INQUIRY MATHS:

AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME

Andrew Blair explains why inquiry pedagogy is not only compatible with teaching
mathematics, but also develops independent learners

nquiry is becomingincreasingly morerelevantto

UK mathematics classrooms. Over the last
four years, the Department for Education,
and examination boards, have mentioned the
processes involved in inquiry in ever more explicit
terms. The third assessment objective (AO3)of
the 2010 GCSE specification requires students
to interpret and analyse problems and generate
strategies tosolve them. The 2012 Ofsted
criteria describeinvestigation and the nurturing
of independence as integral tooutstanding
mathematics teaching. Now, one of the three aims of
the 2014 National Curriculum is to ensurestudents
can reason mathematically by following a line of
enquiry. Inquiry teaching seems to be an idea
whose time has come.
However, if that is the case, then teachers of
mathematics need to be convinced. Over the last
four years an EU project to promote inquiry-based
learning in schools has been running in 12 countries
to do just that. The project is called PRIMAS,
Promoting Inquiry in Mathematics and Science
Education, and, in partnership with NRICH, it has
organised three one-day teacher inspiration days in
the UK. Yet in PRIMASs own international survey,
UK mathematics teachers think inquiry teaching is
less motivating and less effective and, hence, use it
less than teachers in any of the other 11 European
countries. As the survey report says, inquiry-based
learning has not found its way into daily teaching
practice (PRIMAS, 2011b: 21).
Teachers doubts about inquiry relate to
epistemological issues and the classroom reality:
Inquiry, with its emphasis on everyday
experiences and inductive learning, is not a
legitimate pedagogy for mathematics.
The classroom constraints on inquiry, in the form
of curriculum pressures, students lack of skills,
and behavioural issues, are too great to make
inquiry anything else other than a peripheral
pedagogy in mathematics classrooms.
The inquiry teacher would challenge both of these
claims. Inquiry is compatible with the learning of
mathematics, leads to higher levels of motivation
and results in a deeper understanding of concepts
and of how to learn those concepts.
The nature of inquiry and the teaching of
mathematics
Inquiry as a pedagogy is primarily associated

32

May 2014

www.atm.org.uk

with John Dewey. Inquiry, in Deweys definition,

is a method of tested discovery that cultivates
deep-seated and effective habits of discriminating
tested beliefs from mere assertions, guesses and
opinions; to develop a lively, sincere, and openminded preference for conclusions that are properly
grounded (Dewey, 1997a: 27-8). The two main
features of his model of inquiry, using ordinary-life
experiences as a context for inquiry and inductive
learning as the process of inquiry, are causes of
concern for teachers of mathematics.
(a) Ordinary - life experiences
Dewey promotes everyday experiences to reinforce
students natural thinking, rather than attempting to
restructure thinking on the basis of subject-specific
knowledge. Education, he contends, is concerned
with the proper direction of natural powers, not
with creating them. As an experiential continuum,
the classroom should be made up of materials
and empirical situations that students face in their
ordinary lives outside school; the experience should
be as unscholastic as possible (Dewey, 1997b).
For Dewey, subject knowledge, which he
characterises as tentative, provisional and open
to testing, serves only as a site for forming inquiry
skills.
The idea that subject content is subordinate to
real-life experience and the inquiry process would
concern all teachers who have to comply with a
curriculum. Yet, many supporters of inquiry who
have doubts about Deweys emphasis on experience
would uphold the argument that content is ultimately
open to interpretation. Jerome Bruner, for example,
argued that Dewey misunderstood the power of
wider cultural concepts to bring order to empirical
observations: Progress towards abstraction
requires precisely that there be a weaning away
from the obviousness of superficial experience
(Bruner, 1966: 220). Nevertheless, Bruners view
of education as self-generating intellectual inquiry
incorporated the process of meaning-making by
which students construct personal understandings.
This idea also appears in Paul Cobbs description of
inquiry mathematics: the classroom ideal sees the
teacher and students acting in and elaborating a
taken-as-shared mathematical reality in the course
of their ongoing negotiations of mathematical
meanings (Cobb and Yackel, 1998: 163). If inquiry
is about constructing meanings relevant to a given
context, the classroom teacher might question
the ethics of a pedagogy that allows students to

INQUIRY MATHS: AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME

construct a wrong, or partial, understanding, even if

they find it temporarily meaningful.
PRIMAS, in giving an amalgamation of sometimes
contradictory ideas on inquiry-based learning, does
not respond adequately to these concerns. Yes,
it advocates a connectionist approach, in which
meanings and connections are explored , above
discovery learning and transmission teaching
(PRIMAS, 2011a: 7-8). Yet, for PRIMAS, the inquiry
teacher still aims to connect to students experiences
with real problems and authentic materials, while
learners are expected to construct meaningful
understandings (PRIMAS, 2011b: 7). For example,
an activity on the PRIMAS website,
http://www.primas-project.eu, which is described
as the extreme of inquiry for the freedom it offers,
involves students making a mathematical poster
about their morning. Others, which are more
artificially real life, require students to plan a party
and design a car park. In another example called, a
jigsaw puzzle, (admittedly an attractive activity on
proportionality), the teacher is explicitly told neither
to mention the key mathematical concept nor to
intervene in groups discussions in order for students
to construct personal meanings.
Inquiry as a means of developing knowledge in, and
out, of schools is not necessarily like this.
It does not have to start with everyday experiences;
a stimulus to inquiry can be a mathematical
statement, a diagram, or an equation. If the stimulus
is set just above the current knowledge of a class, it
can spark curiosity and questioning and encourage
students to rise above themselves. Similarly, there is
correct knowledge correct, that is, in the definition
of the mathematical community. Rather than be
allowed to construct contextually-appropriate
knowledge, students should aim to form a sociallyacceptable final and ideal understanding of
concepts, as Vygotsky put it, in order to apply maths
successfully. Moreover, it is permissible in inquiry
for the source of that knowledge to be teachers
instruction, especially if students identify the need
for and request instruction.
Classroom inquiry does not have to start with the
everyday, nor encourage a negotiation of meaning;
it is still inquiry if the stimulus comes explicitly
from within mathematics and the teacher instructs
students in concepts and procedures required to
advance the inquiry.
(b) Inductive reasoning
The second concern over Deweys inquiry
pedagogy relates to the process of learning. While
mathematics is a subject based on deductive logic,
inquiry methods rest on inductive reasoning
exploration, observation, and generalisation from
many examples. The pre-eminence of induction
gives rise to the question of whether inquiry is

compatible with the teaching of mathematics.

A close inspection of Deweys model, however,
reveals that he does include deduction as one
phase in the double movement of inquiry. The first
inductive phase involves bringing together partial,
or confused, empirical observations in a tentative
hypothesis; the second involves deduction, when
the plausibility of the hypothesis is tested against
particular data:
When pains are taken to make each aspect of the
movement as accurate as possible, the movement
toward building up the idea is known as inductive
discovery; the movement toward developing,
applying, and testing, as deductive proof.
(Dewey, 1997a: 81, bold italicised in original)
In his hypothesis-testing methodology, Deweys
definition of deduction incorporates the methods
of induction. Deduction is a process of designing
further experiences from which to derive more data.
This weak definition of deduction comes nowhere
close to the rigour of deductive reasoning used in
mathematical proof.
The second phase of Bruners model of inquiry,
analytic thinking, gets closer. He describes
deductive reasoning as deciding upon the validity
of an inductive generalisation by comparing it with
external criteria. However, as Bruner laments, the
learner often lacks the meta-knowledge to seek out
the relevant criteria and plan to use it in a logically
deductive manner. At such times, Bruner argues,
the student must signal her incomprehension to the
teacher, but he does not explain how the teacher
should respond if the ultimate aim is to preserve the
illusion of discovery (Bruner, 1967: 223).
For PRIMAS, deductive reasoning is linked to a
teacher-centred, transmission approach in which
students are the passive recipients of information
a form of teaching that is blamed for students
lack of enthusiasm for mathematics. Although
PRIMAS argues that the learning process should be
collaborative and guided by teachers and materials,
its prescription for mathematical inquiry is borrowed
directly from the inductive methods of science. In
being required to collect, document, and analyse
data and then select or construct representations,
students are required to follow the methodology of
a science experiment. In mathematics, however,
students should be encouraged to make conjectures
by analysing the structure of even just a single case
and prove that conjecture through careful deductive
reasoning. In conflating mathematics with science,
PRIMAS risks going further than even Dewey did
in downgrading the role of deductive reasoning in
mathematical inquiry.
The appearance of, at best, an incomplete deduction
and, at worst, its exclusion from inquiry reinforces
concerns that inquiry pedagogy is incompatible

May 2014

www.atm.org.uk

33

INQUIRY MATHS: AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME

with teaching mathematics. Yet, from the other

side, the characterisation of mathematics as a
solely deductive discipline is also problematic.
Certainly, deduction is the end of a process, but
induction plays a key role during the process:
Mathematics presented with rigour is a systematic
deductive science but mathematics in the making
is an experimental inductive science (Polya, 1971:
117). For Polya, induction suggests deduction
(Polya, 1954: 50) in that a general proof originates
in plausible reasoning about a particular case,
in insights accrued through exploration, and in
gaining confidence about an inference through
gathering evidence. For inquiry to be a legitimate
form of teaching mathematics, it must reproduce the
relationship between induction and deduction in the
doing of mathematics.
A model of inquiry teaching, therefore, should aim
to reconcile inquiry with the nature of mathematics
by combining inductive and deductive reasoning
in a flexible and responsive process. This might
involve cycles of induction and deduction, or even
the simultaneous use of both forms of reasoning
in different parts of the classroom with each
illuminating the other. Moreover, the teacher, as the
representative of the mathematical culture, should
not be apologetic for modelling deductive reasoning
or instructing students in what constitutes a proof.
Inquiry is not about independent discovery, but
about a collaborative process in which the teacher
introduces mathematically valid forms of reasoning
at a point when they are necessary and relevant.

inter-connected way. If the class does not have

the requisite inquiry skills, the teacher might play
a greater role in structuring, or guiding, the inquiry
(see Blair, 2008: 9 for the levels of inquiry). An
example demonstrates the advantages of inquiry.
We shall follow a year 11 class, GCSE target grades
B to D, as it inquires into the prompt:
The sum of two fractions equals their product.
The inquiry starts with students posing questions
and making comments:
Does it work if the fractions are the same?
How do you add fractions?
It doesnt work if you use 2/5 and 1/4 . The sum is
13
/20 and the product is 2/20
Can you use negative fractions?
You could use algebra,

c
a
and d .
b

Inquiry maths in the classroom

At this point of an inquiry, I provide cards to help

students regulate the direction of the inquiry.
Some students chose try to find more examples;
others opted for decide if the prompt is true, and
some students went with work as a table. As two
students requested the teacher to explain how to
add fractions, the student who found the sum and
product of 2/5 and 1/4 was called upon to explain her
methods. The teacher then reviewed the selection
of cards and agreed to a period of exploration for
students to work their way into the demands of the
inquiry. Students inquired together as a table if they
could justify their collaboration.

Inquiry has the potential to generate excitement,

curiosity and a deep commitment to learning, yet
teachers can be reluctant to open up lessons
to student control. The PRIMAS survey lists the
following reasons that teachers give for the low
frequency of inquiry-based lessons:

This initial inductive approach involved students in

randomly selecting empirical examples in search
of a general pattern. Students attempted to find out
what fractions work through a trial and improvement
method. On realising that proper fractions are unable
to fulfil the conditions of the prompt, because,

Under the pressure of exams, teachers do not

have the time to allow students to explore;
Students do not have the skills to inquire
independently; and
Students cannot cope with the open nature
of inquiries. They need objectives and a clear
structure set by the teacher to keep them on-task
and behaving well.
This has not been my experience of developing
inquiry maths ( www.inquirymaths.com ) over the
last decade. A well-designed prompt, or stimulus
to inquiry, offers multiple paths for exploration,
combines areas of the curriculum and is susceptible
to different forms of reasoning. After a period of
orientation, inquiries can develop very quickly with
students motivated to answer their own questions
and inspired to understand concepts in a deep and

34

May 2014

www.atm.org.uk

a
c
a
a
c
a
a c
+
>
and
x
< , where
,
b
d
b
b
d
b
b d

are proper fractions, some students turned to the

exploration of improper fractions. One presented his
pair of fractions that satisfied the prompt:
5

/2 5/3 , which led to a further inductive phase. This

ended with the classification of fraction pairs

/2 5/3 , 7/3 7/4, 9/4 9/5, etc. that share common
features. The class proposed a conjecture that for
the conditions in the prompt to be met:
5

The fractions are improper

The numerators are odd
The denominators add up to the numerator
The denominators have a difference of one.
This students constructed the general form as

INQUIRY MATHS: AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME

n
1

/2 n /2
1

and

n
1

/2 n + /2
1

The teacher proposed the alternative form

2n + 1
2n + 1
and
n+1
n
in order to demonstrate more easily, through the
methods used by the students in their numerical
examples, that the sum and product of these
algebraic fractions are equal. This was the end of
the first hour of the inquiry.
During that first lesson, a pair of students had
approached the prompt deductively in attempting
to generate numerical examples from an initial
abstraction. They started with
a
c
a
c
+
=
x
b
d
b
d

bc
,
cd
before going on to realise that c d has to be
a factor of b or c, or both, in order to meet the
requirement that a is a whole number greater than
one. Armed with this knowledge, students set out to
find a complete solution set. Importantly, they found
the pair of fractions 8/3 , 8/5 through substitution. This
represented a counter-example to the conjecture
advanced in the first lesson because it does not
conform to the second and fourth elements of
the conjecture. As the pair of students presented
their results, the class realised that their first
generalisation failed to encompass all possible
solutions.
and derived the relationship a =

Many students needed help to understand that n and

x could both be rational by reference to numerical
examples, but a small number were able to prove
that the sum and product of fractions of the type
2n
2n
and
are equal.
n + 2x
n 2x
In this inquiry, it is evident that students combined
inductive and deductive reasoning in a creative
process to develop conjectures and proofs, all
starting from a mathematical statement that aroused
their curiosity. Students had the opportunity to form
an understanding of algebraic fractions in line with
the GCSE syllabus, while simultaneously developing
the ability to monitor and regulate the inquiry.
Not only did the students experience
the process by which mathematics is
developed, they learnt the resilience and
skills required to become independent
inquirers.
Andrew Blair is head of mathematics
at Longhill School, Brighton.
Further details of the approach outlined in this article
can be found at www.inquirymaths.com.
Blair, A. (2008) Inquiry teaching, MT 211, 8-11
Bruner, J. (1966) After John Dewey, what?; In
Archambault, R. D. (ed.) Dewey on education:
appraisals, Random House

At this point, the inquiry divided into three paths.

One set of students opted to produce, and check,
more examples using the relationship between the
four variables a, b, c and d; another group decided
to use a positive even integer as the numerator and
experiment with the denominators. The smallest
group tried to devise and test a general form for the
new case, producing
n
n
and
n
n
/2 + 1
/2 1
2n
2n
which they simplified to give
and
.
n+2
n2
Thus, the second lesson encompassed adding
and subtracting fractions, rearranging an algebraic
formula, substitution, and expressing numerical
examples algebraically, even before considering the
types of mathematical reasoning involved.

Bruner, J. (1967) Toward a theory of instruction,

Harvard University Press.

At the start of the third hour, the question arose as

to how the two generalisations could be combined to
produce one all-encompassing general form in which
the numerator could be either odd or even. Students
set off to deduce the final rational expressions. Under
the teachers guidance, the class came up with
n
2n
or
(where n 2 x; n, x Q).
n
/2 x n 2 x

PRIMAS (2011a) Guide for professional

development providers http://
www.primasproject.eu/servlet/
supportBinaryFiles?referenceId=5&supportId=1247

Cobb, P. and Yackel, E. (1998) A constructivist

perspective on the culture of the mathematics
classroom; In Seeger, F., Voigt, J. and Waschescio,
U. (eds.) The culture of the mathematics classroom,
Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1997a) How we think, Dover Publications
(first published 1910)
Dewey, J. (1997b) Experience and education,
Touchstone (first published 1938)
Polya, G. (1973) How to solve it, Princeton
University Press (first published 1945)
Polya, G. (1990) Mathematics and plausible
reasoning, Princeton University Press (first
published 1954)

PRIMAS (2011b) Survey report on inquirybased learning and teaching in Europe

http://www.primas-project.eu/servlet/
supportBinaryFiles?referenceId=8&supportId=1247
May 2014

www.atm.org.uk

35

CONTENTS 240
30 years of experience within the teaching and learning of
mathematics. Teacher expectation can be a powerful force
for change.

