<<

Author Biographies

Sinan Kanbir is an Assistant Professor of Education, University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point. He received his Ph.D. in mathematics education from Illinois State University, a masters degree in computer and educational technology from Marmara University, and a bachelors degree in mathematics education from Gazi University. Prior to his appointment at UW-Stevens Point, he had taught mathematics at the middle- and high-school levels, and university-level courses for prospective middle- and elementary-school teachers. His main research interests include the development of students’ and teachers’ algebraic reasoning, particularly in the elementary and middle grades, and the development of pre-service and in-service teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. He currently teaches elementary and middle-school mathematics pre- service teacher-education courses. His main research has been in the areas of education and the history of school mathematics.

M. A. (Ken) Clements’s masters and doctoral degrees were from the University of Melbourne, and at various times in his career he taught, full-time, for a total of 15 years, in primary and secondary schools. He has taught in six universities, located in five nations, and is currently Professor in the Department of Mathematics at Illinois State University. He has served as a consultant and as a researcher in Australia, Brunei Darussalam, India, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Vietnam. He served as co-editor of the three International Handbooks of Mathematics Education—published by Springer in 1996, 2003 and 2013—and, with Nerida Ellerton, co-authored a UNESCO book on mathematics education research. He has authored or edited 33 books and over 200 articles on mathematics education, and is honorary life member of both the Mathematical Association of Victoria and the Mathematics Education Research of Australasia.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 223 S. Kanbir et al., Using Design Research and History to Tackle a Fundamental Problem with School Algebra, History of Mathematics Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59204-6 224 Author Biographies

Author Biographies (Continued)

Nerida F. Ellerton has been Professor in the Department of Mathematics at Illinois State University since 2002. She holds two doctoral degrees—one in Physical Chemistry and the other in Mathematics Education. Between 1997 and 2002 she was Dean of Education at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. She has taught in schools and at four universities, and has also served as consultant in numerous countries, including Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, the United States of America, and Vietnam. She has written or edited 18 books and has had more than 150 articles published in refereed journals or edited collections. Between 1993 and 1997 she was editor of the Mathematics Education Research Journal, and between 2011 and 2014 she was Associate Educator of the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. In 2016 she received an award for top researcher at Illinois State University.

List of Appendices

Appendix Page

A Protocol for Algebra Interviews with Seventh-Graders 227

B Algebra Test (Three Versions are Reproduced) 229

C “Questionnaire” Completed by Seventh-Grade Students at School W at the Beginning of the Algebra Workshops on “Structure” 237

D Statement of Instructional Aims for the Structure Workshops with the Seventh-Grade Students at School W 239

E Detailed Lesson Plans for Four Workshops on “Structure” for Seventh- Grade Students at School W, Including Homework Challenges for Each Workshop 241

F Detailed Plans for Group Tasks in the Modeling Workshops: Finding Recursive and Explicit Rules for Patterns 257

G Classroom Observation Schedule 287

H Pre-Teaching to Post-Teaching “Growth” with Respect to the Five Basic Cognitive Structure Components 289

I Generalization Categories (After Radford, 2006) 295

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 225 S. Kanbir et al., Using Design Research and History to Tackle a Fundamental Problem with School Algebra, History of Mathematics Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59204-6

Appendix A

Protocol for Algebra Interviews with Seventh-Graders

1. The interviews should be tape-recorded. 2. The interviewer should have the following: (a) A sheet of paper with 482 + (18 + 300) on it. [See (2) below.] (b) A sheet of paper with value of 4 × (¼ × 128) on it. [See (3) below.]

(c) A sheet of paper with Tn = 2n + 3 on it. [See (4) below.]

(d) A sheet of paper with Tn = 5n – 2 on it. [See (5) below.] (e) A sheet of paper with 15 – (5 – x) = (15 – 5) – x on it. [See (6) below.] (f) A sheet of paper showing the Table in Question 7 below. (g) A sheet of paper showing the illustration in Question 8 below. 3. Ask each student the questions listed below, and make notes as you go.

1. I am going to say two words and, as soon as I say them, I want you to say something, or draw something, or do something—do the first thing that comes into your head after I say the words. The words are … “.” Here are the words again: “distributive property.”

2. Without using a calculator, find the value of 482 + (18 + 300).

[Once an answer is given ask for an explanation of where that answer came from.]

3. Without using a calculator, find the value of 4 × (¼ × 128).

[Once an answer is given ask for an explanation of where that answer came from.]

4. If we write Tn = 2n + 3, then we can say T5 equals 13, because 2 times 5 plus 3 equals 13.

What would T11 equal? [When the pupil gives an answer, ask her or him to write down how she or he obtained that answer. Also, ask the student to explain what she or he thought, in words.]

227

228 Appendix A: Protocol for Algebra Interviews

5. Give the pupil a piece of paper with Tn = 5n – 2 on it, then ask her or him to say which values of n would make Tn greater than 20. [When the pupil gives an answer, ask her or him to write down how she or he obtained that answer. Also, ask the student to explain what she or he thought, in words.]

6. Give the pupil a piece of paper with the equation 15 – (5 – x) = (15 – 5) – x on it, and then, pointing to the x, say: “Which could x equal so that you would get a true statement?” [When the pupil gives an answer, ask her or him to write down how she or he obtained that answer. Also, ask the student to explain what she or he thought, in words.]

7. Give the pupil a piece of paper with the following table on it: First 1 2 3 4 5 … n Value Second 3 5 7 9 ? … ? Value

Then ask (pointing): What should we place under the 5 in the table?

Then ask (pointing): What do you think we should we put under the n?

8. The diagram below shows how tables and chairs are arranged in a school cafeteria. One table can seat 4 people, and tables can be pushed together (but always in a straight line). When two tables are pushed together, 6 people can sit around the table (as shown), etc.

A. If 10 tables were pushed together (in a straight line), how many people could sit around them (assuming the pattern shown above)?

B. If Pn represents the number of people who can sit when n tables are pushed together (in a straight line), what is the rule giving Pn in terms of n?

Appendix B: Algebra Test (Pre-Teaching and Retention Version) 229

Appendix B

Algebra Test (Three Parallel Versions are Reproduced) Algebra Test (Pre-Teaching Version, and also the Retention Version)

1. If Tn = 13 – 3n, where n can be any whole number, which values of n would make the values of Tn positive?

2. A really important property for numbers and for algebra is called the associative property for . Describe this property in your own words.

3. Suppose you were asked to calculate the value of 940 + (60 + 403) in your head (without writing anything down, or using a calculator). How would you do it, and which property would you be using?

4. If Sn = 101 + 50n, where n can be any whole number, what is the value of S4?

5. A student is creating towers out of unit cubes. Each unit cube, by itself, has 6 square faces, but when two unit cubes are stuck together, one exactly on top of the other, there are only 10 faces in the tower (including the top and the bottom). The first tower has 1 unit cube and 6 faces. The second tower has 2 unit cubes, one on top of the other, and the third tower has 3 unit cubes, etc. We say that the surface area of the first tower is 6 units, of the second tower is 10 units, etc.

n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 What is the surface area of a tower with 50 cubes?

6. If Tn = 2n + 5, what is value of Tn + 1 – Tn?

230 Appendix B: Algebra Test (Pre-Teaching and Retention Version)

7. Which values of x would make this statement true? 5(x – 3) = 5x – 10. Explain how you got your answer.

8. Without using a calculator find the value of (72 × 5) × 2, and explain how you got your answer.

9. What must x equal if 12 – (8 – 4) = (12 – x) – 4? Explain how you got your answer.

10. If 96 = 16y + 32y, what must y equal? Explain how you got your answer.

11. If 20 × (10 + 5) = (20 × 10) + (20 × y), what must y equal? Explain how you got your answer.

12. (a) What number should replace the question mark below 5 in the second row of the following table?

Appendix B: Algebra Test (Pre-Teaching and Retention Version) 231

First row of numbers 1 2 3 4 5 … n Second row of numbers 3 6 9 12 ? … ?

(b) In the table above, what should replace the question mark which is below the n?

13. What would be a quick method of finding the value of 7 × 97 + 7 × 3 without using a calculator? What is the property which allows you to use that quick method?

14. You have been hired by the Southwestern Fence Company to make pens for holding cows. A cow pen is a wall of blocks that completely surrounds the cow. You must leave at least 1 unit block in the middle of each pen where a cow would go. A cow needs 1 unit block of space.

The first cow pen that you can build looks like this. It holds just one cow, and there are 8 surrounding blocks altogether:

The second cow pen that you can build looks like this. It holds 2 cows.

The third cow pen that you can build looks like this. It holds 3 cows.

232 Appendix B: Algebra Test (Pre-Teaching and Retention Version)

Note that the cow pens must always be in a straight line, left to right.

(a) How many surrounding blocks would you need to hold 25 cows?

(b) If Sn represents the number of surrounding blocks you would need for a pen which would hold n cows, what is the rule giving Sn in terms of n?

Explain how you got your rule for Part (b).

1 15. What would be a quick method of finding the value of 64 × ( × 120), without using a 32 calculator?

Appendix B: Algebra Test (Mid-Intervention Version) 233

Algebra Test (Mid-Intervention Version) ______

1. In this question Tn = 14 – 4n, where n can represent various positive counting numbers. Which values of n would make the values of Tn positive?

2. A really important property for numbers and for algebra is called the associative property for . Describe this property in your own words.

3. Suppose you were asked to calculate the value of 910 + (90 + 463) in your head (without writing anything down, or using a calculator). How would you do it, and which property would you be using?

4. If Sn = 101 + 40n, where n can be any whole number, what is the value of S5?

5. Mr. Y wants to know how many students can sit around a row of hexagonal desks. If one desk is by itself then six students can sit around it, but if two desks are pushed together, then only 10 students can sit around the pattern of tables. If three desks are pushed together in a row, as shown above, then 14 students can sit around the pattern of tables

n = 1 n = 2 n = 3

How many students could sit around a pattern of 50 hexagonal tables arranged in a long straight row, like the patterns shown?

6. If Tn = 3n + 2, what is value of Tn + 1 – Tn?

7. Which values of x would make this statement true? 4(x – 3) = 4x – 6.

234 Appendix B: Algebra Test (Mid-Intervention Version)

Explain how you got your answer.

8. Without using a calculator find the value of (36 × 5) × 2, and explain how you got your answer.

9. What must x equal if 15 – (10 – 5) = (15 – x) – 5? Explain how you got your answer.

10. If 72 = 12x + 24x, what must x equal? Explain how you got your answer.

11. If 30 × (10 + 4) = (30 × 10) + (30 × y), what must y equal? Explain how you got your answer.

12. (a) What number should replace the question mark below 5 in the second row of the following table?

First row of numbers 1 2 3 4 5 ... n Second row of numbers 4 8 12 16 ? ... ?

(b) In the table above, what should replace the question mark which is below the n?

13. What would be a quick method of finding the value of 8 × 96 + 8 × 4 without using a calculator? What is the property which allows you to use that quick method?

Appendix B: Algebra Test (Mid-Intervention Version) 235

14. A king is building a house for his queen, but there has to be security rooms all around the queen’s bedroom, as shown in the first diagram below. You can see that there are 8 surrounding security rooms altogether:

The queen complained that one room was not enough for her, so the king arranged for a two-room version to be built, like this. There were 10 security rooms needed.

But, after a while, the queen said she needed three rooms, so the king arranged for the following to be built.

Notice that the queen’s rooms must always be in a straight line, left to right.

(a) How many surrounding security rooms would you need if the queen had 25 rooms?

(b) If Rn represents the number of surrounding security rooms needed if the queen had n rooms, what is the rule giving Rn in terms of n?

Explain how you got your rule for Part (b).

1 15. What would be a quick method of finding the value of 48 × ( × 120), without using a 24 calculator?

236 Appendix B: Algebra Test (Post-Teaching Version)

Algebra Test (Post-Teaching Version) ______

1. If Tn = 17 – 4n, where n can represent various positive counting numbers, which values of n would make the values of Tn positive?

2. A really important property for numbers and for algebra is called the associative property for multiplication. Describe this property in your own words.

3. Suppose you were asked to calculate the value of 920 + (80 + 533) in your head (without writing anything down, or using a calculator). How would you do it, and which property would you be using?

4. If Sn = 102 + 40n, where n can be any whole number, what is the value of S5?

5. A student is creating towers out of unit cubes. Each unit cube, by itself, has 6 square faces, but when two unit cubes are stuck together, one exactly on top of the other, there are only 10 faces in the tower (including the top and the bottom). The first tower has 1 unit cube and 6 faces. The second tower has 2 unit cubes, one on top of the other, and the third tower has 3 unit cubes, etc. We say that the surface area of the first tower is 6 units, of the second tower is 10 units, etc.

n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4

What is the surface area of a tower with 50 cubes?

6. If Tn = 3n + 4, what is value of Tn +1 – Tn?

Appendix B: Algebra Test (Post-Teaching Version) 237

7. Which values of x would make this statement true? 4(x – 3) = 4x – 10.

Explain how you got your answer.

8. Without using a calculator find the value of (36 × 5) × 2, and explain how you got your answer.

9. What must x equal if 15 – (10 – 5) = (15 – x) – 5? Explain how you got your answer.

10. If 72 = 12y + 24y, what must y equal? Explain how you got your answer.

11. If 50 × (10 + 5) = (50 × 10) + (50 × y), what must y equal? Explain how you got your answer.

238 Appendix B: Algebra Test (Post-Teaching Version)

12. (a) What number should replace the question mark below 5 in the second row of the following table?

First row of numbers 1 2 3 4 5 … n Second row of numbers 4 8 12 16 ? … ?

(b) In the table above, what should replace the question mark which is below the n?

13. What would be a quick method of finding the value of 8 × 96 + 8 × 4 without using a calculator? What is the property which allows you to use that quick method?

14. You have been hired by the Southwestern Fence Company to make pens for holding cows.

A cow pen is a wall of blocks that completely surrounds the cow. You must leave at least one unit square in the middle of each pen where a cow would go. A cow needs 1 square unit of space.

The first cow pen that you can build looks like this. It holds just one cow, and there are 8 surrounding blocks altogether:

The second cow pen that you can build looks like this. It holds 2 cows.

Appendix B: Algebra Test (Post-Teaching Version) 239

The third cow pen that you can build looks like this. It holds 3 cows.

Note that the cow pens must always be in a straight line, left to right.

(a) How many surrounding blocks would you need to hold 25 cows?

(b) If Sn represents the number of surrounding blocks you would need for a pen which would hold n cows, what is the rule giving Sn in terms of n?

Explain how you got your rule for Part (b).

1 15. What would be a quick method of finding the value of 48 × ( × 150), without using a calculator? 24

Appendix C

“Questionnaire” Completed by Seventh-Grade Students at School W

at the Beginning of the Algebra Workshops on “Structure”

1. Do you have any idea what the associative property for addition for real numbers states? Your Answer: Circle whichever is appropriate for you— Yes No If your answer was “Yes,” write down, in your own words what you think the associative property for addition for real numbers is:

2. Do you have any idea what the associative property for multiplication for real numbers states? Your Answer: Circle whichever is appropriate for you— Yes No If your answer was “Yes,” write down, in words what you think the associative property for multiplication for real numbers is:

3. Do you have any idea what the distributive property connecting multiplication and addition of real numbers states?

Your Answer: Circle whichever is appropriate for you— Yes No If your answer was “Yes,” write down, in words what you think the distributive property connecting multiplication and of real numbers states:

241

Appendix D

Statement of Instructional Aims for the Structure Workshops

with the Seventh-Grade Students at School W

Aims: 1. To identify how well the students know, before any of the planned lessons take place, the formal statements associated with the following properties with respect to real numbers: (a) The associative property for addition [i.e., if a, b, c represent any real numbers then (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)] (b) The associative property for multiplication [i.e., if a, b, c represent any real numbers then (a × b) × c = a × (b × c)] (c) The distributive property combining addition and multiplication [i.e., if a, b, c represent any real numbers then a × (b + c) = (a × b) + (a × c)]. 2. To engage the seventh-grade students in meaningful discussions with fellow students about how knowledge of the above three properties can facilitate calculations, especially mental calculations. 3. To identify how well the seventh-grade students learn to apply the associative and distributive properties with respect to simple, but appropriate, mental calculations. 4. To assist the students to develop confidence as well as competence with respect to understanding and applying the three properties which are the special focus of the sessions. Preparation of Material: 1. Workshop 1 (Group Task 1) and Workshop 1 (Group Task 2) are handouts for students. It is intended that these handouts be completed by the seventh-grade students, as they engage in group discussions. The class would be subdivided into groups of 3 or 4, with half of the groups being assigned Group Task 1 (which is concerned with the associative property for addition) and the other half of the groups being assigned to Group 2 (which is concerned with the associative property for multiplication). 2. An initial questionnaire has been prepared. The aim of this is to glean information about what the students already know about the associative properties for addition and multiplication of real numbers, and what they already know about the distributive property. 3. Typed homework materials, for each of the first two sessions, have also been prepared. These materials are to be submitted to the teacher at the beginning of the second and third sessions. The two homework sheets will be mostly review, but there will also be “challenging questions” on each sheet.

243

244 Appendix D: Instructional Aims for Structure Workshops

4. This “summary sheet” has also been prepared, the main purpose of which is to indicate clearly the intended sequence for the first two sessions.

Intended Sequence for the First Two Sessions: 1. Introduction: Students will each have a folder in which to keep all of their worksheets and homework. This should greatly facilitate opportunities for the researchers to look at students’ work. 2. Allocation to groups and re-arrangement of tables and administration of questionnaire. 3. Group discussion should focus on the questions asked on printed handouts (for either Workshop Group Task 1 or Workshop Group Task 2). Half of the groups will have the Task 1 handout, and the other half will have the Task 2 handout. The students will be told that in their group they should read the materials, agree on good answers to the questions, and then decide who will teach the students doing the other task that day when they meet the next day. On the second day, group members will be responsible for teaching students in the other group the mathematical ideas that they learned on the first day. Note that on the second day, all of the students will have, and be able to refer to, both the handouts for Workshop Group Task 1 and Workshop Group Task 2. 4. At the end of each of the first two sessions, each of the students will be given a “homework” sheet which he or she will be expected to complete overnight and submit to the teacher at the beginning of the next session. The quality of the students’ responses on these homework sheets will be assessed before being returned to the students. Brief Comments on the Expected Forms of Sessions 3 through 5: 1. Note that during the third and fourth sessions all students will work in their groups, and a printed handout on two key aspects of the distributive property—“expanding” parentheses, and factoring—will be made available to the students. It is expected that the pattern will again be group discussions in the third session, followed by group-teaching of the “other” groups during the fourth session. 2. Then, in the fifth session, the teacher will provide a review of what has been covered during the first four sessions. The aim of this review is to bring into focus the main concepts and principles that the students have been grappling with. 3. This of five sessions will then be repeated with a second set of seventh-grade students at School W (beginning soon after the set of five sessions is completed).

Appendix E

Detailed Lesson Plans for Four Workshops on “Structure” for Seventh-Grade Students at

School W, Including Homework Challenges for Each Workshop

Workshop 1: Notes for the First Workshop Sessions on “Structure”—An Important Number Property: The Associative Property for Addition INSTRUCTIONS: You will be working with two or three others, and your group’s task is to discuss the questions, work out what they mean, and then answer them. Question 1.1: If a = 12, b = 6 and c = 2, what are the values of each of the following? a + (b + c) (a + b) + c a – (b – c) (a – b) – c (a – b) + c

Now write down what you’ve found, neatly in the space below:

Question 1.2: Repeat each of the five parts of Question 1.1, only this time let a = 51, b = 26, and c = 12. Then, write down what you’ve found neatly in the space below:

Question 1.3. Repeat Question 1.1, only this time let a = 1¼, b = ¾, and c = ½.

Question 1.4. Repeat Question 1.1, only this time let a = –3, b = –2, and c = 1.

Question 1.5: Repeat Question 1.1, only this time let a, b and c be any three real numbers that your group chooses. Then, write down what you’ve found neatly in the space below:

245

246 Appendix E: Lesson Plans (Structure Workshop 2)

Question 1.6: Do you think a + (b + c) will always equal (a + b) + c, no matter which numerical values you allow a, b and c to be? Talk about that question, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class, during your next mathematics lesson, about what your group was thinking.

Question 1.7: Do you think a – (b – c) will always equal (a – b) – c, no matter which number values you allow a, b and c to represent? Talk about this, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class during your next mathematics class, about what your group was thinking.

Question 1.8: Do you think a – (b – c) will always equal (a – b) + c, no matter which number values you allow a, b and c to represent? Talk about this, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class, during the next mathematics lesson, about what your group was thinking.

An Important Number Property Which You Must Remember Here is an important number property for you to learn and remember.

If a, b, c represent any three real numbers then (a + b) + c always equals a + (b + c). This is called the associative property for addition. It is always true, no matter which values you give a, b and c.

But, as we have found, the associative property does NOT hold for , because, in most cases, a – (b – c) does not equal (a – b) – c. Discuss: Under what circumstances will a – (b – c) equal (a – b) – c? Write down your conclusions.

Appendix E: Lesson Plans (Structure Workshop 2) 247

Workshop 2: Notes for the Second Workshop Sessions on “Structure”—An Important Number Property: The Associative Property for Multiplication INSTRUCTIONS: You will be working with two or three others, and your group’s task is to discuss the questions, work out what they mean, and then answer them. Question 1.1: If a = 24, b = 12 and c = 4, what are the values of each of the following? a × (b × c) (a × b) × c a ÷ (b ÷ c) (a ÷ b) ÷ c (a ÷ b) × c

Now write down what you’ve found, neatly in the space below:

Question 1.2: Repeat each of the five parts of Question 1.1, only this time let a = –16, b = 8, and c = –2. Then, write down what you’ve found neatly in the space below:

Question 1.3. Repeat Question 1.1, only this time let a = 1¼ , b = 2 , and c = ½. 5

Question 1.4. Repeat Question 1.1, only this time let a = –3, b = –2, and c = 1.

Question 1.5: Repeat Question 1.1, only this time let a, b and c be any three real numbers, other than 0, that your group chooses. Why did we exclude zero from this task?

248 Appendix E: Lesson Plans (Structure Workshop 2)

Write down what you’ve found neatly in the space below:

Question 1.6: Do you think a × (b × c) will always equal (a × b) × c, no matter which numerical values you allow a, b and c to be? Talk about that question, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class, during the next mathematics class, about what your group was thinking.

Question 1.7: If we exclude zero from the possible values, do you think a ÷ (b ÷ c) will always equal (a ÷ b) ÷ c, no matter which number values you allow a, b and c to represent? Talk about this, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class, during the next mathematics lesson, about what your group was thinking.

Question 1.8: Do you think a ÷ (b ÷ c) will always equal (a ÷ b) × c, no matter which number values you allow a, b and c to represent? Talk about this, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class, during the next mathematics lesson, about what your group was thinking

An Important Number Property Which You Must Remember Here is an important number property for you to learn and remember.

If a, b, c represent any three real numbers then (a × b) × c always equals a × (b × c). This is called the associative property for multiplication. It is always true, no matter which real- number values you give a, b and c.

But, as we have found, the associative property does NOT hold for division, because, in most cases, a ÷ (b ÷ c) does not equal (a ÷ b) ÷ c. Now discuss: Under what circumstances will a ÷ (b ÷ c) equal (a ÷ b) ÷ c? Write down your conclusions.

Appendix E: Lesson Plans (Structure Workshop 3) 249

Workshop 3: Notes for the Third Workshop Sessions on “Structure”—An Important Number Property: The Distributive Property for Multiplication Over Addition, Part I INSTRUCTIONS: You will be working with two or three others, and your group’s task is to discuss the questions, work out what they mean, and then answer them. Question 1.1: If a = 12, b = 6 and c = 2, what are the values of each of the following? a × (b + c) a × b + a × c a × (b – c) a × b – a × c (b + c) × a

Now write down what you’ve found, neatly in the space below:

Question 1.2: Repeat each of the five parts of Question 1.1, only this time let a = 51, b = 26, and c = 12. Then, write down what you’ve found neatly in the space below:

Question 1.3: Repeat Question 1.1, only this time let a = 1½, b = ¾, and c = ¼.

Question 1.4: Repeat Question 1.1, only this time let a = –3, b = –2, and c = 1.

250 Appendix E: Lesson Plans (Structure Workshop 3)

Question 1.5: Repeat Question 1.1, only this time let a, b and c be any three real numbers that your group chooses. Then, write down what you’ve found neatly in the space below:

Question 1.6: Do you think a × (b + c) will always equal a × b + a × c, no matter which numerical values you allow a, b and c to be? Talk about that question, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class, during the next mathematics lesson, about what your group was thinking.

Question 1.7: Do you think a × (b – c) will always equal a × b – a × c, no matter which number values you allow a, b and c to represent? Talk about this, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class, during the next mathematics lesson, about what your group was thinking.

Question 1.8: What do you think (a – b) × c might equal, no matter which number values you allow a, b and c to represent? Check your conjecture with some numbers. Decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class, during the next mathematics lesson, about what your group was thinking.

An Important Number Property Which You Must Remember (Also, Remember its Name!) Here is an important number property for you to learn and remember.

If a, b, c represent any three real numbers then a × (b + c) is always equal to a × b + a × c. This is called the distributive property for multiplication over addition. It is always true, no matter which values you give a, b and c.

Discuss: What are the main differences between the associative property for addition, the associative property for multiplication, and the distributive property linking multiplication and addition?

Appendix E: Lesson Plans (Structure Workshop 4) 251

Workshop 4: Notes for the Fourth Workshop Sessions on “Structure”—An Important Number Property: The Distributive Property for Multiplication Over Addition, Part II INSTRUCTIONS: You will be working with two or three others, and your group’s task is to discuss the questions, work out what they mean, and then answer them. We say “the factors of 12 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12.” What do we mean when we say that 4 (for example) is a factor of 12? Question 1.1: If a = 11, b = 8 and c = 5, calculate the values of ab + ac. Then answer the following questions: Is 11 a factor of the value of ab + ac? Is 13 a factor of value of ab + ac? Is it true that a × (b + c) equals (a× b) + (a × c)? Notice that in algebra this is usually written a(b + c) = ab + ac, with the multiplication signs on the left and right sides dropped, and the two pairs of parentheses on the right side also dropped. If you swap the sides you get ab + ac = a(b + c), and that emphasizes that a and (b + c) are both factors of ab + ac. We say that a is a “common factor” of ab and ac because a is common to ab and ac. The other factor, (b + c), represents the sum of what is left over after the a is removed. Question 1.2 If a, b and c represent any three numerical values, must the value of a be a factor of both ab + ac and ab – ac?

If a, b and c represent any three numerical values, must the value of (b + c) be a factor of ab + ac?

If a, b and c represent any three numerical values, must the value of (b – c) be a factor of ab – ac?

Explain why, in algebra, (a × b) + (a × c) must always equal a × (b + c), no matter which real- number values you allow a, b, c to be.

Explain why, in algebra, (a × b) – (a × c) must always equal a × (b – c), no matter which real- number values you allow a, b, c to be.

What are factors of: 3x – 15?

252 Appendix E: Lesson Plans (Structure Workshop 4)

Wh at are factors of 2x2 + 4x?

Question 1.3: Repeat each of the parts of Question 1.1, only this time let a = 51, b = 26, and c = 12. Then, write down what you’ve found neatly in the space below:

Question 1.4. Repeat the parts of Question 1.1, only let a = 1½, b = ¾, and c = ¼.

Question 1.5. Repeat the parts of Question 1.1, only let a = –3, b = –2, and c = 1.

Question 1.6: Do you think ab + ac + ad will always equal a(b + c + d), no matter which numerical values you allow a, b and c to be? Talk about that question, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class, during the mathematics class tomorrow morning, about what your group was thinking.

Question 1.7: Do you think 5x + 3x + 2 will always equal 10x, no matter which number values you allow x to represent? Talk about this, and decide who, from your group, will tell the whole class during the next mathematics lesson, about what your group was thinking.

Question 1.8: Do you think 3a + 3b will always equal 6ab. no matter which number values you allow a and b to represent? An Important Number Property Which You Must Remember. (Also, Remember its Name!) Here is an important number property for you to learn and remember.

If a, b, c represent any three real numbers then a(b + c) is always equal to ab + ac. This is called the distributive property for multiplication over addition. It is always true, no matter which values you give a, b and c. Since a(b + c) is always equal to ab + ac it follows that a and (b + c) are factors of ab + ac.

Discuss: What are the main differences between the associative property for addition, the associative property for multiplication, and the distributive property linking multiplication and addition?

Appendix E: Homework Challenges (Structure Workshop 1) 253

Homework Challenges for Distribution to Seventh-Grade Students Following Workshop 1

1. Using mental only (don’t write down anything), calculate the following:

(a) 102 + 798

(b) 89 + 101 + 10

Write a short paragraph below about how the associative property for addition can be used to find the answers to (a) and (b) quickly.

2. Write a short paragraph about how the associative property for addition can be used to find an answer to the following:

(a) 8500 + 601 + 899

(b) 3½ + 16¼ + ¼

Write a short paragraph, at the top of the back of this page, which makes clear how the associative property for addition can be used to find the answer.

254 Appendix E: Homework Challenges (Structure Workshop 1)

(c) This final homework question is mathematically very challenging. If any seventh-grade student gets its completely right, with correct reasoning, then he or she will be doing very well!

Under what circumstance will it be true that, if a, b and c represent real numbers then

(a – b) – c = a – (b – c)?

Remember, too, members of your group should be ready to talk about the first workshop at the next session (tomorrow).

Appendix E: Homework Challenges (Structure Workshop 2) 255

Homework Challenges for Distribution to Seventh-Grade Students Following Workshop 2

1. Using mental arithmetic only (don’t write down anything), calculate the following:

25 × (4 × 19)

Write a short paragraph below about how the associative property for multiplication can be used to find the answer quickly.

2. Using mental arithmetic only (don’t write down anything), calculate the following:

(–2.5 × 0.93) × 4

Write a short paragraph below about how the associative property for multiplication can be used to find the answer quickly.

3. How could you use an associative property to find answers to the following?

(a) 48 × 52 × 1 12

(b) –3½ × 16 × – 4 7

256 Appendix E: Homework Challenges (Structure Workshop 2)

Write two short paragraphs below about how the associative property for multiplication could be used to find the answers to (a) and (b). Do you need to use another property?

A Final, Very Challenging Homework Question

If any seventh-grade student gets its completely right, then he or she will be doing very well!

Under what circumstance will it be true that, if a, b and c represent real numbers then (a ÷ b) ÷ c = a ÷ (b ÷ c)?

Remember, too, members of your group should be ready to talk about the second workshop at the next session.

Appendix E: Homework Challenges (Structure Workshop 3) 257

Homework Challenges for Distribution Following Workshop 3

1. Using mental arithmetic only (don’t write down anything, and don’t use a calculator), calculate the following:

(a) How much would 11 apples cost at $0.99 each?

(b) How much would 9 newspapers cost at 55 cents each?

(c) If one book weighs 1¼ pounds, how much would 12 of the books weigh?

Write a short paragraph below about how the distributive property can be used to find the answers to (a), (b) and (c) quickly.

2. How could you use the distributive property to find an answer to the following?

(a) 17 × 97 + 17 × 3

(b) 11 × 9.9 + 89 × 9.9

258 Appendix E: Homework Challenges (Structure Workshop 3)

Write a short paragraph which makes clear how the distributive property could be used to find the answers to (a) and (b) quickly.

3. Explain why the truth of the statement 5x + 3x = 8x could be justified by referring to the distributive property.

4. Simplify, as much as possible: 5x(1 – x) – 4 + 5x2. When did you use the distributive property when doing the simplification?

Remember, too, members of your group should be ready to talk about the third workshop at the next session.

Appendix E: Homework Challenges (Structure Workshop 4) 259

Homework Challenges for Distribution Following Workshop 4

1. Using mental arithmetic only (don’t write down anything), calculate the following:

24 × 4 + 76 × 4

Write a short paragraph below about how the distributive property can be used to find the answer quickly.

2. Using mental arithmetic only (don’t write down anything), calculate the following:

(–2.5 × 6) + (4 × –2.5)

Write a short paragraph below about how the distributive property could be used to find the answer quickly.

3. Simplify as much as possible 5x + 4 – 3(x – 2), justifying each step.

Remember, too, members of your group should be ready to talk about the fourth workshop at the next session.

Appendix F

Detailed Plans for Group Tasks in the Modeling Workshops:

Finding Recursive and Explicit Rules for Patterns

Workshop Group Tasks: Finding Recursive and Explicit Rules for Patterns

INSTRUCTIONS: You will be working with two or three others, and your group’s task is to work out what are called the “recursive” and “explicit” rules for patterns which you identify for your two tasks. But first we’ll go over an example.

Worked Example: n Sn (a) See if you can work out 1 2 the pattern, and then 2 7 replace the question marks 3 12 in the table. 4 17 (b) In this question we 5 ?? could summarize the … … pattern by writing “S1 = ?? 37

2, and Sn + 1 = Sn + 5.” n ??

That means the first term, S1, is 2, and you get the next term from the previous term by adding 5. Thus S2 = 2 + 5 = 7; S3 = 7 + 5 =12, S4 = 12 + 5 =17, etc. The expression “Sn + 1 = Sn + 5” is said to be the recursive rule for the pattern, and you should also give the first term S1.

If you want to find S20, for example, you start with 2 (which is S1), add 5 to get S2, and then just keep on adding 5 until you get to S20. But it could take you a long time to get to S20. Often it is quicker to look for an explicit form of the rule.

In this question the nth term, Sn, is equal to 5n – 3. Can you see where the “5” comes from? Where did the “– 3” come from?

261

262 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 1)

“Sn, = 5n – 3” is called an explicit rule for the pattern. Now let’s see if you can work out recursive or explicit rules (sometimes just one of them, sometimes both) for the tasks allocated to your group. Then, your group will also be expected to create a pattern of its own, and then see if you can get others in the class to understand what your pattern is.

FIVE TASKS FOR GROUP 1 You should work together to find the recursive and explicit rules for the patterns in the first two tasks. With Task 3, “Crossing the River,” your teacher will take the lead, and the whole class will work on it together. Then, Task 4 is harder, and for that task you only need to find an explicit rule. Finally, for Task 5, your group will be expected to create a pattern of its own. Task 1 (for Group 1): Talk together and work out the pattern between the two variables—the number of days and the number of completed weeks. Then, find the missing values.

Completed Days Weeks n Dn 1 7 2 14 3 ? … …

10 ? … …

? 364 … … n ?

(a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern?

(b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

(c) What is the value of n if Dn = 2562?

How are you going to explain this pattern to the rest of the class? Who will do the talking?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 1) 263

Task 2 (for Group 1):

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3

The first three terms for the pattern of the tiles shown above are T1 =3, T2 = 6, and T3 = 9.

Number of Figure Number of Tiles in (n) that Figure (Tn) 1 3 2 6 3 9 … …

8 ? 9 ? … … ? 120 … … n ?

(a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern?

(b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

(c) How many tiles would there be in Figure 80? Why?

Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

264 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 1)

Task 3 for Group 1: “Crossing the River” (This will be done by all students in the class, but you will still work on the task in your group) Some armed robbers are chasing 8 adults and 2 very strong and fit children who have found gold in a long-lost cave out in the desert. The 8 adults and 2 children, who are about 4 miles ahead of the robbers, come to a river which is infested with very many man-eating crocodiles. There is a little old boat, and someone has left handwritten instructions: CAREFUL: This old boat will sink if you try to have 2 adults in it. It will even sink if you try to have 1 adult and 1 child in it. But it can carry 1 child, or 2 children, or 1 adult. The problem is: What is the least number of crossings with the boat so that all 8 adults and the 2 children get to the other side of the river? A crossing is going across to the other side—so, going across to the other side and then coming back would count as two (2) crossings. Once you arrive at your answer for the least number of crossings check that you’re correct with a teacher. Then complete the following table (which applies to the situation where there are always 2 very strong children, but n adults needing to cross the river):

Number of adults Smallest possible needing to cross (n) number of crossings (Cn) 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? … …

8 ? 9 ? … … ? 121 … … n ?

Now answer these questions. (a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 1) 265

Task 4 (for Group 1)—This is a harder task! (a) You don’t have to find the recursive pattern for this one but you do have to find an explicit pattern. Talk together and work out an explicit pattern connecting n and Sn. Then, find the missing values, complete the table, and answer the questions in (b), (c) and (d) below.

Value of n Value of Sn

1 2 2 5 3 10 4 17 … …

10 ? … …

n ?

(b) What is the value of S100?

(c) If Sn = 1297, what is the value of n? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking? [Note: There is a recursive pattern for this—but it is VERY hard to find it. If you’re brave you might try to find it!]

Task 5 (for Group 1): Your group should make up an interesting pattern task—not too easy, not too hard.

During the next session you will be asked to explain your task to the whole class. You may also be asked to give an explicit rule for your pattern.

266 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 2)

FIVE TASKS FOR GROUP 2 You should work together to find the recursive and explicit rules for the patterns in the first two tasks. With Task 3, “Crossing the River,” your teacher will take the lead, and the whole class will work on it together. Then, Task 4 is harder, and for that task you only need to find an explicit rule. Finally, for Task 5, your group will be expected to create a pattern of its own. Task 1 (for Group 2): (a) Talk together and work out the pattern between the two variables—the number of cars and the number of tires. Then, find the missing values in the following tables

Cars (n) Tires (Sn)

1 4 2 8 3 ? ? 240 … … 100 ? … …

n ?

(b) What is the recursive rule for the pattern?

(c) What is the explicit rule for the pattern? What is the value of n if Sn = 172?

Now work o ut how yo u are goi ng t o expl ain the pat tern to the res t of the cla ss. W ho w ill do the talking?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Group 2) 267

Task 2 (for Group 2): Mr. Y wants to know how many students can sit around a row of hexagonal shaped desks. The challenge is to be able to answer (a), (b) and (c) and be able explain to the class, the formula for Sn for the pattern.

If one desk is by itself then six students can sit around it. If two desks are pushed together, then 10 students can sit around the pattern of desks. If three desks are pushed together in a row, as shown above, then 14 students can sit around the pattern of desks. (a) Fill in the following table. Number of Number of students hexagonal desks that can sit around the desks n Sn 1 6 2 10 3 14 4 5 6 7 8 ... n

(b) What is the recursive rule for the pattern?

(c) What is the explicit rule for the pattern? What is the value of n if Sn = 172? (d) Imagine that 100 of the hexagonal desks were pushed together in a row. How many students could sit around that pattern of desks?

Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

268 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 2)

Task 3 for Group 2: “Crossing the River” (This will be done by all students in the class, but you will still work on the task in your group)

Some armed robbers are chasing 8 adults and 2 very strong and fit children who have found gold in a long-lost cave out in the desert. The 8 adults and 2 children, who are about 4 miles ahead of the robbers, come to a river which is infested with very many man-eating crocodiles. There is a little old boat, and someone has left handwritten instructions: CAREFUL: This old boat will sink if you try to have 2 adults in it. It will even sink if you try to have 1 adult and 1 child in it. But it can carry 1 child, or 2 children, or 1 adult. The problem is: What is the least number of crossings with the boat so that all 8 adults and the 2 children get to the other side of the river? A crossing is going across to the other side—so, going across to the other side and then coming back would count as two (2) crossings. Once you arrive at your answer for the least number of crossings check that you’re correct with a teacher. Then complete the following table (which applies to the situation where there are always 2 very strong children, but n adults needing to cross the river):

Number of adults Smallest possible needing to cross (n) number of crossings (Cn) 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? … …

8 ? 9 ? … …

? 121 … …

n ?

Now answer these questions. (a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 2) 269

Task 4 (for Group 2)—This is a harder task!

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3

The first three terms for the pattern of small triangular tiles shown above are 2, 8, and 18.

(a) Complete this table:

Figure Number Numbers of (n) Small Triangles (Tn) 1 2 2 8 3 18 4 5 6 ...

n S n =

(b) What is an explicit rule for the pattern? (c) How many tiles would there be in Figure 80? Why? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

Task 5 (for Group 2): Your group should make up an interesting pattern task—not too easy, not too hard.

During the next session you will be asked to explain your task to the whole class. You may also be asked to give an explicit rule for your pattern.

270 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 3)

FIVE TASKS FOR GROUP 3 You should work together to find the recursive and explicit rules for the patterns in the first two tasks. With Task 3, “Crossing the River,” your teacher will take the lead, and the whole class will work on it together. Then, Task 4 is harder, and for that task you only need to find an explicit rule. Finally, for Task 5, your group will be expected to create a pattern of its own. Task 1 (for Group 3): At a fun park it costs $10 for entry and then $3 for each ride. Talk together and work out the pattern between the two variables—total cost $Cn and the number of rides you have. Then, find the missing values.

Rides (n) Cost ($Cn)

0 10 1 13 2 16 3 ? … …

20 ? ? 103 … …

n ?

(a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (b) What is an explicit rule for the pattern?

(c) What is the value of n if Cn = 79? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Group 3) 271

Task 2 (for Group 3):

Based on the same pattern, draw Figure 4, and then complete the following table which should be based on the number of matches Mn, in Figure n (for different values of n).

Figure Number of n Matches, Mn, Making up Figure n

1 3

2 5

3 ?

4 ?

n Mn = ?

(a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern?

(b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern? [Careful: It’s not Mn = 2n + 3.]

(c) What is the value of n if Mn = 201? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

272 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 3)

Task 3 for Group 3: “Crossing the River” (This will be done by all students in the class, but you will still work on the task in your group)

Some armed robbers are chasing 8 adults and 2 very strong and fit children who have found gold in a long-lost cave out in the desert. The 8 adults and 2 children, who are about 4 miles ahead of the robbers, come to a river which is infested with very many man-eating crocodiles. There is a little old boat, and someone has left handwritten instructions: CAREFUL: This old boat will sink if you try to have 2 adults in it. It will even sink if you try to have 1 adult and 1 child in it. But it can carry 1 child, or 2 children, or 1 adult. The problem is: What is the least number of crossings with the boat so that all 8 adults and the 2 children get to the other side of the river? A crossing is going across to the other side—so, going across to the other side and then coming back would count as two (2) crossings. Once you arrive at your answer for the least number of crossings check that you’re correct with a teacher. Then complete the following table (which applies to the situation where there are always 2 very strong children, but n adults needing to cross the river):

Number of adults Smallest possible needing to cross (n) number of crossings (Cn) 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? …

8 ? 9 ? …

? 121 …

n ?

Now answer these questions. (a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 3) 273

Task 4 (for Group 3)—This is a harder task: (a) You don’t have to find the recursive pattern for this one but you do have to find an explicit pattern. Talk together and work out an explicit pattern connecting n and Sn. Then, find the missing values, and answer the questions in (b), (c) and (d) below.

Value of n Value of Sn

1 2 2 6 3 12 4 20

10 110 … …

n ?

(b) What is the value of S20?

(c) If Sn = 90, what is the value of n? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking? [Note: There is a recursive pattern for this—but it is VERY hard to find it. If you’re brave you might try to find it! If you think you’ve found it tell a teacher!]

Task 5 (for Group 3): Your group should make up an interesting pattern task—not too easy, not too hard.

During the next session you will be asked to explain your task to the whole class. You may also be asked to give an explicit rule for your pattern.

274 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 4)

FIVE TASKS FOR GROUP 4 You should work together to find the recursive and explicit rules for the patterns in the first two tasks. With Task 3, “Crossing the River,” your teacher will take the lead, and the whole class will work on it together. Then, Task 4 is harder, and for that task you only need to find an explicit rule. Finally, for Task 5, your group will be expected to create a pattern of its own. Task 1 (for Group 4): A young salesman agreed to a contract in which he has a starting salary of $1000 per month. His monthly salary will increase by $120 at the beginning of each new month. Talk together and work out the pattern between his monthly income $Sn and the number of months that he has completed at work. Then, find the missing values.

Number of Monthly Completed Salary Months (n) ($Sn) 0 1000 1 1120 2 1240 3 ? … …

? 3400 … …

n ?

(a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

(c) What is the value of n if Sn = 4960? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Group 4) 275

Task 2 (for Group 4):

(a) Based on the same pattern, draw the fourth figure. Then complete the table. Suppose the Tn is used to represent the number of matches needed for Figure n. Number of Figure Number of Matches n in the Figure

Tn

1 6

2 9

3 12

4 ??

5 ?? ? 39 … …

n ??

(b) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (c) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

(d) What is the value of n if Tn = 201? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

276 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 4)

Task 3 for Group 4: “Crossing the River” (This will be done by all students in the class, but you will still work on the task in your group)

Some armed robbers are chasing 8 adults and 2 very strong and fit children who have found gold in a long-lost cave out in the desert. The 8 adults and 2 children, who are about 4 miles ahead of the robbers, come to a river which is infested with very many man-eating crocodiles. There is a little old boat, and someone has left handwritten instructions: CAREFUL: This old boat will sink if you try to have 2 adults in it. It will even sink if you try to have 1 adult and 1 child in it. But it can carry 1 child, or 2 children, or 1 adult. The problem is: What is the least number of crossings with the boat so that all 8 adults and the 2 children get to the other side of the river? A crossing is going across to the other side—so, going across to the other side and then coming back would count as two (2) crossings. Once you arrive at your answer for the least number of crossings check that you’re correct with a teacher. Then complete the following table (which applied to the situation where there are always 2 very strong children, but n adults needing to cross the river):

Number of adults Smallest possible needing to cross (n) number of crossings (Cn) 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? … …

8 ? 9 ? … … ? 121 … … n ?

Now answer these questions. (a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 4) 277

Task 4 (for Group 4)—This is a quite a difficult task: (a) You don’t have to find the recursive pattern for this one but you do have to find an explicit pattern. Talk together and work out an explicit pattern connecting n and Sn. Then, find the missing values, and answer the questions in (b) and (c) below.

Value of n Value of Sn 1 1 2 3 3 6 4 10 5 15 … … n ?

(b) What is the value of S20?

(c) If Sn = 5050, what is the value of n?

Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

Task 5 (for Group 4): Your group should make up an interesting pattern task—not too easy, not too hard.

During the next session you will be asked to explain your task to the whole class. You may also be asked to give an explicit rule for your pattern.

278 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 5)

FIVE TASKS FOR GROUP 5 You should work together to find the recursive and explicit rules for the patterns in the first two tasks. With Task 3, “Crossing the River,” your teacher will take the lead, and the whole class will work on it together. Then, Task 4 is harder, and for that task you only need to find an explicit rule. Finally, for Task 5, your group will be expected to create a pattern of its own. Task 1 (for Group 5): A new car salesman has a retaining salary of $2500 per month and is then paid an additional $700 for every car he sells during the month.

Cars sold in Income the month (n) ($Wn) 0 2500 1 3200 2 3900 3 ? … … ? 24200 … … n ?

(a) Talk together and work out the pattern between his monthly income $Wn and the number of cars he sells. Then, find the missing values. (b) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (c) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

(d) What is the value of n if Wn = 10200? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Group 5) 279

Task 2 (for Group 5):

A pattern of tiles is shown, and the following table shows the area for the first two Figures. Replace the question marks in the following table.

Position Area of the shape in that position, An square units

1 1 square unit

2 4 square units

3 ?

4 ?

n An = ? square units

Suppose the symbol An is used to represent the area of Figure n (in square units) (a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

(c) What is the value of n if An = 441? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

280 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 5)

Task 3 for Group 5: “Crossing the River” (This will be done by all students in the class, but you will still work on the task in your group)

Some armed robbers are chasing 8 adults and 2 very strong and fit children who have found gold in a long-lost cave out in the desert. The 8 adults and 2 children, who are about 4 miles ahead of the robbers, come to a river which is infested with very many man-eating crocodiles. There is a little old boat, and someone has left handwritten instructions: CAREFUL: This old boat will sink if you try to have 2 adults in it. It will even sink if you try to have 1 adult and 1 child in it. But it can carry 1 child, or 2 children, or 1 adult. The problem is: What is the least number of crossings with the boat so that all 8 adults and the 2 children get to the other side of the river? A crossing is going across to the other side—so, going across to the other side and then coming back would count as two (2) crossings. Once you arrive at your answer for the least number of crossings check that you’re correct with a teacher. Then complete the following table (which applies to the situation where there are always 2 very strong children, but n adults needing to cross the river):

Number of adults Smallest possible needing to cross (n) number of crossings (Cn) 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? … …

8 ? 9 ? … …

? 121 … …

n ?

Now answer these questions. (a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 5) 281

Task 4 (for Group 5)—This is a quite a difficult task. You don’t have to find the recursive pattern for this one but you do have to find an explicit pattern.

(a) Talk together and work out an explicit pattern connecting n and Tn. Then, find the missing values, and answer the questions in (b) and (c) below.

Value of n Value of Tn

1 0.1 2 0.4 3 0.9 4 1.6 5 2.5 … … n ?

(b) What is the value of T20?

(c) If Tn = 129.6, what is the value of n? Now work out how you are going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class. Who will do the talking?

Task 5 (for Group 5): Your group should make up an interesting pattern task—not too easy, not too hard.

During the next session you will be asked to explain your task to the whole class. You may also be asked to give an explicit rule for your pattern.

282 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 6)

FIVE TASKS FOR GROUP 6 You should work together to find the recursive and explicit rules for the patterns in the first two tasks. With Task 3, “Crossing the River,” your teacher will take the lead, and the whole class will work on it together. Then, Task 4 is harder, and for that task you only need to find an explicit rule. Finally, for Task 5, your group will be expected to create a pattern of its own. Task 1 (for Group 6): The cost to rent a construction crane is $500 per day, plus $220 per hour that you use the crane. Complete the following table, showing the cost if the crane was used for 2, 3, 4, or 5 hours on a day. [Note that an extra part of an hour is counted as a full hour.]

Number of Total Cost Hours (or Part of Hire, in Hours) that the Dollars

Crane is Used (Tn) (n) 0 500 1 720 2 3 4 5 …

n Tn =

(a) How much would it cost on a day when the crane was used for 15 hours?

(b) How much would it cost on a day when the crane was used for 14 hours and 35 minutes?

(c) What is the recursive rule for the pattern?

(d) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

(e) What is the value of n if Tn = 2920?

How are you going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class? Who will do the talking?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Group 6) 283

Task 2 for Group 6: Trapezoidal Tables Suppose you could seat 5 people comfortably at a table shaped like a trapezoid.

If you joined 2 trapezoid tables back-to-back, 8 people can seat at the two tables. (a) How many people could be comfortably if you joined 3 trapezoid tables (in a straight line)? Now complete this table, in which Sn represents the number of people who could be comfortably seated if you joined n trapezoid tables (in a straight line).

Number of Tables Number of People n Seated Sn

1 5

2 8

3 ?

4 ?

… …

? 41 …

n ?

(b) What is the recursive rule for the pattern?

(c) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

(d) What is the value of n if Sn =110?

How are you going to explain the pattern to the rest of the class? Who will do the talking?

284 Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 6)

Task 3 for Group 6: “Crossing the River” (This will be done by all students in the class, but you will still work on the task in your group)

Some armed robbers are chasing 8 adults and 2 very strong and fit children who have found gold in a long-lost cave out in the desert. The 8 adults and 2 children, who are about 4 miles ahead of the robbers, come to a river which is infested with very many man-eating crocodiles. There is a little old boat, and someone has left handwritten instructions: CAREFUL: This old boat will sink if you try to have 2 adults in it. It will even sink if you try to have 1 adult and 1 child in it. But it can carry 1 child, or 2 children, or 1 adult. The problem is: What is the least number of crossings with the boat so that all 8 adults and the 2 children get to the other side of the river? A crossing is going across to the other side—so, going across to the other side and then coming back would count as two (2) crossings. Once you arrive at your answer for the least number of crossings check that you’re correct with a teacher. Then complete the following table (which applies to the situation where there are always 2 very strong children, but n adults needing to cross the river):

Number of adults Smallest possible needing to cross (n) number of crossings (Cn) 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? … …

8 ? 9 ? … ? 121 … n ?

Now answer these questions. (a) What is the recursive rule for the pattern? (b) What is the explicit rule for the pattern?

Appendix F: Lesson Plans (Modeling Workshop Group 6) 285

Task 4 (for Group 6)—This is a harder task! (a) You don’t have to find the recursive pattern for this one but you do have to find an explicit pattern. Talk together and work out an explicit pattern connecting n and Sn. Then, find the missing values, and answer question (b) below.

Value of n Value of Sn

1 0 2 3 3 8 4 15 … …

10 ? … …

n ?

(b) What is the value of S100?

Task 5 (for Group 6): Your group should make up an interesting pattern task—not too easy, not too hard.

During the next session you will be asked to explain your task to the whole class. You may also be asked to give an explicit rule for your pattern.

Appendix G

Classroom Observation Schedule

Teacher:______Date:______

Observer:______Topic:______

1. Any resources (e.g., handouts) used by the teacher and by the students?

2. Number of students present?

3. Name(s) of any absent student(s) (if known)?

4. Were there any noticeable differences between this lesson and the corresponding model lesson (with eighth-grade students)? Comment.

5. What were interesting questions asked publicly by the teacher?

287

288 Appendix G: Classroom Observation Schedule

6. What were interesting comments/questions made by a student?

7. Comment on how well groups of students worked together.

8. Did the teacher talk to the whole class about the algebra, and if so what did he say?

9. Were there any especially memorable episodes in the lesson? (Details)

10. Did most students seem to engage and learn the algebra well? (Comments)

11. Observer’s overview of the workshop:

Appendix H Pre-Teaching to Post-Teaching “Growth” with the Five Basic Cognitive Structure Components

The tables in this Appendix include ordered pairs which are intended to indicate the “extent of evidence” for the presence of a component in cognitive structure at the pre- and post-teaching stages, for each of the 28 interviewees (13 from Group 1, 15 from Group 2). For a particular component, the extent of evidence was assessed on a three-point scale: 0 = no evidence, 1 = some evidence, and 2 = strong evidence. The first coordinate of an ordered pair indicates the extent of the evidence for the presence of the component at the pre-teaching stage, and the second coordinate indicates the extent of evidence at the post-teaching stage. Thus, for example, (0, 2) would indicate that there was no evidence of presence of that component at the pre-teaching stage, but strong evidence at the post-teaching stage. An indicator of pre-post-teaching “overall growth” is also given, for each student, in the columns on the right of the tables. For example, an ordered pair, (0, 2) is taken to indicate a “growth” of 2 (because 2 – 0 = 2) for a particular component and the “overall growth,” for a student, is the sum of the growths for the five separate components. Note that the use of the superscript “++” indicates “significant growth,” from a cognitive-structure perspective, during the intervention period; and that the use of the superscript “+” indicates “modest growth.” The term “significant growth” corresponds to an overall growth of at least 7, and “modest growth” corresponds to a growth ranging from 3 through 6.

289

290 Appendix H: Pre-/Post-Teaching Qualitative Growth

DISTRIBUTIVE PROPERTY, COGNITIVE STRUCTURE GROWTH, 28 INTERVIEWEES

Table H1 Summary of Pre-Teaching to Post-Teaching “Growth” for the Five Basic Cognitive Structure Components, with Respect to the Distributive Property for Multiplication Over Addition, of 13 Group 1 and 15 Group 2 Interviewees

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 1.1 (0, 2) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) 0 → 6+ Student 1.2 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.3 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.4 (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 9++ Student 1.5 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.6 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.7 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) 1 → 10++ Student 1.8 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.11 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.12 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 1.13 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.15 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0)) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 1.16 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 2.1 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.2 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.3 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.4 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.5 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.6 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.7 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.8 (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 9++ Student 2.9 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.10 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.11 (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 9++ Student 2.12 (0, 2) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.13 (0, 2) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 2 Student 2.14 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.15 (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 9++

Twenty of the 28 interviewees experienced significant growth, and three (Students 1.1, 2.12 and 2.14) experienced modest growth. For five students (Students 1.12. 1.15, 2.4, 2.10 and 2.13), however, there was no noticeable growth.

Appendix H: Pre-/Post-Teaching Qualitative Growth 291

ASSOCIATIVE PROPERTY FOR ADDITION, COGNITIVE STRUCTURE GROWTH, 28 INTERVIEWEES

Table H2 Summary of Pre-Teaching to Post-Teaching “Growth” for the Five Basic Cognitive Structure Components, with Respect to the Associative Property for Addition, of 13 Group 1 and 15 Group 2 Interviewees

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 1.1 (0, 2) (0,2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.2 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.3 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.4 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.5 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.6 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.7 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0,1) (0, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 1.8 (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 9++ Student 1.11 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.12 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 1.13 (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 9++ Student 1.15 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0)) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 1.16 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 2.1 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.2 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.3 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.4 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.5 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.6 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.7 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.8 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.9 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.10 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.11 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.12 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.13 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.14 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 7+ Student 2.15 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++

Twenty of the 28 interviewees experienced significant growth, and three (Students 1.7, 2.5 and 2.14) experienced modest growth. For five students (Students 1.12. 1.15, 2.4, 2.10 and 2.13), however, there was no noticeable growth.

292 Appendix H: Pre-/Post-Teaching Qualitative Growth

ASSOCIATIVE PROPERTY FOR MULTIPLICATION, COGNITIVE STRUCTURE GROWTH, 28 INTERVIEWEES

Table H3 Summary of Pre-Teaching to Post-Teaching “Growth” for the Five Basic Cognitive Structure Components, with Respect to the Associative Property for Multiplication, of 13 Group 1 and 15 Group 2 Interviewees

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 1.1 (0, 1) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 1 Student 1.2 (0, 2) (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 9++ Student 1.3 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.4 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.5 (0, 2) (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 9++ Student 1.6 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.7 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 2) (0,2) (0, 2) 0 → 8++ Student 1.8 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.11 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.12 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 1.13 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.15 (0, 1) (0, 0) (0, 0)) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 1 Student 1.16 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 2.1 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.2 (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 9++ Student 2.3 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.4 (0, 1) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 1 Student 2.5 (0, 1) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 1 Student 2.6 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.7 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.8 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.9 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.10 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.11 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.12 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.13 (0, 1) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 1 Student 2.14 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.15 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++

Eighteen of the 28 interviewees experienced significant growth, and three (Students 2.11, 2.12, and 2.14) experienced modest growth. For seven students (Students 1.1, 1.12. 1.15, 2.4, 2.5, 2.10 and 2.13), however, there was no noticeable growth.

Appendix H: Pre-/Post-Teaching Qualitative Growth 293

SUBSCRIPT NOTATION AND VARIABLE, COGNITIVE STRUCTURE GROWTH, 28 INTERVIEWEES

Table H4 Summary of Pre-Teaching to Post-Teaching “Growth” for the Five Basic Cognitive Structure Components, with Respect to Subscript Notation and Variable (for Linear Sequences), of 13 Group 1 and 15 Group 2 Interviewees

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 1.1 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.2 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.3 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.4 (0, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 1.5 (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 1.6 (0, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 1.7 (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (0,2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 1.8 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.11 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.12 (0, 0) (1, 1) (1, 1) (0, 0) (1, 1) 3 → 3 Student 1.13 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.15 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 1.16 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 2.1 (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 2.2 (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 10 → 10++ Student 2.3 (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 2.4 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.5 (2, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2) 10 → 10 Student 2.6 (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 2.7 (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 2.8 (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 2.9 (0, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (0, 2) (1, 2) 3 → 10++ Student 2.10 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.11 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.12 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.13 (0, 0) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 0) (0,1) 0 → 3 Student 2.14 (0, 0) (1, 1) (1, 1) (0, 0) (1, 1) 3 → 3 Student 2.15 (2, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2) (2, 2) 10 → 10

Nineteen of the 28 interviewees experienced significant growth. For nine students (Students 1.12. 1.15, 2.4, 2.5, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, 2.14, and 2.15), however, there was no noticeable growth.

294 Appendix H: Pre-/Post-Teaching Qualitative Growth

RECURSIVE AND EXPLICIT RULES, 3 DOTS (…), COGNITIVE STRUCTURE GROWTH, 28 INTERVIEWEES

Table H5 Summary of Pre-Teaching to Post-Teaching “Growth” for the Five Basic Cognitive Structure Components, with Respect to Recursive and Explicit Rules, and 3 Dots (…) for a Linear Sequence of 13 Group 1 and 15 Group 2 Interviewees

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 1.1 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 8++ Student 1.2 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.3 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.4 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.5 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.6 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.7 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0→ 10++ Student 1.8 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 1.11 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.12 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 1.13 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 1.15 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 1.16 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++

Verbal Skills Imagery Episodes Attitudes “Growth”

Student 2.1 (0,1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) 0 → 5++ Student 2.2 (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.3 (1, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) 5 → 10+ Student 2.4 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.5 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.6 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (1, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.7 (1, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) (1, 2) 5 → 10++ Student 2.8 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.9 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++ Student 2.10 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 10++ Student 2.11 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.12 (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 → 0 Student 2.13 (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0,1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.14 (0, 1 ) (0, 1) (0, 1) (0, 0) (0, 1) 0 → 5+ Student 2.15 (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) (0, 2) 0 → 10++

Seventeen of the 28 interviewees experienced significant growth, and seven (Students 2.1, 2.3 2.6, 2.10, 2.11, 2.13, and 2.14) experienced modest growth. For four students (Students 1.8, 1.12. 1.15, and 2.12), however, there was no noticeable growth.

Appendix I Generalization Categories (after Radford, 2006)

In Chapter 8 of this book, the levels of generalization for elementary algebra put forward by Luis Radford in 2006 were described. Radford described three levels of generalization—which he termed “Factual Generalization,” “Contextual Generalization,” and “Symbolic Generalization” (these are defined in Table 8.8 of Chapter 8). In his dissertation the first author (Kanbir) added a fourth level, which was termed “Post-Symbolic Generalization,” because he thought that that was needed for the purposes of the main study. Although Radford (2006) called his first, and lowest, level of generalization, “Factual Generalization,” he also included a “Counting/Arithmetic” which preceded Factual Generalization. As the name “Counting/Arithmetic” implies, it was to be applied to learners who insisted on remaining in the realm of arithmetic, and did not try to generalize. In the current study, almost all of the seventh-grade students at the pre-teaching stage, would have been in that category. When tackling questions which could be modeled by linear sequences, the idea of generalizing did not occur to them. With Question 7 in the interview protocol (see Appendix A), interviewees were given a sheet of paper with the following table of values on it, and were then asked what should replace the question marks beneath the 5, and beneath the n.

First 1 2 3 4 5 … n Value Second 3 5 7 9 ? … ? Value

At the pre-teaching stage all of the interviewees saw this task as purely something concerning arithmetic. No interviewee showed any inclination to want to give an like 2n + 1 in the box below the n. For them, the top row of the table of values was increasing by 1’s, and therefore n had to be 7; and the bottom row was increasing by 2’s, and therefore 15 should be below the n. The students did not know the meaning of the convention of the three dots (…). But, at the post-teaching stage, most of these same students saw the table of values in a different light—almost certainly because they had been generalizing from tables of values and real-life contexts during the modeling workshops which were part of the intervention. The second interview question to be discussed here was Question 8. It provided an image of a possible real situation (students sitting around tables joined together in the school cafeteria). However, at the pre-teaching stage, most of the students did not seem to recognize that the question was inviting them to generalize. Most of their responses were of the Counting/Arithmetic variety. That had changed by the post-teaching stage, with most students then being capable of offering contextual, symbolic, and even post-symbolic generalizations. The following table, which was developed from an analysis of the interview data, should enable the reader to “see” the extent of the effects of the modeling workshops on students’ generalizations.

295

Appendix I: Generalization Categories (after Radford) 297

Table 1 Summary of Pre-Teaching to Post-Teaching Responses to Two Interview Tasks (Questions 7 and 8 on the Interview Protocol) Inviting Generalizations for Linear Sequence Modeling Tasks

nth term and three dots (…) with a Horizontal 10 Tables Pushed Together? Interviewee Table of Values Explicit Rule for n Tables Pushed Together? (n =28) Pre-Teaching Post-Teaching Pre-Teaching Post-Teaching Student 1.1 Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Student 1.2 Counting/Arithmetic Contextual Counting/Arithmetic Contextual Student 1.3 Counting/Arithmetic Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Symbolic Student 1.4 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Student 1.5 Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Factual Student 1.6 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Symbolic Student 1.7 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Student 1.8 Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Student 1.11 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Student 1.12 Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Student 1.13 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Student 1.15 Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Student 1.16 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Student 2.1 Counting/Arithmetic Contextual Counting/Arithmetic Contextual Student 2.2 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Student 2.3 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Factual Post-Symbolic Student 2.4 Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Contextual Student 2.5 Counting/Arithmetic Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Symbolic Student 2.6 Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Student 2.7 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Contextual Post-Symbolic Student 2.8 Counting/Arithmetic Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Student 2.9 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Symbolic Student 2.10 Counting/Arithmetic Factual Counting/Arithmetic Factual Student 2.11 Counting/Arithmetic Contextual Counting/Arithmetic Symbolic Student 2.12 Counting/Arithmetic Factual Counting/Arithmetic Factual Student 2.13 Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Symbolic Student 2.14 Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Counting/Arithmetic Factual Student 2.15 Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic Counting/Arithmetic Post-Symbolic

Composite Reference List

Adams, J. (1898). Herbartian psychology applied to education: Being a of essays applying the psychology of J. F. Herbart. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath. Albree, J. (2002). Nicolas Pike’s Arithmetic (1788) as the American Liber Abbaci, In D. J. Curtin, D. E. Kullman, & D. E. Otero (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Midwest History of Mathematics Conference (pp. 53–71). Miami, FL: Miami University. Alexander, J. (1709). A synopsis of algebra, being the posthumous work of John Alexander, of Bern ... To which is added an appendix by Humfrey Ditton ... (translated from the Latin by Samuel Cobb). London, UK: Christ’s Hospital. Alexandri, J. (1693). Synopsis algebraica, opus posthumum. London, UK: Christ’s Hospital. Al-Khalili, J. (2011). The house of wisdom: How Arabic science saved ancient knowledge and gave us the Renaissance. New York, NY: The Penguin Press. Allen, F. B., Douglas, E. C., Richmond, D. E., Rickart, C. E., Swain, H., & Walker, R. J. (1965). First course in algebra: Teacher’s commentary, Part 1. Stanford, CA: School Mathematics Study Group. Andrews, A. (1813). Cyphering book (handwritten manuscript). Cheshire, CT: Cheshire Episcopal Academy. Artigue, M., Assude, T., Grugeon, B., & Lengant, A. (2001). Teaching and learning algebra: Approaching complexity through complementary perspectives. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent, & J. Vincent (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (Proceedings of the 12th ICMI Study) (pp. 21–32). Melbourne, Australia: The University of Melbourne. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Banchoff, T. (2012). Algebraic thinking and geometric thinking. In C. E. Greenes & R. Rubinstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 99–110). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Bartell, T., Wager, A., Edwards, A., Battey, D., Foote, M., & Spencer, J. (2017). Toward a framework for research linking equitable teaching with the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(1), 7–21. doi:10.5951/ jresematheduc.48.1.0007 Battista, M. T. (2002). Shape makers: A computer environment that engenders students’ construction of geometric ideas and reasoning. Computers in Schools, 17(1/2), 105–120. Bauersfeld, H. (1995). Language games in the mathematics classroom: Their and their effects. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 271–291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bedney, G., & Meister, D. (1997). The Russian theory of activity: Current applications to design and learning. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Beman, W. W., & Smith, D. E. (1902). Academic algebra. Boston, MA: Ginn. Bestor, A. (1956). The restoration of learning. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Bézout, É. (1794). Cours de mathématiques a l’usage des gardes du pavillon et de la maine. Paris, France: Baudelot & Eberhart. Bishop, A. J. (1988). Mathematical enculturation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 299 S. Kanbir et al., Using Design Research and History to Tackle a Fundamental Problem with School Algebra, History of Mathematics Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59204-6 300 Composite Reference List

Blanton, M. L., Brizuela, B. M., Gardiner, A. M., Sawrey, K., & Newman-Owens, A. (2015). A learning trajectory in 6-year-olds’ thinking about generalizing functional relationships. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(5), 511–558. Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2011). Functional thinking as a route into algebra in the elementary grades. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 5–23). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Blanton, M. L., Stephens, A., Knuth, E., Gardiner, A. M., Isler, I., & Kim, J.-S. (2015). The development of children’s algebraic thinking: The impact of a comprehensive early algebra intervention in third grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 39–87. Bolton, F. E. (1900). The secondary school system of Germany. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Booth, L. R. (1984). Algebra: Children’s strategies and errors. Windsor, Berks, UK: NFER- Nelson. Booth, L. R. (1988). Children’s difficulties in beginning algebra. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Schulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra: K–12, 1988 Yearbook. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Borel, E. (1904). Les exercices pratiques de mathématiques dans l’enseignement secondaire. Revue Générale des Sciences Pures et Appliqués, 15, 431–440. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–15. Bourdon, L. P. M. (1831). Elements of algebra, by Bourdon, translated from the French for the use of colleges and schools. Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, Little and Wilkins. Bray, M., & Kwo, O. (2014). Regulating private tutoring for public good: Policy options for supplementary education in Asia. Hong Kong, China: Education Research Centre (CERC), UNESCO. Bray, M., & Lykins, C. (2012). Shadow education: Private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in Asia. Manila, The Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Bressoud, D. M. (2016). Book review: The Math Myth and Other STEM Delusions. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 63(10), 1181–1183. Britt, M. S., & Irwin, K. C. (2011). Algebraic thinking with and without algebraic representation: A pathway for learning. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 137–157). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Brock, W. H. (1981). The Japanese connection: Engineering in Tokyo, London, and Glasgow at the end of the nineteenth century. The British Journal of the History of Science, 14(3), 227–243. Brock, W. H., & Price, M. H. (1980). Squared paper in the nineteenth century: Instrument of science and engineering, and symbol of reform in mathematical education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 365–381. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178. Bruner, J. (1963). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cai, J., & Knuth, E. (2011a). A global dialogue about early algebraization from multiple perspectives. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. vii–xi). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Composite Reference List 301

Cai, J., & Knuth, E. (2011b). Preface to Part I. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 3–4). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Cai, J., & Knuth, E. (Eds.). (2011c). Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., & Hiebert, J. (2017). Making classroom implementation an integral part of research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(4), 342–347. Cai, J., & Moyer, J. (2012). Developing algebraic thinking in earlier grades: Some insights from international comparative studies. In C. E. Greenes & R. Rubinstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 169–180). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., & Nie, B. (2011). Examining students’ algebraic thinking in a curricular context: A longitudinal study. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 161–185). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Cajori, F. (1890). The teaching and history of mathematics in the United States (Circular of Information No. 3, 1890). Washington, DC: Bureau of Education. Cajori, F. (1928). A history of mathematical notations. La Salle, IL: The Open Court Publishing Co. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171– 246). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Campos, D. G. (2010). Peirce’s philosophy of mathematical education: Fostering reasoning abilities for mathematical inquiry. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29, 421–429. Cañadas, M. C., Brizuela, B. M., & Blanton, M. (2016). Second graders articulating ideas about co-variation with linear functions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 87–103. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2004). Education, knowledge, and action research. London, UK: Routledge. Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., & Schwartz, J. L. (2008). Early algebra is not the same as algebra early. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 235–272). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Carslaw, H. S. (1914). The teaching of mathematics in Australia: Report presented to the International Commission on the Teaching of Mathematics. Sydney, Australia: Angus & Robertson Ltd. Castañeda, H-N. (1990). The role of apperception in Kant’s transcendental deduction of the categories. Nous, 24(1), 147–157. CCSSM. (2010). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors. Chambers, C. E. (1964). The Cuisenaire Gattegno method of teaching mathematics. Reading, UK: Educational Explorers. Charles, R. I., Branch-Boyd, J. C., Illingworth, M., Mills, D., & Reeves, A. (2004). Mathematics course 2. Needham, MA: Pearson Prentice Hall. Chateauneuf, A. O. (1929). Changes in the content of elementary algebra since the beginning of the high school movement as revealed by the textbooks of the period (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Pennsylvania. 302 Composite Reference List

Chazan, D. (2012). The shifting landscape of school algebra in the United States. In C. E. Greenes & R. Rubinstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 19–33). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Chorlay, R. (2011). The multiplicity of viewpoints in elementary function theory: Historical

and didactical perspectives. In V. Katz & C. Tzanakis (Eds.), Recent developments on introducing a historical dimension in mathematics education (pp. 57–66). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. Clairaut, A.-C. (1746). Elémens d’algèbre. Paris, France: Guérin. Clement, J., Lochhead, J., & Monk, G. S. (1981). Translation difficulties in learning mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 88, 286–290. Clements, M. A. (1979). Relationships between the University of Melbourne and the secondary schools of Victoria, 1890–1912 (Unpublished PhD thesis). The University of Melbourne. Clements, M. A. (1980). Analysing children’s errors on written mathematical tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11(1), 1–21. Clements, M. A. (1992). Mathematics for the minority: Some historical perspectives on school mathematics in Victoria. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University. Clements, M. A. (2003). An outsider’s view of North American school mathematics curriculum trends. In G. M. A. Stanic & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), A history of school mathematics (Vol. 2, pp. 1509−1580). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Clements, M. A. (2011). Design research: Its potential for meeting Brunei Darussalam’s educational needs. In I. Cheong (Ed.), Design research in education: Empowering teachers, learners and researchers (pp. 22–40). Gadong, Brunei Darussalam: Universiti Brunei Darussalam. Clements, M. A. (2014). A historical overview of visualization and visualizing in mathematics. In M. Fried & T. Dreyfus (Eds.), Mathematics and mathematics education: Searching for common ground (pp. 177–192). New York, NY: Springer. Clements, M. A., Bishop, A. J., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J., & Leung, F. (Eds.). (2013). Third international handbook of mathematics education. New York, NY: Springer. Clements, M. A., & Del Campo, G. (1987). Fractional understanding of : Variations in children’s understanding of fractional concepts across embodiments, Grades 2 through 5. In J. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (Vol. 3, 98– 110). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Clements, M. A., & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). Mathematics education research: Past, present and future. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO. Clements, M. A., & Ellerton, N. F. (2015). Thomas Jefferson and his decimals 1775–1810: Neglected years in the history of U.S. school mathematics. New York, NY: Springer. Clements, M. A., Evans, K. M., Green, L., Smith, G., & Watterson, G. (1967). Mathematics for today and tomorrow. Melbourne, Australia: Sun Books. Clements, M. A., Grimison, L. A., & Ellerton, N. F. (1989). Colonialism and school mathematics in Australia 1788–1988. In N. F. Ellerton & M. A. Clements (Eds.), School mathematics: The challenge to change (pp. 50–78). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University. Clements, M. A., Keitel, C., Bishop, A. J., Kilpatrick, J., & Leung, F. (2013). From the few to the many: Historical perspectives on who should learn mathematics. In M. A. Composite Reference List 303

Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 7–40). New York, NY: Springer. Cobb, P. (1989). Experiential, cognitive and anthropological perspectives in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 32–43. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. Cobb, P., & Gravemeijer, K. (2008). Experimenting to support and understand learning processes. In A. E. Kelly, R. Lesh, & J. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 68–95). New York, NY: Routledge. Cocker, E. (1677). Cocker’s arithmetick: Being a plain and familiar method suitable to the meanest capacity for the full understanding of that incomparable art, as it is now taught by the ablest school-masters in city and country. London, UK: John Hawkins. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colburn, W. (1825). An introduction to algebra upon the inductive method of instruction. Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray & Co. Cole, P. R. (1912). Johann Friedrich Herbart. In P. Monroe (Ed.), A cyclopaedia of education (Vol. 3, pp. 250– 254). New York, NY: Macmillan. Colebrooke, H. T. (1817/2013). Algebra with arithmetic and mensuration from the Sanscrit of Brahmegupta and Bhascara (translated by H. T. Colebrooke). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Common Core Writing Team. (2011, May 29). Progression for the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (draft). Comment at commoncoretools.wordpress.com. 1. Coventry, A., & Kriegel, U. (1989). Locke on consciousness. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 25(3), 221–242. Cremin, L. A. (1956). The problem of curriculum-making: An historical perspective. In Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (Ed.), What shall high schools teach? (pp. 6–26). Washington, DC: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Cremin, L. A. (1964). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education 1876–1957. New York, NY: Vintage Books. da Ponte, J. P., & Guimarāes, H. M. (2014). Notes for a history of the teaching of algebra. In A. Karp & G. Schubring (Eds.), Handbook on the history of mathematics education (pp. 459–472). New York, NY: Springer. Dascal, M. (1987). Leibniz: Language, signs, and thought. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Davies, C. (1837). Elements of algebra translated from the French of M. Bourdon. New York, NY: Wiley & Long. Davies, C. (1846). Elementary algebra: Embracing the first principles of the science. New York, NY: A. S. Barnes and Co. Davis, R. B. (1964). Discovery in mathematics: A text for teachers. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Day, J. (1814). An introduction to algebra, being the first part of a course in mathematics, adopted to the method of instruction in the American colleges. New Haven, CT: Howe & Deforest. DeGarmo, C. (1889). Essentials of method. Boston, MA: Heath. DeGarmo, C. (1895). Herbart and the Herbartians. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 304 Composite Reference List

DeGarmo, C. (Ed.). (1900). Apperception: A monograph on psychology and pedagogy. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co. Del Campo, G., & Clements, M. A. (1987). A manual for the professional development of teachers of beginning mathematicians. Melbourne, Australia: Association of Independent Schools of Victoria. Del Campo, G., & Clements, M. A. (1990). Expanding the modes of communication in mathematics classrooms. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 11(1), 45–99. de L’Hôpital, G. F. A. (1696). Analyse des infiniment petits, pour l’intelligence des lignes courbes. Paris, France: L’Imprimerie Royale. de Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York, NY: The Philosophical Library. de Saussure, F. (1974). Cours de linguistique générale (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds.). Paris, France: Payot. Didis, M. G., & Erbas, A. K. (2015). Performance and difficulties of students in formulating and solving quadratic equations with one unknown. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(4), DOI: 10.12738/estp.2015.4.2743. Dienes, Z. P. (1960). Building up mathematics. London, UK: Hutchinson & Co. Dienes, Z. P. (1967). Groups and co-ordinates. Paris, France: Hutchinson Educational. Dienes, Z. P. (1968). Powers, roots and logarithms. New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Dilworth, T. (1762). The schoolmaster’s assistant. Being a compendium of arithmetic, both practical and theoretical (11th ed.). London, UK: Henry Kent. Ding, M. (2016a). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ specialized content knowledge for teaching fundamental mathematical ideas: The case of the associative property. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(9), 1–19. Ding, M. (2016b). Opportunities to learn: Inverse operations in U.S. and Chinese elementary mathematics textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(1), 45–68. Ding, M., & Li, X. (2010). A comparative analysis of the distributive property in U.S. and Chinese elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 28(2), 146–180. Ding, M., & Li, X. (2014). Transition from concrete to abstract representations: The distributive property in a Chinese textbook series. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87, 103–121. Ding, M., Li, X, & Capraro, M. M. (2013). Preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge for teaching the associative property of multiplication: A preliminary analysis. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32, 36–52. Ditton, H. (1709). Appendix to the algebra of John Alexander. London, UK: Christ’s Hospital. Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1982). Intuitive functional concepts: A baseline study on intuitions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 360–380. Dunkel, H. B. (1970). Herbart and Herbartianism: An educational ghost story. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Durell, F., & Robbins, E. R. (1901). Grammar school algebra. Harrisburg, PA: R. L. Myers & Co. Education Department of Victoria and Australian Council for Educational Research. (1966). Background in mathematics: A guidebook to elementary mathematics for teachers in primary schools. Melbourne, Australia: Authors. Edwards, E. A. (Ed.). (1990). Algebra for everyone. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Composite Reference List 305

Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (1991). Mathematics in language: A review of language factors in mathematics learning. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University. Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (2005). A mathematics education ghost story: Herbartianism and school mathematics. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonagh, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Research, theory and practice (pp. 313–320). Sydney, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (2011). Prospective middle-school mathematics teachers’ knowledge of equations and inequalities. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 379–408). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (2012). Rewriting the history of school mathematics in North America 1607–1861. New York, NY: Springer. Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (2014). Abraham Lincoln’s cyphering book and ten other extraordinary cyphering books. New York, NY: Springer. Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (2017). Samuel Pepys, Isaac Newton, James Hodgson and the beginnings of secondary school mathematics: A History of the Royal Mathematical School within Christ’s Hospital, London 1673–1868. New York, NY: Springer. Ellis, A. B. (2011). Algebra in the middle school: Developing functional relationships through quantitative reasoning. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 215–238). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Exner, R. M., & Rosskopf, M. F. (1970). Proof. In M. Rosskopf (Ed.), The teaching of secondary school mathematics: Thirty-third yearbook (pp. 196–240). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Filloy, E., & Sutherland, R. (1996). Designing curricula for teaching and learning algebra. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 139–160). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Freudenthal, H. (Ed.). (1962a). Report on the relations between arithmetic and algebra in mathematical education up to the age of 15 years. Groningen, The Netherlands: J. B. Wolters. Freudenthal, H. (1962b). Logical analysis and critical survey. In H. Freudenthal (Ed.), Report on the relations between arithmetic and algebra in mathematical education up to the age of 15 years (pp. 20–41). Groningen, The Netherlands: J. B. Wolters. Fried, M. (2008). History of mathematics in mathematics education: A Saussurean perspective. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 5(2–3), 185–198. Fujii, T., & Stephens, M. (2001). Fostering an understanding of algebraic generalizations through numerical expressions. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction: The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (Vol. 1, pp. 258–264). Melbourne, Australia: The University of Melbourne. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335–397. Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gagné, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 23–30. 306 Composite Reference List

Gagné, R. M., & White, R. T. (1978). Memory structures and learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 187–222. Gavin, M. K., & Sheffield, L. J. (2015). A balancing act: Making sense of algebra. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(8), 460–466. Gersten, R., Baker, S., & Lloyd, J. W. (2000). Designing high quality research in special education: Group experimental design. Journal of Special Education, 34, 2–17. Giacardi, L. (2009). The school as “laboratory”: Giovanni Vailati and the project to reform mathematics teaching in Italy. International Journal for the History of Mathematics Education, 4(1), 5–28. Godfrey, C. (1913). The teaching of calculus. Mathematical Gazette, 7, 233–240. Grimison, L. A. (1988, July). The introduction of calculus into the secondary mathematics curriculum—How, when and why? Paper presented to the annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Geelong, Australia. Grinder, R. E. (1989). Educational psychology: The master science. In M. C. Wittrock & F. Farley (Eds.), The future of educational psychology (pp. 3–18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grinstein, L. S., & Michaels, B. (1977). Calculus: Readings from the Mathematics Teacher. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Hacker, D. M. (2016). The math myth and other STEM delusions. New York, NY: The New Press. Hart, K. M. (Ed.). (1981). Children’s understanding of mathematics, 11−16. London, UK: Murray. Hayward, F. H. (1904). The secret of Herbart. London, UK: Sonnenschein. Henderson, E. N. (1911). Apperception. In P. Monroe (Ed.), A cyclopaedia of education (Vol. 1, pp. 141–144). New York, NY: Macmillan. Herbart, J. F. (1898). Letters and lectures on education (H. M. Felkin & E. Felkin, Trans.). London, UK: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Herbart, J. F. (1904a). Outlines of educational doctrine. New York, NY: Macmillan. Herbart, J. F. (1904b). The science of education. London, UK: Sonnenschein. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Choppin, J., Wagner, D., & Pimm, D. (Eds.). (2012). Equity in discourse for mathematics education: Theories, practices, and policies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Hertel, J. T. (2016). Investigating the implemented curriculum of navigation cyphering books. For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(3), 4–10. Hewitt, D. (1998). Approaching arithmetic algebraically. Mathematics Teaching, 163, 19–29. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65– 97). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400. Hjalmarson, M., & Lesh, R. A. (2008). Engineering and design research: Intersections for education research and design. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 96–110). New York, NY: Routledge. Hodgson, J. (1723). A system of the mathematics. London, UK: Thomas Page. Composite Reference List 307

House, P. (1988). Reshaping school algebra: Why and how? In A. F. Coxford (Ed.), The ideas of algebra, K–12 (pp. 1–7). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Husky, M. E. (2011). David Eugene Smith and the algebra curriculum. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Illinois State University. Jahnke, H. N. (1983). Origins of school mathematics in early nineteenth century Germany. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(1), 85–94. Jeon, K. (2012). Reflecting on PEMDAS. Teaching Children Mathematics, 18(6), 370–377. Jones, P. S., & A. F. Coxford (1970). First steps toward “revision,” 1894–1920.In P. S. Jones & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), A history of mathematics education in the United States and Canada (pp. 36–45). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kanbir, S. (2014, November). Two approaches: Beginning algebra students’ variable concept development. Professional project presented to the Group for Educational Research in Mathematics at Illinois State University, Normal, IL. Kanbir, S. (2016a, April 12). Three different approaches to middle-school algebra: Results of a pilot study. Paper presented at the 2016 Research Conference of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, held in San Francisco, CA. Kanbir, S. (2016b). An intervention study aimed at enhancing seventh-grade students’ development of the concept of a variable (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (Kanbir_ilstu_0092E_10787.pdf). Kaput, J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis Group, & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Karp, A. (2007). Interview with Henry Pollak. The International Journal for the History of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 67–89. Karp, A., & Schubring, G. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook on the history of mathematics education. New York, NY: Springer. Karpinski, L. C. (1980). Bibliography of mathematical works printed in America through 1850. New York, NY: Arno Press. Keitel, C. (2006). Perceptions of mathematics and mathematics education in the course of history—A review of Western perspectives. In F. K. S. Leung, K-D Graf, & F. Lopez- Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions—A comparative study of East Asia and the West: The 13th ICMI Study (pp. 81–94). New York, NY: Springer. Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning and teaching. New York, NY: Routledge. Kiang, L. Y. (2012). Mathematics K–12: Interview with Wu Hung-Hsi. Mathematical Medley, 38(1), 2–15. Kieran, C. (2006). Research on the learning and teaching of algebra. In A. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 11–49). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. 308 Composite Reference List

Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing; and Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Kieran, C. (2011). Overall commentary on early algebraization: Perspectives for research and teaching. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 579–593). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Kilpatrick, J., & Izsák, A. (2012). A in the school curriculum. In C. E. Greenes & R. Rubinstein (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 1–18). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Klein, F. (1872). Vergleichende betrachtungen über neuere geometrische forschungen (“comparative review of recent researches in geometry”), which was reprinted in 1893 in Mathematische Annalen, 43, 63–100. An English translation by Mellen Haskell appeared in 1893 in the Bulletin of the New York Mathematical Society, 2, 215–249. Klein, F. (1949). Elementary mathematics from an advanced standpoint: Arithmetic, algebra, analysis (translated from the German by E. R. Hedrick & C. A. Noble). New York, NY: Dover Publications. Klein, F. (2004). Elementary mathematics from an advanced standpoint: geometry (translated from the German by E. R. Hedrick & C. A. Noble). New York, NY: Dover Publications. Kleiner, I. (1986), The evolution of group theory: A brief survey. Mathematics Magazine, 59(4), 195–215. Kline, M. (1973). Why Johnny can’t add: The failure of the new math. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Knuth, E. Stephens, A., Blanton, M., & Gardiner, A. (2016, March). Build an early foundation for algebra success. Kappanmagazine.org, 97(6), 65–68. Küchemann, D. E. (1981). Algebra. In K. M. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11−16 (pp. 102–119). London, UK: John Murray. Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry with Cabri- Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 283–317. Lacroix, S. F. (1815). Complément des elémens d’algébre, à l’usage de l’école centrale des quatre-nations (3rd ed.). Paris, France: Chez Courcier. Lange, K. (1896). Apperception: A monograph on psychology and pedagogy. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co. Lannin, J. K., Barker, D. D., & Townsend, B. E. (2006). Recursive and explicit rules: How can we build student algebraic understanding? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 299−317. Laplace, P.-S. (1799). Traité de mécanique céleste. Paris, France: J. B. M. Duprat. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lawson, D. R. (1990). The problem, the issues that speak to change. In E. L. Edwards (Ed.), Algebra for everyone (pp. 1–6). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Layton, E. T. (1932). The persistence of learning in elementary algebra. Journal of Educational Psychology, 23(1), 46–55. Composite Reference List 309

Lean, G. A., Clements, M. A., & Del Campo, G. (1990). Linguistic and pedagogical factors affecting children’s understanding of arithmetic word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(2), 165–191. Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005). Mathematics education as a design science. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37(6), 490–505. Leung, F. K. S., Park, K., Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (Eds.). (2014). Algebra teaching around the world. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Lim, T. H. (2000). The teaching and learning of algebraic equations and factorisation in O- level Mathematics: A case study (Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation). Universiti Brunei Darussalam. Lochhead, J., & Mestre, J. P. (1988). From words to algebra: Mending misconceptions. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Schulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K–12, 1988 yearbook (pp. 127–135). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Loemker, L. (Ed.). (1969). Leibniz: Philosophical papers and letters. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel. López, J., Robles, I., & X Martínez-Planel, R. (2015). Students’ understanding of quadratic equations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2015.119895 Lüken, M. M. (2012). Young children’s structure sense. Journal für Mathematik- Didaktik, 33, 263–285. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. MacGregor, M. E. (1991). Making sense of algebra: Cognitive processes influencing comprehension. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1997). Students’ understanding of algebraic notation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 1–9. Mackenzie, A. A., & White, R. T. (1982). Field-work in geography and long-term memory structures. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 623–632. May, K. O., & Van Engen, H. (1959). Relations and functions. In H. P. Fawcett, A. M. Hach, C. W. Junge, H. W. Syer, H. Van Engen, & P. S. Jones (Eds.), The growth of mathematical ideas, grades K–12: Twenty-fourth yearbook (pp. 65–110). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. McMurry, C. A., & McMurry, F. (1897). The method of recitation. New York, NY: Macmillan. McQualter, J. W. (1975). Some influences on mathematics curriculum making: A historical review. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 30(1), 15–26. Meserve, B. E., & Sobel, M. A. (1962). Mathematics for secondary school teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Milgram, R. J. (2013). Common Core’s effect on math. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuexIMWBOQY Monroe, W. S. (1917). Development of arithmetic as a school subject. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Moore, E. H. (1903). On the foundations of mathematics. Science, 17(428), 401–416. Moore, E. H. (1906). The cross-section paper as a mathematical instrument. School Review, 14, 317–338. Moss, J., & McNab, S. L. (2011). An approach to geometric and numeric patterning that fosters second grade students’ reasoning and generalizing about functions and co- variation. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 277–301). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. 310 Composite Reference List

Mosteller, F., & Boruch, R. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors. (Also cited as CCSSM (2010) National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Newman, M. A. (1977). An analysis of sixth-grade pupils’ errors on written mathematical tasks. Victorian Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 39, 31–43. Newton, I. (1739). Philosophiæ naturalis principia mathematica (Vol. 1). Geneva, Switzerland: Barrillot & Filii. Nordgaard, M. A. (1928). Introductory calculus as a high school subject. In J. R. Clark & W. D. Reeve (Eds.), Selected topics in the teaching of mathematics (Third Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) (pp. 65–101). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Olney, E. (1885). First principles of algebra: An introduction to the author’s complete, or university algebra. New York, NY: Sheldon & Company. Otte, M. (1998). Limits of constructivism: Kant, Piaget and Peirce. Science and Education, 7(5), 425–450. Otte, M. F. (2011). Evolution, learning and semiotics from a Peircean point of view. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77, 313–329. Owens, K. D., Lean, G. A., Paraide, P., & Muke, C. (2017). History of number: Evidence from Papua New Guinea and Oceania. New York, NY: Springer. Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examination Board. (1899). Oxford-Cambridge Schools Agreement, 1899. Cambridge, UK, Author. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pappano, L. (2012). The algebra problem. Harvard Education Letter, 28(3), 1–2. Peirce, C. S. (1931/1958). Collected papers (Vol. 1–VIII). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. Burks (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Peirce, C. S. (1992). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol. 1, 1867– 1893). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce (Vol. 2). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Perel, W. M., & Vairo, P. D. (1967). New mathematics and old teachers. The Educational Forum, 31(3), 345–348. Perry, J. (1899). Practical mathematics. London, UK: Department of Science and Art of the Committee of the Council on Education. Composite Reference List 311

Perry, J. (Ed.). (1902). Discussion on the teaching of mathematics. London, UK: Macmillan. Perry, J. (1912). Practical mathematics. Nature, 90, 34–35. Phillips, C. J. (2014). The new math: A political history. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York, NY: Viking Press. Pike, N. (1788). The new complete system of arithmetic, composed for the use of the citizens of the United States. Newburyport, MA: John Mycall. Pike, N. (1793). The new and complete system of arithmetic composed for the use of the citizens of the United States (abridged for the use of schools). Newbury-Port, MA: John Mycall, Isaiah Thomas. Porro, F. D. (1789). L’algèbre selon ses vrais principes. London, UK: Chez Barois l’Aîné. Presmeg, N. (2014). Mathematics education research embracing arts and sciences. In M. Fried & T. Dreyfus (Eds.), Mathematics and mathematics education: Searching for common ground (pp. 361–378). New York, NY: Springer. Price, M. H. (1986). The Perry movement in school mathematics. In M. H. Price (Ed.), The development of the secondary curriculum (pp. 103–155). London, UK: Croom Helm. Price, M. H. (1994). Mathematics for the multitude? Leicester, UK: Mathematical Association. Radford, L. (2003). Gestures, speech, and the sprouting of signs. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(1), 37–70. Radford, L. (2004). Syntax and meaning. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 161–166). Bergen, Norway: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Radford, L. (2006). Algebraic thinking and the generalization of patterns: A semiotic perspective. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz, & A. Méndez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 2–21). Mérida, México: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Radford, L. (2008). Connecting theories in mathematics education: Challenges and possibilities. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 317–327. Radford, L. (2011). Grade 2 students’ non-symbolic algebraic thinking. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 303– 322). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Radford, L. (2015). The epistemological foundations of the theory of objectification. Isonomia (online journal http://isonomia.uniurb.it/epistemologica), 127–149. Raub, A. N. (1888). Methods of teaching: Including the nature, object, and laws of education, methods of instruction, and methods of culture. Philadelphia, PA: E. L. Raub & Co. Ray, J. (1848). Ray’s algebra, Part First: On the analytic and inductive methods of instruction. Cincinnati, OH: Winthrop B. Smith & Co. Rech, J. F., & Harrington, J. (2000). Algebra as a gatekeeper: A descriptive study at an urban university. Journal of African American Studies, 4(4), 63–71. Rein, W. (1893). Outlines of pedagogics. London, UK: Sonnenschein. Rittle-Johnson, B., Loehr, A. M., & Durkin, K. (2017). Promoting self-explanation to improve mathematics learning: A meta-analysis and instructional design principles. ZDM Mathematics Education doi:10.1007/s11858-017-0834-z. Rivera, F. D. (2013). Teaching and learning patterns in school mathematics: Psychological and pedagogical considerations. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 312 Composite Reference List

Roberts, D. L. (2012). American mathematicians as educators, 1893–1923. Boston, MA: Docent Press. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). Computing contrasts, effect sizes, and counternulls on other people’s published data: General procedures for research consumers. Psychological Methods, 1, 331–340. Rosskopf, M. F. (1970). Mathematics education: Historical perspectives. In M. Rosskopf (Ed.), The teaching of secondary school mathematics: Thirty-third yearbook (pp. 3–29). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Ruthven, K. (2008). Mathematical technologies as a vehicle for intuition and experiment: A foundational theme of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction, and a continuing preoccupation. International Journal for the History of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 91–102. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). What doesn’t work: The challenge and failure of the What Works Clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35, 13–21. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). On forests, trees, elephants and classrooms: A brief for the study of learning ecologies. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(3), 491–495. Schorling, R. (1926). Suggestions for the solution of an important problem that has arisen in the last quarter of a century. In C. M. Austin, H. English, W. Betz, W. C. Eells, & F. C. Touton (Eds.), A general survey of progress in the last twenty-five years: The first yearbook (pp. 58–105). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (Republished, 1995). Schubring, G. (2011). On how n and i turned out to become indices in mathematical sequences and formulae. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2–3), 331–350. Schultze, A. (1909). Graphic algebra. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. Selleck, R. J. W. (1968). The new education 1870–1914. London, UK: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22(1), 1–36. Sfard, A. (1995). The development of algebra: Confronting historical and psychological perspectives. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 15–39. Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shaughnessy, J. M. (2010). Linking research and practice: The research agenda project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(3), 212–215. Simons, L. G. (1924). Introduction of algebra into American schools in the eighteenth century. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Simons, L. G. (1936). Bibliography of early American textbooks on algebra published in the colonies and the United States through 1850, together with a characterization of the first edition of each work. New York, NY: Scripta Mathematica. Simpson, T. (1755). A treatise of algebra (2nd ed.). London, UK: John Nourse. Sinclair, H. (1990). Learning: The interactive recreation of knowledge. In L. P. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming children’s mathematics education: International perspectives (pp. 19–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Singh, P., & Ellerton, N. F. (2013). International collaborative studies in mathematics education. In M. A. Clements, A. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. Leung (Eds.), Composite Reference List 313

Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 806–839). New York, NY: Springer. Slavin, R. E. (2004). Educational research can and must address “what works” questions. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 27–28. Smith, D. E. (1905). Movements in mathematical teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 5(3), 205–209. Smith, D. E. (1913). Laboratory methods in mathematics. In P. Monroe (Ed.), A cyclopaedia of education (Vol. 4, pp. 159–160). New York, NY: Macmillan. Smith, D. E. (1926). A general survey of the progress of mathematics in our high schools in the last twenty-five years. In C. M. Austin, H. English, W. Betz, W. C. Eells, & F. C. Touton (Eds.), A general survey of progress in the last twenty-five years: The first yearbook (pp. 1–31). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (Republished, 1995) Snyder, T. D. (1993). 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. National Center for Educational Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2011). Digest of education statistics 2010. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office. Spielhagen, F. R. (2011). The algebra solution to mathematics reform (completing the equation). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Sriraman, B. (2009). What’s all the commotion about commognition? The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 6(3), 541–544. Sriraman, B., & Lee, K.-H. (2011). Commentary on Part II. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 367–373). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1997). Ideas about symbolism that students bring to algebra. The Mathematics Teacher, 90(2), 110–113. Steen, L. A. (1992). Does everybody need to study algebra? Basic Education, 37(4), 9–13. Steffe, L. P. (1990). Early childhood years. In L. P. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming children’s mathematics education: International perspectives (pp. 3–15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sterry, C., & Sterry, J. (1790). The American youth: Being a new and complete course of introductory mathematics, designed for the use of private students. Providence, RI: Authors. Stewart, S. (2017). And the rest is just algebra. Basel, Switzerland: Springer International. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York, NY: The Free Press. Struik, D. J. (1948). A concise history of school mathematics (2 vols.). New York, NY: Dover. Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2013). Seeking research grounded solutions to problems of practice: Classroom-based interventions in mathematics education. ZDM— The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(3), 333–342. Suzuki, S. (2012). The Kyoto School and J. F. Herbart. In P. Standish & N. Saito (Eds.), Education and the Kyoto School of philosophy: Pedagogy for human transformation (pp. 41–54). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Swetz, F. (1992). Fifteenth and sixteenth century arithmetic texts: What can we learn from them? Science & Education, 1, 365–378. Tahta, D. (1990). Gratifying usefulness. Mathematics Teaching, 132, 57–58. 314 Composite Reference List

Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169. Taylor-Cox, J. (2003). Algebra in the early years? Yes! Young Children, 58(1), 14–21. Thomas, G. (1997). What´s the use of theory? Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 75–104. Thomas, I., & Andrews, E. J. (1809). Preface to the third octavo edition of A new and complete edition of arithmetick, composed for the use of citizens of the United States: Seventh edition for the use of schools. Boston, MA: Author. Thorndike, E. L., Cobb, M. V., Orleans, J. S., Symonds, P. M., Wald, E., & Woodyard, E. (1923). The psychology of algebra. New York, NY: Macmillan. Toh, M. (2008, June 17). Tuition Nation. Asiaone News, 17 June. http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20080616-71121.html Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Trochim, W., & Land, D. (1982). Designing designs for research. The Researcher, 1, 1–6. Turnbull, H. W. (Ed.). (1961). The correspondence of Isaac Newton, 1688–1694 (Vol. 3). Cambridge, UK: Royal Society/Cambridge University Press. Twidle, J. (2006). Is the concept of conservation of volume in solids really more difficult than for liquids, or is the way we test giving us an unfair comparison? Educational Research, 48(1), 93–109. Tzanakis, C. (1991). Is it possible to teach abstract algebraic structures in high school? A historical approach. Euclides, 11(2), 24–34. Ueno, K. (2006). From Wasan to Yozan: Comparison between mathematical education in the Edo period and the one after the Meiji restoration. In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics education in different cultural traditions—A comparative study of East Asia and the West: The 13th ICMI Study (pp. 65–79). New York, NY: Springer. UNESCO. (1973). New trends in teaching mathematics (Vol. 3). Paris, France: Author. University of Melbourne (1855, March 24). Registered correspondence, W. E. Hearn to E. G. Mayne (held in the University archives). University of Melbourne (1900). Matriculation examination regulations (held in the University archives). Usiskin, Z. (1987). Why elementary algebra can, should, and must be an eighth-grade course for average students. Mathematics Teacher, 80(6), 428–438. Usiskin, Z. (1988). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Schulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K–12, 1988 yearbook (pp. 8–19). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Vaiyavutjamai, P. (2003). Dilemmas associated with quantitative analyses of effects of traditional mathematics teaching. In H. S. Dhindsa, S. B. Lee, P. Achleitner, & M. A. Clements (Eds.), Studies in science, mathematics and technical education (pp. 259– 268). Gadong, Brunei Darussalam: Universiti Brunei Darussalam. Vaiyavutjamai, P. (2004). Factors influencing the teaching and learning of equations and inequations in two government secondary schools in Thailand (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Universiti Brunei Darussalam. Vaiyavutjamai, P. (2006). Grade 9 students’ errors on gently challenging algebra tasks: The good news and the bad news. In H. S. Dhindsa, I. J. Kyeleve, O. Chukwu, Lim Siew Bee, Hjh Zaitun bte Hj Taha, A. Baimba, & S. Upex (Eds.), Shaping the future of Composite Reference List 315

science, mathematics and technical education (pp. 212–221). Gadong, Brunei Darussalam: Universiti Brunei Darussalam. Vaiyavutjamai, P., Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (2005). Students’ attempts to solve two elementary quadratic equations: A study in three nations. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonagh, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Research, theory and practice (pp. 735–742). Sydney, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Venema, P. (1714). Een kort en klare onderwysinge in de beginselen van de algebra ofte stel-konst: Waar in niet alleen de voornaamste quetien Van Willem Bartjens en Martin Wilkens see sinlijk Verhandeld, maar ook t’effens byna alle de stelkonstige question uit de algebra Van Abraham de Graaf: ales in een seer nette ordre en geschiktheid na malkanderen zijn gesteld en opgelost. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Author. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366. Vinner S., & Hershkowitz, R. (1980). Concept images and some common cognitive paths in the development of some simple geometric concepts. In R. Karplus (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 177–184). Berkeley, CA: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. von Glasersfeld, E. (1990). Environment and communication. In L. P. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming children’s mathematics education: International perspectives (pp. 30–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vredenduin, P. G. J. (1962). Functions and relations. In H. Freudenthal (Ed.), Report on the relations between arithmetic and algebra in mathematical education up to the age of 15 years (pp. 99–110). Groningen, The Netherlands: J. B. Wolters. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfman & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Original work published, 1934). Vygotsky, L. S. (1978/1930). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warren, E., & Pierce, R. (2003). Learning and teaching algebra. In B. Perry, G. Anthony, & C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia, 2000–2003 (pp. 291–312). Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models, representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel. Webster, S. (1808). Mathematics, compiled from the best authors, and intended to be the text-book of the course of private lectures on these sciences in the University of Cambridge (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: William Hilliard. Wentworth, G. A. (1881). Elements of algebra. Boston, MA: Ginn, Heath, & Co. Westbury, I. (1980). Change and stability in the curriculum: An overview of the questions. In H. G. Steiner (Ed.), Comparative studies of mathematics curricula: Change and stability 1960–1980 (pp. 12–36). Bielefeld, Germany: Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik-Universität Bielefeld. Whitacre, I., & Nickerson, S. D. (2016). Prospective elementary teachers making sense of multidigit multiplication: Leveraging resources. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 47(3), 270–307. 316 Composite Reference List

Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Research on mathematics education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Wittman, E. (1998). Mathematics education as a “design science.” In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for (pp. 87–103). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Wolfe, C. (1739). A treatise of algebra, with the application of it to a variety of problems in arithmetic, to geometry, trigonometry and conic sections. London, UK: A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch. Wu, H. (2001). How to prepare students for algebra. American Educator, 25(2), 10–17. Wu, H. (2007, September 13). “” and other oddities in school mathematics. Retrieved from https://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/order5.pdf Wu, H. (2011a). Understanding numbers in elementary school mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Wu, H. (2011b). The mis-education of mathematics teachers. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(3), 372–384. Young, J. W. A. (1914). The teaching of mathematics in the elementary and the secondary school. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, and Co. Zhang, X., Clements, M. A., & Ellerton, N. F. (2015a). Conceptual (mis)understandings of fractions: From area models to multiple embodiments. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(2), 233–261. Zhang, X., Clements, M. A., & Ellerton, N. F. (2015b). Enriching student concept images: Teaching and learning fractions through a multiple-embodiment approach. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(2), 201–231. Zhang, X., Clements, M. A., & Ellerton, N. F. (2015c). Engaging students with multiple models of fractions. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(3), 138–147. Zurina, H., & Williams, J. (2011). Gesturing for oneself. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2–3), 1–14.

Author Index

A Brock, William H., 35 Adams, John A., 157, 213, 214 Brown, Ann L., 88, 116 Albree, Joseph, 27 Bruner, Jerome, 103 Alexander, John, 18 Alexandri, Johannis, 18, 21 C Al-Khalili, James, 15 Cai, Jinfa, 3, 12, 31, 45, 49, 71, 80, 88, Allen, Frank B., 43 95, 101, 190 Andrews, Alfred, 29 Cajori, Florian, 2, 8, 14, 15, 26, 27, 29, Andrews, E. J., 27 35, 204 Arora, Alka, 3 Campbell, Donald T., 119 Artigue, Michèle, 12 Campos, Daniel G., 102, 156 Assude, Teresa, 12 Cañadas, M. C., 87 Australian Council for Educational Capraro, Mary M., 41–42, 83 Research, 41 Carpenter, Thomas P., 214 Ausubel, David P., 102, 103, 214 Carr, Wilfred, 62 Carraher, David W., 101 B Carslaw, Horatio Scott, 32, 37 Baek, John Y., 6, 60, 88 Castañeda, Hector-Neri, 213 Baker, Scott, 119, 203 CCSSM (common core, National Ball, Deborah Loewenberg, 218 Governors Association Center for Best Banchoff, Thomas Francis, 44 Practices, & Council of Chief State Barker, David, 108 School Officers), 31, 41, 72, 73, 74, Bartell, Tonya, v 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 87, 88, 93, 94, Battey, Dan, v 97, 102, 156, 189, 194, 195, 196, 204, Battista, Michael, 43 206 Bauersfeld, Heinrich, 213 Chambers, C.E., 12 Bedney, Gregory, 103 Charles, Randall I., 80, 81, 82, 83, 156, Beman, Wooster Woodruff, 36 194 Bestor, Arthur, 34 Chateauneuf, Amy Olive, 31 Bézout, Étienne, 23 Chazan, Daniel, 1, 12 Bishop, Alan, J., 11, 14, 17, 215 Choppin, Jeffrey, 218 Blanton, Maria L., 45, 84, 87, 88, 95, Chorlay, Renaud, 12 101, 156, 172 Clairaut, Alexis-Claude, 23 Bolton, Frederick E., 23 Clarke, David J., 7 Bonnycastle, John, 27 Clement, John J., 65 Booth, Leslie, 2 Clements, McKenzie A. (Ken), 3, 4, 5, 7, Borel, Émile, 35, 36 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24, 29, Boruch, Robert, 119 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 44, Branch-Boyd, Judith C., 80, 156, 194 45, 47, 48, 49, 65, 66, 67, 68, 85, 88, Bray, Mark, 4 104, 107, 117, 118, 122, 127, 154, Bressoud, David M., xxi 157, 188, 207, 214, 215, 217 Britt, Murray, 95, 96 Cobb, Margaret V., v Brizuela, Barbara M., 45, 87, 88, 101, 156 Cobb, Paul, 115, 116, 215

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 317 S. Kanbir et al., Using Design Research and History to Tackle a Fundamental Problem with School Algebra, History of Mathematics Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59204-6 318 Author Index

Cocker, Edward, 27 Erbas, Ayhan Kursat, 44 Cohen, Jacob, 109, 134, 135, 152, 199 Euler, Leonard, 26 Colburn, Warren, 29, 34 Evans, Ken McR., 43 Cole, Percival R., 157 Exner, Robert M., 39 Colebrooke, Henry Thomas, 15 Confrey, Jere, 115 F Coventry, Angela, 213 Filloy, Yagüe Eugenio, 17 Coxford, Arthur F., 14 Foote, Mary, v Cremin, Lawrence Arthur, 34 Foy, Pierre, 3 Freudenthal, Hans, 40–41 D Fried, Michael A., 96 da Ponte, João Pedro, 12, 13, 15, 25, 27 Fujii, Toshiakira, 2, 96 Dascal, Marcello, 213 Fullan, Michael, 219 Davies, Charles, 26, 27, 33 Davis, Robert B., 38, 39, 42, 82 G Day, Jeremiah, 37 Gagné, Robert Mills, 102–104, 105, 157, de L’Hôpital, Guillaume F. A., 49 214 De Saussure, Ferdinand, 91, 93, 96, 97 Gardiner, Angela Murphy, 45, 84, 88, DeGarmo, Charles, 102, 103, 213, 215 101, 156, 172 Del Campo, Gina, 7, 66, 68, 85, 107, 122, Gavin, M. Katherine, 73 188, 207, 215, 217 Gersten, Russell, 119, 124, 203 Didis, Makbule Gozde, 44 Giacardi, Livia, 35, 36 Dienes, Zoltan Paul, 12, 39, 40 Godfrey, Charles, 37 Dieudonné, Jean, 38–39 Gravemeijer, Koeno, 116 Dillow, Sally, 34 Green, Lyn, 43 Dilworth, Thomas, 27 Grimison, Lindsay A., 13, 37 Ding, Meixia, 41–42, 83, 204 Grinder, Robert E., 213 DiSessa, Andy, 115 Grinstein, Louise S., 48 Ditton, Humfrey, 18–21 Grugeon, Brigitte, 12 Douglas, Edwin C., 43 Guimarāes, Henrique Manuel, 12, 13, 15, Dreyfus, Tommy, 102, 104, 214 25, 27 Dunkel, Harold B., 66, 67, 103, 157 Durell, Fletcher, 37 H Durkin, Kelley, v Hacker, Andrew, xxi Harrington, Judy, 32 E Hart, Kath, 3, 24, 217 Education Department of Victoria, 41 Hayward, Frank Herbart, 157, 213 Edwards, Ann, 5 Henderson, Ernest N., 213 Edwards, Edgar L., 218 Herbart, Johann Friedrich, 7, 66, 67, 102, Eisenberg, Ted, 109 103, 104, 106, 120, 157, 213, 214 Ellerton, Nerida F., 3, 4, 5, 13, 15, 18, 21, Herbel-Eisenmann, Beth, 218 23, 24, 29, 31, 33, 34, 44, 45, 47, 49, Hershkowitz, Rina, 102, 104, 214 67, 104, 107, 118, 122, 136, 154, 157 Hertel, Joshua T., 48 Ellis, Amy, 84 Hewitt, Dave, 96 England and Wales in the Oxford and Hiebert, James, 49, 190, 214 Cambridge Examination Board, 23 Hill, Heather, 218 Author Index 319

Hjalmarson, Margret, 62, vi Land, Douglas A., 119 Hodgson, James, 21, 22, 34 Lange, Karl, 213 Hohensee, Charles, 49, 190 Lannin, John K., 108 Holton, Derek, 7 Laplace, Pierre-Simon, 33 House, Peggy A., 2 Lave, Jean, 213 Husky, Matthew E., 14 Lawson, Dene R., 13 Hwang, Stephen, 49, 190 Layton, Edwin T., vi Lean, Glendon A., 48, 65, 217 I Lee, Kyeong-Hwa, 96 Illingworth, Mark, 80, 156, 194 Lehrer, Richard, 115 Irwin, Kay, 95, 96 Lenfant, Agnès, 12 Isler, Isil, 84, 88 Lesh, Richard A., 6, 60, 62 Izsák, Isaac, 1, 3, 14, 34 Leung, Frederick, 7, 11, 14, 215 Li, Xiaobao, 41–42, 83, 204 J Lim, Ting Hing, 2, 44 Jahnke, Hans N., 33 Lloyd, John Wills, 119, 203 Jeon, Kyungsoon, 93 Lochhead, Jack, 65 Jones, Phillip S., 14 Loehr, Abbey M., vi Joyce, Bruce, 107, 121 Loemker, Leroy E., 14 López, Jonathan, 44 K Lüken, Miriam, 84 Kanbir, Sinan, 6, 42, 61, 71, 72, 78, 82, 91, Lykins, Chad, 4 106, 116, 118, 125, 155, 194, 204, 211 Kaput, James J., 95, 156 M Karp, Alexander, 42, 48 Ma, Liping, 5, 41, 120 Karpinski, Louis C., 27 MacGregor, Mollie, 2, 31, 65, 217 Keitel, Christine, 11, 14, 33, 36, 39, 45, Mackenzie, Andrew A., 104 48, 215 Martin, Michael O., 3 Kelly, Anthony. Eamonn, 6, 60, 88, v Martínez-Planel, Rafael, 44 Kemmis, Stephen, 62, v May, Kenneth O., 37 Kiang, Leong Yu, 3, 4 McNab, Susan London, 101 Kieran, Carolyn, 3, 71, 84, 87, 88, 172 McQualter, Jock W., 37 Kilpatrick, Jeremy, 1, 3, 11, 14, 17, 33, Meister, David, 103 34, 36, 39, 45, 48, 215 Merrill, M. David, 102, 103, 157, 214 Kim, Jeeseok, 46, 84, 88, 172 Meserve, Bruce, E., ii Klein, Felix, 43, 44 Mestre, José, 65 Kleiner, Israel, 37 Michaels, Brenda, 48 Knuth, Eric, 3, 12, 31, 45, 71, 80, 84, 88, Milgram, R. James, 31 156, 172 Mills, Darwin, 80, 156, 194 Kriegel, Uriah, 213 Monk, George S., 65 Küchemann, Dietmar, 3 Monroe, Walter Scott, 27 Kwo, Ora, 4 Moon, Bob, 38, 39 Moore, Eliakim Hastings, 35 L Morris, Anne, 49, 190 Laborde, Colette, 43 Moss, Joan, 101 Lacroix, Sylvestre François, 26 Mosteller, Frederick, 119 320 Author Index

Moyer, John C., 12, 95 R Muke, Charlie, 48 Radford, Luis, 91, 95–97, 99–101, 108, Mullis, Ina V.S., 3 172, 173, 187, 206, 212, 295 Raub, Albert, N., 37 N Ray, Joseph, 37 National Governors Association Center Rech, Janice F., 32 for Best Practices, & Council of Chief Reeves, Andy, 80, 156, 194 State School Officers. see under Rein, Wilhelm, 214 “CCSSM” Richmond, Donald E., 43 National Mathematics Advisory Panel, Rickart, Charles E., 43 24, 25, 31 Rittle-Johnson, Bethany, v NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Rivera, Ferdinand, 84 Mathematics), 12, 41, 156 Robbins, Edward, 37 Newman, M. Anne, 217 Roberts, David Lindsay, 14, 15, 35, 36 Newman-Owens, Ashley, 45, 88, 156 Robison, Victoria, 49, 190 Newton, Isaac, 33 Robles, Izraim, 44 Nickerson, Susan D., 77 Rosenthal, Robert, 135 Nie, Bikai, 95, 101 Rosnow, Ralph L., 135 Nordgaard, Martin A., 35 Rosskopf, Myron F., 35, 39 Ruthven, Kenneth, 35, 36 O Olney, Edward, 33 S Orleans, Jacob S., v Sawrey, Katie, 45, 88, 156 Otte, Michael Friedrich, 93 Schauble, Leona, 115 Owens, Kay Dianne, 48 Schilling, Stephen G., 218 Oxford and Cambridge Examination Schliemann, Annalucia, 101 Board, 23 Schloring, Raleigh, 1 Schoenfeld, Alan, 108, 119 P Schubring, Gert, 12, 48 Papert, Seymour, 43 Schultze, Arthur, 36 Pappano, Laura, 32 Schwartz, J. L., 101 Paraide, Patricia, 48 Selleck, Richard J. W., 157 Park, Kyungmee, 7 Sfard, Anna, 3, 8, 12, 37, 43, 107, 108, Peirce, Charles Sanders, 7, 66, 91–93, 97, 138 102 Sheffield, Linda Jensen, 73 Perel, William M., 4, 39 Showers, Beverley, 107, 121 Perry, John, 35 Simons, Lao Genevra, 218 Phillips, Christopher J., 39 Simpson, Thomas, 23 Piaget, Jean, 213 Sinclair, Hermine, 213 Pierce, Robyn, 108 Singh, Parmjit, 136 Pike, Nicolas, 27–29 Slavin, Robert E., 116 Pimm, David, 218 Smith, David Eugene, 1, 33, 36 Pomfret, Alan, 219 Smith, Gordon, 43 Porro, F. D., 3, 14, 29 Snyder, Thomas D., 34 Presmeg, Norma, 91, 212 Sobel, Max A, ii Price, Michael H., 35 Spencer, Joi, v Author Index 321

Spielhagen, Frances R., 12, 33 V Sriraman, Bharath, 96, 108 Vairo, Philip D., 4, 39 Stacey, Kaye, 31, 217 Vaiyavutjamai, Pongchawee, 2, 44, 49, Stanley, Julian, 119 65, 154 Steen, Lynn A., 13 Van Engen, Henry, 37 Steffe, Les, 214 Venema, Pieter, 27 Stephens, Ana, 84, 88, 101, 156, 172 Vinner, Shlomo, 102, 104, 118, 157, 214 Stephens, W. Max, 2, 96 von Glasersfeld, Ernst, 214 Sterry, Consider, 29 Vredenduin, Pieter Gaele Johannes, 37, 38 Sterry, John, 29 Vygotsky, Lev, 201, 213 Stewart, Sepideh, v Stylianides, Andreas J., 115 W Stylianides, Gabriel J., 115 Wager, Anita, v Sutherland, Rosamund, 17 Wagner, David, 218 Suzuki, Shoko, 67 Wald, Elva, v Swain, Henry, 42 Walker, Robert J., 43 Swetz, Frank, 33 Wang, Ning, 95 Symonds, Percival M., v Warren, Elizabeth, 108 Wartofsky, Marx, 105 T Watterson, Geoff, 43 Tahta, Dikran, ii Webster, Samuel, 26, 29 Tall, David, 102, 104, 157 Wenger, Etienne, 213 Taylor-Cox, J., 87 Wentworth, George A. (“Bull”), 37 Thomas, Gary, 60 Westbury, Ian, 13, 72, 92, 156, 157, 201 Thomas, Isaiah, 27 Whitacre, Ian Michael, 77 Thorndike, Edward L., v White, Richard T., 102, 104, 105, 157, 214 Toh, Mavis, 4 Whitehurst, Grover J., 119 Toulmin, Stephen, 68, 207 Williams, Julian, 207 Townsend, Brian E., 108 Wittman, Erich, 59, 60, 215 Trochim,William M. K., 119 Wolfe, Christian, 23 Turnbull, Herbert W., 26 Woodyard, Ella, v Twidle, John, 76 Wu, Hung-Hsi, 3, 4, 41, 83, 88, 117, 194 Tzanakis, Constantinos, 46 Y U Young, Jacob W. A., 35 Ueno, Kenji, 37 UNESCO, 38, 39 Z University of Melbourne, 13, 32 Zhang, Xiaofen, 104, 154 Usiskin, Zalman, 15, 45 Zurina, Harun, 207

Subject Index

A C Abbaci and the abbaco tradition, 33 Cai, Jinfa, 80, 95 Algebra, 45. See also “School Algebra” Calculus, 21, 34, 36, 45, 48–49 rhetorical notations, 8 CCSSM common-core curriculum syncopated notations, 8 (U.S.A.), 31–32, 41, 43, 45, 72, Apperception, 7, 85, 103, 104, 136, 138, 73, 74, 75–77, 79, 83, 87, 88, 194, 201, 202, 213–214 122, 156, 159, 163, 172, 175, Applied mathematics, 37 189, 194, 195, 196, 207, 216–217 Arithmetic in, 41, 45, 72, 74, field properties of, 97 75–77, 80, 87, 88, 94, 97, 101, generalized, 16, 25–31, 35, 46 102, 156, 159, 163, 175, 189 Asian nations do well in algebra, 4, 31, modeling in, 45, 72, 79–80, 87, 35, 48 101–102, 156, 189 Associative property (Addition), 39, 41, China, 5, 12, 41, 48 42, 74, 75–78, 81–82, 83, 88, Christ’s Hospital School (London), 124, 128, 159, 177–178, 18–21, 23, 34 193–195, 202, 227, 229, 233, Ciphering. See Cyphering 236, 241, 243, 245–246, Clairaut, Alexis-Claude, 3, 23 253–254 Cognitive structure, 67, 106, 138, 157, Associative property (Multiplication), 203, 212, 214, 219 39, 41, 42, 44, 71, 74, 75–77, Colburn, Warren, 16, 29, 34 81–82, 83, 88, 92–94, 96, Colonialism, 12–13, 27 104–105, 124, 128, 155, 156, Concept image, 67, 104, 138, 159, 159, 178–180, 193–195, 202, 199–200, 214 229, 230, 232, 235, 236, 239, Concepts in Secondary Mathematics and 241, 243, 247–248, 255–256 Science (CSMS), 24, 217 Attitudes to algebra, 6, 104, 105, 157, Concrete learning aids, 12 159–171, 197, 201–203, 206, Conventions in algebra, 82–83, 98–99, 207, 216, 289–293 168, 179–187, 196–197, 198, Australia, 2, 23, 32, 35 205, 230–231, 234, 238, 261–285 Ausubel, David P., 102, 103, 137, 157, Crossing-the-river task, 207, 264, 268, 214 272, 276, 280, 284 Curriculum B author-intended, v, 13, 34, 43, 155, Bézout, Étienne B., 16 156, 157 Books. See Textbooks received, 13, 34, 155, 156, 157–158, Bourbaki, Nicolas, 16, 38 203 Bourdon, Louis, 16 retained, 203 Brunei Darussalam, 2, 44 teacher-implemented, v, 13, 34, 49, Bruner, Jerome, 39, 103, 138, 157, 213 155, 156, 157, 187–188

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 323 S. Kanbir et al., Using Design Research and History to Tackle a Fundamental Problem with School Algebra, History of Mathematics Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59204-6 324 Subject Index

Cyphering books Euler, Leonhard, 3, 26 complemented by textbooks, 194 Explicit specifications with algebra, 71, data from, 29, 30 83, 98–99, 205, 217, 289–291 Cyphering tradition, 29, 49 Expressive mode of communication, 67–68, 77, 78, 79, 107, 124, 135, D 136, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, Davies, Charles, 26, 27, 33 160, 162, 166, 167, 170, 172, Davis, Robert (“Bob”), 16, 39, 42 188–189, 194, 197, 207, 215, 218 DeGarmo, Charles, 102, 103, 138, 213, 215 F Del Campo, Gina, 65, 67, 68, 107, 123, France, 35, 38 155, 188, 207, 215, 217, 218 Freudenthal, Hans, 40–41 de L’Hôpital, Guillaume, 49 Functional thinking approach to school de Saussure, Ferdinand, 93, 98, 102 algebra, 16, 35, 36, 45, 84, 228 Descartes, René, 16, 18 Functions, 25, 36 Design research, 5–6, 60– 62, 88–90, graphs of, 25 109, 115–116, 193, 216, 218 linear, 25 design elements for, 61–62, 89–90 logarithmic, 25, 31 Erich Wittman on, 59–60 , 25 Kelly, Lesh & Baek on, 60, 62, 115 quadratic, 25 in mathematics education, 60, 109, 216 G role of theory in, 62–63, 122–124 Gagné, Robert M., 102, 103, 138, 157, Dienes, Zoltan Paul, 12, 16, 39–40, 48 214 Dieudonné, Jean, 38, 46 Gatekeeper (school algebra as), 16, Ding, Meixia, 41–42, 83 31–33, 45 Distributive property, 42, 71, 73, 75–77, Generalization, 78, 79, 105–106, 108, 82, 83, 88, 96, 128, 155–156, 193, 205, 295–297 159, 175–177, 193–195, 202, contextual, 100, 173, 174, 295–297 227, 231, 234, 237, 238, 241, factual, 100, 173, 174, 295–297 243, 244, 249–252, 257–259 post-symbolic, 101, 172, 173, Ditton, Humfrey, 16, 18–20 295–297 Doctoral dissertations in mathematics symbolic, 100–101, 172, 173, 174, education, 211 295–297 Document analysis, 71–79, 193–194 Geometry, 43 Germany, 32, 33, 35 E Graphs, 16, 36, 46 Effect size, 5, 135–137, 152, 198, 199 Episodes, 104, 105, 157, 159–171, 193, H 197, 206, 216, 278, 289–293 Herbert, Johann Friedrich, 7, 66, 67, 85, Equations, 4, 8, 25, 34–35, 42–43, 44, 64, 90, 102, 103, 104, 121, 136, 138, 77, 79, 228, 229, 230, 234, 237 157, 158, 193, 194, 201, 202, general, 14 206, 211, 212, 213–215 linear, 25, 35, 79, 230, 234, 237 apperception, 7, 66, 85, 103, 104, quadratic, 4, 8, 25, 35, 42, 44 136, 138, 194, 201, 202, 212, Ethnomathematics, 47 213–214 Subject Index 325

five steps in lesson planning, 66 pilot studies of, 6, 42, 61–62, 71, 78, Herbatians, 66–67, 102, 136, 138, 82–84, 85, 91, 106, 107, 157, 201, 213 116–119, 124, 125, 155, 194, Hertel, Joshua, 48 197, 205, 207, 217 History Kant, Immanuel, 213 of school algebra, 3, 5, 11–49, Kart, Kath, 3, 24, 217 211 Kieran, Carolyn, 3, 79, 84, 172 of theory development, 211 Kilpatrick, Jeremy, 1, 14, 34 Hodgson, James, 16, 21–22, 34 Klein, Felix, 14, 16, 35, 37, 43, 44, 46 Høyrup, Jens, 2 Knuth, Eric, 80

I L Imageries, 104, 157, 159–171, 193, 197, Lacroix, Sylvester, 16, 26–27 206, 216, 289–293 Language factors in algebra learning, 8, Inequalities, 5, 42–43, 64, 77, 79 13, 23, 28–29, 31, 33–37, 43, 46, Instrumentation and research design 63–64, 65, 67, 80, 85, 108, 193, Algebra Test, 124, 196, 197–198, 216, 217 229–239 Laplace, Pierre-Simon, 33 classroom observation schedule, Lean, Glendon A, 65, 217 287–288 Leibniz, Gottlieb, 14, 213 effect size calculations, 135–137, Lim, Ting Hing, 2, 44 152, 198–199 Locke, John, 213 interview procedures, 138 interview protocol, 128–129 M null and research hypotheses, MacGregor, Mollie, 2, 65, 217 129–135, 137, 193–197 “y= 8z” task, 2, 65, 212 questionnaire for students, 239 Ma, Liping, 5, 41, 121 workshop notes, 243–244 Mathematical Association of America workshops, 77, 138 (MAA), 1 Intellectual skills, 104, 105, 157, Mathematicians, 88, 212 159–171, 193, 197, 206, 216, Mathematics educators, 5, 101 289–293 theory development, 215 Interviews, 5, 42, 71, 116, 160–170 U.S. mathematics education data from, 160–170 dissertations, 211–213 protocol for, 128, 218, 227–268 Melbourne (Australia), 2, 11, 23, 32 IRCEE genre, 29 University of, 13, 23, 32 Izsák, A., 1, 14, 34 Milgram, R. James, 31 Modeling, 16, 33, 62, 78–80, 83, 98–99, J 195, 207 Japan, 36, 37, 48 with algebra, 16, 33–34, 78–80, 83, 195 K Model lessons, 124, 125 Kanbir, Sinan Modes of Communication, 85, 107 doctoral dissertation of, 11, 61, 72, Del Campo & Clements, 7, 85, 107 84, 88–90, 116, 119–120, 212, Moore, Eliakim Hastings, 14, 16, 35, 213, 216 46 326 Subject Index

N Q National Council of Teachers of Qualitative analysis of data, 139, Mathematics, 1, 12, 41, 48, 156. 155–190, 194, 196, 206, 208 See NCTM random allocation to groups, 61, 207 Fifty-Sixth Yearbook, 12 First Yearbook, 1 R Seventieth Yearbook, 1, 12 Radford, Luis, 91, 95, 96, 98, 99–101, Standards, 5, 156 108, 172–174, 206, 295–296 National Governors Association Center Received curriculum, 155 for Best Practices, & Council of Receptive mode of communication, 7, Chief State School Officers. See 67–68, 77, 79, 107, 124, 135, CCSSM 136, 188–190, 194, 197, 212, National Mathematics Advisory Panel 215, 218 (U.S.A.), 24–25, 31 Recursive specification, 78, 83, 101, 155, NCTM, 1, 5, 12, 41 156, 167, 169–170, 187, 193, Newman, M. Anne, 217 205, 217, 289–293 New Math(s), 37, 38–40, 42, 44, 46 Research design, 124–125, 204–205 Newton, Isaac, 3, 16, 18, 21, 25, 33, Research questions, 65, 108–109, 46 193–206 New Zealand, 96 S O School algebra, 8, 44–47 Owens, Kay D., 48 enrollment patterns for, 1, 3–4, 34–35, 44–45 P essential for higher studies, 16, 64 Papua New Guinea, 39, 48 as functional thinking, 16, 35, 36, 45, Pedagogical content knowledge, 46, 64, 71, 78–80, 82–83, 84, 218–219 95, 98–99, 101, 166–174, 203, Peirce, Charles Sanders, 66, 68, 85, 90, 207 98, 102, 156, 193, 211, 212 as a gatekeeper, 16, 31–33 theory of, 7, 85, 91–95, 102, as generalized arithmetic, 16, 25–31, 156–157, 206, 212 35, 46, 64, 72 PEMDAS (“Please Excuse My Dear history of, 3, 5, 8, 11–49, 66, 212 Aunt Sally”), 42, 85, 93–94, 102, and mathematicians, 47–48, 212 104–105, 156, 195, 206 problems with, 1–5, 8, 59 Perry, John, 14, 16, 35, 37, 46 purposes of, 11, 13, 14–16, 63 and Perryism, 14, 35 structure, 37–39, 41, 64, 71–72, 95, Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich, 34, 157 96, 121, 158–166, 207 Piaget, Jean, 157, 213 students’ difficulties with, 1–3, 8, 23, Pike, Nicolas, 16, 27, 29 31, 98–99, 115 1793 Abridgment, for schools, 27 as the study of variables, 8, 42–44, 64 1788 Arithmetic, 27–28 teachers’ difficulties with, 4–5 Pilot studies, 6, 42, 71, 82–84, 85, 91, unidimensional trait?, 44–47, 87 106, 107, 116–119, 155, 194 word problems for, 2, 33–34, 78, Purposes of school algebra, 11, 13, 126–128, 182, 184, 228, 229, 14–49, 63 231–234, 236, 238 Subject Index 327

School Mathematics Study Group Thomas, Isaiah, 28 (SMSG), 16, 42, 43 Thorndike, Edward Lee, v Scotland, 32 Trends in Mathematics and Science Selleck, Richard, 157 Study (TIMSS), 3, 31 Semiotics, 7–8, 41, 63, 65, 71, 80, 83, 90, Trigonometry, 22, 25 97, 98–99, 102–103, 108, 137–138, 156, 195, 204, 212, 213, 216 U Service mathematics, 47 Understanding algebra, 49, 65, 194 Simpson, Thomas, 22 United Kingdom, 37 Singapore, 4, 31, 48 United States of America Smith, David Eugene, 1, 14, 33, 35–36, Kanbir’s study within, 59–208, 212 37, 46 and school algebra, 5–6, 14, 16, 27, Springer’s series on “History of 29, 33, 34, 35–36, 37, 41–42, Mathematics Education”, 6, 11 43, 44–45, 48, 205, 212, 213, Stacey, Kaye, 217 218 Sterry, Consider and John, 29 Usiskin, Zalman, 15, 17, 45 Structure, 16, 37 of real numbers, 16, 37 V Students-and-professors problem, 65 Vaiyavutjamai, Pongchawee, 2, 44, 49, Subscript notation (for sequences), 78, 154 79, 99, 128, 168, 170, 196, 197, Variables, 16, 44, 45, 193, 195 204, 205, 206, 227–229, 233, Verbal knowledge, 104, 157, 158–171, 235, 236, 239, 261–285 193, 197, 206, 216, 289–293 Vinner, Shlomo, 102–104, 118, 138, T 157, 214 Teachers, 4, 41, 49, 207–208, 212 Vygotsky, Lev, 157, 201, 213 Technology, 207 Textbooks, 3, 12, 18, 21, 23, 29–31, 34, W 36, 42–43, 46, 49, 80–83, 212 Westbury, Ian, 13, 156, 157 with American authors, 26–29, 34, 36, Wittman, Erich, 59–60, 215 37, 42–43, 80–83, 156, 194 Wolfe, Christian, 22 with British authors, 18, 21, 23, 27, Workshops, 77, 138, 193, 203, 205, 218, 34 243–244, 245–259, 261–285 with Continental authors, 12, 18, 21, Wu, Hung-Hsi, 3, 4, 41, 83, 88, 194 23, 26–27, 29 and historical research, 31, 42–43, 46, Z 212 Zhang, Xiaofen, 154