.

. . .
88, , , 16346
e-mail: pverikios@math.uoa.gr

. ,
15 , ,
. .

.


- -
test


.
. test,
,
. test
.




. Kuchemann (1981),
, ,
, , .
Wagner (1977, 1981)

. ,

(Tall & Thomas
1991 basic, Sutherland 1992 logo, De Marois 1998 ).
,
(
3+5) ( =1,=2, =3, =4 ,=5,, =24).

.
, 352
, 3.2+5
, 5+3.2
, .
,

(ieran, 1981). -

, 5+3, ,

.
. Dubinski
(Dubinski 1991, Cottrill et all 1996) APOS (Actions, Processes, Objects, Schema)
,
. O Gray & Tall (1991) procept (process-concept)

. Sfard Linchevski (1994) -
( prcept Gray,Tall)
.
, (Behr, Erlwanger Nichols
1976, Frendenthal, 1973 Kieran, 1981, T. Goodson-Espy 1998),

3+8=7+4, , ,
. Hercovics Linchevski (1994),
, - .
-, .
, 3+4
, 7,
3+4=7.
.
, 3+
. ,
,
,
Collis (1975) ( T. Goodson-Espy 1998)
.
, ,
. Sfard (1991),
-
.
(
- )
: ,
. ,
,
. ,
.
- -
Piaget,
. Piaget
, .
, Sfard :
,


- - , .
Sfard
.
,

.


,

.
(Matz 1980, Kuchemann 1981, Wagner, Rachlin & Jensen 1984).
tests,
,
.
,

.
.

.
Herscovics, all, Dubinski Sfard
(), Mason (1984)
Freudenthal
(). ,
.

. ,
.
.

.


.

,
. .

.
. ,
,
.


.


.

,
.
,
,
5+3=3+5, +=+,
5+3=8 5=8-3
3.4=12 3=12:4, +3=8 =8-3 4.=12 =12:4,
.


, (+)=.+. +++=4 = ....
=

1
.
2

,
,
, , ,
, .

(MacGregor M., 1999, Pirie S. & Martin L., 1997, Kieran, 1989, 1994, 1997).
,
,
.
. , ,
.
,
, ,
, ,
, ( ),
.
Bertrand Russell
( Henk van der Kooij, 2001):
, . :

.
, ,
.
B. Ruseell
.


. Kieran (1997),

.
.
,
.

,
.
test, 3 3
. test
167 .
60 .
.
,

.
test,
,
,
.

 ,
.

TEST
1

4
x+3
1. ;
2. ;
3. 6(x-4)=10;
6x-4=10
) x-4=4
) 3x-12=5
) 3x-6=5

4. .
. ,,,

2
5m 3m .
1m, 1 m2 (
).
1. ;
2. m m ,
1 m2 ;

5m

3m

1m2
3
.
.
(: , ,
)

x
y

1
8

3
;

4
11

7
14

;
21

 4

30 .

( )
300

200

100

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

-100

-200

-300

1.
2.
3.
4.

;
;
;
150 ;
test

. :
1 2 1
,
,

.

.

 3 1
,

,
.
4 ,
,
. D. Kuchemann (1981),
11-16 .

.
Carpenter (Carpenter et al, 1981).

( ) ( ),
,
Kuchemann,
.
1 2
,
. 2
, .
D. Tall The transition from arithmetic to algebra: Number patterns or proceptual programming?

,
,
.
NCTM Standards 2000, Grades 6-8,
,
.

.
3

,
, ,
.
Carpenter, T.P, M.K. Corbit, H. S. Pepner Jr., M. M. Lindquist and P.E.
Reys: Results from the second mathematics assessment of the national assessment of education progress. Reston: NCTM, 1981. ( : PBS mathline, ATMP lesson: Up,
Up, and Away) y x=3,
35% 13- 59% 17-.
4
, - .
: ) - 1- , x=0
[
-
ax+b=0, y=ax+b ], )
- ax+b>0 <0 , ( 2 3) )
(x,y) , ( 4).

 test
3 :
2 . 1
- .
0
. , , ,
.

test [ 2 1]

-
[2]
[1]

4, +3

4, +3

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

1.
(+3)4=4+12
2.
4 +3=4+12
3.
4(+3)
4.
4 +3 +3 4
2.4+(+3).2=8+2+6=14+2
4+4++3++3=8+2+6=14+2
2[4+(+3)] 4.2+[(+3).2]
4+4++3++3=8+2+6
4+4++3++3=8+(+3)+(+3)
4+4++3++3=8+2.(+3)
4+(+3)+4+(+3)

1.
(+3)4=4+12=16 4 +3=4+12=16
2.
4(+3)=4+3 4(+3)=4+7
3. ...=4. 4.3 (+3).4=3.4=12 (+3).4=12
(+3).4=14 +3.4=+12=13

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

2(+3)+2.4=6+8
4+4+(+3)+(+3)=8+6
2.4+2(+3)=8+2+3=11+2
4+4+3+3
(+3)+4=3+4=12.2=24
2.4+(+3).2=8+2+3=10+3=13
1
: 4+4.2=16 2(+3)=2(1+3)=8
8.
(+3+4)+(+3+4)=+6+8=+14
9.
4+(+3)+4+(+3)=7+7=14
10. 4+(+3)+4+(+3)=6+8=14

11. 2.4+2(+3)=8+2+6=

1.

6(-4)=10

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

[,,, ]

[1 ,

1.
2.

3.
4.

2
2,



,
,

1.
-(+)
2.
--
3.
(-)-
4.
-(+)= -(+)= --=
--=
5.
-= -=
6.
-=+
7.
=++
8.
=-(+)
20,
:

.
1-2=35-25=20
20,
(6.2)+(2.4)=20

2 14
+
= +7
2
2

4++3=7+
12. 2.4.2.(+3)=8.2.6
13.
4 3.
14.
14 +2,
1.
, ,

2.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

-+
=-(+)
-(+)=-
-(,)=
-+-=-(+)
+-
-+
, ,
1.
2.
3.
4.

5+5+7+7=24
5.3=15 15
3.5+4=19
: 5+3+3=16 5.2+3.2=16

[2 ,
,

1.
2.

(+2)(+2)- +2 . +2
2+2+4= ++++4 (2+4)+2.2

3.

20,

1.
2.

(3,10), (14,21)
(3,10), (14,21) (3,10), (13,21)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7
7

7

-7=
7
=+7, 2 ,

1. 5

2. (5,0)

, ]

10

1.
2.

5
<5 5 >

3.

1 4 0 4

11

1.
2.
3.

5
>5
6 30

[
]

12

4. 5 30
1.

[
( )

() ]

20 [27,34,
]
2.
[1,
=150 =20]
3.
[4, 6,
16
19]

10

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

2+2+2+2
(.).(.2) .+.
(+2)- -+2.2
5.3=15 [18]
2+2 +++
(+1)+(+1).2

(3,9,5), (9,21) (3,10), (10,21)

(3,10)

6.

=+
,

=+
,

7.

2/7

1.
0
2.
10
3.
30%
4.
1
5.
15
6.
20 27 30 35
7.
(0,5)
8.
25 ,

1.
5
2.
25 5 10 4 0
1
3.
30 30 30
4.
9 100
5.

6. 0 4 + 1
1.
30
2.
10 11
3.
15
5 30 + 1
4.
5.
5
6.

1.
15 [7]
2.
[2]
3.
5 25 12 30 20
+30=150

0
%
21,5
24,1
35,4
19
21,5
60,7
60,7
65,8
41,8
45,6
45,6
45,6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

1
%
41,8
49,4
16,5
21,5
17,7
29,1
19
24,1
15,2
29,1
29,1
12,7

2
%
36,7
26,6
48,1
59,5
60,8
10,1
20,3
10,1
43
25,3
25,3
41,8

0
%
22,1
22,1
11,8
27,9
23,5
42,6
44,1
75
35,3
29,4
30,9
32,4

1
%
30,9
36,8
29,4
17,6
47,1
47,1
17,6
17,6
23,5
42,6
32,4
10,3

2
%
47,1
41,2
58,8
54,4
29,4
10,3
38,2
7,4
41,2
27,9
36,8
57,4

0
%
21,8
23,1
24,5
23,1
22,4
52,4
53,1
70
38,8
38,1
38,8
39,5

1
%
36,7
43,5
22,4
19,7
31,3
37,4
18,4
21,1
19
35,4
30,6
11,6

2
%
41,5
33,3
53,1
57,1
46,3
10,2
28,6
8,8
42,2
26,5
30,6
49

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

0%
1%
2%

10 11

12

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

0%
1%
2%

11

10 11 12

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

0%
0%

10 11 12

60
50
40

1%

30

1%

20
10
0
1

10 11 12

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

2%
2%

12

10 11 12

 -

6 8.
.


, ,

. ,
10% .
4


. 50%
, 1/3 17
2
.

.

4+12 16
16. ,
.

2+14, (
) .

.
.
14 +2 - :
2=14 =7 -2=14 =-7.

4 3.
6 ( )

.


, .
3 :
4(+3)=4+12=

4 12
+
= + 3 .
4
4

,
,

, ; .

, ,

13

 ,
.
3
,
,
.
6(x-4)=10 3x-12=5.
, .
, .
,
,


. 40%
60% , .


.
test
,
. :
,
;.
Usiskin (1994):
, 400-500 .
, .


.
.
.
, .

