A definition of conceptual understanding.

In light of the confusion about conceptual

understanding and the pressing problem of student misunderstanding, I think a slightly
more robust definition of conceptual understanding is wanted. I prefer to define it this
way:
Conceptual understanding in mathematics means that students understand which ideas
are key (by being helped to draw inferences about those ideas) and that they grasp the
heuristic value of those ideas. They are thus better able to use them strategically to
solve problems especially non-routine problems and avoid common
misunderstandings as well as inflexible knowledge and skill.
In other words, students demonstrate understanding of
1)

which mathematical ideas are key, and why they are important

2)

which ideas are useful in a particular context for problem solving

3)

why and how key ideas aid in problem solving, by reminding us of the systematic

nature of mathematics (and the need to work on a higher logical plane in problem
solving situations)
4)

how an idea or procedure is mathematically defensible why we and they are

justified in using it
5)

how to flexibly adapt previous experience to new transfer problems.

Wilingham on conceptual understanding in math. First, lets look more closely at

what researcher Daniel Willingham has to say about conceptual understanding in
mathematics. His article is based on the idea that successful mathematics learning
presumably generalizable to all learning requires three different abilities that must be
developed and woven together: control of facts, control of processes, and conceptual
understanding. And throughout the article he discusses not only the importance of
understanding and how it is difficult to obtain but also notes that instruction for it
has to be different than the learning of basic skills and facts. I quote him at length
below:
Unfortunately, of the three varieties of knowledge that students need, conceptual
knowledge is the most difficult to acquire. Its difficult because knowledge is never
acquired de novo; a teacher cannot pour concepts directly into students heads. Rather,

new concepts must build upon something that students already know. Thats why
examples are so useful when introducing a new concept. Indeed, when someone
provides an abstract definition (e.g., The standard deviation is a measure of the
dispersion of a distribution.), we usually ask for an example (such as, Two groups of
people might have the same average height, but one group has many tall and many
short people, and thus has a large standard deviation, whereas the other group mostly
has people right around the average, and thus has a small standard deviation.).
[emphasis added]
This is also why conceptual knowledge is so important as students advance. Learning
new concepts depends on what you already know, and as students advance, new
concepts will increasingly depend on old conceptual knowledge. For example,
understanding algebraic equations depends on the right conceptual understanding of the
equal sign. If students fail to gain conceptual understanding, it will become harder and
harder to catch up, as new conceptual knowledge depends on the old. Students will
become more and more likely to simply memorize algorithms and apply them without
understanding.
Yet, for some reason, critics fail to accept this distinction or see the inherent paradox,
therefore, in education (discussed below). Novices need clear instruction and
simplified/scaffolded learning, for sure. But such early simplification will likely come back
to inhibit later nuanced and deeper learning not as a function of bad direct teaching
but because of the inherent challenge of unfixing earlier, simpler knowledge.
Perhaps part of the problem are the either-or terms that some researchers have used to
frame this discussion. The essence of the false dichotomy is contained in Clark,
Kirschner, and Sweller. Here is the introduction to the paper:
The goal of this article is to suggest that based on our current knowledge of human
cognitive architecture, minimally guided instruction is likely to be ineffective. The past
half-century of empirical research on this issue has provided overwhelming and
unambiguous evidence that minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less
effective and efficient than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive
processing necessary for learning.

Source : http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/conceptualunderstanding-in-mathematics/