1

Meaningful Tasks: Task Analysis

Shuji Miller

The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

EDCI 7353: Teaching and Learning Algebraic Concepts

Dr. Victor Vizcaino

November 25, 2020

 2

Meaningful Tasks: Task Analysis

Misconceptions within a student’s understanding is vital information for a teacher to

recognize because failure to address these misunderstandings can result in gaps of mathematical

learning and connections in future mathematical experiences (NCTM, 2014). Therefore, on

November 16th, 2020, Lucariello et al.’s (2014) diagnostic instrument (see Appendix A) for

measuring a students’ algebraic variable misconception, was administered to three high school

students who has been given the pseudonyms Abbie, Blake, and Charlie. All three students are in a

ninth-grade algebra 1 course, and the students were selected on a volunteer basis. Each student was

administered the diagnostic assessment and was provided with no additional tools except scratch

paper. At the end of the assessment, each student was interviewed individually to explain and

justify the reasonings behind their responses to gather further insight on their thought processes.

The following task analysis aims to examine the algebraic reasoning and misconceptions of three

ninth-grade algebra 1 students regarding variables, and compare these findings to the research of

Lucariello et al (2014).

Misconception: Variables are a Specific Unknown

After the diagnostic instrument was administered, results showed that the most common

misconception among Lucariello et al.’s (2014) three target misconceptions was the belief that a

variable represented a specific unknown (questions 7 – 9). Two of the three students, Blake and

Charlie, incorrectly responded to questions 8 and 9, both selecting the misconception distractor as

their response. In addition, all three students failed to correctly respond to question 7, in which

students believed that the variable k represented a single unknown number. When interviewed

about Blake and Charlie’s responses, they both expressed that the pattern in the table showed an

increase by 3 for question 8, and for question 9, the pattern increased by 2 (personal

communication, November 16, 2020). Though both of these students demonstrated a strategy in
 3

seeking a pattern among functional relationships between an independent and dependent variable,

they failed to seek if the pattern held true for all values within the data set. They perceived a very

common misconception about the use of the variables, not recognizing its’ use as a changing value

in terms of an input and output application of functional thinking (Blanton, 2008). If these two

students perceived the variables as a varying quantity, they may have evaluated the accuracy of

their solution across the entire data set rather than settling for the first example.

The misconception about varying quantity was made more prominent when all three

students responded for question 7, that the variable k had to be a singular value. When students can

recognize variables as both an unknown quantity as well as a varying quantity, they gain the ability

to think about functional relationships in mathematical scenarios, as well as the ability to generalize

arithmetic patterns they observe (Usiskin, 1999b). As noted in student responses for question 7,

students who viewed k as a singular quantity rather than the possibility of infinitely possible

numbers, students displayed a misconception regarding the role of variables, their understanding of

expressions and equations, and their knowledge about properties of equality. Students viewed

question 7’s expression k + 8 as an equation in which there was a solution, and therefore, possessed

a singular unknown value. Even without an equal sign present in the problem, they still held on to

an operational view of the expression, assuming that it was a procedural problem to solve, rather

than an algebraic structure, where the variable could be any possible number (Stephens et al., 2015).

As Lucariello et al. (2014), noted within their study, the likeliness for students to transfer

misconceptions were quote common, and heavily rooted, therefore carrying such mistakes across

the series of problems was likely. This was an indication of their possession of a misconception

rather than a random guess due to unknown knowledge. Students selected the misconception

response in questions 7 – 8 multiple times and later confirmed during the interview process. The

difficulty of these last series of problem may have posed a challenge for students as well, due to the
 4

nature of the question being contextual, requiring the use of functional thinking, data observation,

and mathematical terminology (i.e. expression and equations). Making use of contextual problems

in which students can engage in using and applying multiple representations, patterns, and

expressions of those patterns through both verbal and symbolic means requires that these

instructional practices be implemented regularly within classroom tasks (NCTM, 2014). Due to

these difficulties, Lucariello et al. (2014) argues the heavy reliance of these misconceptions as

students are challenged in problem-solving tasks. Therefore, it is vital the instructors make frequent

use of instructional tasks that implement practices of viewing algebraic structures through a

conceptual lens, where symbols can be used to represent unknown values, varying quantities, and

connections for the expression of conceptual ideas (Blanton, 2008; NCTM, 2000).

Misconception: Variables as a Label for an Object

The second most common misconception found within the three high school students was

the belief that a variable represented a label for an object (questions 4 – 6). Usiskin (1999a)

suggests that variables allow us to represent the algebraic language as a form of placeholder such

that the variable represents a conceptual idea, such as d representing the number rolled on a dice.

Though viewing algebraic structure and symbols as both an expression for contextual meaning and

forming connections to its’ mathematical representation, is an important aspect of algebraic learning

(NCTM, 2000), students often misconstrue variables as the object itself, rather than a quantifiable

representation of the value of the object (Lucariello et al., 2014). In Usiskin’s (1999a) example,

students may view the letter d as the dice itself, rather than the quantifiable number rolled on the

dice. This idea can lead students to misunderstand problem-solving scenarios such as viewing d as

the number of dice, size of dice, or any other aspect of the dice. Attending to precision in language

and vocabulary during instruction can help make clear the actual concept of what the variable

represents (NCTM, 2014).

