Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Cognitive functioning in mathematical problem solving during early adolescence

Abstract

Problem-solving in school mathematics has traditionally been considered as belonging only to the concrete symbolic mode of thinking, the mode which is concerned with making logical, analytical deductions. Little attention has been given to the place of the intuitive processes of the ikonic mode. The present study was designed to explore the interface between logical and intuitive processes in the context of mathematical problem solving. Sixteen Year 9 and 10 students from advanced mathematics classes were individually assessed while they solved five mathematics problems. Each student’s problem-solving path, for each problem, was mapped according to the type of strategies used. Strategies were broadly classified into Ikonic (IK) or Concrete Symbolic (CS) categories. Students were given two types of problems to solve: (i) those most likely to attract a concrete symbolic approach; and (ii) problems with a significant imaging or intuitive component. Students were also assessed as to the vividness and controllability of their imaging ability, and their creativity. Results indicated that the nature of the problem is a basic factor in determining the type of strategy used for its solution. Students consistently applied CS strategies to CS problems, and IK strategies to IK problems. In addition, students tended to change modes significantly more often when solving CS-type problems than when solving IK-type problems. A switch to IK functioning appeared to be particularly helpful in breaking an unproductive set when solving a CS-type problem. Individual differences in strategy use were also found, with students high on vividness of imagery using IK strategies more frequently than students who were low on vividness. No relationship was found between IK strategy use and either students’ degree of controllability of imagery or their level of creativity. The instructional implications of the results are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982).Evaluating the quality of learning: The Solo taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press.

  2. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1991). Developmental learning and the quality of intelligent behaviour. In H. Rowe (Ed.),Intelligence: Reconceptualisation and measurement (pp. 57–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  3. Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth.American Psychologist, 19, 1–15.

  4. California State Department of Education. (1989).A question of thinking: A first look at students’ performance on open-ended questions in mathematics. Sacramento: Author.

  5. Carpenter, T. P. (1985). Learning to add and subtract: An exercise in problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.),Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 17–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  6. Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1983). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.),Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 7–44). New York: Academic Press.

  7. Carraher, T. N. (1989). Numeracy without schooling. In G. Vergnaud, J. Rogalski, & M. Artigue (Eds.),Actes de la 13 eme Conference Internationale Psychology of Mathematics Education, Volume I (pp. 164–171). Paris: Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

  8. Cockcroft, W. H. (1982).Mathematics counts: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of Mathematics in Schools. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

  9. Collis, K. F., & Biggs, J. B. (1991). Developmental determinants of qualitative aspects of school learning. In G. Evans (Ed.),Learning and teaching cognitive skills (pp. 185–207). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  10. Collis, K. F., & Romberg, T. A. (1991). Assessment of mathematical performance: An analysis of open-ended test items. In M.C. Wittrock & E.L. Baker (Eds.),Testing and Cognition (pp. 82–130). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  11. de Lange, J. (1987).Mathematics insight and meaning. Utrecht: OW & OC.

  12. Egan, K. (1984).Educational development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  13. Gordon, R. (1949). An investigation into some of the factors that favour the formation of stereotyped images.British Journal of Psychology, 39, 156–167.

  14. Graded Assessment in Mathematics. (1988). London: Macmillan Educational Ltd.

  15. Greeno, J. G. (1983). Forms of understanding on mathematical problem solving. In S.G. Paris, G.M. Olson, & H.W. Stevenson (Eds.),Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  16. Guilford, J. P. (1967).The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.

  17. Hadamard, J. (1954).The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  18. Haylock, D. W. (1984). A mathematical think-board.Mathematics Teaching, 108, 4–5.

  19. Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems.Psychological Review, 92, 109–129.

  20. Kuyk, W. (1982). A neuropsychodynamical theory of mathematics learning.For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(1), 16–23.

  21. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  22. Piaget, J. (1950).The Psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  23. Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualisation and mathematical giftedness.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 297–311.

  24. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in school and out.Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20.

  25. Schliemann, A. D., & Acioly, N. M. (1989). Mathematical knowledge developed at work: The contribution of practice versus the contribution of schooling.Cognition and Instruction, 6(3), 185–221.

  26. Scribner, S. (1986). Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.),Practical Intelligence (pp. 13–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  27. Sheehan, P. W. (1967). A shortened form of Betts questionnaire upon mental imagery.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 386–389.

  28. Siegel, S. (1956).Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd.

  29. Swing, S. R., Stoiber, K. C., & Peterson, P. L. (1988). Thinking skills versus learning time: Effects of alternative classroom-based interventions on students’ mathematics problem solving.Cognition and Instruction, 5(2), 123–191.

  30. Wason, P. C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972).Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  31. Watson, J. M. (1988). Three hungry men and strategies for problem solving.For the Learning of Mathematics, 8, 20–26.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Collis, K.F., Watson, J.M. & Campbell, K.J. Cognitive functioning in mathematical problem solving during early adolescence. Math Ed Res J 5, 107–123 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217190

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mathematical Problem
  • Small Cube
  • Primary Strategy
  • Intuitive Process
  • Specific Individual Characteristic