ZDM Mathematics Education (2007) 39:523536 DOI 10.

1007/s11858-007-0057-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Mathematical problem solving: an evolving research and practice domain

Manuel Santos-Trigo

Accepted: 20 July 2007 / Published online: 4 August 2007 FIZ Karlsruhe 2007

Abstract Research programs in mathematical problem solving have evolved with the development and availability of computational tools. I review and discuss research programs that have inuenced and shaped the development of mathematical education in Mexico and elsewhere. An overarching principle that distinguishes the problem solving approach to develop and learn mathematics is to conceptualize the discipline as a set of dilemmas or problems that need to be explored and solved in terms of mathematical resources and strategies. In this context, relevant questions that help structure and organize this paper include: What does it mean to learn mathematics in terms of problem solving? To what extent do research programs in problem solving orient curricular proposals? What types of instructional scenarios promote the students development of mathematical thinking based on problem solving? What type of reasoning do students develop as a result of using distinct computational tools in mathematical problem solving?

1 Introduction Schoenfelds quotation summarizes fundamental aspects associated with mathematical problem solving that will help organize the content and structure of this paper. What does it mean for students to develop mathematical power? What are those particular modes of thought that distinguish the processes of comprehending and developing mathematical knowledge? What types of problem solving scenarios can help students develop habits (use of different representations, identication of conjectures, looking for arguments, use of particular notation, and communication of results) that promote mathematical thinking? What computational tools are important to help students develop mathematical power? The discussion of these questions involves addressing themes related to the nature of mathematical thinking and problem solving, mathematical instruction, the use of computational tools, and the students development of mathematical problem solving competences. In particular, as Schoenfeld (1992) states, goals for mathematics instruction depend on ones conceptualization of what mathematics is, and what it means to understand mathematics (p. 334). Thus, it becomes important to identify and discuss the type of conceptualization of the discipline that is consistent with principles associated with mathematical problem solving. What aspects of problem solving research have inuenced and oriented curricular design and instructional practices? Silver (1990) recognizes that research results in mathematics education can be used to shape and support instructional proposals. He elaborates on three research components that have contributed to the design and development of mathematical instruction:

Mathematics instruction should help students develop mathematical power, including the use of specic mathematical modes of thought that are both versatile and powerful, including modeling, abstraction, optimization, logical analysis, inference from data, and use of symbols (Schoenfeld, 1992, p. 345).

M. Santos-Trigo (&) Department of Mathematics Education, Center for Research and Advanced Studies, IPN, Av. IPN 2508, Sn Pedro Zacatenco, 07360 Mexico, D.F., Mexico e-mail: msantos@cinvestav.mx

123

524

M. Santos-Trigo

1.

2.

3.

Results or particular research ndings that come from research programs often can be used in educational practices. [T]he results of systematic programs of research can develop cumulative results that lend themselves to substantive interpretation and important implication for practice (Silver, 1990, p. 2); Research methods that instructors or teachers can use to explore and assess their students mathematical knowledge. For instance, problem based interviews have widely used to assess and foster students development of mathematical thinking, and Research frameworks that can provide information about how students learning takes place. [M]uch of the current interest in problem solving in mathematics education is due in large part to the inuence of theoretical constructs, such as heuristic process, and theoretical perspectives, such as an orientation toward cognitive processes rather than cognitive products (Silver, 1990, p. 6).

based on the use of paper and pencil need to be adjusted in accordance with what the problem solver shows with the use of those tools (Santos-Trigo & Barrera-Mora, 2007). 2 Background: beyond multiple problem solving interpretations What is mathematical problem solving? How can problems be characterized? Is there a single interpretation associated with problem solving or are there many interpretations? What is common to problem solving approaches? These questions have been part of the research agenda in mathematical problem solving and the discussion of these questions implies a reection on the main tenets that distinguish the inquiry or approach based on problem solving. The study of problem solving scenarios to learn mathematics has pervaded research agendas in mathematics education and inuenced mathematical practices during the last three decades. Stanic & Kilpatrick (1988) pointed out that problem solving has become a slogan encompassing different views of what education is, of what schooling is, of what mathematics is, and of why we should teach mathematics in general and problem solving in particular (p. 1). In this context, it is also recognized that there are multiple interpretations of what mathematical problem solving is or entails and ways in which research results in this area have oriented mathematical instruction (SantosTrigo, 1998c). Indeed, Schoenfeld suggests that any research program in this area should clarify the use of the term problem solving: The term [problem solving] has served as an umbrella under which radically different types of research have been conducted. At minimum there should be a de facto requirement (now the exception rather than the rule) that every study or discussion of problem solving be accompanied by an operational denition of the term and examples of what the author means. Great confusion arises when the same term refers to a multitude of sometimes contradictory and typically underspecied behaviors (Schoenfeld, 1992, pp. 363364). Frensch & Funke (1995) also recognize the great number of denitions for the terms problem and problem solving. They argue that the denition of problem solving may differ in terms of scientic purposes in which there is interest to investigate cognitive aspects and the sequences that an individual follows to solve problems; engineering purposes in which the research focus is on investigating problemsolving scenarios and context or structure to optimize the results; and humanistic purposes in which the research focuses on documenting how personal interpretation of

Thus, it becomes important to reect on the extent to which problem-solving programs have contributed to frame and orient instructional practices that promote the construction or development of students mathematical knowledge. Thus, the aim of this paper is to identify and trace an evolution of main aspects associated with research and mathematics practices in problem solving. I argue that mathematical problem solving as a research and practice domain has evolved along the development and availability of computational tools and, as a result, research questions and instructional practices need to be examined deeply in order to characterize principles and tenets that support this domain. The paper starts with a background section that briey describes key issues and questions that have been central in problem solving research programs. This information leads to the description and contrast relevant features of some research programs and their inuence in instructional practices. Schoenfelds inuential program (1985) inspired and supported several problem-solving projects is revised to trace the origin of current problem solving approaches. Following, I sketch aspects of problem solving that have inuenced the mathematics curriculum and practice in Mexico. Finally, the students use of particular tools (dynamic software, spreadsheets and hand-held calculators) in problem solving leads to examine principles and tenets associated with problem solving approaches in terms of the types of students mathematical behaviour that seems to be enhanced with the use of these tools. It is argued that typical problem solving frameworks that have emerged from examining students problem solving approaches

