2002 QCAAlgebra Report

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/42788782
Key aspects of teaching algebra in schools
Article · January 2002

Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
16 6,693
2 authors, including:
John Mason
University of Oxford & Open University
207 PUBLICATIONS 7,827 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by John Mason on 18 August 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Key Aspects of Teaching Algebra in Schools DO NOT QUOTE Report to QCA April 2001 Draft F1.0
Mason, J. & Sutherland, R. 2002, Key Aspects of Teaching Algebra in Schools, QCA, London.
ISBN 1 85838 507 5
KEY ASPECTS
OF TEACHING ALGEBRA
IN SCHOOLS
PROF. JOHN MASON (OPEN UNIVERSITY)
& PROF. ROSAMUND SUTHERLAND (UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL)
0. CAVEATS & CONTENTS

We were asked to choose eight seminal works and to summarise and review these.
However we could not find eight works which we felt adequately covered the territory.
We did find that there were collections of works with commonalities which provided a
focus, an assemblage1, and we have assembled five of these. In reviewing these
assemblages we have made reference to other works with which we are familiar in order
to support, amplify, corroborate or challenge assertions and findings. We have also briefly
indicated the type of research upon which the assemblage components draw.
CAVEATS
Some caveats are required, however. We believe that we have examined most of the
pertinent research, but we do not claim to have reviewed all relevant literature, which is
vast; we are also aware that other assemblages would be possible. We report here on the
five assemblages which emerged for us after considering various ways of trying to ‘dissect
the corpus’. Although other people might have made other choices, we are confident that
the same sorts of themes and issues would emerge. Our chosen assemblages are not even
uniform in type: some are single works which are themselves summaries, and others are
constellations of papers from many authors writing around a theme and here represented
by just a few, while still others are grouped by nationality because of a certain coherence in
the approach and perspective. We are particularly aware that we have not included
reference to Japanese, Chinese, and South East Asian research nor to research not readily
available in English.
Furthermore, as the recent comparative study of algebra curricula has shown, school
algebra differs from country to country (Sutherland 2000). Some national curricula (for
example Hungary, France, Italy) emphasise algebra as a study of systems of equations, and
other national curricula (for example England, Victoria & Queensland in Australia,
Ontario in Canada) emphasise algebra as a means of capturing number patterns as
formulae, and in Australia, go so far as to advocate 'expressing generality' and to 'give
evidence for conjectures arising from mathematical investigations ...'. It is vital, though by
no means common, that expressing patterns is carried forward into manipulations of those
and other expressions, and into the study of the structure of numbers, of polynomials, and
of other situations in which generality is expresed algebraically.
1 assemblage: a bringing or coming together; a meeting or gathering; the state of being gathered or collected
(O. E. D.)
1
Moreover there is often a link between a mathematics curriculum and the mathematics
education research in a particular country, as illustrated by the way in which the work of
Janvier (1987) on multiple representations has influenced the curriculum of Quebec in
Canada, and the way that research has influenced curriculum designers in the U.K. (see for
example Sutherland 1990). This suggests that there will be an ongoing complex
relationship between the results of mathematics education research and what is being
taught in schools. This implies that it is likely that research results on the learning of
algebra are in some respects culture-specific and should be interpreted as such.
CONTENTS
1. Statement of Five Chosen Assemblages
2. Distillation of Principal Themes
3. The Five Assemblages
4. Bibliography
1. FIVE SIGNIFICANT ASSEMBLAGES
In reviewing the literature generally, it has been very difficult to select a small number of
pertinent sources which also cover the territory adequately. We have settled on five
assemblages, where an assemblage may include the work of several colleagues despite the
absence of a single piece of writing drawing their contributions together.
A1: Sample Older Sources: J. A. Wright (1906), Sir Percy Nunn (1919), Hans
Freudenthal (1973-91)
A2: Bednarz, Kieran & Lee 1996
A3: An Australian Assemblage
A4: An American Analysis 2001
A5: An Italian Assemblage
These assemblages have been selected as particularly informative and pertinent to the task
of drawing up a curriculum specification for a subject (algebra) which is both important in
its own right, and central to the use of mathematics in many different disciplines. In this
section we summarise the five assemblages very briefly. They are elaborated in section 3.
A1: SAMPLE OLDER SOURCES: J. A. WRIGHT (1906), SIR PERCY NUNN (1919),
HANS FREUDENTHAL (1973-91)
We have included a review of three representative sources of research and curriculum
development taken from the past, because we find much that resonates with present day
concerns, despite our advantage of modern technology.
J. W. A. Wright 1906, The Teaching Mathematics in the Elementary and the Secondary
School
Nunn, P. 1919, The Teaching of Algebra,
Freudenthal, H. four books over the period 1973-1991,
Mathematics as an Educational Task;
Weeding and Sowing,: preface to a science of mathematical education;
Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures,
2
and Revisiting Mathematics Education: china lectures
A2: BEDNARZ, KIERAN & LEE 1996

Bednarz, Kieran & Lee 1996, Approaches To Algebra: perspectives for research and teaching
This collected edition, results from an invitation conference, and provides an
excellent summary of different ‘approaches to algebra’ with research evidence
provided for the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches. We have chosen to
use these approaches, namely, generalisation, problem solving and functional to frame
our thinking about the algebra curriculum. Within this review we have chosen to
replace the word approaches by aspects, because our general conclusion from the review
process is that there is no one ‘approach’ which ‘works’ and a curriculum which uses
only some will necessarily be deficient. Rather, there are several aspects of algebra
which need to be interwoven and which need to imbue teaching in order for that
teaching to be effective.
A3: AN AUSTRALIAN ASSEMBLAGE

We have chosen to include a review of research on learning algebra which emanates
from the Australian mathematics education community (for example MacGregor &
Stacey, 1997; Stacey & MacGregor, 1997; Stacey & MacGregor, 2000; Stacey, 1989) as
this represents a strong and long-tern body of research investigating students’
interpretation of letters, understanding of variable and problem solving.
A4: AN AMERICAN ANALYSIS (2001)

Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, J. Findell, B. (Eds) 2001, Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn
Mathematics
This work, available in final form in mid 2001, and currently available on the web in pre-
print form, provides a comprehensive summary of what is known from research about
teaching and learning mathematics, including algebra, from an American perspective.
A5: AN ITALIAN ASSEMBLAGE

We review here the work of members of the Italian research community (for example,
Arzarello, Bazzini and Chiappini (1994), Boero (2001), Dettori, Garuti & Lemut (2001)).This
research is characterised by a systematic analysis of ‘complex’ problems followed by
empirical work in authentic teaching and learning situations. Members of the Italian
research community normally work in collaboration with practising teachers and their
research incorporates the development of curriculum activities and a consideration of the
potential of new technologies for teaching and learning algebra.
2. DISTILLATION OF PRINCIPAL THEMES

The time has come for a careful reappraisal of the aims and content of algebra
courses and of ways of teaching the subject. In any case the teaching of traditional
algebra has long presented difficulties in schools and it is a branch of mathematics
which remains a mystery to many adults.
(Her Majesty’s Inspectorate 1979, quoted in Wheeler 1989)
This observation is reflected in every report we encountered, and traces can be found in
every generation since at least the 16 century (Pycior 1997), and particularly in almost
th
every decade of the 20 century. Of particular note are

th
3
Coxford & Schulte, 1988,The Ideas of Algebra, K–12
Wagner & Kieran, 1989, Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra
Kieran, 1992, The Learning and Teaching of School Algebra
Giménez, Lins, & Gómez, 1996, Arithmetics and Algebra Education,
Filloy & Sutherland, 1997, Designing Curricula for Teaching and learning Algebra
Sutherland, 1997, Teaching and Learning Algebra pre-19
Sutherland, Rojano, Bell, & Lins, 2001, Perspectives on Algebra
Sutherland, 2000, A Comparative Study of Algebra Curricula
Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001, Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn
Mathematics,
Algebra at school forms a watershed for a majority of the school population. Many adults
report grave misgivings and strong dislike of a topic that they feel they never understood,
even if they passed tests at the time. What then is algebraic thinking?
WHAT IS ALGEBRAIC THINKING?

As Lins (1992) reports in his PhD thesis, in reviewing the research carried out until now …
no clear characterisation of algebraic thinking was available' (p1). Influenced by our reading
and of course by our own perspectives, we take algebraic thinking to mean moving from
the particular to the general, as seeing and expressing what is generalisable about a
particular. This applies to the youngest children moving from number as adjective (2
pencils, 3 beads, 4 yoghurt pots) to number as noun (2, 3, 4, …), and carries on through the
notion of tens complements arising from examples such as 2 + 8 = 10, 3 + 7 = 10, to
‘methods’ of mental and pencil-and-paper algorithms for addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division, through seeking methods to resolve types or classes of
problems, through the structural reasons for arithmetic on negative numbers, rationals,
and decimals, through factoring and completing the square of particular quadratics as
exemplars of factoring and completing the square of quadratic expressions in general, and
so on into tertiary.
This is consistent with Lins' conclusion (Lins 1992) that algebraic thinking is best seen as
'an intention' to shift from context to structure. Algebraic thinking arises when people are
detecting and expressing structure, whether in the context of problem solving concerning
numbers or some modelled situation, whether in the context of resolving a class of
problems, or whether in the context of studying structure more generally. Why then is
algebra foisted on students at school?
WHY ALGEBRA?
All of the summaries and many of the papers we reviewed agree, implicitly or explicitly,
that algebraic thinking contributes to being a full citizen able to participate fully in the
democratic process, and that algebra is the language in which the use of mathematics in
economic activity is expressed.
From a democratic point of view, any citizen who is unconfident with expression and
manipulation of generality cannot function fully in the political and economic process,
because modern society runs on the assertion and critique of generality, including the use
of mathematical models to study and predict the effects of policy decisions. Citizens
unable to engage in this debate are disenfranchised.
4
In an industrial culture, owners, factors, and managers all need to deal with the general in
formulating (note the etymology) and deciding amongst different policies and when
determining procedures to be followed by employees, which is in essence, a form of
algebra. By contrast, customers are interested only in the particular application of these
rules to their situation. However, citizens need to be able to engage in thinking about the
general in order to appreciate how those decisions are being made.
In a knowledge-economy, everyone who participates is faced with assertions of generality
concerning policy decisions and choices. Citizens need to be able analyse and critique
these assertions and the models which underlie them, and to assert their own versions.
Algebra provides the basis, the language, the foundation for this participation.
Today’s society places considerable emphasis on the use of technological tools such as
spreadsheets and databases. These have their roots in the early development of computer
programming languages, which in their turn have their roots in mathematics generally
and algebra in particular. Thus it can be argued that today’s citizens should both
appreciate and become competent in the generalising and symbolising power of algebra,
in order to be able to understand the potential and the constraints of these computational
packages. Software only does what it has been ‘programmed’ to do.
ABSTRACTION AS STRENGTH AND AS WEAKNESS

‘Abstraction from context’ which Diophantos achieved for early algebra nearly 2000 years
ago, is a source of the power of mathematics, for abstraction enables
concentration on the central technical problem to be solved independent of the
particular context in which it is embedded,
further and deeper study of more general structures in a search for an effective
solution to a class of problems,
and application of those techniques in a variety of superficially very different
contexts.
Unfortunately this very strength is a weakness when it comes to education, for there is a
strong temptation to teach the abstracted technique isolated from all context, and a
converse temptation to teach the technique as a set of rules to be followed in specific
contexts. Neither has proved successful on its own, hence the tension between, for
example, modelling and word-problems as approaches to the introduction of algebra.
INTERWEAVING OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Reviewing literature from around the world reveals subtle but important differences in
approaches to research, to mathematics, to teaching, and in particular to algebra, and these
differences must be borne in mind when seeking to construct a curriculum that ‘works’ in
the context of England and Wales.
PRINCIPAL ISSUE
The biggest issue is not ‘how best to teach algebra’, because any programme of materials
and tests is likely to degenerate, as several authors suggest in one way or another, into the
mechanical and the routine: the transposition didactique formulated by Chevallard (1984,
1985) in which expert awareness is transformed into instruction in behaviour. In other
words, the richness of the expert’s connections and competencies, when turned into
teaching materials, becomes a collection of behaviours for students to mimic and master.
5
Algebra teaching has always been particularly prone to degenerate from expressing
generality into manipulation of letters as if they were numbers. For example, despite the
avowed desire for students to learn to use letters to express general relationships, books of
exercises such as Humphreys (1938), which is typical of the problems posed to students
over more than a century, are reduced to using letters as if they were numbers with no
sense or hint that there might be a generality present. This is evidenced by the lack of
stimulus to generalise those parts of word-problems which use particular numbers.
The issue therefore is how to strengthen and develop awareness and appreciation of the
various aspects of algebra in every topic, amongst both serving and newly qualified
teachers. Every topic, every lesson, offers opportunities for using and extending algebraic
thinking, and unless algebraic thinking imbues teachers’ ways of preparing for and
conducting lessons, algebra will continue to be the principal mathematical watershed for
most people.
What is vital is that teachers use their own awareness of the centrality of algebra in
mathematics as a computationally expressive language, to inform their practice in ever
lesson, not just in lessons labelled ‘algebra’. This requires teachers to be encouraged to
develop their own awareness. Working on awareness is not a one-shot event, but a career-
long enterprise. For example, departments in which teachers work together on
mathematics new for them are better placed to refresh their awareness of what students
experience and to refresh their awareness of the roles of algebra than are departments in
which teachers do not develop their own mathematical thinking.
Kaput (1999) neatly summarises the demands of teaching algebra in the 21 century:
st
Begin early; integrate algebra with other subject matter; include several different
forms of algebraic thinking (problems, modelling, generalising, functional thinking);
build on children's natural linguistic and cognitive powers; encourage them to
reflect upon and become aware of those powers so that they learn to articulate what
they know; encourage children to make (mathematical) sense of the world around
them and of what they are taught.
Arcavi (1994) puts it more succinctly:
Algebraic symbolism should be introduced from the very beginning in situations in
which students can appreciate how empowering symbols can be in expressing
generalities and justifications of arithmetical phenomena ... in tasks of this nature,
manipulations are at the service of structure and meanings (p. 33)
Approaches based on manipulables (Sawyer 1959), on Babylonian area diagrams and on
the balance metaphor (Filloy & Sutherland 1997) or on algeblocks (see website) or
polynomial engineering (Simmt & Kieren 1999), while achieving some success in the short
term, face the problem of weaning students off the use of material objects and onto the use
of mental objects, and further, onto the use of symbols to denote these objects. Seeking
solutions in digital technology alone is dangerous, for although software enables students
to get a machine to manipulate algebra for them, they need at least some experience in that
manipulation in order to know what to ask the software to do for them. Exactly how
much and of what form requires further research.
DISTINCTIONS & DUALITIES

The following distinctions arise in many of the reviews and reports, expressed in different
language and with different emphases. In our view they all need to be taken account of in
6
the design of a curriculum and in the description of pedagogical practices, as well as in
future research.
Object-Process
An expression such as 3x + 4 is both the answer to a question, that is, an object in itself, and
also an algorithm or process for calculating a particular number. Being aware of this has
been called proceptual thinking (Gray & Tall 1994). Arithmetic, including arithmetic with
symbols places an emphasis on the process of calculation and thus many students are not
aware of this duality. Absence of this dual perception accounts for many of the classic
errors with symbols observed being made by students who only experience arithmetic
with letters.
Analysis-Synthesis (Arithmetical-Algebraic)
In arithmetic one proceeds from given, known numbers to calculate as-yet-unknown
numbers, arriving eventually at a final answer (what Viète 1591) called the analytic art. In
algebra one proceeds by denoting what is not-yet-known (“acknowledging ignorance”
Mary Boole in Tahta (1972 p55), expressing calculations on those as-yet-unknowns to
produce constraints, then seeking solutions to those constraints and re-interpreting them
as solutions to the original problem. This is also typical of modelling more generally, for
the algebra is being used to model-express the situation and the constraints.
There are considerable initial psychological differences between moving from confidence
into the unknown, to starting with the unknown and calculating ‘as if’ it were known. It is
a reasonable conjecture that once letters become a familiar vocabulary in which to express
generality and constraints, these psychological differences are likely to disappear.
Unknown-General-Variable-Parameter
Letters are used in four different yet inter-related ways:
to denote a specific unknown whose values are sought (what is the scope of
generality given the constraints imposed?);
to denote a general or unspecified number which can take any one of a range of
values; all expressions using that symbol are either valid, leading to the notion of an
identity, or are constraints, leading to the notion of equations and inequalities;
to denote a quantity which is permitted to vary over a specified range (variable),
used particularly to study the properties of functions;
to denote a quantity which could be allowed to alter but which for the moment is
considered to be fixed (parameter); arises especially when generalising in the
context of the study of something else as variable;
Structural-Empirical
One example, seen generically or paradigmatically, that is used to see through to the
general, can give access to experience of structure in a situation, problem, etc.. Several,
even many examples can be used empirically to locate and express a pattern (guess a
formula). Empirically abduced or induced formulae need to be justified by recourse to the
source of the numbers; structurally deduced formulae need to be justified by articulating
the identified structure.
7
For example, an empirical approach to a sequence or set of numbers is to analyse them
using finite differences or using a statistical technique such as linear regression to locate a
possible formula which generates all the known cases, perhaps approximately; a structural
means of building each term from preceding terms can be identified and expressed, and
then the recurrence relation can be used to try to generate a formula; the source of the
sequence of numbers can be examined and analysed to reveal a structural formula for the
general term in the sequence.
Empirical pattern spotting is often a matter of ‘going with the grain’, whereas the
important structural awareness emerges by ‘going across the grain’ (Watson 2000), but
there is more to it than mere ‘trainspotting’ (Hewitt 1992).
Proof & Problem Solving
Mathematics is seen by many as being as much about proof as it is about problem solving,
although trying to convince others can in fact be seen as a problem in itself! Proving, or
justifying, or reasoning, or convincing yourself and others, is a process which depends upon a
symbol system for representing the objects about which something is to be proved.
Reasoning then proceeds by expressing relationships or necessary consequences. Proof
necessarily involves reasoning with generalities, showing that any and every case will
conform with the justification offered.
Whereas empirical approaches can be taken in finite situations where all possible cases can
be listed, addressed or tested, once there are infinitely many possibilities, some sort of
language is needed in which to express the general. For example, the fact that the sum of
two odd numbers is even and their product is odd is just an initial step on the road to
studying the difference between conjectures based on particular examples, and certainty
based on assumptions and reasoning, certainty over an infinite class of cases. An early
example which many children construct for themselves is that there is no largest number
(“I can always add one to anything you say”). It is quintessential mathematical reasoning,
expressing a generalisation of an action performed in several particulars, and imagined as
possible in any such situation.
THEMES
In much of the writing reviewed there are both traces of, and direct references to, major
themes which pervade mathematics and which serve to link and unify apparently
disparate topics through the approach taken or through underlying structure which
emerges. Here we mention briefly seven.
Mental Imagery
Expressing oneself in succinctly manipulable symbols involves the use of mental imagery
as a mediator between the situation (as imagined) and the situation (as abstracted and
symbolised). Similarly, manipulation of symbols involves anticipation of what will be
achieved and of what form is sought (Boero 2001). This is another important role for
mental imagery.
Freedom & Constraint
Most algebra problems can be seen as starting with a free choice of number, expression or
function, and then imposing constraints on the choice, leading to the problem of
8
determining whether there are any numbers, expressions, or functions which satisfy those
constraints, and how to identify those that do.
Invariance Amidst Change
Most mathematical results are statements about something which remains invariant while
other things are permitted to change. Stress is usually placed on the invariant, but in order
to appreciate it, it is necessary to be aware of the scope of permitted variation or change.
For example, the sum of the angles of a planar triangle is 180° states that the angle-sum is
invariant, but obscures awareness that this is true for any planar triangle whatsoever.
Students often do not appreciate the import of the generality because they are unaware of
the range of change within which the generality remains valid. Explicitly varying
elements is often necessary if students are to learn that that dimension of variation is
possible within the concept (Marton & Booth 1997).
Doing & Undoing
Whenever a calculation is performed to reach an answer, it is possible to reverse the
process and to ask, could this (another expression, number etc.) have been a possible
answer, and if so, to ask what was the corresponding question. At an elementary level,
this is the structure which produces a need for negatives (what number could be added to
5 to give 3?) for rationals, and later for complex numbers among others.
It is also a device for producing challenging and creative problems. For example, is there a
configuration in the game of jumping-pegs or leapfrogs which would take exactly 29
moves? Are there entries at the vertices of an arithmogon to give specified values along the
edges?
Doing & Undoing often leads to characterising those numbers or expressions which could
be answers, and distinguishing them from those that could not.
Characterising and Organising
Much of mathematics concerns characterising objects, such as the kinds of numbers which
can arise as the solution to a specific problem (e.g. ‘one more than the product of four
consecutive integers’, or ‘cannot be factored’), often in association with undoing or
reversing a calculation process.
Extending Meaning
Throughout school students meet the same words used in contexts which include but
extend their old use. Thus number starts as ‘counting’ or ‘whole’ number, then includes
the negatives, the rationals (strictly speaking, fractions are not numbers but ratios, and
become numbers when all the ones with the same value are identified), numbers of the
form a + b n for some fixed n where a and b are rationals, the complex numbers. Rational
polynomials are number-like but curiously not considered to be numbers. At each stage,
the familiar numbers are extended by demanding that arithmetic remain consistent.
Something similar happens when trigonometric ratios (sine, cosine, etc.) are replaced by
power series, solutions to differential equations, etc..
The Language of Generality
In English the words a and any can be used to indicate a generality (as can all and every),
but can sometimes be used confusingly to indicate a particular:
9
Consider a number: is it particular or general?
The sum of the angles of a triangle (particular or general)
Take any number between 1 and 10 (is attention on the choice of one or on the fact
that it can be any?)
This can be confusing to students, especially those for whom English is not their first
language.
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

A quick reading of the literature suggests that there are several different approaches to
introducing algebra in school. For example, Bednarz et al (1996) is structured around
modelling, problem-based, generalisation based, and function based approaches (see
Assemblage 2) and similar distinctions are articulated in different papers which emphasise
one or the other aspect. But in the final analysis, is there a significant difference between
the different approaches distinguished? Is there a significant element added by the use of
calculators and software?
It is certainly possible to emphasise differences, as authors are prone to do. But it is also
possible to see great similarities in essence despite differences in rhetoric and discourse.
They all involve taking some situation, whether it arises in the material world or in some
imagined or mathematical world, forming a mental image of the essence of the situation
and of the relationships involved, expressing these in the language which at school is
called algebra, manipulating the symbols so as to resolve the mathematical problems
which emerge (solving equations or inequalities, isolating certain variables, finding integer
solutions etc.), and finally, testing these solutions against the original situation to check for
appropriateness.
Differences in pedagogy arise when the manipulations are isolated and emphasised at the
expense of expression, so that students are faced with rules and techniques without
participating in construction and communication of meaning. This returns us to the
opening theme of this section and to the virtually universal agreement amongst authors,
that to be effective, the teaching of algebra has to engage students in constructing and
communicating meaning, and that manipulation is a by-product not the focus or purpose
of teaching algebra.
IN CONCLUSION
Imbuing every lesson with algebraic thinking, with expressing generality and
particularising generalities, with conjecturing and reasoning, is vital to successful
experiences with algebra. All dimensions of algebraic manifestations mentioned here (see
following subsections) must be intertwined so that students can develop and use their
undoubted powers to think (and to enjoy thinking) mathematically through the medium of
algebra.
Algebra is now [1986] not merely ‘giving meaning to the symbols’ but another level
beyond that: concerning itself with those modes of thought that are essentially
algebraic – for example, handling the as-yet-unknown, inverting and reversing
operations, seeing the general in the particular, [imposing constraint on freedom].
Becoming aware of these processes and in control of them, is what it means to think
algebraically. (Love 1986, p49, quoted in Wheeler 1989 p282, square brackets
added).
10
3. REVIEW OF FIVE ASSEMBLAGES

In this section we review the five assemblages, hoping thereby to encourage the reader to
examine these works for themselves in order to appreciate them more fully.
A1: SAMPLE OLDER SOURCES: J. A. WRIGHT (1906), SIR PERCY NUNN (1919),
HANS FREUDENTHAL (1973-91)
J. W. A. Wright
1906, The Teaching of Mathematics in the Elementary and the Secondary School, American
Teacher Series, J. Russell (Ed.), Longmans Green, London.
In a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the issues of the day, Wright still speaks to us
today. Many of the issues raised relate to the roots of algebra in arithmetic and these
issues are still pertinent, despite shifts in cultural values in general and educational values
in particular.
Wright suggests four functions for algebra which find resonance in modern writing on the
subject:
to establish more carefully and to extend the theoretical processes of arithmetic;
to strengthen the pupils’ power in computation, by much practice as well as by the
development of devices useful in computation;
to develop the equation and to apply it in the solution of problems of a wide range
of interest …;
to furnish such material within its domain as may be needed in the later study of
mathematics and the various physical sciences.
Certainly the second of these functions, and to some extent the first, are presently
emphasised in the National Numeracy Strategy, where pupils express mental methods of
performing calculations such as 9 x 28 as (10 x 28) – 28. This example is a particular
instance of a general rule which employs the distributive law of arithmetic, and so
provides the foundation for being expressed symbolically as the distributive law of
algebra.
For example, Wright observes that
The majority of the remarkable mistakes in transformation of algebraic expressions
made by pupils … are due to the fact that the expression and the transformation are
meaningless jargon to the pupil,
quoting as evidence Lodge (1903 )
1 1 1 1 1 1
Pupils say + = who would never say + = .
a b a +b 3 5 8
2
Although this particular error may not be prevalent currently, others like it (e.g. )
a+b
certainly occur. Similar observations have been made recently of students arriving at
university to read engineering and science (Hawkes & Savage 2000), and in the QCA rport
on the 2000 round of Keystage 3 SATs.
Wright emphasises the roots of algebra in arithmetic, and proposes that
11
There should never be any difficulty to pass from the symbol to the thing signified
(and for quite a while at least the meaning of the symbol should be kept constantly
in the foreground). This may be achieved by continually replacing the letters which
represent numbers by actual numbers.
… the numerical evaluation of expressions by the substitution of specific numbers
for letters cannot readily be overdone in the beginning algebra. (p297-298).
The issue of how meaningfulness is supplied for or accompanies transformation of
symbols (in other words algebraic thinking) is still with us and is discussed extensively by
Boero (2001) whose work is reviewed in Assemblage A5. We might express the fact that
‘symbols stand for something’ differently now. We might for example, draw attention to
the awareness of generality of which the use of symbols to express some general
relationship is a manifestation, and we might even approach it a little differently, but the
root notion is invariant: symbols stand for something.
One of the problems which Wright identifies with teaching algebra is that, being rule-
based, it lends itself to attempts to teach instrumentally rather than relationally, (as Skemp
(1976) would put it some 60 years later):
A drawback to the study of algebra is that it lends itself readily to mechanical …
while the drill work of algebra needs much attention, it has perhaps been allowed to
encroach unduly upon the phases of work which require and stimulate thought
(p301).
Thus fads and concerns may come and go, but some tensions are endemic. This suggests
that improving the teaching of algebra requires more than construction and provision of
‘ideal materials’. Rather it is something which must imbue teacher, and hence pupil
awareness and perspective.
In distinguishing arithmetic and algebra, Wright suggests that
Arithmetic studies [numerical] values, while algebra studies functions (p308)
The role of algebra in expressing and then manipulating generality emerges for Wright in
the solution not of individual problems, but of classes of problems:
After he has solved a number of problems differing only in numerical data, [s]he
will see, or be led to see, that they all are in reality the same problem, and that [s]he
can solve them all at one stroke if [s]he is a little less specific as to numerical values
(p309, cross-gender parentheses added in order to modernise)
Wright acknowledges the age-old problem of transforming verbal problems into algebra:
It is a common experience of teachers that pupils find great difficulty in translating
into equations conditions stated in words. Yet ability to do this is one of the most
important and valuable results of the study of algebra, the thought power so
developed is one of its most useful products, and the pupil would not be allowed to
end the study of algebra without a goodly measure of success in such translation.
There is no royal road to skill in this process … (p309)
Wright's proposal follows on immediately
… the battle is almost won by the mere separation of difficulties, and the victory is
completed by a careful gradation of the instances under each type (p309).
Unfortunately the evidence does not bear out his conjecture, for, as in fact he himself
argues in then passages just quoted above, there is more to learning than simply repeating
12
tasks, even graded tasks. The pupil has to ‘see or be led to see’ the commonality, the
generality. Wright suggests getting pupils to express general relationships (what would
later be called ‘expressing generality’):
If Frank is twice as old as Henry, and if A represents Henry’s age, what represents
Frank’s age?
If John rides his bicycle three times as fast as William walks, and if t denotes the
time in which John rides a mile, what represents the time in which William walks a
mile?
State in an equation that a certain express train runs four times as fast as a certain
freight train (p309).
Note however that in many books there are exercises like these which, by their layout and
treatment, appear to be exercises in letters as numbers rather than as generality. The
distinction may be subtle, but the effect of the didactic transposition (Chevallard 1994,
1995) in which ‘expert awareness is transformed into instruction in behaviour” converts
problems which could be about generalising into problems about manipulating letters.
Wright recognises the hypothetical nature of these settings, and advocates drawing on
science for relationships to express as well. He also quotes an example for Sir Isaac
Newton in the presentation of the solution of a problem in two columns containing the
relevant passage from the problem and the corresponding algebraic statement (p313).
Interestingly, given the present National Numeracy Strategy emphasis on mental
mathematics, Wright suggests that
The uses of oral algebra seem to be largely overlooked or underrated. There is no
reason why oral work should not play as important a part in algebra as in
arithmetic (p314).
This can involve, for example, mental manipulations of simple expressions.
Sir Percy Nunn
1919, The Teaching of Algebra, Longmans, Green & Co. London.
Nunn begins with the indistinct boundary between arithmetic (attention on the arithmetical
calculations performed to reach an answer) and algebra (attention on the process of
calculating, not on the specific arithmetical calculation) (p1). This is mirrored in several of
the chapters of Bednarz et al (1996) which are reviewed in Assemblage A2, and in many
other authors.
Nunn also points to an important but subtle distinction between analysis (identifying
structure abductively) and generalisation (recognising patterns inductively) (p2). For
example, recognising a pattern such as
1+2+1=4 1 + 2 +3 + 2 + 1 = 9 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 16
from two or more ‘examples’ is recognising a pattern inductively (what Watson 2000 calls
‘going with the grain’), while recognising the internal structure (rising consecutives to n
then falling consecutives, and with the front end paired with the back end giving the clear
answer of n copies of n) is identifying structure abductively (what Watson 2000 calls ‘going
across the grain’). The temptation in classrooms is to be content with patterns with the
grain, while the mathematical structure is revealed most readily by going across the grain.
Nunn explicitly challenges the commonplace that “you cannot generalise from one
13
example”, which in fact mathematicians do all the time (e.g. David Hilbert and Srinivasa
Ramanujan).
For the task of algebra … only two tools are, in principle, necessary: the power
(which every mind possesses in some measure) of discerning the abstract essential
process in the concrete arithmetical case, and a sufficient command of language to
express it when discerned. (p4-5).
Concurring with Whitehead’s praise of succinct symbols to enable manipulation of
complex ideas, Nunn also proposes that algebra is not confined to the algebra of school,
based in ordinary arithmetic, but rather,
Wherever there is a field of enquiry of a certain type an algebra may be invented to
facilitate that inquiry. (p5)
Nunn also strongly advocates seeing the outer and inner aspects of mathematics
(application and structure) as inextricably entwined and not usefully distinguished as two
different streams. (p17) Thus situations may give rise to equations, but equations need to
be solved, not one at a time, but as whole classes. Symbols are both objects to be
manipulated and referents to ‘realities beyond themselves’ (p18).
Nunn is just one of many authors to see algebra as starting from generalised arithmetic:
Algebra regarded as ‘generalized arithmetic’ should have no formal beginning’
(p25) (see also Branford 1908 p51)
But, as Branford (1908) says explicitly,
‘the radical mistake of algebraic teaching for many generations was in passing by a
jump from Particular Arithmetic to Symbolic Algebra, and thereby omitting
sufficient training in Generalized Arithmetic, … for generalized arithmetic is the
simplest type of significant symbolic algebra’ (p253)
Nunn suggests that each rule is a generalisation (e.g. area as length times breadth, adding
and subtracting the same thing leaves the total unchanged; but also incorrect ones such as
‘larger from smaller you can’t’ and ‘multiplication makes bigger’). He also praises the use
of graphs which can be manipulated as well as interpreted in ways inaccessible to
formulae, but he recognises that ‘graphs are less compact and less easily reproduced’ p31).
Hans Freudenthal
1973, Mathematics As An Educational Task, Reidel, Dordrecht.
1978, Weeding and Sowing,: preface to a science of mathematical education, Reidel,
Dordrecht.
1983 Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures, Reidel, Dordrecht.
1991, Revisiting Mathematics Education: china lectures, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Freudenthal takes a modern, Bourbaki-structuralist approach, emphasising the importance
of basing instruction in the child’s experience (hence the title of the 1983 book, which is
consonant with Dewey and many other authors), and also the process rather than the
product:
… if in mathematics ready knowledge is called upon, it is the solution process that
matters. (p467)
For example, in Weeding and Sowing he points out that the answer to –3 –5 is found by
treating –x as that which when added to x gives 0, which arises from the structural
14
requirement that all numbers have an additive inverse. Following the notion of ‘with and
across the grain’ (Watson 2000), a teacher could build up a pattern such as the following,
beginning in the upper left-hand corner, and working down, then working across and
down, across and down, etc.
3–2=1 3–3=0 3 – 4 = –1 3 – 5 = –2 …
2–2=0 2 – 3 = –1 2 – 4 = –2 2 – 5 = –3 …
1 – 2 = –1 1 – 3 = –2 1 – 4 = –3 1 – 5 = –4 …
… … … … …
from which it becomes obvious to anyone ‘going with the grain’, that is, sensitive to the
flow of pattern, how additive operations with negatives have to be carried out. But it
requires stopping and cutting ‘across the grain’, that is, drawing attention to the patterns
themselves, which produces learning rather than mere pattern-following. In his China
Lectures, Freudenthal goes so far as to suggest that “one may question whether negative
numbers properly belong to arithmetic or to algebra” (p62).
In Mathematics As An Educational Task Freudenthal continues this theme, arguing that
fractions are constructed to permit unrestricted division, but they arise from extending the
number system so as to admit solutions to multiplication problems (what times 3 will give
7?), just as counting backwards gives rise to a need for negatives, but they arise
mathematically from extending numbers so as to enable solutions to addition problems
(what added to 5 gives 3?) (p224). This is what he calls ‘the algebraic principle’.
Something similar happens between exponentials and logarithms.
Freudenthal points to a philosophic difficulty which later plagued computer languages
such as LOGO, namely the distinction between name and value. Thus, if x is in the set {a,
b, c}, then x must be one of a, b, or c. But looked at another way, x is patently x and so is
not in the set. These difficulties were overlooked by the ‘New Math’ movement and
eventually brought about its downfall. Thus for Freudenthal there is no such thing as a
‘general number’, only indeterminates (letters) and unknowns (symbols of as-yet-
unknown numbers) (p294). Other difficulties encountered in treating algebra as a
translation process between languages arises from expressions such as “hot chocolate and
ice cream”, “three days and nights”, and “Dear Rosamund and John”, in which the
distributivity of a modifier over two nouns depends on the context (p306). Freudenthal
advocates distillation of the axioms of a field (what others refer to as generalised arithmetic )
emerging as the properties of arithmetic expressed in symbols to produce the rules for
manipulating letters.
Freudenthal also recognises the fundamental difficulty experienced by pupils:
For the majority who have got into contact with mathematics, it is mastering (or in
fact not being able to master) formal rules. What to do about it? (p469)
He finds that ‘sources of insight can be clogged by automatisms’, which de Bono (1972)
expressed in terms of how chunking leads to being unable to detect alternatives, or, in
quoting an unspecified source, Freudenthal re-expresses as “when calculating starts,
thinking finishes” (p469) His analysis is that the ‘didactical mistake resides in the principle
of once learning by insight, and then irrevocably going forward to automatisms (p469)’,
and he counsels returning to sources of insight when disturbances arise. This outward and
inward or upward and downward flexibility was expressed more practically in an OU
course (Floyd et al 1981), based on ideas of Jerome Bruner, John Holt, and others, as a
15
spiral structure of increasing complexification and abstraction. When a new idea or
problem is encountered it is natural to reach for something familiar and confidently
manipulable such as physical objects like Dienes blocks, Cuisenaire rods, bottle caps etc.,
mental images, or symbols in the form of numerals or letters, as appropriate, in order to
‘get-a-sense-of’ what is going on in a confusing situation. Manipulation leads to getting-a-
sense of the idea or of the problem and how to approach it, and over time this sense
becomes articulated increasing succinctly, robust, and confidently manipulable in support
of further increasingly sophisticated levels of ‘abstraction’. This is captured in an ongoing
spiral of Manipulating – Getting-a-sense-of – Articulating, which permits upward and
downward movement as appropriate.
Articulating
Getting a sense of
Manipula
ting
Articulating
Getting a sense of
Manipulatin
g
This spiral fits well with other models of how understanding develops, including the Pirie-
Kieren ‘onion’ rings with its ‘folding back’ to previous states in order to enable
reconstruction and further growth (Pirie & Kieren 1994).
The whole point of course is that abstraction is in the eye of the beholder, not in the
symbols: something is abstract if the semantic content, the meaning, is inaccessible. When
there is a disturbance in the resolution of some problem, it is possible to move back down
the spiral to familiar and confidence inspiring entities which, through manipulation, can
re-establish a firm foundation from which one can re-climb the spiral of development in
the particular case.
Freudenthal points out that the apparent simplicity of performing ‘arithmetic with letters’
is based on ‘phenomenological profundity’ (p473), and that when this profundity is skated
over or omitted altogether, students experience difficulties.
Freudenthal also points to the fundamental but sophisticated notion of substitution:
substituting a multiplicty of ‘values’ for one symbol, and its converse, the absorption of
multiple interpretations or substitutions in one single symbol (which is the role of variable
in algebra) (p483-485). Substitution is unproblematic to those with facility, who find it
hard to appreciate the psychological associations and obstacles which learners can
experience on first encounter when presented as simply ‘something one does’.
In his 1978 Weeding and Sowing, Freudenthal challenges the educational commonplace that
we learn through repetition of many examples:
‘generalisation as the result of numerous applications’ arises from confusing
cognition with its formulation (p221)
by which he means that coming to see how a generalisation encompasses many cases does
not imply that it was from seeing many cases that the generalisation was reached. Quite
16
the contrary. Freudenthal constantly brings the reader back to structure as the essential
thing being studied, not rules or techniques.
Freudenthal also points out that for a long time in Soviet education word-problems formed
the core of algebra instruction. The approach was criticised by Khinchin and Davydov on
the grounds that ‘lots of arithmetic does not necessarily lead to (awareness of) generality’,
because the approach degenerated into ‘letter arithmetic’ rather than the expression of
generality. Even so, the use of ‘letter arithmetic’ early on proves vastly superior to
arithmetical repetition, even though the problems may be artificial and limited in type
(Freudenthal p232). Imagine what could be achieved by retaining the use of letters for
expressing generality and for denoting the as-yet-unknown. Freudenthal concludes that
‘abstraction and generality not according to the sprinkler method’ (sprinkler method =
exposure to multiply repeated exercises or cases) but rather ‘as a principle, from the start
onwards’ of mathematical instruction (p233) is to be preferred.
In his China Lectures Freudenthal points to the role of word problems used as opportunities
to generalise. For example (p37)
One tap fills a basin in 1 hour, and another in 2 hours. How long will they take to
fill the basin together?
He reports children thinking of looking at the full basin and seeing that 2/3 of the water
comes from one tap and 1/3 from the other and so it will take 1/3 of an hour. This enables
a b
them to move immediately to a general (a and b hours) means and of the water
a+b a+b
ab
comes from the two taps, so it takes hours to achieve this working together. He
a+b
points out that this is vastly different from the unitary method. It also permits
generalisation to more taps, and to taps which are actually leaks. Freudenthal notes in
passing that few people see the connection with courier problems such as
Two people walk towards each other at different speeds. Where will they meet?
and prefer instead to draw graphs or to manipulate the distance-time-speed formula.
Distillation
If Wright, Nunn, and Freudenthal can be seen to offer approaches to teaching algebra, they
amount to making use of the ‘algebraic principle’, that is to build the extensions of
numbers to negatives and fractions structurally, to make use of expressing generality from
the very beginning in both numerical and problem settings.
For Freudenthal, as for Wright and Nunn, ‘letters mean something’, which is stark contrast
to the effect that most instruction in algebra has on people.
A2: BEDNARZ, KIERAN & LEE (1996)

Bednarz, Kieran & Lee 1996, Approaches To Algebra: perspectives for research and
teaching, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
This book arose from an invitational conference aimed at comparing and contrasting
different approaches to algebra. The book suggests four approaches to the introduction of
algebra currently in use (generalisation, problem-solving, modelling, and functions)
correlated with historical perspectives in the development of algebra, and these form the
sections of the book.
17
The research methods used in different chapters involve analysis of historical texts,
analysis of field trials and intervention studies in classrooms, and drawing on both
personal experience and work with teachers and students but not formally analysed.
We start with a brief review of the research which draws on historical perspectives, before
turning to the four approaches.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Tracing roots of what we recognise today as school algebra is a complex task. There are
indications of awareness of generality (through the use of apparently generic examples
and the stating of general rules) in Chinese manuscripts, Indian Sutras, Greek Papyri, and
Babylonian tablets dating from many centuries BC. In the third century AD Diophantos
initiated number theory by removing all pretence at application or use in contexts derived
from the world of work, and by using a symbol to stand for an unknown quantity, a
process which culminated in the 17 century algebraicisation of mathematics by Viète and
th
Descartes. For a potted history, see van der Waerden (1983) or Bashmakova & Sminova
(2000).
Certainly since the beginning of printed books related to algebra from the 15 century on, th
the majority of texts treat algebra as the arithmetic of polynomials. They stress that
algebra is really the manipulation of letters that are treated as, and can stand for, numbers.
Thus they begin with adding and subtracting, multiplying and dividing polynomials;
expanding brackets and factoring quadratics, finding LCMs and GCDs of polynomials,
and then solving equations (linear, simultaneous linear, quadratic, simultaneous
quadratic). Later, graphs appeared along with equations of higher degree, logarithms and
exponential functions, and ending up with trigonometry and sometimes applications to
geometry through Cartesian coordinates.
In his early chapter, Louis Charbonneau rehearses principal developments in western
mathematical thought pertaining to algebra, from antiquity to Descartes. He draws
particular attention to the role of magnitudes in Euclid. One reading is that much of
Euclid, (e.g. Book II) is arithmetic done geometrically, while Book IV is a theory of
proportion. Preference for geometrical proofs of what we would recognise as algebraic
identities continued through Al-Khwarizmi, Viète, Descartes and Newton. Charbonneau
highlights the importance of symbols as a means for manipulating relationships (i.e.
meaning matters), but the manipulation itself is ‘an arithmetic’, a calculus, in the old sense
of a system of rules for manipulation. The strength of these manipulations is magnified
because the symbols themselves express relationships.
In his chapter, Luis Radford discusses the origins of algebra in geometric manipulation,
with proofs of statements expressed in symbols being carried out geometrically. This is
pertinent today because many of those same diagrams are used to illustrate, motivate,
justify. and even provide mnemonic images for, the manipulations we now call algebra.
For example, the use of area calculations to motivate, justify, and act as a mnemonic for
expansions and factoring of quadratics:
b
c d
18
Much of the geometry of Euclid can be seen as ways of rearranging areas (e.g. the sum of
two squares) into rectangles, thus providing ‘methods’ for solving problems we would
consider to be either arithmetical or algebraic, involving quadratics. Diophantos’ seminal
collection of problems and solutions which gave rise to the topic of Diophantine Analysis
(solution of equations in integers) marks a major step towards algebraic approaches to
problems which was crystallised in the work of Viète (1591), but which only slowly
permeated Northern Europe through the work of English mathematicians in the 16 and th
17 centuries (Pycior 1997).

th
Of particular relevance is the migration from geometry to algebra of the Greek distinction
between analysis (working from the unknown or the as-yet-unknown towards the known)
and synthesis (working from the known to the unknown). Radford elaborates on the dual
notion of symbol as unknown and as variable as coming from distinct roots, coalescing in
the powerful modern symbolic notation (this is a theme also elaborated by Freudenthal:
see assemblage A1).
Teresa Rojano in her chapter reviews the historical roots of problems and points to an
overly simplistic separation between algebraic manipulation and the use of algebra in
expressing and solving problems which permeates textbooks of today, and is represented
in textbooks from every generation. She observes that originally it was classes of problems
which drove the development of algebra, but when it became clear that the use of algebra
to solve problems reduced the problem to solving equations, algebraists shifted their
attention to the solution of equations, which later shifted to study of the structure of
equations, and hence to modern algebra as encountered at university.
Rojano also seeks the origins of the idea of, and the expression of, two different ideas
which come together in the use of letters in algebra: symbol as unknown and symbol as
variable. The first is static (‘it is a number, I just don’t know which’) while the second is
dynamic (‘it varies over some domain’). Stressing the notion of variable leads to a
functional approach, while stressing the notion of unknown leads to or supports a problem-
solving approach. Both can be integrated by seeing a symbol as representing a generality
(anything in some broad domain such as numbers), with subsequent constraints added (it
must be a positive number, or satisfy one or more relationships), until perhaps its freedom
is constrained to a set of solutions (problem solving), or its freedom to vary within
constraints is the object of study (functional).
There is an interesting confluence between historical analysis of the roots of algebra and
our reflections on the different approaches we encountered to research, in conjunction
with the different approaches to education, namely that algebra, which functions as the
universal language of much of mathematics, is by no means culture and context free. Luis
Radford (2001) puts it this way:
It is completely misleading to pose the problem of the development of algebraic
thinking in terms of a transcultural epistemological enterprise whose goal is to
develop an abstract and elaborate symbolic language. Indeed, language and
symbols play an important role in the way that we communicate scientific
experiences. Nevertheless their use is couched in sociocultural practices that go
beyond the scope of the restricted mathematical domain. A more suitable approach
to the study of the relationships between symbols and language on the one hand
and the development of algebraic thinking on the other might thus be to analyse
language and symbolism in their own sociocultural semiotic context. (p 29)
19
In this quote, Radford highlights the role of algebra as a language in which to express
meaning, and not just a calculus for manipulating letters as if they were numbers.
Furthermore, that meaning is socioculturally localised. Algebra does not provide a
‘transcultural epistemological enterprise’ through the manipulation of meaningless letters
standing for numbers. It is a vibrant medium for expression as well as manipulation.
ALGEBRA THROUGH GENERALISATION
From earliest times, people have sought to work out how to resolve not just individual
problems but whole classes of problems (how to add, subtract, multiply, or divide large
numbers; how to add and subtract fractions; how to resolve proportion problems, etc.).
Those who have solved them sometimes tell others how to do it by providing a rule, which
is the expression of a generality (cf. rule of three and rule of false position in Medieval
Indian and European texts). Mathematical topics taught in schools arose through the
successful search for rules or techniques for solving classes of problems. The techniques
are isolated, and then taught to children (e.g. long multiplication and division, factoring
quadratics, etc.).
As indicated in an ancient Chinese text, the Zhoubi Suanjing, (first century BC, see
Kangshen, Crossley & Lun 1999), appreciation of the scope of generality, of invariance
amidst change, lies at the heart of understanding:
... ‘man has a wisdom of analogy’ that is to say, after understanding a particular line
of argument one can infer various kinds of similar reasoning, or in other words, by
asking one question one can reach ten thousand things. When one can draw
inferences about other cases from one instance and one is able to generalize, then
one can say that one really knows how to calculate. …. The method of calculation is
therefore a sort of wisdom in learning . . . The method of learning: after you have
learnt something, beware that what you have learnt is not wide and after you have
learnt widely, beware that you have not specialized enough. After specializing you
should worry lest you do not have the ability to generalize. So by having people
learn similar things and observe similar situations one can find out who is
intelligent and who is not. To be able to deduce and then to generalize, that is the
mark of an intelligent man . . . If you cannot generalize you have not learnt well
enough . . .. (p28).
Young children display this power as they grapple with and use language. Naming objects
occurs early in children’s experience of language, as does the naming of processes (eating,
drinking, etc.). Language succeeds not by naming specific objects (my particular red-
headed doll with a blue dress, that specific broken cup) but by naming generic objects
(doll, cup) and learning to modify or qualify them with adjectives. Thus language is
inherently general rather than particular. The fact that children master language suggests
that they have the requisite powers to cope with the generality which is captured and
expressed in algebra. Indeed, failure to call upon children’s undoubted powers in the
context of number may actually hamper their intellectual growth.
In his chapter, John Mason (1996) draws attention to the dual nature of an expression such
as 1 + 3n which is at the same time a particular number (thus perhaps thought of as
unknown, or at least unspecified), and as representing all possible numbers which leave a
remainder of 1 upon dividing by 3 (and thus is seen as variable). He proposes the
conjecture that
20
‘at the heart of teaching mathematics is the awakening of pupil sensitivity to the
nature of mathematical generalisation’ (p65),
and that only when the expression of generality permeates the mathematics classroom will
algebra cease to be a mathematical watershed for most pupils. Put another way,
‘there is a stage in the curriculum when the introduction of algebra may make
simple things hard, but not teaching algebra will soon render it impossible to make
hard things simple’ (Tall & Thomas 1991 p128).
Mason draws attention to the fact that ‘worked examples’ have to be seen as examples ‘of
something’ in order to appreciate their examplehood. When students treat examples as
‘yet more material to be learned’, rather than as generic and paradigmatic examples to
follow, they miss the import and purport of those ‘examples’. Appreciating examplehood
is a form of ‘seeing the general through the particular’, with its converse process of ‘seeing
the particular in the general’. Kaput (1999) casts this as learning to look through symbols
rather than at them, and at clusters of them when it is appropriate in order to perform
manipulations. Unless students are engaged in these acts in a lesson, the mathematical
core of the lesson is likely to be overlooked. Kirshner (1989) examines the visual aspect of
algebraic symbolism as one of the factors impeding students progress when they are
taught from an arithmetical-manipulational point of view.
Expressing generality is only part of contact with and use of algebra, indeed it is but one of
the roots of algebra as presented in Mason et al (1985). When students encounter multiple
expressions for the same quantity, they soon recognise the possibility of manipulating the
form of the expressions to demonstrate that equivalence without having to go via the
stimulus for the expressions. Expressing the properties of the arithmetic of numbers
(generalised arithmetic) confirms these rules as both the rules of arithmetic and the rules of
algebra. Maintaining contact with generalisation then leads to generalisations of processes
such as expanding brackets, factoring, graphing and reading graphs, and so on.
In a related chapter, Lesley Lee reports on studies with adults returning to mathematics
being introduced to algebra through the expression of generalities concerning number
patterns arising from contexts for counting (numbers of vertices, edges, matchsticks, etc.
needed to construct pictures following a pattern: see South Notts Project undated, and
Mason 1988a, 1988b for examples). Lee concludes that
‘the rewards of such an approach are many with perhaps the greatest being the
opportunity for beginning students to function as creative members of the algebraic
community from their arrival rather than standing back like tourists to watch others
perform and create’ (p 106)
Lee points out that seeing and expressing generality is not always a simple matter,
however, as many students experience difficulties in seeing an intended pattern, in
expressing that pattern clearly, and in coming to use symbols fluently and flexibly. Yet
these are inherent obstacles in any approach. She observes that ‘a strict generalising
approach has never been sustained throughout high school algebra’. If it is interpreted
narrowly as simply ‘expressing patterns in numbers and patterns’ then it is hard to predict
the difficulties that might surface later. Furthermore
‘nor is it much of a challenge to demonstrate that functions, modelling and problem
solving are all types of generalising activities, that algebra and indeed all of
mathematics is about generalising patterns’,
21
If expressing generality imbues all mathematics lessons, then students’ experience of
mathematics could be transformed.
In a second chapter commenting on generalisation as an approach, Luis Radford raises
philosophical issues concerning generalisation: when and why do people generalise? He
proposes that problem solving serves as a primary need for knowledge, while generalising
serves as a driven-norm, and that this requires further analysis and research. He also
suggests that there are several different forms of generalisation, that it is a context-
dependent activity. His analysis is based on an empirical approach to generalisation (use
of multiple examples from which to induce), rather than from a more structural approach
in which the essence is seen and articulated arising from experience of one or more
instances (see also Freudenthal in Assemblage 2).
In one of his chapters, Alan Bell points to the dominant position in school algebra of
arithmetic as the source of algebra, and that algebra as a language of expression enables
many more structures to be analysed than simply those that yield ordinary equations. For
example, he cites the algebra that arises when a triangle is rotated about the mid-points of
its sides under operations denoted by a label on those sides (for a collection of these based
on early ATM and Leapfrog ideas, see Mason1988b).
When authors refer to algebra as generalised arithmetic, they often mean that algebra is the
calculus of manipulating letters as if they were numbers. But many authors go further,
including Freudenthal (see Assemblage 2), and Mason (in his chapters in this book, and in
Mason et al (1985) among other places). They use generalised arithmetic to mean the
bringing to articulation of the rules of arithmetic, using letters to express the generality of
such laws as commutativity of addition and multiplication (a + b = b + a, a x b = b x a),
associativity, distributivity of addition over multiplication, and the roles of 0 and 1, which
amount to the axioms of an integral domain even though this aspect need not be
mentioned. Thus expressing generality lies at the heart of algebra seen as generalised
arithmetic in this full, structural sense.
Expressing generality as an approach to algebra has mainly influenced curricula in English
speaking countries (see Assemblage A3 on research from Australia) where it has tended to
be confined to finding formulae for patterns, whether from a geometric source (counting
edges, vertices, matchsticks etc to make up each member of a sequence of configurations),
or in the structure of numbers (odd and even numbers, numbers leaving a specified
remainder on dividing by a specified number, etc.), or even confined to rules for
manipulating letters as if they were numbers.
Kaput (1999) points to two overlapping domains of generalisation for young children:
reasoning and communication within mathematics, and in situations outside of
mathematics but affording possibilities for mathematisation. He points out that especially
with young children it sometimes takes attentive listening to detect generality implied in
voice tones and gestures, but that it is very often present, and is usefully drawn upon and
developed, lest it atrophy.
Critical Features of Expressing Generality
• Awareness of, if not expression of generality is present from children's very earliest
encounters with number;
• Seeing the general through the particular, and the particular in the general are
powers that children bring to school but which must be called upon repeatedly so
22
that they develop in sophistication. Furthermore, the exercise of powers like these is
actually pleasurable and hence motivating (Gattegno 1973, Freudenthal 1978);
• Expressing generality is not a skill that is mastered and then transcended, but rather
an ongoing process of increasing sophistication;
• Manipulation of expressions is justified through recognition that different looking
expressions can represent the same result, and that imposing constraints on
generality produces equations and inequalities for which techniques can be
developed.; hus the manipulative aspects of algebra are set in a context of how the
expressions arise in the first place;
• Many authors and researchers seem to have overlooked the fact that expressing
generality is involved in all mathematics learning, not just in problem solving;
• To be effective, it has to be seen as pervading all of school mathematics and available
in every lesson; it is not restricted to 'pattern spotting' but applies to every topic;
• Expressing generality is not a skill that is mastered and then transcended, but rather
an ongoing process of increasing sophistication;
• The issue for teachers and textbook authors is whether they are calling upon
students to use their powers, or are trying to do the work for students.
Strengths and Weaknesses
• Seeing algebra as a language of expressing generality supports access to major
themes of mathematics such as Freedom & Constraint (appreciating generality as
freedom of choice limited by added constraints); Invariance Amidst Change
(appreciating what can change and to what extent and still preserve an invariance);
Doing & Undoing (reversing sequences of calculations);
• Manipulation of expressions arises through recognition that different looking
expressions can represent the same result, and that imposing constraints on
generality produces equations and inequalities for which techniques can be
developed. Thus the manipulative aspects of algebra are set in a context of how the
expressions arise in the first place;
• Rarely if ever has expressing generality imbued an entire approach to teaching as
well as to the curriculum, so there is no concrete evidence that it would make the
difference claimed for it;
• Expressing generality draws upon teachers' awareness; when converted into
instructional practices it could reduce the use of letters to express generality into
'arithmetic with letters'.
ALGEBRA THROUGH PROBLEMS
The Bednarz, Kieran and Lee book devotes two sections to a problem-based approach to
algebra. The first is concerned with the introduction of algebra through traditional ‘word’
problems and the second is concerned with mathematical modelling. Both approaches
attempt to engage students through calling upon them to think and to imagine, to draw
upon their experience and to articulate relationships. However whereas the more
traditional word problems have been developed over centuries for the predominantly
pedagogic purpose of introducing students to the algebraic method, mathematical
modelling is concerned with using algebra (or other aspects of mathematics) to model
23
physical situations and in this respect the physical situation being modelled must always
be taken account of. Within this section we first review the chapters concerned with ‘word’
problems and then those concerned with mathematical modelling.
Word Problems
Word problems (mathematical puzzles and problems set in some sort of a context and
presented mostly in words) have been around as long as written mathematics, for they are
found in ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Chinese writing (see for example, van der
Waerden 1983, Radford, 2001, Rojano, 1997, Filloy et al, 2001).
Louis Charbonneau and Jacques Lefebvre provide a chapter looking at the placement and
function of problems in four algebraic treatises Diophantos, Al-Khwarizmi, Cardano and
Viète. They conclude that problems are what drive mathematics and so are at the forefront
of the emergence of mathematics, but they are to be found at the end of texts, in sections
visited only by students who complete the core work quickly, or at the end of a topic as an
example of the application of ideas and techniques to made-up situations. Along the way
they discover that the way in which different authors classified problems is consonant
with their approach to problems (geometric, arithmetic, algebraic), and with the
sophistication of their available techniques.
Classic word problems have been heavily criticised as fantastical and irrelevant to
concerns of adolescents (Wiliam 1997, Karpinski 1965, Sanford 1975, Lave 1992, Swetz
1995, Gerofsky 1996 to cite only a few). For example, Whitehead (1948 p134) had a passing
shot which has been echoed by many since:
By examples I mean important examples. What we want is one hour of the Caliph
Omar, to burn up and utterly destroy all the silly mathematical problems which
cumber our text-books. I protest against the presentation of mathematics as a silly
subject with silly applications. (p134)
Furthermore, word problems sometimes provoke strong emotional reactions amongst
otherwise calm adults (Reed 1999 p1-2). A more careful analysis shows that word
problems have been used in a variety of ways:
to show off the arithmetic skills of the problem poser (for example in some
Babylonian tablets and Egyptian manuscripts, demonstrating skills in dividing by 7,
13, 17, and 19, see Robson 2000);
to show how a technique is used to solve a class of problems, as when the solution
is followed by ‘Do it like this’ in Egyptian papyri (Gillings 1972 p232-233) or by
offering several related worked problems (Gillings op cit. p 154), or as Cardano put
it “We have used this variety of examples so that you may understand that the same
can be done in other cases …” (Witmer, 1968 p37);
to provide a context so that the solver can more readily locate the required
calculations (but this leads to students using inappropriate information derived
from their knowledge of the context: see Cooper & Dunne 1999);
to provide cultural information about what authors have assumed is familiar,
interesting, or relevant to their students (see for example Butler 1838, written for the
use of young ladies);
to induct students into a longstanding cultural practice of classic puzzles
(collections were made by Metrodorus c 500 AD, and in the Aryabhatiya AD 499);
24
to challenge students to think more deeply than just at the level of arithmetical
operations;
as recreation, like crossword puzzles, and as sheer playfulness.
As add-ons, word-problems straddle a spectrum from the reasonably realistic to the
fanciful. Yet we suggest that they provide an opportunity for working on expressing
generality, and for harnessing students’ own creative powers by making up their own
questions of a given type as part of their growing appreciation of what constitutes ‘type’.
In their chapter Nadine Bednarz and Bernadette Janvier discuss classic elementary word-
problems which involve one of the four arithmetic operations, and the difficulties students
from traditional arithmetic and algebra backgrounds experience in tackling these.
Classically students have difficulty in deciding which operation to use, and on which
numbers. Bednarz and Janvier analyse different structures of problems, look at the
affordances and facilities pupils display with the different structures, and draw attention
to the desire to work forwards from the known to the unknown, and the resistance to
working with an as-yet-unknown.
For example the three problem variants
Three children have 198 marbles between them. Georges has 2 times as many as
Denis, and Pierre has 3 times as many as Georges. How many marbles does each
child have?
Three children have 198 marbles between them. Pierre has 6 times as many as
Denis, and Georges has 2 times as many as Denis. How many marbles does each
child have?
Three children have 198 marbles between them. Pierre has 6 times as many as
Denis, and 3 times as many as Denis. How many marbles does each child have?
are typical of classic problems such as found in a book of Clairaut (1760 quoted from a
secondary source), and present three different structures with different complexity,
leading to a prediction of differences in children’s performance which were confirmed in
work with children aged 13-14.
Reasonably enough, students are anchored in their arithmetic facility, and so reluctant to
launch into the unknown afforded by algebra. Their analysis is centred on the ease with
which arithmetical or ‘forward moving’ bridges can be located in the wording of problems,
thereby facilitating and leading them to work arithmetically.
As with all word-problems, it is not the problem which is arithmetical or algebraic, but the
approach that someone takes. Sometimes it can be very difficult to find an arithmetical
approach where an algebraic perspective is relatively straightforward. Whenever you
know how to check whether a proposed answer is correct, you can set up an algebraic
model of the problem (use a letter to stand for the proposed solution), which leads to one
or more equations or inequalities. This notion of ‘how would you check an answer if it
were provided’ offers a useful transition from arithmetic to algebra which mirrors the
method of false position that dominated medieval European mathematics.
In a commentary chapter, Alan Bell argues for further research in classification of word
problems according to structure and to the symbolic manipulations to which they give
rise. He also displays problem-solving as underlying or driving both generalisation and
functional approaches. He points to the role of problems-solving in the domains of both
number, and of geometrical or spatial configurations, showing how traditional problems
25
arise from transforming an unknown number or figure to get a result which is then
specified. Solving the problem is a process of undoing the transformation.
Rojano reports in her chapter on the results of an Anglo-Mexican study in which students
used a spreadsheet environment to express and resolve ‘algebraic’ problems. The
background to the study with spreadsheets was extensive research on the approaches
which students use to solve a range of word problems (for further discussion of this see
Filloy et al 2001). Filloy et al have classified students approaches to solving word problems
into ‘classical solution methods’ and ‘non-conventional methods’. The classical solution
methods include both the ‘Cartesian algebraic method’ and the ‘arithmetic method’ (for a
similar classification of students’ problem solving approaches see the work of Boero
reviewed in Assemblage A5).
Consider for example the following problem “A teacher has 120 chocolates and 192
caramels which she is going to share among her pupils. If each pupil receives three more
caramels than chocolates, how many pupils are there?”. The Cartesian algebraic method to
solving this problem could be expressed in the following way:
Let x = no of pupils
Let y = no of chocolates given to each pupil
Then Total number of chocolates = xy
and xy = 120
Number of caramels given to each pupil = y + 3
and x(y + 3) = 192
…
Notice the creative ontological act with which the resolution begins: “let … = …”. This is a
significant creative act.
An arithmetic approach to solving this problem could involve the following reasoning
“since in the statement of the problem it says that 120 chocolates and 192 caramels will be
shared out among all the pupils, it can be concluded that 72 more caramels than chocolates
were given to the pupils (192 – 120 = 72) and since each pupil received three more
caramels than chocolates the number of pupils can be worked out by dividing 72 by 3,
which results in 24 pupils.
Filloy et al (op cit) and others have pointed out that the characteristic difference between
the algebraic and the arithmetic approach is that the algebraic approach involves working
with the unknowns of the problem (which in this case have been called x and y) whereas
the arithmetic approach involves working with the known quantities in the problem.
Filloy et al (op cit) also discuss what they call the ‘analytic method of successive
explorations’ in which you assume, for example that the number of pupils is 12 and then
work ‘forwards’ with this number, progressively adjusting the number 12 until a total of
120 chocolates is reached. This method bears some similarities to the method of false-
position developed in Mesopotamia and Egypt as early as the 17 century BC (see Radford,
th
2001 for further discussion of this method).

It is this latter approach which was developed by Rojano and Sutherland into what they
called a spreadsheet-algebraic approach. In this approach pupils solve word-problems by
using the cells of a spreadsheet to represent the unknowns in a problem and then build up
the relationships expressed in the problem within other cells. In this approach pupils
26
progressively modify the values of the unknowns until the given totals are reached (see
Rojano & Sutherland, 1991 and Sutherland & Rojano, 1993, for further discussion of this
approach). Results of studies in Mexico and England with 15 year old pupils showed that
they could use a spreadsheet effectively to set up an equation. However as Dettori et al
(2001) have pointed out (see Assemblage 5) setting up an equation is only part of the
algebraic method.
Critical Features of Word problems
• There is an unhappy track record of the use of word-problems at the end of chapters
to make life miserable for students struggling to understand ideas. They could be
used as fodder for generalisation (see also Freudenthal in Assemblage 2)
• Since problems are what motivate the development and exploration of mathematics,
it makes sense to use problems as the core of teaching about the topics which emerge
around techniques for solving classes of problems.
• When solving problems students are likely to use a range of methods which make
sense and work for them. These methods are likely to be based more in arithmetic
than in algebra unless students become familiar with expressing generality for
themselves so as to develop confidence in using symbols for their own purposes.
• Word problems provide children with a splendid opportunity to make up their own
questions, ever more complex and difficult, ever more general, and hence to
participate in the formulation of mathematics (literally, the creation of formulae)
rather than passive memorisers of already streamlined techniques.
• There is always a tension about relevance of problem contexts: what makes a context
or a problem relevant, and what happens when people resolve problems as if they
were pertinent to every day rather than coded opportunities for recognising,
extracting and generalising structure? For example, Cooper & Dunne (2000) have in
their work demonstrated that some children (particularly class and gender related)
may be disadvantaged rather than advantaged by the use of contexts in problems,
because they bring too literal a reading to the problem, and resolve it in entirely
practical and pragmatic, but not necessarily mathematical ways.
• As discussed above arithmetic proceeds from the known (the data) to the unknown
(the solution), whereas algebra proceeds from the unknown (denote what you do
not yet know and then express what you do know to reach constraints, then solve
these and interpret back in the original context). This is a significant and not always
straightforward shift for students to appreciate and word problems have been
crafted over centuries in order to support students to make this shift. Transition
from one form of thinking to the other can be aided by working out how you would
check and answer, and then using a symbol to denote that checking process, leading
to the statements of the constraints in the manipulable language of algebraic
equations and inequalities.
Modelling
In his chapter, Ricardo Nemirovsky describes modelling as the construction of
mathematical narratives (narrative articulated with mathematical symbols) for situations.
He works mainly with graphs which are then interpreted (see also Swan 1985). He reports
27
on several studies with children working on the notion of graphs as traces left by motion.
This is now readily accessible in any classroom with the use of a motion detector and a
graphics calculator. He shows how sophisticated mathematical thinking involving both
the particular and the general arise as they try to make sense of what they see.
Claude Janvier provides a chapter which relates modelling with the difficulties children
experience in trying to translate or re-express some situation in symbols. There are
constant shifts back and forth between semantics and syntax, between concrete and
abstract meanings of each magnitude involved.
Students experiencing mathematics used to make decisions and choices in (apparently)
real contexts is a strength; most of the models used are provided for students who are then
expected to turn the stated model into algebra and to find a solution, often through
maximising or minimising some objective function.
Jim Kaput (1999) has developed SimCalc (software) to promote algebraic awareness
through modelling dynamic experiences such as using a lift and driving a vehicle. He
suggests that the integration of the physical with the mental modelling and the articulation
promotes students constructing mathematical meaning and hence using algebra to achieve
goals they have set themselves.
Critical features of Modelling
• Mathematics is used to resolve practical questions concerned with the material
world
• Modelling calls upon the use of many powers, including mental imagery to move
from a specific situation to an abstracted imagined world, and then to the world of
manipulable mathematical symbols, before making the journey back to the original
setting or context.
• When modelling and word-problems are tacked on the end of other approaches to
algebra as applications, whether realistic uses of algebra or merely as puzzles,
students find them very difficult, and the impression is implanted that these are
peripheral. This is why modelling as a full and comprehensive setting, and realistic
mathematics (Gravemeijer 1994), de Corte & Verschaffel (1997) were developed: to
try to involve students in solving realistic problems right from the start.
• Any approach which is based on a more realistic mathematics will have a pragmatic
goal of solving a problem. Under these circumstances it becomes ‘unrealistic’ to
impose on students an algebraic as opposed to an arithmetic approach to solving the
problem. This suggests that it might be more ‘honest’ of the teacher to say that what
is being taught is an algebraic method without allowing students freedom to chose
their problem solving approaches.
ALGEBRA THROUGH FUNCTIONS
This focus is dominant in the USA particularly. Developed from a Bourbaki perspective
which took hold in universities in the 1960s, functions are seen as the fundamental
mathematical object (after sets, indeed they are the means for studying sets). Some would
go further and make relations fundamental. Here a relation is a subset of the set of ordered
28
pairs {(x, y): x ε X, y εY}, with functions a special class in which each x value is related to a
unique y value. They can be thought of in several ways:
as a table of values;
as a graph of a relationship (in general, a curve in the plane);
as a rule, usually expressed in algebraic symbols;
and more recently,
as all three, manifested in spreadsheets, graphics calculators, and specially designed
computer software.
Espoused particularly by Jere Confrey (1992), Judah Schwartz & Michal Yerushalmy
(1992, 1993), Yerushalmy (1995), and Jim Kaput (1995a, 1995b, 1999), a functional approach
stresses the relationship between dependent and independent variable. Yerushalmy &
Schwartz (1993) go so far as to claim that the function “is, for pedagogic reasons, the
appropriate fundamental object of secondary school mathematics”. It requires students to
shift from the image values taken by functions (expressions as answers) when evaluated at
a specific point, to the functions themselves as objects (expressions as processes), thus
incorporating the dual perception which lies behind algebraic expressions.
It is clear that a functional approach is greatly enhanced with the presence of software
(graph plotters and spreadsheets) and graphics calculators, which enable the user to move
swiftly and easily between the different representations and it could be argued that a
functional approach to algebra has developed as technology has developed.
O’Callaghan (1998) reports that a computer-intensive algebra course for university
students showed improvements in modelling, problem solving, and concept of function,
though there was no difference in reification. Kaput (1999) is developing software based
on motion (of a lift, of a car) which is designed to build on students’ experience and
through juxtaposition of graphs, tables, formulae, and real-time experience of virtual car
on a track, students are expected to gain facility in the transitions between representations,
and a deeper sense of functions and relations.
Kathleen Hyde in her chapter reports on studies in a technology intensive environment in
which functional relationships are taken as fundamental. She gives example of students
using quadratic functions (supplied by the teacher or text) to model material-world
situations (e.g. pricing tickets so as to break even). The case is made that in an increasingly
technological society, pupils need to be able to use available tools to analyse and draw
conclusions from mathematical models.
In their chapter Carolyn Kieren, André Boileau and Maurice Garançon report on a seven-
year study using specially designed software exploiting a functional perspective stressing
the use of letters to represent variables (in contrast to as-yet-unknowns). They found a
propensity for students to turn to an arithmetical methods to resolve some of the equations
which arose, just as others have found that when people run into difficulties, they resort to
what they are confident with. They found that their students developed a deeper
understanding and competence with translating situations into symbolic form than
students in traditional settings.
Ricardo Nemirovsky uses his chapter to point to a difference between a point-wise view of
functional relationships (reinforced especially by tables of values), and a holistic view
(reinforced especially by graphs). While tables, graphs and symbols can all be interpreted
dually, dominance of tables or graphs could accentuate one over the other, while all three
29
together could enrich pupil associations with the symbolic, and thereby make them more
meaningful.
Critical Features of a Functional Approach
• multiple representations
• exploits dynamic imagery possibilities of digital technology
• opportunity to focus attention on display and interpretation of relationships, leaving
computations to the software where appropriate
• develops awareness and facility with function, the single most powerful idea of the 20 th
century in mathematics.
Drawing on people’s powers to use different representations, software offers a great
improvement on exercises in slow and painful plotting of graphs from tables. There is still
a need for sketching graphs, because sketches can display multiple features which no
single plot can display (due to features taking place at different scales). Graph plotting
technology also frees the student to work on issues such as the effects on appearance of
different changes of scale in each axis, the effects on the formula of translation, and the
effects of zooming in very closely on individual points.
Plotting technology emphasises graphs and tables as objects (which the hardware
generates) rather than as the product of a dynamic process. Thus imagining a point
moving along the x-axis accompanied by its corresponding point on the curve provides an
extra dynamic layer which is essential in order to read and interpret graphs effectively.
Tables have traditionally been seen as a means to an end, graphs as a suggestive but
unreliable display, and formulae as the desired end product. New technology is balancing
these out, and approaches such as taken by Kaput (1995a, 1995b, 1999) and Confrey &
Maloney 1996 Confrey et al (1989) (see also the Function Probe Website) try to give these
equal status.
There is a slight hint (in Kilpatrick et al 2001) that ‘multiple representations’ has not had
the expected impact on children’s performance in algebra.
The use of technology in classrooms has its own associated difficulties, at least until every
maths classroom has its own computer and big-screen display, until teachers have become
confident with its use with a whole class, and until children have easy and regular access
to machines themselves.
A3: WORK FROM THE AUSTRALIAN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION COMMUNITY

Since the early 90s Australian researchers have carried out a range of large scale
investigations of student’s understanding of algebra. These have focused on students’
interpretation of letters, understanding of variable, problem solving and the cognitive and
linguistic demands of learning algebra. The research methods used have involved large
scale questionnaires, interviews with students and observations in the classroom.
The Australian research on students’ interpretation of letters draws on earlier studies such
as Collis (1974), Küchemann (1981) and Booth (1984). Whereas earlier studies attributed
students’ errors when interpreting symbolic algebra to stages of cognitive development,
30
more recent Australian studies have looked for alternative explanations, particularly in
relation to teaching approaches. In addition, the underlying aim of this more recent
Australian research has been to reassess students’ capabilities in the context of new
curriculum approaches which were being used to introduce students to mathematics.
These ‘new’ approaches are similar to approaches which have also been used in some
schools in England and Wales. Pupils’ first introduction to the use of letters for unknown
or general numbers is in the context of writing formulas for number patterns where two
variables are related by a rule (for example y = 2x + 1).
In one study carried out in 1992, paper and pencil tests were administered to 2000 students
in Years 7-10 (ages 11 – 15) in 24 Australian secondary schools (MacGregor & Stacey 1997).
The items used in this study were similar to those used in earlier studies (Booth 1984) and
Küchemann (1981)). For example
David is 10 cm taller than Con. Con is h cm tall.
What can you write for David’s height?
MacGregor and Stacey classified students’ interpretation of letters into the following
categories. Here the focus was only on misconceptions, whereas the Küchemann hierarchy
incorporated both appropriate and inappropriate conceptions:
the letter is perceived as an abbreviated word;
the letter is assigned a numerical value that would be reasonable in the context;
the letter is assigned a numerical value related to its position in the alphabet;
the letter has the value 1 unless otherwise specified;
the same letter can represent different quantities.
It was found that younger students often ignored the letter in a test item and gave
numerical answers. For example for Con’s height in the above problem they chose an
arbitrary number. Pupils often gave a letter its ordinal position in the alphabet for lack of
any other value. Within a problem in which the unknown length of an equilateral triangle
was labelled x and the question asked ‘what is the distance around this shape?’ pupils
sometimes measured this length instead of writing ‘3x’. Older students sometimes
interpreted a letter to stand for the number 1 and when interviewed gave explanations
such as “ x is just like 1, like having one number’.
Within this research MacGregor and Stacey carried out observations in classrooms in order
to explain some of the ‘errors’ made by students. They suggested, for example, that a
likely explanation of a belief that ‘the letter has the value 1’ is that teachers often say ‘x
without a coefficient means 1x’. Overall it was found that many students give incorrect
mathematical responses to algebra test items with these difficulties having several origins
which include
intuitive assumptions and sensible, pragmatic reasoning about an unfamiliar
notation system;
analogies with symbol systems used in everyday life, in other parts of mathematics
or in other school subjects;
interference from new learning in mathematics;
poorly designed and misleading teaching materials.
Overall this would fit with a theoretical perspective on teaching and learning which sees
understandings as derived from a history of experiences and meaning making in previous
31
learning situations, including learning both out-of-school and in-school (for further
discussion of this see Sutherland 1998). This suggests that it is possible to predict that
students will always develop idiosyncratic interpretations of letters whatever teaching
approach is used. Thus we find it difficult to agree with Stacey and MacGregor’s statement
that if misunderstandings are associated with particular teaching approaches then they can
be avoided, because this might be taken to suggest that if only we can locate and describe
‘correct’ teaching then we can obtain ‘correct’ learning (which only makes sense from a
transmission model of teaching and learning). Our theoretical models of learning suggest
that all teaching will inevitably lead to the construction of some understandings which are
correct in some situations and incorrect in others. In other words all learning and thus all
teaching of mathematics will result in both partial and unintended meaning construction.
This suggests that it will never be possible to teach ‘symbolic algebra’ as a discrete and
insubstantial part of the mathematics curriculum which can be learned in a
straightforward and correct way. (See the discussion of the spiral curriculum in A1.)
For this reason we agree with the conclusion that “We suggest that in a typical
curriculum students do not get enough experience of using algebra notation. In the schools
we worked with students learn algebra in one or two short modules per year. These
modules are usually not connected with other work and have no useful purpose from the
students’ point of view” (MacGregor & Stacey, 1997 p17).
More results from this 1992 study are reported in Stacey & MacGregor (2001). Here they
state that Australian national curriculum documents are promoting the view that algebraic
thinking begins to develop in the primary grades through experiences of generality (which
relates to, and some of which is based on, Mason’s work set out in Assemblage 2) in which
the first use of letters is for describing these patterns and relationships.
Introducing algebra and algebraic notation through this ‘pattern-based approach’ —
as a language for expressing relationships between two variables and not as a set of
procedures for finding the ‘unknown number’ — is a clear break with
tradition…the pattern based approach deals with generality first, leading to an
understanding of functional relationships and their algebraic description…the new
approach – introducing algebraic letters as pattern generalisers instead of specific
unknowns – is derived from a desire to identify early algebra in schools with
algebraic thinking, rather than only with its surface notational features. (p 142).
The following is an example of one of the items which was used in the testadministered to
students in the 1992 study.
A. Look at the numbers in this table and answer the questions
x y
1 5
2 6
3 7
4 8
5 9
6 ..
7 11
8 …
…. …
…
(i) When x is 2, what is y?…..
(ii) When x is 8, what is y?…..
32
(iii) When x is 800, what is y?
(iv) Describe in words how you would find y if you were told that x is ………
(v) Use algebra to write a rule connecting x and y ………..
MacGregor and Stacey report that performance on these items varied from school to
school. For example on item A, the success of Year 9 students in writing an algebraic rule
ranged from 18% in one school to 73% in another. “One of the most striking findings from
both written testing and the interviews was the variety of patterns perceived and the many
ways of describing them. For example talking about Item A, Sarah (Year 10) said ‘x it
starts as 1, 2, 3, 4 and builds up it goes in order’, Another student said about a similar item
“From x you miss three numbers and then there is y”. This fits with the results of
Sutherland & Rojano’s (1993) research on students’ responses to similar items and also fits
with a theory of learning which emphasises the active sense making of students. It could
be argued that these students’ responses are only incorrect because the students have not
appreciated the ‘mathematical game’ they are playing.
Stacey and MacGregor report that in general students when answering items such as Item
A tend to search for a recurrence rule that would predict a number from the value of its
predecessor rather than for a functional relationship. “… Many of the patterns that
students saw, including the recurrence relationships, are valid but do not lead to an idea
that can easily be recognised algebraically” (Stacey & MacGregor, 2001 p146). From this
study they concluded that students taught with a pattern-based approach to algebra did
no better on algebra items than students taught with a more traditional approach. They
also point out that “When a new and different teaching approach is recommended in a
national curriculum document, it is natural to assume that in some way research has
shown it to be better. However there has been little empirical research of relevance to the
choice of ways of introducing algebra” (p 152).
The Australian group have also carried out research on the use of multi-representational
software (including graphics calculators) for learning algebra. One of the most important
findings from this research was that different function graphers promote the learning of
different concepts and solving procedures (Tynan, Stacey, Asp & Dowsey, 1995). This
again fits with a theory of learning which takes account of the nature of the interactions
between the learner and the learning environment.
Our main conclusion from this Australian research is that developing ‘misconceptions’
about the use of letters in algebra is a normal part of the learning process, whatever
teaching approach is used. Teachers need to understand this aspect of learning the
algebraic language and through discussion and other forms of feedback support students
to learn new meanings for letters. We suggest that any attempt to find a ‘best way’ to teach
or a ‘best set of problems’ cannot be expected to work because this is based on a simple
input/output cause-and-effect model of teaching and learning with no account being
taken of active construction of meaning by the learners within a social context. The fact
that all students do not develop the same ‘misconceptions’ relates as much to the varied
experiences of students both in-school and out-of-school as to the particular teaching
approach being used. In this respect learning the algebraic language is as complex as
learning natural language and will need as much intensive feedback from teachers and
other knowledgeable others as is the case for learning natural language.
We could also learn from the Australian research that a-priori analysis of problems in
terms of pupils’ likely meaning construction, combined with small-scale studies could lead
to the prediction of some of the interpretations which pupils make when problems such as
33
those involving pattern-spotting from number sequences or figurative images are
incorporated into curriculum reforms. This analysis can never predict a particular pupil’s
interpretation but it can predict a range of likely interpretations. This is compatible with
and supported by a phenomenographic approach to research (Marton & Booth 1997). See
also Assemblage A5.
A4: KILPATRICK, J. SWAFFORD, J. FINDELL, B. 2001

Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, J. Findell, B. (Eds) 2001, Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn
Mathematics, Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education,
National Academies Press, Washington.
This book provides an excellent summary and distillation of research, from a North
American perspective, and also draws extensively on international research. The
predominant concern in the USA is that algebra serves as a threshold for College-entrance,
and in many instances, for College-graduation. The approach in the USA is for algebra to
be a course which is isolated from other aspects of mathematics (Algebra 1, Algebra 2 etc).
Research therefore focuses on difficulties experienced by students when learning algebra
in an environment which isolates algebra from other aspects of mathematics.
Algebra is described as ‘a systematic way of expressing generality and abstraction,
including algebra as generalised arithmetic’ and as ‘syntactically guided transformations
of symbols’ (p258). However textbooks and teaching tend to emphasise the latter rather
than the former. Manipulation involves adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing,
factoring, solving equations, re-arranging for iterative approximation of solutions, etc. As
a manipulable language, it is suggested that algebra facilitates justification and proof
(convincing yourself and others). The dual nature of expressions (as calculational
sequences and as answers) requires students to learn when to interpret expressions, and
when to treat them as objects to be manipulated (p261).
But even in this book, algebra is presented in a chapter entitled ‘developing mathematical
proficiency beyond number’, which is perfectly correct in one sense, but could
unintentionally reinforce the notion that algebra starts when arithmetic is proficient,
whereas many would suggest that algebraic thinking is a necessary step away from the
particularities of number, and that this move mirrors or repeats the move from number as
adjective (one pencil, two crayons) to number as noun-object, with a move from
concentration on particular numbers to number as an abstract or general ‘thing’.
Although in the USA most algebra courses confine themselves to linear functions to start
with, and then move on to quadratics, it is highly likely (especially in a technology-rich
environment) that other functions could be introduced at the same time to avoid students
forming the impression that linear and quadratic is all that is of interest. For example,
Confrey & Smith (1995) provide further justification, and Philips, Smith, Star & Herbel-
Eisenmann (1998) report on such an experiment which confirmed the conjecture that with
the support of technology, students can encounter a much wider range of examples and
can cope with a greater degree of complexity than when confined to paper and pencil (see
for example Fey & Heid 1984, Fey & Good 1985, Coxford 1985, Coxford & Schulte 1988).
Kieran & Sfard (1999) used graphs successfully to help 12 & 13 year old students to see
through symbols to their referents, ‘like windows into a virtual world’, in order to
appreciate equivalent expressions. However they caution that this is not a panacea, just an
aid.
34
They point out that arithmetic in the USA is heavily committed to answers rather than to
processes, so there is considerable work to be done to draw student attention to processes
of calculation as a step towards algebraic thinking (p263). Students used only to
arithmetical thinking are liable to see the equals sign as a command to produce a single
number as answer (see for example Küchemann 1981, Booth 1994, 1988). It seems evident,
but has not been verified on any large scale studies, that if arithmetic was undertaken with
attention to the inherent and implicit generality of methods of calculation, the roots of
algebraic thinking would be established, making algebra easier and more accessible later.
Furthermore, tasks calling upon algebraic thinking could be begun at a very early age as
children grapple with the implicit generalities in their mathematics lessons. Gattegno
(1970) went so far as to suggest that
something is mathematical only if it is shot through with infinity,
which could be interpreted as ‘a lesson is not mathematical unless there is an opportunity
to experience, if not express, generality’.
One of the significant ‘tweaks’ in practice which could have long term effects, is to get
pupils to extend and vary the routine exercises they are normally given, whether to
introduce large and small numbers (often a source of excitement as they use symbols to
express things which are out of physical reach), or to bury-the-bone by making a routine
problem more difficult for their peers, through varying the choice of context, numbers,
setting, or complexity (see for example Watson & Mason 1998).
Intervention studies which support the kind of tasks promoted in the 70s in such books as
Starting Points (Banwell, Tahta & Saunders 1972) have been carried out recently. Carraher,
Brizuela, & Schliemann 2000, report that young learners are able to engage with problems
of an algebraic nature e.g. y=x+3, in which both particular and general are present. They
noted that in some contexts, children are inclined to instantiate generalities, while in others
it seems to them strange to employ a particular. Their research convinced them that there
is 'potential behind an early introduction of algebraic concepts and notations' (p151).
Since introducing algebra as ‘arithmetic with letters’ has been so largely unsuccessful,
Sutherland (1991) challenged researchers and teachers to ‘develop a school algebra culture
in which pupils find a need for algebraic symbolism to express and explore their
mathematical ideas (p2)’. Coles & Brown (1999) tackled Sutherland’s challenge by
developing a community of practice based on inquiry, which included the teacher making
meta-comments about the thinking and about the nature of mathematical inquiry. They
observed an increase in spontaneous student meta-commenting and increased
articulateness about the use of symbols in algebra.
It is certainly consistent with the major schools of thought concerning learning that where
children are invited and prompted to think about their thinking, to become aware of
processes carried out on objects as well as on the objects themselves, then they are likely to
become more relational, more algebraic, in their thinking (Kilpatrick et al p264-265).
Noss, Hoyles & Healy (1997) addressed issues of students identifying a great variety of
patterns in a simple match-stick sequence (see Assemblage 3) many of which do not
readily lend themselves to algebraic formulation, and the phenomenon observed by Lee &
Wheeler (1987) that students are not inclined to check the validity of such conjectures
without explicit teacher intervention, at least at first, while both Stacey (1989) and
Arzarello (1991) point to difficulties students experience in justifying their algebraic
expressions. They constructed a matchsticks world called mathsticks which requires
35
students to build up LOGO procedures for drawing matchstick sequences. They report on
how the software supported some 12-13 year old students in finding alternative seeings
along the lines of those suggested in Mason et al (1985) and Mason (1991).
It is also reported that there are some indications that students can learn to use symbol
manipulators to solve problems without themselves having great facility in manipulating
symbols, but much more research is necessary in order to validate this great hope of
technologically-committed educators and researchers (p278).
Students find great difficulty in expressing generality. Those who manage still find it
difficult to interpret or make use of such generalisations in resolving problems (Lee &
Wheeler 1987 p 159). What research has been done can be interpreted as suggesting that
sudedenly introducing generality in secondary school is less effective for a majority of
students. What is required is the whole of mathematics teaching being imbued with the
use of symbols to express generalisations which underpins the whole of a pupils’
experience, calling upon children’s powers to think mathematically.
Through an emphasis on generalisation, justification, and prediction, students can
learn to use and appreciate algebraic expressions as general statements. More
research is needed on how students develop such awareness. At the same time,
more attention needs to be paid to including activities in the curriculum on
identifying structures and justifying. Their absence is an obstacle to developing the
“symbol sense” that constitutes the power of algebra. (Kilpatrick et al 2001p 281)
This conforms with views from many different authors over the last century. The problem
seems to be to put it into practice on a wide scale.
A5: WORK FROM THE ITALIAN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION COMMUNITY

We review here the work of Arzarello, Bazzini & Chiappini (2001), Boero (2001), Dettori,
Garuti & Lemut (2001) who are all part of the Italian mathematics education community.
In general their research is characterised by analysis of ‘complex’ problems from small-
scale pilot studies, followed by empirical work in authentic learning situations. They work
in collaboration with practising teachers and their research incorporates the development
of curriculum activities. When interpreting their research it is important to bear in mind
that the algebra curriculum in Italy emphasises rigour, correspondence between
hypotheses formulated and experimental work and precise communication in language.
There is also an emphasis on a relatively formal approach to functions and
transformations of functions at the equivalent of Key Stage 4 (Sutherland, 2000).
Paulo Boero (2001) has drawn attention to the importance of transformation and
anticipation as key processes in algebraic problem solving, drawing on research in
authentic classrooms and combined with a theorisation of the results from a perspective of
explaining students’ meaning construction.
He considers processes of transformation both before and after algebraic formalisation.
He suggests that when transformation happens without or before algebraic formalisation it
is frequently based on the transformation of the problem situation through arithmetic or
geometric or physical manipulation of variables. The work of Filloy et al (2001) also make
reference to such ‘arithmetic’ transformation (see Assemblage 2). Boero calls such
transformations pre-algebraic. He says that when transformation occurs after or with
algebraic formalisation then this is usually based on the transformation of the algebraic
code, which considerably extends the range of possible transformations.
36
Boero’s main argument is that anticipation is an important part of transformation:
In order to direct the transformation in an efficient way, the subject needs to foresee
some aspects of the final shape of the object to be transformed related to the goal to
be reached and some possibilities of transformation (p99).
Boero considers the transformation process as part of problem-solving, modelling, proving
and conjecturing activity. He considers that the following standard classroom activities are
likely to hinder the dialectic relationship between transformation and anticipation:
• Calculating standard arithmetic expressions
• Transforming algebraic expressions in order to simplify them
He considers that the following classroom activities are likely to enhance the development
of this dialectic relationship:
• Producing and proving conjectures expressed with algebraic formulae
• Discussing the direction of transformations needed to obtain an algebraic expression
with given characteristics
With respect to investigating problem-solving approaches, variants of the following
problem have been used extensively with pupils from grades IV to VIII.
2000 liras will buy the stamps which are needed to mail a letter which weighs no
more than 100 grams. If Maria has an envelope weighing 14 grams, how many
sheets of writing paper weighing 16 grams each can she put in the envelope in
order not to exceed (with the envelope) the weight of 100 grams.
Research by Boero and Shaprio (1992) found that it was possible to categorise pupils’
approaches to solving this problem into two main categories, which they called a ‘pre-
strategy’ and an ‘envelopes and sheets’ strategy.
What they refer to as a pre-algebraic strategy involves taking the maximum possible weight
(100gms in the above example) and subtracting the weight of the envelope (14gms) from it
(obtaining 86 gms in the above example). The number of sheets is then found by
multiplying the weight of one sheet by a number and comparing this with the remaining
weight (e.g. 4 x 16 = 64 gms, 5 x 16 = 80 gms) or by dividing the remaining weight by the
weight of each sheet of paper (i.e. 86 gms divided by 16gms). They called this strategy
pre-algebraic in order to emphasise
two important, strictly connected aspects of algebraic reasoning, the transformation
of the mathematical structure of the problem and the discharge of information from
memory in order to simplify mental work (Boero, 2001, p 107).
Envelopes and sheets strategy. This is a more ‘situated’ approach to solving the problem in
which the weight of envelope and weight of sheets are managed together.
These strategies include ‘mental calculation strategies’ in which the result is reached
by immediate, simultaneous intuition of the maximum admissible number of sheets
with respect to the added weight of the envelope, ‘trial and error’ strategies in
which the solution is reached by a succession of numerical trials, keeping into
account the result of preceding trials (ibid p107).
In this sense pupils are transforming the problem by thinking about the number of sheets
and the weight of the envelope as physical variables.
37
This analysis is more fine-grained than that carried out by Filloy et al (2001) as it
distinguishes between an approach which Boero suggests is the antecedent of an algebraic
approach and an approach which is much more situated on manipulating the concrete
objects of the problem. Boero & Shapiro (1992) found that pupils strategies evolve with
respect to age and instruction from the more situated ‘envelopes and sheets’ strategy to a
‘pre-algebraic’ strategy. For Boero and Shapiro the pre-algebraic strategy incorporates the
roots of an algebraic approach. The implications of this type of analysis are that when
teachers find that pupils use a range of approaches to solve such problems they can make
the similarities and differences between these approaches more explicit through for
example collective whole class work centred around a common white-board. In some
respect this approach is similar to that being taken by Coles and Brown (1999).
Boero’s analysis of the ‘transformation function’ in algebra is important because it stresses
the dialectic relationship between standard patterns of transformation which derive from
instruction and practice and anticipations which produce the transformation, where
anticipation is the mental process through which the student foresees the final shape of
the algebraic expression. He argues that text books and teachers place too much emphasis
on standard patterns of transformation, namely moving towards progressive
simplification. Anticipating the effects of transformation relates to what Arcavi (1994) calls
‘symbol sense’.
Another example used by Boero (2001) and drawing on the work of Arzarello (2001)
highlights the importance of anticipating the effects of transformation within the
conjecturing and proving process. Boero discusses university students’ approaches to the
following problem:
Prove that the number (p – 1)(q – 1)/8 is an even number, provided p and q are odd
2
primes.
Boero argues that anticipation of the transformation process leads to substitutions such as
p = 2h + 1 and q = 2k+1. Arzarello found that ‘low attaining pupil seem to look (more or
less in a random purely syntactical fashion) for some more complicated formula which can
solve the problem and seldom try to substitute numbers for letters to see ‘what happens’”
(ibid p 67). Boero would argue that this transformation without anticipation results from an
over-emphasis on what he calls ‘blind manipulation’ in school algebra which probably
derive from carrying out simplification exercises in school.
Dettori et al (2001) also consider the effects of the nature of the problems and the tools
which are offered to students with respect to their problem solving processes. In Dettori et
al (2001) they present a detailed analysis of a range of ‘word’ problems and consider how
these might be solved with paper and pencil and a spreadsheet. From this they develop a
‘didactic sequence’ of problems for teaching and learning algebra, which have been
evaluated with groups of 13-14 year old students. Students were asked to solve the
problems spontaneously before instruction, using an algebra approach which had been
taught and also using a spreadsheet.
1 problem of sequence — Book Problem
st
We want to distribute 100 books among these pupils so that the second person
receives four times as many books as the first person, and the third person gets ten
more than the second person. How many books does the first person receive?
Last problem of sequence — Fish Problem
38
We went fishing and caught a big fish: its tail weights 4 Kilos, its body weighs the
same as the head plus the tail, and the head weighs one half of the body plus the
tail. What is the weight of the whole tail?
Dettori et al maintain that an arithmetic approach proceeds step by step whereas an
algebraic approach focuses on a global–synthetic view of the problem. They also maintain
that a problem is ‘more algebraic’ when the algebraic solution is simpler than the
arithmetic one. They suggest that the above ‘fish problem’ is difficult to solve with an
arithmetic approach. The results of asking students to solve the sequence of problems with
a spreadsheet leads them to conclude that students can learn some aspects of an algebraic
approach from using spreadsheets to solve problems but that they cannot learn from this
work how to synthesise and manipulate the complete relation. This relates to our earlier
discussion of the object-process duality in algebra, in which an equation such as 4x + 7 =
1.5x - 3 can be viewed as both a statement of equality of two calculational processes, and
also as an object in its own right amongst a general class of similar objects with associated
techniques for 'solving for x'.
Important issues raised by the Italian research are
Although systematic analysis of potential problem solving approaches to
mathematical problems cannot be culture free it does show that there is nothing
‘essential’ about a particular problem with respect to the approach which a pupil
might use to solve it. Possibly in the UK we have focused too much on ‘good
problems’ and conveyed to teachers the idea that there is something about the
problem alone which will provoke the use of algebra. As the Australian research on
students’ approaches to solving number-pattern problems shows there is nothing
intrinsic about a problem which provokes a particular approach. This is why the
role of the teacher is so important and this has been very much under-emphasised
in much of the so-called constructivist approaches to learning mathematics.
Anticipation, which is one of the roles played by mental imagery, is important for
successful manipulation of symbols to achieve answers to problems, as well as for
formulating those problems in algebraic language.
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arcavi A. 1994, Symbol Sense: The informal sense-making in formal mathematics, For the
Learning of Mathematics, 14 (3) p24-35.
Arzarello F. 1991, Pre-algebraic problem Solving, in J. Ponte, J. Matos, J. Matos, & D. Fernandes
(Eds.) Mathematical Problem Solving And New Information Technologies, NATO ASI Series F Vol 89,
Springer-Verlag, p155-166.
Arzarello, F., Bazzini, L., Chiappini, G. (2001) A Model for Analysing Algebraic Processes
of Thinking, Sutherland R, Rojano T, Bell A & Lins R (eds), Perspectives on School Algebra,
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Arzarello, F., Bazzini, L., Chiappini, G. 1994, The process of Naming in Algebraic Problem
Solving, in J. Ponte & J. Matos (Eds.) Proc. PME XVIII, Lisbon, II, p40-4.
Banwell, C. Tahta, D. & Saunders, K. 1972 (updated 1986), Starting points: for teaching
mathematics in middle and secondary schools, Tarquin, Diss.
39
Bashmakova, I. & Sminova, G. 2000, The Beginnings & Evolution of Algebra, Dolciani
Mathematical Expositions 23, Mathematical Association of America, Washington.
Bazzini & Chiappini 2001, $$$ CAN’T FIND THIS ONE!!!
Bazzini L., Gallo E., Lemut E. (1996) Studies on Teaching and Learning Algebra In Malara
N.A., Menghini M., Reggiani M., (eds) Italian Research in Mathematics Education 1988-
1995, CNR.
Bednarz, N. Kieran, C. & Lee, L. 1996, Approaches To Algebra: perspectives for research and
teaching, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Boero, P. & Shapiro, L. 1992, On some factors influencing students’ solutions in multiple
operations problems: Results and interpretation, Proceedings of PME–XVI, Durham, Vol I,
p89-96.
Boero, P. 2001, Transformation and Anticipation as Key Processes in Algebraic Problem

Solving, in R. Sutherland (Ed.), Algebraic Processes and Structures, Kluwer, Dordrecht,
p99 to 119.
Booth, L. 1984, Algebra: chil;dren's strategies and errors, a report of the Strategies and Errors in
Secondary School Project, NFER-Nelson, London.
Booth, L. 1988, Children’s Difficulties in Beginning Algebra, in A. Coxford & A. Schulte,

The Ideas of Algebra, K–12:, NCTM 1988 Yearbook, Reston, Virginia, p 20-32.
Branford, B. 1908, A Study of Mathematical Education, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Brown L. & Coles A. 1999, Needing to use algebra – a case study, in O. Zaslavsky (Ed.),
Proceedings of PME–XXIII, Haifa, Vol 2 p153-160.
Butler, W. 1838, Arithmetical Questions, on a new plan; intended to answer the double purpose of
arithmetical instruction and misc. info. designed for the use of Young Ladies. 12 Ed., Darton
th
and Harvey, London.
Butler, D. 1980-2001, Autograph, Eastmond Publishing, Oundle.
Carraher, D. Brizuela, B. & Schliemann A. 2000, Bringing Out the Algebraic Character of
Arithmetic: instantiating variables in addition and subtraction, in T. Nakahara & M.
Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of PME–XXIV, Vol. 2. Hiroshima, Japan, p 145-152.
Chazan, D. 2000, Beyond Formulas in Mathematics and Teaching: dynamics of the highschool
algebra classroom, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
Chevallard Y. 1994, Enseignment de l’algebre et transposition didactique, Rendiconti

del’Univesita e del Politencio di Torino, 52, p75 – 234.
Chevallard, Y. 1985, La Transposition Didactique, La Pensée Sauvage, Grenoble.
40
Coles, A. Brown, L. 1999 Meta-commenting: developing algebraic activity in a ‘community
of inquirers’, British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics: Proceedings of the day
conference held at the Open University, p1-6.
Collis, K. 1974, A study of concrete and formal operations in school mathematics: A Piagetian
viewpoint, Australian Council for Education Research, Melbourne
Confrey J. & Maloney A. 1996, Function Probe; Communications of ACM 39, 8, Aug. p 86 –
87.
Confrey, J. Carroll, F. Cato, S. Davis, p & Smith, E. 1989, Function Probe: Software for the
Apple Macintosh Computer.
Confrey, J. & Smith, E. 1995, Splitting, Covariation, and Their Role in the Development of
Exponential Functions, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 26 p66-86.
Confrey, J. 1992, Using Computers to Promote Students’ Inventions on the Function

Concept, in S. Malcolm, L. Roberts, and K. Sheingold (Eds.), This Year in School Science,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washingdon D.C., p 141-174.
Confrey, J. 1993, The Role of Technology in Reconceptualizing Functions and Algebra.

Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting North American Chapter of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 1, p 47-74.
Cooper, B. & Dunne, M. 2000, Assessing Children's Mathematical Knowledge: social class, sex
and problem-solving, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Coxford, A. & Schulte, A. 1988, The Ideas of Algebra, K–12:, NCTM 1988 Yearbook, Reston,
Virginia.
Coxford, A. 1985, School Algebra: what is stuill fundamental and what is not?, in C. Hirsch
(Ed.) The Secondary Mathematics Curriculum, NCTM 1985 Yearbook, Reston, Virginia, p
53-64.
Davis, R. 1984, Learning Mathematics: The Cognitive Science Approach, Croom Helm, London.
de Bono, E. 1972, Po: beyond yes and no, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
De Corte, E. & Verschaffel, L. 1997, Teaching Realistic Mathematical Modeling in the

Elementary School: a teaching experiment with fifth graders, Journal For Research In
mathemartics Ediucation, 28 (5) p577-601
Dettori, G. Garutti, R. Lemut, E. 2001, From Arithmetic to Algebraic Thinking by Using a

Spreadsheet, in R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A. Bell & R. Lins (Eds) Perspectives on School
Algebra, p 191-208, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Fey, J. & Good, R. 1985, Rethinking the Sequence and priorities of High School
Mathematics Curricula, in C. Hirsch (Ed.) The Secondary Mathematics Curriculum, NCTM
1985 Yearbook, Reston, Virginia,p. 43-52.
41
Fey, J. & Heid, K. 1984, Imperatives and possibilities for new Curricula in Secondary
School mathematic, in V. Hansen (Ed.), Computers in Education, NCTM Yearbook 1984,
Reston Virginia, p 20-29.
Fey, J. 1989, School Algebra for the Year 2000, in S. Wagner & C. Kieran, Research Issues in
the Learning and Teaching of Algebra, NCTM Reston and Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,
p199-213.
Filloy, E. & Sutherland, R. 1997, Designing Curricula For Teaching and Learning Algebra, in
A. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.) International Handbook
of Mathematics Education Part 1, Chapter 4, Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 139-160.
Filloy, E. Rojano, T. and Robio, G. 2001, Propositions Concerning the Resolution of

Arithmetical-Algebraic Problems, in R. Sutherland (Ed.) Perspectives on Algebra, Kluwer,
Dordrecht, p155-176.
Floyd, A., Burton, L., James, N., Mason, J. 1981, EM235: Developing Mathematical Thinking
Open University Course, Milton Keynes: Open University.
Freudenthal, H. 1973, Mathematics As An Educational Task, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Freudenthal, H. 1978, Weeding and Sowing,: preface to a science of mathematical education,

Reidel, Dordrecht.
Freudenthal, H. 1983 Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Freudenthal, H. 1991, Revisiting Mathematics Education: china lectures, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Friedlander, A. 1996, Superproblems in Spreadsheet-Based Algebra, in Giménez, J. Lins, R.

& Gómez, B. Arithmetics and Algebra Education, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Barcelona,
p55-60.
Gattegno, C. 1970, What We Owe Children: the subordination of teaching to learning, Routledge
& Kegan Paul, London.
Gattegno, C. 1973, In the Beginning There Were No Words: the universe of babies, Educational
Solutions, New York.
Gerofsky, S. 1996, A Linguistic and Narrative View of Word Problems in Mathematics

Education, For The Learning of Mathematics, 16 (2), 36-45.
Gillings, R. 1982, Mathematics in the Time of the Pharoahs. Dover, New York.
Giménez, J. Lins, R. & Gómez, B. 1996, Arithmetics and Algebra Education, Universitat Rovira
I Virgili, Barcelona.
Gravemeijer, K. 1994, Developing Realistic Mathematics Education, CD-ß, Utrecht:
Hawkes, T. & Savage, M. 2000, Measuring The Mathematics Problem, Engineering Council,
London.
42
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate 1979, Aspects of Secondary Education In England: a survey by
HM Inspector of Schools, HMSO, London.
Hewitt, D. (1992). Train Spotters’ Paradise. Mathematics Teaching 140, 6-8.
Humphreys, G. 1938, Graded Exercises in Algebra: a third book, James Nisbet & Co., London.
Janvier, C. (Ed.) Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics,

Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Kangshen, S. Crossley, J. Lun, A. 1999, The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art: companion
and commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kaput, J. 1995a, The future of algebra reform: the next ten years. In C. Lacampagne, W.
Bates, and J. Kaput (Eds.) Linking algebra, grades K-20: Volume I, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, DC.
Kaput, J. 1995b, A research base supporting long term algebra reform? in D. Owens, (Ed)
Proceedings of the 16th Meeting of the PME-NA Annual Meeting, Columbus.
Kaput, J. 1999, Teaching and Learning A New Algebra, in E. Fennema, & T. Romberg
(Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 133-155), Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah.
Karpinski, L. 1965, The History of Arithmetic. Russell & Russell, New York.
Kieran, C. (1992). ‘The Learning and Tecahing of Algebra’ in D.A. Groews (Ed.), Handbook
of Reserach on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Macmillan, New York, p390-419.
Kieren, C. & Sfard, A. 1999, Seeing Through Symbols: the case of equivalent expressions,
Focus on Learning problems in Mathematics, Winter 21 (1) p1-17.
Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, J. Findell, B. (Eds.) 2001, Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn
Mathematics, National Academy Press, Washington.
Kirshner, D. 1989, The Visual Syntax of Algebra, Journal For Research in Mnathematics
Education 20 p274-287.
Küchemann, D. 1981, Algebra, in K. Hart (Ed.) Children’s Undwerstyanding of Mathematics

11-16, Murray, London, p 102-119.
Lave, J. 1992, Word problems: a microcosm of theories of learning, in Light P. &

Butterworth, G. (Eds.) Context and Cognition: ways of learning and knowing, Harvester,
New York, p74-92.
Lee, L. & Wheeler, D. 1987, Algebraic Thinking in High School Students: their conceptions
of generalisation and justification, Concordia University, Montreal.
Lins, R. 1992, A Framework for Understanding What Algebraic Thinking Is, Unpublished PhD
Thesis, Nottingham University, Nottingham.
43
Lodge, 1903, Teaching of Algebra, Educational Times p175-177.
Love, E. 1986, What Is Algebra?, Mathematics Teaching, 117, p48-50.
MacGregor M., Stacey K. 1997, Students’ understanding of algebraic notation 11-15,

Educational Studies in Mathematics. 33(1), 1-19.
MacGregor, M. & Stacey, K. 1995, The Effect of Different Approaches to Algebra on

Students’ Perceptions of Functional Relationships, Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 7 (1) p69-85.
MacGregor, M. 1971, Making Sense of Algebra: cognitive processes influencing

comprehension, Deakin University, Jeelong, Voctoria.
MacGregor, M. 1996, Curricular aspects of Arithmetic and Algebra, in Giménez, J. Lins, R.

& Gómez, B. Arithmetics and Algebra Education, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Barcelona,
p50-54.
Marton, F., Booth, S. 1997, Learning and Awareness, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New
Jersey.
Mason, J. 1991, Supporting Primary Mathematics: Algebra, Open University, Milton Keynes.
Mason, J. 1988a, Expressing Generality, Project Update PM751, Open University, Milton
Keynes.
Mason, J. 1988b, Actions Into Words, Project Update PM752A, Open University, Milton
Keynes.
Mason, J. Burton L. & Stacey K. 1982, Thinking Mathematically, Addison Wesley, London.
Mason, J. Graham, A. Pimm, D. Gower, N. 1985, Routes to / Roots of Algebra, Open

University, Milton Keynes.
Noss, R. Hoyles, C. & Healy, L. 1997, The Construction of Mathematical Meanings:

connecting the visual with the symbolic, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33 p203-233.
Nunn, P. 1919, The Teaching of Algebra, Longmans, London.
O’Callaghan, B. 1998, Computer-Intensive Algebra and Students’ Conceptual Knowledge

of Functions, Journal For Research in Mathematics Education, 29 (1) p21-40.
Philips, E. Smith, J. Star J. & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. 1998, Algebra in the Middle School
Grades, New England Mathematics Journal, 30 (2) p48-60.
Pirie, S. Kieren, T. 1994, Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise

it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, p165-190.
Press / Freudenthal Institute.Gray, E. & Tall, D. 1994, Duality, Ambiguity, and Flexibility:
a proceptual view of simple arithmetic, J. Research in Mathematics Education, 25 (2) p116-
140.
44
Pycior, H. 1997, Symbols, Impossible Numbers, and Geometric Entanglements: british algebra
through the commentaries on Newton’s Universal Arithmetick, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Radford, L. 2001, The Historical Origins of Algebraic Thinking, in R. Sutherland (Ed.),

Algebraic Processes and Structures, Kluwer, Dordrecht p13-36.
Reggiani, M. 1994, Generalization as a basis for algebraic thinking: observations with 11-12
year old pupils Proceedings of PME XVIII, IV, p97 - 104.
Sawyer, W. 1959, A Concrete Approach to Abstract Algebra, Freeman, London.
Schwartz, J. & Yerushalmy, M. 1992, The Function Supposer: Symbols and Graphs. (Software)
Sunburst Communications.
Skemp , R. (1976). Relational and Instrumental Understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77,

p20-26.
Simmt, E. & Kieren, T. (1999). Expanding the cognitive domain: the role(s) and
consequence of interaction in mathematics knowing. In F. Hitt and M. Santos (Eds.)
Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Meeting Psychology of Mathematics Education North
American Chapter, p299-305.
South Notts Project, undated, Material For Secondary Mathematics, Shell Centre, University
of Nottingham, Nottingham.
Stacey, K. 1989, Finding and Using Patterns in Linear Generalising Problems, Educatuional
Studies in Mathematics, 20, p147-164.
Stacey, K. & MacGregor, M (1997) Building Foundations for Algebra, Mathematics Teaching
in the Middle School 2(4), p253-260.
Stacey, K. & MacGregor, M (2000) Lerning the Algebraic Method of Solving Problems,
Journal of Mathematical Behaviour 18(2), p149-167.
Sutherland R. & Rojano T. 1993, A Spreadsheet Algebra Approach to Solving Algebra

Problems, Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, Vol 12, p353-383.
Sutherland R. 1990, The changing role of algebra in school mathematics: the potential of
computer-based environments, in P. Dowling & R. Noss (Eds) Mathematics Versus the
National Curriculum, Falmer Press, London.
Sutherland, R. 1991, 'Some Unanswered Research Questions on the Teaching and Learning
of Algebra', For the Learning of Mathematics, 11(3), p 40-46.
Sutherland, R. 1997, Teaching and Learning Algebra pre-19, Royal Society and Joint
Mathematics Council, London.
Sutherland, R. 1998, Mathematics Education: A Case for Survival, Inaugural Professorial

Lecture, May 14th 1998, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol.
45
Sutherland, R. 2000, A Comparative Study of Algebra Curricula, Report Prepared for the
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London.
Sutherland, R. Rojano T. Bell A. & Lins, R. 2001, Perspectives on Algebra, Kluwer,

Dordrecht.
Swan, M. 1985, The Language of Functions and Graphs: an examination module for secondary
schools, Joint Mathematics Council, Manchester
Swetz, F. 1995, To Know and To Teach: mathematical pedagogy from a historical context,
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, p73-88.
Tahta, D. 1972, A Boolean Anthology: selected writings of Mary Boole on mathematics education,
Association of Teachers of Mathematics, Derby.
Tall , D. & Thomas, M. 1991, Algeraic Thinking With a Computer, Educational Studies in
MathematicsI, 22 p125-147.
Torra, M. 1996, Children’s Stories in Maths Lessons … more than a resource, in Giménez, J.
Lins, R. & Gómez, B. Arithmetics and Algebra Education, Universitat Rovira I Virgili,
Barcelona, p102-109.
Tynan, D. Stacey, K., Asp, G., & Dowsey, J (1995) Doing mathematics with new tools: new
patterns of thinking. In B Atweh & S. Flavel (Eds.) galtha (pp 397-402). Proceedings of
the 18 Annual conference of the mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
th
Darwin: Mathematics Education research Group of Australasia.
van der Waerden, B. 1983, Geometry and Algebra in Ancient Civilizations, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Viète, F. 1591, Witmer, T. (Trans.) 1983, The analytic art: nine studies in algebra geometry and
trigonometry from the Opus Restitutae Mathematicae Analyseos seu Algebra Nova, Kent State
University Press, Kent.
Wagner, S. & Kieran, C. 1989, Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra, NCTM
Reston and Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, p278-287.
Watson, A. & Mason, J. 1998, Questions and Prompts for Mathematical Thinking. Association
of Teachers of Mathematics, Derby.
Watson, A. 2000, Going Across The Grain: mathematical generalisation in a group of low
attainers, Nordisk Matematikk Didaktikk (Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education) 8 (1) p7-
22.
Wheeler, D. 1989, Contexts for Research on the Teaching and Learning of Algebra, in S.
Wagner & C. Kieran, Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra, NCTM
Reston and Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, p278-287.
Whitehead, A. 1948, Essays in Science and Philosophy, Rider & Co., London.
Wiliam, D. 1997, Relevance as MacGuffin in Mathematics Education, Chreods 12, p8-19.
46
Witmer, T. (Trans.) 1968, Ars Magna or The Rules of Algebra, Girolamo Cardano, Dover,
New York.
Wright, J. 1906, The Teaching Mathemetics in the Elementary and the Secondary School,
American Teacher Series, J. Russell (Ed.), Longmans Green, London.
Yerushalmy, M. 1995, On the need for a Bridging Language for Mathematical Modeling,
For the Learning of Mathematics, 15 (2), p29-35.
Yerushalmy, M., Schwartz, J. 1993, Seizing the Opportunity to Make Algebra

Mathematically and Pedagogically Interesting, in T. Romberg, E. Fennema & T.
Carpenter, (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
WEBSITES
Luciana Bazzini, Elisa http://didaktik.cs.uni-
Gallo and Enrica Lemut, potsdam.de/HyFISCH/Literatur/Fachdidaktik/LearningA
Studies on Teaching and lgebraLemut.htm
Learning Algebra
Cerulli & Marriotti, M-A. http://poisson.dm.unipi.it/~cerulli/LAlgebrista/its2000.p
hp?lang=en
A symbolic manipulator to
introduce pupils to algebra
theory
Function Probe High School Mathematics: development of teacher-
knowledge and imnplemntation of a problem-based
Confrey, J. Piliero, S.
mathematics curriculum using multi-representational
Rizzuti, J. Smith, E.
software, Apple News, undated (estimated 1990)
www.apple.com/education/k12/leadership/acot/pdf/rpt
11.pdf
Autograph (Douglas http://www.argonet.co.uk/circleline/

Butler)
Jim Kaput SimCalc project: http://www.simcalc.umassd.edu/
Democratizing Access to
the Mathematics of
Change
Algeblocks http://www.etacuisenaire.com/index.htm
47
View publication stats

2002 QCAAlgebra Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2002 QCAAlgebra Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2002 QCAAlgebra Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Key aspects of teaching algebra in schools

Article · January 2002

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

0. CAVEATS & CONTENTS

A2: BEDNARZ, KIERAN & LEE 1996

A3: AN AUSTRALIAN ASSEMBLAGE

A4: AN AMERICAN ANALYSIS (2001)

A5: AN ITALIAN ASSEMBLAGE

2. DISTILLATION OF PRINCIPAL THEMES

every decade of the 20 century. Of particular note are

WHAT IS ALGEBRAIC THINKING?

ABSTRACTION AS STRENGTH AND AS WEAKNESS

INTERWEAVING OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

DISTINCTIONS & DUALITIES

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

3. REVIEW OF FIVE ASSEMBLAGES

A2: BEDNARZ, KIERAN & LEE (1996)

17 centuries (Pycior 1997).

2001 for further discussion of this method).

A3: WORK FROM THE AUSTRALIAN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION COMMUNITY

A4: KILPATRICK, J. SWAFFORD, J. FINDELL, B. 2001

A5: WORK FROM THE ITALIAN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION COMMUNITY

Bazzini & Chiappini 2001, $$$ CAN’T FIND THIS ONE!!!

Boero, P. 2001, Transformation and Anticipation as Key Processes in Algebraic Problem

Booth, L. 1988, Children’s Difficulties in Beginning Algebra, in A. Coxford & A. Schulte,

Branford, B. 1908, A Study of Mathematical Education, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

and Harvey, London.

Butler, D. 1980-2001, Autograph, Eastmond Publishing, Oundle.

Chevallard Y. 1994, Enseignment de l’algebre et transposition didactique, Rendiconti

Chevallard, Y. 1985, La Transposition Didactique, La Pensée Sauvage, Grenoble.

Confrey, J. 1992, Using Computers to Promote Students’ Inventions on the Function

Confrey, J. 1993, The Role of Technology in Reconceptualizing Functions and Algebra.

de Bono, E. 1972, Po: beyond yes and no, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

De Corte, E. & Verschaffel, L. 1997, Teaching Realistic Mathematical Modeling in the

Dettori, G. Garutti, R. Lemut, E. 2001, From Arithmetic to Algebraic Thinking by Using a

Filloy, E. Rojano, T. and Robio, G. 2001, Propositions Concerning the Resolution of

Freudenthal, H. 1973, Mathematics As An Educational Task, Reidel, Dordrecht.

Freudenthal, H. 1978, Weeding and Sowing,: preface to a science of mathematical education,

Freudenthal, H. 1983 Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures, Reidel, Dordrecht.

Freudenthal, H. 1991, Revisiting Mathematics Education: china lectures, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Friedlander, A. 1996, Superproblems in Spreadsheet-Based Algebra, in Giménez, J. Lins, R.

Gerofsky, S. 1996, A Linguistic and Narrative View of Word Problems in Mathematics

Gravemeijer, K. 1994, Developing Realistic Mathematics Education, CD-ß, Utrecht:

Hewitt, D. (1992). Train Spotters’ Paradise. Mathematics Teaching 140, 6-8.

Janvier, C. (Ed.) Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics,

Küchemann, D. 1981, Algebra, in K. Hart (Ed.) Children’s Undwerstyanding of Mathematics

Lave, J. 1992, Word problems: a microcosm of theories of learning, in Light P. &

Love, E. 1986, What Is Algebra?, Mathematics Teaching, 117, p48-50.

MacGregor M., Stacey K. 1997, Students’ understanding of algebraic notation 11-15,

MacGregor, M. & Stacey, K. 1995, The Effect of Different Approaches to Algebra on

MacGregor, M. 1971, Making Sense of Algebra: cognitive processes influencing

MacGregor, M. 1996, Curricular aspects of Arithmetic and Algebra, in Giménez, J. Lins, R.

Mason, J. Graham, A. Pimm, D. Gower, N. 1985, Routes to / Roots of Algebra, Open

Noss, R. Hoyles, C. & Healy, L. 1997, The Construction of Mathematical Meanings:

Nunn, P. 1919, The Teaching of Algebra, Longmans, London.

O’Callaghan, B. 1998, Computer-Intensive Algebra and Students’ Conceptual Knowledge

Pirie, S. Kieren, T. 1994, Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterise

Radford, L. 2001, The Historical Origins of Algebraic Thinking, in R. Sutherland (Ed.),