6 Essential Questions in Algebra

A year ago, I began this blog with the goal of uncovering some satisfying essential questions in algebra. These were to be questions that addressed the fundamental essence of algebra, while also being able to extend beyond a single discipline... and of course, they needed to be intriguing to both my students and to myself. A few months later I wrote that one of the qualities of a REALLY good math teacher is having a 'second set of objectives that go beyond the mastery of today's content.' A reader challenged me to identify these objectives, which I slyly avoided. But this week, in honor of my one year blogoversary, I present six essential questions or 'higher objectives' for my algebra classes. It's a start. In the spirit of UbD, expositions are voiced in the language of enduring understandings.

How is algebraic thinking different from arithmetic thinking?

It is my hope that my students will understand that algebra is a language of abstraction, where patterns are generalized and symbols are used to represent unknown or variable quantities. Arithmetic involves counting and manipulation of quantities where algebra relies more heavily on reasoning and generalizing the patterns that are observed from arithmetic procedures. It is my ultimate hope that they come to appreciate the power and utility of generalization.

What makes one solution better than another?

I would like my students to understand that numerical accuracy is only one piece of a good solution. The measure of a comprehensive and satisfying solution involves a subtle balance of precision, clarity, thoroughness, efficiency, reproducibility, and elegance (yes, elegance). I want my students to be masters of the well-crafted solution.

How do I know when a result is reasonable?

I want my students to understand that in math, as in life, context is supreme. There is no 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' without an understanding of context. I hope that they can refine the skills to analyze and dissect problems that are both concrete and abstract, applied and generalized. I want them to develop habits of inquiry, estimation, and refinement. Ultimately, I hope that they will improve their sense of wisdom.

Do I really have to memorize all these rules and definitions?

Students will understand that mathematics is a language of precision. Without explicit foundations (axioms and properties) and precise definitions, reason gives way to chaos. On the other hand, they should understand that many perceived 'rules' in mathematics are simply shorthand ways to recall a train of logical reasoning (like formulas and theorems). It is my hope that they will appreciate precision but also understand the value of reason over recall.

Isn't there an easier way?

Without destroying their fragile spirits, I want my students to appreciate the benefits of struggle. I want them to realize that insight and higher knowledge are gained by approaching a problem from different angles and with multiple methods and representations. I want them to understand that knowledge about how mathematics works is on a higher echelon than the solution to a particular problem. In my ideal classroom, the students will understand how to spark their inner intrigue in order to move themselves beyond answers to seek connections, generalizations, and justifications.

Do I really need to know this stuff?

By sheer repetition and example, my students will know that the practical applications of algebraic thinking are numerous, especially in the rapidly changing fields of science, engineering, and technology. Beyond these undeniably important applications, they will know that confirmed correlations have been made between success in algebra and improved socioeconomic status. But ultimately, I hope that they will understand that the beauty and intrigue of mathematics is vast, and the limit of its power to improve the quality of their lives is unknown. I want them to glimpse infinity.

What's the Big Idea with Algebra 2?

Lately, I've been following some of the conversation around the big ideas in an advanced algebra/pre-calculus course. The Global Math Department* hosted an interesting panel discussion around this topic a couple of weeks ago. I appreciated the thoughtfulness and complementary ideas of the presenters (John Burk, Dan Goldner, Michael Pershan, and Paul Salomon), and especially the thoughts behind proof and 'the well-crafted solution.' Without entirely reaching a consensus, the focus of the discussions tended to lean towards prediction as the overarching theme for algebra ii. The reasoning was thoughtful and grounded, but this theme did not satisfy me. While I can certainly see it, I also think that prediction is the theme for statistics. Can Algebra 2 and Statistics have the same theme? They can, I suppose, but it is not satisfying enough.

Some of the new bloggers from the New Blogger Initiative also tackled this topic last week.
gooberspeaks got me thinking about the focus on families of functions and David Price included ideas about varying ways of representing functions and modifying their behavior. Kyle Eck has a strong bent towards applications which resonates with the GMD theme of predictions. And all these ideas muddled around in my brain for a long time before emerging as a single construct that currently satiates my desire for deeper inspection.

Algebra 2 is all about: generalizing patterns of behavior in bivariate relationships.

But that's my academic's definition. In the UbD-influenced language of a high school classroom, I'd say that Algebra 2 asks these questions:

• How can we communicate the behavior of a relationship between two ideas?
• Are there rules of behavior that apply to all relationships?
• Why is it important to be able to generalize patterns of behavior?

Functions certainly play a large role here, because it's easier to generalize patterns when there are overt rules of behavior to follow. But just as importantly, we also look at conic sections and the elusive inverses of even polynomials and periodic functions, because these ideas give us essential insight about the comforting nature of functions that are both one-to-one and onto, and about the obstacles presented by relationships that are not.

Graphing also plays a large role, because it is a most excellent tool for alternate representations of bivariate relationships. Seeing patterns emerge in the shape of coordinate graphs can be enlightening long before symbolic manipulation clears a path through the brain... and I thank the math gods for that! I am wary though of too much graphical emphasis, for our well-loved coordinate system has obvious limits as our brains allow us to consider relationships with more variables.

And applications clearly play an important role too, especially in the attempt to answer that third question. But I hesitate to put applications at the forefront of an advanced algebra theme. I think that is perhaps better handled by a physics class. In algebra we are attempting to represent scenarios with a generalized pattern of behavior, and manipulate this generalization to highlight useful information. I think I agree with Paul Salomon in that proof and 'well-crafted solutions' may trump (but certainly not replace) applications in the hierarchy of an overarching theme in algebra.

To end, I'll just say that my desire to ask (and attempt to answer) the big questions is never entirely satiated, but I do so enjoy the conversations that emerge from them. I welcome your thoughts, criticisms, and further insights. The discourse is what makes being a mathematician so much fun.

*Megan Hayes-Golding, where have you been all my life? What a terrific thing the GMD is, and one of these Tuesday nights, I will not have bedtime routines or NBI deadlines to worry about and will be able to attend a session while it is actually happening! Thanks to you and all others who are making this happen.

Parenthetically Speaking

I imagine that you, like me, have taught, or retaught, or referred to parentheses in the traditional manner:

Parentheses are used in mathematical expressions to denote modifications to normal order of operations (precedence rules). In an expression like , the part of the expression within the parentheses, , is evaluated first, and then this result is used in the rest of the expression. Nested parentheses work similarly, since parts of expressions within parentheses are also considered expressions. Parentheses are also used in this manner to clarify order of operations in confusing or abnormally large expressions. (from Wolfram Math World)

Wolfram goes on to define seven other mathematical uses for parentheses, including interval notation, ordered pairs (0, 5), binomial coefficients , set definitions , function notation , etc. With so many uses, it's perhaps no minor miracle when students are able to emerge with any working facility of parentheses at all!

Honestly, I feel for my students. Even to me, mathematical definitions can sometimes seem inconsistent and confusing. Like the difference between terms (things that are added) and factors (things that are multiplied).
 I can hardly keep my own head on straight to describe the number of terms (2) and factors (0) in the following expression:

(To be fair, the first term consists of two factors, each containing two terms each, and the second term has four factors.)


And then recently, I reviewed a prealgebra curriculum that described parentheses as symbols that tell us to "treat part of the expression as one quantity." (from onRamp to Algebra) The book goes on to further implore the teacher to forgo the order of operations description in lieu of the 'one quantity' idea.

I knew that... 


So WHY have I NEVER thought to describe it that way??? 

Parentheses are grouping symbols that tell us to treat the group as a single entity. Period. No confusion. 

A function input is a single argument.
An ordered pair is a single location.
An interval is a single, uninterrupted region.
A matrix is a single array.
A set is a single collection.
A binomial coefficient is a single combination.
An expression in parentheses is a single quantity.

For some reason, this simple statement of an idea that seems so obvious is completely enlightening to me. The Common Core lists "Look for and make use of structure," as one of its Standards for Mathematical Practice. To me, this 'single entity' idea is paramount to the mastery of this standard: the key to seeing structure in long complicated algebraic expressions.

I find a subtle beauty in tiny moments of enlightenment, even if it is only my own. It's got to rub off on someone!