Historically mathematic teaching and learning has been informed by behavioural theories and thus situated and dominated

in procedural and instrumental forms of pedagogies (Bosse & Bahr, 2008). Today, however, as recommended from the National Statement on Mathematics for Australian Schools (Australian Education Council, 1991), it is increasingly accepted that mathematical competency involves a balance between conceptual understanding and procedural fluency (Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2012) and developing a relationship between the two using both behavioural and constructivist pedagogical approaches within the mathematics classroom (Star, 2002; Leonelli & Schmitt, 2001; Van De Walle, 2004). It is argued both approaches are required to develop desirable mathematical actions in students and the ways of knowing in contemporary mathematics that are recognised as the proficiency strands in the Australian curriculum (Australian Curriculum Assessment & Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2013; Sullivan, 2011). Definitions: The underlying core of the constructivism approach for mathematical learning is that children are active participants in their own development of conceptual understanding of mathematical phenomena (Van De Walle, 2004). Constructivist theories regard learning as arising from actively exploring and interacting with students own physical, social and psychological environments (Simeon et al., 2011). From a constructivist perspective, understanding can be defined as a measure of the quality and quantity of connections that an idea has with existing ideas and thus depends on the existence of appropriate ideas and the creation of new connections (see figure 3.1 (Van De Walle, 2004)). This relational understanding (Skemp, 1976) developed from constructivists approaches is acquired within an inquiry approach to mathematics (Goos, 2010; Van De Walle, 2004).

Inquiry mathematics involves highly scaffolded problem solving, using open tasked real-world mathematics where students are challenged and engaged in creating and analysing conjectures, communicating and working collaboratively and engaging in mathematical argument (Groos, 2010; Stonewater, 2005). Through this process, students are involved in a reflective thought process (Van De Walle, 2004), they build mathematical connections and new understandings through peer discussion and exposure to multiple and diverse representations of the mathematical concept through inquiry. Students can then use and apply their understanding to new mathematical situations (Groos, 2010; Van De Walle, 2004). Behaviourism theories suggests that learners learn as a result of responses to stimuli, or reinforcement through the laws of conditioning and extinction to produce desired learning observable outcomes (Simeon et al., 2011; Skinner, 1985). Understanding is understood as the correct observable outcome performed (Archer & Hughes, 2011; Van De Walle, 2004). Mathematical application of this stimulus-response approach is significantly evident in the explicit instruction of instrumental/procedural based knowledge (Goos, 2004; Skemp, 1976; Stonewater, 2005;). Explicit instruction involves the systematic breakdown of skills, terms and strategies into smaller manageable instructional units which are directly modelled and guided through methodical and logical progression until mastered and refined (Archer & Hughes, 2011). Students in these mathematical situations typically master a direct mathematical connection (see figure 3.4 (Van De Walle, 2004)), such as a skill, procedure or rule which are attributes of procedural based knowledge (Sullivan, 2011; Van De Walle, 2004).