Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 9–26 | Cite as

A problem-solving conceptual framework and its implications in designing problem-posing tasks

  • Florence Mihaela Singer
  • Cristian Voica
Article

Abstract

The links between the mathematical and cognitive models that interact during problem solving are explored with the purpose of developing a reference framework for designing problem-posing tasks. When the process of solving is a successful one, a solver successively changes his/her cognitive stances related to the problem via transformations that allow different levels of description of the initial wording. Within these transformations, the passage between successive phases of the problem-solving process determines four operational categories: decoding (transposing the text into more explicit relations among the data and the operating schemes, induced by the constraints of the problem), representing (transposing the problem via a generated mental model), processing (identifying an associated mathematical model based on the mental configurations suggested by the problem and own mathematical competence), and implementing (applying identified mathematical techniques to the particular situation of the problem, with the purpose of drafting a conventional solution). The study of this framework in action offers insights for more effective teaching and can be used in problem posing and problem analysis in order to devise questions more relevant for deep learning.

Keywords

Problem posing Problem solving Decoding Representing Processing Implementing Multiple choice questions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The paper was partially supported by the project POSDRU/17/1.1/G/37412.

References

  1. Ashlock, R. B. (2002). Error patterns in computation: Using error patterns to improve instruction (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, B. S., & Broder, L. J. (1950). Problem-solving processes of college students. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, S., & Walter, M. (2005). The art of problem posing (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. Hirschfeld & S. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169–200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM, 37(3), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coben, D. (2003). Adult Numeracy: Review of research and related literature. Research review. National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy. http://www.nrdc.org.uk/publications_details.asp?ID=35#. Accessed 9 January 2011.
  7. Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(2), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffin, J., & Simpson, A. (2000). When does a way of working become a methodology? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5). (Whole # 270.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  10. Ellerton, N. F., & Clements, M. A. (1992). Implications of Newman research for the issue of “What is basic in school mathematics?”. In B. Southwell, B. Perry, & K. Owens (Eds.), Space: The first and final frontier (pp. 276–284). Sydney: MERGA. Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  11. Jay, E. S., & Perkins, D. N. (1997). Problem finding: The search for mechanism. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (pp. 257–293). Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Mason, J. (1998). Researching from the Inside in mathematics education. In A. Sierpinska & J. Kilpatric (Eds.), Mathematics education as a research domain: A search for identity (pp. 357–377). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Newman, M. A. (1977). An analysis of sixth-grade pupils' errors on written mathematical tasks. Victorian Institute for Educational Research Bulletin, 39, 31–43.Google Scholar
  15. Newman, M. A. (1983). Strategies for diagnosis and remediation. Sydney: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  16. Noveanu, G. N., & Singer, F.M. (2008). Romania. In I.V.S. Mullis & M. O. Martin (Eds.) TIMSS 2007 Encyclopedia a guide to mathematics and scienece education around the world, vol 2. (481–490). IEA, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.Google Scholar
  17. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pelczer, I., Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2011). An analysis of relevant hints in problem solving. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Developing mathematical thinking, vol 1 (p. 370). Ankara, Turkey: PME. Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  19. Rowland, T., Heal, C., Barber, P., & Martyn, S. (1998). Mind the “gaps”: Primary teacher trainees' mathematics subject knowledge. In E. Bills (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research in Learning Mathematics day conference at Birmingham (pp. 91–96). Coventry, UK: University of Warwick.Google Scholar
  20. Rowland, T., Huckstep, P., & Thwaites, A. (2003). The knowledge quartet. In J. Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics 23(3), 97–103.Google Scholar
  21. Ryan, J., & Williams, J. (2000). Mathematical discussions with children: Exploring methods and misconceptions as a teaching strategy. Manchester, UK: Centre for Mathematics Education, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  22. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1980). Teaching problem solving skills. The American Mathematical Monthly, 87(10), 794–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Silver, E. A. (Ed.). (1985). Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Silver, E., Mamona-Downs, J., Leung, S., & Kenney, P. A. (1996). Posing mathematical problems: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singer, F. M. (2007). Beyond conceptual change: Using representations to integrate domain-specific structural models in learning mathematics. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(2), 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Singer, F. M. (2009). The dynamic infrastructure of mind—A hypothesis and some of its applications. New Ideas in Psychology, 27, 48–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2008). Operational categories for assessing problem solving (in Romanian). ROMAI Educational Journal, 3, 36–41.Google Scholar
  28. Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N., Cai, J., & Leung, E. (2011). Problem posing in mathematics learning and teaching: a research agenda. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Developing mathematical thinking, vol 1 (pp. 137–166). Ankara, Turkey: PME. Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  29. Singer, F. M., Pelczer, I., & Voica, C. (2011). Problem posing and modification as a criterion of mathematical creativity, In In T. Rowland & E. Swoboda (Eds.) Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 7) University of Rzeszów, Poland, 9–13 February, 2011.Google Scholar
  30. Spelke, E. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind (pp. 277–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Stehlikova, N. (2003). Emergence of mathematical knowledge structures. Introspection. In N. Pateman, B. Dougherty & T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Honolulu, Hawaii, Volume 4, 251–258.Google Scholar
  32. Voica, C., & Singer, M. (2012). Creative contexts as ways to strengthen mathematics learning. In M. Aniţei, M. Chraif & C.Vasile (Guest Eds.), ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, PSIWORLD 2011, Volume 33, 538–542.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PloiestiPloiestiRomania
  2. 2.Institute of Education SciencesBucharestRomania
  3. 3.University of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations