Crossing The Cognitive Gap Between Arithmetic and Algebra Operating On The Unknown in The Context of Equations

Crossing the Cognitive Gap between Arithmetic and Algebra: Operating on the Unknown
in the Context of Equations

Author(s): Liora Linchevski and Nicolas Herscovics
Source: Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 39-65
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3482803
Accessed: 20-03-2020 20:59 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3482803?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Studies in Mathematics
This content downloaded from 62.204.213.86 on Fri, 20 Mar 2020 20:59:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
LIORA LINCHEVSKI AND NICOLAS HERSCOVICS
CROSSING THE COGNMTIVE GAP BETWEEN ARITIMETIC AND

ALGEBRA: OPERATING ON THE UNKNOWN IN THE CONTEXT
OF EQUATIONS
ABSTRACT. The objective of the teaching experiment reported in this article was to
overcome the "cognitive gap", that is, students' inability to spontaneously operate with
or on the unknown. Following an analysis of the cognitive obstacles involved, this paper
reports the results of an alternative approach. We designed an individualized teaching
experiment which was tested in six case studies. In the first part the students' natural
tendency to group singletons in the unknown within the equations was expanded to a
process of grouping like terms. In the second part we introduced a reverse process to
grouping like terms, that of decomposition of a term into a sum. This process, combined
with the cancellation of identical terms, provides a procedure for the solution of first degree
equations with the unknown on both sides of the equality sign. The last part of the teaching
experiment involved the decomposition of an additive term into a difference. The first
two parts proved very successful and the students developed procedures on their own that
were more efficient than the initial ones. The results of the third part, however, revealed
the limits of this approach. The students experienced difficulties in choosing the required
decomposition. It seems that some of these obstacles are rather robust and perhaps should
not be dealt with incidentally but should be addressed as part of a pre-algebra course.
PREFACE
Prior research (e.g. Booth, 1988; Carpenter, 1981; Davis, 1975; Harper,
1987; Kieran, 1992; Sfard, 1991; Sfard and Linchevski, 1994) indicates
some important sources of students' difficulties with the introduction to
algebra. It seems that they often have but a limited view of algebraic
expressions, their notion of the solution of algebraic equations seems to
be associated more with the ritual of the solution process rather than the
numerical solution obtained, and they may fail to grasp the meaning of the
operations to be performed on the literal symbols, the algebraic expressions
or the equations.
Many researchers consider this failure the main source of the above-
mentioned difficulties. This is what they are trying to overcome when they
suggest investigating the potential of models and systems of reference,
such as real world situations or world problems (Cooney, 1985; Bell,
Educational Studies in Mathematics 30: 39-65, 1996.

?) 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in Belgium.
40 LIORA LINCHEVSKI AND NICOLAS HERSCOVICS
1988; Demana and Leitzel, 1988), geometric models (Filloy and Rojano,
1985a, b; Chalouh and Herscovics, 1988), an arithmetic model (Peck and
Jencks, 1988; Davis, 1985), graphic representations (Yerushalmy, 1988)
and the like. Other researchers consider students' inability to acquire a real
sense of the structural aspects of algebra to be the main obstable (Booth,
1988; Bell, 1988; Bell et al., 1987; Kieran, 1992). According to Sfard
(1991), students' inability to conceive the operational-structural duality
of algebraic symbols is the core of their difficulty. This leads to pseudo-
structural conceptions of algebraic notions rather than operational or true
structural conceptions. However, all of these approaches share the desire
to provide students from the very beginning with a comprehensive frame
of reference which will support the learning process, knowing that their
past mathematical experience will not be a sufficient basis.
In the present paper we would like to take the research a few steps back
and probe this problem from a slightly different perspective. We will report
on a teaching experiment based on our prior assessments (Herscovics and
Linchevski, 1994), whose main focus has been to explore the upper limits of
students' pre-algebraic notions prior to any instruction in algebra. In these
investigations we let the students proceed on their own and intervened only
after they had become aware of the limits of their methods, finding them
lengthy and tedious, and consequently were ready to be exposed to new
points of view. This forced us to find the students' intuitive procedures,
which could be used as a basis for further learning, and to address some of
the obstacles only after the students had struggled with them. We did not
introduce students to an approach different from their intuitive one as long
as their own satisfied them, although our planned procedure was a more
comprehensive one. It was only afterwards that they reflected on the local
procedures in the context of the more global ones.
We will first give relevant findings from our preliminary assessments,
showing that while students could develop meaning for the equations sim-
ply in terms of numerical relationships, and could spontaneously and mean-
ingfully solve equations using arithmetical methods, their pre-algebraic
notions would not be extended spontaneously to operating on the literal
symbols.
1. THE COGNITIVE GAP
Our first preliminary assessment, reported in Herscovics and L

ski (1994), was devoted to finding an appropriate demarcation between
arithmetic and algebra which could be described in terms of students'
cognition. We undertook an assessment study in which we investigated
CROSSING THE COGNITIVE GAP 41
both the range of first-degree equations in one unknown that seventh-

graders could solve, and the solution procedures used by them prior to any
formal instruction.
For equations involving only one occurrence of the unknown (e.g.
ax + b = c; ax + b + c = d + e), nearly all of them used inverse operations
in the reverse order. Whenever the unknown appeared as a subtrahend or
a divisor, such as in 37 - n = 18, or 525: n = 15, the equations were
solved arithmetically (37 - 18 = 19, 525: 15 = 35) without any evidence
of a transformation of the initial equation. For equations involving two
occurrences of the unknown, whether on the same side (e.g. ax + bx = c;
ax+bx+c+d = e+f) or on different sides of the equal sign (e.g. ax+b =
cx + d), a fundamental shift in their procedures was noticed: the majority
of students were able to solve them only by reverting spontaneously to
a process of systematic approximations based on numerical substitution.
Although students managed to spontaneously group terms that were purely
numeric, at no time did we witness any systematic attempt to group the
terms in the unknown. We came to the conclusion that the students could
not operate spontaneously with or on the unknown. The literal symbol was
being viewed as a static position, and an operational aspect entered only
when the letter was replaced by a number. This inability to spontaneously
operate on or with the unknown constituted a cognitive obstacle that could
be considered a gap between arithmetic and algebra.
Viewing this gap as a cognitive obstacle led us to consider various
ways and conditions under which it can be crossed. Our major decision
was to investigate the potential of using equations rather than algebraic
expressions to provide a framework for operating on the literal symbol.
In the following sections this decision will be justified on theoretical and
empirical grounds.
2. ALGEBRAIC EXPRESSIONS AS A FRAMEWORK
Traditionally, the initial course in high school algebra deals with first-
degree equations in one unknown. The curriculum starts by introducing
the concept of a variable, followed by the notion of algebraic expressions,
and only then are equations presented (Kieran, 1992). The rationale for this
sequence of presentation is usually of a mathematical nature. It is based on
the idea that for most concepts one first has to have a structured knowledge
of the elements this concept is composed of. Thus, since equations involve
the notion of algebraic expressions (Streeter and Hutchison, 1989), and
algebraic expressions involve the notion of variables, it seems self-evident
that the sequence of presentation should be in the order: variable; algebraic

expression; equation.
It is in the framework of algebraic expressions that some of the funda-
mental ideas of high-school algebra are initially constructed. One of these
ideas is grouping or combining like terms, which first gives the literal
symbol an operational dimension. There is, however, some reason to ques-
tion the use of this particular framework for the development of algebraic
notions. Evidence provided in the Second Mathematics Assessment of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (Carpenter et al., 1981) and
in a large scale British study (Kuchemann, 1981) shows that simplification
of algebraic expressions creates serious difficulties for many students.
The results of these studies indicate that from a cognitive perspective
the grouping or combining of like terms in algebraic expressions is far
from a trivial problem. It should be analyzed in terms of cognitive obsta-
cles (Herscovics, 1989). Sfard and Linchevski (1994) provide a detailed
analysis of these obstacles. The analysis is based on the dual interpretation
of algebraic expressions - operational and structural. While in arithmetic
it is possible to keep the computational procedures and the object obtained
separate, such a separation is impossible in algebra. In an expression like
a + b the process cannot actually be performed. The formula, despite its
operational features, must be also interpreted as the product of the pro-
cess. Davis (1975) calls this problem the name-process dilemma inherent
to algebraic expressions. Collis (1974) has identified a somewhat similar
cognitive problem which he calls the student's "acceptance of the lack
of closure". It is particularly relevant in the case of algebraic expressions
since the indicated operation (e.g. x + 5) cannot be performed.
An additional source of difficulty might be the student's interpretation
of the literal symbols in this specific mathematical form. The idea of the
co-existence of various uses of letters in algebra (letter as unknown, as
generalized number, as functional variable, etc.) has been examined in
prior research (Kuchemann, 1978; Usiskin, 1988), which has shown that
the different notions of variable imply different levels of difficulty for
students. In order for them to be able to accept algebraic expressions, their
interpretation of the literal symbol must be fairly advanced. Collis (1975)
notes that such expressions require students to be able to map more than
one number onto a literal symbol (viewed as a pronumeral), although it is
only later that they perceive it as having acquired all numerical properties,
at which point it becomes a 'generalized number'. On the other hand, in
the framework of equations the letter can be grasped at a much lower
level. It is perceived as a place holder or an unknown. Furthermore, in this
context, the process of substituting a number for a literal symbol is more
meaningful than its substitution in an algebraic expression because it is

related to the search for the 'appropriate number'.
Even when algebraic expressions are taught in a less formal, more
meaningful way, students still experience difficulties in grouping like terms
(see, for example, Chalouh and Herscovics, 1984; Booth, 1988).
From the above discussion, it is clear that, from a cognitive point of
view, grouping algebraic terms is far from being a simple problem, and that
the use of algebraic expressions demands quite an advanced perception of
literal symbols.
3. ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS AS A FRAMEWORK
From its earliest history, algebra made its appearance in the form of
tions. The solution of equations, including some first-degree equations in
several variables, dates back to the work of Diophantus in the third cen-
tury. The algebra introduced by al-Khwarzmi dealt with the solution of
specific second degree equations in one unknown, as pointed out by Boy-
er/Merzbach (1991). The use of letters to represent givens and prove rules
governing numerical relations came much later. Harper (1987) offers some
support to the idea that students pass through the same stages in the devel-
opment of their algebraic notions. Thus, the use of equations might prove
to be more suitable for learning to operate with or on literal symbols, since
viewing the letter as an unknown and determining its value from specific
numeric data is what algebra was all about.
Evidence that using equations might more naturally induce operating
on or with unknowns can be found in the authors' previous assessment
studies (Herscovics and Linchevski, 1992, 1994). Among the problems
presented to the students in the first assessment mentioned above were
equations like n + n = 76 or n + 5 + n = 55. Most students immediately
divided 76 or 50 by 2. These results indicate that when the terms in
the unknown are singletons, i.e. without any coefficient, the majority of
students have a natural tendency to mentally group the terms in the solution
process. The data suggest that perhaps, instead of presenting grouping in the
framework of algebraic expressions, it may be more relevant to introduce
it in equations. This would make it easier for students to cope with the
operational-structural duality of algebraic expressions since the algebraic
expressions in equations are more intuitively viewed as computational
processes (Sfard and Linchevski, 1994). It also would not require the
more sophisticated concept of a generalized number. Thus, in designing
the teaching aimed at overcoming the students' inability to spontaneously
group terms in the unknown, we decided to extend their natural tendency to
mentally group singletons in equations in order to e

between multiples of the unknown and equivalent sums of singletons and
to use this equivalency in grouping like terms. We refer to this approach
as 'Grouping like terms in the context of equations'.
Having designed a new approach to grouping like terms, it is but a
small step to query the reversibility of the procedure. How would students
cope with the problem of splitting a multiple of the unknown into a sum
or difference of two terms? Again, if equations are used, this would not
end up being an idle exercise. By an appropriate choice of such a sum or
difference, combined with the notion of cancellation of identical terms, it
could become a simple solution procedure for equations with the unknown
on both sides of the equal sign. For instance, terms in 5n + 17 = 7n + 3
can be decomposed into Sn + 14 + 3 = Sn + 2n + 3. One can then use
the cancellation principle to simplify this to 14 = 2n, an equation that can
easily be solved by all the students (the way of presenting this principle to
the students will be discussed later on). Of course, the decomposition of
terms can also be used for differences. For instance, 133n - 22 = 6n + 41
can be expressed as 7n + 6n - 22 = 6n + 63 - 22, and then cancellation
reduces the equation to 7n = 63.
Moreover, for a large number of high-school students, there are many
cognitive obstacles involved in perceiving an equation as a mathematical
object on which they can perform operations. It is equally difficult for them
to grasp the idea of equivalent equations and construct a meaning for the
formal solution procedures (Greeno, 1982; Steinberg, Sleeman and Ktorza,
1991; Linchevski and Sfard, 1991; Sfard and Linchevski, 1994). Thus,
from a cognitive perspective, the cancellation procedure which we refer
to as 'Cancellation within equations' might prove easier than traditional
procedures, which require operating on equations. Since the transforma-
tions are local, terms are grouped or decomposed into equivalent sums or
differences without any operation on the equation as a whole.
A prerequisite for the ability to perceive cancellation is the ability
to compare expressions such as 34 + 789 - 63 and 16 + 18 + 789 - 63
(Chaiklin and Lesgold, 1984; Cauzinille, Mathieu and Resnick, 1984). Pa
investigations, however, have provided evidence that students have some
intuitive sense of comparison and that they can even develop certain proce-
dural shortcuts and use them in simple equations (Filloy and Rojano, 1984;
Herscovics and Linchevski, 1994; Herscovics and Linchevski, 1992).
Taking these findings into consideration, we proceeded to design our
individualized teaching experiment. In the following sections we report in
detail on its two main parts: the first part, which, was devoted to "Grouping
like terms in the context of equations", and the second part, which investi-
gated the cognitive potential of "Decomposition of terms and cancellation

within equations as a solution procedure".
4. THE TEACHING EXPERIMENT
We prepared a sequence consisting of a pre-test (one session), three lessons

(five sessions) and a delayed post-test (one session). For each lesson a script
was prepared with the exact wording of each problem as well as some relat-
ed questions to be raised by the instructor-interviewer. The lessons were
semi-standardized so that the interviewer could adjust the wording of the
questions to make sure that they were understood by each student, and also
in the sense that the researcher had the freedom to pursue any interesting
avenue unforeseen in the preparation of the experiment (Menchinskaya,
1969). A second person acting as an observer was present at all the sessions,
using a detailed outline, prepared in advance, to record all the student's
responses. The lessons, as well as the pre-test and the post-test, were
videotaped, so that further analysis was always possible.
The six students who were chosen were taken from the same class of
seventh-graders that had participated in our preliminary assessment study
(Herscovics and Linchevski, 1994). Thus we already had some information
regarding their pre-algebraic thinking processes and solution methods.
They reflected three levels of mathematical ability as determined by their
mathematics teacher based on their school performance: strong (Si and
S2), average (Al and A2), and weak (W1 and W2). The only other criterion
in the selection of our subjects was that they spontaneously used inverse
operations to solve equations involving a single occurrence of the unknown
but were not yet capable of systematically handling operations with or on
the unknown and thus resorted to systematic substitution for the solution
of equations with a double occurrence of the unknown. We verified that no
algebra had been done in class.
The first lesson was aimed at overcoming the students' inability to
spontaneously group terms involving the literal symbols, while the second
and the third dealt with equations in which the unknown appears on both
sides of the equal sign.
4.1. The Pre-Test
4.1.1. Spontaneous Solution Procedures

Since our initial assessment study (Herscovics and Linchevski, 1992, 1994)
had taken place five months before our teaching experiment, we first had
to ascertain if any changes had occurred during this time interval. We used
the equations in Table 1 to verify this.
TABLE I
Equations used in pre-test.
1) 13n +196 = 391 2) 16n -215 = 265 3) 12n-156 = O
4) 1 ln + 14n = 175 5) 17n -13n = 32
6) 4n+39 = 7n 7) 5n+12=3n+24
Each equation was presented on a worksheet,

gested operations to be performed the interviewer wrote them down on
the worksheet. The student was strongly encouraged to use a calculator,
and since he or she could look at the interviewer's notes, this eliminated
the need to keep track of past operations. The student had to go through a
verification procedure: once he or she thought a solution had been found,
it had to be written above the unknown in the equation and verified on the
calculator. Thus, an incorrect solution would induce a search for a correct
one.
The students solved equations 1 and 2 using the same procedure as in
the initial assessment: they performed inverse operations in reverse order,
with one exception (W2 used a process of random substitution to solve
equation 1). In the last four equations, however, the students used sys-
tematic substitution, expressing some impatience with the procedure, even
saying that "There must be some better way". At one time or another they
tried to discover some logical solution procedure to replace the systematic
substitution. For example, Al tried to solve equation 4 by grouping the
coefficients (11 + 14 = 25), then divided 175 by 25, obtaining 7, then pro-
ceeded to divide 7 by 2, presumably because of the double occurrence of
the unknown. The verification procedure brought them back to numerical
substitution.
4.2. Lesson ]
The first lesson was aimed at overcoming the students' inability to spon-
taneously group terms involving literal symbols by using their natural
tendency to mentally group singletons.
4.2.1. Grouping of Numerical Terms

In our earlier work (Herscovics and Linchevski, 1994), we had presented
seven equations with several numerical terms on either side of the equal
sign (e.g. 23 + ni + 18 = 44 + 16). Since all students grouped numer-
ical terms spontaneously in six of these equations, we decided that this

procedure did not have to be taught.
4.2.2. Naming Specific Procedures

Although our students had come to us with various informal solution pro-
cedures, the only one they could name was that of systematic substitution,
which they called 'guess and check'. Since our lessons were going to pro-
vide students with several new solution procedures, we wanted to clearly
identify them so that each one could be discussed. Thus, we started Lesson
1 by asking the students to solve 5n + 13 = 98 and 7n - 28 = 63, which
they handled, as expected, by using inverse operations. We guided them
in reflecting on the solution procedure they had used by focusing their
attention on the fact that they had used inverse operations but had also
inverted the order of the operations. This short activity was sufficient to
transform a procedure that had been used intuitively to one that became
part of their analytical realm. We agreed to call this procedure "solving by
using inverse operations in reverse order".
4.2.3. Grouping Terms Involving the Unknown

As mentioned earlier, the students spontaneously solved equations of the
form 2n = 76 by using inverse operations, and equations like n + n = 76
by mentally grouping the terms in the unknown. Our teaching intervention
was to establish the explicit connection between the two equivalent forms
of the same equation and extend these spontaneous procedures to induce
the addition of multiples of n. Thus, we presented the students with a
sequence of equations involving singletons.
The first worksheet was divided into an upper part on which was written
n + n = 178, and a lower covered half on which appeared the equation
2n = 178. After the students had solved n + n = 178 by dividing 178
by 2, we uncovered the lower half and asked: 'What about this one?'
(2n = 178). Without any hesitation, all the students stated that the result
would be the same. We repeated this sequence with some other pairs of
equations (e.g. n + n + n = 126 and 3n = 126). These examples were
sufficient for them to establish the desired connection between the str
of additions and the multiplication.
In order to ensure the equivalence between the string of additions and the
multiplicative form, three questions were then asked: (1) 'In the equation
n + n + n + n = 112, what would be a shorter way of writing the left-
hand side?' Some students immediately rewrote the equation as 4n = 1 12
others simply wrote 4n and then were further requested to use this in
rewriting the equation. When the new form of the equation was completed
3n + 5n = 136
n+n+n + n+n+n+n+n = 136
Fig. 1. Multiples as a sum of singletons.
we said, 'When we collect all the terms in n, we call this grouping all the
n's'.
The other questions were (2) 'Can you rewrite the equation 6n = 144
by using addition on the left-hand side?'; and (3) 'When we write a number
and a letter next to each other, like 5n, what does it mean in algebra?' This
last question was raised in order to remind the students of the multiplicative
meaning of concatenation in algebra.
At this point, without any further instruction, we asked our six subjects,
'Can you group the sum on the left of 3n + 5n = 136?' Three of them,
Al, Wl and W2, spontaneously grouped the two terms. The others were
requested to expand each term into additions, an intervention which was
sufficient to induce the desired objective, and the students naturally grouped
the terms and rewrote the equation as 8n = 136. All students were then
shown the diagram in Fig. 1.
After solving the new equation (8n = 136), they were asked if the
answers they had found would also be a solution of the initial equation
(3n + 5n = 136). None of them had any doubts, thereby indicating that
they accepted the two equations as equivalent. We wish to point out that,
regardless of the student's answer, each step was accompanied by a verifi-
cation procedure. The student actually substituted the numerical solution
in both equations and evaluated the expressions. This repetitive procedure,
of referring to the numerical relationship as a source of meaning to every
suggested or obtained stage, will be further discussed later on.
Two more questions were raised, (1) "Do you think that we can add 3n
and 5n even before we know what the number is?" and (2) "Is 3n+5n = 8n
true for every number n?" Our six students seemed somewhat surprised
by the questions but answered affirmatively. We do not delude ourselves
that these initial interventions could address the entire problem of the
dual nature of the algebraic expression (Sfard and Linchevski, 1994). The
questions were context-bound, the reference to the equation was obvious
and the meaning of grouping was associated with this specific setting.
TABLE II
Equations and solution procedures used in grouping multiples.
1) 4n+3n= 119 2) 13n+18n=217 3) 5n+n= 192
4) 9n-3n = 174 5) 23n-14n = 135 6) 7n-n = 174
7) 3n + 9n + 7n = 342 8) lOn-5rn + 3n = 96
Student Eq. 1 Eq. 2 Eq. 3 Eq. 4 Eq. 5 Eq. 6 Eq. 7 Eq. 8
Si Exp+G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I F*

S2 G+I G+I G* +I G+I G+I Exp+G+I G+I G+I
A l Exp+G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I
A2 G+I G+I GAI G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I
WI G+I G+I G*+I G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I
W2 G+I G+I G*+I G+I G+I G+I G+I F*
Coding:
G+I = Groups and Inverses
G+I = Groups and Inverses on second attempt
Exp+G+I = Expands multiple into additions; Groups and Inverses
G*+I = Initial difficulties with grouping, student asked to expand Sn
F = fails initially due to detachment of the minus sign.
Following this short introduction, the students were asked to solve

another eight equations, each one being presented separately. The solution
procedures indicated in Table II show that some students needed to expand
the multiples into a sum of singletons.
The first difficulty occurred in equation 3, due to the presence of the
unknown as a singleton. Three of the six students were perplexed by
this situation, but overcame it when asked to expand 5n into a string of
additions. They probably did not view a singleton as a multiple of itself,
albeit a trivial one. Given another singleton situation in equation 6, two of
the three students had overcome their initial problem.
The results for equations 4 and 5 show that the introduction of subtrac-
tion does not cause any difficulty. Equations 7 and 8 required extending the
grouping procedure to three terms. As long as only addition was involved,
no problem could be detected. But it was with equation 8 that we observed
some interesting failures. Both our best (S 1) and our poorest (W2) students'
initial failure was due to detaching the 5n from the minus sign preceding
it (Herscovics and Linchevski, 1994). They ignored the subtraction and
instead added 5n + 3n to get 8n, which they then subtracted from 1On.
both cases, it was sufficient to ask the students about an analogous arith-
metic string: "Is 20- 10 + 5 the same as 20 - 15?" The two students then
corrected themselves.
4.2.4. Grouping Terms in the Unknown in the Presence of One

Numerical Term
In order to find out whether addition of mixed terms would occur sponta-
neously or not, without any further discussion, we asked our students to
solve 7n + 6n + 21 = 203. The average and poor students all grouped
the terms in the unknown with the numerical term (7 + 6 + 21 = 34), a
phenomenon we had not witnessed when they had spontaneously grouped
numerical terms. Having anticipated that such a response might occur, we
had prepared the following intervention. We asked, "If we have a simpler
equation like 9n + 17 = 116, can we add 9 and 17?" After they had solved
the equation (using inverse operations) and found the solution to be n = 11,
we asked them to look at the arithmetic equation 9. 11 + 17 = 116 while
discussing the meaning of "adding 9 to 17". This discussion proved to be
sufficient to prevent any further grouping of mixed terms, as evidenced in
their solution of the next three equations: 1) 17n + 12n + 36 = 210, 2)
4n + 12n- 17 = 127, and 3) 27n - 41 - 19n = 87.
It was while working on the first equation above that we introduced our
subjects to conventional notation. Students S 1, S2 and A2 used this notation
in the solution of the next two equations, while Al, WI, and W2 preferred
a more detailed notation. In their solution of 17n + 12n + 36 = 210, Al,
WI, and W2 wrote each step as follows:
17n + 12n = 29n
29n+36= 210
210- 36 = 174
174: 29 = 6
n = 6.
Often students would group the terms in the unknown but ignore it in their
write-up, as in 17 + 12 = 29n. Some subjects used extra equal signs; for
instance, student S1 wrote:
17n + 12n + 36 = 210 = 29n + 36 = 210.
The equal sign on the left was not really a mistake, as this student wanted
to indicate the 'equivalence' of the two equations.
4.2.5. Grouping Like Terms

Only when equations offer the possibility of combining both terms in th
unknown and numerical terrns does the concept of grouping like terms
become more relevant. We introduced this notion without any instruction
in order to see whether the prior work would be sufficient to prevent the
students from adding mixed terms. We asked our students to solve 9n +
13n + 15 + 21 = 278. All six subjects solved this through the appropriate
grouping of like terms followed by the use of inverse operations. We then
introduced and explained the terminology of like terms and unlike terms.
The other equations presented were:
(2) 17n+36+ 8n+ 51 = 262
(3) 102 = 22n- 17n + 49- 12
(4) 19n+67-1ln-48 = 131.
Equation 2 was immediately solved by all the students

described above. In equation 3, however, three of our students (Al, A2
and W2) provided some indication of being affected by the 'direction';
they rewrote the equation with = 102 on the right at a certain stage. Since
these students see the expression on the left-hand side as a process and the
expression on the right-hand side as the result, they felt the need to put
them into the 'correct' order (Sfard and Linchevski, 1994).
The grouping of separated like terms becomes far more difficult in the
presence of both additions and subtractions, as evidenced in our students'
solution of equation 4. Some unexpected cognitive problems made their
appearance.
- Three of the students (S1, S2 and WI) tried to solve this equation by
grouping 19n and 1 in, but the addition sign following 19n seemed to take
precedence over the minus sign in front of 1 in, since they added the two
terms instead of subtracting one from the other. This was our first evidence
of a new kind of cognitive problem, which we call "jumping off with the
posterior operation".
- With respect to the numerical terms, students Si and S2 subtracted 48
from 67 but then rewrote the initial equation as 30n - 19 = 131. They
explained that since 67 is followed by a subtraction the new equation
should be "30n - 19 = 131". We call this cognitive problem the "inability
to select the appropriate operation for the partial sum".
At this point, we gave these students the arithmetic string 20 + 5 - 10
and compared it with 20 - 10 + 5, bringing out the fact that the indicated
operations have to be carried along with the number in any change in the
sequence of the string. We then suggested that the initial equation could
be reordered so that the like terms would be consecutive: 19n - 1 in +
67 - 48 = 131. This was sufficient to allow the students to generate the

correct grouping, and they used inverse operations to complete the solution
process.
From these detailed descriptions, it appears that developing the ability
to perform operations non-sequentially requires overcoming the hurdle
created by the presence of a variety of arithmetic operations. Clearly, this
is one area of pre-algebra that causes widespread problems (Linchevski
and Herscovics, 1994). However, it seems our simple interventions were
sufficient to remedy the situation at least momentarily, as can be seen in
the solution of the last equation presented in Lesson 1: 7n + 29 + 1 6n -
12 - 9n + 49 = 37 + 295. Three of our six students rewrote the equation
as 7n + 16n - 9n + 29 - 12 + 49 = 37 + 295, then proceeded to group
like terms and use inverse operations. The other three students grouped
like terms without first rewriting the equation.
4.3. Lesson 2
The second lesson dealt with decomposition and cancellation of addi

terms.
4.3.1. Preliminary Considerations

The use of models: Up to this point the mathematical discussions with
the students has led us to a somewhat formal approach. The students ha
developed a meaning for the equations and for the unknown simply in terms
of numerical relationships, while the main purpose of our interventions was
to encourage them to become aware of their mathematical schemes. The
fact that the discussions were restricted to equations in which the unknown
appeared on only one side of the equation allowed the students to use the
intuitions. In this framework the students intuitively view the expressio
as a computational process in which the equal sign still functions as in
arithmetic: operations on one side and a result on the other (Filloy and
Rojano, 1985b, 1989; Sfard and Linchevski, 1994). However, considering
the introduction of equations with the unknown on both sides of the equ
sign led us to weigh the explicit use of models. With equations of this
type the student has to think about two computational sequences at the
same time and determine what, in the process, 'is supposed to be equal'.
The classical balance model has the distinct advantage of keeping track
of the entire numerical relationship expressed by the equation while it is
being subjected to transformation, thus condensing the whole cancellation
procedure described above. However, as Filloy and Rojano (1989) pointed
out, all physical models inevitably contain intrinsic restrictions of their
applicability to various types of numerical operations on the unknown.
Fig. 2. The balance model.
Moreover, those restrictions lead to major cognitive difficulties for student

in the long run (Behr et al., 1983).
Although arithmetic models lack the obvious relevance of physical
models, they are also free of such restrictions, and previous research has
shown that they have pedagogic potential (Herscovics and Kieran, 1980).
Hence we decided to use the balance model as an introductory model, and
then justify the whole process of decomposition and cancellation on the
basis of an arithmetic model.
Introduction of the balance model: We first presented the students with
the equation Sn + 3n + 11 = Sn + 11 + 39 and then introduced little
cutouts of each part of the equation which were put on the respective arm
of a scale drawn on a worksheet.
Students were asked if they noticed equal terms on both sides and if these
could be taken away. Five of the six students removed both 11 and 5n, while
Wl removed only the numerical terms and had to be prodded to remove
5n. The students were now left with 3n and 39 and solved the equation.
Then we asked whether the solution they had found (n = 13) is also
the solution of the initial equation. All six were convinced that it was and
verified it by substituting 13 for n in the original equation. The introductory
model effectively condensed the whole cancellation procedure and offered
the students a type of enactive mode of representation (Bruner, 1967).
However, as mentioned earlier, the justification for the process was based
on the arithmetic model.
Introduction of the arithmetic model: We presented the identity 7 x 9 +
11 = 74 to the students and used it to construct an algebraic equation by
covering one number by a finger, then by a place holder and finally by a
letter (Chalouh and Herscovics, 1984). The same procedure was used with
the numerical identity 8 x 13 + 11 = 5 x 13 + 50 to obtain an algebraic
equation with the unknown on both sides: 8n+ 1 1 = 5n +50. After pointing
out that none of the methods they knew could effectively solve this type of
Sn+ 1 _1 =5n+50 8X iI+ 11 =x +50
Fig. 3. The numerical equation.
equation, we told them that we would develop a new method and would
verify each step in this development by operating simultaneously on the
algebraic equation and the numerical identity which we rewrote (Fig. 3),
boxing the hidden number to remind ourselves that we had to pretend that
we did not know the solution.
4.3.2. Cancellation of Identical Numerical Terms

In introducing the cancellation procedure, we had to choose between start-
ing with the cancellation of numerical terms or terms in the unknown.
The advantage of the latter is that the equation obtained can be solved by
inverse operations (e.g. 3n + 11 = 50). The disadvantage is that canceling
the terms in the unknown might have seemed arbitrary since it meant can-
celing a generalized number before justifying the procedure with a specific
number. Rather than creating the possibility of such a cognitive problem
we decided on the longer process of starting with the first option.
We introduced the cancellation procedure by focusing on the algebraic
equation which was constructed from the numerical one. We asked, "Can
I rewrite the equation 8n + 11 = 5n + 50 as 8n + 11 == Sn + 39 +
11?" "Is this equation still balanced?" "Will the solution be the same?"
Each of the transformations presented in the cancellation process was
accompanied by discussions of the need to maintain numerical equilibrium
and the invariance of the solution, and by a verification of the corresponding
transformation on the numerical equation (e.g. the students verified that
8 x 13 + 1 1 = 5 x 13 + 39 + 1 1 did indeed balance out). All our students
answered affirmatively to these initial questions, but when asked: "What
if I take away 11 on both sides, do you think that both sides will be equal
(for the specific number 13 that we already know)?" "Can you write down
the new equation we get?" "Do you think the solution is the same for both
equations?", five of our six subjects thought that removing 11 on both
sides would maintain the equality but to student SI this was not evident.
Only two subjects were certain about the invariance of the solution. At this
point, with the help of student Al, we realized that they were referring to
another meaning of the word "solution", the one usually used in arithmetic,
'the answer' on the right-hand side of a numerical identity. For them, the
TABLE III
Summary of solution procedure.
8n + 11 = 5n + 50
8n1+X = 5n+X +39
8n = Sn+39
K +3n = K +39
3n = 39
n 13
solution was both the number 13 which would maintain the equality and
the numerical value of the right-hand side of the equation which definitely
was changed.
The students checked the validity of their assumptions and operations
with the numerical equation. Following their verification we suggested a
notation that summarized the whole procedure:
8n+>4 = 5n+X +39
8n = 5n+ 39
and agreed to call it "canceling 11 on both sides" or "canceling

of 11 on both sides".
4.3.3. Canceling Terms in the Unknown

After reducing the initial equation to 8n = Sn + 39 we repeated the
steps and the questions described above for replacing 8n by Sn + 3n and
then subtracted Sn from both sides. Two students (Si and A2) felt that
splitting 8n would change the balance. S 1, for example said, 'Well, I don't
really know, I have to check. It might still be balanced but maybe not for
13'. Summarizing this lengthy introduction gave us the opportunity to put
together all the steps in the solution of the equation, develop a notation
and ask the students how they would choose the terms to be split up for
eventual cancellation (see Table HI). They all used the "larger" of the
corresponding terms as their criterion.
Following this discussion of the cancellation procedure we asked each
student to solve 12n + 79 = 7n+ 124. Five of the students solved it without
any difficulty. Three of them started by decomposing the numerical term
followed by cancellation of the identical numerical term and repeated
the same process on the term containing the unknown. Two others first
decomposed the unknown and then the numerical term. However, W2,
the poorest student, had to be shown the introductory example again. She
then solved the equation by decomposing 12n into 5n + 7n, canceling
7n, rewriting the reduced equation as Sn + 79 = 124, and then using
inverse operations; she did not split the numerical term. The next equatio
12n + 109 = 1 8n + 67, was solved by all the students. Then we asked them
to solve this last equation again, but to start by decomposing a term other
than the one they had started with before. All of them were able to do so,
and stated their conviction that the order of cancellation did not affect the
solution. When asked to solve 109 = 6n + 67 using another procedure than
cancellation, they used their spontaneous procedure naturally, i.e. inverse
operations in the reverse order, thereby indicating that they had not lost
their pre-algebraic methods.
4.3.4. Practice with the New Procedure

With no further introduction, the students were asked to solve five equa-
tions:
(1) 19n= 13n+72 (2) 57+8n=6n+71
(3) 12n + 30 = 13n + 19 (4) 6n+23=n+88
(5) 71 + 12n+38 = 13n+67+5n.
A2 and Al spontaneously expanded the procedure to double decomposition

and double cancellation, by decomposing both 8n and 71 into sums and
using a double cancellation, while the others treated each type of term
separately.
Equations 3 and 4 gave us an opportunity to explore the impact of the
presence of singletons on the cancellation process. In equation 3, to our
surprise, all our students split 1 3n into 1 2n + I n. Student W2, when ending
up with 11 = In, stated that it did not make sense. She had to be shown
that ln was the same as n, just as 1 x 3 is the same as 3. In equation 4
students Al and W2 got 6n = n + 65, and were perplexed by the presence
of a singleton. They overcame this obstacle when asked to write 6n as a
string of additions, as they had learned in Lesson 1. This transformation
was sufficient to help them view 6n as n + Sn.
The last equation was intended to see whether students would first
group and then decompose, or would start by splitting up the terms as
they were presented in the given equation. Subjects Al and W2 started by
splitting up the appropriate terms and canceled them immediately, while
the others grouped like terms first. Students Al, A2 and WI used a double
cancellation in the solution process.
4.4. Lesson 3
Lesson 3 dealt with decomposition into a difference and cancellation of

subtracted terms.
4.4.1. Restrictions on the Type of Equation

In our previous assessments we had included questions regarding the com-
position of consecutive subtractions. We found that four of our six students
experienced some difficulty, not realizing that 189 - 50-50 was the same
as 189- 100. Thus, we decided to steer our students toward numerical cases
which avoided this problem. We tried to achieve this by focusing their atten-
tion on the decomposition of a numerical term that was being added rather
than subtracted. This also limited the scope of this teaching experiment to
forms involving subtraction on only one side of the equation of either a
numerical tern or a term in the unknown, as in 190 - 8n = 18n - 18.
4.4.2. Decomposition into a Difference

As in Lesson 2 we based our work on an arithmetic model, but this time
with subtraction on one side of the equation. The students constructed an
algebraic equation from a numerical identity, transforming 6 x 14 + 17 =
8 x 14 - 11 into 6n + 17 = 8n - 11. We used the decomposition of 17 into
28 - 11, rewriting the equation as 6n + 28 - 11 = 8n - 11. The stages
of instruction (canceling the numerical terms, canceling the terms in the
unknown, verifying each step or assumption with the relevant numerical
equation, reflecting on the process as a whole) were exactly the same as in
Lesson 2. We followed through with the shortened version, as in Lesson
2, which was called "canceling the subtraction of 11 on both sides". This
enabled us to formulate the basic principle: "Equals added to equals give
equals". While reviewing the solution of the first equation, we discussed
with the students how to choose the term to be expressed as a difference.
To assess how well the students had grasped the idea of decomposition
into a difference, we asked them to solve the equation 19nr+23 = 24n - 22.
The two top students figured out the correct decompositions mentally and
immediately wrote 19n + 45 - 22 = 19n + 5n - 22. The other four
needed to be guided, since they decomposed 23 into 22 + 1. On the second
equation, A2 and W2 still needed some help. At this stage we presented
the students with the equation 17n - 48 = 13n. We wondered if after
cancellation of 13n they would experience some difficulty, and indeed our
conjecture was confinned, as four of the six did not know how to rewrite
the equation after the cancellation. Their puzzlement was best expressed
by student Al who, stated while looking at 4n - 48 = : "All the weight
is on one side and you don't have the solution". He was referring both
to the scale model of an equation, by using the image of weight, and

to an arithmetic model, that is, the usual arithemetic equation where the
number on the right-hand side is the answer to the computation on the
left. This corresponded to one of his senses of the word 'solution'. We
reminded our students that cancellation was justified by the subtraction
of 13n from both sides. Student Si stated "Then you have nothing", to
which the interviewer responded "And how much is nothing?" The fourth
equation, 15n + 18 = 17m - 18, was presented in order to see whether
the students perceived the importance of not only canceling out the same
number but doing so with the same operation. We presented the students
with the equation while discussing the cancellation alternatives. Five of
the six were aware of the restrictions on cancellation.
Without further instruction, we gave the students four more equations,
one at a time, in all of which the term in the unknown also had to be
decomposed into a difference:
(5) 155-6n = 3n + 11
(6) 3n+28= 198-7rn
(7) 89-Sn = 7n + 5
(8) 77 - 8n + 113 = 13n - 18 + 5n.
At this stage we began to observe some of the basic problems which we

had previously called "detachment of an operation sign from the term" and
"jumping off with the posterior operation". In equation 5, only Al was
able to come up with the right decomposition of 3n to 9n - 6n on his own,
while four of the others decomposed - 6n into -3n + 3n in order to cancel
3n. Our teaching intervention was based on numerical examples and on
indicating explicitly that 3n had to be split. Only in the third equation were
all six students able to express a term in the unknown as a difference. The
last equation was rather complex. Student S 1 remarked that he could not
group the numerical terms on the left because it would be 77 - 113, but then
corrected himself. Here he showed the effect of the cognitive obstacle we
had identified in both the assessment study and Lesson 1, that of jumping
off with the posterior operation. S2, Al, and Wl first grouped like terms
and then used double decomposition and double cancellation, while A2
and W2 used inverse operations when they obtained an equation with only
a numerical term. It should be noted, however, that by the end of Lesson
3 all students used decomposition into a difference for at least one of the
terms.
TABLE IV
Sample of the students' work.
Student SI Students S2, Al, WI Students A2, W2
12n + 79 = 7n + 124 12n + 79 = 7n + 124 12n + 79 = 7n + 124
K+5n+79= X+5n+)O = K+5n+79=
= +124 = X+M +45 =>X+124

5n + 79 = 124 5n = 45 5n + 79 = 124
5n+X =X + 45 n = 9 5n = 124-79
Sn = 45 Sn = 45
n=9 n=9
4.5. Post-Test
The post-test was given one month after the last session with our studen
We verified that no algebra had been covered in class during that period.
The test included equations with a single occurrence of the unknown,
more than one occurrence of the unknown on one side only, the unknown
on both sides involving only addition and the unknown on both sides
involving subtraction. The students did not experience any difficulties
with the first three groups of equations. Even after they had learned to
decompose a term into a sum or a difference for eventual cancellation,
this procedure did not interfere with the spontaneous solution process they
had used earlier to solve equations with the unknown on one side, that of
performing inverse operations in reverse order. It should be pointed out
how stable this procedure remained in the seven months since our initial
assessment. When presented with equations with more than one term in the
unknown on the same side of the equation, the students did not use the more
advanced, generalized procedure of decomposition, but rather grouping of
like terms and inverse operations. In equations with the unknown on both
sides involving only addition, the students did not lose their mastery of
notation and could efficiently write down the steps. Although they had been
taught to cancel one term at a time, all the students, with the exception of
S1, went beyond the rather lengthy procedure they had been taught and
developed shorter and more efficient procedures of their own. Table IV
shows a sample of their work.
It is in the fourth group of equations, involving t

subtracted terms, that most difficulties emerged. A
students avoided the need to decompose a numerical
ence by first canceling the term in the unknown an
operations, all the basic problems mentioned previou
the minus sign, jumping off with the posterior oper
The students tended to decompose the term with th
example, four of the students replaced -6n by -3n +
155 - 6n = 3n + 11, thus detaching 6n from the indicated operation.
Moreover, in the equation 77 - 8n + 113 = 13n - 18 + Sn students Al,
A2, and Wl replaced -8n with -3n + 5n.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
When discussing the results of this study and drawing conclusio

must keep in mind the objective of the type of teaching experi
here. The lessons were given individually so that the interviewe
observer could assess the students' thinking while it was takin
under the influence of the pedagogical interventions. It is not s
in terms of learning that one can determine the value of such a
ment, for learning involves retention, which requires far more
the three lessons that were given. Learning requires time for as
and exercising the newly acquired knowledge and skills. The ob
a teaching experiment such as ours is to assess the accessibility o
material, uncover the unforeseen cognitive difficulties in the ne
tations and determine their limitations. One could argue that th
inquiry does not necessitate a post-test. However, since the obje
study is the students' thinking, the way it evolves over time is of in
as the possible misconceptions can, on the one hand, be amplifie
few weeks or, on the other, disappear entirely. In this area, the
experiment has- indeed proven to be of value, as it has answer
tions about accessibility and limitations, and uncovered some s
cognitive obstacles.
In our teaching experiment we explored the pedagogical potential of two
approaches to the solution of equations. We identified these procedures as
"Grouping like terms in the context of equations" and "Cancellation within
the equation". Our interventions were aimed at overcoming the cognitive
obstacles involved in operating with or on the unknown and those associat-
ed with the notion of equivalent equations. We introduced relatively simple
solution procedures based on transformations within equations. Instead of
introducing grouping in the usual framework of algebraic expressions, it
was presented as a solution procedure in a more relevant setting. Rather

than move directly to formal operations on the whole equation, we started
with the cancellation of identical terms. We assumed that, from a cogni-
tive perspective, transformations within equations would be easier for the
student because they are local, whereas the formal procedure necessitates
keeping track of the entire numerical relationship expressed by the equa-
tion while it is being subjected to global transformations. It is interesting
to note that our cancellation procedure is very close to the historical devel-
opment of algebra. In fact, in the ninth century al-Khwarizmi published his
book Al-gabr wa'l muquabalah, the word 'al-gabr' meaning restoration
and completion, presumably of like terms, and 'muquabalah' meaning can-
cellation of like terms on opposite sides of the equation (Boyer/Merzbach,
1991).
In the first lesson the students established a connection between two
spontaneous schemes -the multiplicative scheme, as in 3n, and the additive
scheme, as in n + n + n. The grouping of like terms was an extension of
this linkage. In Lesson 2, cancellation within equations was accepted by
the students as a smooth extension of the grouping of like terms, as it was
based on their natural ability to compare identical terms in the context of
numerical equalities. Lesson 3 and the results of the post-test exposed the
limits of the procedure of cancellation within equations. We had assumed
that, following the decomposition of a term into a sum, the decomposition
of a term into a difference would be but a minor step. This did not prove to
be so. Most students had difficulties in performing this throughout the third
lesson and needed some guidance. During this lesson, we found evidence
of some cognitive obstacles revealed earlier - namely detachment of a
term from the indicated operation and jumping off from a term with the
posterior operation. These occurred more frequently in the post-test.
Concerning the pedagogical implications of our study, there are some
important issues to be taken into consideration. The first one involves
the teaching of algebra to students who experience difficulties with the
traditional approach of the first course, which may be as many as half of
those students (Carpenter et al., 1981), and the lower quarter of the general
school population that is streamed in the fifth grade of elementary school
and never gets exposed to any algebra in secondary school (Lodholz, 1990).
For the first group, the procedures covered in Lessons 1 and 2 could provide
an intermediary step that might facilitate the introduction of a traditional
course. For the second group, even if they learned only the two procedures
covered in the first two lessons, at least they would get some idea of what
algebra is about.
The second pedagogical implication involves the students' preparation

for a course in algebra. Although we cannot generalize on the basis of
six case studies, we have nevertheless identified three cognitive obstacles
in our investigation: detachment of a term from the indicated operation,
jumping off from a term with the posterior operation, and students' inabil-
ity to select the appropriate operation for the partial sum in an equation
(Linchevski and Herscovics, 1994). The frequency of these obstacles in a
larger population needs to be investigated, and we are doing so in another
study. But such obstacles can be overcome by appropriate preparation in
arithmetic in the upper grades of elementary school. Thus our research
suggests some important additions to the curriculum.
A third pedagogical implication of our research involves the timing
and cognitive value of pedagogical intervention. We did not introduce
decomposition and cancellation for the solution of equations with a single
occurrence of the unknown. All that this would have achieved would
be to justify their more efficient method of using inverse operations in
reverse order. Although our decompose-and-cancel procedure was of a
more general nature, the students would not have appreciated it in this
setting since they could handle this type of equation without any difficulty.
We also did not introduce decomposition and cancellation for the solution
of equations with a double occurrence of the unknown until the students
had found their process of substitution lengthy and tedious (even though
they were provided with a calculator). We waited until most of them had
expressed their impatience by saying "There must be another way" and
were clearly aware of the limitation of their methods. It can be argued that
the long process of handling equations with numerical methods played a
crucial role in their readiness.
Another element contributing to our success is in the natural pathways
we discovered in our students' thinking. In our initial assessment study,
we observed that students could not spontaneously operate with or on
the unknown and hence did not group terms involving multiples of the
unknown. However, when dealing with the sum of singletons (e.g. n + n =
76), a majority of our subjects spontaneously grouped them mentally and
divided 76 by 2 (Herscovics and Linchevski, 1994). We made use of this
natural tendency to link multiples of the unknown to sums of singletons. It
was but a small step to move from grouping multiples in the unknown to
decomposing of a term into a sum. In effect, we found a way to guide the
students in the construction of new mathematical skills by relating these
skills to their existing knowledge.
The cognitive value of our pedagogical interventions is limited, since
they involve a restricted class of equations. Ever since the advent of the
'new math', the tendency in mathematical instruction has been to intro-

duce new concepts and procedures at a general level. Certainly there are
advantages to such an approach from an aesthetic perspective, which also
favors a more unified view of fundamental concepts. There is no doubt that
it succeeds with some students. However, the more generalized the concept
or procedure, the more abstract it becomes. For perhaps a majority of the
school population, its very abstractness results in a failure to connect with
the students' existing knowledge and creates cognitive gaps which can be
difficult to overcome. For these students, a more incremental approach is
necessary. In the case of their introduction to algebra, it is only when they
achieve a more general perspective on equations, solutions, and solution
procedures that they can appreciate the value of a more general solution
process. Whenever such a generalized process is introduced too early, or
for the solution of a class of equations they can already handle efficiently
with more primitive procedures, the students will either reject it or simply
fail to use it.
NOTES
1. This research was funded by the Quebec Ministry of Education (Founds FCAR 92-ER-
1032).
2. The authors wish to thank Patricia Lytle for her many helpful suggestions in the prepa-
ration of this paper.
REFERENCES
Bher, M. J., Lesh, R., Post, T. R. and Silver, E. A.: 1983, 'Rational number concepts', in
Lesh, R. and Landau, M. (eds.), Acquisition of Mathematical Concepts and Processes,
Academic Press, New York, pp. 92-128.
Bell, A.: 1988, 'Algebra-choices in curriculum design', in Borbas, A. (ed.), Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1,
147-153.
Bell, A., Malone, J. A. and Taylor, P. C.: 1987, Algebra - an Exploratory Teaching Exper-
iment, Nottingham, England: Shell Center for Mathematics Education.
Booth, L. R.: 1988, 'Children's difficulties in beginning algebra', in The Ideas of Algebra,
K-12, 1988 NCTM Yearbook, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston,
Virginia, pp. 20-32.
Boyer, C. B./ Merzbach, V. C.: 1991, A History of Mathematics, 2nd edition, revised by
Merzbach, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 228-9.
Bruner, J.: 1967, The Process of Education, New York: Random House.
Carpenter, T. P., Corbin, M. K., Kepner, H. S., Montgomery Lindquist, M. and Reys, R.
E.: 1981, Results from the Second Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment
of Educational Progress, NCTM: Reston, Virginia.
Cauzinille, E., Mathieu, J. and Resnick, B.: 1984, 'Children's Understanding of Algebraic
and Arithmetic Expressions', paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La.
Chaiklin, S. and Lesgold, S.: 1984, 'Pre-Algebra Students' Knowledge of Algebraic Tasks
with Arithmetic Expressions', paper presented at the annual meeting of the Americ
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La.
Chalouh, L. and Herscovics, N.: 1988, 'Teaching algebraic expressions in a meaningful
way', in The Ideas ofAlgebra, K-12, 1988 NCTM Yearbook, National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics: Reston, Virginia, pp. 33-42.
Chalouh, L. and Herscovics, N.: 1984, 'From letter representing a hidden quantity to letter
representing an unknown quantity', in Moser, J. M. (ed.), Proceedings PME-NA VI,
Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 71-76.
Collis, K.F.: 1975, The Development of Formal Reasoning, Report of a Social Science
Research Council sponsored project (HR2434/1) carried out at the University of Not-
tingham, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Collis, K.F.: 1974, 'Cognitive Development & Mathematics Learning', paper prepared for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education Workshop, published at the Shell Mathematics
Unit Center for Science Education, Chelsea College, University of London, UK.
Cooney, T. J.: 1985, 'A beginning teacher's view of problem solving', Journalfor Research
in Mathematics Education 16, 324-336.
Davis, R.B.: 1985, 'Algebraic thinking in the early grades', Journal of Mathematical
Behavior 2, 310-320.
Davis, R.B.: 1975, 'Cognitive processes involved in solving simple algebraic equations',
Journal of Children's Mathematical Behavior 1, (3), 7-35.
Demana, F. and Leitzel, J.: 1988, in The Ideas of Algebra, K-12, 1988 NCTM Yearbook,
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, Virginia, pp. 61-69.
Filloy, E. and Rojano, T.: 1989, 'Solving equations: the transition from arithmetic to
algebra', For the Learning of Mathematics 9, (2), 19-25.
Filloy, E. and Rojano, T.: 1985a, 'Obstructions to the acquisition of elemental algebraic
concepts and teaching strategies', in Streefland, L. (ed.), Proceedings of PME-9, OW &
OC, State University of Utrecht: The Netherlands, pp. 154-158.
Filloy, E. and Rojano, T.: 1985b, 'Operating the unknown and models of teaching', in
Damarin, S. and Shelton, M. (eds.), Proceedings of PME- NA-7, Columbus, Ohio, pp.
75-79.
Filloy, E. and Rojano, T.: 1984, 'From an arithmetical to an algebraic thought', in Moser,
J. M. (ed.), Proceedings of PME-NA-6, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 51-56.
Greeno, J.: 1982, 'A Cognitive Learning Analysis of Algebra', paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Harper, E.: 1987, 'Ghosts of Diophantus', Educational Studies in Mathematics 18, 75-90.
Herscovics, N.: 1989, 'Cognitive obstacles encountered in the learning of algebra', in
Wagner, S. and Kieran, C. (eds.), Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of
Algebra, Reston, Virginia: NCTM, and Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, pp. 60-68.
Herscovics, N. and Kieran, C.: 1980, 'Constructing meaning for the concept of equation',
The Mathematics Teacher 73, (8), 572-580.
Herscovics, N. and Linchevski, L.: 1994, 'The cognitive gap between arithmetic and
algebra', Educational Studies in Mathematics 27, (1), 59-78.
Herscovics, N. and Linchevski, L.: 1992, 'Cancellation within-the-equation as a solution
procedure', in Geeslin, W. and Graham, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the XVI PME Confer-
ence, University of New Hampshire, Durham, 1, pp. 265-272.
CROSSING THE COGNMVE GAP 65
Kieran, C.: 1992, 'The learning and teaching of school algebra', in Grouws, D. A. (ed.),
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Macmillan Publishing
Company, New York, pp. 390-419.
Kuchemann, D.: 1981, Children's Understanding of Mathematics: 11-16, London: John
Murray, pp. 102-119.
Kuchemann, D.: 1978, 'Children's understanding of numerical variables', Mathematics in
School 7, (4), 23-26.
Linchevski, L. and Sfard, A.: 1991, 'Rules without reasons as processes without objects -
the case of equations and inequalities', in Furinghetti, F. (ed.), Proceedings of PME XV,
Assisi, Italy, pp. 317-325.
Lodholz, R.: 1990, 'The transition from arithmetic to algebra', in Edwards, E. L. Jr. (ed.),
Algebra for Everyone, NCTM: Reston, Virginia, pp. 24-33.
Menchinskaya, N. A.: 1969, 'The psychology of mastering concepts: Fundamental prob-
lems and methods of research', in Kilpatrick, J. and Wirszup, I. (eds.), Soviet Studies in
the Psychology of Learning and Teaching Mathematics, V1, SMSG, Stanford, pp. 75-92.
Peck, D. M. and Jencks, S. M.: 1988, 'Reality, arithmetic, algebra', Journal ofMathematical
Behavior 7, 85-91.
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. and Linchevski, L.: 1994, 'The gains and pitfalls of reification: The case of
algebra', Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, 191-228.
Steinberg, R. M., Sleeman, D. H. and Ktorza, D.: 1991, 'Algebra students' knowledge
of equivalence of equations', Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22, (2),
112-121.
Streeter, J. and Hutchison, D.: 1989, Intermediate Algebra, McGraw-Hill, New York, p.
75.
Usiskin, Z.: 1988, 'Children's difficulties in beginning algebra', in The Ideas of Algebra,
K-12, 1988 NCTM Yearbook, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston,
Virginia, pp. 8-20.
Yerusalmy, M.: 1988, Effects of Graphic Feedback on the Ability to Transform Algebraic
Expressions when Using Computers, The University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
School of Education,
Hebrew University,
Mount Scopus,
Jerusalem, Israel.
Department of Mathematics and Statistics,

Concordia University,
Montreal, Canada.

Crossing The Cognitive Gap Between Arithmetic and Algebra Operating On The Unknown in The Context of Equations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crossing The Cognitive Gap Between Arithmetic and Algebra Operating On The Unknown in The Context of Equations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crossing the Cognitive Gap between Arithmetic and Algebra: Operating on the Unknown

in the Context of Equations

CROSSING THE COGNMTIVE GAP BETWEEN ARITIMETIC AND

Educational Studies in Mathematics 30: 39-65, 1996.

1. THE COGNITIVE GAP

Our first preliminary assessment, reported in Herscovics and L

both the range of first-degree equations in one unknown that seventh-

2. ALGEBRAIC EXPRESSIONS AS A FRAMEWORK

that the sequence of presentation should be in the order: variable; algebraic

meaningful than its substitution in an algebraic expression because it is

3. ALGEBRAIC EQUATIONS AS A FRAMEWORK

mentally group singletons in equations in order to e

gated the cognitive potential of "Decomposition of terms and cancellation

4. THE TEACHING EXPERIMENT

We prepared a sequence consisting of a pre-test (one session), three lessons

4.1. The Pre-Test

4.1.1. Spontaneous Solution Procedures

Equations used in pre-test.

1) 13n +196 = 391 2) 16n -215 = 265 3) 12n-156 = O

4) 1 ln + 14n = 175 5) 17n -13n = 32

Each equation was presented on a worksheet,

4.2.1. Grouping of Numerical Terms

ical terms spontaneously in six of these equations, we decided that this

4.2.2. Naming Specific Procedures

4.2.3. Grouping Terms Involving the Unknown

n+n+n + n+n+n+n+n = 136

Fig. 1. Multiples as a sum of singletons.

Equations and solution procedures used in grouping multiples.

1) 4n+3n= 119 2) 13n+18n=217 3) 5n+n= 192

4) 9n-3n = 174 5) 23n-14n = 135 6) 7n-n = 174

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

Si Exp+G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I G+I F*

Following this short introduction, the students were asked to solve

4.2.4. Grouping Terms in the Unknown in the Presence of One

17n + 12n = 29n

17n + 12n + 36 = 210 = 29n + 36 = 210.

4.2.5. Grouping Like Terms

(2) 17n+36+ 8n+ 51 = 262

(3) 102 = 22n- 17n + 49- 12

(4) 19n+67-1ln-48 = 131.

Equation 2 was immediately solved by all the students

67 - 48 = 131. This was sufficient to allow the students to generate the

The second lesson dealt with decomposition and cancellation of addi

4.3.1. Preliminary Considerations

Fig. 2. The balance model.

Moreover, those restrictions lead to major cognitive difficulties for student

Sn+ 1 _1 =5n+50 8X iI+ 11 =x +50

Fig. 3. The numerical equation.

4.3.2. Cancellation of Identical Numerical Terms

Summary of solution procedure.

8n1+X = 5n+X +39

8n+>4 = 5n+X +39

and agreed to call it "canceling 11 on both sides" or "canceling

4.3.3. Canceling Terms in the Unknown

4.3.4. Practice with the New Procedure

(1) 19n= 13n+72 (2) 57+8n=6n+71

(3) 12n + 30 = 13n + 19 (4) 6n+23=n+88

(5) 71 + 12n+38 = 13n+67+5n.

A2 and Al spontaneously expanded the procedure to double decomposition

Lesson 3 dealt with decomposition into a difference and cancellation of

4.4.1. Restrictions on the Type of Equation

4.4.2. Decomposition into a Difference

to the scale model of an equation, by using the image of weight, and