Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

13. How children, under instruction, develop mathematical understanding

Chapter of: Breaking Images: Iconoclastic Analyses of Mathematics and its Education(pp. 293–334)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.1
  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: No priced EPUB or PDF URL
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title13. How children, under instruction, develop mathematical understanding
ContributorBrian Greer(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0407.13
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0407/chapters/10.11647/obp.0407.13
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightBrian Greer
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2024-12-11
Long abstractThe relationship between the development and institutionalisation of mathematical understanding across millennia and its development for an individual child is the starting-point for this chapter. Greatly influenced by the writings of Hans Freudenthal, a position is taken in opposition to the theory propounded by Jean Piaget. The counterposition emphasises that a child can only be said to acquire any but the most elementary mathematics under more or less formal instruction and other forms of social and cultural interactions. The perennial debate about the relative weights that should be afforded in school mathematics to procedural competence and deep understanding is also related to the historical development of mathematics, particularly in relation to conceptual restructuring. This relationship is illustrated by the progressive enrichments of what is meant by ‘number’ and the basic arithmetical operations. The expansion of mathematical modelling from physical phenomena to the complexity of human interactions remains to be adequately addressed in school mathematics. And the question ‘What is mathematics education for?’ should be constantly revisited.
Page rangepp. 293–334
Print length42 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Contributors

Brian Greer

(author)
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5230-1904

Brian Greer began his research on mathematical cognition, before shifting his interest to school mathematics. That evolved to reflect a characterization of mathematics as a human activity embedded in historical, cultural, social and political – in short, human – contexts.

References
  1. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Kluwer.
  2. Cajori, F. (1898). A history of elementary mathematics. Macmillan.
  3. Cajori, F. (1922). Robert Recorde. The Mathematics Teacher, 15(5), 294–302.
  4. Cajori, F. (1928). A history of mathematical notations. Open Court.
  5. California Department of Education (2000). Mathematics framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through Grade 12. California Department of Education.
  6. Cole, M. (2005). Cross-cultural and historical perspectives on the developmental consequences of education. Human Development, 48, 195–216.
  7. Cole, M. (2007). Phylogeny and cultural history in ontogeny. Journal of Physiology, 101, 236–246.
  8. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org/Math
  9. Damazio, A. (2001). Mathematical cognition in the classroom: A cultural-historical approach. In M. Hedegaaard (Ed.), Learning in classrooms (pp. 191–210). Aarhus University Press.
  10. De Bock, D., & Vanpaemel, G. (2019). Rods, sets, and arrows: The rise and fall of modern mathematics in Belgium. Springer.
  11. De Morgan, A. (1910). Study and difficulties of mathematics. Open Court. (Original work published 1831)
  12. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. Croom Helm.
  13. Feldman, C. F., & Toulmin, S. (1976). Logic and the theory of mind. University of Nebraska Press.
  14. Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Reidel.
  15. Fisher, D. (2021). Global understanding of complex systems problems can start in pre-college education. In F. K. S. Leung, G. A. Stillman, G. Kaiser, & K. L. Wong (Eds.), Mathematical modeling education in East and West (pp. 35–44). Springer.
  16. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Reidel.
  17. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Kluwer.
  18. Fried, M. N. (2014). Mathematics & mathematics education: Searching for common ground. In M. N. Fried & T. Dreyfus (Eds.), Mathematics and mathematics education: Searching for common ground (pp. 1–22). Springer.
  19. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Erlbaum.
  20. Gould , S. J. (1985). Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard University Press.
  21. Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics education (pp. 276–295). Macmillan.
  22. Greer, B. (1994). Extending the meaning of multiplication and division. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 61–85). SUNY.
  23. Greer, B. (2005). Ambition, distraction, uglification, and derision. Scientiae Paedogogica Experimentalis, 42, 295–310.
  24. Greer, B. (2021). Learning from history: Jens Høyrup on mathematics, education, and society. In D. Kollosche (Ed.), Exploring new ways to connect: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 487–496). Tredition. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5414119
  25. Hacker, A. (2016). The math myth and other STEM delusions. New Press.
  26. Hacking, I. (2014). Why is there philosophy of mathematics at all? Cambridge University Press.
  27. Hamlyn, D. W. (1978). Experience and the growth of understanding. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  28. Hatano, G. (1997). Cost and benefit of modeling activity. Learning and Instruction, 7, 383–387.
  29. Hersh, R. (1997). What is mathematics, really? Oxford University Press.
  30. Hersh, R., & John-Steiner, V. (2011). Loving and hating mathematics. Princeton University Press.
  31. Hilton, P. (1984). Current trends in mathematics and future trends in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 4(1), 2–8.
  32. Hofstadter, D., & Sander, E. (2013). Surfaces and essences. Basic Books.
  33. Holt, J. (1982). How children fail. Dover.
  34. Howson, G. (1994). International curricula in mathematics. The Mathematical Association.
  35. Høyrup, J. (1994). In measure, number, and weight. SUNY.
  36. Jeeves, M. A., & Greer, B. (1983). Analysis of structural learning. Academic Press.
  37. Kaput, J. J. (1986). Information technology and mathematics: Opening new representational windows. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED297950.pdf
  38. Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In: D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). Macmillan.
  39. Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes to old roots. In: A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77–156). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  40. Kaput, J. J. (1998) Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: A kaleidoscope of windows. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 283–301.
  41. Kaput, J. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2002). On the development of human representational competence from an evolutionary point of view. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modelling and tool use in mathematics (pp. 277–293). Kluwer.
  42. Keitel, C. (1989). Mathematics education and psychology. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(1), 7–13.
  43. Kilpatrick, J. (1981). The reasonable ineffectiveness of research in mathematics education. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2(2), 22–29.
  44. Lave, J. (1992). Word problems: A microcosm of theories of learning. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 74–92). Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  45. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia University Press.
  46. Sawyer, W. W. (1964). Vision in elementary mathematics. Pelican.
  47. Stage, E. K. (2007). Perspectives on state assessments in California: What you release is what teachers get. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Assessing mathematical proficiency (pp. 357–363). Cambridge University Press.
  48. Tate, W. F. (1995). School mathematics and African American students: Thinking seriously about opportunity-to-learn standards. Educational Administraction Quarterly, 31, 424–448.
  49. Thorndike E. L. (1922). The psychology of arithmetic. Macmillan.
  50. Toom, A. (1999). Word problems: Applications or mental manipulatives. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19, 36–38.
  51. Urton, G. (1997). The social life of numbers: A Quechua ontology of numbers and philosophy of arithmetic. University of Texas Press.
  52. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2004). Shifts in understanding: The didactical use of models in mathematics education. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and modelling in mathematics education. Pre-conference volume (pp. 97–102). Universität Dortmund.
  53. Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (2018). Successful failure: The school America builds. Routledge.
  54. Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52(2), 83–94.
  55. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Swets & Zeitlinger.
  56. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., Van Dooren, W., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (Eds.). (2009). Words and worlds: Modeling verbal descriptions of situations. Sense.
  57. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. Harper. (Original work published 1945)
  58. Wigner, E. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1–14.
  59. Wu, H. (1999). Some remarks on the teaching of fractions in elementary school. https://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/fractions2.pdf
  60. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.