Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted |
Yoshi24517 (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 70.118.111.67 (talk) (HG) (3.4.12) |
||
Line 12:
== Definition ==
Procedural knowledge is the “know
The term “procedural knowledge” is also widely used in mathematics educational researches. The well-influential definition of procedural knowledge in this ___domain comes from the introductory chapter by Hiebert and Lefevre (1986) of the seminal book “Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics”, they divided procedural knowledge into two categories. The first one is a familiarity with the individual symbols of the system and with the syntactic conventions for acceptable configurations of symbols. The second one consists of rules or procedures of solving mathematical problems. In other words, they define procedural knowledge as knowledge of the syntax, steps conventions and rules for manipulating symbols.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Hiebert|first=James|title=Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics.}}</ref> Many of the procedures that students possess probably are chains of prescriptions for manipulating symbols. In their definition, procedural knowledge includes algorithms, which means if one executes the procedural steps in a predetermined order and without errors, one is guaranteed to get the solutions, but not includes heuristics, which are abstract, sophisticated and deep procedures knowledges that are tremendously powerful assets in problem solving. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schoenfeld|first=Alan H.|date=1979|title=Explicit Heuristic Training as a Variable in Problem-Solving Performance|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/748805|journal=Journal for Research in Mathematics Education|volume=10|issue=3|pages=173–187|doi=10.2307/748805|jstor=748805 |issn=0021-8251}}</ref> Therefore, Star (2005) proposed a reconceptualization of procedural knowledge, which suggesting it can be either superficial, like ones mentioned in Hiebert and Lefevre (1986), or deep.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Star|first=Jon R.|date=2005|title=Reconceptualizing Procedural Knowledge|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034943|journal=Journal for Research in Mathematics Education|volume=36|issue=5|pages=404–411|doi=10.2307/30034943|jstor=30034943 |issn=0021-8251}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Deep procedural knowledge is associated with comprehension, flexibility and critical judgement. For example, the goals and subgoals of steps, the environment or type of situation for certain procedure, and the constraints imposed upon the procedure by the environment.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Development of Mathematical Thinking|year=1983|pages=253–290}}</ref> Researches of procedural flexibility development indicates flexibility as an indicator for deep procedural knowledge. Individuals with superficial procedural knowledge can only use standard technique, which might lead to low efficiency solutions and probably inability to solve novel questions. However, more flexible solvers, with a deep procedural knowledge, can navigate their way through ___domain, using techniques other than ones that are over-practiced, and find the best match solutions for different conditions and goals. <ref>{{Cite book|last=Star|first=Jon R.|url=https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED471762|title=Re-Conceptualizing Procedural Knowledge: The Emergence of "Intelligent" Performances among Equation Solvers|date=2002|publisher=ERIC/CSMEE Publications, 1929 Kenny Road, Columbus, OH 43210-1080|language=en}}</ref><ref name=":1" /><ref>Star, J. R. (2013). {{Citation|title=On the Relationship Between Knowing and Doing in Procedural Learning|date=2013-04-15|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203763865-22|work=International Conference of the Learning Sciences|pages=92–98|publisher=Psychology Press|doi=10.4324/9780203763865-22 |isbn=978-0-203-76386-5|s2cid=9793860 |access-date=2020-12-08}}</ref>
|