14


Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 16-30.
Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Nichols, D., Schwingendorf, K., Thomas, K., & Vidakovic, D.
(1996). Understanding the limit concept: Beginning with a coordinated process schema, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, Volume 15, pp. 167- 92.
DeMarois, P., & Tall, D.O. (1998). Facets and Layers of the Function Concept. In Puig, L. &
Gutierrez, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education Vol. 2. Valencia, Spain. pp. 297- 304.
Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective Abstraction in Advanced Mathematical Thinking. In Tall,
D.O. (Ed.). Advanced Mathematical Thinking. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 95-124.
Goodson-Espy T. (1998). The roles of Reification and Reflective Abstraction in the development of abstract thought: Transitions from arithmetic to algebra. Educational studies in
Mathematics 36: 219-245.
Gray, E. M. & Tall, D. O. (1991a). Duality, Ambiguity and Flexibility in Successful Mathematical Thinking. Proceedings of the XV International Conference for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education Vol. 2. Assisi. pp. 72-79.
Gray, E. M. & Tall, D. O. (1991b). Success and Failure in Mathematics: Procept and Procedure: A Primary Perspective. Mathematics Education Research Centre. University of Warwick.
Gray, E. M. & Tall, D. O. (1991c). Success and Failure in Mathematics: Procept and Procedure: Secondary Mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Centre. University of Warwick.
Freudenthal H. Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures, D. Reidel Publishing
Company.
Herskovics, N., & Linchevski (1994). Acognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra, Educational studies in mathematics 27, pp. 59-78.
Kieran, C. (1981). Pre-algebraic notions among 12 and 13 year olds. In Proceedings of PME
5, Grenoble, pp. 158-164.
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 (pp. 33-56). Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kieran, C. (1992). The Learning and Teaching of School Algebra. In Grouws, D.A. (Ed.)
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Pp. 390-419.
Kieran, C. (1993). Functions, Graphing, and Technology: Integrating Research on Learning
and Instruction. In Romberg, T. A., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P. (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions.
Kieran C. (1997). Algebra and Functions in T. Nunes, P. Bryant (eds) Learning and teaching
mathematics: an international perspective, pp.133-158.
Kieran, C. (1994). A functional approach to the introduction of algebra: Some pros and
cons. In da Ponte, J. P. & Matos, J. F. (eds). Proceeding of the Eighteenth International Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1 pp. 157-175.
Kieran, C. (1997). Mathematical Concepts at the Secondary School Level: The Learning of
Algebra and Functions in T. Nunes, P. Bryant (eds) Learning and Teaching Mathematics:
An Intenational Perspective, Psychology Press.
ooij Henk van der (2001). Algebra : A Tool for Solving Problems, Freudenthal Institute,
Utrecht University.
Kuchemann (1981). Algebra. In K. M. Hart, (Ed.), Childrens Understanding of Mathematics:
11-16 (pp. 102-119). London: John Murray.

15

Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1984). Thinking Mathematically. London: Addison
Wesley.
Matz, M. (1980). Towards a Computational Theory of Algebraic Competence. Journal of
Mathematical Behaviour, Volume 3(1), pp. 93-166.
M.MacGregor, . How students interpret equations. In Language and communication in the
mathematics classroom. National Council of Teachers of Ma thematics.
Pirie Susan, Martin Lyndon, 1997. The equation, the whole equation and nothing but the
equation!. Educational Studies in Mathematics 34: 159-181.
Carpenter, T.P. (Eds.), Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 239-278.
Rosnick, P. & Clement, J. (1980). Learning Without Understanding: The Effect of Tutorial
Strategies on Algebra Misconceptions. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, Volume 3(1), pp.
3-27.
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, 1-36.
Sfard, A. (1992). Operationaal Origins of Mathematical Objects and the Quandary of ReificationThe Case of Function. In Harfel, G. & Dubinsky, E. (Eds.), The Concept of Function
Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of
America. Pp. 59-84.
Tall, D. (1998). Symbols and the Bifurcation between Procedural and Conceptual Thinking.
Plenary presentation, International Conference on Teaching Mathematics. Pythagorion,
Samos, Greece.
Tall, D. & Thomas, M.. (1991). Encouraging versatile thinking in algebra using the computer,
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, II, pp. 125-147.
Wagner, S. (1981). Conservation of equation and function under transformations of variable.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 107-118.
Usiskin Z. (1994). From Mathematics for some to Mathematics for all, in R. Biehler et al
(eds), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline, 315-326.
Summary

In the literature is documented by great number of researches that it is difficult for the
students to understand the significances of algebra. Most of the students, including
those of above 15 years old, are not able to interpret the algebraic letters either as generalized numbers or as concrete unknown. The connection of the levels of cognitive
development consists the main interpretation to the difficulties of students in algebra.
It is also supported that students who for the first time are taught algebra appear to
face many difficulties owing to the way that numerical procedures which are taught in
primary school are not suitable in the case of algebra or even the traditional way of
teaching which focuses in the skills of the students-do what I am doing- does not aid
the conceptual understanding. In the introduction we present a test which was given in
students of the second and the third class of high school and which concerns the above
algebraic significances with view to confirm whether the difficulties that are recorded
in the literature are concurred with the Greek reality. Most questions come from corresponding international researches. In this task, we are restricted in the description of
the test based on the national literature, which includes a report and a first annotation
of the results, and at this time we do not aim in a profound interpretation of the results. This test constitutes a part of a wider study as far as learning and teaching of
algebra in primary high school are concerned.

16