LESSON V

Mathematical Problem Solving

RESEARCH ON PROBLEM SOLVING

Educational research is conducted within a variety of constraints - isolation of variables,

availability of subjects, limitations of research procedures, availability of resources, and balancing
of priorities. Various research methodologies are used in mathematics education research
including a clinical approach that is frequently used to study problem solving. Typically,
mathematical tasks or problem situations are devised, and students are studied as they perform
the tasks. Often they are asked to talk aloud while working or they are interviewed and asked to
reflect on their experience and especially their thinking processes. Waters discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of four different methods of measuring strategy use involving a
clinical approach. Schoenfeld describes how a clinical approach may be used with pairs of students
in an interview. He indicates that "dialog between students often serves to make managerial
decisions overt, whereas such decisions are rarely overt in single student protocols."

The basis for most mathematics problem solving research for secondary school students
in the past 31 years can be found in the writings of Polya, the field of cognitive psychology, and
specifically in cognitive science. Cognitive psychologists and cognitive scientists seek to develop
or validate theories of human learning whereas mathematics educators seek to understand how
their students interact with mathematics. The area of cognitive science has particularly relied on
computer simulations of problem solving. If a computer program generates a sequence of
behaviors similar to the sequence for human subjects, then that program is a model or theory of
the behavior. Newell and Simon, Larkin, and Bobrow have provided simulations of mathematical
problem solving. These simulations may be used to better understand mathematics problem
solving.

Constructivist theories have received considerable acceptance in mathematics education

in recent years. In the constructivist perspective, the learner must be actively involved in the
construction of one's own knowledge rather than passively receiving knowledge. The teacher's
responsibility is to arrange situations and contexts within which the learner constructs appropriate
knowledge. Even though the constructivist view of mathematics learning is appealing and the
theory has formed the basis for many studies at the elementary level, research at the secondary
level is lacking. Our review has not uncovered problem solving research at the secondary level
that has its basis in a constructivist perspective. However, constructivism is consistent with
current cognitive theories of problem solving and mathematical views of problem solving involving
exploration, pattern finding, and mathematical thinking; thus we urge that teachers and teacher
educators become familiar with constructivist views and evaluate these views for restructuring
their approaches to teaching, learning, and research dealing with problem solving.
A FRAMEWORK

It is useful to develop a framework to think

about the processes involved in mathematics
problem solving. Most formulations of a
problem solving framework in U. S.
textbooks attribute some relationship to
Polya's problem solving stages. However, it
is important to note that Polya's "stages"
were more flexible than the "steps" often
delineated in textbooks.
These stages were described
as understanding the problem, making
a plan, carrying out the plan,
and looking back. To Polya, problem
solving was a major theme of doing
mathematics and "teaching students to
think" was of primary importance.

"How to think" is a theme that underlies much of genuine inquiry and problem solving
in mathematics. However, care must be taken so that efforts to teach students "how to think" in
mathematics problem solving do not get transformed into teaching "what to think" or "what to
do." This is, in particular, a byproduct of an emphasis on procedural knowledge about problem
solving as seen in the linear frameworks of U. S. mathematics textbooks and the very limited
problems/exercises included in lessons.

Clearly, the linear nature of the models used in numerous textbooks does not promote
the spirit of Polya's stages and his goal of teaching students to think. By their nature, all of these
traditional models have the following defects:

1. They depict problem solving as a linear process.

2. They present problem solving as a series of steps.
3. They imply that solving mathematics problems is a procedure to be memorized, practiced,
and habituated.
4. They lead to an emphasis on answer getting.

These linear formulations are not very consistent with genuine problem solving activity. They
may, however, be consistent with how experienced problem solvers present their solutions and
answers after the problem solving is completed. In an analogous way, mathematicians present
their proofs in very concise terms, but the most elegant of proofs may fail to convey the dynamic
inquiry that went on in constructing the proof.
 Another aspect of problem solving that is seldom included in textbooks is problem posing, or
problem formulation. Although there has been little research in this area, this activity has been
gaining considerable attention in U. S. mathematics education in recent years. Brown and Walter
have provided the major work on problem posing. Indeed, the examples and strategies they
illustrate show a powerful and dynamic side to problem posing activities. Polya did not talk
specifically about problem posing, but much of the spirit and format of problem posing is included
in his illustrations of looking back.

A framework is needed that emphasizes the dynamic and cyclic nature of genuine problem
solving. A student may begin with a problem and engage in thought and activity to understand
it. The student attempts to make a plan and in the process may discover a need to understand
the problem better. Or when a plan has been formed, the student may attempt to carry it out
and be unable to do so. The next activity may be attempting to make a new plan, or going back
to develop a new understanding of the problem, or posing a new (possibly related) problem to
work on.

The framework in Figure 2 is useful for illustrating

the dynamic, cyclic interpretation of Polya's stages.
It has been used in a mathematics problem solving
course at the University of Georgia for many years.
Any of the arrows could describe student activity
(thought) in the process of solving mathematics
problems. Clearly, genuine problem solving
experiences in mathematics cannot be captured by
the outer, one-directional arrows alone. It is not a
theoretical model. Rather, it is a framework for
discussing various pedagogical, curricular,
instructional, and learning issues involved with the
goals of mathematical problem solving in our
schools.

Problem solving abilities, beliefs, attitudes, and performance develop in contexts and those
contexts must be studied as well as specific problem solving activities. We have chosen to
organize the remainder of this chapter around the topics of problem solving as a process, problem
solving as an instructional goal, problem solving as an instructional method, beliefs about problem
solving, evaluation of problem solving, and technology and problem solving.

PROBLEM SOLVING AS A PROCESS

Garofola and Lester have suggested that students are largely unaware of the processes
involved in problem solving and that addressing this issue within problem solving instruction may
be important. We will discuss various areas of research pertaining to the process of problem
solving.

Domain Specific Knowledge

To become a good problem solver in mathematics, one must develop a base of

mathematics knowledge. How effective one is in organizing that knowledge also contributes to
successful problem solving. Kantowski found that those students with a good knowledge base
were most able to use the heuristics in geometry instruction. Schoenfeld and Herrmann found
that novices attended to surface features of problems whereas experts categorized problems on
the basis of the fundamental principles involved.
Silver found that successful problem solvers were more likely to categorize math problems on the
basis of their underlying similarities in mathematical structure. Wilson found that general
heuristics had utility only when preceded by task specific heuristics. The task specific heuristics
were often specific to the problem domain, such as the tactic most students develop in working
with trigonometric identities to "convert all expressions to functions of sine and cosine and do
algebraic simplification."

Algorithms

An algorithm is a procedure, applicable to a

particular type of exercise, which, if followed
correctly, is guaranteed to give you the
answer to the exercise. Algorithms are
important in mathematics and our instruction
must develop them but the process of
carrying out an algorithm, even a
complicated one, is not problem solving.

The process of creating an algorithm, however, and generalizing it to a specific set of applications
can be problem solving. Thus problem solving can be incorporated into the curriculum by having
students create their own algorithms. Research involving this approach is currently more
prevalent at the elementary level within the context of constructivist theories.

Heuristics

Heuristics are kinds of information, available to students in making decisions during

problem solving, that are aids to the generation of a solution, plausible in nature rather than
prescriptive, seldom providing infallible guidance, and variable in results.

Somewhat synonymous terms are strategies, techniques, and rules-of-thumb. For

example, admonitions to "simplify an algebraic expression by removing parentheses," to "make
a table," to "restate the problem in your own words," or to "draw a figure to suggest the line of
argument for a proof" are heuristic in nature. Out of context, they have no particular value, but
incorporated into situations of doing mathematics they can be quite powerful.

Theories of mathematics problem solving have placed a major focus on the role of
heuristics. Surely it seems that providing explicit instruction on the development and use of
heuristics should enhance problem solving performance; yet it is not that simple. Schoenfeld and
Lesh have pointed out the limitations of such a simplistic analysis. Theories must be enlarged to
incorporate classroom contexts, past knowledge and experience, and beliefs.

Mathematics instruction stressing heuristic processes has been the focus of several
studies. Kantowski used heuristic instruction to enhance the geometry problem solving
performance of secondary school students. Wilson and Smith examined contrasts of general and
task specific heuristics. These studies revealed that task specific heuristic instruction was more
effective than general heuristic instruction. Jensen used the heuristic of sub goal generation to
enable students to form problem solving plans. He used thinking aloud, peer interaction, playing
the role of teacher, and direct instruction to develop students' abilities to generate sub goals.

Managing It All

An extensive knowledge base of domain specific information, algorithms, and a repertoire

of heuristics are not sufficient during problem solving. The student must also construct some
decision mechanism to select from among the available heuristics, or to develop new ones, as
problem situations are encountered. A major theme of Polya's writing was to do mathematics, to
reflect on problems solved or attempted, and to think. Certainly Polya expected students to
engage in thinking about the various tactics, patterns, techniques, and strategies available to
them. To build a theory of problem solving that approaches Polya's model, a manager function
must be incorporated into the system. Long ago, Dewey, in How We Think, emphasized self-
reflection in the solving of problems.

Recent research has been much more explicit in attending to this aspect of problem solving
and the learning of mathematics. The field of metacognition concerns thinking about one's own
cognition. Metacognition theory holds that such thought can monitor, direct, and control one's
cognitive processes. Schoenfeld described and demonstrated an executive or monitor component
to his problem solving theory. His problem solving courses included explicit attention to a set of
guidelines for reflecting about the problem solving activities in which the students were engaged.
Clearly, effective problem solving instruction must provide the students with an opportunity to
reflect during problem solving activities in a systematic and constructive way.
The Importance of Looking Back

Looking back may be the most important part of problem solving. It is the set of activities
that provides the primary opportunity for students to learn from the problem. The phase was
identified by Polya with admonitions to examine the solution by such activities as checking the
result, checking the argument, deriving the result differently, using the result, or the method, for
some other problem, reinterpreting the problem, interpreting the result, or stating a new problem
to solve.

Teachers and researchers report, however, that developing the disposition to look back is
very hard to accomplish with students. Kantowski found little evidence among students of looking
back even though the instruction had stressed it. Wilson conducted a yearlong in service
mathematics problem solving course for secondary teachers in which each participant developed
materials to implement some aspect of problem solving in their on-going teaching assignment.
During the debriefing session at the final meeting, a teacher put it succinctly: "In schools, there
is no looking back." The discussion underscored the agreement of all the participants that getting
students to engage in looking back activities was difficult. Some of the reasons cited were
entrenched beliefs that problem solving in mathematics is answer getting; pressure to cover a
prescribed course syllabus; testing (or the absence of tests that measure processes); and student
frustration.

The importance of looking back, however, outweighs these difficulties. Five activities
essential to promote learning from problem solving are developing and exploring problem
contexts, extending problems, extending solutions, extending processes, and developing self-
reflection. Teachers can easily incorporate the use of writing in mathematics into the looking back
phase of problem solving. It is what you learn after you have solved the problem that really
counts.

Problem Posing

Problem posing and problem formulation are logically and philosophically appealing
notions to mathematics educators and teachers. Brown and Walter provide suggestions for
implementing these ideas. In particular, they discuss the "What-If-Not" problem posing strategy
that encourages the generation of new problems by changing the conditions of a current problem.
For example, given a mathematics theorem or rule, students may be asked to list its attributes.
After a discussion of the attributes, the teacher may ask "what if some or all of the given attributes
are not true?" Through this discussion, the students generate new problems.
 Brown and Walter provide a wide variety of
situations implementing this strategy
including a discussion of the development of
non-Euclidean geometry. After many years
of attempting to prove the parallel postulate
as a theorem, mathematicians began to ask
"What if it were not the case that through a
given external point there was exactly one-
line parallel to the given line?

What if there were two? None? What would that do to the structure of geometry?". Although
these ideas seem promising, there is little explicit research reported on problem posing.

PROBLEM SOLVING AS AN INSTRUCTIONAL GOAL

Why Problem Solving?

The NCTM has strongly endorsed the inclusion of problem solving in school mathematics.
There are many reasons for doing this.

First, problem solving is a major part of mathematics. It is the sum and substance of our
discipline and to reduce the discipline to a set of exercises and skills devoid of problem solving is
misrepresenting mathematics as a discipline and shortchanging the students. Second,
mathematics has many applications and often those applications represent important problems
in mathematics. Our subject is used in the work, understanding, and communication within other
disciplines. Third, there is an intrinsic motivation embedded in solving mathematics problems. We
include problem solving in school mathematics because it can stimulate the interest and
enthusiasm of the students. Fourth, problem solving can be fun. Many of us do mathematics
problems for recreation. Finally, problem solving must be in the school mathematics curriculum
to allow students to develop the art of problem solving. This art is so essential to understanding
mathematics and appreciating mathematics that it must be an instructional goal.

Teachers often provide strong rationale for not including problem solving activities is
school mathematics instruction. These include arguments that problem solving is too difficult,
problem solving takes too much time, the school curriculum is very full and there is no room for
problem solving, problem solving will not be measured and tested, mathematics is sequential and
students must master facts, procedures, and algorithms, appropriate mathematics problems are
not available, problem solving is not in the textbooks, and basic facts must be mastered through
drill and practice before attempting the use of problem solving. We should note, however, that
the student benefits from incorporating problem solving into the mathematics curriculum as
discussed above outweigh this line of reasoning. Also we should caution against claiming an
emphasize on problem solving when in fact the emphasis is on routine exercises. From various
studies involving problem solving instruction, Suydam concluded:

If problem solving is treated as "apply the procedure," then the students try to follow the rules
in subsequent problems. If you teach problem solving as an approach, where you must think and
can apply anything that works, then students are likely to be less rigid.

PROBLEM SOLVING AS AN INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD

Problem solving as a method of teaching may be used to accomplish the instructional goals of
learning basic facts, concepts, and procedures, as well as goals for problem solving within problem
contexts. For example, if students investigate the areas of all triangles having a fixed perimeter
of 60 units, the problem solving activities should provide ample practice in computational skills
and use of formulas and procedures, as well as opportunities for the conceptual development of
the relationships between area and perimeter. The "problem" might be to find the triangle with
the most area, the areas of triangles with integer sides, or a triangle with area numerically equal
to the perimeter. Thus problem solving as a method of teaching can be used to introduce concepts
through lessons involving exploration and discovery. The creation of an algorithm, and its
refinement, is also a complex problem solving task which can be accomplished through the
problem approach to teaching. Open ended problem solving often uses problem contexts, where
a sequence of related problems might be explored. For example, the problems in the
investigations in the insert evolved from considering gardens of different shapes that could be
enclosed with 100 yards of fencing:

Suppose one had 100 yards of fencing to enclose a garden. What shapes could be
enclosed? What are the dimensions of each and what is the area? Make a chart.

What triangular region with P = 100 has the most area?

Find all five triangular regions with P = 100 having integer sides and integer area. (such as 29,
29, 42)

What rectangular regions could be enclosed? Areas? Organize a table? Make a graph?
Which rectangular region has the most area? from a table? from a graph? from algebra, using
the arithmetic mean-geometric mean inequality?

What is the area of a regular hexagon with P = 100?

What is the area of a regular octagon with P = 100?
What is the area of a regular n-gon with P = 100? Make a table for n = 3 to 25. Make a graph.
What happens to 1/n(tan 180/n) as n increases?

What if part of the fencing is used to build a partition perpendicular to a side? Consider
a rectangular region with one partition? With 2 partitions? with n partitions? (There is a surprise
in this one!!) What if the partition is a diagonal of the rectangle?

What is the maximum area of a sector of a circle with P = 100? (Here is another
surprise!!! -- could you believe it is r2 when r = 25? How is this similar to a square being the
maximum rectangle and the central angle of the maximum sector being 2 radians?)

What about regions built along a natural boundary? For example, the maximum for both
a rectangular region and a triangular region built along a natural boundary with 100 yards of
fencing is 1250 sq. yds. But the rectangle is not the maximum area four-sided figure that can
be built. What is the maximum-area four-sided figure?

Whether the students encounter good mathematics problems depends on the skill of the
teacher to incorporate problems from various sources (often not in textbooks). We encourage
teachers to begin building a resource book of problems oriented specifically to a course in their
on-going workload. Good problems can be found in the Applications in Mathematics (AIM
Project) materials consisting of video tapes, resource books and computer diskettes published by
the Mathematical Association of America. These problems can often be extended or modified by
teachers and students to emphasize their interests. Problems of interest for teachers and their
students can also be developed through the use of The Challenge of the Unknown materials
developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. These materials consist
of tapes providing real situations from which mathematical problems arise and a handbook of
ideas and activities that can be used to generate other problems.

BELIEFS ABOUT MATHEMATICS PROBLEM SOLVING

The importance of students' (and teachers') beliefs about mathematics problem solving
lies in the assumption of some connection between beliefs and behavior. Thus, it is argued, the
beliefs of mathematics students, mathematics teachers, parents, policy makers, and the general
public about the roles of problem solving in mathematics become prerequisite or co-requisite to
developing problem solving. The Curriculum and Evaluation Standards makes the point that
"students need to view themselves as capable of using their growing mathematical knowledge to
make sense of new problem situations in the world around them". We prefer to think of
developing a sense of "can do" in our students as they encounter mathematics problems.
 Schoenfeld reported results from a year-long study of detailed observations, analysis of
videotaped instruction, and follow-up questionnaire data from two tenth-grade geometry classes.
These classes were in select high schools and the classes were highly successful as determined
by student performance on the New York State Regent's examination. Students reported beliefs
that mathematics helps them to think clearly and they can be creative in mathematics, yet, they
also claimed that mathematics is learned best by memorization. Similar contrasts have been
reported for the National Assessment. Indeed, our conversations with teachers and our
observations portray an overwhelming predisposition of secondary school mathematics students
to view problem solving as answer getting, view mathematics as a set of rules, and be highly
oriented to doing well on tests.
Schoenfeld was able to tell us much more about the classes in his study. He makes the following
points.

The rhetoric of problem solving has become familiar over the past decade. That rhetoric
was frequently heard in the classes we observed -- but the reality of those classrooms is that real
problems were few and far between . . . virtually all problems the students were asked to solve
were bite-size exercises designed to achieve subject matter mastery: the exceptions were clearly
peripheral tasks that the students found enjoyable but that they considered to be recreations or
rewards rather than the substance they were expected to learn . . . the advances in mathematics
education in the [past] decade . . . have been largely in our acquiring a more enlightened goal
structure, and having students pick up the rhetoric -- but not the substance -- related to those
goals.

Each of us needs to ask if the situation Schoenfeld describes is similar to our own school.
We must take care that espoused beliefs about problem solving are consistent with a legitimately
implemented problem solving focus in school mathematics.

EVALUATION OF PROBLEM SOLVING

As the emphasis on problem solving in mathematics classrooms increases, the need for
evaluation of progress and instruction in problem solving becomes more pressing. It no longer
suffices for us to know which kinds of problems are correctly and incorrectly solved by students.
As Schoenfeld describes:

All too often we focus on a narrow collection of well-defined tasks and train students to execute
those tasks in a routine, if not algorithmic fashion. Then we test the students on tasks that are
very close to the ones they have been taught. If they succeed on those problems, we and they
congratulate each other on the fact that they have learned some powerful mathematical
techniques. In fact, they may be able to use such techniques mechanically while lacking some
rudimentary thinking skills. To allow them, and ourselves, to believe that they "understand" the
mathematics is deceptive and fraudulent.
 Schoenfeld indicates that capable mathematics students when removed from the context
of coursework have difficulty doing what may be considered elementary mathematics for their
level of achievement. For example, he describes a situation in which he gave a straightforward
theorem from tenth grade plane geometry to a group of junior and senior mathematics majors
at the University of California involved in a problem solving course. Of the eight students solving
this problem only two made any significant progress.
We need to focus on the teaching and learning of mathematics and, in turn, problem solving
using a holistic approach. As recommended in the NCTM's an Agenda for Action, "the success
of mathematics programs and student learning [must] be evaluated by a wider range of measures
than conventional testing". Although this recommendation is widely accepted among mathematics
educators, there is a limited amount of research dealing with the evaluation of problem solving
within the classroom environment.

Teacher’s Insights

The primary goal of most students in mathematics classes is to see an algorithm that
will give them the answer quickly. Students and parents struggle with (and at times against)
the idea that math class can and should involve exploration, conjecturing, and thinking. When
students struggle with a problem, parents often accuse them of not paying attention in class;
"surely the teacher showed you how to work the problem!" How can parents, students,
colleagues, and the public become more informed regarding genuine problem solving? How
can I as a mathematics teacher in the secondary school help students and their parents
understand what real mathematics learning is all about?