Advertisement

Problem Solving for the 21st Century

  • Lyn English
  • Bharath Sriraman
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)

Abstract

Mathematical problem solving has been the subject of substantial and often controversial research for several decades. We use the term, problem solving, here in a broad sense to cover a range of activities that challenge and extend one’s thinking. In this chapter, we initially present a sketch of past decades of research on mathematical problem solving and its impact on the mathematics curriculum. We then consider some of the factors that have limited previous research on problem solving. In the remainder of the chapter we address some ways in which we might advance the fields of problem-solving research and curriculum development.

Keywords

Word Problem National Council Mathematical Thinking Statistical Reasoning Mathematics Curriculum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. B., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228, 456–462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT) and Early Childhood Australia (ECA) (2009). http://www.aamt.edu.au (accessed 27.03.09).
  3. Baroody, A. J., Lai, M., & Mix, K. (2006). The development of young children’s early number and operation sense and its implications for early childhood education. In B. Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  4. Beckmann, A. (2009). A conceptual framework for cross-curricular teaching. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 6(supplement 1), 1–58. Google Scholar
  5. Begle, E. G. (1979). Critical Variables in Mathematics Education. Washington D.C.: the Mathematics Association of America and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  6. Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (2005). The Art of Problem Posing (3rd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  7. Brownell, W. A. (1945). When is arithmetic meaningful? Journal of Educational Research, 38(3), 481–498. Google Scholar
  8. Cai, J. (2003). What research tells us about teaching mathematics through problem solving. In F. Lester & R. Charles (Eds.), Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving (pp. 241–253). Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, S. (2006). Educational neuroscience: New horizons for research in mathematics education. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stelikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 257–264). Prague, Czech Republic: Charles University. Google Scholar
  10. Charles, R., & Silver, E. (1988). The Teaching and Assessing of Mathematical Problem Solving. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  11. Charlesworth, R., & Lind, K. (2006). Math and Science Learning for Young Children (6th ed.). NY: Delmar Publishers. Google Scholar
  12. Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137–167. Google Scholar
  13. De Abreu, G. (2008). From mathematics learning out-of-school to multicultural classrooms: A cultural psychology perspective. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  14. Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2001). A modelling perspective on students’ learning through data analysis. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 361–368). Utrecht University. Google Scholar
  15. Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2003). A modeling perspective on students’ mathematical reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doerr, H., & English, L. D. (2006). Middle-grade teachers’ learning through students’ engagement with modelling tasks. Journal for Research in Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(1), 5–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doerr, H. M., & Tripp, J. S. (1999). Understanding how students develop mathematical models. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1(3), 231–254. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. English, L. D. (2003). Problem posing in the elementary curriculum. In F. Lester & R. Charles (Eds.), Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving (pp. 187–198). Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  19. English, L. D. (2006). Mathematical modeling in the primary school: Children’s construction of a consumer guide. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 303–329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. English, L. D. (2007). Complex systems in the elementary and middle school mathematics curriculum: A focus on modeling. In B. Sriraman (Ed.), Festschrift in Honor of Gunter Torner. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast (pp. 139–156). Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar
  21. English, L. D. (2008). Introducing complex systems into the mathematics curriculum. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(1), 38–47. Google Scholar
  22. English, L. D. (2009a). Promoting interdisciplinarity through mathematical modelling. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(1), 161–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. English, L. D. (2009b). Modeling with complex data in the primary school. In R. Lesh, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling Students’ Mathematical Modeling Competencies: ICTMA 13. Springer. Google Scholar
  24. English, L. D., & Halford, G. S. (1995). Mathematics Education: Models and Processes. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  25. English, L. D., & Watters, J. J. (2005). Mathematical modeling in the early school years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(3), 58–79. Google Scholar
  26. English, L. D., Lesh, R. A., & Fennewald, T. (2008). Future directions and perspectives for problem solving research and curriculum development. Paper presented for TSG 19 at the International Congress on Mathematical Education. Monterrey, Mexico, July 6–13. Google Scholar
  27. Enhancing the Teaching and Learning of Early Statistical Reasoning in European Schools (2009). Project: http://www.earlystatistics.net/ (accessed 20 March, 2009).
  28. Franklin, C. A., & Garfield, J. (2006). The GAISE project: Developing statistics education guidelines for grades pre-K-12 and college courses. In G. Burrill & P. Elliott (Eds.), Thinking and Reasoning with Data and Chance (68th Yearbook, pp. 345–376). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  29. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures. Boston: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  30. Gainsburg, J. (2006). The mathematical modeling of structural engineers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(1), 3–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ginsburg, H. P., Cannon, J., Eisenband, J. G., & Pappas, S. (2006). Mathematical thinking and learning. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Handbook of Early Child Development (pp. 208–230). Oxford, England: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the construction of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 155–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greer, B. (1997). Modeling reality in mathematics classroom: The case of word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7, 293–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greer, B., Verschaffel, L., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2007). Modelling for life: Mathematics and children’s experience. In W. Blum, W. Henne, & M. Niss (Eds.), Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education (ICMI Study 14, pp. 89–98). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hamilton, E. (2007). What changes are needed in the kind of problem solving situations where mathematical thinking is needed beyond school? In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education (pp. 1–6). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  36. Hamilton, E., Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Yoon, C. (2007). The use of reflection tools in building personal models of problem solving. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education (pp. 349–366). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  37. Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  38. Hutchins, E. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaiser, G., & Maass, K. (2007). Modelling in lower secondary mathematics classroom—problems and opportunities. In W. Blum, W. Henne, & M. Niss (Eds.), Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education (ICMI Study 14, pp. 99–108). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaiser, G., & Sriraman, B. (2006). A global survey of international perspectives on modelling in mathematics education. ZDM, 38(3), 302–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaiser, G., Blomhoj, M., & Sriraman, B. (2006). Towards a didactical theory for mathematical modelling. ZDM, 38(2), 82–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Langrall, C., Mooney, E., Nisbet, S., & Jones, G. (2008). Elementary students’ access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
  43. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635–679. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in the elementary grades. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters (pp. 29–53). NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  45. Lehrer, R., Giles, N. D., & Schauble, L. (2002). Children’s work with data. In Investigating Real Data in the Classroom: Expanding Children’s Understanding of Math and Science (pp. 1–26). Columbia Univ.: Teachers College. Google Scholar
  46. Lesh, R. (2006). Modeling students modeling abilities: The teaching and learning of complex systems in education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 45–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lesh, R. (2007). Foundations for the future in engineering and other fields that are heavy users of mathematics, science, and technology. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education (pp. vii–x). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  48. Lesh, R. (2008). Directions for future research and development in engineering education. In J. Zawojewski, H. Diefes-Dux, & K. Bowman (Eds.), Models and Modeling in Engineering Education: Designing Experiences for All Students. Rotterdam: Sense Publications. Google Scholar
  49. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Foundation of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching and learning. In R. A. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond Constructivism: A Models and Modeling Perspective on Mathematics Teaching, Learning, and Problem Solving (pp. 9–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  50. Lesh, R., & English, L. D. (2005). Trends in the evolution of models and modeling perspectives on mathematical learning and problem solving. In H. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 192–196). University of Melbourne. Google Scholar
  51. Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005). John Dewey revisited—pragmatism and the models-modeling perspective on mathematical learning. In A. Beckmann, C. Michelsen, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1 st International Symposium of Mathematics and Its Connections to the Arts and Sciences (pp. 7–31). Schwöbisch Gmund, Germany: The University of Education. Google Scholar
  52. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), The Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar
  53. Lesh, R., Cramer, K., Doerr, H. M., Post, T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2003a). Model development sequences. In R. A. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond Constructivism: A Models and Modeling Perspective on Mathematics Teaching, Learning, and Problem Solving (pp. 35–58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  54. Lesh, R., Zawojewski, J. S., & Carmona, G. (2003b). What mathematical abilities are needed for success beyond school in a technology-based age of information? In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematic Problem Solving, Learning and Teaching (pp. 205–222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  55. Lesh, R., Middleton, J., Caylor, E., & Gupta, S. (2008). A science need: Designing tasks to engage students in modeling complex data. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 113–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lester, F. K., & Charles, R. I. (Eds.) (2003). Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving: PreK-6. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  57. Lester, F. K., & Kehle, P. E. (2003). From problem solving to modeling: The evolution of thinking about research on complex mathematical activity. In R. A. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning, and Teaching (pp. 501–518). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  58. Lester, F. K., Garofalo, J., & 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 (pp. 75–88). New York: Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar
  59. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maclean, R. (2001). Educational change in Asia: An overview. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 189–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Paparistodemou, E., & Stylianou, D. (2009). Enhancing statistics instruction in elementary schools: Integrating technology in professional development. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 16(1&2), 57–78. Google Scholar
  62. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Google Scholar
  63. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards (2008). http://standards.nctm.org/document/chapter3/index.htm (accessed: 23.03.09).
  64. Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, W. Henne, & M. Niss (Eds.), Applications and Modelling in Mathematics Education (ICMI Study 14, pp. 3–33). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1996). Children Doing Mathematics. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  66. Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street Mathematics and School Mathematics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  67. PISA (2006). (Programme for International Student Assessment: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/; accessed 26.03.09).
  68. Polya, G. (1945). How to Solve It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  69. Romberg, T. A., Carpenter, T. P., & Kwako, J. (2005). Standards-based reform and teaching for understanding. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  70. Rubin, A. (2002). Interactive visualizations of statistical relationships: What do we gain? In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Teaching Statistics. Durban, South Africa. Google Scholar
  71. Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
  73. Saxe, G. (1991). Culture and Cognitive Development: Studies in Mathematical Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  74. Schoen, & Charles (Eds.) (2003). Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving: Grades 6–12. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Google Scholar
  75. Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. Google Scholar
  76. Silver, E. A. (1985). Research on teaching mathematical problem solving: Some under represented themes and needed directions. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving. Multiple Research Perspectives (pp. 247–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  77. Simon, H. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes (Vol. 5, pp. 271–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  78. Sriraman, B., & Adrian, H. (2008). A critique and response to multicultural visions of globalization. Interchange, 39(1), 119–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sriraman, B., & Dahl, B. (2009). On bringing interdisciplinary ideas to gifted education. In L.V. Shavinina (Ed.), The International Handbook of Giftedness (pp. 1235–1254). Springer Science & Business. Google Scholar
  80. Sriraman, B., & Steinthorsdottir, O. (2007). Research into practice: Implications of research on mathematics gifted education for the secondary curriculum. In C. Callahan & J. Plucker (Eds.), Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education: What the Research Says (pp. 395–408). Prufrock Press. Google Scholar
  81. Steen, L. A. (Ed.) (2001). Mathematics and Democracy: The Case for Quantitative Literacy. USA: National Council on Education and the Disciplines. Google Scholar
  82. Tan, J. (2002). Education in the twenty-first century: Challenges and dilemmas. In D. da Cunha (Ed.), Singapore in the New Millennium: Challenges Facing the Citystate (pp. 154–186). Singapore: The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Google Scholar
  83. Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (2003). http://timss.bc.edu/timss2003i/intl_reports.html; accessed 26.03.09).
  84. Van den Heuvel-Panhuzen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 9–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Van Engen, H. (1949). An analysis of meaning in arithmetic. Elementary School Journal, 49, 321–329, 395–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Watson, J., & Moritz, J. B. (2000). Developing concepts of sampling. JRME, 31(1), 44–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zawojewski, J., & McCarthy, L. (2007). Numeracy in practice. Principal Leadership, 7(5), 32–38. Google Scholar
  88. Zawojewski, J. S., Hjalmarson, M. A., Bowman, K. J., & Lesh, R. (2008). A modeling perspective on learning and teaching in engineering education. In J. S. Zawojewski, H. A. Diefes-Dux, & K. Bowman (Eds.), Models and Modeling in Engineering Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology EducationQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesThe University of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations