Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 145
Appendix E A Framework for Constructing a Vision of Algebra: A Discussion Document Working Draft This document has been adapted from the "Algebra in the K-12 Curriculum: Dilemmas and Possibilities," submitted in March 1995 by the Algebra Working Group to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. This document reflects the comments and suggestions on the original document by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Board of Directors and reviewers from the mathematics community. Permission to photocopy materials from this document is granted to individuals and groups who want to use it for discussion purposes. May, 1997 145
OCR for page 146
Copyright 1997 by The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. 1906 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091-1593 All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page 147
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS THE ALGEBRA WORKING GROUP Gail F. Burrill University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin Jonathan Choate Groton School Groton, Massachusetts Joan Ferrini-Mundy University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire Steven Monk University of Washington Seattle, Washington Beatrice Moore-Harris Fort Worth Public Schools Fort Worth, Texas Mary M. Lindquist, Board Liaison National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Reston, Virginia 147 Elizabeth Phillips Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Merrie L. Schroeder Price Laboratory School Cedar Falls, Iowa Jacqueline Stewart Okemos Public Schools Okemos, Michigan Lee V. Stiff North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina Erna Yackel Purdue University-Calumet Hammond, Indiana
OCR for page 148
OCR for page 149
CONTENTS Preface Introduction A Promising Practice Critical Issues A Framework Building a Dynamic View of Algebra Embedding Algebraic Reasoning in Contextual Settings Bringing Coherence to the Algebra Curriculum Organizing Themes Summary Examples from Contextual Settings Bringing Meaning to the Framework Example 1: From the Contextual Setting of Growth and Change Example 2: Contextual Settings Within Size and Shape Example 3: Contextual Settings Within Number Using the Framework Bibliography 149 151 153 155 158 160 160 161 164 165 165 166 173 179 185 187
OCR for page 150
OCR for page 151
PREFACE In 1994, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Board of Directors created an Algebra Working Group and charged it to produce a document that: Expands the vision of algebra for all that begins with experiences in early elementary school and extends through secondary school; elaborates this vision by including example, practical ideas, and promising practices, and helps school systems raise questions about the process of change. The Working Group met in the summer and fall of 1994 and developed a draft document that was circulated broadly within the mathematics, mathematics education, and school community for review and comment. This document entitled A Framework for Constructing a Vision of Algebra was presented to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Board of Directors in 1995 as a final report of the Working Group. It has been circulated since that time upon request to many groups and individuals interested in questions about school algebra. In anticipation of the May, 1997 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)/Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB) symposium on the nature and role of algebra in the K-14 curriculum, the document has been revised and updated to serve as a discussion and background document for the symposium. Gail Burrill Joan Ferrini-Mundy Algebra Working Group Members May, 1997 151
OCR for page 152
OCR for page 153
INTRODUCTION The release of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989) marked a new era in K-12 mathematics education. The Curriculum Standards call for a rethinking of the mathematical goals and emphases of school mathematics. In particular, the document outlines ways in which the subject matter of algebra can be organized as a strand occurring throughout the K-12 grade span, rather than confining algebra to the typical two courses in high school. The Patterns and Relationships standard for grades K-4, for example, calls for students to · recognize, describe, extend, and create a wide variety of patterns; · represent and describe mathematical relationships; and · explore the use of variable and open sentences to express relationships (NCTM, 1989, p. 60~. The standards for grades 5-8 include a standard called Patterns and Functions and an Algebra standard. For grades 9-12, there is an Algebra and Functions standard as well as a Mathematical Structure standard. Taken as a whole, these five standards offer one sketch of a K-12 algebra strand. Curriculum developers, textbook authors, and others have elaborated such conceptualizations of K-12 algebra in their publications and materials. The NCTM through its publications (Algebra for Everyone; the Addenda Series for grades K-6, Making Sense of Data and Patterns; for grades 5-8: Dealing with Data and Change and Patterns and Functions; for grades 9-12: Algebra in a Technological World and Data Analysis and Statistics across the Curriculum; and the February, 1997 special issues of Teaching Children Mathematics, Mathematics in the Middle Grades, and the Mathematics Teacher) also has provided further elaboration and discussion of how a K-12 focus on algebra and algebraic thinking might be formulated. This document contributes further to the ongoing examination and work of shaping the school algebra curriculum, largely through a proposed framework for organizing discussion about algebra in the K-12 curriculum. We also offer extended examples of how algebraic reasoning might be developed and encouraged across the grades. A number of current pressures contribute to the need for ongoing examination of the algebra dimension of the school curriculum. Problems in the workplace, in industry, and in everyday life involve algebraic concepts. Fundamental mathematical ideas in the areas of growth and change, patterns and regularity, quantity, size, shape, and data are often expressed with the tools and symbols of algebra. Increasingly sophisticated technology opens a wide range of possibilities of rethinking the emphases that have been traditional in school algebra, and raises a set of serious questions. Fundamental issues about the type and amount of symbol manipulation and procedural activity that is appropriate for students can now be examined and debated within the context of heretofore unavailable technological tools. New conceptualizations of "symbol 153
OCR for page 154
154 THE NATURE AND ROLE OF ALGEBRA IN THE K-14 CURRICULUM sense" (Arcavi, 1994) and "function sense" (Eisenberg, 1992) have emerged within the general discussion of algebra teaching and learning. In addition to considering how the available technologies might be used to help students understand the concepts of algebra and the procedures of algebra, there is now the dual question of how these technologies might themselves necessitate changed emphases and new additions to the content of school algebra. Research and practice provide compelling evidence that children engage in significant mathematical reasoning at early ages, and that algebraic thinking can be nurtured and encouraged early in the curriculum (Bastable & Schifter, in preparation; Kaput, in preparation). How can the school algebra curriculum be formulated to develop across the grades and to capitalize on these understandings? What might such early introduction of key algebraic concepts and processes mean for the revision of the traditional secondary school algebra curriculum? Currently, there is a strong trend toward algebra for all in the nation' s eighth grades and secondary schools. Yet, various sources of evidence indicate that, for many students, their experiences with algebra in middle and secondary schools are not leading to high levels of understanding or proficiency (Beaton et al., 1996; Reese et al., 1997~. Compounding the situation, curriculum and instructional materials currently available provide a wide, and sometimes confusing, array of distinct possibilities of how the algebra curriculum might be organized. The context and climate around algebra as a K-12 element of the mathematics curriculum is ready for discussion. The framework and examples that follow are intended as a contribution to the process of continuing deep discussion about this important area of mathematics education.
OCR for page 155
A PROMISING PRACTICE Many people assume that "algebra" means working with symbols, but in recent years there has been a great deal of discussion among the mathematics education research community on reasoning that promotes understand- ing of important algebraic concepts at early levels (Bastable & Schifter, 1997; Confrey, 1995; Confrey & Smith, 1995; Harel & Confrey, 1994; Thompson, 1995~. The following discussion parallels an episode that occurred mid- year in a heterogeneous sixth grade class.* The students were studying a unit on rational numbers, and the intent of the problem was to develop understanding of and methods for comparing ratios. The problem illustrates how students' reasoning can be used to develop understanding of algebraic ideas. Description of the Problem: The school is hosting a lunch for the senior citizens in the area, and a class is asked to test four different recipes for mixing punch made from sparkling water and cranberry juice. First, they have to decide which of the four has the most cranberry juice, and then determine how many cups of juice and water are needed to mix 120 cups of punch. Recipe A: 2 cups cranberry juice 3 cups water Recipe B: 4 cups cranberry juice 8 cups water Recipe C: 3 cups cranberry juice 5 cups water Recipe D: 1 cup cranberry juice 4 cups water Discussion: The interaction that ensued was very lively. Students interpreted the question of which recipe has the most cranberry juice in a variety of ways. Some looked at the absolute number of cups of juice in each recipe. Others looked at the ratio of juice to water. Still others used the part-whole relationship of the number of cups of juice to the total number of cups in the recipe. After comparing methods and discussing choices, the class split into four groups to decide how to adapt each recipe to make enough punch for 120 cups. The groups reasoned as follows. *This vignetteisbasedon an episode from a sixth grade class taughtbyMaryBouck, who was piloting materials from the Connected Mathematics Project (CMP), a National Science Foundation funded middle school mathematics curriculum project (Fey et al., 1995). 155
OCR for page 180
