Search

This paper focuses on the importance of covariational reasoning within the processes of mathematics teaching and learning. Despite the internationally recognized relevance of covariation, research shows that only a small percentage of students and teachers is able to adopt covariational reasoning and the majority of mathematics curricula do not contain explicit references to covariational skills. In particular, when covariational reasoning manifests as conceptual knowledge, it becomes challenging to assess, and the need for innovative methods of assessment emerges; there is a need for suitable assessment to highlight the characteristics of covariation and capture the various features that characterize conceptual understanding. Comparative judgement (CJ) is an innovative assessment method based on collective expert judgements of students' work rather than requiring scoring rubrics. Due to its holistic approach, CJ is particularly suitable for assessing complex mathematical competencies, and, as we shall see in this study, it proved to be appropriate for the covariation's assessment. In details, our study aims to investigate the perception and relevance attributed by mathematics teachers to covariation as a theoretical construct and the way CJ can help in the assessment of covariational reasoning skills underlying a less structured modelling task. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although there is much research exploring students' covariational reasoning, there is less research exploring the ways students can leverage such reasoning to coordinate more than two quantities. In this paper, we describe a system of covariational relationships as a comprehensive image of how two varying quantities, having the same attribute across different objects, each covary with respect to a third quantity and in relation to each other. We first describe relevant theoretical constructs, including reasoning covariationally to construct relationships between quantities and reasoning covariationally to compare quantities. We then present a conceptual analysis entailing three interrelated activities we conjectured could support students in reasoning covariationally to conceive of a system of covariational relationships and represent the system graphically. We provide results from two teaching experiments with four middle school students engaging in tasks designed with our conceptual analysis in mind. We highlight two different ways students reasoned covariationally compatible with our conceptual analysis. We discuss the implications of our results and provide areas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several studies have shown that children do not only erroneously use additive reasoning in proportional word problems, but also erroneously use proportional reasoning in additive word problems. Traditionally, these errors were contributed to a lack of calculation and discrimination skills. Recent research evidence puts forward an additional explanation, namely, children's relational preference (i.e., in tasks where both, additive and multiplicative reasoning, are appropriate, some children have a preference for additive relations, while others have a preference for multiplicative relations). Children's relational preference offers a unique explanation for erroneous word-problem solving, after taking into account computation and discrimination skills in 8- to 12-year-olds. However, it is still unclear whether relational preference is also associated with word-problem solving at an earlier age, before the start of formal instruction in word-problem solving. A task measuring children's relational preference as well as three additive and three proportional word problems was administered to a large group (n = 343) of 6- to 7-year-olds. Results show that relational preference is also associated with word-problem solving behavior at this young age: an additive preference is related with better performance on additive word problems but also with more erroneous additive reasoning in proportional word problems. Similarly, a multiplicative preference is related with better performance on proportional word problems but not yet with more erroneous proportional reasoning in additive word problems. The latter is possibly due to the low number of proportional errors that were made in the additive word problems at this young age. The implications of these findings for further research and educational practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In any procedural mathematical situation, there are multiple ways of achieving the same answer. Given this observation, we ask, why choose one procedural solution over another? We address this question here with data drawn from interviews conducted with university students engaged in row-reducing matrices. During their tasks, the students voiced a variety of justifications for the procedural steps they enacted. Through a phenomenographical analysis (Marton, Instructional Science, 10, 177–200, 1981) of their utterances, we construct a framework for justifications for choices made within procedures with two broad categories, algorithmic and anticipatory. By comparison, this is similar to the creative/imitative reasoning framework of Lithner (Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 255–276, 2008), a framework primarily emerging from less procedural settings. We suggest that, given this richness in justifications brought forth by a procedural setting, when used effectively, instruction in mathematical procedures has the potential to contribute to deeper, more flexible forms of mathematical knowledge overall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]