Problem solving in the United States, 1970–2008: research and theory, practice and politics

Abstract

Problem solving was a major focus of mathematics education research in the US from the mid-1970s though the late 1980s. By the mid-1990s research under the banner of “problem solving” was seen less frequently as the field’s attention turned to other areas. However, research in those areas did incorporate some ideas from the problem solving research, and that work continues to evolve in important ways. In curricular terms, the problem solving research of the 1970s and 1980s (see, e.g., Lester in J Res Math Educ, 25(6), 660–675, 1994, and Schoenfeld in Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning, MacMillan, New York, pp 334–370, 1992, for reviews) gave birth to the “reform” or “standards-based” curriculum movement. New curricula embodying ideas from the research were created in the 1990s and began to enter the marketplace. These curricula were controversial. Despite evidence that they tend to produce positive results, they may well fall victim to the “math wars” as the “back to basics” movement in the US is revitalized.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    As is often the case, such statements are over-simplifications. Many of the ideas from the post-Sputnik curricula (e.g., “hands-on science” and aspects of problem solving) took hold over succeeding decades, and a new generation of researchers in mathematics education came into being because of the reaction to Sputnik.

References

  1. Apple, M. (1992). Do the standards go far enough? Power, policy, and practice in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(5), 412–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ARC Center. (2003). Tri-State Student Achievement Study. Lexington, MA: Arc Center. See also http://www.comap.com/elementary/projects/arc/index.htm.

  3. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In: J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter, D. (Eds.). A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 27–44). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  4. Becker, J., & Jacob, B. (2000). The politics of California School Mathematics: The Anti-Reform of 1997–99. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7), 527–539.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boaler, J. (2002) Experiencing School Mathematics (Revised and expanded edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  6. Boaler, J. (2007) Promoting Relational Equity in Mathematics Classrooms—Important Teaching Practices and their impact on Student Learning. Text of a ‘regular lecture’ given at the 10th International Congress of Mathematics Education (ICME X), 2004, Copenhagen. ICME X Proceedings (in press).

  7. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics (Didactique des mathématiques), 1970–1990. Edited and translated by Nicolas Balacheff. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

  8. Burkhardt, G. H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: toward a more useful, more influential, and better funded enterprise. Educational Researcher 32(9), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. California State Department of Education. (1985). Mathematics framework for California public schools kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

  10. California State Department of Education. (1992). Mathematics framework for California public schools kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

  11. California State Department of Education. (2006). Mathematics framework for California public schools kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.

  12. Chapell, M. (2003). Keeping mathematics front and center: Reaction to middle-grades curriculum projects research. In S. Senk, & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? (pp. 285–294). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  13. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3–4), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Engle, R., & Conant, F. (2002) Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining emerging argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Horn, I. (2007). Accountable argumentation as a participant structure to support learning through disagreement. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), A study of teaching: Multiple lenses, multiple views. Journal for research in Mathematics Education monograph series. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (in press).

  17. Jackson, A. (1997a) The math wars: California battles it out over mathematics education. (Part I). Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 44(6), 695–702.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jackson, A. (1997b) The math wars: California battles it out over mathematics education. (Part II). Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 44(7), 817–823.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jacob, B. (1999). Instructional Materials for K-8 Mathematics Classrooms: The California Adoption, 1997. In Estela Gavosto, Steven Krantz, William McCallum (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Mathematics Education (pp. 109–22). Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications 36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  20. Jacob, B. (2001). Implementing Standards: The California Mathematics Textbook Debacle. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 264–272. See also http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0111jac.htm.

  21. Jacob, B., and Akers, J. (2003). Research-Based Mathematics Education Policy: The Case of California 1995–1998. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Available on the website of the Centre for Innovation in Mathematics Teaching, University of Exeter, U.K., http://www.intermep.org.

  22. Kantowski, M. G. (1977). Processes involved in mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8(2), 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kilpatrick, J. (1967) Analyzing the solutions of word problems in mathematics: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1968, 28, 4380-A. (University Microfilms, 68–5, 442).

  24. Klein, D. (2003). A brief history of American K-12 mathematics education in the 20th century. Retrieved 1 July, 2003 from (http://www.csun.edu/∼vcmth00m/AHistory.html).

  25. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching Problems and the Problem of Teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lampert, M., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree: Developing sociable mathematical discourse. In: D. R. Olson, &N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning and teaching schooling (pp. 731–764). London: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lester, F. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: The first 25 years in JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 660–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lucas, J. (1972). An exploratory study of the diagnostic teaching of heuristic problem-solving strategies in calculus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 6825-A. (University Microfilms, 72–15, 368).

  29. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. See also http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html.

  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, VA: Author.

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

  32. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for kindergarten through grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  34. New York Times (September 18, 2006). Editorial: Teaching Math, Singapore Style. Downloaded September 18, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/opinion/18mon2.html.

  35. O’Connor, M.C. (1998) Language socialization in the mathematics classroom: Discourse practices and mathematical thinking. In: M. Lampert, &M. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics: Studies of teaching and learning in school (pp. 17–55). NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. O’Connor. M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 318–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. O’Connor. M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In: D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it (2nd edition, 1957). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  39. Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning (Volume 1, Induction and analogy in mathematics; Volume 2, Patterns of plausible inference). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  40. Pólya, G. (1981). Mathematical Discovery (Volumes 1 and 2, Combined paperback edition). New York: Wiley.

  41. Putnam, R. (2003). Commentary on Four elementary mathematics curricula. In: S. Senk, & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? (pp. 161–178). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ralston, A. (2004) Research mathematicians and mathematics education: A critique. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 51(4), 403–411.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Riley, R. W. (1998). The State of Mathematics Education: Building a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 45(4), 487–491.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rosen, L. (2000) Calculating concerns: The politics or representation in California’s “Math Wars.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Saunders, D. (1995). New-New Math: Boot Licking 101. Syndicated newspaper column (March 13).

  46. Saunders, D. (1995). Creatures From The New-New Math Lagoon. Syndicated newspaper column (September 20).

  47. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, sense-making in mathematics.In: D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334–370). New York: MacMillan.

  49. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in Education, Volume 4, Number 1, pp. 1–94.

  50. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002) A highly interactive discourse structure. In J. Brophy (Eds.), Social Constructivist Teaching: Its Affordances and Constraints (Volume 9 of the series Advances in Research on Teaching) (pp. 131–170). New York: Elsevier.

  51. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006a). Mathematics teaching and learning. In: P. A. Alexander, &P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd edition) (pp. 479–510). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006b). Problem Solving from Cradle to Grave. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, volume 11, pp. 41–73.

  54. Senk, S., & Thompson, D. (Eds.). (2003). Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  55. Stanic, G. M. A. (1987). Mathematics education in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. In: Thomas S. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution (pp. 147–183). New York: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Swafford, J. (2003). Reaction to high school curriculum projects research. In: S. Senk, &D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? (pp. 457–468). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  57. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Exemplary and promising mathematics programs 1999: U.S. Department of Education’s mathematics and science expert panel. Washington, DC: Author.

  58. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  59. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Frank Lester, Günter Törner, and Bettina Rösken for their very thoughtful and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan H. Schoenfeld.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schoenfeld, A.H. Problem solving in the United States, 1970–2008: research and theory, practice and politics. ZDM Mathematics Education 39, 537–551 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0038-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Word Problem
  • Mathematics Curriculum
  • Curriculum Developer
  • Traditional Curriculum
  • Didactical Contract