STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF

CLOSURE IN ARITHMETIC: IMPLICATIONS FOR ALGEBRA

Abstract: Traditionally, many students have found the study of algebra difficult. This paper examines arithmetic
prerequisites for algebra study, particularly those associated with the concept of equals and the operational laws. A
sample of secondary students who were about to begin a u nit of algebra was tested for their ability to do the
prerequisite arithmetic. Analysis of their responses revealed that most of them were poorly equipped for algebra
study. In particular, students performed poorly on problems where the equals sign did not simply designate where
the answer is to be placed and where operations cannot be easily closed.
Algebra is an abstract system in which interactions reflect the structure of arithmetic (Cooper, Williams
& Baturo, 1999). Its processes are abstract schemas (Ohlsson, 1993) or structural conceptions (Sfard, 1991) of
the arithmetic operations, equals, and operational laws, combined with the algebraic notion of variable
(Cooper, Boulton_Lewis, Atweh, Willss & Mutch, 1997). Arithmetic does not operate at the same level of
abstraction as algebra for, although they both involve written symbols and an understanding of operations
(e.g., order of operations, inverse operations – Herscovics & Linchevski, 1994), arithmetic is limited to
numbers and numerical computations (Sfard & Linchevski, 1994). Arithmetic and algebra differ
fundamentally in that in arithmetic computational procedures are separated from the object obtained
(Linchevski & Herscovics, 1996). That is, students in arithmetic are not expected to conceive of groups of
numbers and symbols as objects, where as in algebra this is necessary.
A fundamental requirement of algebra is an understanding that the equal sign indicates equivalence and
that information can be processed in either direction (Kieran 1981; Linchevski, 1995). It has been noted
previously that many students’ understanding of equals is action indication (e.g., “makes or gives” – Stacey &
MacGregor, 1997, p. 113) or syntactic (showing the place where the answer should be written – Filloy &
Rojano, 1989). Misconceptions relating to the equal concept make it very difficult for students to transform
and solve equations (Kieran, 1992; Linchevski & Herscovics, 1996).
Understanding the arithmetic operational laws (commutative, associative and distributive) and
the order convention for the operations are also important in algebra (Bell, 1995; Boulton-Lewis et
al., 1998; Herscovics & Linchevski, 1994). For example, Kieran (1992) reported that some students
read algebraic expressions from left to right and ignored bracketing, a behaviour that indicates
inability to apply the order convention.
The difficulties students who study algebra face without adequate arithmetic prerequisite
knowledge can be easily seen in the following Year 9 task: “Solve for x: 2(x-1)+2 = - (4-3x)”.
Completing this algebra task requires understanding of the equal concept, order convention,
operational laws and directed numbers. In this study, Year 9 students who were about to begin a unit
on algebra were the subject of a probe into these prerequisites.
Method
Subjects: The subjects of the study were forty-one Year 9 and nine Year 10 students who
were about to begin a 35-hour unit on algebra. All these students had passed Year 8 prerequisite
subjects that incorporated the arithmetic operations included in this study. The Year 10 students had
previously completed the algebra unit in Year 9 but, since their marks were unsatisfactory, they were
repeating the unit. Observations of 20 lesson within 3 classes showed that the students were
generally cooperative and well behaved, although some students were reluctant to complete
homework tasks. The students were enrolled in a middle sized coeducational school located in a
middle class suburb in Queensland, Australia.
Instrument: The instrument in the study was a pencil-and-paper test of eight questions designed by the
authors to test students’ abilities to do some of the arithmetic necessary for beginning symbolic algebra study.
That is, the test items (see Table 1) were arithmetic tasks that reflected the prerequisites for the types
described above and consisted of items testing student understanding of the equal concept; order conventions
and operational laws and directed numbers. The students’ ability to work with directed number was assessed
with a simple algebra task that was also used to check understanding of variable as unknown (for a broader
study). The test was designed so that descriptive statistics and

