Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Justifications for choices made in procedures

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

Abstract

In any procedural mathematical situation, there are multiple ways of achieving the same answer. Given this observation, we ask, why choose one procedural solution over another? We address this question here with data drawn from interviews conducted with university students engaged in row-reducing matrices. During their tasks, the students voiced a variety of justifications for the procedural steps they enacted. Through a phenomenographical analysis (Marton, Instructional Science, 10, 177–200, 1981) of their utterances, we construct a framework for justifications for choices made within procedures with two broad categories, algorithmic and anticipatory. By comparison, this is similar to the creative/imitative reasoning framework of Lithner (Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 255–276, 2008), a framework primarily emerging from less procedural settings. We suggest that, given this richness in justifications brought forth by a procedural setting, when used effectively, instruction in mathematical procedures has the potential to contribute to deeper, more flexible forms of mathematical knowledge overall.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boero, P. (2001). Transformation and anticipation as key processes in algebraic problem solving. In R. Sutherland, T. Rojano, A. Bell, & R. Lins (Eds.), Perspectives on school algebra (pp. 99–119). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowker, A. (1992). Computational estimation strategies of professional mathematicians. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, G. H. (1940). A mathematician’s apology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    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 

  • Lithner, J. (2000). Mathematical reasoning and familiar procedures. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31, 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lithner, J. (2003). Students mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 29–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maciejewski, W., & Merchant, S. (2015). Mathematical tasks, study approaches, and course grades in undergraduate mathematics: a year-by-year analysis. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(3), 373–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maciejewski, W., & Star, J. (2016). Developing flexible procedural knowledge in undergraduate calculus. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(3), 299–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography—describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCTM (2014). Procedural fluency in mathematics: a position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Procedural-Fluency-in-Mathematics/.

  • Newton, K., Star, J., & Lynch, K. (2010). Understanding the development of flexibility in struggling algebra students. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 12, 282–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesek, D. D., & Kirschner, D. (2000). Interference of instrumental instruction in subsequent relational learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 524–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. (2009). Iterating between lessons on concepts and procedures can improve mathematics knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 483–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 587–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 561–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 529–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Relations between conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1525–1538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as two sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidenvall, J., Lithner, J., & Jäder, J. (2015). Students’ reasoning in mathematics textbook task-solving. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 46, 533–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 404–411.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, J. R., & Newton, K. J. (2009). The nature and development of experts’ strategy flexibility for solving equations. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 557–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2008). Flexibility in problem solving: the case of equation solving. Learning and Instruction, 18, 565–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, J. R., & Seifert, C. (2006). The development of flexibility in equation solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 280–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J. W. (1999). The teaching gap : best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallman, M., Carlson, M. P., Bressoud, D. M., & Pearson, M. (2016). A characterization of calculus 1 final exams in U.S. colleges and universities. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 2, 105–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 335–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschaffel, L., Torbeyns, J., De Smedt, B., Luwel, K., & Van Dooren, W. (2007). Strategy flexibility in children with low achievement in mathematics. Educational & Child Psychology, 24(2), 16–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K., & Mejia-Ramos, P. (2015). On relative and absolute conviction in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 35, 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, L., Liu, R., Star, J., Wang, J., Liu, Y., & Zhen, R. (2017). Measures of potential flexibility and practical flexibility in equation solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01368

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, San José State University, One Washington Square, San José, CA, 95192-0103, USA

    Wes Maciejewski

  2. Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, 13 Appian Way, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Jon R. Star

Authors
  1. Wes Maciejewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jon R. Star
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wes Maciejewski.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maciejewski, W., Star, J.R. Justifications for choices made in procedures. Educ Stud Math 101, 325–340 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09886-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09886-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation