Blog post 1: Maxine Lambert
Response to journal article: Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding, Richard R. Skemp (Department of Education, University of Warwick)
What is Skemp’s central argument?
Skemp’s article was written in the 1970’s. He used his expertise in Psychology and Education to challenge the efficacy of mathematics teaching at that point in time. He highlighted the limitations of instructional as opposed to relational understanding in mathematics. Instructional understanding is ‘rules without reasons’ (e.g. learning a formula, without having a deeper understanding of the wider mathematical concepts behind that formula). Relational understanding, on the other hand, arises from more concrete (and less abstract) …show more content…
This, Skemp asserts, is required before we can fully understand the ‘whole’. Skemp offers examples of more tangible learning techniques (hands on, unifix for example) which help to develop this inter-relationship between concepts. In my own practice, this brought to mind how arrays can help a child ‘see’ the relationship between multiplication and division for example. He proposes that pupils develop a ‘schema’ which becomes a “goal in itself”, which in turn influences a pupil’s confidence. He therefore brings to attention how important emotions are to how we learn.
Skemp helped educators understand how limited rote type (instrumental) learning is. He developed a notion that by having to learn instrumentally learners would be turned off and hindered in making wider connections (and therefore deeper understanding). They ultimately would achieve less because of lack of motivation.
Conclusions he reaches:
Skemp concludes that instrumental and relational understanding are “different kinds of mathematics” (p.26). Although he indentifies some advantages of instrumental understanding, he proposes the benefits of a more relational approach to mathematics teaching and encourages further investigation of
Response to journal article: Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding, Richard R. Skemp (Department of Education, University of Warwick)
What is Skemp’s central argument?
Skemp’s article was written in the 1970’s. He used his expertise in Psychology and Education to challenge the efficacy of mathematics teaching at that point in time. He highlighted the limitations of instructional as opposed to relational understanding in mathematics. Instructional understanding is ‘rules without reasons’ (e.g. learning a formula, without having a deeper understanding of the wider mathematical concepts behind that formula). Relational understanding, on the other hand, arises from more concrete (and less abstract) …show more content…
This, Skemp asserts, is required before we can fully understand the ‘whole’. Skemp offers examples of more tangible learning techniques (hands on, unifix for example) which help to develop this inter-relationship between concepts. In my own practice, this brought to mind how arrays can help a child ‘see’ the relationship between multiplication and division for example. He proposes that pupils develop a ‘schema’ which becomes a “goal in itself”, which in turn influences a pupil’s confidence. He therefore brings to attention how important emotions are to how we learn.
Skemp helped educators understand how limited rote type (instrumental) learning is. He developed a notion that by having to learn instrumentally learners would be turned off and hindered in making wider connections (and therefore deeper understanding). They ultimately would achieve less because of lack of motivation.
Conclusions he reaches:
Skemp concludes that instrumental and relational understanding are “different kinds of mathematics” (p.26). Although he indentifies some advantages of instrumental understanding, he proposes the benefits of a more relational approach to mathematics teaching and encourages further investigation of