 5

Among the three ninth-grade students, every student incorrectly responded to question 5,

believing that the variable S represented students, rather than the number of students. Though this

verbiage may seem minute, these small errors in understanding can cause problems as students

engage in forming relationships among numerical values and its’ contextual representations

(NCTM, 2014). Students should understand that the variable S is not simply a concept, but a

numerical value of the number of students, rather than the individual student him/herself. These

gaps in understanding may result in a miscarriage of information as students apply this knowledge

or understanding into analyzing mathematical modelling scenarios in future experiences.

Abbie and Blake both demonstrated that the variable t in question 4 represented any number,

while Charlie argued that t represented time, stating in his interview “t is always time” (personal

communication, November 16, 2020). Inexperience with the use of multiple or same letters across

a variety of contexts in problem-solving could have resulted in Charlie’s misunderstanding. His

lack of exposure with the use of t as any other variable aside from time could have caused this

misconception; though he clarified within his interview that t could represent any value of time,

thereby demonstrating his understanding that t is not necessarily a fixed item.

Blake also formed a similar misunderstanding on question 6 in which he believed that

hb=hd+20 was the correct answer because “hb represents the height of the bounce (h and b) and hd

represents height of the drop (h and d)” (personal communication, November 16, 2020). This

misunderstanding that the letters must correspond to particular words or contexts in the scenario

would cause a great deal of confusion in problem-solving because Blake would not be able to

understand how to procedurally manipulate the additional variables. Through his explanation, he

demonstrated that he mistook that concepts had to correspond to variables, rather than the variable

as a numerical value of the concept. Therefore, Lucariello et al. (2014) suggests that students

should use language-based techniques to assist in the interpretation of variables, thereby being
 6

precise in the meaning and representation of the algebraic symbols. This form of precision allows

for students to be accurate in their use of algebra as a mathematical language for communication

and allows to form appropriate connections across mathematical representations (NCTM,2014).

Misconception: Ignoring Variables

The results of the diagnostics test confirmed similar findings as those of Lucariello et al.

(2014), in which students made the least amount of errors in questions 1 – 3 which targeted the

misconception regarding the ignoring of variables. All three students correctly responded to the

first two questions, while Charlie was the only student who incorrectly answered question 3. When

asked about his response, Charlie stated that he responded with D (not one of Lucariello et al.’s

misconception distractors), because he simply guessed between C or D as his possible choice. He

did not know procedurally how to derive the answer, believing that the correct answer “was not one

of the options”, explaining that the perceived correct answer was 5m + 6 (personal communication,

November 16, 2020). Though he did not know how to procedurally combine like terms

appropriately, Charlie still demonstrated his recognition of the variables by acknowledging that “A

and B could not be options because there were no m’s in the solution.”

All three students showed their understanding of the existence of variables but as Lucariello

et al. (2014) stated, nearly 15% of his sample size made this mistake. Though he sampled from a

range of age groups and educational experiences, and therefore would have encountered students

who may not have had as much experience with the procedural aspects of variables, this is still a

misconception that should be acknowledged and recognized. Understanding the usage of variables

in mathematical expressions is vital in understanding algebraic reasoning. Modeling techniques,

pattern expressions, functional thinking, and generalizations, all require formal methods of notation

to communicate algebraic thinking and students should understand the purposes and conceptual

meanings behind such mathematical expressions (Blanton, 2008). By incorporating mathematical

 7

tasks that require students to form conjectures about methods of contextual representation,

expression of mathematical ideas, and meaningful problem-solving, students engage in algebraic

habits that force them to institute the use of algebraic symbols for communication (NCTM, 2000).

Through the use of these model-based reasoning approaches, students can engage in the

construction of new meanings and representations about intuitive theories regarding mathematical

concepts (Lucariello et al., 2014).

Diagnostic Results

The final results did not entirely mirror the data gathered by Lucariello et al. (2014),

indicating that the most common misconception was believing that a variable is a specific unknown

(second most common in Lucariello et al.’s study), followed by the belief that a variable is a label

for an object (most common in Lucariello et al.’s study), and lastly, the act of ignoring variables.

Possible causes for the mismatch may be due to the varied age and educational range sampled by

Lucariello et al. versus the three ninth graders, who currently study algebra, in this sample.

However, though the sample size was small, the misconceptions addressed within the diagnostic

assessment was still apparent among the three students. As Lucariello et al. (2014) argues,

conceptual change of these misconceptions is much more difficult than conceptual growth from a

student who is not faulty in preconceptions. Therefore, it is important for teachers to address these

misconception by implementing tasks and questions that foster functional thinking, appropriate

mathematical vocabulary, and generalization, thereby bridging the learning gaps to address

appropriate use, meaning, and understanding of variables (Blanton, 2008; NCTM, 2014).
 8

References

Blanton, M. (2008). Algebra and the elementary classroom: transforming thinking,

transforming practice. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lucariello, J., Tine, M., & Ganley, T. M. (2014). A formative assessment of students' algebraic

variable misconceptions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 30-41

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for

school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions:

Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.

Stephens, A., Blanton, M., Knuth, E., Isler, I., Murphy Gardiner, A. (2015). Just say yes to early

algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(2), 92-101.

Usiskin, Z. (1999a). Doing algebra in grades K–4. In B. Moses, (Ed.), Algebraic thinking,

grades K–12: Readings from NCTM’s school-based journals and other publications (pp.

5-6). Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1999.

Usiskin, Z. (1999b). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. In B. Moses

(Ed.), Algebraic thinking, grades K–12: Readings from NCTM’s school-based journals

and other publications (pp. 7-13). Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.
 9

APPENDIX A