Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and

Technology Education

ISSN: 1492-6156 (Print) 1942-4051 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjs20

Abstract Algebra for Algebra Teaching: Influencing

School Mathematics Instruction

Nicholas H. Wasserman

To cite this article: Nicholas H. Wasserman (2016) Abstract Algebra for Algebra Teaching:
Influencing School Mathematics Instruction, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and
Technology Education, 16:1, 28-47, DOI: 10.1080/14926156.2015.1093200

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1093200

Accepted author version posted online: 23

Sep 2015.
Published online: 23 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 75

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucjs20

Download by: [Florida Atlantic University] Date: 11 April 2016, At: 04:10
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
, VOL. , NO. , –
http://dx.doi.org/./..

Abstract Algebra for Algebra Teaching: Influencing School

Mathematics Instruction
Nicholas H. Wasserman
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York

ABSTRACT
This article explores the potential for aspects of abstract algebra to be influen-
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

tial for the teaching of school algebra (and early algebra). Using national stan-
dards for analysis, four primary areas common in school mathematics—and
their progression across elementary, middle, and secondary mathematics—
where teaching may be transformed by teachers’ knowledge of abstract alge-
bra are developed. In each of the four content areas (arithmetic properties,
inverses, structure of sets, and solving equations), descriptions and examples of
the transformational influence on teaching these topics are used to depict and
support ways that study of more advanced mathematics can influence teach-
ers’ practice. Implications for the mathematical preparation and professional
development of teachers are considered.
RÉSUMÉ
Cet article se penche sur l’influence potentielle de certains aspects de l’algèbre
abstraite sur l’enseignement de l’algèbre scolaire (et l’algèbre élémentaire).
En utilisant les normes nationales d’analyse, on développe quatre domaines
primaires communs dans les mathématiques scolaires, ainsi que leur évolu-
tion au travers des classes de mathématiques élémentaires, intermédiaires
et secondaires, lorsque l’enseignement peut être modifié par les connais-
sances de l’enseignant en algèbre abstraite. Dans chacun des quatre domaines
(propriétés arithmétiques, inverses, structure des ensembles et résolution
d’équations), des descriptions et des exemples de l’influence transformation-
nelle sur l’enseignement de ces sujets sont utilisés pour décrire et soutenir
l’idée que l’étude de mathématiques plus avancées peut influencer la pratique
de l’enseignant. Les conséquences pour la préparation mathématique et le per-
fectionnement professionnel des enseignants sont examinées.

Future mathematics teachers, particularly middle and secondary, often find themselves taking courses in
advanced mathematics, such as number theory, abstract algebra, or real analysis, as part of their teacher
preparation program. This requirement is not without rationale: much of this content feels or appears to
be connected to and potentially relevant for teaching more elementary mathematics. Few would argue
that strong content knowledge is unimportant for effective teaching, yet the content of these courses
covers mathematics far beyond what teachers will be required to teach. Even in the early 20th century,
Felix Klein (1932) commented on this tension, observing what he coined a “double discontinuity” for
teachers: the first discontinuity being that study of university mathematics did not develop from or sug-
gest the school mathematics that students knew; the second being a disconnect returning back to school

CONTACT Nicholas H. Wasserman [email protected].  West th Street, Box -M, New York, NY .
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ucjs.
©  Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 29

mathematics, where the university mathematics appeared unrelated to the tasks of teaching. His observa-
tion remains relevant today. In fact, there is little evidence that simply taking more mathematics courses
or scoring well on subject-matter tests improves teaching quality or student achievement (e.g., Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Monk, 1994). Content knowledge for teaching is a more complex construct, resistant
to simplistic conceptualization.
Recent work in mathematics education has focused on situating teachers’ content knowledge within
the practice and work of teaching (Hill, Sleep, Lewis, & Ball, 2007; McCrory, Floden, Ferrini-Mundy,
Reckase, & Senk, 2012; Rowland, Huckstep, & Thwaites, 2005). That is to say, the mathematical knowl-
edge teachers need should be relevant for activities of teaching, such as explaining concepts, sequencing
instruction, designing activities, and questioning, understanding, and accessing students’ thinking. In
efforts to conceptualize more practice-based theories of teacher content knowledge, various frameworks
and ideas have developed, such as Ball, Thames, Phelps’s (2008) mathematical knowledge for teaching
framework, McCrory, et al.’s (2012) knowledge of algebra for teaching framework, Rowland et al.’s (2005)
knowledge quartet framework, and Zazkis and Leikin’s (2010) conceptualization of advanced mathe-
matical knowledge. Although these frameworks serve different purposes, they all indicate that teachers’
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

knowledge of mathematics beyond what they will teach can be important for their instruction. Yet, oth-
ers have also discussed potential drawbacks—Nathan and Petrosino (2003), for example, described the
“blind spot” for teachers that can come from such mathematical expertise. In their study of secondary
teachers’ perceptions of advanced mathematical knowledge, Zazkis and Leikin (2010) reported teachers’
difficulties in meaningfully connecting their knowledge of advanced mathematics to specific examples
in their teaching practice, indicating the potential disconnect between more advanced courses and their
use in teaching. Further exploration of connections not just to the content of school mathematics but to
its teaching is needed.
In this article, we look more closely at how advanced mathematics may positively impact instruction
in school mathematics, in particular at how ideas in abstract algebra can be beneficial for algebra (and
early algebra) teaching. Although topics in abstract algebra are easily connected to much of school math-
ematics (e.g., the real numbers over addition and multiplication form a field), this work investigates not
just connections to the mathematical topics themselves but, especially, to the teaching of these topics.
In other words, the fact that (R, +, ×) is a field does not mean that all students need to learn about
addition and multiplication in this axiomatic structure (a supposition experimented on during the New
Math reforms in the United States in the 1960s); however, this knowledge may be useful in some facets
of teaching and it is these connections to teaching that are of primary interest here. Although mathe-
matical connections may help address the first of Klein’s (1932) discontinuities, this article also attends
to the second—how abstract algebra can relate to the tasks of teaching algebra. Ultimately, we propose
four broad mathematical areas across school mathematics for where instruction can be transformed by
study or knowledge of ideas in abstract algebra, tracing their progression through elementary, middle,
and secondary mathematics. This work began from an analysis of the content of school mathematics (not
abstract algebra)—specifically using the Common Core Mathematics Standards from the United States
(CCSS-M, 2010)—and develops a framework of four content areas in terms of topics in algebra and early
algebra (not abstract algebra) and is explicitly linked to their teaching. In particular, a transformational
perspective for discussing possibilities for advanced mathematics to influence planned teaching practice
is considered with the inclusion of teaching examples and tasks for school mathematics instruction.

Background literature

Content knowledge for teaching

Since Shulman’s (1986) formative ideas about knowledge in teaching, mathematics educators and
researchers have furthered these efforts specifically for mathematics teaching. In one of the more well-
known works, Ball et al. (2008) conceptualized three domains of subject-matter knowledge and three
domains of pedagogical content knowledge that make up the mathematical knowledge for teaching
 30 N. H. WASSERMAN

framework. Notably, they distinguished between common content knowledge—common across mathe-
matical professions—and specialized content knowledge, which is specific to teaching. The third domain
of subject-matter knowledge, provisionally included, was horizon content knowledge (HCK). This com-
ponent of teachers’ knowledge was related to an awareness of the broader mathematical territory sur-
rounding current instruction, including major disciplinary ideas and structures (Ball, 2009).
For the purposes of the current work, the “mathematical horizon” consists of mathematics that is not
in a local (epsilon) neighborhood of the mathematics being taught. It is a description of the relative loca-
tion of ideas within a larger mathematical landscape; in this case, it includes mathematical ideas “behind”
as well as “beyond” the content being taught. In this sense, we situate “advanced mathematics,” such as
abstract algebra, as part of the mathematical horizon; in particular, as a subset of the horizon that lies
“beyond” the scope of school mathematics. (A similar distinction by Wasserman & Stockton [2013] was
made between a curricular and an advanced mathematical horizon—comparable to Zazkis and Mamolo’s
[2011] discussion of teachers’ [not students’] horizons.) Horizon content knowledge, by contrast, is a
domain of knowledge that draws on aspects of the mathematical horizon in ways that become produc-
tive for teaching. (Even though taking a course in abstract algebra may increase a teacher’s knowledge of
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

advanced mathematics, it does not necessarily increase their HCK.) There is some agreement that HCK
is at least in part related to knowledge of more advanced mathematics and that it impacts both teach-
ers’ planned and enacted practices (Jakobsen, Thames, & Ribeiro, 2013; Wasserman & Stockton, 2013;
Zazkis & Mamolo, 2011). Although the term advanced mathematics will be used primarily throughout
the article, we situate abstract algebra in relation to a larger mathematical horizon and the article as a
whole as also related to the notion of horizon content knowledge, through the explicit connections to
practice.
Specifically, we look not just at the connections between more advanced mathematics and school
mathematics but particularly at how ideas in the mathematical horizon can be transformative for teach-
ers’ own understandings about and perception of the content they teach in ways that influence their
teaching. (We note that the use of this term is different than the transformation dimension described
as part of the knowledge quartet framework.) Specifically, that knowledge of advanced mathematics can
transform teachers’ own perceptions of school mathematics in the sense that it is seen in a new light, that
the meaning or understanding of ideas is shifted, or that the content itself is reorganized, reordered, or
restructured in the teacher’s mind—indicative of what Piaget (1952) called “accommodation,” not just
assimilation. This notion of transformation relates to Simon’s (2006) description of key developmental
understandings, which change one’s thoughts about and perceptions of mathematical ideas and their rela-
tionships and echoes Silverman and Thompson’s (2008) cognitive model for developing mathematical
knowledge for teaching. However, in this work, it is specific to advanced mathematics knowledge serv-
ing as a key developmental understanding for more elementary mathematics. Such a transformation in
understanding has the pedagogical potential to inform teachers’ choices for sequencing content, impact
what concepts they emphasize, increase the cognitive demand of their lessons, alter their exposition of
ideas, or shape ways in which they transition and prepare students for future ideas. We acknowledge that
transformation is not the only possible useful impact on teaching practice from knowing more advanced
mathematics; however, we use this perspective to explore ways in which such knowledge may serve to
fundamentally alter the form, shape, and substance of how teachers understand and perceive the math-
ematics they teach.

Abstract algebra
Abstract algebra is the study and generalization of algebraic structures—those structures necessary for
algebraic reasoning. In particular, groups, rings, and fields are some of the most commonly studied struc-
tures in abstract algebra. Frequently, abstract algebra courses begin with axiomatic definitions followed
by some common examples to illustrate the impact of the axioms. Small finite sets are often discussed
initially, with connections to more elementary and common number sets and familiar arithmetic oper-
ations (e.g., integers under addition) also mentioned. However, the rationale for such axioms and their
collective importance for and connection to algebra often remain unclear or unspecified. Particularly for
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 31

teachers, this epitomizes Klein’s (1932) double discontinuity, where abstract algebra and more elemen-
tary algebra ideas remain disconnected and mutually uninformative for the tasks of teaching.
Although school mathematics (K–12) does not explicitly study abstract algebra, the content of school
algebra implicitly draws on the structures of groups, fields, and rings (largely fields and rings). Often,
these ideas begin developing with early notions of arithmetic; Morris (1999), however, found that teach-
ers infrequently attend to arithmetic properties, assuming them to be common knowledge among stu-
dents. The emergent early algebra movement, which encompasses algebraic reasoning and algebra-
related instruction among young learners (Carraher & Schliemann, 2007), emphasizes the algebraic
nature of arithmetic thinking and conceptualizes school algebra as much more than ways to solve for
x. For example, Kaput (2008) described algebra as the study of structures and systems abstracted from
computations, the study of functions and joint variation, and the application of modeling languages,
making the case that the development of these begins long before a first course in algebra. As such,
knowledge of common algebraic structures may transform teachers’ elementary conceptions of number
and operation as related to early algebra concepts. For example, Wasserman (2014), found evidence of
changes in teachers’ perceptions about arithmetic properties in relation to studying abstract groups.
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

Reliance on these structures continues in middle and secondary school mathematics as students’
sense of number and operation expand and their formal study of algebra (e.g., variable manipulation,
functions, equation solving, etc.) progresses. The mathematical trajectory is consistent with the action–
process–object–schema epistemological framework (e.g., Asiala et al., 1996), with students’ development
building from action and process ideas to understanding them in terms of objects and schemas. Specific
to abstract algebra and secondary teaching, part of McCrory et al.’s (2012) discussion of knowledge of
algebra for teaching included examples related to topics in abstract algebra as important for teaching. In
particular, they mentioned that teachers in such advanced courses often “prove that the product of two
negative numbers is a positive one” (p. 602) and that “classical algorithms for solving linear equations
with one variable involved repeated application of field axioms” (p. 603). The Conference Board of the
Mathematical Science’s (CBMS) Mathematical Education of Teachers I and II (MET I and II) (CBMS,
2001, 2012), in providing recommendations to mathematics departments about courses for preparing
mathematics teachers, also give examples of advanced mathematics, including abstract algebra. They
describe, among others, high school connections to operations with polynomials and rational functions;
solving of quadratic, cubic, and quartic equations, including Cardano’s method and groups based on
modular arithmetic; and the isomorphism between real numbers under addition and real numbers under
multiplication given by exponents and logarithms. Such examples help articulate at least a number of the
connections between abstract algebra and school mathematics, yet how making these mathematical con-
nections is relevant for the work of teaching school mathematics is not explicitly depicted or described
in terms of teachers’ practice.

Methodology
Building on the sense that teachers’ mathematical knowledge should be connected to the work and prac-
tice of teaching, that by linking advanced mathematics to practice teachers’ knowledge and understand-
ing of local content may be transformed in ways that subsequently influence their teaching practice, and
that ideas in abstract algebra are connected to school mathematics and vice versa, this article aims to
further explore the potential relationship between abstract algebra and algebra teaching. In particular,
the primary research question addressed was what content areas across elementary, middle, and sec-
ondary mathematics may teachers’ own understandings and their subsequent teaching be transformed
by study of or knowledge about concepts in abstract algebra? (For the purposes of this study, elementary
is Grades K–5, middle is 6–8, and secondary is 9–12.) The study began with a qualitative analysis of
elementary, middle, and secondary school mathematics content and standards; it then drew on knowl-
edge and experience from broader conversations and interviews with teachers, classroom observations,
etc., to identify overarching mathematical areas and exemplify connections to practice. We reiterate that
 32 N. H. WASSERMAN

teachers’ knowledge of more advanced content does not mean that teachers would somehow teach stu-
dents this more advanced knowledge. Rather, we consider such advanced knowledge as having a poten-
tially transformative effect on teachers’ understandings of school mathematics that, though not explicitly
discussed with students, fundamentally may shift the instructional approach for teaching more elemen-
tary ideas. The four content areas and teaching examples aim to this effect.

Procedures
Given the relatively broad adoption in the United States and their benchmark to other international
mathematics standards, the CCSS-M (2010) were used as the source of mathematical content and stan-
dards for analysis, roughly representative of the types of school mathematics content teachers need to
be prepared to teach. We state this explicitly because the phrasing of the standards themselves may have
been influential in describing connections to teaching; however, the general mathematical ideas drawn
from this analysis are not unique to the CCSS-M—indeed, the resulting mathematical ideas are com-
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

monplace in international mathematics education. To this end, the article will discuss the more general
mathematical ideas drawn from this analysis, only occasionally referencing specific wording from CCSS-
M standards within the text. (However, for curious readers, the Appendix contains some of CCSS-M
standards for more complete reference.)
In order to answer the research question, two researchers with strong mathematical and educational
backgrounds analyzed all CCSS-M standards, responding to a broader question: “Teaching of this stan-
dard may be informed by teachers’ knowledge of _________ (some specific advanced mathematics con-
tent).” One of the general themes that came out of that process was the recurrent connection to con-
cepts in abstract algebra. In this article, we report specifically about that work. Each researcher reviewed
the entire set of standards, individually first, to identify places where concepts in abstract algebra were
relevant to the standard being discussed. In particular, researchers initially looked for specific connec-
tions to some of the algebraic structures of groups, rings, and fields. All standards coded by one or both
researchers were analyzed in the next phase, where the researchers then drew on their own experience
as educators and working with teachers to identify those standards for which teachers’ practice could be
significantly impacted by study or knowledge of concepts in abstract algebra. The researchers adopted
collaborative coding (e.g., Harry, Sturges, & Klingner, 2005), with the goal being consensus, not sim-
ply comparable independent coding, and standards being debated and the analysis being clarified until
there was agreement by both researchers about the potential utility of teachers’ knowledge of concepts
in abstract algebra for influencing their instruction.
For example, the standard, “Given a rectangle, parallelogram, trapezoid, or regular polygon, describe
the rotations and reflections that carry it onto itself (HSG.CO.A.3)” was initially coded as related to
abstract algebra for its connection to groups of symmetries (CCSS-M, 2010). However, little about this
abstract group structure, which considers the algebraic group composed of multiple symmetries, seemed
to be particularly pertinent for teachers in that this knowledge likely would not significantly change
the teachers’ instructional approach to teaching this standard. (Though it does, perhaps, influence their
own sense of the mathematics associated with it.) To teach this standard, teachers would discuss, for
example, the six symmetries of an equilateral triangle; however, the additional knowledge gained from
understanding the resultant group structure for composing symmetries back to back was considered
to be less pertinent and transformative to teaching the topic as described for secondary students. And
although discussion of inverses could be used as a means to help students identify all six symmetries,
describing symmetries of geometric figures does not necessitate composing multiple symmetries and the
symmetries are fairly apparent without referencing inverses. Though this group is noteworthy in abstract
algebra as the smallest non-abelian group, teachers’ knowledge of this, though perhaps interesting for the
teacher, would not likely impact their instruction of this standard. In contrast, the standard,
Understand that integers can be divided, provided that the divisor is not zero, and every quotient of integers (with
non-zero divisor) is a rational number. If p and q are integers, then −(p/q) = (−p)/q = p/(−q). Interpret quotients
of rational numbers by describing real-world contexts (7.NS.A.2B). (CCSS-M, 2010)
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 33

was coded as both related to abstract algebra and potentially informed by the study of or knowledge
about that advanced content. Namely, we could envision how experiences in abstract algebra might trans-
form teachers’ own perceptions and, ultimately, teaching of this standard. Without having previously
engaged with ideas in abstract algebra, the equivalence of these rational numbers may be perceived as
somewhat trivial; however, after more rigorous reasoning about the roles of inverses and their relation
to elements in a set and an operation, teachers may be able to more meaningfully differentiate between
these equivalent fractions, where the first, −(p/q) is the additive inverse of a rational number, whereas
(−p)/q is the product of the additive inverse of an integer, p, and the multiplicative inverse of an integer,
q. Though the teacher may never mention these to students, per se, the ability to differentiate between
these forms and to problematize them as nontrivial and important for students to consider was consid-
ered potentially transformative to their instruction regarding this standard—rather than simply stating
their equivalence as fact. In addition, familiarity with abstract algebra can provide the teacher with an
ability to prove, from the field axioms, the necessity of these representations being equivalent.1 Rigor-
ous justification allows the teacher to understand and express to students the real “root” of these results,
which stems from a choice that the axioms hold across various number sets.
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

This two-step process, of first identifying connections within school mathematics to abstract algebra
and second considering a resultant influence on instruction from such understandings, resulted in a set
of standards (n = 67) for additional analysis and description. In order to answer the primary research
question, these standards were further analyzed using the constant comparative method of a grounded
theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to determine meaningful themes across them, by both mathe-
matical content area and grade level (elementary, middle, and secondary). The result provides an overar-
ching classification indicating four different content areas and their progression over school mathematics
that may be transformed by knowledge of abstract algebra. Two other people familiar with both more
advanced mathematics and mathematics education reviewed and commented on the working themes,
further clarifying and corroborating the results. Notably, the process for answering the research question
included identifying mathematical connections but began from the perspective of considering not only
the content of school mathematics but also its teaching. In this way, the specific content ideas elicited
from the standards are a particular subset of connections between abstract algebra and more elementary
algebra ideas that also attend to the work of K–12 teaching. Drawing on our own experiences as educators
and other conversations with teachers during instruction in our courses as well as outside conversations
and classroom observations, we then exemplified how these ideas can be implemented in the classroom.
In particular, the teaching examples included in this article depict and emphasize the potential influence
of knowing abstract algebra on algebra teaching in terms of teachers’ planned practices (Wasserman &
Stockton, 2013), because enacted teaching practices are inevitably more contingent on student interac-
tion and thus more context dependent.

Results
From the school mathematics content described in the standards, the researchers identified four com-
mon content areas across elementary, middle, and secondary mathematics that provide a synthesis of the
types of school mathematics potentially informed by knowledge of abstract algebra, which are arithmetic
properties, inverses, structure of sets, and solving equations. As evident from these descriptions, the four
areas, despite coming from an analysis of CCSS-M standards, are not specific to mathematics education
in the United States. (The Appendix contains a subset of standards portraying the four mathematical
areas.) We describe each of the four content areas in more detail, connecting the content to specific ideas
and standards and the overall progression across K–12 mathematics, interweaving discussions of teach-
ing that exemplify the potential for transformation on teachers’ planned teaching practices.

Arithmetic properties
One of the prominent themes that resulted from this analysis was the development of properties of oper-
ations, particularly arithmetic properties, across the entirety of school mathematics. The importance of
 34 N. H. WASSERMAN

exploring these individual properties is tied, in part, to understanding operations on number sets, where
the holding of such properties collectively (as axioms of algebraic structures) informs future mathemat-
ical developments. For a teacher, the perspective gained by understanding the collective importance of
arithmetic properties as they form the heart of algebraic structures studied in abstract algebra provides
an additional sense of utility and importance for discussing these mathematical ideas with students.
In elementary school, arithmetic properties are mentioned explicitly in relation to strategies for com-
putation and mental arithmetic, such as adding and subtracting and multiplying and dividing. Students
will be required to know and use these arithmetic properties—though the CCSS-M standards also make
the caveat that the use of formal vocabulary need not begin immediately. In addition, arithmetic prop-
erties are often used and referenced implicitly rather than explicitly. For example, in the standard:
Understand a multiple of a/b as a multiple of 1/b, and use this understanding to multiply a fraction by a whole
number. For example, use a visual fraction model to express 3 × (2/5) as 6 × (1/5), recognizing this product as 6/5.
(In general, n × (a/b) = (n × a)/b.) (4.NF.B.4b). (CCSS-M, 2010)

the visual model draws on the use of associativity as an axiom that holds for multiplication with
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

fractions. Based on the definition of a/b as a multiples of 1/b, to justify that 3 × (2/5) is equal to 6 ×
(1/5), associativity is assumed: 3 × (2/5) = 3 × (2 × (1/5)) = (3 × 2) × (1/5) = 6 × (1/5) = 6/5.
In the middle grades, the emphasis on arithmetic properties continues and becomes particularly
important for the development of rules of operations on signed numbers: “Understand that multiplica-
tion is extended from fractions to rational numbers by requiring that operations continue to satisfy the
properties of operations, particularly the distributive property, leading to products such as (−1)(−1) = 1
…” (7.NS.A.2a) (CCSS-M, 2010). In other words, it is the maintaining of these arithmetic properties that
are “to blame” for some of the perhaps unexpected “rules” for multiplication. In addition, the notion that
these “arithmetic properties” represent mathematical identities—more universal equivalences—becomes
even more apparent with the use of variables. For example, middle school students are frequently asked
to use the distributive property to produce equivalent algebraic expressions (e.g., 3(2 + x) = 6 + 3x).
Such ideas indicate the need to apply these arithmetic properties to generate, and ultimately make use of,
algebraic expressions that are universally equivalent. That is, students should recognize the expressions
as interchangeable regardless of the value of the variable, due to the universality of the claims being made
by arithmetic properties.
In high school, these ideas continue extending to the complex numbers; however, more importantly,
these properties begin taking on new meanings as the operations and sets expand to more abstract set-
tings such as functions, composition, matrices, matrix multiplication, vectors, etc. In fact, conceptualiz-
ing matrix multiplication and composition as “operations,” similar to addition or multiplication, is not
necessarily intuitive (particularly function composition). These examples also signify a critical step in
simplifying the requirements of operations (i.e., not requiring commutativity) in an underlying algebraic
structure—from a ring or field to a group. (Simple in this context does not indicate easier to understand
but refers to the fact that rings and fields contain underlying group structures.) The focus on broadening
students’ understandings of operation, and the class of objects it operates on, represents a shift in the pro-
gression of understanding properties of operations and provides a sense of importance for developing
these ideas.
Across school mathematics, teachers will need to recognize these properties of operations as they are
being used in the classroom (e.g., the multiple ways in which students often draw on them in mental
arithmetic), both explicitly and implicitly, as well as to problematize them, pointing to these properties
as “special” in some way (e.g., that we would not expect all operations to have similar properties). As
students progress, connections are often drawn to underlying structures—for example, in the CCSS-M
(2010), 0 is explicitly described as its own (additive) opposite (indicative of a more general property of
identity elements) and parallels between more abstract contexts like matrices are drawn to more familiar
arithmetic situations (the zero and identity matrices play similar roles to 0 and 1). In addition, we iden-
tify two trends with the progression of arithmetic properties (Figure 1): the first is that the sets of objects
and operations with which properties are discussed move from concrete to increasingly abstract, and
the second is that the algebraic structures present become increasingly simplified—that is, properties of
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 35

Figure . Progression of arithmetic properties.

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

Figure . Algorithmic and geometric interpretation of product.

addition and multiplication on numbers sets are often described together and form fields and rings,
whereas latter developments have less complex group structures. (It is not completely true that oper-
ations on N or Q+ in elementary school form a field or ring, but the properties of addition and
multiplication are used together in these contexts (not separately). In addition, fields and rings by defi-
nition contain groups (e.g., (Q+, ×)), but the emphasis in elementary and middle school is not on these
simpler group structures. Indeed, Cuoco and Rotman (2013) argued for an introduction to abstract alge-
bra that begins with fields and rings as opposed to groups based on this developmental progression in
school mathematics.

Teaching example(s)
Rather than providing multiple examples, we focus primarily on one to help portray how instruction
related to arithmetic properties can be transformed by teachers’ knowledge of more advanced mathe-
matics. Without exposure to more abstract set and operations, teachers frequently take for granted these
arithmetic properties, assuming students to be familiar with such arithmetic structure and giving it lit-
tle attention in their instruction (e.g., Morris, 1999). Although arithmetic properties are certainly not
exclusive to courses in abstract algebra, teachers’ perceptions about and understandings of them may
be transformed by exposure to more advanced mathematics (e.g., Wasserman, 2014). Rather than only
mentioning these properties in passing or avoiding them altogether, viewing them either as useless or
intuitively obvious, an elementary teacher may intentionally engage students by problematizing an indi-
vidual property for students, rendering it nontrivial and worth discussing. For example, the teacher could
pose as a warm-up question:
Two students are working on multiplying 37 by 19. In the standard way, with one number above the other, the first
student sets it up as 37 × 19 and the second as 19 × 37. Who is correct? Are the products different? Work with a
partner using both approaches and discuss.

In this situation, the teacher intentionally problematizes and discusses the commutativity of multi-
plication; mainly, because the intermediate products produced in the standard multiplication algorithm
in the two cases are different, but the sum (final product) is the same, the task encourages students to
genuinely reflect on commutativity and why it is true. Such discussion could lead to visualization via
areas of what the intermediate products and sums are computing in both cases, indicating the essence
of the commutative property for multiplication (Figure 2). Although designing or understanding the
specific question does not mandate that teachers know abstract algebra, time spent understanding these
 36 N. H. WASSERMAN

properties in more abstract settings adds to the sense that them holding for common numbers sets is
especially meaningful. The inclusion of problems that require explicit engagement with and problema-
tization of arithmetic properties (as opposed to taking them for granted and giving them little attention
with students), as well as broader recognition of their use (e.g., from students, or from implicit references
in standards), are potential influences on instruction from studying more abstract algebraic structures.

Inverses
Although inverse elements are part of the various arithmetic properties frequently discussed, we isolate
the progression of inverses throughout school mathematics because of the extremely important role they
play in understanding operations on sets and relationships between them. Understanding the general
notion of inverse, where additive, multiplicative, functional, etc., inverses become examples of the same
concept, unified within some algebraic structure, can help provide a sense of consistency for teachers in
developing and discussing these ideas.
In elementary school, one of the primary objectives is developing, refining, and expanding students’
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

sense of common arithmetic operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. In fact, one
of the main ways the operations are discussed is in their relationship to one another, in particular that
addition/subtraction and multiplication/division are inverse operations—something especially helpful
when solving elementary arithmetic problems. Indeed, as students progress, these operational relation-
ships can become the means by which students justify mathematical results, particularly those that are
difficult to explain or conceptualize (e.g., “ … use the relationship between multiplication and division
to explain that (1/3) ÷ 4 = 1/12 because (1/12) × 4 = 1/3 (5.NF.B.7a) (CCSS-M, 2010)).
In middle school, students’ mathematical notions of number are increasingly challenged as they
progress toward understanding negative numbers and rational numbers as “actual” numbers, as well
as how to operate on them. The notion of inverse operations in the middle grades moves toward con-
ceptualizing its equivalence with new elements in more developed number sets—for example, that the
inverse operation subtraction is equivalent to adding a number’s additive (signed) inverse, etc. (e.g.,
p − q = p + (−q)). Simultaneously, in middle school students first begin work on solving equations
algebraically. Systematically solving simple equations involves “undoing” some operations on x, for which
the notion of inverse operation—which is likely used and useful—simultaneously moves toward using
inverse elements.
In high school, inverses are discussed with some new sets, including vectors and matrices, but are pri-
marily developed with respect to algebraic development and the study of functions. Functions serve as
an especially useful tool for conceptualizing operations and, further, for developing and understanding
inverses. Though an inverse operation or function is frequently connected with the notion of undoing,
additional meaning is evident within common statements like those verifying two functions as inverses
by composition: f(f−1 (x)) = f−1 (f(x)) = x. Although the statement of function composition can be under-
stood in terms of an element mapping back to itself (i.e., undoing a first mapping), the presence of an
underlying algebraic structure informs that x, in this case the function i(x) = x, serves as the identity
function under composition. Indeed, the reason inverse functions are reflections across the line y = x—
something commonly taught to secondary students—is related to i(x) = x serving as the identity element
for function composition. For teachers, knowledge that something more than just undoing is involved
in the conceptualization of inverse functions, and that there is some unifying theme consistent across all
uses of “inverse” in mathematics, particularly in their relation to an identity element, further clarifies and
helps make sense of more elementary uses of inverses within the context of a specific set and operation.
Across the grades, teachers will be responsible for developing the overarching notion of inverse despite
the variety of ways that it is referenced—from inverse operations, to inverse elements, to inverse func-
tions. Indeed, by understanding the notion of inverse from abstract algebra as related to a set and being
an element, inverse operations become a class of inverse elements in the set of invertible functions under
composition. Addition and subtraction are inverse operations because for the class of functions, a(x) =
x + c (for any constant c), x − c is the inverse function, a−1 (x), where a(a−1 (x)) = a−1 (a(x)) = x; simi-
larly for multiplication and division. As future operations and inverse operations emerge in middle and
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 37

Figure . Progression of inverses.

secondary mathematics, such as x2 and x1/2 or 10x and log(x), a unifying notion of function provides
an umbrella for these operational ideas and relationships. Notably, the transition being described from
understanding inverses as an “action” or “process” toward understanding them as “objects” in a set based
on connecting inverse functions to concepts in abstract algebra mirrors the action–process–object–
schema epistemological framework (e.g., Asiala et al., 1996). For students and teachers, an understand-
ing of inverse that goes beyond actions or processes is important for their mathematical development.
In fact, the progression across school mathematics provides an increasingly comprehensive framework
with regard to inverses, where inverse functions serve as the set for which inverse operations become
inverse elements (Figure 3).
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

Teaching example(s)
Recognition of the increasingly comprehensive framework for inverses may help transform instruction in
school mathematics, in particular providing more coherent development and use of this idea throughout
the curriculum. Even though the terms additive inverse, multiplicative inverse, and functional inverse
indicate some connection across these ideas, the explicit nature of this connection becomes increasingly
clear in light of knowledge gained from the more advanced and abstract treatment of the idea. Recog-
nizing the more universal notion of inverses, a high school teacher can articulate the different ways that
this idea is used—rather than leaving them as discretely developed and separate. During an introduction
to inverse trigonometric functions, for example, a secondary teacher could ask students: “Compare the
following: −sin(x), csc(x), sin−1 (x). Are any the same? Are they all different? Rewrite –sin(x) and csc(x)
using a −1 somewhere; why do all of these use −1?” Both cosecant and inverse sine can be (and frequently
are) described as opposites to sine, augmenting the difficulties students have differentiating between the
two. A task requiring students to compare these and, more important, to discuss them in reference to
what is meant by inverse in each case (additive, multiplicative, functional) can help clarify these distinc-
tions. Notably, sin(x) + − sin(x) = 0 , sin(x) · csc(x) = 1, and sin(x) ◦ sin−1 (x) = sin(sin−1 (x)) = x,
which also reiterates the connection of an inverse to an identity element. Additional work on problems
such as visually determining (from a 6–8–10 right triangle) (a) csc(sin−1 (0.6)) and (b) sin(sin−1 (0.6))
may further illuminate the inverse role that reciprocals and inverse functions both play. For secondary
teachers, inverse functions may become less about undoing actions and more related to instantiations
of the broader notion of inverse. The way teachers understand notions of and statements about inverses
changes in light of this more advanced mathematics knowledge, fostering opportunities for the teacher to
more clearly differentiate and more intimately relate these ideas across the various applications in more
elementary contexts.

Structure of sets
Another theme across elementary, middle, and secondary mathematics was the underlying structure of
sets. The emphasis in this area is not operations on sets, though these come into the picture, but rather
the structure of the sets themselves, where the rationale for and understanding of this structure comes
in relation to more abstract properties or ideas. Indeed, the interplay between arithmetic operations
and extending number sets has often been the source of structure on the sets themselves, making such
knowledge potentially useful for conveying these mathematical ideas and developments.
In elementary school, this structure is especially related to the set of fractions and the notion of equiv-
alence. Within the set of positive rational numbers, that the same number can be expressed in an infinite
number of (seemingly different) ways is difficult for students to grasp. Explaining why various fractions
 38 N. H. WASSERMAN

must be equivalent and how to generate others is an important component of the elementary mathemat-
ics. In this sense, it is critical to recognize that part of understanding the structure of the set of fractions
is related to the multiplicative identity (e.g., “relating the principle of fraction equivalence a/b = (n ×
a)/(n × b) to the effect of multiplying a/b by 1” (5.NF.B.5b) (CCSS-M, 2010)). Indeed, teachers should
appreciate that this is why the adage often invoked while teaching about generating equivalent fractions,
“what you do to the top you do to the bottom,” in fact works—as well as to differentiate that it does not
work with addition (actually making this particular phrasing somewhat confusing). Although multiply-
ing by the identity should not be the only way students engage in learning about equivalent fractions, the
notions that n/n is 1(for all non-zero n) and that multiplying by 1 results in the number itself are readily
understood, which makes this an important way for helping students piece together the equivalences
classes for the set of positive rational numbers.
In the middle grades, number sets extend to include negative and rational numbers primarily due to
the idea of closure: that a binary operation between two elements in a set should result in a member of
the set. Thus, the search for a set that was closed under subtraction led to negative numbers—which,
in turn, in some ways removed the need for subtraction as an operation at all. Indeed, investigating the
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

results of arithmetic laws was a critical step historically in legitimizing the existence and use of negative
numbers—and similarly with division and the set of rational numbers. In addition, as mentioned previ-
ously, equivalence within algebraic expressions is introduced in middle school; these ideas set the stage
for future mathematical developments with sets of functions.
In high school, structure within number sets is evident in the introduction of complex conjugates,
which help verify all of the usual arithmetic operations as being closed on the set of complex numbers
(e.g., 5+2i
3−4i
is a complex number since 5+2i · 3+4i = 25
3−4i 3+4i
7
+ 26
25
i ). Building on algebraic expressions in mid-
dle school, structure on sets also becomes evident in characterizing classes of functions, such as those
that represent the same line or the same parabola. This idea is perhaps most frequently discussed in con-
nection to different “forms” of a function—such as the slope–intercept (y = mx + b) or standard (Ax
+ By = C) form of a line, etc. Indeed, recognizing that there are multiple ways to find and represent
functions (e.g., a line that has a slope of 2 and goes through the points (0, 6) and (1, 8)), which results
in some equivalence structure on the set of functions, is not trivial. In addition, structure also moves
into the realm of parallel structures between algebraic expressions and number sets—specifically that
“ … polynomials form a system analogous to the integers” (HSA.APR.A.1) and that “ … rational expres-
sions for a system analogous to the rational numbers” (HSA.APR.D.7) (CCSS-M, 2010). The former
are representative of a ring; the latter, a field. That there are parallels between these sets under the four
arithmetic operations should be understood by students (according to CCSS-M standards); for teach-
ers, understanding the depth and structure of these analogies,2 however, informs, for example, that the
(Euclidean) ring structure of polynomials and integers has implications for factoring and primes—that
is, both have prime factorizations.
Across elementary, middle, and secondary mathematics, the resultant structure of sets, often based
on collections of arithmetic properties and algebraic structures, reiterates the importance of develop-
ing structural ideas with students as they make sense not just of operations but also of numbers (and
functions) themselves. And though the whole of teaching requires more work than logically putting
component pieces together, understanding that structures on the sets themselves are a result of broader
collections of arithmetic properties provides a useful form of developing these mathematical ideas with
students. Specifically within the progression of the standards, we see this move from arithmetic prop-
erties informing structural aspects (e.g., equivalence classes) within sets in the elementary grades, to
notions of closure expanding structures on these sets (e.g., inclusion of negative numbers) in middle
school, and then in high school to algebraic structures classifying parallels across sets (Figure 4).

Teaching example(s)
Attention to algebraic structures can help teachers “see” opportunities to make mathematical connec-
tions as they inform structure within, on, and across sets. An elementary teacher, for example, upon
reflection about the role that the multiplicative identity plays in generating equivalent fractions, might
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 39

Figure . Progression of structure of sets.

not solely use the phrase “what you do to the top, you do to the bottom,” given the incorrect implica-
tions for addition. Instead, they might play on the notion of identity, emphasizing that multiplying by
one, which multiplies the same number to the top and bottom, will not change the identity of the frac-
tion (thereby creating an equivalent fraction). Alternately, they might look at how the additive identity,
0 (i.e., adding 0 [or 000, for that matter]), can similarly generate equivalence classes for whole num-
bers (e.g., 7, 07, 007, etc.)—some of which are used in real life (e.g., digital clocks, 5:07). A teacher’s
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

overarching sense about mathematics as related to these important arithmetic properties and structures
can be used to segue students toward more productive mathematical thinking. In this elementary con-
text, familiar natural numbers may be seen in a new light as having equivalence classes in ways used
to help students transition to the set of rational numbers. In high school mathematics, a teacher might
point students toward analogies between rational numbers and rational expressions, drawing parallels
between the standard algorithm for dividing two integers and the standard algorithm for dividing two
polynomials, which mirror one another. Recognition of structural similarities (i.e., their underlying ring
structures) enhances instruction in the less familiar context of polynomials by helping students build
new processes that are simultaneously connected to their previous learning about integers.

Solving equations
Lastly, the fourth topic we identified across school mathematics is in the realm of solving equations,
connected to the idea that abstract algebra is the study of the structures necessary for algebraic reason-
ing and manipulation. Indeed, in even the simplest of algebraic situations such as solving equations, the
set of arithmetic properties within the algebraic structures of groups, fields, or rings, gains a sense of
collective—rather than individual—importance. Further study with algebraic structures also helps ver-
ify that quadratic, cubic, and quartic equations do have general solutions in terms of radicals, whereas
higher-order polynomial equations do not.
In elementary school, solving equations is rarely connected to systematic algebraic manipulation. In
this way, the elementary standards have somewhat less connection to this topic. However, students are
introduced to these ideas with “number sentences” (e.g., 3 + _ = 10). In terms of solving equations, these
specifically connect to the idea of “guess and check”—plugging in values to see what number makes sense.
Even so, such work is often indicative of inverse operations (e.g., 5 + 4 = 9, 9 − 5 = 4, 9 − 4 = 5) as
well as reasoning about numerical relationships and properties, such as regrouping to make a 10 first
when solving an equation (e.g., 8 + ? = 15, as (8 + 2) + 5 = 15, which by making a 10 first and the
associative property lead to ? = 2 + 5 = 7). Although the examples of equations are very simplistic, and
few algebraic notions (compared to arithmetic ones) are present, the process for solving equations often
begins with plugging in values as a way to verify the equality of two expressions.
In middle school, though there should be some connection to arithmetic—and students should cer-
tainly still understand and use the idea of plugging in values as a tool to find the solution to an equation—
one of the goals is to develop more systematic methods for solving equations. In fact, it is the collective
aspects of properties of operations that allow for systematic algebraic solutions—solving even a simple
“one-step” equation, such as x + p = q, requires each of the four axioms of a group: closure, associativity,
identity element, inverse element (e.g., Wasserman, 2014). In middle grades, solving equations generally
includes algebraic methods to solve simple linear equations with addition, multiplication, and, possi-
bly, squares and cubes. In particular, the inherently connected nature of inverse and identity elements,
 40 N. H. WASSERMAN

Figure . Progression of solving equations.

and the ways that teachers engage students in learning to simplify, cancel, or “undo” certain parts of an
algebraic expression during solving, are fundamental to the process.
In high school, students build on foundations from middle school to further expand, develop, and
generalize these ideas—especially to broader and more complicated equations including rational, rad-
ical, quadratic, logarithmic, trigonometric, etc. In the context of rational and radical solutions, for
example, students must understand how and why extraneous solutions may arise; in such instances,
teachers should be aware of the intimate relation in the solving process between the domain/range restric-
tions on functions and their inverse functions that are frequently associated with such extraneous solu-
tions. Such knowledge is informed√ by the set of invertible functions, not just the set of all functions.
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

For example, solving the equation 2x + 1 + 4 = 2x − 1 algebraically involves the introduction of x2

as the inverse function for a square root function; doing so, √ however, introduces an additional solu-
tion based on the entire inverse relation of x2 and not just x for which the equation was defined.
Specifically in solving more complicated functions—for example, log5 x = 12—the result of crossing
out “functions” (5\log\5 x = 512 ), where the operation (composition) is less visible, is decidedly less clear
than when the operation is both evident and familiar (e.g., with addition, that the additive inverse
x + \5 + (−5\) = 12 + (−5) results in zero, which helps justify the “cancellation”). Technically, instead of
  
0
0, the additive identity, it would be appropriate to write the functional identity (i(x) = x) as the result
on the left-hand side, leaving i(x) = 512 , and also knowing that i(x) = x. Similarly, the result of evaluat-
ing sin−1 (sin(0.75)) is perhaps best described by the function i(0.75), where i(0.75) = 0.75. Recognition
of the underlying mathematical ideas and access to more thorough justification for cancellation can be
helpful, particularly when it comes to explaining relatively complicated notions in ways that are simul-
taneously mathematically correct but also understandable for students’ current levels of understanding.
Across the grades, the progression of solving reiterates increasingly formalized ideas and approaches,
beginning from guess-and-check strategies to more formal algebraic ones, including the interplay
between inverses and the identity element in proceeding toward a solution. In practice, although such
thorough treatment specifying each and every step for solving an equation or explicating the nuances
in cancellation is probably overly technical for introducing students to these concepts, the collective
nature of these ideas can implicitly guide teachers’ instruction about solving equations (e.g., Wasserman
& Stockton, 2013). For teachers, working with simple equations on more abstract sets and operations can
be a useful exercise (e.g., see Wasserman, 2014). In general, the first methods for solving are guess and
check; subsequent algebraic approaches highlight the importance of particular collections of properties
(evident in groups, rings, and fields) for solving equations, with an increasing emphasis on the set and
operation under consideration as they move from arithmetic to more complicated functions (Figure 5).

Teaching example(s)
The following summarizes a vignette described in more detail in Wasserman and Stockton (2013). In
the middle grades, transition to systematic equation solving is particularly important and illustrates one
use for a teacher’s knowledge of the collective importance that algebraic structures have on algebraic
solutions. For example, after covering some of the basic ideas about solving simple linear equations, a
teacher could ask students to use algebraic methods to solve x + 5 = 12 and 5 · x = 32, drawing parallels
between the solving process and structuring questions such as
(1) Why was your first step to subtract 5 (i.e., add negative 5) or divide by 5 (i.e., multiply by 1/5)? (2) What is the
relationship between the number in the original equation and the operation you performed on both sides? (3) After
the first step, what number is ultimately being added to x (i.e., 0, as in x + 0) or multiplied by x (i.e., 1, as in 1 · x)
on the left side? and (4) What is special about those numbers (i.e., 0 and 1) in addition and multiplication? (p. 22)
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 41

The intentional parallels force students to consider the underlying mathematical ideas—that oper-
ating by an inverse element produces the identity element—which effectively results in cancelling out.
Notably, the emphasis is not on the algebraic structure of a group itself; rather, such knowledge has trans-
formed the form and shape of the teacher’s knowledge in ways that influenced her instruction. Similarly,
as students move toward solving equations with more complicated functions in high school, teachers
might transition students to these more complex ideas by using the previous, more familiar example: in
the equation x + 5 = 12, “x + 5” and “12” can be considered functions (f(x) = g(x)), for which composi-
tion with the inverse function “x − 5” (f−1 (x)) on the left side results in the identity function, x, and thus
composing the inverse function on the right side (f−1 (g(x)), which is analogous to evaluating the inverse
function at 12, results in a solution (x = 7). Looking at the equation solving process in this light provides
a slightly different perspective for the student, one that also mirrors more general solution processes with
increasingly sophisticated functions.

Discussion
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

Through analyzing common ideas in school mathematics, we have explored some of the potential con-
tent areas where an understanding of ideas in abstract algebra can be influential for teachers’ own under-
standings and their instruction. Namely, with respect to his or her teaching, familiarity with algebraic
structures may alter how a teacher (a) perceives and integrates arithmetic properties; (b) differentiates
between and connects the use of inverses; (c) relates to and identifies the structure of sets; and (d) explains
and instructs the process of solving equations. Although it is useful to know and be able to describe math-
ematical connections between abstract algebra and school mathematics, more closely tying knowledge
of advanced mathematics to the work and practice of teaching is important to further understanding
content knowledge for teaching. Notably, by analyzing school mathematics and characterizing partic-
ular areas where knowledge of abstract algebra can transform its teaching, this work has attempted to
do exactly this. As such, the framing of the four areas is in terms of school mathematics (not abstract
algebra), where teachers’ instruction can be potentially transformed in light of these ideas on the mathe-
matical horizon and contributes to an understanding about the relationship between abstract algebra and
teaching school mathematics. In this sense, the discussions and teaching examples in the article describe
understandings of advanced mathematics that have what Silverman and Thompson (2008) designated
as pedagogical power, not just pedagogical potential.
The four content areas—arithmetic properties, inverses, structure of sets, and solving equations—also
encompass many of the extant examples from literature mentioned previously. McCrory et al. (2012)
mentioned rigorous proof that the product of two negative numbers is a positive and solving equations
that both draw repeatedly on application of field axioms; these two examples correspond to our dis-
cussions of arithmetic properties and solving equations. Similarly, in the MET I and II documents, the
CBMS (2001, 2012) elicit connections to solving different types of polynomial equations and attending
to the notion of inverses across the curriculum. They also discuss structures within and across sets—
specifically, the isomorphism between real numbers under addition and real numbers under multiplica-
tion given by exponents and logarithms and between complex numbers and quotients rings. Thus, we
find these four content areas as more generally descriptive of areas where knowledge of abstract algebra
can impact the planning and teaching of more elementary mathematics. Moreover, the discussion in this
article around these content areas provides a different lens through which to understand the relation-
ship of advanced mathematics to teaching, furthering mathematical connections between the topics by
exemplifying and depicting specific connections to and implications for teaching.
One of the primary motivators for this study was to inform more advanced mathematics content and
courses for teachers. Thus, we see the categorization of these four content areas as providing specific
places to discuss connections between school mathematics and ideas in abstract algebra. These areas
could be broadly referenced to answer the question, “Why do I need to know this (abstract algebra)?”
More importantly, however, we see the findings, discussion, and examples as providing a relevant context
to ground more advanced mathematics study for teachers in ways that connect more explicitly to teach-
ing. Firstly, discussing how abstract algebra relates to solving equations or the composition of functions
 42 N. H. WASSERMAN

helps position more advanced study in terms of more familiar algebraic ideas as well as in relation to
elementary, middle, and secondary content. Using mathematical contexts more readily found in school
mathematics can be beneficial for conceptualizing more abstract notions as well as for reflecting on the
more elementary content areas and their progressions. Secondly, drawing not just on mathematical con-
nections between more advanced and more elementary content but on specific connections to instruc-
tion can be another important component of such courses. It helps address not just the utility of knowing
abstract algebra, but why one, as a teacher, might need to know it—a critical part of overcoming Klein’s
(1932) second discontinuity. In this regard, exemplifying ways that such advanced knowledge can be
leveraged in and influential for teaching, such as incorporating some of the examples discussed in this
article or others, becomes a useful way of more directly connecting content to teaching practices. Such
recommendations do not outweigh the inclusion of abstract examples and mathematical ideas and proofs
more typical for courses in abstract algebra but rather serve to complement them. For teacher educators
involved in content preparation for school mathematics teachers, these four content areas provide specific
aspects of school mathematics to discuss—not just for their mathematical connections but also for their
potentially transformative quality on school mathematics instruction. We note that the ideas presented,
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

though they could be incorporated into an abstract algebra course, do not necessitate an entire course in
abstract algebra. They could also be suitable for other teacher-specific courses that include some compo-
nent of mathematics content. Transforming teachers’ knowledge regarding these content areas through
understanding more abstract ideas about algebraic structures likely is accomplished through fostering
reflection on their connections to and their importance for more elementary content in school mathe-
matics.
Still, further works needs to be done to understand what may be the most productive uses for and
ways of fostering such knowledge with teachers. We briefly note some limitations of this work. The first
is use of CCSS-M (2010) as representative of elementary, middle, and high school mathematics content.
Although the majority of states in the United States have broadly adopted these standards, they are not
completely representative of all school mathematics, and the particular phrasing potentially made some
connections more explicit and others less so. In addition, CCSS-M (2010) standards were developed
intentionally to focus on and describe major concepts but do not include detailed descriptions of every
mathematical idea likely to be discussed in school—the focus on standards from the United States is also a
limitation of this work. Thus, there may be some other mathematical areas that are not represented in this
article. Additionally, although the connections to teaching permeate this work, much more needs to be
done to investigate the significance and representativeness of these ideas that include further empirical
evidence from teachers and classrooms. Yet, the examples and discussions in this work do provide a
meaningful starting point from which to further refine, expand, develop, and study such connections
to teaching. Lastly, though the findings of this study indicate that instruction across these four content
areas is potentially informed by teachers’ study and knowledge of ideas in abstract algebra, we recognize
that precisely what teachers should know of these advanced ideas and how they should know them to
subsequently impact their instruction is left unexamined. For example: Is it enough for teachers to simply
be aware of some of these ideas and their applications? Or do they need more fluid knowledge than
awareness, including an ability to generate examples and counterexamples of concepts? What are the
best ways for teachers to acquire such knowledge in ways that have a positive impact on their teaching
practice as opposed to becoming a hindrance or blind spot? Such questions about levels of rigor, about
precise advanced content, or development of that content for teachers are topics for further investigation.
Conclusion
Particularly in regard to advanced mathematics, this work explored ways in which study or knowledge
of abstract algebra can impact the teaching of algebra (and early algebra), providing a progression of
four content areas potentially transformed by this perspective. Despite limitations, we see this work as
contributory in a number of ways. First, we see this analysis as providing a broader sense about how
ideas in abstract algebra may transform teachers’ own understandings and instruction in specific con-
tent areas of school mathematics, simultaneously encompassing previous examples but also furthering
the mathematical connections by considering influences on teaching practice. In addition, discussing
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 43

these four content areas as they develop across elementary, middle, and secondary standards provides
some additional clarity about the progression of these ideas in school mathematics. Second, we see the
inclusion of specific teaching examples as adding more detail and explanation to ways that such knowl-
edge can impact school mathematics instruction, providing a perspective on abstract algebra that is more
closely tied to K–12 teaching. These provide depictions for ways that such knowledge might be used or
applied by teachers in their practice. Third, we see the findings as relevant for developing and identify-
ing connections for content courses for teachers, whether they include more advanced abstract algebra
courses or others that discuss the teaching of arithmetic properties, inverses, structure of sets, or solving
equations. Although the described analysis cannot provide a comprehensive perspective on how study or
knowledge of abstract algebra might impact instruction in school mathematics, the results are pertinent
for further developing and articulating connections as they specifically relate to teaching. These results
help push our understanding of content knowledge for teachers forward, informing the mathematical
preparation of teachers so that their development of content knowledge increasingly draws on and from
connections to school mathematics in ways that also prepare them for their future work in teaching.
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

Notes
1. Proof. (p + −p) = 0 (additive identity); 1/q(p + −p) = 0 (zero-product); p/q + (−p)/q = 0 (distributive property).
Therefore, (−p)/q is the additive inverse of (p/q), indicating that (−p)/q = −(p/q).
2. For example, in a polynomial expression (with positive integer coefficients less than 10), substituting 10 for x results in
the base 10 expanded form of a number—that is, x4 + 2x2 + 8x + 3 becomes 104 + 2 · 102 + 8 · 10 + 3 = 10, 283.

Acknowledgment
The research presented in this article was consistent with the principles of the research ethics published by the American
Psychological Association, except as may be detailed in the article.

References
Asiala, M., Brown, A., DeVries, D., Dubinsky, E., Mathews, D., & Thomas, K. (1996). A framework for research and curricu-
lum development in undergraduate mathematics education. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, 6, 1–32.
Ball, D. L. (2009, April 23). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Knowing mathematics for teaching to learners’ mathe-
matical futures. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Annual Meeting, Wash-
ington, DC. Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/∼dball/presentations/index.html
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher
Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra and algebra reasoning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook
of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 669–705). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSS-M). (2010). Common Core State Standards in Mathematics.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2001). The mathematical education of teachers (MET I). Retrieved from
http://cbmsweb.org/MET_Document/
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2012). The mathematical education of teachers II (MET II). Retrieved
from http://www.cbmsweb.org/MET2/MET2Draft.pdf
Cuoco, A., & Rotman, J. (2013). Learning modern algebra: From modern attempts to prove Fermat’s last theorem. Washington,
DC: Mathematical Association of America.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational
Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392
Harry, B., Sturges, K., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded
theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3–13.
Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing teachers’ mathematical knowledge: What knowledge
matters and what evidence counts. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 111–155). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Jakobsen, A., Thames, M. H., & Ribeiro, C. M. (2013, February 5–10). Delineating issues related to hori-
zon content knowledge for mathematics teaching. Paper presented at the Eighth Congress of Euro-
pean Research in Mathematics Education (CERME-8), Manavgat-Side, Antalya-Turkey. Retrieved from
http://cerme8.metu.edu.tr/wgpapers/WG17/WG17_Jakobsen_Thames_Ribeiro.pdf
 44 N. H. WASSERMAN

Kaput, J. J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.),
Algebra in the early grades (pp. 5–17). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klein, F. (1932). Elementary mathematics from an advanced standpoint: Arithmetic, algebra, analysis (E. R. Hedrick & C. A.
Noble, Trans.). Mineola, NY: Macmillan.
McRory, R., Floden, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Reckase, M. D., & Senk, S. L. (2012). Knowledge of algebra for teaching: A
framework of knowledge and practices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(5), 584–615.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement.
Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.
Morris, A. (1999). Developing concepts of mathematical structure: Pre-arithmetic reasoning versus extended arithmetic
reasoning. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 21(1), 44–67.
Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal,
40(4), 905–928.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International University Press.
Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge
quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(3), 255–281.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching.
Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 499–511.
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

Simon, M. (2006). Key developmental understandings in mathematics: A direction for investigating and establishing learn-
ing goals. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(4), 359–371.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Wasserman, N. (2014). Introducing algebraic structures through solving equations: Vertical content knowledge for K-12
mathematics teachers. PRIMUS, 24(3), 191–214.
Wasserman, N., & Stockton, J. (2013). Horizon content knowledge in the work of teaching: A focus on planning. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 33(3), 20–22.
Zazkis, R., & Leikin, R. (2010). Advanced mathematical knowledge in teaching practice: Perceptions of secondary mathe-
matics teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(4), 263–281.
Zazkis, R., & Mamolo, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing knowledge at the mathematical horizon. For the Learning of Mathe-
matics, 31(2), 8–13.

Appendix: Common core state standards in mathematics

This Appendix lists a subset of CCSS-M (2010) standards from the analysis, organized according to the
four mathematics content areas and the grade level.

Arithmetic properties
r Elementary
• Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract. Examples: If 8 + 3 = 11 is known,
then 3 + 8 = 11 is also known. (Commutative property of addition.) To add 2 + 6 + 4, the second
two numbers can be added to make a ten, so 2 + 6 + 4 = 2 + 10 = 12. (Associative property of
addition.) (1.OA.B.3)
• Fluently add and subtract within 100 using strategies based on place value, properties of opera-
tions, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction. (2.NBT.B.5)
• Apply properties of operations as strategies to multiply and divide. Examples: If 6 × 4 = 24 is
known, then 4 × 6 = 24 is also known. (Commutative property of multiplication.) 3 × 5 × 2 can be
found by 3 × 5 = 15, then 15 × 2 = 30, or by 5 × 2 = 10, then 3 × 10 = 30. (Associative property
of multiplication.) Knowing that 8 × 5 = 40 and 8 × 2 = 16, one can find 8 × 7 as 8 × (5 + 2) =
(8 × 5) + (8 × 2) = 40 + 16 = 56. (Distributive property.) (3.OA.B.5)
• Multiply a whole number of up to four digits by a one-digit whole number, and multiply two
two-digit numbers, using strategies based on place value and the properties of operations. Illus-
trate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.
(4.NBT.B.5)
r Middle
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 45

• Recognize opposite signs of numbers as indicating locations on opposite sides of 0 on the number
line; recognize that the opposite of the opposite of a number is the number itself; for example,
−(−3) = 3, and that 0 is its own opposite. (6.NS.C.6a)
• Understand subtraction of rational numbers as adding the additive inverse, p − q = p + (−q).
Show that the distance between two rational numbers on the number line is the absolute value
of their difference, and apply this principle in real-world contexts. (7.NS.A.1c)
• Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract rational numbers. (7.NS.A.1d)
• Understand that multiplication is extended from fractions to rational numbers by requiring that
operations continue to satisfy the properties of operations, particularly the distributive property,
leading to products such as (−1)(−1) = 1 and the rules for multiplying signed numbers. Interpret
products of rational numbers by describing real-world contexts. (7.NS.A.2a)
r Secondary
• Use the relation i2 = −1 and the commutative, associative, and distributive properties to add,
subtract, and multiply complex numbers. (HSN-CN.2)
• Understand vector subtraction v − w as v + (−w), where −w is the additive inverse of w, with the
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

same magnitude as w and pointing in the opposite direction. Represent vector subtraction graph-
ically by connecting the tips in the appropriate order, and perform vector subtraction component-
wise. (HSN.VM.B.4c)
• Understand that, unlike multiplication of numbers, matrix multiplication for square matrices
is not a commutative operation, but still satisfies the associative and distributive properties.
(HSN.VM.C.9)
• Understand that the zero and identity matrices play a role in matrix addition and multiplication
similar to the role of 0 and 1 in the real numbers. The determinant of a square matrix is nonzero
if and only if the matrix has a multiplicative inverse. (HSN.VM.C.10)
• Compose functions. For example, if T(y) is the temperature in the atmosphere as a function of
height, and h(t) is the height of a weather balloon as a function of time, then T(h(t)) is the temper-
ature at the location of the weather balloon as a function of time. (HSF.BF.A.1c)
• Explain why the sum or product of two rational numbers is rational; that the sum of a rational
number and an irrational number is irrational; and that the product of a nonzero rational number
and an irrational number is irrational. (HSN.RN.B.3)

Inverses
Elementary
• Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 − 8 by finding
the number that makes 10 when added to 8. Add and subtract within 20. (1.OA.B.4)
• Add and subtract within 1000, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place
value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate
the strategy to a written method. Understand that in adding or subtracting three-digit numbers,
one adds or subtracts hundreds and hundreds, tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is
necessary to compose or decompose tens or hundreds. (2.NBT.B.7)
• Determine the unknown whole number in a multiplication or division equation relating three
whole numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each
of the equations 8 × ? = 48, 5 = _ ÷ 3, 6 × 6 = ? (3.OA.A.4)
• Interpret division of a unit fraction by a non-zero whole number, and compute such quotients. For
example, create a story context for (1/3) ÷ 4, and use a visual fraction model to show the quotient. Use
the relationship between multiplication and division to explain that (1/3) ÷ 4 = 1/12 because (1/12)
× 4 = 1/3. (5.NF.B.7a)
• Middle
• Solve real-world and mathematical problems by writing and solving equations of the form x + p =
q and px = q for cases in which p, q and x are all nonnegative rational numbers. (6.EE.B.7)
 46 N. H. WASSERMAN

• Understand subtraction of rational numbers as adding the additive inverse, p − q = p + (−q). Show
that the distance between two rational numbers on the number line is the absolute value of their
difference, and apply this principle in real-world contexts. (7.NS.A.1c)
• Understand that integers can be divided, provided that the divisor is not zero, and every quotient of
integers (with non-zero divisor) is a rational number. If p and q are integers, then −(p/q) = (−p)/q
= p/(−q). Interpret quotients of rational numbers by describing real-world contexts. (7.NS.A.2b)
• Use square root and cube root symbols to represent solutions to equations of the form x2 = p and
x3 = p, where p is a positive rational number. Evaluate square roots of small perfect squares and
cube roots of small perfect cubes. Know that 2 is irrational. (8.EE.A.2)
• Secondary
• Understand vector subtraction v − w as v + (−w), where −w is the additive inverse of w, with the
same magnitude as w and pointing in the opposite direction. Represent vector subtraction graphi-
cally by connecting the tips in the appropriate order, and perform vector subtraction component-
wise. (HSN.VM.B.4c)
• Find inverse functions. (HSF.BF.B.4)
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

a. Solve an equation of the form f(x) = c for a simple function f that has an inverse and write an
expression for the inverse. For example, f(x) = 2x3 or f(x) = (x + 1)/(x − 1) for x  1.
b. Verify by composition that one function is the inverse of another.
• Understand the inverse relationship between exponents and logarithms and use this relationship
to solve problems involving logarithms and exponents. (HSF.BF.B.5)
• Understand that restricting a trigonometric function to a domain on which it is always increasing
or always decreasing allows its inverse to be constructed. (HSF.TF.B.6)

Structure of sets
• Elementary
• Recognize and generate simple equivalent fractions; for example, 1/2 = 2/4, 4/6 = 2/3. Explain
why the fractions are equivalent; for example, by using a visual fraction model. (3.NF.A.3b)
• Explaining why multiplying a given number by a fraction greater than 1 results in a product
greater than the given number (recognizing multiplication by whole numbers greater than 1 as
a familiar case); explaining why multiplying a given number by a fraction less than 1 results in a
product smaller than the given number; and relating the principle of fraction equivalence a/b =
(n × a)/(n × b) to the effect of multiplying a/b by 1. (5.NF.B.5b)
• Middle
• Know that numbers that are not rational are called irrational. Understand informally that every
number has a decimal expansion; for rational numbers show that the decimal expansion repeats
eventually, and convert a decimal expansion which repeats eventually into a rational number.
(8.NS.1)
• Apply the properties of operations to generate equivalent expressions. For example, apply the
distributive property to the expression 3(2 + x) to produce the equivalent expression 6 + 3x; apply
the distributive property to the expression 24x + 18y to produce the equivalent expression 6(4x +
3y); apply properties of operations to y + y + y to produce the equivalent expression 3y. (6.EE.A.3)
• Secondary
• Find the conjugate of a complex number; use conjugates to find moduli and quotients of complex
numbers. (HSN.CN.A.3)
• Understand that polynomials form a system analogous to the integers, namely, they are closed
under the operations of addition, subtraction, and multiplication; add, subtract, and multiply
polynomials. (HSA.APR.A.1)
• Understand that rational expressions form a system analogous to the rational numbers, closed
under addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division by a nonzero rational expression; add,
subtract, multiply, and divide rational expressions. (HSA.APR.D.7)
 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION 47

• Write a function defined by an expression in different but equivalent forms to reveal and explain
different properties of the function. (HSF.IF.C.8)

Solving equations
• Elementary
• Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use
strategies such as counting on; making 10 (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a
number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 − 4 = 13 − 3 − 1 = 10 − 1 = 9); using the relationship between
addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 − 8 = 4); and creating
equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 +
1 = 12 + 1 = 13). (1.OA.C.6)
• Determine the unknown whole number in an addition or subtraction equation relating three whole
numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each of the
equations 8 + ? = 11, 5 = _ − 3, 6 + 6 = _. (1.OA.D.8)
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 04:10 11 April 2016

• Determine the unknown whole number in a multiplication or division equation relating three
whole numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each
of the equations 8 × ? = 48, 5 = _ ÷ 3, 6 × 6 = ?. (3.OA.A.4)
• Middle
• Solve real-world and mathematical problems by writing and solving equations of the form x + p =
q and px = q for cases in which p, q, and x are all nonnegative rational numbers. (6.EE.B.7)
• Solve word problems leading to equations of the form px + q = r and p(x + q) = r, where p, q,
and r are specific rational numbers. Solve equations of these forms fluently. Compare an algebraic
solution to an arithmetic solution, identifying the sequence of the operations used in each approach.
For example, the perimeter of a rectangle is 54 cm. Its length is 6 cm. What is its width? (7.EE.B.4a)
• Use square root and cube root symbols to represent solutions to equations of the form x2 = p and
x3 = p, where p is a positive rational number. Evaluate square roots of small perfect squares and
cube roots of small perfect cubes. Know that 2 is irrational. (8.EE.A.2)
• Solve linear equations in one variable. (8.EE.C.7)
a. Give examples of linear equations in one variable with one solution, infinitely many solutions,
or no solutions. Show which of these possibilities is the case by successively transforming the
given equation into simpler forms, until an equivalent equation of the form x = a, a = a, or a
= b results (where a and b are different numbers).
b. Solve linear equations with rational number coefficients, including equations whose solutions
require expanding expressions using the distributive property and collecting like terms.
• Secondary
• Solve simple rational and radical equations in one variable, and give examples showing how extra-
neous solutions may arise. (HSA.REI.A.2)
• Solve quadratic equations in one variable. (HSA.REI.B.4)
• Find the inverse of a matrix if it exists and use it to solve systems of linear equations (using tech-
nology for matrices of dimension 3 × 3 or greater). (HSA.REI.C.9)
• Understand the inverse relationship between exponents and logarithms and use this relationship
to solve problems involving logarithms and exponents. (HSF.BF.B.5)
• Use inverse functions to solve trigonometric equations that arise in modeling contexts; evaluate the
solutions using technology, and interpret them in terms of the context. (HSF.TF.B.7)