STUDENTS’ REASONING IN QUADRATIC EQUATIONS WITH

ONE UNKNOWN
M. Gözde Didiş, Sinem Baş, A. Kürşat Erbaş
Middle East Technical University
This study examined 10th grade students’ procedures for solving quadratic equations
with one unknown. An open-ended test was designed and administered to 113
students in a high school in Antalya, Turkey. The data were analyzed in terms of the
students’ foci while they were answering the questions. The results revealed that
factoring the quadratic equations was challenging to them, particularly when
students experienced them in a different structure from what they are used to.
Furthermore, although students knew some rules related to solving quadratics, they
applied these rules thinking about neither why they did so, nor whether what they
were doing was mathematically correct. It was concluded that the students’
understanding in solving quadratic equations is instrumental (or procedural), rather
than relational (or conceptual).
Key words: Quadratic equations, instrumental understanding, relational
understanding
INTRODUCTION
For many secondary school students, solving quadratic equations is one of the most
conceptually challenging subjects in the curriculum (Vaiyavutjamai, Ellerton, &
Clements, 2005). In Turkey, where a national mathematics curriculum for elementary
and secondary levels is implemented, the teaching and learning of quadratic
equations are introduced through factorization, the quadratic formula, and completing
the square by using symbolic algorithms. Of these techniques, students typically
prefer factorization when the quadratic is obviously factorable. With this technique,
students can solve the quadratic equations quickly without paying attention to their
structure and conceptual meaning (Sönnerhed, 2009). However, as Taylor and Mittag
(2001) suggest, the factorization technique is only symbolic in its nature. Since
students simply memorize the procedures and formulas to solve quadratic equations,
they have little understanding of the meaning of quadratic equations, and do not
understand what to do and why. This can be described using Skemp’s (1976)
categorization of mathematical understanding as either instrumental or relational. He
simply described instrumental understanding as “rules without reasons” and relational
understanding as “knowing both what to do and why” (p. 20). Using the language of
Skemp, it can be said that students can perform instrumentally to solve the quadratic
equations by applying the factorization technique; however, they become deprived of
relational understanding.
Although quadratic equations take an important role in secondary school algebra
curricula around the world, it appears that studies concerning teaching and learning

1
quadratic equations are quite scarce in algebra education research (Kieran, 2007;
Vaiyavutjamai & Clements, 2006). Therefore, this study was designed to widen the
research considering students’ reasoning when engaging in different types of
quadratic equations in one unknown. In particular, this study investigated students’
processes for solving quadratic equations with one unknown by using the
factorization technique.
The findings of this study may provide teachers with insight into the reasoning that
leads to the common mistakes that students make while solving quadratic equations,
and hence guide them in creating a more efficient pedagogical design for teaching
how to solve quadratics.
Challenges faced by Students in Solving Quadratic Equations
According to Kotsopoulos (2007), for many secondary school students, solving
quadratic equations is one of the most conceptually challenging aspects in the high
school curriculum. She indicated that many students encounter difficulties recalling
main multiplication facts, which directly influences their ability to engage in
quadratics. And, since the factorization technique of solving quadratic equations
requires students to be able to rapidly find factors, factoring simple quadratics (i.e.,
x2+bx+c=0 where b, c  R) become a quite challenge, while non-simple quadratics
(i.e., ax2+bx+c=0 a, b, c  R and a≠1) become nearly impossible. Moreover,
students encounter crucial difficulties in factoring quadratic equations if they are
presented in non-standard forms. For example, factoring x2+3x+1=x+4 is
challenging for students, since the equation is not presented in standard form
(Kotsopoulos, 2007). Similarly, Bossè and Nandakumar (2005) stated that the
factoring techniques for solving quadratic equations are problematic for students.
They indicated that students can find factoring the quadratics considerably more
complicated when the leading coefficient or constant in the quadratic has many pairs
of possible factors.
Skemp’s (1976) description of instrumental and relational understanding can be used
as a framework to discuss the difficulties students have with factoring quadratic
equations. While an instrumental understanding of factorizing quadratic equations
with one unknown requires memorizing rules for equations presented in particular
structures, relational understanding enables students to apply these rules to different
structures easily (Reason, 2003). That is, when students have relational
understanding, they can transfer knowledge of both what rules (and formulas) worked
and why they worked from one situation to another (Skemp, 2002).
Lima (2008) found that students may perceive quadratic equations just like they do
calculations. Since they focus mostly on the symbols used to perform operations, they
may not be aware of the concepts that are involved. Vaiyavutjamai and Clements
(2006) explain that students’ difficulties with quadratic equations arise from the lack
of both instrumental and relational understanding of the associated mathematics.
They found several misconceptions regarding variables which were obstacles to

2
understanding quadratic equations. For example, students thought that the two x’s in
the equation (x-3) ∙(x-5) =0 stood for different variables, even though most of them
obtained the correct solutions x=3 and x=5. Hence, they concluded that students’
performance in that context reflect rote learning and a lack of relational
understanding.
METHODOLOGY
Participants and the Instrument
The sample of this study consisted of 113 students in four 10th grade classes, and this
study was performed in a high school in Antalya, Turkey during the spring term
2009-2010.
For the purpose of the study, a questionnaire was formed by the authors since no test
to specifically explore students’ errors and understanding was available. The test
questions were carefully selected from secondary mathematics textbooks and from
research regarding quadratic equations (e.g., Crouse & Sloyer, 1977). All questions
used in this questionnaire were selected to measure the study objective of
determining how students “determine the roots and solution set of [a] quadratic
equation in one unknown”. During the selection process, two mathematics educators
and a mathematics teacher were consulted about whether the content of the selected
questions were consistent with the objective of the test. In light of their suggestions,
seven open ended question were determined. Although the format of the all of the
questions was open-ended, they varied in type so as to be consistent with the
objective of the study. Questions 1 to 4 were in the standard format in which students
were expected to “find the solution set of the given quadratic equation”. These
questions were based on procedural skills, and they were mostly used to detect
students’ procedural abilities in solving quadratic equations in different structures. On
the other hand, questions 5 to 7 introduced a mathematical scenario that included
both a quadratic equation and a solution belonging to it. In these type of questions,
students were expected to determine “whether the solutions [belonging to] the
equations were correct or not, and to make judgment about their decision”.
Therefore, in addition to procedural skills, these questions were used to detect
students’ understanding of and reasoning level when dealing with quadratic
equations.
The mathematics teacher administered the questionnaire during the regular class
period and the students were given 30 minutes to complete it.
Analysis of Data
Initially, the responses given to each question were givens scores of either 1 or 0. A
score of 1 was given for answers that were mathematically correct in terms of both
solution process and final answer. A score of 0 was given for answers that were either
omitted or incorrect in terms of either solution process or final answer. Then, in order
to obtain a general view of the students’ performance, the percentage of correct,

3
incorrect and omitted questions were calculated. The aim of this process was
descriptive analysis. Afterwards, qualitative data analysis was conducted. The
subjects’ responses were studied in order to provide substantial information about
their type of understanding. In this analysis, it was attempted to identify the common
mistakes that students made while solving the quadratic equations. Therefore, the
incorrect answers for all questions have been analyzed item by item with respect to
the students’ focus when they solved the questions in the test situation. In this
process, students’ types of mistakes were coded by two researchers of this study who
worked initially separately. Next, the mistakes were both combined and renamed
based on their common features, and then they were classified by two researchers
together. Lastly, these mistakes were interpreted in terms of students’ instrumental
understanding and relational understanding.
RESULT
The first item in the instrument was related to finding the roots of a quadratic
equation given in standard form (e.g., ax2+bx+c=0 where a, b, c  R). Almost all
students correctly solved this equation by factorization. In the following questions,
quadratic equations were given in different structures (e.g., ax2-bx=0, c=0). In these
types of questions, just 64% of them solved the equation ax2-bx=0, correctly. When
the solution processes of students who made mistakes (36%) were analyzed, it was
recognized that their mistakes were based on two different types.
2
“Find the solution set of the equation − 2 = 0”.

Figure 1: An example of students’ first type of mistake

2
“Find the solution set of the equation − 2 = 0”.

Figure 2: An example of students’ second type of mistake

4
 2
“Find the solution set of the equation “ − = 12”

Figure 3: An example of students’ mistake when just the form of equation changed.
In the first type of wrong solution (see Figure 1), students carried the term -2x from
left side to the right, and then simplified the term x in both sides of the equation.
Consequently, they ignored one of the roots of the equation, which is 0. In the second
type of wrong solution (see Figure 2), students tried to factorize the equation. Here,
students perceived the form ax2-bx=0 just like ax2+bx+c=0 and thought -2x as the
constant term of the quadratic equations. Even, when just the form of the equation
was changed instead of the structure (e.g., ax2+bx=c where a, b, c≠0), 12% of the
students incorrectly solved the quadratic. Because the constant term was in the right
side, they didn’t perceive that the equation was in standard form (see Figure 3). In
this type of solution, they were able to find only one of the roots, 4.
Students’ types of responses with their reasoning
Statements I. II. III. IV.
Question 5
To solve the equation “The answer is “The answer “The “The answer is
“(x-3)∙(x-2) = 0” Right” is Right” answer is Right”.
for real numbers, Ali Since I wrote Because Right”. If the x=2
answered in a single (x-3)∙(x-2) = 0 (x-3)=0 Since we and x=3 are
line that: as x2-5x+6=0 (x-2)=0 substitute substituted into
“x=3 or x=2” and then I factorize x=3 “3 and 2” the equation
Is this answer to find roots of it. x=2 into x, the (3-3)⋅ (2-2)=0
correct? If it is correct, from (x-3)=0 and equation is 0.0 = 0
how can you show it from (x-2)=0 provided.
correctness? “x=3 and x=2” (explanation
made only
with words)
Table 1: Common examples of students’ types of responses with their reasoning for
question 5.
Although all of the students stated that Ali’s answer was correct by choosing either
one of the statements I, II, III, and IV, the ways they justified for the correctness of
Ali’s solution were different. For instance, in statement I, students first transformed
the factorized expression into the standard form, and then factorized the expression
again in the same way and found the roots by rote. In statement II, students
unconsciously applied the null factor law. In statement III, the way of justification for
solution was based on substitution method. In all of these three statements, they could
not clearly justify the correctness of the solution. In statement IV, students substituted
x=3 into (x-3) and x=2 into (x-2) simultaneously, and concluded that their solution

5
were correct since 0∙0=0. Namely, they thought that the two x’s stood for different
numbers.

Students’ types of responses with their reasoning

Statements I. II. III. IV.
Question 6
“The answer “The “The answer is “The answer is
A student hands in the is Wrong” answer is Right” Wrong”
following work for the Because, Wrong”. Since the result is Since the
following problem. firstly, 3 must Because equal to 3, we equations are
Solve ; carry the left when we equate 3 rather than separated as
x2-14x+24=3 side of the substitute 3 0 while factoring it. (3,1) there is no
(x-12)∙(x-2)=3 equation and and 15 for Therefore, the error when
(x-12)∙(x-2)=3∙1 equalize the x, the result is true. (x-12)=3
x-12=3 x-2=1 0. Then, the equation is Students again however, there
x=15 x=3 other not solve as: is error when
Ç.K= {3, 5} operations provided. “x2-14x+24=3” (x-2)=1.
Is the student correct? must be done. (x-12)∙(x-2)=3 It must be
Explain your answer with In this way, (x-12)∙ (x-2)=3∙1 (x-2)=3 then,
its reasons? the equation x-12=3 x-2=1 x=5. Therefore,
x2-14x+21=0 x=15 x=3 the solution will
(3,1) be {5, 15}
rather than
{3, 15}.
Table 2: Common examples of students’ types of responses with their reasoning for
question 6.
In statements I and II (see Table 2), students were aware of the error in the solution of
the given question. However, to explain the reasons for the mistake, they presented
procedural explanations like the responses in statements I, II, III for question 5 (see
Table 1). In statement III, students incorrectly stated that the answer was right.
Looking at the statement “since the result is equal to 3, we equate to 3 rather than 0
while factoring it”, it can be said that they wrongly tried to transfer the null factor law
to this context. That is, they equated the factors of equation x2-14x+24 with the
integer factors of 3. In statement IV, students correctly claimed “the answer of the
question wrong”; however, their explanations were fully erroneous. Similar to
statement III, these students tried to apply the null factor law to the equation.
Nonetheless, in this case, they only equated the factors to 3 rather than to the factors
of 3. In both statements III and IV, students did not check whether the roots they
found were appropriate or not.

6
 Students’ types of responses with their reasoning
Statements I. II. III. IV.
Question 7
The solution of the “The answer is “The “The answer “The answer is
quadratic equation Wrong” answer is Right” Right”
“2 x2=3x” Because 3x must Right” Because when 2 x2=3x and x2 is
is given in the following; be carried the left The we substitute opened.
According to you, is this side of the solution is the value for 2∙x∙x=3∙x
solution correct or not? equation and right; x, the equation Yes the x is
Explain your answer with equalized the 0. however, it is satisfied. simplified.
its reasons? Then, must be 2x=3 so x=3/2.
Solution: 2 x2=3x added 0 to
I. step 2 x2=3x 2 x2- 3x=0 the solution
II. step 2∙x∙x=3∙x x∙(2x-3)=0 set.
III. step 2∙x =3 x=0, x=3/2.
IV. step x= 3/2
Ç.K = {3/2}

Table 3: Common examples of students’ types of responses with their reasoning for
question 7.
In statement I (see Table 3), students stated that the answer was correct. They
explained an appropriate procedure required for solving the equation. Since they
memorized the rule without its reasons, they could only exhibit how the procedure
must be worked. In statement II, on the other hand, students were aware that the roots
of the equation were 0 and 3/2. However, they did not recognize that when was
simultaneously canceled from both sides, the root 0 disappeared. Furthermore, in
statement III, the explanation for solution was just based on the substitution method.
In statement IV, students incorrectly stated that the answer was right. Like in
statement II, students were not aware of the missing root 0 when canceling an in the
equation
DISCUSSION
The results indicate that most of the students used the factorization technique to solve
quadratic equations. This result supports Bosse and Nandakumar (2005), who
claimed that a large percentage of the students preferred to apply the factorization
techniques to find the solutions of quadratic equations. Also, in parallel with the
results of Bossé and Nandakumar (2005) and Kotsopoulos (2007), the result of this
study revealed that factoring the quadratic equations was challenging when they were
presented to students in non-standard forms and structures. After looking at the
examples of students’ solutions (see Figures 1, 2, and 3), it can be said that the
students knew some rules (or procedures) related to solving quadratics. However,
they tried to apply these rules thinking about neither why they did so, nor whether if
what they were doing was mathematically correct. These results give some clues
about students’ instrumental understanding of solving quadratic equations with one
unknown. However, to make an exact judgment about students’ relational or

7
instrumental understanding as Skemp (2002) defined, in-depth interviews with
individual students are required. Furthermore, results also indicate that students
incorrectly tried to transfer some rules from one form of equation to another (e.g., in
Figure 2). This can be considered another clue to students’ instrumental
understanding (Reason, 2003).
When students were asked to examine a solution process of a quadratic equation and
judge whether it was correct (i.e., in questions 5, 6, and 7), the results give additional
clues about their reasoning in solving quadratics. In question 5, for example, although
most of the students were aware of the correctness of the result, they did not explain
the underlying null factor law used to solve the quadratics by factorization. The
responses also reveal their misunderstanding of the unknown concept in a quadratic
equation (see the statement IV, in question 5), which is consistent with the results of
Vaiyavutjamai and Clements (2006). Students were not aware that the two ’s in the
equation represent a specific unknown when dealing with equations in the form
(x-a) ∙(x-b) =0. All of these can be regarded as clues to students’ instrumental
understanding. As stated by Lima (2008), and Vaiyavutjmai and Clements (2006),
students knew how to get correct answers but were not aware of what their answers
represented.
Similar interpretations can be made for the responses of students to question 6. There
are two salient points related to their reasoning in explaining the given solution. First,
although students were expected to explain the reason(s) why the given solution
process was wrong, they could not detect the conceptual errors in the solution. They
just presented some rules or procedures to solve the quadratic. Second, as was clear
from statements III and IV (see Table 2), due to their lack of conceptual
understanding of the null factor law in solving quadratics given in standard form,
they wrongly transferred this principle to a quadratic in a non-suitable form. This can
also be a clue for students’ instrumental understanding. Because when students
relationally understand a rule, they can use it in a different context (Reason, 2003).
Similar inferences can be made for the students’ responses to questions 7 where they
did not offer any explanation for why canceling ’s was wrong. In other words, they
did not recognize that when x was simultaneously canceled from both sides, the root
0 disappeared. Also, consistent with the results reported by Bossé and Nandakumar’s
(2005) and Kotsopoulos’ (2007), although students knew the null factor law, they
could not apply it appropriately when the structure of equation was changed.
Collectively, all these results reveal that students attempted to solve the quadratic
equations as quickly as possible without paying much attention to their structures and
conceptual meaning (Sönnerhed, 2009). Although we cannot be sure if their
reasoning was based on instrumental or relational understanding without in-depth
interviews with students, their written answers provide clues to their reasoning, and it
can be said that their reasoning underlying solving quadratic equations was based on
instrumental understanding.

8
Having instrumental understanding does not generally cause trouble for students. It is
much easier to obtain and use than relational understanding, just because it requires
less knowledge, and with instrumental understanding, students can generally obtain
the right answers more quickly. However, it necessities memorizing, and without
relational understanding the learning cannot be adapted to new tasks, and students
cannot give real reasons for their answers (Skemp, 2002). For that reason, greater
attention should be given to how the concept is introduced to reduce the possibility of
students learning the subjects/rules/procedures by rote. Any mechanism of solution
must allow students to understand the meaning of the process that they apply in order
to arrive at the correct answer; otherwise, the mechanism they learn will be a source
of error (Blanco & Garrote, 2007).
Recommendation
As a result of this study, several suggestions can be made to contribute to improving
students’ understanding of quadratic equations. Since factoring the quadratic
equations was challenging when they are presented in non-standard forms and
structures, it would be better if teachers introduce various kinds of quadratic
equations in different structures rather than just in the standard form. On the other
hand, it would be also helpful for students to understand the factorization techniques
as relational when teachers clearly emphasize meaning of the null factor rather than
presenting it just as rule. In addition, because the students can attribute different
meanings to the symbols (Küchemann, 1981), their understanding of the meanings of
the algebraic symbols needs to be taken into account. Therefore, if teachers
emphasize the meaning of the algebraic symbols, it would also useful for students to
understand what the symbols represent in quadratic equations. Moreover, when
teachers encourage students to use different techniques while solving quadratic
equations, students’ learning may improve, and they may also gain a conceptually
understanding. Similar recommendations can also be found in the related literature
(e.g., Bossè & Nandakumar, 2005; Sönnerhed, 2009).
Undoubtedly, teachers play an important role in encouraging students to learn
relationally. This should be the most important part of teachers’ pedagogical content
knowledge. However, research studies demonstrate a lack of secondary school
mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in this respect (Vaiyavutjamai,
Ellerton, & Clements, 2005). Indeed, there is a need to research teachers’ knowledge
about students’ difficulties concerning quadratic equations.
REFERENCES
Blanco, L. J., & Garrote, M. (2007). Difficulties in learning inequalities in students of
the first year of pre-university education in Spain. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 221-229.
Bossé, M. J., & Nandakumar, N. R. (2005). The factorability of quadratics:
Motivation for more techniques (section A). Teaching Mathematics and its
Applications, 24(4), 143-153.

9
Crouse, J. R., & Sloyer, W. C. (1977). Mathematical questions from the classroom.
USA: Prindle, Weber & Schmidt.
Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through
college levels. In F. Lester (ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics
Teaching and Learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. Vol II (pp. 669-705). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Kotsopoulos, D. (2007). Unraveling student challenges with quadratics: A cognitive
approach. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 63(2), 19-24.
Küchemann, D. E. (1981). Algebra. In Hart, K., Brown, M. L., Küchemann, D. E.,
Kerslake, D., Ruddock, G., & McCartney, M. (Eds.), Children's understanding of
Mathematics: 11-16 (pp. 102-119). London: John Murray.
Lima, R. N. (2008). Procedural embodiment and quadratic equations. Retrieved
April 1, 2010, from http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/701.
Reason, M. (2003). Relational, instrumental and creative understanding. Mathematics
Teaching, 184, 5-7.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding.
Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20-26.
Skemp, R. R. (2002). Mathematics in the primary school. London: Routledge Falmer.
Sönnerhed, W. W. (2009). Alternative approaches of solving quadratic equations in
mathematics teaching: An empirical study of mathematics textbooks and teaching
material or Swedish Upper-secondary school. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from
http://www.ipd.gu.se/digitalAssets/1272/1272539_plansem_wei.pdf.
Taylor, S. E. & Mittag, K. C. (2001). Seven wonders of the ancient and modern
quadratic world. Mathematics Teacher, 94, 349-351.
Vaiyavutjamai, P., Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (2005). Students’ attempts to
solve two elementary quadratic equations: A study in three nations. Retrieved
April 1, 2010, from www.merga.net.au/documents/RP852005.pdf.
Vaiyavutjamai, P., & Clements, M. A. (2006). Effects of classroom instruction on
students’ understanding of quadratic equations. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 18(1), 47-77.

10