Routine and non-routine problem solving

We can categorize problem solving into two basic types: routine and non-routine. The purposes and the strategies used for solving problems are different for each type.

Routine problem solving

From the curricular point of view, routine problem solving involves using at least one of the four arithmetic operations and/or ratio to solve problems that are practical in nature. Routine problem solving concerns to a large degree the kind of problem solving that serves a socially useful function that has immediate and future payoff. Children typically do routine problem solving as early as age 5 or 6. They combine and separate things such as toys in the course of their normal activities. Adults are regularly called upon to do simple and complex routine problem solving. Here is an example. A sales promotion in a store advertises a jacket regularly priced at $125.98 but now selling for 20% off the regular price. The store also waives the tax. You have $100 in your pocket (or $100 left in your charge account). Do you have enough money to buy the jacket? As adults, and as children, we normally want to solve certain kinds of problems (such as the one above) in a way that reflects an Aha, I know what is going on here and this is what I need to do to figure out the answer. reaction to the problem. We do not want to guess and check or think backwards or make use of similar strategies. Invariably, solving such problems involves using at least one of the four arithmetic operations (and/or ratio). Being good at doing arithmetic (e. g. adding two numbers: mentally, by pencil and paper, with manipulatives, by punching numbers in a calculator) does not guarantee success at solving routine problems. The critical matter is knowing what arithmetic to do in the first place. Actually doing the arithmetic is secondary to the matter. A mathematics researcher interviewed children about how they solve routine problems. One boy reported his method as follows: If there were two numbers and they were both big, he subtracted. If there was one large and one small number, he divided. If it did not come out even, he multiplied . The other interesting aspect of all of this is that the child had done quite well at solving routine problems throughout his school career. What does this say about teaching practice? What does this say about assessing what children understand? Is the case of the boy an isolated incident or is it the norm? Unfortunately, research tells us that it is likely the norm. Not enough students and adults are good at solving routine problems. Research also tells us that in order for students to be good at routine problem solving they need to learn the meanings of the arithmetic operations (and the concept of ratio) well and in ways that are based on real and familiar experiences. While there are only four arithmetic operations, there are more than four distinct meanings that can be attached to the operations. For example, division has only one meaning: splitting up into equal groups. Subtraction, on the other hand, has at least two meanings: taking away something away from one set or comparing two sets (refer to The meanings of the arithmetic operations.) Once students understand the meaning of an arithmetic operation they have a powerful conceptual tool to apply to solving routine problems. The primary strategy becomes deciding on what arithmetic operation to use. That decision cannot be made in the manner done by the boy of the research anecdote. The decision should be made on the basis of IDENTIFYING WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE PROBLEM. This approach requires understanding the meanings of the arithmetic operations. The research evidence suggests that good routine problem solvers have a repertoire of automatic symbol-based and context-based responses to problem situations. They do not rely on manipulating concrete materials, nor on using strategies such as 'guess and check' or think backwards. Rather, they rely on representing what is going on in a problem by selecting from a limited set of mathematical templates or models. Refer to Using arithmetic operation meanings to solve routine problems for details.

Solving routine problems should at some point involve solving complex problems. Complexity can be achieved through multi-step problems (making use of more than one arithmetic operation) or through Fermi problems. It is advisable to do both. Fermi problems are special problems that are characterized by the need to estimate something and the need to obtain relevant data. They typically involve the application of the meaning of at least one arithmetic operation and sometimes something else (e. g. how to calculate the area of a triangle). Here is an example of a Fermi problem: About how many cars are there in Manitoba? Solving this Fermi problem about the cars would involve matters like obtaining/estimating data about the population of Manitoba that might own a c ar and making use of the groups of meaning of multiplication. It could involve more matters. That would depend on the degree of sophistication of insight into the problem. In general, solving Fermi problems involves estimating where the exact value is often unknown, and perhaps it is even unknowable. While the estimate may be considerably in error, the important matter is on describing how the estimate was obtained. That requires students to justify their reasoning in terms of the meanings of arithmetic operations and in terms of the relevance of the data they collected/estimated.

Non-routine problem solving

Non-routine problem solving serves a different purpose than routine problem solving. While routine problem solving concerns solving problems that are useful for daily living (in the present or in the future), non-routine problem solving concerns that only indirectly. Non-routine problem solving is mostly concerned with developing students mathematical reasoning power and fostering the understanding tha t mathematics is a creative endeavour. From the point of view of students, non-routine problem solving can be challenging and interesting. From the point of view of planning classroom instruction, teachers can use non-routine problem solving to introduce ideas (EXPLORATORY stage of teaching); to deepen and extend understandings of algorithms, skills, and concepts (MAINTENANCE stage of teaching); and to motivate and challenge students (EXPLORATORY and MAINTENANCE stages of teaching). There are other uses as well. Having students do non-routine problem solving can encourage the move from specific to general thinking; in other words, encourage the ability to think in more abstract ways. From the point of view of students growing to adulthood, that ability is becoming more important in todays technological, complex, and demanding world. Non-routine problem solving can be seen as evoking an I tried this and I tried that, and eureka, I finally figured it out. reaction. That involves a search for heuristics (strategies seeking to discover). There is no convenient model or solution path that is readily available to apply to solving a problem. That is in sharp contrast to routine problem solving where there are readily identifiable models (the meanings of the arithmetic operations and the associated templates) to apply to problem situations. The following is an example of a problem that concerns non-routine problem solving. Consider what happens when 35 is multiplied by 41. The result is 1435. Notice that all four digits of the two multipliers reappear in the product of 1435 (but they are rearranged). One could call numbers such as 35 and 41 as pairs of stubborn numbers because their digits reappear in the product when the two numbers are multiplied together. Find as many pairs of 2-digit stubborn numbers as you can. There are 6 pairs in all (not including 35 & 41). Solving problems like the one above normally requires a search for a strategy that seeks to discover a solution (a heuristic). There are many strategies that can be used for solving unfamiliar or unusual problems. The strategies suggested below are teachable to the extent that teachers can encourage and help students to identify, to understand, and to use them. However, non-routine problem solving cannot be approached in an automatized way as can routine problem solving. To say that another way, we cannot find nice, tidy methods of solution for all problems. Inevitably, we will be confronted with a situation that evokes the response; I haven't got much of a clue how to do this; let me see what I can try.

The list below does not contain strategies like: read the question carefully, draw a diagram, or make a table. Those kinds of strategies are not the essence of what it takes to be successful at non-routine problem solving. They are only preliminary steps that help in getting organized. The hard part still remains - to actually solve the problem and that takes more powerful strategies than drawing a diagram, reading the question carefully, or making a table. The following list of strategies is appropriate for Early and Middle Years students in that the strategies involve ways of thinking that are likely to be comfortable for these students. Look for a pattern Guess and check Make and solve a simpler problem. Work backwards. Act it out/make a model. Break up the problem into smaller ones and try to solve these first.

It is important that students share how they solved problems so that their classmates are exposed to a variety of strategies as well as the idea that there may be more than one way to reach a solution. It is unwise to force students to use one particular strategy for two important reasons. First, often more than one strategy can be applied to solving a problem. Second, the goal is for students to search for and apply useful strategies, not to train students to make use of a particular strategy. Finally, non-routine problem solving should not be reserved for special students such as those who finish the regular work early. All students should participate in and be encouraged to succeed at non-routine problem solving. All students can benefit from the kinds of thinking that is involved in non-routine problem solving.

Comparing routine and non-routine problem solving

To make clearer the distinction between routine and non-routine problem solving, consider the following two problems. Both are suitable for grade 3.

Problem 1 My mom gave me 35 cents. My father gave me 45 cents. My grandmother gave me 85 cents. How many cents do I have now? Problem 2 Place the numbers 1 to 9, one in each circle so that the sum of the four numbers along any of the three sides of the triangle is 20. There are 9 circles and 9 numbers to place in the circles. Each circle must have a different number in it.

Notice that addition is required for both problems. In problem 1, you need to figure out that you need to add. Understanding addition as modeling a put together action helps you realize that. In problem 2, you are told to add by the word sum. Understanding addition as modeling a put together action does not help you with solving problem 2. Being good at arithmetic might help you a bit, but the matter really concerns a search for strategies to apply to the problem. Guess and check is a useful strategy to begin with.

George Plya
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

George Plya, circa 1973 George Plya (December 13, 1887 September 7, 1985, in Hungarian Plya Gyrgy) was a Hungarian mathematician.

Contents
[hide]

1 Life and works 2 Quotes 3 Plya's four principles o 3.1 First principle: Understand the problem o 3.2 Second principle: Devise a plan o 3.3 Third principle: Carry out the plan o 3.4 Fourth principle: Review/extend 4 See also 5 References 6 External links

[edit] Life and works

He was born as Plya Gyrgy in Budapest, Hungary, and died in Palo Alto, California, USA. He was a professor of mathematics from 1914 to 1940 at ETH Zrich in Switzerland and from 1940 to 1953 at Stanford University carrying on as Stanford Professor Emeritus the rest of his life and career. He worked on a great variety of mathematical topics, including series, number theory, mathematical analysis, geometry, algebra, combinatorics, and probability.[1] In his later days, he spent considerable effort on trying to characterize the methods that people use to solve problems, and to describe how problem-solving should be taught and learned. He wrote four books on the subject: How to Solve It, Mathematical Discovery: On Understanding, Learning, and Teaching Problem Solving; Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning Volume I: Induction and Analogy in Mathematics, and Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning Volume II: Patterns of Plausible Reasoning. In How to Solve It, Plya provides general heuristics for solving problems of all kinds, not only mathematical ones. The book includes advice for teaching students of mathematics and a miniencyclopedia of heuristic terms. It was translated into several languages and has sold over a million copies. Russian physicist Zhores I. Alfyorov, (Nobel laureate in 2000) praised it, saying he was very pleased with Plya's famous book. The book is still referred to in mathematical education. Douglas Lenat's Automated Mathematician and Eurisko artificial intelligence programs were inspired by Plya's work. In 1976 The Mathematical Association of America established the George Plya award "for articles of expository excellence published in the College Mathematics Journal."

[edit] Quotes
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)

To be a good mathematician, or a good gambler, or good at anything, you must be a good guesser. Observe also (what modern writers almost forgot, but some older writers, such as Euler and Laplace, clearly perceived) that the role of inductive evidence in mathematical investigation is similar to its role in physical research. How I need a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy chapters involving quantum mechanics (This is a mnemonic for the first fifteen digits of ; the lengths of the words are the digits.) If you can't solve a problem, then there is an easier problem you can solve: find it. Wishful thinking is imagining good things you don't have...[It] may be bad as too much salt is bad in the soup and even a little garlic is bad in the chocolate pudding. I mean, wishful thinking may be bad if there is too much of it or in the wrong place, but it is good in itself and may be a great help in life and in problem solving. He was the only student that ever scared me (in reference to John von Neumann)

Mathematics is the cheapest science. Unlike physics or chemistry, it does not require any expensive equipment. A Great discovery solves a great problem but there is a grain of discovery in the solution of any problem. Your problem may be modest; but if it brings into play your inventive faculties, and if you solve it by your own means, you may experience the tension and enjoy the triumph of discovery (from "Faces of Mathematics", page 3, Robert, A. W., Macalester College). To conjecture and not to test is the mark of a savage. A drunk man will eventually return home but a drunk bird will lose its way in space. (In reference to random walks in dimension 2 and 3).

[edit] Plya's four principles

[edit] First principle: Understand the problem
This seems so obvious that it is often not even mentioned, yet students are often stymied in their efforts to solve problems simply because they don't understand it fully, or even in part. Plya taught teachers to ask students questions such as:

Do you understand all the words used in stating the problem? What are you asked to find or show? Can you restate the problem in your own words? Can you think of a picture or a diagram that might help you understand the problem? Is there enough information to enable you to find a solution? Do you need to ask a question to get the answer?

[edit] Second principle: Devise a plan

Plya mentions (1957) that there are many reasonable ways to solve problems. The skill at choosing an appropriate strategy is best learned by solving many problems. You will find choosing a strategy increasingly easy. A partial list of strategies is included:

Guess and check Make an orderly list Eliminate possibilities Use symmetry Consider special cases Use direct reasoning Solve an equation

Also suggested:

Look for a pattern Draw a picture Solve a simpler problem Use a model

Work backward Use a formula Be creative Use your head/noggen

[edit] Third principle: Carry out the plan

This step is usually easier than devising the plan. In general (1957), all you need is care and patience, given that you have the necessary skills. Persist with the plan that you have chosen. If it continues not to work discard it and choose another. Don't be misled, this is how mathematics is done, even by professionals.

[edit] Fourth principle: Review/extend

Plya mentions (1957) that much can be gained by taking the time to reflect and look back at what you have done, what worked and what didn't. Doing this will enable you to predict what strategy to use to solve future problems, if thes

Multivariate Polya distribution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search The multivariate Plya distribution, also called the Dirichlet compound multinomial distribution, is a compound probability distribution, where a probability vector p is drawn from a Dirichlet distribution with parameter vector , and a set of discrete samples x is drawn from the multinomial distribution with probability vector p. The compounding corresponds to a Polya urn scheme. In document classification, for example, the distribution is used to represent probabilities over word counts for different document types. The probability of a vector of counts x given the parameter vector is obtained by integrating out the parameters p of the multinomial distribution:

which results in the following explicit formula:

where is the gamma function, and nk is the number of times the outcome in x was k.

The two-dimensional version of the multivariate Plya distribution is known as the Betabinomial model. The multivariate Plya distribution is used in automated document classification and clustering, genetics, economy, combat modeling, and quantitative marketing.