Review of Related Literature and Studies

Related Literature

Competence is someone’s insightful readiness to act in response to the challenges of a

given situation. The choice of this conceptualization is by no means an attempt to once and for

all finish a discussion of what ‘competence’ could or should mean. It is an attempt to capture a

number of characteristics of the concept of competence, and a fruitful discussion ought to be

about these characteristics rather than about the specific phrasing of the definition.

The first of these characteristics is that competence is headed for action. I use “action” in

a broad sense, as the term “readiness to act” in my definition of competence could imply a

positive decision to refrain from performing a physical act, or indirectly being guided by one's

awareness of certain features in a given situation. But no competency follows from being

immensely insightful, if this insight cannot be activated in this broad interpretation of the word

“action”.

Second, all competencies have a sphere of exertion – a domain within which the

competency can be brought to maturity. This does not mean that a competency is contextually

tied to the use of a specific method for solving a given task. If this was the case, the attempt to

define general competencies would have no meaning. Competencies are only contextual in the

sense, that they are framed by the historical, social, psychological etc. circumstances of the

“given situation” mentioned in my definition of competence.

Third, competence is an analytic concept with an inherent duality between a subjective

and a social/cultural side. Subjective because a competency is always someone's; competencies

do not exist by themselves – what exists are competent people. Social/cultural because the
degree to which some actions are “meeting the challenges” is always relative to the surroundings

adding meaning and legitimacy to the actions.

These characteristics are good reasons for applying competence as an analytical concept

in mathematics education, but in order to transform it into a developmental tool one needs to be

more specific. The straightforward approach is to talk about mathematical competence when the

challenges in the definition of competence are mathematical, but this is no more useful and no

less tautological than defining mathematics as the subject dealing with mathematical subject

matter. The important move is to focus on a mathematical competency defined as someone’s

insightful readiness to act in response to a certain kind of mathematical challenge of a given

situation, and then identify, explicitly formulate and exemplify a set of mathematical

competencies that can be agreed upon as independent dimensions in the spanning of

mathematical competence.

Mathematics curricula vary with respect to the coverage of topics, the sequence in which

the topics are taught, and the extent to which mathematics instruction is integrated with

instruction in other content areas. Nevertheless, there are common elements that are fundamental

to any mathematics curriculum at a given level. This is in part a result of the standards-based

reform movement, but it is also implicit in the nature of mathematics as a domain: while there

have been trends (and heated debates) over the years regarding which topics should be

emphasized, there are certain essential building blocks that students must master before they can

meaningfully explore other topics.

Topics in mathematics can be located on branches of a tree (e.g., Hale, 2002). Note that

the analogy is made to a botanical tree, not a mathematical tree, which has a precise definition.

The height of a topic on a tree is an indication of its complexity, and its connections with lower
branches indicate how the topic subsumes other more basic topics. For example, Hale’s tree

representation includes more than 20 mathematical topics. Logic, set theory, and number systems

occupy locations on the trunk, and algebra, geometry, and analysis each occupy primary

branches. Calculus and statistics are located at higher points on the tree, but they are on branches

that connect to the topics below. The term arithmetic is less often used than it once was—the

term numbers and operations is used in the NCTM standards (NCTM, 2000), and the term

number properties and operations is used in the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) mathematics framework (National Assessment Governing Board, 2007). These

classifications include arithmetic, but also refer to knowledge of number systems and the

conceptual understanding of number concepts. The tree can be used as a representation to show

how mathematical topics are interconnected and build on each other.

Needless to say, there is not perfect agreement among content experts about how topics

are interrelated, and in the course of their work mathematicians sometimes discover new

connections among branches that were previously considered unrelated, but there is general

agreement that numbers and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, and probability and

data analysis are all fundamental topics for K12 students to learn. These topics are reflected in

both the NCTM content standards and the NAEP mathematics assessment framework, as well as

in many state standards.

A “mathematical competency” is a clearly recognizable and distinct, major constituent in

mathematical competence. Competencies need be neither independent nor disjointed. Thus, the

question we have to address is what are the competencies in mathematical competence? To

answer this question, let us begin by noting that mathematical competence includes two

overarching sorts of capabilities. The first is to ask and answer questions about, within, and by
means of mathematics. The second consists of understanding and using mathematical language

and tools. A closer analysis has given rise to the following eight competencies:

1. Thinking mathematically (mastering mathematical modes of thought), such as:

 Posing questions that are characteristic of mathematics and knowing the kinds of answers

(not necessarily the answers themselves) that mathematics may offer;

 Extending the scope of a concept by abstracting some of its properties and generalizing

results to larger classes of objects;

 Distinguishing between different kinds of mathematical statements (including conditioned

assertions (if-then), quantifier-laden statements, assumptions, definitions, theorems,

conjectures and special cases); and

 Understanding and handling the scope and limitations of a given concept.

2. Posing and solving mathematical problems, such as:

● Identifying, posing, and specifying different kinds of mathematical problems (pure or

applied, open-ended or closed); and

● Solving different kinds of mathematical problems (pure or applied, open-ended or closed),

whether posed by others or by oneself, and, if appropriate, in different ways.

3. Modeling mathematically (i.e., analyzing and building models), such as:

● Analyzing the foundations and properties of existing models, including assessing their range

and validity;

● Decoding existing models, i.e., translating and interpreting model elements in terms of the

reality modeled; and

● Performing active modeling in a given context, i.e., structuring the field, mathematizing,

working with(in) the model (including solving the problems the model gives rise to);
 validating the model, internally and externally; analyzing and criticizing the model;

communicating about the model and its results; monitoring and controlling the entire

modeling process.

4. Reasoning mathematically such as:

● Following and assessing chains of arguments put forward by others;

● Knowing what a mathematical proof is (is not) and how it differs from other kinds of

mathematical reasoning, e.g., heuristics;

● Uncovering the basic ideas in a given line of argument (especially a proof), including

distinguishing main lines from details, and ideas from technicalities; and

● Devising formal and informal mathematical arguments and transforming heuristic arguments

to valid proofs, i.e., proving statements.

5. Representing mathematical entities, such as:

● Understanding and utilizing (decoding, interpreting, and distinguishing between) different

sorts of representations of mathematical objects, phenomena, and situations;

● Understanding and utilizing the relations between different representations of the same

entity, including knowing about their relative strengths and limitations; and

● Choosing and switching between representations.

6. Handling mathematical symbols and formalisms, such as:

● Decoding and interpreting symbolic and formal mathematical language and understanding its

relations to natural language;

● Understanding the nature and rules of formal mathematical systems (both syntax and

semantics);

● Translating from natural language to formal/symbolic language; and

 ● Handling and manipulating statements and expressions containing symbols and formulas.

7. Communicating in, with, and about mathematics, such as:

● Understanding others’ written, visual, or oral “texts”(in a variety of linguistic registers) about

matters having a mathematical content; and

● Expressing oneself, at different levels of theoretical and technical precision, in oral, visual,

or written form, about such matters.

8. Making use of aids and tools (including information technology), such as:

● Knowing the existence and properties of various tools and aids for mathematical activity and

their scope and limitations; and

● Being able to reflectively use such aids and tools.

The first four competencies are the ones involved in asking and answering questions

about, within, and by means of mathematics, whereas the last four are the ones that pertain to

understanding and using mathematical language and tools.

Possessing a mathematical competency (to some degree) consists in being prepared and

able to act mathematically on the basis of knowledge and insight. The actions at issue can be

both physical, behavioral (including linguistic) and mental. So, a valid evaluation of an

individual’s mathematical competencies has to be founded on the identification of the presence

and range of his or her competencies in relation to mathematical activities in which the

individual is or has been involved. The carrying through of any mathematical activity requires

the exercise of one or several mathematical competencies. Therefore it becomes an essential task

to identify – a priori as well as a posteriori – necessary competencies and sufficient competencies

involved in a variety of mathematical activities such as solving a pure or applied mathematical

problem, reading a mathematical text, proving a theorem, investigating the structure of a

mathematical theory, writing a text containing mathematical components, giving a talk etc. An

individual’s possession of a given mathematical competency has three dimensions:

The degree of coverage is the extent to which the person masters the characteristic

aspects of the competence at issue as indicated in the above characterization of it.

The radius of action indicates the spectrum of contexts and situations in which the person

can activate that competence.

The technical level indicates how conceptually and technically advanced the entities and

tools are with which the person can activate the competence.

Each dimension represents a non-quantitative, partial ordering. Nevertheless, in

metaphorical terms we can think of the individual’s possession of the competency as a three-

dimensional box. The (metaphorical) volume of the competency is the “product” of the degree of

coverage, the radius of action, and the technical level. This suffices to suggest that if one of the

dimensions has measure zero, the same is true with the volume of the competency. It also

suggests that the “same” volume can be obtained by infinitely many different combinations of

the three measures. Suppose that we are able to gauge each dimension of someone’s mastery of a

given competency at a given point in time. Then we would also be able to trace the development

of those dimensions over time, which is just another way of identifying and monitoring

progression. Progression of an individual’s possession of a competency is simply growth with

respect to one or more of these dimensions.

Review of Related Studies