Algebraic Reasoning In Early Grade Promoting Through Lesson Study And Open Approach

Psychology, 2018, 9, 1558-1569
http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych
ISSN Online: 2152-7199
ISSN Print: 2152-7180
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2018.96094 Jun. 29, 2018 1558 Psychology
Algebraic Reasoning in Early Grade: Promoting
through Lesson Study and Open Approach
Pimlak Moonpo1, Maitree Inprasitha2, Narumon Changsri2
1
Doctoral Program in Mathematics Education, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
2
Mathematics Education Program, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Abstract
The objective of this study is to analyze what characteristics are of early grade
students’ algebraic reasoning in context of open approach and lesson study.
Ethnographic study was employed to conduct in this qualitative study. The
study was carried out in one mathematics classroom which is a case study of
this study and it is the case of classroom which has been using open approach
and lesson study since 2006. The 3 teachers are as a member of school lesson
study team participated the study as informant and so were 10 students from
the class. The data were collected through 9 consecutive lessons by observa-
tion with audio-video tape recording, interview, students’ written works and
daily field notes. The lessons were designed by carrying into 4 steps of open
approach: posing problem, students’ self-learning, whole class discussion and
comparison, and summing-up by connecting students’ emergent mathemati-
cal ideas. All activities were guided by Thai version of 1st
grade Japan mathe-
matics textbook. The results showed that characteristics of first grade stu-
dents’ algebraic reasoning are as follows: 1) using algebraic expressions to
represent addition situation and posing situation to represent given expres-
sions, 2) constructing and using a tool to find problem results more easily, 3)
extending solutions to another domain of number, 4) using various represen-
tations to justify their ways of thinking, and 5) reasoning about relations
among numbers. The algebraic reasoning occurred under the condition that
teachers and students had connected among 3 worlds oriented to Inprasitha’s
approach: real world, semi-concrete world, and mathematics world.
Keywords
Algebraic Reasoning, Early Algebra, Lesson Study, Open Approach
1. Introduction
Teaching and learning algebra has been transformed about 20 years, the idea
How to cite this paper: Moonpo, P., In-
prasitha, M., & Changsri, N. (2018). Alge-
braic Reasoning in Early Grade: Promoting
through Lesson Study and Open Approach.
Psychology, 9, 1558-1569.
https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.96094
Received: May 8, 2018
Accepted: June 26, 2018
Published: June 29, 2018
Copyright © 2018 by authors and
Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Open Access

P. Moonpo et al.
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2018.96094 1559 Psychology
“algebra for all” is accepted by many educators (Howden, 1990; Lodholz, 1990;
NCTM, 2000; Jacobs et al., 2007) and “Algebra for Everyone” was published to
gather ideas for teaching and learning algebra for everyone (NCTM, 1990). Tra-
ditionally, algebra has been started at secondary level because of at least three
reasons: algebra emerged after arithmetic historically, psychological readiness on
learning abstract like algebra, and difficulties that students have with algebra
(Carraher, Schliemann, Brizuela, & Earnest, 2006). According to these reasons,
students have been considered to learn algebra after they had acquired adequate
essential arithmetic (Lins & Kaput, 2004; Radford, 2012). The acceptance of “al-
gebra for all” takes different views from traditional teaching and learning algebra
which is taking Piagetian view of learning (cognitive precedes learning). Nowa-
days, this tradition is still taken in many countries (Lins & Kaput, 2004). Since
1990 many educators have accepted the idea that does not conform to cognitive
development, they take the idea of Vygotsky which learning precedes develop-
ment. Increasing the number of educators, researchers, and policy makers who
believe that students at elementary grades should have experience in algebra so
that they will be able to access formal algebra better at later grades (Carraher,
Schliemann, Brizuela, & Earnest, 2006; NCTM, 2000; Lins & Kaput, 2004; Blan-
ton & Kaput, 2005; Smith & Thompson, 2007; Cai et al., 2005). Study algebra at
very young age helps students to understand mathematical structure and gene-
rality (Blanton & Kaput, 2011). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(2000) is also consistent on this belief; it sets algebra as a standard that all stu-
dents at all levels have to learn.
2. Algebraic Reasoning in Early Grade
Although many educators accept the notion that all students must learn algebra,
there are still some difficulties such as teaching approach, definition of algebra
that cannot make the goal succeeded. Definition of algebra (domain for algebra)
is one cause of obstacle, we can be noticed this issue by realizing that at first
mathematics educators and related organization had put their effort to define
what is algebra for young student, which is consistent with “algebra for all” and
young student can learn it. (Yackel, 1997; National Council of Teachers of Ma-
thematics, 2000; Stacey & Chick, 2004; Kieran, 2004; Inprasitha, 2016a) Inprasi-
tha also pointed out that in order to make algebra for all we need to reconsider
what is algebra because it affects curriculum and teaching aspect (Inprasitha,
2016b). Therefore, algebra should not mean solving equation system, finding
unknown, using quadratic equation or using formula with letter as same as tra-
ditional school algebra (NCTM, 1994 cited in Yackel, 1997; Stacey & Chick,
2004; Kieran, 2004, Cai et al., 2005). Especially in curriculum perspective, it is
impossible to locate algebra in early grade if we take algebra as domain regarding
variable and finding unknown (Inprasitha, 2016a). Many mathematics educators
had tried to define algebra for early grade students and they define that it is not
restricted only in algebra domain but students can access algebra through arith-

P. Moonpo et al.
metic learning (Lins & Kaput, 2004; Kieran, 2004; Cai et al., 2005; Blanton &
Kaput, 2005; Carraher, Schliemann, Brizuela, & Earnest, 2006). Lins & Kaput
(2004) pointed out that any content domain can support algebraic thinking
which is claimed as a part of algebra in early grade. Inprasitha (2016a) also pro-
poses that without refraining with algebraic content, we do not need an algebraic
curriculum in primary grade but students can learn algebra through reasoning,
and it can be stressed at early grade and in any content. Thus, goal of mathe-
matics learning is turn out to be students’ reasoning and thinking. Therefore, in
this study algebraic reasoning for early grade focused on students’ reasoning
with some of following aspects:
1) Using algebraic expressions to represent addition situation and posing situ-
ation to represent given expressions
2) Constructing and using a tool to find problem results more easily
3) Extending solutions to another domain of number
4) Using various representation to justify their ways of thinking
5) Reasoning about relations among numbers
3. Context of Study
Foundation of algebraic reasoning in early grade can be developed by encourag-
ing students to reason about relationship about quantity and how to represent
notation and symbol, to reason beyond specific number (Yackel, 1997). Japan
Mathematics Curriculum does not determine algebra as a content domain but it
is included in number and operation, quantity and measurement, and geometry
by learning through mathematical relations (Isoda, 2010). It was interesting that
how Japan integrates algebra in very early grade without defining algebra as a
domain to study. Stephens & Armanto (2010) had studied 1 - 6 grade Japan ma-
thematics textbook and found that the textbook series can support students’ re-
lational thinking, which is considered as one kind of algebraic reasoning. Con-
sequently, from their study it is said that we can develop students’ algebraic rea-
soning at very early grade like first grade. So, it’s no doubt that Japanese mathe-
matics textbook is well designed to support students’ algebraic reasoning.
In the case of Thailand, Japanese mathematics textbook series have been used
for the Mathematics Teachers Professional Development using Lesson Study and
Open Approach which is initiated by Maitree Inprasitha since 2002. The text-
book is consistent with the theory for teaching mathematics in Japan, prob-
lem-solving approach, which is believed that students will be able to learn
through facing with difficulties in problem solving (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; In-
prasitha, 2014). One feature of problem-solving approach is Open-ended prob-
lem is usually used to encourage students to solve problem by their own satisfied
way of thinking (Shimada, 1997). Students can express their algebraic reasoning
through solving Open-ended problem (Carraher, Brizuela, & Schliemann, 2000).
Lesson Study and Open Approach are integrated in Thailand, it is the cooper-
ation of 4 phases of Open Approach as a teaching approach and 3 steps of Les-

P. Moonpo et al.
son Study Process as a weekly cycle for developing teaching (Inprasitha, 2011).
The aim of integration is to create problem-solving classroom in Thailand and it
can be shown as Figure 1.
Conducting Lesson Study and Open Approach does not mean follow those
steps manually but teachers need to be aware that what their students must learn
mainly is not math content but “learning how to learn”. There was an evidence
that the teacher in this classroom can make her students to learn “how to learn”
(Inprasitha, 2011). Inprasitha (2013) proposed the idea which is called Flow of
Lesson, he mentioned that in order to make problem-based classroom students
should have opportunity to learn through solving problem and making connec-
tion between representation of real world, semi-concrete world, and representa-
tion of mathematical world. In this research we did not inform anything about
algebraic reasoning to the teachers but focus on flow of lesson, encourage them
to continue Lesson Study and Open Approach and the teachers had some advic-
es from experts on PCK occasionally. The school has conducted Lesson Study
and Open Approach since 2006 and it has lesson study groups divided by grade
band. The teachers had been teaching in school, Khoo Kham Pitthayasan, it is in
Khon Kaen province, the Project School of Mathematics Teachers Professional
Development using Lesson Study and Open Approach which is conducted by
Center for Research in Mathematics Education. As we mentioned above the
teacher has used Japanese mathematics textbook to plan all the lessons for more
than 10 years so she quite well understand the objective of each lesson. Normally
in this classroom, while 1 of 3 teachers is teaching the rest are observer and after
class they will talk together about the class on students’ learning, objective
achieving, and so on. The teachers and students are familiar with outsiders be-
cause in each academic year there are a lot of educators and teachers come to
visit and learn from these schools.
4. Methodology
This study is a case study of qualitative research. The study employed ethno-
graphic study which the researchers participated in this study as a member of
Figure 1. Lesson study incorporating with open approach (Inprasitha, 2011).

P. Moonpo et al.
Lesson Study team as an observer and can make a direct observation due to the
context of the class as mentioned above and the researchers were familiar with
the informants. This brought us to get real situation in this classroom, every-
thing going naturally. First grade mathematics classroom is used as a unit of
analysis. The classroom is a case of Lesson Study and Open Approach classroom
including 10 first grade students and 3 teachers from Lesson Study team. Data
were collected from video-audio tape, teachers and students interview, students’
written works, and daily field notes during August-September 2015. There were
9 consecutive lessons on addition recorded by 3 cameras. The outcomes of this
study are as interpretation of specific case (Bassey, 1999), that is Lesson Study
and Open Approach in Thailand case. During each classroom teaching, one
camera focused primary on whole-class teaching. The second camera focused on
students’ group working. The third camera focused on students’ interaction and
expression. Moreover, documentation consists of 9 lesson plans on addition;
students’ written works; daily field notes; and audio taped interview. The data
from the video recording of each class was transcribed into protocol to be used
for video analysis to analyze students’ algebraic reasoning.
5. Results
The students in this classroom which has been conducting Lesson Study and Open
Approach can show characteristics of algebraic reasoning as following Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of algebraic reasoning found in first grade lesson study and open
approach classroom.
Lesson Characteristics of Algebraic Reasoning
Lesson 1:
9 + 4
- Using algebraic expressions to represent addition situation and posing
situation to represent given expressions
- Constructing and using a tool to find problem results more easily
- Extending solutions to another domain of number
Lesson 2: 8 + 3 - Extending solutions to another domain of number
Lesson 3: How
many eggs?
(3 + 9)
Lesson 4: 8 + 6 - Using various representation to justify their ways of thinking
Lesson 5: Magic
Flowers
- Reasoning about relations among numbers
Lesson 6: Story
telling about
addition
Lesson 7: Story
telling about
7 + 8
Lesson 8:
Addition cards
Lesson 9: Playing
addition cards

P. Moonpo et al.
Additionally, we would give an example of each aspect of algebraic reasoning
in these following sub-headings.
5.1. Using Algebraic Expressions to Represent Addition Situation
and Posing Situation to Represent Given Expressions
In one of the lessons that asked the students to represent situation in mathemat-
ical sentence after the teacher posted picture on the board as shown as Figure 2.
One of the students said three plus nine and came out to write 3 + 9 on the
board. Then the teacher asked “how did you know?” She then replied that she
saw 3 eggs first and then 9 so she wrote 3 + 9. This can be explained that she well
understood and linked between a prepared semi-concrete materials and math
sentence so she can reason why 3 + 9 can represent the picture.
5.2. Constructing and Using a Tool to Find Problem Results
More Easily
After reviewed the previous lesson, teacher presented new problem situation to
the students “How to do with 8 + 3?” (As shown as Figure 3) and before letting
them to do group activity there was a student explained his idea as follows:
Figure 2. Picture teacher posted on the board.
Figure 3. Situation sheet posted on the board “How to do with 8+3?”

P. Moonpo et al.
Item116 Teacher1:
Ok! Look at here. (Teacher stuck problem
situation sheet on board as shown as Figure 3)
Can you all see it?
Item117 Students: How to do with 8 + 3?
Item118 Teacher1: Today we have Mr. Mario
Item119 Student2: 8 + 3 equals 11
Item120 Teacher1: Yes, I know. What else do you see?
Item121 Student 1: I see 8 blocks and 3 blocks.
Item122 Teacher1: So?
Item123 Student1: Circle around 2 blocks of 3, one block left.
According to student’s explanation that “circle around 2 blocks of 3, one block
left” drew us to the question why did he want to use this method. We inter-
viewed him after class and he said that “I want to make 10, if this was 10 (the
left-hand side blocks), this could be 11 because there is 1 here” (the right-hand
side block) we immediately asked him with question “Why do you need to make
10?” and he replied “if it is 10 (he pointed at 8 blocks) I can find the answer be-
cause it would be this number” (pointed at 3 blocks). This scenario can explain
that student has tried to use an easy way for him to find the answer which is
making 10 and he can also reason why he can find the answer by making 10.
5.3. Extending Solutions to Another Domain of Number
Before learning unit Addition (2), the students had learned decomposing num-
ber and Addition (1) which is an addition that answer not more than 10. There-
fore, they already knew making 10. Throughout these research lessons (Addition
2) they demonstrated using Making 10 method, this means they can extend the
method to another domain of number which is addition that answer more than
10. This following scenario is one of examples of extending Making to method to
another domain of number.
In this lesson teacher posted the picture which has 9 children playing in
sandbox and 4 playing slide and asked the students how many students alto-
gether. Definitely students can immediately reply 13 but the teacher wanted
them to do more by asking 2 more questions: 1) Write mathematical sentence 2)
Let’s think “how to” find number of children. After work in group one group of
the students presented their methods and they said “We made a group of 10 and
this caused one group of 3, We move 1 child from group of 4 so 3 left and be-
cause 4 gave 1 to 9 this would be 10 and 4 was 3, then 10 and 3 is 13, so the an-
swer is 13 and we also drew blocks”. Students’ explanation showed that they
used the method that woks for addition which answer not more than 10 to an-
swer more than 10.
5.4. Using Various Representation to Justify Their Ways of
Thinking
This scenario will show various kinds of representation that one student used.

P. Moonpo et al.
During the 3rd
step of Open Approach-whole class discussion, teacher asked
students what students did on their worksheet to explain 8 + 6.
Item227 Student3:
Then I wrote mathematical sentence 8 + 6 = 14 (using mathe-
matical sentence). The second, I wrote plus 6 is equal to 14 and
drew an arrow to show 6 was decomposed to 8 so, 6 left 4 and 8
would be 10 (using diagram). The second way, I made 8 to leave
4 and 6 would be 10 because taking 4 from 8 (using diagram). I
also used blocks and I will show you how I used (using blocks)
Item228 Teacher1:
Can you show us another way? We have
decomposing by 4 already). Student was using blocks to show
how to add according to her forth way (as shown as Figure 4).
Item229 Teacher1: How many blocks in that side?
Item230 Student3: Six.
Item231 Class: One, two, three, four, five, six.
Item232 Student5:
Six decreased by one, eight decreased by 3
(Student moved from each of two sides 5 blocks to
lower position as shown as Figure 5).
Item233 Teacher1: Let’s see.
Item34 Student3: Then each block is numbered.
Item235 Teacher1: She makes five and five to be what?
Item236 Class: Ten.
The student presented us that she can use 1) blocks 2) diagram 3) mathemati-
cal sentence to explain her understating on 8 + 6. This may claim that the stu-
dent reason reasonably by using various kinds of representation (blocks, dia-
gram, and mathematical sentence) to justify her own thinking.
5.5. Reasoning about Relations among Numbers
In addition card game for the 8th lesson. Teacher asked each group to explain
how they arranged the cards and what they’ve found from arranging the card.
One of the scenes can be shown as follows:
The student can show us that he saw relation between each of addends and it’
s increased. He also showed us that he arranged his cards in horizontal lines by
considering this relation.
6. Concluding Remark
By using Japanese textbook in Lesson Study and Open Approach classroom, the
lesson study team can plan the lessons base rather on “how to learn” than finding
answer. This conforms to the idea that in order to develop algebraic thinking,
not answer should be focused but relations (Kieran, 2004; Cai et al., 2005). Ob-
viously seen in the results section, all lessons focused on how the students get
their answers. Thus, students had an opportunity to explain their algebraic rea-
soning through solving problem (Carraher, Brizuela, & Schliemann, 2000).

P. Moonpo et al.
Figure 4. Student using block to explain 8 + 6 with her own diagram.
Figure 5. 9 + 4 situation.
Item427 Teacher1: Ok, explain it.
Item428 Student1:
Look at addends, if we look them horizontally, I see they’re
increasing (He pointed at the card which is shown as Figure 6.
Item429 Teacher1: Everybody gets what he said?
Item430 Students: Yes.
Moreover, the section also shows us that students had their own explanation
about numbers and their explanation in 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 based on using
concrete materials (such as block, picture) and in 5.4 she can make connection
between each representation, especially made her own sense on mathematical
sentence by linking with concrete materials. Approaching to mathematical world
from representation of real world (such as situation, picture) and semi-concrete
material can promote such explanation by students. Therefore, using idea of
Flow of Lesson which Inprasiha has proposed (2013) can promote students al-
gebraic reasoning. In 5.5 students tried to find rules, which is increased and de-
creased by 1. This is the semifinal lesson on addition (2). Even though in this
lesson we didn’t use concrete materials, students used only number and plus
sign which are very mathematics for students, but in previous lessons students

P. Moonpo et al.
Figure 6. Show arranging addition cards.
learned addition through real world, semi-concrete materials continuously and
regularly. This means they can understand math well through learning it from
real world and semi-concrete materials so they can see the relations of numbers.
Flow of Lesson provides an opportunity to students to see the relations. For all
lessons we grounded planning the lesson on Japanese mathematics textbook
which does not focus on answer and it is compatible with the idea of flow of les-
son. Thus, we can see students’ algebraic reasoning in all lessons. Similar to Ste-
phens & Armanto (2010) found that Japanese textbook series can support stu-
dents’ relational thinking. Thereby, the algebraic reasoning occurred under the
condition that teachers and students had connected among 3 worlds oriented to
Inprasitha’s approach: real world, semi-concrete world, and mathematics world.
This means Lesson Study and Open Approach classroom with using Flow of
Lesson can promote first grade students’ algebraic reasoning.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Thailand Research Fund through the Royal Golden
Jubilee Ph.D. Program (Grant No. PHD/0150/2554). We would like to thank you
the Project School of Mathematics Teachers Professional Development using
Lesson Study and Open Approach for conducting Lesson Study and Open Ap-
proach for very long time.
References
Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham, Philadel-
phia: Open University Press.
Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2005). Characterizing a Classroom Practice that Promotes Al-
gebraic Reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 412-446.
Blanton, M., & Kaput, J. (2011). Functional Thinking as a Route into Algebra in the Ele-
mentary Grades. In J. Cai, & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early Algebraization, Advances in Ma-
thematics Education. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4_2

P. Moonpo et al.
Cai, et al. (2005). The Development of Students’ Algebraic Thinking in Earlier Grades: A
Cross-Cultural Comparative Perspective. Zentralblattfuer Didaktik der, 37, 5-15.
Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and
Algebra in Early Mathematics Education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa-
tion, 37, 87-115.
Carraher, D., Brizuela, B., & Schliemann, A.D. (2000). Early Algebra, Early Arithmetic:
Treating Operations as Functions. Plenary Address. XXII Meeting of the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, North American Chapter, Tucson, AZ: (Available in
CD-Rom).
Howden, H. (1990). Prior Experiences. In L. Edwards Edgar, Jr. (Ed.), Algebra for Every-
one (Session 1) (pp. 7-23). Reproduced with Permission from Algebra for Everyone by
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Inprasitha, M. (2011). One Feature of Adaptive Lesson Study in Thailand: Designing a
Learning Unit. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 34,
47-66.
Inprasitha, M. (2013). Paper presented at “Workshop for Teachers in the Project School
ofMathematics Teachers Professional Development using Lesson Study and Open Ap-
proachfor conducting Lesson Study and Open Approach, KhonKaen University”.
Inprasitha, M. (2014). Paper Presented at “Workshop on Lesson Study and Open Ap-
proach for Demonstration School’s Teachers, Khon Kaen University”. Khon Kaen:
Khon Kaen University.
Inprasitha, M. (2016a). Personal Communication. Khon Kaen: Khon Kaen University. 19
March 2016
Inprasitha, M. (2016b). Personal Communication. Khon Kaen: Khon Kaen University. 9
August 2016
Isoda, M. (2010). Lesson Study: Problem Solving Approaches in Mathematics Education
as a Japanese Experience. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 17-27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.003
Jacobs, et al. (2007). Professional Development Focused on Children’s Algebraic Reason-
ing in Elementary School. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 258-288.
Kieran, C. (2004). Algebraic Thinking in the Early Grades: What Is It? The Mathematics
Educator, 8, 139-151.
Lins, R., & Kaput, J. (2004). The Early Development of Algebraic Reasoning: The Current
State of the Field. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The Future of the
Teaching and Learning of Algebra: The 12th ICMI Study, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8131-6_4
Lodholz, R. (1990). The Transition from Arithmetic to Algebra. In E. L. Edwards (Ed.),
Algebra for Everyone (Session 1, pp. 24-33). Reston, VA: The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
NCTM (1990). Algebra for Everyone. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
NCTM (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Radford, L. (2012). Early Algebraic Thinking: Epistemological, Semiotic, and Develop-
mental Issues. In: S. Cho (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on
Mathematical Education. Cham: Springer.
Shimada, S. (1997). The Significance of an Open-Ended Approach. In J. Becker, & S.
Shimada (Eds.), The Open-Ended Approach: A New Proposal for Teaching Mathe-

P. Moonpo et al.
matics. Reston, VA: Author.
Smith, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2007). Quantitative Reasoning and the Development of
Algebraic Reasoning. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in
the Early Grades (pp. 95-132). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Stacey, K., & Chick, H. (2004). Solving the Problem with Algebra. In K. Stacey, H. Chick,
& M. Kendal (Eds.), The Future of the Teaching and Learning of Algebra: The 12th
ICMI Study (1-20). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8131-6_1
Stephens, M., & Armanto, D. (2010). How to Build Powerful Learning Trajectories for
Relational Thinking in the Primary School Years. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst
(Eds.), Shaping the Future of Mathematics Education: Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual
Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (523-530).
Fremantle: MERGA.
Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers
for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press.
Yackel, E. (1997). A Foundation for Algebraic Reasoning in the Early Grades. Teaching
Children Mathematics, 3, 276-280.

Algebraic Reasoning In Early Grade Promoting Through Lesson Study And Open Approach

More Related Content

Similar to Algebraic Reasoning In Early Grade Promoting Through Lesson Study And Open Approach (19)

More from Yolanda Ivey (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Algebraic Reasoning In Early Grade Promoting Through Lesson Study And Open Approach