TAXONOMY FOR ASSESSING

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING INALGEBRA

USING MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS
REGINA M. PANASUK

Mathematics Education
University of MassachusettsLowell
Algebra students may often demonstrate a certain degree of proficiency when manipulating algebraic expressions and
verbalizing their behaviors. Do these abilities imply conceptual
understanding? What is a reliable indicator that would provide
educators with a relatively trustworthy and consistent measure to
identify whether students learn algebraic concepts beyond procedures? The article introduces taxonomy for assessing middle
school algebra students' levels of understanding of linear equations with one unknown. The taxonomy is rooted in ideas related
to the degree of abstraction and reducing level of abstraction,
theory of operational and structural conception, and the concept
of representation in mathematics education.

Introduction

The concept of unknown and operations with unknowns are central to teaching
and learning middle school algebra. Students often reveal a certain degree of
proficiency manipulating algebraic symbols, and when encouraged, can verbalize
and explain the steps they perform, thereby demonstrating awareness of procedures
according to fixed rules. It is well documented however that correct and seemingly
fluent demonstration of a procedure does
not necessarily indicate conceptual understanding (Herscovics, 1996; Herscovics &
Linchevski, 1994; Kieran, 1992; Kieran &
Chalouh, 1993; Langrall & Swafford,
1997).
To objectively analyze and assess students' thinking and behaviours, and make
219

informed decisions about learning algebraic concepts beyond procedures,

educators need reliable indicators to refer
to, and simple, yet structured language to
communicate. This paper describes a segment of a large scale longitudinal study on
representations in algebra and suggests the
taxonomy for assessing conceptual understanding of linear relationship with one
unknown.
Three key ideas serve as the foundation of this research study: a) the role of
multiple representations in probing understanding of mathematics learning, with a
particular focus on the interpretation,
connection and translation among representations of the structurally same
relationship, b) the idea of adaptation to
abstraction and the development of con-

220 / College Student Journal

ceptual understanding as a process of

growth of the degree of abstraction, and
c) the idea of reducing the level of abstraction as a mental process of coping with
abstractionlevel of a given concept or task.
These ideas guided the researcher's observations, analysis, and formulation of the
taxonomy.
Foundation
This section briefly outlines major theoretical positions and research that
pertained to and served as a background for
this research study.
Algebraic reasoningand conceptual
understandingin algebra

Algebraic reasoning has been described

as a process of generalizing a pattern and
modeling problems with various representations (Driscoll, 1999; Herbert &
Brown, 1997). Langrall and Swafford
(1997) defined algebraic reasoning as the
"ability to operate on an unknown quantity as if the quantity is known" (p. 2).
Understanding in general and in mathematics in particular is a logical power
manifested by abstract thought. Conceptual
understanding in algebra is demonstrated
by the ability to recognize functional relationships between known and unk-nown,
independent and dependent variables,and
to discern between and interpret different
representations of the algebraic concepts.
It is exemplified by competency in reading, writing, and manipulating both number
symbols and algebraic symbols used in
formulas, expressions, equations, and
inequalities. Fluency in the language of
algebra demonstrated by confident use of
its vocabulary and meanings as well as

flexible operation upon its grammar rules

(i.e. mathematical properties and conventions) are also indicative of conceptual
understanding in algebra.
Representations
Symbol systems and representations are
essential to mathematics as a discipline
since mathematics is "inherently representational in its intentions and methods"
(Kaput, 1989, p. 169). Goldin and Shteingold (2001) suggested to distinguishing
internal and external systems of representation (p. 2).
Internal representations are usually
associated with mental images people create in their minds. Pape and Tchoshanov
(2001) described mathematics representation as an internal abstraction of
mathematical ideas or cognitive schemata, that according to Hiebert and Carpenter
(1992) the learner constructs to establish
internal mental network or representational
system. Thus, internal representation and
abstraction are closely related mental constructs.
According to Goldin and Shteingold
(2001), an external representation "is typically a sign or a configuration or signs,
characters, or objects" and that external
representation can symbolize "something
other than itself' (p. 3). Most of the external representations in mathematics (e.g.,
signs of operations, symbols, or composition of signs and symbols used to represent
certain relationships) are conventional;
they are objectively determined, defined
and accepted (p. 4).
Many researchers (e.g., Boulton-Lewis
&Tait, 1993; Diezmann, 1999; Diezmann
& English, 2001; Outhred & Saradelich,

Taxonomy for Assessing... / 221

1997;Verschaffel, 1994; Swafford & Langrall, 2000) agree that in mathematics
education the term representation refers to
the construction, abstraction and demonstration of mathematical knowledge, as
well as illustration of problem solving situations. Mathematical relationships,
principles, and ideas can be expressed in
multiple structurally equivalent representations including visual representations
(i.e., diagrams), verbal representations
(written and spoken language) and symbolic representations (numbers, letters).
The abilities to recognize, create, interpret,
make connections and translate among representations are powerful communication
tools for mathematical thinking. Each representational system contributes to
effective communication of mathematical
ideas by offering a certain type of language
to express mathematical ideas in a precise
and coherent way, thus providing multiple sources and avenues to develop
conceptual understanding of mathematics.
Dreyfus and Eisenberg (1996) suggested
that a fluent and flexible use of multiple
representations of "structurally the same"
(p. 268) mathematical concept is likely to
be associated with deep conceptual understanding.
The research focused on students' generated representation and subsequent
impact of these representations on learning mathematical concepts suggests that
when students generate representations of
a concept or while solving problems (as a
means of mathematical communication)
they natural tend to reduce the level of
abstraction (given by the concept/problem)
to a level that is compatible with their cog-

nitive structure (Hazzan, 1999; Hazzan &

Zaskis, 2005; Pape & Tochanov, 2001).
Similarly, Wilensky (1991) asserted that it
is expected that students would make the
unfamiliar more familiar, and the abstract
more concrete. He argued that students try
to 'concretize' the concepts they learn to
"come to the concept as close as possible"
(p. 196). The process of 'concretizing' can
be associated with the construction of an
internal representation and can involve the
process of reducing the level of abstraction.
Therefore, it seems logical to view representations and reducing abstraction as
closely related ideas.
Abstraction
Abstraction as a mental action separates a property or a characteristic of an
object from the object to which it belongs
or is linked to and forms a cognitive image
or a concept (an abstraction) of the object.
Thus, abstraction can be understood as a
mental process that promotes the basis of
thoughts that allow one to reason.
The concept of abstraction in the field
of mathematics education research has
been examined from different perspectives
(Ferrari, 2003; Frorer et al., 1997; Gray &
Tall, 2007; Heibert & Lefevre, 1986; Ohlsson & Lehtinen, 1997; Skemp, 1986; Tall,
1991). Hazzan and Zazkis (2005) assert
that certain types of concepts are more
abstract than others, and that the ability to
abstract is an important skill for a meaningful learning of mathematics.
Mathematics students are continuously
involved in the process of abstraction
because they are engaged in transformation
of their perceptions into mental images by

222 / College Student Journal

Tablel. Transitionfrom concrete to absotact

Ann and Tom together have $6. Tom has twice amount of money tha n
Ann. How much money has each?
Symbol

Diagram

Verbal representation

The amount of money Ann has

unknown
The amount of money Tom has
unknown

unknown

2x

or

2 unknown
Total amount of money

x + 2x=3x

unknown unknown - unknown

or 3 unknown

x -i- 2x = 6

$6

This representation shows that the

3x = 6

total is $6
3 unknown = $6
unknown = $2 or Ann has $2

2unknown = $4 or Tom has $4

means of different representations. Essential to this research are the notion of the
degree of abstraction (Cifarelli, 1988;
Heibert & Lefevre, 1986; Skemp, 1986;
Wilensky, 1991), the notion of adaptation
to abstraction (Piaget, 1970; Von Glaserfeld, 1991), and the notion of reducing
level of abstraction (Hazzan, 1999; Hazzan & Zaskis, 2005).
Cifarelli (1988) suggests the levels of
reflective abstraction that include recognition, representation, structural
abstraction, and structural awareness. At
the highest level (i.e., structural awareness) the student is able to grasp the
structure of the problem and to represent
solution methods without resorting to lower
levels of abstraction.
If the degree of abstraction is a factor
of conceptual understanding, then the idea
of adaptation to abstraction becomes crit-

$2

$4

x = 2

2x = 4

ical, and the process of building mathematics conceptual understanding can be

viewed as a transition between the levels
of abstraction from lower to higher. Thus
the growth in conceptual understanding is
manifested by the increased ability to "cope
with" (Hazzan, 1991; Hazzan & Zaskis,
2005) a higher degree of abstraction.
The following example uses the idea of
the levels of abstraction as a metaphor to
describe the process of developing conceptual understanding in algebra. Assume
that operating on 'number words' which
represent certain quantities of real objects
is a first level of abstraction (linguistic
abstraction). Then, operating with 'number symbols' can be thought as the second
level of abstraction, and operating on letters that stand for 'number symbols' can be
viewed as the third level of abstraction
(algebraic abstraction). Thus, one can assert

Taxonomy for Assessing... / 223

that abstraction in mathematics is an activity of integrating pieces of information

(facts) of previously constructed mathematics knowledge and reorganizing them
into a new mathematics structure. The
Table 1 shows the transition from concrete
(number system, pictorial aids) to abstract
(algebraic symbols).
It is important to recognize that a line
segment image of a number and/or
unknown, as any external representation,
provides limited information, and "stresses some aspects and hide others" (Dreyfus
& Eisenberg, 1996, p. 268). Yet, this representation might be sufficient to
supplement and enhance the process of
building the concept of operations with
unknowns.
To describe learners' behaviors in terms
of coping with levels of abstraction, Hazzan (1999) introduced and Hazzan and
Zazkis (2005) elaborated on a theoretical
framework of reducing level of abstraction. The framework addresses the
situations in which students are unable to
deal with the concepts at the level they are
presented with and therefore, the students
reduce the level of abstraction to make
these concepts mentally accessible (p.102).
It seems plausible to assume that every
algebra student goes through the process
of familiarization with and adaptation to
different levels of abstraction at a different rate. Wilensky (1991) suggested that the
higher the rate of adaptation to abstraction
the less the need for reducing the level of
abstraction. In this sense, the process of
adaptation to abstraction involves certain
behavior manifested in coping with level
of abstraction. In other words, when stu-

dents are unable to manipulate with the

level of abstraction (words, numbers, symbols) presented in a given problem, they
consciously or unconsciously reduce the
level of abstraction of the concepts
involved to make these concepts within
the reach of their actual mental stage of
development (Vygotsky, 1985, pp.84-86).
The above overview of the ideas and
assumptions about representations, abstraction and conceptual understanding
provided the basis for developing the study
that offered another perspective on the
process of assessing algebra students' conceptual understanding of linear relationship
with one unknown.
Method
A multi-year mixed method research
study was launched to explore the levels
of middle school students' understanding
of linear relationship with one unknown.
The research inquiries have been addressed
through analysis of the survey and observation of students' thinking process while
solving problems and explaining their solutions during the interviews.
Instrument

The survey, designed by the researcher

(Panasuk, 2006), consisted of several interrelated parts, four of which are described
in this paper. Part I contained 12 items with
five optional Likert scale response choices (always, often, sometimes, rarely,
never), which were clustered around students' preferred mode of representation
(verbal, pictorial, symbolic). Part II statements had three choices and asked the
students to select the response that most

224 / College Student Journal

W.D.
The sum of two numbers is 28. One
number is 10. What is the other
number9

Find the length of the segment Y'

ifthe total length is 28

S.
Solve forx
x +10 =28

Ix

.10-

28
Figure1. Survey, Part IH, fragment

closely reflects their current learning prac- tionships presented in visual form via diatices and most preferable/less preferable grams similar to problem (b) on the Figure
mode of thinking (words, diagram, num- 1. Set S contained three linear equations
bers/symbols) when solving linear with one unknown represented in symbols,
similar to the problem (c) on the Figure 1.
equations with one unknown.
Part III illustrated "structurally the The problems in each set had their counsame" (Dreyfus & Eisenberg, 1996, p. 268) terparts in other sets presented in different
linear relationship with one unknown modalities.For each part of the survey and
posed in three different representations: as for each Problem Set (W, D, and S) coda word problem, as a diagram where the ing systems were created.
unknown quantity was presented as a line
segment, and as an algebraic equation (see Process
During the period of four consecutive
Figure 1).
The students were not asked to solve years four tiers of data were collected from
the problems, but rather to observe and 11 schools in four suburban and two large
explain in writing if they recognize struc- underperforming urban districts with
turally the same relationship (i.e., the sum diverse populations of students. The
of 10 and unknown number is 28) pre- schools were not randomly selected but
were approached by the researcher with a
sented in three different modes.
Part IV had three sets of problems: Set request for participation in the study. All
W (words), Set D (diagrams) and Set S the participating schools used the same
(symbols). Each set consisted of three prob- mathematics curriculum, which claimed
of
lems that involved linear relationships with facilitation of reasoning skills and use
schools
The
one unknown to be solved using one-two- multiple representations.
and administered the survey to all 7th and 8th
addition/subtraction
step
multiplication/division. The students were algebra students (Ntotal = 753). Each of
asked to solve each problem. Set W had the four tiers of surveys was analyzed and
three word problems that could be modeled compared to describe students' ability to
by means of linear equations with one recognize structurally the same linear
unknown. Set D posed three linear rela- relationship presented in different repre-

Taxonomy for Assessing... / 225

sentational modalities and the ability to
solve problems posed in words, diagrams
and symbols. The analysis prompted the
researcher to organize all surveys in three
distinct groups to form three major categories, which in turn induced generation of
a hypothesis about the indicator of student
conceptual understanding of linear relationship with one unknown. The
categorization of the surveys guided the
selection of the students (N=18) for the
interviews, six students from each group.
The interviews were centered around the
students' abilities to 'cope with' the level
of abstraction presented by the linear equations with one unknown and to recognized
the same relationship presented in three
different representational modes. The
researcher was also observing how the students i) extracted information from
situation and were able to represent the
information in different modes, ii) manipulated representations, and iv) interpreted
and tested the solutions of the linear equations with one unknown.
Results
Based on the analysis of the students'
abilities to solve linear equations with one
unknown (Part IV,Problem Sets) and their
abilities to recognize structurally the same
relationship presented in different modalities (Part III), the taxonomy for assessing
conceptual understanding in algebra using
multiple representations was formulated.
Phase O.A11 the students who formed
this category reported in Part I and Part II
of the survey that they preferred memorizing the rules and remembering the steps,
thinking 'in numbers', and needed to use

'trial and error' when solving problems.

They did not recognize that three different
problems (Part MI)representedstructurally the same relationship. Seventy-seven
percent of the students in this category
found the unknown number correctly for
the problems presented in words (Part IV,
Problem Set W), only about half (56%) of
these students found the unknown length
of the segment for the problems presented in a diagram (Problem Set D), and 86%
found correctly the unknown number in
the algebraic equation (Problem Set S).
Overwhelming number of this category
students used trial and error method to find
the solutions.
During the interview, these students
were asked to create an algebraic equation of the relationship stated in words ('the
sum of two numbers is 23, one of the numbers is 9, find the other number). They
either showed subtraction in a column format, or wrote the numerical equation 23 9 = 14. None of the students in this category produced a symbolic statement
beyond the level of numbers that would
describe the relationship where a letter
stands for unknown number (e.g., x + 9 =
23). These students apparently had difficulty operating with algebraic sentences
(equations) and preferred numerical instantiations (Kieran, 1992, p. 392).
Interestingly enough, the students in
this category either were having difficulty or were unable to solve the equations that
represented the same relationship in a pictorial mode. As a result, their lacking ability
and possibly not favorable attitude toward
pictorial representation created a barrier
for their meaningful learning (Kieran,

226 / College Student Journal

1992) and consequently development of

conceptual understanding. Further probing revealed great confusion with diagrams
when they were asked to interpret a given
diagram or to create their own. For example, when asked to draw a diagram that
would represent subtraction of 9 from 23,
some drew 23 objects (squares or circles),
then drew 9 more of the same objects, and
then said they would take away 9.
Summarizing the above, the persistent
need of trying the numbers (trial and error
method) when coping with problems
involving linear equations with one
unknown showed that the students made
an effort to reduce the level of algebraic
abstraction (letter symbol) to numerical
abstraction (number symbol). The dependency on the numbers was an indicator
that these algebra students still needed
instantiations to operate at the comfort
level that numbers provided to them. One
may hypothesize that for these students
the process of adaptation to the numerical
abstraction has achieved some endurance,
and that numbers have become their internal representation of the material objects.
However, an algebraic symbol (letter) that
stands for an unknown in a linear relationship was yet an external representation
that had not been internalized and integrated into the students' prior mental
structure, and thus it was rejected in favor
of the lower level of representation (number symbol) which had been a tool of their
mathematical communication mastered to
date (Javier, 1987; Lesh, et.al., 1987). It is
possible that they developed computational
skills to the degree of being able to reproduce and/or mimic the procedure.

However, their algebraic reasoning (as

defined by Driscoll, 1999; Herbert &
Brown, 1997: Langrall & Swafford, 1997)
had not been advanced to the level of
abstraction given by the symbolic representation of the concept. Therefore, it is
highly unlikely that these students achieved
conceptual understanding of the linear
equation with one unknown.
Phase 1. The students who formed this
category reported that they didn't need to
try the numbers when solving equations,
thus didn't need to reduce the level of
abstraction given by the problem. Eighty
six percent of the students in this category indicated that they could 'think in
symbols' and rather preferred symbols to
diagrams and word problems. The students
also reported that they preferred using the
steps when solving equations (82%), and
were able to memorize rules (93%). Sixty
eight percent reported that didn't need or
want to use diagrams when solving problems, however when presented with a
diagram that displayed a linear relationship with one unknown were able to find
the length of the unknown segment. Eighty
nine percent of the students in this category
solved all nine problems included in the
survey Part IV. Nevertheless, these students either did not recognize (indicated
'no' in the survey) that the three different
representations in Part III posed structurally
the same relationship, or left this part blank.
Some students in this group attempted to
describe their thinking, but did not produce clear written explanation in their
surveys, and when interviewed were not
able to verbally explain the connections
between the representations. When pro-

Taxonomy for Assessing... / 227

23

Figure2. Two segments form a line segment of 23 units. The length of one of the segments is 9
units. What is the length of the other segment?

vided with the diagram (see Fig. 2), they to manipulate symbols, verbalized and folcould find the length of the unknown seg- lowed the correct steps when solving linear
ment. However when asked to write an equations with one unknown, and showed
algebraicstatement that would describe certain degree of proficiency without
the relationship presented by the diagram, reducing the level of abstraction, were
they produced the same type of numerical likely to be in a process of developing constatement (e.g., 23 - 9 = 14) as the first ceptual understanding. It is also likely that
category of students.
they were in the path of blending the proThese students knew how to perform cedural and conceptual knowledge (Tall,
and explain the steps while solving linear 2008). They showed relatively fluent reproequations with one unknown, which was ductive skills (i.e., process skills) which
consistent with their survey responses in are prerequisite for the development of
Part I and Part 11. They found the correct conceptual understanding. However, these
numerical value for unknowns, and even students were missing one essential capasubstituted the values to the equations to bility. They were not able to make
verify the solutions. Yet, their behavior connections between different representacould have been described as a well tions (words, diagrams, symbols) that
rehearsed acting upon fixed rules (e.g., iso- posed structurally the same linear relalate the unknown, undo or use inverse tionship.
operation). Probing questions revealed that
It is important to stress that the
these students' actions were rather mechan- researcher does not claim that the Phase 0
ical than rooted in logic. These and Phase 1 are sequential and represent
observations support the theory that many a hierarchy. The students who were at the
middle school algebra students (particu- Phasel might not necessarily have gone
larly those who are in transition from through Phase 0.
pre-algebra to algebra) learn procedural
Phase 2. All the students in the third
skills before developing conceptual under- category recognized (answered "yes"; surstanding (Dubinsky, 1991; Dubinsky & vey Part III), and explained that the word
McDonald, 1991; Kieran, 1992; Sfard, problem, the diagram and the equation (see
1991, 1992).
Fig. 1) represented structurally the same
In summary, the students who were able linear relationship. They solved all nine

228 / College Student Journal

problems in Part IV correctly and revealed distinguishing levels of abstraction (e.g.,

understanding of meaning of solutions and Boulton-Lewis & Tait, 1993; Cifarelli,
the properties of the linear relationship. 1988; Diezmann, & English, 2001; HazWhen probed with questions, they showed zan, 1999,Hazzan &Zaskis, 2005; Hiebert
the ability to explain the full meaning of & Lefevre, 1986; Skemp, 1986).
Acknowledging the distinction between
the concept of unknown, its relationship
levels of abstraction in the process of
the
to the operations, and demonstrated the
ability to discern, infer and interpret dif- development of conceptual understanding,
ferent representations of the linear seems useful practical tool for mathematrelationship with one unknown.It was evi- ics educators. The indicators of a
dent that these students were able to conceptual understanding would be
manipulate different representations and demonstrated by the level of "structural
demonstrated flexible thinking of the prop- awareness" (Cifarelli, 1998), ability to
erties of the linear equations with one operate upon "object conception" (Sfard,
unknown (e.g., reflection, symmetry, 1991; Dubinsky, 1999) without necessity
equivalence). When asked to describe the to reduce the level of abstraction presentdiagrams similar to those shown on the ed by the problem (Hazzan, 1999; Hazzan
Figure 2 using algebraic symbols, they pro- & Zaskis, 2005).
duced algebraic equations (e.g., x + 9 =
Conclusion
23). When asked to draw diagrams that
The taxonomy provides teachers, eduwould represent equations (e.g., m + 13=
curriculum specialists, and other
cators,
38, 2n = 26, 3x + 2 + 4 = 27), they generated correct representations. According to interested parties with some organizationCifarelli (1988), these students operated al structure for them to be able to make a
at the higher level of reflective abstrac- relatively reliable judgment as to whether
the students are developing or have develtion, i.e., structural awareness.
Given the above, it is plausible to assert oped conceptual understanding of linear
that one of the most significant indicators equations with one unknown. The very fact
of conceptual understanding of linear rela- that a student recognizes that the contionship with one unknown is the ability cept/relationship can be presented in
to recognize structurally the same different modes might serve as an indicarelationship presented in different repre- tor that the student is advancing from
sentational modalities, provide an explicit procedural skills to structural or concepverbal explanation, and flexibly transit tual skills. Thus, the taxonomy helps to
ascertain whether students are building
from one representation to another.
Emerged from this research, the tax- conceptual understanding instead of effionomy (see Table 2) of the conceptual ciently repeating the process. It also might
understanding in algebra was developed. provide the teachers with insight into the
This taxonomy is in line with the theories level of each student's thinking process
that advocate multiple representations and and the student's way of operating with

Taxonomy for Assessing... / 229

:
I-.-

.C) 0

9'
CC)

>0

E-

44

230 / College Student Journal

abstractions inherent in algebra. Such information is essential to planning instruction

for naturally diverse population of students
with wide range of abilities, learning preferences and attitudes.
Of course, the cognitive processes of
abstraction and developing conceptual
understanding are much more complex
than taxonomy. Any schematization has
its natural limitations. As Raymond Nickerson (1986) noted, "Taxonomies are, at
best, convenient ways of organizing ideas
and should never be taken very seriously.
The world seldom is quite as simply divisible into neat compartments as our
penchant for partitioning it conceptually
would suggest" (p. 358). Nevertheless, it
is useful to organize ideas in classified
guidelines for communication purposes.
References
Boulton-Lewis, G. M. & Tait, K. (1993). Young
children's representations and strategies for
addition. In G. Booker (Ed.), Contexts in mathemnatics education.Brisbane: MIERGA.
Cifarelli, V. V. (1988). The role of abstraction as a
learning process in mathematical problem
solving. Doctoral dissertation. Purdue University, Indiana.
Diezmann, C. M. (1999). Assessing diagram quality: Making a difference to representation. In
J. M. Truran & K. M. Truran (Eds.). Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of
Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia(pp. 185-191), Adelaide: Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australasia.
Diezmaan, C. M. & English, L. D. (2001). Promoting the use of diagrams as tools for
thinking. In A. A. Cuoco (Ed.), 2001 National
Council of Teachers of MathematicsYearbook:
The role ofrepresentationin school mathenmatics (pp.77-89). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Dreyfus, T. & Eisenberg. T. (1996). On different

facets of mathematical thinking. In RJ. Stemberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of
mathematical thinking. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Driscoll, M (1999). Fostering algebraic thinking.
A guide for teachers grade 6-10. Portsmouth,
NH, Heinemann.
Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in
advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall
(Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking.
Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 95-123.
Dubinsky, E. & McDonald. M. (1991). APOS: A
Constructivist Theory of Learning in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Research.
New ICMI Study Series, Kluwer Academic
Press, 275-282.
Ferrari. P.L. (2003). Abstraction in mathematics.
The Royal Society.
http:llwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmclarticleslPM
Cl 693213/pdf/12903658.pdf
Frorer, P., Hazzan, 0. & Manes, M. (1997).
Revealing the faces of abstraction. The International Journal of Computers for
MathematicalLearnzing 2(3), 217-228.
Gray, E. & Tall, D. (2007). Abstraction as a
natural process of mental compression. Mathemnatics Education Research Journal 19 (2),
23-40.
Goldin, G. & Shteingold, N. (2001). System of
mathematical representations and development
of mathematical concepts. In F. R. Curcio
(Ed.), The roles of representation in school
mathematics: 20001 yearbook. Reston, VA:
NCTM.
Hazzan, 0. (1999). Reducing abstraction level
when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathemnatics 40(1), 71-90.
Hazan, 0. & Zaskis, R. (2005). Reducing abstraction: The case of school mathematics.
Educational Studies in Mathematics 58:
101-119.
Herscovics, N. (1996). The construction of conceptual schemes in mathematics. In L. Steffe
(Ed.), Theories of mathematical learning(pp.
351-380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Taxonomy for Assessing... / 231

Herscovics, N. & Linchevski, L. (1994). A Cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra.
EducationalStudies in Mathematics, 27 (1),
59-78.
Herbert, K. & Brown, R. (1997). Patterns as tools
for algebraic reasoning. Teaching Children
Mathematics 3 (February): 340-344.
Hiebert, J. & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and
teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York:
Macmillan.
Hiebert, J., & LeFevre, P. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptual
and procedural
knowledge
in
mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J.
Hiebert, (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural
knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Janvier, C. (1987). Representation and understanding: The notion of function as an example. In
C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representations
in the teaching and learningof mathematics
(pp.67-71). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kaput, J. (1989). Linking representations in the
symbol systems of algebra. In S. Wagner & C.
Kieran (Eds.), Research issues in the teaching
and learningof algebra(pp. 167-194). Reston,
VA: NCTM.
Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of
school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of researchon mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 390-419). New York: Mac-MilIan Publishing Company.
Kieran, C. & Chalouh, L. (1993). Prealgebra: the
transition from arithmetic to algebra. In D. T.
Owens (Ed.), Research ideasfor the Classroom: Middle Grades Mathematics edited by
Reston, VA: NCTM.
Langrall, C. W. & Swafford, J. 0. (1997). Grade
six students' use of equations to describe and
represent problem situation. Paperpresented
at the American EducationalResearchAssociation,Chicago, IL.

Lesh, R., Post, T. & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations
in mathematics learning and problem solving.
In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of
mathematics (p. 33-40). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nickerson, R. (1986). Reasoning. In D. Dilon and
R. Sternberg (Eds.), Cognitionand instruction,
(pp. 343-370). Academic Press.
Ohlsson, S. & Lehtinen, E. (1997). Abstraction
and the acquisition of complex ideas. International JournalofEducationalResearch, 27(1),
37-48.
Outhred,L. & Saradelich, S. (1997). Problem solving in kindergarten: the development of
children's representations of numerical situations. In K. Carr (Ed.), People in Mathematics
Education, Vol. 2, pp. 376-383. Rotorura:
MERGA.
Panasuk, R. (2006). Multiple representationsin
algebra and reducing level of abstraction.
Unpublished instrument. University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA
Pape, S. J. & Tchoshanov, M. A. (2001). The role
of representation(s) in developing mathematical understanding. Theory into Practice,40(2),
118-125.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New
York: Columbia University Press.
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. (1992). Operational origins of mathematical objects and the quandary of reification:
The case of function. In E. Dubinsky and G.
Harel (Eds.), The Concept of FunctionAspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy,MAA
Notes.
Skemp, R. (1986). The psychology of learning
mathematics (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

232 / College Student Journal

Swafford, J. 0. & Langrall. C. W. (2000). Grade
6 students' pre-instructional use of equations
to describe and represent problem situations.
Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 31(1), 89-112.
Tall, D. (1991). Advanced MathematicalThinking. Kluwer Academic Press.
Tall, D. (2008). The transition to formal thinking
in mathematics. Mathenzatics Education
Verschaffel, L. (1994). Using retelling data to
study elementary school children's representations and solutions of compare problems.
Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 141-165.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). Abstraction, re-presentation, and reflection: An interpretation of
experiences and Piaget's approach. In L. Steffe
(Ed.), Epistemologicalfoundations of mathemnatical experience. New York: Springer
Verlag.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in socieiy: The developmnent of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the
concrete and concrete implications for mathematical education. In I. Harel and S. Papert
(Eds.), Constructionismn, Ablex Publishing
Corporation, Norwood, NJ, pp. 193-203.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Title: Taxonomy for assessing conceptual understanding in algebra using multiple

representations
Source: Coll Stud J 45 no2 Je 2011 p. 219-32
ISSN: 0146-3934
Publisher: Project Innovation of Mobile
Box 8508, Spring Hill Station, Mobile, AL 36608

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced
with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is
prohibited.

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sublicensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make
any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently
verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.