Math Ed Res J

DOI 10.1007/s13394-014-0117-8
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E

Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory

for rational number

Vince Wright

Received: 1 August 2012 / Revised: 26 September 2013 / Accepted: 9 December 2013

# Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2014

Abstract A hypothetical learning trajectory Simon (Journal for Research in

Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145, 1995) based on Kieren’s (1980, 1988,
1993, 1995) sub-constructs for rational number was developed and used as a frame-
work in a year-long design experiment in a New Zealand Middle School. Instructional
sequences were designed using the trajectory. Case studies of six 12–13-year-old
students provided evidence of their progression through phases of the hypothetical
learning trajectory. The patterns of progress for individual students were displayed
using visual maps which revealed considerable variability across the sub-constructs and
predicted growth within sub-constructs. The findings supported the usefulness of the
hypothetical learning trajectory as an instructional tool supported by other forms of
pedagogical-content-knowledge. Developmental connections between the sub-
constructs were also suggested.

Keywords Hypothetical learning trajectory . Rational number . Pedagogical-content

knowledge

Introduction

In this article, I propose a Hypothetical Learning Trajectory (HLT) that is based on

Kieren’s (1980, 1988, 1993, 1995) sub-constructs for rational number. Firstly, I discuss
Simon’s (1995) original meaning of a HLT and subsequent work of other researchers.
Secondly, I lay out theoretical and research based evidence in support of the proposed
HLT for rational number. Thirdly, I report on the results of a design experiment in
which the HLT was used as a tool for guiding instruction. The progress of six students
during the course of one academic year is mapped against the schemes of the HLT to
investigate the research question:

V. Wright (*)
Mathematics Education/School of Education/Faculty of Education, Australian Catholic University,
Locked Bag 4115, St Patrick’s Campus, Level 4, 115 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy MDC VIC 3065, Australia
e-mail: vince.wright@acu.edu.au
URL: www.acu.edu.au
 V. Wright

To what extent is a learners’ progression through phases of the HLT consistent

and predictable across learners and to what extent is it variable?

In conclusion, I discuss the implications of the research for learners’ progression

in rational number and the HLT construct.

Hypothetical learning trajectories

The construct of a hypothetical learning trajectory (HLT) was first proposed by Simon
(1995). He saw the teacher as a field researcher who modifies activities upon reflection
on their students’ learning. HLTs have three features: learning goals, predicted concep-
tual growth paths in a specific domain, and aligned activities. These features have been
key elements of Japanese lesson study and realistic mathematics education in the
Netherlands since the 1970’s (Gravemeijer 2001; Isoda et al. 2007; Van den Heuvel-
Panhuizen 2001). While the concept of an HLT is not new, (Baroody et al. 2004)
Simon’s work provided a common language that initiated productive research and
debate about support structures for teaching and learning.
Researchers develop HTLs using different methods, including design research
situated in a small number of classrooms (Bowers et al. 1999; Cobb 2009), in-depth
case studies of individual learners (Olive 1999; Steffe 2003, 2004), and large-scale
studies across many students, schools and classes (Clements et al. 2004; Confrey and
Maloney 2010). The deterministic view of conceptual growth suggested in some
studies has been criticised as unrealistic given the considerable variation in
concept development exhibited between students and in the responses of indi-
vidual students to different situations (Lesh and Yoon 2004; Watson and Mason
2006). Yet, there is evidence associating teachers’ knowledge of progression
frameworks for number with strong gains in student achievement within profes-
sional development programmes (Bobis et al. 2005). The place of HLTs as a
subset of the knowledge needed for teaching is rarely made explicit (Ball et al.
2008; Ball and Bass 2000; Chick et al. 2006; Chick 2007). There is irony in this
non-connection, given that the value of a HLT is largely in its utility for
curriculum design and teaching (Baroody, et al. 2004).

Issues of structure and implementation

Three related issues about the structure of HLTs are significant models for conceptual
development, the validity of frameworks for progression, and the predictability of
students’ learning. Two metaphors dominate the literature on conceptual development,
hierarchies and networks (Hiebert and Carpenter 1992). HLTs can present as an ordinal
model, for example, Steffe and Cobb’s (1988) trajectory for counting types, as a
network, or as combination of order and connection, for example, Confrey’s (2008)
synthesis of rational number progression. The challenge is creating a model of pro-
gression that balances the simplicity of linearity with the complexity of key knowledge
that is connected, blended and compressed in the development of concepts. As Baroody
et al. (2004) suggested models that are simplistic can still be informative to teachers.
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

HTLs usually define progression with schemes that are action structures (Olive and
Steffe 2002). Piaget (1985) used schemes extensively in his research to describe the
stimulus-motor responses of children in situations. The scheme construct was
reconceptualised extensively by Von Glasersfeld (1989, 1995) as a triadic cognitive
structure connecting situation recognition, goal directed activity and anticipated result.
Scheme theory underpins a volume of significant research into children’s number
development (for example. Steffe 1983; Steffe and Cobb 1998). The modern interpre-
tation was captured by Vergnaud (2009, p.88) who described schemes as “the invariant
organisation of activity for a certain class of situations.” His definition implies the
construction of an abstraction that facilitates transfer across situations and that the
learner knows-to apply their conceptual knowledge to relevant situations, however
unfamiliar (Mason and Spence 1999). Use of schemes is advantageous in that it
provides a set of behaviours in conjunction with classes of problems, thereby
representing increased sophistication in an observable way. Much is assumed in service
in schemes, including goals, beliefs, possession and co-ordination of knowledge
(DiSessa 2008), key conceptions (and misconceptions), control in the face of distractors
and reliable application to different contexts. Yet, consistent transfer of concepts by
learners between situations is illusive and unpredictable (Greeno 2006; Lobato 1997,
2006; Royer et al. 2005; Siegler 2007). As Carraher et al. (2006) stated, “it would be
naive to assume that the challenges are conquered once and for all. We never cease to
stumble when confronted with variations of mathematical problems that we have
already encountered” (p. 111).
This evidence points to cognitive and situational variation confounding attempts to
define progression in fine-grained steps that every student moves through in precise
sequence or generalisation of progression in particular situations to all other structurally
similar situations. HLTs are situated in that they reflect the creator’s perspectives on
conceptual development, how best to describe progression and their degree of ac-
knowledgement of situational variation. Compromises are made by researchers in the
interest of science in an effort to balance complexity and utility. I will now describe the
rationale for my creation of a HLT for rational number before moving on to the results
of a design experiment that tested its efficacy. In doing so, I acknowledge my
perceptions that influenced the initial design of the HLT and the subsequent research.

Design considerations

In creating a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number, I adopt a hierarchical

metaphor while well aware of the rich connections between sub-constructs. The HLT is
organised in broad phases of progression. Schemes are used as the descriptors of
progression. A functional growth path defined by fine-grained knowledge elements
seems prohibitive given the complexity and connectedness of these elements in rational
number. I assume that conceptions and misconceptions, and that task variables, prob-
lem types and situations are implied in Vergnaud’s (2009) definition of “class of
situations”. I also accept the consistency of progression in learners’ schemes in the
long-run, based on previous research (Young-Loveridge and Wright 2002a, b), while
accepting short-term variation.
Two structural features of the HLT are supported by the literature: the connection
between multiplicative thinking with whole numbers, and the usefulness of Kieren’s
 V. Wright

(1980, 1988, 1993, 1995) sub-constructs as a way to organise the conceptual field.
First, the development of multiplicative thinking with whole numbers plays a critical
role in learners’ understanding of rational number (Dole et al. 2012; Jacob and Willis
2003; Kilpatrick et al. 2001; Siemon et al. 2006; Thompson and Saldanha 2003). This
is particularly true of the ability to recognise division and multiplication relationships
between sets of number pairs, such as y ¼ 13 x in the relation {(9,3),(24,8),(15,5),…}.
To assume a strictly prerequisite relationship between the development of multiplica-
tive thinking with whole numbers and facility with rational number is erroneous since
the developments occur concurrently and are significantly influenced by opportunities
to learn and access to productive discourse (Anthony and Walshaw 2007; Lamon
2007).
Second, Kieren’s sub-constructs survive the test of scholarly scrutiny and recent
adaptations involve applications to varying situations rather than the proposition of new
constructs (Adjiage and Pluvinage 2007; Alatorre 2002; Alatorre and Figueras 2004,
2005). Initially, Kieren conceived of five sub-constructs: part-whole, measures, quo-
tients, operators and rates/ratios for rational number, though he later integrated part-
whole with the other four (Kieren 1995). The constructs might be thought of as
characteristics of rational numbers activated by learners in applying their schemes.
Rich relationships exist between the sub-constructs when they are applied in situations.
For example, a well-developed concept of ratios involves regarding the part-whole
relations as measures. Kieren believed that the sub-constructs were built on three
intuitive constructs of equal partitioning, equivalencing and unit-forming. Partitioning
refers to splitting an object or setting it into smaller parts, either equal or non-equal.
Equivalencing is making two objects or sets equal in respect of a chosen quantifiable
attribute, like number or mass. Unit forming is creating objects or sets, and regarding
them as units that can be reasoned with. Increased sophistication in these contributory
constructs is prevalent in the literature about progression in rational number (Confrey
and Maloney 2010; Confrey and Smith 1994; Lamon 2002; Olive 1999; Resnick and
Singer 1993; Steffe 2003, 2004). The proposed HTL for rational number uses Kieren’s
four sub-constructs and assumes the significance of increasingly sophisticated schemes
for reasoning with units, equal partitioning and equivalencing.

Hypothetical learning trajectory

Progression in reasoning with rates and ratios

A range of studies suggests at least four broad phases of progression in the develop-
ment of schemes for solving problems with rates and ratios (Alatorre and Figueras
2005; Ben-Chaim et al. 1998; Hart 1988; Hart et al. 1981; Kaput and West 1994; Lo
and Watanabe 1997; Noelting 1980; Steinthorsdottir 2005; Tourniaire and Pulos 1985).
These phases are the following:

1. Inappropriate centrations characterised by no application of the ratio or rate, or

inappropriate focus on one measure, the total parts (for ratios) or the difference
between measures. For example, the colour ratio 2:3 (blue:yellow) is judged
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

incorrectly to be a lighter than 3:5 because it has less measures of blue.

Comparison of rates or ratios is possible where one measure is equalised, for
example, 2:3 compared to 2:4.
2. Additive build-up characterised by treating the ratio or rate as a composite unit and
replicating it by repeated addition. For example, 2:3 is replicated to create 4:6 and
6:9 which is compared to 6:10 created by replication of 3:5 twice. Comparison is
possible where one measure is the same or the total parts (for ratios) are equal.
3. Multiplicative build-up characterised by use of multiplication or division to abbre-
viate the build-up or equi-partitioning of a composite ratio or rate to find the target
ratio/rate. For example, 2:3 is equivalent to 16:24 (multiplying by 8) and compared
with 15:25, created by multiplying each measure of 3:5 by 5 (both have a whole of
40 parts).
4. Proportionality characterised by treatment of ratios/rates as iterable and equi-
partitionable units, and the flexible use of integral and non-integral operators
within measures and between measures. For example, 2:3 is treated as 25 blue
which is greater than 38 blue (from 3:5).

Variation and consistency in progression for other sub-constructs

Any claim of uniform progression is tempered by research on situational variation

(Adjiage and Pluvinage 2007; Alatorre and Figueras 2005; Panoutsos et al. 2009. The
tension between consistency and variation was captured by Case (1992), Kaput and
West (1994), and Behr et al. (1984) who described the development of proportional
reasoning as initially localised in context but eventually generic in nature.
The four broad phases of progression for rates and ratios, as described above, have
synergy with learners’ schemes documented in the literature about Kieren’s other three sub-
constructs. Learners also apply inappropriate centrations on numerators and denominators,
and additive relations between numerators and denominators in fraction ordering tasks
(Clarke and Roche 2009; Gould 2006; Hart et al. 1981; Pearn and Stephens 2004;
Streefland 1993). One view is that whole number thinking with fractions is evidence of
misconception, another is that it is a sign of learners reorganising their whole number
schemes (Olive 1999; Post et al. 1986; Streefland 1993; Steffe 2003). I hypothesise that
progression in learning about fractions as measures or quantities mirrors the phases evident
for rates and ratios.
Similar shifts from additive to multiplicative thinking are also documented in the literature
on learners’ strategies for quotients (sharing) (Confrey and Maloney 2010) and operators
(Post et al. 1993). A phase of recognising co-variation but not being able to consistently
relate both dimensions is common to learners’ strategies with fractions (Mitchell and Horne
2011) and with inverse rates in balance situations (Jansen and van der Mass 2002).

Proposed trajectory

A HLT for progression across all four sub-constructs is presented in Table 1. It consists
of a two-way table with broad phases of conceptual progression and Kieren’s constructs
as the dimensions.
Table 1 Hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

Sub- Unit forming Unit co-ordination Equivalence Comparison

construct

Measure Halving-based splitting Repeated equi-partitioning preserving equiva- Equivalent fractions determined by spatial Ordering of fractions using equivalence,
recognising more equal lence. Non-unit fractions composed of itera- and multiplicative relationships and benchmarks and qualitative relationships
parts results in smaller tions of unit fractions. Relating improper recognised as same equivalent quantities. between numerators and denominators.
parts. fractions to whole numbers. Combining, separating, and finding Combining, separating, and finding
Direct physical comparison differences with fractions (related differences with fractions.
of equivalence. denominators). Measuring fractions with fractions.
Measuring one with non-unit fractions.
Operator Unit fractions of quantities Non-unit fractions of quantities as iterations of Non-unit fractions of quantities by Properties of operations with whole
by equal sharing, unit-fractions using additive and multiplicative multiplication and division, including numbers applied to fractions.
anticipated by additive relationships. fraction to whole. Finding unknown fraction operator.
build-up. Recognition of both operator and amount
affecting product.
Quotient Practical equal sharing by Practical equal sharing (open shares) anticipated Shares anticipated and named as fractions, Comparison of shares using equivalence,
halving with naming of by iteration of parts. a  b ¼ ab . benchmarks or qualitative relationships.
shares as combinations of Shares named as fraction of a referent whole. Equal and unequal shares anticipated where Remainders from division expressed as
unit fractions. dividend or divisors are equal. fractions in context.
Rate and Practical replication of rates Equivalent rates and ratios anticipated by Equivalent rates and ratios anticipated by Comparison of rates (same and converted
ratio and ratios by doubling replication. scalar multiplication and division, measures) and ratios (part:part,
and additive build-up. Part-whole relationships in ratios expressed as including unit rate strategies and part to part:whole, whole:whole) using within
fractions. part relationships (ratios). and between relationships.
Finding equivalent measures from inverse
rates.
V. Wright
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

The column headings of the trajectory are hypothesised by the researcher to convey
potential synergy of thinking reflected in the schemes listed below them. Unit forming
refers to the creation of unit fractions, equal shares, rates and ratios by practical means.
At unit co-ordination, a learner anticipates the result of creating non-unit and improper
fractions, equal sharing and equivalent ratios, using additive and simple multiplicative
thinking, such as doubling and halving. At equivalence, multiplicative relationships are
applied to recognise equivalence and non-equivalence in fractions, equal shares, rates
and ratios, mainly by iteration, and to treat the units formed as composites of two
measures. At the next phase, comparison, a learner applies equivalence to compare and
operate with fractions, equal shares, rates and ratios, partitioning the relevant units as
well as iterating them.
I acknowledge that the wording of the scheme descriptors in the HLT was altered
post-study from that in the originally proposed trajectory for better clarity. There was no
significant change to the meaning of the phases or schemes in the original trajectory.
The development of schemes across all four sub-constructs is unlikely to be
consistently synchronous. Fractions, ratios and rates are different types of quantities
(Schwartz 1988; Post, et al. 1993). The HLT refers only to fractions. There are
particular issues associated with the learning of decimal place value (Roche and
Clarke 2006; Steinle and Stacey 2004), percentages (Lachance and Confrey 2002),
and particular representations of proportional relationships such as gradients (Lobato
and Siebert 2002). Despite these limitations, this simple HLT is still potentially useful
in guiding instruction and curriculum design.

Research method

I next discuss the method used to address the research question:

To what extent is a learners’ progression through phases of the HLT consistent and
predictable across learners and to what extent is it variable?

Context

A classroom based design experiment in 2007 provided the data for the discussion
which follows. The study took place in a class of eight students (aged 11–13 years) over
an academic year. The school was located in a large rural town in New Zealand and was
selected because I had established a working relationship with teachers at the school in
my role as a consultant. Students generally came from families of moderate to high
economic status and from a mixture of urban and rural communities.
In keeping with some recent models for design experiments (Ball 2000), I co-taught
the class alongside their usual teacher for a total of 15 weeks during the course of the
year. At the time, I was an experienced mathematics educator. The class was selected
because I had a strong previous working relationship with the teacher and there was
daily use of digital technology. I planned most instruction by reviewing work samples
and discussions one lesson at a time in keeping with the iterative nature of design
experiments. For most lessons, I taught an introductory session to the whole class
followed by a rotation in which the students either solved problems in achievement-
based groups with either the teacher or me, or worked on tasks independently, in pairs
 V. Wright

or threes. Lessons usually concluded with an opportunity for students to share and
justify their computational strategies with the whole class. Instruction involved consid-
erable teacher to student and student to student discussion, extensive connected use of
multiple representations (materials, diagrams, and symbols), use of computer technol-
ogy, and a co-operative, investigative approach with considerable discussion. Planning
and instruction were strongly influenced by students’ use of schemes in the HLT. So,
the data on individual learners’ conceptual development reported here is heavily
influenced by the research-based instructional design.
Six students were identified for a case-study group (see Table 2). The group was
representative of the diversity of gender, ethnicity, age and initial achievement levels of
students in the class. Initial achievement level was determined by use of standardised
assessment tools, Progressive Achievement Test (PAT) and Assessment tools for
teaching and learning (asTTle) (Darr et al. 2006; Hattie et al. 2004; Ministry of
Education 2003).

Data sources

Multiple data sources were synthesised to evaluate students’ possession of schemes

from the HLT at the beginning of the year and at the end of terms one, three and four
(terms are divisions of the school year of about 10 weeks duration). Due to ill health, I
was unable to carry out interviews and evaluate student progress at the end of term two.
The data sources were interviews, pencil and paper assessments, written work samples,
item responses to standardised tests, conversations recorded in the teaching diary, and
student and student recording in group modelling books.
All students in the class were interviewed at the beginning of term one using the
Global Strategy Stage (GloSS) Interview (Ministry of Education 2003) to provide data
about their mental calculation strategies. Four interviews using a teaching protocol
(Hershkowitz et al. 2001) were conducted with students in the case-study group during
the year. Two different interview types were used, “think aloud” in which a student
talked to the interviewer as they solved the problem for the first time and “rehearsed
discussion” in which a student at first, attempted the problems independently and then
later, explained their strategies to the interviewer. All interviews were video-taped and
transcribed.

Table 2 Case-study students

Studenta Gender Age (beginning of year, February) Ethnicity Initial achievement

Ben Male 11 years 1 month European NZ Above class average

Rachel Female 12 years 0 months European NZ Above class average
Odette Female 12 years 9 months Maori/European Average for class
Jason Male 12 years 8 months European NZ Average for class
Linda Female 13 years 2 months European NZ Below class average
Simon Male 12 years 9 months Maori/European Above class average

a
Pseudonyms
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

Two norm-referenced standardised tests, PAT and asTTle (Darr et al. 2006; Hattie
et al. 2004) were attempted by all students at the beginning and end of the year. The
item responses for each case-study student were analysed to identify patterns in the
understanding of the sub-constructs. All work samples that students produced from
instructional group and independent settings were examined to inform the next day of
teaching. Work samples from the students in the case-study group were copied and
dated. Notes about case-study students’ scheme development were also written and
added to their individual files on a weekly basis. Daily, I added notes to a teaching
diary. These notes contained reflections on students’ understanding of concepts, eval-
uations of instructional approaches and activities, and records of conversations with
students. Passages pertaining to individual students were extracted and added to their
files.
All these data were collected in an individual paper and electronic file for each case-
study student. Table 3 shows the sources of data and the times at which the data were
collected.

Cycles of data generation

The complexity and volume of the data necessitated several cycles of data generation.
Data in the individual file of each case-study student were sorted by the sub-constructs,
part-whole and measures, quotients, operators and rates/ratios. Additional categories
were created for probability, decimals, percentages and graphs. Naturally, there was
intersection so some data appeared in more than one category. The next cycle required
tracking the progression in schemes within the HLT over time. I created a two-way
learning trajectory table that correlated phases of the HLT with the sub-constructs and
schemes for whole number multiplication and division (Wright 2011). The cell de-
scriptors in the table were mostly schemes expressed as key understandings such as
“equivalence (of fractions) as multiplicative relation” or “Quotient theorem a  b ¼ ab ”
though some knowledge elements such as “known division facts—common factors”
were also included to provide additional detail. The data were analysed to create a table
for each case-study student at four time points in the year, beginning of term one, end of
term one, end of term three, and end of term four. Three types of shading were used in
the cells, white for no evidence of the scheme or knowledge, grey for evidence of some
use of the scheme and black for comprehensive evidence of a transferable scheme.

Hypothetical learning trajectory maps

In the final stage, data from the learning trajectory tables were synthesised into a
graphical HLT map to represent progressive growth in each student’s schemes at the
four time points described above (see Fig. 1). The concentric hexagons represent
progressive phases of the HLT with progress to a later phase represented by movement
to an outer hexagon. The corners of each hexagon represent a phase in one of the sub-
constructs: measures, quotients, operators, rates and ratios. Three phases of schemes for
multiplication and division schemes for whole numbers were also graphed (top left) to
consider relations between these schemes and the development of rational number
schemes. Schemes for multiplication and division broadly align with phases of skip
counting/repeated addition, knowing and deriving facts using properties of
Table 3 Time sequenced sources of data

Time points Standardised norm-referenced Interviews Work samples Teaching diary Modelling books
tests

Term one PAT, AsTTle (all students) GloSS (all students)

Week two Interview one (case-study students)
Term one Case-study students Researcher observations All student teaching groups
Weeks three to six (all written work) Discussions with class teacher
Term one Interview two (case-study students)
Week seven
Term two Case-study students (all Researcher observations All student teaching groups
Weeks three to four written work) Discussions with class teacher
Term three All students, except Ben,
Week one (written test)
Term three Case-study students (all Researcher observations All student teaching groups
Weeks one to four written work) Discussions with class teacher
Term three Interview three (case-study
Week five students)
Term four Case-study students (all Researcher observations All student teaching groups
Weeks three to six written work) Discussions with class teacher
Term four PAT, AsTTle (all students) Interview four (case-study students)
Week seven to eight
V. Wright
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

Multiplication and Division Measures

Unit Forming Phase

Unit Co-ordination
Phase
Ratios
Quotients
Equivalence Phase Indicates partially
consistent application
Comparison Phase of equivalence in
operator situations

Rates Operators

Fig. 1 Example of learning trajectory map

multiplication and division, and relational multiplicative thinking. These phases are
based on substantial research (Jacob and Willis 2003; Mulligan and Mitchelmore 1997;
Sherwin and Fuson 2005; Young-Loveridge 2006; Young-Loveridge and Wright
2002a, b). No further progressive phase is conjectured, so the third largest hexagon
of the HLT map represents a limit for multiplication and division strategies with whole
numbers.
The rate and ratio sub-constructs were separated to test a conjecture that students
treat these concepts differently despite their structural similarity. White, grey, and black
circles represent students’ breadth and consistency of application for schemes, as taken
from the HLT tables. So progression from grey (partial possession) to black circles
(consistent possession) indicates improvement in breadth and consistency of scheme
application to different situations. Lines connecting the circles give the profile shape,
but do not indicate the state of connection between the sub-constructs.
The map provides a concise view of scheme progression and allows for analysis of
conceptual development of several students over time simultaneously. The representa-
tion provides a window for considering the research question about the consistency of
student progression through the HLT. I acknowledge some limitations of graphing
progress in this way. There is considerable complexity and breadth to the schemes
contained in each cell of the HLT. It was neither possible nor desirable to assess all of
contributory knowledge elements and skills at given points in time. Some assumptions,
based on the data from previous time points, were made about the location of circles
where new data were not available. No movement of circles outwards occurred unless
supported by data. Some conceptual growth occurred but was insufficient to warrant a
change to darker shading or outward progression. This means that some improvement in
breadth and consistency was unrepresented at the time it first occurred. Similarly, a circle
for a given construct was only located at an earlier phase if evidence of reversion existed.

Results

Simultaneous views of the hypothetical learning trajectory maps

Data representation using the HLT maps revealed features of the progression of
students through the phases. Figure 2 provided a simultaneous view of the learning
maps for all six students for four time points during the year. While the progression of
 V. Wright

Simon
Multiplication and Division Measures

Ratios Quotients

Rates Operators

Ben

Rachel

Odette

Jason

Key

No
Linda
data

Partial
application

Consistent
application
Beginning End Term 1 End Term 3 End Term 4
Fig. 2 Simultaneous views of students’ learning maps
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

students was uniformly to more sophisticated schemes over time, there was consider-
able variation between students in their pattern of progression through phases, their
connections between sub-constructs and their responses to different situations and
representations. Students appeared to move through a consistent sequence of progres-
sively more complex schemes within any given sub-construct over time. There was
also similarity of shape of the maps for the high achieving students, Ben, Rachel and
Simon at the end of terms three and four. All three students operated at the comparison
phase for all four rational number sub-constructs, though partially consistent scheme
application (grey dots) was more prevalent than reliable application (black dots). Two
possible explanations for the shape were teaching effect and the ceiling effect of the
HLT in that there was no fifth phase of progression. All three students showed strong
tendencies to connect between sub-constructs in their solutions to problems. A more
likely reason for the regularity was that proportional reasoning involves the integration
of the sub-constructs that allows students to draw on multiple views of rational numbers
in solving problems in context.
The maps for the middle achievers, Odette and Jason, and the lower achiever,
Linda, were different from each other in shape at all four time points. These
students had individualised relative strengths in the sub-constructs initially and
their progressions of development were variable. The three maps displayed irreg-
ularity as some sub-constructs developed without corresponding advance in others.
Odette began the year with relative strength in rates and quotients but made the
greatest gains in measures. Linda had poor understanding with all sub-constructs
initially and made considerable progress with rates and operators over the year.
Jason began with relative strength in the quotient sub-construct but made the
greatest gains in his understanding of measures.
The evolution of the individual maps of the middle and low achieving students
contrasted with the greater consistency in progression of the high achievers, Ben,
Rachel and Simon. This supported the idea that development of the sub-constructs
was variable and unconnected in the early stages then became more generalised and
connected, if only for the higher achieving students. Regularity of the hexagons
indicated that schemes in all sub-constructs were sufficiently developed to enable
connected application in situations, for example, the use of measures to describe the
equal shares in quotient situations such as, “Four pizzas shared between five people.”
Linda, the lowest achiever, had the most irregular map and had the only instance of
regression as previously learned knowledge of a sub-construct was absent later.
Irregularity suggested the possibility that a different synchronicity of schemes was a
better fit to the data. There was no clear pattern in the emerging shapes of the maps for
Odette, Jason and Linda to support this contention. A feature of all six maps was that
consistent application of a scheme to all applicable situations was not a necessary
condition for the student developing more sophisticated schemes in the same sub-
construct later. This showed as instances where outward movement was preceded by
grey dots at less sophisticated schemes. Consistent application of a scheme to all
presented situations (black dots) usually preceded progression to a more sophisticated
scheme shortly after, but, sometimes, students consolidated their schemes for a sub-
construct for extended periods. Advancement in schemes seemed dependent on ade-
quacy of knowledge possession and co-ordination of that knowledge rather than
completeness. Students were able to progress to applying a more advanced scheme
 V. Wright

without showing completely reliable application of the earlier scheme to all situations
they encountered.

Connections between sub-constructs

The understanding and flexible application of the properties of multiplication and

division through mental strategies on whole numbers seemed critical to progress in
schemes for rational number. This was not attributable to teaching effect, as the
relationship was independent of the order of instruction. For Jason, absence of multi-
plication basic fact knowledge restricted his ability to make sense of instruction about
rational numbers as measures and ratios during term one. Similarly, for Linda, her
unreliable calculation and inability to see multiplicative relationships with whole
numbers restricted her understanding and use of fractions as equivalent measures.
All three high achieving students used divisibility, particularly through identifying
common factors, in determining equivalent fractions and ratios. Other examples of
temporal order in scheme development were noted. Knowing non-unit fractions as
iterations of a unit fraction (measure) appeared requisite to applying non-unit fractions
as operators. For example, 3/8 equals 1/8 plus 1/8 plus 1/8, so 3/8 of 24 can be found by
finding 1/8 of 24 then multiplying by 3. Recognising equivalent fractions as the same
measure, e.g. 38 ¼ 1540 , seemed necessary for comparing shares in complex quotient
situations, e.g. 3 shared among 8 gives a lesser share than 2 shared among 5.
Understanding equivalence was also required for ordering ratios by some attribute
using part-whole comparisons. For example, considering mixtures of blue paint to
yellow paint, 3:5 was a lighter green than 2:3 because 3/8 was less than 2/5.
Considerable variation occurred in the ways individual students transferred schemes
from one sub-construct to meet the demands of a task principally involving another
sub-construct. In most cases, this transfer was enabling in that proficiency with one
sub-construct informed growth in another. For example, Simon knew an algorithm for
finding equivalent fractions at the beginning of the year but did not recognise equiv-
alent fractions as expressions of the same quantity in ordering tasks. Yet, he used
equivalence to compare correctly the equal shares for five boys with three pizzas and
three girls with two pizzas (see Fig. 3).
During terms one and two, Simon learned to apply equivalence to comparing
fractions as measures and to comparing frequencies (part-whole relationships in ratios).
For example, in a basketball shooting context he compared 32 successful shots out of
40 with 39 successful shots out of 50. His co-ordination of sub-constructs improved
considerably over time but was susceptible to changes in situations. For example, he
added on the same measure to side lengths when asked to produce a larger copy of a
given right-angled triangle and did not notice equivalent fractions as operators in

Fig. 3 Simon solved a quotient

problem by creating equivalent
fractions (21 February)
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

comparing the distance from home of two families on respective journeys, e.g. 2/3 of
210 km compared to 4/12 of 96 km.
The process of co-ordination across sub-constructs sometimes caused cognitive
conflict that appeared as confusion for the student at the time but led to significant
advances in their understanding of rational number later. At the beginning of the year,
Jason had some understanding of fraction symbols. He knew ab can mean “a out of b”
and “a iterations of 1b ”. These different views were applicable at different times. Jason
struggled to co-ordinate these two processes in determining the size of improper
fractions like 86 . In time, he came to understand ab as a number that embodies both
meanings. He accepted that ab ¼ na nb by a process of equal partitioning and, in turn, used
that to divide ab by other fractions.
Some attempts to connect across sub-constructs appeared to be problematic. Odette
tended to apply an additive model to ratios and did not appreciate that the attribute
associated with a given ratio, such as colour or flavour, was conserved through iteration
of that ratio, e.g. 2:3, 4:6, 6:9,… She established a trusted procedure for converting
fractions to percentages and used percentages to express the part-whole relationships in
ratios. Consequently, incompatible responses to ratio comparisons co-existed (see
Fig. 4). After deciding that all three mixtures of apple and blueberry juice were of
the same flavour, due to the same difference, Odette then correctly calculated percent-
ages, oblivious to the contradiction. In time, she relied on percentages exclusively to
compare ratios. By investing in percentages, as a trusted measure, it is unlikely that she

Fig. 4 Odette compared ratios by difference of measures (26 October)

 V. Wright

ever engaged with and understood conservation of attributes such as flavour, colour or
probability.

Variations in student responses

As anticipated from the literature, variations in student response within and among
situations and representations were commonplace. For example, Jason, Odette, Ben,
Rachel and Simon went through a lengthy phase of indecision where they applied
additive differences to rates in some contexts but not others. They were inclined to
apply multiplicative thinking to ratios where the part-whole relations were explicit
(frequencies) and to rates where the unit rate was calculated by integral division, $6 for
9 avocadoes equals $2 for 3. However, in situations where the part-whole relation
required inference (comparison ratios) or the unit rate was harder to conceptualise, like
scaling or balance tasks, students frequently chose additive models. Noticing similarity
between different situations was sometimes momentous. Simon’s understanding of
rates was enhanced through noticing that adding the same measure to each side did
not preserve the shape of triangles and that speed involved two measures. In the
following situation, he compared the speed of three runners displayed as ordered pairs
on a graph.

I: Have you completely discounted Jee? Why can’t she be the fastest?

S: Because she hasn’t run for as many minutes or for as many laps.

I: But the question is not for long she has run it is how fast she’s run. How do you
decide how fast she has run?

S: Measure how many laps she’s done.

I: How do you measure how fast a car goes?

S: K’s per hour…oh so minutes per lap

Despite the transposition of minutes and laps, Simon’s final comment suggests
recognition of rate as a relationship between measure spaces. Representations also
elicited considerable variation of student response even in different situations that
involved the same sub-construct. Making connections between words, symbols and
physical or diagrammatic models was difficult for all six students at various times.
For example, when working with decimats, a paper model for representing deci-
mals, Ben modelled the answer to 7÷5= in a quotient context (see Fig. 5). Yet, he
wrote 1.20 (incorrect) for his answer, reflecting his preference for expressing
decimals in money-like notation. Yet, he recorded 1÷4=0.4 and 3÷4=0.75 in the
same exercise.
At the beginning of term three, different pencil and paper tests were created to cater
for the levels of achievement in the class. The three high-achieving students, Ben,

Rachel and Simon, attempted the following task: “The decimal for three-eighths 38 is
3
0.375. Use this knowledge to work out the decimals for the following: (a) 24 = How
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

Fig. 5 Ben used decimats to model a quotient, i.e. 7÷5=1.2 (14 March)

did you work it out? (b) 19 8 = How did you work it out?” While the task afforded
easy calculation of the decimals once the relationship between 38 and 24 3
was
recognised, no students used the strategy of dividing 0.375 by 3. Simon

calculated 19
8 ¼ 19  8 ¼ 2:375 through applying the quotient rule a  b ¼ b
a

but Rebecca wrote “2.”, finding the whole number part of the mixed number yet being
unable to provide the fractional part. Making connections between fraction, quotient and
decimal symbolic representations were extremely difficult for all students.
The data paint a picture of some elements of consistent progression through the HLT
as well as considerable variation. Progression through phases within a given sub-
construct holds but students vary considerably in the connections they make between
sub-constructs, and, therefore, the order of progression across sub-constructs. Variation
associated with different situations and representations, particularly symbolic and
graphic, was pronounced.

Discussion and conclusion

Consistency of progression

I sought to answer the question, “To what extent is a learners’ progression through
phases of the HLT consistent and predictable across learners and to what extent is it
variable?” The data raise significant issues about HLTs, particularly in a conceptual
field of considerable complexity, such as rational number. Variation in progression
through phases between students suggests that trajectories need to be interpreted
stochastically not deterministically. While the three highest achieving students,
Simon, Rachel and Ben, finished the school year with similar schemes for the measure,
operator, quotient and rate/ratio sub-constructs (Kieren 1980, 1988, 1993, 1995) their
routes were different. The early development of rational number of the case-study
students, as exemplified by the progressions of Jason, Odette and Linda, supports the
idea that learning is highly localised to situation and that transfer is unreliable (Behr
et al. 1984; Case 1992; Kaput and West 1994). The three higher achievers connected
across the sub-constructs with increasing fluency as the year progressed suggesting that
curriculum design and assessment must reflect a balance of the sub-constructs rather
than privileging of one or two. Nonetheless, the demands of new-to-learner situations,
like balances, new representations, such as graphs, and new connections, such as
connecting decimals and fractions, present even the most able students with challenges.
 V. Wright

Fig. 6 Using a between measures

operator to solve a rate problem Litres Minutes

5 x 35 3

x 35
? 10

Connectedness of the sub-constructs

Acknowledgement of connectedness of the sub-constructs means that assumptions of

linear progression need to be tempered. The data support the integrity of the within sub-
construct progressions in the HLT. However, students’ progress was informed by
connection to other sub-constructs. Comparison of shares in quotient situations appears
heavily dependent on defining the shares as measures and the use of equivalence to
compare these measures. For example, comparing the equal shares for 3 among 5 and 2
among 3 requires the ability to compare 3/5 and 2/3 as measures. This is similarly true
for comparison of ratios using part-whole measures. Identifying and applying non-
integral multiplicative relationships between measure spaces in rates and ratios appear
heavily dependent on identifying the unknown operator between values, that is
5litres ½Šlitres
a  ba ¼ b . For example, to solve 3minutes ¼ 10minutes it is helpful to know the unit rate
5
between the measures, 5  3 ¼ 3 litres per minute, and/or the within measures
operator, 103 ¼ 10 3 (see Figs. 6 and 7).
The tabular form of the HLT means that progressions in the sub-constructs are
treated discretely. Therefore, critical connections between sub-constructs are not rep-
resented. Further study is needed to establish and sequence blends of sub-constructs,
that is, instances where the development of a scheme in one sub-construct is shown to
be an essential enabler for the development of schemes in other sub-constructs.

Usefulness of the hypothetical learning trajectory

The results of this research reflect a specific situation. As both a teacher and a
researcher, I found the HLT useful as a planning tool, as a framework to describe
students’ learning in the long-run and as a lens to view their responses to instructional
situations. I readily acknowledge that I called on finer-grained mathematical knowledge
for teaching that was not and could not be provided by a succinct HLT. “In-the-
moment” instructional decisions call on a complex register of other knowledge, such

Fig. 7 Using a within measures

operator to solve a rate problem Litres Minutes

5 3
x 10
3 x 10
3
? 10
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

as anticipation of the impact of task variables, choice of representations, and recogni-

tion of common learner misconceptions. Research into teachers’ use of HLTs during
their interactions with students requires a broader focus that encompasses the range of
knowledge needed for teaching (Ball et al. 2008; Ball and Bass 2000; Chick et al. 2006;
Chick 2007; Empson and Jacobs 2008) and the significant roles of goals and beliefs.

Schemes as descriptors of progression

This research suggests that the use of schemes to describe progression has significant
advantages over other possible formats. Schemes are observable in action in different
situations so are appropriate for assessment. Teachers can infer learners’ growth in
understanding from seeing what learners do. In contrast, describing progression in
terms of knowledge or success on tasks is problematic due to the sheer number and
specificity of knowledge used by students in their development of rational number and
the diversity of tasks that could be selected. As von Glasersfeld (1989) pointed out, the
co-ordination of situation, action and result, can become conceptual knowledge, for
example, a learner can treat the action of sharing 20 objects among 4 people as a trusted
‘fact’ encoded as 20÷4=5. However, learners’ possession of knowledge is no guaran-
tee that they can productively apply it. It is what knowledge they are able to enact in
situations that matters. Beginning with schemes then analysing what applicable knowl-
edge students do or do not use seems a feasible approach to describing progression and
better aligned to the way teachers respond supportively to the solutions and ideas
proposed by their students.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I agree with Sztajn et al. (2012) that HLTs constitute a significant
element of the mathematical knowledge needed for teaching and provide necessary
directionality for curriculum design and assessment. I contend that HLTs should be
evaluated in two ways: their utility as predictive tools for mapping scheme progression,
acknowledging natural variation, and their utility as tools for informing instruction. The
inevitable variation in students’ patterns of progression means that HLTs must be
interpreted and adapted by teachers in their localised situations.

References

Adjiage, R., & Pluvinage, F. (2007). An experiment in teaching ratio and proportion. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 65, 140–175.
Alatorre, S. (2002). A framework for the study of intuitive answers to ratio comparison (probability) tasks. In
A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), 26th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education(Vol. 2, pp. 33–40). Norwich, UK.:PME.
Alatorre, S., & Figueras, O. (2004). Proportional reasoning of quasi-literate adults. In M. J. Høines & A. B.
Fuglestad (Eds.), 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education(Vol. 2, pp. 9–16). Bergen, Norway:PME.
Alatorre, S., & Figueras, O. (2005). A developmental model for proportional reasoning in ratio comparison
tasks. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), 29th Annual Conference of the International Research Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol. 2, pp. 25–32). Melbourne, Australia: PME.
 V. Wright

Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2007). Effective pedagogy in mathematics: best evidence synthesis iteration
[BES]. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.
Ball, D. B. (2000). Working on the inside: using one’s own practice as a site for studying teaching and
learning. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science
education (pp. 365–392). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, D. B., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it so special?
Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: knowing
and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on learning and teaching (pp. 83–104).
Westport, CT: Ablex.
Baroody, A. J., Cibulskis, M., Lai, M., & Li, X. (2004). Comments on the use of learning trajectories in
curriculum development and research. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 227–260.
Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T., Lesh, R., et al. (1984). Rational numbers: towards a semantic analysis—
emphasis on the operator construct. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational
numbers: an integration of research (pp. 13–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ben-Chaim, D., Key, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto, C., & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning
among 7th grade students with different curricula experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36,
247–273.
Bobis, J., Clarke, B., Clarke, D., Gould, P., Thomas, G., Wright, R., et al. (2005). Supporting teachers in the
development of young children’s mathematical thinking: three large scale case studies. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 16(3), 27–57.
Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: a case study. Cognition
and Instruction, 17(1), 25–64.
Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early
mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 87–115.
Case, R. (1992). The mind’s staircase: stages in the development of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chick, H., Baker, M., Pham, T., & Cheng, H. (2006). Aspects of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for
decimals. In J. Novotna, H. Maraova, M. Kratka & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol. 2, pp. 297–304). Prague:
PME.
Chick, H. L. (2007). Teaching and learning by example. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics:
Essential Research, Essential Practice: 30th Annual Conference for the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 3–20). Hobart, Australia: MERGA.
Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2009). Students’ fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust under-
standing and possible pointers for instruction. Education Studies in Mathematics, 72, 127–138.
Clements, D. H., Wilson, D. C., & Sarama, J. (2004). Young children’s composition of geometric figures: a
learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 163–184.
Cobb, P. (2009). Individual and collective mathematical development: the case of statistical data analysis.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(1), 5–43.
Confrey, J., (2008) A synthesis of the research on rational number reasoning: a learning progressions approach
to synthesis. Invited Lecture to the International Conference on Mathematics Instruction XI, Monterrey,
Mexico.
Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2010). The construction, refinement, and early validation of the equipartitioning
learning trajectory. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol.1, pp. 968–975). Chicago, Ill: International Society of the
Learning Sciences.
Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1994). Splitting, co-variation, and their role in the development of exponential
functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2/3), 135–164.
Darr, C., Neill, A., & Stephanou, A. (2006). Progressive achievement test: Mathematics: teacher manual.
Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
DiSessa, A. A. (2008). A bird’s eye view of the “pieces vs. coherence” controversy. In S.
Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (Vol. 1, pp. 35–
60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dole, S., Clarke, D., Wright, T., & Hilton, G. (2012). Students’ proportional reasoning in mathematics and
science. In T. Y. Tso (Ed.), 36th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol.2, pp.195–201). Taipei, Taiwan: PME.
Empson, S. B., & Jacobs, V. R. (2008). Learning to listen to children’s mathematics. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood
(Eds.), Tools and processes in mathematics education (pp. 257–281). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

Gould, P. (2006). Year 6 students’ methods of comparing the size of fractions. In P. Grootenboer, R.
Zevenbergen & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, cultures and learning spaces: 28th Annual
Conference of the Mathematics Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 394–400). Melbourne,
Australia: MERGA.
Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Fostering a dialectic relation between theory and practice. In J. Anghileri (Ed.),
Principles and practices in arithmetic teaching: innovative approaches in primary classrooms (pp. 49–
63). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive
themes in understanding transfer. Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(4), 537–547.
Hart, K. M. (1988). Ratio and proportion. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in
the middle grades (pp. 198–219). Reston, VA.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates & Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Hart, K. M., Kerslake, D., Brown, M. L., Ruddock, G., Kuchemann, D. E., & McCartney, M. (1981).
Children’s understanding of mathematics (pp. 11–16). London: John Murray.
Hattie, J. A. C., Brown, G. T. L., Keegan, P. J., MacKay, A. J., Irving, S. E., Patel, P., et al. (2004). Assessment
tools for teaching and learning (asTTle) Version 4, 2005: Manual. Wellington, NZ.: University of
Auckland/Ministry of Education/Learning Media.
Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: epistemic actions. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 195–222.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 65–100). New York:
Macmillan.
Isoda, M., Stephens, M., Ohara, Y., & Miyakawa, T. (2007). Japanese lesson study in Mathematics: its impact,
diversity and potential for educational improvement. Singapore: World Scientific.
Jacob, L., & Willis, S. (2003). The development of multiplicative thinking in young children. In L. Bragg, C.
Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), 26th annual conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 460–467). Geelong, Australia: MERGA.
Jansen, B. R. J., & van der Mass, H. L. J. (2002). The development of children’s rule use on the balance scale
task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 383–416.
Kaput, J., & West, M. M. (1994). Missing value proportional reasoning problems: factors affecting informal
reasoning patterns. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), Multiplicative reasoning in the learning of
mathematics (pp. 235–287). New York: State University of New York Press.
Kieren, T. E. (1980). The rational number construct—its elements and mechanisms. In T. E. Kieren (Ed.),
Recent research on number learning (pp. 125–149). Columbus, OH.: ERIC/SMEAR.
Kieren, T. E. (1988). Personal knowledge of rational numbers: Its intuitive and formal development. In J.
Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 53–92). Reston,
VA.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kieren, T. E. (1993). Rational and fractional numbers: from quotient fields to recursive understanding. In T. P.
Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 49–
84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kieren, T. (1995). Creating spaces for learning fractions. In J. T. Sowder & B. P. Schappelle (Eds.), Providing
a foundation for teaching mathematics in the middle grades (pp. 31–65). Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding + It Up. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Lachance, A., & Confrey, J. (2002). Helping students build a path of understanding from ratio and proportion
to decimal notation. Journal of mathematical behaviour, 20, 503–526.
Lamon, S. J. (2002). Part-whole comparisons with unitizing. In B. Litwiller & G. Bright (Eds.), Making sense
of fractions, ratios, and proportions (pp. 79–86). Reston, VA.: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: towards a theoretical framework for
research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: a
project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 629–667). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.
Lesh, R., & Yoon, C. (2004). Evolving communities of mind—in which development involves several
interacting and simultaneously developing strands. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 205–226.
Lo, J., & Watanabe, T. (1997). Developing ratio and proportion schemes: a story of a fifth grader. Journal for
research in mathematics education, 28(2), 216–236.
Lobato, J. (1997). Transfer reconceived: how ‘sameness’ is produced in mathematical activity. Unpublished
PhD, University of California, Berkley.
 V. Wright

Lobato, J. (2006). Alternative perspectives on the transfer of learning: history, issues, and challenges for future
research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 431–449.
Lobato, J., & Siebert, D. (2002). Quantitative reasoning in a reconceived view of transfer. Journal of
mathematical behaviour, 21, 87–116.
Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: the importance of knowing—to act
in the moment. Education Studies in Mathematics, 38, 135–161.
Ministry of Education, (2003). Global Strategy Stage. Retrieved 12 February, 2007, from http://nzmaths.co.nz/
gloss-forms?parent_node=.
Mitchell, A., & Horne, M. (2011). Listening to children’s explanations of fraction pair tasks: when more than
an answer and an initial explanation are needed. In J. Clark, B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer & S.
Thornton (Eds.), Mathematics: Traditions and [new] practices(Vol.1, pp.515–522). Allice Springs,
Australia: MERGA.
Mulligan, J., & Mitchelmore, M. (1997). Young children’s intuitive models of multiplication and division.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 309–330.
Noelting, G. (1980). The development of proportional reasoning and the ratio concept, part II—problem-
structure at successive stages: problem-solving strategies and the mechanism of additive restructuring.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11, 331–363.
Olive, J. (1999). From fractions to rational numbers of arithmetic: a reorganisation hypothesis. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 1(4), 279–314.
Olive, J., & Steffe, L. P. (2002). Schemes, schemas and director systems. In D. Tall & M. Thomas (Eds.),
Intelligence, learning and understanding in Mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 97–130). Flaxton, Qld: Post Pressed.
Panoutsos, C., Karantzis, I., & Markopoulos, C. (2009). 6th grade students’ strategies in ratio problems. In M.
Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 289–296). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.
Pearn, C., & Stephens, M. (2004). Why do you have to probe to discover what year 8 students really think
about fractions? In I. Putt, R. Faragher & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the third
millennium: Towards 2010: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education
Research Group of Australasia (Vol 2, pp. 430–437). Sydney: MERGA.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structure: the central problem of intellectual
development (T. Brown & K. J. Trampy, Trans). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
(Original work published 1965).
Post, T., Behr, M., Lesh, R., & Wachsmuth, I. (1986). Selected results from the rational number project. In L.
Steefland (Ed.), 9th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol. 1, pp. 342–351). Antwerp, Netherlands: PME.
Post, T., Lesh, R., Cramer, K., Harel, G., & Behr, M. (1993). Curriculum implications of research on the
learning, teaching and assessing of rational number concepts. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A.
Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 327–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Resnick, L. B., & Singer, J. A. (1993). Protoquantitative origins of ratio reasoning. In T. P. Carpenter, E.
Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 107–130).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roche, A., & Clarke, D. M. (2006). When successful comparison of decimals doesn’t tell the full story. In J.
Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), 30th Conference of the International Group for
the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 425–432). Prague: PME.
Royer, J. M., Mestre, J. P., & Dufresne, R. J. (2005). Framing the transfer problem. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.),
Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. vii–xxvi). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Schwartz, J. (1988). Intensive quantity and referent transforming arithmetic operations. In J. Hiebert & M.
Behr (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 41–52). Reston, VA.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Sherwin, B., & Fuson, K. (2005). Multiplication strategies and the appropriation of computational resources.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(4), 347–395.
Siegler, R. S. (2007). Cognitive variability. Developmental Science, 10(1), 104–109.
Siemon, D., Izard, J., Breed, M., & Virgona, J. (2006). The derivation of a learning assessment framework for
multiplicative thinking. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), 30th Conference of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 113–120). Prague:
PME.
Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.
Towards a hypothetical learning trajectory for rational number

Steffe, L. P. (1983). Children’s algorithms as schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14(2), 109–125.
Steffe, L. P. (2003). Fractional commensurate, composition, and adding schemes, learning trajectories of Jason
and Laura: Grade 5. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 237–295.
Steffe, L. P. (2004). On the construction of learning trajectories of children: the case of commensurate
fractions. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 129–162.
Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetic meanings. New York: Springer.
Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1998). Multiplicative and divisional schemes. Focus on Learning Problems in
Mathematics, 16(1–2), 45–61.
Steinle, V., & Stacey, K. (2004). A longitudinal study of students’ understanding of decimal notation: an
overview and refined results. In I. Putt, R. Faragher & M. McLean (Eds.), Mathematics education for the
third millennium: Towards 2010: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 541–548). Townsville, Australia.: MERGA.
Steinthorsdottir, O. B. (2005). Girls journey towards proportional reasoning. In H. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.),
29th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol.4,
pp. 225–232). Melbourne, Australia: PME.
Streefland, L. (1993). Fractions: a realistic approach. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.),
Rational numbers: an integration of research (pp. 289–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Holt Wilson, P., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: toward a
theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147–156.
Thompson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (2003). Fractions and multiplicative thinking. In J. Kilpatrick, G. Martin,
& D. Schifter (Eds.), Research companion to the principles and standards for school mathematics (pp.
95–114). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Tourniaire, F., & Pulos, S. (1985). Proportional reasoning: a review of the literature. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 16(2), 181–204.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2001). Realistic mathematics education in the Netherlands. In J. Anghileri
(Ed.), Principles and practices in arithmetic teaching: innovative approaches for the primary classroom
(pp. 49–64). Buckingham, PA.: Open University.
Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52, 83–94.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), History,
Philosophy, and Science Teaching, 121–140.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. Washington, DC: Falmer.
Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2006). Seeing an exercise as a single mathematical object: using variation to
structure sense-making. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2), 91–111.
Wright, V. (2011). The development of multiplicative thinking and proportional reasoning: models of
conceptual learning and transfer. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New
Zealand.
Young-Loveridge, J. (2006). Patterns of performance and progress on the New Zealand numeracy project:
looking back from 2005. In D. Holton (Ed.), Findings from the New Zealand numeracy projects 2005 (pp.
6–23). Wellington, NZ.: Learning Media.
Young-Loveridge, J., & Wright, V. (2002a). Data from the Numeracy Development Project and the New
Zealand Number Framework. In D. Fraser & R. Openshaw (Eds.), 2nd Biennial Conference of the
Teacher Education Forum of Aotearoa New Zealand (TEFANZ)(Vol.1, pp. 233–251). Wellington:
Kanuka Grove, Palmerston North.
Young-Loveridge, J., & Wright, V. (2002b). Validation of the New Zealand Number Framework. In B. Barton,
K. C. Irwin, M. Pfannkuch & M. Thomas (Eds.), Mathematics Education in the South Pacific:
Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research group of
Australasia (Vol.2, pp. 722–729). Auckland: MERGA.