1

Focus of Mathematical Proficiency Elements

Shuji Miller

College of Education and P-16 Integration, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

EDCI 6351: Teaching Mathematics for Understanding

Dr. Victor M. Vizcaino

July 8, 2020
 2

Focus of Mathematical Proficiency Elements

As the learning and teaching of mathematics have evolved (National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics [NCTM], 2014), so have the recommended instructional practices and learning goals.

Traditional mathematics’ primary instruction emphasized procedure and computation, fixed skills, and

simply meeting prerequisites, thereby lacking any connection to the real-world or its students (Romberg

& Kaput, 1999). However, the 20th century shift has encouraged mathematics to be restructured so that

learning environments, instructional pedagogy, and content objectives focus instead on mathematical

understanding (Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999; NCTM, 2014). As proposed by Carpenter and Lehrer (1999),

mathematical understanding is comprised of five key mental activities that contribute to mathematical

learning – constructing relationships, extending and applying mathematical knowledge, reflection,

articulating knowledge, and ownership of mathematical knowledge. The shift in mathematics education

has also spurred the National Research Council (NRC) to advocate five elements of mathematical

proficiency necessary for any student to successfully learn mathematics: conceptual understanding,

procedural fluency, strategic comprehension, adaptive reasoning, and productive disposition (NRC,

2001). Through the incorporation of the NRC’s five interrelated strands of mathematical proficiency,

teachers can better implement instructional practices, create learning environments, and build meaningful

mathematical identities for each and every student to achieve mathematical understanding.

Mathematical knowledge can be viewed as a cognitive structure that connects and builds into a

network of multiple possible paths, beginning with prior knowledge that students bring from home,

personal experiences, and previous classes (Fuson, Kalchman, & Bransford, 2005; Stylianides &

Stylianides, 2007). The network system formed between the mental representations of mathematical

concepts are what Barmby, Harries, Higgins & Suggate (2007) defines as the representation of

mathematical understanding (as cited in Vizcaino, 2016). If students are provided opportunities to form

connections between the procedures and conceptual reasonings through the use of cognitively challenging

tasks that incorporate multiple representations, use of a variety of tools, and opportunities for discourse,

students not only build new mathematical knowledge for more effective retrieval in the future, they also
 3

find value and meaning behind their experiences (NRC, 2001). Conceptual and procedural

understandings are not isolated domains, but rather interrelated aspects of mathematical proficiency that

bi-directionally enhance one another via the same task when appropriately planned, sequenced, and

delivered (NRC, 2001; Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2014). If students focus solely on procedural

fluency, they will lack the conceptual understanding required to find purpose in their tasks or the ability to

effectively construct mathematical relationships for new knowledge structures.

Therefore, providing opportunities to promote conceptual understanding is a key element in

achieving mathematical understanding. Richard Skemp (1976) advocated, in his philosophy of relational

understanding, the importance of building conceptual knowledge structures and connecting them to prior

and procedural knowledge (as cited in Vizcaino, 2016). As students begin to understand the how and why

of mathematics, they can relate topics across all areas of their mathematical knowledge to assist them in

solidifying preexisting structures, while also forming knowledge structures to new content. When they

have the ability to learn novel mathematical concepts through their ability to see related ideas, they can

then begin to extend and apply their understanding to a variety of complex mathematical scenarios.

Extensions to applications allow students to see the value and use of the content and challenge

their thinking in a productive manner that stimulates cognitive mathematical growth (Carpenter & Lehrer,

1999). These applications however need to be carefully selected by teachers so that it is not only

presented in a manner that best supports both conceptual and procedural understanding, but also at an

appropriately challenging cognitive level such that students neither get bored or overwhelmed. These

tasks should provide multiple entry levels, modeling opportunities, or the usage of multiple of tools and

representations (i.e. calculators, models and manipulatives, action technologies, graphs, algebraic

approaches, and formulas) to promote strategic problem-solving and pathways to explore new

mathematical methods and models (NCTM, 2014). The various representations and tactics foster an

abundant amount of opportunities for student discourse to discuss particular solutions and reasonings that

promote greater mathematical understanding (Clements and Battista, 1990). By requiring students to

engage in these interactions, they not only use metacognitive practices to reflect on their thoughts to
 4

solidify conceptual and procedural knowledge, but they also socially interact to promote a positive

learning environment (Fuson et al., 2005; NCTM, 2014).

When planning for these application activities, math educators often view that applications can

not be introduced until basic concepts and skills have been learned (Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999).

However, placing too much emphasis on the mathematical proficiency strand of procedural fluency

(NRC, 2001) can result in instrumental understanding, or rules without meaning or reason (Skemp, 1976,

as cited in Vizcaino, 2016). Instrumental understanding, though sometimes easier to understand and its’

reward more immediate, can often result in fragile and unretained learning because it lacks the connection

to solidify itself in a student’s permanent mathematical understanding (Stylianides & Stylianides, 2007).

Students have the ability to solve complex problems and reason both abstractly and numerically at a very

early age (Fuson et al., 2005). They can extend these skills to solve new situations by interacting in

student discourse, conceptually connecting prior knowledge, and finding meaning in the task inside a

positive and productive learning environment that supports perseverance and discovery (Clements &

Battista, 1990; NCTM, 2014).

If these applications are modeled effectively to provide meaning and connections across a variety

of prior knowledge and representations, opportunities to reflect about their experiences are abundant. For

example, when exploring a scenario involving a system of equations, students reflect on solving the

problem algebraically via elimination or substitution, graphically by constructing linear or quadratic

models, or using various manipulatives or guess and check approaches. Consistently monitoring their

thought processes, students examine not only their current problem-solving actions, but also appropriate

prior experiences and mental models that may assist them in novel situations (Fuson et al., 2005).

Raymond Nickerson (1985) expands upon Skemp’s view of the importance of knowledge and relating

knowledge, by adding that the ability to deeply and swiftly form these representations, connections, and

mental models, enhances understanding in everyday life and serves as an identifiable result that displays a

richer characteristic of understanding (as cited in Vizcaino, 2016). This ability to reflect, connect, and
 5

model, displays a level of mathematical understanding that could not be replicated without the strands of

mathematically proficiency.

As students carry out these cognitive strategies, they socially interact to discover innovative

methods and reflect upon the accuracy, efficiency, and applicability of each pathway (NCTM, 2014).

Articulating mathematical knowledge is an element of mathematical understanding that solidifies their

own learning because they must now mathematically communicate their approaches to others (Fuson et

al., 2005). Adaptive reasoning is a proficiency skill that allows students to organize one’s ideas to explain

and justify their thoughts and actions to their peers and teachers. Strategic competence and procedural

tasks may help a student formulate and calculate an approach, but adaptive reasoning allows them to

determine its legitimacy and effectively communicate their understanding to others (NRC, 2001). If a

student is able to express and justify the relationships they observed, the strategies and concepts they

utilized, and the appropriateness of their solutions, then they have externally demonstrated a clear level of

mathematical understanding.

The social interactions required for students to articulate their knowledge however, are only determined

by the presence of positive classroom norms (Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999).

These normative practices help students achieve a positive and productive disposition to view

one’s self as the owner of their mathematical knowledge. Historical habits of mathematical learning

have instilled within parents and children alike that the complex realm of mathematics is a hierarchical

system meant to vertically teach skill for the next course, or that it is not meant for everyone and therefore

acceptable to not be an effective doer of mathematics (NRC, 2001; Romberg & Kaput, 1999). This

negative preconception has become widespread, even amongst teachers, and therefore the negative view

that a student is not capable of understanding mathematical content results in a self-fulfilling prophecy

(Fuson et al., 2005). In order to build a productive disposition so that students can view themselves as

active doers of math, teachers must first aim to create a learning environment in which students feel safe

and capable of engaging in mathematics. Incorrect answer must be supported just as well as the correct

ones, mathematical ideas and strategies are frequently shared and encouraged, student discourse is a
 6

central theme of the learning process, and meaningful tasks are implemented (NCTM, 2014). Tasks and

tools that are meaningful socially, personally, and experientially are necessary to effectively engage

students in learning mathematics (Romberg & Kaput, 1999). Without instilling a productive disposition

for our students to own their own mathematical learning, we will continue to fail in engaging them in

partaking in any activity we present.

Through the establishment of classroom norms to create a positive learning environment, we can

fully engross our students in their mathematical learning. The learning process however is only as

effective as the tasks and tools we select, the discourse and reflection opportunities we provide, or the

environment we create. Improving these instructional practices allow us to develop the five interrelated

strands of mathematical proficiency that innately create the mental and communicative skills to become

effective learners of mathematics. Through the establishment of effective teaching elements that focus on

enhancing mathematical proficiency, teachers can foster the mental activities necessary for mathematical

understanding.
 7

References

Carpenter, T. P., & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding.

In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding

(pp. 19-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Clements, D. & Battista, M. (1990) Constructivist learning and teaching. Putting Research into Practice

in Elementary Grades: Readings from Journals of the NCTM, 6-8.

Fuson, K. C., Kalchman, M., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Mathematical understanding: An

introduction. How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom, 217-256.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions:

Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.

National Research Council (NRC). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.

Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of

mathematics. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford Handbook

of Numerical Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Romberg, T. A., & Kaput, J. J. (1999). Mathematics worth teaching, mathematics worth understanding.

In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding

(pp. 3-17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2007). Learning mathematics with understanding: A critical

consideration of the learning principle in the principles and standards for school mathematics. The

Mathematics Enthusiast, 4(1), 103-114.

Vizcaino, V. M., (2016). Lecture notes on mathematics understanding. Personal Collection of

V. M. Vizcaino, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, TX.