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

net/publication/286922422

ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS' UNDERSTANDING OF THE EQUATION CONCEPT

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS
17 926

3 authors:

Timo Tossavainen Iiris Attorps

Luleå University of Technology University of Gävle
106 PUBLICATIONS   268 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   141 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pertti Väisänen
University of Eastern Finland
49 PUBLICATIONS   480 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Matrix norms View project

INSULAVO - Improving energy efficiency of buildings in Eastern Finland View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Timo Tossavainen on 15 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Far East Journal of Mathematical Education
Volume …, Number …, 2011, Pages …
This paper is available online at http://pphmj.com/journals/fjme.htm
© 2011 Pushpa Publishing House

ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF

THE EQUATION CONCEPT

TIMO TOSSAVAINEN1, IIRIS ATTORPS2 and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN1

1University of Eastern Finland, Finland
2University of Gavle, Sweden

Abstract

We analyze data on mathematics students’ understanding of the concept

of equation. A majority of the participants ( N = 128) studies in teacher
education programs in Finland, Sweden and South Africa. The data
reveals a variety of fundamentally different concept definitions of
equation, of which only a half can be seen to be correct. In the students’
concept image of equation, it is commonly assumed that every equation
must possess the truth value ‘true’ in spite of the fact that any
considerations related to the truth value only rarely appear in their concept
definitions. Also the presence of a variable is regularly assumed in the
participants’ concept images. Both a chain of equations and a pair of
equivalent equations are surprisingly often seen being a single equation.
Finally, the incomplete understanding of the reflexive and symmetric
properties of equality often hinders students from identifying equations.
The study is based on both phenomenographic and quantitative analyses
of the students’ answers to a questionnaire.

1. Introduction

Interestingly, most contemporary mathematics textbooks do not give any

definition for the equation concept; presumably it is assumed that every reader is
2010 Mathematics Sub ject Classification : Primary 97D70; Secondary 97C70.
Keywords and phrases: concept definition, concept image, equation, equivalence, student
teacher, truth value.
Received March 29, 2011
2 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

already familiar with this elementary concept. On the other hand, those few
textbooks that do, may do so in different ways. For example, according to Borowski
and Borwein [5, p. 194], an equation is:

a formula that asserts that two expressions have the same value; it is either an
identical equation (usually called an identity), which is true for any values of the
variables, or a conditional equation, which is only true for certain values of the
variables.

Judging by this definition, e.g., 0 = 1 is not an equation because it does not contain
any variable for which the assertion would be true either identically or conditionally.
On the other hand, Wolfram MathWorld, the most extensive mathematics resource
in Internet, says that:

an equation is a mathematical expression stating that two or more quantities are

the same as one another.

By this definition, 0 = 1 is an equation. Notice also that MathWorld’s definition

allows that, in an equation, more than two quantities are equivalent; it does not
distinguish a single equality from a chain of equations. Moreover, as it does not
assume that an equation is given in symbols, “zero equals one” should also be taken
as an equation. In other words, even working mathematicians are not unambiguous
on the definition of this concept.

In this paper, an equation is a mathematical statement, given in symbols, saying

that two compatible objects are the same or equivalent. In other words, any
expression of the form A = B is an equation whenever A and B are compatible
mathematical objects. Consequently, in identifying equations, there are basically
three different ways to commit an error: draw a false conclusion from the involved
relation, the truth value of the statement or the syntax of the statement, cf. Figure 1.
Hence, it is reasonable to ask which misconceptions are the most common and how
they are related to students’ view of the definition of equation. To answer this
question, we shall study the relationship between the participating students’ concept
images and definitions of equation in the dimensions of the mathematical properties
that constitute the equation concept, see Figure 1.
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 3

Figure 1. The map of the equation concept.

1.1. Previous research related to the topic

The learning and teaching of equality and solving equations has been studied in
mathematics education several times. In our survey of the existing literature, we
focused on those reports that are directly related to understanding of this concept and
to the activities of secondary or tertiary level since we consider adults’ mathematical
performance. However, we mention the article of Filloy and Rojano [6], which gives
a good overview of the activities in this issue in 1980s. The focus in this period was
merely on how children learn to solve equations and what kind of problems are met,
for example, with the concepts of number and variable in the transition from
arithmetic to algebraic thinking. The most relevant studies to us from 1990s are Pirie
and Martin [13] and Sáenz-Ludlow and Walgamuth [14] whose results can be
summarized so that, in the beginning, learners interpret the equal symbol as a
command to perform an arithmetical operation and, after a reasonable time, only a
minority of them is able to conceptualize the quantitative sameness as a relation, cf.
Sfard [15].

Concerning more recent works, in addition to our own preliminary

investigations Attorps [2] and Attorps and Tossavainen [3], we have acknowledged,
e.g., McNeill et al. [11], Knuth et al. [7], Li [8], Nogueira de Lima and Tall [12] and
Asquith et al. [1]. The first of these articles examines how four middle school
textbook series discuss the equal sign. The authors of this article noticed, among
other things, that it is usually presented in the context of the equations of type
a + b = c and only rarely, e.g., in the context of the equations of type
a + b = c + d . It is easy to agree with them that this is a plausible explanation as to
4 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

why the “command to perform an operation” interpretation of the equal sign is so

common. Knuth et al. [7] is a sequel to this study, focusing on middle school pupils’
understanding of the equal sign and performance on solving algebraic equations. The
results of this paper demonstrate that many pupils lack a deeper understanding of the
equal sign and that their knowledge of it is merely associated with their performance
on solving equation.

The dissertation of Li [8] is a cognitive analysis of students’ errors and

misconceptions about, among other things, equations. The findings of this study
indicate, e.g., that a fundamental reason for the misconceptions of the equal sign is
seeing either side of equation as a process rather than as an object. There are also
many other academic theses with similar results, e.g., Attorps [2].

Nogueira de Lima and Tall [12] report that, in solving algebraic equations, high
school students’ actions were based on something like “magic of rules”, i.e., other
than the formal and canonical mathematical thought which refers to the separation
between concept definitions and concept images. Asquith et al. [1] is an especially
interesting paper as it investigates middle school mathematics teachers’ knowledge
of students’ understanding of the equal sign and the role of variable. By this study,
teachers often fail to identify students’ misconceptions. This motivates us further to
ask, to what degree, teachers’ or student teachers’ conceptions of equations are
erroneous.

To sum up, the existing literature verifies that the operational view of equations
is dominant and inherent among learners and it requires effort to develop a proper
structural understanding of equations. Moreover, learners’ concept definitions and
concept images related to equations and solving them often differ from one another
remarkably.

Our present study is complementary especially to Knuth et al. [7], Li [8] and
Nogueira de Lima and Tall [12]. We shall examine mathematics students’
knowledge and conceptions of equations and then analyze in detail which
mathematical properties of equation are the most difficult for the learning and
understanding of this concept. To that end, we aim at revealing the dilemmas
between students’ concept definitions and concept images of the equation concept in
the framework of well-defined mathematical entities that constitute the equation
concept in academic mathematics. In spite of the versatile existing literature related
to the topic, it seems that our point of view is authentically new.
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 5

1.2. Research questions

According to Tall and Vinner [17, p. 152], concept image “describes the total
cognitive structure that is associated with the concept, which includes all the mental
pictures and associated properties and processes”. As the concept image develops, it
need not be coherent at all times. Further, concept definition is “a form of words
used to specify the concept [in focus]”. In this terminology, we aim at answering the
following questions.

1. What kind of concept definitions of equation do mathematics students have?

2. To what extent are the properties of equivalence, truth value and the syntax of
equation taken into account in the students’ concept images of equation?

3. How does the quality of students’ concept definition of equation correlate

with their understanding about the mathematical properties of the equation concept?

The first research question aims at exploring how mathematics students define the
equation concept at tertiary level and also investigates whether student teachers’
understanding of the equation concept differs from that of other mathematics
students. The other research questions concern to what extent the mentioned
mathematical properties of the equation concept operate in practice when students
assess equations and non-equations. It is well known that students’ concept images
and concept definitions may differ from each other fundamentally (Tall and Vinner
[17]). These questions are divided into several subquestions that will be introduced
in Section 3.2.

Perhaps, it is necessary to point out that, in this study, we do not aim at

evaluating the learning processes that have resulted in the observed conceptions of
equation. The purpose of this investigation is only to provide a general – but
thorough – view of mathematics students’ understanding of one of the most
fundamental concepts in modern mathematics.

2. Method

The participants in this study come from two Finnish and two Swedish
universities and one South African university ( N = N F + N S + N SA = 50 + 31 +
47 = 128) . The sample represents three different countries with more or less
different characteristics in order to provide us with a more general view of the topic
than what would be possible basing only on a national sample. The three countries
6 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

and five universities were selected mainly on a practical basis: we work or have
collaborators at these universities. However, our data is too small for reasonable
comparisons between the nationalities and, therefore, we emphasize that, if our
analyses reveal (quantitatively) significant differences between them, the results
reflect the possible cultural differences only at a very rough level.

Of the participants, 89 altogether (including all South Africans) study in a

teacher education program. The entire group represents typical university
mathematics students in these countries, except that all South African students
already have B.Sc. degree in mathematics and most of them also have several years
experience from working in upper secondary school since they study in a
professional development further education program (M.Sc.) for upper secondary
school mathematics teachers. A little more than a half of the participants are men
which is quite well in accordance with the ratio of male and female mathematics
students in these countries.

The data was collected in 2009 using a questionnaire that contained a section
surveying the participant’s background information; a space for his/her own
definition of equation, as well as a section containing 24 mathematical expressions
to be judged as examples or nonexamples of equation. The students were asked to
literally justify their answers in each case. Each answer was scored on the scale of
0–3, according to the correctness and the quality of explanation.

The data in our analyses is organized mainly according to the student type.
Primarily for surveying the background of the participants, we also consider the
nationalities in a few analyses. On the other hand, we did not find any actual reason
to study the topic from the point of view of gender.

The students’ definitions of equations were first analyzed and then classified
according to the phenomenographic approach. Phenomenography emerged from
educational research carried out in Sweden in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The
aim of it is to identify how people in qualitatively different ways comprehend and
experience, for example, disciplinary concepts. The different conceptions and
experiences are characterized in terms of ‘categories of description’.
Phenomenography stresses describing how many qualitatively different conceptions
appear a priority over determining how many people share a certain conception. For
more information about the phenomenographic approach, see Marton and Booth
[10].
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 7

Marton [9, p. 198] emphasizes also that the categories of the descriptions should
not be made in advance but they must arise only from the collected empirical data.
Due to the three preliminary surveys paving the way for the present research, we
have not been able to follow this principal completely. To be truthful, we have also
assumed that the resulting categories could be organized on an ordinal scale.
Therefore, in the final stage of our classification process, we have also
acknowledged the Reification theory (Sfard [15]). According to Sfard [15], the
process of concept formation consists of three sequential stages: interiorization – the
learner becomes acquainted with a concept and performs operations or processes on
mathematical objects; condensation – the learner has an increasing capability to
alternate between different representations of a concept and reification – the learner
can conceive the mathematical concept as a complete, “fully-fledged” object.
Moreover, consistently with Tall and Vinner [17], we distinguish between the words
“concept” and “conception”. The term ‘concept’ represents to us the formal
mathematical side of the concept and ‘conception’, the learner’s individual and
private side of the concept.

Our quantitative analyses have been done using SPSS software and the
particular method of each analysis is mentioned in connection with the results.

3. Results

3.1. Students’ concept definitions of equation

The phenomenographic analysis of the students’ concept definitions resulted in

three qualitatively different categories; these are placed in hierarchical order in Table
1. In organizing them, we have paid attention to the correctness and accuracy of
expression and the maturity of the definition in the light of Sfard’s theory.

The category ‘Equality’ represents the most developed definitions of quality. It

is assumed, for example, that equality is explicitly mentioned in the definitions
belonging to this category. The second category groups those definitions together
where the presence of a variable is prioritized and the equality relation is not clearly
communicated but, if the syntax of equations is referred to at all, it is only done by
using terms like “formula” etc. This category also covers those somewhat vaguer
definitions that are introduced in geometric terms or related to the concepts of
dependence or function. Before resulting in the above categorization, we separated
these definitions into different categories but eventually, in any other parts of the
8 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

questionnaire, the performance of the students giving these definitions did not
significantly differ from that of other students related to the present second category.
Therefore, we interpret that these students’ slightly more incorrect usage of
terminology merely demonstrates linguistic and not much cognitive difficulties in
defining the equation concept. Noticeably, the second category was also generated
by combining a couple of other arguable subcategories that arose from a few
definitions in earlier cycles of data analysis. The last category combines the
definitions that are seriously constricted, incorrect or merely meaningless.

When considered later, the categorization given in Table 1 is surprisingly

compatible with the fundamental ideas of Sfard [15]: the best category represents
reified structural definitions, while the procedural nature of mathematical concepts is
highlighted in the second one. Also the weakest definitions emphasize the
operational side of the equation concept.

Table 1. The categories of students’ definitions of equation

The categories in Properties of category A quotation of students’ definitions

descending order
Equality - explicit reference to the equality “Is a statement with the left-hand and
relation right-hand side which are equal to
- vague or seriously incorrect each other.”
terminology unaccepted
- structural aspect
Variable/ - necessity for the presence of a “Equation has got a variable that
Formula/ variable or solving equations should be solved.”
mentioned
Dependence
- representational terminology
allowed
Undeveloped - vague, incorrect or a meaningless “It is an expression which is defined
definition at certain values.”

Table 2 represents the division of students into categories according to

nationality as well as the total distribution of the students’ concept definitions. The
distribution of South African students is distinctive. This may be an indication of a
more successful treatment of the topic in the South African mathematics education
but, perhaps, working experience explains this result best. Unlike most of the other
students, the South African participants have several years experience from working
in school and, hence, they must have met the concept regularly in their own
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 9

teaching. In other analyses, working experience seemed not to play an essential role.
The Spearman’s rho between the quality of definitions and the experience from
teacher’s work is 0.34 indicating statistical significance with p < 0.01.

The supremacy of the South African participants is also reflected in the

descriptive statistics of the totals of correct answers in the last section of the
questionnaire where the participants were asked to determine whether the given 24
expressions are equations or not (or how many equations are contained in given
expressions). In the One-Way ANOVA (with F2, 125 = 3.60; p < 0.05), the mean
of the correct assessments of the South African students (13.2) turns out to be
significantly better than that of the Swedish students (10.8) in the post hoc test of
Bonferroni. However, due to the small sample size, it is not possible to make any
undisputable conclusions from this fact. The mean of the number of correct
assessments for the whole group is 12.2.

Table 2. The cross-tabulation and chi-square test of the participants’ nationalities

and the categories of concept definitions ( N = 128)

Nationality The category of concept definition Total

Undeveloped Variable etc. Equality
South African ( N = 47 ) 19.1% 0.0% 80.9% 100.0%

Finnish ( N = 50) 16.0% 46.0% 38.0% 100.0%

Swedish ( N = 31) 22.6% 54.8% 22.6% 100.0%

Total 18.8% 31.2% 50.0% 100.0%

Pearson Chi Square ( DF 4 ) = 39.185; p = 0.000.

Next we shall study how the students’ concept definitions are associated with the
student type. We consider two student types: ‘student teacher’ and other
‘mathematics student’.

Table 3 indicates that the student teachers represent a more developed

conceptual understanding about the equation concept than the other students who
emphasize the procedural side of the equation concept. The relative amount of
students unable to give a reasonable definition of equation is quite the same for both
groups. The above conclusion gains support also from the comparison in the success
of the assessment between the groups organized according to the student type. In
10 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

Student’s t-test, the difference between the means 12.6 and 11.2 is significant with
p < 0.05 (t (125) = 1.99 ) . On the other hand, this outcome is partly due to the fact
that all of the South African participants are student teachers.

Table 3. The cross-tabulation and chi-square test of the student types and the
categories of concept definitions ( N = 127 )

Student type The category of concept definition Total

Undeveloped Variable etc. Equality
Teacher ( N = 88) 17.0% 22.7% 60.2% 100.0%

Other ( N = 39 ) 20.5% 51.3% 28.2% 100.0%

Total 18.1% 31.5% 50.4% 100.0%

Pearson Chi Square ( DF 2 ) = 12.674; p = 0.002.

3.2. The mathematical properties of the equation concept and students’ concept
images of equation

In order to run a more detailed analysis of the last part of the questionnaire, we
categorized the items of the questionnaire according to whether they contained a
variable or not, possessed the truth value ‘true’ or ‘false’, or were in some particular
way related to some of the properties of the equivalence relation, i.e., reflexivity,
symmetry and transitivity. Also the syntax of the expression was taken into account.
Then we scored the students’ performance in each item as follows: 0 = wrong or no
answer, 1 = correct answer with incorrect/no explanation, 2 = correct answer with
inadequate explanation, 3 = correct answer with correct explanation. After this we
counted the participants’ scores for each subscale since we aimed at finding out
which mathematical properties of equations are better interiorized than others. The
results of this analysis are given in Table 4.

The range of average scores varies between 0.65 (truth value ‘false’) and 1.22
(reflexivity). The mean of the total scores of the whole scale was 1.00. In other
words, students’ skills to assess examples and non-examples of equation are,
generally speaking, merely satisfactory and even poor in some dimensions (e.g. truth
value).

After omitting a few items (some of them can be interpreted correctly in more
than one way) from the scales, the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alphas) of the
individual scales ranged from 0.56 (truth value ‘false’) to 0.87 (reflexivity)
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 11

indicating quite a satisfactory contingency in measurement. The mean of the Alpha

coefficients was 0.72 and the internal consistency of the whole scale was high
(0.89). In addition, a Principal Components Analysis was conducted in order to
detect structure in relationships between items in the whole scale and to find out the
dimensionality of the scale. When omitting the items related to transitivity (see
discussion about Table 7 below), one principal component was detected which
accounted for 71.5 % of the variance. This indicates that the scale is quite
unidimensional.

Table 4. Reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alphas), sample items and descriptive

statistics of the scales

Property and Number Alpha Mean Standard Minimum-

exemplar item(s) of items deviation maximum
reflexivity 5 0.87 1.22 0.87 0.00-3.00
x= x
Symmetry 4 0.67 0.84 0.74 0.00-3.00
3 = x and x = 3
transitivity 2 0.67 0.70 0.90 0.00-3.00
See Table 8.
true 11 0.83 1.03 0.64 0.18-3.00
x= x+0
false 4 0.56 0.65 0.66 0.00-3.00
y +1= y
variable yes 17 0.85 0.97 0.57 0.12-3.00

xa xb = xa +b
variable no 5 0.61 0.84 0.64 0.00-3.00
72 − 3 = 69
wrong syntax 6 0.69 0.90 0.66 0.00-3.00
2x ≈ 3
whole scale 18 0.89 1.00 0.61 0.22-3.00

Next, in order to survey students’ understanding of the mathematical properties

of equation, we shall examine a few items of the questionnaire in more details. One
12 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

of the items relating to the reflexive property of the equality was x = x, the simplest
possible example of a reflexive equation containing a variable. It also possesses the
truth value ‘true’. Therefore, one can hypothesize that students easily determine this
item to be an equation unless they omit the meaning and value of structural aspect
and complicate the fact that the only possible simplifying operation one can perform
is to cancel the equation into 0 = 0. The students’ results in the assessment of this
expression are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Students’ scores in determining whether x = x is an equation ( N = 128)

Student’s scores Frequency Percent

0 = wrong/no answer 46 35.9

1 = correct answer, incorrect/missing explanation 41 32.0

2 = correct answer, insufficient explanation 12 9.4

3 = correct answer, sufficient explanation 29 22.7

It appears that every third participating student had severe difficulties with
reflexivity and almost as many of them were not able to justify their assessment
properly. Now one may suppose that those students who scored low in this item are
the same students whose concept definitions of equation are undeveloped. A little
unexpectedly, the correlation is weak. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient
between these distributions is only 0.18, p < 0.05. The weakness of the correlation
will be explained as we look at those 64 students whose concept definition does not
belong to the first category, only 14 scored 0 points; also 9 out of the 64 students
whose concept definition is in that category did the same. Nevertheless, the concept
definitions of those students who scored 3 points in this item are distributed in the
categories as follows. Undeveloped: 6, Variable etc: 6 and Equality: 25. In other
words, there are some indications that the structural aspect is essential in order to
identify reflexive expressions as being equations. Remarkably stronger evidence for
this conclusion is found when all examples related to reflexivity are considered
simultaneously, cf. Table 10.

Table 6 shows the students’ performance on understanding the symmetry of

equality when they were asked to determine how many equations are involved in the
expression −7 = x ⇔ x = −7; the alternatives were (a) none, (b) one, (c) two, (d)
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 13

three (e) four, (f) more than four. The correct answer is ‘c’ but, to be objective, one
should also accept ‘a’ as being correct: if the given expression is interpreted as being
indivisible, it does not satisfy the syntax of equations.

Table 6. Distribution of the students’ answers concerning how many equations are
involved in the expression −7 = x ⇔ x = −7 ( N = 125)

Student’s choice Frequency Percent

(a) none = alternative correct answer 25 20.0

(b) one 60 48.0

(c) two = expected correct answer 36 28.8

(d) three 3 2.4

(e) four 1 0.8

(f) more than four 0 0.0

The frequency of option ‘a’ is, perhaps, surprisingly high. However, the
following citations indicate that the students who chose ‘a’ presumably did not
consider the possible correct explanation: “I think it is not an equation because there
is nothing to be solved” and “no equation, since it has already been given what x is”.
In other words, these students seem to associate equations exclusively with solving
algebraic problems. However, the most notable feature of Table 7 is that almost half
of the students see only one equation in this item. Many of these students’
explanations suggest that both sides of the equivalence sign are the same and that
basically there is only one single equation in the given expression: “Both [sides] are
the same equation, expressed only in different order” and “the same equation is
expressed in [one and] another form”. However, alternative explanations also exist:
some students think that the right-hand side of the equivalence sign is the solution,
not being equation on its own: “One is the equation and the other is its solution”.
Clearly, all of the above citations emphasize the procedural aspect. Nevertheless, if
we omit the last citation, we notice that the students quoted, could operate correctly
with the symmetry of equality although they were unable to make a correct
conclusion about the number of equations in this item.

Out of the concept definitions of those 36 students who chose ‘c’ exactly half of
them belong to the best category, 13 to the second-best and 5 to the weakest
14 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

category. Similarly, the same figures are 33, 17 and 10 for the concept definitions of
those 60 students who chose ‘b’. There is no significant difference between these
distributions but both of them reflect the overall distribution of the sample.

Next example is related to transitivity; the expression of this item is

2 + x − 3 − 2 x = x + (2 − 3) − 2 x = x − 1 − 2 x = − x − 1. Students were asked to
determine how many equations are contained in, or could be derived from it. Our
assumption was that the students would be able to separate this chain of equations
into a set of more than four equations (i.e., those three equations determined
immediately by the equal signs and 2 + x − 3 − 2 x = x − 1 − 2 x, 2 + x − 3 − 2 x =
−x − 1 and so on). A somewhat confusing factor in the analysis of this item is that
some references (e.g., Wolfram MathWorld) also call the chains of equations.
Moreover, it must be admitted that the item in question is somewhat ineligible for
measuring understanding of the transitive property of equality but it appears that
there is no other more direct way of pursuing the transitivity of equality. Other kind
of combinations of equations or expressions as the one related to Table 6 would
measure the understanding of equivalence relations at other levels than exclusively
in the context of equalities. Nevertheless, students’ performance in this item is
described in Table 7; the range of possible options is the same as in the symmetry
item above.

Table 7. Students’ performance in determining how many equations are contained in

2 + x − 3 − 2 x = x + (2 − 3) − 2 x = x − 1 − 2 x = − x − 1 ( N = 127 )

Student’s choice Frequency Percent

(a) none 23 18.1

(b) one = correct by the MathWorld’s definition 44 34.6

(c) two 10 7.9

(d) three 16 12.6

(e) four 18 14.2

(f) more than four = expected correct answer 16 12.6

Of those 16 participants who chose ‘f’, half of them could not give any
reasonable explanation for their choice. The same holds for those who chose ‘c’. The
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 15

fact that the mode of the distribution is ‘b’ suggests that the interpretation
represented by MathWorld may be much more common than we expected, cf. “the
expressions are equal to one another and it is one big expression, an equation”.
Unfortunately, most typical explanations, however, refer to conceptions of a totally
different kind: “[A single] equation 2 + x − 3 − 2 x is being solved.” The
Spearman’s rho between the quality of concept definitions and the success in
assessing is now far from being significant. This is mainly due to the participants’
poor performance at general level in this item.

The next example concerns the absence of a variable. The equation 72 − 3 = 69

is very simple and true without possessing any peculiarities, except lacking a
variable. In spite of being aware that textbooks may give somewhat peculiar
definitions of equation such as the one in Borowski and Borwein [5], we are
astonished by the result: a half of the participants denies that 72 − 3 = 69 is an
equation. This must be primarily due to the absence of a variable since the following
citations are typical: “No variable, in other words only a calculation which is,
nevertheless, true”, “There is no variable to be solved”. The Spearman rho between
the success in assigning this item and the quality of concept definition is now 0.21
being significant with p < 0.05.

Table 8. Students’ results in assessing whether 72 − 3 = 69 is an equation or not

( N = 128)

Student’s scores Frequency Percent

0 = wrong or no answer 63 49.2

1 = correct answer, incorrect/ missing explanation 37 28.9

2 = correct answer, insufficient explanation 7 5.5

3 = correct answer, sufficient explanation 21 16.4

Table 9 describes how the participants reacted to the equation possessing the
truth value ‘false’. Again, almost every second was unable to identify y + 1 = y
being an equation, despite it is most ordinary except being a false statement. In these
participants’ explanations, the truth value of the expression was often discussed
explicitly: “The equal sign does not hold so it cannot be solved”, “A contradiction”,
“I do not know whether an equation must be true, whether a false [statement] can be
16 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

an equation”. In this item, there is no significant correlation between the

participants’ success in their assessment and the quality of their concept definition.

Table 9. Students’ scores in determining whether or not y + 1 = y is an equation

( N = 128)

Student’s scores Frequency Percent

0 = wrong or no answer 59 46.1

1 = correct answer, wrong or missing explanation 31 24.2

2 = correct answer, insufficient explanation 16 12.5

3 = correct answer, sufficient explanation 22 17.2

We conclude from Tables 8 and 9 that both the presence of a variable and the
possession of truth are essential parts of the participants’ concept images of
equation, despite the fact that these issues are only rarely referred to in their
definitions of equation. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that as many as
105 out of 128 participants determined that x + 0 = x is an equation, cf. Table 5.

To ensure an overall picture, we go on looking at how the participants took the

deviations from the syntax of equations. The high frequency of assessing a chain of
equations being a single equation was not only a coincidence in Table 7; another
example of the same phenomenon is that 84 out of 128 participants claimed that
4 x + 2 x 2 + (2 + x ) = 2 x (2 + x ) + (2 + x ) = (2 x + 1) (2 + x ) is an equation.
Further, 68 out of 128 participants accepted the inequality 3x ≤ 5 x (“can be
solved”) being an equation and 53 out of them had no problems with accepting
2 x ≈ −3, too. (“is valid only for certain values”) The expression 11 − 3 ≠ 5 is of
particular interest and can actually be taken both as a nonexample and an example of
equation (preferably in this order). Namely, the relation ≠ is not reflexive and,
consequently, not equivalence either. On the other hand, the purpose of the slash
over the equal sign is to tell that the underlying equation is not true, i.e., the equation
exists and the negation of it is true. But what else can a negation of an equation be
other than an equation? Anyway, 48 participants determined it being an equation (“a
statement that holds”). Only 13 participants were able to give an acceptable
explanation why it should not be taken as an equation (“there is no equality”).
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 17

Finally, to sum up, a series of One-Way ANOVAs was conducted in order to

survey how students’ capacity to define the equation concept reflects their skills to
assess examples and non-examples of equation in the dimensions of the
mathematical properties of equations. Table 10 shows that there are statistically
significant differences in five out of eight subscales (reflexivity, truth value ‘true’,
variable yes, variable no, and syntax) and on the whole scale between the groups,
according to the quality of concept definition. The students whose concept definition
belongs to the category ‘Equality’ gained, at minimum, significantly better scores
than the others in each of these subscales and extremely significantly better results in
the total scores with ( F2, 125 = 8.04; p < 0.001) . In other words, they were clearly
better than the other participants in both determining the examples and non-
examples of equation and explaining their assessments. Between the other two
groups, no statistically significant difference can be found in any of the subscales in
Post Hoc test of Bonferroni.

Table 10. The One-Way ANOVA between the groups based on categories of
concept definitions in the total scores and the subscales ( N = 128)

Property Equality Variable etc. Undeveloped ANOVA results

(n = 64 ) (n = 40) (n = 24 )
M SD M SD M SD F2, 125 p

reflexivity 1.45 0.87 0.95 0.73 1.10 0.93 4.734 0.010

symmetry 0.91 0.75 0.86 0.66 0.59 0.81 1.696 0.188
transitivity 0.83 1.03 0.54 0.70 0.62 0.82 1.456 0.237
true 1.24 0.70 0.77 0.43 0.90 0.59 7.907 0.001
false 0.80 0.78 0.76 0.53 0.62 0.50 0.589 0.556
variable yes 1.13 0.62 0.79 0.41 0.82 0.52 5.758 0.004
variable no 1.04 0.77 0.61 0.34 0.66 0.42 7.250 0.001
syntax 1.10 0.76 0.76 0.48 0.64 0.51 5.831 0.004
total scores 1.20 0.70 0.76 0.39 0.84 0.49 8.035 0.001

4. Discussion

Have we managed to bring anything valuable to the attention of mathematics

educators? Perhaps, a few interesting or even new aspects have arisen. First, the
18 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

equation concept is not at all as simple as most authors of mathematics textbooks

seem to have assumed; a half of the students in this study had not learnt it in such a
way that would enable them to define the essence of it satisfactorily, cf. Asquith et al
[1]. Second, we have revealed that the presence of a variable and truth are central to
many students’ concept image of equation although they are almost never discussed
in the students’ definition of equation. The former presumption may be due to the
dominance of procedural aspects in the students’ view of mathematical concepts in
general. However, both of them hinder students from constructing a correct
structural view of one of the most fundamental concepts of mathematics. If, for
example, 1 + 2 = 4 is not accepted being an equation but only as a failed
calculation, how can a learner construct a coherent structural understanding about
any arithmetical operation or equivalence relations etc.? One should recall that
learning always assumes variation in every relevant aspect of the object of learning,
see Marton and Booth [10].

Third, it is quite surprising that so many students consider pairs of equivalent

equations being a single equation, cf. Tables 6 and 7. It appears that they associate
equations with algebraic problems injectively: only one equation represents each
problem and “the other” equivalent equations are merely variations of that single
equation. We do not yet fully understand the root of misconceptions of this kind but
it seems to be related to emphasized procedural thinking. The finding that a chain of
equations is seen being a single equation is not so surprising in the light of the
variety of definitions found in literature. Moreover, confusions in this issue are
hardly harmful to further education in mathematics.

Fourth, we have approached students’ understanding of the equation concept

from the perspective of the mathematical properties of equations. Although the
concept of equivalence is known to be difficult for most learners, up to now we may
have assumed that every learner easily gains a sufficient understanding of equalities.
This is not true. Previous research, e.g., Sáenz-Ludlow and Walgamuth [14] and
Attorps [2], has already pointed out that the ‘equal’ symbol is often seen as a
command to perform an arithmetical operation. Our study complements this view:
we have discovered, for example, that students’ poor understanding of the symmetry
of equality may lead them to consider equations and their solutions being objects of
different kind; also an incomplete understanding of the reflexivity of equality and
the compulsion to perform a solving procedure may result in identities not being
recognized as equations but called formulas, rules etc. This was the case with, e.g.,
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 19

a + b + c = a + b + c and x a x b = x a + b , 36 and 37 participants, respectively,

determined these expressions to be something other than equations.

Fifth, it seems that there are no fundamental differences in the quality of

concept images between the student groups from different participating countries.
We consider this an indication of cultural equality. The South African participants
had unquestionably better concept definitions than the other but their success in the
assessment did not differ significantly from that of their Finnish colleagues. Due to
the small sample size, the observed significant difference between them and the
Swedish participants must not be paid too much attention.

Basing on our results, we would like to make a few recommendations. Above

all, the equation concept should be thoroughly discussed and from many
perspectives and not be omitted by supposing that it is self-explanatory. If concrete
representations of it are introduced, the teacher should be aware of the danger of
giving ideas that may be wrongly interpreted. For example, a seesaw is a typical
representation in some primary school textbooks. Basing on the physical moment of
force, it is possible to discuss equation in a very concrete manner as being a state of
balance where there is the same amount of mass (at the same distance) on both sides
of the supporting point. However, obviously the same child cannot be
simultaneously on both sides of the seesaw. Therefore, the desired experience of the
reflexive aspect of equalities cannot be produced by using this approach – or, even
worse, such an approach may prevent a learner from thinking about the possibility of
reflexive balances – although a seesaw is an excellent representation for discussion
on, e.g., the property of symmetry.

The truth value and the syntax of equations are, perhaps, not so central to
elementary mathematics education but valuable to the learning of advanced
mathematics. The purpose of academic mathematics is to organize mathematical
knowledge into (algebraic) structures; too constricted conceptions about central
mathematical concepts obstruct learners comprehending these structures. In our data,
many students were not able to explain their assessment especially when they failed
to notice an equation. If even very ordinary equations remain vague objects for them,
how can they organize their whole mathematical knowledge into a well-established
structure? Because of that, the role of truth value and the syntax of equations should,
be, discussed thoroughly, at the latest, in the upper secondary school.

Finally, in phenomenographic studies, the validity and reliability of research

results should be discussed by considering how exactly and fairly descriptions of the
20 TIMO TOSSAVAINEN, IIRIS ATTORPS and PERTTI VÄISÄNEN

categories of conceptions have been formed (Säljö [16]). By appealing to our own
expertise, long experience from teaching mathematics both in school and university
as well as to careful analyses of preliminary surveys, we consider the reliability and
validity of our qualitative analysis as being sufficiently high. By looking at Table 4,
the reliability of our quantitative analyses can be estimated. The Cronbach’s alpha of
the whole scale was as high as 0.89. We also trust that by careful choice of the
expressions present in the last part of the questionnaire, they are undeniable and
essentially related to the mathematical properties we claim to study.

In generalizing our results, it is self-evident that four Nordic universities and

one South African university do not represent the whole world. However, there is no
reason to consider the participating groups to be exceptional in any way. Moreover,
none of our results contradicts with the previous research related to the equation
concept. On the contrary, we have also verified the supremacy of the procedural
aspects and shown that the structural understanding correlates with better skills to
apply conceptual knowledge. Consequently, we humbly believe that our results are
worth acknowledging anywhere equations are taught.

Acknowledgements

We warmly thank Kristina Juter, Ismo Korkee, Harri Hietikko, Martti Pesonen
and Janne Heittokangas for helping us to collect the data.

References

[1] P. Asquith, A. C. Stephens, E. J. Knuth and M. W. Alibali, Middle school mathematics

teachers’ knowledge of students’ understanding of core algebraic concepts: equal sign
and variable, Mathematical Thinking and Learning 9 (2007), 249-272.
[2] I. Attorps, Mathematics teachers’ conceptions about equations, University of Helsinki,
Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Research Report 266, Helsinki, 2006.
[3] I. Attorps and T. Tossavainen, Is there equality in equation?, D. Pitta-Pantazi and G.
Philippou, eds., The Proceedings of CERME 2007 Fifth Congress of the European
Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 22-26 February 2007 in Larnaca,
Cyprus, pp. 2250-2259, ERME, 2008.
[4] I. Attorps and T. Tossavainen, Is there always truth in equation?, C. Winsløw, ed.,
Nordic Research in Mathematics Education, Proceedings from NORMA08 in
Copenhagen, April 21 - April 25, 2008, pp. 143-150, Rotterdam, Sense Publishers,
2009.
 ON MATHEMATICS STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING … 21

[5] E. J. Borowski and J. M. Borwein, Dictionary of Mathematics, Unwin Hyman –

Bookmart, Leicester, 1999.
[6] E. Filloy and T. Rojano, Solving equations: the transition from arithmetic to algebra,
For the Learning of Mathematics 9 (1989), 19-25.
[7] E. J. Knuth, A. C. Stephens, N. M. McNeil and M. W. Alibali, Does understanding the
equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations, Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education 37 (2006), 297-312.
[8] X. Li, Cognitive analysis of students’ errors and misconceptions in variables,
equations, and functions, Texas A&M University, 2006. Available at
http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1098.
[9] F. Marton, Phenomenography: Exploring Different Conceptions of Reality, D.
Fetterman, ed., Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education – The Silent
Scientific Revolution, pp. 176-205, Praeger, New York, 1989.
[10] F. Marton and S. Booth, Learning and Awareness, N. J. Mahwah, ed., Lawrence
Earlbaum, 1997.
[11] N. M. McNeil, L. Grandau, E. J. Knuth, M. W. Alibali, A. C. Stephens, S. Hattikudur
and D. E. Krill, Middle-school students’ understanding of the equal sign: The books
they read can’t help, Cognition and Instruction 24 (2006), 367-385.
[12] R. Nogueira de Lima and D. Tall, Procedural embodiment and magic in linear
equations, Educational Studies in Mathematics 67 (2008), 3-18.
[13] S. Pirie and L. Martin, The equation, the whole equation and nothing but the equation!
One approach to the teaching of linear equations, Educational Studies in Mathematics
34 (1997), 159-181.
[14] A. Sáenz-Ludlow and C. Walgamuth, Third graders’ interpretations of equality and the
equal symbol, Educational Studies in Mathematics 35 (1998), 153-187.
[15] A. Sfard, On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes
and objects as different sides of the same coin, Educational Studies in Mathematics 22
(1991), 1-36.
[16] R. Säljö, Learning in educational settings: Methods of inquiry, P. Ramsden, ed.,
Improving learning. New perspectives, pp. 32-48, Kogan Page, London, 1988.
[17] D. Tall and S. Vinner, Concept image and concept definition with particular reference
to limits and continuity, Educational Studies in Mathematics 12 (1981), 151-169.
[18] Wolfram MathWorld. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Equation.html. (Retrieved in
2011-03-25).

View publication stats