Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Τwo different types of technologically enhanced intervention modules to support early algebraic thinking

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the role of online applets in early algebra lessons. The effect of two different types of intervention modules on developing students’ early algebraic thinking abilities was compared. The first intervention module involved the use of open applets and real-life contexts (open-real). The second intervention module involved the use of closed applets and pure mathematics contexts (closed/pure). “Open” applets are considered to promote more explorative ways of working with mathematical ideas, whereas “closed” applets are considered to guide students’ ways of working through more sequential, step-by-step approaches. Real-life contexts present everyday applications of mathematics, where pure mathematics contexts focus on the mathematical concepts and procedures, with no reference to the way they could be associated with real-life situations. Nevertheless, both intervention modules followed an inquiry-based approach. The total number of the participants were 96 young students of Grade 5 with an average age of 10,5 years old. These students were tested through a pre- and a post-test on early algebraic thinking. The test involved three categories of early algebra tasks: generalized arithmetic, functional thinking, and modeling languages. Data from the pre- and post-test comparison showed that students who participated in the “open/real” module had a statistically significant higher improvement in functional thinking compared to students who participated in the “closed/pure” module. There were no statistically significant differences between the improvement of the two groups of students in generalized arithmetic and modeling languages. These findings offer pedagogical implications in respect to the design of early algebra lessons that take advantage of the affordances of available educational technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to privacy reasons but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E., Hattikudur, S., McNeil, N. M., & Stephens, A. (2007). A longitudinal examination of middle school students’ understanding of the equal sign and equivalent equations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9, 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060701360902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 245–274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022103903080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artigue, M., & Blomhøj, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(6), 797–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0506-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A., Cai, J., English, L., Kaiser, G., Mesa, V., & Van Dooren, W. (2019). Beyond small, medium, or large: Points of consideration when interpreting effect sizes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09908-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastable, V., & Schifter, D. (2008). Classroom stories: Examples of elementary students engaged in early algebra. In J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 165–184). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2005). Characterizing a classroom practice that promotes algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 412–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012). Effects of a digital intervention on the development of algebraic expertise. Computers & Education, 58(1), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J., Bezuk, N., & Aguilar, K. (2011). Adapting the mathematical task framework to design online didactic objects. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(4), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2010.550941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research–A systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Advances in mathematics education. Springer-Verlag.

  • Britt, M. S., & Irwin, K. C. (2008). Algebraic thinking with and without algebraic representation: A pathway for algebraic thinking. ZDM–The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4_10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brizuela, B. M., & Schliemann, A. D. (2003). Ten-year-old students solving linear equations. For the Learning of Mathematics, 24, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, J., & Knuth, E.J. (2011). Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives. Springer-Verlag.

  • Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., & Rall, K. (Eds.). (2009). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts: Executive summary (NCEE 2009–4042). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

  • Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. (2018). Cultivating early algebraic thinking. 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, ICME-13 monographs (pp. 107–138). Springer.

  • Carraher, D., Brizuela, B. & Schliemann, A. (2000). Bringing out the algebraic character of arithmetic: Instantiating variables in addition and substraction. In T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 145–152). Hiroshima University.

  • Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. D. (2014). Early algebra teaching and learning. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 193–196). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chimoni, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2021). The impact of two different types of instructional tasks on students’ development of early algebraic thinking. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 44(3), 503–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2020.1778280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorier, J. L., & Maass, K. (2020). Inquiry-based mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_176

  • Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Kirschner, P., Hoogveld, B., & Boon, P. (2014). The effect of online tasks for algebra on student achievement in grade 8. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drijvers, P. (2015) Digital technology in mathematics education: Why it works (Or Doesn’t). In S. Cho (Ed), Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_8

  • Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G., Gadanidis, J., & Schindler, K. (2003). Factors mediating the use of online applets in the lesson planning of pre-service mathematics teachers. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(4), 323–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, A. M., & Sawrey, K. (2022). First graders and functional thinking, part 1. https://www.nctm.org/Publications/TCM-blog/Blog/First-Graders-and-Functional-Thinking,-Part-2/

  • Haleva, L., Hershkovitz, A., & Tabach, M. (2021). Students’ activity in an online learning environment for mathematics: The role of thinking levels. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 686–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120972057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmi, K., Bråting, K., & Lepik, M. (2020). Curricular approaches to algebra in Estonia, Finland and Sweden – a comparative study. Mathematical Thinking and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1740857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, D. (2014). A symbolic dance: The interplay between movement, notation, and mathematics on a journey toward solving equations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.857803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, K., Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., & Crawford, L. (2019). Effects of technology in mathematics on achievement, motivation, and attitude: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(2), 283–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117748416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, K., & Britt, M. (2005). The algebraic nature of students’ numerical manipulation in the New Zealand Numeracy Project. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-2755-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isler, I., Stephens, A., Gardiner, A., Knuth, E., & Blanton, M. (2013). Third graders generalization about even and odd numbers: The impact of an early algebra intervention. In M. Martinez & A. Superfine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, North American chapter (pp. 140–143). Eric Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

  • Kapon, S., Hallun, A., & Tabach, M. (2019). Incorporating a digital game into the formal instruction of algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50(5), 555–591. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.5.0555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 5–17). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H. (2012). Examining factors that influence the effectiveness of learning objects in mathematics classrooms. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(4), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2012.732189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching of 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). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Kieran, C. (2008). Conceptualizing the learning of algebraic technique: Role of tasks and technology. In M. Santillan (Ed.), 11th International congress on mathematical education, selected lectures. ICME-11 Editorial Committee.

  • 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). Springer-Verlag.

  • Kieran, C., & Drijvers, P. (2006). The co-emergence of machine techniques, paper-and-pencil techniques, and theoretical reflection: A study of Cas use in secondary school algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(2), 205–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-006-0006-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolovou, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Köller, O. (2013). An intervention including an online game to improve grade 6 students’ performance in early algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(3), 510–549. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.3.0510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, S., & Rasmussen, C. (2019). I on the prize: Inquiry approaches in undergraduate mathematics education. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 5(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00085-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, P. G., Rittle-Johnson, B., McEldoon, K. L., & Taylor, R. T. (2012). Measure for measure: What combining diverse measures reveals about children’s understanding of the equal sign as an indicator of mathematical equality. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(3), 316–350. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.3.0316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, A. W., Hollebrands, K., Lee, H., Harrison, T., & Mutlu, A. (2018). Factors that influence secondary mathematics teachers’ integration of technology in mathematics lessons. Computers & Education, 123, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, J., & London McNab, S. (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). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • Rakes, C., Valentine, J., McGatha, M., & Ronau, R. (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 372–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310374880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, L. (2008). Iconicity and contraction: A semiotic investigation of forms of algebraic generalizations of patterns in different contexts. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0061-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, L. (2010). Algebraic thinking from a cultural semiotic perspective. Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800903569741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C., Drijvers, P., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Effects of attitudes and behaviours on learning mathematics with computer tools. Computers & Education, 55(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, N. et al. (2010). Implementing digital technologies at a national scale. In C. Hoyles. & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-rethinking the terrain. New ICMI study series, vol 13. Springer

  • Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427–515. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309341374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. (2008). Representational thinking as a framework for introducing functions in the elementary curriculum. In J. L. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 133–160). Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, A. C., Fonger, N., Strachota, S., Isler, I., Blanton, M., Knuth, E., & Gardiner, A. M. (2017). A learning progression for elementary students’ functional thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 19, 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2017.1328636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, R., & Rojano, T. (1993). A spreadsheet algebra approach to solving algebra problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 353–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabach, M. A. (2011). Mathematics teacher’s practice in a technological environment: A case study analysis using two complementary theories. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16, 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-011-9186-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th edn.). Pearson.

  • Tamur, M., Ksumah, Y. S., Juandi, D., Kurnila, V. S., Jehadus, E., & Samura, A. O. (2021). A meta-analysis of the past decade of mathematics learning based on the Computer Algebra System (CAS). Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1882, 20–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). The role of contexts in assessment problems in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Kolovou, A., & Robitzsch, A. (2013). Primary school students’ strategies in early algebra problem solving supported by an online game. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9483-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., Kinzie, M. B., McGuire, P., & Pan, E. (2010). Applying technology to inquiry-based learning in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0364-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2008). Generalising the pattern rule for visual growth patterns: Actions that support 8 year olds’ thinking. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9092-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, A. (2009) Algebraic reasoning. In T. Nunez, P. Bryant & A. Watson (Eds.), Key Understandings in mathematics learning. Nuffield Foundation.

  • Young, J. (2017). Technology-enhanced mathematics instruction: A second-order meta-analysis of 30 years of research. Educational Research Review, 22, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J., Gorumek, F., & Hamilton, C. (2018). Technology effectiveness in the mathematics classroom: A systematic review of meta-analytic research. Journal of Computer Education, 5, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0104-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of Cyprus, P.O.Box 20537, 1678, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Maria Chimoni, Demetra Pitta-Pantazi & Constantinos Christou

Authors
  1. Maria Chimoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Demetra Pitta-Pantazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Constantinos Christou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Chimoni.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chimoni, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D. & Christou, C. Τwo different types of technologically enhanced intervention modules to support early algebraic thinking. Educ Inf Technol 28, 3417–3441 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11331-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11331-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation