Commutativity
and Associativity
Two
properties that are frequently used to solve
problems are the commutative and associative
properties of addition. As with the additive identity, students
often have an intuitive understanding of these
properties and use them without necessarily
realising there are underlying mathematical
principles being applied.
The
commutative property states that a + b = b + a.
In
other words, the order of the numbers can be
changed without changing the value of the
expression.
The
associative property states that (a + b) + c = a + (b + c).
In
other words, regrouping the numbers when adding
does not change the solution.
These
two properties are commonly applied in situations
where students use numeracy strategies, such as
counting on, to solve a problem. For example, if students are asked to solve
3 + 14, they are more likely to count on from 14
to get to 17, i.e., the problem becomes 14 + 3. They naturally apply the commutative
property without realising that is what they are
doing.
In
another example, students might use firstly the
commutative property, then the associative
property to solve the following problem:
28 + 17
+ 12 =
In this
case students would be encouraged to put
compatible numbers together to make a tidy number
which would then be easier to add. The next step might look like this:
28
+ 17 + 12 = 17
+ 28 + 12
The
commutative property has been used here – it
does not matter which order the 28 and 17 are in,
their position in the problem will not affect the
result. In
her article on number properties, Margaret Tent
(2006)6 talks about 'moving wagons' to
describe the commutative property. Every time two numbers are switched around
in a problem it is like they have been put on
wagons, or trolleys, and moved from one place to
another. The
diagram below shows a way to represent this
movement:
The
next step to solve the problem would be to regroup
the numbers. To
ensure the compatible numbers are dealt with
first, they are bracketed.
28 + 17
+ 12 = 17
+ 28 + 12
= 17
+ (28 + 12)
= 17
+ 40
= 57
Here
the associative property has been used. Margaret Tent uses the analogy of
'hand-holding' to describe what is happening to
the numbers. Those
that are in the brackets are added first – they
are 'holding hands' and 'excluding' the other
number – 17 in this case.
6 Tent, Margaret W. (2006) Understanding the
Properties of Arithmetic: A Prerequisite for
Success in Algebra. Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 12 (1), 22 –
25.
In
another example where a numeracy strategy is
applied, students solving the basic fact problem 8
+ 5 might apply the associativity rule thus:
8 + 5
= 8 + (2 + 3)
= (8 + 2) + 3
= 13
While
students solve these types of problems regularly,
the underlying number properties being used are
not often articulated or made explicit. Giving names or labels to these processes
empowers students and enables them to explain more
clearly what they are doing. With a common language for explaining
processes, a group or class of students is better
able to understand how each person is solving
problems. The
ability to articulate mathematical processes and
strategies is a crucial part of the development of
confident and capable mathematicians.
Through
the use of True/False number sentences or open
number sentences, these concepts can be explored
in the same way as the additive identity property.
Number
sentences that can be identified as True or False,
such as:
3 + 8 = 8 + 3
31 + 42 = 42 + 13
25
+ 46 = 46 + 25
165
+ 785 = 785 + 868
can be
used to generate discussion and develop a
conjecture or rule about the commutative property. Students can also be encouraged to write
their own True/False number sentences.
Here
are some examples of student generated rules about
the commutative property. The first comes from a class of Year 4
students, while the second comes from Carpenter,
Franke & Levi's book and is written in the
natural language of children.
“It doesn’t matter if the numbers are swapped
around on each side of the number sentence. If the numbers are the same, the number
sentence will still balance.”
‘When you add two numbers, you can change the
order of the numbers you add, and you will still
get the same number.”7
7 Carpenter,
T., Franke M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking
Mathematically. Integrating Arithmetic and Algebra
in Elementary School.
Portsmouth
,
NH
: Heinemann, p. 55.
The
concept of equality, meaning quantitative
sameness, needs to be firmly in place prior to
students exploring number properties. In the first conjecture above the student
refers to the idea of "balance" to
explain commutativity. Without this prior understanding, the
concept of commutativity would be more difficult
to describe. To reinforce this idea, balance pans
(as used in resource AL7111)
can be used to model commutativity.
A
further way to model commutativity is through the
use of number lines. Students can be presented with a number
line such as:

and
asked what number sentence it represents (6 + 2 =
2 + 6). They
can then be given number sentences e.g. 11 + 3 = 3
+ 11 or 14 + 7 = 7 + 14 and asked to show these on
a blank number line.
A
common misconception
Students
can often incorrectly over-generalise the
commutative property to subtraction, i.e. they
believe that 7 – 5 = 5 – 78 and will even read the problem 5 – 7 as "seven minus five". Have them try out the problem using manipulatives to see if 7 – 5 is the same as 5 – 7. Alternatively,
getting students to make up their own story
problems to describe the number sentences can help
start a discussion about whether the two
expressions are equal.9
8 In the
2005 National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP)
report (http://nemp.otago.ac.nz/ Mathematics/Number & Algebra/Maths
Helper) 40% of Year 4s and 20% of Year 8s stated
that 4 – 2 and 2 – 4 were the same.
9 Vance,
J. H., (1998) Number Operations from an Algebraic
Perspective. Teaching
Children Mathematics, 4, 282-285
(http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/learningmath/algebra/pdfs/AlgPerspective.pdf)
Further
reading
Glenda
Anthony and Margaret Walshaw explore some of the
ideas students have about commutativity in the
following article:
Anthony, G., and
Walshaw, M., (2002) Children's notions of
commutativity: Do we need more than
"turn-arounds"? Set: Research information for teachers. 3, 1-4.
|