See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/380824160

INFERENTIAL KNOWLEDGE: THE GLUE THAT HOLDS THE STEPS IN A

PROCEDURE TOGETHER

Conference Paper · November 2024

CITATIONS READS

0 102

3 authors, including:

Alison Mirin Dov Zazkis

The University of Arizona Arizona State University
33 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS 30 PUBLICATIONS 343 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alison Mirin on 24 May 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INFERENTIAL KNOWLEDGE: THE GLUE THAT HOLDS THE STEPS IN A
PROCEDURE TOGETHER

Alison Mirin Dov Zazkis Luz Marizza Bailey

The University of Arizona Arizona State University Arizona State University
amirin@math.arizona.edu dzazkis@asu.edu labaile3@asu.edu
In mathematics education, knowledge is often divided into conceptual knowledge and procedural
knowledge. These two knowledge types are sometimes seen as competing for teachers' attention
and curricular focus. Similarly, there exists a perceived dichotomy between proof-based
mathematics and procedure-based mathematics. In this context, learning procedures, which
include computations and calculations, is frequently viewed as learning how to execute them to
obtain answers. However, from our perspective, procedures should be understood as a sequence
of inferences. Thus, we propose the construct of inferential knowledge as an alternative to the
traditional conceptual-procedural divide. We present inferential decomposition as a technique to
deconstruct the knowledge required in understanding a procedure inferentially. We advocate for
using inferential knowledge to integrate sensemaking and explanation within procedures.
Keywords: Algebra and Algebraic Thinking, Reasoning and Proof, High School Education,
Undergraduate Education
Deductive inference-making is paramount to mathematics. However, in some sub-disciplines
of school mathematics, the core inferential basis is sometimes hidden behind routines and
algorithms. We address this by introducing an inferential knowledge framework that serves a
dual purpose of highlighting the inferences within procedures and also deconstructing the types
of knowledge underlying an understanding of the validity of these inferences. Our inferential
knowledge approach: 1) sheds light onto decades-long debates about procedural knowledge
versus conceptual knowledge, 2) highlights a viable opportunity for incorporating sensemaking
into learning already standardized procedures, and 3) provides potential avenues for smoothing
the transition from calculation-centric mathematics (where inferences are often below the
surface) to proof-centric mathematics (where inferences are more transparent).

Inferences Hidden in Procedures: Two Examples

To help illustrate the fundamental perspective driving this work, that inferences underlie
procedures, we discuss two typical procedure-centric examples: The first is in the context of
introductory calculus, specifically “implicit differentiation”1.
Example 1: The Ladder Problem and Implicit Differentiation
Consider the procedure of implicit differentiation. Figure 1, below, displays an example of a
fairly common introductory calculus problem whose standard solution utilizes such a procedure.

1
We refer to the described method for solving this problem as “implicit differentiation” for convenience, even
though it may not technically qualify as such (Mirin & Zazkis, 2020).
 Figure 1: The Ladder Problem
!
A student is likely to procedurally take !" of both sides of
1. 𝑥 # + 𝑦 # = 9,
substitute in the given information, perform some manipulations, and then arrive at the answer.
Mirin and Zazkis (2020) propose a way of conceptualizing this implicit differentiation procedure
in a way that coheres with typical introductory calculus material: viewing the equation (1) as an
equality of functions (of t), we use the fact that sameness of function implies sameness of
derivative to infer that the derivative (with respect to t) of the function represented by the left
hand side is the same as the derivative of the function represented by the right hand side. This
then implies that:
! !
2. !" (𝑥 # + 𝑦 # ) = !" (9).
While there are more steps (inferences) to solve this particular problem, here we focus on the
very first step in transitioning from equation (1) to equation (2). We note that understanding why
a procedure is valid encompasses other mathematical understandings. In the context of the ladder
problem, Mirin and Zazkis (2020) propose that understanding why implicit differentiation is
valid is tantamount to viewing the procedure as an inference from function equality to derivative
equality (from equation (1) to (2)), and the authors consider the conceptualizations involved in
understanding such an inference. Understanding equation (1) as a statement of function equality
acts as a warrant for writing (2), a statement of derivative equality, which in turn acts as a
warrant for performing the differentiation procedure. While there might be other productive
ways of understanding (1) and (2) besides function and derivative equality (e.g. using a calculus
grounded in differentials, as in Ely, 2021), our central point here is that underlying this common
procedure of differentiating both sides of an equation is an inference from equation (1) to (2).
Our broad point is that deductive inferences, such as the one shown above, are omnipresent in
procedures but are often left tacit outside proof centered contexts.
Example 2: The Number Line Problem and Solving Inequalities
We now consider another example to guide our discussion: a typical secondary school
algebra problem, which we hereafter refer to as the number line problem.

Figure 2. The Number Line Problem

The typical procedure for solving this problem is to start with the initial inequality shown below:
3. 2𝑥 − 5𝑥 ≤ 12
Then the left-hand side is usually simplified by collecting like terms, resulting in the inequality:
 4. −3𝑥 ≤ 12.
The standard final step for solving the inequality is to divide each side by −3 and reverse the
inequality sign, yielding:
5. 𝑥 ≥ −4.
Finally, the number line is shaded to the right of the point representing the value of −4, and a
solid dot is drawn on the point representing −4.
Let’s consider how we could conceptualize this procedure inferentially. Like with the Ladder
Problem, these inferences are often left tacit. Because 2𝑥 − 5𝑥 = −3𝑥 for all values of 𝑥 (and
underlying understanding this equation entails other conceptualizations, which are not discussed
here), we can infer that the values of 𝑥 that satisfy (3) are precisely those values of 𝑥 that satisfy
(4). Therefore, solving (4) is tantamount to solving (3). Similarly, using the fact that 𝑎 ≤ 𝑏 is
equivalent to 𝑎/(−3) ≥ 𝑏/(−3) and that 12/(−3) = −4, we can conclude that the values of 𝑥
that satisfy (4) are precisely those values of 𝑥 that satisfy (5). Hence, we can conclude that the
values of 𝑥 that satisfy (3) are the same as those that satisfy (5), and then we can appropriately
highlight all values on the number line that are greater than or equal to −4.

