The structural and operational complementarity: Grade nine learners’ pitfalls and gains of simplifying algebraic expressions

Zwelithini Bongani Dhlamini

doi:10.29333/ejmste/13653

Full Text (PDF)

Zwelithini Bongani Dhlamini ¹ ^*

More Detail

¹ Department of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, University of Limpopo, Limpopo, SOUTH AFRICA^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study focused on the investigation of the structural and operational complementarity in the simplification of algebraic expressions. The dual nature of mathematical conceptions is the theoretical framework that underpin this study. Qualitative content analysis was employed as a method and research design to investigate the complementarity between the operational and structural learners’ conceptions of the simplification. The findings revealed that learners’ undeveloped and fragmented structures of algebra caused the inability to simplify expressions. Ironically, for the very few learners who managed to simplify expressions, used skills and knowledge of the previous grade. Irrespective of this, the complementarity of learners’ conceptions of systems and components is undoubtfully key to their success during the simplification of expressions. This study recommends teaching and learning of algebra should address the complementarity of the operational and structural notions.

Keywords

indeterminate
object
operational
structural

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 19, Issue 10, October 2023, Article No: em2344

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13653

Publication date: 01 Oct 2023

Online publication date: 07 Sep 2023

Article Views: 731

Article Downloads: 662

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

AL-Rababaha, Y, Y., Yew, W. T., & Meng, C. C. (2020). Misconceptions in school algebra. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(5), 803-812. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i5/7250
Arzarello, F., Bazzini, L., & Chiappini, G. (2001). A model for analyzing algebraic processes of thinking. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on school algebra (pp. 61-81). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47223-6_4
Baidoo, J. (2019). Dealing with grade 10 learners’ misconceptions and errors when simplifying algebraic fractions. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 10(1), 47-55. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC-17aa794007
Baidoo, J., Adane, M., & Luneta, K. (2020). Solving algebraic fractions in high schools: An error analysis. Journal of Educational Studies, 19(2), 96-118.
Bansilal, S., & Ubah, I. (2020). The use of multiplication and other mal rules in fraction operations by pre-service teachers. Journal of mathematical Behavior, 58, 100781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100781
Booth, J. L., Newton, K. J., & Twiss-Garrity, L. K. (2014). The impact of fraction magnitude knowledge on algebra performance and learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 118, 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.09.001
Booth, L. R. (1988). Children’s difficulties in the beginning algebra. In A. F. Coxford (Ed.), The ideas of algebra, K-12, NCTM yearbook (pp. 20-32). NCTM.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra and algebraic reasoning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 669-705). Information Age Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_54
Carraher, D. W., Martinez, M. V., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra and mathematical generalization. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11858-007-0067-7
Chalouh, L., & Herscovics, N. (1988). Teaching algebraic expressions in a meaningful way. In A. F. Coxford (Ed.), The ideas of algebra, K-12, NCTM yearbook (pp. 33-42). NCTM.
Chimoni, M., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2017). Parsing the notion of algebraic thinking within a cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology, 37(10), 1186-1205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1347252
DBE. (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy statements grades 7-9. Department of Basic Education. http://www.education.gov.za
Dhlamini, Z. B. (2018). The effectiveness of annual national assessment in monitoring mathematics education standard in South Africa [PhD thesis, University of Limpopo].
Elo. S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1),107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Faramarzpoor, N., & Fadaee, M. R. (2020). The investigation of students’ mistakes in simplifying algebraic expressions and finding the source of these mistakes from the viewpoint of math teachers. Technology of Education Journal, 14(4), 959-970. https://doi.org/10.22061/TEJ.2020.5045.2158
Harwood, T. G., & Garry, T. (2003). An overview of content analysis. The Marketing Review, 3, 479-498. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934703771910080
Irwati, C. M. Z., & Ali, R. M. (2018). Cognitive conflict strategy to minimize students’ misconceptions on the topic of addition of algebraic expression. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1088, 012084. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012084
Jiang, M. J. Cooper, J. L., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Spatial factors influence arithmetic performance: The case of the minus sign. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(8), 1626-1642. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.898669
Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390-419). Macmillan.
Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 707-762). Information Age Publishing.
Linchevski, L., & Livneh, D. (1999). Structure sense: The relationship between algebraic and numerical contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40, 176-196. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003606308064
Mason, J. (1996). Expressing generality and roots of algebra. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra: Perspectives for research and teaching (pp. 65-86). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1732-3_5
Moodliar, J., & Abdulhamid, L. (2021). Novice and expert grade 9 teachers’ responses to unexpected learner offers in the teaching of algebra. Pythagoras, 42(1), a624. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v42i1.624
Ndemo, O., & Ndemo, Z. (2018). Secondary school students’ errors and misconceptions in learning algebra. Journal of Education and Learning, 12(4), 690-701. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v12i4.9556
Novotná, J., & Hoch, M. (2008). How structure sense for algebraic expressions or equations is related to structure sense for abstract algebra. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217479
Otte, M. (1990). Arithmetic and geometry: Some remarks on the concept of complementarity. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 10, 37-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00367686
Pournara, C. (2020). Grade 9 learners’ algebra performance: Comparisons across quintiles, insights from errors and curriculum implications. South African Journal of Science, 116(9/10), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2020/8125
Pournara, C., Hodgen, J., Sanders, Y., & Adler, J. (2016). Learners’ errors in secondary algebra: Insights from tracking a cohort from grade 9 to grade 11 on a diagnostic algebra test. Pythagoras, 37(1), a334. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v37i1.334
Scheiner, T. (2016). New light on old horizon: Constructing mathematical concepts, underlying abstraction processes, and sense making strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 91, 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9665-4
Schneider, T., & Pinto, M. F. (2019). Emerging perspectives in mathematical cognition: contextualizing, complementizing, and complexifying. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101, 357-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-9879-y
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE.
Seng, L. K. (2010). An error analysis of form 2 (grade7) students in simplifying algebraic expressions: A descriptive study. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(1), 139-162. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v8i20.1398
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), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302715
Sfard, A. (1995). The development of algebra: confronting historical and psychological perspectives. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 15-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-3123(95)90022-5
Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1995). The gains and the pitfalls of reification: A case of algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01273663
Thompson, P. W., & Sfard, A. (1994). Problems of reification: Representations and mathematical objects. In D. Kirshner (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1-32).
Tirosh, D., Even, R., & Robinson, N. (1998). Simplifying algebraic expressions: Teacher awareness and teaching approaches. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 51-64. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003011913153
van Oers, B. (1998). From context to contextualizing. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 473-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00031-0
Vithal, R. (2008). Complementarity, mathematics and context. Journal of Education, 45, 43-64.
Warren, E. (2003). The role of arithmetic structure in the transition from arithmetic to algebra. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15, 122-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217374
Zeljić, M. (2015). Modelling the relationships between quantities: Meaning in literal expressions. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(2), 431-442. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1362a
Zulfa, B. I., Suryadi, D., Fatimah, S & Jupri, A. (2020). Student’s mistake in algebraic fraction: An analysis using AVAE categories. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521, 032029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/3/032029

How to cite this article

APA

Dhlamini, Z. B. (2023). The structural and operational complementarity: Grade nine learners’ pitfalls and gains of simplifying algebraic expressions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(10), em2344. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13653

Vancouver

Dhlamini ZB. The structural and operational complementarity: Grade nine learners’ pitfalls and gains of simplifying algebraic expressions. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(10):em2344. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13653

AMA

Dhlamini ZB. The structural and operational complementarity: Grade nine learners’ pitfalls and gains of simplifying algebraic expressions. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(10), em2344. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13653

Chicago

Dhlamini, Zwelithini Bongani. "The structural and operational complementarity: Grade nine learners’ pitfalls and gains of simplifying algebraic expressions". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2023 19 no. 10 (2023): em2344. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13653

Harvard

Dhlamini, Z. B. (2023). The structural and operational complementarity: Grade nine learners’ pitfalls and gains of simplifying algebraic expressions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(10), em2344. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13653

MLA

Dhlamini, Zwelithini Bongani "The structural and operational complementarity: Grade nine learners’ pitfalls and gains of simplifying algebraic expressions". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 19, no. 10, 2023, em2344. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13653