1

Constructivism and its Relation to Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge

Shuji Miller

College of Education and P-16 Integration, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

EDCI 6351: Teaching Mathematics for Understanding

Dr. Victor M. Vizcaino

July 1, 2020
 2

Constructivism and its Relation to Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge

Founded on the research and theories of Jean Piaget, constructivism is a learning theory that advocates

social and experiential interactions, interpretations, and discourse to further a student’s mathematical understanding

(Clements & Battista, 1990). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) also supports the principle

based off of research from cognitive science (National Research Council [NRC], 2012) and math education

(Donovan & Bransford 2005), that effective mathematics teaching should enable students to “construct knowledge

socially, through discourse, activity, and interaction related to meaningful problems” (NCTM, 2014, p. 9). NCTM’s

statement reflects the philosophies of constructivism as the most effective practices for students to acquire, transfer,

and apply conceptual and procedural knowledge (2014). The comprehension and connections of mathematical

concepts (conceptual understanding), and the meaningful and flexible ability to use procedures in problem solving

(procedural understanding), comprises two important strands of mathematical proficiency (NRC, 2001). Through

the lenses of an iterative view of procedural and conceptual knowledge, it is widely accepted that a bi-directional

relationship exists in which the increase of one domain influences an increase in the other. Thus, it is imperative

that constructivist tenets such as the construction of knowledge, social interactions, and mathematically meaningful

activities, be incorporated in mathematical learning to improve both conceptual and procedural knowledge.

The tenet of the construction of knowledge goes against traditional norms of passively receiving knowledge

from the teacher or discovering preexisting ideas, and instead, a new norm where students invent new knowledge by

not only examining their actions and thought processes, but also connecting preexisting knowledge structures

(Clements & Battista, 1990). Ernst von Glasersfeld, who expanded Piaget’s work, referred to this tenet as the Trivial

Constructivism Principle (Ernest, 1993). Piaget’s structuralism believes that in learning mathematics, the human

mind organizes itself to create these logico-mathematical structures which allow us to construct and adapt future

cognition as we develop (Ernest, 1993). An example of such structures can be seen when a middle or high school

student interprets their experience of travelling in a car 30 miles per hour. They can recognize that in two hours,

they would have traveled 60 miles or that in ½ hours, they would have traveled 15 miles. If prompted with a

question in regards to a pattern, application, or changes in speed or distance, their own experience allows them to

invent future thought processes on areas such as equivalent fractions, ratios, rate of change and slope, or arithmetic

sequences. Connecting prior experiences not only allows them to integrate it within their previous mathematical
 3

understanding, but it also allows them to organize and adapt their mathematical thought processes in both conceptual

and procedural ways (Clements & Battista, 1990; NCTM 2014).

Connections such as these can be made clearer by the teacher through the use of multiple representations

within a task, whether it be tabular, graphical, visual, or algebraic. Through these models, learners make

connections between not only conceptual ideas and representations, but procedural methods and numerical processes

as well. As they translate between the connections, students can begin to form their own interpretations of their

mathematical experiences (NCTM, 2014). These types of multiple representational tasks help to facilitate

meaningful mathematical discourse to provide a purposeful exchange of mathematical ideas and concepts.

Experiencing the mathematics in a manner that fosters peer discourse and social interaction is another

constructivist tenet which encourages a classroom culture of explaining, debating, evaluating, and sharing

mathematical ideas (Clements & Battista, 1990). These social interactions and experiences shape a learner’s

interpretations of the world, in which the cognition of mathematical learning can be viewed as adaptive of the

experiential world rather than a discovery of reality; this tenet is referred to as the Radical Constructivism and is one

of the most controversial (Clements & Battista, 1990; Ernest, 1993). However, Radical Constructivism does not

deny the existence of the physical world, but rather any certain knowledge of it, and therefore learners construct

their own understanding of the quantitative world based on these experiences, interpretations, and communications.

Radical Constructivism accounts for cognizing subjects to be able to recognize regularities and patterns from their

experiential world to form the hypothetical entities of mathematical structures to reasonably form new conceptual

and procedural mathematical knowledge (Ernest, 1993).

The formation of such knowledge requires that a teacher creates an environment in alignment with the

constructivist tenet that promote social interactions, experiences, and communication. To foster cognitively

changing interactions, a teacher should aim to anticipate and monitor student response and work, select and

sequence particular examples, and guide students into making essential connections for deeper understanding

(Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2014; Smith & Stein, 2011). Purposeful questions should be planned so that the social

interactions are not simply for the educator to gather information on recalled facts or lead students to funneled

responses, but instead provide reflection on what a student knows, stimulate interests and connective thought

processes, and discern patterns, procedures, and concepts that promote problem solving and reasoning (NCTM,

2014). Through these provocative social exchanges, students and teachers alike are able to make visible
 4

mathematical concepts and procedures that are present in their existing knowledge structures, as well as the

construction of new ideas and methodology.

However, these social and experiential interactions would not be able to arise without tasks that follow

another constructivist tenet: an effective and meaningful mathematical task. Tasks that demand students to imitate

teacher methods or repeat learned procedures with little sense making offer little meaning and motivation for young

learners, reducing their autonomy as self-motivated learners of math; a major goal of constructivist teachers is to

nurture this sense of intrinsic motivation and ownership in the realm of mathematical studies (Clements & Battista,

1990). Nevertheless, procedural problems still have their place within the classroom and can still be effectively used

to promote meaning and fluency in both conceptual and procedural understanding. Teachers can sequence

arithmetic practice problems in a manner that allows for conceptual relationships to become more apparent, or craft

procedural lessons to support underlying concepts, thereby strengthening both conceptual and procedural knowledge

(Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2014). These tasks, though procedural, can still require students to abstractly reason

through the purpose of the fundamental procedural structures to employ a variety of correct approaches, inherently

building upon their conceptual knowledge foundations (NCTM, 2014). Mathematical tasks delivered at an

appropriate cognitive challenge, employs valued exchanges amongst learners and facilitators, as well as a

meaningful connection to application and concepts, allow students to place value in engaging in the problem-solving

process (Clements & Battista, 1990; NCTM, 2014).

By structuring learning opportunities that encourage meaning and purpose in mathematics, they can

establish a classroom culture that motivates students to take ownership of their learning (Clements & Battista, 1990).

This classroom culture is essential to creating an environment that promotes productive student discourse, thereby

allowing them to construct new mathematical understanding. Through these tasks and interactions, students can

better exercise, explain, and exchange ideas that bi-directionally cultivates new cognitive structures in both

procedural and conceptual domains. Therefore, through the incorporation of constructivist philosophies and

approaches within one’s instructional practices – construction of knowledge, social interactions, and meaningful

activities – teachers can strive to build upon both conceptual and procedural knowledge.
 5

References

Clements, D. & Battista, M. (1990) Constructivist learning and teaching. Putting Research into Practice in

Elementary Grades: Readings from Journals of the NCTM, 6-8.

Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom.

Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Ernest, P. (1993). Constructivism, the psychology of learning, and the nature of mathematics:

Some critical issues. Science & Education, 2(1), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486663

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions:

Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.

National Research Council (NRC). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington,

D.C.: National Academic Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and

skills in the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of

mathematics. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Numerical Cognition.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematical discussions.

Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.