Problem solving and Working Mathematically: an Australian perspective

This article reviews “problem solving” in mathematics in Australia and how it has evolved in recent years. In particular, problem solving is examined from the perspectives of research, curricula and instructional practice, and assessment. We identify three key themes underlying observed changes in the research agenda in Australia in relation to problem solving: Obliteration, Maturation and Generalisation. Within state mathematics curricula in Australia, changes in the language and construction of the curriculum and in related policy documents have subsumed problem solving within the broader category of Working Mathematically. In relation to assessment, research in Australia has demonstrated the need for alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment, particularly in the case of complex performances such as mathematical problem solving. Within the category of Working Mathematically, recent Australian curriculum documents appear to accept an obligation to provide both standards for mathematical problem solving and student work samples that illustrate such complex performances and how they might be assessed.     

Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing

Although creativity is often viewed as being associated with the notions of “genius” or exceptional ability, it can be productive for mathematics educators to view creativity instead as an orientation or disposition toward mathematical activity that can be fostered broadly in the general school population. In this article, it is argued that inquiry-oriented mathematics instruction which includes problem-solving and problem-posing tasks and activities can assist students to develop more creative approaches to mathematics. Through the use of such tasks and activities, teachers can increase their students’ capacity with respect to the core dimensions of creativity, namely, fluency, flexibility, and novelty. Because the instructional techniques discussed in this article have been used successfully with students all over the world, there is little reason to believe that creativity-enriched mathematics instruction cannot be used with a broad range of students in order to increase their representational and strategic fluency and flexibility, and their appreciation for novel problems, solution methods, or solutions.     

Mathematical problem solving in didactic institutions as a complex system: The case of elementary calculus

The question of problem-solving activities in didactic institutions is critical in mathematics education for two important reasons. It is a main factor of learning according to Piaget, and it is a means for students to try to align their behaviors to expected institutional references. Mathematical reasoning during problem solving in didactic institutions is studied in the present work as a complex system of interfering constraints. Results tend to show that this system may be understood as being ruled by ternary interactions between three poles: the student, the teacher, and the knowledge itself. Simultaneously, theoretical and pragmatic considerations are focused on problem solving in mathematics: the specific epistemological difficulties of each domain of knowledge to be studied, the computational asymmetry between mathematical concepts and procedures, and the influence of implicit teacher expectations through students' decoding of local “didactic contracts.”     

Distinguishing Features of Mechanical and Human Problem-Solving

Over the years, research in mathematical problem-solving has examined expert/novice problem-solving performance on various types of problems and subjects. In particular, DeFranco examined two groups of Ph.D. mathematicians as they solved four mathematics problems and found that although all were content experts, only one group were problem-solving experts. Based on this study, this article posits the notion that one distinguishing feature between experts and novices is that experts tend to look for special features of a problem and use algorithms only as a “fail-safe” system while novices act like “machines” relying on algorithms to solve the problems. Why? The article explores the idea that novice problem solvers learned to solve problems the way they learned proof, that is, in a formal, abstract and mechanizable way. Beliefs about proof and the culture in which it is practiced help frame a mathematician's view of the discipline and ultimately impacts classroom practice. The authors believe that current classroom instruction tends to create a culture that fosters algorithmic proficiency and a “machine-like” approach to the learning of mathematics and problem-solving. Further, they argue that mathematicians need to be aware of the distinction between knowing a proof is true and explaining why it is true. When these distinctions are appreciated and practiced during classroom instruction, then and only then will students begin to acquire the mathematical knowledge to become better problem solvers.     

Problem solving heuristics,affect, and discrete mathematics

It has been suggested that activities in discrete mathematics allow a kind of new beginning for students and teachers. Students who have been “turned off” by traditional school mathematics, and teachers who have long ago routinized their instruction, can find in the domain of discrete mathematics opportunities for mathematical discovery and interesting, nonroutine problem solving. Sometimes formerly low-achieving students demonstrate mathematical abilities their teachers did not know they had. To take maximum advantage of these possibilities, it is important to know what kinds of thinking during problem solving can be naturally evoked by discrete mathematical situations—so that in developing a curriculum, the objectives can include pathways to desired mathematical reasoning processes. This article discusses some of these ways of thinking, with special attention to the idea of “modeling the general on the particular.” Some comments are also offered about students' possible affective pathways and structures.     

Mathematikdidaktik: Die Erforschung theoretischen Wissens in sozialen Kontexten des Lernens und Lehrens

The problem of “defining” mathematics education as a proper scientific discipline has been discussed controversely for more than 20 years now. The paper tries to clarify some important aspects especially for answering the question of what makes mathematics education a specific scientific discipline and a field of research. With this aim in mind the following two dimensions are investigated: On the one hand, one has to be aware that mathematics is not “per se” the object of research in mathematics education, but that mathematical knowledge always has to be regarded as being “situated” within a social context. This means that mathematical knowledge only gains its specific epistemological meaning within a social context and that the development and understanding of mathematical knowledge is strongly influenced by the social context. On the other hand the specificity of the theory-practice-problem poses an essential demand on the scientific work in mathematics education.     

Computerunterstützung offener Aufgabenstellungen im Geometrieunterricht

The conventional and traditional way of mathematics teaching for the most part relies on practising and performance of algorithms and solutions of certain kinds of problems. The exclusive objective of the required activities for solving the convergent problems that are generally used in this connection is to achieve methodological competence. This approach reduces mathematics teaching to the purpose of achieving calculational competence and ignores an essential inherent component, namely the chance to stimulate the creativity and create incentives to generate something completely new. Lack of appropriate tools may be one reason explaining the fact that this creative aspect has been left almost unconsidered in teaching practice so far, because solving “open problems” requires specific tools and means. The following article is intended to demonstrate, with a concrete example from geometry teaching at lower secondary level, the opportunities opened up by the computer when used as a tool for introducing in class the typical problems and mathematical problem solving strategies required for mathematics beyond methods and calculational competence.     

From convergence to divergence: the development of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore

Following the movement of problem solving in the US and other parts of the world in the 1980s, problem solving became the central focus of Singapore’s national school mathematics curriculum in 1990 and thereafter the key theme in research and practice. Different from some other countries, this situation has largely not changed in Singapore mathematics education since then. However, within the domain of problem solving, mathematics educators in Singapore focused more on the fundamental knowledge, basic skills, and heuristics for problem solving till the mid 1990s. In particular, problem solving heuristics, especially the so-called “model method”, a term most widely used for problem solving, received much attention in syllabus, research, and classroom instruction. Since the late 1990s, following the national vision of “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” and nurturing modern citizens with independent, critical, and creative thinking, Singapore mathematics educators’ attention has greatly expanded to the development of students’ higher-order thinking, self-reflection and self-regulation, alternative ways of assessment and instruction, among other aspects concerning problem solving. Researchers have also looked into the advantages and disadvantages of Singapore’s textbooks in representing problem solving, and the findings of these investigations have influenced the development of the latest school mathematics textbooks.     

Appropriate problems for learning and for performing—an issue for teacher training

Selecting, modifying or creating appropriate problems for mathematics class has become an activity of increaing importance in the professional development of German mathematics teachers. But rather than asking in general: “What is a good problem?” there should be a stronger emphasis on considering the specific goal of a problem, e.g.: “What are the ingredients that make a problem appropriate for initiating a learning process” or “What are the characteristics that make a problem appropriate for its use in a central test?” We propose a guiding scheme for teachers that turns out to be especially helpful, since the newly introduced orientation on outcome standards a) leads to a critical predominance of test items and b) expects teachers to design adequate problems for specific learning processes (e.g. problem solving, reasoning and modelling activities).     

Problem solving in the mathematics classroom: the German perspective

In Germany, problem solving has important roots that date back at least to the beginning of the twentieth century. However, problem solving was not primarily an aspect of mathematics education but was particularly influenced by cognitive psychologists. Above all, the Gestalt psychology developed by researchers such as Köhler (Intelligenzprüfungen an Anthropoiden. Verlag der Königlichen Akademie des Wissens, Berlin, 1917; English translation: The mentality of apes. Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1925), Duncker (Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens. Springer, Berlin, 1935), Wertheimer (Productive thinking. Harper, New York, 1945), and Metzger (Schöpferische Freiheit. Waldemar Kramer, Frankfurt, 1962) made extensive use of mathematical problems in order to describe their specific problem-solving theories. However, this research had hardly any influence on mathematics education—neither as a scientific discipline nor as a foundation for mathematics instruction. In the German mathematics classroom, problem solving, which is according to Halmos (in Am Math Mon 87:519–524, 1980) the “heart of mathematics,” did not attract the interest it deserved as a genuine mathematical topic. There is some evidence that this situation may change. In the past few years, nationwide standards for school mathematics have been introduced in Germany. In these standards, problem solving is specifically addressed as a process-oriented standard that should be part of the mathematics classroom through all grades. This article provides an overview on problem solving in Germany with reference to psychology, mathematics, and mathematics education. It starts with a presentation of the historical roots but gives also insights into contemporary developments and the classroom practice.     

Problem solving in the United States, 1970–2008: research and theory, practice and politics

Problem solving was a major focus of mathematics education research in the US from the mid-1970s though the late 1980s. By the mid-1990s research under the banner of “problem solving” was seen less frequently as the field’s attention turned to other areas. However, research in those areas did incorporate some ideas from the problem solving research, and that work continues to evolve in important ways. In curricular terms, the problem solving research of the 1970s and 1980s (see, e.g., Lester in J Res Math Educ, 25(6), 660–675, 1994, and Schoenfeld in Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning, MacMillan, New York, pp 334–370, 1992, for reviews) gave birth to the “reform” or “standards-based” curriculum movement. New curricula embodying ideas from the research were created in the 1990s and began to enter the marketplace. These curricula were controversial. Despite evidence that they tend to produce positive results, they may well fall victim to the “math wars” as the “back to basics” movement in the US is revitalized.     

Teacher Rationales for Scoring Students' Problem Solving Work

This article presents the scores teachers assigned to samples of actual students' problem-solving work and the rationales teachers provided for these scores. These rationales may reflect teachers' values relative to aspects of mathematical problem solving. It may be that when teachers can express rationales for scoring students' work, they are able to justify their evaluation of what students can “know and do” in mathematics.     

问题驱动 多元表征的概念教学探究——对偶线性规划教学案例设计

数学与应用数学(师范)专业中的《运筹学》具有跨学科、实践性的课程特点,目标在于培养职前教师用数学方法解决实际问题的能力.结合义务教育阶段新课程标准中"四基"的提出这一背景,本文将以线性规划部分(运筹数学)对偶线性规划概念的引入这一知识模块为例,探讨通过问题串形式进行问题驱动、多元表征的概念教学过程.即遵循问题驱动—兴趣驱动—问题意识发展—提出和解决新问题,依据数学与外部联系、数学内部联系两条主线设计教学和学习,探索如何通过问题驱动、多元表征的结构化教学过程引导学生的学习方式发生改变,增强探究学习的动机,发展问题解决能力.课堂教学实践证明效果优于以往单一的讲授式教学法,一定程度上提高了学生的学业成绩、应用问题的兴趣和问题解决意识.     

Cognitive level in problem segments and theory segments

Problems play an important role in mathematics instruction and are therefore frequently seen as central points of application for measures of instructional development. The research project “Quality of instruction and mathematical understanding in different cultures” examines the cognitive level of practice problems and theory problems in a three-lesson unit on the Introduction to Pythagorean theorem¹: Analogously to the TIMSS 1999 video study, a differentiation was made between the cognitive level of problem statement and the cognitive level of problem implementation. Additionally, the lesson time was also divided into practice and theory segments. The results show that teachers with a high proportion of connection activities in practice segments do not necessarily also spend a greater proportion of time on an analogous level for theory.     

Parent Involvement in Elementary Problem Solving

Parental involvement has been a cornerstone of education for generations. In elementary mathematics, however, it has often been difficult to get parents involved in problem-solving activities. This article describes how process problems were integrated into a Parent-Teacher Organization newsletter as a means of getting families involved in problem solving. Methods of generating problems and preparing solutions are discussed. The ideas presented worked well for parental involvement and are also applicable to classroom instruction.     

The development of instructional guidelines for elementary mathematical writing

Mathematical writing recently has been defined as writing to reason and communicate mathematically. But mathematics instructional resources lack guidance for teachers as to how to implement such writing. The purpose of this paper is to describe how methods of design-based research were used to develop an instructional resource when one does not currently exist. Thirty-four participants—including teachers, mathematics coaches, mathematics curriculum developers, literacy coaches, a mathematician, and academics in elementary mathematics education, mathematics education, writing education, and science education—participated in a multi-step process to recommend, revise, and confirm instructional guidelines for elementary mathematical writing. The development process began with thirty-two recommendations from science writing and language arts writing. Through multiple cycles of feedback, five instructional guidelines and related considerations and techniques for implementation of elementary mathematical writing emerged.     

Multiple levels of metacognition and their elicitation through complex problem-solving tasks

Building on prior efforts, we re-conceptualize metacognition on multiple levels, looking at the sources that trigger metacognition at the individual level, the social level, and the environmental level. This helps resolve the paradox of metacognition: metacognition is personal, but it cannot be explained exclusively by individualistic conceptions. We develop a theoretical model of metacognition in collaborative problem solving based on models and modeling perspectives. The theoretical model addresses several challenges previously found in the research of metacognition. This paper illustrates how metacognition was elicited, at the environmental level, through problems requiring different problem-solving processes (definition building and operationalizing definitions), and how metacognition operated at both the individual level and the social level during complex problem solving. The re-conceptualization of metacognition has the potential to guide the development of metacognitive activities and effective instructional methods to integrate them into existing curricula that are necessary to engage students in active, higher-order learning.     

Facilitating parental engagement in school mathematics and science through inquiry-based learning: an examination of teachers’ and parents’ beliefs

This study examined teachers’ and parents’ beliefs on the implementation of inquiry-based modeling activities as a means to facilitate parental engagement in school mathematics and science. The study had three objectives: (a) to describe teachers’ beliefs about inquiry-based mathematics and science and parental engagement; (b) to describe parents’ beliefs about inquiry-based mathematics and science and their engagement in inquiry-based problem solving; and (c) to explore the impact of an inquiry-based learning environment comprising a model-eliciting activity and Twitter. The research involved three sixth-grade teachers and 32 parents from one elementary school. Teachers and parents participated in workshops, followed by the implementation of a model-eliciting activity in two classrooms. Three teachers and six parents participated in semi-structured interviews. Teachers reported positive beliefs on parental engagement in the mathematics and science classrooms and the potential positive role of parents in implementing innovative problem-solving activities. Parents expressed strong beliefs on their engagement and welcomed the inquiry-based modeling approach. Based on the results of this aspect of a four-year longitudinal design, implications for parental engagement in inquiry-based mathematics and science teaching and learning and further research are discussed.     

Korean and American Elementary School Teachers' Beliefs about Mathematics Problem Solving

Elementary school teachers in South Korea and the United States completed a beliefs and practices questionnaire pertaining to mathematical problem-solving instruction. Although both groups of teachers shared a general approach to teaching with a focus on problem-solving strategies, many differences were apparent. Korean teachers rated themselves and their students higher in problem-solving ability than American teachers. Korean teachers perceived their mathematics textbook as a more valuable source for problem-solving instruction and word problems. Korean teachers more strongly agreed that students should know the key-word approach for solving problems. American teachers reported more frequent use of calculators, manipulatives, and small group instruction. The results indicate that American teachers may more often use instructional techniques that are aligned with current recommendations for mathematics instruction.