*This is the first in a series of posts describing "Research You Should Know" (RYSK).*

Prior to the emergence of mathematics education as its own field of research in the 1960s and 1970s, those who chose to study the learning and teaching of mathematics were generally either mathematicians (George Polya, for example) or educational psychologists. William A. Brownell was one of the latter, having earned his doctorate in educational psychology in 1926 at the University of Chicago. Brownell worked at a number of universities but is best known for his work at Duke University from 1930 to 1949 and eleven years as dean of the School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley. Brownell died in May of 1977.

Brownell spent most of his career studying how children learn mathematics and authored a textbook series for the teaching of arithmetic. When the NCTM asked experts for nominations for articles to be included in their

In this article, Brownell defines the terms

Brownell saw, in 1947, too little teaching of arithmetic understanding. Common practice looked like this (you need only watch 20 seconds or so):

Through repetition, many students learned arithmetic. Many didn't. Again, learning was relative, not absolute, and Brownell never claimed that any students received zero understanding. What Brownell wanted was for students to see more meaning, which he organized into four categories:

So why didn't we (and don't we) teach arithmetic for meaning? Brownell anticipated four objections:

Brownell spent most of his career studying how children learn mathematics and authored a textbook series for the teaching of arithmetic. When the NCTM asked experts for nominations for articles to be included in their

*Classics in Mathematics Education Research*, nine different articles were nominated. As the project leaders explained, "There was never a question whether to include an article by Brownell; the only issue to which of the many classic articles that he wrote to include" (Carpenter, Dossey, & Koehler, 2004).In this article, Brownell defines the terms

*meaning of*a thing and the*meaning of*a thing*for*something else. Or, in short,*meaning of*and*meaning for*. Using an example of the times, Brownell says that while he knows little about the workings of an atomic bomb (*meaning of*), he knows plenty about what having and using atomic bombs means for other things, like our culture (*meaning for*). In arithmetic, Brownell sees*meanings of*to be mathematical understandings, usually developed in classroom settings;*meanings for*are the connections to arithmetic we generally experience in every-day life outside of the classroom. Brownell insists that the distinction between the two is clear, although each type of meaning is relative, with varying degrees of complexity and depth.Brownell saw, in 1947, too little teaching of arithmetic understanding. Common practice looked like this (you need only watch 20 seconds or so):

Through repetition, many students learned arithmetic. Many didn't. Again, learning was relative, not absolute, and Brownell never claimed that any students received zero understanding. What Brownell wanted was for students to see more meaning, which he organized into four categories:

- Meanings of whole numbers, fractions, decimals, percent, ratio, and proportion.
- Meanings of operations, including when to add, subtract, multiply, and divide.
- Meanings of principles and relationships of arithmetic, like the zero property, communitive property, etc.
- Meanings of place value that go beyond procedural "borrowing" and "carrying."

School personnel and, to some extent, the public at large are beginning to awaken to the fallacy of treating arithmetic as a tool subject. To classify arithmetic as a tool subject, or as a skill subject, or as a drill subject is to court disaster. Such characterizations virtually set mechanical skills and isolated facts as the major learning outcomes, prescribe drill as the method of teaching, and encourage memorization through repetitive practice as the chief or sole learning process.Sound familiar? Of course. This kind of message has been echoed in NCTM materials at least since the

*Agenda for Action*(1980) and common thinking can be found in articles such as Keith Devlin's*Why We Should Reduce Skills Teaching in the Math Class*.So why didn't we (and don't we) teach arithmetic for meaning? Brownell anticipated four objections:

- Is it really necessary to understand meanings to learn arithmetic?
- Are these meanings too difficult for children to learn?
- Does it take too much time to teach meanings?
- Does learning meanings of and for arithmetic really improve ability?

References

Brownell, W. A. (1947). The place of meaning in the teaching of arithmetic.

*Elementary School Journal*,*47*, 256-265.Carpenter, T. P., Dossey, J. A., & Koehler, J. L. (2004). Introduction. In T. P. Carpenter, J. A. Dossey, & J. L. Koehler (Eds.),

*Classics in Mathematics Education Research*(pp. 1-6). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (1980).

*An Agenda for Action: Recommendations for School Mathematics of the 1980s*. Reston, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17278.