MICHAL YERUSHALMY

PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL

RESOURCES: A LONGITUDINAL VIEW ON PROBLEM SOLVING
IN A FUNCTION BASED APPROACH TO ALGEBRA

ABSTRACT. This study is an attempt to analyze students’ construction of function based

problem solving methods in introductory algebra. It claims that for functions to be a main
concept for learning school algebra, a complex process that has to be developed during a
long period of learning must take place. The article describes a longitudinal observation
of a pair of students that studied algebra for 3 years using a function approach, includ-
ing intensive use of graphing technology. Such a long observation is difficult to carry
out and even more difficult to report. We watched for three years classrooms using the
‘Visual-Math’ sequence, and sampled students that exhibited various levels of mathematics
achievement. The analysis method presented here is a non-standard case study of a pair of
lower achievers students and their work is often juxtaposed to the work of other pairs
participating in the study. The students’ attempts to solve a linear break-even problem is
analyzed along three interviews which present the development of the use of mathematical
resources and the patterns of problem solving at different learning phases. Beyond describ-
ing solving attempts, the article offers terms for describing and explaining what and how
do learners appreciate and make out of solving introductory school algebra problems over
a three years course.

KEY WORDS: Algebra, Graphing Technology, Functions, Longitudinal study

1. ATTRIBUTES OF A FUNCTION APPROACH TO ALGEBRA : K EY

TERMS

A function approach to algebra is an approach that assumes the function

to be a central concept around which school algebra curriculum can be
meaningfully organized. This is a characteristic shared by most current
approaches that use interactive technology with graphic, symbolic, and
numeric capabilities. A key outcome of these innovations is changes in
the sequence of learning and changes in the scope of traditional algeb-
raic processes and objects. Some proposed paths for algebra are based
on the conviction that modeling provides both an important reason and
an important strategy for studying algebra (Heid 1995). Taking such an
approach, terms typical to the work in traditional algebra courses such
as symbols, expressions, and equations, assume new meanings (Kieran et

Educational Studies in Mathematics 43: 125–147, 2000.

© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
126 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

al. 1996). Graphing technology (Graphing Calculators or Function Plotter

software) provides numeric solutions mainly through the use of graphs and
the evaluation of a comparison of the outputs of two functions, and offers
an accessible way to split the traditional meaning of ‘solving an equation’
into two parts – manipulating equations using symbolic procedures, and
seeing and reading solutions – which are no longer mutually dependent.
However, this conviction – which is now typical of various new approaches
to algebra – does not uniquely define the approach. A distinction that
has been made by Nemirovsky (1996) and by Confrey and Smith (1994)
suggests that the use of the three representations of functions as part of
algebra may support the mathematization of phenomena by either forming
an input-output correspondence of two quantities, or by analyzing the rate
of change as a co-variation of dependent and independent quantities. While
both perceptions of functions (and still others found in literature such as
the one dealing with the object-process distinction) are necessary in order
to gain conceptual understanding of functions, each provides a different
set of basic concepts and terms upon which knowledge is constructed.
The function approach we took, and the curriculum we designed ac-
cordingly, was based on the variation approach (Visual Math CET, 1995).
The curricular ‘task-based’ sequence is planned for grades 7 to 9 and or-
ganized in three major phases1 . In each phase, functions are represented in
different forms: by numbers, graphs, symbols, or words. The three phases
are (1) emergence of the concept of function throughout modeling, (2) ma-
nipulating function expressions and function comparisons (equations and
inequalities), and (3) exploring families of functions and specifically linear
and quadratic functions. The sequence (detailed in Yerushalmy & Shtern-
berg, 2001) starts with graphic qualitative descriptions of variations, moves
on to numeric descriptions of differences, and uses numeric and graphical
images of rate of change as objects upon which understanding of function
can be built. The use of situated tasks not as mere application of algebraic
rules but as a way of constructing new knowledge leads to the emergence
of situation models (Kintch and Greeno, 1985). In this sequence, expres-
sions are first offered as a tool for describing the generality of tables and
graphs of functions encountered earlier. Only later, symbolic manipula-
tions of expressions and relations (equations and inequalities) are practiced
through solving analytic and contextual problems. This shift in emphasis
from procedures to operations on functions and the availability of varied
representations for expressing generality do not suggest that the function
approach to algebra offers a simpler path for understanding the inherent
complexities of algebra. What it suggests is that such a sequence could
offer more opportunities for students to raise questions and for teachers
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 127

to offer tasks that promote inquiry in algebra. The Visual Math curriculum
attempts to offer such opportunities by its choice of sequence, the structure
of the tasks and the setting for the inquiry. Each task promotes more than
just a single way of solution, often demands a new aspect that has not been
taught before, and can be extended to support a long problem-solving pro-
cess. The effect of such a complex change is hard to measure and requires
different types of studies (Huntley et al., 2000, describe the dilemma of a
development team who seeks ways to study a full curricular sequence). In
this study we sought ways to follow students’ use of functions in problem
solving along three years, while trying to offer similar tasks that can be
approached differently but always meaningfully at different phases of the
learning. While in other studies we, among others, often try to observe
how students solve non traditional and more challenging tasks, here we
tried to relax the impact of the type of task. This was done in order to
concentrate on the development of the concept of function and the impact
of this development on strategies of problem solving at various phases.

2. T HE RESEARCH DESIGN

The major sources of data for this analysis were three task-based clinical
interviews. The first took place towards the end of the first learning phase,
after students completed a central unit of qualitative modeling and were
already familiar with all the representations of function. The second inter-
view was done when students were more familiar with manipulations on
expressions, but students could still solve problems and equations using
comparisons of functions (rather than by manipulating equations). The
third interview took place towards the end of the sequence, when solv-
ing procedures and manipulations were already implemented. The study
was planned as a longitudinal study of pairs of students. In the interviews,
the students were presented with written situation problems to be solved
in any way they chose, using paper and pencil, graphing software, or a
number calculator. Our goal was to learn about problem-solving processes
by exploring the strategic and mathematical actions and thoughts of the
students. We sampled students of various levels of exhibited mathematics
achievement. From each of four classrooms we picked a more able pair, a
less able pair, and an ‘average’ pair.2 We chose to interview pairs, since
students were working in pairs in class. We hoped that these students
would have common habits of work and communication and would be
able to develop an interesting discussion.
In this analysis we will focus on only one of the twelve pairs: Gal and
Roni. This pair was considered to be among the low achievers in their
128 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

algebra class. Gal and Roni worked as a pair in class as well, and were the
most suitable interviewees for this analysis because they presented serious
work throughout the three years. Their learning patterns – serious and per-
sistent work, a tendency to present and share their thinking throughout a
conversation, and being relatively low achievers that would spend a long
time on most problems – made them an interesting pair for this analysis.
However, in order to allow the reader gain an appreciation for the ways in
which Gal and Roni are and are not representative of the larger sample,
we will often juxtapose their work with another pair from the study, Ben
and Eyal, who were among the high achievers. Ben and Eyal also worked
together during the three years and were extremely cooperative with both
adults and their classmates. Though this analysis method results in a non-
standard case study – one in which data represents more than the two
students being most closely examined – this method is our attempt to cope
with some of the complexities posed by qualitative analysis methods of
longitudinal study.
We chose a linear break-even situated task (Chazan, 1993; Fey, 1989)
as the repeated task for the three interviews analyzed here. The generic
structure of each of the three problems was a simple everyday payment

situation involving two linear processes modeled as . Unlike standard

algebra word problems, the solution required in each of these problems
was a description of a range of results rather than a specific single number.
Why would such a problem be suitable to be given at the different stages
of the function approach curriculum? For several reasons: The solution
allows for the use of common sense and does not require the memoriz-
ation of a formula. The equations or inequalities can be solved without
algebraic procedures – they can be solved arithmetically (using reverse
arithmetic operations), numerically (by plotting functions and reading the
intersection values), or by guess-and-check methods of evaluating each ex-
pression. Choosing a problem of this type as the repeated task along three
years, allowed us to follow the development of the use of mathematical
resources and the patterns of problem solving used at different learning
phases. However, choosing a repeated task for three interviews may also
be a misleading design and requires special attention. The acquaintance
with the problem could turn it into a trivial one, especially as an inquiry
activity. To overcome this complexity, we chose this particular pair, for
whom the break-even task was not trivial and lead to a fruitful problem
solving process in all three interviews. At each interview this task posed for
them a different challenge that required serious solving attempts. Another
challenge that we had to cope with, as for the value of a qualitative analysis
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 129

along three years, was, that during such a long period that involved so
many changes, using ‘the same task’ might not be a reliable procedure
(Newman et al. 1989.) However, we are convinced that studies attempting
to follow, among other aspects, the use of technology throughout an innov-
ative sequence should be longitudinal, so that the tool would be a natural
artifact of the environment. Beyond the repeated task interviews, we tried
to minimize the external effects stemming from the length of the study by
having the same teacher teaching for the three years and the same groups
of students learning together.

3. T HREE INTERVIEWS : DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

In each of the next three sections we will summarize and analyze an inter-
view with Gal and Roni on one break-even linear problem. The problem,
its solution, the grade level, the time of the interview, and the experience
students brought with them to the specific interview are presented first. We
then bring in examples of the students’ actions while solving the problem.
Each section also provides a short summary of the related work of Ben and
Eyal. Each section closes with a subsequent summary intended to support
observations of the stages of the solution process and the attributes used in
this process.

3.1. A first attempt to formulate a model

The Shopping problem story
The ‘Cheapest Club’ chain offers its
members two methods of payments:
1. Pay a membership fee of 250 IS a
year, and get a 5% reduction on any pur-
chase.
2. Pay the regular price – no member-
ship fee and no reduction.
Describe how a customer should choose
a method. Method 1? Method 2? When
does it not matter?
Problem equation:
x = x + 250 − 0.05x
0.05x = 250
Background:
7th grade
For a few months prior to the interview
students workerd on modeling activ-
ities using semi-quantitative words to
describe how the functions change. A
couple of months prior to the interview
they began to use symbolic represent-
ation of function and especially dealt
with linear processes. They have not yet
dealt with problems ‘to solve’ such as
‘break-even’ problems. Some work with
graphing software had just started.

Gal and Roni approached the problem by reformulating it verbally into

an ‘investment-profit’ comparison. Gal argued at first that “this is not a
mathematics problem at all”, and Roni tried to present the information in a
graph. They quickly gave up because they could not choose two quantities
130 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

to represent the independent and dependent variables. Gal constructed a

table which he described as, “Not exactly a table of values but . . . on one
side there will be the price and on the other side the best offer.”

Computing the price for these many examples, Gal argued that although
“. . . there are infinite examples to be considered, there is no need to com-
pute so many cases” because there is an ‘order’:
Gal: If it (the discount amount) increases constantly it indicates that there is a
constant order.
MS: And then what?
Gal: Then you don’t need to compute.
They considered their solving attempts complete once they designed
the categorical table and identified its behavior. This heavy reliance on
the presentation of numerical data was found in the work of other lower
achievers but absent in the work of Ben and Eyal. Ben and Eyal began by
assigning letters to quantities in the story: “Eyal: Let’s say x, no actually
f(x) is the total sum of purchase and . . . f(x) is probably the sum of dis-
count?” but further attempts to manipulate and compute using symbolic
language failed. At the end they reached the correct solution by guessing
the answer and evaluating it using arithmetic. Symbols were used in the
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 131

conversation as a way to communicate about the process, but they did not
yield any more powerful representation than the verbal descriptions.
Half a year through the learning of qualitative modeling, involving
function graphs and verbal descriptions of the rate of change, the stu-
dents were faced with an unfamiliar problem in this interview. The only
useful resource to them at that time were relationships between independ-
ent and dependent quantities. Both pairs tried to introduce order into the
dependency: for Gal and Roni, the table represented order and behavior,
and they argued that this order represented the solution. As Chazan (2000)
observes, there is a difference between a relationship between quantities
and a relationship between numbers, as the first is grounded in the world
around us and can be expressed using graphs, devices, or natural language
and also described more formally. We will follow now how the informal
investigation of Gal and Roni was further developed.

3.2. Mathematizing quantities: Formulating a function comparison

model
Eight months later – Gal and Roni continued to cooperate in class. They
often worked as partners in the computer lab. They both seemed to enjoy
the math class now, they often used the graphing software, and they parti-
cipated more often in discussions. They were happy to continue with the
interview sessions. We were interested at this stage in how the function
concept and the software would be implemented after a year of familiarity
with functions but still prior to formal teaching of using function compar-
isons as a basis for formulating and solving equations and inequalities.

The Parking problem story Background

Two parking lots are located one next
to the other. In one lot one pays 2.7 IS
for an hour and a proportional price for
fractions of the hour. The second lot
charges 2 NIS an hour and an additional
6 NIS charge for entrance. Half an hour
parking costs 1 NIS. Describe the two
parking conditions in a way that would
allow the customer to choose the best
offer.
8th grade
Work in class concentrates on famil-
ies of functions and mainly on the link
between symbolic and graphic repres-
entation of expressions.
Graphing software is a daily experience
in class and in homework.
Manipulations and procedures of solv-
ing equations and inequalities have not
yet been taught.

Problem equation: 2.7x = 6 + 2x

Gal and Roni’s work on the problem started almost immediately with or-
ganizing a few examples into two tables.
132 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

Following this presentation, Gal stopped and reconsidered the task.

Gal: What is the goal here? To describe it? So we did! What we can do is describe
it graphically so we could compare the two parking lots and find the best offer . . .
but the best offer really depends on the parking time.
Roni: Let’s say four hours. We’ll take the maximum here and see the better rate.
Gal: Ha, it has to switch at some place.
Roni: At a point!
For Roni, who was still focused on the concrete data in the tables, Gal’s
idea about the comparison turned out to be a fruitful suggestion:
Roni: I need to think for a second . . . I am trying to think when it will switch,
when would the second offer be better than the first one.
Gal: On the table of values! We’ll continue the table and we’ll see. We’ll continue
beyond 4.
Roni: No, I don’t think about that . . .
Gal: . . . Until we find a switch
Roni: I think that in a graph you can see it with less effort.
They started with computations and drew a few points for the first
graph, then stopped and suggested that ‘it’ (the output price or the graph
– they referred to both simultaneously) will increase at a constant rate so
it has to continue as an increasing straight line. They hesitated about how
to treat the other graph: whether to draw it in the same graph system or
in a separate one (since the break even problem was still new to them at
this stage and they had no experience in comparing processes in order to
find the intersection, they initially considered using two graphs, analogous
to the two tables they formed for the two processes). Once they decided
to use the same graph system, they considered two ways of proceeding:
using the correspondence between time and payment or generating data by
a constant difference variation. They chose the latter:
Roni: It is so simple, add two NIS and that it’s!
Gal: No, no, you don’t add all the time. . .
Roni: Each hour costs two IS.
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 133

Gal: Wait, so for an hour you pay 8 and for two 10 . . .

Roni: No, don’t do that, simply add two for each hour.
Gal: Eight, 2 is 10, so this is 12 . . . it increases at constant rate even though I did
not do it in the same way you suggested.
Roni: Ha, it really does not matter, we got the overall idea.
Gal: It will intersect about here

They did not have enough space on the sheet to continue the graphs,
and so they decided to form another table of values. Unlike the first two
tables, this time they formed two tables using variations (increase of 2.7
on one and 2 on the other) with the explicit purpose of comparing the two
outputs for equal inputs.
Roni: Two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, fourteen . . .
Gal: Here we see that it increases more.
Roni: Let’s just see when it switches. Which one is faster?
Gal: Here, about the ten. Let’s see . . . in one it is better here, in two here, in three
here.
The boys marked the ‘switch’ with a horizontal line connecting the two
tables and suggested that this is the solution. They did not yet write any ex-
pressions. The interviewer (MS), who was anxious to understand why they
preferred repeated computations over the use of the graphing software,
suggested they use the computer. Their reason for their unwillingness to
use the software became clear immediately – they did try to avoid the use
of expressions that are the ultimate way to use the software!
134 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

Gal: With computer? graphs?

MS: I just want to understand whether you think it is worth doing.
Gal: No, so we need a rule, it is not so complicated but . . .
Roni: Let’s try. (Roni starts to type.)
The anxiety demonstrated when a symbolic representation should be formed
is evident in the above discussion. While they easily managed to produce
accurate graphs and tables and had a clear plan of how to arrive at a nu-
meric solution using a comparison of intersecting lines, at this point even
Gal, who led all previous discussions, seemed stressed.
After some further hesitation, Roni inserted two correct symbolic ex-
pressions.

Gal: Ha, why should we look at a correspondence rule? It would have probably
been simpler to do every time from 8 to 9 steps in 10 Agorot. (10 Agorot are
1/10th of 1 IS)
MS: Ha?
Gal: Because if the question is simply “where [is it better to park]?” . . .. relating
the number of hours you need to park then this is simpler. Why should we do a
rule?
They were looking at the graphs and the table of values, but Gal insisted
that zooming into the neighborhood of the input 8, where they identified a
‘switch’ in the table, could provide the solution without any use of sym-
bols. However, responding to the interviewer’s prompt, they completed
their work by looking at the graphs and mainly the tables generated by
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 135

the software, and they read the solution in the same way they did with the
paper and pencil.
For Ben and Eyal, symbolic representation, which had been used some-
what artificially in their first interview, was the trivial choice here. They
started by formulating a symbolic comparison model and immediately
asked to use the software. Although they were very fluent and quick with
the expressions, Ben hesitated whether the expression he inserted, 2x+6, is
really the correct one3 , and abandoned the computer in favor of pencil and
paper work for creating and checking tables and graphs. They formed a
table of values directly from the story, without using the expressions they
had already written in the software. Using reverse arithmetic operations,
they found the number of hours that balanced the difference of 0.7 IS per
hour with the extra entrance fee of 6 IS.
Both pairs reached the solution using non-algebraic methods. How-
ever, their problem solving processes were different. Gal and Roni initially
formed the problem model non-symbolically. They constructed a table of
values and used it as a model of the situation and as a means to represent,
to compare and to compute the common price of two increasing processes.
This time, unlike during the first interview, they were explicitly aware of
the role of each representation: They used correspondence tables for the
initial exploration and co-variations for graphing and ordering the tables.
They formed two tables for two graphs, and compared the two processes
represented in the table as if they were two continuous processes repres-
ented by graphs. It is often argued that multiple representations create a
cognitive load that eliminates meaningful uses of representations (Pimm,
1995), but Gal and Roni kept all components connected. They kept in mind
the problem story as an anchor guiding their repeated attempts, repeated
analysis of specific cases, and exploration of patterns of behavior. But as
in the first interview, algebraic symbols were still an artifact here although
they had already been using them for a few months in their algebra class
to describe processes with and without software. They managed to use
functions to describe the processes in the problem and to suggest an ap-
propriate numerical solution without moving from ‘quantities’ to algebra,
and they were extremely suspicious as to whether using a symbolic rule
could produce any further benefit.

3.3. Solving an equation: The challenge of manipulating symbols

Gal and Roni continued to cooperate in class and were about to finish
middle school and move to high school. Tactically, repeated interviews
on a similar task at this stage were not expected to produce fruitful discus-
sions. At this stage, the problem might have been considered a simple exer-
136 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

cise, since the comparison model and the procedures for solving equations
were already practiced for almost a year. And indeed, for Ben and Eyal,
as well as for other higher achievers, this problem was solved quickly by
using a comparison of two functions, forming a linear equation, and solv-
ing the equation using standard techniques4 . We will describe now how this
exercise situation turned into a problem-solving situation for Roni and Gal.
The Bonus problem story Background
A factory owner wishes to give a spe- 9th grade
cial bonus for the holidays. His account
suggests two methods for the special Current work in class consists of
payment. Method A: The January pay- linear and quadratic motion problems of
ment will include additional 450 IS per various types; usually more complicated
person. Method B: In the January pay- than the interview problem.
ment each employee will receive an ad- Most word problems solved in class
ditional amount equal to 1/5 of his regu- cannot be solved by simply reading the
lar monthly salary. solution from the graph and therefore
Find a way to present the cost of both graphs are mostly used as sketches of
methods in order to help the owner to situated models.
choose the better bonus strategy. Graphing software is being used less
The problem equation: frequently, and more attention is
x + 450 = x + x5 given to equivalency of expressions
and equations throughout symbolic
manipulations.

As in the previous two interviews, Gal and Roni differed as to their initial
approach to the solution: Gal tried immediately to decide what would be
the appropriate tool and strategy to use. Roni concentrated on the specific
process needed for the solution: defining the dependency so they can find
out ‘what each worker gets.’

Roni: You could use a table of values.

Gal: X will be, say, the income, and then we will . . . you add a fifth and. . ..
Roni: Do we have to find the income for January? So we can see what each worker
gets, we somehow have to find or insert the income for January.
Gal: You can write a rule for each method, that if x is the income, then method A
is x+450 and B is x + x/5

They formed the correct equation, x + 450 = x + x5 , and started to ma-

nipulate terms in order to solve the equation. While doing that, they first
rewrote all terms as fractions: x1 + 450
1
= x1 + x5 . They twice made an error
while manipulating the equation (added an x to the left side instead of
subtracting it) and realized that something was wrong, but did not indicate
what it was.
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 137

Surprisingly, the problem turned into a real challenge. Following a long

and stressful pause they started over.
Gal: But if we’ll write an equation we’ll see when, at what income it’s equal and
when . . . A is better than B.
Roni: Wait, if it’s x +450, let me make a sketch of x+450 . . . If it’s x+450 it looks
something like this

The sketch Roni made represented the slopes inaccurately (the lines
should intersect in the first quadrant). But it appropriately served the pur-
pose of demonstrating the fact that the processes are linear but not ‘paral-
lel’, and therefore the equation must have a single solution. The following
script suggests that at this stage, the sketch was a tool for describing the
situation and a plan for working out a solution. In the previous interview,
the graphs were formed accurately by plotting points and used for con-
structing the processes and evaluating the numeric result. The justification
of the sketch and the plan this time were connected mostly to the structure
of the symbolic rules (e.g. same or different coefficients of x), rather than
to the problem story and its numerical values as in the previous interview:
138 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

Roni: This is (the lower line in the graph) x plus one-fifth of x.

Gal: Wait, it’s x divided by 5, for this you have to find . . . they are parallel. No,
but it’s x plus something of x, they are not parallel.
Roni: That’s why you have to change it (the format of the expression)
Gal: But it’s still simpler to write an equation . . . if we can!
Roni, who on previous interviews always followed Gal, took the lead this
time. He was certain that the use of software and the analysis of the graphs
would lead them to the solution: “If we could use the computer, maybe it
would show us right away the two graphs and we could see if they ...”

So they proceeded to type in the equation as a comparison of two expressions5 ,

immediately scaled it to view the relevant area of the window according to
their conjectures, analyzed the intersection values, and made the connec-
tion to the situation. They knew what they were looking for: “Here it is. . .
it intersects at 2250.” From then on they did not go back to the equation but
rather explained what the graphs told them about the advantages of each
method to the owner and to the employees.
Although the expected ‘exercise activity’ turned into a ‘problem’ only
because they failed to manipulate correctly a simple equation, and even
though graphs were present at all stages and seemed to play an important
role in their thinking, symbols were at the heart of this interview narrative.
They used symbolic language as a vehicle to express their ideas and the
symbolic model was their first choice as the way to describe the data
(and not as a generalization of a process of sampling as in the previous
interviews). Roni’s ability to foresee the precedence of the visual-graphic
representation and sketch it on the basis of the symbolic expressions cer-
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 139

tainly indicates that he has made remarkable progress mastering these

skills.

4. L ONGITUDINAL VIEWS ON PROBLEM SOLVING AND PROBLEMS

REPRESENTATIONS

The study examined students that studied for three years an algebra course
that was structured along the variation function approach supported by
graphic technology. We frequently interviewed students during these three
years on different tasks. Although we were involved in the interviewees’
classroom activities almost on a daily basis, the data presented here is pur-
posely limited to three interviews on a similar task and mainly with only
one pair. This is done in an attempt to capture the transitions, development
of knowledge, and the subtle changes that occurred along the relatively
long period of learning this alternative algebra course. In order to present
this long-term process of learning and follow the changes that took place
along the three interviews, we have chosen a timeline representation of the
solution process of Gal and Roni.
The charts (in Figure 1) on the left-hand side describe Gal and Roni’s
problem solving strategies and on the right the mathematical resources
used at the implementation phase. The light rectangles represent the use
of graphing software that was available along all interviews. An over-
view of the six charts helps to capture similarities and differences and to
concentrate on the trends of the learning and development of skills.
The length of work is the first noticeable difference between the three
interviewees. In an algebra course that focuses on algebraic solutions,
solving a linear break-even problem should be a short process. None of
the processes here suggest such short work. Although the first solution
was the shortest, it was not short at all: Gal and Roni made a few attempts
to solve the problem, analyzed the dependency between two quantities,
and offered a way to chart an answer. The process was the longest in the
second interview. The students seemed to have developed a facility with all
the representations and they needed time to maneuver. In the third inter-
view, Gal and Roni were still spending a relatively long time on choosing
alternative representations.
Another noticeable difference along the three interviews is the use of
software. The software available along all interviews and used in two of
them was integrated in two different manners. The chart of the 2nd in-
terview suggests two cycles of solution – one with paper and pencil and
the second with the software, prompted and almost forced on them by
the interviewer (starting at the 13th minute). In the third interview, again,
140 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

Figure 1. Time charts of Gal & Roni three interviews (Left – Problem Solving strategies,
Right – Mathematical Resources). Light rectangles represent the use of software.

there were two cycles, the choice to use the software was the students’
this time, and the work with the software continued rather than repeated
the paper and pencil work and the mental attempts at solving. They were
ready to use the software once they got an idea of what they expected to see
and how it would be different from what they had already found. In both
interviews the use of the computer was delayed until the last part of the
solution process (the last third on the second interview and the second half
on the third interview). Higher achievers often started their solution using
software (e.g. Ben and Eyal in the second interview) mainly because the
representation they learned to value most – expressions – was their only
channel of communication with the function graphing software. We will
turn now to the analysis of the problem solving strategies along the three
charts.
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 141

4.1. Strategies of problem solving

In documenting the phases of the solving process along the elapsed time,
we identified five phases. While designing the charts, we used reasonably
close definitions used in Schoenfeld (1985). The Exploration phase used
by Schoenfeld is missing here, because we did not expect the repeated
familiar problem to promote any exploration of the kind described by
Schoenfeld. The five phases used here are: 1) Reading the given text, 2)
Analysis phase where the student gets the feel of the problem, 3) the Design
or Planning phase in which the student reviews the progress, gets an over-
view, and discusses approaches to be taken, 4) the Implementation phase
that involves all the mathematical processes the student uses, and 5) the
Verification phase where the student reviews the validity of the solution.
The three interviews charts (and many of the charts of other pairs in
the sample, as detailed in Nassar 2000) can be commonly described as a
zigzag of short terms of design and longer periods of implementation. The
Design, or Plan, that was involved all along is the one that goes under
the umbrella of ‘meta-cognition’: the students were monitoring their own
problem-solving actions. To highlight just a few: “What’s the goal here?
To describe it” (8th grade); “No, no, just a minute, no, we need to think”
“I need to think for a second . . . I am trying to think when it will switch,
when would the second offer be better than the first one.” (8th grade); and
“What we did does not really work” (9th grade). The constant interplay
between planning and implementing stands in contrast to the description
of novice problem solvers that, when facing difficulties, assess their ‘local
difficulty’ as a global failure and quit rather than search for alternative ap-
proaches (Schoenfeld, 1987.) But the relatively massive planing is not the
only difference between traditional algebra problem solving and the solu-
tion processes described here. It is the Implementation phase that probably
needs a special attention. This phase, designed to describe semi-routine
actions (as described by Perkins, 1986, p. 199), turned into the focus of
our analysis. In the setting of this study, the greater bulk of mathemat-
ical discourse happened during implementation. First, because problems
were posed (in the first two interviews) before any procedure was taught,
and the interviewees had to deal with the complexity by employing ways
of mathematically describing the situation. Second, because a lot of the
Design had ‘migrated’ into this phase. Thirdly, because the nature of the
work with multiple linked representations software made the work on Veri-
fication and Implementation undistinguishable. All that fusion among the
problem solving phases suggests that viewing problem solving phase is
insufficient to understand the development of problem solving strategies
within the approach and that further analysis of the inherent subtleties
142 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

of the mathematics of functions would be a helpful avenue to take. The

following is such an analysis.

4.2. What did it take to turn representations into tools?

The longitudinal view of the implementation of mathematical resources
clearly shows the change in focus regarding function representations: from
numbers as the only means of modeling in the first interview, to massive
work with graphs and tables as linked parallel representations of a situation
in the second interview, and the use of more symbolic representations, i.e.,
expressions and sketches, in the last interview. A finer analysis shows how-
ever that the use of function representations by students was subtler than
that. To support this argument, we should return to the distinction made in
the introduction regarding the variation and correspondence aspects of the
function approach.
Point-wise correspondence offers (x,f(x)) pairs that can lead to a gener-
alization of a symbolic function rule. This has always been a more common
way to start algebra. Analysis of variation also starts off with numbers,
but generalizations spawned by an analysis of increments (differences or
ratios) among numbers leads to a recursive rather than explicit function
formulation. Solving problems in context in the Visual Math platform of-
fers an opportunity to alternate along different paths created by the two
views and the three representations of functions. For a better analysis of
the conceptual challenge that students faced while thinking about rep-
resentations, we will schematically characterize the sequence along two
dimensions (Figure 2). The learning starts with graphical representations
of variations, used later on to analyze patterns of numbers by watching
the behavior of the increments, moves on to analysis and construction of
relations between quantities that are defined globally, to accurate graphs,
and then to explicit expressions.
The interplay between the two views of the function was apparent all
along; these multiple views were not used incidentally. In fact, one can
identify a new type of work with multiple representations not exactly fol-
lowing the sequence taught. The correspondence view usually appeared
while sampling special cases while the co-variation supported the initial
views about situation models and helped in the integration of separate
cases into a model. A typical example is Gal & Roni’s work on the Parking
problem in the 8th grade. They started by outlining short tables using cor-
respondence, and then they sketched a graph by evaluating the constant
increment. They constructed two tables of relations between quantities
using differences, and explicitly explained why: “Roni: Each hour costs
two IS. Gal: Wait, so for an hour you pay 8 and for two 10 . . . Roni: No,
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 143

Figure 2. Schematic characterization of two views of functions in 3 representations.

don’t do that, simply add two for each hour.” A comparison between the
resultant construction of each method served as feedback and a checking
strategy.
However, Gal and Roni advanced only slowly in their use of expres-
sions, and were at a premature stage for using expressions even at the
third year. They had a harder time when asked to treat the equation and
the situation simultaneously – when they had to concentrate on the ma-
nipulations, they concentrated on the graphs and expressions and not on
the given phenomena. Only when they returned to work numerically and
graphically using the software, the narrative returned to be the familiar
parallel discussion of the story and the mathematics. Thus, like others
who take a function approach to algebra with graphing technology, we
find that modeling tasks are successfully worked on and manipulations are
less frequently used and with less success.
The caution often suggested, that students who are doing algebra for
a long period using graphing software will develop a dependency on the
software, seems irrelevant here. For high achievers such as Ben and Eyal,
the software was useful immediately when available, but when it wasn’t
they performed successfully as well. Those who, like Gal and Roni, pre-
ferred to delay the use of expressions, did not use the software until they
gained an appreciation of the expressions rules. Worries that graphing
144 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

technology might replace the need for understanding (as speculated by

Pimm, 1995) seems less relevant here. On the contrary: students used the
linked representation for elaboration and paying attention to subtleties and
nuances that would have eluded them otherwise. They were capable of
explaining the purpose of using it, aware of its structure, and knew to argue
why it should work (even if it did not provide the expected answer). Each
of the three components of the approach and its combinations: multiple
views on functions, multiple representations of functions and the func-
tionality of graphing technology, thus became a thinking tool in the sense
demonstrated by Perkins (1986).

5. W HY SHOULD IT TAKE THAT LONG ?

The direction that curriculum developers and mathematics educators tried

to outline, towards envisioning algebra in a technological world, is based
on making ‘functions’ an important component of school algebra. While
different approaches, tools and intentions emerge within this function and
technology developments, we all point to important differences between
the ‘traditional’ algebra class and the new class. These differences are best
reflected in the inquiry methods involved in the roles of students taking
responsibilities while dealing with new problems rather than rehearsing
known procedures (Heid 1995). Naturally, we suspect that such a substan-
tial shift should require the long period of teaching and learning. Data
from this longitudinal observation suggest that strategies of inquiry were
present from the very early interview and with the lower achievers as well
as with high achievers – viewing the problem solving strategies charts
should be convincing! They all dedicated time for planning, they exhibited
ability and tendency to speak mathematically, and they were fusing higher
order thinking skills, multiple uses of representations, and aspects of the
physical situations in the implementation of the solution. They did not give
up quickly and they used the technology whenever they felt that it could
be helpful. Upon these findings, and upon a range of existing research, it
seems that the choice of the function as the main concept around which
algebra is learned, makes the shift to inquiry natural and even not too
demanding in terms of the structure of the sequence.
So where does the curricular picture get complicated? Why did it take
Gal and Roni so long to appreciate algebraic symbols? Why did they prefer
to use the situation as the source for their answers? And is it desirable at
all to help them achieve higher performance of formal algebra similar to
that of Ben and Eyal?
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 145

I suggest that a curricular sequence of algebra based on functions might

have to address more subtleties and transitions than initially expected. I
will shortly review a few of them: Elsewhere we (Yerushalmy and Shtern-
berg, 2001) zoom into an introductory algebra modeling based sequence
to explain the transition involved in building on terms of co-variations to
global view, and algebraic explicit rules. We exemplify there how differ-
ent approaches used technology to connect between explicit expressions
and processes of change, and why each of the transitions offered further
complexities. From the findings of this study and of the long-term ob-
servation taken by Chazan (2000), we argue that the complexity of help-
ing students to value algebraic symbols may require more than bridging
between representations. It may require to design a systematic sequence
that would help students process with familiar objects (recursive patterns)
and arrive through encapsulation at constructing forms of explicit algebraic
expressions.
Another transition that should be made is the move from what Chazan
(ibid.) terms ‘Relations Between Quantities Approach’ to ‘Functions Ap-
proach’. In other words, there is a significant difference between two roles
of the function representations most function approach curricula attempt to
use– being signifiers of both the signified physical field (the phenomenon)
and the signified mathematical field (the abstract concept of function). The
potential of the function representation to serve both goals is the major
advantage of the function approach to algebra, however, I believe it should
be made explicit.
Maybe the hardest complication to be addressed by mathematics edu-
cators is to define more clearly what are the standards of introductory
school algebra: Much of the power of algebra derives from the ways it
handles the closed form procedures that allow students to be less attentive
to meaning. Much of the power of conceptual understanding lies in its
attentiveness to meaning. In one world Gal and Roni had failed in a major
task, in the other they accomplished important goals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Michal Sion and Suheir Nassar for their
contribution to the collection and analysis of the data and to earlier drafts
of the paper.
146 MICHAL YERUSHALMY

N OTES

1. In Israel algebra is being studied at junior high school in grades 7,8 and 9. In parallel
(but not necessarily integrated) they learn geometry and introductory probability and
statistics. The traditional algebra curriculum starts with algebraic reasoning of expres-
sions, equations, and continues with the study of linear and quadratic funcitons. The
Visual Math alternative algebra curriculum was deisgned to fit into this structure.
2. The criteria to determine the interviewees’ level included the impression got by the
interviewer (who followed the classes weekly in the 7th grade) from students particip-
ation, verbal ability and tendency, their cooperation with the teacher and classmates
and their work in the computer lab. In principle, those who were categorized as ‘less
able’ students were those who at that time required extra explanations, more demon-
stration and directions in computer tasks, and often, during the whole class discussion,
presented dissatisfaction.
3. Ben argued that 2x+6 means that 6 has to be constantly added to the parking price for
any hour x while the situaiton was decsribed differently in the given problem.
4. For Ben and Eyal, this problem did function as an exercise. Once they formed an equa-
tion they asked for a computer in order to read the intersection point. The interviewer,
in an attempt to create an opportunity to view more problem solving, interrupted and
asked them to reach a solution before using the software. As a result, they returned to
a strategy they had used in the previous two problems: computations of the difference
between the two processes. However, this time, the arithmetic undoing operation was
replaced by viewing the difference function 450 − x5 and they reached the result by
equating it to zero.
5. In the Function Graphing software they were using in class there were two different
entries: one for graphing functions and another for graphing a relation as a comparison
of two functions.

R EFERENCES

Center for Educational Technology: 1995, Visual Mathematics: Algebra. Written materials
and software, Published by the author, Tel-Aviv.
Chazan, D.: 2000, Beyond Formulas in Mathematics and Tecahing: Dynamics of the
Highschool Algebra Classroom, Teachers’ College, NY.
Chazan, D.: 1993, ‘F(x)=G(x)? An approach to modelling with Algebra’, For the Learning
of Mathematics 13(3), 22–26.
Confrey, J. and Smith, E.: 1994, ‘Exponential functions, rates of change and the multiplic-
ative unit’, Educational Studies in Mathematics (26), 135–164.
Fey, J.T.: 1989, ‘School algebra for the year 2000’, in S. Wagner and C. Kieran (eds.)
Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp.
199–213.
Heid, K.: 1995, ‘Algebra in a technological world. National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM)’, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics.
Janvier, C.: 1996, ‘Modeling and the initiation to algebra’, in N. Bednarz, C. Kieran and L.
Lee (eds.), Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, Kluwer, pp. 225–238.
 PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES AND MATHEMATICAL RESOURCES 147

Kieran, C., Boileau, A. and Garancon, M.: 1996, ‘Introducing algebra by means of
a technology-supported functional approach’, in N. Bednarz, C. Kieran and L. Lee
(eds.), Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research and Teaching, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, Kluwer, pp. 257–294.
Kintch, W. and Greeno, G.: 1985, ‘Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems’,
Psychological Review 92, 109–129.
Nassar, S.: 2000, The Characteristics of Solution Processes of Low-Achieving Pupils who
Study Algebra in the Function with Technology Approach, Thesis submitted in the
Department of Education, University of Haifa, IL.
Nemirovsky, R.: 1996, ‘A functional approach to algebra: Two issues that emerge’, in N.
Bednarz, C. Kieran and L. Lee (eds.), Approaches to Algebra: Perspectives for Research
and Teaching, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer, pp. 295–313.
Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M.: 1989, The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive
Change in School, Cambridge University Press.
Perkins, D.N.: 1986, Knowledge as Design, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Pimm, D.: 1995, Symbols and Meanings in School Mathematics, London, Routledge.
Huntley, M.A., Rasmussen, C.L., Villarubi, R.S., Sangtong, J. and Fey, J.T.: 2000, ‘Effects
of standards-based mathematics education: A study of the core-plus mathematics pro-
ject algebra and functions strand’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education vol.
31(3), 328–361.
Schoenfeld, A.: 1985, Mathematical Problem Solving, Academic Press, Inc.
Schoenfeld, A.: 1987, ‘What’s all the Fuss about Metacognition?’ in A. Schoenfeld (ed.),
Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education, Erlbaum.
Yerushalmy, M.: 1997, ‘Designing representations: Reasoning about functions of two
variables’, Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 27(4).
Yerushalmy, M. and Shternberg, B.: 2001, ‘A visual course to the concept of function’,
in A. Cuoco (ed), The Roles of Representations in School Mathematics, 2001 National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics Yearbook (2001), pp. 251–268.

University of Haifa,
Faculty of Education
michalyr@construct.haifa.ac.il