Scribd
Upload
50 views

Hasenbank'S (2005) Model of Mathematical Knowledge: Sheena A. Silao

Hasenbank (2005) proposed a three-dimensional model of mathematical knowledge: 1) Type - procedural vs conceptual, 2) Depth - shallow vs deep, and 3) Aptitude - novice vs practiced. The model builds on prior work distinguishing procedural and conceptual knowledge, adding dimensions of depth to account for memorized vs understood knowledge, and aptitude to describe knowledge that is tentative and improving versus automatized and efficient.

Uploaded by

SheenaAlbaSilao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
50 views

Hasenbank'S (2005) Model of Mathematical Knowledge: Sheena A. Silao

Hasenbank (2005) proposed a three-dimensional model of mathematical knowledge: 1) Type - procedural vs conceptual, 2) Depth - shallow vs deep, and 3) Aptitude - novice vs practiced. The model builds on prior work distinguishing procedural and conceptual knowledge, adding dimensions of depth to account for memorized vs understood knowledge, and aptitude to describe knowledge that is tentative and improving versus automatized and efficient.

Uploaded by

SheenaAlbaSilao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

HASENBANK’S (2005) MODEL OF

MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE

SHEENA A. SILAO
Review…

What is the classification of


mathematical knowledge?

> Procedural knowledge


> Conceptual knowledge

Hiebert and Lefevre (1986)


Review…
1. Procedural knowledge – “To know how
something happens in a particular way”
Hiebert and Lefevre (1986)

2. Conceptual knowledge – “To know why


something happens in a particular way”
Hiebert and Lefevre (1986)
But…
• Star (2000) argued that the traditional
usage of the terms procedural knowledge
and conceptual knowledge obscures the
myriad ways procedures and concepts can
be known.
• He added a depth dimension to Hiebert
and LeFevre’s (1986) classification system to
account for his observation.
According to Star (2000)…
• It is difficult to categorize the memorized
facts of mathematics as conceptual
knowledge.
• After all, conceptual knowledge is
supposed to be understood ; yet facts can
be memorized without being understood.
• Adding a depth dimension allows us to
more precisely classify students’
procedural and conceptual knowledge.
According to Star (2000)…
Second dimension of mathematical
knowledge:

Depth
> shallow - well-memorized (but disconnected)
procedures and concepts
> deep – well-understood procedures and
concepts
And so…
Two dimensions of mathematical knowledge:
1.Type
> procedural
> conceptual
2. Depth
> shallow
> deep
But then again…

• According to Hasenbank (2005), there is


still another dimension of mathematical
knowledge that is of interest.
• During students’ initial interactions with a
concept or procedure, their knowledge can
be considered tentative.
According to Hasenbank,
• In the early stage, execution of procedures
may be error prone and require great
cognitive effort, and conceptual facts may
be recalled slowly or inaccurately.
• In time, this tentative knowledge becomes
automatized and efficient, so that
procedures can be executed fluently and
facts and connections can be recalled on
demand.
According to Hasenbank,
Third dimension of mathematical knowledge:

Aptitude (capacity for learning)


> Novice – executes procedures and
conceptual facts slowly or inaccurately
> Practiced – executes procedures fluently
and facts and connections can be recalled on
demand
Hasenbank (2005) proposed three
dimensions of mathematical
knowledge:
1. Type
> Procedural Vs. Conceptual
2. Depth
> Shallow Vs. Deep
3. Aptitude
> Novice Vs. Practiced
Thank You!

You might also like