ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

The Effect of Analogies on Learning to Solve Algebraic Equations

Roberto Araya(*), Patricio Calfucura, Abelino Jiménez, Carlos Aguirre, María Angélica

Palavicino, Nancy Lacourly, Jorge Soto-Andrade, Pablo Dartnell

Centro de Investigación Avanzada en Educación

Universidad de Chile

Periodista José Carrasco Tapia 75, Santiago, Chile.

(*) Corresponding author, e-mail address: robertoaraya@automind.cl

Acknowledgement: Fondef grant D06I1023

1
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Abstract

A total of 236 seventh grade students who had never been taught algebraic equations

before, attending 10 Chilean schools of varying socioeconomic status, were randomly

divided into two groups at each school. The students in one group watched a 15-minute

video teaching them how to solve 5 different first degree linear equations using a

traditional symbolic strategy, while in the other group the students watched a 15-minute

video teaching them how to solve the same equations using four analogies for solving

an equation: a two-pan balance for the equals sign, a box for a variable, candies for

numbers, and guessing the number of candies inside a box The students were then tested

on 12 equation solving problems, all of them written using only symbolic notation. The

group that watched the analogies video performed significantly better. Students with a

below average mathematics GPA who watched the analogies video did as well as

students with an above average GPA who watched the symbolic strategy video.

Students who watched the analogies video also reached a better conceptual

understanding, were better at making generalizations, did significantly better on

reasoning problems involving equations, and had a better affective reaction.

Keywords: middle school algebra, analogy, algebraic equations.

2
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

The Effect of Analogies on Learning to Solve Algebraic Equations

Understanding and solving first degree algebraic equations is one of the main goals

of middle school algebra. However, a large number of students do not understand them

and consistently make procedural and conceptual mistakes. For example, the Task

Group on Learning Processes of the National Mathematics Panel (Department of

Education (DOE), 2008) concluded in their Algebra section that “Too many students in

high school algebra classes are woefully unprepared for learning even the basics of

algebra. The types of errors these students make when attempting to solve algebraic

equations reveal they do not have a firm understanding of many basic principles of

arithmetic (e.g., commutativity, distributivity), and many do not even understand the

concept of equality. Many students have difficulty grasping the syntax or structure of

algebraic expressions and do not understand procedures for transforming equations

(e.g., adding or subtracting the same value from both sides of the equation) or why

transformations are done the way they are.”

Some of the key misconceptions are: the notion of equality (McNeil et Al., 2006;

Knuth & Stephens, 2006; Booth & Koedinger, 2008); difficulty in applying the

commutative and distributive properties (Siegler, 1998); failure to correctly order the

operations, to correctly add and subtract numbers and do divisions on both sides of the

equation (Kieran, 1985); difficulties in understanding the principles of transforming one

equation into another (DOE, 2008); misunderstanding the notion of solution when there

is no solution or when there are an infinite number of solutions (Vollrath, 1980); and

making incorrect generalizations (Siegler, 2003).

Several empirical studies highlight the importance of representation and analogy in

algebra (Koedinger, Alibali, & Natham, 2008; Hass, 2005; Austin & Vollrath, 1989;

Skaggs, 2007) and in teaching K-12 mathematics (Soto-Andrade, 2007; Richland,

3
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Holyoak & Stigler, 2004). A recent comparative study (Richland, Zur & Holyoak,

2007) between Japan, Hong Kong and the United States of teachers’ use of analogies in

10 eighth grade lessons sampled from the TIMSS 1999 video database found a

significantly higher frequency in Japan and Honk Kong than in the United States of

teachers’ use of analogies and strategies such as visual presentation of the source of the

analogy, keeping sources visible during comparisons, using spatial cues to highlight the

association between the corresponding elements of the source and target, using hand or

arm gestures to indicate an intended comparison, and using mental imagery. Several

other studies show the positive effect of concrete representations on students’ learning

of algebra and algebraic equations (Hass, 2005; DOE, 2008), and particularly the use of

the balance analogy for solving first degree algebraic equations (Skaggs, 2007).

However, there is still the need to measure the total impact on students’ performance

when using strategies that employ analogies for algebraic equation solving.

The Present Study

We pursued four main goals in this study. The first was to examine the effect of the

two-pan balance and box analogies on algebraic equation solving. Among students not

yet exposed to algebra we wanted to test whether students taught to solve equations

using a two-pan balance as an analogy for the equals sign, candies to represent a

number, boxes as an analogy for variables, and the process of guessing the number of

candies inside a box in order to achieve equilibrium in the two-pan balance as an

analogy for the process of finding the solution to an equation, would perform better than

students taught using the traditional symbolic teaching strategy.

The two-pan balance analogy for equation solving is well known; in most textbooks

the variable is represented as the unknown weight of an object; in some cases the

4
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

balance is a stationary plastic balance scale and the unknown is represented by pawns

(Skaggs, 2007). In some other representations the variable is represented as the

unknown length of a rectangle (Bruner, 1964). We wanted to include a more complete

analogy, closer to the container analogy commonly used in computer science, and at the

same time as a physical object that can be grasped and manipulated. In this study, the

notion of a variable is represented by a box or container (Austin & Vollrath, 1989)

containing an unknown number of candies. For example, 3x is represented as three

identical boxes, each containing the same number of candies. The container analogy

used here is similar to that proposed by Austin and Vollrath, but the weight of the empty

box is zero. This way it is easier to translate solutions from the two-pan balance to the

symbolic equation and vice-versa. We hypothesized (Araya, 2000) that this analogy

facilitates the manipulation of expressions where the addition of similar terms (3x + 2x)

is mapped to the addition of 3 boxes and 2 boxes, all of which have the same content.

This map is similar to that between numbers and a collection of objects, where the

addition of numbers is mapped to the addition of groups of objects. We also

hypothesized that this more complete representation involves a lower cognitive load

than symbolic computations and other such representations. Symbolic manipulations

and the storage of partial results are mapped to simple physical manipulations and

positions of objects. Therefore, the physical world automatically computes what would

otherwise have to be computed mentally. We conjecture that this analogy would

facilitate computations even in the case of mental calculations, since the mental imagery

of the physical movements of objects probably requires a lower cognitive load than the

mental calculation and manipulation of symbols. Thus, we wanted to test the impact of

analogy on the more cognitively demanding situation where the solution had to be

computed mentally, with no pencil or paper permitted.

5
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Some of the challenges of measuring the effect of the proposed analogy were

controlling important factors such as the teacher, since his or her experience in using

manipulatives has an important impact on the students’ learning (Moyer, 2001). Other

critical factors are the students’ ability and knowledge of mathematics, as well as their

socioeconomic status.

In order to control these factors, in each class at the 10 schools the students were

randomly split into two groups. In each class, one group of students watched a 15-

minute video teaching them how to solve 5 different first degree linear equations using

a traditional symbolic strategy, whereas the other group watched a 15-minute video

teaching them how to solve the same 5 equations using the four abovementioned

analogies. The teachers were not present during the training stage nor the testing, since

all training was done through the videos and the testing through a computer system. A

main challenge, however, is to study the long-term effect of the use of analogies in

algebra. This would require tracking the students’ activities for several months and

maintaining strict control over the use of analogies for teaching one group and symbolic

training for the other, over several weeks and months and at various schools. This is

very difficult to achieve because in each class there are students that belong to both

groups, and teachers and school administrators could not guarantee that these students

would not share their acquired knowledge. Given the difficulties of such a long term

study, we designed a short term study restricted to a total of 3 hours, with all the

teaching done through a 15-minute video. The video was presented after 30 minutes’

training in the use of the computer software that was later employed in the pre- and

post-tests in order to test and record the students’ answers and response times.

The second goal was to study the improvement impact on the post-tests for students

with a below average mathematics GPA. Given that there is no standardized index of

6
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

student performance on first degree algebraic equations after only an initial, short

learning session, it is very difficult to interpret the significance of any performance

improvement. We overcame the inexistence of such measures by comparing the

performance of students with a below average mathematics GPA that watched the

analogies video with that of students with an above average mathematics GPA that

watched the traditional symbolic video. We presumed that the eventual effect could be

measured as a reduction in the gap between these two groups when compared to both

groups learning with symbolic instruction. This means that, if the analogies video

improves the performance of students with a below average mathematics GPA, then the

difference between the performance of these students and that of students with an above

average mathematics GPA that watch the symbolic video should be a fraction of the

difference between the performance of students with an above average mathematics

GPA and students with a below average mathematics GPA that watch the symbolic

video.

The third major goal of the present study was to analyze the effect of the four

analogies on the conceptual understanding of equations. In contrast to procedural

knowledge, defined as the ability to follow action sequences to solve an equation,

conceptual understanding is “the understanding of the principles that govern a domain

and of the interrelations between units of knowledge domain” (Rittle-Johnson et al,

2001). A method to assess conceptual understanding is to use previously unseen tasks

and measure the ability to correctly make generalizations. We therefore wanted to

analyze the performance improvement achieved on different types of questions that

require different levels of understanding. We wanted to know how the students

performed in a wide range of problem solving situations: (i) solving simple, previously

unseen algebraic equations with the variable on a different side of the equation to the

7
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

examples used in training, (ii) with variables on both sides of the equal sign, (iii) using a

different letter to represent the variable, (iv) completing the steps followed to solve an

equation, (v) solving equations with no solution, (vi) solving equations with an infinite

number of solutions, and (vii) reasoning tasks where the students had to detect and

locate an eventual error in a sequence of deductions constructed to solve an equation.

