Receive a 20% Discount on All Purchases Directly Through IGI Global's Online Bookstore

Shelby P. Morge (University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA), Mahnaz Moallem (University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA), Chris Gordon (University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA), Gene Tagliarini (University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA) and Sridhar Narayan (University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA)

Copyright: © 2013
|Pages: 19

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4086-3.ch009

Chapter Preview

TopTraditionally, teaching mathematics has focused on procedural knowledge or what Davis (1984) called “rote mathematics” (p. 8), in which learning information and facts and applying formulas rather than learning relational or conceptual knowledge (“meaningful mathematics”) have been emphasized (Davis, 1984; Skemp, 1976). In rote mathematics or routine processes the successful and automatic use of rules, algorithms or procedures have often been perceived to be necessary and sufficient for conceptual knowledge, thus, factual knowledge is augmented with demonstrations of how to solve a problem and then students are asked to solve similar problems by identifying the right formula, plugging data into it, and accepting whatever answer is reported by their calculator. However, modern cognitive science and approaches in learning mathematics demonstrate that procedural knowledge usually involves automatic and unconscious steps whereas conceptual knowledge typically requires conscious thinking. Using only procedural knowledge, a learner may skillfully combine two rules without knowing why they work. Furthermore, rote mathematics does not show how mathematics is used in the real world, which by no means is routine, thus making it difficult to understand and not motivational. Teaching mathematics as a complex thinking and problem solving skill, on the other hand, is interesting and motivating (Zimmerman, Fritzla, Haapasalo, & Rehlich, 2011).

Unfortunately, emphasis on problem solving and conceptual understanding in mathematics teaching has not made its way in the classroom. Stigler and Hiebert (2004) suggest that mathematics teaching has not changed much in the last 100 years. Their review of videos from the Trends International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provided little evidence that classroom practices reflect the goals of teaching reform. Stigler and Hiebert (2004) found that eighth-graders in the United States spend little time in the classroom engaged in understanding mathematics concepts instead most of their time is devoted to practicing routine procedures. They claim, “even when the curriculum includes potentially rich problems, U.S. teachers use their traditional cultural teaching routines to transform the problems and reduce their instructional potential” (2004, p. 17). This finding is discouraging given the expectations of the newly adopted Common Core State Standards.

Search this Book:

Reset

Copyright © 1988-2018, IGI Global - All Rights Reserved