Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (2021) 24:123–126

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09494-4

Inquiry‑based approaches to mathematics learning,

Kim Beswick1

Accepted: 15 March 2021 / Published online: 23 March 2021

Three of the four articles in this issue (Andrews-Larson, Johnson, Peterson, & Keller;
Wright; Florensa, Bosch, & Gascón) deal explicitly with supporting mathematics teach-
ers to move from teaching approaches characterized as traditional toward approaches
based on inquiry. This focus foregrounds concern for pedagogy but in each case teachers’
knowledge, conceptualized in different ways, is also a consideration. For Weiland, Orrill,
Nagar, Brown, and Burke, the knowledge upon which middle school teachers can draw in
their teaching of proportional reasoning and that constitutes robust understanding of that
concept is the central focus. Nevertheless, concern for pedagogy, particularly aspects of
pedagogical knowledge, is also apparent in their report. As a collection, the articles offer
diverse conceptualizations of mathematical knowledge and raise questions about that
knowledge, what it means to do mathematics and the broad social purposes of that activ-
ity, the intersection of research and teaching, and the relationship between teachers and
researchers. All of the studies reported involved small numbers of participants and detailed
analyses of qualitative data and hence questions as to the scalability of the approaches sug-
gested also arise.
Andrews-Larson et al. examined how two groups of undergraduate mathematics instruc-
tors engaged in pedagogical reasoning as part of a workshop on inquiry-oriented instruc-
tion. Each group engaged with a mathematics task in either abstract algebra or linear alge-
bra firstly in the role of doers of mathematics and then as mathematics instructors as they
viewed video of students working on the same task. Andrews-Larson et al. found that the
more deeply the mathematicians engaged with the mathematics inherent in the task, the
greater was their engagement with the evidence of student mathematical reasoning evident
in the video. The group that engaged more deeply with the mathematics and student rea-
soning were more likely to focus on supporting students in their mathematical work and
maintaining the students’ ownership of the ways in which they represented the mathemat-
ics. This was in contrast to the group that engaged less deeply with the mathematics and
hence with the evidence of student thinking, that focussed more on describing the repre-
sentational choices that the students made and on evaluating the students’ contributions.
Andrews-Larson et al. note subtle differences in the ways in which the facilitators of the
two groups oriented the participants to their task and speculate that this may account for
the difference in the foci of the activity of the two groups. The authors further venture that

* Kim Beswick
[email protected]
1
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
124 K. Beswick

an initial focus on mathematics rather than on pedagogical issues may be a useful entry
point into examining student reasoning for mathematicians because of the greater likeli-
hood that they will share common understandings and beliefs in this regard compared to in
relation to matters related to instruction. In addition, they point to the value of using evi-
dence of students’ partially formulated understandings rather than completed solutions as a
prompt for discussion of students’ reasoning.
Andrews-Larson et al. are cognisant of the limitations of their study and of the range
of important questions that their findings offer for further research. Although considerable
research has been conducted on helping schoolteachers to analyze, respond to, and build
upon student thinking, its application in tertiary settings has mainly been to teacher edu-
cation rather than to undergraduate mathematics teaching (Andrews-Larson et al.). While
there is scope to test the applicability of findings from school mathematics to undergradu-
ate mathematics, the reverse should also be considered. To what extent, for example, might
the quality of schoolteachers’ engagement with the mathematics inherent in tasks support
their capacity to engage with student reasoning about those tasks in productive ways? Cer-
tainly, for Weiland et al., middle school teachers’ own robust understanding of proportional
reasoning is fundamental to their ability to teach these ideas as it constitutes the knowledge
resources upon which they can draw in their teaching.
Like Andrews-Larson et al., Wright frames the need for change to dominant approaches
to mathematics teaching in terms of the negative impacts, both cognitive and affective, of
such teaching for many students, but goes beyond this to draw attention to the socio-polit-
ical implications of traditional mathematics teaching practices in which attainment corre-
lates with students’ socioeconomic status, and students deemed less capable experience
impoverished curricula and pedagogies. He argues that traditional mathematics education
has not recognized its inherently political nature nor sufficiently acknowledged the contex-
tual constraints within which teachers work. Wright reports on the Teaching Mathematics
for Social Justice project in which he worked alongside five secondary mathematics teach-
ers using participatory action research to support the teachers to change their practice in
line with the aims of the project. He describes how the use of tasks that used mathemat-
ics to address questions of justice such as fair trade led to increased student engagement
with and enjoyment of mathematics. In addition, he notes shifts in the teachers’ discourse
around student ability and attainment that included questioning commonplace practices
such as setting (grouping according to prior attainment) and recognizing that, rather than
being a meritocracy, education can perpetuate inequity. Teachers began to articulate views
consistent with Jorgensen’s (2016) claim that less advantaged students need to be assisted
to develop the skills and attitudes that middle class students bring to their learning and that
position them to take full advantage of the opportunities afforded them to learn. Wright
acknowledges the role that he played as researcher in bringing an external perspective to
the collaboration in a way that is reminiscent of Lerman’s (1997) notion of a second voice.
Both Wright and Andrews-Larson et al. implicitly acknowledge precursors to changed
teaching practices that mathematics educators have been aware of for decades. Jakubowski
and Tobin (1991), for example, recognized that teachers will only do the significant work
required to substantially change their classrooms if they are convinced that the effort is
warranted, and Nespor (1987) articulated the additional requirement that change requires
the availability of a feasible alternative paradigm. Although these conditions are somewhat
obvious, the field is still grappling with how they can be achieved. Whereas Andrews-Lar-
son et al. cite evidence that many mathematicians acknowledge the need to reform under-
graduate mathematics teaching and many report using alternatives to traditional lectures
alone, Wright presents participatory action research as a means of bringing teachers to a

13
Inquiry-based approaches to mathematics learning, teaching,… 125

place of problematizing usual practice, thereby motivating change. The provision of tasks
that provided an entree into inquiry-oriented instruction (Andrews et al.) or mathematics
for social justice (Wright) went some way toward offering an alternative paradigm for the
teachers to adopt. Questions remain, however, in both cases, as to the extent to which the
teachers concerned were able to extend the new approaches to their teaching more broadly.
In the case of Wright’s project, there was encouraging evidence that the tasks used by
project teachers were being adopted more widely in their schools but given that the focus
of the project was on social justice with mathematics as a powerful tool for investigat-
ing issues, concerns about the extent to which such an approach can be applied across the
mathematics curriculum arise. It could be that the changes in teachers’ thinking about the
capabilities of students deemed low attainers, such as Wright observed, is a key motivator
of sustained change (Beswick, 2018).
Weiland et al. point to a disparity between the recognized importance of proportional
reasoning and the relative lack of research on teachers’ knowledge of proportions. Research
that does exist tends to focus on deficits in teachers’ knowledge (e.g. Lobato, Orrill,
Druken, & Jacobsen, 2011) and the difficulties that it presents for teachers (e.g. Lamon,
2007). Weiland et al. drew from the literature to develop a framework for robust under-
standing of proportional reasoning and from clinical interviews with 32 practising middle
school teachers to identify a set of observable knowledge resources that underpin robust
understanding of proportional reasoning. Weiland et al.’s conceptualization of robust
understanding as an interconnected system of knowledge resources that can be accessed
and used in differing combinations in different contexts draws upon ideas Knowledge in
Pieces (e.g. diSessa, Sherin, & Levin, 2016). They illustrate the potential use of their
framework for analyzing teachers’ understanding of proportions and for supporting fur-
ther development of that understanding. They make the point that has some resonance with
Andrews-Larson’s speculation about the potential value of using mathematics as an entry
point into analyzing student thinking, that robust understanding of mathematics is a neces-
sary precondition for being able to respond in the moment to students’ ideas. There can be
little argument that inquiry-based approaches such as advocated by the Andrews-Larson
et al., Wright, and Florensa et al. demand robust understanding, as defined by Weiland
et al., of the relevant mathematics.
Florensa et al. address the difficulty that teachers face in making significant changes
to their practice in response to curriculum changes or the adoption of unfamiliar peda-
gogies. They posit Question–Answer (Q–A) maps as a tool to assist teachers to identify
and analyze the content they are to teach. Florensa et al.’s concern was also that teach-
ers question taken-for-granted understandings and ways of viewing aspects of content
and pedagogy such as the phenomenon of functions being taught in isolation from related
mathematical domains. They also challenge the usual research practice of maintaining a
separation between researchers’ tools and the tools made available to teachers. From their
work with 16 secondary mathematics teachers from four Latin American countries in an
online course, Florensa et al. found Q–A maps to be a useful in assisting teachers to prob-
lematize existing epistemologies in their schools. In emphasising the questionable and
dynamic nature of knowledge, the authors consider Q–A maps to be emancipatory and able
to broaden the description of the relevant mathematical knowledge beyond that contained
in curricula and other documents. Florensa et al. also point to the adaptation of research
tools for teachers as an important way to support teachers in this work.
Juxtaposed with Wright’s article, one wonders how and to what extent if any research
such as that reported by Andrews-Larson et al., Weiland et al., and to a lesser extent per-
haps Florensa et al. should or might take account of the socio-political environment in

13
126 K. Beswick

which it is conducted and the diverse contexts in which it might be applied. It is also worth
remembering that each of these studies, including Wright’s, was conducted in particular
countries and schools which will have similarities with and differences from other schools,
systems, and cultures. Questions are many and concern, for example, the extent to which
the knowledge resources that Weiland et al. observed among US middle school teachers
might be unique to that context, the ways in which teachers in countries other than the UK
in which Wright worked might respond to the idea of social justice through mathematics
education, and how might researchers and teachers in both of these countries learn from
the Anthropological Theory of the Didactic (Bosch & Gascón, 2006) that underpinned Flo-
rensa et al.’s work. This is a thought-provoking collection of articles that highlight how
much more we have to learn.

References
Beswick, K. (2018). Systems perspectives on mathematics teachers’ beliefs: Illustrations from beliefs about
students. In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg, & L. Sumpter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd
conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 3–18).
Umeå, Sweden: PME.
Bosch, M., & Gascón, J. (2006). Twenty-five years of the didactic transposition. ICMI Bulletin, 58, 51–65.
diSessa, A. A., Sherin, B., & Levin, M. (2016). Knowledge analysis: An introduction. In A. A. diSessa, M.
Levin, & N. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and interaction: A synthetic agenda for the learning sciences
(pp. 30–71). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jakubowski, E., & Tobin, K. (1991). Teachers’ personal epistemologies and classroom learning environ-
ments. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and
consequences (pp. 201–214). Pergamon Press.
Jorgensen, R. (2016). The elephant in the room: Equity, social class, and mathematics. In P. Ernest, B. Srira-
man, & N. Ernest (Eds.), Critical mathematics education: Theory, practice and reality (pp. 127–146).
Information Age Publishing.
Lamon, S. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for
research. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 629–667). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lerman, S. (1997). The psychology of mathematics teachers’ learning: In search of theory. In E. Pehkonen
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathemat-
ics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 200–207). Lahti, Finland: PME.
Lobato, J., Orrill, C. H., Druken, B., & Jacobson, E. (2011). Middle school teacher’s knowledge of propor-
tional reasoning for teaching. Paper presented as part of J. Lobato (chair), Extending, expanding, and
applying the construct of mathematical knowledge or teaching (MKT). New Orleans: Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4),
317–328.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13