Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics

9/13/2017 Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics | Granted, and...
Granted, and ~ thoughts on education by Grant

Wiggins
Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics
23 Wednesday Apr 2014
P G
The Common Core Standards in Mathematics stress the importance of conceptual understanding as a
key component of mathematical expertise. Alas, in my experience, many math teachers do not
understand conceptual understanding. Far too many think that if students know all the denitions and
rules, then they possess such understanding.
The Standards themselves arguably oer too li le for confused educators. The document merely states
that understanding means being able to justify procedures used or state why a process works:
But what does mathematical understanding look like? One hallmark of mathematical understanding is
the ability to justify, in a way appropriate to the students mathematical maturity, why a particular
mathematical statement is true or where a mathematical rule comes from. There is a world of dierence
between a student who can summon a mnemonic device to expand a product such as (a + b)(x + y) and a
student who can explain where the mnemonic comes from.
A few of the understanding standards provide further insight:
Students understand connections between counting and addition and subtraction (e.g., adding two is the
same as counting on two). They use properties of addition to add whole numbers and to create and use
increasingly sophisticated strategies based on these properties (e.g., making tens) to solve addition
and subtraction problems within 20. By comparing a variety of solution strategies, children build their
understanding of the relationship between addition and subtraction. [emphasis added].
Note what I highlighted: understanding requires focused inferential work. Being helped to generalize
from ones specic knowledge is key to genuine understanding.
Daniel Willingham, the cognitive scientist who often writes on education, oers a more detailed account
of the nature and importance of conceptual understanding in math (along with the other two pillars of
mastery, factual knowledge and procedural skill) in his article from a few years ago in the AFT journal
American Educator.
A procedure is a sequence of steps by which a frequently encountered problem may be solved. For
example, many children learn a routine of borrow and regroup for multi-digit subtraction problems.
Conceptual knowledge refers to an understanding of meaning; knowing that multiplying two negative
numbers yields a positive result is not the same thing as understanding why it is true.
54
knowledge of procedures is no guarantee of conceptual understanding;
https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ for example, many children 1/37
54
knowledge of procedures is no guarantee of conceptual understanding; for example, many children

can execute a procedure to divide fractions without understanding why the procedure works. Most
observers agree that knowledge of procedures and concepts is desirable.
Willingham discusses the poor results for basic content and procedural knowledge, as revealed by
trends in testing. However, he also notes
More troubling is American students lack of conceptual understanding. Several studies have found that
many students dont fully understand the base-10 number system. A colleague recently brought this to
my a ention with a vivid anecdote. She mentioned that one of her students (a freshman at a competitive
university) argued that 0.015 was a larger number than 0.05 because 15 is more than 5. The student
could not be persuaded otherwise.
Another common conceptual problem is understanding that an equal sign ( = ) refers to equalitythat is,
mathematical equivalence. By some estimates, as few as 25 percent of American sixth- graders have a
deep understanding of this concept. Students often think it signies put the answer here.
Here is a lovely paper expanding upon the issue of misconceptions in arithmetic, from a British article
for teachers (hence the word maths and the spelling of recognise):
1. A number with three digits is always bigger than one with two. Some children will swear blind that
3.24 is bigger than 4.6 because its got more digits. Why? Because for the rst few years of learning, they
only came across whole numbers, where the digits rule does work.
2. When you multiply two numbers together, the answer is always bigger than both the original
numbers. Another seductive rule that works for whole numbers, but falls to pieces when one or both of
the numbers is less than one. Remember that, instead of the word times we can always substitute the
word of. So, 1/2 times 1/4 is the same as a half of a quarter. That immediately demolishes the
expectation that the product is going to be bigger than both original numbers.
3. Which fraction is bigger: 1/3 or 1/6? How many pupils will say 1/6 because they know that 6 is bigger
than 3? This reveals a gap in knowledge about what the bo om number, the denominator, of a fraction
does. It divides the top number, the numerator, of course. Practical work, such as cu ing pre-divided
circles into thirds and sixths, and comparing the shapes, helps cement understanding of fractions.
4. Common regular shapes arent recognised for what they are unless theyre upright. Teachers can,
inadvertently, feed this misconception if they always draw a square, right-angled or isosceles triangle in
the usual position. Why not draw them occasionally upside down, facing a dierent direction, or just
tilted over, to force pupils to look at the essential properties? And, by the way, in maths, theres no such
thing as a diamond! Its either a square or a rhombus.
5. The diagonal of a square is the same length as the side? Not true, but tempting for many young
minds. So, how about challenging the class to investigate this by drawing and measuring. Once the top
table have mastered this, why not ask them to estimate the dimensions of a square whose diagonal is
exactly 5cm. Then draw it and see how close their guess was.
6. To multiply by 10, just add a zero. Not always! What about 23.7 x 10, 0.35 x 10, or 2/3 x 10? Try to
spot, and unpick, the just add zero rule wherever it rears its head.

7. Proportion: three red sweets and two blue. Asked what proportion
https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ of the sweets is blue, how many2/37
7. Proportion: three red sweets and two blue. Asked what proportion of the sweets is blue, how many
kids will say 2/3 rather than 2/5? Why? Because theyre comparing blue to red, not blue to all the sweets.
Always stress that proportion is part to whole.
8. Perimeter and area confuse many kids. A common mistake, when measuring the perimeter of a
rectangle, is to count the squares surrounding the shape, in the same way as counting those inside for
area. Now you can see why some would give the perimeter of a two-by-three rectangle as 14 units rather
than 10.
till identied as a weakness in Key Stage test papers. The most common
9. Misreading scales. S
misunderstanding is that any interval on a scale must correspond to one unit. (Think of 30 to 40 split into
ve intervals.) Frequent handling of dierent scales, divided up into twos, ves, 10s, tenths etc. will help
to banish this idea.
From Teachers: January 2006 Issue 42 UK (alas, the link no longer works)
A denition of conceptual understanding. In light of the confusion about conceptual understanding

and the pressing problem of student misunderstanding, I think a slightly more robust denition of
conceptual understanding is wanted. I prefer to dene it this way:
Conceptual understanding in mathematics means that students understand which ideas are key (by being helped to
draw inferences about those ideas) and that they grasp the heuristic value of those ideas. They are thus be er able to
use them strategically to solve problems especially non-routine problems and avoid common misunderstandings
as well as inexible knowledge and skill.
In other words, students demonstrate understanding of
1) which mathematical ideas are key, and why they are important
2) which ideas are useful in a particular context for problem solving
3) why and how key ideas aid in problem solving, by reminding us of the systematic nature of
mathematics (and the need to work on a higher logical plane in problem solving situations)
4) how an idea or procedure is mathematically defensible why we and they are justied in using it
5) how to exibly adapt previous experience to new transfer problems.
A test for conceptual understanding. Rather than explain my denition further here, I will
th th th
operationalize it in a li le test of 13 questions, to be given to 10 , 11 , and 12 graders who have
passed all traditional math courses through algebra and geometry. (Middle school students can be given
the rst 7 questions.)
Math teachers, give it to your students; tell us the results.
I will make a friendly wager: I predict that no student will get all the questions correct. Prove me wrong and
Ill give the teacher and student(s) a big shout-out.
1) You cant divide by zero. Explain why not, (even though, of course, you can multiply by zero.)
2) Solving problems typically requires nding equivalent statements

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ that simplify the problem 3/37
2) Solving problems typically requires nding equivalent statements that simplify the problem
Explain and in so doing, dene the meaning of the = sign.
3) You are told to invert and multiply to solve division problems with fractions. But why does it
work? Prove it.
4) Place these numbers in order of largest to smallest: .00156, 1/60, .0015, .001, .002
5) Multiplication is just repeated addition. Explain why this statement is false, giving examples.
6) A catering company rents out tables for big parties. 8 people can sit around a table. A school is giving
a party for parents, siblings, students and teachers. The guest list totals 243. How many tables should the
school rent?
7) Most teachers assign nal grades by using the mathematical mean (the average) to determine
them. Give at least 2 reasons why the mean may not be the best measure of achievement by explaining
what the mean hides.
8) Construct a mathematical equation that describes the mathematical relationship between feet and
yards. HINT: all you need as parts of the equation are F, Y, =, and 3.
9) As you know, PEMDAS is shorthand for the order of operations for evaluating complex expressions
(Parentheses, then Exponents, etc.). The order of operations is a convention. X(A + B) = XA + XB is the
distributive property. It is a law. What is the dierence between a convention and a law, then? Give
another example of each.
10) Why were imaginary numbers invented? [EXTRA CREDIT for 12th graders: Why was the calculus
invented?]
11) Whats the dierence between an accurate answer and an appropriately precise answer? (HINT:
when is the answer on your calculator inappropriate?)
12) In geometry, we begin with undened terms. Heres whats odd, though: every Geometry
textbook always draw points, lines, and planes in exactly the same familiar and obvious way as if we
CAN dene them, at least visually. So: dene undened term and explain why it doesnt mean that
points and lines have to be drawn the way we draw them; nor does it mean, on the other hand, that
math chaos will ensue if there are no denitions or familiar images for the basic elements.
13) In geometry we assume many axioms. Whats the dierence between valid and goofy axioms in
other words, what gives us the right to assume the axioms we do in Euclidean geometry?
Let us know how your kids did and which questions tripped up the most kids and why, if you
discussed it with them.
(SPOILER ALERT!!!!)
Thanks to reader Max Ray for pointing out a few TEACHER answers to the test!
A handful of math teachers & mathematicians (so far) have taken up the challenge posed by your 13
questions, answering them for ourselves before asking students to dive in, so that we have a sense of
what we might want to hear from kids.
Here are the ones I know of so far:

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ 4/37

h p://mathforum.org/blogs/max/in-which-i-take-the-grant-wiggins-challenge/
h p://step1trysomething.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/answering-the-conceptual-questions/
h ps://docs.google.com/document/d/1FK8m_oVaS_UWS4grETMAfAhByN_vrQC0TR85ld5FXj8/edit
And here is a nice commentary from one of our AE math consultants, Rita Atienza: Atienza math
comment.
And here is a great summary as to the ability to use the lack of denition of points, lines, and plane to
make valid hyperbolic proofs that reect Euclidean assumptions (hence, the validity of
hyperbolic geometry: h p://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/Winter2009/Mihai/section4.html
PS: I also had a nice phone conversation with friend and former HS student(!) Steve Stroga , the
celebrated mathematician-author about the test. He reminded me of two test questions that I should
have asked (and that he and I have previously discussed):
True or false: .999999 = 1
Explain why a negative times a negative = a positive.
Steve also pointed me to a cool example of the value of undened terms (beyond the one I taught him
years ago by Poincare, in which a plane is imagined as an enclosed circle, used to prove the relative
validity of one branch of non-Euclidean geometry) using the childrens game Spot It.
A postscript for geeky readers of my blog, and for fans of E D Hirschs work who have been critics of mine in the
past re: Knowledge:
I have been surprised to discover that there are a whole bunch of smart, literate, and learned teachers
who seem to deny that (conceptual) understanding even exists as a goal separate from knowledge and
by extension that my work and the work of many others is without merit. To them as to E D Hirsch, it
seems there is only Knowledge. This, despite the fact that the distinction between knowledge and
understanding is embedded in all indo-European languages, has a pedigree that goes back to Plato and
runs through Blooms Taxonomy; the National Academy of Science publication How People Learn; and is
the basis of decades of successful work in understanding by Perkins, Gardner, the research in student
misconceptions in science, and the research on transfer of learning.
Some of my critics regularly cite Willinghams summary of educational research, and a paper by Clark,
Kirschner, and Sweller (discussed below; Dan Meyer has a link to all the key papers and rebu als here.
And thanks to a blog reader, I was led to the articles related to the debate on the USC web page (Clarks
University); scroll to the bo om) to make clear that direct instruction leading to knowledge is the only
way to frame the challenge of both aim and means in eective education. As I will show, I believe they
overstate what the research actually says and have li le ground for suggesting that there is no
meaningful dierence between knowledge and understanding.
Wilingham on conceptual understanding in math. First, lets look more closely at what researcher
Daniel Willingham has to say about conceptual understanding in mathematics. His article is based on
the idea that successful mathematics learning presumably generalizable to all learning requires three
dierent abilities that must be developed and woven together:
https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ control of facts, control of processes, and5/37
dierent abilities that must be developed and woven together: control of facts, control of processes, and
conceptual understanding. And throughout the article he discusses not only the importance of
understanding and how it is dicult to obtain but also notes that instruction for it has to be dierent
than the learning of basic skills and facts. I quote him at length below:
Unfortunately, of the three varieties of knowledge that students need, conceptual knowledge is the most
dicult to acquire. Its dicult because knowledge is never acquired de novo; a teacher cannot pour concepts
directly into students heads. Rather, new concepts must build upon something that students already know. Thats
why examples are so useful when introducing a new concept. Indeed, when someone provides an
abstract denition (e.g., The standard deviation is a measure of the dispersion of a distribution.), we
usually ask for an example (such as, Two groups of people might have the same average height, but one
group has many tall and many short people, and thus has a large standard deviation, whereas the other
group mostly has people right around the average, and thus has a small standard deviation.).
[emphasis added]
This is also why conceptual knowledge is so important as students advance. Learning new concepts
depends on what you already know, and as students advance, new concepts will increasingly depend on
old conceptual knowledge. For example, understanding algebraic equations depends on the right
conceptual understanding of the equal sign. If students fail to gain conceptual understanding, it will
become harder and harder to catch up, as new conceptual knowledge depends on the old. Students will
become more and more likely to simply memorize algorithms and apply them without understanding.
Yet, for some reason, critics fail to accept this distinction or see the inherent paradox, therefore, in
education (discussed below). Novices need clear instruction and simplied/scaolded learning, for sure.
But such early simplication will likely come back to inhibit later nuanced and deeper learning not as a
function of bad direct teaching but because of the inherent challenge of unxing earlier, simpler
knowledge.
Perhaps part of the problem are the either-or terms that some researchers have used to frame this
discussion. The essence of the false dichotomy is contained in Clark, Kirschner, and Sweller. Here is the
introduction to the paper:
The goal of this article is to suggest that based on our current knowledge of human cognitive
architecture, minimally guided instruction is likely to be ineective. The past half-century of empirical
research on this issue has provided overwhelming and unambiguous evidence that minimal guidance
during instruction is signicantly less eective and ecient than guidance specically designed to
support the cognitive processing necessary for learning.
The authors suggest, in other words, that evidence-based research shows that so-called constructivist
i.e. discovery views of teaching are wrong on two counts:
1. The authors claim that those who use discovery/problem-based/project-based learning all
unhelpfully lumped together as one thing by the authors have confused the cognitive meaning
constructivism (a correct psychology theory of how minds make sense of data) with constructivist
teaching (an unsubstantiated theory of how people best learn).
2. The authors claim that this inappropriate view of inductive pedagogy confuses the needs and traits
of the expert with that of the novice:
Another consequence of a empts to implement constructivist

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ theory is a shift of emphasis away from 6/37
Another consequence of a empts to implement constructivist theory is a shift of emphasis away from
teaching a discipline as a body of knowledge toward an exclusive emphasis on learning a discipline by
experiencing the processes and procedures of the discipline (Handelsman et. al., 2004; Hodson, 1988).
This change in focus was accompanied by an assumption shared by many leading educators and
discipline specialists that knowledge can best be learned or only learned through experience that is
based primarily on the procedures of the discipline. This point of view led to a commitment by
educators to extensive practical or project work, and the rejection of instruction based on the facts, laws,
principles and theories that make up a disciplines content accompanied by the use of discovery and
inquiry methods of instruction. The addition of a more vigorous emphasis on the practical application of
inquiry and problem-solving skills seems very positive. Yet it may be a fundamental error to assume that
the pedagogic content of the learning experience is identical to the methods and processes (i.e., the
epistemology) of the discipline being studied and a mistake to assume that instruction should
exclusively focus on methods and processes.
In sum, those who promote discovery or unguided learning make two big mistakes, unsupported
by research, say the authors: eective learning requires direct, not indirect instruction. And the needs of
the novice are far dierent than the needs of the expert, so it makes li le sense to treat novice students as
real scientists who focus on inquiry. (Even though the authors oer the aside that a more vigorous
emphasis on the practical application of inquiry and problem-solving skills is a good thing.)
But: huh? In 30 years of working with teachers I know of no teacher secondary school or college who
rejects the teaching of scientic facts, laws, and principles. Indeed, science classes in HS and college
universally are loaded with instruction, textbook learning, and testing on such knowledge.
Here is what the Clark et al. say in a follow-up article in American Educator:
Our goal is to put an end to the debate (about direct vs discovery learning). Decades of research clearly
demonstrate that for novices (comprising virtually all students) direct, explicit instruction is more
eective and more ecient than partial guidance. So, when teaching new content and skills to novices,
teachers are more eective when they provide explicit guidance accompanied by practice and feedback,
not when they require students to discover many aspects of what they must learn. [emphasis in the
original]
What a curious denition of novice! The novice category is stretched to include virtually all
students. This is surely a sweeping overstatement much like the sweeping categorization of all non
direct-instruction pedagogies as discovery that has been so criticized by others. We quite properly
expect older middle and high school students, never mind college students, to do extensive self-directed
and inductive work in reading, writing, problem solving, and research because they are no longer
novices at core academic skills. Indeed, here is research with college science students that counter their
argument.
Indeed, later in the article, the authors strike a somewhat dierent pose about the complete repertoire of
pedagogies needed by good teachers:
[T]his does not mean direct, expository instruction every day. Small group work and independent
problems and projects can be eective not as vehicles for making discoveries but as a means of
practicing recently learned skills. [emphasis in the original]
Though this properly expands the list of eective instructional

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ moves, their framing is odd and telling.
7/37
Though this properly expands the list of eective instructional moves, their framing is odd and telling.
The purpose of non-routine problem-solving, making meaning of a new text, doing original research, or
engaging in Socratic Seminar they say is to practice recently learned skills. Hardly. These
approaches have dierent aims, understanding-related aims, that are never addressed in their paper.
Indeed, this is just how conceptual and strategic thinking for transfer must be developed to achieve
understanding: through carefully designed experiences that ask students to bring to bear past experience
on present work, to connect their experiences into understanding. As Eva Brann famously said about the
seminar at St. Johns College, the point of student-led discussion is not to learn new things but to think
things anew. Indeed, Willinghams warning about not pouring concepts into a students head when
understanding is the goal is the important advice that is constantly overlooked by the authors and their
supporters as the focus is overly-narrowed to teaching skill via direct instruction.
The authors even tacitly acknowledge this later in the article, in discussing why what works for novices
doesnt work for experienced learners in a subject and vice versa:
In general, the expertise reversal eect states that instructional techniques that are highly eective with
inexperienced learners can lose their eectiveness and even have negative consequences when used with
more experienced learners. This is why, from the very beginning of this article, we have emphasized
that guidance is best for teaching novel information and skills. This shows the wisdom of instructional
techniques that begin with lots of guidance and then fade that guidance as students gain mastery. It also
shows the wisdom of using minimal guidance techniques to reinforce or practice previously learned
material.
Well, which is it, then? Are virtually all students novices or not? When does a gradual-release-of-
responsibility kick in? Just when is a student gaining mastery enough to use more inferential
methods? We know the answer in reading: in middle school, based on the gold standard controlled
research of Palinscar and Brown that the authors mention in the citations!
Willingham in fact concludes his article by questioning the very novice-expert sequence laid out by
Clark, Kirschner, and Sweller when the goal is conceptual understanding. After describing the
caricatures in the math-wars debate of process vs. conceptual knowledge, he says:
Somewhat more controversial is the relative emphasis that should be given to these two types of
knowledge, and the order in which students should learn them.
Perhaps with sucient practice and automaticity of algorithms, students will, with just a li le support,
gain a conceptual understanding of the procedures they have been executing. Or perhaps with a solid
conceptual understanding, the procedures necessary to solve a problem will seem self-evident.
There is some evidence to support both views. Conceptual knowledge sometimes seems to precede
procedural knowledge or to inuence its development. Then too, procedural knowledge can precede
conceptual knowledge. For example, children can often count successfully before they understand all of
countings properties, such as the irrelevance of order.
A third point of view (and today perhaps the most commonly accepted) is that for most topics, it does
not make sense to teach concepts rst or to teach procedures rst; both should be taught in concert. As
students incrementally gain knowledge and understanding of one, that knowledge supports
comprehension of the other. Indeed, this stance seems like common

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ sense. Since neither procedures nor8/37
comprehension of the other. Indeed, this stance seems like common sense. Since neither procedures nor
concepts arise quickly and reliably in most students minds without signicant prompting, why wouldnt
one teach them in concert?
Indeed. Sequence in learning is not at all se led, as Clark et al profess, when the aim is understanding as
opposed to basic skills to be learned the rst time.
The key to understanding understanding: the ubiquity of persistent misunderstanding. Ultimately, a

key lacuna in the everything-is-knowledge-through-direct-instruction view is its inability to adequately
explain student misconceptions and transfer decits that persist in the face of conventional direct
teaching in science and mathematics. A glaring weakness in the Clark, Kirschner, and Sweller paper is
their one-sentence treatment of student misconceptions: they suggest that misconceptions are the likely
result of allowing students to discover concepts and facts for themselves!
This is surely a slanted view. There is a 30-year history of research in science and math misconceptions
that shows conclusively that traditional high school and college direct instruction leads unwi ingly to
persistent misconceptions, and that a more interactive concept-a ainment approach works to overcome
them.
Multiplication is not repeated addition. The equal sign does not mean nd the answer. Then, why is
this a near-universal misunderstanding of these ideas? Presumably as a result of teachers not teaching
for conceptual understanding and failing to think through the predictable misunderstandings that will
inevitably arise when teaching novices the basics in simplied ways. Teaching a concept as a fact simply
does not work, as Willingham notes.
The paradox of education. What these examples beautifully indicate is the paradox of teaching novices
that so many knowledge-centric educators seem to overlook. Yes, we must simplify and scaold the
work for the novice and make direct instruction clear and enabling but in so doing we invariably sow
the seeds of misconceptions and inexible knowledge if we do not also work to a ain genuine
understanding of what the basics do and do not mean.
Indeed, the success of Eric Mazurs work at Harvard and with other college faculties, and the Arizona
State Modeling project in physics, both backed by more than a decade of research in college and high
school science, cannot be understood unless one sees the connection between conceptual understanding
and transfer, and the failure of transfer to occur when there is just factual and procedural instruction.
In fact, a telling comment made by Barak Rosenshine, a leader in direct instruction, that DI has a more
limited use than Clark et al acknowledge:
Rosenshine and Stevens concluded that across a number of studies, when eective teachers taught well-
structured topics (e.g., arithmetic computation, map skills), the teachers used the following pa ern:
Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning.
Begin a lesson with a short statement of goals.

Present new material in small steps, providing for student practice after each step.
Give clear and detailed instructions and explanations.
Provide a high level of active practice for all students.
Ask a large number of questions, check for student understanding, and obtain responses from all
students.
Guide students during initial practice.
Provide systematic feedback and corrections.
Provide systematic feedback and corrections.

Provide explicit instruction and practice for seatwork exercises and monitor students during
seatwork.
[emphasis added]
Rosenshine is far more careful than Clark et al to clarify the meaning of the term direct instruction
which he claims has ve dierent meanings that need to be sorted out. In fact, he notes that reading
comprehension is a dierent kind of learning task than developing straightforward skills, and thus
requires a dierent kind of direct instruction instruction in cognitive strategies:
Even though the teacher eectiveness meaning was derived from research on the teaching of well-
structured tasks such as arithmetic computation and the cognitive strategy meaning was derived from
research on the teaching of less-structured tasks such as reading comprehension, there are many
common instructional elements in the two approaches.
In most of these studies students who received direct instruction in cognitive strategies signicantly
outperformed students in the control group comprehension as assessed by experimenter-developed
short answer tests, summarization tests, and/or recall tests.
(Note, therefore, that DI oers no justication for the kind of direct instruction done by ineective
high school and college teachers i.e. too much teacher talk. DI is a method for learning and applying
skills.)
Here we see the paradox, more clearly: no one can directly teach you to understand the meaning of a
text any more than a concept can be taught as a fact. The teacher can only provide models, think-alouds,
and scaolding strategies that are practiced and debriefed, to help each learner make sense of text.
Otherwise we are left with the silly view that English is merely the learning of facts about each text
taught by the teacher or that science labs are simply experiences designed to reinforce the lectures. As I
noted here, Willingham argues that teaching cognitive strategies are benecial in literacy in contrast to
Hirschs constant and sweeping complaints about the lack of value in teaching such strategies and
asking students to use them.
Interestingly, in an interview Rosenshine seems a bit insensitive to the problem of inexible knowledge
in less able students who need to rely on initial scaolds for a long time:
Rosenshine: Cognitive strategies refers to specic strategies students can use to provide a support in
their initial learning. For example, in teaching writing there is a cognitive strategy called the ve-
paragraph essay. The format for this essay suggests that students begin with an introductory paragraph
containing a main idea supported by three points. These points are elaborated in the next three
paragraphs, and then everything is summarized in the nal paragraph.
After describing a lesson on Macbeth in which the essay template and DI are used, Rosenshine says:
The teacher told me he used this same approach with classes of varying abilities and had found that the
students in the slower classes hung on to the ve-step method and used it all the time. Students in the middle
used the method some of the time and not others, while the brighter students expanded on it and went o on
their own. But in all cases, the ve-step method served as a scaold, as a temporary support while the
students were developing their abilities. [emphasis added]
I nd this an ironic comment since I have often wri en about

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ the English test item in Massachuse s in10/37
I nd this an ironic comment since I have often wri en about the English test item in Massachuse s in
which 2/3 of all 10th graders could not identify a reading as an essay because it didnt have 5
paragraphs. It is precisely the paradox of the inexibility and over-simplication of well-scaolded
novice knowledge that has to be aggressively addressed if understanding (what an essay is as a concept)
and transfer (recognizing that this is an essay, even though its surface features are unfamiliar) are to
occur.
How hard would it be to show weaker students a 3- and a 9-paragraph essay as well as a 5-paragraph
essay, all on the same topic; and then ask them to explain what makes an essay an essay, regardless of
surface structure? Indeed, this is just the kind of scaold for inferring a concept that lies at the heart of
teaching for understanding: concept a ainment and meaning-making via examples, non-examples, and
guided inferences mindful of prior learning experience (and likely misunderstanding). Not at all the
same as discovery learning and hit or miss projects.
Yes, the research is clear: direct instruction is be er than discovery learning when the aim is brand
new unproblematic knowledge and skill and when contrasted with students discovering for themselves
core facts and skills. But this is a very cramped argument. And it simply does not follow from it that all
important learning occurs through direct instruction or that knowledge = understanding. Indeed, as
Plato said 200 years ago, learning for understanding is not what is proponents often say it is, that is the
pu ing of sight into blind eyes. Rather, it is more like turning the head from the dark to the light
PS: Rosenshine oers a very dierent take on the issue that so motivated Clark, Kirschner, and Sweller,
i.e. the link between the practice of experts and the pedagogy that supports developing expertise. He
laments our failure to pursue the pedagogical question of how novices become experts:
Rosenshine: One very promising area of teaching research has been to compare the knowledge
structures of experts and novices. For example, the experts might be professors of physiology and the
novices might be interns or graduate students. Or the experts could be experienced lawyers and the
novices were rst-year lawyers.
What the researchers consistently found was that the experts had more and be er constructed
knowledge structures and they had faster access to their background knowledge. These ndings
occurred in diverse areas such as in chess, in cardiology, chemistry, and law. They also compared expert
readers with poor readers and found that the expert readers used be er strategies when they were given
confusing passages to read.
A lot of expert-novice research was done from the mid-1980s until about 1992, but then it stopped. I
would have hoped they would have gone on to ask questions such as, What sort of education should
novices go through in order to become like experts? and What does creating expert knowledge mean
for classroom instruction?
But, unfortunately, the research was never used to develop an instructional package for training experts.
It was never used to establish instructional goals for classes to teach all children to be like the experts.
Our goal should be to develop experts, and were not doing it.
A postscript to the initial critics of the post. No, I have NOT made a category mistake. Knowledge is
necessary but not sucient for understanding; understanding is not a direct function of knowledge.
Understanding is the result of a deliberate a empt to make meaning of and connect ones discrete
experiences, eects, as well as knowledge and skill. Similarly,

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ performance is more than the sum of skill;
11/37
experiences, eects, as well as knowledge and skill. Similarly, performance is more than the sum of skill;
it requires judgment and strategy. Thats why there are three types of performance achievement, not
two declarative, procedural, and conditional. Some students (and players), with limited knowledge,
have great understanding; some students (and players) with extensive knowledge and skill have li le
understanding (as reected in questions/tasks that demand transfer). All of us have experienced such
contrasts. You explain them, then. And also please explain the transfer decit and misconception
literature while youre at it. Then well talk further.
Advertisements
thoughts on Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics
1. said:Susan
March 25, 2015 at 7:09 pm
Our school has recently embraced the AIW framework to looking at teacher tasks, instruction and
student work. Much of our interdisciplinary conversations involve talking about teaching about
concepts, not topics. It appears that a subject like math can easily overlap those 2 words.
Any suggetions on what true math concepts might be 7-12?
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
March 26, 2015 at 8:04 am
A concept is a model, theory, general principle an idea, an inference that is used to explain and
connect facts. Mathematics contains many, some of which are crucial for understanding:
congruence, equality, linear or non-linear relationship, function, derivative, imaginary number,
etc. 2 more complex concepts: internal consistency (which is why you cant divide by zero but you
can multiply by zero, etc.) A key concept in problem-solving: nding simpler equivalences. In
short, many core concepts that kids often do not understand. So, the question becomes: what
must be understood about these concepts for understanding to advance (vs. just calling them
topics to be covered)? What is often misunderstood about these concepts that impedes
understanding? You might also want to check out the article that Randy Charles wrote for the
NCSM journal on big ideas in math about 5 years ago.
i
Rate This
REPLY
2. said:Epigami
March 20, 2015 at 5:13 am
Interesting article! It is indeed quite dicult to get concepts through to the younger minds, and
educators need to nd original ways to reach out to them. The issue is that many academic systems
around world will focus on pure theoretical exercise, which might a ract some pupils, but others will
be much less able to follow. We interviewed Kalid Azad (h p://www.epigami.sg/blog/be er-
explained-interview-kalid-azad/), a math enthusiast who loves to create simplied (again
depending on the target) explanations. Conceptual understanding has to do with intrinsic interest of
the subject, not just the work put into it.
0
i
Rate This
REPLY
3. said:Keith
April 27, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Again, thanks for the post. Since your post on Its time to retire E D Hirschs tired refrains my
colleagues and I have been discussing this rather ironic controversy and the hurdles involved for
both students as well as teachers. Ive found that there are two main disconnects for teachers who
advocate knowledge and understanding are one in the same. Either they have the same
misconceptions as our students due to their own learning experiences, or they have understanding,
but have not reected on how they have may arrived at this point, and so they have what you have
called the expert blind spot in UBD. To be honest, I was one of the former before I became involved
with the ASU modeling program where they gave me the FCI and exploited my own misconceptions.
From there, I was able to build a new framework that relied less on schema, and more on experience;
to see how it operates or functions, what consequences follow from it, what causes it, what uses it
can be put to (Dewey) It was only then that I was able to move forward and advocate for my
students understanding. I have found that those teachers in the la er category that have been closed
to understanding can be opened when they see the impact of strategies that elicit understanding
from their students.
To this end, I have also been trying to gure out how to elicit students understanding to a higher
degree. Of course, student discourse will naturally bring it out eectively. But on an independent
level it was the use of your understanding rubric that really helped me clarify my expectations to
students when they were writing independently. Although knowledge and understanding are two
dierent things, the knowledge piece, Ive found, can actually be a hindrance. Because so much
emphasis has been placed on content acquisition students have been programed in schools to give
vague, procedural descriptions based on content because that is all what knowing content requires.
Once I used an explanation rubric (from the six facets of understanding) that was framed in the
context of a content based question, but with understanding expectations for their explanation, I was
able to get the responses from students that showed understanding of concepts. Showing these o a
bit has, in turn, helped me advocate for the very point you are making in your blog to teachers in that
la er group. Im still honing this practice, but I wish to thank you for all your insights which have
helped get me and my students here.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 27, 2014 at 5:23 pm
April 27, 2014 at 5:23 pm
Im grateful for your taking the time to leave this comment thank you. Your policy is the best: do
by modeling (ironically).
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Atlas Educational
April 28, 2014 at 9:43 am
Keith, like you, have a description rubric really helped me clarify how to assess understanding.
Knowledge and understanding are both necessary and with the dawn of the age of the internet,
hopefully people will gain greater insight as to the dierences between knowledge and
understanding. Lets hope that metacognition will increase and we will all realize how to dig
deeper.
i
Rate This
REPLY
4. said:Susan Clayton
April 26, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Have you seen the journal Mind, Brain, and Education from imbes vol 6, #3, September 2012? The
articles in this volume on math support your claims regarding teaching math for conceptual
understanding. Good examples for the concept of fractions and variables.
i
Rate This
REPLY
REPLY
5. said:Mr. Coverstone
April 26, 2014 at 3:06 pm
Here is my best rst a empt at writing a test that a empts to address the conceptual understanding
of a topic. Comments are appreciated.
h p://zachtheriah.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/a-conceptual-understanding-of-addition-of-fractions-
an-assessment/
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 27, 2014 at 7:18 am
Great! Ill check it out and oer any comments that seem helpful. I agree that making it practical
and more test-like is the next step (just from having read your intro to your a empt). As I noted
in other comments, my examples were meant to be suggestive of issues why does seom hing
work? What are common misconceptions? What assumptions need to be explained/justied in the
system? etc.
i
Rate This
REPLY
6. said:Max Ray (@maxmathforum)
April 25, 2014 at 6:06 pm
A handful of math teachers & mathematicians (so far) have taken up the challenge posed by your 13
questions, answering them for ourselves before asking students to dive in, so that we have a sense of
what we might want to hear from kids.


h p://mathforum.org/blogs/max/in-which-i-take-the-grant-wiggins-challenge/
h p://step1trysomething.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/answering-the-conceptual-questions/
h ps://docs.google.com/document/d/1FK8m_oVaS_UWS4grETMAfAhByN_vrQC0TR85ld5FXj8/edit
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 26, 2014 at 5:51 am
Thanks! I was unaware of this.
i
Rate This
REPLY
7. said:principalaim
April 24, 2014 at 10:38 pm
Reblogged this on principalaim and commented:

If you are following principalaim, I have shared some of my favorite educators, innovators, and
creative thinkers. Among my favorites is Grant Wiggins, co-author of Understanding by Design.
Wiggins, an authority on subjects dealing with assessment, student engagement, and the Common
Core, he is constantly being sought out to answer many of the toughest question concerning the best
practices in education. In Wiggins latest blog, he asked us to think about what conceptual
understanding in mathematics means and how best to use it to help students understand which ideas
are key (relevant). Ultimately, it is critical that we understand how best to prepare our students to
become mathematical thinkers, independent, and innovative creators.
i
Rate This
Rate This
REPLY
8. said:Kevin Hall
April 24, 2014 at 9:55 pm
Interesting that you think their novice point is ludicrous, because I see it as self-evident, which again
makes me think youre not interpreting their statement correctly. You ask, Are virtually all students
novices or not? When does a gradual-release-of-responsibility kick in? Just when is a student
gaining mastery enough to use more inferential methods? In cognitive load theory, the answer is
biological: you are no longer a novice when the information youre processing has made its way from
your working memory to your long-term memory. Humans have very high limits on how much
information they can process simultaneously from their long-term memory, and very low limits for
how much they can process from working memory. As Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) say, we
lose whats in our working memory after about 30 seconds of inactivity, and we can only hold
between 4-7 pieces of information there (like the 7 digits of a phone number).
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 25, 2014 at 6:13 am
But by hs every student should be able to read and write, so the cognitive load is diminished on
those core skills.The 7-item rule about memory is also being misused. We have learned to chunk
those items in reading and writing after many years of doing it. By your argument, no one should
be bale to understand complex text when they read independently. Again, their argument is
surely a stretch. An experience HS and college student is not a novice except if you think of the
content which, ironically, is not the focus of their argument; their argument is based on
research involving skills.
i
Rate This
REPLY
Kevin Hall
said:Kevin Hall
April 25, 2014 at 8:57 am
Ah, well in my reading, they ARE talking about content, not reading complex texts. For
example, the biggest example they describe in the 2006 paper is medical students being
trained to make diagnoses in a lab se ing with minimal guidancea task with li le reading
involved.
Their argument is that the costs of inquiry instruction come from the way the student must
search the scenario for the relevant information while simultaneously guring out how to put
that information together. Its not about the demands that core academic processes like
reading or listening impose on a student; its about the demands involved in asking, What
information here is relevant? What information is extraneous? What do I still need to nd
out?.
Here is the central quotation of their paper as I understand it: Inquiry-based instruction
requires the learner to search a problem space for problem-relevant information. All problem-
based searching makes heavy demands on working memory. Furthermore, that working
memory load does not contribute to the accumulation of knowledge in long-term memory
because while working memory is being used to search for problem solutions, it is not
available and cannot be used to learn. Indeed, it is possible to search for extended periods of
time with quite minimal alterations to long-term memory (e.g., see Sweller, Mawer, & Howe,
1982) (p. 77).
If youre interested, last night I wrote up up how I think Clark/Kirschner/Sweller 2006 can be
applied to improve Dan Meyers Shipping Routes lesson on least common multiples. I think
the post lays out why I think Sweller et al have made a useful contribution. My blog post is
here:
h p://wp.me/p3OXcS-2q
If you dont have time to read it, Ill just say here that my conclusion isnt that inquiry is
always bad, but that cognitive load theory helps us make inquiry lessons like Dans more
eective.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 26, 2014 at 5:51 am
I appreciate your comments and the citations. But

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ cognitive load is not the issue; engaged,
19/37
I appreciate your comments and the citations. But cognitive load is not the issue; engaged,
focused, and quality learning is the issue. I have worked with 4th graders who can answer
the questions you pose. Nothing about the brain mechanics addresses the fundamental
question: what is a good education?
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Kevin Hall
April 26, 2014 at 10:54 pm
When you say I have worked with 4th graders who can answer the questions you
pose, I assume youre talking about the questions, What information here is relevant?
What information is extraneous? What do I still need to nd out? If so, please let me
clarifythose were just examples. Other similar questions include Where am I right
now in the problem-solving process? If I take this step, will I get closer to a solution?
Even when these are easy questions, the point is just that considering them takes up
working memory, which inhibits the formation of long-term memories related to the
content youre studying. It has nothing to do with how easy the questions are.
I get that youre saying education is terrible when its reduced to accumulating skills.
And thats true: lessons that teach students to master a procedure dont even expose
students meaningfully to the conceptual understanding your blog post is about. So if
your learning objective is deeper understanding, you have to do something richer. But
within the universe of possible richer tasks that *do* engage students in conceptual
thinking, being vigilant about cognitive load means your students will develop that
understanding more successfully. Cognitive Load Theory is not just for skill
development. For conceptual learning, it says that you have to stop students frequently
along the way to help them make meaning out of what theyre doing and help them
encode that meaning into their long-term memories. Being dismissive about cognitive
load theory tends to produce inquiry activities in which students are either dont make
the desired discovery or do make it but are unable to remember it (or the logic
underlying it) by the next class. The blog post I linked to above gives an example of
restructuring an inquiry activity in light of cognitive load, not (I hope) turning it into
crappy drill practice.
i
Rate This
Rate This
REPLY
9. said:Kevin Hall
April 24, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Grant, a few disagreements:
1). Regarding your but, huh?: some teachers think the primary evidence of learning is not in the
knowledge obtained, but in, for example, the <a
href=h p://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/what-did-you-learn/ questions
generated.
2). Regarding your incredulity that the novice category is stretched to include virtually all
students: I think the authors intent is much more limited than how youve read it. Theyre simply
saying that almost all students are novices in what youre currently teaching, though hopefully not in
what youve already taught. Theyre not saying that most students are novices for their entire lives.
Would you disagree?
3). Im unconvinced by your test of conceptual learning. The division-by-zero question is a good
example. Even if a student can state a good reason that division by zero is impossible, that doesnt
mean the student understands it. They could simply be paraphrasing what theyve been told. Isnt it
easy to imagine a student who correctly explains why you cant divide by zero, but is not able to tell
you a number that makes y=3/(x +1) come out as undenedor even, a student who gives a good
explanation and then says that 3/0=0 a few days later? The only observable behavior that will show
us whether the student understands it is whether the student transfers that knowledge correctly or
eciently in new situations. If transfer is the measure, then conceptual understanding gets entangled
with memory, because a students probability of correctly transferring a concept is partly determined
by her ease of recalling it.
Similarly, to test whether Eric Mazurs techniques are working, wouldnt it be be er to give students
the Force Concepts Inventory test, rather than ask them to explain Newtons laws? This doesnt mean
that asking students to explain things isnt a good ideagenerating explanations is great for learning,
because the Generation Eect seems to be a valid cognitive principle.
I realize Im making a pre y sweeping claim here, but let me make it explicitly: asking students to
explain things is great for their learning, but it doesnt provide much evidence of their level of
conceptual understanding. Please note that Im not saying that conceptual understanding doesnt
exist.
i
Rate This
REPLY
grantwiggins
said:grantwiggins
April 24, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Fair enough on the test it was merely suggestive. Obviously, to take the Mazur example, the FCI
makes good sense. But my demand for explanation was to link it to the C Core and to do what far
too many math teachers do use non-multuple-chcoei questions. But I wasnt trying to design a
valid & reliable test, just a suggestive one.
As for the novice point, I think their argument is ludicrous so ludicrous they back o it later in
the article.
Something got lost in #1
i
Rate This
REPLY
10. said:Ann Casebier
April 24, 2014 at 9:01 am
This blog really hit close to home. We have just recently had this very conversation in my school
district. Early primary teachers think the math curriculum is too easy and does not oer a
challenge for their li le guys. We are having a very dicult time convincing these teachers how
important it is to engineer many learning opportunities for these young learners in order to build
lifelong conceptual understandings around foundational number pa erns and the intricacies of how
numbers work together. Teachers are still in the mindset that they need to cover lots of ground in
early math or parents think their children are not learning anything new. This blog made me realize
the importance of educating both teachers AND parents about math being more than just
memorizing formulas and rules.
Thank you!
Ann
i
Rate This
REPLY
grantwiggins
said:grantwiggins
April 24, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Indeed, Ann. I would be startled to hear any teacher say these standards are too easyto cover.
Show them my li le test and ask them to ponder it Be er yet, come up with one for your
folks, based on early-math misconceptions (e.g. the equal sign question).
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:educationrealist
April 24, 2014 at 7:00 pm
I dont know if you know of Michael Pershan, but he recently was griping about why he
needed to waste his time on place value, which his kids already knew solid. You may be
pleased to know that me and a couple other teachers told him look, they dont really
understand it. Hes teaching very advanced fourth graders, exactly the sort who need to really
be pushed to think conceptually. We convinced him:
h p://rationalexpressions.blogspot.com/2014/01/help-rookie-elementary-math-teacher.html
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 24, 2014 at 8:28 pm
I have followed his postings good for you.
0
i
Rate This
REPLY
11. said:nainibasu
April 24, 2014 at 4:53 am
Thank you for the list of misconceptions. I am happy to learn that I teach conceptually as I
anticipate possible misconceptions prior to teaching a new concept and then ask plenty of questions.
However, I realized I had a misconception such as the the diagonal of a square not being the same
size as its size! Oops I also liked the step by step procedure of how to go about having a
productive maths class. Excellent resource which I have shared with our maths teachers.
i
Rate This
REPLY
12. said:logicalincrementalism
April 24, 2014 at 1:58 am
Came across this post via h p://websofsubstance.wordpress.com/
More discussion, over several posts, on the Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006) paper on my blog here
h p://logicalincrementalism.wordpress.com/
My main problems with the KSC paper are that they over-extrapolate the conclusions that can be
drawn from the data, overlook the reasons why some students fail to learn even with direct
instruction, and, as Grant points out above, make sweeping generalisations about the nature of both
direct instruction and minimal guidance pedagogies.
They also, for reasons I havent yet fathomed, omit any reference to the Baddeley and Hitch model of
working memory thats dominated the eld for 4 decades. Harry Webb doesnt think that ma ers,
but I do even if only on the basis of good scholarship.
i
Rate This
REPLY
REPLY
13. said:educationrealist
April 23, 2014 at 7:13 pm
Im a bit confused, although a ered to be called learned. I do not reject your work at all. I may
have confused things by ge ing into the middle of the discussion. And certainly, I conate the
dierence between constructivist teaching and constructivism in my writing, because Im lazy,
but not in my head, because my heads be er at keeping things straight.
I do not in any sense think that conceptual understanding exists as a goal separate from knowledge.
In my experience, kids forget most of what they are taught no ma er the method, so I want them to
have the sense of understanding, which can only come if they engage with the concept and tasks
directly, not just because I told them.
Perhaps this is unnecessary, but Im bothered enough that you think I dont respect your work that
Ill try to explain my pov:
1. Picture a debate between Jo Boaler and Harry Webb. Id be on Harrys side all the way, even
though we dont have similar teaching styles or values.
2. In a discussion between, say, Dan Meyer and Harry Webb, Id come down in the middle but nearer
Harry than Dan. Dans lessons are far too open-ended for my tastes, and if you examine the reasons
why, Ill sound a lot like Harry. But I actually have a lot in common with Dan. I just dont think hes
spent enough time with low ability kids to understand their issues, and isnt (in my view) cognizant
that his lack of experience is relevant.
3. In a debate between you and Harry, Id come down much nearer you. My big issue with you, as
Ive wri en, is that your examples are all very Jo Boaler squish, but your reasoning is all very solid.
So I have to ignore your examples and just focus on the substance. It took me several years to gure
this out.
I think conceptual understanding is essential to my teaching. However, for many of my students,

remembering the procedures is *not* the simplistic task that many portray it. For example, multi-step
equationsmany of my algebra I kids can explain and understand distribution, combining like terms,
and isolation with a fair degree of conceptual knowledge. But put all the steps together and they
become disoriented. Focusing on procedure to help them put the concepts in action is essential. So
yes, as you say, both are needed. But worked examples and lots of practice doesnt mean that
teachers are overly focused on procedures, nor does it mean theyve ignored concepts.
As for your test, my kids would do pre y well. We go through division by 0, I teach proofs through
algebra, not geometry, I dont even know the answer to the 13th one, though. But then, Im an
English major. Ill give it to them and report back.
i
Rate This
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Thanks for this. I appreciate your candor and clarity. Ill have more to say, i think, when the dust
se les. First, I want to see some test results!
PS: The answer to the 13th question and that was a VERY inside joke to those who have played
music with me (Seatrain, 70s) -runs something like this: we have the axioms we do in order to
prove the theorems we want. Famously, the parallel postulate had to be added to make all the key
theorems work. Then, it was discovered that if we try out alternative postulates of parallelism, we
get VALID non-Euclidean geometries.
Its like baseball. Once we decide how the game should be played, we make the rules t the
spirit of the game. Hence, the famous pine-tar bat ruling by the AL Commissioner, overturning
the umpires decision against George Bre s home run.
Its like the rst 10 Amendments to the US Constitution
A goofy axiom would lead to nonsense or internal contradictions. Famously, mathematicians who
denied the parallel postulate as part of investigating its validity decided prematurely to end their
investigations because they thought the new theorems were absurd (e.g. no similar gures, only
congruent; no 180 degrees in all triangles, etc.) But it took Gauss, Bolyai, and Lobascevsky to say:
hey just cause the results are weird doesnt mean they are nonsense and so, non-Euclidean
geometry was born.
Great history of this and the importance of this line of argument in Morris Klines book on the
Loss of Mathemtical Certainty about 30 years ago.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:educationrealist
April 24, 2014 at 6:15 pm
Oh, I talk about the fth postulate and undened terms in my rst geometry lecture. I usually
come back to it in precalc, too. I didnt realize thats what you meant. I actually blogged about
the lecture:
h p://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/geometry-starting-o/
https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ Let me know if I said
26/37
h p://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/geometry-starting-o/ Let me know if I said

anything actively wrong.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 24, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Ill check out the blog post!
i
Rate This
REPLY
14. said:Mrti Klis
April 23, 2014 at 8:06 am
By the way, the link to the paper on teachernet.gov.uk does not work, but thank you for the list of
misconceptions! Its not that easy to nd good resources on this. This is another one that I like:
h p://www.counton.org/resources/misconceptions/pdfs/misconceptions1~22.pdf
But Id be happy for any other leads as well!
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 23, 2014 at 8:10 am

Ill check the link thanks!
Ill check the link thanks!
i
Rate This
REPLY
15. said:markliddell
April 23, 2014 at 7:06 am
Ha ie makes mention of the seven characteristics of experts vs novices in Visible Learning and the
Science of How We Learn. He also notes that students can spend years performing activities
successfully without increasing their skills to expert levels.
i
Rate This
REPLY
16. said:Doug Holton
April 23, 2014 at 6:57 am
The citing of the 2006 Kirshner, Sweller, Clark article has become a good barometer for identifying
folks with naive understandings of educational research and learning theories. They may not even be
aware that several rebu als were published in the very same journal, or that the same authors are
also against the use of videogames in education, too:
h p://edtechdev.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/problem-based-learning-videogames-inquiry-learning-
constructivism-pedagogical-agents-all-bad/
Unfortunately one of those folks was very active on Wikipedia, biasing several educational articles:
h p://edtechdev.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/an-argument-for-knols-over-wikipedia-and-citizendium/
Interpreting educational research and critiques is itself a dicult skill to learn. Ive noticed grad
students tend go through phases, rst believing anything they read, then rejecting everything else,
and nally trying to take a more balanced point of view and look for the advantages and limitations
of dierent research ndings and theoretical frameworks. If youre not aware of ANY criticisms or
limitations of something or any positives, then maybe you dont have a good conceptual
understanding, then maybe you dont understand it well yet:
Doug Holton
Shared publicly - 18 Apr 2014 Follow
I tend to see 3 phases graduate students (and increasingly, the

public) go through when reading and interpreting educational
research or opinions. In the rst phase, they believe everything they
read, they drink the koolaid, etc. In the second phase, as they
inevitably
Read morecome across differing opinions, they start rejecting that
(149 lines)
Problem-Based Learning,
Videogames, Inquiry Learning,
Constructivism, Pedagogical
Agents...All Bad?
edtechdev.wordpress.com
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
Thanks for the heads-up on this. I was unaware of the back and forth.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 23, 2014 at 7:14 am
9/13/2017 said: Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics | Granted, and...
April 23, 2014 at 7:14 am
Do you have the rebu al articles?
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Mrti Klis
April 23, 2014 at 7:59 am
Dan Meyer has links to a couple more of the articles (towards the end of the blog post):
h p://blog.mrmeyer.com/2011/winter-quarter-wrap-up-spring-quarter-kick-o/
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 23, 2014 at 9:58 am
Thanks for this and your other citations! I updated the piece, accordingly.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Ma
April 23, 2014 at 8:12 am
The original article, rebu als and response frpm the

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ original authors are on the bo om of this
30/37
The original article, rebu als and response frpm the original authors are on the bo om of this
page: h p://www.cogtech.usc.edu/recent_publications.php
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Harry Webb
April 23, 2014 at 10:33 pm
Taking a view does not necessarily make one nave unless, of course, you assume that all those
who disagree with you are nave. I, for one, am familiar with the responses to the Kirschner,
Sweller and Clark paper. And I am also familiar with their response to these responses. I posted
about this a while back:
h p://websofsubstance.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/the-kirschner-sweller-clark-2006-cycle-of-
papers/
You made a similar comment to this on my own blog where you assumed that I did not know
about these responses.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Ma Me gar
April 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm
that the same authors are also against the use of videogames in education, too
O-topic, but I didnt know anyone credible was actually FOR video games in education.
i
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 24, 2014 at 2:06 pm
Obviously you havent been following the minecraft story Read this:
h p://www.gamesforchange.org/ and the recent NYT article on this.
And I have helped 2 groups develop some very cool history-based games.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Ma Me gar
April 24, 2014 at 8:24 pm
I have not been following this, and I remain skeptical of it. But it is o-topic, so I will leave
it be. Might make an interesting future post for your blog.
i
Rate This
REPLY
17. said:David Wees
April 23, 2014 at 6:55 am
Can I oer an example of evidence that conceptual understanding exists?
My son, who is 7, with no formal procedural instruction in fractions, is able to add familiar fractions
with a like denominator together, and decompose those fractions into components. He understands
what it means to add together objects, and so is able to generalize his understanding of addition to
adding fractions together.
See this transcript of a conversation he and I had together

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ a year ago when he was 6. 32/37
See this transcript of a conversation he and I had together a year ago when he was 6.
h p://maththinking.org/2013/03/27/decomposing-fractions/
One thought I have after reading your post is that in my work with teachers I need to check for
understanding of the phrase conceptual understanding. Im curious about what works to build a
dierent model of what it means to know something for teachers who are xated on a there is only
procedural knowledge mindset.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 23, 2014 at 7:09 am
Totally agree I think conceptual understanding is a bit of a litmus test for well,
understanding!
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 23, 2014 at 7:15 am
Cool example of your kids thinking. Alas, very few teachers (or parents) encourage this sort of
generalization as a major goal of the coursework.
i
Rate This
REPLY
Atlas Educational
said:Atlas Educational
April 27, 2014 at 9:57 am
David, in my experience, much of the conceptual understanding model prevalent throughout

much of Common Core is intimidating to many teachers. After all, it means admi ing that they
have not been teaching with the best approach and will probably need further support in
reaching the conceptual level themselves using their own content.
In short, depth is tough.
i
Rate This
REPLY
18. said:Harry Webb
April 23, 2014 at 6:06 am
Hi Grant
Thanks for linking to my blog. However, the post that you are most directly refuting is probably this
one:
h p://websofsubstance.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/the-superior-nature-of-understanding/
I will respond to the points that you raise in a post of my own it probably deserves extended
a ention.
All the best
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 23, 2014 at 7:08 am
Right you are Ill x. PS: I am not making a category

https://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptual-understanding-in-mathematics/ mistake. Knowledge is necessary but not34/37
Right you are Ill x. PS: I am not making a category mistake. Knowledge is necessary but not
sucient for understanding period. And since it is possible to have great understanding with
limited knowledge and no understanding with great knowledge, we are talking about two
dierent cognitive processes and outcomes.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Harry Webb
April 23, 2014 at 10:25 pm
I would reject the notion that you can have great understanding with limited knowledge.
There is a strong argument against this proposition in chapter 2 of Why dont students like
school, by Dan Willingham.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 26, 2014 at 6:06 am
Frank Sulloway famously said: Darwin who knew less, understood more in response to
his limited knowledge of geology. A perfect example.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Harry Webb
April 26, 2014 at 7:21 pm
April 26, 2014 at 7:21 pm
I suspect that Darwins knowledge of geography was be er than most, given that he
travelled around the world by boat.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:grantwiggins
April 27, 2014 at 7:12 am
geology, though, was the quote. And if you read the chapter its clear what he meant
and it relates to Kuhns paradigm. The geologists could not/would not see the
implications of their own knowledge in terms of developmentalism.
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Harry Webb
April 28, 2014 at 5:46 am
Fair enough. I stand corrected. However, I also suspect that Darwins knowledge
of geology was be er than most too. He probably had a good idea of the
dierent rock types and and what the word strata means etc. whilst not being a
world expert. It is exactly these sorts of facts that are required to think within a
discipline and it is just these sorts of facts that are often disparaged. We expect
children to somehow think deeply without them. It is surprising just how keen
educators are to diminish the role of knowledge. I see endless quotes
misa ributed to Einstein on similar lines.
i
i
Rate This
REPLY
said:Harry Webb
April 28, 2014 at 5:53 am
Indeed, a li le investigation seems to show that Darwin knew certainly more

than a li le geology. He appears to have won a medal from the Geological
Society of London for, for his numerous contributions to Geological Science.
h p://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=c3
i
Rate This
REPLY
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics - Granted, And.

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics - Granted, And.

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

9/13/2017 Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics | Granted, and...

Granted, and ~ thoughts on education by Grant

23 Wednesday Apr 2014

A few of the understanding standards provide further insight:

knowledge of procedures is no guarantee of conceptual understanding; for example, many children

A denition of conceptual understanding. In light of the confusion about conceptual understanding

In other words, students demonstrate understanding of

2) which ideas are useful in a particular context for problem solving

5) how to exibly adapt previous experience to new transfer problems.

Math teachers, give it to your students; tell us the results.

2) Solving problems typically requires nding equivalent statements

Here are the ones I know of so far:

Here are the ones I know of so far:

True or false: .999999 = 1

Explain why a negative times a negative = a positive.

Another consequence of a empts to implement constructivist

Though this properly expands the list of eective instructional

comprehension of the other. Indeed, this stance seems like common

The key to understanding understanding: the ubiquity of persistent misunderstanding. Ultimately, a

Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning.

Begin a lesson with a short statement of goals.

Provide systematic feedback and corrections.

I nd this an ironic comment since I have often wri en about

experiences, eects, as well as knowledge and skill. Similarly,

thoughts on Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics

March 25, 2015 at 7:09 pm

Any suggetions on what true math concepts might be 7-12?

March 26, 2015 at 8:04 am

March 20, 2015 at 5:13 am

April 27, 2014 at 12:53 pm

April 27, 2014 at 5:23 pm

April 28, 2014 at 9:43 am

April 26, 2014 at 3:09 pm

April 26, 2014 at 3:06 pm

April 27, 2014 at 7:18 am

6. said:Max Ray (@maxmathforum)

April 25, 2014 at 6:06 pm

Here are the ones I know of so far:

Here are the ones I know of so far:

April 26, 2014 at 5:51 am

Thanks! I was unaware of this.

April 24, 2014 at 10:38 pm

Reblogged this on principalaim and commented:

April 24, 2014 at 9:55 pm

April 25, 2014 at 6:13 am

April 25, 2014 at 8:57 am

April 26, 2014 at 5:51 am

I appreciate your comments and the citations. But

April 26, 2014 at 10:54 pm

April 24, 2014 at 3:29 pm

Grant, a few disagreements:

April 24, 2014 at 4:46 pm

Something got lost in #1

10. said:Ann Casebier

April 24, 2014 at 9:01 am

April 24, 2014 at 2:16 pm

April 24, 2014 at 7:00 pm

April 24, 2014 at 8:28 pm

I have followed his postings good for you.

April 24, 2014 at 4:53 am

April 24, 2014 at 1:58 am

Came across this post via h p://websofsubstance.wordpress.com/