Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Procedural and conceptual changes in young children’s problem solving

  • Published:
Educational Studies in Mathematics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study analysed the different types of arithmetic knowledge that young children utilise when solving a multiple-step addition task. The focus of the research was on the procedural and conceptual changes that occur as children develop their overall problem solving approach. Combining qualitative case study with a micro-genetic approach, clinical interviews were conducted with ten 5–6-year-old children. The aim was to document how children combine knowledge of addition facts, calculation procedures and arithmetic concepts when solving a multiple-step task and how children’s application of different types of knowledge and overall solving approach changes and develops when children engage with solving the task in a series of problem solving sessions. The study documents children’s pathways towards developing a more effective and systematic approach to multiple-step tasks through different phases of their problem solving behaviour. The analysis of changes in children’s overt behaviour reveals a dynamic interplay between children’s developing representation of the task, their improved procedures and gradually their more explicit grasp of the conceptual aspects of their strategy. The findings provide new evidence that supports aspects of the “iterative model” hypothesis of the interaction between procedural and conceptual knowledge and highlight the need for educational approaches and tasks that encourage and trigger the interplay of different types of knowledge in young children’s arithmetic problem solving.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alibali, M. W. (1999). How children change their minds: Strategy change can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alibali, M. W., Phillips, K. O. M., & Fischer, A. D. (2009). Learning new problem solving strategies leads to changes in problem representation. Cognitive Development, 24, 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baroody, A. J. (1985). Mastery of basic number combinations: Internalisation of relationships or facts? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baroody, A. J. (1987). Children’s mathematical thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroody, A. J. (2003). The development of adaptive expertise and flexibility: The interaction of conceptual and procedural knowledge. In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills (pp. 1–33). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroody, A. J., & Dowker, A. (2003). The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualisation of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroody, A. J., & Gannon, K. E. (1984). The development of the commutativity principle and economical addition strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baroody, A. J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1986). The relationship between initial and mechanical knowledge of arithmetic. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of arithmetic (pp. 75–112). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroody, A. J., & Tiilikainen, S. H. (2003). Two perspectives on addition development. In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills (pp. 75–125). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, D. F., & Rosenblum, K. E. (2002). Context effects in children’s selection and use of simple arithmetic strategies. Journal of Cognition and Development, 3(2), 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briars, D., & Siegler, R. S. (1984). A featural analysis of preschoolers’ counting knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 20, 607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, P., & Nunes, T. (2004). Children’s understanding of mathematics. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Childhood cognitive development (pp. 412–439). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, J. P. (1992). The conceptual basis of procedural learning. Cognitive Development, 7, 235–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural skill. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 777–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canobi, K. H., Reeve, R. A., & Pattison, P. (1998). The role of conceptual understanding in children’s addition problem solving. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 882–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, T. P. (1986). Conceptual knowledge as a foundation for procedural knowledge: Implications from research on the initial learning of arithmetic. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 113–132). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundations and model viability. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). N. Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R. (2003). Does it all add up? Changes in children’s knowledge of addition combinations, strategies and principles. In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills (pp. 35–74). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2006). Mathematical thinking and learning. In K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 103–152). New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delazer, M. (2003). Neurospychological findings on conceptual knowledge of arithmetic. In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills. Constructing adaptive expertise (pp. 385–407). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • DfES (Department for Education and Skills). (2006). Primary framework for literacy and mathematics. Norwich, U.K.: DfES

  • Dowker, A. (1998). Individual differences in normal arithmetical development. In C. Donlan (Ed.), The development of mathematical skills (pp. 275–302). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowker, A. (2003). Young children’s estimates for addition: The zone of partial knowledge and understanding. In A. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills (pp. 243–266). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuson, K. C. (1982). An analysis of the counting-on procedure in addition. In T. P. Carpenter, J. Moser, & T. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 67–81). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children’s counting and concepts of number. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: Problem-solving differences and cognitive deficits. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 199–212). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Yao, Y. (1992). Counting knowledge and skill in cognitive addition: A comparison of normal and mathematically disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54, 372–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., & Desoto, M. C. (2004). Strategy choices in simple and complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting knowledge for children with mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 121–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, C. K., & Bryant, P. (2006). Individual differences in children’s understanding of inversion and arithmetic skills. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 309–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, H. (1981). The clinical interview in psychological research on mathematical thinking: Aims, rationales, techniques. For the Learning of Mathematics, 1(3), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 517–545). N. Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E. (2009). Compressing the counting process: Strength from the flexible interpretation of symbols. In I. Thompson (Ed.), Teaching and learning early number (pp. 82–93). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E., Pinto, M., Pitta, D., & Tall, D. (1999). Knowledge construction and diverging thinking in elementary & advanced mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, E., & Tall, D. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A proceptual view of simple arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 116–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groth, R. E., & Bergner, J. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of mean, median, mode. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(1), 37–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1984). Children’s problem solving. In M. E. Lamb, A. L. Brown, & B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (pp. 39–90). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. A Bradford Book. London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learning mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us? Psychological Science, 6(3), 133–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2002). Macro- and microdevelopmental research: Assumptions, research strategies, constraints, and utilities. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment. Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 243–265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Luwel, K., Siegler, R. S., & Verschaffel, L. (2008). A microgenetic study of insightful problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 210–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. H., & Coyle, T. R. (1999). Developmental change: Lessons from microgenesis. In E. K. Scholnick, K. Nelson, S. A. Gelman, & P. H. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual Development. Piaget’s Legacy (pp. 209–239). N. Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Nührenbörger, M., & Steinbring, H. (2009). Forms of mathematical interaction in different social settings: Examples from students’, teachers’ and teacher–students’ communication about mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Watson, A. (2009). Key understandings in mathematics learning. London: Nuffield Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T., deBettencourt, L. U., & Leinhardt, G. (1990). Understanding of derived-fact strategies in addition and subtraction. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 245–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, M., Greeno, J. G., & Heller, J. I. (1983). Development of children’s problem solving ability in arithmetic. In H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153–196). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 175–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Kalchman, M., Czarnocha, B., & Baker, W. (2002). An integrated approach to the procedural/conceptual debate. Discussion group PME-NA XXIV, Georgia Centre for Continuing Education, Athens GA. (http://www.pmena.org/2002/).

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). The relationship between conceptual and procedural knowledge in learning mathematics: A review. In C. Donlan (Ed.), The development of mathematical skills (pp. 75–110). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, K. M., & Dubé, A. K. (2008). A microgenetic study of simple division. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(3), 156–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, K. M., & Dubé, A. K. (2009). Children’s understanding of addition and subtraction concepts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 532–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. I. S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (1987). The perils of averaging data over strategies: An example from children’s addition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 116, 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (1991). In young children’s counting, procedures precede principles. Educational Psychology Review, 3(2), 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (1995). Children’s thinking: How does change occur? In F. E. Weinert & W. Schneider (Eds.), Memory performance and competencies: Issues in growth and development (pp. 405–430). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging Minds. The process of change in children’s thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (2000). The rebirth of children’s learning. Child Development, 71(1), 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (2001). Cognition, instruction, and the quest for meaning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 195–203). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. The American Psychologist, 46(6), 606–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S., & Shrager, J. (1984). Strategy choices in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In C. Sophian (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229–293). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S., & Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 127, 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sophian, C. (1997). Beyond competence: The significance of performance for conceptual development. Cognitive Development, 12, 281–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 132–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, I. (1995). The role of counting in the idiosyncratic mental calculation algorithms of young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 3(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, I. (2008). From counting to deriving number facts. In I. Thompson (Ed.), Teaching and learning early number (pp. 97–109). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torbeyns, J., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquiere, P. (2004). Strategic aspects of simple addition and subtraction: The influence of mathematical ability. Learning and Instruction, 14, 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (PTA-026-27-0697). I am very grateful to the children who participated in this project. I would also like to thank my colleagues Keith Jones and Lianghuo Fan as well as the three anonymous reviewers for their very constructive comments on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Southampton, Southampton, England, UK

    Chronoula Voutsina

Authors
  1. Chronoula Voutsina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chronoula Voutsina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Voutsina, C. Procedural and conceptual changes in young children’s problem solving. Educ Stud Math 79, 193–214 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9334-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9334-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation