Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 127–146 | Cite as

From Searle’s Chinese room to the mathematics classroom: technical and cognitive mathematics

Original Paper


Employing Searle’s views, I begin by arguing that students of Mathematics behave similarly to machines that manage symbols using a set of rules. I then consider two types of Mathematics, which I call Cognitive Mathematics and Technical Mathematics respectively. The former type relates to concepts and meanings, logic and sense, whilst the latter relates to algorithms, heuristics, rules and application of various techniques. I claim that an upgrade in the school teaching of Cognitive Mathematics is necessary. The aim is to change the current mentality of the stakeholders so as to compensate for the undue value presently attached to Technical Mathematics, due to advances in technology and its applications, and thus render the two sides of Mathematics equal. Furthermore, I suggest a reorganization/systematization of School Mathematics into a cognitive network to facilitate students’ understanding of the subject. The final goal is the transition from mechanical execution of rules to better understanding and in-depth knowledge of Mathematics.


Chinese room Mathematics classroom Education Cognitive mathematics Technical mathematics 


  1. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. N.Y.: David McKay Co, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, J. L. & Nettleton, N. C. (1981). The nature of hemispheric specialization in man. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 7, 51–91.Google Scholar
  4. Byers, V. & Herscovics, N. (1978). Understanding school mathematics. Mathematics Teaching 81.Google Scholar
  5. Carlson, M. P. & Bloom, I. (2005). The cyclic nature of problem solving: An emergent multidimensional problem-solving framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 45–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E. & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.) (1992). Rational numbers: An integration of research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Charles, D. (2001). Wittgenstein’s builders and Aristotle’s craftsmen. In Charles, D. & Child, W. (Eds.), Wittgensteinian themes. (pp. 49–79). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Churchland, P. & Churchland, P. S. (1990). Could a machine think? Scientific American, 262, 32–39.Google Scholar
  9. Dave, R. H. (1975). Developing and writing behavioural objectives. N.Y.: Educational Innovators Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, P. J. & Hersh, R. (1984). The mathematical experience. N.Y.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  11. Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. N. Y.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  12. Drossos, C. (1987). Cognition, mathematics and synthetic reasoning. General Seminar of Mathematics 13, 107–151. Edited by Department of Mathematics, University of Patras, Greece. (2nd revised edition 2006).Google Scholar
  13. Entrekin, V. S. (1992). Mathematical mind mapping. The Mathematics Teacher, 85(6), 444–445.Google Scholar
  14. Eysenck, M. W. & Keane, M. T. (2000). Cognitive psychology. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press/Tailor & Francis.Google Scholar
  15. Fennema, E. & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.) (1999). Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Gavalas, D. (1999). A four-sided view of ‘function’. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2), 38–41Google Scholar
  17. Gavalas, D. (2000). Study of the ‘Teaching System’ according to systems theory. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(2), 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gentner, D. & Markman, A. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American sychologist, 52(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grenander, U. (1997). Geometries of knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States America, 94, 783–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grouws, D. A. (Ed.) (1997). Handbook on research on mathematics teaching and learning. N.Y.: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, D. (1999). The Searle workout: Connectionism hits the Chinese gym. Scholar
  22. Hasemann, K. & Mansfield, H. (1995). Concept mapping in research on mathematical knowledge development: Background, methods, findings and conclusions. ESM, 29, 45–72.Google Scholar
  23. Hauser, L. (1996). The Chinese room argument. The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Scholar
  24. Hegel, G. W. F. (1969). Science of logic. Trans. A. V. Miller. London: Allen & Unwin; repr. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1993. (Translation of Hegel (1812–1816)).Google Scholar
  25. Heylighen, F. & Joslyn, C. (1992). What is systems theory? Edited by Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Holland J.H. et al (1986). Induction: Processes of inference. Learning and discovery. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jung, C. G.: The collected works. 20 vols. Bollingen Series XX. Translated by R. F. C. Hull, edited by H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler, and Wm. McGuire. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press (1953–1979).Google Scholar
  28. Kim, J. (1996). Philosophy of mind. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kofman, F. & Senge, P. (1995). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. In Chawla & Reneschs (Eds.), Learning organizations: Developing cultures for tomorrow’s workplace (pp. 14–43). Portland, Oregon: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook II: Affective domain. N. Y.: David McKay.Google Scholar
  31. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goal. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Lawvere, F. W. (1976). Variable quantities and variable structures in Topoi. In algebra, topology and category theory: A collection of papers in honour of S. Eilenberg (pp. 101–131). N.Y.: Academic press.Google Scholar
  33. Lawvere, F. W. & Schanuel, S. H. (2001). Conceptual mathematics: A first introduction to categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lester, F. K. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem solving research: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 660–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mac Lane, S. (1986).Mathematics: Form and function N.Y.: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. E. (1992).Thinking, problem solving, cognition. N.Y.: Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  37. NCTM (2000). Principals and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. (1978). Judgment and reasoning in the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  39. Rey, G. (1997). Contemporary philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Rosenbloom, P. S. et al. (1993). The soar papers: Research on integrated intelligence. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rucker, R. (1988). Mind tools: The mathematics of information. N.Y.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  42. Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. The Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–457.Google Scholar
  43. Searle, J. (1984). Minds, brains and science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Searle, J. (1989). Reply to Jacquette. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, XLIX, 701–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Searle, J. (1990). Is the brain’s mind a computer program? Scientific American, 262, 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Senge, P. et al. (2003). Schools that learn. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. Shoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 334–370). N.Y.: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  48. Simpson E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.Google Scholar
  49. Skemp, R. R. (1972). The psychology of learning mathematics N.Y.: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  50. Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  51. Skemp, R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Sterenly, K. (1990). The representational theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Tall, D. O. (1978). The dynamics of understanding mathematics. Mathematics Teaching, 81, 50–52.Google Scholar
  54. Tall, D. & Thomas, M. (Eds.) (2002). Intelligence, learning and understanding in mathematics: a tribute to Richard Skemp. Post Pressed, Teneriffe, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  55. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, P. S. (Ed.) (1993). Research ideas for the classroom: High school mathematics. N.Y.: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  57. Yalom, I. (2002). Religious and psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy 3.Google Scholar
  58. Zeleke, A. & Lee, C. (2002). On students’ conceptual understanding of ‘variation’ in introductory statistics. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MathematicsPedagogical Institute-GreeceAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations