The difference between instrumental and relational understanding

published by David Wees on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 16:44

I recently found this article written by Richard Skemp that Gary Davis (@republicofmath) highlighted on his blog. I recommend reading the whole article. Skemp describes the difference between instrumental and relational understanding, and how the word understanding is used by different people to mean different types of understanding. He also makes the observation that what we call mathematics is in fact taught in two very distinct ways. Skemp uses an analogy to try and explain the difference between relational and instrumental knowledge which I would like to explore. Imagine you are navigating a park, and you learn from someone else some specific paths to follow in the park. You move back and forth along the paths, and learn how to get from point A to B in the park, and you may even be able to move quickly from point A to B. Eventually, you add more points to your list of locations to which you know how to navigate. Step off any of your known paths though, and you are quickly completely lost, and you might even develop a fear of accidentally losing your way. You never really develop an overall understanding of what the park looks like, and you may even not know about other connections between the points you know. This is instrumental understanding. Imagine that instead of navigating the park by specific paths shown to you, you get to wander all over the park. For some parts of the park you may be guided, through other parts of the park, you wander aimlessly. In time, you develop an overall picture of the park. You might discover the shortest paths between two points, and you might not, but you would understand the overall structure of the park, and how each point in the park is related to each other point. If someone showed you a short-cut in the park, you'd probably understood why it worked, and why it was faster than your meandering path. You wouldn't worry about stepping off the path though, since even if you get lost, you'd be able to use your overall understanding to come to a place you know. This is relational understanding. Here's Richard Skemp's description of the analogy. "The kind of learning which leads to instrumental mathematics consists of the learning of an increasing number of fixed plans, by which pupils can find their way from particular starting points (the data) to required finishing points (the answers to the questions). The plan tells them what to do at each choice point, as in the concrete example. And as in the concrete example, what has to be done next is determined purely by the local situation. (When you see the post office, turn left. When you have cleared brackets, collect like terms.) There is no awareness of the overall relationship between successive stages, and the final goal. And in both cases, the learner is dependent on outside guidance for learning each new way to get there. In contrast, learning relational mathematics consists of building up a conceptual structure (schema) from which its possessor can (in principle) produce an unlimited number of plans for getting from any starting point within his schema to any finishing point. (I say in principle because of course some of these paths will be much harder to construct than others.) This kind of learning is different in several ways from instrumental learning." ~ Richard Skemp, Mathematics Teaching, 77, 2026, (1976)

Instrumental understanding is really useful when you have to know how to do a specific task quickly, and aren't too concerned about how this task fits into other similar tasks. Relational understanding is useful when you want to explore ideas further, are unconcerned about your destination, and are more concerned with the process. Unfortunately, our system tends to favour instrumental understanding too much. While it is useful to be able to get from point A to point B quickly, if one is not aware of one's surroundings, and doesn't get to enjoy the scenery, it hardly makes the trip worthwhile.

David Wees's blog

Comments
Structural Learning
Permalink Submitted by David Salusbury (not verified) on Mon, 11/26/2012 - 07:00.

Agree with you 100%, David! I did my Master's thesis on structural learning, basing a lot on Skemp's dual learning types. Problem is, we teach many subjects, math in particular, using the instrumental approach. A great little example: Why do we "flip and multiply" when we divide fractions? Answer: Just do it...it works!! Students who just learn instrumentally, eventually come unstuck; those who learn relationally take longer, but go further! See a brilliant study called "Benny" by Stanley Erlwanger (my advisor at Concordia) back in the 90s. Benny was a 100% relational learner, who tried playing the game to explain everything...with surprising results! I left Math teaching 12 years ago to work in government, but still love to do work on the side... David

Relational and Instrumental Understanding in Math Education

In Richard R. Skemps article, Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding we find an excellent expos about th e advantages of relational understanding, one of two different types of teaching and learning in math education. Skemp defines relational understanding as learning both the what and why of mathematics and instrumental understanding as merely learning the rules without learning the reason behind those rules. They are similar in that they both teach the student the rules of math and many times how to apply those rules. Skemp leads his reader to believe that relational understanding includes in itself most or all of instrumental understanding. Both of these teaching types have been used over the years and each has its advantages and disadvantages. Skemps opinion is that relational understanding will give to a student a huge advantage in his or her math education by giving them solid bases on which he or she can develop new ideas. On the other hand, Skemp explains that in instrumental understanding, the student does not receive sufficient why to continue holding their interest and to h elp them actually learn and retain usable math, needful throughout their lives. The article explains in great detail this issue which is of most importance to math educators.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROBLEM SOLVING A POSITION PAPER

by Richard R. Skemp, University of Warwick, January 1993

1. Our problem as teachers An important quality of mathematics is its applicability to a wide range of uses in science, technology, industry and commerce. This is why it is so useful practically, and so important in today's world of rapidly advancing science and its embodiments in technology. Many of these uses are routine, but we also encounter new requirements for which we do not have a ready-to-hand method. In other words, we have a problem to solve. This is the essence of a problem, that we want to do something but do not know how. So we need two kinds of mental equipment: routine methods for routine situations, and problem-solving ability for situations we have not met before, or those we have met but have not yet found how to deal with. The latter may subsequently also become routine: so we need also to be able to learn new methods, and then routinize them without detracting from the possibility of future adaptation. This aspect has been discussed at length inRelational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding (Skemp, 1976, 1989a). So far, most teachers have shown themselves much more successful at the first than at the second. Routine methods can be taught as something to be memorized, but in this form they lack adaptability. Since a new method has to be learnt for each new kind of task, the memory load in time becomes impossible. Moreover, without relational understanding students are often in doubt which method to use. Most of us are familiar with the query "Please, is this an add or a multiply?" At the NCTM conference at Seattle in 1980 the committee resolved that it was time for a new approach to the teaching of mathematics, based on problem solving. I waited with interest to hear how this was to be done, but they never told us. Nor did the following few years provide any evidence of progress in this direction, to judge by the title of a paper published in April 1983 by the (American) National Commission on Excellence in Education.

This was entitled A Nation at Risk: the Imperative for Educational Reform, and the remedies proposed include taking more mathematics in high school, increasing the school day and year, and assigning more homework. In his telling criticism of this approach, Witney writes: "It should be very clear that we are missing something fundamental about the schooling process. But we do not seem to be interested in this; . . . we try to cure symptoms in place of finding the underlying disease, and we focus on the passing of tests instead of on meaningful goals." (Witney, 1985) A decade later, there is still little or no evidence of progress. In my view this was predictable, and will persist as long as efforts are based on what is promoted by the powerful commercial interests of the major publishing companies. Can we do better ? Yes, if and only if we understand and accept the need for theory. Common sense alone is not enough, or it would have succeeded long before now. To begin with a much simpler example, common sense knows that iron sinks. So how is it that we can make ships of iron which float? To understand this we need a simple but powerful theory, the principle of Archimedes. Some of us may remember this from our school days. If we don't, it doesn't matter because we aren't boat builders. It is this principle which enables us to predict whether a ship made of iron will float or sink. It takes us far beyond what we can do with common sense. Whoever would think of making a boat out of reinforced concrete? But these are made, and they do float. And powerful as it is, the principle of Archimedes doesn't provide enough theory to make a boat that will be stable. If we were going to set up as boat builders there is a lot more theory we would need to know. Likewise, to understand how we can teach for problem-solving ability, common sense is not enough. We need the power which only theory can provide. And since we are teachers, it does matter whether or not we know it, because without it we aren't likely to succeed in helping our children any better in the future than in the past. And the amount of theory we need is more than will go into the present paper. Nevertheless, we can make a good start. Common sense might suggest that the best way to teach students to learn problem solving in mathematics is to base teaching from the start on real-world problems which require mathematics for their solution. Even a little theory will be enough to indicate that this is not so. 2. The power of structured knowledge A while ago I had a real-world problem, that of finding my way home from a school in an area quite new to me, which I had been visiting with a maths adviser. He gave

me the following directions for getting back onto my familiar road home. "You need to go left, left, left, right, half right, and then left onto the A45." You can imagine what happened. I took no notice of the left turn at the school gate and was soon lost. It took me a long time to get home. A plan of this kind is closely tied to action. And if one of the actions is wrong, it's liable to throw out all which follow. In this case, if one gets off the path, one doesn't know what to do to get back on. The cognitive element is low. Traditional teaching, based on habit learning, is of this kind. It has low adaptability. But would a problem-solving approach, in which I had to find my own way without even the help I was given, have been any better? I hardly think so. In time for my next visit, my friend sent me a street map. Here is part of it. (The original also has street names.)

Now I had structured knowledge, which is a much more useful and powerful kind. For a start, I could see where I had gone wrong last time. And even if I did go wrong, I could use the street names to find where I was, and then work out a new plan for getting home from there. And in general, this map contains the potential for working out how to get from any one location to any other location on the same map. Suppose that I wanted to go home by a route which took in, say, a petrol filling station and a convenience store to pick up some milk. I did not have a ready-to-hand route, so I had a problem. Without a map it would have been a difficult one, but with a map it was easy to work out a way of doing it. To do this by learning all the possible separate routes would entail memorizing 3080 of these. This shows rather well the problemsolving power which structured knowledge makes available to us. This principle is quite general, and the idea of a road map generalizes well into all kinds of knowledge structures (psychologists call them schemas) with the help of Tolman's useful metaphor of a cognitive map.

3. Getting there by a detour When I was studying for my psychology degree, I read about an experiment which I have remembered ever since (though unfortunately not the reference). There was a short wire mesh fence, with food on one side and an animal on the other, thus. Animal, a dog or a hen. Fence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food The food was clearly visible through the fence, and the hen made straight for it. Coming up against the fence, it could get no further, and continued indefinitely trying to get through the fence. The dog, on the other hand, immediately turned aside, ran round the end of the fence, and got the food. The dog could make a detour to achieve its goal, the hen could not. It is important that in our efforts to achieve our present goal we act more like the dog than the hen. And theory, even the small amount described so far, tells us that the best way to help students to become good at problem solving involves taking them via a detour, that of building up the necessary knowledge structures. Once they have these, they will be equipped to solve a number and variety of problems far greater than could be possible by any direct approach. This is particularly necessary in today's world of rapidly advancing science and technology. Some of the future problems which our present students will need mathematical knowledge to solve do not yet even exist. 4. Forming mathematical concepts, and constructing mathematical knowledge Another aspect of theory which is of importance in the present context is the process of abstraction by which we form concepts of any kind. Since mathematical concepts are a particularly abstract kind of concept, we particularly need the help of theory for teaching these. My own theory, as presented in a number of publications (see especially Skemp 1971, 1979, 1989) predicts the following. The kind of learning situation which best supports the formation of mathematical concepts, and the building of mathematical schemas (knowledge structures) is one which satisfies the following requirements. These predictions have been confirmed experimentally.

(i) It should provide embodiments of the concept having the least amount of irrelevant information which has to be ignored while forming the concept. (The technical term is 'low-noise.') (ii) There should be a number of examples of the concept, close together in time. (iii) There should be just one new concept to be learnt at a time, and (iv) This should be one for which they already have an appropriate schema, so that they can connect the new concept to it and thereby learn with (relational) understanding. The above requirements are difficult or impossible to achieve in 'real-world' problems, but are specifically catered for in SAIL through Mathematics. Can any reader suggest real-life problems from which children can learn the mathematical concept of "addition" which satisfy the foregoing requirements at all, leave alone better than Stepping Stones, Crossing, Slippery Slope, Explorers (to name but a few). And from what real-world problems can students gain understanding of the concepts which give validity to the method of long multiplication? These concepts, five in all, are among the main foundations for learning algebra in the future. One could go on and on with examples of this kind. Real-world problems are also unlikely to provide enough repetition to consolidate newly-formed concepts, and to establish new skills as well-established routines. 5. Some categories of mathematical problems I have already suggested that the essence of a problem is that there is something we want to do for which we do not have a ready-to-hand method. Solving the problem means finding one or more suitable methods, and then applying them. For mathematical problems, we can distinguish the following main categories. A given problem may be in more than one category at a time, which naturally makes it harder. For beginners, it would seem desirable to ensure that this is not the case. Category 1. A verbally stated problem for which a mathematical model has to be constructed (this is the non-routine part), using mathematical knowledge which we already have. When this has been done, there is a routine method for (e.g.) doing the calculation, solving the equation, or whatever. Finally, the result has to be interpreted in the context of the original problem. These are often called word problems; a more general term isproblems in applied mathematics.

Category 2. A mathematical task which is itself of a non-routine nature, but which can be solved by using mathematical knowledge which we already have. These are problems in pure mathematics. For short, we may call them mathematical puzzles. Category 3. A task in pure or applied mathematics for which we do not yet have the necessary mathematical knowledge. I think that problems of this kind are necessarily also in category 2, but not the other way about. A classical problem for the Greek mathematicians was to find the length of the diagonal of a unit square, when their available number systems did not go beyond rational numbers. Historically, this problem led to the invention of irrational numbers. These we may call problems outside our present domain. An important special case of these are problems in our frontier zone. Each new concept presented in SAIL through Mathematics is a problem of this kind, in a carefully devised and field-tested embodiment which (unlike real-world problems) satisfies the requirements listed in section 4. 6. Abstracting and re-embodying We can distinguish three stages of abstraction relating to problem solving (there may be more). (i) From real-life situations we abstract a conceptual model, often represented by words. (ii) From this conceptual model we abstract the concepts which matter for our problem. (iii) From these concepts we abstract a mathematical model. We ourselves often do these in rapid succession, from long practice. But abstraction is often much harder than working with the mathematical model when we have it. Next, at the abstract level, we manipulate the model in ways which correspond to the events we are interested in. So we need to be clear about this correspondence, too. Word problems start at stage (ii). Real-life problems start at stage (i). Finally, we work in the reverse direction. Predicted result in the physical world or word problem we re-embody Result of these manipulations Putting our plan into action we re-embody Making a mental plan

7. The two approaches compared The three diagrams which follow offer an overview of the differences which have been discussed, between the direct approach, which suggests (reasonably enough at a common-sense level) that the best way for students to learn real life problem-solving with the help of mathematics is to start by giving them problems of this kind; and the theory-based approach, which suggests that students will get there more successfully by a detour. First, help them to build up the structured mathematical knowledge which is essential for solving for solving real-life problems. They will then have the mental equipment they need for successful real-life problem solving.

References
Skemp, R. R. (1976). "Relational and Instrumental Understanding in the Learning of Mathematics," Mathematics Teaching, no. 77. [Also the Prologue in Mathematics in the Primary School.] Skemp, R. R. (1971, 2nd edn 1986). The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Skemp, R. R. (1979). Intelligence, Learning, and Action: A Foundation for Theory and Practice in Education. Chichester: Wiley. Skemp, R. R. (1989). Mathematics in the Primary School. London: Routledge. The American Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperatives for Educational Reform. Witney, H. (1985). "Taking Responsibility in School Mathematics Education." Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, vol. 2, The State University of Utrecht. Skemp Activities Home Page | SAIL Different? | SAIL Components | Concept Maps | Sample Activities NCTM Standards | Problem Solving | Availability

Instrumental vs. Relational

Richard Skemp (photo ICME)

There's an article I assign nearly every teacher prep class I teach: Richard Skemp's Relational Understanding and Instrument al Understanding, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, September 2006 (A reprint from a 1976 article for the British Mathematics Teaching.) It's a bit of a tough slog, but touches on such a fundamental teaching issue, that I always get new things out of rereading it. (Skemp's obituary; Republic of Math's take on this article.) Recently I had a conflict with a class and an inservice, so I designed an online class for the students to try. Mixed results. On a 0 to 5 rating for being worthwhile, students gave it just better than a 2.5. On the other hand, if it could have replaced our usual class time, it may have indicated trouble in that direction. But as a part of the class, they responded to questions on a Google doc, and their responses make for interesting reading in themselves, so I thought I would share selections. 1) What is the point of starting off with the Faux Amis story? (A faux amis are two words in different languages that sound similar but mean differently. Sopa (soup) and soap (jabn) are my favorite from Spanish. Skemp says that the ways we use "understanding" are as different as if they were faux amis.) * I think that sometimes we may think we are saying one thing, but really we are saying something entirely different. This is, but should not be the case, when we are talking about how students understand mathematics. * The Point of the Faux Amis story seems to get the reader interested in a scenario outside of mathematics. Its interesting that what sounds like library really means bookstore and so on. Once this story is presented, it is easier to grasp what Skemp is trying to say about different meanings in the word understanding and mathematics. *The Faux Amis story provides a generic overview of the topic covered by the article. It explains that though we may mean to say one thing, our students may understand what we are saying in a completely different context. As teachers, we must brainstorm the different ways our lessons could be interpreted by our students in order to ensure they grasp the content we teach.

2) What is your favorite example of rule without reason? Why? * Right now my favorite rule without reason is geometric mean. While tutoring last night we were talking about similar righ t triangles. Turns out if you find the altitude from the right angle of a triangle, the length of the altitude is the geometric mean of the two parts of the hypotenuse. So if the altitude cuts a hypotenuse into 9 and 16, then the geometric mean is (9/x)=(x/16), so x^2=144, and x=12. You can also use the geometric mean to find the lengths of the sides. Why? Beats me. * I would say my favorite rule without reason is the fact that x^0 = 1. This is always true but honestly I dont even know wh y. It seems that many rules in math are like this, easy to remember and implement but they dont make any sense at all. * The most prominent rule without reason for me right now is the fact that the product of two negative numbers is a positive number. I never learned why this is, and honestly I still couldnt sufficiently explain why. Even worse, I cant think of any context to put it in. * I agree with this statement. When we were trying to express and explain the multiplication of negative numbers in class, I had absolutely no idea how to explain why this is nor create a context for multiplying two negative numbers.

3) Does the authors idea of looking for your own examples and his three reasons for it make sense? Why? * Understanding is best shown with someones own words. There is no way to copy down and memorize an original thought unless it is ones own. Using ones own words to describe a mathematical concept is the best indication of fluency. Examples made in this fashion are easy ways to build relational understanding, the more difficult of the types of understanding.

4) Explain Skemps two kinds of mismatches (in the classroom) in your own words. * There are two primary areas of mismatch that happen due to the Faux Amis of understanding mathematics. The first is that the teacher is striving for students to have relational understanding, but the student is satisfied with instrumental understanding. In other words, the teacher wants the student to understand why the problem works, but the student just wants to get the right answer. This

is more common and probably more evident in the classroom. The second mismatch is that the student wants to understand the problem relationally, but the teacher is only teaching instrumentally. In other words, the teacher wants the students to repeat the same steps, or the same procedure, or just follow the rule for each problem. The student wants to understand why, or maybe wants to make more connections to other problems, but the teacher is limiting that.

5) Of his two kinds of mismatches, which is more common? Which is more of a problem for the teacher? *I think that most people would say a student trying to understand instrumentally while being taught by a teacher who wants them to understand relationally, is the more common mismatches. However from my personal experience it is the other way around. I experienced instrumental teaching throughout high school and including some college courses. I also think that a student trying to understand instrumentally while being taught by a teacher who wants them to understand relationally, is more of a problem for the teacher because the teacher is trying to teach them for a deeper understanding but many students just want the surface knowledge needed to get something done as soon as possible. 6) What are Skemps faux amis in mathematics teaching? Is either one an issue in your math major classes h ere in GVSU? No one tackled this! Skemp describes that mathematics itself is a faux amis, with two entirely different kinds of mathematics being taught: instrumental mathematics and relational mathematics. Instrumental math is a collection of procedures, where the goal is to recognize the correct procedure and apply it efficiently. Relational math is knowing what to do, why to do it, and why it works. 7) Would you add any advantages to his list for instrumental mathematics? * I think if I could add one advantage to the instrumental mathematics it would be it is more time convenient, because overall I feel like teaching for instrumental understanding is just trying to get the students to be able to solve the problem by plugging and chugging. If that is all you are doing as a teacher and that is what the students are learning then the time it would take to cover the lesson would be much less, giving the teacher a lot more time overall to cover all the stuff that needs to be covered in the mathematics curriculum. * I would add that instrumental understanding is advantageous for relational understanding. Being able to instrumentally understand a particular topic would benefit the learner when trying to reach the goal of relational understanding. A mathematics teacher could use the mold of procedures, and with the proper questioning of students about those procedures, to encourage students to think deeply about why? This will bring students closer to understanding important concepts, so they can ultimately reach relational understanding.

8) Would you add any advantages to the list for relational mathematics? * Relational mathematics gives a meaning behind the instrumental aspects. It is said that math is so highly disliked by students because they see no purpose, and are constantly told that it will make more sense later on. This is not acceptable! Drawing upon the music example, we wouldnt expect a student in middle school to learn music instrumentally and then be able to identify a nd draw upon that knowledge in their everyday life. I would definitely say that the relational understanding is going to be key in getting students to appreciate math again. * Going along with the previous statement, relational mathematics gives meaning behind instrumental mathematics. Giving meaning to instrumental techniques can assist students in the leap from a mathematical problem to a real-life, meaningful situation for students.

9) Do you agree with the advantages that he lists for the two types? * I do agree with the advantages and the disadvantages that he talks about. I feel as thought that each one does have its place in teaching and that there are many advantages to instrumental mathematics even though I feel like relational mathematics is better in the long run. I feel as though there are many situations where instrumental teaching does have its place and where trying to teach relational mathematics would just cause problems and would make things more confusing to the students. Many times such as learning that a negative multiplied by a negative is a positive is better when it is just given to the students instrumentally as compared with trying to explain why which they will learn in time.

10) Whats an example of relational understanding in your non-math life? * In my non-math life, Ive gained a great deal of relational understanding throughout my participation in cheerleading. In cheer, I was told to learn the position of flyer when stunting. To perform a stunt, you must first know what it is. The diffe rence between an elevator and an extension scorpion would have little relevance to anyone who did not have some type of instrumental understanding of the sport. However, to successfully execute a stunt, you must understand exactly what you need to do with your body. A flyer needs to keep straight legs, pull up her own weight, smile ext, but these are all instrumental things too. To gain a relational understanding in cheer, I had to practice the stunts, and through this I learned body position, working with my stunt group, how/when to alter my positions ext. These are all things that someone who had not tried flying would not necessarily understand. Instrumental understanding in cheer is something that any person could gain through studying the sport, however, for relational understanding participation is vital. * During the summer I work for a motorcycle safety course as a range assistant and when I started the job, I had no previous knowledge of how to ride a motorcycle. As I did all the miscellaneous jobs on the range, I heard the same safety tips over and over and saw hundreds of students practice. I learned where the controls were on the bikes and the best techniques for going around a curve safely or stopping quickly in an emergency. I heard the information over and over and could recite it, but I had no idea what it was like to actually drive a motorcycle. Last summer one of the coaches offered to teach me. It wasnt until I actually start ed riding myself that I could begin to really understand what it was all about. I knew the little details but I didnt have the whole picture, without practice and first-hand experience I couldnt put it all together and actually control the bike. Until I reached relational understanding, there was no way I could succeed at riding. * I started coaching a 3rd and 4th grade basketball team this year through a program called Upward, which aims to provide children with a faith based, competitive sports league. The league strives for equality amongst its players, and to accomplish this, the coaches make a roster of their players in order of ability. Come game time, there is a specific line-up procedure where the top 5 players start the first game, then the 2nd best-6th best start the second game, and so on. This is done so that all girls get equal playing time, and so that equally talented players are playing with each other. This prevents a teams top 5 players competin g against another teams bottom 5 players.

11) Whats an example of relational mathematics understanding for you? How do you know? * For me an example of relational understanding in mathematics would be my visual understanding of geometry and the knowledge that the use of a ruler and a compass will allow me to draw objects in euclidean geometry. This is a relational understanding because it is fundamentally what the original philosophers thought of when they constructed the system. The ancient Greek people did not condone the use of abstract thought as it exists today.

12) So, what about your classroom? Will you teach for one, or the other, or both? Why? * Ideally I would teach for relational understanding because even though its much harder to teach and for students to learn, it sticks a lot better and it aids them in making connections to other mathematics. I think that this isnt necessarily an achievable goal, however. With all of the standards I need to cover I wont always be able to dedicate the time needed to reach a relational understanding. I already run into this in my tutoring. Just last night the student I tutor, Al, didnt know how to find the similarity ratio of similar triangles. I was able to very quickly show him how to do it and he can now do it, but I dont think he truly under stands why. I could not have, however, spent my entire hour with him trying to teach him this because he has a test today and there were other things he didnt understand either. Im guessing I will have similar experiences in a classroom. * I agree with this answer above, I think every math teacher should be striving to teach relational understanding but sometimes it is just impossible due to the time constraints we are presented with as educators. I think the best teachers out there can find the most important topics that are either continued on later in mathematics or are most pertinent to that specific class and teach those units/areas for relational understanding, this was the students will be exactly where they need to be later on in their math career. And as for the other units that dont take such an important role in the curriculum I think the teacher just needs to cut their losses and teach it instrumentally so they can better cover the more important material. That is why I think teaching both is important, but teaching all relational understanding is ideal. * I feel teaching both is important, and would do so in my classroom. Relational understanding is the goal, but would be nearly impossible to reach without instrumental understanding. I feel the idea is to use ones understanding of mathematical proce dures to develop understanding of underlying concepts. After reaching a conceptual understanding, students will be able to make connections with new material and be able to develop new procedures to reach a relational(conceptual) understanding. Its the relational understanding that will allow students to think deeply and independently, helping them become adequate problem solvers

and ultimately successful learners. * In my future classroom, I think that I would incorporate both types of understanding into my curriculum. I think that instrumental understanding is an easy way for students to find solutions to problems and see the process. Instrumental understanding by itself, however, is not enough. Relational understanding gives meaning to the processes being completed and helps students relate to concepts and context. * In my class, I will try to include more rational understanding into the lessons I will teach. As this can be incredibly difficult while teaching some subject matter, I understand that I will need to also teach instrumental understanding for some units. Once students have explored the subject matter further, I hope to have students build upon their instrumental understanding and that it will change into a relational understanding. Many of the standardized assessments students take only require an instrumental understanding of concepts, but in order for students to become better thinkers, they need to have mastered a level of rational understanding. Though it may seem pointless to teach anything but instrumental understanding, in the long run, students will gain more problem solving abilities and learning skills from mastering a relational understanding. * My objective is to teach to students in a way that would enable them to gain relational understanding but I also think that there will be some instructional understanding. I feel as if the type of understanding used will be based on the school system. Further gaining relational understanding,in my opinion takes longer to grasp then instrumental understanding. So for this reason instrumental understanding may be used so that there is less time taken for each lesson. But in regards to this my ultimate is just to use relational. * I feel like that when I teach I will use a lot of both types. I feel like if I had the time I would teach relational understanding and I feel as though for really important topics I will teach this way, however I also feel like with all of the requirements there is no way you can teach like this all of the time and be effective at it. Because of this I feel like I will end up teaching instrumentally most of the time just simply because it will allow me to get through the material faster and help the students understand best in the little amount of time given to cover each topic. However if individual students are confused or there is extra time available I will try to teach using relational understanding.

Skemps and the baseball coach I love discussing the Richard Skemp article, Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding, (Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, September 2006) with preservice secondary teachers. Not first thing in a course, but after some experiences with deep mathematics learning, and some groundwork in thinking about teaching, it is amazing. I've recorded two blogposts about it already with my reading guide and with video of the novice teachers' summaries. The article discusses how there are two views of understanding that makes discussing learning difficult. Instrumental understanding is associated with rote earning and mastering, and relational understanding is connected, transferable learning. Skemp puts it better, thank goodness he wrote about it. This past semester, one student in particular made a strong connection that seemed to also make a lot of sense to the other teachers. He was willing to share it on video, so, here it is! Thanks to Ryan for his work in making sense of the article and his willingness to share.