Our Framework: Inferential Knowledge and Inferential Decompositions

The two problems in the previous section can be solved by implementing known procedures
with little or no attention to why those procedures work. However, as we demonstrated, each step
in those procedures relies on an underlying inference. This observation is true in general of any
legitimate mathematical procedure. We leverage this observation to define and delineate a type
of knowledge that underlies understanding procedures inferentially. In other words, we define
our novel construct, inferential knowledge, to characterize the knowledge involved in
understanding a procedure as a chain of valid inferences.
To contextualize and demonstrate the utility of our inferential knowledge construct, we first
explain how inferential knowledge is novel in relation to mathematics education discourse on
knowledge types. Then, we describe and illustrate what we call inferential decomposition. An
inferential decomposition is the process by which one makes explicit the often tacit inferences
involved in performing a procedure and then characterizes the types of knowledge and
understandings (Figure 3) associated with the procedure. We then make the case that performing
an inferential decomposition is a valuable activity for both educators and students.
Situating Inferential Knowledge in the Literature
Much of the discourse around procedures within mathematics education has been situated
within the procedural-conceptual dichotomy (e.g., Hiebert & Lefevre, 1986). In these works,
procedures are commonly characterized as little more than a rote series of steps to be followed.
For example, Hiebert and Lefevre (1986) describe procedural knowledge as skill-based, rote, and
lacking meaning. In contrast, they characterize conceptual knowledge as meaningful and based
on understanding. Star (2005) contributed nuance to this discussion by separating out knowledge
type (procedural versus conceptual) from knowledge quality (shallow versus deep) and thus
introduced the notion of deep procedural knowledge. Star’s deep procedural knowledge, like
Hatano’s (2003) adaptive expertise, accounts for the fact that procedures can be implemented in
skillful, teleological (goal-oriented), and non-rote ways. However, even this approach omits any
clear indication or discussion of the inferential basis that lies at the core of why procedures work.
In other words, the “deep” part of deep procedural knowledge appears to come not necessarily
from understanding its inferential basis. Instead, it comes from flexibility and adaptability in
implementing the procedure. This means there is little space within the procedural-conceptual
literature for highlighting the inferential basis for procedures. In fact, a review of the literature
(e.g., Baroody, 2003; Baroody et al., 2007; Hiebert & Lefevre, 1986; Ma, 1999; Peled &
Zaslavsky, 2008; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2015; Star, 2005, 2007) on procedural and conceptual
knowledge indicates no explicit reference to the notion of procedures being understood as valid
inferences.
However, the literature does provide some hint into how some authors might categorize
inferential knowledge in the procedural-conceptual divide. Hiebert and Lefevre’s (1986)
classification of procedural knowledge as how-to and conceptual knowledge as why seems to
suggest that inferential knowledge goes in the conceptual knowledge classification – however,
this classification appears not to be associated with procedures, nor is the inferential basis
explicitly discussed. On the other hand, Star’s (2005, 2007) characterization of procedural
knowledge as being knowledge about procedures suggests that inferential knowledge associated
with a particular procedure can be viewed as a type of procedural knowledge – indeed, this is the
approach that Mirin and Zazkis (2020) take when discussing implicit differentiation. However,
Star (2005, 2007) does not provide inferential examples when illustrating the construct of deep
procedural knowledge. So, authors using the procedural-conceptual dichotomy do not seem to
agree on how to classify inferential understanding of a procedure, nor have they specifically
addressed the inferential basis for procedures.
Further, discussing the inferential knowledge associated with a particular procedure, such as
implicit differentiation, will often entail discussing conceptualizations (e.g. of functions) that do
not directly reference any procedures and are thus not necessarily about procedures. While the
construct of adaptive expertise (Baroody, 2003) keeps procedural and conceptual knowledge
intertwined, this construct appears to be more about transfer and flexible adaptation of
procedures to varying contexts than it is about understanding the validity or legitimacy of
procedures. One aspect of Baroody’s adaptive expertise is knowing when to use a particular
procedure, which is not wholly unrelated to knowing when to use the procedure. For example,
part of knowing when to use implicit differentiation could relate to recognizing statements of
function sameness. Yet, recognizing appropriate situations and understanding the inferential
basis for why those situations are appropriate are not necessarily the same.
Although not explicitly addressed, we believe our approach, focusing on the inferential bases
underlying procedures, echoes ideas hinted at by others in the mathematics education
community. For example, Ma (1999) discusses ways that someone might be able to make sense
of subtraction algorithms in terms of place value. Peled and Zaslavsky (2008) also seem to hint
at the notion of inferential understanding by focusing on the meta-knowledge of procedures, such
as in the context of the regrouping procedure when performing subtraction. Although not
explicitly referred to as such, this type of understanding is closely related to understanding
procedures inferentially. The procedure of regrouping when subtracting 53 by 25 could be
understood, for example, by reasoning that a 1 in the tens place is the same as ten 1’s in the one’s
place. In other words, someone could understand facts about place value as warrants for
performing a grouping procedure. Another context where the notion of inferential reasoning
within procedures is alluded to can be found in the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM)’s Standards and Procedures. Specifically, in the document titled Procedural Fluency,
the NCTM (2023) suggests that an “effective strategy” for solving for x in 4(x+2)=12 involves
“using relational thinking to recognize that the quantity inside the parentheses equals 3, thus x
equals 1.” (p.1). While the NCTM seems to be advocating for this sort of reasoning as an
efficient way of getting answers and as part of procedural fluency, we find it notable that they
seem to be at least implicitly referring to inferences that one might make in an equation-solving
context.
In summary, even if we find where our notion of understanding procedures inferentially falls
within the discourse on knowledge types, we note that there is no consistent agreement amongst
authors, nor has this past discourse explicitly addressed the inferential basis for procedures. Our
approach does not ignore the procedural-conceptual distinctions, nor does it attempt to categorize
every aspect of inferential knowledge as procedural or conceptual. Instead, by focusing on the
inferential basis for a procedure, we are highlighting where the inferences lie within the
procedure as a way to approach mathematical teaching, learning, and understanding.
Inferential Decompositions
We delineate three types of inferential knowledge associated with understanding a procedure
inferentially: (I) Content-Specific Knowledge, (II) Deductive Knowledge, and (III) Inferential
Orientation.

Figure 3: Inferential Knowledge

Using the ladder problem (Figure 1) and the number line problem (Figure 2), we outline
inferential decompositions. An inferential decomposition is the process of identifying the
knowledge and conceptualizations, and where they fall in the associated three categories (Figure
3), involved in understanding a procedure inferentially. This involves looking at how one
conceptualizes the specific mathematics involved as well as how one understands the logic
connecting those inferences and the role of inferences within procedures more generally. Figure
3 reflects how these different layers of knowledge relate to how “zoomed in” the type of
knowledge is in relation to the procedure at hand, which we describe in more detail below. It is
important to note that the descriptions below serve the purpose of illustrating our constructs of
the three different types of inferential knowledge, which in turn helps illustrate the process of
inferential decomposition. We are not claiming that these are complete inferential
decompositions, nor are we claiming that these are the only ways of understanding the
procedures described. Instead, we are illustrating how one might approach deconstructing the
types of knowledge and understanding involved in conceptualizing a procedure inferentially.
We define Content-Specific Knowledge of a procedure as the conceptualizations that enable
one to understand the individual inferences associated with each step of a procedure as valid. For
example, Mirin and Zazkis’ (2020) describe the content-specific knowledge involved in
understanding implicit differentiation as a valid inference from function identity. This involves
knowledge about functions, derivatives, the equals sign, and so on. In other words, this is what
we think of as typical mathematical content knowledge and is often the focus of mathematics
education research. In doing an inferential decomposition, we determine the specific content
knowledge involved. By focusing on function and derivative knowledge in relation to implicit
differentiation, Mirin and Zazkis have performed an aspect of an inferential decomposition. They
then used this inferential decomposition to investigate the various obstacles that students may
encounter on their way to developing such conceptualizations. We understand content-specific
knowledge as being the most zoomed in of the knowledge types within an inferential
decomposition in the sense that it largely focuses on the types of knowledge involved in
conceptualizing an individual line, equation, or step in the procedure. For example, content-
specific knowledge, in this case, involves how someone understands the equation (1) on its own
as a statement of function equality and the equation (2) as a statement of derivative equality. This
is the calculus content knowledge someone should have in order to view (2) as a valid inference
from (1). In other words, content-specific knowledge is how someone understands the
inscriptions and their mathematical referents (e.g. function, derivative) and need not entail how
someone understands the relationships between these inscriptions.
We define Deductive Knowledge to be knowledge of the logical relationships between the
different steps of a procedure. This is what is required for understanding the relationships
between each line and is needed to make inferences and string them together to achieve a desired
goal. In this sense, while content-specific knowledge can be understood as intra-line, deductive
knowledge can be understood as inter-line. Returning to the ladder problem example, a series of
line-by-line inferences are required to go from the initial statement of function equality, 𝑥 # +
!$ %.'(
𝑦 # = 9, to the final answer !" = $ . Deductive knowledge can also appear in single-line
inferences. Consider how someone could reason from line (1) (function equality) to line (2)
(derivative equality). They could first have the content-specific knowledge about functions and
derivatives that a derivative is determined by a function’s graph or that the same function implies
the same derivative. They could also have the content-specific understanding that line (1)
expresses that two functions are the same. From these two facts, they would then need to
conclude that the functions defined on the left side and the right side of line (1) do indeed share a
derivative. This sort of reasoning is inter-line and is akin to a modus ponens argument (Same
function àSame derivative. Same function. Therefore, same derivative). Similarly, in the
number line problem, deductive knowledge is used for concluding that line (3) is equivalent to
line (5) on the grounds that they are both equivalent to line (4).
Knowing how to identify and sequence inferences to reach a desired goal is non-trivial and
requires a more global view. Our choice of the word inferences here is intentional. If the
individual steps are chained together skillfully without attention to their inferential basis, then
what is happening is inherently not deductive. In such a case, what is happening is akin to what
Star (2005) calls “deep procedural knowledge”. What we describe as deductive knowledge
differs in terms of understanding the core activity involved. That is, deep procedural knowledge
is goal-oriented, where the goal is to get a result/answer, while deductive knowledge is oriented
toward deducing why that same procedure results in that particular answer.
Someone can have strong deductive knowledge and content-specific knowledge yet still not
understand procedures inferentially. We define Inferential Orientation as the view that a given
procedure has a logical structure that can be understood as a chain of inferences. This is the most
zoomed-out category in that it does not concern specific lines in a procedure. It entails
understanding that, at the end of a procedure, we have constructed a chain of inferences to get
from the premises we stated in the problem to the deduction (the answer) required by the
activity. An inferential orientation reflects a view regarding what procedures, taken as
mathematical objects, are. A student can theoretically have a robust understanding of logical
arguments with strong deductive reasoning skills and a mastery of content-specific knowledge,
yet still not have an inferential orientation due to not viewing implementing mathematical
algorithms as grounded in inferences.
The precise delineation for categorizing each particular piece of knowledge is beyond the
scope of this paper. The focus of this paper is to shed light on the inferences required to choose,
understand, and complete a valid procedure. From this perspective, inferences are the glue that
hold together any valid mathematical procedure. If we view procedures as stemming from an
inferential basis, then exploring this basis is an avenue for a deeper understanding of procedures.
We argue that we should not dismiss procedures as a series of steps (that can potentially be
implemented skillfully), but rather treat procedures and inferences as inextricably linked.
Treating procedures inferentially can help students evaluate and interpret their own work.
Students are better positioned to interpret their answer in relation to the original problem, and
thus also check for reasonableness of their answers, if they attend to the logical relationship
between the initial problem being operated on and their result or answer. That is, presenting
procedures as inferential reasoning can empower students to verify their answer by a using a
series of inferences rather than troubleshooting by revisiting each of the calculations that led
them to that answer. Consider, for example, the common mistake in inequality-solving in which
students forget to flip the inequality symbol when dividing by a negative number, such as when
transitioning from lines (4) to (5) in The Number Line Problem (El-Shara’ & Al-Abed, 2010).
Taking an inferential approach enables a student to catch this common mistake by evaluating the
original inequality at some number and comparing the truth-value of the resulting inequality at
the same number. Relatedly, approaching procedures inferentially is also a useful way for
helping students interpret atypical results from procedures. Multiple mathematics education
researchers (e.g. Frost, 2015; Sfard & Linchevsky, 1994) observed that students struggled to
interpret the results of their solution procedures when such procedures yielded atypical solutions.
For example, Sfard and Linchevsky (1994) observe that students tended not to differentiate
between dependent and inconsistent systems of linear equations since in both cases “the system
disappears” (p. 298). Through the lens of Inferential Knowledge, students did not have the
inferential knowledge to interpret their result in terms of the original problem.

Conclusion and Discussion

This work contributes to the literature in three significant ways: 1) It provides a new lens for
making sense of a several decades-long debate on conceptual vs. procedural knowledge. 2)
Inferential Decomposition is valuable because it parses where the inferences and by extension
the concepts are within a given procedure. It also illuminates the varying layers at which that
inferential structure occurs. Finally, 3) it provides a tool that could potentially smooth the
transition from calculation-centered mathematics to early proof education.
 Our construct of inferential knowledge provides a valuable lens for making sense of the
procedural verses conceptual debate that’s been a theme in mathematics education for several
decades. From the perspective of inferential knowledge, procedures are not treated as inherently
rote applications of pre-determined steps. Instead, they are treated as a sequence of steps glued
together by inferences (content-specific knowledge), which are, then, linked together toward the
goal of a logically deductive argument (deductive knowledge) and broadly situated within an
inferential mathematical landscape (inferential orientation). Procedures are thus not inherently
purely “procedural”; instead, they can become procedural when those implementing them lose
sight of or are unaware of their inferential basis.
Inferential decomposition provides a valuable tool for identifying the inferences, and hence
the conceptual bases, for procedures. An inferential decomposition performed by an educator can
help highlight to both that educator and their students where the inferences and concepts are
within a procedure. This may allow for a more conceptual approach to teaching a procedure that
is grounded in reasoning and sense-making. Additionally, an inferential decomposition can be
used to identify gaps in students’ knowledge of the inferences involved in a procedure, which in
turn can illuminate aspects of the student’s conceptual knowledge. Finally, as a research tool, an
inferential decomposition can highlight which inferences within a procedure are less or more
common in comparison to other procedures. This may facilitate the creation of activities and
interview questions which may lead to a deeper understanding of how students understand
certain aspects of procedures inferentially.
The transition to proof-based mathematics both in high school, when students encounter
Euclidean geometry, and in post-calculus undergraduate introduction to proof courses is
notoriously difficult (Stylianides et al., 2017). We believe that inferential decomposition can be
used to help highlight the core inferential structure present in procedure-based mathematics,
making the transition to proof less abrupt. Thus, introducing inferences within procedure-centric
mathematics may help promote much-needed curricular coherence particularly with regard to
this transition (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Thompson, 2008). We are not diminishing the
differences between calculation and proof, nor are we suggesting that every calculation or
procedure be written up as a formal proof. Proofs often require stringing together inferences in
novel ways, or in collegiate proof contexts, generating novel inferences. However, both proof
and procedure can be viewed as constituting strings of inferences, and highlighting this similarity
has the potential to increase curricular coherence and in doing so improve both proof-centered
mathematics and calculation-centered mathematics.

References
Baroody, A. J. (2003). The development of adaptive expertise and flexibility: The integration of conceptual and
procedural knowledge. In A.J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Development of Arithmetic Concepts and
Skills: Constructing Adaptive Expertise, (pp. 1–33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). An Alternative Reconceptualization of Procedural and Conceptual
Knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30034952
El-Shara’, I. & Al-Abed, A. (2010). Errors Analysis of Solving Inequalities Among Mathematics Majors at the
University of Jordan. Jordan Journal of Educational Science, 6(2), p. 93-108.
Ely, R. (2021) Teaching Calculus with Infinitesimals and Differentials. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 53(3), 591-
604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01194-2
Frost, J. (2015). Disappearing x: When solving does not mean finding the solution set. The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 37. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.10.003
 Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis.
In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 3–20). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Mirin, A., & Zazkis, D. (2020). Function Sameness: Bringing Coherence to Implicit Differentiation. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 40(3), 14–19.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2023). Procedural fluency in mathematics. In Standards and
Positions. Retrieved February 14, 2024, from https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-
Statements/Procedural-Fluency-in-Mathematics
Sfard, A., & Linchevski, L. (1994). Between Arithmetic and Algebra: In the Search of a Missing Link, the Case of
Equations and Inequalities. Rendiconti Del Seminario Matematico Università e Politecnico Di Torino, 52(3),
279–307.
Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing Procedural Knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
36(5), 404–411.
Star, J. R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2),
132–135
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education
in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
Stylianides, G. J., Stylianides, A. J., & Weber, K. (2017). Research on the teaching and learning of proof: Taking
stock and moving forward. Compendium for research in mathematics education, 237-266.
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathematics with particular reference to
limits and continuity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12(2), 151–169.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00305619
Thompson, P. W. (2008). Conceptual analysis of mathematical ideas: Some spadework at the foundation of
mathematics education. Plenary paper delivered at the 32nd Annual Meeting of the International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics Education. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano & A. SÈpulveda
(Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education (Vol 1, pp. 45-64). Morelia, Mexico: PME.
Peled, I., & Zaslavsky, O. (2008). Beyond Local Connections: Meta-Knowledge About Procedures. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 28(3), 28-35.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between
procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–
597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x

View publication stats