gagatsis & Elia, 2004). Zaskis and Liljedahl (2002)
2006. In Novotn, J., Moraov, H., Krtk, M. & Stehlkov, N. (Eds.). Proceedings 30th Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4, pp. 161-168. Prague: PME. 4 - 161

Stalo, Elia, Gagatsis, Theoklitou & Savva

distinguish patterns into different categories on the basis of the form of representation
or other criteria, i.e. number patterns, pictorial/geometric patterns, patterns in
computational procedures, linear and quadratic patterns, repeating patterns, etc.
Diverse representations activate different procedures and strategies (Orton, Orton &
Roper, 1999). The significant role of different representations on mathematics
learning by students of different grade levels was revealed by several researchers
regarding the understanding of mathematical concepts and problem solving (Duval,
2002; Gagatsis & Elia, 2004; Mousoulides & Gagatsis, 2004). Based on the findings
of the aforementioned studies, understanding a concept presupposes the ability to
recognise a concept in a variety of representations and the ability of a flexible
handling of the concept within the specific representation systems. Thus it can be
implied that recognising relations in patterns in different representations and
coordinating different representational forms of a pattern may have an important role
on pupils understanding of generalizations and developing of algebraic thinking.
Lannin (2005) examined what reasons children produce for the generalizations they
produce in patterns in a figurative or a verbal representation and how these
justifications help them to understand the generalizations. The reasons that the
children were found to produce for the patterns were classified with respect to five
stages, as follow: Level 0: No justification, Level 1: Appeal to external authority,
Level 2: Empirical evidence, Level 3: Generic example and Level 4: Deductive
justification.
Kyriakides & Gagatsis (2003) explored the development of first to sixth grade pupils
competence in patterning activities by developing and validating a model comprised
by six pattern-specific factors, as follow: a) repeating patterns in symbolic numerical
form, b) repeating patterns with geometric shapes, c) developing patterns in symbolic
numerical form, d) developing patterns with geometric shapes (increasing one or
both dimensions), e) patterns requiring simple numerical calculations, namely simple
patterns, and f) patterns requiring more complex numerical calculations, namely
complex patterns.
This study attempts to synthesize some of the basic ideas of the two latter studies, i.e.,
patterns structure complexity (Kyriakides & Gagatsis, 2003) and levels of students
understanding of patterns (Lannin, 2005), so as to investigate the role of different
representations on the understanding of patterns in a more comprehensive and
systematic manner. On the basis of Lannins stages we propose the following CC
levels of the understanding of mathematical relations in patterns: Level 1, Empirical
abstraction of mathematical relations. Pupils at this level are able to continue a
pattern; Level 2, Implicit use of a general rule. Pupils at this level are in a position to
predict terms in further positions of a pattern; and Level 3, Explicit use of a general
rule. Pupils at this level are able to generalize the pattern giving a symbolic or a
verbal rule.
Whats new in this study is that it a) proposes three levels of CC of the understanding
of mathematical relations in patterns; b) attempts to provide empirical evidence for
the validation of the aforementioned levels; and c) explores the role of verbal,
4 - 162

PME30 2006

Stalo, Elia, Gagatsis, Theoklitou & Savva

pictorial and symbolic representations of the patterns on pupils abilities at all of the
three levels. In the light of the above, the present study aimed to investigate the
following research questions: (a) Can the proposed levels of CC of the understanding
of mathematical relations be validated empirically on the basis of pupils
performance at patterning tasks designed to correspond to these levels? (b) How does
the initial representation influence the successful completion of simple and complex
patterns in different levels of CC?
METHOD
Participants
The sample of the study consisted of 67 pupils in grade 5 and 72 pupils in grade 6,
that is 139 pupils in total, from two urban elementary schools of Nicosia.
Research instrument
A test was developed and administered to all of the participants in November 2005.
The test consisted of the following six patterns: (a) a verbal pattern of simple
structure (in the sense given by Kyriakides and Gagatsis, 2003) with the
generalization +1, (b) a simple symbolic one with the generalization +3, (c) a
simple pictorial one with the generalization +2, (d) a complex (Kyriakides &
Gagatsis, 2003) verbal pattern with the generalization (.)+1, (e) a complex
symbolic one with the generalization (.)+2 and (f) a complex pictorial one with the
generalization .(+2).
For each of the aforementioned patterns pupils were first asked to continue the
pattern by filling in a table for the three following terms (level 1). Then they had to
predict terms in further positions, like the 20th and 100th terms (level 2). Finally,
pupils were asked to write the general rule of the pattern with symbols or, if they
preferred, in words (level 3). Examples of the tasks that correspond to the three levels
of the complex symbolic pattern are shown in Figure 1.
3

6
11
18 .
1. Find the three following terms of the above pattern.
2. Fill in the table.
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Position 1st
Number

7th

20th

100th

3. Describe or write in symbols a rule which may help you to find a number in any
position.

Figure 1: Tasks examples corresponding to the three levels of the complex symbolic
pattern
For coding pupils responses at each of the eighteen tasks we used the following
symbols: S= simple patterns, C=complex patterns, v=verbal form, p=pictorial form,
s=symbolic form, 1=level 1, 2=level 2, 3=level 3. For example, the variable Ss1
stands for continuing the simple pattern in symbolic form by finding the three next
terms.
PME30 2006

4 - 163

Stalo, Elia, Gagatsis, Theoklitou & Savva

Data analysis
Primarily, the success percentages were accounted for the tasks of the test for each
age group. A similarity diagram and an implicative diagram were also constructed for
the whole sample by using the statistical computer software CHIC (Bodin, Coutourier
& Gras, 2000). The similarity diagram allows for the arrangement of pupils
responses at the tasks of the test into groups according to their homogeneity. The
implicative diagram, which is derived by the application of Grass statistical
implicative method, contains relations that indicate whether success to a specific task
implies success to another task related to the former one.
RESULTS
Great differences were observed in pupils performance between simple (55-100%)
and complex patterns (7-78%). Simple patterns in symbolic form seemed to be the
easiest (78-100%) for pupils of both age groups. Pupils responded at the tasks of the
first level asking for a continuation of a simple pattern with great success (90-100%).
Patterns whose initial representation form was the pictorial one in the higher level
seemed to be the most difficult for pupils of grade 6 (67%), while pupils of grade 5
encountered the same level of difficulty (55%) with patterns of verbal form at this
level. As regards complex patterns, the lowest scores for both age groups were
observed at the patterns in verbal form (7-69%), while higher performance appeared
in pictorial patterns, especially for pupils of grade 5 (15-81%). As far as complex
patterns are concerned, both age groups tackled first level tasks (69-78%) with much
more ease in comparison to the other levels (7-46%).
Like the success rates, there were not great differences between the two age groups at
the similarity or the implicative diagram of their responses, thus the results that
follow refer to the outcomes of the pupils of both groups. Two distinct clusters,
namely Cluster A and B, are identified in the similarity diagram of the pupils
responses at the tasks of the test in Figure 1. Most of the similarity relations in
Cluster B indicate that the original representation influenced pupils at complex
patterning activities of high CC levels. Within Cluster B it is evident that pupils dealt
with complex patterns in the same representational form in a similar way (Cs2-Cs3,
Cp2-Cp3, Cv2-Cv3) when asked to predict terms in further positions and write a
general rule (levels 2 and 3).
Moreover, a similarity group in Cluster B is comprised by pupils responses at two
simple patterns (Ss2, Ss3) and a complex one (Cs1) of different levels, but with one
commonality, that is the symbolic representational form. Thus, the formation of this
cluster reveals the consistency by which pupils tackled these symbolic patterns. It
also indicates the distinct way of dealing with these patterns in symbolic form relative
to the corresponding patterns with respect to their structure and CC level in other
representational forms, indicating the significant role of the form of representation of
a pattern on pupils solution procedures.
4 - 164

PME30 2006

3
s1
Sv
2
Sp
2
Sv
3
Sp
3
C
s2
C
s3
C
p2
C
p3
C
v2
C
v3
C
v1
C
p1

Cv3

Cp3

Cv2

Cs3

Ss

1
2
Ss

Sp

Sv

Ss

Stalo, Elia, Gagatsis, Theoklitou & Savva

Cs2

Cs1

Sp3

Ss3

Sv3

Ss2

Sv2

Cp2

Cp1

Cv1

Sp2

Sv1

Cluster A

Cluster B

Figure 1: Similarity diagram of pupils responses at Figure 2: Implicative diagram

the tasks
of pupils responses at the
tasks
It should be noted that the form of representation of the patterns is not the only factor
that affects pupils ways of dealing with the various patterning activities, especially
the simple ones. Cluster A which involves the variables Ss1, Sv1 and Sp1 indicates
that pupils dealt similarly with the simple patterns asking for the following terms
(level 1), irrespective of their forms of representation. Pupils distinct way of
approaching these tasks relative to the other tasks may be a consequence of the
simplicity of the patterns and the low-demanding character of the tasks (level 1). The
common high success rates (90-100%) of both age groups at these tasks provide
further evidence to this remark. Correspondingly, pupils responded similarly at the
tasks involving simple patterns of the same level (Sv2-Sp2, Sv3-Sp3) asking them to
predict terms in further positions or write a general rule despite their difference in the
representational form (verbal and pictorial). Thereby further support is provided to
the influence of the tasks CC along with the complexity of the structure of the
patterns on how pupils dealt with pattern problems.
A global view of the implicative diagram of pupils responses at the patterning tasks
in Figure 2 indicates that pupils success at dealing with the complex patterns implies
success at handling the simple patterns. A more analytic observation of the variables
referring to complex patterns reveals that success in finding the general rule of
complex patterns, which correspond to the highest CC level (level 3), implies success
in predicting terms in further positions of these patterns (level 2), which in turn
implies success in continuing the pattern by finding the next terms (level 1). These
PME30 2006

4 - 165

Stalo, Elia, Gagatsis, Theoklitou & Savva

relations indicate that level 3 tasks are more difficult for the pupils than level 2 tasks,
which consecutively are more complicated than level 1 tasks. It is noteworthy that
most implicative relations among pupils responses at the tasks of the three levels are
formed within the same representational form of the patterns (e.g., Cs3, Cs2, Cs1;
Cp3, Cp2, Cp1), indicating that the different CC levels of pupils understanding are
intra-representational.
Analogous implicative relations appear also between the variables concerning simple
patterns, with the exception of the variables standing for success at the tasks of level
1 in symbolic and pictorial form. Pupils responses at these tasks which asked the
following terms of a simple pattern are not included in the diagram, indicating their
autonomous character, since they were identified as the ones with the highest success
rates.
In the implicative diagram, the role of representations on pupils success is detected
principally at the tasks which required predicting terms in further positions (level 2)
of a complex pattern (Cv2, Cs2, Cp2). Pupils success at the verbal pattern implies
success at the symbolic one, which in turn implies success at the pictorial one. This
finding is in line with pupils success rates at the corresponding tasks, indicating that
pupils encountered greater difficulty at the verbal pattern and greater facility at the
pictorial one. Pupils success in level 1 tasks is not influenced by the form of
representation of the pattern probably because of their straightforward character,
while pupils success in attaining a generalization (level 3) depends more on the
cognitive complexity of the task rather than the representation of the pattern involved.
The above findings which concur with pupils success percentages at the tasks,
provide empirical support to the proposed classification of the patterning activities
and thus to the CC levels of the understanding of mathematical relations in patterns,
proposed in this study, in simple and complex patterns as well as in the different
forms of representation.
DISCUSSION
Findings derived from the application of Grass implicative analysis on pupils
performance provided evidence to the three CC levels of the understanding of
mathematical relations in patterns, proposed in this study, and their hierarchical
ordering. The first level refers to the empirical abstraction of mathematical relations,
which in this study involves the continuation of a pattern. In the second level, which
stands for the implicit use of a general rule, pupils are able to predict the terms of
further positions. The third level, which incorporates the explicit use of a general
rule, involves the formulation of a general rule. It was also revealed that pupils, who
demonstrated deficits in the first level of understanding mathematical relations in
patterns, would encounter difficulties in the second level, and fail to articulate a
generalization in the third level.
Almost all pupils have acquired the first level in simple patterns. Pupils continued
accurately a pattern, since they were used to tasks of this form. The next stage, the
one of predicting terms in further positions, was acquired by fewer pupils, especially
4 - 166

PME30 2006

Stalo, Elia, Gagatsis, Theoklitou & Savva

in complex patterns. Orton et al. (1999) have ascertained that an important obstacle
for successful generalization is the numerical incapability and clinging to repetitive
methods. These methods do not allow them to see the general structure of all the
elements (Zazkis & Liljedahl, 2002). Considering the third level of reasoning in
patterns, only a small number of pupils were in position to formulate a rule. However,
generalization was more easily attained in simple patterns rather than complex ones.
A main concern of this study was also to investigate the role of different
representations on activities involving simple and complex patterns in the three CC
levels of mathematical relations in patterns. Despite the intra-representational
character of the hierarchy of the three CC levels (as it holds for each form of
representation of a pattern), the findings of this study and more specifically the
differences between pupils scores at tasks of the same CC level and structure provide
support to the influence of the different representational forms on pupils
performance. In complex patterns, the pictorial form of the representation makes it
easier for the pupils to predict the terms of further positions or articulate a
generalization compared to the verbal form of representation, especially in grade 5.
The pictorial representation in these activities is easier, possibly because it helps
pupils recognise some relations, which are not visible in the verbal representation.
These results are in line with Lannins (2005) findings suggesting that such situations
allowed pupils associate the rule with a visual representation. The complex patterns
of verbal form seemed to be more difficult for all pupils at all the CC level tasks
compared to the other representation forms, probably because they had to decode the
data of the verbal pattern into symbols and then compare the terms to numbers. This
difficulty is in line with previous studies findings that pupils tend to have difficulties
in transferring information gained in one context to another (Gagatsis & Elia, 2004).
In simple structured patterns, the role of representation was found to give way,
probably because pupils were able to recognise the same pattern behind the different
representations. However, simple patterns in symbolic form were found to be tackled
with greater success relative to the corresponding patterns in other forms, probably
due to the fact that pupils were familiar with this kind of patterns in the particular
representation from school mathematics.
The above findings have direct implications for future research as regards the
understanding of patterns. It could be interesting for a study to propose and validate
empirically a model that incorporates the functioning and the interrelations of the
three dimensions of the understanding of patterns examined here, i.e., cognitive
complexity levels, multiple representations, patterns structure, in order to analyze the
understanding of mathematical relations in patterns and specify the factors that
influence its development.
References
Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 14 (3), 24-35.

PME30 2006

4 - 167

Stalo, Elia, Gagatsis, Theoklitou & Savva

Blanton, M.L., & Kaput. J.J. (2005). Characterizing a classroom practice that
promotes algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5),
412-446.
Bodin, A., Coutourier, R., & Gras, R. (2000). CHIC : Classification Hirarchique
Implicative et Cohsive-Version sous Windows CHIC 1.2. Rennes : Association pour la
Recherche en Didactique des Mathmatiques.
Duval, R. (2002). The cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in the learning of
mathematics. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1(2), 1-16.
Gagatsis, A., & Elia, I. (2004). The effects of different modes of representations on
mathematical problem solving. In M. J. Hines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proc. 28th Conf.
of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 447-454).
Bergen, Norway: PME.
Kyriakides, L. & Gagatsis, A. (2003). Assessing Student Problem-Solving Skills. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10 (4), 609-621.
Lannin, J. K. (2005).Generalization and Justification: The challenge of Introducing
Algebraic Reasoning Through Patterning Activities, Mathematical Thinking and
Learning, 7(3), 231-258.
Mousoulides, N., & Gagatsis, A. (2004). Algebraic and geometric approach in function
problem solving. In M. Johnsen Hines & A. Berit Fuglestad (Eds.), Proc. 28th Conf. of
the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 385-392).
Bergen, Norway: PME.
Orton, A., Orton, J. & Roper, T. (1999). Pictorial and practical contexts and the perception
of pattern. In Orton, A. (Ed.), Pattern in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics.
London: Cassell.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving,
metacognition and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
Zazkis, R. & Liljedahl, P. (2002). Generalization of patterns: The tension between algebraic
thinking and algebraic notation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 379402.

4 - 168

PME30 2006