FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND

TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM

FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON REASONING

AND TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM

Brittanie Campos

Arizona State University

 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
Abstract

This paper introduces the problem of a lack of conceptually-oriented instruction in math

classes. Within the introduction, the definition of conceptual and procedural/calculational

mathematics will be given, as well as what a calculational-orientated and a conceptual-oriented

instructor will be explored. Furthermore, an explanation of the problem regarding the lack of a

support structure for conceptual mathematics will be provided. However, there is a solution, the

creation of a safe environment and the usage of models, especially ones involving technology, to

promote reasoning and deep, meaningful discussion which will lead to the solidifying of

concepts.
 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
Introduction

A common problem among math teachers is when they teach a concept or lesson to their

students, by the next test, the student has already forgotten everything they were previously

taught and thus unable to bring prior knowledge into the next lesson degrading their learning of

the new concept. Thus, students become increasingly frustrated as they are unable to recall prior

knowledge to solve new problems and rely more on formulas and memorization. This could be

due part to the prevalence of procedural/calculational-orientated instruction and lack of

conceptual-oriented instruction in today’s curriculum. And with the math culture being

dominated by procedural-orientated instruction, the students with a conceptual-orientated

mindset will stop trying to understand mathematics, as their expectations for understanding

mathematics is higher than their peers. To alleviate these problems, teachers should not only

teach procedural-oriented instruction, but also conceptual-orientated instruction by promoting a

culture of reasoning and the usage of didactic models to create those deep, meaningful

discussions that lead to the conception of ideas and relations in mathematics.

Background of the Problem

Procedural knowledge “refers to mastery of computational skills and knowledge of

procedures for identifying mathematical components, algorithms, and definitions” (Eisenhart et

al., pg. 9). Procedural knowledge has two parts: (a) knowledge of the format and syntax of the

symbol representation system and (b) knowledge of rules and algorithms, some of which are

even symbolic, that can then be used to complete mathematical tasks (Eisenhart et al., pg. 9).

Conceptual knowledge on the other hand refers to “the knowledge of the underlying structure of

mathematics-the relationships and interconnections of ideas that explain and give meaning to

[those] mathematical procedures” (Eisenhart et al., pg. 9). However, both procedural and
 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
conceptual knowledge are both necessary aspects of mathematical understanding. You cannot

have solidified understanding of a concept without both. The problem is though that there is

evidence that procedural knowledge is emphasized in most schools and teachers have been

devoting less time and attention to conceptual knowledge, to summarize learned rules and

procedure and prioritized over underlying structures and relationships of ideas (Eisenhart et al.,

pg. 10). This practice makes it harder to create an environment of reasoning and sensemaking for

students. As stated by Keazer and Menon, “[r]easoning is defined as “The process of drawing

conclusions based on evidence or stated assumptions” and sense making as “developing

understanding of a situation, context, or concept by connecting it with existing knowledge”

(Keazer and Menon, pg. 343-344). Practicing reasoning and sensemaking is critical for the

development of students’ mathematical literacy.

Therefore, it would benefit teachers to learn how to teach for conceptual knowledge. It is

said that students who had a calculational/procedural-orientated instruction will approach

mathematical discussions as finding an answer and will have difficulty understanding their and

others’ reasoning, and will find such discussion irrelevant to what mathematics is about

(Thompson et al., pg. 8-9) Students who had a conceptually-oriented instruction will likely

engage in longer, more meaningful discussions in addition with having a reasoning of how the

mathematics work, procedural knowledge usually comes hand in hand with it (Thompson et al.,

pg. 9). To teach conceptual knowledge, a culture of reasoning should be created, and models

should be used for deep and meaningful discussion to thrive. A culture of reasoning can be

created by by reducing opportunities for “learning” mathematics through memorizing rules and

procedures and replacing them with opportunities for authentic mathematical thinking by making

conjectures, evaluating others’ ideas, and exploring connections (Keazer and Menon, pg. 344).
 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
Moreover, the models that should be used are didactic models, which Thompson defined as, an

object that is “designed to support reflective mathematical discourse involving specific

mathematical ideas or ways of thinking (Thompson, pg. 211). Additionally, with technology

being integrated into schools, it is even more vital to take advantage of that resource to make

those didactic models.

Stakeholders Involved

By providing more opportunities for conceptual-oriented instruction in classrooms,

teachers not only ensure the success of the students but also stakeholders involved.

Procedural/Calculational oriented instructors are one “whose actions are driven by a fundamental

image of mathematics as the application of calculations and procedures for deriving numerical

results” (Thompson et al., pg. 7). While on the other hand conceptually-oriented instructors

“focus students’ attention away from thoughtless application of procedures and toward a rich

conception of situations, ideas, and relationships among ideas” (Thompson et al., pg. 7). They

give the meaning to numerical values and operations beyond just answers to look for and

procedures go use. This type of instruction will benefit students as it would potentially give

meanings to the mundane procedures students do to find solutions, thus increasing the chance of

understanding concepts and memorization of them. Therefore, improving engagement in classes.

Consequently, that by creating a culture of reasoning in classrooms, students will be building

their reasoning and problem-solving skills, which can be useful for them in future careers or

higher education opportunities. Thus, students will not only benefit from this kind of instruction,

but also teachers as it would increase the efficiency in the classroom as less time would be spent

on reviewing concepts already taught in previous lessons and more on discussion and conception

of ideas, situations, and relationships of said ideas. School and district staff will benefit from this
 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
type of instruction as it is the type of high quality education that will help meet the Arizona

Standards and meet the expectations of laws like No Child Left Behind. Thus, for the success of

the students, teachers, and school and district staff, conceptually oriented instruction should be a

focus with the help of establishing a culture of reasoning and using didactic models in

classrooms.

Existing Challenges and Potential Barriers

Despite the many benefits this method of teaching has, there are many obstacles and

barriers that could prevent us from implementing conceptual instruction. One obstacle is the lack

of support. When a teacher decides to commit to teaching mathematics conceptually, “[they] lose

support structures upon which [they] have to rely, such as textbooks and repertoires of stable

practice” (Thompson et al., pg. 11). Consequently, with the fact that most schools are dominated

by procedural instruction, it would be difficult to receive aid or help from other teachers. Even

the district does not provide enough support, even though the district communicates messages

about teaching for conceptual knowledge informally for the most part, the district administrators

encourage conceptual learning, but offer no means of how to do it (Eisenhart et al., pg. 31).

Additionally, teaching conceptual knowledge is an arduous task. It requires a “deep

understanding of situation” and to “think beyond what is necessary merely to find ways of

dealing with a situation mathematically” (Thompson et al., pg. 11). And unfortunately, even if

teachers should teach more conceptual instruction, it should be expected of student to

immediately make deep and long-lasting connections among new conceptions. It takes prolonged

reflection and practice (Thompson, pg. 211-12).

 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
Summary

By creating a culture of reasoning in the classroom and using didactic models in

instruction, conceptual instruction can thrive and student’s engagement and understanding of

mathematics can improve. By only using procedure-oriented instruction of mathematics, students

are less likely to understand the underlying structure of the mathematics use and are even less

likely to remember the things which they have learned. In order to give students, the high-quality

education they deserve, there needs to be a balance of procedural and conceptual-orientated

instruction.

Environment Analysis

Internal Strengths

As stated, there is a focus more on procedural-orientated instruction than conceptual-

orientated instruction. Yet the school could absolve this problem as they have quite an

advantage, being that they have multiple types of technology available to them. Every student is

equipped with a Chromebook, in the class you can find a SMARTboard, and there are multiple

websites available to them at their fingertips. The usage of technology can help with the creation

and usage of didactic models, although not all didactic models need to be some digital file and

can be just a simple picture or object, still, with this technology student learning can be extended

as students could view and interact with their learning more easily as there are several programs

available online that can help with that. In addition, with the internet and Chromebook,

discussions can be taken from just simply talking into a classroom to have forums, posts, blogs,

etc. A culture of reasoning can not only be established in the physical classroom but also the

digital one as well. With these resources, more conceptual-orientated instruction no longer must

be some concept, but a practice.

 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
Internal Weaknesses

However, there are some problems that could make the dream of conceptual-oriented

instruction hard to come true. Firstly, there are a lack of textbooks that use conceptual reasoning

for teachers to use and many practices that we have been taught also focus only on procedural-

orientated instruction. So, teachers will lose some resources to rely on. From the article

“Calculational and Conceptual Orientations in Teaching Mathematics, even the authors state,

“[o]nce a teacher makes a commitment to treat mathematics conceptually, she loses support

structures upon which she has come to rely, such as textbooks and repertoires of stable practices

(Thompson et al., pg. 11).” Secondly, not all students have internet at home. So unfortunately,

conceptual-orientated instruction cannot be taken outside of the classroom, and some students

may not be able to access resources at their homes. In summary, there will be a loss of resources,

and with the resources we will have left, some students might not be able to access all of it.

External Opportunities

There are still some opportunities that can be taken to help. The cost of resources such as

programs and websites should not be a problem, there are many grants available so that the

school can buy the needed equipment to help student engagement and learning. In addition, with

the Chromebooks, students can use math programming software such as Desmos and Graphing

Calculator 4.0 to help them have a better understanding of concepts at school or home. These

programming models are also a great tool to use for homework assignments as they allow

students to model their understanding of mathematics in a visual way by having what they

learned typed in and displayed in a still or moving animation.

External Challenges
 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
However, there are still some challenges. As stated before the loss of reliable sources and

books dealt a heavy blow, but also there is a lack of training programs and workshops to help

teach teachers to learn how to do conceptual-orientated instruction. Not to mention that if there

was a switch from procedural-orientated instruction to conceptual-oriented instruction, it would

need to be implemented campus wide. As content may differ if teachers are using different types

of instruction making it difficult to collaborate on and align tests, homework assignments,

lessons, and more. Thus, if conceptual-orientated instruction is not implemented in all

classrooms, teachers will not have the support of other teachers to rely on. So, like the woman

from the article, “Conceptual Knowledge Falls through the Cracks: Complexities o Learning to

Teach Mathematics for Understanding,” when not given enough encouragement to develop the

kind of teaching for conceptual knowledge, teachers will find support and some pressure to teach

procedural-oriented instruction (Eisenhart et al., pg. 36).

Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholders

The stakeholders within the problem are the students, the math teachers, workbook

publishers, publishers of procedural oriented books, and the district. Students are the most

affected group, simply look at the National Assessment of Education Progress, only 42% of

fourth grade students and only 35% of eight grade students were at or above proficient level

mathematics in their grades in 2013. Similarly, only 44% of 2013 U.s high school graduates were

ready for college level math (Molina, pg. 1). Additionally, students who have a conceptually

oriented mindset who sit in classrooms dominated by calculationally-oriented instruction and

discourse, will struggle to learn mathematics and may conclude that mathematics is not supposed

to make sense and stop trying to understand it altogether (Thompson et al., pg 10). However,
 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
teachers are also affected by this problem, although teachers do have the comfort of a support

system that they have relied on for years, they still have trouble with students remembering

previous concepts they have already taught as said students have failed to form connections to

their learning. And it is those procedural-oriented workbook and book publishers that take

advantage of that support system that teachers that so rely on to push more workbooks and

textbooks onto teachers despite the wide-set problem of students not really understanding

mathematics. So even with the abundant of resources, many teachers will have to either re-teach

the concept or must spend even more class time reviewing with students again before going on to

the next lesson. And then there’s the district, part of the district’s responsibility is to get students

“college ready,” yet seeing how even less than half of students were not ready for college level

mathematics, then the problem of the lack of conceptual-oriented education in mathematics is

even affecting their goals as well.

The Stakes

Yet teachers, students and districts will have much to gain, while many procedural-

oriented textbook and workbook publishers have much to lose if they are not willing to change.

As stated before, both procedural and conceptual knowledge are considered necessary aspects of

mathematical understanding (Eisenhart et al., pg. 10). With a better mathematical understanding,

students understanding of mathematics will also improve. So, by the time students are in college,

they will be more likely ready for college level mathematics. In addition, students with a

conceptually oriented mindset who sit in classrooms dominated by calculationally-oriented

discourse, will never have to conclude that mathematics is not supposed to make sense and will

not stop trying to understand mathematics (Thompson et al., pg. 10). As previously mentioned,

teachers do stand to lose numerous resources and support structures they have relied on upon for
 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
years if they decide to switch to a more conceptual-oriented instruction, however that does not

mean no resources exist out there. Concepcion “Como” Molina’s article in SEDL insights,

“Teaching Mathematics Conceptually,” is an example of a great resource of how to teach

mathematical conceptually to further student understanding. Not to mention that by switching to

a conceptual oriented education, teachers will not have to spend so much class time re-teaching

concepts from previous lessons as students will have made better connections in what they are

learning. Which could benefit the district as well, if students understanding of mathematics

improve, then test scores improve, and if test score improve then more funding for said district.

Which could be helpful in the long run. It is however true that textbook and workbook publishers

may lose some profits if teachers stop relying on them and relying more on technology or look

for more conceptually-oriented resources, but a simple solution to that would be to change the

content as profits should never come before student’s education.

Roles

Typically, students absorb content despite not understanding it, and simply remembering

formulas. Teachers then re-teach concepts again and again, and districts math score never

change. And if teachers feel the need to change content they simply buy more procedural-

oriented textbooks or workbooks that will not change the situation and so the problem persists.

However, by using more technology, didactic objects, and pushing for a more conceptual-

oriented education the roles can be changed. Students will make connections in their learning

and learn valuable problem-solving skills, teachers will have more class time to further enhance

learning and bring in new content then must re-teach concepts, and district scores will increase.

Students, teachers, and districts will no longer fall into the trap of buying more procedural-

oriented resources and still seeing no improvement.

 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
References

Molina, C. ". (2014). Teaching Mathematics Conceptually. SEDL Insights, 1(4), 1-8. Retrieved

October 14, 2018 from http://www.sedl.org/insights/1

4/teaching_mathematics_conceptually.pdf

Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1993). Conceptual

Knowledge Falls through the Cracks: Complexities of Learning to Teach Mathematics

for Understanding. Conceptual Knowledge Falls through the Cracks: Complexities of

Learning to Teach Mathematics for Understanding,24(1), 8-40. Retrieved September 9,

2018, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/749384.

Gilbert, AZ Cost of Living. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2018, from

http://www.areavibes.com/gilbert-az/cost-of-living/

Gilbert Public Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2018, from

http://gilbert.ss11.sharpschool.com/

Keazer, L. M., & Menon, R. S. (2015-16). Reasoning and Sense Making Begins with the

Teacher. MATHEMATICS TEACHER,109(5), 343-349. Retrieved September 9, 2018.

Mesquite Junior High School. (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2018, from

https://www.schooldigger.com/go/AZ/schools/0340001216/school.aspxHighland Jr. High

Mesquite Jr High School. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2018, from

https://www.greatschools.org/arizona/gilbert/982-Mesquite-Jr-High-School/#Students

Thompson, A. G., Philipp, R. A., Thompson, P. W., & Boyd, B. A. (1994). Calculational and

conceptual orientations in teaching mathematics. In A. Coxford (Ed.), 1994 Yearbook of

the NCTM (pp. 79-92). Reston, VA: NCTM

Thompson, P. W. (2002). Didactic objects and didactic models in radical constructivism. To

 FROM PROCEDURAL TO CONCEPTUAL THINKING: AN EMPHASIS ON AND
TECHNOLOGY IN CURRICULUM
appear in K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, L. Verschaffel (Eds)., Symbolizing,

Modeling, and Tool Use in Mathematics Education (pp. 191-212). Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Kluwer.