The Korea Society Of Educational Studies In Mathematics

Current Issue

Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics - Vol. 30

[ Special ]
Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics - Vol. 30, No. SP1, pp.15-28
Abbreviation: JERM
ISSN: 2288-7733 (Print) 2288-8357 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Aug 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29275/jerm.2020.08.sp.1.15

A Model for Teaching Mathematical Argument at the Elementary Grades
Deborah Schifter*, ; Susan Jo Russell**
*Principal Research Scientist, Education Development Center, USA
**Principal Research Scientist, Education Research Collaborative at TERC, USA

Correspondence to : Email: dschifter@edc.org, susan_jo_russell@terc.edu

Funding Information ▼

Please cite this article as: Schifter, D. & Russell, S. J. A model for teaching mathematical argument at the elementary grades.


Abstract

Over years of collaborating with elementary-school teachers to research students’ thinking about the “big ideas” of K-6 mathematics, particular attention was given to generalizations about the operations—addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division—and arguments that explain why these generalizations are true. Through this work, we created a model of five phases that separate different points of focus in the complex process of formulating and proving such generalizations: 1) noticing patterns, 2) articulating conjectures, 3) representing with specific examples, 4) creating representation-based arguments, and 5) comparing and contrasting operations. In this paper, we illustrate the phases with classroom examples as students investigate a set of generalizations. We then present assessment results from classrooms of project teachers who engaged their students in this content.


Keywords: Argument, Generalization, Conjecture, Representation, Operations

Acknowledgments

Material in this paper was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants no. HR-1019482 and ESI-0550176. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank our collaborating teachers and their students, especially those whose classroom work appears in this paper: Sarah Bent, Quayisha Clarke, Caitlin Doering, Emmanuel Fairley-Pittman, Natasha Gordon, Isabel Schooler, and Jan Szymaszek.

We want to thank Megan Franke, Professor, Department of Education, University of California, Los Angeles who was the evaluator for the project that produced student assessment results reported in this paper; she collaborated with the authors in the design of the assessments and carried out the analysis of results.


References
1. Aguirre, J., Mayfield-Ingram, K., & Martin, D. B. (2013). The impact of identity in K-8 mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
2. Blanton, M., Stephens, A., Knuth, E., Gardiner, A. M., Isler, I., & Kim, J. (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.
3. Cai, J. & Knuth, E. (Eds.) (2011). Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives. Springer.
4. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Heinemann.
5. Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 87–115.
6. Cusi, A., Malara, N. A., & Navarra, G. (2011). Theoretical issues and educational strategies for encouraging teachers to promote a linguistic and metacognitive approach to early algebra. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 485-510). Springer.
7. Higgins, T., Russell, S. J., Schifter, D., Bastable, V., & Kasman, R. (In preparation). A framework for making sense of elementary students’ developing practice of articulating conjectures about arithmetic regularities.
8. Humphreys, C. & Parker, R. (2015). Making number talks matter: Developing mathematical practices and deepening understanding, grades 4-10. Stenhouse.
9. Kaput, J. J., Carraher, D. W., & Blanton, M. L. (2008). Algebra in the early grades. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Kieran, C. (1989). The early learning of algebra: A structural perspective. In S. Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra (Volume 4 of Research agenda for mathematics education, pp. 33-56). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
11. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.) (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.
12. Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra (pp. 65–86). Kluwer.
13. Moss, J. & London McNab, S. (2011). An approach to geometric and numeric patterning. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 277-301). Springer.
14. Parrish, S. (2010). Number talks: Helping children build mental math and computation strategies, grades K-5. Math Solutions.
15. Radford, L. (2011). Embodiment, perception and symbols in the development of early algebraic thinking. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 17-24). Ankara, Turkey: PME.
16. Russell, S. J., Schifter, D., & Bastable, V. (2011). Connecting arithmetic to algebra. Heinemann.
17. Russell, S. J., Schifter, D., & Bastable, V. (2012). Connecting arithmetic to algebra course facilitator’s guide. Heinemann.
18. Russell, S. J., Schifter, D., Bastable, V., & Franke, M. (In preparation). Bringing early algebra to the elementary classroom: Results of a professional development program for teachers.
19. Russell, S. J., Schifter, D., Kasman, R., Bastable, V., & Higgins, T. (2017). But why does it work? Mathematical argument in the elementary grades. Heinemann.
20. Schifter, D. (2009). Representation-based proof in the elementary grades. In D.A. Stylianou, M. Blanton, & E. Knuth (Eds), Teaching and learning proof across the grades: A K-16 perspective (pp. 71-86). Routledge – Taylor Francis and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
21. Schifter, D. (2018). Early algebra as analysis of structure: A focus on operations. In C. Kieran (Ed.), Teaching and learning algebraic thinking with 5- To 12-year-olds: The global evolution of an emerging field of research and practice (pp. 309-327). Springer.
22. Schifter, D., Monk, S., Russell, S. J., & Bastable, V. (2008). What does understanding the laws of arithmetic mean in the elementary grades? In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 413-448). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Schifter, D., Russell, S. J., & Bastable, V. (1999). Teaching to the Big Ideas. In M.Z. Solomon (Ed.). The Diagnostic Teacher: Constructing New Approaches to Professional Development (pp. 22-47). Teachers College Press.
24. 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.
25. Slavit, D. (1998). The role of operation sense in transitions from arithmetic to algebraic thought. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(3), 251-274.
26. Stylianides, A. (2016). Proving in the elementary classroom. Oxford University Press.
27. Stylianou, D. A., Blanton, M. L., & Knuth, E. J. (Eds.) (2009). Teaching and learning proof across the grades. Routledge.
28. Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2009). Developing mathematics understanding and abstraction: The case of equivalence in the elementary years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 76-95.