10.

PROCEPTS IN ALGEBRA
For some, audits and root canals hurt less than algebra. Brian White hated it. It
made Julie Beall cry. Tim Broneck got an F-minus. Tina Casale failed seven
times. And Mollie Burrows just never saw the point. This is not a collection of
wayward students, of unproductive losers in life. They are regular people […]
with jobs and families, hobbies and homes. And a common nightmare in their
past. (Deb Kollar, Sacramento Bee (California), December 11, 2000.)

Algebra is an enigmatic subject. Many individuals—myself included—find

algebra satisfying and rewarding, with clear logical ideas and fascinating power
to formulate and solve problems. For such individuals, algebra is simple. But
for others, there are distressing complications that make it a nightmare.
Algebra brings new challenges to developing individuals who already differ
greatly in their ability to deal with arithmetic. For the more successful,
arithmetic at this stage is a flexible system of number concepts and generative
relationships. For the less successful, it is a complicated collection of rote-
learned procedures of arithmetic based on embodied counting of objects and
fingers and meaningless rules to manipulate negative numbers and fractions.
It is possible to give initial embodied meaning to early algebra concepts, for
instance, by using a ‘balance’ to represent the equation 2x + 3 = 7 :
x x

Figure 10. 1: An equation as a balance

Removing 3 objects from each side, the balance is maintained between 2x on
the left and 4 on the right, revealing that x must be 2. Such a metaphor can be
helpful in the early stages of algebra as a bridge between embodiment and
symbolism. However, this embodiment applies to the specific context where the
letter x stands for a positive number. How does one represent the situation
where x is negative? Does one use something like a helium balloon that will lift
the balance instead of lowering it? The balance model may be a good start to
introducing equations that appears to allow the student to give correct answers
in simple cases, but its extension to more general equations requires further
stretches of the imagination that may be neither helpful to the struggling student
nor useful for the shift to the power and simplicity of symbolic algebra.
Algebra is an extension of arithmetic. My own belief is that, while embodied
representations may help with initial meanings, long-term success depends on
shifting the focus of attention to the proceptual world of manipulable symbols.
Even when a child is happy with the meaning of number symbols as process
and concept, the step to algebra may require cognitive reconstruction, for the
symbols in algebra have subtle differences from those in arithmetic. An

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 1

arithmetic expression, such as 4 + 2 , has an ‘answer’, namely 6. It operates both
as a process (add 4 and 2) and a concept (the sum of 4 and 2 is 6). The symbols
in algebra also dually represent process and concept. The expression 4 + 2c is
both a process of evaluation (add four and two times the value of c) and a
manipulable concept (the expression 4 + 2c can itself be manipulated as a thing
in itself, for instance it can be added to another expression to give
4 + 2c + 3c = 4 + 7c or factorized into 2(2 + c) ). However, unlike the use of
symbols in arithmetic, where 4 + 2 has a built-in operation of addition to give a
numerical answer 6, an algebraic expression such as 4 + 2c has only a potential
operation of evaluation that cannot be carried out unless the value of c is
known.
The difference between the operational procepts of arithmetic having
‘answers’ and the potential procepts of algebra is a subtle source widespread
confusion, including even children who are successful at the techniques of
arithmetic. Previous experience over a period of five or more years has taught
the child that when she or he sees an expression with a ‘plus’ sign in it, such as
4 + 2 , the expected response is to calculate the answer, ‘ 4 + 2 is 6’. This ‘met-
before’ (in the sense of chapter x, p.xxx) is an integral part of the growing
individual’s knowledge structure. So how does the child make sense of an
algebraic expression 4 + 2c when the value of c is not known? For the lucky
few it simply means ‘the sum of 4 plus 2 times the value of c, whatever that
happens to be’. But for many others it is an instruction to carry out a procedure
that cannot be performed unless c is known, and if c is known, why complicate
things by introducing letters?
A common mistake is to ‘do what you can’, adding 4 + 2 to give 6 and
leaving the troublesome letter alone, to get the erroneous answer 6c. Other met-
befores subtly cause misinterpretations of algebraic symbols, for instance,
thinking of codes such as a = 1, b = 2 , c = 3 to evaluate 4 + 2c as 10, or seeing
the 2c as standard decimal 23 to get 4 + 23 is 29. Even those who successfully
interpret ‘ 4 + 2c ’ as the potential procedure ‘add four to twice c’ may sense a
problem in manipulating an expression that they feel intuitively that they
‘cannot do’. There are subtle psychological factors involved that can lead to a
sense of unease and have a debilitating effect on future learning.
Meanings change once more when the topic moves from powers such as x 2
and x 3 to fractional and negative powers such as x 2 and x
3 . Whole number
1

powers have meaning through repeated multiplication to give the multiplication

rule x 2
x 3 = x 5 . But fractional and negative powers do not. They derive their
meaning from the1 power 1
rule itself, applying
1
x m x n = x m +n in the case
m = n = 1 2 to get x 2
x 2 = x 1 to deduce that x 2 is the square root of x.
This is a preliminary step into the world of formal thinking where a specified
property (in this case the power law) is taken as a basis for deduction. However,
here it is done as a single instance of the use of a specific property rather than
the full formal experience with axiomatic theories. Because the properties of

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 2

these new concepts arise from the structure of a particular law, in this case the
power law, I refer to symbols such as x and x
3 as structural procepts.
1
2

In this chapter, it is my purpose to look first at the problems that persist in

the teaching of algebra around the world and to see how complicated the issues
have become. I shall then consider the contrast between the simplicity of
algebra for those who have a way of focusing on its essential meaning and the
increasing difficulties that grow through rote-learning too many disconnected
procedures. This will be related to the compression of symbolism from step-by-
step procedures (such as ‘double the number and add 6’) through equivalent
processes that have the same effect (such as 2x+6 and 2(x+3)) and on to
procepts. The procepts in turn shift in meaning from the operational procepts
of arithmetic to the potential procepts of algebra and on towards the structural
procepts of formal mathematics, each shift causing new potential problems for
the learner.
I shall use the research of some of my colleagues to show how some
individuals succeed in interpreting algebraic expressions into simple mental
objects to think about and manipulate to formulate and solve equations.
Meanwhile others find the subject impossibly difficult even though they work
very hard at coping with the ideas that are presented to them. After this, we may
be in a more informed position to try to understand why it is that a subject—
which mathematicians find fascinating and essentially simple—causes so much
difficulty for ‘regular people’ who have ‘a common nightmare in their past’. As
the comedian Billy Connolly said, ‘Why should I learn algebra? I’ve no
intention of ever going there!’ (Stephenson, 2001, p. 73.)
SIMPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY IN ALGEBRA
In recent years there have been many
initiatives round the world to introduce algebra Algebra is heavy
to a broad population of students. None of
these have succeeded. A programme in the going - even for
early nineties to ‘raise standards’ in English
schools failed to make algebra universally
the best.
Even the brightest maths pupils
understood. Headlines in national newspapers have difficulty with algebra exams,
revealed that even students scoring high grades say school inspectors. A study on
had specific difficulties in algebra. marking GCSE papers found that
In the United States, attempts to teach although marks generally had
improved, algebra questions were
algebra to everyone were equally unsuccessful: d b dl b t
‘Algebra for everyone’ has been a
dream that for some has turned into a nightmare. From our message that every
child can learn algebra, many school boards at state or provincial and local
levels have interpreted this to mean that every child should be placed in what
we might call a traditional first-year algebra class. As a result, some students
have simply experienced failure at a higher level.

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 3

 Jack Price, ‘President’s Message
NCTM News Bulletin, May 1994, p.3.
Not only has there been continuing failure for less successful students, even
those who require mathematics at college are perceived to be less well prepared.
As a consequence, bitter ‘Math Wars’ have been waged in the USA by those
calling for the abandonment of reform and a return to a traditional emphasis on
the learning of mathematical skills. Meanwhile, in Japan, educators concluded
that their comparative success in traditional teaching techniques has been
accompanied by lack of understanding and a growing dislike of the subject by
the students. The consequence was a decision to reduce the curriculum content
to give teachers more time on fundamental ideas. Nowhere in the world is there
a sense of satisfaction of the teaching of mathematics in general and of algebra
in particular. Indeed, the cycle of initiatives in different countries seem to be
such that what is about to be tried in one place has already encountered
problems elsewhere.
The situation is not as gloomy as it is painted. There are still a significant
number of students in every country who succeed in algebra. However, a large
proportion of those who attempt to do algebra fail to make any sense of it.

Embodied algebra
An initial place to seek a possible solution to help students understand algebra is
to build on their earlier embodied experiences. These are of two kinds:
embodied experiences of physical objects in the real world and generalizing the
use of of number symbols as process and concept.
The use of physical embodiment has its value in giving a certain meaning to
algebraic expressions. For instance if x = 3 and y = 3, are represented by 3
black discs and four white discs respectively, the expression
x + y can be represented by putting them together as a single grouping
. The expression 2(x + y) is two lots of these groupings which
can be regrouped as 2 lots of x and 2 lots of y to show that 2(x + y) is 2x + 2y.
(Figure 11.2).
2x 2y
x+y
} 2(x + y)
2x + 2y
Figure 10.2: The distributive law: two lots of x+y is the same as 2 lots of x and 2 lots of y
The values of x and y could be changed to any other values and so the picture is
a prototype for the distributive law 2(x + y) = 2x + 2y.
Such physical representations are limited to simple cases, but they can be
used for quite sophisticated algebraic ideas. For instance, Dienes made

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 4

‘algebraic experience materials’ to give embodied meaning to factorizing
quadratics. This included using wooden materials to embody the factorizing of
quadratics, using long rectangles with short side 1 unit and long side
representing x units to represent the quantity x. He could then factorize
expressions such as x + 5x + 6 using a square side length x, 5 rectangles
2

representing x, and 6 unit squares, to produce the factorization

x 2 + 5x + 6 = (x + 3)
(x + 2)
in figure 10.2.
x+3

x2 x x x
x+2

x 1 1 1
x 1 1 1
Figure 10.3: an embodied factorization of a quadratic
There is evidence from the research of Dienes and others that this can enhance
the child’s experience of algebra. In particular, it gives the symbolism a
meaning for the child at the time. However, the embodiments occur in highly
specific formats: the picture in figure 10.2 requires x and y to be whole
numbers, figure 10.3 requires x to be a positive real number. To extend the
meanings of the embodiments to cover a wider range of numbers can be done,
but requires increasingly subtle meanings for fractions, negative numbers,
complex numbers, and so on. The simple use of a number as a length in the
embodied factorization of quadratics also means that the product is an area and
the third power is a volume, so that the fourth and higher powers become
unimaginable. This view pervaded mathematics for many centuries and was a
severe obstacle to understanding cubic and higher order equations.
In this chapter we shall focus not on the embodiment, but on the meaning of
the symbolism in algebra. We will return to the visualisation of algebra through
the drawing of graphs in chapter 11.

The simplicity of algebra for some

Algebraic symbolism is extremely simple for those who understand it. The
expression ‘3x+1’ is just a compact way of writing the sum of 3 times x plus 1.
If x is 2, then 3x+1 evaluates to 7, if x is 3, it is 10, and so on. A child who
understands this has the potential to solve an equation such as 3x+1 = 16 by
trying a few values for x, finding that when x = 4, then 3x+1 is 13, or when x = 5
then 3x+1 is 16. By ‘trial and improvement’, the solution is seen to be x = 5.

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 5

 This is such a simple idea that it seems it should be easily understood. For
some children it makes sense at the very first encounter. My younger son used
to enjoy talking about arithmetic and had a flexible feeling for numbers long
before he knew his multiplication tables. At seven years old, when he had no
knowledge of algebra, we began a conversation that touched on the topic of
even and odd numbers. As an experiment, I wrote down the symbol ‘2n’ and
explained it meant ‘two times n, whatever n is’ and that if n is 2, 2n is 4, if n is
3, 2n is 6, and asked him to evaluate a few examples of 2n and 2n + 1 where n is
a whole number. The conversation continued as follows:
‘Is two n always even? … Or is it sometimes odd?’
After three seconds pause, he responded: ‘Always even.’
‘Why is it always even?’
‘Well, if you add an even number with an even number, you end up with
an even number.’
‘Right.’
‘If you add an odd number and an odd number, you come up with an
even number, but if you add an even number with an odd number, you
come up with an odd number.’ (Tall, 2002, JMB)
The interesting fact here is not just that he used his flexible knowledge of
arithmetic to make subtle comments about even and odd numbers, but that he
interpreted the symbol 2n not just as ‘twice n’ but also as ‘n plus n’. In his very
first encounter with algebra, he used the notation in a meaningful, flexible way.
Without further explanation, he could explain that 2a + 1 was one more than 2a
and that 2a is always even and 2a + 1 is always odd (where a is a whole
number). Without being shown any further examples, he could simplify 3x + 2x
as 5x and could recognize different ways of writing a given expression. In being
able to do this, he is not exceptional. In my experience, almost every typical
classroom has one or more children who operate spontaneously in this way. But
such a phenomenon is not universal.

Difficulties for many

Most children have difficulty with algebra. The first encounter can be a
daunting experience. I observed a student teacher introducing the idea of a letter
as a number to a class of children for the first time. She wrote the symbol 2n on
the board and said, ‘2n means twice n whatever n is. So if n is 2, 2n is 4, if n is
3, 2n is 6.’ ‘Please Miss,’ said a bemused boy at the back, ‘what’s n?’ ‘n is a
number, any number,’ she replied. ‘But what number?’ he repeated. The
conversation became more animated as the teacher repeated her argument and
the boy became more exasperated. It became apparent that he was quite happy
to speak about ‘twice a number’, but introducing the symbol n was just making
the situation more complicated. If he didn’t know what n was, he couldn’t

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 6

calculate 2n but if he did know what n was, say n was 5, he didn’t need algebra,
he could just use arithmetic and say ‘two times 5 is 10.’
The difficulty of giving meaning to an algebraic expression is widely
reported in the research literature. In arithmetic, ‘2+3’ is seen as a command to
calculate: 2+3 makes 5. However, the algebraic expression ‘2+3x’ doesn’t make
anything; it cannot be simplified to give a numerical ‘answer’. Kevin Collis
(1974) referred to this problem as the child’s inability to hold unevaluated
operations in suspension and described it as the ‘lack of closure’ of an algebraic
operation. Robert Davis (1975) noted that an arithmetic expression ‘2+3’
formulates a process with the answer ‘5’, but the algebraic expression ‘2+3x’
describes the process (adding 2 to 3 times x) and names the answer without
requiring a numerical calculation.
In the introduction to this chapter, I described this phenomenon in terms of
the theory of procepts. In arithmetic, expressions like 2+3 or 3 4
2 3 have built-in
operations that give an answer: 2+3 is 5, 3 4
2 3 is 1 2 . In algebra the expression
‘2+3x’ has only a potential process that cannot be carried out without knowing
the value of x. Arithmetic expressions are operational procepts and algebraic
expressions are potential procepts. Given the way the human brain operates, the
subtle change from operational procepts of arithmetic to potential procepts in
algebra can pose serious difficulties for many. Put simply, many children have
difficulty contemplating procedures that they are unable to ‘do’.

Complications and concept images

When we meet new ideas, they are interpreted by the current state of modules in
our brains. If an individual’s previous experience of an addition sign is to
perform the operation of calculating a sum, then the need to calculate can be
signaled when a child meets an expression such as 2+3x. This ‘met-before’ can
lead to a wide range of misconceptions. For instance, it is well known that a
child who tries to perform the operation may carry out the part that is possible
(2+3) and leave the x untouched to give the erroneous result 5x.
Other children may evoke various previous experiences. For instance, they
may have played games using letters as codes for specific numbers. An often-
used code is a = 1, b = 2 , c = 3 , so 2a + 3b is 8. In such a case, the expression
30
x may be interpreted as 6, because x is the 24th letter of the alphabet.
Another previous experience familiar to children is the use of a letter as a
unit, for instance, 3m represents ‘3 metres’. A child using this idea might
correctly rewrite 3m + 4m as 7m, not in an algebraic sense, but in a sense of
adding together two measurements.
The letter used is often the first letter of a name for something, such as ‘m’
for ‘metres’. As a consequence, some children may expect a letter in an
algebraic expression to be the initial letter of a name. When asked to explain the
meaning of the y in the expression ‘ 3 + 5y ’, fifteen year old Peter first made the
mistake of adding the three to the five and said:

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 7

 It’s a letter but it stands for something. It means eight lots of y.
And what is the y?
Could be anything.
Like what?
Could be a yacht … Eight yachts.
Could it be anything else?
Could be yoghurt, or a yam.
Would it have to begin with a y? Like yoghurt, or could it be something else?
Think it would have to begin with y, ’cause you’ve got a y there. So you
need a y for the beginning of the word.
(Booth, 1984, p.28)
The use of letters representing the initials of names evokes more subtle
problems than may, at first, be apparent. It can lead to serious misconceptions in
algebra, not only for those who fail, but even for more advanced students who
are otherwise apparently successful.
A famous example (Clement, Lochhead and Monk, 1981)1 is the ‘students
and professors’ problem, which asks for the translation of the following
statement into algebra:
‘For each professor, there are six students.’
The common response is to use the initial letters to let P be the number of
professors and S the number of students and to write:
P = 6S.
However, the correct answer is S = 6P. (For instance, if there is one professor,
P=1, then there are 6 students, S = 6.)
This reversal error interchanging P and S seems to arise from P being
thought of as a professor, and S a student, so that P is ‘worth’ 6 students leading
to the interpretation P = 6S. It is consistent with the use of m for metre, where 1
metre being equal to 100 centimetres is written 1m = 100cm. This error of
reversal is widespread, not only affecting weak students in school algebra, but a
large proportion of algebra students at college, and even college professors.
Despite this, many children are introduced to algebra using initial letters to
represent objects. One such approach, which has been termed ‘fruit salad
algebra’, uses the letters in 2a + 3b as items such as apples and bananas. This
recalls the use of numbers as adjectives ‘two apples’, ‘three bananas’, so
2a + 3b is ‘2 apples and 3 bananas’. Using numbers as adjectives is deeply
entrenched in our psyche. The method even has temporary success. For
instance, faced with 2a + 3b + 4a , the child might think ‘2 apples plus 3
bananas plus 4 apples’, and imagine this as ‘6 apples and 3 bananas’. This
might lead to writing down the ‘simplification’ 6a + 3b . In this way, students

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 8

who are introduced to fruit salad algebra seem to have quick success in
simplifying algebraic expressions.
This shows that, in a curriculum ruled by attainment targets, children may be
given a method that gives them a short-term gain, to pass the current target, but
it may also be laying down the seeds of long-term failure. The use of letters as
objects no longer works when dealing with more complex algebraic ideas, such
as a 2
b 2 = (a
b)(a + b) . In this context, what does a mean? Is it a ‘square
2

apple’? Is b 2 a square banana? While we may smile at such mental concoctions,

they are symptomatic of far deeper problems that occur through links made
within the human brain. If connections are made that work in one context (such
as the use of letters to represent objects) then there is great confusion when the
same link fails to work in another (such as the use of letters to stand for
numbers in algebra).
Thinking of letters representing objects can lead to a range of
misconceptions. For instance, children may think of the expression ‘6a+3b’
representing ‘9 fruit’ and may write it as ‘9 a b’ which is read out loud as ‘nine
apples and bananas’. This error is called ‘conjoining’ and is common in early
algebra. Because the children know no mathematical symbol for ‘and’, the
symbols are written next to each other in a way that a sophisticated
mathematician may misinterpret as multiplication. Such a notation makes sense
to the children themselves, but it does not help them in long-term understanding
of algebra.
This is not the only problem of the meaning of an expression such as 3x. In
arithmetic we already use the symbol 3 1 2 to represent 3 plus 1 2 , yet in algebra,
when x = 1 2 , 3x is 3 times 1 2 . Decimal notation uses 39 to represent ‘3 tens plus
nine’, as opposed to algebra, where for x = 9, 3x is 27.
These different conventions cause a range of problems for some children.
Fifteen-year-old Wayne—who had always struggled with algebra—accepted
that the y in 5y could stand for a number. He went on to make a succession of
different (mis-) interpretations:
It could be a 4, making that [5y] … five four, … fifty four.
Could y be anything else besides 4?
Yes, 7, 8, anything!
So y could be any number? (Wayne nods.) Suppose I make it twenty three,
what would you write down then?
Oh! (Laughs.) Well! (Laughs again.) Five hundred and twenty three! But I
dunno. It doesn’t sound very promising! I dunno. Wait, it could be 28, …
5 plus 23, yes, 28.
(Booth, 1984, p. 31)
Procedural errors
When a child cannot make sense of algebraic symbolism, a natural coping
strategy is to rote-learn how to reproduce the required procedure. Each week, or

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 9

so, a new technique is presented and is used to solve the current problem. Week
by week, more rules are added and used without fully linking them to each
other:
• ‘do multiplication before addition’,
• ‘do brackets before addition and multiplication’,
• ‘of means multiply’,
• ‘do the same thing to both sides’,
• ‘change sides, change signs’,
a c
• ‘cross multiply’ to simplify = to ad = bc,
b d
• ‘BODMAS’ (a favourite memory aid in England) to remember
the order of evaluation of an expression: Brackets first, then ‘Of’
(as multiplication), then Division, Multiplication, Addition,
Subtraction’,
• ‘FOIL’ (familiar in the USA) as an aid to remember the
multiplication of elements in brackets (a + b)(c + d) in the order
F, O, I, L: First terms (ac), Outside (ad), Inside (bc), Last (bd).
Learning procedures in itself is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it is an
essential part of routinizing steps to compress longer chains of action into
automatic sequences that occupy less conscious attention. This frees the mind to
attend to the global awareness of what is going on. Sadly, for many students, the
procedures remain isolated and their number grows as time passes. If they are
rote-learnt without meaning, then the knowledge structure is likely to become
increasingly fragile. For instance, the power laws in algebra give the square root
of a 12 by halving the power to get a 12 = a 6 , but if the power is a perfect
square, such as 16, then the sight of a square root sign and the number 16 may
evoke the number 4, giving the error a 16 = a 4 .
Old ‘rules’ from arithmetic can be misinterpreted and misapplied in algebra.
12
For instance, a fraction, such as , can be simplified by ‘dividing the number
6
at the top by the number at the bottom’ to correctly get the answer 2. In algebra,
‘dividing the top number by the bottom number can, and sometimes is,
a 12
misapplied to the numbers in 6 to give the erroneous result a 2 .
a
The reverse can also happen. New rules in algebra can be misused to give
incorrect results in arithmetic. For instance, simplifying 5x 2
4 x 3 to give 20x 5
by ‘multiplying the coefficients and adding the powers’ can be misapplied in
arithmetic to wrongly simplify 5 2
4 3 as 20 5 (Anderson, PhD). In this way,
complications arising from learning isolated rules can produce fragile
knowledge that fails when the rules are misapplied.

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 10

Algebraic expressions as process or concept
As children encounter algebra, the usual measure of success is whether they
give correct answers in assessment. Difficulties in algebra are revealed by
erroneous answers and these are widespread. For example, MacGregor and
Stacey (1993) asked 255 children aged 13 or 14 in a mixed ability year group to
translate the information
‘z is equal to the sum of 3 and y’
into mathematical symbols; 29% conjoined ‘3 and y’ as ‘3y’ and 14% made
other errors or did not respond at all. So nearly half the year-group could not
handle this elementary task.
What is more interesting, however, is the nature of the responses given by
the other 57%. These are all correct. Yet they reveal subtle differences. The
question has a simple answer in terms of translating the statement from left to
right as it is said, in the form ‘z = 3+y’. However, approximately half of the
correct answers (29% of all respondents) re-ordered the words to write either
3+y = z or y+3 = z. The interesting question is why so many reversed the order
in this way.
A clue may be found in the differing notational practices in arithmetic and
algebra. In arithmetic, it is more usual to write a sum in the order 4+3 = 7,
rather than 7 = 4+3. This relates to the way that the equation 4+3 = 7 is read as a
process, ‘4 plus 3 makes 7’.
In algebra, on the other hand, it is usual to write the equation of a straight-
line conventionally as y = mx + b rather than as mx + b = y . Here we talk about
‘assigning the value (of the calculation mx + b ) to y’.
To distinguish between these, the order with the operation on the left
(a+b = c) will be named the ‘process order’ and that with the operation on the
right (c = a+b) as ‘assignment order’. The process order, which is the first to
occur in arithmetic, seems to be more fundamental and basic, whilst the
assignment order is perhaps a more artificial convention1.
Working with Michael Thomas and Lillie Crowley, we reasoned that it is
cognitively more fundamental to see an equation as a process in which the left-
hand side is an operation to produce the right hand than to see an equation as an
equality between the two sides. Essentially, a process view of the equation is
more primitive than a conceptual equivalence. Put another way, the process
order is a familiar ‘met-before’ which has been encountered in arithmetic. It
unconsciously affects the ways in which children think about operations in
algebra. We hypothesized that, when some students are under stress, the process

1
Different conventions occur in different contexts. In programming, the assignment order is often used, for
instance, in the BASIC programming language, if a, b are variables having values a = 2, b = 3, then the
command c = a+b assigns the value 5 to c. However, using graphic calculators, to store the value of a+b in c, the
key-strokes are in the order a + b STO c .

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 11

order is more likely to be used than the assignment order and is more likely to
fail.
To investigate this, we offered three statements, in successive order of
increasing complexity, and invited students to write them in algebraic notation2:
(a) m is 5 times n.
(b) A record by Take That is h minutes long. A record by Kriss
Kross is g minutes long. The Take That record is three times as
long as the Kriss Kross. Write an equation relating h and g.
(c) A pop group makes four times as many singles as albums. It
makes q albums and z singles. Write an equation relating q and z.
We were interested in whether the students responded in process order (in the
form 5n = m, 5
n = m or n
5 = m) or in assignment order (as m = 5n, m = 5
n,
m = n
5). This time the respondents were a group of English school students
(aged 13 to 14) representing the top 35% of the population and a group of
second year university students (training to be teachers of children aged 4 to 12)
in the top 20% of the population. Their responses are given in table 9.1.

School (N=75) University (N=128)

Process order Assignment order Process order Assignment order
e.g. 5
n = m e.g. m = 5
n e.g. 5
n = m e.g. m = 5
n
Responses Errors Responses Errors Responses Errors Responses Errors
(a) 24 (32%) 5 50 (7%) 1 39 (30%) 13 89 (70%) 0
(b) 40 (53%) 9 34 (45%) 1 75 (59%) 25 50 (39%) 5
(c) 43 (57%) 20 25 (33%) 5 97 (76%) 38 26 (20%) 13
Table 9.1 translating verbal problems into algebra
Inspection of the responses shows that, as the questions grow more difficult, the
number of responses in assignment order diminishes while the number of
responses in process order increases. This moves from a position where the
majority of responses are in assignment order to a position where the majority
are in process order. As this occurs, the number of errors in process order is
always greater than errors in assignment order. This is consistent with the idea
that an algebraic expression as a process (of evaluation) is more likely to be
evoked as the questions get more difficult than the use of expression as a
concept (as a manipulable expression). It reveals that, even when answers are
given correctly, there is more subtle difference in the use of expressions as
process or concept than is often realized.

EXPRESSIONS AS PROCEDURE, PROCESS AND PROCEPT

In arithmetic we saw a clear compression from arithmetic counting procedures
to overall addition processes and then into number concepts. A corresponding

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 12

procedure-process-procept analysis arises in algebra. However, although there
may be similarities in the overall analysis, there are important differences in
detail between the development of arithmetic and algebra. A major difference is
that children learning arithmetic begin with a fairly lengthy period of learning to
count and then steadily compress their ideas from process to concept over time.
When children begin to study algebra, there are some individuals with a flexible
feeling for symbols as process or concept who can progress very quickly to
manipulate algebra flexibly in a similar way. However, others, even if they
understand the meaning of the symbolism consider an algebraic expression
more as a step-by-step procedure.
Algebra grows out of generalized statements in arithmetic. A verbal
expression such as ‘multiply a number by 3 and add 6’ is a two-step procedure
which is carried out precisely in the sequence that it is spoken. If the number
input is denoted by x, then the output is written algebraically as the expression
3x + 6 .

x ×3 +6 3x + 6

Even if this expression is understood as a procedure of evaluation (and we have

already seen that many children either do not understand this, or misinterpret its
meaning), the symbol can still be seen in different ways. One is as a specific
procedure carrying out the calculation for a specific value of the variable (or
variables). More generally, it may be seen as a process, without the need to
carry out the actual steps, 3x + 6 is the output value when the input is x.
In using algebraic notation, the learner needs to become accustomed to
standard use of notation, where in products, numbers are written before letters,
so that 3x is preferred to x3, and letters are written in alphabetical order, so 3ac
is preferred to 3ca. Likewise, when several terms are added together, alphabetic
order is preferred, so 3x + 5y is preferred to 5y + 3x . This already assumes that
the individual has flexible control over the order of addition and multiplication.
Different procedures can have the same effect, even though the steps are
different. For instance, the alternative procedure to start with x, add two, then
multiply the result by 3 may be represented by the formula (x + 2)
3, or, in
standard algebraic notation, 3(x + 2) . For any given input x, this gives the same
output as 3x + 6 . In chapter 8 we proposed that two procedures giving the same
effect both represent the same process. This focus on the same overall process,
rather than the specifics of the operations is a vital compression in the meaning
of algebra. Two such distinct procedures representing the same process are
usually said to be ‘equivalent’. In algebraic notation, the fact that 3(x + 2) and
3x + 6 are equivalent procedures is often written as
3(x + 2)
3x + 6 .

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 13

This simply says that the two expressions are equal for all values of x. Algebraic
manipulations on an expression such as collecting like terms, simplifying
expressions, multiplying out brackets, and the reverse process of factorizing
expressions, all produce equivalent expressions.
As the student begins to manipulate expressions as entities in themselves, the
expressions can now operate dually as process of evaluation (which recedes into
the background) and concepts that become the focus of symbolic manipulation.
At this stage the symbol becomes a procept.
This final stage, of thinking of expressions as manipulable entities has
several layers of sophistication. Even though a student may be apparently fluent
at algebra, the ability to ‘see’ an algebraic expression as an entity in itself is not
always obvious to students, as is illustrated by the following type of question:
Factorize : (2x + 1)2 – 3x(2x + 1).
Many students view factorization as a strategy that works from left to right
‘multiplying out brackets’, ‘collecting together like terms’ and factorizing the
resulting quadratic function. Apparently unable to break free from such a
procedural strategy, few seem able to ‘see’ that 2x+1 is a common factor, hence
moving directly to the answer, (2x + 1)(2
3x) with a minimum of effort.

EQUATIONS AS PROCEDURE, PROCESS AND CONCEPT

The equation
6x + 3 = 15
can be read in two distinct ways. The first is a process from left to right:
‘multiply a number by 6, add 3 and the answer is 15, so what is the number?’ It
can also be read as a concept: the quantity 6x + 3 is the number 15. This
distinction is subtle and of little importance on this occasion. However, there are
many occasions in algebra in which the distinction is important, and is a major
factor in the student’s success or failure.

Equations as counting procedures

It is often considered by curriculum developers that algebra can be introduced to
children earlier by using boxes to contain numbers rather than as letters to stand
for numbers. Thus the equation:
4+ =7
is regarded as an arithmetic introduction to the algebraic equation
4 + x = 7.
However, although the equations 4 + x = 7 and x + 4 = 7 are seen in algebra as
being essentially the same, for younger children, who use the operation ‘count-
on’, the equations 4 + = 7 and + 4 = 7 are very different. The first says
‘starting at 4, how many do I count on to reach 7?’ It can be solved by starting

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 14

at 4 and counting-on three, ‘5, 6, 7,’ to get the answer ‘three.’ The second says
‘what number do I start at to count-on 4 to reach 7?’ Interpreted in this way, the
child does not know where to start to perform the count-on, so the problem
requires a more complicated ‘guess and test’ problem to try out various starting
numbers until the solution is found.
My colleague Robin Foster interviewed one particular child, who attempted
+ 4 = 7 by first starting at ‘2’ and counting four fingers mouthing the words
‘three, four, five, six’. She then started again from ‘3’ saying ‘four, five, six,
seven’, to find the required starting number is ‘3’. For similar sums with slightly
larger numbers she gave up, saying, ‘I don’t know what number to start on.’
The problem is much simpler for children who realize that order of addition
does not matter. In this case the equation + 4 = 7 may be solved either by
turning it around to solve 4 + = 7 and using count-on, or, better still, to use
the known fact that 3 and 4 makes 7 to fill in the value in the box as ‘3’.
For this reason, I have serious doubts about the attempt to introduce ‘early
algebra’ to children who are still in a procedural stage of arithmetic. Reading
and interpreting algebraic statements needs at least a ‘process view’ of
arithmetic in which different representations of the same sum are seen to be
essentially the same. Even at the process level, algebraic equations have a subtle
variety of different meanings that can, and do, cause complications.

Equations as process
An equation in the form ‘expression equals number’ such as
6x + 3 = 15
can be read form left to right as a process:
Start with x, multiply by 6, add 3 and the answer is 15.
In diagrammatic form this is:

x ×6 +3 15

The operations can be reversed by performing them in the opposite direction:

2 ÷6 12 –3 15

From right to left, one starts at 15, subtracts 3, to give 12, then divides by 6, to
give the input, x, as 2.
This method of ‘undoing’ uses only arithmetic operations and has proved to
be a helpful way of solving equations of this type (CSMS Book 8-13).
However, the method no longer applies to equations that have expressions on
both sides, such as
6x + 3 = 24
x .

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 15

If these expressions are read as processes, there are now two procedures
involved (‘multiply by 6 and add three’, ‘take it away from 14’). Each of these
produces a number that is not yet known, so it is no longer possible to solve the
equation by ‘undoing’ the arithmetic. In order to understand, and to solve this
equation, it is necessary to see each side not as a process of evaluation, but as a
number concept, representing a particular number expressed in two different
ways.

Equations as equality between concepts

When the equation
6x + 3 = 24
x
is seen as two equal number concepts, it is easier to solve. If the two
expressions represent the same number, then doing any operation on both sides
still gives two different expressions representing the same number. Adding x to
both sides to give
7x + 3 = 24 ,
subtracting 3 gives
7x = 21
and so x = 3.
Such a strategy is simple to follow, provided that the equation is seen as an
equality of the two different expressions for an appropriate value of x. It is
manifestly difficult for someone who sees the expressions as step-by-step
procedures.
For this reason, success is often sought in teaching by training students to
carry out the routine procedures to ‘get all the terms involving x to one side and
all those involving numbers to the other’. One strategy that arises is that the step
of ‘adding the same thing to both sides’ can be done in two stages, starting, say
with
6x + 3 = 24
x ,
first adding x to both sides (without simplifying) to get
6x + 3 + x = 24
x + x
and then simplifying only the right hand side to get
6x + 3 + x = 24 .
Compressing these changes into a single step takes us from 6x + 3 = 24
x to
6x + 3 + x = 24 , which gives the procedural rule ‘change sides, change signs’.
More generally this involves taking any term in an equation and swapping it to
the other side whilst changing its sign. It has long been known (Kieran, 198?)

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 16

that this rule is favoured by some children, even when they are taught the
method of ‘adding the same to both sides’.
My interpretation of this is that the idea of moving a term is an embodied
idea: pick it up from one side and put it on the other. If the sign-change is
incorporated into the move, it is cognitively economical by focusing on moving
just one term instead of adding or subtracting a given quantity from both sides.
It can become automatic and applied correctly even without understanding, and
can give successful answers to problems to pass examinations. It is, therefore,
valued by those who need to obtain credit for performing routine problems. In
the longer run, however, the question is whether this is integrated into a richer
global awareness, or remains as an isolated routine.

PROBLEMS WITH POWERS

Over the longer span of the curriculum, a vital requirement is the understanding
of exponential powers, not only of the form x n where n is a positive whole
numbers, but more generally in the form a x where a and x are any numbers
(where a is positive). It is essential for the concept of exponential growth, with
practical applications in areas as diverse as the growth of populations,
compound interest and inflation, or carbon-dating through the measurement of
decreasing radiation activity.
The initial introduction of powers in arithmetic takes the familiar idea of
repeated multiplication and introduces a new notation to represent it:
22 = 2
2
24 = 2
2
2
24 = 2
2
2
2
...
This generalizes to algebraic expressions such as
xn =

x
x
… 
x
n times

and examples such as

7 3
7 2 = (7
7
7)
(7
7)
= 75
generalize to the general power law:
x m +n = x m x n .
In the same way we might deduce the rule:
(x m ) n =


x m
…
x m
x
m
= x mn .
n times

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 17

Experience in manipulating powers leads to a meaningful rule that represents
the ways that these symbols combine in practice.

Fractional and negative powers

When whole number powers are replaced by fractions and negatives, the idea
that x n means ‘n lots of x multiplied together no longer applies to the symbol
2 2 . How can one have ‘half a lot of twos multiplied together’? Similarly 2
3
1

cannot be interpreted as ‘minus three lots of 2 multiplied together’.

At this point, the usual approach is to use the power rule
x m +n = x m x n
with x =2 and m = n = 1 2 to give
1 1 1 +1
2 2
2 2 = 2 2 2 = 21 = 2
1
and so 2 2 must be the square root of 2. However, this too is based on a change
in meaning, for the power rule arises initially through multiplying several
copies of a number together and only has this meaning when the powers are
whole numbers.
This sleight of hand, therefore, takes a meaningful power law for whole
number powers and asks the learner to believe that the same law applies for
fractional powers. It can cause very different reactions in different individuals.
Those who have developed a flexible way of working with symbols will
have strong neuronal connections between the symbolic concepts and processes
and, over time, their link to any embodiment will be less likely evoked. Thus
they have a strong symbolic conception that is ripe for generalization. But those
who are already struggling, and have resorted to rote-learning to cope, now have
another (meaningless) rule to commit to memory and a further burden to
remember as a disjoint piece of information.
As I was writing this section, I mentioned the dilemma of the meaning of
fractional and negative powers to a colleague who is a mathematics teacher. She
looked at me confidently and said, ‘you just use the power law’. For her, the use
of the power law for fractions and negatives is just a matter of generalizing the
rule. Experience with the ideas has simply smoothed over the difficulty and
made it a level playing field where all symbols work in the power law equally
well.
In the theory of van Hiele levels in geometry there is a level of definition and
deduction based on embodied figures and their observed properties (level IV)
which works in a familiar context of Euclidean geometry. Correspondingly,
there is a level of operation in algebra where the use of the power law works at
a familiar level for whole numbers. Experience at this level can lead to a change
of focus in which the properties of the symbols become the focus of attention in
themselves. The neuronal links which hold them together begin to allow them to

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 18

be used as mental entities in their own right to begin to pose questions ‘what if
this property occurs, what can we deduce?’
Such a way of thinking leads to a practical kind of definition and deduction
in the familiar worlds of1 embodiment and symbolism. For instance, if one poses
the question ‘what if 2 21 had 1a meaning that satisfied the power law,
1
then this
leads via the formula 2
2 = 2 = 2 to the implication that 2 = 2 . The
2 2 1 2

square root of 2 can itself be calculated approximately as 1.414… and, squaring

this number gives (approximately) 2. Thus the square root of two ‘exists’ in a
practical sense and the major problem is to calculate it to any desired accuracy.
However, mathematics is not an arbitrary subject that can be generalized in
any way one desires. The child who seeks meaning and questions the arbitrary
extension of rules to new circumstances is right to do so. The rules
1
of powers do
not generalize to all numbers. For instance, what does (
8) mean? Because
3

(
2) 3 =
8 , it seems obvious that

1
(
8) 3 = 3
8 =
2.
1
However, (
8) 3
can also be written as
1 2 1 1
(
8) 3 = (
8) 6 = ((
8) 2 ) 6 = (+64) 6 = +2.
so which is correct?
The answer is that the rules for x n , as they stand, only work for positive
values of x. If we attempt to give meanings for negative values, then we must
move to the more sophisticated area of complex numbers that lead us to greater
complexity. And this is a topic that takes us beyond the remit of this chapter to
be addressed at a later stage.

SUMMARY

Reflecting on the evidence so far

Putting together the evidence in this chapter gives a picture that is consistent
with the overall model formulated in this book. Some fortunate individuals with
a flexible conception of arithmetic may find algebra to be a simple
generalization where an algebraic expression can be interpreted either as
process of evaluation or as a manipulable concept. For such a student, algebraic
manipulation is straightforward and solving equations is a relatively simple
process of manipulating the symbols.
However, many of the population see expressions not as manipulable
symbols, but as procedures that may have no meaning unless the values of the
variables are known. The phenomenon is extremely subtle and is evidenced by
the fact that nearly half of a broad population were not able to translate ‘z is
equal to the sum of 3 and y’ into algebraic symbolism, and of those that did,
half wrote it in the form 3 + y = z suggesting a process interpretation of ‘adding
3 and y to give z’. Those who write expressions in process order are more likely
to make mistakes as the problems become more complex. Few students see the

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 19

essential simplicity of algebraic symbolism as process and concept. Many make
connections with met-befores that cause them to conceive of algebra using rote-
learned procedures that are liable to fail under duress.

Mathematical Growth in arithmetic and algebra

This chapter is the third of three chapters on symbolism in mathematics, which
started with the action-schemas of children counting and the compression of
procedures of counting through the process of addition and the concept of sum.
In the expansion of number systems from whole numbers, to negatives and
fractions, we again found the symbols operating dually in this way. We were
able to distinguish a range of compression of meaning from step-by-step
procedures, via the reasoning that different procedures could have the same
effect and represented the same overall process, to the full use of symbols as
procepts. Procepts are richly structured cognitive units that can evoke processes
to do mathematics and concepts as mental entities to think about and manipulate
in their own right.
All the procepts in arithmetic are operational: they have built-in operations
of evaluation. They include the different ways of writing a number, such as 2+3,
3+2, 6–1, all representing the number 5. Mental operations with procepts allow
the focus of attention to move away from the embodied world of human action
on physical objects, to operate with the symbols themselves. An enormous
compression occurs in which arithmetic operations are performed in their own
right, rarely making conscious links to the original embodied meanings from
whence they came.
Nevertheless, throughout the whole of arithmetic, embodied meanings
abound and give additional support to the developing child, although they may
recede into the back of the mind as the more powerful processes and concepts of
arithmetic come to the fore. As children grow in experience, they use the
symbolism in different ways; some focus on long chains of procedural counting
using finger-counting that works in a simple context but becomes burdensome
in more complex problems, others develop a flexible way of operating with
numeric symbols as procepts.
The shift to algebra presents new problems. The symbols again dually
represent process (evaluation of an expression) and concept (the expression that
itself can be manipulated) but this time the process is only potential. Many
children have difficulty making sense of symbolism supposedly representing
processes they cannot do. Instead, a wide range of ‘met-befores’ from previous
experience surface to increase the complication of the meaning of the
expressions: codes, letters for objects, addition symbols evoking the need to add
when the addition cannot be performed. Those fortunate to have flexible ways
of handling numbers as procepts are much more likely to cope with the
symbolism of algebra, seeing it as just a simple generalization of arithmetic.

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 20

 Different human minds build different connections. The long-term
potentiation of the brain retains and enhances those links that are useful and
others fade. In mathematical growth using symbols, the successful thinker
makes stronger links with symbolism useful for solving problems. They need
not lack links with the embodied world, but such links are often not evoked in
algebraic manipulation. A focus on symbolism allows them to relate to the
generalized properties of manipulating symbols and gives them a simply entry
to the manipulation of algebraic symbols as procepts. Their experience with
manipulation of symbols makes rules like the power rule have a meaning as an
operation in itself with links to embodiment rarely evoked. This makes the
power rule a useful cognitive unit that operates in its own right and pass easily
to the structural use of symbols that obey the rule.
For these individuals, the development of algebra is an exciting journey with
ideas that grow and give pleasure as they take on more powerful meanings. For
others it is a journey that is littered with difficulties as successive obstacles arise
that cause increasing complication and confusion.

Where do we go from here?

The underlying theory of this chapter and the different ways in which
individuals handle algebra gives a clear insight to the universal failure to teach
‘algebra for all’. Those who have flexibility using symbols in arithmetic and
algebra as process and concept find the subject much simpler than those more
procedurally inclined who encounter a subject whose symbols represent
operations that they cannot do. This changes the nature of the quest for ‘algebra
for all’. Traditional algebra, with its focus on symbol manipulation makes sense
for those who compress general arithmetic procedures into flexible cognitive
units that themselves can be manipulated. The many complications that occur
through attempting to cope with the meaning show how difficult the subject
becomes for others.
What is clear is that many of those who have difficulty with algebra focus on
the procedural aspect of the symbolism. This gives a possible route for
increasing the number of individuals that gain some success in parts of algebra
that are useful to them. The activities that involve evaluating expressions (by
assigning numbers to variables), I shall call evaluation algebra. Evaluation
algebra is found in spreadsheets on computers and offers a valuable resource for
solving many problems previously solved by algebraic methods. This suggests
the need to develop a more widely applicable version of algebra by building a
new subject called ‘evaluation algebra’. It is more than a subset of school
algebra as evaluation algebra can include operations such as repeated iteration
of a formula, that make spreadsheet algebra a powerful tool in its own right. Use
of information technology in this way is a far more practical a tool in a wide
range of operations than traditional school algebra.

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 21

 School algebra, with its symbolic manipulation, I shall call manipulation
algebra. This is still a vital part of the development of those individuals that
have specific need for algebra in later mathematics and its applications.
The third form of algebra, which makes a fleeting appearance in school
mathematics through using the rule of powers to deduce the properties of
structural procepts, flowers at a more advanced level in algebra based on
axiomatic systems, such as vector space theory, group theory, and other studies
of symbolic systems with algebraic operations. This will be called axiomatic
algebra. It firmly inhabits the formal world of mathematics.
In the chapters which follow this theme will recur again. For example, in
chapter 13, I shall consider how new technologies affect the role of algebra in
our society. In particular, software such as spreadsheets use algebra purely to
evaluate expressions and have no need for manipulation of algebraic
symbolism. This gives evaluation algebra a new role that is valuable to a wider
range of the population than those who traditionally study manipulation algebra.
The arrival of technology therefore gives a new twist in the development of
algebraic thinking. However, in this new world of computer mathematics, the
subtlety of the human brain continues to play its own special role.

References

Alston, A., Davis, R. B., Maher, C. A. & Martino, M. (1994). Children’s use of alternative
structures, Proceedings of PME XVIII, Lisbon, II, 248–255.
Booth, L. R., (1984). Algebra: Children’s Strategies and Errors. Windsor, Berks: NFER-
Nelson.
Clement, J., Lochhead, J. & Monk, G.S., (1981). Translation Difficulties in Learning
Mathematics, American Mathematics Monthly, 4, 286–290.
Cornu, B., (1983). Apprentissage de la notion de limite: conceptions et obstacles, Thèse de
Doctorat de troisième cycle, L’Université Scientifique et Medicale de Grenoble.
Crowley. L., (2000) Cognitive Structures in College Algebra. PhD Thesis, University of
Warwick.
Davis, R. B., (1984). Learning mathematics: the cognitive science approach to mathematics
education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
DeMarois, P., (1998). Facets and Layers of the Function Concept: The Case of College
Algebra. PhD Thesis, University of Warwick.
Dienes, Z. P., (1960). Building up Mathematics, London: Hutchinson.
Dörfler, W., (1993). Fluency in a discourse or manipulation of mental objects. In I.
Hirabayashi, N. Hohda, K Shigematsu and Fou-Lai Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of XVII
International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Tsukuba,
Japan, II, 145–152.

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 22

Dubinsky, E., (1992), Reflective abstraction in Advanced Mathematical Thinking. In D. O.
Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking, (pp. 95–123), Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gray, E. M. & Tall, D. O. (1993). Success and Failure in Mathematics: The Flexible Meaning
of Symbols as Process and Concept, Mathematics Teaching, 142, 6–10.
Gray, E. M. & Tall, D. O., (1991). Duality, ambiguity & flexibility in successful
mathematical thinking. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of XV International
Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Assisi, Italy, II, 72–79.
Gray, E. M. & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, Ambiguity and Flexibility: A Proceptual View of
Simple Arithmetic, The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26 2, 115–
141.
Gray, E. M. (1993). Count-on: The parting of the ways for simple arithmetic, Proceedings of
the Seventeenth International Conference of PME, Tsukuba, Japan, 2, 204–211.
Herscovics, N. (1989). Cognitive Obstacles Encountered in the Learning of Algebra, In S.
Wagner & C. Kieran (Eds.), Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of
Algebra, NCTM, Reston, Virginia, 60–86.
Kaput, J. J. (1987). Towards a Theory of Symbol Use in Mathematics, In C. Janvier (Ed.)
Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Hillsdale
NJ: Erlbaum, 159–195.
Kerslake, D. (1986). Fractions: Children’s Strategies and Errors, Windsor UK: NFER-
Nelson.
Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts Associated with the Equality Symbol, Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 12, 317–326.
Kuchemann D. E. (1981). Algebra. In K. M. Hart (Ed), Children’s Understanding of
Mathematics : 11-16, London: John Murray, 102–119.
Laborde, C. (1990). Language and Mathematics, in P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds),
Mathematics and Cognition, Cambridge: CUP, 53–69.
MacGregor, M. & Stacey, K. (1993). Cognitive Models Underlying students' Formulation of
simple Linear Equations, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24 (3),
217–232.
McGowen. M. (1998) Cognitive Units, Concept Images and Cognitive Collages: An
Examination of the Process of Knowledge Construction. PhD Thesis, University of
Warwick.
Stephenson, P. (2002). Billy. London: Harper Collins (paperback edition).
Stewart, I. N. & Tall, D. O., (1983). Complex Analysis, Cambridge: CUP.
Struik, D. J., (1969). A Source Book in Mathematics, 1200–1800, Harvard University Press.
Tall, D. O. & Thomas, M. O. J., (1991). Encouraging versatile thinking in algebra using the
computer. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22 2, 125–147.

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 23

1
This question was first addressed by Clement, Lochead and Monk (1981), see also Laborde
(1990), for a summary of research on this question.
2
Crowley, L., Thomas, M. O. J. & Tall, D. O. (1994d), Algebra, Symbols, and Translation of
Meaning, Proceedings of PME18, Lisbon, II, 240–247.

Copy printed at 1:24 PM on September 6, 2004 10 – 24