198
qualitative analysis of its items would provide insight into the students’ understanding of the mathematics
topics. Students were encouraged to show the procedures they used in completing the tasks. However, it
should be noted that pencil and paper tests are limited in their ability to probe students’ thought.
Procedure : The test was administered at the beginning of the unit prior to the
commencement of algebra study and arithmetic revision. There was no time limit, students were
encouraged to show all working, calculator use was optional, no written or support material was
allowed and students worked individually.
Analysis: The test papers were collected and marked. Students who did not attempt to answer
a question were given no marks. Students’ responses for each of the items were analysed in terms of
correctness and, where common mistake patterns were observed, they were described and analysed
in terms of the probable thinking that underlaid the error. The overall results were then presented in
terms of the number of students who correctly answered each question.
Results
The correctness of students’ results are described and summarised in Table 1. The table
provides the item, the major concept it is meant to probe, and the number of students who answered
the item correctly.
Table 1.
Summary of the Results (n=50).
Item Concept Number
correct
1) If I add 56 to the right hand side, how do I keep the equation Equal concept 5
139 ´ 43 = 5977 equal?
2) Calculate: 6 + 4 ¸ 2 = Order conventions 15
3) Calculate: 7 ´ (2 + 1) = Order conventions 48
4) Calculate: 20 ¸ (5 –1) = Order conventions 42
5) Can you work out the answer to Operational laws 12
if you are not allowed to add (36+ 24) (Distributive law)
6) 36 + 24? Explain. 6 Operational laws 4
Could you work out the answer to the problem
5´(6+7) if you were not allowed to add 6 and 7? Explain. (Distributive law)
7) The triangle s and the square n represent unknown numbers. Operational laws 13
Can you calculate the answer to s + (n + 7) if you know s + n (Associative law)
= 11?
8) Solve for x: - 4x = 20. Directed number 3
(Variable as unknown)
The equal concept (Item 1): Only five of the 50 students could correctly suggest that 56 be
added to the left-hand side if it had been added to the right-hand side. Thirty-five students either did
not attempt to answer or reported, “I do not know what to do”. The remaining ten students suggested
various numerical procedures such as “divide 56 by 43 and add the result to 13”, two students
suggested “subtract 56 from the other side”. The responses support the conclusion that many of the
students had a action or syntactic (Filloy, & Rojano, 1989; Stacey, & MacGregor, 1997) rather than
a sense making approach to the equal concept.
Order conventions (Items 2 to 4): Only fifteen students correctly answered 8 for Item 2, “6 + 4 ¸ 2”.
Thirty-three reported that 5 was the answer; clearly these students had done the operations in order left to
right. Other incorrect responses included 20 and the decimal number 4.1. The student who answered 20 may
have added 6 to 4 then multiplied 10 by 2, indicating confusion with both order convention and division and
multiplication. The response of 4.1 is difficult to explain. Only two students did not succeed in Item 3, “7 ´ (2
+ 1) = ”. The answers of these two students were “9” and “12”. Most students (42 out of 50) correctly
computed the answer to Item 4, “20 ¸ (5 –1)”. One student responded with an incorrect answer of 4. This may
have indicated that this student had made a computational error. One student responded with 80 suggesting
that she multiplied instead of divided.

199
Other answers included 3½, which is difficult to fathom, and ¼ that may have indicated that the
student divided 5 by 20 and ignored the subtract one. Clearly the data supports the finding that
almost all the students appreciated that the brackets part of the order convention (in Queensland this
is based on the learning hinge or memory prompt BOMDAS - Brackets, Of, Multiplication,
Division, Addition, and Subtraction) must be done first.
Operational laws (Items 5-7): Only twelve students correctly answered Item 5, “Can you
work out the answer to (36 + 24) / 6 if you are not allowed to add 36 and 24? Explain”. Most of the
students who gained no marks simply responded with, “no” or “can’t be done,” but ten students
made comments similar to, “no because you have to do the brackets first”. Similarly most of the
students who gave reasons for not being able to complete Item 6, “5 ´ (6 + 7)” reported that the
brackets needed to be done first. One has to wonder if the use of the order convention as a learning
hinge or memory prompt has not clouded students’ memory of the distributive law. One conclusion
from these observations is that order convention needs to be taught along side the distributive law.
The second law checked was the associative law, and it yielded similar results. Only thirteen of the students
correctly answered Item 7, “The triangle s and the square n represent unknown numbers. Can you calculate
the answer to s + (n + 7) if you know s + n = 11?”. As in previous responses, many students did not
elaborate on why the problem could not be solved. However, six students responded with numbers which
added up to 11 such as “1 + (3 + 7) = 11”. Several others said no “because s + n could be any number” and
went on to suggest “6 + 5 or 8 + 3 or 10 + 1”. Clearly, many students did not appreciate that the brackets did
not have meaning in the case where all the operations were addition. It is possible that the use of brackets and
symbols confused students, however the use of such symbols is common in the primary curricula in
Queensland. These results provide further evidence that using BOMDAS without understanding has hindered
the student performance on these tasks.
Directed numbers (Item 8): Directed numbers were not directly included in the test;
however, in Item 8, the students were asked to solve for x in the following equation
- 4x = 20. This type of problem has been termed operational algebra in that it can be solved through
arithmetic operations. Twenty-one students reported that they could not do the problem, eight responded with
numbers like 16, 24 or 6. These responses indicated that arithmetic as well as the directed number and equal
concepts was problematic for them. Eighteen reported 5 indicating that they were able to solve the problem
except for the directed number component part of the operation. Only three students of the 50 had the correct
answer of –5. The observation that eighteen reported 5 and eight others had other positive numbers is clear
evidence that many of the students could not work with directed numbers.
Discussion
In summary, students showed poor understanding of the concept of equal, order conventions where
brackets are not central, operation laws and directed numbers operations. In contrast, students showed good
understandings of the order convention where brackets were present. Interestingly, many of the deficiencies
are such that they would cause difficulties in arithmetic as well as algebra. However, others (concept of
equals, application of distributive and associative laws and directed number concept) are such that many
arithmetic procedures may not be affected; but, as argued by Kieran (1992), they may cause difficulties in the
transition to algebra. However, it should be noted that weaknesses such as those with respect to the concept of
equals would only affect algebraic manipulations of equations. It is possible for students with poor
understanding of equals to solve algebraic equations by backtracking (working backwards) or trial and error
(Boulton-Lewis et al., 1997).
The findings with respect to student performance are generally similar to the findings of
previous studies such as Booth (1988), Cooper, et. al (1997), Herscovics and Linchevski (1994), and
Kieran (1992). However, some results are different to some previous studies, for example, Boulton-
Lewis, Cooper, Atweh, Pillay & Willss, (1998) found that most students in Year 9 had a sufficient
understanding of the commutative law, order of operations and understandings of arithmetic
processes to apply them to algebra.
Separating procedures from objects and the importance of closure : Linchevski and
Herscovics (1996) argued that arithmetic was unique in separating procedures from objects obtained
from those procedures, a situation, which was not possible in algebra. This study indicates students’

200
failure in the arithmetic tasks was similarly a result of being unable to separate the two. Further, their failures
appeared to be a consequence of closure (Biggs, & Collis, 1982). In their responses to the test
items, the students had great difficulty with the problems in which closure was not possible or not easily
obtained, and where operations and operational laws had to be considered generally (and, in some cases, as
objects). This appears to reinforce the argument that students who have little experience of arithmetic
situations where closure is limited, or the pathway to it is obscure, had little knowledge of how to handle
expressions and equations as generalities. Such abilities are necessary for success in algebra study.
In terms of closure, Item 1 would have been a very difficult example for students. The operation 139 ´
43 is too difficult to mentally close, further, it had already been closed, to 5977. The place where answers are
normally written, just after the equals sign, was occupied. This would have been very confusing to students
with an action or syntactic understanding of equals. This is possibly the reason why thirty-five of the 50
students who did not attempt Item 1 reported, “I don’t know what to do”.
Similarly, Items 5 and 6 would also have been difficult. These items were presented without an equals
sign – (to students with a limited understanding) a necessary signal to begin solving the items. This may have
been why some students responded with, “can’t be done”. Where students did try to solve the items, they were
guided by BOMDAS, reporting that the brackets must be done first. However, in Items 5 and 6, directions
prevented the brackets from being closed, which led most students not to be able to solve the items. In Item 7
(associative law), the brackets contained an unknown n. There was an equals sign in the second equation (s +
n = 11) but, on its own, this equation did not contain sufficient information for the students unless they made
the link with the first equation (s + (n + 7). This interpretation of student thinking is supported by the some
students’ comments of, “no because s + n could be any number”. In summary it appears that the students
were looking for closure but the three items required the expressions to be manipulated before such closure
was possible.
In contrast, Items 3 and 4 were done much better. Here, the equals sign appeared to act both as
an indicator to do something and an indicator of where the answer should be placed, and the
numbers were small. The students were familiar with the role of brackets in guiding what operations
should be closed first. Item 2 was a mixture of the difficulties with Items 1, 5, 6 and 7 and the ease of
Items 3 and 4. The equals sign was in its normal place and the numbers were small, but the
expression had to be considered generally to determine the order of closure. However, most students
simply worked left to right, closing as they read the numbers and operations.
Order convention, negative sign as an operation, and closure : The students’ responses
with respect to Items 1 to 7 illuminates the work of Boulton-Lewis et al., (1998) and Herscovics and
Linchevski, (1994) who recognised that understanding of order of operations was necessary for algebra study.
When there is a variable, the arithmetic style of closure is not possible. The expressions and equations have to
be considered as they are and manipulated in terms of general laws. Brackets draw students’ attention to what
should be operated on (or closed) first but without generalised understanding of the remainder of the
BOMDAS convention and the operational laws, a solution is not readily obtained.
Two factors appeared to limit closure in Item 8 “(- 4x = 20)” which was also poorly done.
Eighteen students made the error (reported previously) of detaching the number from the sign
(Herscovics & Linchevski, 1994). As well, twenty-one students reported that they could not do the
problem or that the problem could not be done. For these students, the number after the equals sign
may have given the appearance that closure had already been accomplished (and the presence of the
variable x may have confused the students and hampered closure).
Conclusion
The ability to handle a sequence of operations without closure and to study an operation as an
object, the same as the result of the computation, are essential for algebra in Year 9. The students in
this study were nowhere ready for this. In particular, the learnt response of students to close on
operations means that the presence of variables and the layout of many algebra exercises will cause
great difficulties. To become ready for algebra, this study suggests that students will have to:
· come to terms with the placement of an equals sign not designating where an answer has to
be placed,
· come to terms with the absence of an equals sign not meaning nothing needs to be done, and

201
 · come to understand that an expression involving sequence of operations can be
manipulated without closure.
Further the tendency of the students to rush to close terms within brackets even when this was
meaningless indicates that the application of BOMDAS without understanding poses problems for
algebra study. Finally, it is apparent that many of these students ignored the significance of the
negative sign as an operational instruction in the case of the directed number item. That is, they
ignored its significance because they were unable to use it as an operational sign in this instance.
Clearly, with the misconceptions that many of these students have, it is likely that some of them will
struggle when the additional cognitive load of algebraic symbolism is placed upon them.
References
Bell, A. (1995). Purpose in school algebra. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(1), 41-73.
Biggs, J. & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning; The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of
the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic Press.
Booth, L. R. (1988). Children’s difficulties in beginning algebra. In A. F. Coxford & A.P. Shulte
(Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K-12. (1988 Yearbook: pp. 8-19). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Boulton-Lewis, G., Cooper, T. J., Atewh, W., Pillay, H.’ Willss, L. (1998). Pre-algebra: A cognitive
perspective. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 22(2), 144-155.
Boulton-Lewis, G., Cooper, T. J., Atweh, B., Pillay, H., Wilss, L., & Mutch, S. (1997). Processing
load and the use of concrete representations and strategies for solving linear equations. The
Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 16(4), 379-398.
Cooper, T. J., Boulton-Lewis, G., Atweh, B., Willss, L., & Mutch, S. (1997). The transition from
arithmetic to algebra: Initial understandings of equals, operations and variable. International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 21(2), 89-96.

Cooper, T. J., Williams, A. M., & Baturo, A. R. (1999). Equals, expressions, equations, and the
meaning of variable: A teaching experiment. In J.M. Truran & K.M. Truran (Eds.), Proceedings
of the twenty-second conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia
(MERGA), Making the Difference (pp. 177-184). Adelaide, Qld: MERGA.
Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. For
the Learning of mathematics, 9(2), 19-25.
Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59-78.
Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equal symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12,
317-326.
Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 390-419). New York: McMillan &
National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Linchevski, L. (1995). Algebra with numbers and arithmetic with letters: A definition of pre-algebra.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 113-120.
Linchevski, L & Herscovics, N. (1996). Crossing the cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra:
Operating on the unknown in the context of equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(1),
39-65.
Ohlsson, S. (1993). Abstract schemas. Educational Psychologist, 28 (1), 51-66.
Sfard, A. (1995). The development of algebra: Confronting historical and psychological perspectives.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 15-39.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematics conceptions: Reflections on processes and
objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1-36.
Sfard, A. & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and the pitfalls of reification – the case of algebra.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191-228.
Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1997). Ideas about symbolism that students bring to algebra. The
Mathematics Teacher, 90(2), 110-113.

202