Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Entry #2

Although instrumental and relational understanding have both advantages and disadvantages, relational understanding is more beneficial to students, especially in the long term. Relational understanding includes knowing not only how to do something, but also knowing the reasoning behind the action. Skemp explains, throughout his argument, that instrumental understanding, the ability to know how to do something, is actually contained within relational, meaning that when a student is learning through relational understanding, that student is still gaining the instrumental understanding as well. Skemp examines why teachers choose to teach instrumental mathematics when clearly relational is the better option because it incorporates both types of understanding and has a longer lasting effect. He found three advantages associated with instrumental understanding. He says that it is easier to understand, the results are more immediate, and the answers could be found more quickly. Along with this, the main disadvantage that Skemp emphasizes in his article is that instrumental understanding only lasts for the short term and is only useful within a limited context. However, he states that relational understanding had four basic advantages. He explains that relational understanding is easier to apply to new tasks, can be an effective goal in itself, and causes the students to reason and understand things for themselves. The last advantage of relational understanding is that it is easier to remember. It takes more time and effort to learn as well as to teach relational understanding, but once it is learned, the result is more lasting. Skemp does not identify any real disadvantages associated with relational understanding, but he explains some of the factors that add to the difficulty of using relational understanding. He says that it is hard to test whether or not a student actually understands relationally just by their test answers, and that sometimes the curriculum is so large that it is hard to be able to make the time to teach everything using relational understanding. Also, he explains that it is difficult to change the ways of both teaching, and the ways for students to learn. The focus of mathematics in schools is often placed on instrumental understanding, so it is difficult to make that switch to relational understanding, even though relational understanding is more beneficial to students. Students will be able to use what they learned from relational understanding because the effects are longer lasting and are easier to connect to other ideas and new tasks.

4 comments:

  1. thank you for you thoughts. I totally agree with many of your ideas! I like what you said about skemps article in that it is difficut to test whether or not a student actually understands reltaionally just by their test answers. I personally like it because of past experiences with feeling measured lower than others because of my grades, but understanding the material more than others. anyway, thanks for that. As for teaching instrumentally in school, I agree with tat as well. I am now going through tht process of switching from instrumental learning to relational learning. I agree with you because it is a difficult process. I didnt have anything that I really disagreed with, but, as a suggestion, maybe split into more than one paragraph next time because just looking at it initially was a bit tedious. thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your post was very clearly organized and quite thorough. You covered all of the main points very clearly and even explicitly identified the disadvantages of relational learning, which was more difficult to do.
    I enjoyed your thesis, but if I hadn't read the article beforehand, I wouldn't have known what relational understanding and instrumental understanding were. I could have benefited from a more general thesis statement and then a move on to a comparison between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You did a wonderful job of capturing many of Skemp's ideas associated with comparing and contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of understanding. I thought your paragraph was very thorough.

    I agree that the content was probably too detailed for a single paragraph. In fact, I think there might have been at least three different topic sentences in that one paragraph. I understand why you didn't split the paragraph, though, because I asked you to write a single paragraph for this entry. It may help make the content more readable in the future, however, if you either split the ideas into multiple paragraphs or try to condense the information so that it fits well in a single paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You did a good job of showing Skemp's points. However I had a hard time with the organization of the paragraph as well as the density. I would condense more of the info.

    ReplyDelete