Journal of Mathematical Behavior

21 (2002) 151–165

What do students really understand?

Katharine L. Borgen∗ , Sitaniselao Stan Manu
University of British Columbia, 3925 West 14th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6R 2X2

Abstract
This paper investigates the understanding of a student who, on paper, has presented a picture-perfect solution
to a calculus problem. Using a video recording of her work, an analysis of the process through which she went
in determining the solution was undertaken using two different theoretical frameworks: Schoenfeld’s levels of
analysis and structure and the Pirie–Kieren dynamical theory for the growth of mathematical understanding. It
was determined that algebraic formalizations can lead to correct solutions without the student being aware of the
relationships among various components of the question. Full understanding can only be achieved if a student has
connected knowledge of the various components. It is suggested that “taken as shared” imagery may exist in both
understanding and misunderstanding. If teachers are aware of possible misconceptions of students, this may help
them to improve instruction.
© 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Mathematical understanding; Imagery; Misconceptions; Formalizations; Calculus; Epistemological obstacles;
Folding back

That a student does not always learn what the teacher intends is evident in almost any piece of student
assessment. That the student does not see the method in the same light as the teacher is also a common
experience (Pirie & Kieren, 1992a). Also, that this is inevitable, and that precisely what a student does
learn is unknowable to someone else, is supported by the constructivist belief that each student creates
meaning in his/her own mind based on his/her own experiences and understandings (Cobb & Steffe,
1983; Steffe & Kieren, 1994; Steffe & Thompson, 2000; von Glasersfeld, 1987, 1989). Thus, viewing
understanding through the constructivist lens means that one must assume that each student’s experiences,
perceptions, and interactions may be different, and each student will have a personal understanding which
may not be exactly the same as that of the teacher or of the other students in the class (Pirie & Kieren,
1992a). Not all students will arrive at the same level of understanding at the same time, and each student
will arrive at his/her understanding differently. The best the teacher can hope for is a commonality or
conventionality of understanding, a “taken as shared” understanding (Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1992),
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kborgen@interchange.ubc.ca (K.L. Borgen), ssmanu@interchange.ubc.ca (S.S. Manu).

0732-3123/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 7 3 2 - 3 1 2 3 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 1 5 - 3
152 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165

which hopefully will be refined to a level at which mathematical discussion in the classroom can take
place and be meaningful.
Approaching mathematical understanding from a practical point of view, one would assume that if a
student has learned the conventionally accepted meaning of the material presented, the student should
perform well in a testing situation. But, if a student performs well in the testing situation, does that mean
that he/she has understood the mathematics behind the solution? In this article we will show that right
answers do not necessarily indicate understanding. We will explain how we unraveled the understanding
of a particular student, whom we will call Janet, on a particular mathematics question in which it appeared
that she understood the mathematics involved since she applied the proper algorithmic techniques and
obtained the correct solution. However, we will also show, through analysis of her interactions with
another student, whom we will call Christopher, that she knew how to apply an algebraic algorithm, but
she did not understand the mathematical underpinnings involved, and that she had misconceptions and
mixed ideas regarding the concepts involved. Using video as a research tool, we will discuss Janet’s
understanding, as we observed it, of one specific mathematics question. We will indicate, using two
different approaches in our analysis, how we were able to detect her misconceptions and/or her lack of
understanding of the specific question.
Understanding a student’s understanding requires not only a close examination of his/her written work,
but also involves a careful analysis of the student’s thoughts and ideas while performing the computations
(Pirie & Kieren, 1992b, 1994). Ideally one needs to see the written work, listen carefully to any dialogue or
discussion, and observe facial expressions and other body language. Body language may be as important,
if not more important, than the actual words spoken in determining an individual’s thoughts since the
verbal expressions of a student may not sufficiently explain what he/she means as he/she may not have
the vocabulary to precisely express the concept that he/she is trying to relay (Borgen, 1998). Also, the
student may be using incorrect vocabulary, and/or what is said may be misinterpreted by the listener
(Borgen, 1998; Schoenfeld, 1989). Thus, the involuntary reaction to a situation may tell us more about
an individual’s reaction than what is said. Goldman-Segal (1993) cited in Pirie (1996) asks the question:
“[Is] a closing of the eyelid . . . a twitch, a wink, or a conspiratorial communication?” A student may
not be uttering words while thinking or performing an algorithm. However, he/she will display some
form of emotion through body language and/or facial expression. Using video as a research tool allows
one to revisit the situation, to view and re-view the scene, until one feels that, from both the verbal and
non-verbal communications of the situation, one has determined what the student has been thinking or
what understanding has taken place.

1. Frameworks for analyzing student understanding

In attempting to determine what understanding takes place, it would be foolhardy to approach the task
without a theoretical framework within which to work. Thus, one of our first tasks in this study was to
find a framework that would adequately serve us in our quest to understand Janet’s thinking–a format in
which to work, and one that would give structure to our analysis.
Many theoretical perspectives exist with which to address the manner in which students make mean-
ing of the mathematics presented to them. These frameworks include the following: (1) Sierpinska’s
(1987) approach to epistemological obstacles; (2) Dubinski’s (1991) interpretation of Piaget’s concept
of reflective abstraction; (3) the similar, mathematically based structural approach of Schoenfeld (1989)
 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165 153

in comparing a student’s knowledge to the standard curricular knowledge of the concept; (4) Skemp’s
(1978) discussion regarding relational versus instrumental understanding; (5) Sfard’s (1991) duality of
structural and operational conceptions of mathematical ideas as being distinct, but complementary; and
(6) the Pirie and Kieren (1992a) dynamical theory for the growth of mathematical understanding.
While viewing the videotape of Janet solving the problem we considered the merits of each of these
perspectives. We found no particular obstacle that created a misconception for her, but rather that she
simply did not understand some relationships. Although this does not belie the fact that her lack of under-
standing may create an epistemological obstacle later on, we felt that an analysis based on Sierpinska’s
research would not, at this point, help explain Janet’s understanding. Dubinski’s concept of generic
decomposition could possibly have provided a foundation for determining Janet’s understanding, but
seemed more to provide a foundation for an analysis of the concept to improve the teaching of it. Since
our main goal was to determine what a particular student understood about a particular question after the
concept had been taught, we decided that Dubinski’s method of analysis would not serve our purpose.
Similarly, the bi-polar explanations of mathematical thinking, as discussed by Skemp and Sfard, would
not help us in analyzing the structure of the thinking involved. They could possibly provide a frame-
work for discussing the kind of understanding that had taken place, but did not provide a framework
for discussing why Janet could not make the necessary connections to consolidate her understanding.
Schoenfeld’s levels of analysis and structure and the Pirie–Kieren dynamical theory for the growth of
mathematical understanding, however, looked promising. Thus, after considering the usefulness of each
theory we decided on an integrated approach using these latter two methods.
Schoenfeld’s levels of analysis and structure furnished a framework within which to determine what
Janet understood about the mathematics involved while working through a question and to compare this
to the standard curricular knowledge of the topic. The Pirie–Kieren dynamical theory for the growth of
mathematical understanding provided a method with which to determine why she behaved or thought
the way she did, and provided a vocabulary with which to discuss this. Used together, we felt that they
allowed us to explore various aspects of Janet’s understanding in this situation and we were confident
that they provided a solid framework with which to detail and discuss our analysis. The two theories
fit well together in that both consider a student’s understanding as a dynamic, layered process and both
are approaches that can be used to study the understanding of a particular student’s understanding of
a particular mathematical concept. We present these two frameworks in greater detail in the next two
sections.

1.1. Schoenfeld’s levels of analysis and structure

Schoenfeld has attempted to “understand as much as possible, what the mathematics looked like from
the student’s point of view” (Schoenfeld, 1989, p. 106). Such analysis is not accessible to teachers through
direct observation. von Glasersfeld (1987) noted that, in order to understand a student’s understanding we
must “have an adequate idea of where the student is and . . . an adequate idea of the destination” (p. 16).
Fitting comfortably within the cognitive literature, Schoenfeld’s two-fold analysis provided precisely the
approach we needed to explore the depth of Janet’s understanding in an unstructured situation.
By first looking at the mathematics involved, Schoenfeld compares a student’s understanding of a topic
to the standard curricular knowledge of that topic. His method of analysis uses a table consisting of four
structural levels (see Fig. 1). The first step in using this structure is to determine what comprises the
standard curricular knowledge that is related to the question under consideration. Level 1 of this analysis,
154 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165

Fig. 1. Schoenfeld’s levels of analysis and structure (Schoenfeld, 1989).

indicates the “chunks” of knowledge that must be in place to do the mathematics of the question. At level
2, these are fine-grained to determine the properties that are needed to work through the question. The
supporting domains of the relationships between the different concepts which must be understood are
represented in level 3. The final, or fourth level will be void under traditional knowledge, but it is the
level at which the misunderstandings of the student are seen with respect to their effect on the student’s
understanding, present and future, and at which the limits of the student’s present understanding of
the topic are noted. Although the results of this process appear linear, Schoenfeld (1992) stresses that
developing a sense of the student’s understanding of the concept, and determining the potential impact
of it, is an iterative process of tentative explanations and re-examinations which cannot be accomplished
quickly.

1.2. The Pirie–Kieren dynamical theory for the growth of mathematical understanding

Building on von Glasersfeld’s constructivist approach to mathematical understanding, the Pirie–Kieren

theory sees student understanding “in the framework of a whole dynamic, leveled but nonlinear, recursive
process” (Pirie & Kieren, 1992b, p. 243). According to this theory, a student comes to understand by
structuring and restructuring his/her own experiences. Using, as a representation, a set of eight nested
circles (see Fig. 2), the interiors of which represent different levels of understanding, the theory can be
used to describe not only these levels of understanding, but also to map out the connections between
concepts and the growth of understanding over time. Pirie and Kieren (1994) believe that when a student
is confronted with a problem, which is not immediately solvable, he/she may need to fold back to an inner
level of understanding and that effective folding back will build a ‘thicker’ understanding at the returned-to
level, therefore extending the student’s understanding of the original problem. Using a layered pictorial
 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165 155

Fig. 2. Pirie–Kieren model of growth of mathematical understanding (Pirie & Kieren, 1994).

representation to describe the growth of the student’s mathematical understanding as it is observed, the
key features of the Pirie–Kieren theory that we will be using throughout this analysis are this notion of
folding back and the mapping technique.1
While we were confident that the Pirie–Kieren theory offered us the best approach to explaining why
Janet made or did not make certain connections in her understanding, one slight problem existed. The
Pirie–Kieren theory is a theory about the growth of student understanding and we were looking at a static
situation — a single question. We decided to proceed, however, as we believed that the theory was flexible
enough to apply to this situation. Also, we felt that how a student understands a particular problem is
a microcosmic example of how he/she understands over time and that within any situation a student
is calling on past experience and knowledge to develop understanding. Thus, a single question cannot
be taken in isolation or out of context. In Pirie–Kieren terms, there is a need to fold back to previous
understanding, which implies that growth of understanding has and is taking place.

2. A student working to develop meaning

Janet and Christopher were two senior math students to whom a facilitator had given the quadratic
function, y = 2x 2 − x + 1, and had asked them to determine the stationary point as well as to determine
if it was a maximum or a minimum. They had previously completed a unit on differential calculus.
Christopher and the facilitator (whose main input was the posing of the question) sat at opposite ends of a

1
For a complete discussion of this technique, see Pirie and Kieren (1994).
156 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165

small rectangular table and Janet sat at the side of the table to the right of Christopher. The worksheet was
on the table, facing Christopher, who did most of the writing. The two students appeared to be accustomed
to working together and appeared comfortable in discussing their ideas with each other in the presence
of the facilitator and the video camera. The discussion on this one question lasted for about 6.5 minutes.

2.1. A basis for analysis

We began our analysis by carefully viewing the videotape several times in order to determine the
significant actions of the students: what they said, where they pointed or were working on the page, and
to identify other important body language. As neither of us had previous knowledge of the two students
in the video, nor did we have any specific knowledge of the mathematical presentations or instructions
which they had received, we had to rely heavily on their actions and statements, their written work, and
our own understanding of the topic to determine what it was that they meant and/or understood. This
was advantageous in terms of an unbiased analysis. Our observation and judgment was not clouded by
expectations based on knowing what and how the students had been taught, and therefore what they ought
to know. Schoenfeld’s method of analysis had forced us to consider what mathematics was involved both
from the standard curricular perspective as well as from the student’s perspective. The Pirie–Kieren theory
then provided us with a means by which to determine how the concepts might be interconnected in the
understanding of this particular student, as well as providing us with a language for discussing this.
In the following sections, rather than give the entire transcript of the students’ conversation which, by
itself, would provide very little information, we have chosen to give a discussion of the interactions to
provide the reader with a moving picture of the situation. Brief excerpts from the conversation, along with
a description of the body language involved, will be used where appropriate to indicate why we made
certain connections. References in the next two sections will be to Fig. 3.

2.2. Janet’s worksheet

Janet and Christopher were presented with the problem: “Find the stationary point on y = 2x 2 − x + 1.
Is it a maxima or a minima?”
Considering this page of work, we notice that Janet and Christopher have correctly determined the
stationary point to be (0.25, 0.875) (line 8) and have correctly stated that it is a minimum (line 1). It
appears that the work has been done with understanding as the written work indicates that the correct
algorithm has been applied and the correct solution has been obtained.

2.3. The process of (mis)understanding

On being presented with the question, Janet and Christopher immediately set about solving it, with
Janet taking the initiative, telling Christopher what to do. She indicated that they should find the derivative,
dy
dx
(line 3), set this equal to zero (line 4) and, solve for x. The x was found to be 1/4 (line 5). Christopher
indicated that the 1/4 must be substituted into the quadratic function, which he did (line 6), to determine the
y-value of 0.875 (line 7). The shift between fractions and decimals is indicative of the use of a calculator,
upon which we discovered Janet was very dependent for arithmetic operations. Christopher wrote down
the coordinates of the point (line 8) and drew the axes for Graph A. Janet asked for clarification regarding
the ordered pair, (0.25, 0.875). Being satisfied with Christopher’s explanation that the x-value came from
 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165 157

Fig. 3. Janet’s worksheet.

“here” (pointing to line 5) and the y-value from “here” (pointing to line 7), she suggested that they “draw
it,” picking up the graphing calculator to do so. The facilitator asked if she could draw the graph without
the calculator, prompting Janet to have a reflective discussion with herself:2
Umm, can I draw it without a calculator? . . . Ahh, big X . . . at small x its . . . ? The little end . . . the little
end of it? And the big end looks like . . . Nooo . . . . [During this discussion, she held the calculator
in her left hand, cupped her right hand, and moved it from side to side as if she were considering two
separate pieces of information.]
Janet then suggested that she should draw the graph (on the calculator) to “check,” although she had
drawn nothing against which to check it. While she was occupied with entering the equation in the
calculator she missed Christopher’s hand movements indicating that the graph should be a parabola
opening upward.
Janet brought the picture of the graph up onto the screen of the calculator, and as Christopher was
again indicating the shape of the graph by hand and pencil movements, she took the pencil from him, and
drew parabola 1 on Graph A, using the graph on the calculator screen as a guide. She then pointed to
the sketch, indicating that “that’s presumably one,” drew the short horizontal segment at the vertex of the
parabola and wrote the number “1” beside it. From a practical point of view, one would assume that, at
this point, by simple observation of the graph, Janet would have noticed that there was a minimum value
for this function, not a maximum value. However, she did not arrive at this conclusion for some time.

2
In the quotes, . . . will indicate a pause on the part of the speaker, not that words are omitted.
158 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165

After Janet sketched parabola 1, Christopher stated: “But that looks a bit easy, that. Where’s your
minus x?” With a concerned look on his face, he slightly re-shaped the parabola, drawing parabola 2.
Janet also showed concern over the “minus x” by reiterating Christopher’s question: “What’s the minus
x do?” He replied:
I don’t know . . . I just thought that would have [pointing, toward the 2 in the equation at the top] . . . that
two in front would [moving his hands in and out], thingy [sic] it . . . how steep it was. But that would
[swishing his hand over the paper, generally indicating some-thing on the page, presumably the +1,
but not pointing specifically] bring it up one. But I don’t know where minus x goes.
Christopher next indicated that the graph did not really make sense if you looked at “that,” [pointing
to line 8 and the ordered pair, (0.25, 0.875)]. Recalling a previous course which she referred to as
“foundations,” Janet drew a new set of axes (Graph B). In this context, she referred to a “big X and a
little x” again, and wondered if they were the “front bit or the back bit.” She wrote ‘L’ and ‘b’ on the
worksheet (line 2). She did not seem sure which was the ‘big X’ and which was the ‘little x,’ and she
suggested that she should “try it both ways and see.” She then drew the axes for Graph C and indicated
that if the ‘L’ was ‘little x,’ she could draw parabola 3. The ‘big X’ created more of a problem as Janet
once again wondered what “minus x plus one” would look like. Christopher thought for a moment and
drew segment 1 on Graph A. He then drew the axes for Graph D as well as segment 2, stating that that
was what minus x plus one would look like. Janet drew segment 3, stating that she thought it should look
like that instead. Following a brief discussion, they realized that their positioning with respect to the axes
(that is, sitting at right angles to each other around the corner of the table), created the confusion and, in
fact, both had correctly drawn the graph of y = −x + 1 if viewed from their own perspective.
Continuing the discussion, using the slope of segment 3 as her guide, Janet proceeded to draw a small
segment (segment 4 on Graph C) stating:
Yeah . . . so it’s gonna look like . . . what? . . . like that. [Starting with segment 4, she drew parabola
4.] So, yeah! . . . That one’s right! It’s a min!
Janet’s hand movements and her actions seemed to indicate that the “min” solution was related to the
fact that the line that she had drawn, y = −x +1, had a negative slope. She did not mention the point (0.25,
0.875) at this stage. Once again, Christopher indicated concern, and while looking at Graph A stated:
When you got this . . . [pointing again to (0.25, 0.875) on line 8] . . . it doesn’t really make sense. This
[pointing to parabola 1 or 2] is not going through those points, now is it? . . . Yes it is . . . Sorry . . . yes
it is . . . No, it’s not going down that far. It’s at y = 1. That’s its lowest point.
Janet, who had originally drawn the graph, stated: “It didn’t put it at one.” This may indicate that she
had picked up some information about the graph from the original calculator screen which she had not
transferred accurately to the sketch. She suggested that they draw the graph again (with the calculator)
and “trace it to determine where the min is.” Christopher took the calculator, punched some keys, then
stated:
No, no, no. It’s right by looking at it. [putting the calculator aside and looking only at the paper] . . . So
that’s a stationary point and it’s a min.
Looking proud of their accomplishment, the two students agreed that they had the correct solution and
Christopher wrote “min” (line 1) on their paper.
 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165 159

3. Analysis of Janet’s understanding

3.1. Giving structure to understanding: Schoenfeld’s levels of analysis and structure

Schoenfeld’s levels of analysis and structure provided us with a framework with which to explicate
Janet’s understanding of the stationary point and of the maximum or minimum value of the quadratic
function presented to her (see Fig. 4). To do this, it was necessary to determine what mathematics was
needed to understand the question. At the macro-level as defined by Schoenfeld, we determined that
traditionally a three-slot schema existed: (1) the ability to differentiate a function; (2) understanding the
relationship between the stationary point and the maximum or minimum value of the function; and (3)
the ability to interpret/understand the graphical representation of a function and it’s derivative. On a more
refined level, this means that one should know the power rule for differentiation, that the derivative of
the function provides a formula for the equation of the slope of the tangent line at a point, and that if the
value of the derivative is zero the x coordinate of a stationary point can be determined. Also, one should
know that the changes in the sign of the slope of the tangent line around a point can be used to determine
if the point is a maximum, a minimum or a point of inflection.
Our second step in using Schoenfeld’s analysis was to consider Janet’s actions and statements in order
to determine what they implied about her understanding of the mathematics and to compare this with

Fig. 4. Schoenfeld’s structural table for Janet’s understanding.

160 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165

the mathematics we determined was necessary from the standard curricular viewpoint. As Schoenfeld
(1989) indicated, this was not a linear process but rather involved a complex web of misconceptions and
misunderstandings that became apparent only through careful observation and analysis of the videotape.
We present our findings in retrospect, after many reviews of the videotape and much discussion about the
actions and conversations of the students involved.
At the macro-level of understanding, Janet made a distinct break between the stationary point and
the maximum or minimum value of a function and did not see the relationship between the two. She
seemed to regard the stationary point as something to be computed, which she correctly did. She seemed
to consider the maximum or minimum as a property of the function and determining it took a circuitous
route. She was aware that the slope of some line was involved in determining if there was a maximum
or a minimum and she focused on the ‘−x + 1’ of the quadratic function, ignoring the derivative except
to determine the stationary point. Her conclusion that the graph had a minimum was based on the fact
that this ‘line,’ y = −x + 1, has a negative slope. At no time did she indicate that she understood the
relationship between the derivative and the slope of a tangent line at a point. This created a four-slot
schema for her, rather than the three-slot schema of the traditional view of understanding of the topic.
Janet’s was also unsure about the various algebraic-geometric interpretations of a quadratic function.
Her references to “big X and little x” indicate confusion between the standard form of a quadratic function,
y = ax2 +bx+c, and its completed square form, y = a(x −p)2 +q. She related the ‘−x +1’ to the ‘x −p’
of the completed square form, while at the same time associated the ‘+1’ with ‘q.’ She also confused the
‘−x + 1’ with the concept of the derivative and/or the equation of the tangent line as indicated above.
We assume that some of Janet’s confusion may also have resulted from an inaccurate image she formed
of the graph as viewed on the calculator screen. It is assumed that the domain and range on her original
screen had likely been set at the standard −10 to +10 limits, providing little detail and making it difficult
to distinguish between 0.875 and 1. Thus, the sketch she drew appears to correspond more closely to the
graph of y = 2x 2 + 1 than it does to the original y = 2x 2 − x + 1.
Janet’s confusion is reflected in levels two to four of Schoenfeld’s table (see Fig. 4). Level 4 of this
table indicates her lack of understanding of the gradient line and her calculator dependency. Her last
minute statement that “It didn’t put it at one,” and her reference to tracing the graph did not convince us
that she had made any concrete connection between the stationary point and the concept of maximum
or minimum value. For her, these remained respectively something to calculate and a property of the
function.
Without having carefully determined the process through which Janet went–without determining what
work she was referring to and relating it to the traditional mathematical knowledge of the concept–we
would not have been able to determine what improper connections she made. Determining the sources
of her problems, through careful analysis and re-analysis of the video data, allowed us to determine the
assumptions she was making and would prove invaluable in determining why she made them. Our next step,
the analysis and mapping of her understanding using the Pirie–Kieren model, is discussed in the following
section.

3.2. Formalizing and (incorrect) images: the Pirie–Kieren dynamical theory for the growth
of mathematical understanding

Having analyzed Janet’s work in progress using Schoenfeld’s structure placed us in a good position to
trace her work using the Pirie–Kieren theory. In contrast to Schoenfeld’s structural approach where we had
 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165 161

to begin by looking at the mathematics involved in the question, then relating the student’s understanding
to this, the Pirie–Kieren theory required us to begin by looking at Janet, the student, and her actions.
Analysis using Schoenfeld’s structure had enabled us to determine Janet’s mathematical actions and
we could now trace these actions on the Pirie–Kieren model to determine what they implied about her
understanding and the connections she had made.
Although the Pirie–Kieren theory is a theory about the growth of student understanding over time,
we use it here to demonstrate Janet’s path of thinking through a specific mathematical problem. In our
mapping, we have used solid lines to indicate correct or clear connections, while broken lines have been
used to indicate incorrect or incomplete connections. Obviously, no connecting lines mean that Janet
did not make connections between the ideas. Lastly, we have used a “broken circle” to group ideas that
remained confused in Janet’s mind, and among which she did not clearly differentiate. All references in
this section are to Fig. 5.
Being presented with the question, “Find the stationary point on: y = 2x 2 − x + 1. Is it a maximum
or a minimum?” Janet immediately knew what to do.
Right, well it’s easy! You differentiate it, don’t you? . . . You equate it, . . . equals to nought, don’t
you? . . . Go ahead, then!
From the Pirie–Kieren perspective, Janet started working at the formalizing level (F) in that she knew
what to do to find the derivative and thus the stationary point. However, as evidenced by our discussion
of the process through which she went to determine if the graph had a maximum or a minimum, she
made a distinct break between the ideas of the stationary point and the maximum or minimum value of a

Fig. 5. Our mapping of Janet’s mathematical understanding on the Pirie–Kieren model.

162 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165

function. She had an algorithmic image of how to calculate the stationary point (P), but did not have an
image of it as being a part of the graph. For her, the graph was a formalized picture on the paper, roughly
sketched from the calculator’s representational image. Her image of the maximum or minimum (M)
under consideration was that this was a property of the function, not specifically related to the stationary
point. Thus, what should have been a single image for her was two unrelated images. Neither the physical
representation of the function (G), the graph either as she drew it or as it was presented on the calculator
screen with its obviously lowest point, nor the everyday vocabulary of maximum and minimum implying
highest and lowest, prompted her to see that there was a minimum.
Janet relied heavily on the graphing calculator for her visual image of the function. When asked by the
facilitator if she could sketch the graph without the calculator, she referred to a “little x and a big X” (X),
but used the calculator to determine the graph. She seemed to be trying to recall the completed square
form (Q) of a quadratic function,3 folding back to a confused image of it; confusion which involved the
completed square form, the standard form, the derivative and y = −x + 1. She did not fold back to a
primitive knowing of the completed square form (Q) of the quadratic function, possibly because she only
had a formalized method by which to do the question, and had retained an image, albeit an incorrect one,
at the image having level.
Janet’s working at the formalizing level is evidenced in another situation. She knew exactly how the
“2” (H) would affect the shape of the parabola. When Christopher indicated that the “2” would affect the
steepness of the function (see p. 8), Janet countered with the precise effect:
I thought it would make it go like that [elbows together, bringing her arms closer together] not like
that. [keeping elbows together and separating her hands to indicate a ‘wider’ parabola]
Janet indicated awareness that the other parts of the equation (E) had a bearing on the shape of the graph.
However, her algebraic understanding did not mesh with her graphical understanding. As mentioned,
mixed images existed around the completed square form (Q) of the quadratic function, its standard form
(S), and the ‘−x + 1’ from the quadratic function (L). The interconnections were further complicated by
the discussion of the ‘little x’ and the ‘big X’ (X). Recalling that some line was important in determining
whether or not a function possessed a maximum or a minimum (M), Janet focused on the slope of the
‘line’ y = −x + 1 (L), folding back to collect earlier understanding of images which were insufficient to
the task and which were incorrect, thus leading to confusion.
Janet relied on the graphing calculator as an image-maker in both the Pirie–Kieren sense and the literal
sense. After she had sketched the function using the visual image from the screen of the calculator as a
guide, she showed Christopher the calculator screen as proof that her sketch adequately represented it.
The graph, as it appeared on the calculator screen (G), was a formalized representation of the function for
Janet. However, the image (I) that she obtained was inaccurate because, as mentioned earlier, the scaling
on the calculator probably did not provide enough detail.
From the Pirie–Kieren perspective, Janet was lacking a ‘connected understanding’ of the concepts
of stationary point and maximum or minimum. She had a formalized, algorithmic, method by which
to determine a stationary point, but did not understand the relationship between the stationary point
and the graph of the function. Nor did she understand the relationship between the derivative and the
gradient/tangent line (T). The only knowledge she indicated of the existence of the gradient line was that
she remembered that some straight line was needed in determining whether the function had a maximum

3
The given function, f (x) = 2x 2 − x + 1 = 2(x − 41 )2 + 7
8
= 2X 2 + 78 , where X = x − 41 .
 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165 163

or minimum. We therefore place her knowledge of the tangent line (T) inside her Pirie–Kieren primitive
knowing circle, unconnected to her present working, since she does not fold back to access the knowledge
to determine what line should be considered.
During the mapping process, we determined that many of Janet’s problems stemmed from her lack
of correct images upon which to fall back, her inappropriate images, and her tendency to work at the
formalizing level, using algorithmic formalizations without necessarily understanding them. That her
folding back was not effective in producing connected understanding is evidenced in the mapping by the
number of unconnected and mixed ideas (indicated by being circled with a broken line), and by the number
of incorrect images. Janet worked with her own constructed knowledge, which as Schoenfeld’s structural
model indicates, did not connect with the traditional mathematical base, and from the Pirie–Kieren
perspective indicates a lack of connected knowledge. Janet did, of course, have the ‘correct answer,’ and
as a result, would have (but should she have?) received full credit for her work.

4. Conclusion: what do we really know?

Understanding is a much more complex process than obtaining the correct answer through a formalized
method. For schema to be useful, “the components within a schema must be interconnected” (Marshall,
1995 cited in Schau, Mattern, & Weber, 1997, p. 3) and understanding grows as relationships between
levels of understanding and links between related knowledge components are strengthened (Lawson &
Chinnappan, 2000). Our investigation of Janet’s understanding, as analyzed by Schoenfeld’s levels,
indicate that her schema involved a lack of connection of related concepts. The analysis by the Pirie–Kieren
theory indicates that her inability to fold back to proper images created a disconnected understanding and
made it impossible for her to connect her different areas of understanding. Further to this, the analysis by
the Pirie–Kieren theory indicates that improper imaging at the formalized level may create obstacles that
even physical evidence cannot overcome. The visual image of the function as a parabola opening upward
was insufficient evidence for Janet to overcome her disconnected understanding (of stationary point and
maximum or minimum) and her improper images to see that physically there was a minimum. Thus,
this investigation has shown that even when a student presents a picture-perfect solution to a question, it
does not mean that he/she has understood the mathematics involved. The correct algorithm can be applied
without any real understanding of its meaning and it is only through careful analysis of the process through
which the student has gone that a teacher is able to determine what understanding has taken place. While
algorithmic approaches to a topic may help a student formalize his/her understanding, they may actually
hamper understanding unless proper images are available for the learner to fold back to.
Established paradigms do not exist for each situation and often methods are not available for application
to a particular situation. This was the case when we tried to determine Janet’s understanding of the related
concepts of stationary point and maximum or minimum value of a function in the question discussed in
this article. We had to adapt. The integration of two perspectives to investigate student understanding,
Schoenfeld’s levels of mathematical analysis and structure and the Pirie–Kieren dynamical theory for the
growth of mathematical understanding, provided us with a powerful tool. We found Schoenfeld’s table
to be an effective method with which to determine Janet’s mathematical activities and understandings as
she proceeded through the question. This helped us create a picture of her mathematical understanding
by following her process of arriving at a solution. We could then map these activities onto the Pirie–
Kieren model to develop an understanding of her understanding and of the connections she had made
164 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165

among different ideas. Without this mapping, we were aware of what she had done, but not of what it
meant to her. The Pirie–Kieren theory provided a way for us to understand this as well as the language
with which to discuss both her understanding and her misunderstandings (misconceptions). In this man-
ner, a combination of the two approaches proved to be an effective means of relating to this student’s
understanding.
As stated earlier, the Pirie–Kieren theory is a theory about the growth of mathematical understanding,
and this had caused us some concern at the beginning of our analysis. However, as we had hoped, the
theory proved to be adaptable and thus could be used, not only to determine growth of understanding, but
also to determine understanding at a particular point in time. This is compatible with its constructivist
perspective in that present understanding is dependent on previous understandings. Thus, growth of
understanding is implicit in any situation. The concept of folding back to appropriate images as a vital
aspect of present understanding cannot be taken out of the context of accumulated knowledge based on
past experience.
While it is unrealistic to expect that a teacher in a classroom of 30 students is able to undertake the
type of analysis needed to unravel each student’s thinking on each problem presented, an understanding
that whatever images a student holds are what he/she relies on at a formalization level if pure memory
fails will help in the task of teaching. An understanding of just what images, both correct and incorrect,
that students might construct is important if teachers are to help those students work toward connected
formalizations. Continued research involving student’s work is necessary to determine just what these
images might be. Knowing what incorrect images a student might have will be useful to the teacher in
determining possible sources of misconceptions and should lead to better teaching.
We conclude by asking and answering the following two questions:

(1) From our analysis of Janet’s approach to this question, what have we learned? We have learned that,
in order to understand the work a student has done, an integrated approach using both Schoenfeld’s
structural analysis and the Pirie–Kieren theory provides an innovative and effective method by
which to explore various aspects of understanding. We have also learned that in order to deter-
mine if a student really understands the question being discussed, the teacher must consider the
algebraic manipulations as presented on paper as well as discuss with the student his/her thought
processes while performing the work. “[T]here should be broad diversity in what we look at, and
the methods we use to do the looking” (Schoenfeld, 1989, p. 116), if we hope to gain a deep
understanding of students understanding. Errors and misconceptions are not always obvious from
the written work and are often unpredictable. Even when the correct solution is obtained, unobserv-
able misinterpretations may be the source of errors and misconceptions and these will affect future
understanding.
(2) Will other students make the same or similar mistakes and have the same kinds of misinterpretations?
We are not sure. However, the close scrutiny of one situation has alerted us to a tangle of images
that we feel are unlikely to be unique. We therefore suggest, borrowing the Cobb, Yackel, and
Wood (1992) expression “taken as shared,” that, with respect to understanding or meaning making,
“taken as shared” misconceptions or misunderstandings are as likely to develop as “taken as shared”
correct images. Left unaddressed, these misconceptions could be the source of later epistemological
obstacles. This indicates the importance of determining and analyzing misunderstandings that
students develop as well as considering the desired, or correct, understandings that they develop,
as a means of improving their learning.
 K.L. Borgen, S.S. Manu / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21 (2002) 151–165 165

References

Borgen, K. (1998). Teacher use of language which helps or hinders understanding of mathematics by second language learners.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada.
Cobb, P., & Steffe, L. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 14, 83–94.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). The constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics
education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 2–33.
Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In: D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking
(pp. 95–125). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lawson, M. J., & Chinnappan, M. (2000). Knowledge connectedness in geometry problem solving. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 31, 26–43.
Pirie, S. (1996). Classroom video-recording: when, why and how does it offer a valuable data source for qualitative research?
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education, Panama City, FL.
Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1992a). Creating constructivist environments and constructing creative mathematics. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 23, 505–528.
Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1992b). Watching Sandy’s understanding grow. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 243–257.
Pirie, S. E., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: how can we characterise it and how can we represent
it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 165–190.
Schoenfeld, A. (1989) Exploring the process problem space: notes on the description and analysis of mathematical processes.
In: C. Maher, G. Goldin, & R. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh PME-NA Conference (pp. 95–120). New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers Center for Mathematics, Science and Computer Education.
Schoenfeld, A. (1992). On paradigms and methods: what do you do when ones you know don’t do what you want them to?
Issues in the analysis of data in the form of videotapes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 179–214.
Schau, C., Mattern, N., & Weber (1997). Use of fill-in concept maps to assess middle school students’ connected understanding
of science. Paper presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on process and objects as different sides of the
same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.
Sierpinska, A. (1987). Humanities students and epistemological obstacles related to limits. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
18, 371–397.
Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.
Steffe, L. P., & Kieren, T. (1994). Radical constructivism and mathematical education. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 25, 711–733.
Steffe, L., & Thompson, P. (2000). Interaction or intersubjectivity? A reply to Lerman. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 31, 191–209.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructivist activity. In: C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching
and learning of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). An exposition of constructivism: why some like it radical. In: R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher, & N. Noddings
(Eds.), In constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.