Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In this paper we present and analyze a particular classroom interaction with a group
of secondary mathematics teachers that involves “looking back” on a particular
problem. We argue that a guided looking back via a chain of horizontal and vertical
mathematizing is a pedagogical practice that contributes to advancing mathematical
thinking of students. We further recognize a few traits that can be considered as
identifiers of advanced mathematical thinking at various levels of sophistication.
PRELUDE
On a hot day in Prague, during a relaxed stroll following PME 30 activities, a
colleague offered the following problem.
There are 40 objects in a store, each object has a different weight, and these
weights range from 1 to 40 pounds (in whole numbers). Using a balance scale,
and weighing one object at a time with the available weights, what is the
minimum number of weights that is sufficient to measure the weight of each
one of the 40 objects? What are these weights?
We strongly recommend that the reader stops here and spends some time pursuing the
problem, as the following discussion will present a solution and spoil the pleasure of
discovery.
also suggested that advanced mathematical thinking must begin in early elementary
school and should not await till after high school. On the other hand, Tall (1995)
claimed that “the full range of creative advanced mathematical thinking is mainly the
province of professional mathematicians and their students” (p.71, quoted in Selden
& Selden, 2005, p.3). These two observations appear not in accord with each other,
unless we draw a distinction between AMT and creative AMT. These two
perspectives highlight one source of disagreement in the attempts to define AMT,
specifically, whether the adjective “advanced” describes thinking or mathematics,
that is, whether AMT means thinking in advanced mathematics or advanced thinking
in mathematics. Harel and Sowder articulate this tension by relocating the hyphen in
considering “advanced-mathematical thinking” (i.e., thinking in advanced
mathematics) versus “advanced mathematical-thinking” (i.e., mathematical thinking
of an advanced nature) and take a stand for the latter.
This difference in perspectives on what constitutes AMT resulted in shifting the
focus, or at least the description of the research area, to tertiary mathematics (Selden
& Selden, 2005). However, this tension is not exclusive to AMT. In fact, there is no
agreement on whether “mathematical thinking” is restricted to thinking in the subject
matter of mathematics or applying certain ways of thinking (e.g. logical, rigorous) in
different, not necessarily mathematical, situations. Some equate mathematical
thinking with “thinking like a mathematician”, dwelling into a non-mathematical
circularity in definition.
Edwards, Dubinsky and McDonald (2005) suggest that advanced mathematical
thinking involves rigorous deductive reasoning and does not rely on sensory
perception. They argue that AMT involves abstract concepts and deductive proofs
and consider it as a transition that most often occurs during students’ undergraduate
experience. On the other hand, Harel and Sowder (2005) specifically acknowledge
that they focus on advanced thinking in mathematics rather than on thinking in
advanced mathematics, and suggest that AMT involves overcoming epistemological
obstacle. They further suggest that “person’s ways of thinking involve at least three
interrelated categories: beliefs, problem-solving approaches, and proof schemes” (p.
31).
Considering these suggestions or definition attempts, we believe that the heart of the
disagreement is in treating advanced/not advanced mathematical thinking as
dichotomy vs. continuum. In the former, presented with an excerpt of mathematical
thinking one should be able to classify it as “advanced or “not advanced”. In the
latter, presented with two excerpts of mathematical thinking addressing the same
situation, one should attempt to say which one is “more advanced” than the other.
However, as in incomplete relation of order, some comparisons could be impossible.
Mathematicians, when unable to solve a general problem, often formulate a specific
sub-problem or a related problem that appears solvable. We shall follow this
approach in mathematics education (and this may be our example of AMT in
After about ten minutes of meticulous counting, the teacher invited students’
suggestions. Several volunteers contributed their answers, which ranged from 13 to
42. Then the teacher turned to the class, asking, “Should we all try to find 42 or is
there someone who counted more?” To her surprise, one student objected the count.
The need to convince the instructor may be similar to Mason’s (Mason, Burton &
Stacey, 1982) stage of “convincing the enemy”, that follows “convincing yourself”
and “convincing a friend”. While “friends” could have been satisfied with checking a
few more examples, convincing the enemy required rigorous formulation of the
n
conjecture, as 2 ⋅ ∑ 3i + 1 = 3n +1 and a proof by mathematical induction.
i =0
This assured the existence of the desired representation for any natural number and
was further reconfirmed empirically.
Step 5: Further generalization
The following recap was offered: To represent numbers with powers of 2 we need
addition only. To represent numbers with powers of 3, we used addition and
subtraction. What about other powers?
Extension of investigation led to the idea of “balanced” base representation, that is,
any odd base representation can be converted to a “balanced” one, using numbers 0,
±1, ±2, … ±n for base 2n+1. Specifically, the “multipliers” for powers of 5 in
balanced representation are -2, -1, 0, 1 and 2. A method of switching from the
standard base representation to a “balanced” base representation was offered.
Step 6: Leaving the door open
What about even bases?
This question was posed by students, rather than the instructor. Unfortunately (if
there are unfortunate events in mathematics), balanced representation is not possible
for even bases; clearly, as the number of digits in use is not odd, a “balance” around
zero cannot be achieved. However, such a conclusion may close the doors for any
further conjecturing. To keep the door open we invite a different investigation: If
balanced representation is not possible, what is possible?
for further mathematical investigation. It is also the teacher who “keeps the door
open” as an invitation to continue the exploration. At a more advanced stage,
similarly to Mason’s et. al. (1982) suggestion of developing an “internal enemy”
when proving an argument, learners develop an “internal teacher”, that is, become
able to invite themselves for further mathematical activity via horizontal
mathematization. We consider this internal ability as yet another identifier of AMT.
References
Edwards, B. S., Dubinsky, E., & McDonald, M. A. (2005). Advanced mathematical
thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 15–25.
Harel, G. & Tall, D. (1991). The general, the abstract and the generic in advanced
Mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 11(1), 38–42.
Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2005). Advanced mathematical-thinking at any age: Its
nature and its development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 27–50.
Mason, J., Burton, L, & Stacey, K. (1982). Thinking mathematically. Addison-
Wesley, London.
Rasmussen, C., Zandieh, M., King, K., & Teppo, A. (2005). Advancing mathematical
activity: A practice-oriented view of advanced mathematical thinking.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 51–73.
Selden, A & Selden, J. (2005). Perspectives on advanced mathematical thinking.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(1), 1-13.
Tall, D. (1991). The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.).
Advanced mathematical thinking. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Tall, D. (1995). Cognitive growth in elementary and advanced mathematical thinking.
In L. Meira & D. Carraher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 61–75). Recife, Brazil:
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.
Thompson, P.W. (1993). Yes, Virginia, some children do grow up to be
mathematicians. [Review of the book Advanced mathematical thinking]. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(3), 279–284.
Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic
mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 9-35.