The National Curriculum Board (2009) describes understanding of mathematics as building robust knowledge of adaptable and transferable mathematical

concepts, the making of connections between related concepts, the confidence to use the familiar to develop new ideas, the 'why' as well as the 'how' of mathematics (p.6). As mentioned in the introduction and acknowledged here; both conceptual knowledge, the "whys" of mathematics and the procedural "how's" of mathematics are required for mathematical competency, which ultimately supports students to "become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens" (MEETYA, 2008, p.8). Issues that arise with these approaches are commonly when one approach is dominated in the classroom (Brune, 2010). A clear example is through the pedagogical implications from teacher attitudes and understandings (Handal & Herrington, 2003; Stonewater, 2005). Stonewater's (2005) research found most teachers believed teaching was imparting knowledge onto their students (a dominating behavioural perspective) which then formed the basis for their teaching. It is argued that mathematical behavioural experiences are largely situated in decontextualised environments (Boaler, 2000) , involving explicit repetitious situations that do not build and internalise relationships required for conceptual understanding (Brune, 2004; Star, 2002) and instead produce a limited instrumental understanding of the concept (see figure, 3.4 (Van De Walle, 2004)) (Star, 2002; Van De Walle, 2004).

This has direct implications in the teaching of number and algebra, for example in the ability to transfer learning and build on new learning (Brune, 2004), such as applying place value in thinking strategies for addition and subtraction and through forming generalisations (Siemon et al., 2011), apply mathematical understanding in real life

situations (Goos, 2004) and thus in developing numeracy (Siemon et al., 2011; Sullivan, 2011). It is also argued that students can produce the desired behavioural characteristic and appear to understand mathematical concepts within explicit instruction approaches, however when using a different representations and conversing within an inquiry approach misconceptions can become evident (Siemon et al., 2011; Van De Walle, 2004). Again, in terms of number and algebra, students who are repeatedly exposed to MAB representations in learning place value can learn association of names to objects and correctly follow modelling, but may actually possess limited understanding of place value as a base ten numeration system (Siemon et al., 2011; Van De Walle, 2004). This is similar for numeracy procedures (see figure 3.3 (Van De Walle, 2004)), while some students can apply procedures to 'get the right answer', they may actually possess limited conceptual understanding surrounding their computations (Van De Walle, 2004), an inability to estimate to check if they are correct/incorrect and provide mathematical reasoning for their computation (Siemon et al., 2011).

Even the most skilful use of a procedure will not help develop conceptual knowledge that is related to that procedure (Hiebert, 1990).

Conversely researchers argue that a stringent focus on inquiry mathematics can overwork students working memory and ignores the benefits of utilising their longterm memory (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006; Sulliven, 2011). In relation to number, this can include automatic recall of facts, terms and procedures for computation fluency and efficiency (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006), such as recalling number facts like adding to ten and doubles. These facts are critical in mental computation (Chigeza, 2014), which contributes to fluency and reasoning within inquiry approaches such as problem solving and communicating mathematically (Siemon et al., 2011). Another significant issue for inquiry teaching is incompetency in scaffolding and differentiating within practice (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006) and developing the

problem for inquiry (Sullivan, 2011). This makes it clear that teachers need professional development. While contemporary understanding advocates for a balance in both approaches in teaching and learning in mathematics, creating the balance, establishing the relationship and the links between the two is also an issue for teachers (Bosse & Bahr, 2008; Brune, 2010; Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992; Star, 2002). Siemon et al. (2011) advocate to build conceptual understanding as a foundation to then introduce and understand procedures, such as the standard addition/subtraction algorithm. Hiebert & Carpenter (1992) argue that teaching this link should outweigh learning the usefulness of the procedure itself and Brune (2010) advocates that direct/explicit instruction should precede inquiry learning for conceptual efficiency. While this balance should always be within the minds of teachers, maintaining professional development and possessing appropriate attitudes is of highest importance in regards to considering these approaches, as Handal and Herrington (2003) suggest; teacher knowledge and beliefs regarding mathematics theories and approaches inform their teaching and consequently the way school students perceive and learn it.