Abstract
Everyday usage of the term “abstract” has been shown to lead to a conflict in which abstract mathematics is seen to be both easier and more difficult than concrete mathematics. A literature review undertaken to identify the source of this conflict has revealed that the term “abstraction” may be used to denote either a process or a product. Two meanings of “abstract” are also identified. The first meaning, calledabstract- apart, refers to ideas which are removed from reality; the second meaning, calledabstract- general, refers to ideas which are general to a wide variety of contexts. It is argued in this paper that, whereas mathematics isabstract- general, mathematics teaching often leads toabstract- apart ideas. The initial conflict has been resolved by noting that abstract-apart ideas are adequate when a mathematical problem can be solved within a single level of abstraction; such problems are relatively easy. On the other hand, abstract-general ideas are essential for the successful solution of problems which require links between levels of abstraction; these problems are relatively difficult. The concepts of abstract-general and abstract-apart have then been applied to re-interpret two research studies (on letters in algebra and rates of change). It is suggested that greater interest in abstraction as a process would be beneficial to both the theory and practice of mathematics education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bishop, A. J. (1988).Mathematical enculturation: a cultural perspective on mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Board of Senior School Studies (1980).Mathematics syllabus and notes to the syllabus: 2 unit Mathematics in Society course. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education.
Booth, L. R. (1990). Turning “doers” into “thinkers.” In K. Milton & H. McCann (Eds.),Mathematical turning points: strategies for the 1990’s (pp. 15–19). Hobart: Mathematical Association of Tasmania.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Brownell, W. A. (1935). Psychological considerations in the learning and teaching of arithmetic. In W. D. Roeve (Ed.),The teaching of arithmetic (pp. 1–31). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Dickey, E. M., & Raub-Hunt, M. (1993). By way of introduction: the connections challenge.Mathematics Teacher, 86, 621.
Dienes, Z. P. (1961). On abstraction and generalization.Harvard Educational Review, 31, 281–301.
Dienes, Z. P. (1963).An experimental study of mathematics-learning. London: Hutchinson.
Dienes, Z. P. (1969).Building up mathematics (3rd ed.). London: Hutchinson.
Dreyfus, T. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking processes. In D. Tall (Ed.),Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 25–41). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dubinsky, E. (1991a). Constructive aspects of reflective abstraction in advanced mathematics. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.),Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp. 160–202). New York: Springer.
Dubinsky, E. (1991b). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. Tall (Ed.),Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–123). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (1992). Implications of Newman research for the issue of “What is basic in school mathematics?” In B. Southwell, B. Perry, & K. Owens (Eds.),Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 276–284). Richmond, NSW: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Ernest, P. (1991).The philosophy of mathematics education. Barcombe, UK: Falmer Press.
Freudenthal, H. (1983).Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht: Riedel.
Graeber, A. (1993). Mathematics and the reality of the student. In R. Davis & C. Maher (Eds.),School mathematics and the world of reality. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (1994). Duality, ambiguity, and flexibility: a “proceptual” view of simple arithmetic.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 116–140.
Harel, G., & Tall, D. O. (1991). The general, the abstract and the generic in advanced mathematical thinking.For the Learning of Mathematics, 11, 38–42.
Hiebert, J. (Ed.) (1986).Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: an introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.),Conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kaput, J. J. (1987). Toward a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.),Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 159–195). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kieren, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390–419). New York: Macmillan.
Küchemann, D. (1981). Algebra. In K. M. Hart (Ed.),Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11-16 (pp. 102–119). London: John Murray.
Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication.Cognition and Instruction, 3, 305–342.
Lave, J. (1988).Cognition in practice. Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1992). Formulae + practice = maths? In M. Meilleur (Ed.),Abstracts of short presentations at the 7th International Congress on Mathematical Education (p. P-64). Quebec: Laval University.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1994a). Abstraction, generalisation and conceptual change in mathematics.Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 2, 45–56.
Mitchelmore, M. C. (1994b). Abstraction as the recognition of deep similarities: the case of angles. In G. Bell, B. Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Geake (Eds.),Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 429–436). Lismore, NSW: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Moon, B. (1986).The “New Maths” curriculum controversy. Barcombe, UK: Falmer Press.
Nickson, M. (1992). The culture of the mathematics classroom: an unknown quantity? In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 101–114). New York: Macmillan.
Nunes, T. (1992). Ethnomathematics and everyday cognition. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.),Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 557–574). New York: Macmillan.
Porter, A. (1989). Curriculum out of balance: the case of elementary school mathematics.Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9–15.
Schoenfeld, A. (1989). Explorations of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 338–355.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.
Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding.Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.
Skemp, R. (1986).The psychology of learning mathematics. (2nd ed.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Steinbring, H. (1989). Routine and meaning in the mathematics classroom.For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(1), 24–33.
Thompson, A. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics teaching to instructional practice.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105–127.
Truran, J. (1992). Integers as jelly beans.Australian Mathematics Teacher, 48(2), 25.
von Glasersfeld, E., & Richards, J. (1983). The creation of units as a prerequisite for number: a philosophical review. In L. P. Steffe, E. von Glasersfeld, J. Richards, & P. Cobb (Eds.),Children’s counting types: Philosophy, theory, and application (pp. 1–20). New York: Praeger.
Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, Encyclopedic Edition (1977). Chicago: Ferguson.
White, A. (1994). Hurdles: who put them on the number line?Australian Mathematics Teacher, 50(1), 14–18.
White, P. (1992).Conceptual knowledge in rates of change and derivative. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Macquarie University.
White, P., & Mitchelmore, M.C. (1992). Abstract thinking in rates of change and derivative. In B. Southwell, B. Perry, & K. Owens (Eds.),Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 574–581). Richmond, NSW: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
White, P., & Mitchelmore, M.C. (in press). Conceptual knowledge in introductory calculus.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
Wilson, P. S., & Adams, V. M. (1992). A dynamic way to teach angle and angle measure.Mathematics Teacher, 39(5), 6–13.
Wood, T., Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Dillon, D. (1993). Rethinking elementary school mathematics: insights and issues.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph 6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mitchelmore, M.C., White, P. Abstraction in mathematics: Conflict, resolution and application. Math Ed Res J 7, 50–68 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217275
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217275