INVESTIGATION, PROBLEM SOLVING

AND PEDAGOGY

1. Mathematics Results from Human Problem Posing and Solving

Social constructivisan indentifies mathematics as a social institution,

resulting from human problem posing and solving. Mathematics is probably

unique in the central place it fives to problems, which can remain unsolved but

of great interest for thousands. Often the technique devised to solve them

represent major advances int mathematics. Thus problem also serve as growth

ponts for mathematics.

A number of philosopers have identified problems and promlem

solving as lying at the heart of the scientific enterprise. Laudan (1977)

explicity proposes a Problem (or cultures) pernitting critical discussion,

problem solving is the essential characteristics, Hallett (1979) proposes that

problems should play a key role in the evaluation of mathematical theories. He

adopts the Hilbert Criterion, that theories and research programmers in

mathematics should be jugded by the extent to which they aid the solution of

problems. These approach both acknowledge the importance of problems in

scientific progress, but they both share a focus on the justification rather than

the creation of theories. This is the contet of justification contrasted by

Popper (1959) with the contect of discovery, which he disparages.

Since the time of Euclid, or earlier, the emphasis in presentations of

mathematics has been on deductive logic and its role int he justification of

mathematical knowledge. This is one of the great achievements opf

mathematics. But the emphasis on theorems and proof, and in general on

justification, has helped to buttresss traditional absulutist views of

mathematics. Recognition of the central place of problems and problem

solving in mathematics reminds us of another tradition in the history of

mathematics, one which emphasizes the contect of discovery or creation.

From the time of the acniet Greeks, it has been recofnized that

systematic approches can facilite invention in mathematics. Thus, for example,

Pappus wrote a tratise which distinguished between the analysic and synthetic

problems solving methods. The farmer involves separating the logical or

semantic component or premise or concausion, wnereas the ratter involves

bringing novel elements into play and attempting to combine them. This

distinction has recurred throughout history, in recent times has been used by

psychologists to distinguish different levels of cognitive processing (Bloom,

1956).
Since the Renaissance, a number of important methodologists of

science have attempted to systematize creation in ways that are forerunners of

mathematical heuristics. Bacon (1960) proposed a method of dinduction for

arriving at hypotheses, which were then to be subjected to testing. In order to

facilities the genedisi of inductive hypotheses, he proposes the construction of

systematic tables of results or facts, organized to show similarities and

differences. Such proposals, published in 1620, antivipate the heuristics of

modern researchers on mathematical problem solving, such as Kantowski,

who specified Heuristics processes related to planning ... Searches for pattern

.. Sets up table or matrix (Bell et al., 1983, page 208).

In 1628 Descartes (1931) published a work embodying twenty-one

rules for the direction of the mind. This proposes further heuristics, many
explicity directed at mathematical invention. These invlude the simplication of

questions, the sequental enumeration of example to facilitate induvtive

generalization, the use of diagrams to and understanding, the symbolization of

relationships, the representation of relationships by algebraic equations, and

the simplication of equations. These heuristics anticipate many of the

heuristics published 350 years later as aids to teaching problem solving, such

as in Mason et al, (1982) and Burton (1984).

In the 1830s Whewell published On the philosophy of discovery,

which gave an account of the nature of scientific discovery (Blake et al.,

1960). He proposed a model of discovery with three stages: (1) clarification,

(2) colligation (induction), and (3) verification, each of which has a number of

components and methods attached. Whewell was largely concerned with

empirical science, although he believed, following Kant, that necessary truths

occur in both mathematics and science, Nevertheless, there is a striking

analogy between his model of discovery and that proposed by Polya (1945)

for mathematics, a century later. If two of the stages of Polyas model are

combined, the result is (1) understanding the problem, (2) devising a plan and

carrying it out, and (3) looking back. There is now an exact paralled between

the function of these stages and those in Whewells model.

This, together with the previous examples, serves to show how much

of the recent thought on mathematical invention and problem solving in

psycology and education has been anticipated in the history and philosophy of

mathematics and science. Evidently the theory of mathematical invention has

a history comparable to that of the theory of justification. However, it is not

recognized in most histories of mathematics. On the contrary, this century,

until Polya (1945), it would seem that writings on mathematical discovery

have tended to mystify the process. Thus, for example. Poincare (1956) both

emphasize the role of intuition and the uncoscious in mathematical creation,

implicity suggesting that great mathematical have a special mathematical

factuly which allows them to myssteriously pierce the veil surrounding

mathematical reality and truth. This view of mathematical invention

supports elistist, absolutist views of mathematics, by mystifying its human

creation.
Such views are confirmed by the values attached to mathematics.

Mathematical activity and discourse take plase on the three levels of formal,

informal and social discourse of mathematicss. In western society, and in

particular, in the culture of the profesional mathematician, these are valued in

descending order. The level of formal mathematical discourse is reserved for

justificatory presentations of mathematics, which is accorded high value.

Informal mathematical discourse takes place at a lower level, which is

assigned a lower value. But mathematical acitivity and the creation of

mathematics naturally takes place at the informal level, and this means that is

has lower status (Hersh, 1988).

Such distinctions and valuations are social construcs, which can be

scurtinized and questioned. In earlier chapters, an account of social

construktivism is given which inter-relates the creation of subjective and

objective knowledge in mathematics. This suggests that the contexts of

discovery (creation) and justification cannot be completely separated, for

 justifications, such as proofs, are as much the produsct of human creativity as

consepts, conjetures and theories. Social constructivism identifies all learners

of mathematics as creators of mathematics, but only those obtaining the

critical assent of the mathematical community produce bonafide new

mathematical knowledge, i,e, that which is legitimated (Dowling, 1988). The

mathematical activity of all learners of mathematics, provided it is productive,

involving problem posing and solving, as qualitatively no different from the

activity of profesional mathematicians. Non-productive as opposed to creative,

comparable to frozen mathematics (Gerdes, 1985).

2. Problems and Investigations in Education

Given that a major part of mathematics is human problem posing and

solving, and that this is an activity which is accesible to all, then important

consequences for education follow. These consequences, which also depend

on the values and principles specified in the last chapter, include the

following:
School mathematics for all should be centrally concerned with human

mathematical problem posing and solving.

Inquiry and investigation should occupy a central place in the school

mathematics curriculum.
The fact that mathematics is a fallible and changing human construction

should be explicity admatted and embodied in the school mathematics

curriculum.
The pedagogy employed should be process and inquiry focused, or else the

previous implications are contradicted.

One outcome of these principle is that mathematics for all becomes

mathematics by all (Volmink, 1990).

a. Problems and Investigations: Some Distructions
 Problem solving and investigational work have been a widespread

part of the rhetoric of British mathematics educations since Cockroft

(1982). Worldwide, problem solving can be traced further back, at least to

Brownell (1942) and Polya (1945), and probably earlier. By 1980, in a

selective review of reserach in mathematical problem solving. Lester

(1980) cited 106 research references, representing only small proportion of

what had been published by then. In British mathematics educations,

problem solving and investigations probably firs appeared on the scene in

the 1960s, in the Association of Teachers of mathematics (1966) and the

Association of Theachers in discussing problems and investigations is that

these concepst are ill defined and understood differently by different

authors. However, there is agreement that they both relate to mathematical

inquiry. Thus, there are a number of preliminary duistictations which can

be usefully apllied to both of them. For it is posiblle to distinguish the

object or focus of maquiry, the process of inquiry and an inquiry based

pedagogy.
1) The object of Inquiry
The object or focus of inquiry is either the problem it self or the

starting point of the investigation. One definitation of a problem is a

stituation in which an individual or a group is called upon to perform a

task for which there is no readily accessible algorithms which

determines completely the method of solution. It should be added that

this definition assumes a desire on the part of the individual or the

group to perform the task. (Lester, 1980 287). This definition indicates
the non-routine nature problems as taks which require creativity for

their completion. This must be relativised to the solver. It is also

relative to a matehmatics curriculum, which specifies a set of routines

and algorithms. The definition also involves the imposition of a task on

an individual or a group, and willigness or compliance in performing

the task. The relationship between an individual (or group), the social

contexct, their goals, and a task, is complex, and the subject of activity

theory (Leontev, 1987: Christiansen and Walther, 1986). In

particularm the relationship between teacher and learner goals is

complex, and it is not possible to simply transfer one to the other by

command.
The concept of an investigation is problematic for two reasons.

