In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.

22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011

Chapter 4, pp.65-82

Problem-solving from Polya to nowadays:

A review and future perspectives

Michael Gr. Voskoglou

Graduate Technological Educational Institute (T. E. I.)
School of Technological Applications
263 34 Patras - GREECE
E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Polya laid during the 50's and 60's the foundation for exploration in heuristics for Problem
Solving (PS) since he was the first who described them in a way that they could be taught. He
further claimed that new knowledge in mathematics could be obtained by considering a
suitable problem and using previous existing knowledge in order to solve it.
The failure of the introduction of the “New Mathematics” in school education placed the
attention of specialists during the 80’s on the use of the problem as a tool and motive to teach
and understand better mathematics. A framework was created describing the PS process and
reasons for success or failure in PS. Schoenfeld's “Εxpert performance model for PS" is a
characteristic example. A particular emphasis was given to Analogical PS, i.e. solution of
problems based on solutions of similar past problems, and to Mathematical Modelling and
Applications, i.e. solution of a particular type of problems generated by corresponding
situations of the real world and of our everyday life. The attention turned also to Problem-
Posing, i.e. to the process of extending existing or creating new problems. Models developed
of teaching mathematics by using PS (e.g. constructivism, applications orientated teaching,
etc). Views also appeared disputing the effectiveness of teaching of the PS strategies and
giving emphasis to other factors for learning better mathematics, like the acquisition of proper
schemas, the automation of rules, etc.
While early work on PS focused on describing the PS process, more recent investigations
(during the 2000’s) have focused on identifying attributes of the problem solver that
contribute to successful PS. Thus Carlson and Bloom (2005) presented a "Multidimensional
PS Framework" that reveals a cyclic nature of the PS process, Schoenfeld developed a theory
of “goal-directed behavior" for teaching and PS, etc.
In this chapter we examine the role of the problem for learning mathematics, we state our
personal beliefs and we investigate the possible future perspectives for PS in mathematics
education.

INTRODUCTION

From the origin of mathematics there exist two extreme philosophies about its orientation
(presentation, teaching, research, etc): The formalistic – productive, where emphasis is given
to the content and the intuitive – inductive, where the attention is turned to problem-solving
processes.
The axiomatic foundation of Geometry in Euclid’s “Elements”, the most well known in the
world mathematical classic, is a representative example of the formalistic philosophy. An
analogous example for the intuitive philosophy is the less known to the West world Oriental
counterpart “Jiu Zhang Suan Shu” (Nine Chapters on Mathematics). Although very different
in form and structure from Euclid’s “Elements’, it has served as the foundation of traditional
Oriental mathematics and it has been used as a mathematics text book for centuries in China
and most of the other countries of Eastern Asia. Its title has been translated to English in
various ways. Although “mathematics” seems to be a more accurate translation of “Suan Shu”

1
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

than mathematical art, it seems that mathematics in the East is indeed more of an art as
compared to mathematics in the West as a science.
Very many centuries later, during the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the well
known paradoxes found in the Set Theory was the main reason of an intense dispute among
the followers of the two philosophies, which however was extended much deeper into the
mathematical thought.
Examples of how the “mathematics pendulum” swung from one extreme to the other over the
span of about a century, include the evolution from the mathematics of Bourbaki to the
reawaking of experimental mathematics, from the complete banishment of the “eye” in the
theoretical hard sciences to the computer graphics as an integral part of the process of
thinking, research and discovery, and also the paradoxical evolution from the invention of
“pathological monsters”, such as Peano’s curve or Cantor’s set – which Poincare said should
be cast away to a mathematical zoo never to be visited again – to the birth of a new
Geometry, Madelbrot’s Fractal Geometry of Nature (1983). To Madelbrot’s surprise and to
everyone else’s, it turns out that these strange objects, coined fractals in 1975, are not
mathematical anomalies but rather the very patterns of nature’s chaos.
As a consequence of the “mathematics pendulum” swing, dramatic changes happened to the
area of mathematical education during the last fifty years. First the result of the post – war
effort that mathematics as a teaching subject should be brought into harmony with
mathematics as a science, as it has been developed since the last quarter of the 19th century
with an increasing gap between school mathematics and modern higher level mathematics,
was the introduction, during the 60’s, of the “New Mathematics” in the curricula of studies.
But it did not take many years to realize that the new curricula did not function satisfactorily
all the way through, from primary school to university, even if the problems varied with the
level (e.g. see Kline, 1973). Thus, and after the rather vague signal of “back to the basics”,
considerable emphasis has been placed during the 80’s on the use of the problem as a tool and
motive to teach and understand better mathematics.
According to Schoenfeld (1983) a problem is only a problem (as mathematicians use the
word) if you don’t know how to go about solving it. A problem that has no “surprises” in
store, and can be solved comfortably by routine or familiar procedures (no matter how
difficult!) it is an exercise.
Problem-solving (PS) is a principal component of mathematics education. In this chapter we
shall examine the role of PS for learning mathematics, we shall state our personal beliefs .and
we shall try to investigate the future perspectives for PS in mathematics education.

PS IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION: A REVIEW FROM POLYA UNTIL THE

1990’S.

The learning of mathematics through the use of PS processes is highly based on the idea of
rediscovery. Polya (1963), claiming that new knowledge in mathematics can be obtained by
considering a suitably chosen problem and using our previous knowledge, suggests that
rediscovery is the main tool for the materialization of the Piagetian perspective of active
learning. He distinguishes three consecutive phases in the whole process: Exploration,
formalization and assimilation. The best motivation, i.e. the best way under which the teacher
could create the suitable learning situation, is the third, but not less important, of his famous
axioms of learning.
Polya (1945, 1954, 1962/65) laid also the foundation for exploration in heuristics (PS
strategies), since he was the first who described them in such a way that they could be taught.
We recall that a heuristic is said to be a general suggestion, or technique, that helps problem
solvers to understand or to solve a given problem. Polya also offered his rules of preference,
which is an approximation to put the given heuristics in some order for better management;
e.g. the less difficult precedes the more difficult, an item having more points in common to
the problem precedes an item having less such points ,etc.

2
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

Very many researchers in the area of mathematical education, which during the 1970’s
emerged as a self-efficient science (research methods were almost exclusively statistical),
such as Lucas, Goldberg, Cantowski, Putt, etc worked on Polya’s ideas and attempted to show
that heuristics can help students to solve problems. They reached to the conclusion that the
basic approach should be to teach them to solve their problems in the way that experts do.
Hatfield (1978) distinguished three types of teaching in PS: Teaching for PS, teaching around
PS and teaching inside of PS. The first type, where emphasis is given to the educational
textbooks, turns the attention to the acquisition of the proper mathematical knowledge
(notions, theorems and skills), which is useful for PS. The second type is centred on the
teacher, who offers good models of behavior, or leads the students to correct processes
towards PS. The third type includes the presentation of the new mathematical content through
PS and is the type of teaching that Polya encourages (Wickelgren, 1974).
Much of the motivation of the emphasis that had been placed on PS and heuristics during the
80’s seems to derive from observations that students who have learnt a new principle are
frequently unable to use it intelligently to solve problems. The conclusion obtained was that
they lack suitable general PS strategies.
Schoenfeld (1980, section 1) advises the solver to try to find the cues in the statement of the
problems (i.e. characteristic words or phrases), which could help him to use the suitable
heuristics to solve them. For example the word “unique” could suggest the use of the method
of obtaining an “absurd conclusion”, the phrase “for all positive integers” could suggest the
application of an inductive argument etc. However knowing how to use a strategy is not
enough; the solver must know when it is appropriate. According to Schoenfeld (1980, section
4) we can think of a heuristic as a “key” to unlock a problem. There are a large number of
such “keys” and a given problem is usually “openable” by only one, or a few of them.
Therefore a strategy for selecting the right “key” may possibly needed. Such a strategy is
called a global heuristic; e.g. to solve a complicated problem it often helps to examine and
solve an analogous simpler problem and then explicit the results. Using a global heuristic you
have to specify it according to the form of the given problem; e.g. using the above mentioned
strategy of the “analogous problem” for the case of a complex problem with many variables
you may consider first an analogous problem with fewer variables, using it for a geometric
problem in space you may consider first the corresponding problem in the plane etc.
The expert performance model for PS (Schoenfeld 1980, section 5) is actually an improved
version of Polya’s basic model. It consists of five steps and its real goal is that for each step a
list of the possible heuristics that could be used in order to get through, is given. For example,
in first step of analysis of the problem (understanding the statement, simplifying and
reformulating the problem), the heuristics that could be used are: Draw a diagram, if at all
possible, examine special cases, and try to simplify the problem by exploiting symmetry, or
“without loss of generality” arguments. The next step, the design of the solution, is in a sense
a “master control” (structuring the argument, hierarchical decomposition from global to
specific).The step of exploration (looking for essentially equivalent problems and, if
necessary, for slightly or broadly modified problems) is the heuristic “heart” of the whole
process. The implementation of the solution (step by step execution, local verification) needs
little comment, it could be the last step in the problem’s solution. However the last step of
verification (specific and general tests of the solution found, e.g. it must conform to
reasonable estimates or predictions, it must e substantiated by special cases, it must be
reduced to known results, etc ) needs some attention. At a local level one can locate silly
mistakes, while at a global level a review of the solution can yield alternative methods, can
show connections to other subject matter and very possibly clarify a useful technique, which
can be used in one’s global PS approach.
The “flow-diagram” of the PS process in Schoenfeld’s model is sketched in Figure 1, where
the steps of the PS process are symbolized by si, i=1,2,3,4,5 in the series that they have been
presented above. Notice that a solver, being at the step of design (s2) and facing some minor
difficulties he (or she) proceeds to exploration (s3) to search for equivalent problems, and then
returns to design to continue the PS process. On the contrary, facing major difficulties, he (or
she) may return from exploration to analysis ( s1) looking for more information, slighted at the

3
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

first glance. From there he (or she) returns to design to continue the PS process. The same
“circle” may be repeated several times.

Figure 1: The “flow-diagram” of the PS process in Schoenfel’s model

A framework describing the PS process was also constructed by Lester et al (1989).

Determining the level of students’ PS abilities and the effectiveness of instructional programs
in developing these abilities requires measurement. Several efforts have been made towards
this direction. Malone et all (1980) used the Rasch approach for this purpose, i.e. a
probabilistic model for solving measurement problems (Wright 1977), while Schoen and
Oehmke (1980) applied what they called the “Iowa Problem – Solving Test” (IPST).
Schoenfeld (1982) introduced three easily graded measures (A “plausible approach” analysis
of fully solved questions, students’ qualitative assessments of their PS, heuristic fluency and
transfer) and used them to demonstrate the impact that a month long intensive PS course can
have on students’ performance.
Voskoglou and Perdikaris (1991, 1993, 1994) introduced a stochastic model for measuring
the ability of a group of solvers and gave several examples to illustrate it. The finite Markov
chain that they used has as states the corresponding steps of Schoenfeld’s expert performance
model for PS presented above.
Stillman and Galbraith (1998) reporting on an intensive study of PS activity of female
students at the senior secondary level they found that more time was spent in general on
orientation and execution activities (exploration and implementation of the solution), with
little time being spent on organization and verification activities (design and verification of
the solution).
It has been observed in general that many students’ difficulties may be due to their being
comparatively inexperienced in PS. Such novices tend to perform poorly compared to experts,
as may be expected. This seems to be due to novices possessing a much smaller and more
poorly structured knowledge base, making difficult for them to know which information is
relevant, what type of problem are dealing with and which techniques and procedures to
apply, while experts generally have the experience and knowledge to do this successfully
(Sternberg 1997).
Hebree (1992a) integrated results in 487 reports by meta-analysis to study four regions of PS:
Characteristics of problem solvers, conditions for harder and easier problems, effects of
different instructional methods and of classroom-related conditions on PS performance.
Direct significant links were found between PS and various measures of basic performance,
especially skills in basic mathematics, while weaker correlations appeared between PS and IQ
measures. Also, while no method of PS instruction emerged as superior in early grades, in
middle grades of high school heuristics seemed mildly better than other approaches of PS
instruction. A positive impact on students’ performance also resulted from teachers especially
trained on heuristical methods.
Criticisms by Golding (1992) on Hebree’s report relate to five areas: General scepticism
regarding research integration by meta-analysis, lack of theoretical framework (a synthesis of
PS research without psychological theory), perceived violations of meta-analysis
assumptions, perceptions of questionable study conclusions, and possible misuses of findings.
Hebree’s conclusion (Hebree, 1992; p. 269), says Golding, that “creative thinking does not
seemed required for good PS”, sums up my concern and is a natural consequence of the
application of meta-analysis in place of theory to determine the variables studied and the

4
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

questions asked. This suggests that meta-analysis, unable to do the whole job, makes things
worse by doing its share. In his response to this critique Hebree (1992b) states that it should
not be ignored, because it is valuable for its insistence that reports of research, no matter what
kind, should be viewed with caution in recognition of possible shortcomings. Ninety odd
years in the research of PS suggest it is time to focus attention on PS skills and behaviors that
most of the teachers are able to teach and most of the students are able to learn at their
respective levels. If the critique can provoke such a move, it has value indeed.
A particular emphasis was given by mathematics education researchers to the study of
analogical PS, the major focus of which has been on the reuse of a past case, what is called
the mapping problem: Finding a way to transfer, or map, the solution of an identified
analogue (called source, or base problem), to the present problem (called target problem).
More explicitly the main steps of the analogical PS process include: Representation of the
target problem, search-retrieval for a related problem in memory, mapping of the common
features of the source and the target problem and adaptation of the solution procedure of the
source problem for use with the target problem (Novick, 1988).
On the other hand Problem – Posing, i.e. the process of extending existing or creating new
problems (e.g. see Brown and Walters, 1990) can be used to challenge over-reliance on the
teacher and the text book and give the students an improved sense of ownership and
engagement in their education. Moreover, extending problems with Problem-Posing offers
other potential benefits. As part of the critical “look back” process of PS, it can enhance
student reasoning and reflection needed for a deep understanding of mathematics. Also
student-generated connections between mathematics and the real world often spring from
such creative experiences.
In fact, a very important component of PS is the process of Mathematical Modelling and
Applications that deals with the solution of a special type of problems generated from
corresponding situations of the real world and/or our everyday life. Pollak presented in
ICME-3 (Karlsruhe 1976) the “circle of modelling”, a scheme (see Figure 2) representing a
looping between mathematics and the real word (Pollak, 1979). Thus, starting from a real
situation (real system), we transfer to the other part of the scheme (“universe” of
mathematics), where we use, or develop, suitable mathematics to represent the real situation
(construction of the model). Then we return to the real system in order to interpret the
obtained mathematical results and convert them to practical rules and/or decisions. But the
most important thing is that, if the results obtained are not satisfactory, we repeat the same
circle as many times, as it becomes necessary.

Figure 2: The “circle of modelling”

Since then much effort has been placed to analyze in detail the process of mathematical
modelling (Niss, 1987, Berry and Davies 1996, Edwards and Hauson 1996, Borroneo et al,
2006, Blomhoj and Jensen, 2006, Voskoglou 2006a, 2006b, Greefarth, 2007, etc).
Summarizing all the existing ideas one could say that the main steps of the process include:
Analysis of the problem (understanding the statement and recognizing the restrictions and
requirements of the real system), mathematizing which involves formulation of the real
problem in such a way that it will be ready for mathematical treatment and construction of the
model, solution of the model achieved by proper mathematical manipulation,. validation
(control) of the model usually achieved by reproducing through the model the behavior of the
real system under the conditions existing before the solution of the model (empirical results,

5
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

special cases etc) and implementation of the final mathematical results to the real system , in
order to give the “answer” to the real problem. The formulation of the problem, which for
many researchers must be considered as an independent from mathematizing step, involves a
deep abstracting process, in order to transfer from the real system to the, so called, “assumed
real system”, where emphasis is given to certain, dominating for the system’s performance,
variables.
A special didactic methodology was developed across these lines by De Lang in Netherlands,
called by G. Kaiser (Hamburg) the “Application – orientated teaching of mathematics”
(Voskoglou, 2005). Another didactic approach highly based on PS is the constructivist view
of learning that has been highly influential in addressing mathematical knowledge and the
learning of mathematics over the last four decades. The constructivist view involves two
principles: Knowledge is actively constructed by the learner, not passively received from the
environment and coming to know is a process of adaptation based on and constantly modified
by a learner’s experience of the world (Von Glasersfeld, 1987, Schoenfeld, 2002, Jaworski,
2006, Voskoglou, 2007, etc).

PS, TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE AND SCHEMAS

Owen and Sweller (1989) question the wisdom of recent moves to allocate time in
mathematics teaching for instruction in the use of general PS strategies, because they doubt
that such instruction will help to overcome problems appearing in transfer of knowledge (i.e.
suitable use of already existing knowledge in order to obtain new knowledge). According to
them transfer failure is more likely to be the result of a lack of an appropriate schema, or of
insufficient automation of rules. They imply the attention allocated to general PS strategies
would be more appropriately diverted to instruction concerned with domain– specific
knowledge and practice with worked examples and goal – modified problems.
We recall that according to Anderson (1984) a schema is understood to be an abstract
knowledge structure that summarizes information about many particular cases and the
relations among them. Making this definition more specific Owen and Sweller accept that
schema is a cognitive structure that specifies both the category to which a problem belongs as
well as the most appropriate moves for the solution of problems of this category.
We also must explain that the term goal – modified problems means problems where the goal
– state is not specified and therefore is unknown; e.g. requiring the calculation of all the
unknown variables of the problem instead of one, as it usually happens to the classical
“transformation problems” (Greeno, 1978). This type of problems prevent the use from the
solver of the technique of “means ends analysis” (Anderson, 1985) , which involves
attempting to reduce the differences between each problem state encountered and the goal
state , and normally with a well specified goal involves working backwards from the goal to
the givens. According to Owen and Sweller this technique interferes with schema acquisition,
because it imposes a heavy cognitive load to the solver.
Lawson (1990) believes that Owen’s and Sweller’s view that evidence on the efficiency of the
instruction of PS strategies in mathematics curricula is very sparse, derives from the stance
they take on the nature of these strategies and on transfer. It is important, he states, to
distinguish among three different types of general problem-solving strategies: Task
orientation strategies, or beliefs according to Schoenfeld (1985a), which influence the
disposition state of the student about the task , executive strategies, being concerned with goal
setting, monitoring allocation of attention and selection of more specific processing
operations, and domain – specific strategies, which include heuristics such as means-ends
analysis and other procedures developed by the individual for organizing and transforming
knowledge (e.g. trying for simple cases, creating a table, drawing diagrams, looking for
patterns or developing general rules etc).
Further, according to Lawson, transfer needs to be viewed as a complex chain of processing
rather, than been treated as an afterthought learning resulting from generalization (Gelzheiser,
1984). Successful transfer does not depend only upon the awareness of problem relations,
schema induction and automation of problem operators (Cooper and Sweller 1987), but also

6
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

involves in its high-road form a mindful abstraction of the generic features of the content
(Salomon and Perkins 1989), a chain of processing that is quite different from the
spontaneous, automatic extension of learning, which is refereed as low-road transfer. It is
suggested that a strong candidate for an abstracting and awareness stimulating mechanism is a
monitoring strategy. The similarity in the structure of the old and new problems is established
through the operation of an executive strategy that initiates analysis of the new problem
structure and comparison of the products of that analysis with already established structures
or schemas. The process of learning (not only mathematics, but a subject mater in general)
has been strictly related by many researchers to PS. Voss (1987) argues that learning basically
consists of successive PS activities, in which the input information is represented of existing
knowledge, with the solution occurring when the input is appropriately interpreted. The whole
process involves representation of the input data, interpretation, generalization to a variety of
situations, and categorization, so that the individual becomes able to relate the new
information to his (or her) knowledge structures. All the above provide a good reason to
continue the study of the role of heuristics in mathematical PS and for the attention to these
strategies in mathematics teaching. In concluding Lawson claims that Owen’s and Sweller’s
view is well placed only with respect to the amount of time and effort which is recently
devoted to general PS strategies in classroom mathematics lessons. There is indeed a danger
that PS could become a fashion and turn into fads, as innovations in education have the nasty
habit to do.

A RECENT TREND IN PS: TO FOCUS ON THE SOLVER

While early work on PS focused on describing the PS process, recent investigations have
focused on identifying attributes of the problem solver that contribute to PS success.
Schoenfeld (1985a) in his book “Mathematical Problem-Solving” offered a framework for
analyzing how and why people are successful (or not) when they engage on PS. He argued
that the following four factors are necessary and sufficient for understanding the quality and
success of the PS attempts: The knowledge base, PS strategies (heuristics), control
(monitoring and self-regulation, or metacognition), beliefs and the practices that give rise to
them.
More recent studies have cited planning and monitoring as key discriminators in PS success
and have revealed the influence of various other affective dimensions, like beliefs, attitudes
and emotions (Schoenfeld, 1992, De Franco, 1996, Carlson, 1999, etc). Lester (1994) noted a
consistent finding that PS performance appears to be a function of several independent
factors, like knowledge, control, beliefs and socio-cultural contexts. He characterized “good”
mathematical problem solvers as possessing more knowledge, well-connected knowledge and
rich schemata. They regularly monitor and regulate their PS efforts, and they tend to care
about producing elegant solutions.
Today is a general agreement that problem difficulty is not so much a function of various task
variables as it is the characteristics of the problem solver. Geiger and Galbraith (1998)
claimed that it is the relationship between the learner and a problem that is of significance, not
the perceived level of the problem as viewed within some hierarchy of abstraction. Good
mathematical problem-solvers exhibit flexibility during PS and tend to use powerful content-
related processes rather, than general heuristics alone. They also appear to have a high level
of self-awareness of their strengths and weaknesses and tend to focus on the underlined
structure and relationships in the problem (Stillman & Galbraith, 1998).
Carlson & Bloom (2005) drawing from the large amount of literature related to PS developed
a broad taxonomy to characterize major PS attributes that have been identifying as relevant to
PS success. The dimensions of the taxonomy are:
Resources: The conceptual understandings, knowledge, facts and procedures used during PS.
Control: This includes the selection and implementation of resources and strategies, as well
as behaviors that determine the efficiency with which facts, techniques and strategies are
exploited, e.g. planning, monitoring, decision making , conscious metacognitive acts etc.

7
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

Methods: The general strategies used when working a problem, like constructing new
statements and ideas, carrying out computations, accessing resources.
Heuristics: More specific procedures and approaches used when working a problem, like
observing symmetries, using a graph or a table, looking for counter examples, altering the
given problem so that it is easier, etc..
Affect: This includes attitudes (enjoyment, motivation, interest, etc), beliefs (self-confidence,
pride, persistence, etc), emotions (joy, frustration, impatience, etc) and values/ethics
(mathematical intimacy and integrity).
As their principal method of data collection Carlson and Bloom elected to investigate the
behaviors of twelve experienced problem solvers, all mathematicians, while they worked
through four mathematics problems. Their initial analysis revealed that their taxonomy was
limited in its ability to characterize some of the critical behaviors being exhibited by the
mathematicians in their study. Then they reanalyzed the data using a grounded approach,
employing open coding techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The resulting Multidimensional
Problem-Solving (MPS) Framework has four phases: Orientation, Planning, Executing and
Checking (these were the major phases that the twelve mathematicians moved through when
completing a problem). It has been observed that once the mathematicians oriented
themselves to the problem space, the plan-execute-check cycle was then repeated through out
the remainder of the solution process. Thus embedded in the framework are two cycles (one
cycling back and one cycling forward), each of which includes the three of the four phases,
that is planning, executing and checking. It has been also observed that, when contemplating
various solution approaches during the planning phase of the P-S process, the mathematicians
were at times engaged in a conjecture-imagine-evaluate (accept/reject) sub-cycle. This sub-
cycle became evident to Carlson & Bloom as they observed the mathematicians and listened
to their verbal descriptions of how they were imagining a solution, playing it out in their
minds. Therefore, apart of the two main cycles, embedded in the framework is the above sub-
cycle, which is connected with the phase of planning.
The effectiveness of the mathematicians in making intelligent decisions that led down
productive paths appeared to stem from their ability to draw on a large reservoir of well-
connected knowledge, heuristics and facts, as well as their ability to manage their emotional
responses. The mathematicians’ well connected conceptual knowledge, in particular,
appeared to be an essential attribute for effective decision making and execution throughout
the PS process.
As we have seen above, Schoenfeld (1985a) offered a framework for analyzing the PS
process. But this is a framework only, not a theory providing rigorous explanations of how
and why things fit together, i.e. in other words why people during the PS process made the
choices they did. In the next twenty years Schoenfeld has been working to build a theoretical
approach that explains all the above and he reached to the conclusion that solving a problem,
as well as other human activities like cooking, teaching a lesson and even a brain surgery(!),
are all examples of goal-directed behavior (Schoenfeld, 2007).
According to his investigations the ideal domain for the development of such a theoretical
approach is the process of teaching a lesson, which is a dynamic goal-oriented P-S activity:
The teacher enters the classroom with certain knowledge and goals. Sometimes conducting a
lesson is easy, one goes through what has been planned. But sometimes it is not and the
teacher has to adapt on the spot. Indeed, so do most people jobs. They are knowledge-based
and often routine, but sometimes call for urgent on the spot decisions. This goal-oriented
“acting in the moment” can be explained and modelled by a theoretical architecture in which
the following are represented: Knowledge, goals, orientations and decision-making. More
explicitly:
Knowledge is obviously the foundation of all competent behavior. The most important
however is the form of knowledge organization and access. Much routine behavior is based
on the individual’s possession of “knowledge packets” known as schemata (or scripts, or
frames). For example, if you recognize that a mathematical problem is a max-min problem,
you immediately know that you have to differentiate a function, set the derivative equal to
zero, etc.

8
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

Goals: Much of the human behavior can be seen as goal-oriented, i.e. we act because we
want to achieve something. If we are working on solving a problem the formal goal is to
achieve a solution. Often we make a plan which has subgoals. We work toward the subgoals,
and either achieve them (in which case we move to the next subgoal), or find alternatives.
Thus progress on a problem can be seen as the establishment of and progress toward the
achievement of a series of goals.
Orientations: These are a generalization of beliefs including values (e.g. pure mathematics or
applications?), preferences, etc. Beliefs shape behavior, for example someone who believes
that mathematics word problems are merely cover stories for computational exercises will
write down that the number of buses asked for in a problem is “31 remainder 12” instead of
32.
Decision –making: A lot of human decision making can be seen as modelable by expected-
value computations, where the quantities are the subjective values assigned by the individuals.
We all know for example that the decision to buy a lottery ticket is a bad decision in
mathematical terms, because the expected value (which equals the probability of winning X
objective value of prize minus the cost of the ticket) is negative. But from an average person’s
subjective point of view the cost of the ticket is small and the subjective value of the prize (an
easy life) is big. Thus the expected value, which in this case is equal to the probability of
winning X subjective value of prize minus the subjective cost of the ticket, is positive. That
explains why different people will decide differently, because the subjective values they
assigned are different.
Schoenfeld argues that, once you understand an individual’s orientations, you can see how the
individual priorizes goals and outcomes and therefore you can model the possible courses of
his action. Thus the importance of this theoretical approach for PS is that an understanding of
“how things work” can help to improve practice. In fact, when you understand how
something skilful is done, you can help the others to do it successfully.

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES FOR PS

Let us start with a comment on the ideas of Owen and Sweller (1989) for PS. According to
their definition a schema specifies the category to which a problem belongs as well as the
most appropriate moves for the solution of the problems of this category. But what are these
moves? They are not the proper heuristics helping towards the understanding and solution of
problems? If yes, these heuristics must belong to the corresponding schema! Even Marshall
(1995), the introducer of the current schema theory, presents schemas as the vehicles for PS
that can simplify and reconstruct a problem in order to make it more accessible to the solver.
We also strongly disagree with their view that the technique of “means ends analysis”
interferes with schema acquisition, because it imposes a heavy cognitive load to the solver.
We believe that one, in order to learn mathematics, must learn to think mathematically and
this can be succeeded only through his personal efforts and mistakes. The practice with
worked examples and the automation of rules helps, but it is not enough!
The teaching of heuristics need not constitute a separate topic in mathematics curricula; it can
be materialized by the teacher in practice at any time and level with the solution of the
appropriate problems, or the proof of the appropriate theorems. Our strong belief is that at
school level Euclidean Geometry gives very many such opportunities to the teacher, since it is
the mathematical topic that fits better than any other to the spiritual maturity of the children of
this age (certain and solid, non absurd notions, they can “see” what they are doing). Therefore
recent attempts in several countries to minimize the teaching of Euclidean Geometry at school
under the excuse of introducing “modern” material in mathematics curricula (e.g. Analytic
Geometry, Differential and Integral Calculus etc) is, not only according to my opinion, but
according to the opinion of many other researchers and educators, a big pedagogical mistake.
In particular this is unacceptable to happen in my country, Greece, with such a brilliant
tradition on the subject from the ancient years (Euclid, Thales, Apollonius, Pythagoras,
Archimedes, etc), but unfortunately nowadays we have reached to the point where our

9
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

students don’t study at all the Geometry of Space during the last three years of the secondary
education (Lyceum)!
As we have seen above Carlson & Bloom (2005), based on the reactions of the twelve
mathematicians during the PS process of the four given problems, they created the MPS
Framework that reveals a cyclic nature of the PS process. However it is not sure at all that the
corresponding framework for inexperienced solvers (novices) would have the same flow. In
fact, although many studies have investigated and compared the characteristics of novice and
expert problem solvers (e.g. Lesh & Akerstrom, 1982, Shoenfeld 1985b, 1989, Geiger and
Galbraith, 1998, Stillman and Galbraith, 1998 etc) many aspects of the PS process still do not
appear to be understood. For example, while the literature supports that control and
metacognition are important for PS success, more information is needed to understand how
these behaviors are manifested during PS and how they interact with other attributes reported
to influence the PS process (e.g. resources, heuristics, affect, etc). Conclusively further
research remains to be done to investigate the relations, if any, between the processes
employed by the expert solvers and by the novices. This could provide insights on links
among the several steps of PS process.
Let us now attempt a comparison between Schoenfeld’s (1980) expert performance model
and the MPS Framework of Carlson and Bloom (2005). There are many similarities among
the five steps of Schoenfeld’s model and the four phases of MPS Framework. In fact, the
analysis of the problem corresponds to the phase of orientation, the steps of exploration and
design correspond to planning, the implementation of the solution corresponds to the phase of
executing and finally the step of verification corresponds to checking. On the contrary, the
main difference between the two models is that the former (Schoenfeld’s) focuses on the PS
process, while the latter turns the attention to the problem solver. As a result, Schoenfeld’s
model has the advantage of giving for each step of the PS process a list of the heuristics that
could be used in order to get through and therefore it looks to be more useful in practice.
We continue with some comments on Schoenfeld’s (2007) theory of goal-oriented behavior
for PS. We indubitably agree that through this theory one gets a better understanding of “how
things work” for PS. However the teacher, in order to use this theory to improve practice, has
first to understand the orientations of his (or her) students and then try to change those that
prevent efficiency in PS by engaging the suitable for each case activities. For example, if a
student believes that the important thing for PS is to memorize formulae or techniques, given
a problem he (or she) will try to solve it by using the most recent technique learnt. Therefore
in this case the teacher must give problems that, apart from the most recent technique, they
need some extra “movements” in order to be solved. Nevertheless the understanding of the
students’ orientations is a very difficult task that, apart from the teacher’s great experience,
demands a comfort in time, fact that does not happen very often in practice (the teacher has
usually 20 or more students to deal with). Moreover, since the orientations of the students are
usually different, the suitable activities to be engaged are also different for each case and this
imposes an extra difficulty to the teacher. Thus, although the theory of goal-oriented behavior
for PS could possibly proved to be a useful tool for the researcher of mathematics education,
it looks very difficult to be used by the mathematics teachers for practical applications in
classroom. Schoenfeld (2007) admits that, although his theory can help to improve practice, it
does not guarantee (because of so many other factors) that there will be any improvements.
Moreover he believes that, although the forty or so years since both the cognitive sciences and
mathematics education began to coalesce we have made a spectacular progress, more work
needs to be done and he speaks about a “hundred year plan”. Human mind is more complex
than body, so on comparing with the evolution of medicinal practice we should expect
progress in mathematical education to take as long a time.
Let us now turn our attention to the two important components of PS mentioned above,
analogical PS and mathematical modelling. Related research on analogical mapping (Gick
and Holyoak 1980, 1983, Novick, 1988, Needham and Begg 1991, Voskoglou 2003 etc)
shows that students cannot easily be relied upon to link analogous situations. Thus care needs
to be exercised in building problem banks of analogous questions. On the other hand
mathematical modelling appears today as a dynamic tool for teaching mathematics, because it

10
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

connects mathematics with the real world and our everyday life and gives the students the
possibility to realize its usefulness in practical applications. But we must be careful!
Modelling could not be considered as a general, and therefore applicable in all cases, method
to teach mathematics. In fact, such a consideration could lead to far-fetched situations, where
more emphasis is given to the search of the proper application rather, than to the
consolidation of the new mathematical knowledge!
Also the important role that the rational use of the new technologies could play for a further
development of the students’ PS abilities must be mentioned. In fact the animation of figures
and mathematical representations, provided by suitable computer software packages, videos,
etc, increases the imagination of the students and helps them to find easier the solutions of the
corresponding problems. The role of mathematical theory after this is not to convince, but to
explain (Sarrazy, 2006).
Nevertheless we must underline a big danger hiding behind this reality. Indeed, people today
using the convenient small calculators can make quickly and accurately all kinds of numerical
operations. Further, the existence of a variety of suitable software gives the possibility of
solving automatically all kinds of equations, to make any kind of algebraic operations, to
calculate limits, derivatives, integrals, etc, and even more to obtain all the alternative proofs
of the basic mathematical theorems and to produce new ones.. Some people, mainly
specialists in creating such kind of software, have reach to the point to claim that in near
future teachers will not be necessary for the process of learning by students, because
everything could be done at home through the computers! On the contrary many others, with
me among them, believe that this is only an illusion. In fact, the acquisition of information is
important for the learner, but the most important thing is to learn how to think rationally and
creatively. The latter is impossible to be succeeded through the computers only, because
computers have been created by the human mind and, although they dramatically exceed in
speed and memory, they cannot never reach the quality of human thinking. On the other hand,
the practice of students with numerical, algebraic and analytic calculations, with the solution
of problems and the rediscovery of proofs of the basic theorems, must be continued for ever;
otherwise they will gradually loose the sense of numbers and symbols, the sense of space and
time, and they will become unable to create new knowledge and technology.
We shall close this section by copying the following paragraph from the report of the
Working Group on PS of the 10th International Conference of Mathematics Education into the
21st Century project (Graumann, 2009): “Future mathematics teaching has not only to focus
on concepts and teaching techniques of computing, but also on PS and problem posing to
reach general aims like creativity, ability of systematisation, abilities of communication,
argumentation, presenting mathematics results, and ability of working in a team as well as
getting a vivid view and a positive belief about mathematics and its application in real world”.

CONCLUSION

According to Verstappen (1988) in mathematics education there is a continuous oscillation

between the two extreme philosophies that we have mentioned in our introduction, formalism
and intuitionism. This oscillation is sketched in Figure 3, where the two straight lines
represent the above philosophies, while the continuous broadening of space between the lines
corresponds to the continuous increase of mathematical knowledge. A similar perception has
been supported by Davis and Hersh (1981).

11
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

Figure 3: The oscillation in mathematics education

Verstappen estimated that the period of this oscillation is of about fifty years, a fact which is
crossed by Galbraith (1988) by making use of a diagram, due to Shirley, representing a
parallel process between the alterations of the economic conditions and the changes appearing
in mathematical education systems of the developed west countries.
This estimation, if it is true, means that approximately every fifty years substantial changes
happen in mathematical education! The consequences of this conclusion are many and
important, but here we shall restrict our attention only to those which are related to our
subject: The failure of introduction and the end of the period of the “New mathematics” in
school education means that now the above oscillation is moving towards the intuitive-
productive views. It seems that the perceptions of this movement are expressed through the
“wave” of “Problem – solving, Mathematical Modelling and Applications”, which is
supported by the new technologies (see above). Thus, and regardless of personal beliefs and
options, mathematics teachers and researchers working in this area ought to prepare the
conditions under which mathematical education will receive and assimilate gently and
creatively the advancing changes, getting the maximum possible profit from them.
In Chinese philosophy Yin and Yang represent all the opposite principles (Ma Li, 2005). It is
important however to pay attention to the fact that these two aspects complement and
supplement each other with one containing some part of the other than opposing each other.
According to these lines, each of the several philosophies of mathematics has its own
importance and advantages, but what we actually need is to find a proper balance among
them.

REFERENCES

Anderson R. C. (1984), Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge, Educational

Researcher, 13, 5-10.
Anderson J. (1985), Cognitive psychology (2nd edition), W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
Berry, J. and Davies, A. (1996), Written reports, Mathematics Learning and Assessment:
Sharing Innovative Practices, in Haines, C. R. , and Dunthornr (Eds), London, Arnold, 3.3-
3.11, 1996.
Blomhoj, M. and Jensen, T. H. (2006), What’s all the fuss about competencies? In Blum, P.
L. et al (Eds), Applications and Modelling in Mathematic Education, New York, Springer, (p.
45-46).
Borromeo Ferri, R., Leiss, D. and Blum, W. (2006), Der Modellierungskreislauf, unter
kognitionspsychologischer Perspektive. In Beitrtrage zum Mathematikkunterricht,
Hildesheim: Franzbecker.
Brown, S. I. and Walters M. I. (1990), The Art of Problem Posing, Laurence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Carlson M. P. (1999), The mathematical behavior of six successful mathematics graduate
students: Influences leading to mathematical success, Educational studies in Mathematics, 40,
237-258.

12
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

Carlson M. P. and Bloom I. (2005), The cyclic nature of problem solving: An emergent
multidimensional problem-solving framework, Educational studies in Mathematics, 58,45-75.
Cooper G. & Sweller J. (1987), The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on
mathematical problem-solving transfer, J. of Educational Psychology, 79, 347-362.
Davis P. & Hersh R. (1981), The mathematical experience, Penguin Books, p. 183.
Edwards D. & Hamson M. J. (1996),, Mathematical Modelling Skills, London, Macmillan.
DeFranco T. C. (1996), A perspective on mathematical problem-solving expertise based on
the performances of male Ph.D. mathematicians, Research in Collegiate Mathematics, II Vol.
6, 195-213, American Mathematical Association, Providence, RL
Galbraith P. (1988), Mathematics Education and the Future: A long wave view of Change,
For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(3), 27-33.
Geiger V. and Galbraith P. (1998), Developing a diagnostic framework for evaluating student
approaches to applied mathematics problems, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Techn., 29,533-559.
Gelzheiser L.(1984) Generalization of categorical memory tasks to prose learning in learning
disable adolescents, J. of Educational Psychology, 76, 1128-1138.
Gick M. L. and Holyoak K. J. (1980) , Analogical problem-solving, Cognitive Psychology,
12, 306-355.
Gick M. L. and Holyoak K. J. (1983), Schema induction and analogical transfer, Cognitive
Psychology, 15, 1-38.
Graumann, G. (2009), Summary of the Working Group “Problem Solving”, available at
htpp://math.unipa.it/~grim/21Project.htm/21Project_dresden_sept_2009.htm (Working
Group Reports).
Greefrath, G. (2007), Modellieren lernen mit offemen realitatsnahen Aufgaben, Kohn: Aulis
Verlag.
Greeno J. (1978) Nature of problem solving abilities, in W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of
learning and cognitive processes, Vol. 5, 239-270.
Goldgin, G. A. (1992), Meta-analysis of Problem-Solving Studies: A Critical Response,
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 274-283.
Hatfield L., L. (1978), Heuristical emphases in the instruction of mathematical problem-
solving, Columbus, Ohio.
Hembree, R. (1992a), Experiments and relational studies in Problem-Solving: A meta-
analysis, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 242-273.
Hembree, R. (1992b), Response to Critique of Meta-analysis, Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 23(3), 284-289.
Jaworski B. (2006), Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: Critical
inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching, J. of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 187-211
Kline M. (1973), Why Johnny can’t add, St. Martin’s Press Inc.
Lawson M. (1980), The case of instruction in the use of general Problem Solving strategies in
Mathematics teaching: A comment on Owen and Sweller, J. for Research in Mathematics
Education, 21, 403-410.
Lesh R. and Akerstrom M. (1982), Applied problem solving: Priorities for mathematics
education research, in F. K. Lester & J. Garofalo (eds), Mathematical Problem Solving: Issues
in Research, 117-129, Franklin Institute Press, Filadelphia.
Lester F. K.,, Garofalo J. and Kroll D. L. (1989), Self-confidence, interest, beliefs and
metacognition: Key influences on problem-solving behavior, in D. B. Mcleod & V. M.
Adams (eds), Affect and Mathematical Problem Solving: A New Perspective, 75-88,
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Lester F. K. (1994), Musings about mathematical problem solving research: 1970-1994,,J. for
Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 660-675.
Ma Li (2005), Towards a Yin-Yang balance in Mathematics Education, Proceed. 4th
Mediterranean. Conf. Math. Educ., 685-689, Palermo.
Malone J. et al (1980), Measuring problem-solving ability, in Krulik S. (Ed.), Problem-
solving in school mathematics, N.C.T.M., 204-225.
Marshall S. P. (1995), Schemas in problem solving, N.Y., Cambridge Univ. Press.
Mandelbrot, Benoit B.(1983) The Fractal Geometry of Nature, W. H. Freeman and Company.

13
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

Needham D. R.and Begg I. M. (1991), Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous

analogical transfer; memory-orientated training promotes memory for training, Memory and
Cognition, 19, 543-557.
Niss, M. (1987), Applications and Modelling in the Mathematics Curriculum State and
trends, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., 18, 487-505.
Novick, L. R. (1988), Analogical transfer, problem similarity and expertise, J. Educational
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 10-520.
Owen E. and Sweller J. (1989), Should Problem Solving be used as a learning device in
Mathematics? , J. for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 322-328.
Perdikaris S. C. and Voskoglou M.G. (1994), Probability in problem – solving, Int. J. Math.
Educ. Sci. Technol. , 25, 475-489.
Pollak , H. O. (1979), The interaction between Mathematics and other school subjects, New
Trends in Mathematics Teaching, Volume IV, Paris, UNESKO.
Polya G. (1945) How to solve it, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
Polya G. (1954), Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
Polya G. (1963), On learning , teaching and learning teaching, Amer. Math. Monthly,70,
605-619.
Polya G. (1962/65), Mathematical Discovery (2 Vols), J.Wilet $ Sons, New York.
Salomon G. and Perkings D. (1989), Rocky words to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms of a
neglected phenomenon, Educational Psychologist, 24, 113-142.
Sarrazy B. (2006), Paradoxes de la prise en compte des disparités culturelles et des
individualités dans l’enseignement des mathématiques, Proceed. CIEAEM 58, 42-47, Czech
Republic.
Schoen P. and Oehmke T. (1980), A new approach to the measurement of problem-solving
skills, in Krulik S. (Ed), Problem-solving in School mathematics, N.C.T.M., 216-227.
Schoenfeld, A. (1980), Teaching Problem Solving skills, Amer. Math. Monthly, 87, 794-805.
Schoenfeld, A. (1982), Measures of problem-solving performance and of problem-solving
instruction, J. Res. Math. Educ., 13, 31-49.
Schoenfeld, A. (1983), The wild, wild, wild, wild world of problem solving: A review of
sorts, For the Learning of Mathematics, 3, 40-47.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985a), Mathematical problem-solving, Orlando, FL, Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985b), Problem solving in context(s), in E. A. Silver (Ed.), The teaching
and Assessing of Mathematical Problem-Solving, Vol. 3, Reston, VA.
Schoenfeld, A. (1989), Explorations of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior, J. for
Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 338-355.
Schoenfeld, A. (1992), Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition
and sense-making in mathematics, in D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for Research on
Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 334-370, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
Schoenfeld, A. (2002), A highly interactive discourse structure, in J. Brophy (Ed.), Social
Constructivist Teaching: Its Affordances and Constraints (Vol. 9 of the series Advances in
Research on Teaching), 131-170, New York : Elsevier
Schoenfeld, A., (2007), Problem solving, teaching, and more: Toward a theory of goal-
directed behavior, Proceed. CIEAEM 59, 48-52, Dobogoko-Hungary.
Sternberg R. J. (1997), in P. J. Feltovich, K. M. Ford and R. R. Hoffman (eds), Expertise in
Context (Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press), p. 149.
Stillman G. A. & Galbraith P. (1998) Applying mathematics with real world connections:
Metacognitive characteristics of secondary students, Educ. Studies in Mathematics, 96, 157-
189.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin J. M. , 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research : Grounded Theory,
Procedures and Techniques, Stage Publications, Newbury Park.
Verstappen, P. F. L. (1988), The pupil as a problem – solver, In “Foundation and
Methodology of the discipline mathematics education”, Proceed. 2nd m.t.e. Conf., Steiner, H.
G. & Vermandel A. (Eds).

14
In Nata, R. V. (Ed.): Progress in Education, Vol.22, Nova Publishers, NY, 2011
Chapter 4, pp.65-82

Von Glaserseld, E. (1987), Learning as a Constructive Activity , In C. Janvier (Ed), Problems

of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
N. J. .
Voskoglou, M. G. and Perdikaris, S. C. (1991), A Markov chain model in problem - solving,
Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 22, 909-914.
Voskoglou, M. G. and Perdikaris, S. C. (1993), Measuring problem-solving skills, Int. J.
Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., 24, 443-447.
Voskoglou, M. G. (2003), Analogical problem-solving and transfer, Proceed. 3d
Mediterranean. Conf. Math. Educ., 295-303, Athens.
Voskoglou, M. G. (2005), The Application Orientated Teaching of Mathematics, Proceedings
International Conference on Mathematics Education, 8-90, Svishtov, Bulgaria.
Voskoglou, M. G. (2006a) The use of mathematical modeling as a learning tool of
mathematics, Quaderni di Ricerca in Didactica, 16, 53-60, Palermo, Italy,
Voskoglou, M. G. (2006 b) , A stochastic model for the modelling process, In “Mathematical
Modelling: Education, Engineering and Economics, Proceed. ICTMA 12, Chaines, Chr.,
Galbraith, P., Blum, W., Khan, S. (Eds), 149-157.
Voskoglou M. (2007b), The role of the teacher for the learning of mathematics, Proceed.
CIEAEM 59, 278-283, Dobogoko, Hungary.
Voss, J. F. (1987), Learning and transfer in subject matter learning: a problem solving model,
Int. J. Educ. Research,11, 607-622.
Wickelgren M. A. (1974), How to solve problems: Elements of a theory of problems and
problem-solving, M. H.Freeman, San Francisco.
Wright B. D., (1977), Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model, J. of Educational
Measurement, 14(2).

Michael Gr. Voskoglou is currently a professor in School of Technological

Applications of Graduate Technological Educational Institute (T. E. I.) of Patras, Greece, where he
teaches Mathematics and Operations’ Research. His interests include Algebra (Ring Theory, Linear
Algebra) , Applications of Markov Chains and Fuzzy Sets to Management, Economics, Education and
AI and Didactics of Mathematics.

15