APPROACHES TO THE TEACHING AND

LEARNING OF MATHEMATICS

An interactive manual for mathematics education students

and mathematics educators by

Hercules D. Nieuwoudt, Ph.D., M.Sc.

School of Curriculum-based Studies

North-West University

Potchefstroom
2006
The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation, ESKOM
Community Development and the Centre for Reformation Studies is
gratefully acknowledged

ii
FOREWORD

Since early times people were expected to learn the so-called three R’s at school - and
this will most probably remain so. Although it may have been called by different
names, “mathematics” has always been one of these R’s. Thus, there can be little, if
any doubt that the effective learning of mathematics is of general interest. For long,
“effective” learning of mathematics, like mathematics, was viewed in product-terms,
i.e. as the reproduction of facts, rules and procedures. Mathematics teaching was
viewed in the same terms: it was “effective” to the degree the desired learning
products “resulted” from it. Such product-directed practices eventually resulted in a
very “sad” state of affairs, as far as mathematics education was concerned. End-users
of the education, learners, teachers and a host of other stakeholders have become
increasingly dissatisfied, discouraged - even disillusioned - by this situation.

Since the mid 1970’s a number of new methodologies, aimed at rectifying the “bad”
situation have emerged from different research programmes, mostly undertaken in
“new” paradigms of learning, particularly of mathematics. Unfortunately not all the
resulting teaching innovations were soundly based on equally “new” theories of
teaching as well. This resulted in some mathematics education programmes ending up
in “difficulties” with a host of interested parties. Hence, urgent steps need to be taken
to put teaching practices in mathematics classrooms on solid ground in order to
facilitate relevant and effective mathematics education of high quality in places of
learning. This is particularly true about the situation in South Africa. Teacher
education in South Africa has a vital role to play to start working towards sustainable
solutions for the problematic situation at classroom level. However, pre-service and
in-service teacher education programmes in this country seem to somehow have
“missed out” on many of the innovations, and programme seem to have been
continuing along the “traditional” routes as if all was well, with no real need for
change.

iii
Whatever the reasons for the described problematic situation may be, this manual is
aimed at addressing this “bad” situation, and it is wished that it could make some
meaningful contribution in this regard - but it can only be done effectively in a context
of co-operation and collaboration.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD iii

SETTING THE SCENE 1

1.1 Introduction and statement of the problem 1

1.2 Aims 2

1.3 Modus operandi 2

THE LEARNING OF MATHEMATICS 5

2.1 Orientation 5

2.2 The general question 5

2.2.1 What is learning? 5

2.2.2 When is learning meaningful? 8

2.2.3 What does understanding mean? 9

2.3 The particular question 10

2.3.1 What is mathematics? 11

2.3.2 What is meaningful learning of mathematics? 14

APPROACHES TO MATHEMATICS TEACHING 15

3.1 Orientation 15

3.2 Product-directed approaches to mathematics teaching 16

3.2.1 Traditional mathematics teaching 16

3.2.2 Active mathematics teaching (AMT) 19

3.3 Process-directed approaches to mathematics teaching 23

3.3.1 Orientation 23

3.3.2 Investigative mathematics teaching 24

v
3.3.3 Constructivist mathematics teaching 31

3.3.4 The problem-centred approach (PCA) 33

3.3.5 Cognitively guided instruction (CGI) 38

3.3.6 Realistic mathematics education (RME) 42

3.3.7 Synthesis 47

FINALLY 49

REFERENCES 51

vi
SETTING THE SCENE

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The effectiveness of mathematics education, and of any education for that matter,
depends on the degree to which teaching activities are being linked to relevant and
meaningful learning activities. In fact, effective teaching-learning practices cannot be
maintained without the support of grounded teaching and learning theories.
Furthermore, research concerning mathematics education convincingly shows that
teaching theories and practices are really lagging behind the progress that has been
made in the field of learning, leading to a situation where traditional teaching practices
just are not appropriate to facilitate or mediate meaningful learning of mathematics
with understanding anymore.

Hence, there is a need for teachers to be educated in “new” teaching approaches that
could effectively mediate and facilitate such learning of mathematics in their classes.
The past decade or so has seen the emergence of a number of “new” post-traditional
approaches to the teaching of mathematics. However, not one of these has yet proven
to be the “final answer” - as should have been expected, given the very nature of
teaching and learning as human endeavours in general, and of mathematics in
particular.

Research further shows that pre-service teacher education and in-service experience
and training, particularly in the field of mathematics, to a large degree have been
“continuing” and promoting traditional instructional and learning approaches in
mathematics classes. It could rightfully be argued that the mentioned gap between
learning theories and teaching theories and practices could have contributed to this
problematic situation in no uncertain manner.

A number of important and interesting problem questions could be extracted from the
above, each of which could and should be considered and investigated when
rethinking mathematics teachers’ pre-service and in-service education and training.

1
However, for the purpose of this manual the attention will be focused on the three
crucial problem areas only, namely:

 What is meaningful learning of mathematics (with understanding)?

 What approaches to effective mathematics teaching are currently being imple-

mented and how effective are these?

 How should and could teachers be trained to be able to implement effective

approaches to mathematics teaching?

1.2 AIMS

The main goal is to:

 Investigate prominent and contemporary approaches to effective mathematics

teaching and learning and to the training of teachers in this regard.

In order to realise this goal, after completion participants are expected to be able to:

 Analyse, discuss and apply the concept meaningful learning of mathematics with
understanding in practical terms;

 Analyse, discuss and evaluate certain prominent contemporary approaches to

mathematics teaching;

 Determine and evaluate ways and means to effectively train teachers to be able to
implement effective approaches to mathematics teaching.

1.3 MODUS OPERANDI

As was “announced” on the title page of this document this manual is meant to
facilitate and to support interactive learning, which means that interaction will be the
modus operandi in the proceedings. The nature of the intended interaction should be
qualified:

2
 First, interactions will be focused, intentional and contextualised, meaning that
interactions will be directed at specific problem questions or situations for a
specific purpose in the specific “realistic context” of this manual.

 Second, interactions should be constructive and cumulative, meaning that the

totality of interactions should be “building” toward the attainment of the goals of
the manual.

 Third, interactions are mediating and facilitating, meaning that all interactions are
to be utilised as opportunities for processing information into valuable and
applicable knowledge.

 Fourth, interactions will be demanding, meaning that interactions will demand of

all participants to accept responsibility and ownership for all activities.

 Lastly, all activities are intended to be interactive, even when the presenter or
whoever else is conducting a particular activity, all participants are encouraged to
freely engage into whatever interaction deemed appropriate at the time.

In short, all participants are expected to purposefully, actively and constructively

engage in investigative activities aimed at solving specific problems that are relevant
in the holistic context of the real workplace of each participant. The presenter’s role
will be to mediate, facilitate, guide and support the investigation process, and serve as
but one of the sources of information. Broadly, the “process” will proceed along the
lines of an adapted version of Polya’s classical programme for problem solving,
namely:

 Understand the problem, i.e. get to grips with the “real problem” that has to be
investigated and solved. In each case the presenter will briefly introduce the
problem in order to evoke a discussion of the “real problem”.

 Gather information, as much as possible from as many sources available in order

to be able to investigate the real problem situation at hand. Again, the presenter
will provide essential background information for discussion in whole and/or
small group context.

 Devise a plan to proceed, i.e. plan possible applicable strategies to solve the
problem. This will be done co-operatively and collaboratively in small groups.

3
 Implement the “plan” to obtain possible solutions. Again, small group co-
operation and collaboration will be the order of the day.

 Evaluate the appropriateness of obtained solutions, select “best” solutions in co-

operative and collaborative context, yet again.

 Analyse the process leading to the “best” solution(s) in small, as well as whole-
group context.

Next the three pivotal problem questions forming the focal points of this manual (cf.
1.) will be investigated, following the above programme in order to attain the set aims
of the manual (cf. 2.). Then conclusions will be drawn from the experience gained
from the investigations, followed by a practical assignment that could be undertaken
in the actual workplace with the co-operation and collaboration of colleagues.
References used to compile the manual and suggested additional reading material are
listed.

4
THE LEARNING OF MATHEMATICS

2.1 Orientation

The first pivotal question is:

What is meaningful learning of mathematics?

This question has to be answered in the general first, before it can be answered for
mathematics in particular. The general question “What does meaningful learning - i.e.
learning with understanding - comprise?” can be broken down into a number of sub
questions, namely:

 What is learning?

 When is learning meaningful?

 What does understanding mean?

Once these questions have been addressed satisfactorily, the particular question can
then be tackled, but only once the question “What is mathematics?” has been
answered properly.

2.2 The general question

2.2.1 What is learning?

Over the years researchers could not succeed in answering this seemingly simple
question, because they did not agree on the actual nature of learning, as they did not
depart from the same vantage point in this regard. However, they did agree that there
were different types of learning that had to be taken into consideration. Nowadays
learning theorists have come to some consensus on the question of the nature of
learning, in spite of different perspectives.

Traditionally learning was viewed from a product perspective. Learning was viewed
in terms of results or products. A topic was considered “learnt” if the learner could

5
demonstrate the correct result or product. The correct results were viewed to have
been acquired as a result of the “transfer of knowledge” from one person to another,
e.g. from the teacher to the student. Furthermore, the “transfer” was viewed in rather
rigid or static terms: the “process” of transfer was believed to follow rigid or static
routes. For instance, it was believed that teachers could cause desired results
consistently and predictably merely by applying specific well-defined teaching acts. In
practical terms it meant that demonstration of the “desired learning results” or “right
answers” was the final (and only?) criterion for learning (and teaching?) success.

A short intermezzo: Individually consider the following questions, and then discuss
your responses in groups of four:

 What could the “effects” of such a product view of learning be on learners in the
short and long term?

 What would a classroom be like where such a product view of learning is being
held by the teacher?

 To what extent are teachers in the Province holding a product view of learning
currently? And by their trainers and advisors?

Since the late 1970’s educational theorists and practitioners have started realising the
detrimental effects of a product view of learning on the quality, durability and
transferability of learning, and on the atmosphere and culture in classrooms. “New”
research, e.g. from a constructivist or information processing perspective, revealed a
complex dynamic process underlying learning outcomes. Hence, it became clear that
learning should rather be viewed in terms of the process leading to the desired
outcomes, than in terms of the products of the process as such. However, the
“process” itself could still be understood in fixed mechanical terms, i.e. the learning
process could be seen as a fixed sequence of predetermined steps to be followed to
consistently and predictably yield success. Thus, learning will still be viewed in rigid
and static terms, contradictory to the observed dynamic nature of learning. For this
reason it is preferable to think of learning as an act, rather than a process.

6
Questions for consideration:

 What advantages could result from viewing learning in process terms, rather than
in product terms?

 Are there any disadvantages that have to be considered?

Obviously, the “learning act” takes place in the mind of the individual learner, which
emphasises the learner’s inescapable and continuous involvement in, and
responsibility for, his/her own learning. Hence, it is appropriate view learning as an
“individual act”. Furthermore, it can now be argued that if the “learning individual”
does not control the act at least to some degree, or is not personally involved in it,
whatever learning outcomes may result could rather be attributed to coincidence, than
to intention.

The following valid questions now arise:

 How could the “learning act” be characterised?

 What are the “essential features” of the learning act?

 Can the learning act be compared to any other human act?

Cognitive science defines learning as an active, constructive, cumulative and goal

oriented processing of information into knowledge. Some theorists then add that the
learning act can best be characterised in terms of problem solving. This “problem
solving” needs further clarification: Imagine yourself being a traveller in a foreign
country with only a roadmap to help you to get around. The “thinking act” upon which
you will most probably rely on most of the time could be described as “problem
solving” - the same kind of problem solving that is meant when referring to learning.
Hence, learning essentially is an act of turning information that somehow is deemed
useful or significant, into knowledge that could later be used in resolving other
problem situations.

7
Problems to consider in groups of four:

 What are the practical implications of the characteristics or essential features of

the learning act for learning in and outside classrooms?

 What does the metaphor between problem solving and finding your way in a
foreign country with the help of a map only tell about problem solving?

 What does the metaphor between learning and problem solving tell about learning
in and outside the classroom?

2.2.2 When is learning meaningful?

Imagine each of the following five situations:

1. A father is patiently helping his son to build a model aeroplane, or a mother is

patiently helping her daughter to design a special garment.

2. Sitting in the waiting room of a physician, you pick up a document showing the
latest stock exchange figures and data.

3. A child who is interested in relativity theory tries to read Einstein’s thesis on the
topic.

4. An insurance broker is trying to convince you to buy a new policy from him by
showing you numerous statistics, graphs and tables concerning a specific
insurance company.

5. You are interested in pottery or handcraft and buy a practical manual coaching you
step by step to master the art.

Some reflection on these situations may prove to be useful, particularly with regard to
the essence of the learning act involved.

8
Consider the following questions concerning the degree of “sense” or “meaning”
in each situation - first individually, then in pairs:

 How “meaningful” is situation 1 to you? Why? And situation 3 to the child? Why?

 What is the essential difference between these two situations?

 What are the essential differences concerning the degree of “meaning” between
situations 2 and 3, 4 and 5, 2 and 4, and 3 and 5? Why?

Research has clearly shown that people best “make sense” of a situation, or “give
meaning” to it, when the situation is important, significant or relevant to them and
when they can contextualise it in such terms. In addition, sense making is promoted
when people are interested in the situation or resolving the situation, or when a
situation poses an acceptable challenge to them. There may even be more reasons or
factors determining the degree of meaning people give to situations.

This now leads to two important questions all teachers, trainers and instructors should
consider concerning the meaning their students are giving to what they are supposed
to learn:

 When will the students’ learning be most meaningful?

 What can be done to optimise the degree of meaningful learning?

2.2.3 What does understanding mean?

Teachers, instructors and parents often ask their pupils, students and children the
question “Do you understand?" to which the latter usually reply with “Yes, I do” or
“No, I don’t”. Students often request help from their teachers or instructors because
they “don’t understand the work”, or a child could respond to a seemingly clear
statement with “I don’t understand what you are saying”. But what exactly do these
people mean by what they are saying? How does someone “understand” or “not
understand” something?

9
In order to understand the concept “understanding” it is necessary to understand to
some degree how the human mind is working when saving bits of knowledge in the
long-term memory (LTM). Of course no one exactly knows how the human mind
really functions, but there is at least one appropriate model that enables people to
explain the functioning of the mind accurately enough to be able to understand
“concept formation”, “learning”, “understanding” and the like. This model could be
described as a “network model” of the LTM as it explains the working of the memory
in terms of “representations” of knowledge bits and “connections” between these
representations, similar to a road network connecting different localities (positions) or
a telephone network connecting people in different places.

According to the “network model”, the mind when processing information into
knowledge creates an internal representation of an external representation of a certain
object or concept. This representation is not stored in isolation, but in relation to pre-
existing representations (prior knowledge), i.e. the “new” knowledge bit is
“integrated” into the existing knowledge structure by linking it to existing bits.
According to Piaget this “integration” comprises assimilation of the new knowledge
into the existing cognitive structure, and the simultaneous accommodation of the
cognitive structure as a result of the assimilated bit. It is important to keep in mind
that both the new bit and the existing cognitive structure change as a result of this
integration. A restructured bit of knowledge is stored in a restructured cognitive
structure - not a “carbon copy” of a bit of knowledge in a linearly accumulating
knowledge store.

As a new bit of knowledge is assimilated it is connected to specific bits in the

cognitive structure, and as the cognitive structure is accommodated new and stronger
connections between the new and existing bits, as well between existing bits are
formed. The degree of understanding of a bit of knowledge depends on the number
and strength of valid connections connecting that bit to the cognitive structure. Hence,
a person understands a bit of knowledge once that bit has been integrated into the
person’s existing cognitive structure by means of a number of sufficiently strong but
valid connections to previously learnt bits of knowledge.

10
Two problems to consider in groups of four:

 Select any key concept from a course you are concerned with. Draw a picture,
scheme or mapping to illustrate what it means when it is said that a student
understands this concept.

 Under what conditions will a student be able to learn with understanding?

 Define “meaningful learning with understanding” in your own words.

2.3 The particular question

The question under consideration now is:

What does meaningful learning of mathematics with understanding comprise?

In order to be able to answer this particular question, the argumentation about the
general questions in the previous section will render essential information. However,
the perceived nature of mathematics needs to be taken into consideration first, as
people’s conceptions of the nature of what has to be learned tend to influence their
conceptions of what is meaningful during learning thereof.

2.3.1 What is mathematics?

The question “What is mathematics?” most probably is as old as mathematics itself.

Even in ancient times people, like the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, had
their differences in this regard. Plato viewed mathematics as a static but unified body
of absolutely true knowledge, originating outside the individual in the external world,
which human beings had to discover, not create, through rational activity.
Mathematics was viewed as a monolith, a static immutable product. In contrast,
Aristotle viewed mathematics from a relative “change and grow” perspective. To
Aristotle mathematics was “in the making” in the human mind, being continually
expanded through human creation and invention in which patterns are generated and
then distilled into knowledge. Mathematics was viewed as a process of enquiry,
coming to know and problem solving.

11
From a static absolutist perspective “doing mathematics” could be viewed as an
intellectual game being played according to logical and absolute rules by some
“gifted” people only. No wonder it is traditionally believed that mathematics is meant
for the “clever ones” only! And, no wonder the mathematics grade is often used
(misused?) as a selection criterion, e.g. for admission to medical studies. Like a head
master, and mathematics teacher himself, once declared:

“The math paper at the higher grade is but an IQ test. ... A student of
average intelligence should expect to rather achieve a little bit below
average, than slightly above average.”

The “essential features” of mathematics in this view are seen to be stable, perfectly
interconnecting structures and absolute truths, bound together by logic and intrinsic
meanings; in the words of some students, when asked about mathematics:

“There is no ambiguity about it. It’s just numbers and a formula and
there’s always a right answer and a wrong answer with no grey area in
between.”

“It is so logical.”

“It is precise with no exceptions to any rules, like grammar or

spelling.”

As the Platonist perspective has influenced mathematics education significantly since

early times, the practical implications of such a view of mathematics need thorough
consideration.

Question for discussion in the whole group:

What are the implications of a static and formalistic absolutist view of mathematics
for the teaching and learning practices in mathematics classes?

From a dynamic relativist perspective of mathematics, learning mathematics is seen as

doing mathematics, and doing mathematics as making mathematics. Hence,
mathematics is not seen as a finished product, but rather as a problem-driven process
of which the results remain open to revision, typical of the problem solving. It is

12
currently argued that such a dynamic problem-driven view of mathematics needs to be
considered as a basis for mathematics education. Thus, its practical implications also
need urgent consideration.

Question for discussion in the whole group:

What are the implications of a dynamic problem-driven view of mathematics for the
teaching and learning practices in mathematics classes?

Thompson (in Grouws, 1992) rightly points to a third view of mathematics which has
originated in time: “An instrumentalist view that mathematics, like a bag of tools, is
made up of an accumulation of facts, rules and skills to be used by the trained artisan
skilfully in the pursuance of some external end.” From this viewpoint, mathematics is
merely seen as a set of unrelated but utilitarian rules and facts. This view of
mathematics may have had an even stronger influence on mathematics education up to
now, than the Platonist view; therefore its practical implications need serious
consideration.

Question for discussion in the whole group:

What are the implications of an instrumentalist view of mathematics for the teaching
and learning practices in mathematics classes?

Research has shown that it is quite possible, in fact probable, that an individual
mathematics teacher’s conception of mathematics could include aspects of more than
one of the above - even seemingly conflicting aspects! Therefore, it may be
worthwhile to reflect on such “hybrid” and conflicting situations some more, in order
to be able to understand mathematics teachers’ practical views of the subject they are
teaching better.

13
Questions for consideration in small groups:

 Explain an example of such a “hybrid” and conflicting conception, which you

have come across.

 What is your answer to the topical question of this section?

When confronted with the topical question of the section, the mathematician Hersh
responded in a somewhat unusual (unexpected?) manner when he postulated:

“Mathematics deals with ideas. Not pencil marks or chalk marks, not
physical triangles or physical sets, but ideas (which may be represented
or suggested by physical objects). What are the main properties of
mathematical activity or mathematical knowledge, as known to all of
us from daily experience? (1) Mathematical objects are invented or
created by humans. (2) They are created, not arbitrarily, but arise from
activity with already existing mathematical objects, and from the needs
of science and daily life. (3) Once created, mathematical objects have
properties which are well-determined, which may have great difficulty
discovering, but which are possessed independent of our knowledge of
them.”

This section is concluded by a reflection on the above view of Hersh’s.

Questions for consideration individually and in small groups:

 How does Hersh’s view of mathematics compare with the three mentioned views
of mathematics?

 To what extent do you agree with Hersh’s view? Why?

 What are the main implications of Hersh’s view for the teaching and learning
practices in mathematics classes?

14
The attention can now be focused on the key question of the section. This will call for
yet another problem solving effort, based on the information, concepts, skills and
activities encountered thus far in this section.

2.3.2 What is meaningful learning of mathematics with understanding?

Problem to solve in small groups, and to be discussed in the whole group:

Using all the information, concepts, skills and activities in the preceding sections
concerning learning, solve the problem-implied by the above question.

Mathematics teaching, at all levels, should aim at facilitating and mediating the
meaningful learning of mathematics with understanding, at the specific level. The
question now arises as to what teaching approaches could be appropriate in this
regard. In order to be able to solve this crucial problem question, it is necessary to first
investigate prominent approaches to mathematics teaching, currently being used to
this end. This will be done next.

15
APPROACHES TO MATHEMATICS TEACHING

3.1 Orientation

It is neither possible nor necessary to give a “total overview” of all possible teaching
approaches and models that could be applicable in this manual. Hence, only the most
prominent but contemporary approaches’ essential features will be scrutinised here.
These approaches cannot be ordered chronologically, as some of them seem to appear,
disappear and reappear, and merge and separate in time. However, it is possible to
classify teaching approaches according to “tradition”, based on the underlying views
of and beliefs about mathematics education. The following four views of mathematics
teaching seem to be dominant in “traditions” of mathematics teaching, and could serve
as a suitable framework for the current investigations:

 Content-centred mathematics teaching with the emphasis on achievement aimed at

learning performance in respect of mastering of mathematical facts, rules and
procedures. This view is typical of the “traditional approach”.

 Classroom-centred mathematics teaching based on the effectiveness of the

structure of the classroom events. This view is typical of “active mathematics
teaching”, which is essentially based on the teacher’s active (teaching) role and the
learner’s responsive (learning) role in the classroom setting.

 Content-centred mathematics teaching with the emphasis on conceptual

understanding directed at the mathematical content itself, but aimed at the
learning thereof with understanding. Information processing approaches, such as
“direct instruction”, is typically based on this view.

 Learner-centred mathematics teaching aimed at the learner’s personal (re-)

construction of mathematical knowledge. Constructivist approaches, such as the
“socio-culturalist”, “cognitively guided instruction” and “realistic” approaches to
mathematics education are typically based on this view.

16
A close analysis of the above views suggests some connection between views of
learning and views of teaching, specifically in the case of mathematics. In addition,
research has shown a definite connection between these views and approaches being
followed in mathematics classrooms. For instance, a product view of learning, almost
without exception, goes hand in hand with a content-centred teaching view and an
equally “product-directed” teaching approach, such as the traditional approach. On the
contrary, a process-directed approach to the teaching of mathematics, such as the
“problem-centred approach”, generally is associated with a process view of the
teaching and learning of mathematics.

In view of this, in the following teaching approaches in mathematics are discussed in

two categories: product-directed approaches and process-directed approaches.

3.2 Product-directed approaches to mathematics teaching

3.2.1 Traditional mathematics teaching

Welch (in Stake & Easly, 1987) once typified this approach as follows:

“In all math classes I visited, the sequence of activities was the same.
First, answers were given for the previous day’s assignment. The
teacher or a student worked the more difficult problems at the
chalkboard. A brief explanation, sometimes none at all, was given of
the new material, and problems were assigned for the next day. The
remainder of the class was devoted to working on the homework while
the teacher moved about the room answering questions. The most
noticeable thing about math classes was the repetition of this routine.”

The cognitive psychologist Robert Davis (1981) added to this:

“[Mathematics] ... is commonly learned by rote; the student is told

what to do and how to do it, and that is about all that happens - that,
plus a substantial amount of drill and practice.”

At this point a number of critical issues regarding mathematics education in the North
West Province arise, which best could be reflected on in group discussions.

17
Critical issues to be analysed in groups of four to five, and afterwards discussed
in the whole group:

 What fundamental views of teaching and learning and of mathematics are

underlying the traditional approach to mathematics teaching, as typified by Welch
and Davis?

 What could the short and long term “effects” of such an approach be, for teachers
and students, and for mathematics education?

 To what extent do Welch’s and Davis’ observations typify North Western math
classes?

 How “desirable” is the current situation in North Western mathematics classes in

respect of the teaching approach being used?

Research has already revealed the limiting features of the traditional approach. In what
follows these, as well as some critical implications thereof, are indicated:

 Mathematics is seen as a static and bounded discipline to be taught and studied

within the boundaries of the discipline. This lead to the alienation of mathematics
from its “naturally” co-existing disciplines, like physical science and economics.
Furthermore, mathematics became fragmented in itself, as “sub disciplines” like
arithmetic, algebra, geometry and trigonometry, had been developed in isolation of
each other.

 The recorded knowledge of mathematical is seen as the total body of mathematical

knowledge. This lead to the over-emphasising of the “transfer” and “absorption” of
“other people’s” mathematical knowledge, instead of the provision of
opportunities for meaningful mathematical experience and self-activity; in the
words of the famous John Dewey:

“This massive record of knowledge, independent of its place as an

outcome of inquiry and a resource in further inquiry, is taken to be
knowledge.”

18
 According to an old Chinese saying one can give a child a fish when he is hungry,
or one could teach the child to fish, in which case he will have a meal for the rest
of his life. In this sense, the traditional approach at most succeeds in “giving” a
fish, instead of the ability to fish for oneself.

 The role of the teacher is seen to be mainly managerial and procedural in nature;
in the words of Romberg and Carpenter (in Wittrock, 1986):

“[Teachers’] job is to assign lessons to their classes, start and stop the
lessons according to some schedule, explain the rules and procedures
of each lesson, judge the action of students during the lesson, and
maintain order and control throughout.”

A real danger exists that this control and ordering of classroom events could
become an (the?) end of the mathematics teaching in itself. The teacher could
become so “possessed” with the feeling of “I am in control” that the learners are
denied essential opportunities to accept responsibility for, and to control, regulate
and monitor their own learning of mathematics.

 Routine, rather than creative activities are emphasised in classes, leading to a

situation where the textbook and the syllabus dictate choices and events to such a
degree that teachers and learners alike are being denied most, if not all,
opportunities for and challenges to creativity. As could be expected, the result is
low-level conceptualisation, ineffective mathematics learning, low levels of
motivation and interest, and high levels of boredom, frustration and, eventually,
anxiety.

 Mathematical learning proceeds algorithmically, rather than meaningfully. The

automatisation of standard procedures and final techniques are the order of the
day, further contributing towards the illusion that these form the essence of
mathematical activity. A low level of understanding of what is being done results
from this, leading to many a “buggy algorithm”, like “always subtract the smaller
from the bigger”. Furthermore, problem solving is misconceived as being the mere
application of already learnt facts, rules and procedures to obtain right answers to
word problems. Instead, problem solving has long been recognised as an effective
context for the meaningful learning of mathematics.

19
In conclusion, recent research has shown that the traditional approach is “build on
sand”, as its foundations are questionable, if not false. The fundamental views of the
human being, learning and teaching as human phenomena, and mathematics as human
activity upon which the approach is based, seem to be suspect, as they are not
supported by a grounded theory of mathematics teaching and learning. This point will
become even more evident when a final characterisation of traditional mathematics
teaching is considered in view of the argumentation in the preceding sections.

Problem questions to be discussed in co-operative context:

Romberg and Carpenter (in Wittrock, 1986) stated:

Traditional instruction is based on a metaphor of production in which students are

seen as ‘raw material’ to be transformed by ‘skilled technicians’.

 Analyse this characterisation, as well as the main implications thereof for

mathematics instruction in the North West Province.

 Evaluate the feasibility of traditional mathematics teaching in the context of

mathematics education in the North West Province. Motivate.

3.2.2 Active mathematics teaching (AMT)

In the 1970’s several research attempts were made to rectify the deficiencies of
traditional mathematics teaching. The most significant and influential of these was
undertaken in 1977 by Good and Grouws in the Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness
Project (MMEP). In typical “process-product” manner specific teaching behaviours of
proven successful teachers were correlated with desired learning outcomes in their
classes, and compared to the situation in relatively unsuccessful teachers’ classes. The
aim was to identify effective teaching functions that could constitute an effective
teaching model for mathematics, which later gained recognition under the name
“Active Mathematics Teaching” (AMT). In the MMEP teaching was viewed as the
cause of learning; hence, the success of the teaching was defined in terms of the
quality of the subsequent learning products.

20
Questions for individual consideration and group discussion afterwards:

 What fundamental views of learning and teaching seem to have been held in the
MMEP?

 What could the implications of these views be for the “effectiveness” of the
proposed teaching model?

The AMT programme yielded a sequential set of effective teaching functions that
served as the basis of the very powerful and influential direct teaching model
formulated by Rosenshine and Stevens in the early 1980’s. The direct teaching model
is still used and developed in many fields of education, but in a much more process-
directed manner than in the original AMT model.

As an example the key AMT functions are explained in the table below for a 45-
minute lesson. Although some traces of traditional teaching functions are evident in
the model, AMT seems to have overcome the “rich tend to get richer” problem of
traditional mathematics teaching. Furthermore, AMT seems to serve a “compensatory
function” in that it provides structure and support reducing the information-processing
burden, especially for the weaker learner. However, support such as this may be
unnecessary for able students, and may even inhibit creativity and initiative to some
extent.

The most prominent features of AMT are (1) the teacher’s central and active role in
all teaching-learning events, and (2) the high degree of achievement-directedness.
Hence, reasonable concern could be raised about the learners’ involvement in and
responsibility for their own learning. Indeed, AMT could result in a totally “teacher-
driven” exercise, providing little, if any, effective opportunity for every learner in
class to learn mathematics in a meaningful way. In AMT classes teaching could still
be “telling them what to do and how to do it”, and learning merely “following the
exact prescribed rules and directions precisely”.

21
Active Mathematics Teaching functions

1. Daily review [first 8 minutes except Mondays]

a. review the concepts and skills associated with the homework
b. collect and deal with homework assignments
c. ask several mental computation exercises

2. Development [about 20 minutes)

a. briefly focus on prerequisite skills and concepts
b. focus on meaning and promoting student understanding by using lively explanations,
demonstrations, process explanations, illustrations, etc.
c. asses student comprehension
(1) using process/product questions (active interaction)
(2) using controlled practice
d. repeat and elaborate on the meaning portion as necessary

3. Seatwork [about 15 minutes]

a. provide uninterrupted successful practice
b. momentum - keep the ball rolling - get everyone involved, then sustain involvement
c. alerting - let students know their work will be checked at the end of period
d. accountability - check the students’ work

4. Homework assignment
a. assign on a regular basis at the end of each math class except Fridays
b. should involve about 15 minutes of work to be done at home
c. should include one or two review problems

5. Special reviews
a. weekly review/maintenance
(1) conduct during first 20 minutes each Monday
(2) focus on skills and concepts covered during the previous week
b. monthly review/maintenance
(1) conduct every fourth Friday
(2) focus on skills and concepts covered since the last monthly review

In their original report Good and Grouws explicitly stated that, in spite of being well
trained (in the AMT mode?), teachers had experienced considerable difficulty in
applying the development function correctly and effectively. Careful examination of

22
this function shows that it represents the actual “heart” of the model, and that it shows
a marked resemblance with actions necessary to facilitate learning, pointing towards
possible shortcomings of AMT on its own to be the model for effective mathematics
teaching. It may only be effective in “causing” correct mathematical responses on the
short term, but less effective in facilitating meaningful and durable learning effect in
the long run.

Problems to consider in co-operative small groups:

 Evaluate the AMT model, as well as the above expressed concerns about it.

 Could AMT be adapted to be more “effective” in facilitating and mediating

meaningful learning of mathematics with understanding? Explain.

Using the vast body of information-processing research findings Rosenshine and

Stevens (in Wittrock, 1986) adapted the AMT model and postulated the direct
instruction model as an alternative to be considered for the teaching of well-structured
content areas, such as mathematics. However, the teacher basically still fulfils a
central and prescriptive role, proven to be effective only in situations of low level
learning of facts, rules and action sequences. In view of the “change and grow” nature
of mathematics as a discipline, the central role of high order thinking, such as pattern-
seeking, problem solving, abstraction and generalisation, in the meaningful learning of
mathematics with understanding, as well as the learning mediating view of teaching, it
is doubtful whether direct instruction could render the final answer to the question of
“effective mathematics teaching”. Although the direct instruction model currently
does show typically process-directed features, it still does not escape all the pitfalls of
teacher-centred approaches. Thus, prescriptive teaching by imposition could still creep
into mathematics classrooms, instead of learning mediating “teaching by negotiation”.

Assignment to consider in co-operative context:

Evaluate the direct instruction model and functions, as listed in the following table, as
well as the above expressed concerns about it.

23
The Direct Instruction Model

1. Daily review, checking of homework, recalling of prerequisite learning, and

stating of objectives

2. Systematic and structured presentation of new learning content in small steps,

maintaining a rapid pace, frequently checking for understanding, and providing
opportunity for guided practice after each step

3. Guided practice, frequently checking for understanding

4. Systematic feedback and correctives

5. Independent practice in class (seatwork), assigning of homework

6. Weekly and monthly review

3.3 Process-directed approaches to mathematics teaching

3.3.1 Orientation

The growing demands of the technological era and world increasingly emphasise the
need for the development of higher order thinking skills in school education.
Mathematics undeniably is an essential and integral part of the school curriculum, and
has an inescapable role to play regarding the development of the required thinking
skills and mastery of higher order learning tasks, such as conceptualisation,
abstraction, generalisation, problem solving, information-processing. In view of the
preceding discussions of product-directed teaching approaches it is unthinkable that
such “lower order” approaches could be deemed sufficient or appropriate to facilitate
the types of mathematical learning needed to prepare students for the real life situation
outside the classroom.

Therefore, mathematics educators have no other option but to resort to relevant

teaching approaches directed at developing the learning act (process) to such a degree
that students would be able to cope in, and to worthily contribute towards a better life
outside and after school. To this end, process-directed approaches have come to stay,
and have to be studied, implemented and developed in all school classes, especially in

24
mathematics classes. The discussion in the following sections is not an exhaustive
treatment of process-directed approaches, but is rather intended to be exemplary of
current trends in mathematics education.

3.3.2 Investigative mathematics teaching

One of the strongest criticisms against traditional and active mathematics teaching is
that the learner’s active participation in the teaching-learning situation is not fully
recognised. But how can the required high level of participation be accomplished in
mathematics classes? Jerome Bruner reportedly once said:

“The most personal of all that [man] knows is that which he has
discovered for himself.”

Richard Suchman (in Joyce et al., 1992) added to this, saying, “we learn best which
intrigues and puzzles us”, and “[learners] are naturally motivated to solve the puzzling
events [confronting them]”. In other words, learners have a “natural readiness to
investigate” and it just seems logical, if not natural, to utilise this readiness to create
learning opportunities in mathematics classes. In addition, such activities could
effectively create valuable opportunities for the learning of disciplined investigation
procedures, which are part and parcel of mathematical activity. In the words of the
problem solving expert Polya in his classical work “How to solve it”:

“If [a mathematics teacher] challenges the curiosity of his students by

setting them problems proportionate to their knowledge, and helps
them to solve their problems with stimulating questions, he may give
them a taste for, and some means of, independent thinking.”

To this he hastened to add:

“Thus, a teacher of mathematics has a great opportunity. If he fills his

allotted time with drilling his students in routine operations he kills
their interest, hampers their intellectual development, and misuses his
opportunity.”

Hence, it could be argued that mathematics teaching could be substantially improved

by utilising heuristic reasoning in the class situation. To this end the nature of
heuristic reasoning, i.e. the mental operations typically used in solving problems,

25
should be better understood by all concerned. Else, “learning investigations” could
just end up in the same old pitfalls, nullifying most, if not all, possibilities of any real
progress towards more effective learner participation.

As an example of an investigation consider the following:

Sample investigation in groups of four:

Consider the following typical school activity and answer the subsequent questions:

Activity:

A wooden cube is painted yellow, after which it is divided into equal cubes by
dividing each edge into the same number of equal parts and cutting parallel to the
edges of the original cube. How many sides of the respective smaller cubes are
painted? What if the different sides of the original cube were painted different
colours?

 Pretend to be the students involved and solve the posed problem. Reflect on the
“mental processes” utilised to do so.

 What could the objectives with this activity possibly be, i.e. what are students
supposed to learn from it?

 Pretend to be the teacher setting the problem, how could the situation be
“handled” in class? Why? E.g.: Should the students be “guided”? If so, how could
they be guided, and to what extent? What should the teacher’s involvement be?

 Discuss the features, possibilities, benefits and limitations (if any) of the activity
as an investigative or learning activity.

Now consider the following problem in small groups, referring to the experience
gained in the above sample investigation:

26
Problem to consider in co-operatively:

Investigations can be approached in a product-directed and teacher-centred way, or

in a process-directed and learner-centred way.

 What is the practical difference between these two approaches, and what benefits,
advantages and disadvantages are implied in each case?

The above-mentioned mental operations used to solve problems need clarification.

Recent research on mathematical investigations revealed the following key thought
processes or mental operations that are utilised when mathematical problems are being
solved. Reflect on the “cube activity” and decide whether these operations were
really executed in solving the problems.

Key thought processes involved in mathematical investigations

 Specialising
The mental operations are initially focused on the investigation of specific or
special cases.

 Building confidence
Through specialisation learners get acquainted with the specifics of separate of
special cases, in doing so they gradually get confident to proceed with the
investigation on their own.

 Becoming aware of generality

Learning becomes aware of the underlying “sameness” that occur in the special
cases, leading to tentative hypotheses being formed.

 Expressing generality
The perceived “sameness” is articulated and hypotheses are stated in own words.

 Checking and convincing

Hypotheses are tested and learners become convinced that the observed sameness
constitute “general properties”.

27
How does mathematical investigation typically proceed? The following four phases of
Polya’s classical heuristic model for problem solving form the basis of most, if not all
mathematical investigations. Reflect on the “cube activity” and decide whether these
“steps” were actually followed in solving the problems.

Polya’s heuristic model for problem solving

1. Understand the problem

It is crucial that for the learner to understand what the real problem is that has to
be solved and to know what information is available, what is not known and what
criteria should be met. In this initial phase the teacher mainly plays a leading role.

2. Make a plan
The problem and the gathered information should be connected in an appropriate
way and a plan should be made according to which the problem possibly could be
solved. To this end different solving strategies need to be considered, used and
combined. In this regard the teacher has a facilitating and guiding role to play.

3. Execute the plan

The plan is executed while each step is being (re-) considered and checked as the
process continues. At this stage the teacher mainly fulfils a supporting and
advisory role.

4. Assess the solution

The validity and suitability of the obtained solution(s) are to be checked and
assessed. In addition, alternative strategies to solve the specific problem are to be
considered and tested, as well as the application of the chosen plan in different
conditions. In this final phase the teacher acts as referee and manager.

A general teaching model based on inquiry as context for learning was developed by
Richard Suchman. The main features of this model are summarised in the following
table; steps should be considered from the perspective of teaching and learning in
mathematics classes. Reflect on the “cube activity” and predict how events would
have proceeded if the Suchman model were implemented.

28
The Suchman Inquiry Model

 The teacher selects and researches a puzzling situation that will create an interest
on the part of the students to discover an answer and then research the problem for
possible solutions. Special care should be taken that the problem closely resembles
or could be related to a real life situation.

 The teacher introduces the inquiry process to the class and presents the problem,
providing them with the means for recording data.

 Students ask questions for the purpose of gathering and verifying data while the
teacher guides them in the questioning, reinforcing the idea that this is a group
process.

 Students test various hypotheses, describe causal relationships and formulate

theories, which are to be examined in order to be accepted or rejected. The teacher
encourages students to experiment with a particular theory or idea, using whatever
means available.

 The class members discuss the rules or effects related to the theory and consider
how the theory can be verified and applied.

 The inquiry process is reviewed and the teacher and the class discusses the steps
in solving the problem, as the class gains more confidence with the inquiry process
they may (should) assume more (and more) responsibility for the process.

Problem for inquiry in groups of four or five:

 Select any “puzzling situation” from (1) the secondary school mathematics
curriculum, and (2) the didactics of mathematics, and treat it according to the
Suchman model.

 There was no “teacher” present in the preceding group activity when the approach
to investigations was investigated. Analyse this situation and compare it to a
situation where a “teacher” is present. Discuss the essential differences between
these two situations.

29
Since the inception of investigative mathematics co-operative small group activities
have been proven to be essential for the successful application of the approach in
mathematics classes. Furthermore, co-operative learning seems to add an essential
ingredient to the investigative approach without which the mentioned problems of
product-directed mathematics classes could not be conquered. Thus, it is currently
being advocated that co-operative and collaborative learning investigations in
mathematics classes should be the order of the day. A model specifically proposed for
mathematical investigation by Nick James is explained in the following table:

The James model for investigative mathematics teaching

 Do and talk
- Learners do practical activities and talk for their own understanding, linking
their
thinking aloud to action
- The teacher introduces the necessary language to enable them to talk about
what they are doing, and encourages them to explain it in their own words

towards

 Recording
- Learners explain their thinking to others, and talk for the others’ understanding
- They demonstrate their mental images either with objects or by sketches
- They record in writing what their sketches show
- They make successive representations or abbreviations of the process they
used in order to link concrete experience with abstract symbolism
- They can see the relevance of and adopt standard notations

with the result

 Practice and consolidation

- Learners use textbooks and practice what they have learnt to perfection

and

 Use of concept in problems

- Learners start to perceive the practical usefulness of a concept

30
Question for co-operative and collaborative discussion:

 Repeat the inquiry in situation (1) of the preceding small group assignment, this
time using the James model for investigation.

 How would the “cube activity” have proceeded according to the James model?

Unfortunately investigations as such do not necessarily ensure the effectiveness of

mathematics teaching. Evidently there are certain minimum conditions that must be
met in order to facilitate meaningful and learning provoking investigations in
mathematics classes. The already mentioned issue of the context in which
investigations are implemented is but one of the central questions that have to be
addressed. For instance, the investigations could be approached in a teacher-centred
prescriptive transfer context, but then much of the worth thereof will be lost, or from a
totally learner-centred “free discovery” context, but then substantial meaningful
progress at an acceptable pace may suffer.

Problem to be analysed in groups of four, and discussed in the whole group

afterwards:

 What conditions must at least be met to facilitate successful investigations in

mathematics classes?

This section is concluded with two problems to be considered co-operatively in small

groups, and discussed in the whole group afterwards, the one being more reflective in
nature and the other more practical. First, the reflective situation:

Reflective problem:

Rick Garlikov, a proficient “tertiary teacher”, recently noted:

“I think it is an important and reachable goal to want students to understand concepts

and information in a meaningful way, and to discover that meaning in the things they
are taught or presented with; but that is very different from discovering everything

31
they learn; and it is different from coming up with ‘meaning’ that they do not really
make any sense of.”

To which he added:

“But for discovery to work with students, it must itself be important or meaningful
discovery to them. Not just any discovery or problem will ‘grip’ or excite students in a
way that makes whatever they come up with memorable, meaningful, interesting, or
even reasonable or correct.”

And:

“... students won’t always remember things they discover for themselves or create for
themselves. ... after a while of not doing math ... much of that material has left [them];
and though some of it [they] can figure out again, much of it [they] cannot figure out
again because [they] have forgotten not only it, but too much of the stuff [they] used
to know that led to being able to figure it out.”

 Analyse and evaluate these statements, as well as the nature and role of discovery
(inquiry) in mathematics classes.

Finally, the practical situation:

Practical problem:

A traditional mathematics teacher realises that the conventional approach largely

“misses the point” of mathematics education and wishes to make a change for the
better. He/she is willing to explore the investigative approach as an alternative.

 What encouragement to proceed with the change could be given to help him/her to
do so?

 What advice can be given to help him/her make the change smoothly and
effectively?

32
3.3.3 Constructivist mathematics teaching

If traditional prescriptive “teaching by imposition” were to be seen to be on the one

extreme of a continuum of teaching approaches in mathematics, constructivist
mediating “teaching by negotiation” could be seen to be on the other extreme of this
continuum. Constructivism is a broad and often misused concept. Ernest von
Glaserfeld recently described constructivism as “a theory of active knowing” after
which he added, connecting to Piagetian theory: “From this standpoint knowledge
serves to organise experience, not to depict or represent an experience-independent
reality ... [it] claims that individuals organise their experience in their own subjective
ways.” Thus, constructivism is concerned with the unique way knowledge is
constructed, or rather reconstructed, in the individual mind. In practical terms it means
that the learner’s active, but subjective and relative “act of knowing” is emphasised in
the teaching-learning situation, even to such an extent that the role of external
influences in the acquisition of knowledge with “epistemological certainty” is
radically denied. This form of constructivism has been labelled “radical
constructivism”, and should clearly be distinguished from “social constructivism”. In
the latter the learner’s active participation in the building of concepts is undeniably
recognised too. However, following Vygotskian theory, it is accepted that through a
process of negotiation and social interaction, which is based on the learners’ different
cognitive strategies, teaching could contribute towards the reconstruction (or
“reproduction”) of ideas in the learners’ minds. For this reason the latter is also known
as “interactionism” or “socio-culturalism”.

As far as teaching and learning are concerned, they are strictly viewed from the
process perspective. It is taken as a fundamental point of departure in both forms of
constructivism that the learner “constructs his/her own knowledge”. Furthermore, the
inescapable, essential and crucial role of pre-existing knowledge (prior knowledge) in
the construction of “new” knowledge is taken as another point of departure, as is
evident from von Glasersfeld’s above stated ideas. However, “truths” about learning
such as these alone do not provide a sound basis for a teaching theory and approach to
be based on. Therefore, teaching approaches in mathematics based on constructivist
learning theories have been subjected to stern criticism because of such a lack of a
sound “didactical theory”. The critics argued that, in practice, the learner’s own

33
construction strategies could be over-emphasised to the expense of recognised
authentic mathematical experience and strategies, which are expected to be learned in
mathematics classes. This in turn could lead to the degrading of the teacher’s pro-
active supporting role in respect of learners’ mathematical development, merely to one
of facilitator of investigation or exploration, and nothing else. If this were the
situation, it could come down to a possibly deficient teaching-learning situation.
However, other than direct instruction or active mathematics teaching, the critics fail
to state a non-constructivist alternative that properly addresses the nature of
knowledge construction in the individual mind.

For clarity it should be stressed that the teacher’s crucial role regarding the provision
of a “rich” environment and relevant context in order to facilitate meaningful learning
of mathematics, as is, inter alia, recognised by socio-constructivists, cannot be, and
are not, disputed in the least. From literature it is evident that it is the way in which the
teacher fulfils this essential role that renders a major point of dispute between
constructivists and non-constructivists, as well as the issue of the mentioned “lack of a
viable non-constructivist alternative”, of course.

Questions to be considered individually and, afterwards, in co-operative context:

 Reflect on the above “cube activity” as a teaching-learning episode from a

constructivist view.

 Compare investigative and constructivist mathematics teaching.

 Reflect on the above-mentioned limiting features of constructivism as far as

mathematics teaching and learning is concerned.

 What contribution towards effective mathematics teaching practices could stem

from the constructivist tradition?

 What would be the key events in a “constructivist” mathematics class?

 How “dangerous” would a constructivist approach be in the hands of an

under/unqualified teacher? And a well-educated and “seasoned” teacher?

34
A number of constructivist-based approaches to mathematics teaching are being used
all over the world, especially in English speaking and European countries. In South
Africa the “problem-centred approach” (PCA), which is a social-constructivist
approach, is currently being proposed as a “best way” to approach mathematics
education at all school levels, as well as the tertiary level. Two explicitly
constructivist and one “related” approach are to be discussed in the following sections,
starting with cognitively guided instruction (CGI).

3.3.4 The problem-centred approach (PCA)

The PCA is based on social-constructivist views on teaching and learning. As such it

departs from the solving of meaningful problems as a context for teaching and
learning of mathematics. The emphasis is personal construction of mathematical
knowledge using “own strategies”, and not so much on “mathematically precise”
replication of prescribed concepts and procedures. It is, however, accepted that
“mathematical validity” should not be sacrificed. As an illustration of the PCA,
consider the following activity:

Small-group activity, followed by whole-group discussion:

 The following questions come from a problem-centred learning activity

concerning the concept of “average”. Work through the list in small-groups,
discussing responses in the whole group afterwards:

1. Define the notion “average”, without referring to how it is calculated.

2. Explain the meaning of “the average age of the people in this room”, and in a
grade one class, teacher included? And of “the average monthly earning” of a
person earning R100 a month for the months January to October, R1 000 in
November, and R10 000 in December?

3. What is the average value of a function over an interval [a;b]? Of f(x) = x3 over
[1;4]? And of f(x) = 2x + 1 over [1;4]? Or of f(x) = x2 over [-2;2]?

4. What is the average speed of a motorcar travelling from Johannesburg to

Mafikeng?

35
5. What is the average gradient of a function over an interval [a;b]?

 What is the meaning of the concept “average”? What can one do with the average
of data points?

 How do the preceding activities differ from “traditional” or “direct” teaching of

the concept “average”?

 Reflect on the activities as a teaching-learning episode, from the student’s side, as

well as from the teacher’s side.

It should be noted that, and how, mathematical rigour is gradually built during the
sequence of events, following a distinctively “open” strategy. The problem solving
sequence (usually) starts with a problem situation(s) taken from the learners’ field of
real life experience; the objective is to provide meaningful opportunity for
conceptualisation to take place; this is done in a totally non-prescriptive manner. Next,
the learners are expected to “unpack” the concept in different situations, before
progressing to the application of the concept in new situations. Reflection on what is
being done, and on how and why it is done, in individual as well as co-operative
small-group and whole-group context, is a central task in PCA activities.

Through this problem solving based open strategy the PCA strives to realise following
two goals in mathematics education:

 To develop problem solving skills in a mathematical framework in respect of

routine, as well as non-routine real situations.

 To use problem solving as a learning-type in order to enable learners to learn

mathematics and to solve problems.

In order to realise these broad goals the PCA aims at:

 promoting the acquisition of mathematical knowledge and skills;

 developing learners’ abilities to understand mathematical ideas, to solve problems,

and to effectively communicate in and through mathematics;

 promoting learners’ intellectual autonomy;

36
 contributing towards the creation of a positive self-concept as a learner in general,
and of mathematics in particular;

 developing a perspective that mathematics is meaningful and useful.

Questions to consider co-operatively:

 How appropriate could the “open” strategy of the PCA, as illustrated above, be in
realising the stated goals and aims?

 The above-stated goals and aims do not seem to differ much from the goals and
aims traditionally set for mathematics education. What then is essentially different
from traditional mathematics teaching in the PCA?

From the preceding paragraphs it is clear that problem solving forms the basis of the
teaching-learning events in PCA classrooms, i.e. problem solving is utilised as the
context for teaching and learning in mathematics classes. This has been found an
effective context for this specific purpose, not only by constructivist researchers, but
also by cognitive scientists or information processing theorists. However, Garlikov’s
statements which has been evaluated in the section on investigative mathematics
teaching, as well as the following timely ‘warning’ made by him, based on sound
observation and experience, should be heeded in this regard, namely:

“And ... students cannot discover everything themselves; discovery is

inefficient ‘teaching’ in many cases because it requires too much to
being with in order to make the desired discovery. There is good
reason it has taken thousands of people dozens of centuries to make the
discoveries civilization has; and it is ludicrous to think every student
can or will recreate those discoveries - as self-discoveries - on his or
her own ...”

Thus, the problem-solving context should not be treated as being the only teaching
and learning context in mathematics classes. In PCA research it was found that the
subject matter itself, in instances defines a most suitable or “best” context for the
teaching and learning of the specific mathematical content. This is particularly true in

37
cases where mathematical content is taught and learnt at a rigorous level; “pushing” of
“forcing” the realistic problem-context in these cases could be as anti-productive and
stressful as traditional prescriptive practices. For example, it is possible and preferable
that learners will discover and understand the distributive property of real numbers

a(b + c) = ab + ac

or its extension

(x + y)(a + b) = xa + xb + ya + yb

by analysing and investigating areas of rectangles of which the sides are subdivided
into parts. (How could this be done?) But when dealing with something as rigorous as
quadratic equations with irrational roots in an analytical way, the “mathematical
context” seems to be the preferable context for the required teaching and learning. Of
course, investigative activities with the aid of graphic calculators could help to
facilitate or mediate the required teaching and learning.

Similarly, students can meaningfully learn the “matrix” concept with understanding by
investigating practical problem situations leading to systems of linear equations. They
discover that it suffices to work only with the rectangular arrays of coefficients,
executing certain operations with the “rows” of the arrays. The realistic problem
context may even be effectively utilised for students to discover, learn and apply
matrix operations, such as addition, subtraction and scalar multiplication. However,
the mathematical context seems to be preferable when students have to learn and
apply matrix multiplication, which is inter alia needed as a tool to be able to solve
certain systems of equations by means of numerical ways.

In addition to the context, especially the problem solving context, social interaction is
the other keystone of the PCA; this is in accordance with the social-constructivist
roots of the PCA. According to Human and his co-workers social interaction is an
indispensable in mathematics classes for the following reasons:

 Social interaction creates opportunities for “learner talk” about their own thinking
that is essential for metacognition and reflective thinking, without which effective
learning cannot really happen.

38
 Learners do not only learn through their own constructions of knowledge, but from
other students too.

 Social interaction in classes promotes not only learner-learner relations, but

teacher-learner relations and interaction as well.

From the work of Cobb, Yackel and others it is evident that the events in a socially
interactive mathematics class in time starts showing regularities in the interaction
patterns, or social norms, which are realised through expectations and obligations.
These norms inter alia include:

 Students are expected to develop their own solutions to problems.

 Students are expected to explain their solution methods to each other.
 Students are expected to listen to and try to make sense of others’
explanations.
 Students are expected to ask questions and raise challenges when they don’t
understand or don’t agree with someone else’s explanation.
 Students are expected to persist on challenging problems.
 Students are expected to value meaningful activity over correct answers and
persisting on a challenging task over completing a large number of tasks.

Evidently the socially interactive mathematics class is characterised by discussions,

especially mathematical discussions, which show certain normative aspects that are
specific to the students’ mathematical activity. These “socio-mathematical norms”,
among others, include understandings of:

 What counts as a different solution

 What counts as a sophisticated solution
 What counts as an efficient solution
 What counts as an acceptable explanation and justification

From the above it is clear why it is argued that the PCA could contribute towards the
creation of a culture of collaboration and co-operation in mathematics classes. Such a
classroom culture has proven to promote a nurturing learning environment, as well as
effective learning in mathematics classrooms.

39
Problem to investigate in small-group and whole-group context:

 Evaluate the PCA as a “system for effective mathematics education” in schools,

but also elsewhere.

The final two approaches to be considered in this manual show remarkable

resemblance with the PCA as both of them have definitely been influenced by
constructivism to some extent. Therefore, in the following two sections, the attention
will mainly be focused on the essential deviations from or possible contributions to
the PCA. This will be done more to “complement” the PCA, than to “oppose” it or
state an alternative for it.

3.3.5 Cognitively guided instruction (CGI)

Different paradigms of research concerning teaching and learning have emerged as

alternatives for process-product research. One of these “alternatives” is research aimed
at investigating the cognitive processes related to teaching and learning in classrooms.
This research is based on the premise, as put by a research panel:

“It is obvious that what teachers do is directed in no small measure by

what they think. Moreover, it will be necessary for any innovation in
the context, practices and technology of teaching to be mediated
through the minds and motives of teachers.”

In their search for an innovative approach to teaching, researchers at the Wisconsin

Centre for Education Research at Madison have been studying teachers’ cognition,
and their decision making in particular, in classes for the past two decades. From these
investigations Fennema, Carpenter, Peterson and co-workers developed cognitively
guided instruction (CGI) as another “alternative” model for mathematics education. In
this model the teacher is viewed as a reflective, thoughtful individual, whose beliefs,
knowledge, judgements and thoughts have a profound effect on the decisions they
make before, during and after instruction, which in turn determine to a large extent
what students learn in their lessons (rephrasing Fennema et al. slightly). The diagram
in Figure 1 shows how the mentioned key elements interlock in the CGI model:

40
The teacher’s knowledge and beliefs need to be scrutinised more closely. The beliefs
held by mathematics teachers could be put on four different continua, namely:

1. Continuum I that goes from the belief that learners construct their own knowledge
to the belief that learners receive knowledge.

2. Continuum II that goes from the belief that skills should be taught in relation to
understanding and problem solving to the belief that skills should be taught in
isolation.

3. Continuum III that goes from the belief that, within a given culture, learners’
natural development of mathematical ideas should provide the basis for
sequencing topics for instruction to the belief that formal mathematics should
provide the basis for sequencing topics for instruction.

4. Continuum IV that goes from the belief that instruction should facilitate learners’
construction of knowledge to the belief that teachers should present knowledge.

Teacher's
knowledge

Teacher's Classroom Learner

decision-making instruction cognition
Learners'
learning
Teacher's
beliefs, Learner
views, conduct
attitudes

Figure 1: Cognitively Guided Instruction Model (Fennema et al., 1991)

Questions for consideration in groups of four:

 What knowledge does a teacher need to have in order to be able to be a “good”

mathematics teacher? Explain.

41
 How do the PCA, direct instruction and traditional teaching compare in respect of
the beliefs being held? Explain.

In order to understand CGI, it needs to be analysed in more detail. There are no

prescriptive “rules” for CGI, but it is rather built on principles that each CGI teacher
should consider when planning for, teaching in, and reflecting about mathematics
teaching. There are two basic CGI principles, namely:

 Instruction should be consistent with the learners’ natural conceptual

development and should be organised about the solving of problems. That is, the
instructional sequence should “respect” the sequence in which concepts and skills
naturally develop in learners, and it should be organised about the solving of a
large variety of problems.

 Instruction should be appropriate for each learner’s knowledge. This requires that
teachers assess each learner’s knowledge and skills regularly, and that they plan
instruction to take into account the wide range of knowledge and skills that exist
in any classroom at any given point in time. The assessment will reveal a variety
of strategies being used by learners to solve problems, and instruction should
attend to these different strategies as well, and not only whether solutions are right
or wrong.

Fennema et al. developed the major instructional components of CGI from these
principles, as follows:

 Instructional decisions should be based on what is known about each learner’s

cognitions and knowledge.

 Instruction should be organised to enable each learner to construct and understand

knowledge.

 Instruction should stress the relationships between concepts, problem solving and
skills.

 Instruction should be organised so that learners are mentally involved and gain
understanding and so that teachers can assess learners’ cognitions and knowledge.

42
 Instruction should encourage learners’ monitoring of their own thinking and
accepting responsibility for their own learning.

These principles and instructional components call for a moment’s rethinking and
reconsideration, to be done in small-group and whole-group context:

Problems for discussion:

 What learning view seems evident from these principles? And what teaching
view? Explain.

 Is CGI oriented towards cognitive science or towards constructivism? Why?

 Would events in a CGI classroom fundamentally or significantly differ from those

in a PCA classroom? Explain.

In accordance with both the cognitive information processing theory and the
constructivist view of learning, CGI aims at facilitating the learner’s thinking and
learning in mathematics by building instruction on what the learner already knows,
and facilitating learners’ active involvement in important mathematical learning tasks.
Therefore, CGI teachers are not expected to do certain (prescribed) things, but they
should rather use all possible opportunities to try to understand how the learners think
about and do mathematics. The emphasis should remain on what the learner is
thinking and doing, not what the teacher is to do.

Although it may seem that CGI is mainly focused on the cognitive aspects of the
learning of mathematics, the affective aspects are believed to be of the utmost
importance too. It is believed that all learners should feel that they are able to learn,
understand and do mathematics because of the effort they put into it and their ability
to figure out things for themselves. This means that the instruction should contribute
towards building the learners’ attitudes of self-reliance and confidence, and the
acceptance of responsibility for their own learning.

Problem to solve co-operatively:

 Describe the events in a typically CGI class, referring to a practical example from
the secondary mathematics syllabus.

43
 Determine a profile of a “good” CGI teacher, motivating and practically
illustrating each “feature”.

3.3.6 Realistic mathematics education (RME)

Since the mid 1950’s researchers at what is known today as the Freudenthal Institute
(FI), named after its founder, the famous Dutch mathematician and mathematics
educationist Hans Freudenthal, have been investigating the development of mathe-
matical thinking. These efforts lead to the emergence of “realistic mathematics
education” (RME), an approach to mathematics education in which the solving of
realistic problems, as a teaching and learning context, plays a central role. RME is
built about Freudenthal’s view of “mathematics as human activity” and his belief that
mathematics should be reinvented or discovered as such; it should never be presented
as a dehumanised ready-made product. This reminds of Aristotle’s view of
mathematics as being “in the making”; moreover, it shows the influence of another
great mathematician Brouwer’s constructive or intuitionist views of mathematics on
Freudenthal’s and his followers’ work.

In a nutshell, RME wishes to let learners investigate mathematical problem situations

in a realistic context, which then should lead to the formation of mathematical
concepts, first on an intuitive level, but gradually progressing towards more advanced
or sophisticated levels. The key principle underlying this is stated by De Lange as
follows:

“Depending on such factors as interaction among students, interaction

between students and teachers, the social environment of the student,
and the student’s ability to formalise and abstract, the student will
sooner or later extract the mathematical concepts from the real
situation.”

From the above it seems evident that RME will proceed in phases. The initial phase of
RME is that of what Freudenthal coined as mathematising which is the turning of a
non-mathematical matter into mathematics or mathematically underdeveloped matter
into more distinct mathematics. Mathematising comprises two processes: First, the

44
horizontal mathematising of matter from the world in which the learner lives to a
world of symbols; followed by the vertical mathematising of that matter within the
world of symbols. A concrete example to illustrate is necessary in order to make sense
of these concepts:

Problem to solve co-operatively

Give an example applicable to junior or senior secondary syllabus to illustrate the

concepts of horizontal and vertical mathematising.

Initially RME sets out to enable learners to horizontally mathematise concepts from a
real problem situation, and the realistic context particularly serves the purpose to
provide a source and opportunities for horizontal mathematising. Next learners are
provided with opportunities to vertically mathematise the possibly intuitive “new”
mathematical concepts into more formal concepts. During this stage of concep-
tualisation interaction between teacher and learners, as well as among learners,
together with the social environment of the learner, and their cognitive capacities have
proven to be of particular significance and importance.

Following on the initial stages of conceptualisation, formalisation and abstraction, the

“new” concepts have to be applied in new problem situations in order to further
reinforce the conceptual learning. This time the realistic context particularly serves the
purpose of providing an area for the needed application. It was found that the
application of newly learned concepts to new real problem situations leads to a
readjustment of the perceived real world, which in turn has clear implications for the
learning to follow in the “new” real context. In this respect it was found that learners
should be given opportunity to actively experiment with previously and newly
conceptualised ideas; they should be encouraged to make “free productions” and not
only mental contributions. In doing so the learners are “forced” to reflect on the path
they themselves have taken in the learning process and, simultaneously, to anticipate
its continuation. Moreover, the “free productions” could be very useful, even essential
in assessment.

Question to consider:

45
Currently assessment is viewed as an integral part of teaching and learning with the
first and main purpose to improve learning and teaching.

 How could active experimentation and free productions contribute towards this
goal of “authentic assessment” in mathematics?

The nature of RME, as is evident from the preceding paragraphs, seemingly suggests
that mathematical thinking may develop through progressive levels of complexity or
sophistication. In order to be able to understand RME, these “levels of mathematical
thinking” need to be scrutinised in more detail.

Pierre-Marie van Hiele and his wife Diena van Hiele-Geldof, both doctoral students of
Freudenthal’s laid the basis for the level theory of mathematical development, in the
mid 1950’s at the time. After the theory had been postulated it seemed to be forgotten
by researchers, but since the rediscovery of the Van Hieles work by Wirzup and
Usiskin in the mid 1970’s, the theory has been investigated and developed
extensively.

Originally the Van Hieles were only concerned with the development of geometrical
thought (spatial thinking), but recent research, such as the work being done at the FI,
revealed similar level structures in the development of number sense and algebraic
thinking, as well as other areas of mathematical or mathematically related thinking,
such as physics. Similar to Piaget’s developmental theory, the Van Hiele theory
postulates a hierarchy of developmental levels of thinking through which individuals
necessarily have to progress in time. However, contrary to Piaget’s ideas, it is posed
that the progress through the levels is not solely a function of maturation alone, but it
can significantly be influenced (accelerated) by teaching and learning, within certain
age-related limits, of course. In this the Van Hiele theory rather bears on Vygotsky’s
ideas on the significant role of communication and social life particularly regarding
sense-making, and on cognitive development, in general. Another crucial difference
with Piaget’s theory lies in the confirmed observation that an individual could on one
level with respect to a specific concept, but on another level with respect to a different
concept. For instance, a student could deal with number concepts at a high level, but
only at a low level with spatial concepts.

46
In literature one finds different numbers of Van Hiele levels being presented. Van
Hiele himself currently distinguishes three levels, as do current RME-researchers.
These levels will be discussed next:

1. The low level. In the algebraic sense learners at this level rely only on low-level
thinking in terms of specific objects, definitions, techniques and technical tools, as
well as elementary or standard algorithms. For instance, when solving the
following realistic problem, learners only need to use low-level algorithmic
thinking; thus, largely losing the “real problem context” in doing so:

We travelled 1000 kilometres by car, using 80 litres of fuel. On

average how far does our car travel on 1 litre of fuel?

Persisting with this kind of problem solving only inhibits the development of
higher order thinking skills, and thus progressing to the next higher level is
inhibited too. However, the importance of this kind of learning activity (realistic
problem solving) should not be underestimated, as mathematical thinking
commences at this level.

In the geometrical sense this level is characterised by “visual thinking”, i.e.

thinking in terms of the global visual features of objects, and not in terms of the
properties thereof. For instance, a student at this level would be able to recognise a
triangle from other figures, but would not be able to distinguish between isosceles
and equilateral triangles.

2. The middle of intermediate level, which is characterised by thinking in terms of

analysis and ordering of properties of objects, the making of connections,
integrating related issues, and problem solving. At this level a learner has to be
able to analytically describe a problem situation, such as in solving the following
problem:

You are travelling by car, starting with a full tank of petrol. After 2/3
of the way, you still have a 1/4 tank of petrol left. Will you be able to
get to your destination without refuelling along the way?

Solving this problem clearly requires a higher level of thinking than the previous
“travel problem”. Furthermore, comparison of this problem situation with the

47
 previous one reinforces the idea of progressing from the low level to the middle
level through teaching and learning.

In the geometrical sense this level is characterised by descriptive thinking, such as

needed to be able to distinguish between isosceles and equilateral triangles on the
basis of their distinct properties. A student at this level will, however, not be able
to formally prove a given triangle to be equilateral, for instance.

3. The high level, which is characterised by complex and sophisticated thinking,

including thinking required to communicate, to reason, to interpret, to reflect and
to generalise, as well as critical, creative and reflective thinking. For instance, in a
geometrical sense, thinking at this “formal level” is required to do formal or
rigorous proofs, such as in Euclidean geometry.

Applying a series of teaching and learning phases can bridge the "gap" or interval
between two successive levels of thinking, namely:

1. The information phase, during which learners are exposed to information and
materials with the purpose that they will be able to recognise their field of
investigation and to discover its structure.

2. The bounded orientation phase, during which learners explore their field of
investigation according to carefully planned and guided activities with the
provided information and materials; thus, progressively revealing the field’s
structure. This phase roughly corresponds with the above-mentioned notion of
“active experimentation”.

3. The explication phase, during which teachers and learners interact entering into
discourse over the objects of investigation, with the purpose that learners will be
able to connect acquired learning accurately with linguistic symbols, and to use
terminology correctly in context.

4. The free orientation phase, during which learners are encouraged to enter into free
or open investigations, in order for them to explore the specific field of
investigation wider and deeper, and to facilitate deeper understanding. This is
similar to the above-mentioned “free productions”.

48
5. The integration phase. The objective is for learners to attain an integrated view of
the investigation activities, as well as the field of investigation; therefore, the
interaction in the class is aimed at encouraging learners to reflect on their
investigations and thinking, and at consolidation of the learning that has taken
place. In addition, learners are assisted in relating the current field of investigation
with previous or other known ones.

Questions for consideration:

 Evaluate geometry teaching as it is traditionally executed in Northwest schools in

view of the features and implications of RME.

The emphasis being put on the realistic and interactive problem-solving context, as
well as on the influence of the social environment, is indicative of the resemblance
RME bears with social constructivism and the PCA. However, RME distinctly differs
from constructivist approaches in the following respects:

1. Constructivist approaches rely on a theory of epistemology and of learning, but

RME relies on a theory of teaching and learning.

2. Constructivist approaches are based on a general theory of epistemology and

learning, while RME is based on a theory specifically developed for, and in
mathematics.

Problems for investigation in small-group context:

 What are the key implications of RME for teaching and learning practices in
mathematics classes in the North-western Province?

 Reflect on the differences between RME and constructivist approaches.

 Experience in the Netherlands and the USA has shown that although RME
definitely holds potential and promise for effective mathematics education,
teachers seem to experience practical problems implementing it successfully.
Reflect on possible reasons for this problematic situation.

49
3.3.7 Synthesis

From the preceding sections it is evident that “the ideal approach” to the teaching and
learning of mathematics does not exist, and will probably not be found easily, if at all.
In fact, all known approaches seem to have definite advantages, but some serious,
even detrimental, disadvantages or limitations as well. Lee Shulman (in Wittrock,
1986) made this observation regarding education in general, and suggested a possible
way to resolve or circumvent this dilemma, namely through a process of responsible
and grounded hybridisation of different approaches. However, this may prove to be as
hard an assignment as to “make” any single promising approach fully workable in all
practical aspects!

This section is ended with a moment’s pondering on the way forward:

Problem to consider individually, and to discuss in the whole group:

Reflect on the above-stated dilemma and propose a possible way forward towards
more effective teaching and learning practices in mathematics classes in Northwest
schools. Should the construction of a “hybrid” approach be attempted? Or would it be
better to implement the “most promising” one? If so, which one?

50
FINALLY

This manual is not concerned with teacher education in the first place, nor is it
intended to reflect on certain teacher education practices. However, it would be a total
waste of precious time, and a spoiling of a good developmental opportunity, if some
time is not spent on the key implications of the preceding argumentation for the
“didactical training” of mathematics teachers, particularly in the North-western
Province. In this regard, it should be kept in mind that whatever may apply to teaching
and learning in mathematics classes, could also apply to training practices prevailing
in colleges of education, technikons, universities and universities of technology.
Moreover, it could be argued that there should be some coherence and congruence
between the practices in the actual teaching-learning situation, and the preparation of
teachers for that situation. Hence, the following and final problem to consider in this
manual:

Problem to consider individually, and to discuss in the whole group:

Determine the key implications of the most promising of the discussed approaches to
mathematics teaching and learning for the didactical training of mathematics teachers.

In this manual the traditional, as well as a number of contemporary approaches to the

learning and teaching of mathematics have been scrutinised. The discussions and
investigations highlighted specific factors that need to be accounted for in any
approach aimed at effective teaching and learning of mathematics. These include the
intentionality of classroom events, the roles of the teacher and learners, social
interaction, problem solving, a viable context for teaching and learning, the real life
situation, the context created by the subject matter itself, developmental and cognitive
processes, to name but a few. It could be argued that failure to account for these would
result in yet another failing approach, which could not only inhibit any possibilities for
real and significant learning, but which could even have a permanently damaging or

51
destructive effect on learners’ mathematical growth and development, in particular,
and their “educational” growth and development, in general.

Moreover, if the same factors were not appropriately accounted for, and addressed in
teachers’ preparation to fulfil their task in mathematics classes, the possibility of
mathematics teaching that could facilitate meaningful learning of mathematics with
understanding may be decreased greatly, if not nullified. All educators and advisors of
these teachers need to accept their full responsibility in this regard - just like teachers
and learners are expected to accept their respective responsibilities for their own
teaching and learning.

Indeed, the search for effective approaches to mathematics teaching and learning is a
central issue, which needs to be addressed on a continuous basis, and will most
probably remain to do so.

52
REFERENCES

ARTZT, A.F. & NEWMAN, C.M. 1990. Co-operative learning. Mathematics

Teacher, 83(6): 448-452.
BATTISTA, M.T. 1994. Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6):462-470.
BEREITER, C. 1994. Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper's World 3.
Educational Researcher, 23(7):21-23.
BORICH, G.D. 1988. Effective teaching methods. Columbus: Merrill.
BROPHY, J. 1986. Teacher influence on student achievement. American
psychologist, 41(10):1069-1077.
BURNS, M. 1994. Arithmetic: the last holdout. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6):471-476.
CAISSY, G. 1986. Developing curriculum for the information age. Education
Canada: 21, Summer.
CAMPBELL, P.J. & GRINSTEIN, L.S. eds. 1989. Mathematics education in
secondary school and two-year colleges. New York: Garland.
CHARLES, R.I. & SILVER, E.A., eds. Research agenda for mathematics education:
the teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving. Volume 3. Reston,
Va.: LEA/NCTM.
COBB, P. & YACKEL, E. 1994. Interactive seminar. [Seminar on problem-centred
mathematics education at CESA, Pretoria, 18-19 August 1994.]
COBB, P. 1988. The tension between theories of learning and instruction in
mathematics education. Educational Psychologist, 23(2):87-103, Spring.
COBB, P. 1994. Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on
mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7):13-20.
COHEN, A. 1993. A new educational paradigm. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10:791-795.
COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO THE TEACHING OF MATHEMATICS. 1982.
Mathematics counts. (The Cockcroft Report). London: Her Majesty's Stationary
Office.
CONFREY, J. 1993. Forging a revised theory of intellectual development: Piaget,
Vygotsky and beyond. (Paper read at the Canadian Mathematics Education Group,
28-31 May 1994.)
CORNO, L. 1988. The study of teaching for mathematics learning: views through two
lenses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2):181-202, Spring.

53
DAVIS, R.B. 1984. Learning mathematics. The cognitive science approach to
mathematics education. London: Croom Helm.
DAVIS, R.B. 1992. Understanding "understanding". Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 11: 225-241.
DE LA ROSA, B. 1990. Nuttige verwysings na die aard van die wiskunde.
Pythagoras, 23:39-40, July.
DILLON, R.F. & STERNBERG, R.J., eds. 1986. Cognition and instruction. London:
Academic Press.
DOYLE, W. 1988. Work in mathematics classes: the context of students' thinking
during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23(2):167-180, Spring.
DRIVER, R., ASOKO, H., LEACH, J., MORTIMER, E. & SCOTT, P. 1994.
Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher,
23(7):5-12.
ERICSON, D.P. & ELLETT, F.S. 1990. Taking student responsibility seriously.
Educational Researcher, 19(9):3-10.
ERNEST, P. ed. 1991a. Mathematics teaching. The state of the art. New York: The
Falmer Press.
ERNEST, P. 1991b. The philosophy of mathematics education. London: The Falmer
Press.
ESLER, W.K. & SCIORTINO, P. 1988. Strategies for teachers. Raleigh:
Contemporary Publishing.
FENNEMA, E., CARPENTER, T.P. & PETERSON, P. 1991. Teacher's decision
making and cognitively guided instruction: a new paradigm for curriculum
development. Pythagoras, 27:27-35.
FORD, M.I. & KUHS, T.M. 1991. The act of investigating: learning mathematics in
the primary grades. Childhood Education, 67(5):313-316.
FOWLER, S., VAN BRUMMELEN, H.W. & VAN DYK, J. 1990. Christian
schooling: education for freedom. Potchefstroom: PU for CHE. [Wetenskaplike
bydraes of the PU vir CHO. Series F: Institute for Reformatorical Studies. F3:
Collections. No. 39.]
FRANK, M.L. 1990. What myths about mathematics are held and conveyed by
teachers? Arithmetic Teacher, 37(5):10-12.
FREUDENTHAL, H. 1973. Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Reidel.
GARLIKOV, R. 1995. Teaching and learning empowerment: ownership and
discovery. [E-mail: Originated by Rick Garlikov {owner-eara-c@asuacad@
cunyvm.cuny.edu}]

54
GOOD, T.L. & GROUWS, D.A. 1979. The Missouri mathematics effectiveness
project: an experimental study in fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71(3): 355-362.
GROUWS, D.A., COONEY, T.J. & JONES, D., eds. 1988. Research agenda for
mathematics education: perspectives on effective mathematics teaching. Vol. 1.
Reston, Va.: LEA/NCTM.
GROUWS, D.A., ed. 1992. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning. New York: Macmillan/NCTM.
GUNTER, M.A., ESTES, T.H. & SCHWAB, J.H. 1990. Instruction. A models
approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
HERSH, R. 1979. Some proposals for reviving the philosophy of mathematics.
Advances in Mathematics, 31:31-50.
HOUSE, P.A. & COXFORD, A.F., eds. 1995. Connecting mathematics across the
curriculum. 1995 Yearbook. Reston, Va.: NCTM.]
HUMAN, P.G., MURRAY, J.C. & OLIVIER, A.I. 1989. A mathematics curriculum
for the junior primary phase; preliminary teachers guide. RUMEUS, University of
Stellenbosch.
HUMAN, P.G., MURRAY, J.C. & OLIVIER, A.I. 1992. The problem-centred
approach: a synopsis. Problem-centred learning of mathematics. [Manuscript used
during inservice training by Cape Education Department.] Cape Town.
HUMAN, P.G., OLIVIER, A.I. & MURRAY, J.C. 1992. Problem-centred learning of
mathematics. RUMEUS, University of Stellenbosch.
HUMAN, P.G., OLIVIER, A.I. & MURRAY, J.C. 1993. Enkele kritiese kenmerke
van probleemgesentreerde wiskundeonderwys. RUMEUS, University of
Stellenbosch.
JAMES, N. 1990. Investigative approaches to the learning and teaching of
mathematics. Pythagoras, 24:11-16.
JOYCE, B., WEIL, M. & SHOWERS, B. 1992. Models of teaching. 4th ed. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
KAUR, B. & OON, K.K. 1992. Heuristics: what's that? The Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 48(2):16-17.
KROEZE, J.C.W. 1989. Teaching high school mathematics. Pretoria: Academica.
LAPPAN, G. & FERRINI-MUNDY, J. 1993. Knowing and doing mathematics: a new
vision for middle grades students. The Elementary School Journal, 93(5):625-641.
LERMAN, S. 1990. Alternative perspectives of the nature of mathematics and their
influence on the teaching of mathematics. British Educational Research Journal,
16(1):53-61.

55
LERMAN, S. ed. 1994. Cultural perspectives on the mathematics classroom.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
LERMAN, S. 1996. Intersubjectivity in mathematics learning: a challenge to the
radical constructivist paradigm? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
27(2):133-150, March.
LESTER, F.K. 1994. Research and teacher education: in search of common grounds.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6):608-636.
MURRAY, J.C., OLIVIER, A.I. & HUMAN, P.G. 1993. Learning through problem
solving and social interaction. [Paper read at the 17th PME Conference in Tokyo,
Japan, July 1993.]
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS. 1989. Curriculum
and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, Va.: NCTM.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS. 1991. Professional
standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, Va.: NCTM.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS. 1995. Assessment
standards for school mathematics. Reston, Va.: NCTM.
OLIVIER, A.I., ed. 1991. Mathematics Proceedings. Fourteenth National Convention
on Mathematics and Science Education, University of Cape Town, 1-5 July 1991.
Cape Town: MASA.
ORTON, A. 1987. Learning mathematics. Issues, theory and classroom practice.
London: Cassell.
POLYA, G. 1973. How to solve it? A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton,
NJ.: Princeton University Press.
PRAWAT, R.S. 1992. Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist
perspective. American Journal of Education, 100(3):354-395.
PRESMEG, N. 1991. Applying Van Hiele's theory in senior primary geometry: use of
phases between the levels. Pythagoras, 26:9-11.
RESNICK, L.B. 1988. Treating mathematics as an ill-structured discipline. Pittsburg
University, Pa. [Learning Research and Development Centre. Research report.]
SAUNDERS, W.L. 1992. The constructivist perspective: implications and teaching
strategies for science. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3):136-140.
SCHOENFELD, A.H. 1988. When good teaching leads to bad results: the disasters of
"well-taught" mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2):145-166,
Spring.
SHUELL, T.J. 1988. The role of the student in learning from instruction.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13:276-295.
SHUELL, T.J. 1989. Teaching and learning as problem solving. Theory into Practice,
29:102-108.

56
SHUELL, T.J. 1990. Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research
60(4): 531-547.
SKEMP, R.R. 1978. Relational understanding and instrumental understanding.
Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3):9-15.
SKIBA, A.E. 1990. Reviewing an old subject: math anxiety. Mathematics Teacher,
83(3):188-189.
STAKE, R. & EASLY, J. eds. 1987. case studies in science education. Urbana, Ill.:
University of Illinois.
STEYN, I.N. 1988b. What is teaching? Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Opvoedkunde,
8(2):159-163.
STODOLSKY, S.S. 1985. Telling math: origins of math aversion and anxiety.
Educational Psychologist, 20(3):125-133.
STREEFLAND. L. ed. 1993. The legacy of Freudenthal. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
SUTHERLAND, P. 1985. The teaching of primary mathematics from a brunerian
perspective. Westminister Studies in Education, 12:99-107.
TAYLOR, L. 1993. Vygotskian influences in mathematics education, with particular
reference to attitude development. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,
15(2&3):3-17.
TEPPO, A. 1991. Van Hiele levels of geometric thought revisited. Mathematics
Teacher, 84(3):210-221.
TREFFERS, A. 1987. Three dimensions. Dordrecht: Reidel.
VAN HIELE, P.M. 1986. Structure and insight. A theory of mathematics education.
Orlando: Academic Press.
VAN HIELE, P.M. 1991. Levels of thinking. (Address delivered on 31 October 1991
at the PU for CHE, Potchefstroom.)
VON GLASERSFELD, E. ed. 1991. Radical constructivism in mathematics
education. Mathematics Education Library. Volume 7. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
WIRSZUP, I. & STREIT, R. eds. 1992. Developments in school mathematics
education around the world. Volume 3. [Proceedings of the Third UCSMP
International Conference on Mathematics Education, 30 October - 1 November
1991.] Reston, Va.: NCTM.
WITTROCK, M.C., ed. 1986. Handbook of research on teaching. New York:
Macmillan.
YAGER, R.E. 1991. The constructivist learning model. Towards real reform in
science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6):52-57.

57