Help the bee to find a honey drop:

Cylinders, triangles, symmetries
Alzira C. M. Stein-Barana

Students Blog

PAGE 30

Obituary for Kath Cross Anne Howarth

PAGE 31

This is an account of a classroom activity that seeks to

solve a relatively complex problem with the help of a
customised model. The visualization and understanding
required to resolve things is enabled by the model which,
as it is formed from acetate sheet, is transparent.

Inquiry maths: an idea whose time has come

Andrew Blair

PAGE 32

Inquiry is fundamental to working mathematically, and

this is recognised in one of the three aims of the National
Curriculum. However it seems that inquiry is often afforded
a lower priority than considerations of covering the
curriculum. Are these demands, on the classroom teacher,
mutually exclusive? The PRIMAS project, Promoting
Inquiry in Mathematics and Science Education, has been
promoting inquiry-based learning over the past four years
in 12 EU countries. This piece provides both the rationale
and motivation to restate the case that might secure
inquiry-based approaches to mathematics teaching for all
learners.
How much chocolate?
Is 2/9ths more than 3/13ths? Ruth James

PAGE 36

Chocolate and mathematics is, for some, likely to be

the stuff of dreams. However, here is a serious and well
considered classroom plot described in some detail.
Things start with an activity that seems to fit the learning
objectives for a group of Year 5 pupils. The potential for
assessment was clear, and the teacher and the pupils are
described as having history. Learners respond well to the
task, and much of the mathematics takes place through
mental processes. The learning is then showcased
through discussion, through peer-to-peer explanation, and
through conversation between friends and learners. Pupils
were hooked by the chocolate to consider mathematical
ideas. They became engaged in the learning and were
able to use their learning to communicate mathematically.
The classroom environment became a learning community
for the benefit of all those involved in the activity. The big
question has to be, How much chocolate was left at the
end of the activity? . Answers on a postcard
maybe.
Times Table Triangles Paul Stephenson
What role do errors have in the learning
of mathematics?
Jenni Ingram, Fay Baldry and Andrea Pitt

PAGE 39
PAGE 40

Errors are part and parcel of the learning process. Yet

errors have the power to demotivate and discourage
learners in the mathematics classroom. But, is the error
itself the demon in the room, or is the perception of error
exhibited by the teacher the source of the problem?
So often learners strive to supply an answer that will
match, what they guess is, what the teacher expects?
The suggestion here is that it need not be like this, and
there are simple classroom strategies that can change
perceptions of errors for the benefit of learners.

May 2014

www.atm.org.uk

Differentiation in mathematics classrooms

Mike Ollerton

PAGE 41

PAGE 43

Differentiation is a necessary feature of an effective

classroom. Differentiation must be part of the planning to
teach process. These statements are easy to agree with,
but beyond this agreement the reality is far from easy.
As the author notes, differentiation does not happen at
some spurious notion of three different levels; it happens
at as many different levels of cognition and depth of
sense-making as there are students in a class. So, is
it possible to plan for differentiation in an all-embracing
fashion when often the need for differentiation is a function
of the dynamic nature of learning and teaching? The
arguments are well made, and the classroom strategies,
tasks, and activities are far from complex. Maybe the
flipped classroom will become both commonplace
and a comfortable place for confident learners, where
differentiation is omnipresent.
Adding another row to the time-distance-
speed diagram Elena Litvinova

PAGE 48

This is an approach that has its origins in a different

educational system. Teaching and learning vary in both
content and approach in different societies. In the USA
solving word problems is, and has been, a challenge too
far for many learners. There will be many reasons for this,
and many attempts by teachers to overcome the factors
that inhibit facility. Here one attempt at making things
more accessible to the learner is described. The socalled 3-row approach is exemplified with word problems
and appropriate solutions. This might even be describes
as a lesson in a box for a busy teacher looking for an
alternative approach.
Maths Medicine 12 Dietmar Kchemann

PAGE 51

Another problem for the reader and students to work on.

There is a link to the web-site where suggestions for use
and a solution can be found alongside interactive files.
Addendum to MT239
Off on a Tangent by James Robinson was incorrectly
attributed to James Robertson in the contents list and the
strap line of the article. I would like to apologise for the
error, Margaret Jones, Editor.
Editor

Margaret Jones

Editorial Team

Ken Smith

Alison Clark-Wilson

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.