Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 143–154 | Cite as

Algorithmic skill vs. conceptual understanding

  • Twila Slesnick
Article

Abstract

With the help of Pascual-Leone's Theory of Constructive Operators, this study investigated the hypothesis that understanding of the long division algorithm requires a high cognitive level, or greater m-capacity, than does understanding of the fundamental concepts of division. Formal and preformal sixth grade students were tested on performance and understanding of a given division algorithm and division concepts.

Keywords

Conceptual Understanding Grade Student Fundamental Concept Sixth Grade Cognitive Level 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Case, Robbie: 1972, ‘Validation of a neo-Piagetian capacity construct’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 14, 287–302.Google Scholar
  2. Case, Robbie and Globerson, Tamar: 1972, ‘Field independence and central computing space’, Child development 45, 772–778.Google Scholar
  3. Copeland, Richard: 1970, How Children Learn Mathematics, The MacMillan Company, London.Google Scholar
  4. Fuller, Kenneth: 1949. An Experimental Study of Two Methods of Long Division, Teachers College, Columbia.Google Scholar
  5. Grafft, William: 1966, ‘Cognitive outcomes of the SMSG-Mathematics Program in grades four, five and six’, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, U.C. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  6. Izzo, Ruth Kelley: 1960, ‘Division is understandable’, Arithmetic Teacher 7, 32–34.Google Scholar
  7. Kofsky, Ellin: 1968, ‘A scalogram study of classificatory development’, in Irving Sigel and Frank Hooper (ededs.), Logical Thinking in Children, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Kratzer, Richard and Willoughby, Stephen: November 1973, ‘A comparison of initially teaching division employing the distributive and Greenwood algorithms with the aid of a manipulative material’, Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, p. 197.Google Scholar
  9. Kurtz, Ray: January 1973, ‘Fourth-grade division: How much is retained in grade five’, Arithmetic Teacher, p. 65.Google Scholar
  10. Lowery, Lawrence F.: 1973, Learning About Learning Series, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  11. Lovell, Kenneth: 1971, The Growth of Understanding in Mathematics: Kindergarten Through Grade Three, Early Education Series, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  12. Pascual-Leone, Juan: September 1977, ‘Stages and decalages: a neo-Piagetian view’, Paper delivered to the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development.Google Scholar
  13. Piaget, Jean: 1973, ‘Comments on Mathematical Education’, in A. G. Howson (ed.), Developments in Mathematical Education, Cambridge University Press, p. 79.Google Scholar
  14. Van Engen, Henry and Gibb, Glenadine: 1956, General Mental Functions Associated with Division, Iowa State Teachers College.Google Scholar
  15. Witkin, H. A., Ohman, P., Raskin, E. and Karp, S.: 1971, A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Twila Slesnick
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations