See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227006808

Algebra in Elementary School: Developing Relational Thinking

Article  in  ZDM: the international journal on mathematics education · February 2005

DOI: 10.1007/BF02655897

CITATIONS READS

113 2,553

4 authors, including:

Linda Levi
CGI Math Teacher Learning Center
14 PUBLICATIONS   2,700 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Linda Levi on 21 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ZDM 2005 Vol. 37 (1) Analyses

Algebra in Elementary School: push the traditional high school mathematics curriculum
down into the elementary grades. We would accomplish
Developing Relational Thinking1 little if we simply added more topics to the elementary
mathematics curriculum without fundamentally
reforming how we teach arithmetic. In the current
Thomas P. Carpenter, Madison, WI (USA) American curriculum, there is a serious discontinuity
Linda Levi, Madison, WI (USA) between the arithmetic that students learn in elementary
Megan Loef Franke, Los Angeles, CA (USA) school and the algebra that they are expected to learn in
Julie Koehler Zeringue, Newton, MA (USA) the upper grades.
In this article we consider how arithmetic concepts and
skills that students learn in elementary school can be
Abstract: We have characterized what we call relational better aligned with the concepts and skills that they need
thinking to include looking at expressions and equations in their to learn algebra. By attending to relations and
entirety rather than as procedures to be carried out step by step. fundamental properties of arithmetic operations (what we
For the last 8 years, we have been studying how to provide
call relational thinking) rather than focusing exclusively
opportunities for students to engage in relational thinking in
elementary classrooms and how to use relational thinking to
on procedures for calculating answers, learning and
learn arithmetic. In this article, we present interviews with two instruction can be made more consistent with the kinds of
third-grade students from classrooms that foster the use of knowledge that support the learning of algebra, while at
relational thinking. In both cases, we focus on the distributive the same time supporting and enhancing the learning of
property. The first example illustrates how a teacher scaffolds a arithmetic.
sequence of number sentences to help a student begin to relate For the last 8 years, we have been studying how to
multiplication number facts using the distributive property. The provide opportunities for students to engage in relational
second example shows another student who is already using the thinking in elementary classrooms and how to use
distributive property and the extent of his knowledge. relational thinking to learn arithmetic. Drawing on the
Kurzreferat: Wir gehen in dem Beitrag von einer
work of Robert Davis (1964), we have used true/false and
Charakterisierung von relationalen Denken aus und open number sentences to engage students in relational
beschreiben, was es bedeutet, die Analyse von Termen und thinking by focusing on specific properties and ways of
Gleichungen mehr ganzheitlich zu betrachten als als thinking about number operations. For example, a
schrittweise auszuführende Prozeduren. Während der letzten 8 number sentence like 38 + 47 = 47 + 38 explicitly focuses
Jahre haben wir untersucht, wie Lernenden in on the commutative property of addition. Students might
Grundschulklassen Möglichkeiten zum Betreiben und figure out that the sentence is true by carrying out the
Anwenden von relationalen Denken beim Lernen von addition on each side of the equal sign, but more
Arithmetik angeboten werden können. In diesem Beitrag stellen commonly they immediately conclude that the sentence is
wir Interviews mit zwei Schülern aus dritten Jahrgangsklassen
vor, in denen die Anwendung von relationalen Denken gezielt
true because only the order of the numbers has been
gefördert wird. In beiden Fällen kommt es uns besonders auf die changed. This can lead to a discussion of whether this
distributive Eigenschaft der Multiplikation an. Das erste relation generalizes to all numbers and whether it is true
Beispiel zeigt deutlich, wie eine Lehrperson eine Folge von for other operations.
Zahlensätzen aufbaut, um einem Schüler dabei zu helfen, zu Our research has focused on understanding children’s
beginnen, multiplikative Zahleneigenschaften in Beziehung zu conceptions and misconceptions related to relational
setzen unter Verwendung der Distributionseigenschaft. Das thinking, how conceptions develop, how teachers might
zweite Beispiel zeigt einen weiteren Schüler, der bereits die foster the development of relational thinking and the use
Distributionseigenschaften anwendet sowie seinen
of relational thinking to learn arithmetic, and how
Wissensstand.
professional development can support the teaching of
ZDM-Classification: D40, H20 relational thinking. The studies have included design
experiments with classes and small groups of children
(e.g. Carpenter & Levi 1999, Koehler 2004, Valentine &
Carpenter 2004) and large-scale studies (Carpenter, et al.
1. Introduction 2003, Jacobs, Franke, Carpenter, & Levi 2005).
Current reform recommendations propose that algebra In this paper, we illustrate elementary school children’s
should be taught throughout the grades beginning early in use of relations and properties of operations as a basis for
elementary school (National Council of Teachers of learning arithmetic. We begin with a general discussion
Mathematics 1998, 2000). The goal is not, however, to of relational thinking, and then illustrate children’s use of
relational thinking with interviews with two third-grade
1
The research reported in this article was supported in part by
students that show: (a) how children can use the
a grant from the National Science Foundation (ESI9911679) distributive property to learn multiplication number facts
and a grant from the Department of Education Office of and (b) the kinds of scaffolding and sequencing of
Educational Research and Improvement to the National problems that support this kind of learning.
Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in
Mathematics and Science (R305A60007-98). The opinions
expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the position,
policy, or endorsement of the National Science Foundation,
the Department of Education, OERI, or the National Center.

53
Analyses ZDM 2005 Vol. 37 (1)

2. Focusing on relations rather than express a relation affords can provide students a notation
calculating answers for representing important ideas in learning arithmetic
Traditional arithmetic has been almost exclusively (Carpenter et al. 2003). Thus, understanding that the
concerned with calculating answers. Addition, equal sign represents a relation is a critical benchmark in
subtraction, multiplication, and division have generally learning to think about mathematical relations, but there
been portrayed as processes that involve doing is more to thinking about relations than using the equal
something. In arithmetic, calculations result in closure; a sign appropriately.
collection of numbers is operated on in a progression of
steps to generate a single number, which is the answer to 2.2 Thinking relationally
the calculation. We have characterized what we call relational thinking to
In algebra, on the other hand, the focus is on relations. include looking at expressions and equations in their
Certainly the solution of equations has been a entirety rather than as a process to be carried out step by
fundamental part of high school algebra, but even solving step. Relational thinking involves using fundamental
equations has a different character than applying an properties of number and operations to transform
algorithm to a collection of numbers. An algebraic mathematical expressions rather than simply calculating
equation is solved by successive transformations of the an answer following a prescribed sequence of procedures.
equation, and the final transformation results in an This implies some level of awareness of the properties,
equation expressing a relation (x = some number or but not necessarily a complete understanding of them or
numbers), rather than a single, isolated number. knowledge of formal definitions. As we will illustrate
Our point is not that arithmetic entails a mindless later in this paper, students may have a good operational
sequence of procedures whereas algebra is necessarily sense of when and how it is appropriate to use the
learned with meaning. Both arithmetic algorithms and distributive property, but not be able to express the
procedures for solving algebraic equations can be taught property in words or symbols.
as rote procedures or with meaning. In fact, we propose To illustrate this notion of relational thinking, consider
that the more that meaning comes into play, the closer the the open number discussed above: 8 + 4 = _ + 5.
connection between arithmetic and algebra. For example, Students can find the correct number to put in the box by
consider the addition problem 40 + 50. If students think adding 8 and 4 and then figuring out what to add to 5 to
of the problem as adding 4 tens and 5 tens, the calculation get 12. This is a perfectly valid solution to the problem
is based on the same principles as adding 4y + 5y. In both that deals appropriately with the equal sign as expressing
cases, the distributive property is the basis for adding 4 a relation. Although the solution is correct, it still relies
and 5. The operations involved in these calculations can on computations specified in the problem to calculate the
be represented as: answer. A student who considered the equation as a
40 + 50 = 4 ¥ 10 + 5 ¥ 10 = (4 + 5) ¥ 10 = 9 ¥ 10 and whole might have recognized that 5 is one more than 4 so
4y + 5y = (4 + 5)y = 9y the number in the box needs to be one less than 8. This
student used these relationships to solve this problem:
8 + 4 = (7 + 1) + 4 = 7 + (1 + 4)
2.1 Equality as a relation
In other words the student at least implicitly used the
The way that the equal sign is used in these examples
associative property of addition to transform the equation.
illustrates a fundamental distinction between a
These sorts of transformations can frequently make
computational perspective of arithmetic and a perspective
computation easier. For example, the number sentence
of arithmetic and algebra in which relations are
87 + 56 – 56 = _ is a great deal easier to solve if one
prominent. The way that the equal sign is thought of by
recognizes that it is possible to first subtract 56 from 56
most children throughout the elementary grades is to
rather than carrying out the calculation from left to right.
signify that the answer comes next.
Unfortunately many children do not recognize that even a
A more appropriate conception of the equal sign and
simple reordering of procedures such as this can often be
one that is critical for learning algebra is that the equal
used to simplify computation (Jacobs et al. 2005).
sign expresses a relation. This distinction is clearly
Various mathematics curricula have included
illustrated by children’s responses to the open number
instruction in procedures to help students perform certain
sentence 8 + 4 = _ + 5. Most children throughout
calculations in their heads. These mental math activities
elementary school treat the equal sign in this number
often included a number of tricks for transforming
sentence as an indication to carry out the preceding
problems to simplify the calculation. Although these
calculation (Behr, Erlwanger, & Nichols 1980, Carpenter,
“tricks” were based on fundamental properties of
Franke, & Levi 2003, Falkner, Levi, & Carpenter 1999,
arithmetic, they were not always learned that way. We
Saenz-Ludlow & Walgamuth 1998). They respond that
want to be very clear that focusing on relational thinking
12 should go in the box. Other children add all the
is very different from learning a collection of
numbers and put 17 in the box. Only a few children in
computational tricks. Although knowing that one can
traditional elementary school classes recognize that the
subtract 56 from 56 in the problem 87 + 56 – 56 = _ can
equal sign represents a relation so that the expressions on
simplify the calculation, this specific knowledge is not
each side of the equal sign should represent the same
our major goal. Calculations of this form do not come up
number. Recognizing that the equal sign expresses a
very often. Understanding why this is possible, however,
relation is critical for learning algebra (Kieran 1992, Matz
entails understanding important ideas about the relation
1982), and the flexibility that using the equal sign to

54
ZDM 2005 Vol. 37 (1) Analyses

between addition and subtraction and applying some more than most of the students, but she was learning with
fundamental properties of addition and subtraction. understanding.
In point of fact, all computational algorithms are based In the following exchange, Ms L posed problems to
on a small collection of fundamental properties of Kelly designed to engage her in relating multiplication
arithmetic. Essentially what algorithms do is to use basic and addition. The first example simply represented
properties of number operations to reduce complex multiplication as repeated addition. Subsequent problems
calculations to simpler calculations that can be carried out explored different ways of breaking multiplication down,
using well-known procedures or knowledge of number implicitly drawing on the distributive property. The
facts (Carpenter et al. 2003). Traditional computational interview shows a gradual progression of problems that
algorithms, however, are designed for efficiency, and the allowed Kelly to build on previous problems to figure out
transformations involved in the calculations are generally a multiplication fact that she did not know (4 ¥ 7) by
hidden in the notational elegance of the algorithms. As a relating it to a fact she did know (2 ¥ 7). The first few
consequence, many students complete elementary and problems called attention to specific relations. In the final
middle school having had very little opportunity to do problem, Kelly used what she had learned from the
anything but follow routine, well-specified sequences of earlier problems to generate a number fact that she did
procedures. They do not understand how basic properties not know by recall. Kelly actually noticed relations at
of number operations are applied in their computations, several levels. She attended to the relations between
and, as a consequence, they do not recognize that multiplication and addition within each problem, and she
arithmetic and algebra are based on the same fundamental built on the relation between the problem she was solving
ideas. Furthermore, by failing to take advantage of the and previous problems. The goal of the careful
structure of the number system, the learning of arithmetic sequencing of problems illustrated in this interview was
has been made much harder (See Kilpatrick, Swafford, & to draw out Kelly’s implicit knowledge of the relation
Findell 2001). between multiplication and addition with problems that
specifically called her attention to those relations so that
subsequently she could use relational thinking to generate
3. Developing relational thinking a number fact that she did not know. The first problem
In the next two sections of this paper, we present Ms L posed was the true number sentence, 3 ¥ 7 = 7 + 7
interviews with two third-grade students from classrooms
+ 7.
in which students were encouraged to engage in relational
thinking. The interviews were conducted by one of the Ms L: “Could you read that number sentence for me and tell me
researchers to illustrate the kind of thinking that children if it is true or false”?
in these classes were engaged in and the kinds of
questioning, scaffolding, and sequencing of problems that Kelly: “Three times 7 is the same as 7 plus 7 plus 7. That’s true,
support the development of relational thinking. The because times means groups of and there are 3 groups of 7, 3
times 7 just says it in a shorter way”.
classes from which these two students were drawn were
taught by classroom teachers who had participated in
Ms L: “OK, nice explanation”.
sustained professional development on teaching for
relational thinking. Additional examples of the types Kelly’s explanation for why this number sentence was
interactions that occurred in these classes can be found in true indicated that she understood the relationship
Carpenter et al. (2003) and Koehler (2004). between addition and multiplication. At this point, it was
In both of the cases reported below, we focus on the not clear whether she had an understanding of
distributive property. The distributive property is often multiplication that extended beyond combining
considered one of the more difficult properties for individual groups (repeated addition).
students to learn, even at the high school level, but it is
Ms L: “How about this, 3¥7 = 14 + 7, is that true or false”?
fundamental in understanding multiplication.
Furthermore, an implicit understanding of the distributive
Kelly: “It’s true”.
property can provide students a framework for learning
multiplication number facts by relating unknown facts to Ms L: “Wow, that was quick, how do you know that is true”?
known facts. The first example illustrates how a teacher
could scaffold a sequence of number sentences to help a Kelly: “Can we go back up here [pointing to 3¥7 = 7 + 7 + 7]”?
student begin to relate multiplication number facts using
the distributive property. The second example shows Ms L: “Sure”.
another student who is already using the distributive
property and the extent of his knowledge. Kelly: “Seven and 7 is 14, that is right here [drawing a line
connecting two 7s in the first number sentence and writing 14
3.1 Learning to use the distributive property under them]. Fourteen went right into here [pointing to the 14 in
In the first interview, Ms L worked with Kelly, a third the second number sentence]. Then there is one 7 left pointing
grader in the middle of the school year. Ever since the to the third 7 in the first number sentence], and that went right
here [pointing to the last 7 in the second number sentence]”.
first grade, Kelly’s teachers had provided her with
opportunities to engage in relational thinking and had Again, Kelly used relational thinking to reason about
expected her to explain her thinking. Kelly was a fairly this problem. She did not simply do the calculation on
typical student in the class and was actually struggling each side of the equal sign and compare the sums. She

55
Analyses ZDM 2005 Vol. 37 (1)

knew that since 14 was the same as two 7s, 14 plus 7 distributive property [4¥6 = (2¥6) + (2¥6)]. Although
would be the same as three 7s. This type of reasoning Kelly knew this number sentence was true, it was not
suggests that Kelly might have been beginning to clear if she would use the distributive property to solve
understand multiplication as something beyond repeated problems such as this. Therefore, Ms L asked Kelly to
addition. She might have been beginning to see that when solve a purely computational problem (4¥7 = _) to see if
she multiplied n ¥ m, she could think of chunks of m’s she would use the distributive property. Ms L purposely
until she ended up with n m ’s altogether. Kelly also stuck with 4 groups to see if Kelly would use a strategy
clearly saw the relationship between these two problems. similar to that of the previous number sentence.
In an attempt to see if Kelly could further build on these
Ms L: “OK, here is another one. Four times 7 equals box. I want
relationships, Ms L posed the following problem: 4 ¥ 6 = you tell me what you would put in the box to make this a true
12 + 12. number sentence”.
Ms L: “OK, I have another one for you 4¥6 = 12 + 12, true or
false”? Kelly: “That would be [short pause] 28”.

Kelly: “That is true”. Ms L: “OK, how did you get 28”?

Ms L: “OK, how did you get that one so quickly”? Kelly: “Well, I kinda had other problems… that went into this
problem. If you go up here [pointing to 3¥7 = 7 + 7 + 7] 3 times
Kelly: “Six plus 6 is 12, in this case, there are 4 groups of 6, so 7 is the same as 7 plus 7 plus 7. That problem helped me and I
it is like this [writing 6 + 6 + 6 + 6]. Six and 6 is 12, that leaves used it with this problem, [pointing to 3¥7 = 14 + 7] 3 sevens is
another 6 and 6, and that equals 12. So one 12 is here and one the same as 14 and 7… You add one more seven and that goes
12 went here [indicating the two 12s in the problem]. What I’m right to here. [Then she points to 4¥6 = 12 + 12.] This problem
trying to say is there are four 6s and you broke them in half and also helped me because 4¥7 is like… My mind went back up to
made them into two 12s”. here [pointing to 3¥7 = 14 + 7], and I said, there is another 7 so
I could put those two 7s together, that’s 14, and there are two
Ms L: “Nice! Kelly, do you know right away what 4 times 6 14s, 10 and 10 is 20, 4 and 4 is 8, 28”.
is”?
When Kelly was asked to make 4 ¥ 7 = _ true, she used
the distributive property. She knew that two 7s was 14
Kelly: “Yes”.
and she could add 14 and 14 to get four 7s. She got the
Ms L: “What is it?”
answer 28, very quickly. It took her less time than it did
for her to remember (incorrectly) that 4 ¥ 6 was 32.
Kelly: “It’s [pause] thirty- [long pause] two.” It is not clear how Kelly would have found 4 ¥ 7 if she
had not worked through the first three number sentences.
Ms L: “OK, do you know what 12 plus 12 is”? The goal of the sequence of problems was to get Kelly to
reflect specifically on the distributive property in contexts
Kelly: “Yeah. That is the same thing, 32”. that would support the generation of number facts by
breaking down the multiplication into products that she
Ms L:” Do you have a way of doing 12 plus 12, to check it”? knew. Kelly did a good job of explaining how these
problems were related and how she used the problems she
Kelly: “Well, there are two 10s, 20- oh wait, I was thinking of a had already solved to solve 4 ¥ 7. The goal for
different one”! subsequent lessons was to get Kelly to use the
distributive property on her own to support her learning
Ms L: “You were thinking of a different multiplication of number facts and multi-digit multiplication.
problem”?

Kelly: “Yes. 4 times 6 is 24, because 10 and 10 is 20, and 2 and

3.2 Probing a student’s understanding of the
2 is 4, put those together and its 24”. distributive property
Alex, the student in the next interview, already used the
It is interesting to see what happened when Ms L asks
distributive property to generate multiplication number
Kelly if she knew “right away” what 4 times 6 was.
facts that he did not know. In this interview, Ms L
Although Kelly knew that Ms L valued solving problems
explored Alex’s understanding of the distributive
with understanding, Kelly either thought or wanted to
property with larger numbers and in different contexts.
think that she knew this product right away. It is
The interview occurred near the end of third grade. Alex
interesting to see that Kelly quickly abandoned her
had spent first- through third-grades in classes that
answer of 32 when she added 12 and 12. This suggests
provided him opportunity to use relational thinking. In
that she really did believe that 12 and 12 is the same as
these classes he was expected to solve problems using his
4¥6. Thinking back on how Kelly reasoned about the
own strategies and to share his thinking with his teacher
initial number sentence, we see that Kelly did not and fellow students. This year Alex had some opportunity
compute both expressions to reason about this equation. to use the distributive property, but several of the
She quickly saw that 12 was two 6s, and therefore knew problems in the following interview were new to him.
that she was comparing four 6s to four 6s, which of Although Alex used more complex relational thinking
course are equal. This is a very basic example of the than many of his classmates, five or six other students in

56
ZDM 2005 Vol. 37 (1) Analyses

the class demonstrated a similar level of understanding of each group was the same. It seems that Alex had a
fundamental properties. general understanding of the distributive property for
The exchange started with Ms L asking Alex to number sentences such as this where the amount in each
compute 8 ¥ 4 and 8 ¥ 6, two very traditional arithmetic group stays constant. Next Ms L wanted to see if Alex’s
problems. Ms L noticed that Alex solved these problems understanding of the distributive property could extend to
using the distributive property, and decided to pose some situations where the number of groups is the same but the
true, false and open number sentences to draw out Alex’s amount in each group differs. These are quite different
understanding of the distributive property. problems, and the fact that a student applies the
distributive property correctly in one situation does not
Ms L: “Alex, here is a multiplication problem for you, 8¥4”.
mean that the student understands how the property
applies in the other.
Alex: “8¥4, well, that is just like 4¥4 twice, so 4¥4 plus 4¥4, so
16 plus 16, 32”. Ms L: “OK, here is another one. [Writes 52¥11 = (52¥10) +
m]. What would m have to equal to make that a true number
Ms L: “OK, here is another one, 8¥6”. sentence”?

Alex: “I know 6¥6 would equal 36, then I could do 36 plus 12, Alex: “The amount of groups are the same. But there is a
cause that would be having two more sixes, I get 48”. different amount in each group. So what I am thinking is I
change this m to a 1 and have a 1 go in each group. Like if these
were candies and I add one more to each group of candies I
Ms L: “OK, good. Now I have a question for you. I asked you
would have 11 candies in each group”.
to find 8¥6. What you did is figure 6¥6 and 2¥6. I am going to
write this for you here [writes 8¥6 = (6¥6) + (2¥6)]”.
Ms L: “So what would m have to equal”?
Ms L: “Is that what you did”?
Alex: “One”.
Alex: “Yeah”.
Ms L: “OK, so let’s see, are you adding one to each ten”?
Ms L: “Is that a true number sentence”?
Alex: “Yes, one to each group”.
Alex: “Yep”.
Ms L: “Alex let me show you how we would write what you
are doing [writes 52¥11 = 52 ¥ (10 + 1)]”.
Ms L: “Why does that work”?
Alex: “Yes, I add the 1 to the 10 first and then multiply by 52”.
Alex: “Here there are 8 groups with 6 in each. Here is 6 groups
and each has 6. There is always going to be the same amount in
each group. I know that 8 is 2 more than 6, so I did 2¥6 and Ms L: “Excellent, I see just what you are saying. But, when I
write it this way [Writes (52¥11) = (52¥10) + m], it means I
added it on to the 6¥6 gives me 8¥6”.
want to have 52 groups of 10 and then add something to it”.
When Ms L presented a number sentence to represent
Up to this point Alex had interpreted the number
Alex’s use of relational thinking, Alex agreed that the
sentence in a non-standard way. His solution made sense
number sentence represented his thinking and that the
and appropriately used the distributive property.
number sentence was true. Alex’s justification for the
However, his interpretation of the number sentence made
truth of 8 ¥ 6 = (6 ¥ 6) + (2 ¥ 6) was closely tied to the
the problem simpler than the one Ms L had posed. Ms L
specific numbers used. At this point it was not clear if his
returned to the original problem with parentheses to
understanding of the distributive property was tied to
indicate that 52 was multiplied by 10 before m was
small numbers that he could compute with or would
added:
generalize to different situations with larger numbers. Ms
L decided to pose a problem with larger numbers to see if (52¥11) = (52¥10) + m.
Alex’s understanding would generalize.
Ms L: “Can you figure out what m would have to be to make
Ms L: “I am going to ask you an open number sentence now this true”?
[Writes (7¥156) + (9¥156) = (j¥156)]. My question for you is
what would j have to equal for that to be a true number
Alex: “So there are 52 tens and 52 elevens. I have to add
sentence”?
something to the 52 tens to make it equal. Well, I am not so sure
[pause]. I am about to think that I should add 52 ones”.
Alex: “The amount in each group stays the same, so I don’t
have to worry about that. All I have to think about is the number
Ms L: “So what could m equal to make that true”?
of groups. Seven and 9, I add those together so there will be 16
groups of 156, j is 16”.
Alex: “I could add 52 and then take 1 off 52 and put it in each
Alex was able to use the distributive property to reason group”.
about this number sentence. With these larger numbers
Alex’s reasoning for what would make the number Ms L: “So what would m be”?
sentence true was more general. He did not mention the
156 until the very end, but rather noted that the amount in Alex: “Fifty-two”.

57
Analyses ZDM 2005 Vol. 37 (1)

Ms L: “Alex, excellent work”. developing understanding (Kilpatrick et al. 2001). One of

Alex clearly was able to use relational thinking based the defining characteristics of learning with
on the distributive property to reason about these number understanding is that knowledge is connected (Bransford,
sentence. In our experiences teaching high school, we ran Brown, & Cocking 1999, Carpenter & Lehrer 1999,
across many students who did not hold such an Greeno, Collins, & Resnick 1996, Hiebert & Carpenter
understanding. Understanding the distributive property 1992, Kilpatrick et al. 2001). Not all connections,
helps this 9-year-old in many ways. First let’s consider however, are of equal value. Students who engage in
his learning of arithmetic. Within the next year after this relational thinking are using a relatively small set of
interview, he would be expected to become efficient with fundamental principles of mathematics to establish
relations. Thus, relational thinking as we have described
his multiplication facts. In this interview, we already see
it can be considered to be one way of specifying the kinds
evidence that he was learning his facts in relationship to
of connections that are productive in learning with
other facts [e.g. 8 ¥ 4 is 4 ¥ 4 twice, 8 ¥ 6 = (6 ¥ 6) + (2 ¥
understanding.
6)] Relational thinking appeared to be helping him to
learn his number facts at the same time that learning his
number facts was increasing his use of relational 5. References
thinking. Furthermore, this knowledge might also be Behr, M., Erlwanger, S., & Nichols, E. (1980): How children
expected to support his learning of strategies to multiply view the equal sign. – In: Mathematics Teaching Vol. 92,
large numbers, as almost all efficient multi-digit p.13–15
multiplication procedures are based on the distributive Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.)
property. (1999): How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and
Now consider how what Alex knew could support his school. - Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Carpenter, T.P., Franke, M.L., & Levi, L. (2003): Thinking
learning of algebra. Alex showed evidence of already
mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in the
beginning to think about the distributive property in elementary school. – Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
general terms. His success in reasoning about the Carpenter, T. P., & Lehrer, R. (1999): Teaching and learning
problems (7 ¥ 156) + (9 ¥ 156) = (j ¥ 156) and (52 ¥ 11) mathematics with understanding. – In: E. Fennema & T. A.
= (52 ¥ 10) + m was not tied to the specific numbers Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote
used. He was beginning to generalize his understanding understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, p. 19–32
of the distributive property. We hypothesize that if Alex Davis, R. B. (1964): Discovery in mathematics: A text for
is given continued opportunity to develop and use teachers. - Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley
Falkner, K. P., Levi, L., & Carpenter, T. P. (1999): Children’s
relational thinking, it will be less likely that he will have
understanding of equality: A foundation for algebra. – In:
to memorize a series of steps to reason about number Teaching Children Mathematics Vol. 6, p. 231-236
sentences such as a ¥ (b + 1) = a ¥ b + x or will make Greeno, J. G., Colliins, A. M., & Resnick, L. (1996): Cognition
errors such as (x + y)2 = x2 + y 2 when he begins to study and learning. – In: D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),
formal algebra. Handbook of educational psychology. New York:
Macmillan, p. 15-46
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992): Learning mathematics
4. Conclusion with understanding. In: D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
The kinds of activity and thinking illustrated by these research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York:
two cases are not isolated examples, and they do not Macmillan, p. 65-97
represent mathematics that should be reserved for only a Jacobs, V., Franke, M.L., Carpenter, T. P., & Levi, L. (2005).
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
limited number of students or as supplementary
Educational Research Association, Toronto, April 11-15,
enrichment (Carpenter et al. 2003). The results of a recent 2005
study by Koehler (2004) documents that students of a Kieran, C. (1992): The learning and teaching of school algebra.
wide range of abilities are able to learn to think about – In: D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
relations involving the distributive property and that teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan, p. 390–419
instruction that focuses on relational thinking as Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001): Adding
illustrated in these examples can support the learning of it up. - Washington, DC: National Academy Press
basic arithmetic concepts and skills. Koehler, J. (2002). Algebraic reasoning in the elementary
We started this article by distinguishing between the grades: Developing an understanding of the equal sign as a
relational symbol. - University of Wisconsin- Madison,
practices of traditional arithmetic instruction and the Master’s paper
kinds of knowledge that students need to learn algebra Koehler, J. (2004). Learning to think relationally and using
with understanding. We are not proposing to abandon the relational thinking to learn. - University of Wisconsin-
teaching of arithmetic procedures. Procedural fluency Madison, Doctoral Diss.
continues to be a fundamental goal of the mathematics Matz, M. (1982): Towards a process model for school algebra
curriculum (Kilpatrick et al. 2001, National Council of errors. – In: D. Sleeman & J. S. Brown (Eds.), Intelligent
Teachers of Mathematics 2000), but procedural fluency tutoring systems. New York: Academic Press, p. 25–50
entails more than routine calculation. Procedural fluency National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1998): The
includes being flexible in choosing how and when to use nature and role of algebra in the K–14 curriculum. -
Washington, DC: National Academy Press
procedures. That is precisely what is involved in National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000): Principles
relational thinking. and standards for school mathematics. - Reston, VA: Author
Furthermore, procedural fluency is only one strand of
mathematical proficiency; another critical strand is

58
 ZDM 2005 Vol. 37 (1) Analyses

Saenz-Ludlow, A., & Walgamuth, C. (1998): Third graders’

interpretations of equality and the equal symbol. – In:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Vol. 35, p.153–187
_________
Authors
Carpenter, Thomas P., Dr., University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1025 W. Johnson
St., Madison, WI 53706, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
Franke, Megan Loef, Dr., University of California at Los
Angeles, Graduate School of Education and Information
Sciences, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
Levi, Linda, Dr., University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin
Center for Education Research, 1025 W. Johnson St.,
Madison, WI 53706, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
Zeringue, Julie Koehler Dr., Educational Development
Corporation, 55 Chapel St., Newton, MA 02158-1060
E-mail: [email protected]

59

View publication stats