Mathematics Education Research Journal 2000, Vol. 12, No.

2, 127-146

The Role of Collecting in the Growth of

Mathematical Understanding
Susan Pirie and Lyndon Martin
University of British Columbia

Folding back is one of the key components of the Pirie-Kieren Dynamical Theory
for the Growth of Mathematical Understanding. This paper looks at one aspect of
folding back, that of collecting. Collecting occurs when students know what is
needed to solve a problem, and yet their understanding is not sufficient for the
automatic recall of useable knowledge. They need to recollect some inner layer
understanding and consolidate it through use at an outer layer in the light of their
now more sophisticated understanding of the concept in question. The collecting
phenomenon is described and distinguished through exemplars of classroom
discourse, and implications for teachers and learners are discussed.

In recent years, there has been much interest in exploring the nature of
mathematical understanding. For examples, see the work of Bergeron and
Herscovics (1989), Byers and Herscovics (1977), Cobb, Yackel, and Wood (1992),
Gray and Tall (1994), Hiebert and Carpenter (1992), Sfard (1991), Sierpinska (1990,
1994). Skemp (1976), Tall (1978), and Walkerdine (1988). A full review of these
views of mathematical understanding is presented in Martin (1999). This paper is
concerned exclusively with a theory advanced over the past ten years or so by
Susan Pirie and Tom Kieren.

The Pirie-Kieren Theory

The Pirie-Kieren Dynamical Theory for the Growth of Mathematical
Understanding differs from other views of mathematical understanding in that it
characterises growth as a "whole, dynamic, levelled but non-linear, transcendently
recursive process" (Pirie & Kieren, 1991a, p. 1). This theory is compatible with the
constructivist view outlined by Von Glasersfeld (1987), according to which
individuals must reflect on and reorganise their own personal constructs in order
to build up new conceptual structures. However, the Pirie-Kieren theory views
understanding as something different from an internalised and mental process in
which a static notion is acquired and then applied. Instead, understanding is
characterised as occurring in action and not as a product resulting from such
actions. In particular, mathematical interactions (with others and the environment)
co-determine--that is, fully determine and are determined b y h t h e mathematical
understanding actions of the individual participants.
The notion of recursion embedded in the definition is fundamental to the Pirie-
Kieren view of the growth of mathematical understanding. This term is used to
suggest that understanding can be observed as complex yet levelled and that "each
level is in some way defined in terms of itself (self-referenced, self-similar), yet
each level is not the same as the previous level (level-stepping)" (Pirie & Kieren,
1989, p. 8). In developing this idea of mathematical understanding as a recursive
128 Pirie & Martin

process, Pirie and Kieren were influenced by the work of Maturana a n d Tomm
(1986); Tomm (personal communication, 1989); and Maturana and Varela (1987),
who see "knowing [as] exhibited by effective actions as these are determined by an
observer" and "the h u m a n knower of mathematics as self-referencing and self
maintaining in a particular niche of behavioural possibilities" (p. 8).
The Pirie-Kieren theory provides a way of considering understanding which
recognises and emphasises the interdependence of all the participants in an
environment. It shares the enactivist view of learning and understanding as an
interactive process. The location of understanding in the "realm of interaction
rather than subjective interpretation" and a recognition that "understandings are
enacted in our moment-to-moment, setting-to-setting movement" (Davis, 1996, p.
200) allows and requires the discussion of understanding not as a state to be
achieved but as a dynamic and continuously unfolding phenomenon. Hence, it
becomes appropriate not to talk about understanding as such, but about the
process of coming to understand and about the ways that mathematical
understanding shifts, develops, and grows as a learner moves within the world.
Enactivism recognises the Piagetian or radical constructivist view that what a
learner learns is determined by his or her individual structure, and acknowledges
the work of Von Glasersfeld (1987) in moving away from a definition of
understanding as an acquisition to that of a continuing process of organising and
re-organising. However, enactivism departs from constructivism in that
understanding is seen not only as subjective and individually unique but also as
something that can be shared through interaction. Developing the enactivist notion
of cognition as an adequate functioning in an ever-changing, interactive world,
understandings are seen to be not merely dynamic but also "relationally,
contextually, and temporally specific" and thus, as "one moves away from a
particular situation, one's understandings, as revealed in one's actions, m a y change
dramatically. And so, while understandings might be shared during moments of
interactive unity, they inevitably diverge as the participants come back to their
selves" (Davis, 1996, p. 200).
Enactivism's other major departure from constructivism is a move to
acknowledge the actions of the learner and to see understanding in terms of
effective actions. This notion of effective actions also allows for both formulated
and unformulated understandings. A learner who cannot state or verbalise their
understanding m a y still exhibit understanding through their actions. Davis (1996)
talks of these as "a part of our acting in the w o r l d - - a n acting that 'understands' the
difference between a single or a pair of raised fingers before it can count, an acting
that 'understands' that a sequence of two perpendicular cuts produces four pieces
before it realizes the process is multiplicative. These are understandings that are
actions of the body's doing" (p. 201). Within the Pirie-Kieren theory, cognition and
understanding are more than merely a process of reflective abstraction on mental
objectifications of experiences. Instead, experiences and actions such as Davis
describes themselves form part of the understanding and are enfolded and
enclosed within the more formal. In the Pirie-Kieren theory, growth in
understanding is seen as a dynamic and active process involving the building of
and acting in a mathematical world.
It is important to briefly consider the nature, purpose, and use of the Pirie-
The Role of Collecting in the Growth of Mathematical Understanding 129

Kieren theory. Von Glasersfeld (1995) talks of a "theoretical model" (p. 190) and
this is perhaps the most useful description of the Pirie-Kieren theory. It has grown
and evolved into a theory that can be used by a teacher or a researcher as a tool for
listening and observing in the context of mathematical activity. It offers a
theoretical way of looking at growing understanding as it is happening. It is a
system by which an observer (a teacher or a researcher) can observe understanding
not in terms of a personal acquisition or an acquired state but as an on-going
process. (We prefer to use the word "knowledge" for static acquisition). Hence, it
allows a person to observe understanding in action and prompts the looking for
relationships between less and more formal understanding actions. It is a
theoretical thinking tool for a person who is observing mathematical
understanding and who might be interacting with students who are engaging in
understanding actions.

Levelsfor Understanding
The Pirie-Kieren theory contains, for a specific person and a specified topic,
eight potential levels for understanding. These are named Primitive Knowing,
Image Making, Image Having, Property Noticing, Formalising, Observing,
Structuring, and Inventising. A diagrammatic representation or model is provided
by the eight nested circles in Figure 1. Each layer contains all previous layers and is
included in all subsequent layers. This set of unfolding layers suggests that any
more formal or abstract layer of understanding action enfolds, unfolds from, and is
connected to inner, less formal, less sophisticated, less abstract, and more local
ways of acting. Although the rings of the model grow outward toward the more
abstract and general, growth in understanding is not seen to happen that way.
Instead, growth occurs through a continual movement back and forth through the
levels of knowing, as the individual reflects on and reconstructs their current and
previous knowledge. Pathways of growth drawn across this model illustrate the
fact that growth in understanding need be neither linear nor unidirectional.
Of particular relevance to this article are the levels of Primitive Knowing and
Image Making. The term primitive is used not in the sense of low level or trivial,
but in the sense of " p r i m e ' m a s in both "important" and "previous". Primitive
Knowing is all the previously constructed knowledge, outside of the topic, that
students bring to the learning of a topic. Much of this knowledge will, of course, be
irrelevant to the task in hand, but it is only on existing understanding that new
learning can be built. When approaching the teaching of any topic, the teacher will,
consciously or unconsciously, assume that learners possess certain prior
understandings. For example, the teaching of fractions assumes a certain level of
understanding of the concept of number and an understanding of the four rules of
arithmetic. It m a y also assume knowledge of the w a y pizzas and other circular
objects are frequently partitioned. It is, however, unlikely to call upon the nature of
the weather on that particular morning. Yet all these understandings--the
sequencing of numbers, addition, halving a pizza by cutting through the diameter
in a straight line (as opposed to, say, cutting out a circle of radius equal to 70.7% of
the original radius), and the nature of sun and rainmare likely to form part of each
learner's Primitive Knowing. From this Primitive Knowing, appropriate knowledge
must be selected and used as a basis for growth of understanding.
130 Pirie & Martin

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of some features of the Pirie-Kieren theory.

The first level of understanding to be built on this foundation is that which is

termed Image Making. This is the level at which learners work at tasks, mental or
physical, that are intended to foster some initial or extended conceptions for the
topic to be explored. In the case of fractions, Image Making activities would
perhaps lead to the learner saying, "Ah, fractions are what you get w h e n you cut
things up". At this point, the theory would claim that the learner has an image (is
acting within the Image Having level) for fractionsmalthough one would hope that
this would later become refined to the image that "fractions involve the cutting of
items in equal pieces".
The above illustration of a possible path of understanding from Primitive
Knowing through Image Making to Image Having is not meant to indicate that the
growth of understanding moves smoothly outwards through the layers. We
contend that growth in understanding takes place through a continual movement
back and forth through the layers of knowing, as individuals reflect on and
reconstruct their current knowledge. The metaphor of recursion highlights the fact
that the dynamical understanding notions of a person involve states which differ in
character but are self-similar (Kieren & Pirie, 1991). A person's current
understanding action in some way acts to elaborate previous states and integrates
them in the sense that they are called into current knowing actions.
For a more complete description of the model, see Pirie and Kieren (1994).

Folding Back
A key feature of the Pirie-Kieren theory is the idea that a person functioning at
an outer level of understanding will invocatively return to an inner level. The word
invocative (Kieren & Pirie, 1992) is used to describe a cognitive shift to an inner level
The Role of Collecting in the Growth of Mathematical Understanding 131

of understanding, and an invocative intervention is one which promotes such a

shift. An invocative shift is termed folding back when the person makes use of
current outer layer knowing to inform inner understanding acts, which in turn
enable further outer layer understanding (Pirie & Kieren, 1991b).
When faced with a problem ~ that is not immediately solvable at any level, an
individual needs to return to an inner layer of understanding. The result of this
folding back is that the individual is able to extend their current inadequate and
incomplete understanding by reflecting on and then reorganising their earlier
constructs for the concept ..or even to generate and create new images, should
their existing constructs be insufficient to work on the problem. However, the
person now possesses a degree of self-awareness about his or her understanding,
informed by the operations at the higher level. Thus, the inner layer activity cannot
be identical to that originally performed, and the person is effectively building a
thicker understanding at the inner layer to support and extend their understanding
at the outer layer that they subsequently return to. It is the fact that the outer layer
understandings are available to support and inform the inner layer actions which
gives rise to the metaphor of folding and thickening.
Although a learner may well fold back and act in a less formal, more specific
way, the inner layer actions are not identical to those performed previously.
Folding back can be visualised as the folding of a sheet of paper in which a thicker
piece is created through the action of folding one part of the sheet onto the other.
The learner has a different set of structures, a changed and changing
understanding of the concept, and this extended understanding acts to inform
subsequent inner layer actions. Folding back, then, is a metaphor for one of the
processes of actions through which understanding is observed to grow and
through which the learner builds and acts in an ever-changing mathematical
world. Folding back accounts for and legitimates a return to localised and
unformulated actions and understandings in response to and as a cause of this
changing world. The Pirie-Kieren theory suggests that folding back is an intrinsic
and necessary part of the process by which understanding grows and develops.

Collecting
It is the purpose of this paper to distinguish what we see to be a particularly
important form of folding back which we call collecting. The process of folding back
to collect entails retrieving previous knowledge for a specific purpose and re-
viewing or reading it anew in light of the needs of current mathematical actions.
Thus collecting is not simply an act of recall; it has the thickening effect of folding
back. In what follows we give examples of collecting, distinguish it from other
forms of understanding actions, and discuss how teachers might act to occasion

1We use the words "problem" and "solve" frequently in this article, but at no point are we
refering to the limited, specific activity that has come to be called problem solving in the
mathematics education literature. To enable people to solve problems throughout their
lives, not just those contrived problems set in mathematics lessons, is the reason that all
children are taught mathematics. For us, problem solving is simply working mathematically
when the route to the solution is not direct and immediately clear.
132 Pirie & Martin

such folding back to collect.

Of particular significance in the data relating to folding back is the occurrence
of a n u m b e r of cases where, following a shift by the learner to an i n n e r layer of
understanding, there has been neither a n y observable learning activity (in the sense
of any visible reorganisation or reconstruction of existing constructs) nor a n y
generation of wholly n e w u n d e r s t a n d i n g s . Instead of working on existing ideas,
the inner layer activity has been m o r e a process of finding and collecting an earlier
construct or u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d then consciously using or re-reading it as useful in
a n e w situation.
Before we turn to actual classroom dialogue, we ask you to consider the three
examples of students tackling the question 93 - 47 = ? s h o w n in Figure 2. The
vignettes are b a s e d on classroom events a n d have been deliberately constructed to
clearly illustrate a n d deliberately differentiate various w a y s of thinking a b o u t the
same problem.

Vignette 1
Jasmin: So, three take seven, can't do (pause) nine becomes eight, thirteen
take seven is six (pause) and eight take four is four, gives forty six.

Vignette 2
John: Hmm, three take seven ... (pause) Hang on, seven is bigger than
three, I can't do it, if it was seven take three it would be OK. (He
puts his hand up and the teacher comes over.) I can't do this 'cos seven
is bigger than three so you can't take it away.
Teacher: Could you do something to the nine and the three?
John: Hmm, no, I dunno, I can't do it.
Teacher: OK then, I'll get the rods and blocks and we'll make ninety three
and forty seven.
They then work with the Cuisenaire rods and use these to solve the problem.

Vignette 3
Paulo: Three take seven, can't do (pause) no, you can do something to the
nine and the three and borrow or tens it or something, lemme look.
(He opens his workbook and flicks through it.) Yeah, that's it, make the
nine an eight (pause) borrow ten so we get thirteen take seven is six.
Now the other bit is eight take four is four, forty six.

Figure 2. Three classroom vignettes.

Jasmin has no difficulty in solving the question at all. She has the necessary
u n d e r s t a n d i n g instantly accessible a n d the process she uses is essentially
automatic. There is no necessity for her to fold back.
John cannot deal with this p r o b l e m at all. It is not clear whether he has m e t a
question like this before b u t cannot n o w solve it, or whether subtraction questions
of this type are n e w to him. W h a t is clear, however, is that either he does not h a v e
the necessary u n d e r s t a n d i n g or that his u n d e r s t a n d i n g is not well e n o u g h
 The Role of Collecting in the Growth of Mathematical Understanding 133

developed to allow him to use it. Instead, prompted by the teacher, he folds back to
perform more image making, either to build a new image or to enhance an existing
one, perhaps by working on his image for subtractions where the unit subtrahend
is larger than the unit minuend. John needs to do more mathematical work at an
inner layer before he will be able to build for himself an algorithm to answer the
question, an algorithm that he can use with understanding.
We see something very different in Paulo's thinking about this problem. He too
cannot immediately solve the question--he does not have the understanding to use
an automated process in the way that Jasmin does. Neither, however, does he fold
back in the same way as John, to construct or modify an image. Paulo has an image
involving the reconceptualising of the numbers that he believes will allow him to
solve the question, but he needs to fold back to the level of Image Having in order
to retrieve this image, to re-view its properties in terms of the specific task at hand,
and then to use it. There is a sense of him having, and being aware that he has, the
necessary understandings but that they are just not immediately accessible. Thus,
he needs to fold back to his more basic understanding and in some way recollect--
that is to say, re-collect--it for use in his current thinking.
It is important to note that the process of collecting is a mental one. Although
here it is accompanied by Paulo searching his workbook, this is not essential to the
idea: It can equally be performed simply through the conscious searching of one's
thoughts. The workbook here is an aide-m~moire--it is not in itself his
understandings. Although initially it may appear that he has a lack of
understanding of subtraction, this is not actually the case; he was not looking for a
new idea to help him. After successfully re-collecting the image he needs, he is able
to correctly complete the question using his existing understanding of the concept.
His language allows us to assume that he is not blindly applying, by rote copying,
a given algorithm. He has recollected the understanding process which legitimates
his subsequent, algorithmic action of subtraction. The major difference between
this and the folding back of John is that the inner level activity of Paulo does not
involve a modification of his earlier understandings. His working involves him,
instead, in finding and recalling what he knows he needs to solve the problem. He
is consciously aware that this knowledge exists. He collects his inner
understanding and consolidates it through intentional use.

Collecting in the Classroom

The rest of this paper is concerned with illustrating the phenomenon of
collecting as it happens in the classroom. Our intention is to show that even brief
fragments of dialogue are sufficient to alert us to the shifts in thinking that take
place. The examples are chosen to demonstrate some of the key features of
collecting, and to indicate the varied ways in which students carry out the process
and the various teacher actions which can facilitate it.
In the first of the following two case studies, students are seen successfully
collecting inner layer understanding and using this to continue working. In the
second case, the two students are initially less successful. Their interaction provides
a valuable insight into their ways of thinking as they struggle to find and collect
what they know they need.
 134 Pirie & Martin

Case 1: Rosemary and Kerry

The first extract is taken from a lesson w i t h Year 9 students (about 14 years
old). The students, Rosemary (R) and Kerry (K) are of average ability a n d have
been set the task of finding out the area of icing on a slice of a circular birthday
cake. The teacher has introduced the task b y s i m p l y d r a w i n g a circle on the board,
m a r k i n g a sector, and asking the students to find the area of it. This transcript is
from w h e n the students b e g i n working.
R: There must be something on it in here. (Pause as she flicks through her
textbook.) I dunno (in doubtful tone), I'm looking for the area section.
K: (laughs) Area is page a hundred and thirteen. (She turns to this page--
headed "Area of a Triangle"--in her book.)
R: Got it.
K: There, it's half the base times the height.
R: No, (pause) we need .... (pause) It's pi r squared isn't it and hrnm... (Pause
as she looks through book again.) Here we are, look here we are, radius and
diameter so it's...it's [page] a hundred and twenty one. Circumference
equals two pi r squared. No, no, no, that's wrong, two pi r. Then area
equals pi r squared.
K: No, but we don't want ....
R: So, which is three hundred. (She is working with the numbers given in the
book's example. She then returns to the teacher's diagram which has no given
dimensions.) No, that's wrong.
K: Let's cut a quarter and make it easy ....
R: Just to make it easy.
Here the teacher has created a situation w h e r e the students are able to begin
w o r k i n g in whatever w a y a n d at whatever level is appropriate for them. Before
R o s e m a r y begins to work at m a k i n g an image for the sector of a circle, she folds
back to her primitive knowing, searching for something useful a n d applicable to
the problem. This shift appears to be self-invoked; that is to say, there has been no
deliberate, external intervention to cause her to decide to search her textbook--
a l t h o u g h obviously the question and therefore the teacher have contributed to this
occurring. It m a y be that her history of w o r k i n g w i t h this teacher encourages her in
the belief that she does possess the elements w i t h i n her primitive k n o w i n g that will
s u p p o r t her growth of understanding.
Initially Rosemary believes that, unlike Jasmin in Figure 2, she cannot
i m m e d i a t e l y tackle the p r o b l e m that the teacher expects her to be able to solve, and
she clearly sees a need to fold back to her p r i m i t i v e k n o w i n g and to use previous
u n d e r s t a n d i n g s in this n e w topic. She seems, however, unsure which aspects of her
p r i m i t i v e knowing to actually draw u p o n a n d her thinking is unfocused in its
nature. After a pause, she tells Kerry that she is looking for the "area section". She
has decided that she needs to calculate the area of a circle. She finds this section in
the book, intending to search for the required formula, confident that she already
k n o w s it and that h a v i n g re-collected it she can return to image m a k i n g for the
p r o b l e m in hand. She expects to be able to use her primitive k n o w i n g to continue
working, in a similar m a n n e r to Paulo in Figure 2. In the later stage of the extract,
we see that Rosemary does find the information she is searching for (both
internally in terms of her own u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d externally and physically in the
The Role of Collecting in the Growth of Mathematical Understanding 135

textbook). She collects the area of a circle formula, taking it back to the level of
image making where she attempts to continue working. In fact, though, she finds
that she cannot immediately use her formalised rule to find a numerical answer,
because the problem the teacher has posed gives no dimensions for the circle. In
this, her collecting differs from that of Paulo in that, having collected, she still has
to determine how she will use her understanding. Nonetheless, her response to
Kerry's final statement, "Just to make it easy", is evidence that she is now thinking
about the question of finding the area of a sector. She is seeing it as a portion of the
whole circle---that is to say, she is constructing an image for the notion of sector as
part of a circle and is intending to use her recollected understandings.
On closer inspection, we see that the images Kerry and Rosemary initially form
for a sector are interestingly different from one anothermat least partly because the
two students draw upon different primitive knowing. Rosemary's mention of "the
area section" has a marked effect on the thinking of Kerry and, probably as a
consequence of this student intervention, Kerry too folds back to her primitive
knowing. However, her shift appears more intentional: She goes directly to the
concept of the area of a triangle. Later conversation with Rosemary reveals that,
prior to folding back, she saw the sector as a triangular shape and attempted to
collect her understanding of triangular area in order to make it possible to work
with her image for the problem. She suggested working on a quarter circle to create
an "easy" right-angled, isosceles triangle. But for her too, the formula she needed
was not immediately applicable.
Both students collected inner understanding which they attempted to use to
increase outer understanding. But the knowledge and understandings they
collected resulted in differing images of a sector. Both girls folded back to collect on
the occasion of the given problem. Both then acted to reformulate previous
understandings into an understanding of a sector. But their collecting led them to
different understanding actions, just as their perceptions of the problem invoked
different collectings.

Case 2: Simon and Ann

The remaining extracts are taken from a teaching session with two Year 12
students (about 17 years old), Simon (S) and Ann (A). They are working on
calculus and within this topic, on the concept of differentiation from first
principles. In order to do this the teacher has invoked them to fold back to work on
the necessary primitive knowing, in this case on making an image for the concept
of limits. They have already answered a number of straightforward questions and
h3
are now trying to find lim Their initial attempt is simply to replace h by
h~0 h + 2h 2 "
zero.

A: It's nought divided by nought... (she writes: 0 _ 0 )

0+2x0 0
S: Yeah,. but you're saying what's nought divided by nought? Is it nothing
or is it infinity? How many nothings in nothing? Is there none or is there
an infinite number?
136 Pirie & Martin

A: Is it one? Is there one nothing in nothing?

S: It's not one, there's not one nothing in nothing...
A: No, but if you go two by two (pause) over two, it's one.
S: It's one. That's different though, nothing's nothing, nothing's totally
different.
A: I suppose (pause). It's nothing, or infinity, or one, we haven't decide
S: It's not one...
The difficulty here has b e e n caused b y the fact that the h in the d e n o m i n a t o r of
the rational expression leads to a division b y zero. W i t h their present i m a g e for
finding limits they are led to replace h b y zero, a n d they are left with a situation
that they cannot solve. Their difficulty here has two aspects. Firstly, their existing
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of limiting values is insufficient to allow t h e m to solve the question;
and secondly, they do not use the necessary algebraic primitive k n o w i n g to allow
them to m o d i f y their image making. Both students are seen folding b a c k to their
primitive k n o w i n g of arithmetic.
The w a y in w h i c h the two students then work, though, differs. S i m o n appears
to be trying to retrieve a fact at this inner level: N o u g h t d i v i d e d b y n o u g h t is either
n o u g h t or infinity, he has forgotten which. (This inference of ours is s u p p o r t e d b y
later dialogue b e t w e e n the students). From careful scrutiny of all the video data
(and not relying solely on a transcript), we also infer that, in fact, A n n a n d Simon
have different images for zero. A n n calls zero " n o u g h t " a n d regards it as a n u m b e r ,
like any other number. Simon calls zero "nothing" (he says "nought" o n l y w h e n
repeating A n n ' s comments) a n d regards it as "emptiness". His face, gestures, a n d
tone of voice all i m p l y that he is looking to see h o w m u c h emptiness is in
something empty. His image is, quite reasonably b u t p r o b a b l y unconsciously,
influenced b y the c o m m o n language m e a n i n g of nothing. W h e n A n n refers to the
n u m b e r two, Simon responds, "Nothing's totally different". Although he can call
his image to m i n d a n d he attempts to state w h a t he has recalled, he is unable to
a p p l y it.
With A n n the situation is different. She folds back to ~in u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a
property of division (a + a = 1) and moves out of the topic of limits to work w i t h
this property. In fact, the actions of A n n suggest that her existing u n d e r s t a n d i n g is
not sufficiently developed or complete enough to allow her to collect it a n d use it
anew. Instead, she seems to have a need to work on her primitive knowing, to h a v e
a greater u n d e r s t a n d i n g of division, which she can then use in the n e w context of
"nought d i v i d e d b y nought". Here, therefore, we do not see her actually engage in
an act of collecting. Simon is aware of the i n a d e q u a c y of her notion, b u t cannot
offer a n alternative idea and both students are effectively u n a b l e to proceed. At this
stage the teacher (T) intervenes.
T: Right, you can't actually give me an answer to it as it stands? In fact, can
you do something to that (pointing to original expression in h)? I mean,
what's the problem out of here is the zero on the bottom, isn't it? 'Cos
you don't know how to divide by zero, you don't know, as you say, how
many nothings there are in something, OK? Can you do something to
this (the original expression)? Can you simplify that in some way?
A: You can knock them off you see ... that's what we can do, can't we? You
can do that, you can make it h over h plus ... argh, we've got two h
The Role of Collecting in the Growth of Mathematical Understanding 137

squared, knock off one h squared. Get h, h plus h squared. (She writes
h x h x h , crosses out h ×h in the numerator, and writes ~ .)
h + 2(h × h+ h2
S" Right, so h plus ... (he writes as they work)
A: h times h, so that's (inaudible) times h times h. Knock off hmm ....
S: See, I've got h plus h squared over h, that's still not right ....
A: It's exactly the same as it used to be, hmm. Well surely there's something
we can do with these, can't we? So it's still nothing divided by
something, you divide it by nothing, no it's nothing ....
T: Are you actually happy with what was going on here (pointing to
h × h × h )? 'Cos I wasn't quite clear what was going on.
h + 2(h ×
A: OK, we've got, on the top we've got h times h times h.
T: Yeah.
A: On the bottom we've got h plus h times h ... times h times h. (She now has
written: hx ~ .)
h+(hxh)+~
T: OK, I'm a bit unhappy about what's going on here. Why were you able
to cross that out with that (pointing to the earlier writing)?
A: Because that's what we did in maths a couple of days ago, what was it,
was it? Factorials? ... n over n minus r factorial factorial ... something like
that.
The teacher here has recognised t h e problem the students are h a v i n g and
initially validates 2 this by saying "'cos you don't k n o w h o w to divide by zero." She
m a k e s a n intentionally invocative intervention to get the students to fold back
again to their primitive knowing, but this time the teacher is able to give the
intervention a more explicit focus than the printed question h a d provided. She
asks, " C a n you do something to this? C a n you simplify that in some w a y ? " The
l a n g u a g e here is a p r o m p t to particular algebraic techniques. The w o r d "simplify"
seems to p r o v i d e the invocative trigger for A n n a n d Simon. They fold back to their
primitive k n o w i n g a n d collect from this inner layer their m e t h o d a n d
u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of algebraic manipulation, which they proceed to w o r k with while
trying to construct an image for the notion of limits. Unfortunately, it is evident
that their algebraic u n d e r s t a n d i n g which they collect is either incomplete or
i n a p p r o p r i a t e to the task at hand. Hence they will need further image making,
including other re-collecting, in order to proceed.
The teacher then makes two interventions which a p p e a r to have the aim of
p r o m p t i n g the students to do just this. She first asks, " A r e you actually h a p p y with
w h a t w a s going on here?" This intervention has the potential to be invocative
a l t h o u g h it is s o m e w h a t non-directional in nature, but it is not taken as invocative
a n d the students continue to w o r k in the same way. The second question, again
with invocative intent, is more explicit: " W h y were you able to cross that out with
that?" H a d the students been able to answer this question, it w o u l d have acted as a
validating question. Where the students are incorrect, it is reasonable to suggest

2The notion of validating is used here to describe an intervention which confirms the level of
understanding currently employed by the person.
138 Pirie & Martin

that the a i m was to get them to change their u n d e r s t a n d i n g s in some way.

This time the teacher's intervention triggers something for Ann, w h o folds
back to her primitive knowing, aiming to collect u n d e r s t a n d i n g that w i l l provide
an explanation. The nature of the question asked b y the teacher results in a
relatively unfocused shift in thinking b y A n n and she recalls some notion of
factorials. She seems to be searching her primitive k n o w i n g again for s o m e t h i n g
that she thinks will help her, although she does not appear to know w h y factorials
m a y do this or even how she might a p p l y t h e m - - s h e merely recalls a similar
situation in a previous lesson. She is unable to deliberately collect the required
mathematics; instead, she first locates where it occurred for her and t h e n utilises
this "flag" to find the k n o w l e d g e she needs. She justifies her working b y saying
"'Because that's w h a t we d i d in maths a couple of days ago" a n d it is this
referencing that then seems to trigger the actual collecting of the notion of
factorials, "n over n m i n u s r factorial factorial.., something like that".
The w a y in w h i c h A n n sets about finding w h a t she wants to collect is
especially interesting. It is a c o m m o n feature in her working, as is the fact that the
actual mathematics recalled does not initially seem to be particularly clear in her
o w n thinking. Her typical pattern of action seems to be to reference her t h i n k i n g b y
the time w h e n she w o r k e d on the "collectable" concept and b y the events in the
classroom that s u r r o u n d e d it. She needs to re-situate herself in her previous
u n d e r s t a n d i n g activity. She relatively easily collects the mathematical label for a
c o n c e p t - - i n this case, factorials--but she then frequently relies on Simon to s u p p l y
the actual piece of useable mathematics 3. Indeed, she takes on an almost teacherly
role w h e n calling on Simon to supply or recall the actual mathematics, as the
following episode illustrates.
At one point Simon a n d A n n think that they have to deal with one d i v i d e d b y
nought.
A: Which is ...? (expectant pause) You know Sime.
S: Do I?
A: Yeah, you're big on these sorts of things. Come on.
S: Why am I big? Why am I big on these sorts of things?
A: 'Cos we were doing it the other day.
S: Were we?
A: Proving God and all that. Or whatever you were doing.
S: That was more than two years ago!
A: Yeah, well.
S: That was the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It's infinite.
Once Simon has identified the mathematics, A n n is usually able to recollect it
and a p p l y it w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g . This, and m a n y similar examples, suggests that
knowledge of the need for collecting plays a frequent and vital role in A n n ' s
growth of understanding. She seems to have developed her own internal labelling
and referencing strategies to allow her to m a k e the collecting process easier a n d
more efficient. She has created a n d uses a two stage mental referencing system,

3 For obvious reasons, we do not have any data on her collecting acts when she is working
alone and therefore silently.
 The Role od;Collecting in the Growth of MathematicaI Understanding 139

which links events to mathematical labels to mathematical u n d e r s t a n d i n g .

Later in the same session, the students return to differentiation a n d can be seen
using their primitive k n o w i n g f r o m the concept of limits to m a k e a n e w image for
differentiation. They are w o r k i n g with the equation y = x 2 a n d using the notion of
the difference in y divided b y difference in x for a small increment h. At the
h
beginning of the extract they h a v e established that h + h 2 i i
a n d are trying

to e x p a n d the bracket on the right h a n d side.

A: We just did it, we did it on hmm (pause) on those stairs. 4 (pause)

Mathematical Methods. 5 (pause) Now you expand this one to ... oh no, I
can't do these.
S: What can't you do?
A: This is the great long thing we had an exam on. 6
S: Multiplying out of brackets ... hmm ....
A: We get x squared plus h squared something ....
S: This is (pause) this is ...
A: plus two x or something like that. No, no, that's wrong. Aw, I can't do
these...
A n n realises that she cannot immediately e x p a n d the expression a n d she folds
back to her primitive knowing. Although the shift is a g a i n p r i m a r i l y caused by tile
material a n d the question, there is a definite element of A n n also choosing to fold
back herself. She is a w a r e that somewhere in her primitive k n o w i n g she has the
necessary techniques a n d that she needs to fold back a n d recall or re-collect them.
The shift itself is u n f o c u s e d - - s h e seems to be combing h e r primitive k n o w i n g to try
a n d find w h a t she k n o w s that m a y help. There is a v e r y real sense of her trying to
find some a p p r o p r i a t e understanding. She is not folding back to develop these
ideas b u t to pull t h e m out and collect them r e a d y to use in the n e w situation.
Once a g a i n A n n ' s referencing strategy is seen in operation. She says, " w e just
did it, we did it on, hmrn, on those stairs ... Mathematical M e t h o d s " a n d "This is
the great long thing we h a d an e x a m on". She has not only labelled her thinking by
time a n d event b u t also b y a physical reference point; a n d she uses this to try and
facilitate the collection of the attached mathematics. Despite an a p p a r e n t l y well-
developed strategy, however, A n n is still unable to precisely or fully collect w h a t
she needs. Atypically, although Simon knows she w a n t s to multiply out the
brackets, he fails to come to her aid. She continues to struggle to recall the relevant
knowledge, with c o m m e n t s such as "It's the great big thing a n d w e set them all out
in class a n d I said ' N o miss, that's wrong, I did that w r o n g ' " a n d "Is it the one with
the Pascal's triangle?"
T h r o u g h o u t the process of hunting through primitive knowing, A n n is not

Ann is probably referring to how they were introduced to integration by drawing

rectangles to approximate the area under a curve. The diagram has the appearance of a set
of stairs.
s The textbook from which they have been working.
6She is probably trying to recall the expansion of (x + h) n.
 140 Pirie & Martin

actually talking directly about the mathematics that she is trying to fold back to but
rather about the events of the lesson that surrounded that work and the physical
location of it. This referencing and collecting is again taking place in two stages.
Ann first describes the events of the lesson, then collects and states the label
"Pascal's triangle". When, after searching her memory she is still unable to find
exactly what she knows she needs, she tries, as Rosemary, Kerry, and Paulo did in
the earlier examples, to actually physically locate where she m a y find what she
knows she needs. She begins looking in her bag and her file for h e r notes from the
lesson to help her collect what she knows she needs. Although she can access the
general topic area she is aware that she is unable to precisely collect what is
required and calls on Simon's assistance, saying "Have you got your book with
you?" and later "You've got your folder, you might have your book" and later
again "... review sheet ... it might help you (sic) to work it out".
Throughout the rest of this episode, there is a sense of Ann moving in and out
of her primitive knowing as she retrieves more small pieces of mathematics to help
her. She seems to be trying to reconstruct a jigsaw puzzle of her understandings
piece by piece---in effect repeatedly saying to herself "if I knew such-and-such I
could probably act with u n d e r s t a n d i n g ' - - u n f i l the whole is ready to be used.
What Ann is gradually collecting is a relevant, if overly sophisticated, piece of
primitive knowing--namely, the expansion of binomial expressions. Finally the
teacher intervenes.
T: Right, I know what you're going for, and when you find it you'd be
right. But you're going an awfully difficult way round.
S: Yeah, complicated.
T: What you're going for is useful if you want x plus h to the eleventh,
rather a waste of time if you want x plus h squared. What does x plus h
squared mean?
S: It means x plus h ....
A: x plus h, argh! This is GCSE7 (very excited and laughing). So x squared plus
xh, plus hx plus h squared ....
S and A: So its x squared plus two xh plus h squared ....
A: (triumphantly) There you go.
T: Now, do you remember why you wanted that?
Even as the teacher speaks, Ann and Simon return immediately to the sheet of paper on
which they had been working.
The first intervention of the teacher here is in response to the difficulties the
students are having. Her comment is explicit and intentional, she wants them to
now fold back further, to their specific formalised understanding for quadratics.
The effect on Ann is quite startling, she suddenly folds even further back to the
image she has for the expansion of brackets term by term, and is able to quickly
and easily collect it. Again, though, she firstly describes it in terms of the label
attached to it--an event, in this case "GCSE". Having collected the image from the
inner layer, she is able to move back out with it to their image making for
differentiation from first principles and immediately and successfully use it to

7 The General Certificate of Secondary Education examination, which the students sat
eighteen months previously.
The Role of Collecting in the Growth of Mathematical Understanding 141

expand the expression. The final comment of the teacher is important as it is

designed to validate that the students are in fact working back at the image making
level and using their algebraic understandings in the context of differentiation
rather than merely expanding a quadratic without purpose. The end result here is
eventually one of successful folding back, collecting and using earlier
understanding--although it was not achieved without a struggle!

Limits

,.IM
\

Algebra

Other Understanding Differentiation

Figure 3. Ann's path of growth of understanding of differentiation.

 142 Pirie & Martin

Ann's cognitive path through the various levels of understanding is illustrated

in Figure 3. This diagram appears complex and hard to interpret, and we have
included it here for this very reason. It gives a good illustration of the difficulty of
finding ways to represent dynamic understanding, itself an extremely complex
process. In the past, m a n y readers have taken the eight nested circles too
simplistically and as literally "the model of the theory". In fact, they are merely
offered as a visual aid to our humanly inadequate, verbal description of one set of
the features of the enactive process of coming to understand. Those who, however,
can start at the point marked a in the Differentiation circles diagram and follow the
line as it weaves back and forth, in and out of the understanding diagrams for
Limits, Arithmetic, Algebra and Other--all of which form part of the Primitive
Knowing for differentiation--back to the point b in the Differentiation diagram are
aided in their understanding by the visual representation. The zigzag line is what
we call Ann's path of growth of mathematical understanding during the lesson
described above.

Implications for Learners and Teachers

The examples discussed above have been selected to illustrate students folding
back not to a reconstructive inner level activity, but to select and read anew for
current use knowledge and understandings which they did not have available in
algorithmic or definitional form. We call such folding back actions collecting. As is
obvious from the examples, the usefulness of collecting in on-going understanding
is dependent on what is collected and how it is read into the new situation.
So what then are the implications of this for teachers and their students? It
would certainly appear that students differ widely in their ability and their method
of collection. Most of the students we have studied have, like Jasmin in Figure 2,
some of their inner layer understandings formalised into an instantly accessible
and automated process. Indeed this is likely to be the case for many students in
much of their mathematics. For example, students working on advanced calculus
would not be expected to stop, fold back, and re-collect their earlier
understandings every time they need to multiply or add two numbers together.
Instead, such facilities have become an unconscious tool, used when required
without thought as to their origin or meaning.
However, as the examples show, collecting from an inner layer is a vital part of
the growth of understanding and we need to provide the students with the ability
to facilitate this growth. Paulo, Rosemary, and Ann are all very aware that they
possess the understanding and the knowledge they need to be able to continue
working, and this is the key feature of the phenomenon of collecting. What we are
interrogating is the interaction between the person and the problem at hand. The
mathematics they are working on is not in itself problematic, they do not have a
lack of understanding which inhibits their attempting to work on the new problem
(as John did in Figure 2), nor, we believe, do they need to fold back to enhance their
existing knowledge. Instead, for these students the initial difficulty lies in their
being unable to automatically access an earlier understanding.
For Rosemary, overcoming this difficulty is a matter of retrieving the required
formula from the textbook. Thus, the folding back is no more than a momentary
 The Role of Collecting in the Growth of Mathematical Understanding 143

shift in her cognitive state which empowers her to continue to develop her outer
level understanding. Nonetheless, the importance of this shift in state, this
collecting, should not be minimised. Even her collecting involves recollecting
previous mathematical experiences and understanding, and creating a
contemporary use for them in a current act of understanding. This act obviously
shapes the understanding being currently built (the idea of a sector of a circle) but
also reshapes her previous understanding of circles.
With Ann, the situation is more complex. She shares the awareness of
Rosemary that she has the understanding she needs, but for her the process of
finding and collecting this understanding is problematic. The internal two stage
"filing system" she has created for her mathematical concepts certainly helps her to
do this, and at times the system is highly successful--although she relies quite
heavily on Simon to provide the precise mathematics. Ann's invoked collecting of
binomial manipulation shapes her ability to understand limits of functions, but it
also clearly changes and adds to her understanding of the binomial form of the
quadratic function. In contrast, Simon appears better able to fold back and collect
mathematical understanding, most particularly when prompted by Ann's
invocative location system. Simon does not appear to search his existing
understandings in the way that Ann does, but waits for her to provide him with a
prompt. Ann and Simon both have a good understanding of what they are doing
and what they need to do to be able to continue. Their problem lies in an inability
to effectively find, collect, and use the earlier concepts--the primitive knowing--
that they need. It would, of course, have been interesting to have followed these
students working with different partners, but unfortunately this was not possible.
How widespread is this technique of Ann's? Could teachers help students to
develop such reference systems? Certainly an important action when initially
working on any problem is to ask oneself "Have I seen a problem like this before?"
Although it might initially be hard for teachers to do this (since the mathematics
that they teach is likely to be, for them, at least at the formalising stage of automatic
recall), a conscious, frequent, overt modelling of "collecting" when working
examples in front of students would demonstrate the need and the power of such
mathematical activity.
The examples in this paper also clearly illustrate the fact that students
frequently return to textbooks or written notes to find what they know they need.
Although such texts do not constitute the understanding needed, they are certainly
a valuable aid to the cognitive processes involved in collecting. Thus a teacher who
promotes writing about one's understanding, careful reading of texts, and student
discussion indirectly provides the ground for such collecting.
This leads us to consider the effect and importance of teacher interventions in
helping students to fold back and collect when needed. The dilemma lies in
deciding the extent and explicitness of the interaction. In the case of Ann it was the
final invocative intervention of the teacher, explicitly directing her to fold back to
the precise piece of mathematics that she needed to collect, that enabled her to be
able to do this and then continue working. How specific should one be? How soon
should one intervene? Clearly, neither question can be answered in the form of
general advice and the teacher's motives for the students' undertaking particular
mathematical activities need to be considered in every case individually.
144 Pirie & Martin

One solution is to direct the students explicitly to what they need to do when
they are stuck. This is not the totally inappropriate intervention that it is sometimes
painted to be. If, as in the case of Ann, the student needs to be reminded of a
particular technique (in her case, multiplying out quadratics) then in order to allow
that student to progress in the building of a new concept, the provision of direction
as to what to collect may be beneficial. This parallels the w a y in which we allow
students to use calculators to enable them to focus on methods of analysis by
avoiding heavy arithmetic. What is important is that the students know that they
do have the necessary primitive knowing somewhere. In the long run, however,
although this would have the effect that the students could continue with the
specific problem, it would not lead to their developing personal strategies for
collecting--which is, we believe, an essential tool for solving any mathematical
problem that one might encounter. For those students who do not naturally
construct a well-developed facility to collect their earlier understandings, teachers
can provide valuable assistance through careful, sensitive interventions--
particularly pertinent questioning. If we are to enable students to become
autonomous problem solvers, then we have an obligation to make explicit to them
the need for and the skills involved in both folding back and in collecting.

Conclusion
Although mathematical understanding remains a complex and intensely
individual phenomenon, there are common key features underlying the cognitive
processes involved. Both the general practices of the teacher and the students, and
specific interventions by the teacher act to invoke collecting. A cognisance of the
fact that an apparent lack of understanding of the current mathematics may, in fact,
be due to something very different holds for teachers and students of mathematics
both the challenge and the opportunity to enhance the growth of mathematical
understanding through their actions. A teacher who is not only aware of the role
that collecting plays in the growth of understanding, but also realises that students
have different strategies and abilities for finding, collecting, and using their
previous understandings, is in a position to consider the sort of actions that m a y
best enable the process to take place.

Acknowledgment
The conference presentation by Pirie, Martin, and Kieran (1996) contained
some of the ideas in this paper.

References
Bergeron, I., & Herscovics, N. (1989). A model to describe the construction of mathematical
concepts from an epistemological perspective. In L. Pereira-Mendoza & M. Quigley
(Eds.), Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 99-114).
St. John, Newfoundland, Canada: Memorial University of Newfoundland Press.
Byers, V., & Herscovics, N. (1977). Understanding school mathematics. Mathematics
Teaching, 81, 24-27.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom
The Roleof Collecting in the Growthof Mathematical Understanding 145

situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 99-122.

Davis, B. (1996). Teaching mathematics: Toward a sound alternative. New York, NY: Garland.
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity and flexibility: A "proceptual" view of
simple arithmetic. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 83-94.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Kieren, T. E., & Pirie, S. E. B. (1991). Recursion and the mathematical experience. In L. P.
Steffe (Ed.), Epistemologicalfoundations of mathematical experience (pp. 78-101). New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Kieren, T. E., & Pirie, S. E. B. (1992). The answer determines the question--Interventions
and the growth of mathematical understanding. In W. Geeslin & K. Graham (Eds.),
Proceedings of the t6th annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 1-8). Durham, NH: Program Committee.
Martin, L. C. (1999). The nature of the folding back phenomenon within the Pirie-Kieren Theoryfor
the growth of mathematical understanding and the associated implications for teachers and
learners of mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford, Oxford,
England.
Maturana, H. R., & Tomm, K. (1986). Languaging and the emotion flow. Paper presented at a
conference of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human
understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
Pirie, S. E. B., Martin, L., & Kieren, T. E. (1996). Folding back to collect: Knowing you know
what you need to know. In L. Puig & A. Guti6rrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual
conference of the International Groupfor the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp.
147-154). Valencia, Spain: Program Committee.
Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1989). A recursive theory of mathematical understanding. For
the Learning of Mathematics, 9(3), 7-11.
Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1991a, April). The characteristics of the growth of mathematical
understanding. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1991b). Folding back: Dynamics in the growth of
mathematical understanding. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th annual
meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp.
169-176). Assisi, Italy: Program Committee.
Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1992). Watching Sandy's understanding grow. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 11,243-257.
Pirie, S. E. B., & Kieren, T. E. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we
characterise it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 165-
190.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes
and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1-
36.
Sierpinska, A. (1990). Some remarks on understanding in mathematics. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 10(3), 24-36.
Sierpinska, A. (1994). Understanding in mathematics. London: Falmer.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics
Teaching, 77, 20-26.
Tall, D. (1978). The dynamics of understanding mathematics. Mathematics Teaching, 84, 50-
52.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of
146 Pirie & Martin

representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3-17). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason. London, England: Routledge.

Authors
Susan E. B. Pirie, University of British Columbia, Department of Curriculum Studies, 2125
Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada. E-mail: <susan.pirie@ubc.ca>.

Lyndon C. Martin, University of British Columbia, Department of Curriculum Studies, 2125

Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada. E-mail: <lyndon.martin@ubc.ca>.