180 THE NATURE AND ROLE OF ALGEBRA IN THE K-14 CURRICULUM The search for generalizations and methods of representation have many origins in the setting of number. As students reason about calculations, they may observe numerical patterns or represent quantities pictorially or geometrically; with advances in technology reasoning about number has broadened to include use of spreadsheets ~ ~ . ~., . ~ ~ and sets of Instructions for computers. Ultimately, reasoning about calculations produces a need for symbolic notation, both for representing the process and for modeling relations. The focus of instruction should not, however, be on the manipulation of symbols but rather on the conceptual understanding of the meaning of the symbolic representation. Choosing number as a setting provides opportunities to illustrate how student understandings of any of the themes can be developed singly or in conjunction with others. The properties of the real number system allow us to rewrite expressions in an equivalent form, to represent a situation, and then to work within that representation free from context. A focus on the distributive property as one illustration of how number is incorporated into the framework highlights the structural aspect of algebra. Other properties of number could serve the same purpose. Other organizing themes, however, are also present as students develop and apply their understanding. Understanding the distributive property allows students to · think about different characteristics of the same situation: · represent, generalize, and confirm conjectures; · gain new information about a situation from an equivalent representation. With the distributive property, students can think about the calculation embedded in a situation as a sum of quantities, each of which has two or more factors, ab + ac, or they can think of the same situation as a product of quantities, each of which may be a sum of two or more addends, am + c). Generalizing and gaining new information from a representation are equally possible for many of the properties of number. The following problem situations illustrate these different aspects of the distributive property. However, because these outcomes are not disjoint, the problems are not separated according to specific goals. Instead, the problems are grouped according to developmental level of students. They are intended to serve as a springboard for thinking about the role of the distributive property in reasoning algebraically and for further discussion of the experiences necessary for students as they construct a view of algebra from their work with number. [saying the Foundation Early childhood experiences that help children understand the setting of number include investigations into patterns and regularities. Reasoning about the relationship between quantities and about efficient ways to link two mathematical representations involves using properties such as the distributive property as a matter of course. Using situations that have two equivalent interpretations will help build understanding of the distributive property. Experiences with the distributive property can occur in many situations in the elementary grades: simplifying computation 3 x lo + 3 x 9 = 3~10 + 9) or using an area model to show how to express multiplication of two-digit numbers. 10 9 311111111111 L411 11113 10 + 9 C_ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ 3 _ _ _ _ _ l _ _ _ _ _ I I I r T l _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ T T I I I I = 3 x 10 + 3 x 9 =3x (10+9) A visual representation allows students to assimilate the equivalence of the two ways to think. · Why is it important for students to have alternative ways to calculate?
OCR for page 181
APPENDIX E 181 · What does this area model add to student understanding of the multiplication algorithm for whole, fractional, and decimal numbers? Building on the Foundation As students in the middle grades become more familiar with expressing relationships symbolically, individual students may create different but equivalent expressions, depending on how they reasoned about the problem. The following example illustrates how the distributive property provides a link between different ways of thinking. The Telephone Network Problem: There are many different houses in a particular region. How many different telephone paths are necessary if each house is directly connected to every other house? Looking into the classroom: Ann and Juan decide to begin with some small examples and see if they can find a pattern. Ann begins with 4 and then 5 houses and draws the number of connections; Juan uses 6 and then 7. They make a table and discover they can tell how many connections they need for 8 houses, then 9, then 10. They can see a way to get to the NEXT entry in the table, but they cannot see how to get any general rule. Number Number of Houses of Paths 4 5 6 8 6 10 15 21 NEXT = previous Number of Houses previous Number of Paths Another student writes, "If there are N houses, you won't connect a house to itself, A ~ D HE ELF 1 1 A TIC ME \G - , etc. so each will have to be connected to one less or n- 1 houses. This means there will be ntn - 1 ) connections. For example, for 8 houses... If house A is connected to house B. though, it is the same as if house B is connected to house A, so my answer should be divided by 2. There will be ntn - 1~/2 connections." Another pair of students makes a chart where each "1" represents a connection between the houses and a "O" represents no connection. A B C o o D... n A B C 1 ... 1 , ... . O 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 ... 0 0 = no connection ~ = connection The chart is a square, so if there are n houses, there will be n 2 connections in the chart.
OCR for page 182
182 THE NATURE AND ROLE OF ALGEBRA IN THE K-14 CURRICULUM But the diagonal is not helpful because that shows a house is connected to itself. There are n houses on the diagonal, so the number of connections is n 2 - n. The connections on each half of the diagonal are the same (A to B is the same as B to A), so really there are only in 2 - nils connections. Tina rewrote the rule as 1x nx (n-1~/2 She feels sure that this is equivalent because she recognizes she can apply the distributive property to n 2_ n. She comments that the formula for the area of a triangle is 2 be and wonders if this relates to the matrix she and her partner made. Questions to ask: Do all of the rules generate the same answers as Ann's NEXT rule? Are the rules equivalent to each other? How do you know? One of the rules looks like the formula for the area of a triangle, but where is the triangle? Would a graph facilitate understanding of different reasoning processes? Where Is the Algebra? Searching for recursive patterns can provide a solution but is not efficient in many cases. Relations are often difficult to describe in closed form. Those who try to find a more direct rule may think very differently and use different symbolic representations. One link that shows these different ways of thinking are mathematically equivalent is the distributive property. Tina's contribution is somewhat different in nature. She has deliberately applied the distributive prop- erty and linked the form of the result to something else she knows. Students can try to connect her new representation to something concrete in the problem. Some representations of this problem will have a triangular aspect because the numbers generated are the triangular numbers. Some students may recognize these from Pascal's triangle. Students may reason from the sequence of numbers or the ordered pairs, as follows, Number of Number of Ordered houses paths pairs 1 0 (1,0) 2 1 (2,1) 3 3 (3,3) 4 6 (4,6) and think about what relation operating on the first would give the second. Others may reason from a graph of the ordered pairs. They should see that the resulting graph is like the graph of y = x2 but with a smaller rate of change and different vertex. This is an occasion to discuss which of the two representations, y = x2 -x ory = Ox - 1), gives the most insight on estimating answers. For very large numbers, the graphs of y = x2 and y = x2 - x are almost identical. · How do the representations capture the reasoning process of the students? What is the . . . advantage of having different representations? How are the suggestions qualitatively different from each other? How can you systemati- cally build on such thinking? At the high school level, the problem can be extended to a counting problem where there are n ways to make the first choice, n - 1 ways to make the second choice, and so ntn -1) ways to choose two things. Dividing by 2 reduces the repetition. The triangular numbers that result, 1, 3,
OCR for page 183
APPENDIX E 183 6, 10, ..., can be related to the binomial theorem, (x + yin as the coefficients of the terms in expanded form, a powerful application of the distributive property. When students learned to multiply two-digit numbers, a geometric model of the distributive property can provide them with an understanding of the algonthm. For example, a student might write 3~27) = 3~20 + 7) = 60 + 21 = 81. When the computational process is extended to 27~42), the distributive property leads to (20 + 71~40 + 2), or the product of two binomials. Initially, some students may say symbolically that (x + y)2 = X2 + y2 but drawing an area model can convince them the square (x + y) has area x2 + My + y2 and reinforces use of the distributive property. x x + Y 2 my Y _ Vet The geometric model reinforces the need for the cross products fly. The use of (x + y) as a factor being distributed as an entity, (x + Ax + (x + ply, is an extension of the thinking established in the early grades and helps explain symbolically why the sum of the two squares as an answer to (X + y)2 iS insufficient. Students should be able to think and reason about the process and the algorithm they use. Expanding a tnnom~al or cube enables students to think of reasonable ways to extend their geometric model both in two and three dimensions and allows them to begin to develop patterns that will later lead to the binomial expansion theorem (X+y~n=xn+nxn-ly+ + yn Physical models can help students understand a situation, but students should become more and more comfortable with symbols as ways to represent situations, as well as ways to generalize anthmetic. The follow-up questions deliberately focus on structural issues: When does this property apply? What is the pattern in the terms? The comparative usefulness of the geometric model or the symbolic representation highlights choices of representations. · How much emphasis should be placed on structure at each level? What essential under- standings do students need? How are these to be developed in contexts that motivate? · How much exposure and over what length of time does it take for students to recognize and be able to use the distributive property? Within the setting of number and the organizing theme of structure, it becomes important to reflect on certain patterns and behaviors in very general ways. Some situations seem to share certain charactenstics. These common attributes allow you to generalize and treat in similar ways systems that, on the surface, seem to have little in common. The distributive property is actually a specific instance of a more general structural property. College- bound students might investigate the following: The Function Problem: Think about the functions you have studied. Which of these functions have the property Pa + by = f(a) + f(b)? Looking into the classroom: Students check the functions they recall. For example they write "Is sinta + by = sin a + sin b?" Some check the validity of each conjecture by making substitutions. Others discuss the nature of the function: "The value of sin x is never
OCR for page 184
184 Summary THE NATURE AND ROLE OF ALGEBRA IN THE K-14 CURRICULUM greater than 1, but sin a + sin b could be." The students continue to investigate other functions. Questions to ask: What do the functions you chose have in common? Would the property, ha * by = f(`a) * f(`b), apply to operations other than adding for the functions you identified? Where Is the Algebra? Students may conclude that Ma + b) =;ff~a) + fibs applies only to linear functions such as those of the form y = kx. Some students find a geometric argument convincing: f (a+b) f (b) - f (a) 7 I f(n) f(~) a b a+b Those who have studied abstract algebra will recognize the general question: what operations are preserved by a mapping from one algebraic structure to another? For the linear function, y = kx with k fixed, each real number x is mapped onto the real number kx. Understanding what is preserved under what conditions allows flexibility in analyzing situations; in some cases, it is easier to analyze the range elements after the transformation, in others, to begin with the original domain elements then make the transformation. This study of what is preserved under different mappings leads to the concept of homomorphic functions, those for which Ma * b) = fiat * fibs. The distributive property of multiplication over addition is a particular example of a homomor . . phi mapping. What are the connections between the distributive property of multiplication over addition and linearity? While the setting for this example is number, the theme of structure comes to the forefront. The distributive property also plays a role in operating on and understanding relationships in systems where symbols represent objects other than number. Scalar multiplication distributes over addition of matrices; if the dimensions are aligned, matrix multiplication distributes over matrix addition. To use the structural properties of an algebraic system, students have to be introduced to these properties in thoughtful and meaningful ways in the early grades, using problem settings that are familiar to both students and teachers. The ability to generalize relationships is at the heart of algebra, and the structural nature of the system allows relationships to be expressed in different forms, some more useful in particular situations than others. Each different representation can add to the knowledge gained from one of the other representations. The use of symbols and the properties governing the behavior of operations with those symbols allow students to represent a situation in symbols, to manipulate those symbols temporarily free from the situational meaning to gain insights and informa- tion about the situation, and then to return to the situation to make sense of the symbols. · What is the interface between technology and structure? · How much symbol manipulation is necessary to function effectively with symbolic representations?
OCR for page 185
USING THE FRAMEWORK Groups from the mathematics education community can use the ideas in this document to organize their thinking and discussion of school algebra to develop a vision of algebra in a K-12 curriculum and as a means to move toward that vision. Possible questions might include the following: · What is the essential nature of each theme? · How do themes help organize ideas? · Are some themes more appropriate at different grade levels than at others? · Is there a hierarchy to the themes? · What contextual settings can be fruitful grounds for exploring algebraic concepts? · How do the themes focus algebra in grades 9-12? · What are examples of curricula that provide a coherent and balanced algebra curriculum in grades K-12? · How can adequate articulation and continuity be built into a K-12 algebraic sequence? · What should be done to help students develop depth in their algebraic understanding? · How and when should algebraic understanding be assessed? · What are some characteristics of algebraic reasoning at different developmental levels? The demands of a fast-changing society and the presence of technology require a vision of school algebra that is dynamic and fluid enough to keep pace with future needs of society, yet retains the essential aspects of algebra that have made it so significant in the history of mathematics. The workforce needs citizens who can adapt to new technologies, identify problems, reason about problems, and communicate their findings using symbols, graphs, tables, pictures, and words. Studies from other countries demonstrate that students can learn to reason algebraically much earlier than grade 9 and that all students can do so. Developing and implementing a coherent and balanced algebra curriculum for grades K-12 requires a complete rethinking of the entire mathematics curriculum, a task that is already underway by some involved in curriculum development. The success of implementing any vision of school algebra ultimately lies in creating conditions, policies, assessment, curriculum materials, and support that enable teachers to provide the kind of algebra experience that is essential for all students. Discussions and policies on "who takes algebra when" must have the full participation of teachers who will be responsible for enacting the changes. The algebra that is called for in this document is quite different from the algebra that most teachers have been taught or have been teaching. A framework such as this one can support teachers in a critical and reasoned review and adaptation of new curriculum materials purporting to exemplify a rethinking of algebra. Long-term professional development activities and preservice programs must be examined in light of a framework and the issues raised while equal efforts must be made to help "lay people" 185
OCR for page 186
186 THE NATURE AND ROLE OF ALGEBRA IN THE K-14 CURRICULUM understand the reasons for and nature of a different view of algebra. Reconfiguring algebra as a K-12 endeavor will take time, commitment, and deep thinking on the part of the entire mathematics education community to make a successful algebraic experience a reality for all students.
OCR for page 187
BIBLIOGRAPHY This bibliography will be a useful resource for anyone interested in the nature and role of algebra in the K-12 curriculum. Arcavi, A. (1994~. "Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics." For the Learning of Mathematics, 14 (3), 24-35. Bastable, V., & Schifter, D. (1997~. "Classroom stories: Examples of elementary students engaged in early algebra," in J. Kaput (Ed.), Employing Children's Natural Powers to Build Algebraic Reasoning in the Content of Elementary Mathematics. Beaton, A.E., Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., Kelly, D.L., & Smith, T.A. (1996~. Mathematics Achievement in the Middle School Years: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Chestnut Hill, MA: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy, Boston College. Birkhoff, G. (1973~. " Current trends in algebra." American Mathematical Monthly, 80, 760-782. Birkhoff, G., & MacLane, S. (1992~. " A survey of modern algebra: The fiftieth anniversary of its publication." Mathematical Intelligencer, 14 ~ 1), 26-31. Blais, D.M. (1988~. "Constructivism A theoretical revolution for algebra." Mathematics Teacher, 81, 624-631. Burrill, B., & Burrill, J.C. (1992J. Data Analysis and Statistics Addenda Series, Grades 9-12. Reston, VA: NCTM. Carlson, D., Johnson, C., Lay, D., & Porter, A. (1993~. "The linear algebra curriculum study group recommendations for the first course in linear algebra." The College Mathematics Journal, 24, 4-46. Chambers, D.L. (1994~. "The right algebra for all." Educational Leadership, 51 (6), 85-86. Cipra, B. (1988~. "Recent innovations in calculus instruction, " in L. Steen (Ida., Calculus for a New Century (pp. 95-103~. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (in press). "Learning through problem solving: A constructive approach to second grade mathematics," in E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.), Constructivism in Mathematics Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel. Coburn, T.G. (1993~. Patterns Addenda Series. Reston, VA: NCTM. Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (1983~. The Mathematical Sciences Curriculum K-12: What Is Still Fundamen- tal and What Is Not. Report to the NSB Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology. Washington, DC: Author. Confrey, J. (1995~. "Student voice in examining splitting as an approach to ratio, proportions, and fractions," in L. Miera & D. Carraher (Eds.), Proceedings of the l 9th Annual Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, pp.3-29. Recife, Brazil. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995~. "Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions." Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 66-86. Confrey, J. (1994~. "Splitting, similarity, and rate of change: A new approach to multiplication and exponential functions," in G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The Development of Multiplicative Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics. Albany: SUNY Press. 187
OCR for page 188
188 THE NATURE AND ROLE OF ALGEBRA IN THE K-14 CURRICULUM Coxford, A.F., & Shulte, A.P. (Eds.) (1988~. Ideas of Algebra, K-12. Reston, VA: NCTM. Cuoco, A., & LaCampagne, C.B. (submitted to the Notices of the AMS.) "Department of Education launches algebra initiative." Cuoco, A. (in press). "Early algebra and structure of calculations, " in J. Kaput (Ed.), Employing Children's Natural Powers to Build Algebraic Reasoning in the Content of Elementary Mathematics. Cuoco, A. (1993~. "Action to process: Constructing functions from algebra word problems." Intelligent Tutoring Media, 4 (3/4), 118-127. Day, R.P. (1993~. "Solution revolution." Mathematics Teacher, 86 (1), 15-22. Edwards, E.L. (Ed.) (1990~. Algebra for Everyone. Reston, VA: NCTM Eisenberg, T. (1992~. " On the development of a sense for functions," in G. Harel & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), The Concept of Function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy. (MAA Notes, Vol. 25, pp. 153-174~. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. Euler, Leonard (1984~. Elements of Algebra. (Translated by John Hewlett.) NY: Springer-Verlag. Ferrini-Mundy, J. & Johnson, L. (1994~. "Recognizing and recording reform in mathematics: New questions, many answers." Mathematics Teacher, 87 (3), 190-193. Fey, J.T., Fitzgerald, W.M., Friel, S.N., Lappan, G.T., & Phillips. E.D. (1994~. Bits and Pieces, Part I. Connected Mathematics Project. (Limited circulation pilot edition.) East Lansing, MI. Fey, J.T. (1989~. "School algebra for the year 2000," in S. Wagner & C. Kiernan (Eds.), Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra (pp. 199-213~. Reston, VA: NCTM. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fey, J.T., & Good, R. (1985~. "Rethinking the sequence and priorities of high-school mathematics curricula." In C. Hirsch (Ed.), The Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum. 1985 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathemat- ics. Reston, VA: NCTM. Freudenthal. H. (1983~. Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel. Goldenberg, E.P. (1988~. "Mathematics, metaphors, and human factors: Mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representation of functions." Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7, 135-173. Grouws, D.A. (Ed.) (1992~. Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Reston, VA: NCTM. New York: Macmillan. Hawkins, B.D. (1993~. "Math: The great equalizer Equity 2000 and QUASAR, improving minority standing in gatekeeper courses." Black Issues in Higher Education, 10 (6), 38-41. Harel, G., & Confrey, J. (Eds.) (1994~. The Development of Multiplicative Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics. Albany: SUNY Press. Heid, M.K. (Ed.) (1995~. Algebra in a Technological World Addenda Series, Grades 9-12. Reston, VA: NCTM. Heid, M.K. (1988~. The Impact of Computing on School Algebra: Two Case Studies Using Graphical, Numerical, and Symbolic Tools. Proceedings of ICME-6, Theme Group 2, Working Group 2.3. Budapest, Hungary. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1991~. "Methodologies for studying learning to inform teaching," in E. Fennema, T.P. Carpenter, & S.J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating Research on Teaching and Learning Mathematics (pp. 153-176~. Albany: SUNY Press. Johnston, W.B., & Packers, A.E. (1987J. Work Force 2000: Work and Workers for the Twenty-First Century. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute. Kaput, J. (Ed.) (in preparation). Employing Children's Natural Powers to Build Algebraic Reasoning in the Context of Elementary Mathematics. Kaput, J. (forthcoming). Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kaput, J. (in press). "Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old roots," in A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical Thinking and Problem Solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kaput, J. (1987~. "Representation systems in mathematics," in C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 19-26~. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Karpinski, L.C. (1917~. "Algebraical development among the Egyptians and Babylonians." American Mathematical Monthly, 257-265. Katz, V. (1995~. "The development of algebra and algebra education," in C. LaCampagne, W. Blair, & J. Kaput (Eds.), The Algebra Initiative Colloquium (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Kieran, C. (1994~. "A functional approach to the introduction of algebra Some pros and cons," in J.P. da Porte & J.F. Matos (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1, 157-175. Lisbon, Portugal. Kieran, C. (1992~. "The learning and teaching of school algebra," in D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 390-419~. New York: Macmillan. Kieran, C. (1989~. "The early learning of algebra: A structural perspective," in S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra (pp. 33-56~. Reston, VA: NCTM. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kleiner, I. (1989~. "Evolution of the function concept: A brief survey." College Mathematics Journal, 20 (4), 282-300. Kline, M. (1972~. Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times. New York: Oxford University Press.
OCR for page 189
APPENDIX E 189 Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M.K. (1990~. "Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching." Review of Educational Research, 60 (1), 1-64. Leitzel, J.R.C. (Ed.) (1991~. A Callfor Change. Recommendations for the Mathematical Preparation of Teachers of Mathemat- ics. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. Leiva, M.A. (Ed.) (1991~. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics Addenda Series, Grades K-6. Reston, VA: NCTM. Michigan Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1990~. Algebra Activities, K-9. Lansing, MI: Author. Moses, B. (1993~. "Algebra, the new civil right." Paper presented at the SUMMAC II Conference. Cambridge, MA. National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983~. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1994~. "Board Approves Statement on Algebra." NCTM News Bulletin. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1992~. "Algebra for the Twenty-First Century." Proceedings of the August 1992 NCTM Conference. Groton, MA. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991~. Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1990~. E.L. Edwards, Jr. (Ed.), Algebra for Everyone. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989~. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1980~. An Agenda for Action: Recommendations for School Mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, VA: Author National Research Council (1990~. Steen, L.A. (Ed.), On the Shoulders of Giants: New Approaches to Numeracy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1989~. Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (1983~. Educating Americansfor the Twenty-First Century: A Plan of ActionforImproving Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education for All American Elementary and Secondary Students So That Their Achievement Is the Best in the World by 1995. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Nesher, P. (1986~. "Are mathematical understanding and algorithmic performance related?" For the Learning of Mathematics, 2-9. Pelavin, S., & Kane, M. (1988~. Minority Participation in Higher Education. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. Phillips, E. A., Gardella, T., Reely, C., & Steward, J. (1991~. Patterns and Functions Addenda Series, Grades 5-8. Reston, VA: NCTM. Rachlin, S. (1982~. "Processes used by college students in understanding basic algebra." Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education (SE 036 097~. Reese, C.M., Miller, K.E., Mazzeo, J., & Dossey, J.A. (1997~. NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Reys, R.E., & Nohda, N. (1994~. Computational Alternatives for the Twenty-First Century: Cross-Cultural Perspectives from Japan and the United States. Reston, VA: NCTM. Russell, S., et al. (1995~. Investigations of 3rd/4th Grade Interpreting Graph Units. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour Publications. Schifter, D. (Ed.) (in press). Voicing the New Pedagogy: Teacher Narratives and the Construction of Meaning for the Rhetoric of Mathematics Education Reform. New York: Teachers College Press. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985~. "Metacognitive and epistemological issues in mathematical understanding," in E.A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: Multiple Research Perspectives (pp. 361-379~. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1990~. SCANS Report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994~. "The gains and pitfalls of reflection: The case of algebra." Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191 -228. Sfard, A. (1991~. "On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin." Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1-36. Silver, E.A. (1994~. "Dilemmas of mathematics instructional reform in the middle grades: The case of algebra." QUASAR Occasional Paper. Steen, L.A. (1992~. "Does everybody need to study algebra?" Basic Education, 37 (4), 9-13. Swan, M. (1982~. "The teaching of functions and graphs," in G. van Barneveld & H. Krabbendam (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Functions (pp. 151-165~. Enschede, The Netherlands: National Institute for Curriculum Development. Thompson, P.W. (1995~. "Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structure." Educational Studies in Mathematics.
OCR for page 190
190 THE NATURE AND ROLE OF ALGEBRA IN THE K-14 CURRICULUM Thompson, P.W. (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. 181-234~. Albany: SUNY Press. Thorpe, J.A. (1989~. "Algebra: What should we teach and how should we teach it?," in S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra (pp. 11-24~. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tierney, C. & Monk, S. (in preparation). "Children's reasoning about change over time," in J. Kaput (Ed.), Employing Children's Natural Powers to Build Algebraic Reasoning in the Content of Elementary Mathematics. U.S. Department of Labor (1987~. Work Force 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. "Executive Summary." Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. University of Wisconsin-Madison & U.S. Department of Education (1993~. In T.A. Romberg, E. Fennema, & T.P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. University of Wisconsin-Madison & U.S. Department of Education (1991~. In E. Fennema, T.P. Carpenter, & S.J. Lamon, Integrating Research on Teaching and Learning Mathematics. Albany: SUNY Press. Usiskin, Z. (1988~. "Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables," in A.F. Coxford & A.P. Shulte (Eds.), Ideas of Algebra, K-12 (pp. 8-19~. Reston, VA: NCTM. van Reeuwijk, M. (in preparation). "Algebra and realistic mathematics," in J. Kaput (Ed.), Employing Children's Natural Powers to Build Algebraic Reasoning in the Content of Elementary Mathematics. Vergnaud, G. (1994~. "Multiplicative conceptual field: What and why?," in G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The Development of Multiplicative Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics. Albany: SUNY Press. Wagner, S., & Kieran, C. (Eds.) (1989~. Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra. Reston, VA: NCTM. Yerushalmy, M., & Schwartz, J.L. (1991~. "Seizing the opportunity to make algebra mathematically and pedagogically interesting," in E. Fennema, T.P. Carpenter, & S.J. Lamon (Eds.), Integrating Research on Teaching and Learning Mathematics (pp. 41-68~. Albany: SUNY Press. Zawojewski, J.S. (1991~. Dealing with Data and Change Addenda Series, Grades 5-8. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Representative terms from entire chapter: