Advanced mathematical thinking:

Implications of various perspectives

on advanced mathematical thinking for mathematics education reform.

M. Kathleen Heid Guershon Harel Joan Ferrini-Mundy Karen Graham

The Pennsylvania University of California, Michigan State University of New
State University San Diego University Hampshire
ik8@psu.edu harel@gte.net jferrini@pilot.msu.edu kjgraham@hopper.unh.edu

The Advanced Mathematical Thinking (AMT) Working group has taken on the task

of constructing definitions that capture what appeared to be three different perspectives

on the nature of “advanced mathematical thinking.” Over the past year, three groups, led

by Barbara Edwards, Chris Rasmussen, and Guershon Harel, have developed definitions

of advanced mathematical thinking that capture the characteristics each group deemed

salient to the issue. Those papers will be made available to participants in the AMT

Working Group at PME XXII via the Advanced Mathematical Thinking Working Group

list-serve (contact HSUPAO@MAINE.MAINE.EDU for information on how to access

the list serve), they will be referenced in this paper, and they (and one other paper) will

be a central focus of discussion at the meetings of the AMT Working Group at PME-NA

XXII in Tucson.

Three perspectives on “advanced mathematical thinking”

One can think about advanced mathematical thinking as characterizing the thinking

that occurs primarily in the study of advanced mathematics at the collegiate or graduate

level. The Edwards team took the perspective that advanced mathem atical thinking

requires two simultaneous conditions: 1. advanced mathem atical thinking requires

precise reasoning about mathematical ideas, and 2. these mathematical ideas are not

entirely accessible to the five senses (Edwards et al., 2000). The authors point out several

examples of ways in which it is insufficient evidence of advanced mathematical thinking

that one and not both of these conditions are fulfilled. For example, the authors point out

that although “limits” is a mathematical idea that is not entirely accessible to the five

senses, “evaluating limits” is probably not advanced mathem atical thinking since it may

involve only the implementation of an automated routine and not precise reasoning about

a mathematical idea. The authors develop several other examples that fit their definition

of advanced mathematical thinking.

A second perspective on advanced mathematical thinking offered by Rasmussen and

his colleagues focuses on “advanced mathematical activity” since the authors, as

supported by Sfard (1998), conceive of mathematical learning as participating in doing

mathematics (Rasmussen et al., 2000). These authors specific ally do not limit advanced

mathematical thinking to undergraduate and graduate mathematics, although the primary

examples they develop in their paper are drawn from courses in differential equations and

college geometry. They center their conversation about advanced mathematical thinking

on the phenomena of horizontal and vertical mathematizing (Treffers, 1987), whose

definitions they expand to allow for horizontal mathematizing in pure mathematics

settings. The Rasmussen team characterizes horizontal mathematizing as transforming a

mathematical or real world problem setting in such a way that it lends itself to further

mathematical analysis. The group conceives of vertical mathematization as activities that

are grounded in or build on horizontal mathematizing. The authors clarify their stance on

advanced mathematical thinking by illustrating horizontal and vertical mathematizing

through the activities of symbolizing, algorithmatizing, and defining. For example, the

authors describe horizontal mathematizing as using symbols to record and communicate

mathematical thinking and vertical mathematizing as using the symbolizations so

developed as inputs for further mathematical reasoning.

The third perspective on advanced mathematical thinking, developed by Harel,

characterizes mathematical thinking as advanced if mathematics education research can

substantiate that “its development necessarily involves epistemological obstacles.” Harel

holds that advanced mathematical thinking develops over long periods of intensive effort.

He gives examples of “ways of mathematical thinking (a) that are essential to the learning

of advanced mathematical content and (b) whose development must start in an early age

when elementary mathematical content s are taught.” (Harel, 2000).

Questions raised by these three perspectives

on “advanced mathematical thinking”

Each of the three perspectives on advanced mathematical thinking generates its own

list of questions that could be investigated through further refinement of the theories or

through empirical research. The Edwards team raises the issue of mathematics that is not

entirely accessible to the five senses. To what extent are accounts of instances of

mathematical thinking classifiable as “not entirely accessible to the five senses”? To what

extent does this characterization capture the mathematical thinking in which research

mathematicians engage? Is the viability of the definition largely a function of the type of

mathematics being considered? If, as the Edwards team posits, this definition of advanced

mathematical thinking lies at one end of a “mathematical thinking” spectrum, what

characterizes the role of “accessibility to the five senses” in the intermediate stages

between advanced mathematical thinking and elementary mathematical thinking (the

thinking at the other end of the spectrum). If one of the goals of secondary mathematics is

to prepare students for later advanced mathematical thinking, what will prepare students
to conduct mathematical thinking about mathematical ideas that are less accessible to the

senses?

The Rasmussen team centers its discussion of advanced mathematical thinking on

horizontal and vertical mathematization. Further development of this definition will lead

to additional refinement of ways to characterize and identify vertical mathematization. Of

interest would be an investigation into the relationship between vertical mathematization

and problem solving. Is one a subset of the other? Is vertical mathematization a necessary

component of successful problem solving. If so, what are the other components? The

authors claim that advanced mathematical thinking is not confined to collegiate

mathematics. Are examples of vertical mathematization at the secondary level

fundamentally different from those that typify the collegiate level?

The definition of advanced mathematical thinking offered by Harel (2000) is

intimately connected to research questions. To qualify as “advanced mathematical

thinking,” mathematics education research needs to substantiate that “its development

necessarily involves epistemological obstacles.” Methodological questions arise about

how one might investigate whether the development of particular ways of thinking

involve epistemological obstacles. To what extent are these epistemological obstacles

individual? To what extent are they generalizable? What characterizes growth in

mathematic al thinking that evidences the successful maneuvering of epistemological

obstacles?
 Implications for teaching and learning

in the context of reform-oriented teaching

The past two decades in mathematics education might be characterized as decades in

which mathematics education reform was conceptualized. The past two decades have

witnessed a major effort to reform the teaching of calculus and several major thrusts to

reform mathematics teaching at the school level. The most recent document to

characterize the nature of that reform is NCTM’s Principles and Standards for School

Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards takes a strident stand on behalf of

mathematical thinking. While half of the document’s ten standards concern the content of

school mathematics, the other half speak to the processes of school mathematics. As

such, these later standards help to characterize mathematical thinking at the school level.

Discussions of the nature of advanced mathematical thinking can help to illustrate and

illuminate the standards in Principles and Standards. Instead of providing those

illustrations in this paper, we will simply raise a few questions about the impact of the

three perspectives on how we might interpret the standards. The definition of advanced

mathematical thinking offered by the Edwards team emphasizes the need for precise

reasoning about mathematical ideas. The Reasoning and Proof Standard provides some

illustrations of how students at the school level might reason about mathematics. The

goal of reasoning about mathematical objects that are not entirely accessible to the five

senses, advanced by the Edwards team, suggests that teachers of school mathematics

must learn how students develop their capacity to reason in the absence of concrete

examples.

The definition of advanced mathematical thinking offered by the Rasmussen team

speaks to an expanded notion of horizontal mathematization that includes the

communication of purely mathematical relationships. In the context of this definition,

implementation of the Communication Standard may require that special attention be

paid to students’ capacities to symbolize their mathematical ideas. How can students in

school mathematics learn not just to symbolize their ideas but also to reason from those

symbolizations? What combination of emphasis on reasoning and mathematical

connections is needed for students to develop their capacity for vertical mathematization.

Finally, one possible, and very interesting, exercise would be to analyze specific

expectations in the Principles and Standards from each of these three perspectives;

namely, which categories of goals stated in Principles and Standards constitute advanced

mathematical thinking or are seeds that will form a foundation for advanced

mathematical thinking. For example, which of the following mathematical activities can

be characterized as advanced mathematical thinking or as a seed for advanced

mathematical thinking according to the criteria of: precise reasoning about mathematical

ideas not entirely accessible through the five senses; epistemological obstacles; or

vertical mathematization?

1. Use representations to model and interpret physical, social, and mathematical

phenomena;

2. Make and investigate mathematical conjectures;

3. Organize and consolidate their mathematical thinking through communication;

and

4. Understand how mathematical ideas connect and build on one another to produce

a coherent whole.
 Conclusion

In this paper, we have summarized the perspectives on advanced mathematical

thinking offered by three teams of mathematics educators. We have suggested theoretical

and empirical research that might be conducted to further understand each of these

theories, and we have raised issues about implications for teaching and learning in the

context of reform-oriented teaching.

References

Edwards, B., Dubinsky, E., Krussel, L., and McDonald, M. (October, 2000). Advanced
mathematical thinking. Paper presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education – North American Chapter.
Tucson, AZ.

Harel, G. (October, 2000). Advanced mathematical thinking across the grades. Paper
presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education – North American Chapter. Tucson, AZ.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for

school mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.

Rasmussen, C. L., Zandieh, M., King, K. D., and Teppo, A. (October, 2000). Advanced
mathematical thinking: Aspects of students’ mathematical activity. Paper presented at
the 22nd annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education – North American Chapter. Tucson, AZ.

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.

Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions: A model of goal and theory description in

mathematics education: The Wiskobas project. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.