These problems measure different levels of conceptual understanding. For example,

equations with no solution have traditionally been considered pathological cases in

middle and high school, and are therefore rarely studied. Equations with an infinite

number of solutions, or universally valid equations, are typically considered not to be

equations (Vollrath, 1980) and are instead considered algebraic laws. The error

detection problems where any number is the solution are particularly difficult because,

after a sequence of manipulations, the expression 0 = 0 is obtained and the student must

understand that from 0 = 0 it does not follow that the only solution is x = 0. It is a

solution, but not the only solution. We also wanted to examine whether the analogies

video improves the students’ ability to generalize for new kinds of equations. In

particular, we wanted to measure the students’ performance when they had to generalize

the procedures for an equation where the variables are located in previously unseen

positions. In order to do this we designed the training videos with two types of

equations: with variables only on the left-hand side of the equal sign, such as 2x + 1=5,

and with variables on both sides of the equal sign, such as 2x + 1 = 5 + x. We wanted to

measure the decline in performance when students were tested with equations similar to

the ones used on the training video but with variables only on the right-hand side of the

equal sign, such as 15 = 3 + 4x. Were the students who watched the analogies video less

prone to error when solving this type of previously unseen equation?

8
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

A fourth goal was to examine the emotional impact of learning algebraic equation

solving with the two-pan balance and box analogy. It is well known that mathematics,

particularly algebra, induces anxiety and stress in some students (DOE, 2008). We

wanted to test whether the proposed analogy helps to control the typical increase in a

student’s stress arousal when solving equations.

Methods

Participants

The participants were 236 seventh grade students (45.8% female), ranging in age

from 12 to 14 years old (M = 13 years 1.7 months, SD = 0.5454 years); with

mathematics GPAs ranging from 2.6 to 7 (the higher the better, 1 being the minimum

and 7 the maximum, with 4 as the passing grade) (M = 5.085, SD = 0.8551). The

participants were randomly selected from 10 schools in different regions of Chile. They

were of varying socioeconomic status: forty eight students attended 2 non-fee-paying

public schools of low socioeconomic status, 168 students attended 7 non-fee-paying,

subsidized, private schools of average socioeconomic status, and 29 students attended a

fee-paying private school of high socioeconomic status. At each school, the participants

in each class were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the analogies training group

and the symbolic training group. The analogies training group included 118 children

(age: M = 13 years 1.28 months, SD = 0.42379, mathematics GPA: M =5.111, SD =

0.8570); the symbolic training group included 118 children (age: M = 13 years 2.27

months, SD = 0.64 years, mathematics GPA: M =5.059, SD = 0.8561) [Wilcoxon test:

age: 0.898, mathematics GPA: 0.661]. At all of the schools, the students had never been

taught algebraic equations. The experimenters comprised one female and two male

research assistants. One experimenter trained the students in the online computer system

used in the testing. Previous to the computer training and following each of the two

9
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

post-tests, the other experimenters distributed sheets on which the students completed

an affective assessment questionnaire. The experimenters also supervised the computer

laboratory where the post-tests were conducted.

Material and Procedure

[Figure 1]

In each school, the participants were first trained to answer basic mathematics

questions for approximately 20 minutes on an online system. None of the questions

were related to equations or algebra. The purpose of this was to ensure that all students

were capable of using the system to answer different items. Following the training, the

children were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. For each group, the children

were immediately shown the corresponding video (Figure 1). The children then

answered the first set of 6 equation solving problems on the computer system, and, after

finishing, took a break of approximately 45 minutes. During this break, the other group

watched their corresponding video and immediately answered the same six equation

solving problems. After finishing, they took their break of approximately 45 minutes.

Answering the 6 problems took less than 15 minutes. After their first break, each group

of children then answered 6 further equation solving problems. All 12 problems were

the same for both conditions and were written using symbolic notation only. The

questions were presented in 4 different orders and randomly assigned to the participants.

All calculations were performed mentally; during the post-tests, paper and pencils were

not allowed in order to ensure that all calculations were done mentally, as well as

minimizing any possible cheating. All of the answers were entered into the system,

which measured the response time for each item. The students knew that their

performance would only be used for this research and would not affect their future

GPA. Before watching the first video, an affective assessment of the students was

10
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

carried out using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Bradley & Lang, 2007). After

solving the first 6 algebraic equation problems, another SAM affective assessment was

applied, with a third assessment following the final six algebraic equation problems

(Figure 2).

[Figure 2]

The symbolic training group. Students watched a 15 minute video, as shown in Table 1

and Figure 3.

[ Figure 3 ]

[Table 1]

The analogies training group. The students watched a 14 minute video as shown in

Table 1 and Figure 3.

Measures of algebraic equation solving knowledge

After watching the video, the children were shown 6 equation solving problems on a

computer system, and, following a break of approximately 45 minutes, were presented

with another set of 6 equation solving problems. The system displayed the items, one

screen for each problem, in one of 4 different sequences. For every problem, it

registered whether or not the answer was correct, the time at which the screen started to

display each problem, and the time at which the student sent the corresponding answer.

Once an answer had been sent, the system stopped displaying the problem and this

could no longer be seen by the student. The system then gave feedback as to whether or

not the answer was correct before the next problem appeared on the screen. The

problems are shown in Table 2.

[Table 2]

Results

11
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Analyses

Preliminary analyses comparing the children’s performance indicated that gender

and age made no difference [gender: F(1,234)=0.000, p-value: 0.994 bilateral, age:

correlation coefficient R²=0.000289]. Mathematics GPA had a significant impact. For

students with a below average mathematics GPA their post-test performance was M=

22.58, SD=14.81, while for students with an above average mathematics GPA their

post-test performance was M= 31.17 , SD =18.50, F(1,234)=15.644; p-value=0.000

bilateral. There was a 7.36 post-test performance gain per mathematics GPA (beta =

7.36, correlation coefficient is 0.135).

The performance by children in the analogies training group on post-test 1, post-test

2, and on the post-tests in general was statistically higher than in the symbolic training

condition, as shown in Table 3.

[Table 3]

The response time was significantly higher in the analogies training group on post-

test 1 but not on post-test 2, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 4.

[ Figure 4 ]

[Table 4]

The post-test performance by children with below average mathematics GPAs and in

the analogies group was (M=25.84, SD=17.25) significantly better than children in the

symbolic training group (M=19.37, SD=11.16, F(1,123)=6.211, p-value=0.014

bilateral). Also, the post-test performance by children with above average mathematics

GPAs and analogies training was significantly better (M=35.78, SD=19.84) than

children in the symbolic training group (M=26.46, SD=15.86, F(1,109)=7.456, p-

value=0.007 bilateral).

12
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

We compared the post-test performance by students with below average

mathematics GPAs in the analogies training group with that by students with above

average mathematics GPAs in the symbolic training group. It turned out that there was

no statistically significant difference (F(1,115)=0.041, p-value=0.839 bilateral), as

shown in Figure 5. This is a particularly impressive result, since it shows that with the

help of analogies, students with below average mathematics GPAs perform similarly to

students with above average mathematics GPAs who learn with traditional symbolic

training.

[ Figure 5 ]

We also divided the children into three categories according to their mathematics

GPA. The first third had the lowest GPAs, while the second and third thirds had the

higher GPAs. As shown in Figure 5, students in both the middle third and the higher

third showed a significantly higher performance in the analogies training group

(M=30.82, SD=18.19; M=40.19, SD=19.28, respectively) than in the symbolic training

group (M=22.51, SD=14.27, F(1,69)=4.377, p-value=0.04 bilateral; M=27.07,

SD=15,52, F(1,79)=11.462, p-value=0.001 bilateral, respectively). In contrast, no

statistically significant difference was found for the third with the lowest mathematics

GPAs.

Next, we examined the children’s performance on the four reasoning questions

where the children had to detect and locate an eventual error in the steps to solving an

algebraic equation that were shown in several lines on the screen and where a “no error”

choice was available. The post-test performance by children in the analogies training

group was statistically higher than in the symbolic training group (in the analogies

group, M=22.77, SD=23.91, in the symbolic group M=15.54, SD=17.33, p-value=0.008

bilateral).

13
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

We examined the performance on the only question without a solution (6x + 10 = 2x

+ 15 + 4x) separately. The performance on this question by children in the analogies

training group was statistically higher than in the symbolic training group (in the

analogies group, M=38.94, SD=48.98, in the symbolic group M=28.95, SD=45.55,

F(1,225)=2.533, p-value=0.05 unilateral). Further evidence of the effect of analogies

was obtained by comparing the performance on two very similar questions. One had the

variable on the left-hand side of the equal sign (2x + 1= 9), similar to the questions on

the training videos, and the other had the variable on the right-hand side of the equal

sign (15 = 3 + 4x). As shown in Figure 6, the decline in performance was not

statistically significant for students in the analogies training group (M=50.43,

SD=44.67, M=44.04, SD=49.87, t(107)=1.096, p-value=0.275, bilateral), but it was

significant for students in the symbolic training group (M=39.91, SD=44.71, M=22.12,

SD=41.69, t(109)=3.794), p-value=0.000, bilateral).

[ Figure 6 ]

We compared the performance by the 40 students who chose not to fill out the SAM

manikin, or selected ‘one’ on the subjective stress arousal (one being the highest on the

scale) before starting the experiment. Only 25% of these students had an above average

performance on the post-tests, whereas among the rest of the students 48% had an above

average performance. The difference was statistically significant (F(1,234)=7.263,

p=0.008 bilateral).

We calculated the percent of students whose subjective stress arousal increased at

the end of post-test 1 and post-test 2, compared with the initial measurement taken just

before the experiment. On post-test 1, 24% percent of the children increased their stress

arousal in the analogies training group whereas 42% percent of the children increased

their stress arousal in the symbolic training group. The difference was statistically

14
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

significant (F(1,203)=8.521, p-value = 0.004 bilateral). On post-test 2, 19% of the

children increased their stress arousal in the analogies training group whereas 33% of

the children increased their stress arousal in the symbolic training group. The difference

was statistically significant (F(1,197)=5.475, p-value=0.02 bilateral).

Multivariate Analyses

We examined the multivariate effects of grouping and mathematics GPA on post-test

performance. Mathematics GPA had a greater effect, with standardized beta = 0.36 for

mathematics GPA (t(233)=6.08, p-value=0.000 bilateral), which is higher than

standardized beta = 0.216 for group (t(233) = 3.70 , p-value =0.000 bilateral). Also, as

shown in Figure 7, in the analogies training group, mathematics GPA had a greater

impact (9.57 performance gain per GPA, R² = 0.184) on post-test performance than in

the symbolic training group (4.88 performance gain per GPA, R² = 0.089). This means

that the higher the student’s mathematics GPA, the greater the effect of the analogies.

[ Figure 7 ]

Discussion

Implications for equation solving learning

The four main goals pursued in this study were achieved. The main finding can be

summarized quite simply. The use of analogies in teaching algebraic equation solving

has an important impact on student learning. Moreover, we have been able to quantify

such an effect. In the realm of algebra, when the domain is completely new to the

students, after just 15 minutes of passive exposure students with below average

mathematics GPAs taught using analogies perform similarly to students with above

average mathematics GPAs taught using the traditional symbolic strategy. Thus, our

second goal was achieved with very impressive results. Given the enormous difficulty

in improving a student’s performance in mathematics, these findings suggest that

15
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

analogies are a powerful way to improve student performance. The third goal was to

examine the impact on conceptual understanding. Here, the results are very

encouraging. With the help of analogies, a much more profound understanding is

achieved. Contrary to research on younger students which shows that the effective use

of concrete representations increases cognitive demand (Moyer, 2001), unless the

student knows the manipulatives well enough to use them automatically, in this study

the effects of analogies were achieved with students that had never used a two-pan

balance or boxes for learning mathematics; all they did was watch a short video with 5

worked examples. Finally, the fourth goal was to examine the affective impact. Even

though we did not see a positive impact on pleasure, there was a positive impact on

subjective stress arousal.

These findings raise the question of why analogies can produce such profound

positive effects so quickly. A possible explanation is that the two-pan balance

equilibrium and the procedures of adding and subtracting the same amount of candies or

boxes on both sides of the two-pan balance are part of our biologically primary

cognition (Geary, 2007). This is probably folk physics knowledge. The use of analogies

establishes a mapping between such biologically primary knowledge and the abstract

mathematical concepts of algebraic equation solving. This mapping is not very difficult

to understand and use. Even though students in the analogies training group initially

took more time to answer the problems, by post-test 2 they had already achieved the

same response time as the students in the symbolic training group. We hypothesize that

the initially longer response time could be due to the need to translate the equation

problem into a two-pan balance problem.

The results of this study are very encouraging. However, it is still necessary to test

whether the analogy effect will persist and eventually increase with further exposure.

16
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

This would require measuring the effect when teaching is extended from 15 minutes of

passive video watching to several weeks, months or years of exposure. Furthermore, it

is necessary to measure the effect of analogies not only through passive video watching,

but when students are exposed to interactive teaching and active learning using

analogies. It would also be of great interest to measure the effect on other conceptual

and procedural domains in algebra, as well as in other strands of K-12 mathematics. We

saw no effect of the analogies on students with very poor mathematics grades. It is

important to further examine why we got this negative result. In order to detect a

significant improvement in those children, more training time is probably required.

Even though there was a greater effect on students with above average mathematics

grades, it would be very interesting to measure the effect of analogies on high

performance students in other, more meaningful ways, for example, to determine how

much the teaching time can be reduced to achieve a given level of performance when

compared to the traditional symbolic teaching strategy. It would also be interesting to

discover the following: different strategies that students use when learning through

analogies; the dynamic of the transition between strategies (Siegler, 1996); the inertia of

previously used strategies (Siegler & Araya, 2005); the impact of the type of problems

used by the teacher (direct solving, no solution, any solution, error detection, etc.); the

impact of the specific order in which the problems are presented; the impact of

immediate feedback to the student on the size of the analogies effect; the impact of the

nature of the feedback (correct/incorrect, analogy suggestion); the impact of visual

signaling and gestures to explicitly show the mapping between source and object

domains of the analogy, as well as the mapping of operations and procedures (Alibali &

Natham, 2009); and how students translate back and forth between symbolic and

analogical representations.

17
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Implications for the classroom

If analogies have such an important impact on the solving and conceptual

understanding of algebraic equations, the obvious implication is that teachers should

help children learn through analogies. They should teach abstract concepts using

appropriate analogies and ask students to actively use them. In algebraic equation

solving, the two-pan balance equilibrium as the equality between both sides of an

equation, candies as numbers, boxes as variables, and guessing a box’s contents as the

process for finding the solution to an algebraic equation, are four simple, yet powerful

analogies that the teacher can use to radically improve comprehension of the concepts

and procedures involved in equation solving.

At present, use of the two-pan balance in textbooks is very limited. At most, a quick

analogy is included on one or two pages, but they do not make systematic use of it. A

practical recommendation is to use analogies more systematically, making heavy use of

them at the beginning before helping the students make the transition to symbolic

concepts and procedures. In this study, the effect of analogies was achieved simply by

having the students watch a video. There was no use of manipulatives or concrete

objects. There is therefore no need to have teachers with experience in using concrete

materials, nor to allocate a budget for physical items or spend class time preparing and

organizing physical objects. Hence, this teaching strategy is very simple and quick to

implement in any class.

Our results indicate that improvements in subjective stress arousal can be fostered by

teaching through analogies, and, therefore, important effects on the reduction of

students’ mathematics-related anxiety could be obtained if a more systematic use of

analogies was made in the teaching of algebra.

18
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

References

Alibali, M. W. & Natham, M. J. (2009). Teacher’s Gestures as a Means of Scaffolding

Student’s Understanding: Evidence From an Early Algebra Lesson. In R.

Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.). Video Research in the Learning

Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.349–365.

Araya, R. (2000). Inteligencia Matemática. Santiago de Chile. Editorial Universitaria.

Austin J. D. & Vollrath H-J. (1989). Representing, Solving, and Using Algebraic

Equations. The Mathematics Teacher 82, pp. 608-612 . Retrieved, January 15,

2010. http://www.didaktik.mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de/history/vollrath/papers

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Booth, J. L., & Koedinger, K. R. (2008). Key misconceptions in Algebraic Problem

Solving. In B.C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the

30th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 571-576). Austin, TX: Cognitive

Science Society.

Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. (2007). The International Affective Picture System

(IAPS) in the Study of Emotion and Attention. In J.A. Coan & J.J.B. Allen (Eds.),

Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment, (pp. 29 – 46). Oxford

University Press.

Department of Education (2008). Foundations for success. The final Report of the

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved

April 28, 2009. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html

Geary, D. (2007). Educating the Evolved Mind: Conceptual Foundations for an

Evolutionary Educational Psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.),

19
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Educating the evolved mind (pp. 1-99, Vol. 2, Psychological perspectives on

contemporary educational issues). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Hass, M. (2007). Teaching Methods for Secondary Algebra: A Meta-Analysis of

Findings. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 89 (642),

24 - 46

Kieran, C. (1985). The Equation Solving Errors of Novice and Intermediate Algebra

Students. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Group for

the Psychology of Mathematics Education (9th, Noordwijkerhout, The

Netherlands, July 22-29), Volume 1: Individual Contributions

Knuth, E. J., Stephens, A.C., McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2006). Does

Understanding the Equal Sign Matter? Evidence from Solving Equations. Journal

for Research in Mathematics Education. 37(4), 297-312.

Koedinger, K., Alibali, M., & Natham, M. (2008). Trade-offs Between Grounded and

Abstract Representations: Evidence From Algebra Problem Solving. Cognitive

Science 32, 366-397.

McNeil, N., Grandau, E., Knuth, E., Alibali, M., Stephens, A., Hattikudur, S., & Krill,

D. (2006). Middle-School Student´s Understanding of the Equal Sign: The Books

They Read Can´t Help. Cognition and Instruction, 24(3), 367 – 385.

Moyer, P. (2001). Are We Having Fun Yet? How Teachers Use Manipulatives to

Teach Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175-197.

Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J. & Stigler, J. W. (2004). Analogy Use in Eighth-Grade

Mathematics Classroom. Cognition & Instruction, 22(1), 37-60.

Richland, L. E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K. J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in

the mathematics classroom. Science, 316:5828, 1128 – 1129.

20
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Rittle-Johnson, B. & Alibali, M. (1999). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of

Mathematics: Does One Lead to the Other? Journal of Educational Psychology.

91 (1), 175-189.

Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Siegler, R. (1998). Children's thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Siegler, R. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics

education. In J. Kilpatrick, W.G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.). A research

companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 289-303).

Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Siegler, R. S. & Araya, R. (2005). A computational model of conscious and

unconscious strategy discovery. Advances in Child Development and Behavior,

33, 1-44.

Skaggs, M. L. (2007) Algebra For Sixth Graders: An Investigation Of The Perceived

Difference In Subsequent Learning In Algebra Attributed To The Hands-On

Equations Learning System (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas).

Retrieved, January 15, 2010.

http://www.borenson.com/Portals/25/MSKAGGSDISSERTATION

%20Complete.pdf

Soto-Andrade, J. (2007). Metaphors and cognitive styles in the teaching-learning of

mathematics”, Proceedings of CERME 5 (Fifth Conference of the European

Society for Research in Mathematics Education), Lárnaca, Cyprus, 191 – 200.

Vollrath H-J. (1980). A case study in the development of algebra teaching in the

Federal Republic of Germany . In: H.-G. Steiner (Hrsg.), Comparative studies of

mathematics curricula-change and stability 1960-1980, Materialien und Studien

21
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Band 19, IDM Bielefeld, 435-443. Retrieved, January 15, 2010.

http://www.didaktik.mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de/history/vollrath/papers

22
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Experimental design. The 2 conditions are shown in 2 rows.

Figure 2. Self Assessment Manikin (SAM)

Figure 3. Screenshots of the symbolic training video (left) and the analogies training

video (right)

Figure 4. Response time in the symbolic training and analogies training conditions

23
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Figure 5. Post-Test performance by children according to mathematics GPA in both

conditions

Figure 6. Performance on the 2x + 1 = 9 and the 15 = 3 + 4x questions.

Figure 7. Post-Test performance by children with different mathematics GPAs

24
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Table 1. Symbolic and Analogies Training

Symbolic training group Analogies training group

Time range (duration) Time range (duration)
Objective Objective

00:00 – 00:14 (14 seconds) 00:00 – 00:14 (14 seconds)

Welcome message Welcome message

00:15 – 01:13 (58 s) 00:15 – 01:03 (48 s)

• Letters of the alphabet • Candies are used to represent
are used to represent numbers. All candies weigh
variables in an the same.
equation • Boxes are used to represent
• Trial and error used to variables presented in an
find the value of the equation
unknown in the • Boxes always have the same
2x+1=5 equation number of candies
• Empty boxes have zero
weight
• Trial and error used to find
the number of candies needed
inside each box in order to
reach equilibrium in a two-
pan balance
2x+1 = 5 01:14 – 02:53 (99s) 01:04 – 03:39 (155s)
Variables on
the left-hand 2x + 1 = 5 is translated into an

25
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

side of the equilibrium on a diagram of a two-

equal sign pan balance. There are two boxes and
one candy on the left-hand side of the
scale and 5 candies on the right-hand
side. The problem is to guess how
many candies are in each box.

Procedure: Procedure,
1) subtract 1 from both
sides 2x + 1 – 1 = 5 –1
2) this is 2x = 4
3) divide by 2 on both
sides 2x / 2 = 4/2
4) this is x = 2
1) grasp and lift one candy on
the left and simultaneously
grasp and lift one candy on
the right-hand side.
2) Now divide the content of the
4 candies on the right-hand
side into two groups.
3) Therefore each box has to
have 2 candies.
4) This is mathematically
written as x = 2.

4x + 2 = 14 02:54- 05:20 (144s) 03:40 – 07:05 (205s)

Variables on
the left-hand
side of the
equal sign
2x +1 = 5 + x 05:21 – 09:19 (238s) 07:06 – 08:48 (100s)
Variables on
both sides of
the equal sign
6x + 1 = 9 + 2x 09:20 – 13:33 (253s) 08:49 – 10:37 (108s)
Variables on
both sides of
the equal sign
5y + 3 = 12 + 13:34 – 14:46 (72s) 10:38 – 12:46 (128s)
2y It is explained that now the It is explained that now the name of
Renaming name of the variable is y. the variable is y. The equation is
variables translated as an equilibrium with
boxes identical to the boxes used for
x.
3x + 1 = 6 14:47 – 15:22 (35s) 12:47 – 14:03 (76s)
Review Review

Table 2: Post-test items for assessing knowledge

Post-test 1 Post-test 2
Solve equation with Variable on right-hand side
variable on one side of the of the equal sign
equal sign Find the value of x that
(1 item in post-test 2) solves the equation:

26
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS
Solve equation with Find the value of x that
variables on both sides of solves the equation:
the equal sign 8x + 20 + 4x = 40 + 2x
(2 items on post-test 1) x = ___
Choose the option that
corresponds to the solution
or solutions to the equation
2 + 7y + 10 = 32 + 2y
Options:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, No
solution, Any number is the
solution:
Solve equation with Choose the option that
infinite solutions corresponds to the solution
(1 item for each test) or solutions to the equation
3y = 3y
Options:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, No
solution, Any number is the
solution
Solve equation with no
solution
(1 item in post-test 2)
Construct the next Type the symbols in the
equivalent equation, then cells in each step in order to cells in each step in order to
solve the equation solve the equation
(1 item for each test) 2x + 1 = 9
variable on left-hand side Subtracting 1 from both
of the equal sign in post- sides we get
test 1 2x = ___
Dividing by 2 we get
x = ___
Error detection When solving 10x + 12 =
(2 items for each test) 5x + 10 + 5x + 2, George
One item with infinite wrote a sequence of
15 = 3 + 4x
x = ___
Choose the option that
corresponds to the solution
or solutions to the equation
5x = 5x
Options:
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, No
solution, Any number is the
solution
Choose the option that
corresponds to the solution
or solutions to the equation
6x + 10 = 2x + 15 + 4x
Options:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, No
solution, Any number is the
solution:
Type the symbols in the
solve the equation
5x + 1 = x + 13
Subtracting 1 from both
sides we get
5x = x + ___
Subtracting x from both
sides we get
___ = ____
Dividing we get
x = ___
When solving 10x + 11 = 2x
+ 8 + 2x + 27, Laura wrote a
sequence of expressions.
27
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS
solutions in post-test 1 and expressions. Find out if
in post-test 2 there is an error and if you
find one choose the line
with the error. If there is no
error choose the “No error”
label.
George’s sequence
1. subtracting 2 from
both sides we get
10x + 10 = 5x + 10
+ 5x
2. subtracting 5x from
both sides we get 5x
+ 10 = 5x + 10
3. subtracting 10 from
both sides we get 5x
= 5x
4. subtracting 5x from
both sides we get 0
=0
5. therefore x = 0 is the
only solution.
When solving 11x + 10 =
2x + 12 + x + 30, Sonia
wrote a sequence of
expressions. Find out if
there is an error and if you
find one choose the line
with the error. If there is no
error choose the “No error”
label.
Sonia’s sequence
1. subtracting 10 from
both sides we get
11x = 2x + 12 + x +
20
2. subtracting 2x from
both sides we get 9x
= 12 + x + 20
3. subtracting x from
both sides we get 8x
= 32
4. Dividing both sides
by 8 we get x = 4
Find out if there is an error
and if you find one choose
the line with the error. If
there is no error choose the
“No error” label.
Laura’s sequence
1. subtracting 8
from both sides
we get 10x + 3 =
2x + 2x + 27
2. subtracting 3
from both sides
we get 10x = 2x
+ 2x + 24
3. subtracting 4x
from both sides
we get 6x = 4x+
24
4. subtracting 4x
from both sides
we get 2x = 24
5. dividing by 2 on
both sides we get
x = 12
When solving 12x + 14 = 6x
+ 8 + 6x + 6, René wrote a
sequence of expressions.
Find out if there is an error
and if you find one choose
the line with the error. If
there is no error choose the
“No error” label.
René’s sequence
1. subtracting 6 from
both sides we get
12x + 8 = 6x + 8 +
6x
2. subtracting 6x from
both sides we get 6x
+ 8 = 6x + 8
3. subtracting 8 from
both sides we get 6x
= 6x
4. subtracting 6x from
both sides we get 0
=0
5. therefore the only
solution is x = 0
28
ANALOGIES IN EQUATIONS

Total 6 items for each test

Table 3: Post-Test Performance

Post-test 1 Post-test 2 Post-test

Analogies M=29.8 SD=21.83 M =31.05 SD =22.17 M=30.56 SD=19.11
training
Symbolic M=22.66 SD=18.33 M =22.54 SD =17.96 M=22.68 SD=13.96
training
F(1,233)=7.366 F(1,227)=10.209 F(1,234)=13.091
p-value=0.007 bilateral p-value=0.002 bilateral p-value=0.000 bilateral

Table 4: Response time on items (in seconds)

Post-test 1 Post-test 2
Analogies M=85.40 SD=68.73 M = 51.32 SD =31.58
training
Symbolic M=67.51 SD=30.87 M =49.02 SD =29.93
training
F(1,233)=6.607 F(1,227)=0.320
p-value=0.011 bilateral p-value=0.572 bilateral

29