Wil Broome: s1708592: (G.R.A.

Broome) MA Professional Practice

Mathematical fluency
The roots of the idea of mathematical fluency can be found in early mathematics
discussions around the distinction between rote learning and understanding. However it
is not a simple term, there is considerable debate and discussion about its exact
definition. However, within this paper I will adopt the definition of the NCTM that
students who are mathematically fluent are ones who demonstrate a flexible approach
to mathematical problem solving (NCTM.)

The idea of understanding mathematics rather than rote learning is not a new one.
Romberg and Kaput, (1999) stated that teaching for understanding in mathematics had
been the goal for more than a hundred years. However perhaps the most important
author in the field of mathematics learning is Brownell, who writing in 1944 criticised
the teaching of mathematics in such a way as to result in “superficial, empty
verbalisation” (Brownell p29) and maintained that memorisation of rules disadvantages
students in developing mathematical fluency.

His ideas were followed by Skemp’s writing in the sixties, Skemp’s theories of learning
drew on both mathematical education theory and psychology, he suggested that there
are two kinds of learning in mathematics: schematic (or relational) Understanding and
rote (or mechanistic) learning.
Skemp acknowledged his bias towards relational understanding, and conducted studies,
(which we would now classify as quasi experimental) which provided evidence to
support his claim that “schematically learnt material was not only better learnt, but
better retained.” Skemp 1971

Skemp also explored why, given the clear benefits of relational understanding, some
teachers continued to prefer rote learning. He offers two possible reasons, firstly that
rote learning can be faster,however he goes on to say that this only work in short term
specific instances, that progression can only come through the building of understanding
because “the number of rules to be learnt [would] become steadily more burdensome.”
Skemp 1971 p43. Secondly he discusses the cognitive dissonance that is part of
relational understanding , it requires a high degree of adaptability and the confidence to
abandon information which is not relevant or to adopt entirely new ways of thinking.
These qualities do nto however make it unsuitable for teaching, but they do place a
responsibility on teachers to make sure that the cognitive structures students develop
are “adaptable to future as well as present needs”.

Freudenthal’s work, also in the sixties and sevetnies, on realistic mathematic education
also supported the view that mathematical learning conceptual to support problem

1 of 7
Wil Broome: s1708592: (G.R.A.Broome) MA Professional Practice

solving rather than memorising rote facts (Freudenthal 1968), with a focus on students
participation and their active construction of complex and meaningful learning (Treffers
1991.)

This suggests strong applicability of a constructivist approach to learning which will be

further explored in the sections of this literature review relating to using inquiry and
problem based learning to build fluency.

Hiebert and Lefevre (1986), following on from the work of Skemp and authors
such as Scheffler (1965), exploring in detail the distinction between procedural
knowledge and conceptual knowledge.
Hiebert and Lefevre offer a complex construction of procedural adn conceptual
knowledge differentiating between surface adn deep learning in both domains. Their
work is key to udnerstnaidng the tension that exists between proponents of
conceptual leanring and those who belive that mathematical learning must have
embedded prcodures and known facts. Davis, Gray,Simpson,TallandThomas (2000),

Long (2005) explores further in her paper and concludes that differentiating between
procedural adn coneptual fluency is a useful tool for teaching but supports Heibert
and Lefevre’s reasoning that any dichotomy is cirmvented by considering the
relatiomnship between the two domains as the thing that improves matehamtical
udnerstnading. (long p64).

This view of the interwoven nature of the two learning domains is further
strengthened in Kilpatrick et al.

Research from this period on drew strong links ebtween their dieas of conceptual
knowledge mathematical fluency(Cartwright, 2018).

Support for this view comes from a range of research and thinking across a wide range
of disciplines. Garners 1991 book ‘the unschooled mind’ analysis a range of research
which highlights the problem of students at university level who cannot ‘ apply it
(content) appropriately in new contexts. (p. 247)

2 of 7
Wil Broome: s1708592: (G.R.A.Broome) MA Professional Practice

Within mathematics reports from an observational persepoctive show that students

frequentl yattmept to solve problems in a routine, mechanical way and fail to recognise
the key information or conversely, focus on irrelevant ifnormaiton producing inaccurate
answers. ( Conway 2005; Cooper and Harries, 2002)

Within the past two decades the idea of teaching for fluency and understanding rather
than procedural memoriastion has gained acceptance in maths education.
Give examples

This brief chronological review of the literature will illustrate that different authors have
used different terminology
LInk to problem solvign and inquiry
The questions is - how do we do that?
The answer is relatively simple, study of the historic literature on conceptual
udnerstnading shows a consistant theme of problem solving and a secondary theme of
inquiry based leanring (CITE)

Fuson, Kalchman, and Bransford 2005). Martin (2009, p. 165) describes some of the
reasons that fluency depends on and extends from conceptual understanding: To use
mathematics effectively, students must be able to do much more than carry out
mathematical procedures. They must know which procedure is appropriate and most
productive in a given situation, what a procedure accomplishes, and what kind of results
to expect. Mechanical execution of procedures without understanding their
mathematical basis often leads to bizarre results.

The EEF evidence based guidance report strongly encourages problem solving,
discussion and active involvement of pupils int eh maths they learn.
mathematics lessons should be centered on engaging students in solving and discussing
tasks that promote reasoning and problem solving (NCTM 2009; National Research
Council 2012a)

Link fluency to inquiry - John Dewy - constructivist view “constructing meanings relevant
to a given context” Blair, A 2014. Links to 2014 national curriculum “reason
mathematically by following a lien of enquiry”
Blair discusses the difficulties inherent in a pure inquiry model, in which student can
come to false answers. Mathematics does have ‘correct knowledge’ (blair) he relates this
to constructing a ‘socially acceptable understanding of concepts (Vygotsky) and specifies
that the sources of knowledge can be the teachers instruction.

3 of 7
Wil Broome: s1708592: (G.R.A.Broome) MA Professional Practice

A counter argument to the validity of problem based learning can be found in the work
of Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) and in Christodoulou (2014). However a reading of
Kirschner, Sweller and Clark shows that their dismissal of problem based learning in
maths stems from the authors belief that problem and inquiry based math learning are
the same thing as minimally or unguided discovery learning. As HMELO-SILVER,C
DUNCAN, R & CHINN, C (2007) discuss, this is a conflation of different methods of
learning. Kirschner et al and other authors advance a line of argument that minimally
guided leanring in maths leads to lack of udnerstnading and errors. It is nto aruges by
this paper that students need active teachign and guided learning in order to master the
key facts of maths, however Kirschners argument fails when it relies on the assertion
that PB learning is minimally or ungoided.
It is also notable that the evidence base for Kirschners claim is weak, there is extensive
research into PB learning and its benefits and also on the scaffolding and pedagogical
approaches to support this learning type. (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989; Davis &
Linn, 2000; Golan, Kyza, Reiser, & Edelson, 2002; Guzdial, 1994; Jackson, Stratford,
Krajcik, & Soloway, 1994; Reiser, 2004; Toth, Suthers, & Lesgold, 2002),
The research evidence seems overwhelming in favour of problem solving instead of rote
memorisation for mathematical learning.

facilitating meaningful discourse, ensuring connections among mathematical ideas,

supporting students as they struggle, and determining what counts as evidence of
students’ learning (Seidle, Rimmele, and Prenzel, 2005).
Principles to Actions : Ensuring Mathematical Success for All,

The learning of mathematics has been defined to include the development of five
interrelated strands that, together, constitute mathematical proficiency (National
Research Council 2001): 1. Conceptual understanding 2. Procedural fluency 3. Strategic
competence 4. Adaptive reasoning 5. Productive disposition Conceptual understanding
(i.e., the comprehension and connection of concepts, operations, and relations)
establishes the foundation, and is necessary, for developing procedural fluency (i.e., the
meaningful and flexible use of procedures to solve problems).

