Abstract
The present article is based on the premise that mathematical activity exhibits an important duality. On the one hand pre-school children do mathematics spontaneously; the mathematics they do is often called “informal arithmetic”. On the other hand, “the mathematics we teach is a cultural product developed by generations of mathematicians” (Byers and Herscovics, 1977). Whatever premium school mathematics puts on individuality and original thought, it seems obvious that the mathematics done in school is neither spontaneous nor informal; the bulk of it is “formal mathematics”. We expect our pupils to do mathematics in a conventionally acceptable manner. In short, mathematics is both an individual and a social activity. We shall endeavour to show that duality in mathematical activity reflects a duality of mathematics as a discipline. The latter is a duality between content and form; in fact, it is the importance of form in this discipline that resulted in mathematics being classified as a formal science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Backhouse, J. K.: 1978, ‘Understanding school mathematics — a comment’, Mathematics Teaching, No. 82.
Belanger, Maurice: 1981, Personal communication.
Bell, A. W.: 1976, The Learning of General Mathematical Strategies, Shell Centre for Mathematical Education, University of Nottingham, p. 6.1.
Bruner, J. S.: 1968, Toward a Theory of Instruction, Norton, New York.
Buxton, Laurie: 1979, Personal communication.
Byers, V.: 1977, Mathematics Education: Curriculum and Understanding (manuscript).
Byers, V.: 1980, ‘What does it mean to understand mathematics?’, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 11, 1, 1–10.
Byers, V.: 1982, ‘Why study the history of mathematics?’, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 13, 1, 59–66.
Byers, V. and Erlwanger, S.: ‘Memory in mathematical understanding’, Journal of Children's Mathematical Behaviour (to appear).
Byers V. and Herscovics, N.: 1977, ‘Understanding school mathematics’, Mathematics Teaching, No. 81.
Davis, R. B., Jocusch, E., and McKnight, C.: 1978, ‘Cognitive processes in learning algebra’, Journal of Children's Mathematical Behaviour 2, 1, Spring.
Erlwanger, S. H.: 1973, ‘Benny's conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics’, Journal of Children's Mathematical Behaviour 1, 2, Autumn.
Erlwanger, S. H.: 1975, ‘Mat's conception of methods and answers in mathematics’, Journal of Children's Mathematical Behaviour 1, 3, Summer.
Gagné, R. M.: 1983, ‘Some issues in the psychology of mathematics instruction’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 14, 7–18.
Ginsburg, H.: 1977, Children's Arithmetic: the Learning Process, D. van Nostrand, New York, pp. 90 and 121.
Grabiner, J. V.: 1974, ‘Is mathematical truth time-dependent?’, The American Mathematical Monthly 81, 354–365.
Herscovics, N.: 1979, ‘A learning model for some algebraic concepts’, The Georgia Center Research Group on Learning Models, ERIC, Columbia, Ohio.
Inhelder, B., Sinclair, H. and Bovet, M.: 1974, Learning and the Development of Cognition, Harvard, Mass. p. 7.
Kirlin, B.: 1979, Set Theory in High School: An Error in Timing? MTM Thesis, Concordia University.
Kline, M.: 1974, Why Johnny Can't Add: The Failure of the New Math., Vintage Books, Washington, p. 85.
Lichtenberg, D. N.: 1978, ‘The use and misuse of mathematical symbolism’, Arithmetic Teacher 25, 12–17.
Noddings, N.: 1980, ‘Dangers of formalism’, Arithmetic Teacher 28, 45–47.
Perlman, G.: 1982, ‘Making mathematical notation more meaningful’, The Mathematics Teacher 75, 6, 462–466.
Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B.: 1973, Memory and Intelligence, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, p. 393.
Richards, J. and Classerfield, E.: 1980, ‘Jean Piaget, psychologist of epistemology: a discussion of Rotman's Jean Piaget: psychologist of the real’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 11, 1, 29–36.
Robertson, J. I.: 1979, ‘How to do arithmetic’, Amer. Math. Month. 86, 6.
Scott, L.: 1966, Trends in Elementary School Mathematics, Rand McNally and Co., Chicago.
Skemp, R. R.: 1982, ‘Symbolic understanding’, Mathematics Teaching, No. 99.
Steffe, L. P. and Blake, R. N.: 1983, ‘Seeking meaning in mathematics instruction: a response to Gagné’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 14, 210–213.
Struick, D. J.: 1967, A Concise History of Mathematics, Dover, New York, p. 94.
Tall, D.: 1978, ‘The dynamics of understanding mathematics’, Mathematics Teaching, No. 84.
Thom, R.: 1971, ‘“Modern” mathematics: an educational and philosophic error?’, American Scientist 59, 695–699.
Vergnaud, G.: ‘The acquisition of arithmetical concepts’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 10, 263–274.
Willoughby, S. S.: 1967, Contemporary Teaching of Secondary School Mathematics, Wiley, New York, p. 95. note.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Byers, V., Erlwanger, S. Content and form in mathematics. Educ Stud Math 15, 259–275 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00312077
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00312077