Mathematics Education Research Journal

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-022-00434-w

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic

equations and reflecting upon curriculum structure
and implementation

Bronwyn Reid O’Connor1   · Stephen Norton1

Received: 27 September 2021 / Revised: 21 September 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
An important topic of study in secondary mathematics is non-linear functions,
including quadratic equations. In this study, findings from 25 Year 11 students
indicated that difficulties with critical prerequisite concepts such as algebraic con-
ventions impeded students’ success in understanding and working with quadratics.
Analysis of student errors identified misconceptions associated with the null factor
law, and the nature of quadratic equations. This paper proposes that these findings
are a result of limited timeframes nominated for learning quadratic topics outlined
in the enacted curriculum. The implication of this is that the enactment of the Aus-
tralian Curriculum: Mathematics F-10 did not support the development of concep-
tual understanding or procedural fluency with key mathematical concepts for these
students. Without purposeful attention to prerequisite knowledge, and suitable time
allocated to develop understanding and fluency, students’ proficiency with topics
such as quadratics is negatively influenced. A mastery approach to the hierarchically
organised curriculum is supported by findings of this study.

Keywords  Quadratic equations · Mathematics curriculum · Mastery learning · Error

analysis

Introduction

The demand for mathematics graduates in Australia is ever escalating due to the
central role of mathematics in science, technology, and engineering (McLaughlin
et al., 2015; Reid et al., 2016; Sharma & Yarlagadda, 2018). Unfortunately, in the

* Bronwyn Reid O’Connor

bronwyn.reidoconnor@sydney.edu.au
Stephen Norton
s.norton3@optusnet.com.au
1
Sydney School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

last two decades, Australia has experienced a decrease in both mathematical perfor-
mance (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2019),
and the number of students studying advanced mathematics at school and univer-
sity (Hine, 2019). Despite diminishing numbers of high school students studying
advanced mathematics, there is limited data explaining this decline (Kennedy et al.,
2014). One consideration to explain such trends is that success and understanding of
key concepts in mathematics in junior secondary years (Years 7 to 10) is likely to be
an important consideration for students in selecting pathways that lead to the study
of advanced mathematics in senior years of secondary schooling (Years 11 and 12)
(Bong, 2013).
In Australia, the study of quadratic equations has been positioned towards the
end of Year 10 in curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting
Authority [ACARA], 2018), which is when students are making decisions regarding
the study of more abstract senior mathematics subjects (e.g., Mathematical Meth-
ods, and Specialist Mathematics) designed in preparation for STEM-orientated ter-
tiary studies, or the less abstract strands (e.g., Essential Mathematics, and General
Mathematics). Following Year 10, a review of quadratic equations is included in the
Year 11 Mathematical Methods curriculum (Queensland Curriculum and Assess-
ment Authority [QCAA], 2019). The review of quadratics is one of five topic areas
to be undertaken within approximately 20 h of the scheduled teaching in the Math-
ematics Methods course. As noted above, success with quadratic equations is likely
to act as a gatekeeper to studying further mathematics in senior secondary school,
since students who are confounded by the algebra associated with quadratics in Year
10 are likely to experience challenges when faced with the more abstract algebra
that underpins calculus (Edge & Friedberg, 1984; Moore, 2005; Pyzdrowski et al.,
2013). Given that it has been acknowledged that “the most important factor in deter-
mining success in calculus was manipulative skills in algebra” (Edge & Friedberg,
1984, p. 137), difficulties with quadratics in junior secondary years may predispose
students to not commence the study of further abstract algebra that is included in the
Mathematical Methods and Mathematics Specialist senior mathematics subjects in
Australia. This is confirmed in the Australian curriculum documents as the rationale
for Mathematical Methods subject notes that “the major themes of Mathematical
Methods are calculus and …include as necessary prerequisites studies of algebra”
(ACARA, 2018). Further, Specialist Mathematics notes that knowledge and skills
from the Year 10 content descriptor “investigate the concept of a polynomial, and
apply the factor and remainder theorems to solve problems” (ACARA, 2018) are
highly recommended in preparation for the course. This prerequisite recommenda-
tion was one of only three made for the course (with the other two focusing on trigo-
nometric concepts).
Bong (2013, p. 64) explains the importance of success with prerequisite con-
cepts concisely: “Direct mastery experience is the most reliable source (of self-
efficacy). Success with tasks raises self-efficacy towards it, whereas failure lowers
it”. Self-efficacy has been strongly correlated with outcome attainment includ-
ing subject selection (Burton, 2004). Therefore, one purpose of this study was
to identify knowledge barriers that students may have that prevent or discourage
them from studying more advanced senior mathematics. The analysis of students’

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

struggles with quadratics offered insight into the knowledge forms that were
potentially acting as cognitive, and subsequently attitudinal barriers to further
study of advanced mathematics.
The nature and implementation of the curriculum are a central aspect of student
success or otherwise, not least because curriculum sets the academic goals and time-
frames for their achievement. Stein et  al. (2007) noted that the nature and imple-
mentation of mathematics curricula was a critical aspect of mathematics teaching
and learning and warranted investigation. Similarly, Brosnan et  al., (2013, p. 349)
reported: “Decades of research and though have been directed toward developing
successful curriculum for school mathematics”. Thus, this study continues that pro-
cess by examining student success and, by using historical school-based contextual
data and published curriculum recommendations, seeks to understand some of the
curriculum implementation factors that potentially impact on student outcomes. If
students have failed to master the necessary content, is it possible that the curricula
structure is a contributing factor? Stein et al. (2007) noted that time allocation was
an important variable and “flexibility in class scheduling and timing (was) a luxury
infrequently afforded teachers.” (p. 355).
The primary aim of the paper is to explore student’s success with quadratic
equations, and subsequently identify any persistent barriers to success in more
advanced mathematics. A secondary aim is to reflect on the structure of the cur-
riculum and the way it was implemented as a potential explanation for some of
the difficulties the students experienced.

Literature review

Overview of research relating to solving quadratic equations

One challenge in the middle years of secondary schooling is to meaningfully

develop secondary students’ conceptual understanding of non-linear functions
including quadratics (Fonger et al., 2020). The resounding theme in research is that
students’ performance in the domain of quadratic equations is poor and does not
significantly increase after detailed instruction (Chaysuwan, 1996; Vaiyavutjamai
& Clements, 2006; Vaiyavutjamai et  al., 2005). Authors have proposed numerous
reasons for this including an overemphasis on some solving techniques such as fac-
torisation due to poor fractional and radical arithmetic skills (Bosse & Nandakumar,
2005), key misconceptions concerning the concepts of variables and the meaning of
‘find a solution’ (Vaiyavutjamai & Clements, 2006; Vaiyavutjamai et al., 2005), and
overemphasis on either procedural or conceptual understanding when teaching the
topic (Kotsopoulos, 2007; Vaiyavutjamai & Clements, 2006). The challenges with
the study of quadratics have also been found to extend to teachers in the middle sec-
ondary years (Huang & Kulm, 2012). However, beyond the confirmation of student
difficulties, there is a general deficit in empirical evidence explaining students’ dif-
ficulties in this specific topic, especially in the Australian context.

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

Mathematics curriculum structure

The current Australian Curriculum for mathematics is outlined and enacted as a spi-
ral curriculum that is hierarchical in nature. In Fig.  1, it can be observed that the
topic of quadratics is progressively built up to from Year 5 onwards, and similar and
related topics are revisited at increasing depth in subsequent years.
A critical assumption of hierarchical mathematics curricula is that the early
stages lay a conceptual understanding upon which to build increasing complexity
and abstraction. The suggested benefits of this have included the enabling of inte-
gration and connection between concepts, moving away from a compartmentalised
view of mathematical concepts (Harden, 1999). The organisation of a hierarchical
mathematics curriculum aligns with what is understood with schema development,
which emphasises the importance of linking new knowledge to existing schema
(Van Merrinboer & Pass, 1990). The intention of organising mathematics curric-
ulum in such a manner is that topics are revisited, and new learning is related to
previous learning which ideally contributes to increasingly complex schema devel-
opment (Harden, 1999). Piaget (1960) and Skemp (1976) supported the idea that
relationships between ideas and procedures, schemas, are reformed when there is an
element of cognitive dissonance. The struggle to make sense of the new information
prompts the re-organisation of schema into more powerful models. Underpinning
this assimilation of knowledge is the assumption that the learner has the cognitive
tools and necessary scaffolding that make sense of the new information.
In terms of schema development and the way in which knowledge builds upon
knowledge, the critical role of prior success in predicting future success has been

• Factors of whole numbers

Year 5:

• Prime factorisaon
Year 6: • Order of operaons (with numbers)

• Lowest common mulples, highest common factors

• Variables and evaluang algebraic expressions
• Order of operaons (with algebraic expressions)
Year 7:
• Applicaon of distribuve law (with numbers)

• Algebraic applicaon of the distribuve law

Year 8: • Factorising and expanding simple algebraic expressions

• Expanding binomial products

Year 9: • Graphing parabolas

• Further factorisaon and expansion of algebraic expressions including monic quadracs

Year 10: • Solving quadracs via various methods

Fig. 1  The hierarchical development of skills and knowledge related to quadratic equations in the Aus-
tralian curriculum

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

well documented by Hattie (2008) who cites an effect size of 0.94 for prior achieve-
ment. Unfortunately, it is well known that people forget, meaning that the neural
pathways that constitute memories decay or are displaced (Della Salla, 2010). Mem-
ory loss can be averted if the thought is embedded in schema and if used repeat-
edly (Sweller, 2016; Van Merrienboer & Pass, 1990). Hattie and Zierer (2019, p.
82) defined deliberate practice as conscious practice that was challenging, varied
and regular and had a positive effect on learning (d = 0.49) due to the strengthening
of long-term memory. The importance of repetition that develops automaticity is
recognised in the Australian Curriculum as the proficiency strand fluency (ACARA,
2018). Similarly, schema or the connection of knowledge into general categories
is recognised in ACARA (2018) description of understanding in the proficiency
strands.
For students in mathematics, sequences of learning where the level of difficulty
increases at each successive revisiting of a topic relates strongly to the iterative rela-
tionship between conceptual understanding and procedural fluency (Rosenshine,
2012; Sfard & Linchevski, 1994). Skemp (1976, p.9) use the term relational under-
standing, and defined it as “knowing both what to do and why”. He contrasted this
with instrumental understanding, “rules without reason”. Skemp noted that rela-
tional understanding took more time and scaffolding to develop. Hiebert and Lefevre
(1986) used the term conceptual understanding, which is characterised most clearly
as deep understanding of the relationships between critical pieces of information,
the equivalent of schema. The intention in mathematics is to teach conceptually,
followed by establishing procedural fluency (Kamii & Dominick, 1998; National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2014). The next time the topic is then
revisited, the intention is then for a deeper conceptual understanding to be devel-
oped. However, if the new concept is not well integrated into schema and if there is
limited repetition to aid remembering, the knowledge is likely to be held tenuously
in long-term memory and forgotten.
An additional potential issue associated with the organisation of mathematics
curricula relates to the assumption that teaching of concepts in the following year
or years begins from where students left off. It assumes that students had adequate
experience, time, and exposure to the concept in prior years to develop fluency and
mastery, and did not forget in the interim. It also assumes and relies on students
being continuously part of the same academic program (e.g., remaining at the same
school or not omitting key stages in prior years) (Gibbs, 2014). With a reportedly
overcrowded mathematics curriculum in Australia (Donnelly & Wiltshire, 2014),
there is a potential problem that teachers cover many topics briefly and without
depth (Snider, 2004). This can result in a lack of sufficient conceptualisation and
procedural fluency, which acts to limit understanding of the subsequent learning and
exacerbates the possibility of forgetting.

Mastery approaches

A mastery learning approach to structuring and organising curriculum has been

shown to have a significant influence on student achievement. Mastery learning, an

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

approach identified as effective in meta-analyses, was found to have a positive influ-

ence on student attitudes as well as achievement (Hattie, 2008; Kulik et al., 1990),
which is a highly sought-after educational outcome often difficult to obtain.
Mastery learning initially arose from models such as Bloom’s Learning for Mastery
(Bloom, 1968). Bloom’s model focused on individualising instruction depending on
student’s needs resulting in uniformly high performance for all. This model differenti-
ated from the conventional models typically seen in some explicit instruction approaches
where students receive identical instruction irrespective of individual needs, resulting
in normally distributed outcomes within a class (Kulik et al., 1990). Mastery learning
is structured around the design of small units of sequenced work developed from pre-
testing on unit objects, followed by instruction on objects which are yet to be achieved
(Hattie, 2008; Willett et al., 1983). Timeframes do not constrain the units of work, and
the premise of mastery learning is that no student will progress onto further units until
mastery of objectives is obtained. Hattie (2008) rated the effect size for mastery learning
at d = 0.58 which is in the zone of desired effects. From a theoretical perspective, mas-
tery learning is supported by Piagetian thinking that subsequent learning be built upon
the foundation of earlier understandings.
A critical component of a mastery approach is the pretesting prior to a unit of work.
In mathematics, this is frequently referred to as diagnostic testing. Diagnostic test-
ing has long been recognised as an important component of teaching in mathemat-
ics, forming a cyclical approach to teaching and learning (Ashlock, 1976). Diagnostic
testing facilitates the identification of students’ capabilities (current achievement) and
allows the teacher to subsequently hypothesise potential reasons for students’ difficul-
ties, formulate objectives to structure remediation of difficulties, and employ corrective
remedial procedures in a cycle of ongoing evaluation (Reid O’Connor, 2020; Glennon,
1963; Mager & Peatt, 1962; Popham & Baker, 1970; Reisman, 1977, 1982). There-
fore, diagnostic testing is one way in which error analysis is implemented in the design
of units of work to facilitate a mastery approach in mathematics. Such testing also
supports a Piagetian approach to cognitive acceleration where pre-testing allows the
planning of appropriate challenge and support (Adey & Shayer, 2013).
Whether the current design of the Australian curriculum facilitates students
obtaining mastery of mathematical concepts and skills, or at least sufficient prereq-
uisite knowledge to attempt the next stages of learning, is an important educational
consideration. This study is significant for the insight it provides into the impact of
curriculum design in relation to student achievement for key mathematics concepts
such as quadratic equations.

The study of quadratics in the Australian curriculum

Structuring curricula in a hierarchical manner intends for students to build under-

standing by extending the complexity and depth of which the topic is explored
each time the concept is reviewed. This can be observed in the advice for the study
of quadratic equations in the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting
Authority (2018). As outlined in Fig. 1, students begin the study of formal algebra in
Year 7 (i.e., the concept of variables is introduced). This is followed by exploration

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

of the distributive law in algebraic contexts in Year 8, with the expectation that this
builds off students’ understanding of the distributive law in whole number contexts
from Year 7 (ACARA, 2018). Year 8 students are also introduced to factorisation of
simple algebraic expressions by removing whole number factors, and they explore
the links between factorisation and expansion. In Year 9, the distributive law is
applied to the expansion of binomial products and parabolas are explored in graphi-
cal contexts. Year 10 students build on factorisation skills developed in Year 8 and
explore the factorisation of expressions by removing common algebraic factors, and
factorising monic quadratics. It is specifically noted in Year 10 that students also
solve quadratics using a variety of strategies such as completing the square or the
quadratic formula. In Queensland, the state specific curriculum implemented in the
sample school at the time of this study (see Table 1) included the study of quadratics
within a Year 10 unit on linear and non-linear relationships (Department of Educa-
tion, Training and Employment [DETE], 2013).
Within this 12-lesson unit, quadratics were allocated to four out of 12 lessons
(~ 4 h of teaching time). Of these four lessons, factorisation of monic quadratics was
heavily emphasised (2 lessons), with all other methods of solving being delegated to
the final two lessons of the unit.

The study of quadratics in international curricula

To give context to the sequencing of content related to quadratics in the Austral-

ian curriculum, it is useful to observe how international curricula address this topic.
Commonly, factorisation is the first method taught when solving quadratics (e.g.,
Hong Kong curriculum: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government
[HKSARG], 2007; Queensland curriculum: DETE, 2013; Singapore curriculum:
Singapore Ministry of Education, 2012). However, earlier literature suggested that
a cause of students’ limited success with quadratic study might be the overempha-
sis of some procedures such as factorisation (Bosse & Nandakumar, 2005). Such

Table 1  Suggested scope and sequence of the Year 10 linear and non-linear relationships unit as detailed
in the Curriculum into the Classroom unit (DETE, 2013)
Lesson Lesson Focus

Lesson 1–2 Expansion and factorisation of algebraic products and expressions

Lesson 3–4 Solving linear equations involving algebraic fractions and using linear equations involving
algebraic fractions to solve contextualised problems
Lesson 5 Expanding perfect squares and the difference between two squares and recognising
products as being perfect squares or the difference between two squares
Lesson 6–7 Factorising monic quadratic expressions (expressions where a = 1 in standard quadratic
form) using a variety of strategies
Lesson 8–9 Graphing parabolas, circles and exponentials functions and applying transforms to
parabolas, circles and exponential functions
Lesson 10–11 Solve simple quadratic equations using a variety of strategies (by grouping, completing
the square, using the quadratic formula)
Lesson 12 Revision

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

a critique is consistent with the notion that there has been too much emphasis on
procedural knowledge at the expense of conceptual knowledge in mathematics (e.g.,
Rittle-Johnson et  al., 2015). However, when comparing Australia’s curriculum to
other top-performing nations (e.g., Hong Kong and Singapore as demonstrated by
recent TIMSS testing; Mullis et  al., 2016), there are important differences in how
quadratic equations are approached. Like Australia, in the Hong Kong middle school
curriculum, quadratics are first solved using factorisation. However, once students
learn factorisation, they are then purposefully exposed to quadratics with irrational
roots that are difficult to factorise. It is suggested that the intent of this is to imme-
diately induce productive struggle and prompt a deep conceptualisation of the topic
area.
There are also important differences in the amount of time allocated to learn-
ing quadratic equations in international curricula. In the Hong Kong curriculum,
a total of 19  h is dedicated to learning how to solve quadratics through factorisa-
tion, graphing, and the quadratic formula. Further, in Singapore, learning quadrat-
ics occurs over an extended timeframe. Instead of learning quadratics in a single
school year (as is typically done in Australia), Singaporean students learn how to
solve quadratics through factorising in one school year, and in the next year they
learn how to solve using the quadratic formula, completing the square, and graph-
ing. The extended timeframe exhibited in Hong Kong curriculum, and the extended
duration of focus on quadratics in Singapore contrasts with the compartmentalisa-
tion of quadratics to Year 10 and the short timeframes allocated to learning factori-
sation and other solving techniques in the Queensland specific curriculum as out-
lined above (DETE, 2013).

Aims of the study

This study aimed to describe student performance in solving quadratic equations,

and identify patterns in the types of errors or misconceptions that were hindering
students’ success. Meeting this aim allowed for key error patterns to be described for
the sample. From this, the effect of the current mathematics curriculum, as enacted
in this school, can be inferred and recommendations and conclusions for mathemat-
ics curriculum design can be made. The generalisability of the results to broader
school settings can be inferred by the reader from the description of the sample.

Method

Overview of methodology

This study was part of a larger project collating data on students’ abilities to solve
quadratic equations (see Reid O’Connor & Norton, 2016 for other findings). As the
purpose of the study was to understand why students had difficulties solving quad-
ratic equations, the methodological approach was exploratory (Creswell, 2012). The
topic area of quadratics was chosen because it draws on an understanding of most

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

algebra conventions studied in earlier grades. There were two phases of data col-
lection; a written test and this was followed by diagnostic interviews to add nuance
understandings for student’s written responses.
The first stage of the project involved collecting students’ written responses to a
set of mathematical problems. These responses were analysed and the generation
of categories explaining students’ errors was carried out from the perspective of an
emergent design rather than beginning with predetermined categories. The literature
review provided analytical guidelines in relation to prevalent difficulties, but these
were not fixed and trends in the data were allowed to emerge. The data analysis
was inductive, moving from specific analysis of individual student errors to a broad
comparison, meaning that comparison happened from error pattern to error pattern,
error pattern to categories of errors, and categories of errors to other categories.
The second stage of the project involved constructing interview questions that
were designed in response to the results observed in the written test. The ques-
tions were aimed at ascertaining students’ reasoning behind some of the strategies
employed and assessed whether students possessed a conceptual understanding of
the nature of quadratics, solving techniques, and the meanings of the solutions. This
data helped to triangulate the findings that emerged from the analysis of the written
scripts. A critique of curriculum documents provides a background to be considered
when interpreting the results.

The sample

The sample school in this research project was a coeducational high school in
Queensland in a community of mixed socio-economic index. The school is typical
of outer suburban schools according to MySchool data (ACARA, 2012). The sample
comprised a Year 11 Mathematics B class. Mathematics B classes generally consist
of students that have completed Year 10 mathematics to a high standard and, thus,
have chosen to complete a mathematics subject that will contribute to their tertiary
entrance and also gain them the prerequisites to particular STEM focused university
courses. The course involves the study of further advanced algebra, and includes
introductory calculus concepts. Mathematics B classes also consist of some students
that have elected to study an additional higher level, extension mathematics subject
(Mathematics C). The class consisted of 25 students, 11 of whom were Mathematics
B only students, and 14 of whom were Mathematics B and C students. Therefore,
over half of this class had elected to study the highest level of mathematics in the
senior secondary years. The entire sample (n = 25) participated in the written test,
and 14 students from this sample participated in the interviews. The selection of stu-
dents who were interviewed depended on attendance on the day that the interviews
were conducted; all available students were interviewed.
This sample was chosen because it was considered that it could give insight into
the implementation of the state curriculum and the readiness of students to under-
take advanced mathematics study in the final 2 years of school mathematics. All the
students had studied quadratics in Year 10 consistent with the state and national cur-
riculum (ACARA, 2018; DETE, 2013; Queensland Studies Authority [QSA], 2004)

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

and were about to briefly revise the topic area before embarking on the study of
differentiation, a critical introduction to calculus. Quadratics were taught in Year 10
consistent with the state curriculum at the time (outlined in Table  1). The sample
school noted that solving quadratic equations using the quadratic formula was not
emphasised in the units related to quadratic equations. In this study, the teaching of
quadratics in Year 10 was not observed, however, the local curriculum as described
in Table 1 provides insight into the types of learning experiences for this group of
students.

Testing instruments

Students’ procedural and conceptual knowledge of key concepts associated with

studying quadratic equations was probed using a pencil-and-paper test. Writ-
ten tests have been utilised in previous studies concerning quadratic equations
(e.gVaiyavutjamai & Clements, 2006; Vaiyavutjamai et  al., 2005; Zakaria et  al.,
2010). The structure of the test was informed by previous literature on students’
challenges associated with studying quadratics, and local textbook and curriculum
documents. Conditions of the test included that all solutions be written, and cal-
culators were not permitted as it was important to determine whether fundamental
mathematics, including basic number computations, was a factor limiting student
achievement. Such a constraint is consistent with the curriculum as students must
be fluent with and without the use of graphing calculators (ACARA, 2018; QSA,
2004). This paper examines the results of student responses to five of the test ques-
tions. The test questions are outlined in Table 2.
The results of the written test were analysed qualitatively by noting any and all
errors in students’ work. The errors were then categorised, and common themes
found. The percentage success and fail rate and number of error occurrences were
also recorded during the analysis.

Analysis and error classification

Below is a detailed description of the research team’s analysis of a student’s response

to a test question. The research team (authors) classified and coded errors collabora-
tively. The original sample of work is shown in Fig. 2. The following breakdown in
Fig. 3 provides insight into how the final error summary was obtained.
In the sample of student work shown in Fig.  3, there is a key conceptual error
related to the topic of quadratics (the first error identified), which was that the pro-
cedure carried out was unnecessary. The subsequent errors (the student’s inability to
rearrange the equation correctly) are essentially procedural as they involve errors in
basic prerequisite knowledge and understanding that ought to have been understood
and committed to long-term memory in earlier years for fluent retrieval and use. In
other words, the student lacked foundational algebraic fluency. It can be seen that
some errors arising from the inability to apply given procedures (e.g., applying the
null factor law) are classified as conceptual, as they are indicative of a deficit in
understanding of the key concept, rather than a misapplication or error associated

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

Table 2  Test questions
Question form Concepts and procedures involved

1. Solve for x: To successfully complete this question, identifying this equation as a

(x − 3)(x − 5) = 0 quadratic was not essential, however, it provided a beginning point
to see whether students understood the concept of the null factor
law, and could appropriately carry out the procedures associated
with solving a factorised quadratic. US, Brunei, and Thai studies
demonstrated that students have difficulties solving problems of
this form (Vaiyavutjamai et al., 2005)
2. Factorise and solve for x: This question was designed to test students’ abilities to factorise
x2 + 9x + 20 = 0 expressions where a = 1 and where b and c are positive (thus
resulting in an expression with positive solutions making
it a function that is easier to factorise). The choice of easy
numbers enabled the researcher to focus on the way in which
students approached factorisation. In addition, the relative
simplicity of the factorisation processes provides baseline data
on numerical fluency. To successfully complete this question,
students needed to understand the concept and procedures
associated with factorising, applying the null factor law, and
understand the meaning of “solve” in this context
3. What are the x-intercepts of This question was designed to be a relatively simple quadratic to
y = x2 + x − 12 factorise (where a = 1), however, students were not instructed to
utilise a specific solving technique. This provided insight into which
solving techniques students preferred. This question also assessed
whether students understood that the x-intercepts of a quadratic are
the solution when y = 0. To successfully complete this question,
students needed to identify the equation as a quadratic and select
an appropriate solving technique, understand the concept/s and
procedure/s associated with their chosen solving technique, and
understand the nature of quadratics (being that the x-intercepts
occur when y = 0, a key concept)
4. What are the values of x such This was the first question that introduced a value of a that was not
that 2x2 + 11x + 12 is equal to 1, increasing the complexity of the task if a student did attempt
zero? to utilise factorisation as a solving technique. To successfully
complete this question, students needed to identify the equation
as a quadratic and select an appropriate solving technique, and
understand the concept/s and procedure/s associated with their
chosen solving technique
5. Solve In this question, the equation must first be rearranged to solve. This
3x2 = −4x − 1 question was designed to assess whether students could identify
the problem as a quadratic when the question was not set out
in standard form. This question also assessed students’ abilities
to solve quadratic equations with values of a other than 1 and,
because of this, the equation was relatively difficult to factorise.
Like the previous question, it provided an opportunity to observe
which method students picked to solve for the unknown. To
successfully complete this question, students needed to identify
the equation as a quadratic and select an appropriate solving
technique, employ algebraic procedures correctly to rearrange the
equation, understand the concept/s and procedure/s associated
with their chosen solving technique, and understand the nature of
quadratics (being that the x-intercepts occur when y = 0)

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

Fig. 2  Example of unannotated
student work

with a known procedure. The student in the above example has made no attempt to
employ the null factor law, meaning that the correct procedure has not been identi-
fied. Thus, this has been classified as a lack of conceptual understanding relating
to the nature of quadratic equations. Overall, the student whose work is shown in
this example has not understood that the equation is a quadratic, has not applied an
appropriate solving technique, and has misapplied algebraic procedures.
Analysis of this form has the potential to assist in developing a deep understand-
ing of the reasons why students struggle with this area of mathematics study, and to
inform future corrective measures. This method of analysis shows the transparency
between the data and the error classification. This gives confidence in the inductive
approach to classifying errors.

Results and analysis

Overview of data

The data is presented first as a description of success or lack of success on each

question. The written scripts were then analysed for themes and finally, interview
data is presented that adds nuanced meaning to student inscriptions.
In Table 3, the overall results for each question are outlined. The data indicates
the challenges experienced by most students.
Overall, the data illustrates that students’ abilities to solve quadratic equations
were poor. It is evident that students’ difficulties increase as the questions become
more complex, particularly when students are required to factorise where a ≠ 1. The
high proportions of students who did not attempt Questions 3, 4, or 5 suggest that
students did not know any method of solving the quadratic. This inference was trian-
gulated with the interview data. Students simply made statements such as “I did not
know where to start”. The student responses to the questions are explored in detail
below.

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

The student correctly expands the equation, however, they

do not appreciate that the procedure is unnecessary. The
correct expansion indicates procedural knowledge of this
process. The student does not recognise that for = 0,
either − 3 = 0 or − 5 = 0, meaning that x =3 or =
5. This is a conceptual error. The procedure to solve for x
in (x - 3) = 0 is trivial, and the main concern is the lack of
conceptualisation associated with the task of “solving” the
equation.

The student incorrectly adds -3 and -5 to obtain -7 .

This error relates directly to a lack of fluency with
algebraic procedures and working with integers. This is a
procedural error since -3 +-5 is a simple number operation
that ought to have been mastered several years prior.

The student incorrectly removes +15 from the right-hand

side of the equation resulting in 15 being the incorrect sign
on the left-hand side, demonstrating a lack of
understanding of the processes of solving a quadratic. The
student has also miswritten −7 from the previous line of
working as +7 . The reasons for this transformation are
not known. The error is classified as a procedural error
since subtracting 15 from both sides is related to basic
algebraic conventions.

The student has tried to isolate the value of , and 7 has

been incorrectly moved to the other side of the equation.
The has been dropped from the 7, and the square root has
incorrectly been applied only to the 15. Standard algebraic
processes have been violated, including only finding the
square root of one of the expressions on the right-hand side
of the equal sign. This is essentially a deficit in procedural
fluency associated with algebraic conventions.
Summary: This student has demonstrated conceptual errors associated with
1) The nature of quadratics (the equation has not been identified as a factorised quadratic equation and
solved appropriately in the beginning phases, as techniques associated with solving linear equations are
employed throughout the attempted solution),
2) The null factor law (the student has not understood that, in this case, x – 3 = 0 or x – 5 = 0 giving the
solutions of x = 3 or 5), and procedural errors associated with
3) Rearranging equations (basic algebraic conventions have been violated and misapplied throughout
the attempted solution).

Fig. 3  Example of research team’s error analysis from student work

Equations of the form (x − r)(x − s) = 0

The solution to an equation of the form (x − r)(x − s) = 0 stems from the null factor
law which states that, if the above equation is true, x − r = 0 or x − s = 0 and thus,
x = r or x = s . In solving the factorised quadratic, one type of error made by stu-
dents was attempting to expand the equation to solve. This suggests that students did
not identify the question as a quadratic or did not understand how to apply the null
factor law in this scenario. Both errors essentially demonstrate a lack of conceptual
understanding in regard to quadratics and their forms, as well as the null factor law
as there is no logic in expanding a factorised quadratic to solve. Evidence for these
errors is presented in Fig. 4.

13


13
Table 3  Number and percentage of students who answered questions successfully, unsuccessfully, or did not attempt from a sample of 25
Question Successful n/% Unsuccessful n/% No attempt n/%

1. Solving the equation of the form: (x − r)(x − s) = 0 14/56% 10/40% 1/4%

2. Solving the equation of the form: x2 + bx + c = 0 12/48% 12/48% 1/4%
3. Solving the equation of the form: x2 + bx − c = 0 and identifying the result as the intercept 8/32% 8/32% 9/36%
x-coordinates
4. Solving the equation of the form: ax2 + bx + c = 0 and identifying the result as the intercept 5/20% 14/56% 6/24%
x-coordinates
5. Rearranging an equation in order to solve a quadratic of the form: ax2 + bx + c = 0 2/8% 10/40% 13/52%
B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

The student correctly expands the equation despite it

already being in factorised form. This procedure is not
necessary.

The student correctly combines like terms,

demonstrating procedural fluency.

The student correctly moves +15 to the other side of

the equation but does not know how to proceed. This
is procedurally correct, but the earlier error now
makes progress impossible.
Summary: This student did not identify the given equation as a quadratic and, as a result, did not apply the null
factor law and has attempted to solve the equation as if it were linear. The solution above indicates that the
student is fluent with algebraic manipulation in this instance but did not know how to solve a quadratic in
factorised form. The data suggests that this may be a result of an overgeneralisation of linear solving techniques.

Fig. 4  Example of student demonstrating that they did not identify the question as a quadratic equation
and did not use appropriate methods to solve

Other errors made in this question, such as those exemplified in Fig.  5, further
indicated that some students had no understanding or recognition of equations of
this form, or the null factor law. Further analysis of the data also demonstrated that
all students who were unable to answer this question were also unable to answer
Questions 2, 3, and 4 involving solving quadratics in standard form.
Interviews with students also concurred with the findings from the analysis of
test scripts. Arising from the types of difficulties exhibited in the test, students
were asked what type of equation (x − 3)(x − 5) = 0 was, what does the solution
to the quadratic equation (x − 3)(x − 5) = 0 give you, and how do you know that if
(x − 3)(x − 5) = 0 that x = 5  or x = 4  (checking for understanding of the null fac-
tor law). It was confirmed that approximately three quarters (10) of the interviewed
students (n = 14) could not identify the given equation as a quadratic. The most com-
mon response was “I don’t know”. Students who responded in this brief manner
resisted further verbal probing to explain their understanding. The interview data
supports the findings from the written tests.

The student averages the values 3 and 5 to obtain 4.

Student appears to be thinking that the averaging process
will result in the answer of 0 and concludes that must be
4. Not recognising through simple inspection or
application of the null factor law that the solutions must
be +3 and +5 indicates a lack of understanding associated
with solving factorised quadratics and the null factor law.

Summary: The student does not recognise the equation as a quadratic or does not know how to apply the null
factor law. The attempt to find averages indicates profound conceptual misconceptions of the nature of
quadratics expressed in factorised form.

Fig. 5  Example of student averaging the values of 3 and 5 to obtain an answer of 4

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

For the solution to the equation, all but one of the interviewed students could not
identify that the solution gives the x-intercepts with answers ranging from “the point
on the graph”, “the answer”, “it gives you how to solve”, to “not sure”. This con-
firms students’ lack of conceptual understanding regarding the nature of quadratics
and the solution. Similarly, just over half of the interviewed students could not dem-
onstrate conceptual understanding of the null factor law in interviews. Answers var-
ied from “I only know to pick the two numbers” (indicating potentially a procedural
understanding, but lacking a conceptual understanding of the law), to “something
to do with other information given” (indicating a lack of procedural or conceptual
understanding of the law).
Students’ difficulties in solving the equation (x − 3)(x − 5) = 0 were also con-
firmed in two larger scale studies by Vaiyavutjamai and Clements (2006) and
Vaiyavutjamai et  al. (2005). These authors found that even students who may
have initially obtained correct answers to the question still lacked conceptual
understanding of quadratics and essentially “did not know what they were talk-
ing about” (Vaiyavutjamai & Clements, 2006, p. 73). These authors found similar
errors as exhibited by this sample of students, particularly with the large portion
of students expanding the brackets first rather than solving the already factorised
expression (Vaiyavutjamai et al., 2005).

Equations of the form x2 + bx + c = 0 and  x2 + bx − c = 0

There were two questions on the written test involving quadratics in standard form
where a = 1 on the written test. Question 2 specifically requested that the student
factorise the quadratic, but students were allowed to solve Question 3 using any
method. It was a point of interest to observe what method the students preferred in
Question 3 and later questions.
It was found that half of the sample was successful in solving Question 2. The
written solutions of unsuccessful students indicated a variety of misconceptions.
Four of the tested sample were able to factorise the equation but were not able to
apply the null factor law to obtain a final answer to the question. It was found that
the four students who gave these answers were also all unable to complete Question
1, which was finding solutions to a quadratic equation in factorised form. Relating
to application of the null factor law, another error was only quoting one solution for
the equations given in Question 2 and 3. This is potentially due to a lack of under-
standing regarding the null factor law. The example in Fig. 6 illustrates the student’s
assumption that there can only be one solution, which is typical of linear equations.
These findings concur with the types of errors found in Question 1 that were con-
firmed in the interview; students in the sample had difficulties identifying a factor-
ised equation as a quadratic and did not possess a deep conceptual understanding of
what the solutions meant.
Similar to Question 1, it was also observed that students attempted to rearrange
the equation as they would when attempting to solve a linear equation. This sug-
gested that students did not identify the question as a quadratic. In rearranging

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

The student correctly factorises the equation.

The student selects one of the constants from the

binomial product and changes the sign. This
potentially indicates procedural fluency with the
null factor law such as “pick the value in the
bracket and change the sign”. The single solution
also indicates that the student does not identify the
equation as a quadratic or does not understand
what the solution to the problem gives (the two x-
intercepts in this context) otherwise the single
answer would not make sense.

Summary: The student demonstrates a lack of understanding concerning the nature of quadratics with
two solutions, and the null factor law.

Fig. 6  Example of a student not realising that a quadratic equation has two solutions

these equations, students demonstrated a large array of algebraic misconceptions

as well. An example of this is outlined in Fig. 7.
In interviews, students were asked to identify the type of equation that
x2 + 9x + 20 = 0 represented, and just over three quarters of the sample (11 out
of 14) were unable to identify the equation as a quadratic. There three responses

The student has not identified the equation as a quadratic and

begins to attempt to rearrange in order to solve as if it were
linear rather than factorizing.
The student correctly moves +20 to the other side of the
equals sign.

The student incorrectly removes the coefficient of and

moves it to the other side of the equation. For some
unknown reason the student simply changes the + to a ×.

The student demonstrates misconceptions regarding integer

operations and incorrectly calculates −20 − 9 as -11.

Though the earlier processes were incorrect, the student

correctly finds the product of 2 and ,which is procedurally
correct but conceptually flawed. The student appears to be
unable to calculate further.

Summary: The student demonstrated a range of errors associated with algebraic processes, and the nature of
quadratic equations (specifically with regards to identifying quadratic equations).

Fig. 7  Example of student incorrectly attempting to rearrange the equation

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

provided when asked what type of equation x2 + 9x + 20 = 0 was were “expand”

(1 student), “not sure” (10 students), or “quadratic” (3 students).
In Question 3, a third of the sample was successful. For this question, students
were able to select their preferred method of solving and it is a point of interest to
note that none of the students attempted to use the quadratic formula, and all stu-
dents who attempted the question used factorisation. However, 14 students from the
sample (just over half) were unable to factorise the quadratic at all. Of the students
who attempted to factorise, all were able to obtain the correct factorised form but
only three quarters of these students were able to apply the null factor law correctly
and obtain two correct solutions. This is an important finding as it demonstrates that
most students who are procedurally fluent with factorisation still lack a deep under-
standing of the null factor law and how it is applied to solving binomial products, a
finding that was confirmed in the interviews with students. It is reasonable to expect
high levels of success with this question as a = 1 , which meant that the required fac-
torisation process was relatively simple. Despite this, misapplication and a lack of
understanding of the null factor law appears to have impeded many students’ success
across many different test questions. This demonstrates the critical nature of concep-
tual understanding regarding the meaning of this rule. Students do not appear to be
aware that they are seeking the values of x where y is 0 (the x-intercepts).
Similar errors to those observed in Question 2 were observed in Question 3.
As demonstrated in Fig. 8, students from the sample were unable to apply the null
factor law in order to obtain solutions, despite being able to factorise the equation
correctly.

Equations of the form ax2 + bx + c = 0 and ax2 + bx − c = 0 where a ≠ 1

Students’ ability to solve equations of the form ax2 + bx + c = 0 was tested in Ques-
tions 4 and 5 on the written test. Both questions involved quadratics that were dif-
ficult to factorise as a ≠ 1 and the solutions were not whole numbers. It was a point
of interest to observe whether factorisation was an efficient method of solving these
types of quadratics. It was found that, where it was not an effective method, students
tended to seek a solution by creatively violating algebraic conventions. An example

The student has correctly factorised the equation.

The student has found solutions that are the

incorrect sign suggesting that they lack
understanding of the null factor law and have
been taught with a procedural emphasis such as
“select the two values in the brackets”.

Summary: The student understands 3 and 4 are factors but has not realised that they should be -3 and 4
rather than 3 and -4. This student incorrectly applied the null factor law demonstrating a lack of
understanding surrounding the process of factorising and solving.

Fig. 8  Example of student finding the correct values for factors but incorrect signs

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

2
Question 8: Solve 3 = −4 − 1 Here the student attempts to solve the quadratic by
rearranging to solve, similar to what might be done
for a linear expression.

The -4x term is correctly rearranged to the LHS of

the equation as +4x.

The 3x2 and 4x terms are incorrectly added together

to obtain 7x3.
From here, the student is unable to further rearrange
the equation to solve.

Summary: The student did not identify that the quadratic needed to be arranged to be equal to 0 to find the x-
intercepts indicating a lack of understanding regarding the nature of quadratics, and potentially indicating that
the equation was not recognised as a quadratic at all. The process of rearranging the equation also
demonstrated several misconceptions concerning like terms.

Fig. 9  Example of student attempting to rearrange the quadratic to solve demonstrating algebraic mis-
conceptions

of this is outlined in Fig. 9. All students attempted to solve Questions 4 and 5 via
factorisation, however, only 9 out of 25, and 7 out of 25 students were able to fac-
torise Question 4 and 5 respectively. When the quadratic was presented in a non-
standard format, such as 3x2 = −4x − 1, predominantly students did not recognise
the equation was a quadratic (i.e., tried to solve as if it were linear).
Students in their attempt to rearrange the quadratic equations demonstrated major
algebraic misconceptions suggesting that both procedural fluency and conceptual
understanding of algebraic processes was not deeply developed or connected to
schema.

Summary of data

The detailed data above relates to specific errors. Table 4 provides an overview of
the types of errors that students made in each question and the frequency of the error
occurrence.

Table 4  Summary of error forms for each question and frequency of errors (n = 25)
Error pattern Number of occurrences
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Unable to apply null factor law to obtain a solution for the equation in 1 4 3 3 4
factorised form
Only obtaining one solution for the equation in factorised form where there 2 4
were two
Expanding equation in factorised form and/or rearranging in order to solve 6 1
Incorrect attempts to rearrange equation in an attempt to solve 2 3 2
Unable to factorise quadratic in standard form 2 14 14 17

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

Overall, students experienced little success when attempting to solve quadratic

equations via factorisation and fundamental algebra convention errors were evident.

Discussion

This study aimed to describe student performance in solving quadratic equations

and identify patterns in the types of errors or misconceptions that were hindering
students’ success. In this way, the findings from the study provide insight into the
impact of the Australian mathematics curriculum’s design on student achievement
in this school.
The study adds to the body of research on student’s performance on this topic area
(e.g., Chaysuwan, 1996; Fonger et  al., 2020; Huang & Kulm, 2012; Vaiyavutjamai
& Clements, 2006; Vaiyavutjamai et al., 2005). Perhaps the most concerning finding
in the error analysis was the prevalence of errors associated with violations of basic
algebraic conventions. At this stage of the students’ study (senior mathematics), such
errors are not expected particularly as the students in the sample had elected to study
the more abstract mathematics of senior high school. If students had understood and
been fluent in the critical algebra at some prior time, they had forgotten this by the
time the study had been undertaken.
Regarding competency with quadratics, from the detailed analysis of student
scripts, the research team identified five error patterns. These were then reclassified
under four types of errors. This categorisation is outlined in Fig. 10.
Overall, it was apparent that students demonstrated either deficits in procedural
aspects that led to incorrect solutions, or conceptual deficits that led them to select
inappropriate procedures that were often incorrectly applied as they struggled to find
a solution to the question. The analysis of student error patterns on scripts was sup-
ported with diagnostic interviews.
Interview data confirmed that students had deficits regarding the null factor law,
as they were unable to indicate an understanding of this generalised rule whether
or not they successfully applied the rule. Statements from students such as “I only
know to pick the two numbers” indicated a procedural emphasis in prior teaching
on how to solve a factorised quadratic, or that what may have been learnt had been
forgotten. Overall, the fact that the null factor law was incorrectly applied, or simply
not applied at all is an important finding in relation to teaching quadratic equations.
Lacking understanding of the null factor law potentially explains why many students
demonstrated subsequent misunderstandings regarding the nature of quadratics as
they attempted to rearrange the equations to solve as if they were linear. Findings
such as these support the need for mathematics concepts to be taught conceptually in
the first instance, ensuring that new knowledge forms are linked to existing schema
and have a logical basis.
The violation of basic algebraic procedures, while manifesting as procedural
errors, is illustrative of a shallow conceptual understanding of the topic area. In
this regard, the findings lend empirical evidence to the statement by Hiebert and
Lefevre (1986) that students are “not fully competent in mathematics if either
kind of knowledge is deficient or if they both have been acquired as separate

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

Error pattern Type of error

Unable to apply null factor

law to obtain solution for
equation in factorised form

Only obtaining one solution

for equation in factorised Null factor law
form

Expanding equation in
factorised form an/or
rearranging in order to solve
Nature of quadratics

Incorrect attempts to
rearrange equation in an Algebraic conventions
attempt to solve

Unable to factorise quadratic

Solving techniques
in standard form

Fig. 10  Categorisation of errors

entities” (p. 9). Knowledge of the null factor law and algebraic conventions has
a conceptual basis, but senior secondary mathematics students are assumed to
have obtained mastery of this law for fluent application. In other words, such pre-
requisite knowledge should have been procedural, and students at this level of
study should have been fluent in the application of such a procedure. For most
students, the curriculum as enacted by this school was not working. While there
are potentially multiple reasons for this, a potential contributing factor is likely to
be related to the mathematics curriculum structure.
Cognitive load theorists (e.g., Sweller, 2016; Van Merrienboer & Pass, 1990)
provide a rationale for emphasising conceptual understanding in the first instance.
First, if the subject matter is taught conceptually, it can be integrated into existing
schema and thus be more easily remembered. The data suggests that knowledge
of key mathematics concepts had not been resiliently linked in schematic form.
As noted above, once conceptual knowledge is attained, the students must convert
this to procedural knowledge (termed fluency in the Australian Curriculum). In
this sense, procedure is not the same as blindly following a set of steps towards
a solution, but rather that the steps are well embedded in long-term memory

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

Initial conceptualisation of new

mathematical knowledge.

Introduction of new need for Connection of new knowledge with

conceptual knowledge. existing schema -finding a logical
place in long-term memory.

Application in problem settings. Development of fluidity. Conceptual

This enriches schematic understanding is effectively converted to
knowledge and improves fluidity procedural fluency with deliberate
with procedures. practice.

Fig. 11  The cyclic development of schema

and can be readily applied with limited taxing of working memory. Hattie and
Zierer (2019) recommend deliberate practice to develop fluency and, like cogni-
tive load theorists, suggested that conscious, varied, spaced and regular practice
fostered long-term memory retention. The ready recall of key facts and proce-
dures is thought to reduce cognitive load (Van Merrienboer & Pass, 1990) and
thereby enhance problem-solving. Rather than considering learning mathematics
as a simple hierarchical progression, it is a progression through cycles of the form
illustrated in Fig. 11.
The approach depicted above is supported by what is understood about the devel-
opment of conceptual and procedural understanding (Rosenshine, 2012; Sfard &
Linchevski, 1994) and demonstrates that conceptualisation reaches a new depth at
each interaction with the topic. The careful reorganisation of mental processes based
on prior learning was central to the learning theories articulated by Piaget (1970)
and Skemp (1976). Cognitive load theorists (e.g., Sweller, 2016; Van Merrienboer &
Pass, 1990) provide further detail as to why it is important for students to conceptual-
ise. When students understand and connect new knowledge to prior understandings,
schema development is enriched and the development of schema counters forgetting
(Sweller, 2016; Van Merrienboer & Pass, 1990). The data presents evidence that for-
getting, or lack of conceptualisation occurred for students in this sample. Thus, the
findings of this study indicate that the current structure of the curriculum enacted in
the sample school was ineffective in developing students understanding or fluency
with quadratic equations, or even much of the basic algebra from earlier years.

Recommendations and conclusion

This paper details students’ challenges with understanding and mastering con-
cepts associated with quadratic equations. The recommendations arising from the
findings from this study include reconsideration of whether the current Australian

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

Curriculum is sufficiently designed to support a mastery approach. The curriculum

enacted in the study school and the current Australian Curriculum is hierarchical
and spiral in nature, as is common for mathematics curricula (ACARA, 2018). The
analysis of the school and state curriculum recommendations suggested that a major
limitation of the earlier study of quadratics was the extremely limited timeframe that
was allocated to the topic area, as well as the fact that key concepts are revisited a
year or more apart in the current curriculum design. The critical importance of time
to conceptualise or build new knowledge (at the rates appropriate to individual) into
schema is an assumption acknowledged by educational theories (e.g., Bruner, 1960;
Piaget, 1970; Skemp, 1976).
The observation that many students exhibited limited proficiency with founda-
tional algebra points to failures at potentially two key levels in the teaching and
learning cycle modelled in Fig. 11. First, the manifestation of key conceptual errors
related to the nature of quadratic equations suggests that initial conceptualisation of
this mathematics topic was limited for significant numbers of students, and schema
construction was limited. Unfortunately, the data on student errors does not tell us if
this is a result of pedagogy that was not focused on conceptualisation, or simply a
lack of time to enact appropriate pedagogy. The second significant finding was that
students’ lacked understanding and fluency with basic algebraic conventions which
ought to have been mastered in prior years. The two key recommendations are the
integration of remediation practices, and greater time allocated for remediation
and revision to aid remembering. The lack of time can be related to the nature of
classroom discourse, however a lack of time due to curriculum structure is likely to
be a contributing factor. The data from this study supports the reported concerns
about the lack of time due to a crowded curriculum (Donnelly & Wiltshire, 2014;
Snider, 2004). The findings indicate flaws in a curriculum design which touches
on mathematics topics once a year, where mastery is also assumed in subsequent
years.
The curriculum delivered in the school in this study differs from the most success-
ful mathematics nations (e.g., China, Hong Kong, Singapore), which have structures
in place to ensure that procedural and conceptual knowledge is integrated and well
developed before embarking on conceptually new mathematics study (HKSARG,
2007; Singapore Ministry of Education, 2012). These structures include, firstly, the
explicit direction to teach conceptually in curriculum documents and, secondly, more
time dedicated to learning these concepts, and a greater emphasis on the importance
of students developing fluency. The research into East Asian nations suggest that not
only does the curriculum suggest greater time on task, but this is further increased
with consistent homework engagement and tutor school attendance, features not
always present in Australian middle schools (Norton, 2014; Norton & Zhang, 2013).
With increased effective time on task and systematic revision, conceptualisation can
be developed, and conceptual knowledge can build meaningfully on existing schema
and stored in long-term memory (Sweller, 2016; Van Merrienboer & Pass, 1990). In
short, in the study school, forgetting was not accounted for at two levels; initial con-
ceptualisation and systematic revision.

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

The data and curriculum analysis in this study suggests that, in comparison with
international curricula, it is apparent that a great deal of learning is expected of
Australian students in a very condensed timeframe and that, for many students, this
expectation was not fulfilled. This is at odds with what is known of brain function-
ing as expressed by cognitive load theorists and at odds with the design of effective
curriculum that facilitates mastery.

Funding  Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Declarations 
Ethics approval and consent to participate  Ethics approval gained from the Griffith University Human
Research Ethics Committee (GU Ref No: EDN/01/13/HREC). Informed consent was gained from all stu-
dent participants in line with the ethical approval.

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis-
sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​
licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (2013). Piagetian approaches. In J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.), International
Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 28–30). New York.
Ashlock, R. B. (1976). Error patterns in computation (2nd ed.). Merrill.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). My school. Retrieved July 4, 2013,
from: http://​www.​mysch​ool.​edu.​au
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2018). Mathematics curriculum v8.4.
Retrieved from 2 Nov  2016, Australian Curriculum: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
mathematics/curriculum/f-10?layout=1
Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1–5.
Bong, M. (2013). Self-efficacy. In J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.), International Guide to Student
Achievement (pp. 64–67). New York.
Bosse, M. J., & Nandakumar, N. R. (2005). Section A, factorability of quadratics: Motivation for more
techniques. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 24(4), 143–153.
Brosnan, P., Schmidlin, A., & Grant, M. (2013). Successful mathematics achievement is attainable. In
J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.), International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 348–350). New
York.
Bruner, J. (1960). The processes of education. The President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Burton, L. (2004). “Confidence is everything”-Perspectives of teachers and students on learning math-
ematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education., 7, 357–381.
Chaysuwan, S. (1996). The construction of a diagnostic test on basic knowledge of algebra for Mathayom
Suksa three students in the Bangkok Metropolis. Unpublished M. Ed thesis, Kasetsart University
(Thailand).
Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and quali-
tative research. Pearson.
Della Salla, S. (2010). Forgetting: A neglected component of memory. Psychology Press.

13
Exploring the challenges of learning quadratic equations…

Department of Education, Training and Employment. (2013). Curriculum into the classroom (C2C). Queens-
land Government. Retrieved July 4, 2013, from: Queensland Governmnet: Education Queensland:
educa​tion.​qld.​gov.​au/​c2c
Donnelly, K., & Wiltshire, K. (2014). Review of the Australian curriculum: Final report. Canberra: Aus-
tralian Government.
Edge, O. P., & Friedberg, S. H. (1984). Factors affecting achievement in the first course in calculus. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 52(3), 136–140.
Fonger, N. L., Ellis, A. B., & Dogan, M. F. (2020). A quadratic growth learning trajectory. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 59, 100795.
Gibbs, B. C. (2014). Reconfiguring Bruner: Compressing the spiral curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(7),
41–44.
Glennon, V. J. (1963). Some perspectives in education. Enrichment mathematics for the grades.
Harden, R. M. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Zierer, K. (2019). Visible learning insights. Routledge.
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory
analysis. In J. Hiebert, Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–23).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
Hine, G. S. C. (2019). Declining enrolments in senior secondary mathematics courses: Staff and student
perceptions. In Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education
(formerly UniServe Science Conference) (pp. 134–141).
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. (2007). Secondary maths curriculum.
Huang, R., & Kulm, G. (2012). Prospective middle grade mathematics teachers’ knowledge of algebra for
teaching. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(4), 417–430.
Kamii, C., & Dominick, A. (1998). The harmful effects of algorithms in grades 1–4. The Teaching and
Learning of Algorithms in School Mathematics, 19, 130–140.
Kennedy, J., Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2014). The continuing decline of science and mathematics enrol-
ments in Australian high schools. Teaching Science, 60(2), 34–46.
Kotsopoulos, D. (2007). Unravelling student challenges with quadratics: A cognitive approach. Austral-
ian Mathematics Teacher, 63(2), 19–24.
Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990). Effectiveness of mastery learning pro-
grams: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–299.
Mager, R. F., & Peatt, N. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives (Vol. 62). Fearon Publishers.
McLaughlin, P., Kennedy, B., & Reid, J. (2015). Navigating the lifelong learning boat through uncharted
water. In T. Thomas, E. Levin, P. Dawson, K. Fraser & R. Hadgraft (Eds.), Research and develop-
ment in higher education: Learning for life and work in a complex world, 38. (pp. 344–355). Milperra,
NSW: HERDSA.
Moore, J. (2005). Undergraduate mathematics achievement in the emerging ethnic engineers programme.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(5), 529–537.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics.
IEA.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Procedural fluency in mathematics: A position of
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Norton, S. (2014). Middle school homework engagement in mathematics. Curriculum Perspectives.,
34(1), 29–42.
Norton, S. & Zhang, Q, (2013). Year 8 Chinese student’s engagement with mathematics learning. Inter-
national Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning. 10 Dec. Available from: http://​www.​cimt.​
plymo​uth.​ac.​uk/​journ​al/
OECD. (2019). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2018. OECD
Publishing.
Piaget, J. (1960). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield Adams.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
Popham, W., & Baker, E. (1970). Establishing instructional goals. Prentice-Hall.
Pyzdrowski, L. J., Sun, Y., Curtis, R., Miller, D., Winn, G., & Hensel, R. A. (2013). Readiness and atti-
tudes as indicators for success in college calculus. International Journal of Science and Mathemat-
ics Education, 11(3), 529–554.

13
 B. Reid O’Connor, S. Norton

Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2019). Mathematics methods 2019 v1.2. Retrieved from
10 Aug 2021,  https://​www.​qcaa.​qld.​edu.​au/​downl​oads/​senior-​qce/​sylla​buses/​snr_​maths_​metho​ds_​19_​
syll.​pdf
Queensland Studies Authority. (2004). Mathematics years 1–10 syllabus. Queensland Studies Authority.
Reid, J., McLaughlin, P., Kennedy, B., Poronnik, P., Dowling, D., Brodie, L., Karstadt, Lyn. (2016). The
STEM ecosystem: Building cross-disciplinary leadership capacity in science, technology, engineer-
ing and mathematics. Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
Reid O’Connor, B. (2020). Exploring a Primary Mathematics Initiative in an Indigenous Community
School (Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University).
Reid O’Connor, B. & Norton, S. (2016). Investigating students’ mathematical difficulties with quadratic
equations. In B. White, M. Chinnappan, & S. Trenholm (Eds.), Opening up mathematics education
research (Proceedings of the 39th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group
of Australasia), pp. 552-559. Adelaide: MERGA.
Reisman, F. K. (1977).  Diagnostic teaching of elementary school mathematics: Methods and content:
Instructor’s manual. Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Reisman, F. K. (1982). Guide to the diagnostic teaching of arithmetic. Merrill Publishing Company.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between
procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Education Psychology Review, 27, 287–297.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know.
American Educator, Spring, 12–39.
Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). The gains and pitfalls of reification: The case of algebra. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 26, 191–228.
Singapore Ministry of Education. (2012). Additional mathematics (O and N(A) - Level) teaching and
learning syllabus.
Sharma, J., & Yarlagadda, P. K. (2018). Perspectives of ‘STEM education and policies’ for the devel-
opment of a skilled workforce in Australia and India. International Journal of Science Education,
40(16), 1999–2022.
Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3),
9–15.
Snider, V. E. (2004). A comparison of spiral versus strand curriculum. Journal of Direct Instruction, 4(1),
29–39.
Stein, M., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester
(Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Sweller, J. (2016). Working memory, long-term memory, and instructional design. Journal of Applied
Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 360–367.
Vaiyavutjamai, P., & Clements, M. A. (2006). Effects of classroom instruction on students’ understanding
of quadratic equations. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(1), 47–77.
Vaiyavutjamai, P., Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (2005). Students’ attempts to solve two elementary
quadratic equations: A study in three nations. Building connections: Theory, research and prac-
tice: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of
Australia.
Van Merrienboer, J., & Pass, F. (1990). Automation and schema acquisition in learning elementary com-
puter programming: Implications for design of practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 6, 273–289.
Willett, J. B., Yamashita, J. J., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). A meta-analysis of instructional systems
applied in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 405–417.
Zakaria, E., & Ibrahim, & Maat, S. (2010). Analysis of students’ error in learning of quadratic equations.
International Education Studies, 3(3), 105–110.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

13