Search

Understanding how young learners come to construct viable mathematical arguments about general claims is a critical objective in early algebra research. The qualitative study reported here characterizes empirically developed progressions in Grades K–1 students' thinking about parity arguments for sums of evens and odds, as well as underlying concepts of pair and parity of a number. Data are drawn from classroom lessons of a Grades K–1 early algebra instructional sequence, as well as task-based interviews conducted at four timepoints during the implementation of the sequence. While most students at the beginning of the study (Grade K) did not know the concepts of even or odd and could not make any viable arguments regarding parity, by the end of Grade 1 students were largely constructing representation-based arguments to justify number parity and claims about sums of evens and odds. Results of this study align with other research that shows young learners can develop viable arguments to justify mathematical generalizations. Results also provide preliminary evidence that the instructional sequence used here can foster students' practice of argumentation from the start of formal schooling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]