حل المشكلات في الرياضيات - مقال
حل المشكلات في الرياضيات - مقال
حل المشكلات في الرياضيات - مقال
This case study focuses on teachers’ actions during problem-solving lessons. The Article details
aim of this study was to find out how teachers guide students during mathematics
problem-solving lessons: What kinds of questions do teachers ask? How do LUMAT General Issue
Vol 6 No 1 (2018), 22–40
students arrive at solutions to problems? The dataset contained videotaped fourth-
grade math lessons in which students solved a mathematical problem. The research Received 19 August 2017
reveals that teachers can guide students in numerous ways and possibly in ways Accepted 29 March 2018
that prevent students from searching for their own solution strategies. For this Published 6 April 2018
Updated 21 June 2018
reason, problem-solving exercises alone are not sufficient for teaching problem
solving for students, teachers must also be instructed in how to properly guide Pages: 19
students. In the conclusion section, we discuss the types of questions that enable References: 31
teachers to promote active learning in students, which should be the goal of DOI:10.31129/LUMAT.6.1.294
instruction according to the constructive learning theory. Contact: aura.kojo@espoo.fi
www.lumat.fi
Keywords: problem solving, guiding problem-solving, teachers’ questions, active
learning, activating guidance
1 Introduction
through a familiar problem (Schoenfeld, 1985; Pólya, 1945; Leppäaho, 2007; LeBlanc,
1977).
Problem-solving tasks alone do not inform the problem-solving process. In school,
teachers substantially affect students’ problem-solving processes (Pehkonen, 1991,
pp. 24–25), and teachers can guide students in many ways (Stigler & Hiebert, 2004).
One central goal of teachers should be to develop students’ persistence in solving
problems. The atmosphere where teachers support students in investigating and
finding new solutions or solving strategies can influence students’ ability to solve
problems (Näveri, Ahtee, Laine, Pehkonen, & Hannula, 2012, pp. 81–82). Developing
students’ problem-solving skills is one central goal in the Finnish national curriculum
for comprehensive schooling and is one central issue in international educational
science (National Board of Education [NBE], 2016; Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development [OECD], 2013; Binkley, Erstad, Herman, Raizen, Ripley,
Miller-Ricci, & Rumble, 2012).
In this study, we researched which type of teacher guidance would increase
students’ ability to solve problems, and also investigated the effects of teacher
guidance on students’ solution strategies. Our aim was to explore the kind of teacher
questioning that promotes active learning in students. The importance and the
novelty of this paper is that we make a summary of probing, guiding and factual
questions that promote active learning.
2 Theoretical framework
In this section, we discuss problem solving and teachers’ role in problem solving based
on previous studies.
23
LUMAT
to work on it. Also, the teacher makes sure that everyone has understood the
instructions. 2) Then, students try to solve the task while the teacher helps and
supports them. 3) Finally, at the end of the lesson, the ‘looking-back’ phase reviews
students’ achievements in solving the task (e.g. Lampert, 2001; Stein, Engle, Smith, &
Hughes, 2008; Hähkiöniemi & Leppäaho, 2012; Laine, Näveri, Hannula, Ahtee, &
Pehkonen, 2011).
While students are solving tasks, teachers should support their mathematical self-
confidence by providing positive but also realistic feedback (Linnenbrink & Pintrich,
2003). A teacher can help students by listening to them carefully and by flexibly taking
into account their needs. Empathic listening, when practiced by a teacher, helps
students to think aloud their own ideas and enables teachers to support students
without giving too much advice (Pehkonen & Ahtee, 2006). Sometimes, if a teacher
reveals too much information about the problem at hand, a nonstandard problem may
turn into a standard task (Tzur, 2008; Swan, 2007).
Ultimately, teachers can guide students in a variety of ways (Pehkonen, 1991;
Stigler & Hiebert, 2004). Son and Crespo (2009) studied how 34 prospective teachers
analysed hypothetical student solutions in addition to how these teachers responded
to students. They found two different types of teacher guidance: teacher-focused and
student-focused. Teacher-focused guidance occurred when teachers considered the
hypothetical solutions provided by students, for example, when a teacher commented
on what was wrong with students’ solutions or how students could justify or improve
their solution. Meanwhile, in student-focused guidance, teachers provided students
with opportunities to investigate and to justify the solutions on their own.
Hähkiöniemi and Leppäaho (2012) also studied different levels of teacher
guidance as evidenced by prospective teachers’ actions during problem-solving tasks.
They found three levels of teacher guidance:
24
KOJO ET AL. (2018)
In this context, the aspects most relevant to problem solving deal with the adequate
use of problem-solving methods given the task at hand: these may involve justifying
the solution, examining other solutions, generalising or building connections, for
example.
Son and Crespo (2009) in addition to Hähkiöniemi and Leppäaho (2012)
examined prospective teachers in hypothetical problem-solving situations. In this
study, we extended their research by categorising data collected from real elementary
classrooms. By doing this we receive information about how their classification works
in a real situation.
Teachers often guide students by asking them questions (Harrop & Swinson, 2003).
Several types of questions can be asked: some question may ask about facts, while
others lead students to think about problems on a higher level (Sahin & Kulm, 2008;
Myhill & Dunkin, 2005; Harrop & Swinson, 2003). A large number of studies have
researched the questions used by teachers during problem solving (e.g. Sahin & Kulm,
2008; Myhill & Dunkin, 2005; Harrop & Swinson, 2003; Harri, Hähkiöniemi, & Viiri,
2012; Laine, Näveri, Kankaanpää, Ahtee, & Pehkonen, 2014; Martino & Maher, 1999).
Although these studies have categorised teachers’ questions in different ways,
several main types of questions have also been identified by numerous authors. For
example, a teacher may focus on fact-based questions by asking, for example, ‘What
is five plus five?’ Usually, this type of question is close-ended with only one right
answer. Another type of questioning is that which leads students to think about
problems on a higher level. For example, teachers can ask students to justify the
solution. Finally, other teacher questions might focus on helping students to progress,
such as ‘What could you do next?’ Finally, some categories of questioning appear to
be out of context, such as those related to the organisation or the management of a
lesson.
Table 1 shows how different authors have categorised teacher questions and their
relation to one another. The rows denote the categories used by each study, and the
columns further unite these the different questions into similar types. The middle
25
LUMAT
columns represent the types of questions that can lead students to thinking about the
problem on a higher level and that can help students progress when solving problems.
Table 1. Different categories of teacher questioning during problem solving. The rows indicate the
categories identified by different studies, and the columns unite these categories under similar concepts.
Factual or closed-solution questions refer to facts. Myhill and Dunkin (2005) defined
these questions as those that invite a predetermined answer. Harrop and Swinson
(2003) separated these questions into two categories: 1) factual (of fact), or questions
that inquire about academic information, and 2) closed-solution questions, or
questions related to the problem-solving context that only have one right answer.
Guiding, process or task supervision questions are related to the problem-solving
process. Guiding questions help students to progress (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). Process
questions invite students to explain their aloud thinking or learning process (Myhill
& Dunkin, 2005). Finally, task supervision questions verify that the task is being
solved, for example, ‘How will you measure that?’ (Harrop & Swinson, 2003).
Probing, speculative or open-solution questions lead students to think on a higher
level, for example, ‘What could that mean?’ or ‘What do you think might happen
then?’ There is more than one right answer to these questions (Sahin & Kulm, 2008;
Myhill & Dunkin, 2005; Harrop & Swinson, 2003; Harri, Hähkiöniemi, & Viiri, 2012).
Procedural, routine or other questions relate to the organisation and the
management of the lesson and not specifically to the aims of the lesson. For instance,
teachers can ask ‘Where are you going?’ or ‘Can you all see?’ (Myhill & Dunkin, 2005;
Harrop & Swinson, 2003; Harri, Hähkiöniemi, & Viiri, 2012).
26
KOJO ET AL. (2018)
3 Research questions
In this paper, our aim was to discover how teachers guided students during problem-
solving lessons in which students were instructed to solve a non-standard problem.
We wanted to find out what kinds of questions teachers asked and how students
arrived at solutions. Finally, we were also interested in understanding how teachers’
guidance and students’ solutions were related to one another. Our research questions
are as follows:
4 Methods
The study is part of the broader Finland-Chile research project financed by the
Academy of Finland. This experiment on teacher-guided problem solving focused on
an experimental group of teachers and students in the Helsinki metropolitan area.
Teachers gave problem-solving lessons to their students once a month on average
between the years 2010 and 2013. All lessons were videotaped, and students’ solutions
were collected. In this study, we focused specifically on how teachers guide students
with questions.
The analysis is based on qualitative research methods. We analysed the videotaped
problem-solving lessons and the students’ solutions to the given tasks by using
27
LUMAT
deductive content analysis (Seale, Gobo, Gubrium & Silverman, 2004). In this study,
we specifically researched lessons in which fourth-grade students had to solve a digit-
time task. In this non-standard task, the aim was to find times on a 12-hour clock for
which the sum of the four digits was six (e.g. 03:03).
All the teachers in this study, Paula, Tina and Mia (pseudonyms), are female and
had worked as teachers for several years. Before the problem-solving lesson, the
teachers met and discussed their understanding of the given problem task. The
teachers could still decide how they wanted to organise the lesson and how they
presented the task to the students. They did not receive any advice from the
researchers with respect to the central aspects of the problem or how to guide
students.
During the 45-minute lessons, one of the researchers (LN) recorded the teachers’
work. The videos were then transcribed, and the teachers’ questions and guidance
were categorised (AK). Finally, two of the researchers (AL & LN) performed a parallel
coding of the material.
The teachers’ guidance were categorised into the three categories developed by
Hähkiöniemi and Leppäaho (2012). The categories are activating guidance, in which
a teacher guides students to investigate relevant aspects of the problem without
revealing the right answer; inactivating guidance, in which a teacher notices relevant
aspects of students’ solutions but at the same time reveals the right answer; and
surface-level guidance, whereby the teacher does not notice relevant aspects of
students’ solutions but instead provides comments that are unrelated to students’
solutions.
Table 2 presents examples of how teachers’ guidance was categorised.
28
KOJO ET AL. (2018)
Teachers’ questions were categorised into four categories developed by Sahin and
Kulm (2008) and Harri, Sironen, Hähkiöniemi and Viiri (2012). Probing questions
lead students to think about the problem on a higher level. Guiding questions help
students to proceed with problem solving. Factual questions ask about facts yet do
not help students proceed. Finally, other questions were outside the problem-solving
context. Sometimes, teachers asked more than one factual question when those
questions helped students to proceed. In this case, the sequence of factual questions
was defined as belonging to the category of guiding questions. Table 3 present how
the teachers’ questions were categorised.
29
LUMAT
We also categorised students’ answers according to the applied solution strategies and
the obtained results. We found two types of strategies: systematic listing and trial and
error. The students did not use systematic listing all the time. In this case, there were
some examples where students found new times that fit the task criteria by simply
changing the position of the numbers. In the solutions using trial and error, there was
no clear aim or systematic listing. Some solutions also revealed instances where
students had tried wrong answers and then erased them.
5 Results
Next, we will present the results. We will start by describing how teachers’ lessons
were structured and how teachers guided students. Then, we will show what kinds of
questions teachers asked and what kinds of solutions students obtained.
All lessons were 45 minutes long and contained three phases: introduction to the task,
solving the task, and reflecting on the task. Depending on the teacher, the emphasis
placed on these different phases varied.
Paula: Oh, you have found already [the solution] many times. What kind of
strategy did you use?
Student: I changed the positions of the numbers.
Paula also made the students think about invalid solutions that used times outside the
12-hour clock. She usually promoted active learning during this inquiry because she
did not reveal the right answer.
30
KOJO ET AL. (2018)
Also, the students posed questions to Paula. Usually, Paula answered by posing a
counter-question, which led the students to reason the problem by themselves. This
is also an example of guidance that encourages active learning.
Paula’s guidance mainly promoted active learning because she directed students’
attention to invalid solutions and guided students towards investigating the
assignment without revealing answers. Paula also encouraged students to find a
solving strategy. In Paula’s lesson, the phase of ‘solving the task’ was emphasised.
She also once accepted a wrong solution only because she wanted the student to feel
successful.
Despite her motivation and encouragement, Tina usually guided students in a way
that did not promote active learning – she largely noticed the relevant aspects of
31
LUMAT
students’ solutions but also often revealed the right answer. In Tina’s lesson, positive
motivation and joy upon reaching the findings were emphasised.
She also checked and corrected the students’ solutions and suggested new times to the
students.
Mia: I will give you a new one – try to use four-one-one. These numbers,
because you can split six like four-one-one. Could you find some good times by
using these numbers?
Mia mostly guided the students in way that discouraged active learning because she
usually told students what they were supposed to do and then provided them with
justifications. Also, surface-level guidance was often provided. Sometimes, she did not
notice the relevant aspects of students’ solutions but talked about things unrelated to
the task.
Also, more than once Mia had corrected the students’ solutions wrong on the solution
sheets, which can also be considered surface-level guiding.
32
KOJO ET AL. (2018)
The number and the quality of the teachers’ questions varied a lot. Paula asked
questions about 50% of the time that she was speaking, while Tina asked questions
33% of the time and Mia only 15% of the time. Table 4 summarises the teachers’
questions.
As one can see, Paula mainly asked probing and guiding questions. Tina mainly asked
factual questions, while Mia asked factual and other questions. These results are in
line with the level of activating guidance provided by the teachers.
Probing questions usually checked the level of students’ thinking, for example,
‘Have you developed a strategy to find these times?’ (Paula). Some questions also
guided students to justify their own solutions or to investigate other students’
solutions, such as ‘Did someone else utilise the summation?’ (Tina).
There were also several types of guiding questions. Paula mostly asked guiding
questions related to solving strategies or invalid solutions, for example, ‘Try to find a
strategy like Paul did. Could it be easier then?’ Unlike Paula, Mia and Tina asked
guiding questions whose aim was only to find the next right solution, such as ‘Have
you used, for example, the numbers four-one-two-o?’ (Mia).
Factual questions were usually related to the number of solutions, like ‘How
many have you found?’ (Paula). Also, other factual questions inquired about single
times (Tina: ‘Do you have one-o-o-five?’), students’ work (Mia: ‘Have you done this
by turns?’) or specific conceptions (Tina: ‘What does a 12-hour clock mean?’).
Mia asked also many questions that were unrelated to the problem-solving
context. For example, she asked ‘Do you want to stay here?’ and ‘Are you discussing?’
These questions were usually meant to refocus students on the task.
33
LUMAT
We found two types of students’ solving strategies: systematic listing and trial and
error. All of Tina’s students and almost all of Paula’s students used the systematic
solving strategy. Roughly half of Mia’s students did not use the systematic solving
strategy. The first picture represents a solution using systematic listing and the second
picture a solution where the student has tried numerous options.
In total, 38 correct solutions exist for the given task. None of the students was able to
find all of the correct times. Tina’s and Mia’s students worked in pairs. Paula’s
students worked alone. The average number of correct solutions was highest among
Tina’s students, the average being 26. Paula’s students had almost equally good
results, 24 right solutions on average, whereas the corresponding number for Mia’s
students was 20.
Variation in the number of right solutions was highest among Mia’s students (12–
35). The number of right solutions varied a little less among Paula’s and Tina’s
students’ (the ranges being 15–31 and 23–35, respectively).
34
KOJO ET AL. (2018)
The solutions of Mia’s students varied a lot: one group had 35 right answers, but more
than half of the groups had less than 20. Although Mia revealed the solving strategy
to the students, the results were not as good as those of the other two teachers. Mia’s
solving strategy was complicated, so the students with the best scores did not actually
use it.
Paula and Tina asked many more questions than Mia. Their students also got good
results. However, Tina asked a lot of questions, which helped her students to find new
times, and she sometimes even revealed right answers to the students. Paula helped
and encouraged the students in an active way, enabling them to find a solving strategy.
She did not only emphasise finding the correct times.
One clear difference among the students’ solutions per teacher was the number of
wrong solutions. Mia’s and Tina’s students listed many wrong solutions, but Paula’s
students had only a few wrong solutions. This supports Paula’s frequent direction of
students’ attention to invalid solutions. Also, unlike Mia and Tina, Paula carefully
explained the concept of the 12-hour clock, which played a central role in this task.
35
LUMAT
According to the students’ solutions (Table 5), the use of a systematic solving
strategy seems to affect the number of correct solutions. Sometimes, a more
systematic solving strategy was evident after students had listed several solutions by
trial and error. Thus, a sufficient time frame is necessary for students to solve
problems and to encounter the correct strategy. Sometimes, the solving process has
to be restarted from the beginning, which takes a lot of time.
6 Discussion
Students’ positive results are not always good indicators of students’ learning.
Therefore, it is important to consider the learning process from different perspectives
(cf. Tzur, 2008; Swan, 2007). This study is in an agreement with previous studies that
an introductory phase prior to problem solving is important in order to carefully
explain to students the relevant concepts surrounding a task (cf. Näveri et al., 2012).
Moreover, teachers must be careful not to reveal the solving strategy to students or
help them too much because this can turn a nonstandard problem into a standard task
(cf. Stigler & Hiebert, 2004; Tzur, 2008; Swan, 2007). Thus, the best method could
be that the teacher carefully introduce the task and then guide students depending on
their level.
According to this study, there is a connection between the number of teacher
questions and the level of guidance provided by teachers (cf. Sahin & Kulm, 2008;
Hähkiöniemi & Leppäaho, 2012). The teacher who asked many probing and guiding
questions also guided students in a way that promoted active learning, while the
teacher who asked fewer questions did not guide students in an active way.
However, the number of questions asked does not necessarily equate activating
guidance; the quality of the questions also matters. Based on this study, we made a
summary of questions that can help teachers properly guide students in order to
promote active learning (Table 6). This broadens the understanding of teachers’
questions. All the guiding questions do not activate the students’ thinking and some
factual questions can promote active learning.
36
KOJO ET AL. (2018)
Table 6. Teacher questions for promoting active learning (All the examples are from this study.)
Example Notes
Probing questions ‘How did you solve this?’ - Usually lead students to explain their own
‘What is the strategy you have thinking or ideas.
used?’ - Indicate that the teacher is interested in
‘How did you end up with this students’ ideas.
solution?’
Guiding questions ‘What could you solve next?’ - Should direct students’ attention to invalid
‘What is said in the solutions but also ask students to justify their
assignment?’ thinking.
‘What does this mean? Why do - Can include counter-questions that lead
you think it is not valid?’ students to think about the problem in new
ways or to justify the solution – these are a valid
response when students ask questions related
to the task.
Factual questions ‘How far have you progressed?’ - Can motivate students because they indicate
‘How many solutions have you that the teacher is interested in the students'
found?’ work.
- Alone do not promote active learning because
they do not encourage students’ independent
thinking to progress.
Activating probing questions usually lead students to explain their own thinking or
ideas. Generally, students must answer these questions with more than one word.
These questions also indicate that the teacher is interested in the students’ ideas, for
example, ‘How did you solve this?’
Activating guiding questions encourage students to progress without revealing
the answer. If a teacher guides students’ attention to invalid solutions, then the
teacher should also ask why the solution is not valid. Moreover, if a student inquires
a teacher about something, the teacher can ask a counter-question that leads the
student to think about the problem in a new way or to justify the solution.
Activating factual questions motivate students because they indicate that a
teacher is interested in students’ work. However, these questions alone do not
correspond with activating guidance because they do not encourage students to
progress in their thinking process.
Because the amount of research data considered in this study is not very large, it
is not possible to make generalisations. It is also important to remember that in real
classroom situations many things in addition to teachers’ guiding and questions affect
37
LUMAT
students’ actions. That is why students might have problems in the task despite of the
teacher’s guiding.
In the future, it would be interesting to study how the results of teacher guidance
might change if teachers are instructed to consciously ask more questions that would
promote active learning. We would also like to understand how such a change would
influence students’ work, particularly their solutions and attitudes towards
mathematics.
References
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012).
Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment
and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bonwell, C. & Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom AEHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.
Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Lipponen, L. (2008). Tutkiva oppiminen. Järki, tunteet ja kulttuuri
oppimisen sytyttäjinä. Helsinki: WSOY. (Exploratory learning. Sense, sensibility and
culture as a spark of learning.)
Harri, R., Sironen, S., Hähkiöniemi, M., & Viiri, J. (2012). Opetusharjoittelijoiden tutkivan
matematiikan tunneilla esittämät kysymykset ja uskomukset niiden taustalla. (Prospective
teachers’ questions and beliefs during inquiry math lessons.) In H. Krzywacki, K. Juuti & J.
Lampiselkä (Eds.), Matematiikan ja luonnontieteiden opetuksen ajankohtaista tutkimusta.
Suomen ainedidaktisen tutkimusseuran julkaisuja (Vol. 2, pp. 13–28). Helsinki: Unigrafia
Oy.
Harrop, A., & Swinson, J. (2003). Teachers’ questions in the infant, junior and secondary school.
Educational studies, 29(1), 49–57.
Hähkiöniemi, M., & Leppäaho, H. (2012). Prospective mathematics teachers’ ways of guiding high
school students in GeoGebra-supported inquiry tasks. The International Journal for
Technology in Mathematics Education, 19(2), 45–58.
Hähkiöniemi, M. (2012). Japanilaista matematiikkaa. (Japanese mathematics.) In P. Tikkanen
(Ed.), Oppilas omaa matematiikkaansa rakentamassa opettajan ohjaamana. Varga—
Neményi -kesäseminaari (Vol. 201, pp. 9–18). Espoo: Varga–Neményi -yhdistys ry.
Kantowski, M. G. (1980). Some Thoughts on Teaching for Problem Solving. In S. Krulik & R. E.
Reys (Eds.), Problem Solving in School Mathematics (pp. 195–203). NCTM Yearbook 1980.
Reston (VA): Council.
Laine, A., Näveri, L., Hannula, M., Ahtee, M., & Pehkonen, E. (2011). Opettajan toiminnan yhteys
oppilaiden ongelmatehtävän ratkaisemiseen. (The influence of teacher’s action on students’
problem solving process.) In E. Yli-Panula, A. Virta & K. Merenluoto (Eds.), Oppiminen,
opetus ja opettajaksi kasvu ainedidaktisen tutkimuksen valossa Turun ainedidaktisen
symposiumin esityksiä 11.2.2011 (pp. 103–114). Turun yliopisto. Opettajankoulutuslaitos.
Laine, A., Näveri, L., Kankaanpää, A., Ahtee, M., & Pehkonen, E. (2014). Teachers’ and fourth
graders’ questions during a problem-solving lesson. In A. Ambrus & É. Vásárhelyi (Eds.),
Problem Solving in Mathematics Education: Proceedings of the 15th Pro Math conference
(pp. 124–135).
38
KOJO ET AL. (2018)
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
LeBlanc, J. F. (1977). You can teach problem solving. Arithmetic Teacher, 25(2), 16–20.
Leppäaho, H. (2007). Matemaattisen ongelmanratkaisutaidon opettaminen peruskoulussa.
Ongelmanratkaisukurssin kehittäminen ja arviointi. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University
Printing House. (Teaching of mathematical problem solving in elementary school.
Development and evaluation of problem solving course.)
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement
and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties, 19(2), 119–137.
Martino, A., & Maher, C. (1999). Teacher questioning to promote justification and generalization
in mathematics: What research practice has taught us. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
18(1), 53–78.
Myhill, D., & Dunkin, F. (2005). Questioning learning? Language in Education, 19(5), 415–427.
National Board of Education (NBE, 2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014.
Finnish National Board of Education. Porvoo, Finland: Porvoon Kirjakeskus Oy.
Näveri, L., Ahtee, M., Laine, A., Pehkonen, E., & Hannula, M. S. (2012). Erilaisia tapoja johdatella
aritmogon-tehtävän ratkaiseminen alakoulun kolmannella luokalla. (Different ways of
guiding aritmogon-task in a third grade of the elementary school.) In H. Krzywacki, K. Juuti
& J. Lampiselkä (Eds.), Matematiikan ja luonnontieteiden opetuksen ajankohtaista
tutkimusta. Suomen ainedidaktisen tutkimusseuran julkaisuja (Vol. 2, pp. 81–98).
Helsinki: Unigrafia Oy.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Publishing (OECD, 2013). OECD
Skills Outlook 2013: First Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. OECD Publishing.
Pehkonen, E. (1991). Probleemakentät matematiikan opetuksessa. Osa 2: Opettajankouluttajien
käsityksiä probleemanratkaisun opettamisesta matematiikassa. (Branches of problem
solving in mathematics teaching. Part 2: Opinions of teachers’ instructors about teaching
mathematical problem solving.) Helsingin yliopiston opettajankoulutuslaitoksen
tutkimuksia Vol. 98. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
Pehkonen, E. (2004). State-of-the-Art in Problem Solving: Focus on Open Problems. In H. Rehlich
& B. Zimmermann (Eds.), Pro Math Jena 2003. Problem Solving in Mathematics
Education (pp. 93–111). Hildesheim: Verlag Franzbecker.
Pehkonen, E., & Ahtee, M. (2006). Levels of teachers’ listening in working with open problems. In
T. Kántor (Ed.), ProMath Debrecen 2005: Problem Solving in Mathematics Education (pp.
63–74). Institute of Mathematics, University of Debrecen, Hungary.
Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton (NJ): Princeton
University Press.
Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers’ intentions and use of probing,
guiding, and factual questions. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 11(3), 221–241.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. London: Academic Press.
Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F., & Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative research practice.
London: SAGE.
Son, J. W., & Crespo, S. (2009). Prospective teachers’ reasoning and response to a student’s non-
traditional strategy when dividing fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
12(4), 235–26.
Stein, M., Engle, R., Smith, M., & Hughes, E. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical
discussions: five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 10, 313–340.
39
LUMAT
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership,
61(5), 12–17.
Swan, M. (2007). The impact of task-based professional development on teachers’ practices and
beliefs: a design research study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10, 217–237.
Tzur, R. (2008). A researcher perplexity: why do mathematical tasks undergo metamorphosis in
teacher hands? In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.),
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Mathematical Ideas:
History, Education, and Cognition. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME32 and PME-
NA XXX, México 1 (pp. 139–146). Morelia: Mexico.
40