Growth in Mathematical Understanding: How Can We Characterise It and How Can We Represent It?



There has been a variety of approaches to the study of mathematical understanding, and some of these are reviewed before outlining the background to the model we are proposing for the growth of such understanding. The model is explained in detail and illustrated with reference to the concept of fractions. Key features of the model include ‘don’t need’ boundaries, ‘folding back’, and the complementarities of ‘acting’ and ‘expressing’ that occur at each level of understanding. The theory is illustrated by examples of pupils’ work from a variety of topics and stages. Finally one of the practical applications of the theory, mapping, is explained in some detail.


Mathematical Understanding Number Concept Equivalent Fraction Fractional Quantity Understanding Activity 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bauersfeld, H.: 1988, ‘Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematical education’, in Effective Mathematics Teaching, NCTM, pp. 27–46.Google Scholar
  2. Einstein, A. (as quoted in Fine, A.): 1986, The Shakey Game - Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, p. 91.Google Scholar
  3. Hadamard, J.: 1945, The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field,Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Herscovics, N. and Bergeron, J.: 1988, ‘An extended model of understanding’, in C. Lacompagne and M. Behr (eds.), Proceedings of PME-NA 10, Dekalb, Ill: Northern Illinois University, pp; 15–22.Google Scholar
  5. Kieren, T. E.: 1990, ‘Understanding for teaching for understanding’, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 36 (3), 191–201.Google Scholar
  6. Kieren, T. E. and Pirie, S. E. B.: 1992, ‘Rational and fractional numbers: From quotient fields to recursive understanding’, in T. P. Carpenter and E. Fennema (eds.), Learning, Teaching, andAsessing Rational Number Concepts: Multiple Research Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 49–82.Google Scholar
  7. Kieren, T. E. and Pirie, S. E. B.: 1991, ‘Recursion and the mathematical experience’, in L. Steife (ed.), The Epistemology of Mathematical Experience, Springer Verlag Psychology Series, New York, pp. 78–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kieren, T. E. and Pirie, S. E. B.: 1992, ‘The answer determines the question–Interventions and the growth of mathematical understanding’, in Proceedings of Sixteenth Psychology of Mathematical Education Conference (New Hampshire), Vol. 2, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  9. Kieren, T. E. and Pirie, S. E. B.: in press, ‘Folding back: A dynamic recursive theory of mathematical understanding’, in D. Sawada and M. Caley (eds.), Recursion in Educational Enquiry,Gordon and Bream, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Maturana, H. R. and Varela, J. F.: 1980, Autopoeisis and Cognition, Boston University, Philosophy of Science Series, Vol. 42, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Maturana, H. R. and Varela, J. F.: 1987, The Tree of Knowledge, The New Sciences Library, Shambhala, Boston.Google Scholar
  12. Ohlsson, S.: 1988, ‘Mathematical meaning and applicational meaning in the semantics of fractions and related concepts’, in J. Hiebert and M. Behr (eds.), Number Concepts and Operations in the Middle Grades, NCTM/LEA, Reston, pp. 53–91.Google Scholar
  13. Pine, S. E. B.: 1988, ‘Understanding–Instrumental, relational, formal, intuitive..., How can we know?’, For the Learning of Mathematics 8 (3), 2–6.Google Scholar
  14. Pirie, S. E. B. and Kieren, T. E.: 1989a, ‘Through the recursive eye: Mathematical understanding as a dynamic phenomenon’, in G. Vergnaud (ed.), Actes de la Conference Internationale, PME, Vol. 3, Paris, pp. 119–126.Google Scholar
  15. Pirie, S. E. B. and Kieren, T. E.: 1989b, ‘A recursive theory of mathematical understanding’, For the Learning of Mathematics 9 (3), 7–11.Google Scholar
  16. Pirie, S. E. B. and Newman, C. F.: 1990, ‘Watching understanding grow’, paper presented at the Midlands Mathematics Education Seminar, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  17. Pine, S. E. B. and Kieren, T. E.: 1990, ‘A recursive theory for mathematical understanding - some elements and implications’, paper presented at AERA annual meeting, Boston.Google Scholar
  18. Pine, S. E. B. and Kieren, T. E.: 1991, ‘Folding back: Dynamics in the growth of mathematical understanding’, in F. Furinghetti (ed.), Proceedings Fifteenth Psychology of Mathematics Education Conference, Assisi.Google Scholar
  19. Pirie, S. E. B. and Kieren, T. E.: 1992a, ‘Watching Sandy’s understanding grow’, The Journal of Mathematical Behaviour 11 (3), 243–257.Google Scholar
  20. Pirie, S. E. B. and Kieren, T. E.: 1992b, ‘Creating constructivist environments and constructing creative mathematics’, special edition, in E. von Glasersfeld (ed.), Educational Studies in Mathematics 23(5), 505–528.Google Scholar
  21. Schroder, T. L.: 1987, ‘Students’ understanding of mathematics: A review and synthesis of some recent research’, in J. Bergeron, N. Herscovics, and C. Kieran (eds.), Psychology of Mathematics Education XI, PME, Montreal, Vol. 3, pp. 332–338.Google Scholar
  22. Serpinska, A.: 1990, ‘Some remarks on understanding in mathematics’, For the Learning of Mathematics 10 (3), 24–36.Google Scholar
  23. Skemp, R. R.: 1976, ‘Relational understanding and instrumental understanding’, Mathematics Teaching 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  24. Skemp, R. R.: 1987, The Psychology of Learning Mathematics (expanded edition), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  25. Tomm, K.: 1989, ‘Consciousness and Intentionality in the Work of Humberto Maturana’, apresentation for the Faculty of Education, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  26. von Glasersfeld, E.: 1987, ‘Learning as a constructive activity’, in C. Janvier (ed.), Problems of Representation in the Learning and Teaching of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 3–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mathematics Education Research CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordGreat Britain
  2. 2.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations