Advertisement

Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 139–157 | Cite as

Two Types of Mathematical Knowledge and Their Relation

  • Lenni Haapasalo
  • Djordje Kadijevich
Article

Abstract

The distinction between procedural knowledge and conceptual knowledge seems to be possible at a terminological level. However, real problems begin when this distinction is to be operationalized by acceptable tasks, and the relation between the two knowledge types is to be clarified. This article tries to resolve some of these problems by using a constructivist approach.

Keywords

Mathematical Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge Procedural Knowledge Declarative Knowledge Educational Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Zusammenfassung

Die Unterscheidung des prozeduralen und begrifflichen Wissens scheint auf terminologischer Ebene evident zu sein. Die wirklichen Schwierigkeiten beginnen dann, wenn explizite Beziehungen zwischen diesen zwei Kenntnisstypen oder angepasste Aufgaben gesucht sind. Dieser Artikel stellt einen Versuch dar, einige von diesen Problemen im Sinne des Konstruktivismus zu analysieren und zu lösen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baroody, A. & Ginsburg, H. (1986). The Relationship Between Initial Meaningful and Mechanical Knowledge of Arithmetic. In Hiebert, J. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bergeron, J. & Herscovics, N. (1990). Psychological Aspects of Learning Early Arithmetic. In Nesher, P. & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.), Mathematics and Cognition: A Research Synthesis by the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Byrnes, J. & Wasik, B. (1991). Role of Conceptual Knowledge in Mathematical Procedural Learning. Developmental Psychology, 27, 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter, T. (1986). Conceptual Knowledge as a Foundation for Procedural Knowledge. In Hiebert, J. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Confrey J. & Costa S. (1996). A Critique of the Selection of ‘Mathematical Objects’ as Central Metaphor for Advanced Mathematical Thinking. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyfus, T. & Eisenberg, T. (1990). Conceptual Calculus: Fact or Fiction? Teaching Mathematics and its Application, 9, 63–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fey, J. (1989). Technology and Mathematics Education: A Survey of Recent Developments and Important Problems. In Ruthven, K. (Ed.), Informational Technology and Mathematics Education (special issue). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gelman, R. & Meck, E. (1986). The Notion of Principle: The Case of Counting. In Hiebert, J. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Gray, E. & Tall, D. (1993). Success and failure in mathematics: the flexible meaning of symbols as process and concept. Mathematics Teaching, no. 142, 6–10.Google Scholar
  11. Haapasalo, L. (1992). Constructivist learning of fractions. Institute for Educational Research. Publication series A. Research reports 51. (Finnish report, including English abstract, also available at http://www.joensuu.fi/lenni/modem2e.html) Google Scholar
  12. Haapasalo, L. (1993). Systematic Constructivism in Mathematical Concept Building. In Kupari, P. & Haapasalo, L. (Eds.), Constructivist and Curricular Issues in the School Mathematics Education. Mathematics Education Research in Finland. Yearbook 1992-1993. University of Jyväskylä. Institute for Educational Research. Publication Series B, Theory and Practice 82. University of Jyväskylä & The Finnish Association of Mathematics and Science Education Research.Google Scholar
  13. Hiebert, J. (Ed.) (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Hiebert, J. & Behr, M. (Eds.) (1989). Number Concepts and Operations in the Middle Grades. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  15. Hiebert, J. & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and Teaching with Understanding. In Grouws, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. NY: Macrrtillan.Google Scholar
  16. Hiebert, J. & Wearne, D. (1986). Procedures Over Concepts: The Acquisition of Decimal Number Knowledge. In Hiebert, J. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of Mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Hofstadter, D. (1980). Gödel, Echer, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  18. Ivic, I. (1989). Profiles of educators: Lev S. Vygotsky. Prospects (UNESCO), 19, 3, 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ivic, I. (1991). Theories of mental development and the problem of education outcomes. Paris: CERI/INES(91)8.Google Scholar
  20. Kadijevich, Dj. (1999). Conceptual tasks in mathematics education. The Teaching of Mathematics, 2, 59–64.Google Scholar
  21. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and Mathematics Education. In Grouws, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Kitcher, P. (1983). The nature of mathematical knowledge. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kline, M. (1980). Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nesher, P. (1986). Are Mathematical Understanding and Algorithmic Performance Related? For the Learning of Mathematics, 6, 2–9.Google Scholar
  25. Palmiter, J. (1991). Effects of computer algebra systems on concept and skill acquisition in calculus. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Papert, S. (1987). Microworlds: transforming education. In Lawler, R. & Yazdani. M. (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Education (Vol. 1). Norwood, NJ: Albex Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Resnick, L. & Omanson, S. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Schoenfeld, A. (1986). On Having and Using Geometric Knowledge. In Hiebert, J. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Schwarz, B., Dreyfus, T. & Bruckheimer, M. (1990). A model of the function concept in a threefold representation. Computers & Education, 14, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sfard, A. (1994). Reification as the birth of metaphor. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14, 44–55.Google Scholar
  32. Shimizu, Y. (1996). ‘High achievement’ versus rigidity: Japanese students’ thinking on division of fractions. In Zhang, D., Sawada, T. & Becker, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the China-Japan-U.S. Seminar on Mathematical Education. Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  33. Silver, E. (1986). Using Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: A Focus on Relationships. In Hiebert, J. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Simmons, M. & Cope, P. (1997). Working with a round turtle: the development of angle/rotation concepts under restricted feedback conditions. Computers & Education, 28, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Skemp, R. (1979). Intelligence, Learning and Action. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Skemp, R. (1987). The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Steinhöfel, W, Reichold, K. & Frenzel, L. (1976). Zur Gestaltung typischer Unterrichtssituationen im Mathematikunterricht. Lehrmaterial zur Ausbildung von Diplomlehrern. Karl-Marx-Stadt.Google Scholar
  38. Tall, D. (1992). The Transition to Advanced Mathematical Thinking: Functions, Limits, Infinity and Proof. In Grouws, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Tall, D. & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics, with particular reference to limit and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tessmer, M., Wilson, B. & Driscoll, M. (1990). A New Model Of Concept Teaching and Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. VanLehn, K. (1986). Arithmetic Procedures are Induces from Examples. In Hiebert, J. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Vergnaud, G. (1990). Epistemology and Psychology of Mathematics Education. In Nesher, P. & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.), Mathematics and Cognition: A Research Synthesis by the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© GDM - Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Mathematik 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of JoensuuJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Mathematical InstituteSerbian Academy of Sciences and ArtsBelgradeYugoslavia

Personalised recommendations