Young Children's Ability to Generalise the Pattern Rule for Growing Patterns.

By E. Warren. 2005

84 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c28457650f42fdc57810fbc5379fc978c985fde0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Awareness of pattern and structure in early mathematical development (2009, background): “Furthermore, in a follow-up study ( Mulligan, Mitchelmore & Prescott, 2005 ), we found that the eight high-achievers made such progress in the following school year that a new category, Advanced Structural, had to be constructed to represent their increased AMPS.”
The effect of different representations on Years 3 to 5 students’ ability to generalise (2008, background): “Measure Up ( Dougherty & Zilliox, 2003 ) and EATP (Warren, 2005; Warren & Cooper, 2007) has shown that very young students can generalise the equivalence class principles from activity in numberless situations (work pioneered by Davydov, 1975).”
Algebraic generalisation strategies: Factors influencing student strategy selection (2006, background): “…on early student algebraic reasoning has demonstrated that elementary students are capable of applying functional reasoning (e.g., Schliemann et al., 2003; Warren, 2005) and can develop generalisations (e.g., Carpenter & Franke, 2001; Fujii, 2003; Kaput & Blanton, 2001; Swafford & Langrall, 2000).”
Years 2 to 6 Students’ Ability to Generalise: Models, Representations and Theory for Teaching and Learning (2011, background): “... growing patterns (e.g., Warren 2005b); (ii) from tables of values to relationships between numbers down and across columns, and to graphs in patterning and functional situations (e.g., Warren 2005a; Warren and Cooper 2007); (iii) from particular examples to general principles (e.g., Dougherty an”
Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: past, present and future (2006, background): “They base this argument on their findings that students as young as those in kindergarten can engage in covariational thinking, that 1st graders can describe how quantities correspond, and that 3rd graders can use letters as variables (see also Warren, 2005).”