123

Mathematical problem solving: an evolving research and practice domain

525

events affects the problem solving process. They offer a working denition of what they call complex problem solving (CPS): CPS occurs to overcome barriers between a given state and desired goal state by means of behavioral and/or cognitive, multistep activities. The given state, goal state, and barriers between given state and goal state are complex, change dynamically during problem solving, and are intransparent. The exact properties of the given state, goal state, and barriers are unknown to the solver at the outset. CPS implies the efcient interaction between a solver and the situational requirements of the task, and involves a solvers cognitive, emotional, personal, and social abilities and knowledge (p. 18). How do the subjects cognitive barriers emerge? What does it involve for the solvers to be aware of a given state? How does the subject construct the desired goal? How does the interaction between the solver and task become efcient? etc. These questions need to be addressed to develop ideas and concepts associated with the working denition provided by Frensch and Funke. This paper does not pretend to review the many denitions that researchers and practitioners have used for problem solving. Instead, we will construct a problem solving characterization around principles and ways of thinking associated with problems solving and school mathematics. Lester & Kehle (2003, p. 510) characterize problem solving as an activity that involves the students engagement in a variety of cognitive actions including accessing and using previous knowledge and experience: Successful problem solving involves coordinating previous experiences, knowledge, familiar representations and patterns of inference, and intuition in an effort to generate new representations and related patterns of inference that resolve the tension or ambiguity (i.e., lack of meaningful representations and supportive inferential moves) that prompted the original problem-solving activity. What does it mean for students to coordinate previous knowledge and experiences to generate new knowledge? It is evident that if students are to be engaged in problem solving activities they need to develop a way of thinking consistent with mathematical practices, in which problems or tasks are seen as dilemmas that need to be examined in terms of questions. Thus, students need to problematize their own learning. In this process, they can use various representations to identify and explore conjectures or mathematical relations, look for distinct mathematical arguments to support them, and develop efcient ways to

express and communicate their results (Santos-Trigo, 2006a). Thus, solving even routine problems or comprehending a particular situation (e.g. the denition of derivative) can be approached in terms of dilemmas or questions that students need to explore and resolve. This process can eventually lead the students to look for connections and extensions of the problem, or to examine and explore key ideas involved in a denition or in mathematical contents. The problematizing idea goes beyond the discussion of differences between routine and nonroutine problems since students can problematize even routine problems to transform them into nonroutine problem solving activities (Santos-Trigo, 1998b). Arcavi (2000) utilizes a problem solving approach to uncover, reect on and communicate his experiences and ways to frame research and work in mathematics education research. How to select a research problem? How to assess its relevance? How to formulate research questions? What research designs or methods to choose? These are some of the questions that Arcavi uses to identify and discuss crucial aspects in mathematics education research. Thus, posing questions, looking for various ways to represent and examine mathematical relations, presenting arguments to support conjectures, and communicating or presenting results are essential and necessary activities to be engaged in problem solving approaches.

3 Some research themes and results in mathematical problem solving I do not intend to present an extensive problem solving literature review, instead I focus on identifying crucial research questions and results that have contributed to the development of this inquiry domain. What are the most important themes or research questions that have been researched in mathematical problem solving? What research methodologies have been used? What are the main research results that have been published? Is there any trend in research methodologies and results? How have research results inuenced mathematical practices? A remarkable feature in the problem solving research agenda is that the themes, questions, and research methods have changed notably throughout the years, e.g. Krutetskii (1976) and Schoenfeld (2000). The shift in research themes is also related to shifts in research designs and methodologies. Early problem solving research relied on quantitative methods and hypothesis testing (statistical) designs, but later approaches were and continue to be mainly based on qualitative methodologies (Schoenfeld, 2000). To summarize relevant results that have emerged from research programs in mathematical problem solving during

123

526

M. Santos-Trigo

the last 35 years, I have identied relevant research questions, research methods, ndings, and their inuence in mathematical instruction. Tables 1, 2 and 3 show relevant developments in the history of problem solving. In terms of curricula proposals and instruction, the document that best promotes the students development of mathematical experiences based on problem solving approaches is the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000). The document is structured around ve content standards and ve inherent processes of mathematics practices. It posits that: By learning problem solving in mathematics, students should acquire ways of thinking, habits of persistence and curiosity, and condence in unfamiliar situations that will serve well outside the mathematics classroom. In everyday life and in workplace, being a good problem solver can lead to great advantages Problem solving is an integrated part of all mathematics learning, and so it should not be an isolated part of the mathematics program (NCTM, 2000, p. 52). Lester & Kehle (2003) pointed out that many researchers often refer to this document to justify their problem solving studies rather than identifying the themes that need to be investigated. Apparently [the researchers] believe that there no longer is a need to refer to the body of relevant literature on problem solving to justify their work instead, the Standards have become the authority (p. 510). Lester and Kehles comment not only criticizes the ways standard ideas are used to support research projects, but also recognizes the need and importance to investigate deeply problem solving instructional scenarios that promote the values and principles associated with the Principles and Standards.

approach to learn and solve mathematical problems. I argue that an overarching principle that characterizes any problem solving approach to construct or learn mathematics is that researchers, teachers and students conceptualize the discipline as a set of problems or dilemmas that need to be examined and solved through the use of mathematical resources. Thus, problem solving is an inquiry domain in which learners are encouraged to pose and pursue relevant questions. To inquire means to formulate and pursue questions, to identify and investigate dilemmas, to search for evidence or information, and to present and communicate results. It means willingness to wonder, to explore questions and to develop mathematical understanding within a community that values both collaboration and constant reection. A mode of inquiry involves necessarily the challenges of the status quo and a continuous reconceptualization of what is learned and how knowledge is constructed. [In a community of inquiry] participants grow into and contribute to continual reconstitution of the community through critical reection; inquiry is developed as one of the forms of practice within the community and individual identity develops through reective inquiry (Jaworski, 2006, p. 202) Thus, an integrating principle in all problem-solving approaches is that students should have the opportunity to pose questions around the problem or situation that lead them to recognize relevant information needed to comprehend and explore meaning associated with concepts. These questions are not just relevant during the entire solution process; their importance relies in how they help to extend the problem or think of other related problems. Once you have learned how to ask questionsrelevant and appropriate and substantial questionsyou have learned how to learn and no one can keep you from learning whatever you want or need to know (Postman & Weingartner, 1969, p. 23). In this process, students constantly reect on ways to articulate and apply their ideas.

4 Problem solving as a community of inquiry In order to recognize and value a learning approach based on problem solving, we must identify key or relevant principles that need to be clear when following this

Table 1 Main developments of mathematical problem solving research during the 1970s and early 1980s Type of research questions What is the role of the statement of problems in students problem solving approaches? What are the characteristics of the tasks or set of tasks? What are the anticipated effects of changes in the task characteristics? What are the problem-solving outcomes that one intends to measure? (Goldin & McClintock, 1984). What are the aspects of problems that correlate with students difculties to solve them? Quantitative approach and hypothesis testing (statistical) designs, the use of questionnaires. Recognition that the content, the context, the structure, syntax and heuristics are variables embedded in all problems and inuence students problem solving approaches (Goldin & Cladwell, 1984). The importance of heuristic methods in problem solving (Krulik, 1980). Instruction centered on the teacher, introducing problems situated in diverse contexts.

Research methods Main ndings

Mathematical instruction

123

Mathematical problem solving: an evolving research and practice domain Table 2 Main problem solving developments during the 1980s and 1990s Type of research questions

527

What is mathematical thinking? How can students develop ways of reasoning that are consistent with the development of mathematics? What features distinguish experts problem solving approaches from students or neophytes approaches? What is the role of heuristic methods in students problem solving processes? What is the role of metacognition in problem solving? (Schoenfeld, 1985). To what extent the affective and students belief systems permeate their problem solving approaches? How can problem-solving competences be developed in situated contexts? (Greeno et al., 1999). Qualitative methods, problem based interviews, protocol analysis, and case studies. Identication of fundamental categories to explain the individuals or students development of problem solving competences: Knowledge base, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, belief systems and affective relationships, and mathematical disposition (Schoenfeld, 1992, 1998; Santos-Trigo, 1996, 1998a). Instruction centered on the students, small group discussions, the importance of students previous knowledge, scaffolding instructional strategies, the construction of a learning community in the classroom.

Research methods Main ndings

Mathematical instruction

Table 3 Current problem solving directions Type of research questions What type of mathematical reasoning do students develop as a result of using computational technology in their problem solving approaches? To what extent does the use of technology favor the students reconstruction of mathematical relations or results? What curricular changes are needed in order to promote the use of computational technology in students problem solving approaches? What is the students process of transforming a device, the software, into a mathematical problem-solving tool? What theoretical frameworks help explain the construction or development of students new mathematical knowledge based on the use of computational tools? How do these frameworks differ from those in which students work on problems using paper and pencil? Qualitative methods, problem based interviews, protocol analysis, case studies, design experiments, didactical engineering, anthropological approaches, and ethnographic methods. Distinction between material objects and instruments (psychological construct), the user transforms the material object into an instrument through an appropriation process (Verillon & Rabardel, 1995; Guin & Trouche, 2002, Guin, Ruthven & Trouche, 2005; Artigue, 2002; Roschelle, Kaput & Stroup, 2000). Instruction centered on the students, small group discussions, the importance of students previous knowledge, scaffolding instructional strategies, the construction of a learning community in the classroom, the systematic use of different computational tool. Multiple representations of mathematical objects.

Research methods Main ndings

Mathematical instruction

Articulation requires reection in that it involves lifting out the critical ideas of an activity so that the essence of the activity can be communicated. In the process, the activity becomes an object of thought. In other words, in order to articulate our ideas, we must reect on them in order to identify and describe critical elements (Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999, p.22). The use of computational tools offers students appropriate conditions to learn and solve problems within a community of inquiry. Thus, for teachers to construct a learning community, they need to provide instructional conditions in which students engage in mathematical activities that appreciate and value both individual and collaborative work. The use of computational tools provides students the opportunity to formulate and explore questions that may

lead them to identify mathematical results or relations (Santos-Trigo, 2006b).

5 Mathematical problem solving developments in the Mexican education system To what extent problem solving approaches become relevant in curricula and instructional proposals in Mexico? To answer this question, I will rst present information about the makeup of Mexican education system. Following, I will analyze current mathematical curricula for compulsory education (PreK-9), and the main features of mathematics textbooks. I should emphasize that textbooks are the teachers main source to design and implement problem solving activities in the classroom.

123

528

M. Santos-Trigo

Mexicos population is about one hundred million and during the recent school year 20052006 some 32 million students attended public education at all levels. The average schooling for the population is grade 8, and 7.7% of the adult population is illiterate. During 20052006 the basic education PreK-9 included about 25 million students distributed, 18% at Pre-K level, 57% in grades 16 (basic education), and 24% in grades 79 (secondary school). It is important to mention that the basic education PreK-9 is compulsory for all students. The federal government, through the Secretata de Educacion (Ministrty of Education), establishes the national curricula and designs or approves the corresponding implementation material (textbooks, lesson guides, assessment sheets, library material, etc). After compulsory schooling is nished, grades 1012 involve diverse federal, state, and university regulated schooling systems which do not share a curriculum. Each system is based on particular needs and objectives. The options available to students include technical (professional technicians) or general orientations (to continue on to university). For example, Mexicos National Autonomous University (UNAM) and the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN) are two large institutions that have their own 1012 education options. During the 20052006 schooling year the population at this level was about 4 million students. At the university level, the population in the 20052006 year was about 2.5 million.

In addition, the curricula proposal at this level identies six major themes that are used to organize the content at each grade: Numbers, their relations and operations Measurement Geometry Processes of Change Data Analysis Randomness and Prediction.

5.1 Problem solving and basic education There is evidence that some of the ideas endorsed in the NCTM (2000) document were used to justify and organize the curriculum proposal for both PK-6 and 79. For instance, for each grade the ofcial curriculum that frames the mathematics syllabus, identies problem-solving activities as key aspects in the pupils mathematics learning. It is recognized explicitly that pupils at the PK-6 level should acquire basic mathematics knowledge to develop: The ability to utilize mathematics as an instrument to identify, formulate, and solve problems The ability to predict and verify results The ability to communicate and interpret mathematical information A spatial sense The ability to estimate results and measurements The ability to use measuring, drawing, and calculating instruments Abstract thinking that involves the systematization and generalization of rules and strategies (http://www.sep. gob.mx/wb2/sep/sep_121_matematicas, downloaded March 24, 2007).

Comment: These themes resemble what the NCTM (2000) proposes as the content standards, along with some changes: The data analysis and probability standard is divided into two themes, data analysis and prediction, and the algebra strand is part of the processes of change theme. In addition, the proposal does not include explicitly the ve process standards identied in the NCTM proposal. Thus, the proposal fails to communicate the relevance and need to relate and connect both the contents and mathematical processes. For secondary school (grades 79) the 2006 ofcial curriculum document (SEP, 2006) recognizes that the study of mathematics allows students to develop the way of thinking needed to express mathematical situations embedded in diverse contexts, and it encourages the use of adequate resources to identify, formulate, and solve problems. The central focus is to invite and encourage the students to work on activities in which they need to reect on and nd diverse ways to solve problems, and to propose arguments to validate their results. The content for these three grades (79) is structured around three main themes or axes: Numerical sense and algebraic thinking that involve the study of fundamentals of arithmetics and algebra. In particular, the development and sense of a mathematical language is emphasized, as well as the study of algebraic thinking in terms of connecting patterns activities and pre-algebraic types of reasoning. Form, space, and measurements that involve the construction of geometric gures, measurements, and the study of geometric properties. Data analysis that involves the study of deterministic and random phenomena using diagrammatic, graphical, or table representations.

Why are the six themes which structure the organization of grades PK-6 curricula reduced to three in grades 79? What are the advantages of organizing the contents only around three themes? These questions are not addressed in the document and, again, the process standards are not explicit. The contents for each of these three grades are organized into ve content blocks. The idea behind using the

123

Mathematical problem solving: an evolving research and practice domain

529

block organization is to help teachers and students to clearly identify and achieve partial goals. In addition, each content block includes contents related to the three main themes: numerical sense and algebra; form, space, and measurement; and data analysis. However, the list of contents and abilities included in each block seems to be arbitrarily ordered and this makes it difcult to actually identify main ideas from secondary contents. Comment: The ofcial curricula proposals for PK-6 and 79 grades recognize the relevance of problem solving activities in students mathematics learning but lack a coherent presentation of key elements associated with problem solving approaches. In particular, the proposals do not show clearly the relevance for students to constantly engage in inquiry approaches to identify conjectures and to search for distinct arguments to support them. The examples used to illustrate the class development do not allow the appreciation and value of the importance of problemsolving strategies. For instance, a problem suggested to help grade 9 students develop number sense and algebraic thinking is the square of this number minus 5 is equal to 220. What is the number? (SEP, 2006, p. 15). 6 Textbooks in compulsory education Ideally, teachers at PK-9 grades should understand and apply the fundamental principles associated with the curricula proposals. However, in practice what is more relevant for teachers is the use of textbooks. I should mention that ofcial textbooks used in grades 16 are written by a group of mathematics educators and teachers that works for the Education Ministry. At the secondary level (grades 79) private publishers can send textbook proposals that are evaluated by an ad hoc evaluation committee appointed by the Minister of Education. Since textbooks are the main resources that orient teachers practice, it is important to examine the extent to which the books actually endorse a problem solving approach in their contents presentation. I describe the general features of two current textbooks, one that is used in grade 4 and other in the rst year of secondary level (Matematicas, Cuarto Grado, revised edi tion, SEP 2000; Matematicas 1, primero de secundaria, 2006, respectively). All textbooks are organized into ve blocks following the ofcial curriculum proposal. Each block includes around 18 lessons and usually each lesson is presented in two pages. Blocks are dened in terms of dividing the total list of mathematical contents to be covered in each grade into ve parts. All the lessons are identied with names that provide their context. For example, some lessons names used in the fourth grade textbook are: Trip to the Market, The

Market, The Rafe or Lottery, The Ferry Wheel, The Circus, etc. Each lesson addresses particular contents of the program. For instance, the lesson Trip to the Market is associated with contents that involve reading and drawing maps, point location, and trajectories identication. The idea of approaching the contents in terms of discussing activities within familiar contexts may be interesting for students to engage in mathematical reection. However, the linear organization of the content, and the uniformity of the length dedicated to the development of each lesson (two pages) may also limit the students development of mathematical thinking. The main concerns identied with the structure, organization, and presentation of the lessons that may hinder or limit the students mathematical reection include: 1. All the lessons have a similar format that describes the context of each lesson and presents relevant data. The students are asked to respond a series of questions that require the use of the contents. In this context, students have no opportunities to pose and discuss their own questions since their work is reduced to answer the posed questions using only the information provided. All the contents are introduced and presented in the lesson at the same level of complexity. For each content presented, the students have to respond one or two related questions and as a consequence they have little opportunity to reect on the power of conceptual ideas and the role of operations or mathematical procedures. It may be difcult for students to identify and differentiate main ideas or concepts from procedures or rules in order to answer the questions. Each lesson seems to be set independently from the others and students have little opportunity to construct a line of thinking in which they examine deeply the mathematical ideas embedded in each lesson. Instead, they respond those questions already posed that often require short answers without even exploring connections that may emerge while working on the activities of the following lessons. It seems that the design of each lesson is based on a list of contents that students have to use to respond the questions and fails to show relevant processes (examining particular cases, making conjectures, looking for arguments to support relations. and ways to communicate results) that students need to construct and use in the problem solving process they should develop. At the end of each block there is a review lesson in which the students are asked to respond a set of questions that are similar to those of previous lessons. Thus, in this closing block lesson, students again have to respond to a set of questions but they are nor asked to reect on how those questions are related, neither

2.

3.

4.

5.

123

530

M. Santos-Trigo

what problem solving strategies were used to solve them. In general, these observations can also be applied to the textbooks used in grades 79. The lessons are developed following a list of contents dened in the ofcial programs and there is little or no room for students to think of connections, and mathematical processes involved in problem solving approaches. I should mention that while for grades 16 there is only one ofcial textbook for each grade that all students receive at no expense (it is paid by the taxpayer money); in grades 79 there are some twenty textbook options that teachers can choose. It is assumed that all textbooks are evaluated and approved by an expert panel that works for the Education Ministry. It is evident that a lot of work needs to be done in the design and structure of a curriculum proposal that clearly incorporates problem solving approaches, and the development of textbooks and auxiliary material that helps and guides students in the development of a way of thinking consistent with mathematical practice. For instance, a syllabus needs to be organized around key fundamental ideas like proportional reasoning, and the study of change in connection with the development of habits of mathematical thinking (Goldenberg, 1996). Finally, it is also important to mention that the government has been implementing a program called Enciclomedia to introduce the use of technological media (electronic boards, computers, digital library, etc.) as a way to enrich students learning experiences in the classroom. So far, the program covers grades 5 and 6 and includes a digital version of some textbooks and some activities designed to complement the textbook lessons. Teachers, in general, complain about the lack of training programs to prepare them in the use of these tools, and the impact of the program has been insignicant. In terms of research programs that involve mathematical problem solving, Hitt (2002) reports the importance for students to articulate various types of representations to be successful in problem solving approaches. His research is based on the use of an enriched cooperative learning environment methodology in which the participants not only have opportunity to elicit their ideas and levels of conceptual understanding; but also to deal with the cognitive conicts that arise during their interaction with the tasks. Estrada (2004) has investigated the type of strategies and resources that high school and university students develop in activities that promote problem formulation. His research addresses ways to construct and improve the students ideas that involve co-variation reasoning at college level. Moreno & Santos (in press) document results from research studies that involve the use of technology in

problem solving environments. They recognize that the use of computational tools has begun to transform the educational system in terms of epistemological and cognitive aspects since it has contributed to the development of a new form of realism to deal with mathematical objects. Moreno and Santos point out: The presence and use of digital technologies has introduced new ways of looking at mathematical cognition and as a consequence, the tools have offered the potentiality to re-shape the goals of our whole research eld. Nevertheless the tension between the local and the global mathematical approaches emerges again and we have come to think that presently, only local explanations are possible in our eld. Local theories might be the answer to the plethora of explanations we encounter and need to deal with. But even if local, a mathematics education theory must be developed from a scaffolding approach (perhaps a eld of pragmatic evidences) that eventually crystallizes in the theory under construction. In this context, a case study is presented as a way to illustrate activities and results of a research program that aims to promote high school teachers and students use of diverse computational tools in problem solving approaches. Results are used to identify and discuss new research areas that need to be explored. In particular, the importance of revising and adjusting conceptual frameworks used to explain the students construction or development of new knowledge. This case study is part of an ongoing national research project that began three yeas ago in which high school teachers have participated in the process of designing and using series of problems that foster the use of computational tools. 7 A case study: the importance of computational tools in students problem solving approaches 7.1 The context The Case Study includes two related phases: (a) A research team (formed by a math educator, two graduate students, and two high school teachers) selects or designs a series of tasks and each task is discussed in depth to identify students potential or hypothetical learning trajectories (Simon & Tzur, 2004); and (b) the actual implementation of the tasks in which 12 volunteer high school students participated during one semester in a weekly 3 h problemsolving sessions (Espinosa, 2006). The dynamics of the sessions include students working on the task individually or in pairs, presentations of their work to all participants,

123

Mathematical problem solving: an evolving research and practice domain

531

and plenary discussions coordinated by the teacher. All the paired students interactions were recorded, students presentations and plenary discussions were video-taped, and students handed in their initial individual work and paired work (including electronic les). We were interested in identifying and discussing students problem solving approaches that emerged during the development of the sessions, rather than analysing in detail the students problem solving behaviours. The problem posed comes from Schoenfelds problem solving book and it is used to illustrate and contrast students approaches based on paper and pencil and those based on the use of dynamic software. Problem 1. Your are given two intersecting straight lines and a point P marked on one of them, Fig. 1, below. Show how to construct, using straightedge and compass, a circle that is tangent to both lines and that has the point P as its point of tangency to one of the lines (Schoenfeld, 1985, p.15). What does it mean that a circle is tangent to two lines? How can a tangent to a circle be drawn? How a tangent to a circle at one point and the line that passes by the center of that circle and the tangent point are related? These are some of the relevant questions that students discussed in order to represent and explore the problem using dynamic software. It is important to mention that this group of students had experience in the use of the software. For example, they had previously used the software to draw a tangent circle with center P to a given line and P out of the line. Indeed, students initially drew a circle that is tangent to line L1 at point P. What information is needed to draw a circle? Where should the center of that circle be located? These questions lead students to recognize that center must lie on the perpendicular line to that passes by point P (Fig. 2). Comment: Two relevant aspects appear in the students use of the tool, the accuracy of the representation and the possibility of examining a family of cases rather than the one just drawn. By moving some elements within the representations students observed that the initial properties were maintained. When students moved the center of the circle along the perpendicular, they visualized a solution to the problem (the circle tangent to both lines) and

Fig. 2 Any circle with center on the perpendicular to L1 that passes by point P will be tangent to L1 at point P

reected on what properties that this possible solution would have. That is, an important heuristic that the students used was to assume the existence of the solution and from there they identied relevant properties that helped them approach and solve the problem. Any object representation becomes an instance to examine mathematical properties. For example, some students could notice that drawing a circle tangent to line L1 passing by P, with center at one point C on L3 (the perpendicular line to L1 that passes by P), then the line L4 passing by the center of that circle and the tangency point on L2 must be perpendicular to L2 (Fig. 3). Within the representation, students observed that it was possible to move some particular objects to identify invariants or relationships. For example, what is the locus of point T when point C is moved along line L3? The software again became a powerful tool to determine the locus of point T when point C is moved along line L3. The intersection point T0 of the locus and line L2 determines the tangent point of the circle on line L2. Thus, to draw the circle tangent to both lines, it was sufcient to draw a perpendicular line to L2, passing by T0 and the intersection

Fig. 1 Two intersecting lines and a point on one of them

Fig. 3 Line TC must be perpendicular to L2

123

532

M. Santos-Trigo

Fig. 4 Drawing the circle tangent to both lines at P and T0

Fig. 5 Locus of point C when point P is moved along line L1

of this perpendicular with line L3 will be the center of the tangent circle (Fig. 4). Based on the above solution, some students asked: What is the locus of point C (center of the tangent circle) when point P is moved along line L1? (Fig. 5). Students argued that the locus of point C when point P is moved along line L1 is the bisector of angle PQT0 . The argument was based on showing that triangles PQC and T0 QC are congruent. With this information, they concluded that to draw a tangent circle to both lines, using straightedge and compass it was sufcient to draw the bisector of the angle formed by the two lines, the perpendicular to L1 passing by the tangency point, and the intersection point of this perpendicular and the bisecting angle will be the center of the circle.

Furthermore, students also proposed another nonEuclidian solution by situating point Q on line L2 and drawing perpendicular line L3 to L1 that passes by point P and the perpendicular bisector L4 of segment PQ. The perpendicular line L5 to L2 cuts L4 at point S. Which is the locus of point S when point Q is moved along line L2? (Fig. 6), In this case, students argued that any point S on the parabola holds that the distance from point to S is the same as the distance form S to line L2. This is because point S is on the perpendicular bisector of segment QP. In addition, the intersection point between the parabola and line L3 will be the center of the circle that will be tangent to both lines (Fig. 7). Another important property that students found while examining the construction was to recognize that the distance from the intersection point of lines L1 and L2 to both tangent points needed to be the same. This led the students to draw a circle with center Q and radius P and draw perpendicular lines to lines L1 and L2 passing by points P and P0 respectively. Here, they noticed that the interception point (C) of those perpendicular lines was the center of the required circle (Fig. 8). Comment: There is evidence that the use of the software allowed the students to explore the plausibility of initial conjectures and to accept or reject them in terms of empirical evidence. For instance, one student intended to locate point Q on line L2 and identify PQ as the diameter of the tangent circle (this construction appears also in Schoenfeld, 1985, pp. 3637); but in this case, using the graphic computational tool, the students construction provided information to reject this conjecture. In addition, the use of the software became important for students not only to identify different ways to solve the problem, but also to identify proper knowledge and resources to support their results. Another important feature in using the tool is that students used properties of mathematical objects like the parabola to solve the problem (Fig. 7). That is, the parabola became a resource to solve the problem. Later,

Fig. 6 The locus of point S when point Q is moved along line L2 seems to be a parabola

Fig. 7 The center of the circle tangent to both lines is the intersection of line L3 and the parabola

123

Mathematical problem solving: an evolving research and practice domain

533

Fig. 9 What is the locus of point R when point Q is moved along line L? Fig. 8 What properties does a circle tangent to both lines hold?

students explored other connections of this problem that involve the study of other conic sections (Santos-Trigo & Espinosa-Perez, 2002; Santos-Trigo et al., 2006)

8 Reections What types of problem solving approaches do students exhibit when they systematically use some computational tools? What types of problem solving strategies are favored when students use those tools? To what extent the heuristic methods used in problem solving approaches based on paper and pencil are modied or extended when students use computational tools? What types of arguments do students show to support conjectures or relationships? To what extent the dynamic representations of problems and mathematical objects help students visualize and identify different conjectures? These questions are used to discuss main results that I have identied during the design and implementation of problem solving approaches that enhance the use of technology. There is evidence that when students represent problems using dynamic software, they engage in a line of thinking in which they have the opportunity to identify conjectures or mathematical relations. In this process, students often nd serendipitous results or ways to reconstruct mathematical relations. For example, a simple construction that involves a line L, a circle with centre at C (any point on L), a point P on L, Q any point on circle with centre at C, and point R the intersection point of lines PQ and Q0 R (Q0 is the reected point of Q with respect to line L) can generate all the conic sections studied in analytic geometry. What is the locus of point R when point Q is moved along the circle? With the use of the software, it is easy to nd that the locus corresponds to an ellipse (Fig. 9). When point P is moved along line L, other conics sections appear (Fig. 10). Students are encouraged to provide mathematical arguments to justify the properties associated with those gures.

Fig. 10 When point P is moved along line L other conics appear

When students solved textbooks problems with the use of different tools, it was interesting to observe that each tool offered them distinct ways to represent and examine the problem. For example, to approach the problem show that among all rectangles with a given perimeter, the one with the largest area is a square (Thomas & Finney, 1992, p. 215), students initially represented the problem dynamically and observed that the maximum area of the family of rectangle with a xed semi-perimeter AB is reached when there is a square with a side half of the length of AB (Fig. 11). The same problem was also approached with the use of a graphic calculator. Here students graphed the function A(x) = x2 + 4.8x and found directly its maximum value (Fig. 12). The same problem (as a general case) was approached with the use of a calculator. Students determined the derivative of A(x) = x(p x) and found A0 (x) = 0 (Fig. 13). It is interesting to observe that the dynamic representation of the problem led students to identify the solution without using algebraic resources. However, the use of the calculator demanded initially that students represent the problem algebraically. Then, the graphic representation of the problem allowed them to identify directly the side of the square where the area is a maximum. Similarly, the use of calculus resources (derivative concepts) led them to solve the problem. At this stage, students had opportunity to

123

534

M. Santos-Trigo

Fig. 13 A calculus approach

Fig. 11 Diverse representations of the problem: object, graphic and algebraic representations

discuss relevant issues or concepts in terms of using different representations that appeared during the three approaches used to solve this type of problems. There is evidence that when students use various computational tools to approach the problems, they develop distinct and often complementary ways to represent and examine those problems (Santos-Trigo, 2004b, 2006b).

9 Final remarks In this paper mathematical problem solving is conceived as a way of thinking in which problem solvers or, in this case, students develop and exhibit habits, values, resources, strategies, and a disposition consistent with mathematical practice in order to comprehend mathematical ideas and concepts, and to explore and solve mathematical tasks or situations. It is also recognized that there are various paths for students to develop mathematical thinking. However, a common salient feature in those paths is the crucial role that problematizing by the students themselves has on their learning. By problematizing I mean the opportunity that students have to think about problems, situations, contents,

and a knowledge base in terms of dilemmas or questions that need to be pursued and solved. Thus, an overarching principle in problem solving activities is the crucial role for students to pose or formulate questions throughout their interaction with mathematical tasks or contents (SantosTrigo, 2007). In this context, even routine problems or exercises, that initially may require students to access and apply only formulae, rules, or well dened procedures, can be transformed into nonroutine activities as a result of posing and examining questions that lead students to identify and explore connections or extensions of those problems (e.g. general cases). The students problem solving behaviours involve the construction of a line of thinking or an inquiry process in which they constantly reect deeply on ways to represent and explore mathematical ideas and solve problems (Santos-Trigo et al., 2007). Research in mathematical problem solving has shed light on the importance of relating the students mathematical learning to the process of developing the discipline (Schoenfeld, 1985, 1992, 1998). Thus, the students development of problem solving experience is a slow process shaped by cognitive, metacognitive, and affective variables. Problem-solving performance seems to be a function of several interdependent categories of factors including: Knowledge acquisition and utilization,

Fig. 12 Graphic representation

123

Mathematical problem solving: an evolving research and practice domain

535

control, beliefs, affects, socio cultural contexts, implicit and explicit patterns of inference making, and facility with various representational modes (i.e., symbolic, visual, oral, and kinesthetic) (Lester & Kehle, 2003, p. 508). Thus, students construct, develop, rene, or transform their mathematical understanding and problem solving competences as a result of formulating relevant questions and pursuing them through the use of different media. It is also recognized that students initial problem solving approaches may be incoherent and limited; those approaches get rened and improved when students openly present and discuss their ideas within a learning community that promotes and values mathematical inquiry. How can we translate or transform problem solving research results into curricula and instructional proposals? There is evidence that some curricula frameworks and instructional practices (NCTM, 2000; NRC, 1999; Kilpatrick, Swafford & Findell, 2001) have been framed and organized around problem solving activities. However, there is a pending need to discuss and reect on the type of changes and structure that distinguish both problem solving based curricula and instructional practices. A case in point, in Mexico, the presentation and justication of the current curricula proposal for basic education recognizes implicitly the relevance of problem solving approaches; however, they fail to incorporate this problem solving view in the organization and presentation of the mathematical contents to be studied in elementary school. Thus, focusing on main mathematical ideas (quantitative and proportional reasoning in elementary education) and the development of mathematical habits or problem solving processes seems to be a crucial component to structure and frame curricular proposals for elementary school. Finally, the systematic use of computational tools offers the students the possibility of enhancing their problem solving approaches. It is also recognized that different tools may provide different ways to represent and explore mathematical problems. For example, the students use of dynamic software seems to favor the construction of dynamic representations of mathematical objects or problems. As a consequence, students are likely to develop a set of heuristics that involve measuring particular mathematical attributes (segment lengths, angles, areas, perimeters, etc.), dragging objects with a geometric conguration, and the appropriate use of the Cartesian system to detect, explore, and support mathematical relations or conjectures (Santos-Trigo, 2004a, b, c). In this context, it becomes important to document and analyze the type of reasoning that students develop as a result of using more than one tool in their problem solving experiences. In particular, current problem solving frameworks to explain the students

construction or development of new mathematical knowledge need to be re-examined in terms of the new types of reasoning that may emerge as a result of using such tools.
Acknowledgments The author acknowledges the support received from Conacyt (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologa, reference, 47850) during the preparation of this work.

References
Arcavi, A. (2000). Problem-driven research in mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 141173. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: the genesis of a reection about instrumentation and de dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245274. Carpenter, T. P., & Leherer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In: E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classroom that promote understanding (pp. 1942). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. tricas en Espinosa, P. H. (2006). El movimiento de las gures geome n n la formulacio y resolucio de problemas con el software Cabri Geometry. Tesis de maestra, Departamento de Matematica Educativa, Cinvestav, Mexico. Estrada, M. J. (2004). Design of activities to observe the cognitive structure of students exponed to tasks which involve covariation of quantitities. In: D. E. McDougall & J.A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 217221). Windsor, ON: University of Toronto. Frensch, P. A., & Funke, J. (1995). Denitions, traditions, and a general framework for understanding complex problem solving. In: P. A. Frensch, & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving. The European perspective (pp. 325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goldenberg, E. P. (1996). Habits of mind as an organizer for the curriculum. Boston University Journal of Education, 178(1), 1334. Goldin, G. A., & Caldwell, J. H. (1984). Syntax, content, and context variables examined in a research study. In: G. A. Goldin, & C. E. McClintock (Eds.), Task Variables in mathematical problem solving (pp. 235276). Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute Press. Goldin, G. A., & McClintock, C. E. (Eds.) (1984). Task Variables in mathematical problem solving. Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute Press. Greeno J. G., McDermott, R., Cole, K. A., Engle, R. A., Goldman, S., Knudsen, J., Lauman, B., & Linde, C. (1999). Research, reform, and aims in education: modes of action in search of each other. In: E. C. Lagemann, & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research (pp. 299335). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (2002). Mastering by the teacher of the instrumental genesis in CAS environments: necessity of instrumental orchestrations. ZDM, 34(5), 204211. Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.) (2005). The Didactical Challenge of Symbolic Calculators. Turning a computational device into a mathematical instrument (pp. 83109). NY: Springer. Hitt, F. (2002). Construction of mathematical concepts and cognitive frames. In: F. Hitt (Ed.), Representation and mathematics visualization (pp. 241262). Mexico: Departamento de Matematica Educativa.

123

536 Jaworski, B. (2006). Theory and practice in mathematics teaching development: critical inquiry as a mode of learning in teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(2), 187211. Kilpatrick J., Swafford J., & Findell B. (Eds.) (2001). Adding it up. Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Krulik, S. (Ed.) (1980). Problem solving in school mathematics. (Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). Reston, VA: NCTM. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children. In: J. Teller, trans; J. Kilpatrick, & I. Wirszup (Eds.), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lester, F. K., & Kehle, P. E. (2003). From problem solving to modeling: the evolution of thinking about research on complex mathematical activity. In: R. Lesh, & H. Doer (Eds.), Beyond constructivism. Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 501517). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Matematicas 1, primero de secundaria (2006). Mexico: Editorial Patria. Moreno, A. L., & Santos, M. (in press). Democratic access to powerful mathematics in a developing country. In: L. English (Ed.), Handbook of internacional research in mathematics education (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Research Council. (1999). Improving student learning: a strategic plan for education research and its utilization. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Postman, N., & Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a subversive activity. New York: A Delta Book. Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SIMCALC: accelerating students engament with the mathematics of change. In: M. J. Jacobson, & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovation in science and mathematics education (pp. 4775). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Santos-Trigo, M. (1996). An exploration of strategies used by students to solve problems with multiple ways of solution. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 263284. Santos-Trigo, M. (1998a). On the implementation of mathematical problem solving: Qualities of some learning activities. In: E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 7180). Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society. Santos-Trigo, M. (1998b). Can routine problems be transformed into nonroutine problems? Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 17(3), 132135. Santos-Trigo, M. (1998c). Instructional qualities of a successful mathematical problem-solving class. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(5), 631 646. Santos-Trigo, M. (2004a). Exploring the triangle inequality and conic sections using Dynamic Software for Geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 97(1), 6872. Santos-Trigo, M. (2004b). The role of technology in students conceptual constructions in a sample case of problem solving. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics. Heidelberg: Spring, 26(2), 117. Santos-Trigo, M. (2004c). The role of dynamic software in the identication and construction of mathematical relationships.

M. Santos-Trigo Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(4), 399413. Santos-Trigo, M. (2006a). Dynamic representation, connections and meaning in mathematical problem solving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26(1), 2125. Santos-Trigo, M. (2006b). On the use of computational tools to promote students mathematical thinking. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 361376. n ticos. Santos-Trigo, M. (2007). La resolucio de problemas matema Fundamentos cognitivios. Mexico: Trillas. Santos-Trigo, M., & Barrera-Mora, F. (2007). Contrasting and looking into some mathematics education frameworks. The Mathematics Educator, 10(1), 81106. Santos-Trigo, M., & Espinosa-Perez, H. (2002). Searching and exploring properties of geometric congurations via the use of dynamic software. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 33(1), 3750. Santos-Trigo, M. Reyes-Rodrguez, A., & Espinosa-Perez, H. (2007). Musing on the use of dynamic software and mathematics epistemology. Teaching mathematics and its applications. Santos-Trigo, M., Espinosa Perez H., & Reyes Rodrguez A. (2006). Generating and analyzing visual representations of conic sections with the use of computational tools. Mathematics and Computer Education Journal, 40(2), 143157. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. New York: Academic Press. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In: D. A. Grows (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334370). NY: Macmillan. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Reections on a course in mathematical problem solving. In: A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 81113). Washington, DC: American Mathematical Society. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2000). Purpose and methods of research in mathematics education. Notices of the AMS, pp. 641649. n sica secundaria, matema ticas, programas SEP (2006). Educacio ba de estudio 2006. Mexico: Direccion General de Desarrollo Curricular. ticas. Cuarto SEP (Secretara de Educacion Publica) (2000). Matema grado, revised edition. Mexico. Silver, E. A. (1990). Contribution of research to practice: applying ndings, methods, and perspectives. In: T. Cooney, & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s. 1990 Yearbook (pp. 111). Reston, VA: The Council. Simon, M., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 91104. Stanic, G., & Kilpatrick, J. (1988). Historial perspectivas on problem solving in the mathematics currculum. In: R. I. Charles, & E. A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 122). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Thomas, G. B. Jr., & Finney, R. L. (1992). Calculus and analytic geometry. NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995) Cognition and Artifacts: a contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77101.

123