Reading: You have already done the writing task on mathematical investigation.

Read the following article and see similarities and differences with your discussions. This
also provides insights with regards to mathematical investigation.

Yeo, Joseph & Yeap, Ban. (2009). Mathematical Investigation: Task, Process and Activity. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265203204_Mathematical_Investigation_Task_Process_and_Activity

From the Technical Report ME2009-01 January 2009 Mathematics and Mathematics Education National Institute of
Education Singapore

MATHEMATICAL INVESTIGATION: TASK, PROCESS AND ACTIVITY

By: Joseph B. W. Yeo

National Institute of Education, Singapore
Nanyang Technological University

Ban Har Yeap

National Institute of Education, Singapore
Nanyang Technological University

Abstract

Many writers believe that mathematical investigation is open and it involves both
problem posing and problem solving. However, some teachers feel that there is a sense of
doing some sort of investigation when solving problems with a closed goal and answer but
they are unable to identify the characteristics of this type of investigation. Such confusion
will affect how teachers teach their students and how researchers conduct their research on
investigation. Therefore, this article seeks to clarify the relationship between investigation
and problem solving by providing an alternative characterization of mathematical
investigation as a process involving specialization, conjecturing, justification and
generalization. It also distinguishes between mathematical investigation as a process and as
an activity: investigation, as a process, can occur when solving problems with a closed goal
and answer, while investigation, as an activity involving open investigative tasks, includes
both problem posing and problem solving. Implicit support for this alternative
characterization of mathematical investigation is gathered from some existing literature as
these writers did not state this perspective explicitly. The article concludes with some
implications of this alternative view on teaching and research.

1. Introduction

Many researchers and educators believe that mathematical investigation must be

open. For example, Bastow, Hughes, Kissane and Mortlock (1991) defined mathematical
investigation as the “systematic exploration of open situations that have mathematical
features” (p. 1) and Lee and Miller (1997) wrote that “investigations, by their very nature,
demand an open minded, multifaceted approach” (p. 6). Delaney (1996) believed in the more
open spirit of the process-dominated investigation while Bailey‟s (2007) idea of a
mathematical investigation is “an open-ended problem or statement that lends itself to the
possibility of multiple mathematical pathways being explored, leading to a variety of
mathematical ideas and/or solutions” (p. 103). Ernest (1991) described investigation as the
exploration of an unknown land where “the journey, not the destination, is the goal” (Pirie,
1987, p. 2). In other words, many writers believe that mathematical investigation is open
with respect to its goal, processes and answer.

Many of them also use the term „investigation‟ differently. For example, Orton and
Frobisher (1996) used the terms „problems‟ and „investigations‟ to refer to the tasks in their
comparison between problems and investigations; while Evans (1987) used the terms
„problem solving‟ and „investigation‟ to refer to the process when he contrasted problem
solving with investigation. Thus the term „investigation‟ can refer to the task or the process
or both. In mathematics education, there has been a fairly widespread adoption of the term
„investigation‟ as the task itself (Ernest, 1991). This is what Jakobsen (1956, cited in Ernest,
1991) called a metonymic shift in meaning which replaces the whole activity by one of its
components. Therefore, many educators do not distinguish between the investigative task
and the process of investigation.

Although many writers have observed that there are overlaps between problem
solving and investigation, their opinions are mixed. For example, some of them (e.g., Pirie,
1987) claimed that “no fruitful service will be performed by indulging in the „investigation‟
versus „problem-solving‟ debate” (p. 2) while Frobisher (1994) believed that this is a crucial
issue that will affect how and what teachers teach their students. But many of these
educators ended up separating investigation from problem solving by restricting
investigation to „open investigative tasks‟ and problem solving to „closed problems‟. For
example, Orton and Frobisher (1996) wrote that “the distinction between a problem and an
investigation is the existence of a clear goal specified in the statement of the [problem]” (pp.
31-32) and they claimed that “very few mathematics educators would classify
[investigations] of this kind as problems” (p. 27) because investigation entails an open goal
and thus it involves problem posing as well (Cai & Cifarelli, 2005). Therefore, many
educators (e.g., Evans, 1987; HMI, 1985) believe that problem solving is a convergent activity
with a well-defined goal and answer, while investigation is a divergent activity with an open
goal and answer.

On the other hand, some teachers feel that there is a sense of doing some sort of
investigation when solving „closed problems‟ but they are unable to pinpoint the similarities
and thus there are few writings on this. Such confusion about the characteristics of
investigation will affect how educators teach (Frobisher, 1994) and how researchers
conduct their research. Therefore, it is the purpose of this article to clarify these issues. It
begins by providing an alternative characterization of mathematical investigation as a
process and its implication of this on the relationship between investigation and problem
solving. Implicit support for this alternative view is gathered from some existing literature
as these writers did not state this perspective explicitly. The article clarifies the relationship
between investigation and problem posing by looking at investigation from the viewpoint of
a mathematical activity. The distinction between open investigative tasks, the process of
investigation, and investigation as an activity, is crucial in our understanding of the
relationship between investigation and problem solving. The article concludes with some
implications of this alternative characterization of mathematical investigation on teaching
and research.

2. What constitutes a mathematical investigation?

There is a big difference between a task and the process of doing the task. Thus,
equating mathematical investigation with open investigative tasks has added to the current
confusion about mathematical investigation. Therefore, in this article, the task will be called
„an open investigative task‟ to emphasize the openness of such a task (see Task 1 below)
and the term „mathematical investigation‟ will be used to refer to the process of
investigating. In fact, a further distinction between investigation as a process and
investigation as an activity will be dealt with later in this article. An example of an open
investigative task is:

Task 1: Powers of 3
Powers of 3 are 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, … Investigate.

In this task, the goal is ill-defined: investigate, but investigate what? There are two
approaches: students may set a specific goal by posing a specific problem to investigate (Cai
& Cifarelli, 2005) or they can set a general goal by searching for any pattern (Height, 1989).
The latter can be called the posing of the general problem “Is there any pattern?” so that both
approaches can be called problem posing. Because students have the freedom to choose any
goal, the goal is considered open (Orton & Frobisher, 1996). As there are also many correct
answers, the task is said to have an open answer (Becker & Shimada, 1997). Therefore, this
type of open investigative tasks is open in its goal and answer, and it involves the process of
mathematical investigation. But what is investigation?

It may be helpful to look at how the term „investigation‟ is used in everyday life.
Cambridge Dictionaries Online (Cambridge University Press, 2008) defines the word
„investigate‟ as „examine a crime, problem, statement, etc. carefully, especially to discover
the truth‟. In crime investigation, the police examine specific pieces of evidence in order to
come to certain conclusions, such as, “Who is the culprit? How does he or she commit the
crime? What is his or her motive? Is there enough evidence to prosecute him or her?” During
the investigation, the police will formulate some conjectures and test them. This type of
conjectures cannot be proven beyond doubt but the deciding factor is whether there is
enough evidence (e.g., concrete evidence, circumstantial evidence and reliable eye-
witnesses) to support these conjectures. Thus the processes involved in crime investigation
are the examination of specific pieces of evidence, conjecturing, testing and proving
conjectures, and coming to some conclusions.

Another common usage of the term „investigation‟ is in educational research. Many

of these research studies involve some kind of investigation. There used to be a journal called
Investigations in Mathematics Education (21 volumes; discontinued in 1988) which
contained annotated bibliographies of current research studies in mathematics education.
Many researchers (e.g., Kaur, 1995; Lampert & Ball, 1998) also described their studies as
investigations. In these studies, a group of specific subjects or issues were examined in order
to formulate and test some conjectures. Similar to conjectures in crime investigation,
conjectures in educational research cannot be proven beyond doubt but the deciding factor
is whether there are sufficient valid and reliable data to support these conjectures (Kelly &
Lesh, 2000). Therefore, educational research involves the examination of specific subjects or
issues, formulating and testing conjectures, and coming to some conclusions.

Let us turn our attention to mathematical investigation. In Task 1, students may start
by evaluating some powers of 3 and then comparing them to find out if there is any pattern.
This involves examining specific examples (specialization) in order to generalize. But the
pattern observed may not be true. So there is a need to test the conjecture. When a conjecture
is proven or justified, the mathematical truth discovered can be viewed as the underlying
general structure and is called a generalization (Mason, Burton & Stacey, 1985) or
mathematization (Wheeler, 1982). Thus mathematical investigation, as a process, involves
four core thinking processes: specialization, conjecturing, justification and generalization.
This alternative view of mathematical investigation is in line with the everyday usage of the
term „investigation‟ described earlier.

There is a need to clarify three issues. The first issue is the use of the term „process‟.
From one angle, an investigation is one whole process (Frobisher, 1994), just like problem
solving is one whole process (Shufelt, 1983), but from another perspective, there are many
processes involved in an investigation (Frobisher, 1994). Thus there are two different
viewpoints of „process‟ in mathematical investigation.

The second issue is the use of the term „specialization‟ to describe the examination
of specific examples in order to generalize. The specific examples chosen for examination in
a mathematical investigation may not be special cases and there is no need to treat the
specific pieces of evidence left behind in a crime scene as special. Furthermore, the antonym
for the word „general‟ is „specific‟, not „special‟ (Synonyms Thesaurus with Antonyms &
Definitions, 2008). However, Mason et al. (1985) defined specializing as “choosing examples
randomly, to get a feel for the question; systematically, to prepare the ground for
generalizing; artfully, to test a generalization” (p. 24) but these specific examples may not be
special cases. Schoenfeld (1985) also included specific examples which are not special cases
when discussing the heuristic of examining special cases. For example, if there is an integer
parameter n in the problem statement, the special cases are when n = 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. but what
is so special about these cases? Nevertheless, this article will follow Mason et al. (1985) and
Schoenfeld (1985) in defining the process of specialization more broadly to include the
examination of both special cases and specific examples. Therefore, mathematical
investigation involves the process of specialization in order to generalize. The third issue is
the use of the term „justification‟ as a core process in mathematical investigation.
Justification only occurs when a conjecture is proven. But students will not know beforehand
whether a conjecture is true or false, and so they will engage in the testing of conjectures
during an investigation. If the conjecture is found to be false, then it is refuted; if it is found
to be true, then it is proven or justified. Thus, in mathematical investigation, a conjecture is
to be tested. But from the viewpoint of mathematical thinking, mathematization or
generalization occurs only when a conjecture is justified. That is why Mason et al. (1985)
wrote that justification, and not the testing of conjectures, is one of the four main
mathematical thinking processes while Hatch (2002) believed that “the idea of justification
… is at the heart of a true mathematical ethos” (p. 138). Therefore, mathematical
investigation involves the core thinking process of justification.

Further support for this alternative view of mathematical investigation as a process

can be found among certain writers although they did not openly define investigation in this
manner. For example, Jaworski (1994), in her book Investigating Mathematics Teaching,
agreed with the many writers whom she cited that investigation must be open, but in the
latter part of her book, she described the teaching of the three teachers whom she observed
as “investigative in spirit, embodying questioning and inquiry” (p. 96) and “making and
justifying conjectures was common to all three classrooms, as was seeking generality
through exploration of special cases and simplified situations” (p. 171). So you can find
traces of evidence that she seemed to view an investigative approach to mathematics
teaching as involving specialization, conjecturing, justification and generalization although
she did not define it explicitly.

Some writers who believed that mathematical investigation must be open sometimes
also ended up using closed investigative tasks. For example, consider the following task
which is supposed to have an open goal.

Task 2: Number Trick

Jill has a trick she does with numbers. Here it is. How do you think it works?
854
- 458
369
+ 693
---------
1089

Jill says that every time she does her trick, the answer is always 1089. Investigate Jill‟s
trick. (Orton & Frobisher, 1996, p. 39)

The first goal is clearly defined: how do you think the trick works? The second goal is
implied: whether the trick will always work, since Jill claims it does and the students are
supposed to investigate her trick. Although there is more than one goal, the goals are
specified or implied, and so the students cannot select any other goal to investigate. But a
task has an open goal if and only if the task does not specify any goal and students can choose
any goal to pursue (Orton & Frobisher, 1996). Thus this task has a closed goal but it is still
considered an investigation by Orton and Frobisher who believed that investigation must
have an open goal. Therefore, the characterization of mathematical investigation does not lie
in the open goal of the investigative task itself, but in what it entails, i.e. the processes.

Hence, an alternative characterization of mathematical investigation is a process that

involves the four core thinking processes of specialization, conjecturing, justification and
generalization. Interestingly, Mason et al. (1985) used all these four processes for solving
problems with a closed goal and answer. So how is investigation similar to problem solving?

1. How is investigation related to problem solving?

Whether a task or a situation is a problem or not depends on the individual (Henderson

& Pingry, 1953; Reys, Lindquist, Lambdin, Smith & Suydam, 2004). So this article will follow
certain writers (see, e.g., NCTM, 1991, p. 25; Schoenfeld, 1985, p. 74) in using the phrase
„mathematical task‟, rather than the term „problem‟, to describe a task. However, the term
„problem‟ may still be used in this article when referring to a task, but when such a term is
used, it implies that the task is a problem to the particular student. The phrase „solving a
problem‟ will also be used instead of „solving a task‟ because if the task is not a problem to
the student, then there is really no need for him or her to solve it.

There are many types of mathematical tasks. In this article, procedural tasks refer to
the usual textbook questions whose main purpose is for students to practice procedural
skills after they have learnt the procedures in class (Lester, 1980; Moschkovich, 2002). This
is in contrast to problem-solving tasks (see Task 3 below) which require the use of some
problem-solving strategies to solve. Although the phrase „problem-solving tasks‟ can be
misleading because the term „problem-solving‟ may suggest that the task is a problem to the
student when it may not be so, the advantage of this terminology is that it immediately brings
to attention that this type of tasks involve the use of some problem-solving heuristics to
solve, unlike procedural tasks (Yeo, 2007). An example of a problem-solving task is:

Task 3: Handshakes (Problem-Solving Task)

At a workshop, each of the 100 participants shakes hand once with each of the
other participants. Find the total number of handshakes.

This task requires certain problem-solving strategies to solve, for example, drawing
a diagram for a smaller number of participants to see if there is any pattern, although this
may not be a problem to some students, especially for those who have solved it before.
Although a problem-solving task is closed in its goal, many educators (e.g. Frobisher, 1994)
believe that you can always open up the task by rephrasing it. For example, Task 3 can be
rephrased as the following open investigative task which has an open goal:

Task 4: Handshakes (Open Investigative Task)

At a workshop, each of the 100 participants shakes hand once with each of the
other participants. Investigate.

Such a rephrasing is not trivial because students can now pose different problems in
Task 4 to solve (e.g., how many handshakes are there if there are n participants? or if they
shake hand with each other m times?), as compared to only one question in Task 3. Although
students can be taught to extend Task 3 by posing more problems to solve, they cannot be
penalized if they do not do so because the task statement in Task 3 does not explicitly specify
that the students must extend the problem. But students who solve only one problem for
Task 4 will not do as well as students who solve more than that one problem.
 Now, let us look at the type of processes that students engage in when they attempt
both tasks. Since Task 3 is a problem-solving task, then the students are engaged in problem
solving (Evans, 1987) when they try to find the total number of handshakes. Since Task 4 is
an open investigative task, then the students are engaged in mathematical investigation
(Evans). Suppose the first problem that the students want to solve for Task 4 is to find the
total number of handshakes, which is the same as the question in Task 3. If the students use
the same method to find the total number of handshakes for both the problem-solving task
and the open investigative task, then the same process is called problem solving for the
former task with a closed goal but it is called investigation for the latter task with an open
goal. So this suggests that mathematical investigation can be equivalent to problem solving
in some instances, that investigation can occur in closed problem-solving tasks and not just
in open investigative tasks, and that investigation does not depend on whether the task has
a closed or open goal.

Rather, the characterization of mathematical investigation lies in the processes that

it entails. For example, if the students try to solve the problem in Task 3 by starting with a
smaller number of participants in order to find a pattern for the total number of handshakes,
then they have engaged in specialization, conjecturing, justification and generalization,
which is mathematical investigation (see previous section), but some educators (e.g.,
Holding, 1991) call this „induction‟ which is defined as “drawing a general conclusion from
clues gathered (from specific to general)” (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2000).
However, if the students argue that the total number of handshakes must be 99 + 98 + 97 +
… + 1 because the first participant must shake hand with the other 99 participants, the
second participant must shake hand with the remaining 98 participants and so forth, then
the students have used deductive reasoning and this is not mathematical investigation. Some
high-ability students may also use a formal proof directly and this is also not investigation.
Therefore, there are essentially two approaches to solve a problem: investigation (or
induction) and „other means‟ (e.g., deduction or formal proof). Figure 1 illustrates the
relationship between the process of problem solving and mathematical investigation as a
process.

There is a need to clarify two issues. The first issue is viewing induction as
investigation because investigation includes justification but some educators (e.g., Pólya,
1957) believed that induction is not proof. The problem lies in the different meanings of the
terms: „induction‟, „inductive observation‟ and „inductive reasoning‟. If students observe a
pattern during an investigation, this is only a conjecture and some educators called it
„inductive observation‟ (e.g., Lampert, 1990, p. 49) which is not a proof. Some educators
(e.g., Tall, 1991) believed in the use of formal proofs but Stylianides (2008) considered the
use of any non-proof argument as sufficient. Mason et al. (1985) also advocated the use of
the underlying mathematical structure to argue that the observed pattern will always
continue. The latter involves rather rigorous reasoning and so it can be called “inductive
reasoning” which is good enough to justify a conjecture although it is not a formal proof. Thus
there is a difference between inductive observation and inductive reasoning, but
unfortunately some writers (e.g., Holding, 1991) used the two terms interchangeably.
Similarly, the word „induction‟ can mean inductive observation, inductive reasoning or both.
In this article, the term „induction‟ is used to include both inductive observation and
inductive reasoning, and so induction involves justification.

The second issue is how investigation is related to heuristics. Generally speaking,

problem solving heuristics can be divided into two broad categories. The first category
involves any form of specialization. For example, if students draw a diagram or use
systematic listing to examine specific examples, then this is mathematical investigation. The
second category does not involve any specialization. For example, if students use deductive
reasoning directly, then this is not an investigation. But what about establishing a subgoal as
a heuristic to solve a problem? By itself, this is not an investigation. The question is what
happens after establishing a subgoal. If the students use deductive reasoning to achieve the
subgoal, then this is not an investigation. However, if the students use some form of
specialization in order to attain the subgoal, then this is mathematical investigation.
Therefore, using heuristics to solve problems are similar to solving problems by
investigation or by „other means‟.

Although this alternative view of the relationship between investigation and problem
solving seldom appears in literature, there is evidence that some writers have almost the
same idea but phrased in a different way. For example, Pólya (1957) advocated using what
he called heuristic reasoning when solving problem, as opposed to using rigorous proof.
“Heuristic reasoning is often based on induction, or on analogy” (p. 113). “Induction is the
process of discovering general laws by the observation and combination of particular
instances” (p. 114) and so induction involves specializing in order to generalize. “Analogy is
a sort of similarity. Similar objects agree with each other in some respect, analogous objects
agree in certain relations of their respective parts.” (p. 37) Thus analogy involves examining
the relations of some parts of a specific object in order to discover the underlying
mathematical structure of another analogous object. Therefore, heuristic reasoning involves
examining specific examples in order to generalize or to infer about some mathematical fact
by analogy. But isn’t this what mathematical investigation is all about? On the other hand,
„other means‟ of solving problem-solving tasks include the use of rigorous proof or
deductive reasoning.

Lakatos (1976) also contrasted two approaches to problem solving: the deductivist
approach and the heuristic approach. The deductivist approach uses formal proofs and
Lakatos believed that very few people would ever devise this type of rigorous proofs out of
nowhere. He wrote that the “deductivist style hides the struggle, hides the adventure” (p.
142) of discovering a solution to a problem or a proof for a theorem and “the zig-zag of
discovery cannot be discerned in the end-product” (p. 42) of the deductivist approach.
Lakatos then advocated the heuristic approach which involves exploring the problem by
examining specific examples in order to formulate some conjectures which will have to be
proven or refuted. Isn‟t this mathematical investigation? So Lakatos‟ approaches are very
similar to the two approaches to problem solving discussed in this section: solving by
investigation or by „other means‟.

Mason (1978) described seven energy states in problem solving (namely, getting
started, getting involved, mulling, keep going, insight, checking and looking back) which he
applied to mathematical investigation, thus suggesting that certain aspects of problem
solving are similar to investigation. In the same manner, when Mason et al. (1985) explained
the four key processes that underlie mathematical thinking (i.e. specializing, conjecturing,
justifying and generalizing), the writers were referring to mathematical thinking in solving
problem-solving tasks, but these are also the key processes in mathematical investigation.
The Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics stated that “our ideas
about problem situations and learning are reflected in the verbs we use to describe student
actions (e.g. to investigate, to formulate, to find, to verify) throughout the Standards” (NCTM,
1989, p. 10). Therefore, the Standards also recognise investigation as a means of dealing with
problem situations. Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill and Krathwohl (1956) classified the “ability
to integrate the results of an investigation into an effective plan or solution to solve a
problem” in the synthesis class in Bloom‟s taxonomy of educational objectives in the
cognitive domain, thus implying that investigation is a method to solve mathematical
problems. Hence, these writers have almost the same view that problem solving entails
solving by investigation.
However, there is a conflict. In this alternative view of the relationship between
mathematical investigation and problem solving, the process of investigation is a subset of
the process of problem solving. But this contradicts the belief of many writers (e.g., Cai &
Cifarelli, 2005; Frobisher, 1994) that investigation consists of both problem posing and
problem solving, i.e., problem solving is a subset of investigation. This will be the focus in the
next section.

4. Is problem posing part of mathematical investigation?

There are many types of problem posing. Problem “posing can occur before, during,
or after the solution of a problem” (Silver, 1994, p. 19). Problem posing can also occur when
a task asks the students to pose an original, interesting and complex „word problem‟ that
satisfy some given conditions (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Yeap, 2002). However, in this
section, we are interested in problem posing whose main purpose is to generate new
problems to solve, e.g., at the start of an open investigative task, or during extension of a
problem-solving task. The main issue to be addressed here is, “Does investigation involve
problem posing?”

We will use two analogies. The first analogy is a real-life example of cooking
(Berinderjeet Kaur, 2007, personal communication). Before you can cook, you need to plan
the menu, buy the ingredients and prepare them (unless you have a kitchen hand to do that
for you). After cooking, you need to scoop the food onto a dish and perhaps decorate the food
to make it more presentable. Thus, to cook a dish, you need to do more than just the mere
process of cooking. The second analogy is Pólya‟s (1957) four phases of problem solving for
problemsolving tasks: understand the problem, devise a plan, carry out the plan and look
back. The first phase is what to do before problem solving, the second and third phases are
the actual problem-solving process, and the fourth phase is what to do after problem solving.
But all the four phases are considered part of Pólya‟s problem-solving model. So there is a
need to differentiate between the actual process and the whole activity.

We will begin by distinguishing between a task and an activity although these two
terms are often treated as synonyms (Mason & Johnston-Wilder, 2006). A task refers to what
the teacher sets while the activity refers to what the student does in response to the task
(Christiansen & Walther, 1986). “The purpose of a task is to initiate mathematically fruitful
activity [by] learners” (Mason & Johnston-Wilder, 2006, p. 25). Therefore, when students
solve problem-solving tasks, they are engaged in a mathematical activity which we will call
a problem-solving activity. Then a problem-solving activity involves Pólya‟s (1957) four
phases of problem solving: what students should do before, during and after problem
solving; but only the second and third phases entails the actual process of problem solving.

In the same way, there is a need to distinguish between mathematical investigation

as a process and as an activity. When students attempt open investigative tasks, they are
engaged in a mathematical activity which we will call an open investigative activity. Similar
to Pólya‟s (1957) problem-solving model, the main phases in an open investigative activity
are: understand the task, pose a problem, solve the problem, look back, and pose more
problems to solve or extend the given investigative task. Now, which of these phases involve
the actual process of mathematical investigation? The key question to ask is, “When students
pose a problem in an open investigative activity, have they started investigating?” We believe
the answer is negative. Hence, mathematical investigation, as a process, does not involve
problem posing, but mathematical investigation, as an activity for open investigative tasks,
involves problem posing, problem solving as a process, and other phases such as
understanding the task and looking back. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between
mathematical investigation as an activity, mathematical investigation as a process and
problem solving as a process.
 From Figure 2, you can observe that mathematical investigation, as a process, is a
subset of the process of problem solving; but problem solving, as a process, is a subset of
mathematical investigation as an activity. Therefore, distinguishing between investigation
as a process and an activity can help to clarify the relationship between mathematical
investigation, problem solving and problem posing.

5. Conclusion and Implications

A lot of confusion can arise because we often use the term „mathematical
investigation‟ to mean different things. This article recommends distinguishing between
open investigative tasks, investigation as a process involving specialization, conjecturing,
justification and generalization, and investigation as an activity involving open investigative
tasks. With such a characterization, the relationship between problem solving and
mathematical investigation becomes apparent: the process of problem solving involves
investigation as a process and solving by „other means‟ while an open investigative activity
includes both problem posing and problem solving as a process. Therefore, mathematical
investigation, as a process, can occur in both open investigative tasks and problem-solving
tasks.

The first implication is that the clarification of the relationship between problem
solving and investigation may help to inform teachers on how and what they teach their
students. This agrees with Frobisher‟s (1994) belief that if teachers are unclear about the
distinction between problem solving and investigation, then they will not be able to teach
their students effectively. The second implication is that teachers no longer need to restrict
their students to open investigative tasks but they can also use closed problem-solving tasks
to expose their students to mathematical investigation. What is not so clear is the difference
in the type of learning that students may gain from doing investigation involving problem-
solving tasks as compared to investigation using open investigative tasks. This calls for
further research. The third implication is that the characterization of investigation as
comprising of the four core thinking processes may help researchers to study how students
think when they investigate.

Many studies on mathematical investigation only reported its general benefits, such
as the students becoming more interested (Davies, 1980) or more open to working
mathematically (Tanner, 1989). Boiler (1998) went one step further to study the
effectiveness of process based teaching using open-ended activities, which is similar to open
investigative activities described in this article, by looking at how the students fared in a new
form of GCSE examination that rewarded problem solving (this exam was discontinued in
1994). But there are very few studies that examine the thinking processes when students
engage in investigation, partly because it is hard to define clearly the processes that
constitute mathematical investigation. Therefore, with this new perspective of investigation
as involving specialization, conjecturing, justification and generalization, it may help
researchers to study these processes more effectively.

REFERENCES

Bailey, J. (2007). Mathematical investigations: A primary teacher educator‟s narrative journey of professional
awareness. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA): Mathematics: Essential research, essential practice (Vol. 1, pp.
103-112). Adelaide, South Australia: MERGA.

Bastow, B., Hughes, J., Kissane, B., & Mortlock, R. (1991). 40 mathematical investigations (2nd ed.). Western
Australia: Mathematical Association of Western Australia.

Becker, J. P., & Shimada, S. (1997). The open-ended approach: A new proposal for teaching mathematics. Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I. Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 29, 41-62.

Cai, J., & Cifarelli, V. (2005). Exploring mathematical exploration: How two college students formulated and solve
their own mathematical problems. Focus on Learning Problems in
Mathematics, 27(3), 43-72.

Cambridge University Press (2008). Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Available at http://dictionary.cambridge.org

Christiansen, B., and Walther, G. (1986). Task and activity. In B. Christiansen, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.),
Perspectives on mathematics education: Papers submitted by members of the Bacomet Group (pp. 243-307).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.

Davies, B. (1980). Using calculators with juniors. Mathematics Teaching, 93, 12-15.
Delaney, K. (1996). Exploring difficulties in teaching mathematics through investigations in the primary classroom.
For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(1), 27-33.

Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London: Falmer Press.

Evans, J. (1987). Investigations: The state of the art. Mathematics in School, 16(1), 27-30.

Frobisher, L. (1994). Problems, investigations and an investigative approach. In A. Orton & G. Wain (Eds.), Issues in
teaching mathematics (pp. 150-173). London: Cassell.

Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Exploration with gifted students. New York:
Wiley.

Hatch, G. (2002). Maximising energy in the learning of mathematics. In L. Haggarty (Ed.), Teaching mathematics in
secondary schools (pp. 115-128). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Height, T. P. (1989). Mathematical investigations in the classroom. Australia: Longman Cheshire Pty.

Henderson, K. B., & Pingry, R. E. (1953). Problem solving in mathematics. In H. F. Fehr (Ed.), The learning of
mathematics: Its theory and practice (pp. 228-270). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

HMI. (1985). Mathematics from 5 to 16. London: Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office (HMSO).

Holding, J. (1991). The investigations book: A resource book for teachers of mathematics.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London:Falmer Press.

Kaur, B. (1995). An investigation of children’s knowledge and strategies in mathematical problem solving.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia.

Kelly, A. E., & Lesh, R. A. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. New York:Cambridge University
Press.

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing
and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.

Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Lee, M., & Miller, M. (1997). Real-life math investigations: 30 activities that help students apply mathematical
thinking to real-life situations. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.

Lester, F. K., Jr. (1980). Problem solving: Is it a problem? In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.), Selected issues in mathematics
education (pp. 29-45). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Mason, J. (1978). On investigations. Mathematics Teaching, 84, 43-47.

Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1985). Thinking mathematically (Rev. ed.). Wokingham, England: Addison-
Wesley.

Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2006). Designing and using mathematical tasks. St. Albans, England: Tarquin
Publications.
Ministry of Education of Singapore. (2000). Mathematics syllabus: Lower secondary.Singapore: Curriculum Planning
and Development Division.

Moschkovich, J. N. (2002). An introduction to examining everyday and academic mathematical practices. In E. Yackel
(Series Ed.) & M. E. Brenner & J. N. Moschkovich (Monograph Eds.), Everyday and academic mathematics in the
classroom (pp. 1-11).Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Orton, A., & Frobisher, L. (1996). Insights into teaching mathematics. London: Cassell.

Pirie, S. (1987). Mathematical investigations in your classroom: A guide for teachers. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

Pólya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Reys, R. E., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., Smith, N. L., & Suydam, M. N. (2004). Helping children learn
mathematics (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Shufelt, G. (Ed.). (1983). The agenda in action. 1983 Yearbook (J. R. Smart, General Yearbook Ed.). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19-28.
Stylianides, G. J. (2008). An analytical framework of reasoning-and-proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 28(1),
9-16.

Synonyms Thesaurus with Antonyms & Definitions (2008). Antonym Finder. Available at
http://www.synonym.com/antonym

Tall, D. (1991). Advanced mathematical thinking. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Tanner, H. (1989). Introducing investigations. Mathematics Teaching, 127, 20-23.

Wheeler, D. (1982). Mathematization matters. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(1), 45-47.

Yeap, B. H. (2002). Relationship between children’s mathematical word problem posing and grade level,
problem-solving ability and task type. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore.

Yeo, J. B. W. (2007). Mathematical tasks: Clarification, classification and choice of suitable tasks for different types
of learning and assessment (Tech. Rep. ME2007-01). National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore.