# Difference between pages "Cobb, Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer (2001)" and "Skemp (1976)"

imported>Raymond Johnson |
imported>Raymond Johnson |
||

Line 1: | Line 1: | ||

The article '' | The article ''Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding'' was written by [[Richard Skemp]] and originally published in the December 1976 issue of ''[[Mathematics Teaching (journal)|Mathematics Teaching]]''. The article was reprinted in the November 1978 issue of ''[[Teaching Children Mathematics|Arithmetic Teacher]]'' and in the September 2006 issue of ''[[Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School]]''. The article is available from NCTM at [http://www.nctm.org/publications/article.aspx?id=20558 http://www.nctm.org/publications/article.aspx?id=20558] and from JSTOR at [http://www.jstor.org/stable/41182357 http://www.jstor.org/stable/41182357]. | ||

== Abstract == | == Abstract == | ||

<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||

In this article, | In this article, the author defines ''relational'' and ''instrumental understanding''. He then explains the impact he feels these two disparate goals have on the attitudes and understanding of students. We believe the reader will find his ideas about the teaching and learning of mathematics remarkably contemporary and thought-provoking. | ||

</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||

== | == Summary of ''Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding'' == | ||

In | In ''Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding'' Skemp contrasts two perspectives of mathematics. Using the terms ''relational'' and ''instrumental'' from [[Stieg Mellin-Olsen]], Skemp introduces relational understanding as "knowing both what to do and why" (p. 89) and instrumental understanding as the ability to execute mathematical rules and procedures. Skemp asks: | ||

<blockquote> | |||

If it is accepted that these two categories are both well-fitted, by those pupils and teachers whose goals are respectively relational and instrumental understanding (by the pupil), two questions arise. First, does this matter? And second, is one kind better than the other? (p. 89) | |||

</blockquote> | |||

Skemp admits his longstanding assumptions that relational understanding is better, but questions then when so many mathematics teachers and texts focus on instrumental understanding. Concerned about conflicts between the two views, Skemp hypothesizes two mismatches: | |||

<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||

# | # Pupils whose goal is to understand instrumentally, taught by a teacher who wants them to understand relationally. | ||

# The other way about. (p. 90) | |||

# | |||

</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||

Skemp sees the first mismatch as a short-term problem while the second is much more serious, as a student focused on relational understanding will get little or no assistance from the teaching. Similarly, a mismatch between teacher and text could also lead to conflicts. With the perspectives and conflict made clear, Skemp admits that "I used to think that maths teachers were all teaching the same subject, some doing it better than others. I now believe that ''there are two effectively different subjects being taught under the same name, 'mathematics''' (p. 91). | |||

Despite his preference of relational understanding, Skemp proposes three advantages of instrumental mathematics that make it preferred amongst many mathematics teachers: (a) within its own context, instrumental mathematics is often easier to understand; (b) the rewards for following a procedure and getting a correct answer are more immediate; and (c) because less knowledge is involved, it's often correct answers come more easily and reliably. In contrast, Skemp identifies four advantages to relational mathematics: (a) it is more adaptable to new tasks; (b) it is easier to remember, (c) relational knowledge can be effective as a goal in itself, and (d) relational schemas are organic in quality. | |||

The preference or use of instrumental mathematics by teachers are many, say Skemp. In some cases, instrumental understanding comes more quickly, and for a particular calculation in a class or on an exam it may be all a student needs. The expectations about the nature and amount of content presented in a course can also influence a teacher's use of instrumental mathematics if they feel pressure to cover many topics. Teachers may also prefer instrumental understanding because it is what they themselves possess, or they have difficulty recognizing relational understanding in their students' thinking and written work. | |||

To set up a theoretical explanation, Skemp proposes an analogy. He imagines visiting a town for the first time and needing to navigate to particular locations. He compares two strategies: (a) learning specific routes that take him from where he is staying to his destinations or (b) exploring the town in a way that allows him to form a mental map of significant landmarks and features. For getting from point A to B the first strategy will be efficient but limited to that route. The second strategy might result in a longer trip from A to B, but he will be more prepared to find other destinations and is less likely to get lost. Skemp relates the first strategy to instrumental understanding, where learning to navigate consists of learning an increasing number of fixed plans. Relational understanding is like the second strategy, where learning "consists of building up a conceptual structure (schema) from which its possessor can (in principle) produce an unlimited number of plans for getting from any starting point within his schema to any finishing point" (p. 95). Skemp therefore distinguishes relational understanding from instrumental understanding in the following ways: | |||

<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||

The | # The means have become independent of particular ends to be reached thereby. | ||

# Building up a schema within a given area of knowledge becomes an intrinsically satisfying goal in itself. | |||

# The more complete a pupil's schema, the greater his feeling of confidence in his own ability to find new ways of 'getting there' without outside help. | |||

# But a schema is never complete. As our schemas enlarge, so our awareness of possibilities is thereby enlarged. Thus the process often becomes self-continuing, and (by virtue of 3) self-rewarding. (p. 95) | |||

</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||

== About == | == About == | ||

=== | === See Also === | ||

[http:// | * [http://blog.mathed.net/2013/04/rysk-skemps-relational-understanding.html Google Hangout on Air] by [http://plus.google.com/114149253096420229966 Chris Robinson], [http://plus.google.com/101882140847690450569 Joshua Fisher], [http://plus.google.com/113604962265642096275 Nat Banting], [http://plus.google.com/104660118060087994354 Nik Doran], and [[Raymond Johnson]] | ||

* [http://mathhombre.blogspot.com/2011/02/instrumental-vs-relational.html John Golden's blog] | |||

* [http://davidwees.com/content/difference-between-instrumental-and-relational-understanding David Wees's blog] | |||

=== APA === | === APA === | ||

Skemp, R. R. (1976/2006). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. ''Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School'', 12(2), 88–95. Originally published in ''Mathematics Teaching''. | |||

=== BibTeX === | === BibTeX === | ||

<pre> | <pre> | ||

@article{ | @article{Skemp2006, | ||

author = {Skemp, Richard R.}, | |||

author = { | journal = {Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School}, | ||

number = {2}, | |||

journal = { | pages = {88--95}, | ||

number = { | title = {{Relational understanding and instrumental understanding}}, | ||

pages = { | url = {http://www.nctm.org/publications/article.aspx?id=20558}, | ||

title = {{ | volume = {12}, | ||

url = {http://www. | year = {2006} | ||

volume = { | |||

year = { | |||

} | } | ||

</pre> | </pre> | ||

[[Category:Articles]] | [[Category:Articles]] | ||

[[Category: | [[Category:Perspectives on Mathematics and Mathematics Education]] | ||

## Revision as of 19:42, 26 October 2013

The article *Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding* was written by Richard Skemp and originally published in the December 1976 issue of *Mathematics Teaching*. The article was reprinted in the November 1978 issue of *Arithmetic Teacher* and in the September 2006 issue of *Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School*. The article is available from NCTM at http://www.nctm.org/publications/article.aspx?id=20558 and from JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/stable/41182357.

## Abstract

In this article, the author defines

relationalandinstrumental understanding. He then explains the impact he feels these two disparate goals have on the attitudes and understanding of students. We believe the reader will find his ideas about the teaching and learning of mathematics remarkably contemporary and thought-provoking.

## Summary of *Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding*

In *Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding* Skemp contrasts two perspectives of mathematics. Using the terms *relational* and *instrumental* from Stieg Mellin-Olsen, Skemp introduces relational understanding as "knowing both what to do and why" (p. 89) and instrumental understanding as the ability to execute mathematical rules and procedures. Skemp asks:

If it is accepted that these two categories are both well-fitted, by those pupils and teachers whose goals are respectively relational and instrumental understanding (by the pupil), two questions arise. First, does this matter? And second, is one kind better than the other? (p. 89)

Skemp admits his longstanding assumptions that relational understanding is better, but questions then when so many mathematics teachers and texts focus on instrumental understanding. Concerned about conflicts between the two views, Skemp hypothesizes two mismatches:

- Pupils whose goal is to understand instrumentally, taught by a teacher who wants them to understand relationally.
- The other way about. (p. 90)

Skemp sees the first mismatch as a short-term problem while the second is much more serious, as a student focused on relational understanding will get little or no assistance from the teaching. Similarly, a mismatch between teacher and text could also lead to conflicts. With the perspectives and conflict made clear, Skemp admits that "I used to think that maths teachers were all teaching the same subject, some doing it better than others. I now believe that *there are two effectively different subjects being taught under the same name, 'mathematics'* (p. 91).

Despite his preference of relational understanding, Skemp proposes three advantages of instrumental mathematics that make it preferred amongst many mathematics teachers: (a) within its own context, instrumental mathematics is often easier to understand; (b) the rewards for following a procedure and getting a correct answer are more immediate; and (c) because less knowledge is involved, it's often correct answers come more easily and reliably. In contrast, Skemp identifies four advantages to relational mathematics: (a) it is more adaptable to new tasks; (b) it is easier to remember, (c) relational knowledge can be effective as a goal in itself, and (d) relational schemas are organic in quality.

The preference or use of instrumental mathematics by teachers are many, say Skemp. In some cases, instrumental understanding comes more quickly, and for a particular calculation in a class or on an exam it may be all a student needs. The expectations about the nature and amount of content presented in a course can also influence a teacher's use of instrumental mathematics if they feel pressure to cover many topics. Teachers may also prefer instrumental understanding because it is what they themselves possess, or they have difficulty recognizing relational understanding in their students' thinking and written work.

To set up a theoretical explanation, Skemp proposes an analogy. He imagines visiting a town for the first time and needing to navigate to particular locations. He compares two strategies: (a) learning specific routes that take him from where he is staying to his destinations or (b) exploring the town in a way that allows him to form a mental map of significant landmarks and features. For getting from point A to B the first strategy will be efficient but limited to that route. The second strategy might result in a longer trip from A to B, but he will be more prepared to find other destinations and is less likely to get lost. Skemp relates the first strategy to instrumental understanding, where learning to navigate consists of learning an increasing number of fixed plans. Relational understanding is like the second strategy, where learning "consists of building up a conceptual structure (schema) from which its possessor can (in principle) produce an unlimited number of plans for getting from any starting point within his schema to any finishing point" (p. 95). Skemp therefore distinguishes relational understanding from instrumental understanding in the following ways:

- The means have become independent of particular ends to be reached thereby.
- Building up a schema within a given area of knowledge becomes an intrinsically satisfying goal in itself.
- The more complete a pupil's schema, the greater his feeling of confidence in his own ability to find new ways of 'getting there' without outside help.
- But a schema is never complete. As our schemas enlarge, so our awareness of possibilities is thereby enlarged. Thus the process often becomes self-continuing, and (by virtue of 3) self-rewarding. (p. 95)

## About

### See Also

- Google Hangout on Air by Chris Robinson, Joshua Fisher, Nat Banting, Nik Doran, and Raymond Johnson
- John Golden's blog
- David Wees's blog

### APA

Skemp, R. R. (1976/2006). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. *Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School*, 12(2), 88–95. Originally published in *Mathematics Teaching*.

### BibTeX

@article{Skemp2006, author = {Skemp, Richard R.}, journal = {Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School}, number = {2}, pages = {88--95}, title = {{Relational understanding and instrumental understanding}}, url = {http://www.nctm.org/publications/article.aspx?id=20558}, volume = {12}, year = {2006} }