First of all, althought investigation is a nount, it desribes a proces of

inquiry. Thus a dictionary definitation of investigation is The acrion

of investising: search, inquiry, systematic examination; minue and

careful research. (Onions, 1944, page 1040). However, in

matehmatics education there has been a shift in meaning, or a fairly

widespread adoption of a curtailed facon de parle, which identifies a

matehmatical investigation with the matehmatical questions or

situation which serves as its starting point. This is a metonymic shift in

meaning which replases the whole activity by one of tis components

(Jakobsen, 1956). The shift is also teacher-centred, focusing on teacher

control through setting an investigation as a task, analougs to setting

 a problem, in contrast to a learner-centred view of investigation as a

learner directed activity.

The second problem is that whist investigtions may begin with

a matehmatical situation or question, the focus of the activity shifts as

new questions are posed, and new situations are generated and

explored. Thus the object of the inquiry shifts and is redefined by the

inquirer. This mens that it is of limited value to identify an

investigation with the original generating situation.

2) The proces of inquiry

Contrasting with the object of inquiry is the proces of inquiry it

self, although these cannot be separated entirely, as we have seen in the

case of investigations. If a problem is identified with a question, the

process of matehmatical problem solving is the activity of seeking a

path to the answer. However this procss cannot presuppose a unique

answer, for a question may have multiple solutions, or none at all, and

demonstrasing this fact respresents a higher order solution to the

problem.
The formulation of the process of problem solving in terms of

finding a path to a solution, utilizes a geographical metapjor of trail-

blaxing to a desied location. Polya elaborates this metaphor. To solve a

problem is to find a way where no way is known off-hand, to find is

not immediately attainable, by appropriate means. (Krulik and Reys,

1980, page 1). This metapjor has been represented spatially (Ernest,

1988a, Fig. 8). Since Nilson (1971) it has provided a basis for some of

the research on matehmatical problem solving, which utilizes the

nation of a solution space or state-space representation of a problem

(which) is a diagrammatic illustration of the set of al states reacable

from the initial state. A state is the set of all expressions that have been

obtained from the initial statements of the problem up to a given

moment. (Lester, 1980, page 293). The streght of the metaphor is that

stages in the process can be represented, and that alternative routes

are integral to the representation. However a weakness of the metaphor

of the metaphor os the implicit matehmatical realism. For the set of all

moves toward a solution, including those as yet un created, and those

that never will be created, are regarded as pre-existing, awaiting

discovery. Thus metaphor implies an absolutist, even platonist view of

matehmatical knowledge.
The geographical metaphor is also to the process of

matehmatical investigation. The emphasis is also applied to the process

of matehmatical ivestigation. The emphasis is on exploring a piece of

matehmatics in all directions. The journey, not the destination, is the

goal. (Pirie, 1987, page 2). Here the emphasis is on the exploration of

and unknown land, rather than a journey to a specific goal. Thus whilst

the process of matehmatical problem solving is described as

convergent matehmatical investigatons are divergent (HMI, 1985).

Bell et al, (1983) propose a model of the process of

investigation, with four phases: problem formulating, problem solving,

verifiying, integration. Here the term investigation is used in an

attempt is used in an attempt to embrace the whole variety of means

 of acquiring knowledge. (Bell at at., 1983, page 207). They suggest

that matehmatical investigation is a special form, with its own

characteristic components of abstrating, representing, modelling,

generalizing, prowing, and symbolizing. This approach has the virtue

of specifiying a number of mental process involved in matehmatical

investigation virtue of specifying a number of mental process involved

in matehmatical investigation (and problem solving). Whilst other

authors, such as Polya (1945) include many of the components of the

model as process of problem solving, the central difference is the

inclusion of problem formulation or problem posing, which precedes

promblem solving. However, whilst the proposed model has some

empirical basis, there is rationale or justificatons for the choice of the

components or their relationships.

3) Inquiry based pedagogy
A third sense of problem solving nd investigations is as

pedagocial approaches to matehmatics. Cockroft (1982) endorsed these

approaches under the heading of teaching styles, although the

terminology emoloyed does not make the distinction between mides of

teaching and learning. One way of contrasting inquiry approaches is to

distinguish the roles that the shift from guided discovery, via problem

solving, to an investigatory approach involves more than matehmatical

process. It also involves a shift in power with the teacher relinquishing

control over the answers, over the methods applied by the learners, and

over the choice of content of the lesson. The learners gain control over
 the solution methods they apply, and then finally over the content it

self. The shift to a more inquiry-orientated approach involves

increased learner autonomy and self-regulation, and if the calssroom

climate is to be consistent, a necesarry accompaniment is increased

leraner self-regulation over classroom movement, interaction and

access to resources.
Problem solving and matehmatical investigation as teaching

approaches require the consideration of the social context of the

classroom, and its power relations. Problems solving allows the learner

to apply her learning creatively, in a novel situation, but the teacher

still maintains much of her control over the content and from of the

insruction. If the investigational approach is applied so as to allow the

learner to pose problems and questions for investigation relatively

freely, it becomes empowering and emancipatory. However, the

characteristics that have been specified are necessary but not sufficient.

However, the characteristics that have been specified are necessary ut

not suffucient for such an outcome. What is also neded is the

communication of a progressive or fallibilitis view of matehmatics

through classroom experiences. This deempphaizes the uniqueness and

correction of answers nd methodsm abd centres instead on humans as

active makers of knowledge, and the tentative nature of their creations.

Table 13.1. A Comparison of Inquiry Methods for Teaching

matehmatics

Method Teachers role Students role

Guided Poses problem, or chooses Follows guidance.

Discovery situation with goal in mind.

Guides student toward

solution or goal.
Problem Solving Poses problem. Find own way to solve the

Leaves method of solution problem.

open.
Investigatory Choses starting situation for Defines own problems

Approach approves student choices. within situation.

Attempts to solve in his/her

own way.

b. Different perceptions of Problem and Investigation

One of the outcomes of the above distinction is that different

interpretations can be given to problem and investigation, and theiur role

in the teaching of mathematics.

Rejection of problem solving and investigations

The strongest negative reaction to problem and investigations is

their rejection as in appropriate to school mathematics. This is based on

the perception that shool mathematics is content orientated, and that its

central function is to inculcate basic mathematics skills. In contrast

problems and investigations are seen to be frivolous, squandering or time

that should be given over to hard work.

This is response from the industrial group. In particular,

investigational work is explicity ooposed (Froome, 1970, Lawlor, 1988).

This group has a marrow view of mathematical content because of its

dualistic epitomology In addition, the industrial trainner theory of teaching

is strongly ooposed (Lawlor, 1988). Loos of power over learners and the

encouragement of emancipatory educational strategies are anathema to this

prespective.

The incorporation of problems and investigations as content

A second group of responses to problems and investigations is to

treat them as additional content to be adjoined to a content driven

mathematics curriculum. Thus they are perceived as objects of inquiry

used to enrich teaching, and niot in terms of the learners processes or the

pedagogical approach adopted for mathematics. In particural,

investigations are not understood in terms of problem posing.

In their different ways, both the old humanist and technological

pragnatist ideologies share this view. Both are based on absolutist

philosophies of mathematics. Both largely see problems as ays of

enriching the content of the mathematics curriculums, an more or less

identify investigations with problems.

The old humanist perspective values problems as non-routine

applications of knowledge, as an important means for the demonstration of

learning, undeerstanding and talent. However, this perpective is concerned

to transmit the body of pure mathematics knowledge to learners, so

investigations are not understood in terms of problem posing by learners.

The technological pragmatist perspective valies and encourages

apploed promblem solving, and mathematical modelling. Thus problem

solving is understood in terms of pratical (real) problems, leading to

tangible outcomes. Mathematical investigations are subsumed into this

conception of problems, or understood as puzzles. Thus Burghes (1984),

representing this perspective, categorizes investigtions into (1) eureka

investigations (which are puzzles), (2) escalator investigations (process

or combinatorial problems), (3) decision problems and (4) real problems.

This dimension is ingnored or denied. Overall, problems and

investigations are identified with objects of inquiry, and treated as adjuncs

to the content of the curriculum, except that the mathematical modelling is

understood in terms of processes.

Problem solving and investigtions as pedagogy

The third group of perspectives see problem solving and

investigation as pedagogical approahes to be whole curriculum, and not

just an addition. Such views arise from philoshpies of mathematics which

see it at least as a growing field of knowledge, if not as a social

construction. These views are concerned with the role of human beings in

the growth of knowledge, and hence reflect the process of mathematical

problem solving and investigation in the curriculum. The full

incorporation of these processes into the curriculum, including problem

posing, leads to a problem solving and intevistigational pedagogoy.

The progresisve educator perpective is concered to facilitate

individuals creativity in in mathematics, and problem solving and

investigation are perceived to be central to this. Thus problem solving and

investigation are understood both in terms of the learners processes and

the pedagogical approach adopted in the clasrroom. In support of this

pedagogy learners are offered carefull structured environments and

situations for mathematical explaration, encouraging them to formulate

and pursue their own investigations. The role the teacher is understood in

ways what support this pedagogy, as manager of the learning environment

and learning resources, and facilitator of learning. The range of subjects

for investigation is likely to be restricted to pure mathematical situations,

or thematic topics concering safe as opposed to political issues. In

keepong with the overall ideology, the emphasis is on the individual

student and their interests, and not the structural context in which they

live, study and will eran a living.

The public educator accepts much of the previous perspectives

views of a problem solving and investigational pedagogy, but adds a socio-

political dimension. Thus the pedagogy adopted by this approach will

involve a number of features which fasilitate investigational approaches,

including coperative groupwork and discussion, autonomy and student

self-direction in problem posing and investigation. All this may be shared

with the progressive educator perspective. However the public educators

go beyond this, is through the encouragement of critical thingking through

learner questioning of course content, pedagogy and assesment, and the

use of socially relevant problems and situations, projects and topics, for

social engagement and empowerment of the learners. Thus problem

solving and investigation will be partly based on authentic materials, such

 as newspapers, official statistics, and social problems. For the public

educator, this pedagogy is a means to develop the skills of citizenship and

social engagement amongst learners.

c. The Realtionship between Epistemology and Pedagogy

In recent year, a number of official and authoritative reports have

been published reommending the incorporation of problem solving into

the teaching of school mathematics. In Britain such reports have included

Cockcroft (1982) and Her Majestys Inspectorate (1985), and in the USA

they have included National Council of Theachers of Mathematics (1980,

1989).
However, one obstacle to such curriculum reforms is the

interpretation given to such recommendations. For the concepts of

problem solving and investigation are assimilated into the perspective of

the interpeter, and understood accordingly, as we have seen above.

Teachers very performance at problem solving, not to mention their

teaching approaches, depend on their beliefs about mathematics

(Schoenfeld, 1985). Empirical evidence suggests that teachers may

interpret problems and investigations in a narrow. Lerman (1989a), for

example, describes how investigational work in school mathematics is

subverted by the view that there is a unique correct outcome, betraying an

underlying absolutist philosophy of mathematics.

A second obstacle is that of implementation. This involves the

relathionship beteen theories of teaching and learning, which embody the

pedagogy of a particular perspective, and classroom practice. On the large

scale, this is the difference between the teachers espoused theories of

teaching nd learning, and the enacted versions of thes theories. Several

studies have revealed teachers who espoused a problem solving approach

to mathematics teaching (typically, consonant with that of the progressive

educators) but whose practices revolved around an expository,

transmission model of teaching enriched by the addition of problems

(Coonet, 1983; 1985; Thompson, 1984; Brown 1986).

The main explanation for the disparity put forward in these studies

is that the constrains and opportunities afforded by the social context of

teaching cause teachers to shift their pedagogical intentions and practices

away from their espoused theories (Ernest, 1989b, 1989c). The

socalization effect of the context is sufficiently powerful that despite

differing beliefs about mathematics and its teaching, teachers in the same

school are observed to adopt similar classroom practices (Lerman, 1986).

Figure 13.1 provides a model of some of the relationships involved.

If shows how one primary component of the teachers ideology, the

personal ..................