Effective mathematics teaching includes a strong focus on using varied mathematical

representations. NCTM (2000)... When students learn to represent, discuss, and make
connections among mathematical ideas in multiple forms, they demonstrate deeper
mathematical understanding and enhanced problem-solving abilities (Fuson, Kalchman,
and Bransford 2005; Lesh, Post, and Behr 1987).

4 of 7
Wil Broome: s1708592: (G.R.A.Broome) MA Professional Practice

The depth of understanding is related to the strength of connections among

mathematical representations that students have internalized (Pape and Tchoshanov
2001; Webb, Boswinkel, and Dekker 2008).

Students’ understanding is deepened through discussion of similarities among

representations that reveal underlying mathematical structures or essential features of
mathematical ideas that persist regardless of the form (Zimba 2011).
Discourse that focuses on tasks that promote reasoning and problem solving is a
primary mechanism for developing conceptual understanding and meaningful learning
of mathematics (Michaels, O’Connor, and Resnick 2008).
Effective mathematics teaching relies on questions that encourage students to explain
and reflect on their thinking as an essential component of meaningful mathematical
discourse.
NCTM)
(

Problem based teaching for fluency

those who had been taught mathematics in mixed-attainment classes using
problem-solving and project work approaches had notably improved employment
outcomes (as well as higher school mathematics attainment) than those who
experienced a more didactic teaching approach within attainment sets (archer et al)
Often it is claimed that this reduction of mathematical learning to an execution of cues
and procedures is necessary as it simplifies mathematical thinking,. Nardi and Stewart

Over the past twenty years studies of mathematical education have examined how
students learn and the implications for teaching. (Conway, 2005; Kilpatrick et al., 2001;
Nunes et al., 2010)
Kilpatrick's book identifies a key theme , echoed in much of the literature, that students
are unable to apply or use the mathematics they have (nominally) been taught.
Kilpatrick et als report analyse mathematical fluency in terms of five key interwoven
strands; conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive
reasoning (the capacity for logical thought, reflection, explanation and justification) and
productive disposition. Many subsequent authors draw upon Kilpatricks model in
discussions of mathematical learning and it forms the basis of many mathematics
curricula (Eg the the 2012 Australian Curriculum: Mathematics). The report concludes
that over emphasis on procedural fluency comes at the expense of the other strands

5 of 7
Wil Broome: s1708592: (G.R.A.Broome) MA Professional Practice

and more importantly does not produce students with strong capability in maths.
Kilpatrick's et als report however focuses on providing detailed examples of teaching in
mathematics and despite the strength of the argument for the five strands, does not
expand upon the potential for more open mathematical problem solving or the
opportunities afforded by maths talk. (Stacey, K 2002)

Longitudanal studies have shown that teaching within a constructivist framework,

proividng students with coenptually orientated learning results in improvements in
attainment on all types of maths tasks. (Peterson, Carpenter and Fennema (1989) Staub
and Stern 2003, Boaler )

From the review of the literature three research questions emerged.

● Can mathematical fluency be identified through discourse analysis
● Does an inquiry based approach to learning encourage mathematical fluency
● What effect does mathematical fluency have on performance in summative
assessments

students’ overall poor understanding of key mathematical concepts and procedures,

typically reflected in routine rather than flexible use of mathematical ideas (APEC, 2004;
Bramall and White, 2000; De Corte et al., 1996;Gardner, 1991) While

nto faster than problem based apprches - may nee to expand on this pointing out that
this is assumnign schema (skemps word have already been developed)

REPORT THIS ADPRIVACY

Instrumental understanding2: a mechanical, rote or ‘learn the rule/method/algorithm’
kind of learning (which gives quicker results for the teacher in the short term), e.g.
writing 10 would be understood as “This is how we write 10” in instrumental terms.

Relational understanding2: a more meaningful learning in which the pupil is able to

understand the links and relationships which give mathematics its structure (which is
more beneficial in the long term and aids motivation), e.g. writing 10 would be

6 of 7
Wil Broome: s1708592: (G.R.A.Broome) MA Professional Practice

understood as “This is why we write 10 like this (in terms of place value)” in relational
terms.

7 of 7