mathematical strategies for problem solving

High Impact Tutoring Built By Math Experts

Personalized standards-aligned one-on-one math tutoring for schools and districts

Free ready-to-use math resources

Hundreds of free math resources created by experienced math teachers to save time, build engagement and accelerate growth

20 Effective Math Strategies To Approach Problem-Solving 

Katie Keeton

Math strategies for problem-solving help students use a range of approaches to solve many different types of problems. It involves identifying the problem and carrying out a plan of action to find the answer to mathematical problems.  

Problem-solving skills are essential to math in the general classroom and real-life. They require logical reasoning and critical thinking skills. Students must be equipped with strategies to help them find solutions to problems.

This article explores mathematical problem solving strategies, logical reasoning and critical thinking skills to help learners with solving math word problems independently in real-life situations. 

What are problem-solving strategies?

Problem-solving strategies in math are methods students can use to figure out solutions to math problems. Some problem-solving strategies: 

• Draw a model
• Use different approaches
• Check the inverse to make sure the answer is correct

Students need to have a toolkit of math problem-solving strategies at their disposal to provide different ways to approach math problems. This makes it easier to find solutions and understand math better. 

Strategies can help guide students to the solution when it is difficult ot know when to start.

The ultimate guide to problem solving techniques

Download these ready-to-go problem solving techniques that every student should know. Includes printable tasks for students including challenges, short explanations for teachers with questioning prompts.

20 Math Strategies For Problem-Solving

Different problem-solving math strategies are required for different parts of the problem. It is unlikely that students will use the same strategy to understand and solve the problem. 

Here are 20 strategies to help students develop their problem-solving skills. 

Strategies to understand the problem

Strategies that help students understand the problem before solving it helps ensure they understand: 

• The context
• What the key information is
• How to form a plan to solve it

Following these steps leads students to the correct solution and makes the math word problem easier .

Here are five strategies to help students understand the content of the problem and identify key information. 

1. Read the problem aloud

Read a word problem aloud to help understand it. Hearing the words engages auditory processing. This can make it easier to process and comprehend the context of the situation.

2. Highlight keywords 

When keywords are highlighted in a word problem, it helps the student focus on the essential information needed to solve it. Some important keywords help determine which operation is needed.  For example, if the word problem asks how many are left, the problem likely requires subtraction.  Ensure students highlight the keywords carefully and do not highlight every number or keyword. There is likely irrelevant information in the word problem.

3. Summarize the information

Read the problem aloud, highlight the key information and then summarize the information. Students can do this in their heads or write down a quick summary.  Summaries should include only the important information and be in simple terms that help contextualize the problem.

4. Determine the unknown

A common problem that students have when solving a word problem is misunderstanding what they are solving. Determine what the unknown information is before finding the answer.  Often, a word problem contains a question where you can find the unknown information you need to solve. For example, in the question ‘How many apples are left?’ students need to find the number of apples left over.

5. Make a plan

Once students understand the context of the word problem, have dentified the important information and determined the unknown, they can make a plan to solve it.  The plan will depend on the type of problem. Some problems involve more than one step to solve them as some require more than one answer.  Encourage students to make a list of each step they need to take to solve the problem before getting started.

Strategies for solving the problem 

1. draw a model or diagram.

Students may find it useful to draw a model, picture, diagram, or other visual aid to help with the problem solving process.  It can help to visualize the problem to understand the relationships between the numbers in the problem. In turn, this helps students see the solution.

Similarly, you could draw a model to represent the objects in the problem:

2. Act it out

This particular strategy is applicable at any grade level but is especially helpful in math investigation in elementary school . It involves a physical demonstration or students acting out the problem using movements, concrete resources and math manipulatives .  When students act out a problem, they can visualize and contectualize the word problem in another way and secure an understanding of the math concepts.  The examples below show how 1st-grade students could “act out” an addition and subtraction problem:

3. Work backwards

Working backwards is a popular problem-solving strategy. It involves starting with a possible solution and deciding what steps to take to arrive at that solution.  This strategy can be particularly helpful when students solve math word problems involving multiple steps. They can start at the end and think carefully about each step taken as opposed to jumping to the end of the problem and missing steps in between.

For example,

To solve this problem working backwards, start with the final condition, which is Sam’s grandmother’s age (71) and work backwards to find Sam’s age. Subtract 20 from the grandmother’s age, which is 71.  Then, divide the result by 3 to get Sam’s age. 71 – 20 = 51 51 ÷ 3 = 17 Sam is 17 years old.

4. Write a number sentence

When faced with a word problem, encourage students to write a number sentence based on the information. This helps translate the information in the word problem into a math equation or expression, which is more easily solved.  It is important to fully understand the context of the word problem and what students need to solve before writing an equation to represent it.

5. Use a formula

Specific formulas help solve many math problems. For example, if a problem asks students to find the area of a rug, they would use the area formula (area = length × width) to solve.   Make sure students know the important mathematical formulas they will need in tests and real-life. It can help to display these around the classroom or, for those who need more support, on students’ desks.

Strategies for checking the solution 

Once the problem is solved using an appropriate strategy, it is equally important to check the solution to ensure it is correct and makes sense. 

There are many strategies to check the solution. The strategy for a specific problem is dependent on the problem type and math content involved.

Here are five strategies to help students check their solutions. 

1. Use the Inverse Operation

For simpler problems, a quick and easy problem solving strategy is to use the inverse operation. For example, if the operation to solve a word problem is 56 ÷ 8 = 7 students can check the answer is correct by multiplying 8 × 7. As good practice, encourage students to use the inverse operation routinely to check their work. 

2. Estimate to check for reasonableness

Once students reach an answer, they can use estimation or rounding to see if the answer is reasonable.  Round each number in the equation to a number that’s close and easy to work with, usually a multiple of ten.  For example, if the question was 216 ÷ 18 and the quotient was 12, students might round 216 to 200 and round 18 to 20. Then use mental math to solve 200 ÷ 20, which is 10.  When the estimate is clear the two numbers are close. This means your answer is reasonable. 

3. Plug-In Method

This method is particularly useful for algebraic equations. Specifically when working with variables.  To use the plug-in method, students solve the problem as asked and arrive at an answer. They can then plug the answer into the original equation to see if it works. If it does, the answer is correct.

If students use the equation 20m+80=300 to solve this problem and find that m = 11, they can plug that value back into the equation to see if it is correct. 20m + 80 = 300 20 (11) + 80 = 300 220 + 80 = 300 300 = 300 ✓

4. Peer Review

Peer review is a great tool to use at any grade level as it promotes critical thinking and collaboration between students. The reviewers can look at the problem from a different view as they check to see if the problem was solved correctly.   Problem solvers receive immediate feedback and the opportunity to discuss their thinking with their peers. This strategy is effective with mixed-ability partners or similar-ability partners. In mixed-ability groups, the partner with stronger skills provides guidance and support to the partner with weaker skills, while reinforcing their own understanding of the content and communication skills.  If partners have comparable ability levels and problem-solving skills, they may find that they approach problems differently or have unique insights to offer each other about the problem-solving process.

5. Use a Calculator

A calculator can be introduced at any grade level but may be best for older students who already have a foundational understanding of basic math operations. Provide students with a calculator to allow them to check their solutions independently, accurately, and quickly. Since calculators are so readily available on smartphones and tablets, they allow students to develop practical skills that apply to real-world situations.  

Step-by-step problem-solving processes for your classroom

In his book, How to Solve It , published in 1945, mathematician George Polya introduced a 4-step process to solve problems. 

Polya’s 4 steps include:

• Understand the problem
• Devise a plan
• Carry out the plan

Today, in the style of George Polya, many problem-solving strategies use various acronyms and steps to help students recall. 

Many teachers create posters and anchor charts of their chosen process to display in their classrooms. They can be implemented in any elementary, middle school or high school classroom. 

Here are 5 problem-solving strategies to introduce to students and use in the classroom.

How Third Space Learning improves problem-solving 

Resources .

Third Space Learning offers a free resource library is filled with hundreds of high-quality resources. A team of experienced math experts carefully created each resource to develop students mental arithmetic, problem solving and critical thinking. 

Explore the range of problem solving resources for 2nd to 8th grade students. 

One-on-one tutoring 

Third Space Learning offers one-on-one math tutoring to help students improve their math skills. Highly qualified tutors deliver high-quality lessons aligned to state standards. 

Former teachers and math experts write all of Third Space Learning’s tutoring lessons. Expertly designed lessons follow a “my turn, follow me, your turn” pedagogy to help students move from guided instruction and problem-solving to independent practice. 

Throughout each lesson, tutors ask higher-level thinking questions to promote critical thinking and ensure students are developing a deep understanding of the content and problem-solving skills.

Problem-solving

Educators can use many different strategies to teach problem-solving and help students develop and carry out a plan when solving math problems. Incorporate these math strategies into any math program and use them with a variety of math concepts, from whole numbers and fractions to algebra. 

Teaching students how to choose and implement problem-solving strategies helps them develop mathematical reasoning skills and critical thinking they can apply to real-life problem-solving.

READ MORE :

• 8 Common Core math examples
• Tier 3 Interventions: A School Leaders Guide
• Tier 2 Interventions: A School Leaders Guide
• Tier 1 Interventions: A School Leaders Guide

There are many different strategies for problem-solving; Here are 5 problem-solving strategies: • draw a model  • act it out  • work backwards  • write a number sentence • use a formula

Here are 10 strategies for problem-solving: • Read the problem aloud • Highlight keywords • Summarize the information • Determine the unknown • Make a plan • Draw a model  • Act it out  • Work backwards  • Write a number sentence • Use a formula

1. Understand the problem 2. Devise a plan 3. Carry out the plan 4. Look back

Some strategies you can use to solve challenging math problems are: breaking the problem into smaller parts, using diagrams or models, applying logical reasoning, and trying different approaches.

Related articles

Why Student Centered Learning Is Important: A Guide For Educators

13 Effective Learning Strategies: A Guide to Using them in your Math Classroom

Differentiated Instruction: 9 Differentiated Curriculum And Instruction Strategies For Teachers 

5 Math Mastery Strategies To Incorporate Into Your 4th and 5th Grade Classrooms

Ultimate Guide to Metacognition [FREE]

Looking for a summary on metacognition in relation to math teaching and learning?

Check out this guide featuring practical examples, tips and strategies to successfully embed metacognition across your school to accelerate math growth.

Privacy Overview

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Math Problem Solving Strategies That Make Students Say “I Get It!”

Even students who are quick with math facts can get stuck when it comes to problem solving.

As soon as a concept is translated to a word problem, or a simple mathematical sentence contains an unknown, they’re stumped.

That’s because problem solving requires us to  consciously choose the strategies most appropriate for the problem   at hand . And not all students have this metacognitive ability.

But you can teach these strategies for problem solving.  You just need to know what they are.

We’ve compiled them here divided into four categories:

Strategies for understanding a problem

Strategies for solving the problem, strategies for working out, strategies for checking the solution.

Get to know these strategies and then model them explicitly to your students. Next time they dive into a rich problem, they’ll be filling up their working out paper faster than ever!

Before students can solve a problem, they need to know what it’s asking them. This is often the first hurdle with word problems that don’t specify a particular mathematical operation.

Encourage your students to:

Read and reread the question

They say they’ve read it, but have they  really ? Sometimes students will skip ahead as soon as they’ve noticed one familiar piece of information or give up trying to understand it if the problem doesn’t make sense at first glance.

Teach students to interpret a question by using self-monitoring strategies such as:

• Rereading a question more slowly if it doesn’t make sense the first time
• Asking for help
• Highlighting or underlining important pieces of information.

Identify important and extraneous information

John is collecting money for his friend Ari’s birthday. He starts with $5 of his own, then Marcus gives him another $5. How much does he have now?

As adults looking at the above problem, we can instantly look past the names and the birthday scenario to see a simple addition problem. Students, however, can struggle to determine what’s relevant in the information that’s been given to them.

Teach students to sort and sift the information in a problem to find what’s relevant. A good way to do this is to have them swap out pieces of information to see if the solution changes. If changing names, items or scenarios has no impact on the end result, they’ll realize that it doesn’t need to be a point of focus while solving the problem.

Schema approach

This is a math intervention strategy that can make problem solving easier for all students, regardless of ability.

Compare different word problems of the same type and construct a formula, or mathematical sentence stem, that applies to them all. For example, a simple subtraction problems could be expressed as:

[Number/Quantity A] with [Number/Quantity B] removed becomes [end result].

This is the underlying procedure or  schema  students are being asked to use. Once they have a list of schema for different mathematical operations (addition, multiplication and so on), they can take turns to apply them to an unfamiliar word problem and see which one fits.

Struggling students often believe math is something you either do automatically or don’t do at all. But that’s not true. Help your students understand that they have a choice of problem-solving strategies to use, and if one doesn’t work, they can try another.

Here are four common strategies students can use for problem solving.

Visualizing

Visualizing an abstract problem often makes it easier to solve. Students could draw a picture or simply draw tally marks on a piece of working out paper.

Encourage visualization by modeling it on the whiteboard and providing graphic organizers that have space for students to draw before they write down the final number.

Guess and check

Show students how to make an educated guess and then plug this answer back into the original problem. If it doesn’t work, they can adjust their initial guess higher or lower accordingly.

Find a pattern

To find patterns, show students how to extract and list all the relevant facts in a problem so they can be easily compared. If they find a pattern, they’ll be able to locate the missing piece of information.

Work backward

Working backward is useful if students are tasked with finding an unknown number in a problem or mathematical sentence. For example, if the problem is 8 + x = 12, students can find x by:

• Starting with 12
• Taking the 8 from the 12
• Being left with 4
• Checking that 4 works when used instead of x

Now students have understood the problem and formulated a strategy, it’s time to put it into practice. But if they just launch in and do it, they might make it harder for themselves. Show them how to work through a problem effectively by:

Documenting working out

Model the process of writing down every step you take to complete a math problem and provide working out paper when students are solving a problem. This will allow students to keep track of their thoughts and pick up errors before they reach a final solution.

Check along the way

Checking work as you go is another crucial self-monitoring strategy for math learners. Model it to them with think aloud questions such as:

• Does that last step look right?
• Does this follow on from the step I took before?
• Have I done any ‘smaller’ sums within the bigger problem that need checking?

Students often make the mistake of thinking that speed is everything in math — so they’ll rush to get an answer down and move on without checking.

But checking is important too. It allows them to pinpoint areas of difficulty as they come up, and it enables them to tackle more complex problems that require multiple checks  before  arriving at a final answer.

Here are some checking strategies you can promote:

Check with a partner

Comparing answers with a peer leads is a more reflective process than just receiving a tick from the teacher. If students have two different answers, encourage them to talk about how they arrived at them and compare working out methods. They’ll figure out exactly where they went wrong, and what they got right.

Reread the problem with your solution

Most of the time, students will be able to tell whether or not their answer is correct by putting it back into the initial problem. If it doesn’t work or it just ‘looks wrong’, it’s time to go back and fix it up.

Fixing mistakes

Show students how to backtrack through their working out to find the exact point where they made a mistake. Emphasize that they can’t do this if they haven’t written down everything in the first place — so a single answer with no working out isn’t as impressive as they might think!

Need more help developing problem solving skills?

Read up on  how to set a problem solving and reasoning activity  or explore Mathseeds and Mathletics, our award winning online math programs. They’ve got over 900 teacher tested problem solving activities between them!

Get access to 900+ unique problem solving activities

You might like....

• Online math tutors
• Math classes
• 1st Grade Math Worksheets
• 2nd Grade Math Worksheets
• 3rd Grade Math Worksheets
• 4th Grade Math Worksheets
• 5th Grade Math Worksheets
• 6th Grade Math Worksheets
• 7th Grade Math Worksheets
• 8th Grade Math Worksheets
• Knowledge Base
• Math tutors

10 Strategies for Problem Solving in Math

Updated on January 6, 2024

When faced with problem-solving, children often get stuck. Word puzzles and math questions with an unknown variable, like x, usually confuse them. Therefore, this article discusses math strategies and how your students may use them since instructors often have to lead students through this problem-solving maze.

What Are Problem Solving Strategies in Math?

If you want to fix a problem, you need a solid plan. Math strategies for problem solving are ways of tackling math in a way that guarantees better outcomes. These strategies simplify math for kids so that less time is spent figuring out the problem. Both those new to mathematics and those more knowledgeable about the subject may benefit from these methods.

There are several methods to apply problem-solving procedures in math, and each strategy is different. While none of these methods failsafe, they may help your student become a better problem solver, particularly when paired with practice and examples. The more math problems kids tackle, the more math problem solving skills they acquire, and practice is the key.

Strategies for Problem-solving in Math

Even if a student is not a math wiz, a suitable solution to mathematical problems in math may help them discover answers. There is no one best method for helping students solve arithmetic problems, but the following ten approaches have shown to be very effective.

Understand the Problem

Understanding the nature of math problems is a prerequisite to solving them. They need to specify what kind of issue it is ( fraction problem , word problem, quadratic equation, etc.). Searching for keywords in the math problem, revisiting similar questions, or consulting the internet are all great ways to strengthen their grasp of the material. This step keeps the pupil on track.

1:1 Math Lessons

Want to raise a genius? Start learning Math with Brighterly

Guess and check.

One of the time-intensive strategies for resolving mathematical problems is the guess and check method. In this approach, students keep guessing until they get the answer right.

After assuming how to solve a math issue, students should reintroduce that assumption to check for correctness. While the approach may appear cumbersome, it is typically successful in revealing patterns in a child’s thought process.

Work It Out

Encourage pupils to record their thinking process as they go through a math problem. Since this technique requires an initial comprehension of the topic, it serves as a self-monitoring method for mathematics students. If they immediately start solving the problem, they risk making mistakes.

Students may keep track of their ideas and fix their math problems as they go along using this method. A youngster may still need you to explain their methods of solving the arithmetic questions on the extra page. This confirmation stage etches the steps they took to solve the problem in their minds.

Work Backwards

In mathematics, a fresh perspective is sometimes the key to a successful solution. Young people need to know that the ability to recreate math problems is valuable in many professional fields, including project management and engineering.

Students may better prepare for difficulties in real-world circumstances by using the “Work Backwards” technique. The end product may be used as a start-off point to identify the underlying issue.

In most cases, a visual representation of a math problem may help youngsters understand it better. Some of the most helpful math tactics for kids include having them play out the issue and picture how to solve it.

One way to visualize a workout is to use a blank piece of paper to draw a picture or make tally marks. Students might also use a marker and a whiteboard to draw as they demonstrate the technique before writing it down.

Find a Pattern

Kids who use pattern recognition techniques can better grasp math concepts and retain formulae. The most remarkable technique for problem solving in mathematics is to help students see patterns in math problems by instructing them how to extract and list relevant details. This method may be used by students when learning shapes and other topics that need repetition.

Students may use this strategy to spot patterns and fill in the blanks. Over time, this strategy will help kids answer math problems quickly.

When faced with a math word problem, it might be helpful to ask, “What are some possible solutions to this issue?” It encourages you to give the problem more thought, develop creative solutions, and prevent you from being stuck in a rut. So, tell the pupils to think about the math problems and not just go with the first solution that comes to mind.

Draw a Picture or Diagram

Drawing a picture of a math problem can help kids understand how to solve it, just like picturing it can help them see it. Shapes or numbers could be used to show the forms to keep things easy. Kids might learn how to use dots or letters to show the parts of a pattern or graph if you teach them.

Charts and graphs can be useful even when math isn’t involved. Kids can draw pictures of the ideas they read about to help them remember them after they’ve learned them. The plan for how to solve the mathematical problem will help kids understand what the problem is and how to solve it.

Trial and Error Method

The trial and error method may be one of the most common problem solving strategies for kids to figure out how to solve problems. But how well this strategy is used will determine how well it works. Students have a hard time figuring out math questions if they don’t have clear formulas or instructions.

They have a better chance of getting the correct answer, though, if they first make a list of possible answers based on rules they already know and then try each one. Don’t be too quick to tell kids they shouldn’t learn by making mistakes.

Review Answers with Peers

It’s fun to work on your math skills with friends by reviewing the answers to math questions together. If different students have different ideas about how to solve the same problem, get them to share their thoughts with the class.

During class time, kids’ ways of working might be compared. Then, students can make their points stronger by fixing these problems.

Check out the Printable Math Worksheets for Your Kids!

There are different ways to solve problems that can affect how fast and well students do on math tests. That’s why they need to learn the best ways to do things. If students follow the steps in this piece, they will have better experiences with solving math questions.

Jessica is a a seasoned math tutor with over a decade of experience in the field. With a BSc and Master’s degree in Mathematics, she enjoys nurturing math geniuses, regardless of their age, grade, and skills. Apart from tutoring, Jessica blogs at Brighterly. She also has experience in child psychology, homeschooling and curriculum consultation for schools and EdTech websites.

As adults, we take numbers for granted, but preschoolers and kindergartners have no idea what these symbols mean. Yet, we often demand instant understanding and flawless performance when we start teaching numbers to our children. If you don’t have a clue about how to teach numbers for kids, browse no more. You will get four […]

May 19, 2022

Teaching children is a complex process because they require more attention than an adult person. You may need to employ different teaching strategies when teaching kids. But what are teaching strategies? Teaching strategies are the methods to ensure your kids or students learn efficiently. But not all strategies yield similarly, and if the one you […]

Math programs from 1st to 8th grade

Online summer math camp for kids and teens.

Choose kid's grade

Summer Math Program Boost Your Child's Math Abilities! Ideal for 1st-8th Graders, Perfectly Synced with School Curriculum!

What do we offer?

Related posts.

Instructional Strategies for Math

Effective math instruction begins when teachers are passionate and develop high expectations for students. Using differentiated learning experiences and culturally relevant practices, teachers can meet each student’s learning needs. That is why tutors need instructional strategies for math to allow learners to enjoy and understand math easier. What Are Instructional Strategies for Math? Educators use […]

Jun 30, 2022

0-9 Number Formation Rhymes: Fun Math Learning

Poems make learning easier, so why not use them to teach math? Especially when you need to explain number formation in kindergarten.  When hidden in catchy poems, number formation rhymes help kids memorize how to write numbers while having some fun. So check this article out to see the best number formation poems — and […]

Jun 18, 2024

Best Math Card Games For Kids

In today’s digital age, where screens and devices dominate children’s entertainment and education, it’s essential to find ways to engage young minds in more traditional and interactive ways. Math card games are an excellent avenue to achieve this, offering a blend of entertainment and education to help children develop essential math skills while having a […]

Aug 18, 2023

Want your kid to excel in math?

Kid’s grade

We use cookies to help give you the best service possible. If you continue to use the website we will understand that you consent to the Terms and Conditions. These cookies are safe and secure. We will not share your history logs with third parties. Learn More

• PRINT TO PLAY
• DIGITAL GAMES

Problem-Solving Strategies

October 16, 2019

There are many different ways to solve a math problem, and equipping students with problem-solving strategies is just as important as teaching computation and algorithms. Problem-solving strategies help students visualize the problem or present the given information in a way that can lead them to the solution. Solving word problems using strategies works great as a number talks activity and helps to revise many skills.

Problem-solving strategies

1. create a diagram/picture, 2. guess and check., 3. make a table or a list., 4. logical reasoning., 5. find a pattern, 6. work backward, 1. create a diagram/draw a picture.

Creating a diagram helps students visualize the problem and reach the solution. A diagram can be a picture with labels, or a representation of the problem with objects that can be manipulated. Role-playing and acting out the problem like a story can help get to the solution.

Alice spent 3/4 of her babysitting money on comic books. She is left with $6. How much money did she make from babysitting?

2. Guess and check

Teach students the same strategy research mathematicians use.

With this strategy, students solve problems by making a reasonable guess depending on the information given. Then they check to see if the answer is correct and they improve it accordingly.  By repeating this process, a student can arrive at a correct answer that has been checked. It is recommended that the students keep a record of their guesses by making a chart, a table or a list. This is a flexible strategy that works for many types of problems. When students are stuck, guessing and checking helps them start and explore the problem. However, there is a trap. Exactly because it is such a simple strategy to use, some students find it difficult to consider other strategies. As problems get more complicated, other strategies become more important and more effective.

Find two numbers that have sum 11 and product 24.

Try/guess  5 and 6  the product is 30 too high

  adjust  to 4 and 7 with product 28 still high

  adjust  again 3 and 8 product 24

3. Make a table or a list

Carefully organize the information on a table or list according to the problem information. It might be a table of numbers, a table with ticks and crosses to solve a logic problem or a list of possible answers. Seeing the given information sorted out on a table or a list will help find patterns and lead to the correct solution.

To make sure you are listing all the information correctly read the problem carefully.

Find the common factors of 24, 30 and 18

Logical reasoning is the process of using logical, systemic steps to arrive at a conclusion based on given facts and mathematic principles. Read and understand the problem. Then find the information that helps you start solving the problem. Continue with each piece of information and write possible answers.

Thomas, Helen, Bill, and Mary have cats that are black, brown, white, or gray. The cats’ names are Buddy, Lucky, Fifi, and Moo. Buddy is brown. Thoma’s cat, Lucky, is not gray. Helen’s cat is white but is not named Moo. The gray cat belongs to Bill. Which cat belongs to each student, and what is its color?

A table or list is useful in solving logic problems.

Since Lucky is not gray it can be black or brown. However, Buddy is brown so Lucky has to be black.

Buddy is brown so it cannot be Helen’s cat. Helen’s cat cannot be Moo, Buddy or Lucky, so it is Fifi.

Therefore, Moo is Bill’s cat and Buddy is Mary’s cat.

5. Find a pattern.

Finding a pattern is a strategy in which students look for patterns in the given information in order to solve the problem. When the problem consists of data like numbers or events that are repeated then it can be solved using the “find a pattern” problem-solving strategy. Data can be organized in a table or a list to reveal the pattern and help discover the “rule” of the pattern.

 The “rule” can then be used to find the answer to the question and complete the table/list.

Shannon’s Pizzeria made 5 pizzas on Sunday, 10 pizzas on Monday, 20 pizzas on Tuesday, and 40 pizzas on Wednesday. If this pattern continues, how many pizzas will the pizzeria make on Saturday?

6. Working backward

Problems that can be solved with this strategy are the ones that  list a series of events or a sequence of steps .

In this strategy, the students must start with the solution and work back to the beginning. Each operation must be reversed to get back to the beginning. So if working forwards requires addition, when students work backward they will need to subtract. And if they multiply working forwards, they must divide when working backward.

Mom bought a box of candy. Mary took 5 of them, Nick took 4 of them and 31 were given out on Halloween night. The next morning they found 8 pieces of candy in the box. How many candy pieces were in the box when mom bought it.

For this problem, we know that the final number of candy was 8, so if we work backward to “put back” the candy that was taken from the box we can reach the number of candy pieces that were in the box, to begin with.

The candy was taken away so we will normally subtract them. However, to get back to the original number of candy we need to work backward and do the opposite, which is to add them.

8 candy pieces were left + the 31 given out + plus the ones Mary took + the ones Nick took

8+31+5+4= 48   Answer: The box came with 48 pieces of candy.

Selecting the best strategy for a problem comes with practice and often problems will require the use of more than one strategies.

Print and digital activities

I have created a collection of print and digital activity cards and worksheets with word problems (print and google slides) to solve using the strategies above. The collection includes 70 problems (5 challenge ones) and their solution s and explanations.

sample below

How to use the activity cards

Allow the students to use manipulatives to solve the problems. (counters, shapes, lego blocks, Cuisenaire blocks, base 10 blocks, clocks) They can use manipulatives to create a picture and visualize the problem. They can use counters for the guess and check strategy. Discuss which strategy/strategies are better for solving each problem. Discuss the different ways. Use the activities as warm-ups, number talks, initiate discussions, group work, challenge, escape rooms, and more.

Ask your students to write their own problems using the problems in this resource, and more, as examples. Start with a simple type. Students learn a lot when trying to compose a problem. They can share the problem with their partner or the whole class. Make a collection of problems to share with another class.

For the google slides the students can use text boxes to explain their thinking with words, add shapes and lines to create diagrams, and add (insert) tables and diagrams.

Many of the problems can be solved faster by using algebraic expressions. However, since I created this resource for grades 4 and up I chose to show simple conceptual ways of solving the problems using the strategies above. You can suggest different ways of solving the problems based on the grade level.

Find the free and premium versions of the resource below. The premium version includes 70 problems (challenge problems included) and their solutions

There are 2 versions of the resource

70 google slides with explanations + 70 printable task cards

70 google slides with explanations + 11 worksheets

You might also like

Multiplying fractions/mixed numbers/simplifying

Adding and subtracting fractions

AM/PM, 24-hour clock, Elapsed Time – ideas, games, and activities

Teaching area, ideas, games, print, and digital activities

Multi-Digit Multiplication, Area model, Partial Products algorithm, Puzzles, Word problems

Place Value – Representing and adding 2/3 digit numbers with manipulatives

Multiplication Mission – arrays, properties, multiples, factors, division

Fractions Games and activities – Equivalence, make 1, compare, add, subtract, like, unlike

Diving into Division -Teaching division conceptually

Expressions with arrays

Decimals, Decimal fractions, Percentages – print and digital

Solving Word Problems- Math talks-Strategies, Ideas and Activities-print and digital

Check out our best selling card games now available at amazon.com and amazon.ca.

Chicken Escape

A multiplayer card game that makes mental math practice fun! Chicken Escape is a fast-paced multiplayer card game. While playing…

Dragon Times – A math Adventure card game

Dragon Times is an educational fantasy card game that aims to motivate children to practice multiplication and division facts while…

Think back to the first problem in this chapter, the ABC Problem . What did you do to solve it? Even if you did not figure it out completely by yourself, you probably worked towards a solution and figured out some things that did not work.

Unlike exercises, there is never a simple recipe for solving a problem. You can get better and better at solving problems, both by building up your background knowledge and by simply practicing. As you solve more problems (and learn how other people solved them), you learn strategies and techniques that can be useful. But no single strategy works every time.

Pólya’s How to Solve It

George Pólya was a great champion in the field of teaching effective problem solving skills.  He was born in Hungary in 1887, received his Ph.D. at the University of Budapest, and was a professor at Stanford University (among other universities).  He wrote many mathematical papers along with three books, most famously, “How to Solve it.” Pólya died at the age 98 in 1985. [1]

 In 1945, Pólya published the short book How to Solve It , which gave a four-step method for solving mathematical problems:

• Understand the problem.
• Devise a plan.
• Carry out the plan.
• Looking back.

This is all well and good, but how do you actually do these steps?!?! Steps 1. and 2. are particularly mysterious! How do you “make a plan?” That is where you need some tools in your toolbox, and some experience to draw upon.

Much has been written since 1945 to explain these steps in more detail, but the truth is that they are more art than science. This is where math becomes a creative endeavor (and where it becomes so much fun). We will articulate some useful problem solving strategies, but no such list will ever be complete. This is really just a start to help you on your way. The best way to become a skilled problem solver is to learn the background material well, and then to solve a lot of problems!

We have already seen one problem solving strategy, which we call “Wishful Thinking.” Do not be afraid to change the problem! Ask yourself “what if” questions:

• What if the picture was different?
• What if the numbers were simpler?
• What if I just made up some numbers?

You need to be sure to go back to the original problem at the end, but wishful thinking can be a powerful strategy for getting started.

This brings us to the most important problem solving strategy of all:

Problem Solving Strategy 2 (Try Something!). If you are really trying to solve a problem, the whole point is that you do not know what to do right out of the starting gate. You need to just try something! Put pencil to paper (or stylus to screen or chalk to board or whatever!) and try something. This is often an important step in understanding the problem; just mess around with it a bit to understand the situation and figure out what is going on.

And equally important: If what you tried first does not work, try something else! Play around with the problem until you have a feel for what is going on.

Problem 2 (Payback)

Last week, Alex borrowed money from several of his friends. He finally got paid at work, so he brought cash to school to pay back his debts. First he saw Brianna, and he gave her 1/4 of the money he had brought to school. Then Alex saw Chris and gave him 1/3 of what he had left after paying Brianna. Finally, Alex saw David and gave him 1/2 of what he had remaining. Who got the most money from Alex?

Think/Pair/Share

After you have worked on the problem on your own for a while, talk through your ideas with a partner (even if you have not solved it). What did you try? What did you figure out about the problem?

This problem lends itself to two particular strategies. Did you try either of these as you worked on the problem? If not, read about the strategy and then try it out before watching the solution.

Problem Solving Strategy 3 (Draw a Picture). Some problems are obviously about a geometric situation, and it is clear you want to draw a picture and mark down all of the given information before you try to solve it. But even for a problem that is not geometric, like this one, thinking visually can help! Can you represent something in the situation by a picture?

Draw a square to represent all of Alex’s money. Then shade 1/4 of the square — that’s what he gave away to Brianna. How can the picture help you finish the problem?

After you have worked on the problem yourself using this strategy (or if you are completely stuck), you can watch someone else’s solution.

Problem Solving Strategy 4 (Make Up Numbers). Part of what makes this problem difficult is that it is about money, but there are no numbers given. That means the numbers must not be important. So just make them up!

You can work forwards: Assume Alex had some specific amount of money when he showed up at school, say $100. Then figure out how much he gives to each person. Or you can work backwards: suppose he has some specific amount left at the end, like $10. Since he gave Chris half of what he had left, that means he had $20 before running into Chris. Now, work backwards and figure out how much each person got.

Watch the solution only after you tried this strategy for yourself.

If you use the “Make Up Numbers” strategy, it is really important to remember what the original problem was asking! You do not want to answer something like “Everyone got $10.” That is not true in the original problem; that is an artifact of the numbers you made up. So after you work everything out, be sure to re-read the problem and answer what was asked!

Problem 3 (Squares on a Chess Board)

How many squares, of any possible size, are on a 8 × 8 chess board? (The answer is not 64… It’s a lot bigger!)

Remember Pólya’s first step is to understand the problem. If you are not sure what is being asked, or why the answer is not just 64, be sure to ask someone!

Think / Pair / Share

After you have worked on the problem on your own for a while, talk through your ideas with a partner (even if you have not solved it). What did you try? What did you figure out about the problem, even if you have not solved it completely?

It is clear that you want to draw a picture for this problem, but even with the picture it can be hard to know if you have found the correct answer. The numbers get big, and it can be hard to keep track of your work. Your goal at the end is to be absolutely positive that you found the right answer. You should never ask the teacher, “Is this right?” Instead, you should declare, “Here’s my answer, and here is why I know it is correct!”

Problem Solving Strategy 5 (Try a Simpler Problem). Pólya suggested this strategy: “If you can’t solve a problem, then there is an easier problem you can solve: find it.” He also said: “If you cannot solve the proposed problem, try to solve first some related problem. Could you imagine a more accessible related problem?” In this case, an 8 × 8 chess board is pretty big. Can you solve the problem for smaller boards? Like 1 × 1? 2 × 2? 3 × 3?

Of course the ultimate goal is to solve the original problem. But working with smaller boards might give you some insight and help you devise your plan (that is Pólya’s step (2)).

Problem Solving Strategy 6 (Work Systematically). If you are working on simpler problems, it is useful to keep track of what you have figured out and what changes as the problem gets more complicated.

For example, in this problem you might keep track of how many 1 × 1 squares are on each board, how many 2 × 2 squares on are each board, how many 3 × 3 squares are on each board, and so on. You could keep track of the information in a table:

Problem Solving Strategy 7 (Use Manipulatives to Help You Investigate). Sometimes even drawing a picture may not be enough to help you investigate a problem. Having actual materials that you move around can sometimes help a lot!

For example, in this problem it can be difficult to keep track of which squares you have already counted. You might want to cut out 1 × 1 squares, 2 × 2 squares, 3 × 3 squares, and so on. You can actually move the smaller squares across the chess board in a systematic way, making sure that you count everything once and do not count anything twice.

Problem Solving Strategy 8 (Look for and Explain Patterns). Sometimes the numbers in a problem are so big, there is no way you will actually count everything up by hand. For example, if the problem in this section were about a 100 × 100 chess board, you would not want to go through counting all the squares by hand! It would be much more appealing to find a pattern in the smaller boards and then extend that pattern to solve the problem for a 100 × 100 chess board just with a calculation.

If you have not done so already, extend the table above all the way to an 8 × 8 chess board, filling in all the rows and columns. Use your table to find the total number of squares in an 8 × 8 chess board. Then:

• Describe all of the patterns you see in the table.
• Can you explain and justify any of the patterns you see? How can you be sure they will continue?
• What calculation would you do to find the total number of squares on a 100 × 100 chess board?

(We will come back to this question soon. So if you are not sure right now how to explain and justify the patterns you found, that is OK.)

Problem 4 (Broken Clock)

This clock has been broken into three pieces. If you add the numbers in each piece, the sums are consecutive numbers. ( Consecutive numbers are whole numbers that appear one after the other, such as 1, 2, 3, 4 or 13, 14, 15.)

Can you break another clock into a different number of pieces so that the sums are consecutive numbers? Assume that each piece has at least two numbers and that no number is damaged (e.g. 12 isn’t split into two digits 1 and 2.)

Remember that your first step is to understand the problem. Work out what is going on here. What are the sums of the numbers on each piece? Are they consecutive?

After you have worked on the problem on your own for a while, talk through your ideas with a partner (even if you have not solved it). What did you try? What progress have you made?

Problem Solving Strategy 9 (Find the Math, Remove the Context). Sometimes the problem has a lot of details in it that are unimportant, or at least unimportant for getting started. The goal is to find the underlying math problem, then come back to the original question and see if you can solve it using the math.

In this case, worrying about the clock and exactly how the pieces break is less important than worrying about finding consecutive numbers that sum to the correct total. Ask yourself:

• What is the sum of all the numbers on the clock’s face?
• Can I find two consecutive numbers that give the correct sum? Or four consecutive numbers? Or some other amount?
• How do I know when I am done? When should I stop looking?

Of course, solving the question about consecutive numbers is not the same as solving the original problem. You have to go back and see if the clock can actually break apart so that each piece gives you one of those consecutive numbers. Maybe you can solve the math problem, but it does not translate into solving the clock problem.

Problem Solving Strategy 10 (Check Your Assumptions). When solving problems, it is easy to limit your thinking by adding extra assumptions that are not in the problem. Be sure you ask yourself: Am I constraining my thinking too much?

In the clock problem, because the first solution has the clock broken radially (all three pieces meet at the center, so it looks like slicing a pie), many people assume that is how the clock must break. But the problem does not require the clock to break radially. It might break into pieces like this:

Were you assuming the clock would break in a specific way? Try to solve the problem now, if you have not already.

• Image of Pólya by Thane Plambeck from Palo Alto, California (Flickr) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons ↵

Mathematics for Elementary Teachers Copyright © 2018 by Michelle Manes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Or search by topic

Number and algebra.

• Place value and the number system
• Fractions, decimals, percentages, ratio and proportion
• Calculations and numerical methods
• Algebraic expressions, equations and formulae
• Coordinates, functions and graphs
• Patterns, sequences and structure
• Properties of numbers

Geometry and measure

• 3D geometry, shape and space
• Transformations and constructions
• Vectors and matrices
• Measuring and calculating with units
• Pythagoras and trigonometry
• Angles, polygons, and geometrical proof

Probability and statistics

• Handling, processing and representing data
• Probability (spec_group)

Working mathematically

• Thinking mathematically
• Mathematical mindsets

Advanced mathematics

• Decision mathematics and combinatorics
• Advanced probability and statistics

For younger learners

• Early years foundation stage

Problem Solving, Using and Applying and Functional Mathematics

Problem solving.

The problem-solving process can be described as a journey from meeting a problem for the first time to finding a solution, communicating it and evaluating the route. There are many models of the problem-solving process but they all have a similar structure. One model is given below. Although implying a linear process from comprehension through to evaluation, the model is more of a flow backward and forward, revisiting and revising on the problem-solving journey.

Comprehension

Representation.

• Can they represent the situation mathematically?
• What is it that they are trying to find?
• What do they think the answer might be (conjecturing and hypothesising)?
• What might they need to find out before they can get started?

Planning, analysis and synthesis

Having understood what the problem is about and established what needs finding, this stage is about planning a pathway to the solution. It is within this process that you might encourage pupils to think about whether they have seen something similar before and what strategies they adopted then. This will help them to identify appropriate methods and tools. Particular knowledge and skills gaps that need addressing may become evident at this stage.

Execution and communication

During the execution phase, pupils might identify further related problems they wish to investigate. They will need to consider how they will keep track of what they have done and how they will communicate their findings. This will lead on to interpreting results and drawing conclusions.

Pupils can learn as much from reflecting on and evaluating what they have done as they can from the process of solving the problem itself. During this phase pupils should be expected to reflect on the effectiveness of their approach as well as other people's approaches, justify their conclusions and assess their own learning. Evaluation may also lead to thinking about other questions that could now be investigated.

Using and Applying Mathematics

Aspects of using and applying reflect skills that can be developed through problem solving. For example:

In planning and executing a problem, problem solvers may need to:

• select and use appropriate and efficient techniques and strategies to solve problems
• identify what further information may be required in order to pursue a particular line of enquiry and give reasons for following or rejecting particular approaches
• break down a complex calculation problem into simpler steps before attempting a solution and justify their choice of methods
• make mental estimates of the answers to calculations
• present answers to sensible levels of accuracy; understand how errors are compounded in certain calculations.

During problem solving, solvers need to communicate their mathematics for example by:

• discussing their work and explaining their reasoning using a range of mathematical language and notation
• using a variety of strategies and diagrams for establishing algebraic or graphical representations of a problem and its solution
• moving from one form of representation to another to get different perspectives on the problem
• presenting and interpreting solutions in the context of the original problem
• using notation and symbols correctly and consistently within a given problem
• examining critically, improve, then justifying their choice of mathematical presentation
• presenting a concise, reasoned argument.

Problem solvers need to reason mathematically including through:

• exploring, identifying, and using pattern and symmetry in algebraic contexts, investigating whether a particular case may be generalised further and understanding the importance of a counter-example; identifying exceptional cases
• understanding the difference between a practical demonstration and a proof
• showing step-by-step deduction in solving a problem; deriving proofs using short chains of deductive reasoning
• recognising the significance of stating constraints and assumptions when deducing results
• recognising the limitations of any assumptions that are made and the effect that varying the assumptions may have on the solution to a problem.

Functional Mathematics

Functional maths requires learners to be able to use mathematics in ways that make them effective and involved as citizens, able to operate confidently in life and to work in a wide range of contexts. The key processes of Functional Skills reflect closely the problem solving model but within three phases:

• Making sense of situations and representing them
• Processing and using the mathematics
• Interpreting and communicating the results of the analysis

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

CLICK HERE TO LEARN ABOUT MTM ALL ACCESS MEMBERSHIP FOR GRADES 6-ALGEBRA 1

Maneuvering the Middle

Student-Centered Math Lessons

Math Problem Solving Strategies

How many times have you been teaching a concept that students are feeling confident in, only for them to completely shut down when faced with a word problem?  For me, the answer is too many to count.  Word problems require problem solving strategies. And more than anything, word problems require decoding, eliminating extra information, and opportunities for students to solve for something that the question is not asking for .  There are so many places for students to make errors! Let’s talk about some problem solving strategies that can help guide and encourage students!

1. C.U.B.E.S.

C.U.B.E.S stands for circle the important numbers, underline the question, box the words that are keywords, eliminate extra information, and solve by showing work.  

• Why I like it: Gives students a very specific ‘what to do.’
• Why I don’t like it: With all of the annotating of the problem, I’m not sure that students are actually reading the problem.  None of the steps emphasize reading the problem but maybe that is a given.

2. R.U.N.S.

R.U.N.S. stands for read the problem, underline the question, name the problem type, and write a strategy sentence. 

• Why I like it: Students are forced to think about what type of problem it is (factoring, division, etc) and then come up with a plan to solve it using a strategy sentence.  This is a great strategy to teach when you are tackling various types of problems.
• Why I don’t like it: Though I love the opportunity for students to write in math, writing a strategy statement for every problem can eat up a lot of time.

3. U.P.S. CHECK

U.P.S. Check stands for understand, plan, solve, and check.

• Why I like it: I love that there is a check step in this problem solving strategy.  Students having to defend the reasonableness of their answer is essential for students’ number sense.
• Why I don’t like it: It can be a little vague and doesn’t give concrete ‘what to dos.’ Checking that students completed the ‘understand’ step can be hard to see.

4. Maneuvering the Middle Strategy AKA K.N.O.W.S.

Here is the strategy that I adopted a few years ago.  It doesn’t have a name yet nor an acronym, (so can it even be considered a strategy…?)

UPDATE: IT DOES HAVE A NAME! Thanks to our lovely readers, Wendi and Natalie!

• Know: This will help students find the important information.
• Need to Know: This will force students to reread the question and write down what they are trying to solve for.
• Organize:   I think this would be a great place for teachers to emphasize drawing a model or picture.
• Work: Students show their calculations here.
• Solution: This is where students will ask themselves if the answer is reasonable and whether it answered the question.

Ideas for Promoting Showing Your Work

• White boards are a helpful resource that make (extra) writing engaging!
• Celebrating when students show their work. Create a bulletin board that says ***I showed my work*** with student exemplars.
• Take a picture that shows your expectation for how work should look and post it on the board like Marissa did here.

Show Work Digitally

Many teachers are facing how to have students show their work or their problem solving strategy when tasked with submitting work online. Platforms like Kami make this possible. Go Formative has a feature where students can use their mouse to “draw” their work. 

If you want to spend your energy teaching student problem solving instead of writing and finding math problems, look no further than our All Access membership . Click the button to learn more. 

Students who plan succeed at a higher rate than students who do not plan.   Do you have a go to problem solving strategy that you teach your students? 

Editor’s Note: Maneuvering the Middle has been publishing blog posts for nearly 8 years! This post was originally published in September of 2017. It has been revamped for relevancy and accuracy.

Problem Solving Posters (Represent It! Bulletin Board)

Check out these related products from my shop.

Reader Interactions

18 comments.

October 4, 2017 at 7:55 pm

As a reading specialist, I love your strategy. It’s flexible, “portable” for any problem, and DOES get kids to read and understand the problem by 1) summarizing what they know and 2) asking a question for what they don’t yet know — two key comprehension strategies! How about: “Make a Plan for the Problem”? That’s the core of your rationale for using it, and I bet you’re already saying this all the time in class. Kids will get it even more because it’s a statement, not an acronym to remember. This is coming to my reading class tomorrow with word problems — thank you!

October 4, 2017 at 8:59 pm

Hi Nora! I have never thought about this as a reading strategy, genius! Please let me know how it goes. I would love to hear more!

December 15, 2017 at 7:57 am

Hi! I am a middle school teacher in New York state and my district is “gung ho” on CUBES. I completely agree with you that kids are not really reading the problem when using CUBES and only circling and boxing stuff then “doing something” with it without regard for whether or not they are doing the right thing (just a shot in the dark!). I have adopted what I call a “no fear word problems” procedure because several of my students told me they are scared of word problems and I thought, “let’s take the scary out of it then by figuring out how to dissect it and attack it! Our class strategy is nearly identical to your strategy:

1. Pre-Read the problem (do so at your normal reading speed just so you basically know what it says) 2. Active Read: Make a short list of: DK (what I Definitely Know), TK (what I Think I Know and should do), and WK (what I Want to Know– what is the question?) 3. Draw and Solve 4. State the answer in a complete sentence.

This procedure keep kids for “surfacely” reading and just trying something that doesn’t make sense with the context and implications of the word problem. I adapted some of it from Harvey Silver strategies (from Strategic Teacher) and incorporated the “Read-Draw-Write” component of the Eureka Math program. One thing that Harvey Silver says is, “Unlike other problems in math, word problems combine quantitative problem solving with inferential reading, and this combination can bring out the impulsive side in students.” (The Strategic Teacher, page 90, Silver, et al.; 2007). I found that CUBES perpetuates the impulsive side of middle school students, especially when the math seems particularly difficult. Math word problems are packed full of words and every word means something to about the intent and the mathematics in the problem, especially in middle school and high school. Reading has to be done both at the literal and inferential levels to actually correctly determine what needs to be done and execute the proper mathematics. So far this method is going really well with my students and they are experiencing higher levels of confidence and greater success in solving.

October 5, 2017 at 6:27 am

Hi! Another teacher and I came up with a strategy we call RUBY a few years ago. We modeled this very closely after close reading strategies that are language arts department was using, but tailored it to math. R-Read the problem (I tell kids to do this without a pencil in hand otherwise they are tempted to start underlining and circling before they read) U-Underline key words and circle important numbers B-Box the questions (I always have student’s box their answer so we figured this was a way for them to relate the question and answer) Y-You ask yourself: Did you answer the question? Does your answer make sense (mathematically)

I have anchor charts that we have made for classrooms and interactive notebooks if you would like them let me me know….

October 5, 2017 at 9:46 am

Great idea! Thanks so much for sharing with our readers!

October 8, 2017 at 6:51 pm

LOVE this idea! Will definitely use it this year! Thank you!

December 18, 2019 at 7:48 am

I would love an anchor chart for RUBY

October 15, 2017 at 11:05 am

I will definitely use this concept in my Pre-Algebra classes this year; I especially like the graphic organizer to help students organize their thought process in solving the problems too.

April 20, 2018 at 7:36 am

I love the process you’ve come up with, and think it definitely balances the benefits of simplicity and thoroughness. At the risk of sounding nitpicky, I want to point out that the examples you provide are all ‘processes’ rather than strategies. For the most part, they are all based on the Polya’s, the Hungarian mathematician, 4-step approach to problem solving (Understand/Plan/Solve/Reflect). It’s a process because it defines the steps we take to approach any word problem without getting into the specific mathematical ‘strategy’ we will use to solve it. Step 2 of the process is where they choose the best strategy (guess and check, draw a picture, make a table, etc) for the given problem. We should start by teaching the strategies one at a time by choosing problems that fit that strategy. Eventually, once they have added multiple strategies to their toolkit, we can present them with problems and let them choose the right strategy.

June 22, 2018 at 12:19 pm

That’s brilliant! Thank you for sharing!

May 31, 2018 at 12:15 pm

Mrs. Brack is setting up her second Christmas tree. Her tree consists of 30% red and 70% gold ornaments. If there are 40 red ornaments, then how many ornaments are on the tree? What is the answer to this question?

June 22, 2018 at 10:46 am

Whoops! I guess the answer would not result in a whole number (133.333…) Thanks for catching that error.

July 28, 2018 at 6:53 pm

I used to teach elementary math and now I run my own learning center, and we teach a lot of middle school math. The strategy you outlined sounds a little like the strategy I use, called KFCS (like the fast-food restaurant). K stands for “What do I know,” F stands for “What do I need to Find,” C stands for “Come up with a plan” [which includes 2 parts: the operation (+, -, x, and /) and the problem-solving strategy], and lastly, the S stands for “solve the problem” (which includes all the work that is involved in solving the problem and the answer statement). I find the same struggles with being consistent with modeling clearly all of the parts of the strategy as well, but I’ve found that the more the student practices the strategy, the more intrinsic it becomes for them; of course, it takes a lot more for those students who struggle with understanding word problems. I did create a worksheet to make it easier for the students to follow the steps as well. If you’d like a copy, please let me know, and I will be glad to send it.

February 3, 2019 at 3:56 pm

This is a supportive and encouraging site. Several of the comments and post are spot on! Especially, the “What I like/don’t like” comparisons.

March 7, 2019 at 6:59 am

Have you named your unnamed strategy yet? I’ve been using this strategy for years. I think you should call it K.N.O.W.S. K – Know N – Need OW – (Organise) Plan and Work S – Solution

September 2, 2019 at 11:18 am

Going off of your idea, Natalie, how about the following?

K now N eed to find out O rganize (a plan – may involve a picture, a graphic organizer…) W ork S ee if you’re right (does it make sense, is the math done correctly…)

I love the K & N steps…so much more tangible than just “Read” or even “Understand,” as I’ve been seeing is most common in the processes I’ve been researching. I like separating the “Work” and “See” steps. I feel like just “Solve” May lead to forgetting the checking step.

March 16, 2020 at 4:44 pm

I’m doing this one. Love it. Thank you!!

September 17, 2019 at 7:14 am

Hi, I wanted to tell you how amazing and kind you are to share with all of us. I especially like your word problem graphic organizer that you created yourself! I am adopting it this week. We have a meeting with all administrators to discuss algebra. I am going to share with all the people at the meeting.

I had filled out the paperwork for the number line. Is it supposed to go to my email address? Thank you again. I am going to read everything you ahve given to us. Have a wonderful Tuesday!

• Create account

Math and Special Education Blog

8 problem solving strategies for the math classroom.

Posted by Colleen Uscianowski · February 25, 2014

Would you draw a picture, make a list  possible number pairs that have the ratio 5:3, or guess and check? 

Explicit strategy instruction should be an integral part of your math classroom, whether you're teaching kindergarten or 12th grade.

Teach students that they can choose from a list of strategies to solve a problem, and often there isn't one correct way of finding a solution.

Demonstrate how you solve a word problem by thinking aloud as you choose and execute a strategy.

Ask students if they would solve the problem differently and praise students for coming up with unique ways of arriving at an answer.

Here are some problem-solving strategies I've taught my students:

Below is a helpful chart to remind students of the many problem-solving strategies they can use when solving word problems. This useful handout is a great addition to students' strategy binders, math notebooks, or math journals.  

How do you teach problem-solving in your classroom? Feel free to share advice and tips below!    

Sign up to receive a FREE copy of our problem-solving poster.

5 Strategies for Successful Problem Solving

• Powerful teaching strategies
• December 26, 2023
• Michaela Epstein

Blog > 5 Strategies for Successful Problem Solving

Problem solving can change the way students see maths – and how they see themselves as maths learners.

But, it's tough to help all students get the most out of a task.

To help, here are  5 Strategies for Problem Solving Success.

These are 5 valuable lessons I've learned from working with teachers across the globe .  You can use these strategies with all your students, no matter their level.

5 Strategies for Problem Solving Success

Your own enthusiasm is quickly picked up by your students. So, choose a problem, puzzle or game that you’re excited and curious about.

How do you know what will spark your curiosity? Do the task yourself!

(That’s why,  in the workshops I run , we spend a lot of time  actually  exploring problems. It’s a chance to step into students' shoes and experience maths from their perspective.)

Often, curriculum content becomes the goal of problem solving. For example, adding fractions, calculating areas or solving quadratic equations.

But, this is a mistake! Here's why-

Low floor, high ceiling tasks give students choices. Choices about what strategies to use, tools to draw on – and even what end-points to get to.

The most valuable goals focus on building confidence and capability in problem solving. For example:

• To make and break conjectures
• To use and evaluate different strategies
• To organise data in meaningful ways
• To explain and justify their conclusions.

The start of a task is what will get your students curious and hungry to get underway.

Consider: What's the least information your students will need?

At  ​our Members' online PL sessions​ , we look at one of four possibilities for launching a problem:

• Present a mystery to explore
• Present an example and non-example
• Run a demonstration game
• Show how to use a tool.

Keep the launch short – under 5 minutes. This is just enough to keep students’ attention AND share essential information.

Let’s face it, problem solving is hard, no matter your age or mathematical skill set.

Students aren’t afraid of hard work – they’re afraid of feeling or looking stupid. And, when those tricky maths moments do come, you can help.

Using questions, tools and other prompts can bring clarity and boost confidence.

(Here's a  free question catalogue  you might find handy to have in your back pocket.)

This careful support will help your students find problem solving far less daunting. Instead, it can become a chance for wonderous mathematical exploration.

Picture this: Your students are elbows deep in a problem, there’s a buzz in the air – oh, and only a minute until the bell.

The  most important  stage of a problem solving task – right at the end – is often the one that gets dropped off.

Why does ‘wrapping up’ matter?

In the last 10 minutes of a problem, students can share conjectures, strategies and solutions. It's also a chance to consider new questions that may open up further exploration.

In wrapping up, important learning will happen. Your students will observe patterns, make connections and clarify conjectures. You might even notice ‘aha’ moments.

Five strategies for problem solving success:

• Choose a task that YOU'RE keen on,
• Set a goal for strengthening problem solving skills,
• Plan a short launch to make the task widely accessible,
• Use questions, tools and prompts to support productive exploration, and
• Wrap up to create space for pivotal learning.

Join the Conversation

Dear Michaela, Greetings !! Thank you for sharing the strategies for problem solving task. These strategies will definitely enhance the skill in the mindset of young learners. In India ,Students of Grade 9 and Grade 10 have to learn and solve lot of theorems of triangle, Quadrilateral, Circle etc. Being an educator I have noticed that most of the students learn the theorems and it’s derivation by heart as a result they lack in understanding the application of these theorems.

I will appreciate if you can share your insights as how to make these topics interesting and easy to grasp.

Once again thanks for sharing such informative ideas.

Leave a comment

Cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t miss a thing!

Sign up to our mailing list for inspiring maths teaching ideas, event updates, free resources, and more!

• Our Mission

6 Tips for Teaching Math Problem-Solving Skills

Solving word problems is tougher than computing with numbers, but elementary teachers can guide students to do the deep thinking involved.

A growing concern with students is the ability to problem-solve, especially with complex, multistep problems. Data shows that students struggle more when solving word problems than they do with computation , and so problem-solving should be considered separately from computation. Why?

Consider this. When we’re on the way to a new destination and we plug in our location to a map on our phone, it tells us what lane to be in and takes us around any detours or collisions, sometimes even buzzing our watch to remind us to turn. When I experience this as a driver, I don’t have to do the thinking. I can think about what I’m going to cook for dinner, not paying much attention to my surroundings other than to follow those directions. If I were to be asked to go there again, I wouldn’t be able to remember, and I would again seek help.

If we can switch to giving students strategies that require them to think instead of giving them too much support throughout the journey to the answer, we may be able to give them the ability to learn the skills to read a map and have several ways to get there.

Here are six ways we can start letting students do this thinking so that they can go through rigorous problem-solving again and again, paving their own way to the solution. 

1. Link problem-solving to reading

When we can remind students that they already have many comprehension skills and strategies they can easily use in math problem-solving, it can ease the anxiety surrounding the math problem. For example, providing them with strategies to practice, such as visualizing, acting out the problem with math tools like counters or base 10 blocks, drawing a quick sketch of the problem, retelling the story in their own words, etc., can really help them to utilize the skills they already have to make the task less daunting.

We can break these skills into specific short lessons so students have a bank of strategies to try on their own. Here's an example of an anchor chart that they can use for visualizing . Breaking up comprehension into specific skills can increase student independence and help teachers to be much more targeted in their problem-solving instruction. This allows students to build confidence and break down the barriers between reading and math to see they already have so many strengths that are transferable to all problems.

2. Avoid boxing students into choosing a specific operation

It can be so tempting to tell students to look for certain words that might mean a certain operation. This might even be thoroughly successful in kindergarten and first grade, but just like when our map tells us where to go, that limits students from becoming deep thinkers. It also expires once they get into the upper grades, where those words could be in a problem multiple times, creating more confusion when students are trying to follow a rule that may not exist in every problem.

We can encourage a variety of ways to solve problems instead of choosing the operation first. In first grade, a problem might say, “Joceline has 13 stuffed animals and Jordan has 17. How many more does Jordan have?” Some students might choose to subtract, but a lot of students might just count to find the amount in between. If we tell them that “how many more” means to subtract, we’re taking the thinking out of the problem altogether, allowing them to go on autopilot without truly solving the problem or using their comprehension skills to visualize it. 

3. Revisit ‘representation’

The word “representation” can be misleading. It seems like something to do after the process of solving. When students think they have to go straight to solving, they may not realize that they need a step in between to be able to support their understanding of what’s actually happening in the problem first.

Using an anchor chart like one of these ( lower grade , upper grade ) can help students to choose a representation that most closely matches what they’re visualizing in their mind. Once they sketch it out, it can give them a clearer picture of different ways they could solve the problem.

Think about this problem: “Varush went on a trip with his family to his grandmother’s house. It was 710 miles away. On the way there, three people took turns driving. His mom drove 214 miles. His dad drove 358 miles. His older sister drove the rest. How many miles did his sister drive?”

If we were to show this student the anchor chart, they would probably choose a number line or a strip diagram to help them understand what’s happening.

If we tell students they must always draw base 10 blocks in a place value chart, that doesn’t necessarily match the concept of this problem. When we ask students to match our way of thinking, we rob them of critical thinking practice and sometimes confuse them in the process. 

4. Give time to process

Sometimes as educators, we can feel rushed to get to everyone and everything that’s required. When solving a complex problem, students need time to just sit with a problem and wrestle with it, maybe even leaving it and coming back to it after a period of time.

This might mean we need to give them fewer problems but go deeper with those problems we give them. We can also speed up processing time when we allow for collaboration and talk time with peers on problem-solving tasks. 

5. Ask questions that let Students do the thinking

Questions or prompts during problem-solving should be very open-ended to promote thinking. Telling a student to reread the problem or to think about what tools or resources would help them solve it is a way to get them to try something new but not take over their thinking.

These skills are also transferable across content, and students will be reminded, “Good readers and mathematicians reread.” 

6. Spiral concepts so students frequently use problem-solving skills

When students don’t have to switch gears in between concepts, they’re not truly using deep problem-solving skills. They already kind of know what operation it might be or that it’s something they have at the forefront of their mind from recent learning. Being intentional within their learning stations and assessments about having a variety of rigorous problem-solving skills will refine their critical thinking abilities while building more and more resilience throughout the school year as they retain content learning in the process. 

Problem-solving skills are so abstract, and it can be tough to pinpoint exactly what students need. Sometimes we have to go slow to go fast. Slowing down and helping students have tools when they get stuck and enabling them to be critical thinkers will prepare them for life and allow them multiple ways to get to their own destination.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5 Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving

Janet Stramel

In his book “How to Solve It,” George Pólya (1945) said, “One of the most important tasks of the teacher is to help his students. This task is not quite easy; it demands time, practice, devotion, and sound principles. The student should acquire as much experience of independent work as possible. But if he is left alone with his problem without any help, he may make no progress at all. If the teacher helps too much, nothing is left to the student. The teacher should help, but not too much and not too little, so that the student shall have a reasonable share of the work.” (page 1)

What is a problem  in mathematics? A problem is “any task or activity for which the students have no prescribed or memorized rules or methods, nor is there a perception by students that there is a specific ‘correct’ solution method” (Hiebert, et. al., 1997). Problem solving in mathematics is one of the most important topics to teach; learning to problem solve helps students develop a sense of solving real-life problems and apply mathematics to real world situations. It is also used for a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts. Learning “math facts” is not enough; students must also learn how to use these facts to develop their thinking skills.

According to NCTM (2010), the term “problem solving” refers to mathematical tasks that have the potential to provide intellectual challenges for enhancing students’ mathematical understanding and development. When you first hear “problem solving,” what do you think about? Story problems or word problems? Story problems may be limited to and not “problematic” enough. For example, you may ask students to find the area of a rectangle, given the length and width. This type of problem is an exercise in computation and can be completed mindlessly without understanding the concept of area. Worthwhile problems  includes problems that are truly problematic and have the potential to provide contexts for students’ mathematical development.

There are three ways to solve problems: teaching for problem solving, teaching about problem solving, and teaching through problem solving.

Teaching for problem solving begins with learning a skill. For example, students are learning how to multiply a two-digit number by a one-digit number, and the story problems you select are multiplication problems. Be sure when you are teaching for problem solving, you select or develop tasks that can promote the development of mathematical understanding.

Teaching about problem solving begins with suggested strategies to solve a problem. For example, “draw a picture,” “make a table,” etc. You may see posters in teachers’ classrooms of the “Problem Solving Method” such as: 1) Read the problem, 2) Devise a plan, 3) Solve the problem, and 4) Check your work. There is little or no evidence that students’ problem-solving abilities are improved when teaching about problem solving. Students will see a word problem as a separate endeavor and focus on the steps to follow rather than the mathematics. In addition, students will tend to use trial and error instead of focusing on sense making.

Teaching through problem solving  focuses students’ attention on ideas and sense making and develops mathematical practices. Teaching through problem solving also develops a student’s confidence and builds on their strengths. It allows for collaboration among students and engages students in their own learning.

Consider the following worthwhile-problem criteria developed by Lappan and Phillips (1998):

• The problem has important, useful mathematics embedded in it.
• The problem requires high-level thinking and problem solving.
• The problem contributes to the conceptual development of students.
• The problem creates an opportunity for the teacher to assess what his or her students are learning and where they are experiencing difficulty.
• The problem can be approached by students in multiple ways using different solution strategies.
• The problem has various solutions or allows different decisions or positions to be taken and defended.
• The problem encourages student engagement and discourse.
• The problem connects to other important mathematical ideas.
• The problem promotes the skillful use of mathematics.
• The problem provides an opportunity to practice important skills.

Of course, not every problem will include all of the above. Sometimes, you will choose a problem because your students need an opportunity to practice a certain skill.

Key features of a good mathematics problem includes:

• It must begin where the students are mathematically.
• The feature of the problem must be the mathematics that students are to learn.
• It must require justifications and explanations for both answers and methods of solving.

Problem solving is not a  neat and orderly process. Think about needlework. On the front side, it is neat and perfect and pretty.

But look at the b ack.

It is messy and full of knots and loops. Problem solving in mathematics is also like this and we need to help our students be “messy” with problem solving; they need to go through those knots and loops and learn how to solve problems with the teacher’s guidance.

When you teach through problem solving , your students are focused on ideas and sense-making and they develop confidence in mathematics!

Mathematics Tasks and Activities that Promote Teaching through Problem Solving

Choosing the Right Task

Selecting activities and/or tasks is the most significant decision teachers make that will affect students’ learning. Consider the following questions:

• Teachers must do the activity first. What is problematic about the activity? What will you need to do BEFORE the activity and AFTER the activity? Additionally, think how your students would do the activity.
• What mathematical ideas will the activity develop? Are there connections to other related mathematics topics, or other content areas?
• Can the activity accomplish your learning objective/goals?

Low Floor High Ceiling Tasks

By definition, a “ low floor/high ceiling task ” is a mathematical activity where everyone in the group can begin and then work on at their own level of engagement. Low Floor High Ceiling Tasks are activities that everyone can begin and work on based on their own level, and have many possibilities for students to do more challenging mathematics. One gauge of knowing whether an activity is a Low Floor High Ceiling Task is when the work on the problems becomes more important than the answer itself, and leads to rich mathematical discourse [Hover: ways of representing, thinking, talking, agreeing, and disagreeing; the way ideas are exchanged and what the ideas entail; and as being shaped by the tasks in which students engage as well as by the nature of the learning environment].

The strengths of using Low Floor High Ceiling Tasks:

• Allows students to show what they can do, not what they can’t.
• Provides differentiation to all students.
• Promotes a positive classroom environment.
• Advances a growth mindset in students
• Aligns with the Standards for Mathematical Practice

Examples of some Low Floor High Ceiling Tasks can be found at the following sites:

• YouCubed – under grades choose Low Floor High Ceiling
• NRICH Creating a Low Threshold High Ceiling Classroom
• Inside Mathematics Problems of the Month

Math in 3-Acts

Math in 3-Acts was developed by Dan Meyer to spark an interest in and engage students in thought-provoking mathematical inquiry. Math in 3-Acts is a whole-group mathematics task consisting of three distinct parts:

Act One is about noticing and wondering. The teacher shares with students an image, video, or other situation that is engaging and perplexing. Students then generate questions about the situation.

In Act Two , the teacher offers some information for the students to use as they find the solutions to the problem.

Act Three is the “reveal.” Students share their thinking as well as their solutions.

“Math in 3 Acts” is a fun way to engage your students, there is a low entry point that gives students confidence, there are multiple paths to a solution, and it encourages students to work in groups to solve the problem. Some examples of Math in 3-Acts can be found at the following websites:

• Dan Meyer’s Three-Act Math Tasks
• Graham Fletcher3-Act Tasks ]
• Math in 3-Acts: Real World Math Problems to Make Math Contextual, Visual and Concrete

Number Talks

Number talks are brief, 5-15 minute discussions that focus on student solutions for a mental math computation problem. Students share their different mental math processes aloud while the teacher records their thinking visually on a chart or board. In addition, students learn from each other’s strategies as they question, critique, or build on the strategies that are shared.. To use a “number talk,” you would include the following steps:

• The teacher presents a problem for students to solve mentally.
• Provide adequate “ wait time .”
• The teacher calls on a students and asks, “What were you thinking?” and “Explain your thinking.”
• For each student who volunteers to share their strategy, write their thinking on the board. Make sure to accurately record their thinking; do not correct their responses.
• Invite students to question each other about their strategies, compare and contrast the strategies, and ask for clarification about strategies that are confusing.

“Number Talks” can be used as an introduction, a warm up to a lesson, or an extension. Some examples of Number Talks can be found at the following websites:

• Inside Mathematics Number Talks
• Number Talks Build Numerical Reasoning

Saying “This is Easy”

“This is easy.” Three little words that can have a big impact on students. What may be “easy” for one person, may be more “difficult” for someone else. And saying “this is easy” defeats the purpose of a growth mindset classroom, where students are comfortable making mistakes.

When the teacher says, “this is easy,” students may think,

• “Everyone else understands and I don’t. I can’t do this!”
• Students may just give up and surrender the mathematics to their classmates.
• Students may shut down.

Instead, you and your students could say the following:

• “I think I can do this.”
• “I have an idea I want to try.”
• “I’ve seen this kind of problem before.”

Tracy Zager wrote a short article, “This is easy”: The Little Phrase That Causes Big Problems” that can give you more information. Read Tracy Zager’s article here.

Using “Worksheets”

Do you want your students to memorize concepts, or do you want them to understand and apply the mathematics for different situations?

What is a “worksheet” in mathematics? It is a paper and pencil assignment when no other materials are used. A worksheet does not allow your students to use hands-on materials/manipulatives [Hover: physical objects that are used as teaching tools to engage students in the hands-on learning of mathematics]; and worksheets are many times “naked number” with no context. And a worksheet should not be used to enhance a hands-on activity.

Students need time to explore and manipulate materials in order to learn the mathematics concept. Worksheets are just a test of rote memory. Students need to develop those higher-order thinking skills, and worksheets will not allow them to do that.

One productive belief from the NCTM publication, Principles to Action (2014), states, “Students at all grade levels can benefit from the use of physical and virtual manipulative materials to provide visual models of a range of mathematical ideas.”

You may need an “activity sheet,” a “graphic organizer,” etc. as you plan your mathematics activities/lessons, but be sure to include hands-on manipulatives. Using manipulatives can

• Provide your students a bridge between the concrete and abstract
• Serve as models that support students’ thinking
• Provide another representation
• Support student engagement
• Give students ownership of their own learning.

Adapted from “ The Top 5 Reasons for Using Manipulatives in the Classroom ”.

any task or activity for which the students have no prescribed or memorized rules or methods, nor is there a perception by students that there is a specific ‘correct’ solution method

should be intriguing and contain a level of challenge that invites speculation and hard work, and directs students to investigate important mathematical ideas and ways of thinking toward the learning

involves teaching a skill so that a student can later solve a story problem

when we teach students how to problem solve

teaching mathematics content through real contexts, problems, situations, and models

a mathematical activity where everyone in the group can begin and then work on at their own level of engagement

20 seconds to 2 minutes for students to make sense of questions

Mathematics Methods for Early Childhood Copyright © 2021 by Janet Stramel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Mathematical Problem-Solving: Techniques and Strategies

by Ali | Mar 8, 2023 | Blog Post , Blogs | 0 comments

Introduction to Mathematical Problem-Solving

Mathematical problem-solving is the process of using logical reasoning and critical thinking to find a solution to a mathematical problem. It is an essential skill that is required in a wide range of academic and professional fields, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

Importance of Mathematical Problem-Solving Skills

Mathematical problem-solving skills are critical for success in many areas of life, including education, career, and daily life. It helps students to develop analytical and critical thinking skills, enhances their ability to reason logically, and encourages them to persevere when faced with challenges.

The Process of Mathematical Problem-Solving

The process of mathematical problem-solving involves several steps that include identifying the problem, understanding the problem, making a plan, carrying out the plan, and checking the answer.

Techniques and Strategies for Mathematical Problem-Solving

1.      identify the problem.

The first step in problem-solving is to identify the problem. It involves reading the problem carefully and determining what the problem is asking.

2.      Understand the problem

The next step is to understand the problem by breaking it down into smaller parts, identifying any relevant information, and determining what needs to be solved.

3.      Make a plan

After understanding the problem, the next step is to develop a plan to solve it. This may involve identifying a formula or method to use, drawing a diagram or chart, or making a list of steps to follow.

4.      Carry out the plan

Once a plan is developed, the next step is to carry out the plan by solving the problem using the chosen method. It is important to show all steps and work neatly to avoid making mistakes.

5.      Check the answer

Finally, it is essential to check the answer to ensure it is correct. This can be done by re-reading the problem, checking the solution for accuracy, and verifying that it makes sense.

Know About: HOW TO FIND PERFECT MATH TUTOR 

Importance of using online calculators while learning math.

Utilizing online calculators can prove to be a beneficial resource for learning mathematics. There are numerous reasons why incorporating them into your studies is a wise choice.

Firstly, online calculators offer the convenience of being easily accessible at any time and from anywhere. No longer do you need to carry a physical calculator with you; you can use them on any device that has internet connectivity.

In addition, online calculators excel in accuracy and can efficiently handle complex calculations that may be difficult to do manually. They can perform arithmetic at a faster speed, saving you time and increasing productivity.

Another advantage is that some online calculators include built-in visualizations such as graphs and charts, which can help students grasp mathematical concepts better.

Furthermore, feedback can be provided by certain online calculators, assisting students in identifying and rectifying errors in their calculations. This feature can be especially useful for students who are new to learning mathematics .

Online calculators have a versatile range of functions beyond basic arithmetic, including algebraic equations, trigonometry, and calculus . This makes them useful for students at all levels of math education.

Overall, online calculators are an invaluable tool for students learning math. They are convenient, accurate, efficient, and versatile, and aid in the understanding of mathematical concepts, making them an essential component of modern-day education.

Common Errors in Mathematical Problem-Solving

There are several common errors that can occur in mathematical problem-solving, including misunderstanding the problem, using incorrect formulas or methods, making computational errors, and not checking the answer. To avoid these errors, it is essential to read the problem carefully, use the correct formulas and methods, check all computations, and double-check the answer for accuracy.

Improving Mathematical Problem-Solving Skills

There are several ways to improve mathematical problem-solving skills, including practicing regularly, working with others, seeking help from a teacher or tutor, and reviewing past problems. It is also helpful to develop a positive attitude towards problem-solving, persevere through challenges, and learn from mistakes.

Must Know: WHICH IS THE BEST WAY OF LEARNING ONLINE TUTORING OR TRADITIONAL TUTORING

Mathematical problem-solving is a crucial skill that is required for success in many academic and professional fields. By following the process of problem-solving and using the techniques and strategies outlined in this article, individuals can improve their problem-solving skills and achieve success in their academic and professional endeavors.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is mathematical problem-solving.

Mathematical problem-solving is the process of using logical reasoning and critical thinking to find a solution to a mathematical problem.

Why are mathematical problem-solving skills important?

What are the steps involved in the process of mathematical problem-solving, how can online calculators aid in learning mathematics.

Online calculators can aid in learning mathematics by providing convenience, accuracy, and efficiency. They can also help students grasp mathematical concepts better through built-in visualizations and provide feedback to identify and rectify errors in their calculations.

What are common errors to avoid in mathematical problem-solving?

Common errors to avoid in mathematical problem-solving include misunderstanding the problem, using incorrect formulas or methods, making computational errors, and not checking the answer. To avoid these errors, it is essential to read the problem carefully, use the correct formulas and methods, check all computations, and double-check the answer for accuracy.

We are committed to help students by one on one online private tutoring to maximize their e-learning potential and achieve the best results they can.

For this, we offer a free of cost trial class so that we can satisfy you. There is a free trial class for first-time students.

Problem Solving in Mathematics Education

• Open Access
• First Online: 28 June 2016

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Peter Liljedahl 6 ,
• Manuel Santos-Trigo 7 ,
• Uldarico Malaspina 8 &
• Regina Bruder 9  

Part of the book series: ICME-13 Topical Surveys ((ICME13TS))

92k Accesses

15 Citations

Problem solving in mathematics education has been a prominent research field that aims at understanding and relating the processes involved in solving problems to students’ development of mathematical knowledge and problem solving competencies. The accumulated knowledge and field developments include conceptual frameworks to characterize learners’ success in problem solving activities, cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective analysis, curriculum proposals, and ways to foster problem solving approaches. In the survey, four interrelated areas are reviewed: (i) the relevance of heuristics in problem solving approaches—why are they important and what research tells us about their use? (ii) the need to characterize and foster creative problem solving approaches—what type of heuristics helps learners think of and practice creative solutions? (iii) the importance for learners to formulate and pursue their own problems; and (iv) the role played by the use of both multiple purpose and ad hoc mathematical action types of technologies in problem solving activities—what ways of reasoning do learners construct when they rely on the use of digital technologies and how technology and technology approaches can be reconciled?

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

• Mathematical Problem
• Prospective Teacher
• Creative Process
• Digital Technology
• Mathematical Task

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.

Mathematical problem solving has long been seen as an important aspect of mathematics, the teaching of mathematics, and the learning of mathematics. It has infused mathematics curricula around the world with calls for the teaching of problem solving as well as the teaching of mathematics through problem solving. And as such, it has been of interest to mathematics education researchers for as long as our field has existed. More relevant, mathematical problem solving has played a part in every ICME conference, from 1969 until the forthcoming meeting in Hamburg, wherein mathematical problem solving will reside most centrally within the work of Topic Study 19: Problem Solving in Mathematics Education. This booklet is being published on the occasion of this Topic Study Group.

To this end, we have assembled four summaries looking at four distinct, yet inter-related, dimensions of mathematical problem solving. The first summary, by Regina Bruder, is a nuanced look at heuristics for problem solving. This notion of heuristics is carried into Peter Liljedahl’s summary, which looks specifically at a progression of heuristics leading towards more and more creative aspects of problem solving. This is followed by Luz Manuel Santos Trigo’s summary introducing us to problem solving in and with digital technologies. The last summary, by Uldarico Malaspina Jurado, documents the rise of problem posing within the field of mathematics education in general and the problem solving literature in particular.

Each of these summaries references in some critical and central fashion the works of George Pólya or Alan Schoenfeld. To the initiated researchers, this is no surprise. The seminal work of these researchers lie at the roots of mathematical problem solving. What is interesting, though, is the diverse ways in which each of the four aforementioned contributions draw on, and position, these works so as to fit into the larger scheme of their respective summaries. This speaks to not only the depth and breadth of these influential works, but also the diversity with which they can be interpreted and utilized in extending our thinking about problem solving.

Taken together, what follows is a topical survey of ideas representing the diversity of views and tensions inherent in a field of research that is both a means to an end and an end onto itself and is unanimously seen as central to the activities of mathematics.

1 Survey on the State-of-the-Art

1.1 role of heuristics for problem solving—regina bruder.

The origin of the word heuristic dates back to the time of Archimedes and is said to have come out of one of the famous stories told about this great mathematician and inventor. The King of Syracuse asked Archimedes to check whether his new wreath was really made of pure gold. Archimedes struggled with this task and it was not until he was at the bathhouse that he came up with the solution. As he entered the tub he noticed that he had displaced a certain amount of water. Brilliant as he was, he transferred this insight to the issue with the wreath and knew he had solved the problem. According to the legend, he jumped out of the tub and ran from the bathhouse naked screaming, “Eureka, eureka!”. Eureka and heuristic have the same root in the ancient Greek language and so it has been claimed that this is how the academic discipline of “heuristics” dealing with effective approaches to problem solving (so-called heurisms) was given its name. Pólya ( 1964 ) describes this discipline as follows:

Heuristics deals with solving tasks. Its specific goals include highlighting in general terms the reasons for selecting those moments in a problem the examination of which could help us find a solution. (p. 5)

This discipline has grown, in part, from examining the approaches to certain problems more in detail and comparing them with each other in order to abstract similarities in approach, or so-called heurisms. Pólya ( 1949 ), but also, inter alia, Engel ( 1998 ), König ( 1984 ) and Sewerin ( 1979 ) have formulated such heurisms for mathematical problem tasks. The problem tasks examined by the authors mentioned are predominantly found in the area of talent programmes, that is, they often go back to mathematics competitions.

In 1983 Zimmermann provided an overview of heuristic approaches and tools in American literature which also offered suggestions for mathematics classes. In the German-speaking countries, an approach has established itself, going back to Sewerin ( 1979 ) and König ( 1984 ), which divides school-relevant heuristic procedures into heuristic tools, strategies and principles, see also Bruder and Collet ( 2011 ).

Below is a review of the conceptual background of heuristics, followed by a description of the effect mechanisms of heurisms in problem-solving processes.

1.1.1 Research Review on the Promotion of Problem Solving

In the 20th century, there has been an advancement of research on mathematical problem solving and findings about possibilities to promote problem solving with varying priorities (c.f. Pehkonen 1991 ). Based on a model by Pólya ( 1949 ), in a first phase of research on problem solving, particularly in the 1960s and the 1970s, a series of studies on problem-solving processes placing emphasis on the importance of heuristic strategies (heurisms) in problem solving has been carried out. It was assumed that teaching and learning heuristic strategies, principles and tools would provide students with an orientation in problem situations and that this could thus improve students’ problem-solving abilities (c.f. for instance, Schoenfeld 1979 ). This approach, mostly researched within the scope of talent programmes for problem solving, was rather successful (c.f. for instance, Sewerin 1979 ). In the 1980s, requests for promotional opportunities in everyday teaching were given more and more consideration: “ problem solving must be the focus of school mathematics in the 1980s ” (NCTM 1980 ). For the teaching and learning of problem solving in regular mathematics classes, the current view according to which cognitive, heuristic aspects were paramount, was expanded by certain student-specific aspects, such as attitudes, emotions and self-regulated behaviour (c.f. Kretschmer 1983 ; Schoenfeld 1985 , 1987 , 1992 ). Kilpatrick ( 1985 ) divided the promotional approaches described in the literature into five methods which can also be combined with each other.

Osmosis : action-oriented and implicit imparting of problem-solving techniques in a beneficial learning environment

Memorisation : formation of special techniques for particular types of problem and of the relevant questioning when problem solving

Imitation : acquisition of problem-solving abilities through imitation of an expert

Cooperation : cooperative learning of problem-solving abilities in small groups

Reflection : problem-solving abilities are acquired in an action-oriented manner and through reflection on approaches to problem solving.

Kilpatrick ( 1985 ) views as success when heuristic approaches are explained to students, clarified by means of examples and trained through the presentation of problems. The need of making students aware of heuristic approaches is by now largely accepted in didactic discussions. Differences in varying approaches to promoting problem-solving abilities rather refer to deciding which problem-solving strategies or heuristics are to imparted to students and in which way, and not whether these should be imparted at all or not.

1.1.2 Heurisms as an Expression of Mental Agility

The activity theory, particularly in its advancement by Lompscher ( 1975 , 1985 ), offers a well-suited and manageable model to describe learning activities and differences between learners with regard to processes and outcomes in problem solving (c.f. Perels et al. 2005 ). Mental activity starts with a goal and the motive of a person to perform such activity. Lompscher divides actual mental activity into content and process. Whilst the content in mathematical problem-solving consists of certain concepts, connections and procedures, the process describes the psychological processes that occur when solving a problem. This course of action is described in Lompscher by various qualities, such as systematic planning, independence, accuracy, activity and agility. Along with differences in motivation and the availability of expertise, it appears that intuitive problem solvers possess a particularly high mental agility, at least with regard to certain contents areas.

According to Lompscher, “flexibility of thought” expresses itself

… by the capacity to change more or less easily from one aspect of viewing to another one or to embed one circumstance or component into different correlations, to understand the relativity of circumstances and statements. It allows to reverse relations, to more or less easily or quickly attune to new conditions of mental activity or to simultaneously mind several objects or aspects of a given activity (Lompscher 1975 , p. 36).

These typical manifestations of mental agility can be focused on in problem solving by mathematical means and can be related to the heurisms known from the analyses of approaches by Pólya et al. (c.f. also Bruder 2000 ):

Reduction : Successful problem solvers will intuitively reduce a problem to its essentials in a sensible manner. To achieve such abstraction, they often use visualisation and structuring aids, such as informative figures, tables, solution graphs or even terms. These heuristic tools are also very well suited to document in retrospect the approach adopted by the intuitive problem solvers in a way that is comprehensible for all.

Reversibility : Successful problem solvers are able to reverse trains of thought or reproduce these in reverse. They will do this in appropriate situations automatically, for instance, when looking for a key they have mislaid. A corresponding general heuristic strategy is working in reverse.

Minding of aspects : Successful problem solvers will mind several aspects of a given problem at the same time or easily recognise any dependence on things and vary them in a targeted manner. Sometimes, this is also a matter of removing barriers in favour of an idea that appears to be sustainable, that is, by simply “hanging on” to a certain train of thought even against resistance. Corresponding heurisms are, for instance, the principle of invariance, the principle of symmetry (Engel 1998 ), the breaking down or complementing of geometric figures to calculate surface areas, or certain terms used in binomial formulas.

Change of aspects : Successful problem solvers will possibly change their assumptions, criteria or aspects minded in order to find a solution. Various aspects of a given problem will be considered intuitively or the problem be viewed from a different perspective, which will prevent “getting stuck” and allow for new insights and approaches. For instance, many elementary geometric propositions can also be proved in an elegant vectorial manner.

Transferring : Successful problem solvers will be able more easily than others to transfer a well-known procedure to another, sometimes even very different context. They recognise more easily the “framework” or pattern of a given task. Here, this is about own constructions of analogies and continual tracing back from the unknown to the known.

Intuitive, that is, untrained good problem solvers, are, however, often unable to access these flexibility qualities consciously. This is why they are also often unable to explain how they actually solved a given problem.

To be able to solve problems successfully, a certain mental agility is thus required. If this is less well pronounced in a certain area, learning how to solve problems means compensating by acquiring heurisms. In this case, insufficient mental agility is partly “offset” through the application of knowledge acquired by means of heurisms. Mathematical problem-solving competences are thus acquired through the promotion of manifestations of mental agility (reduction, reversibility, minding of aspects and change of aspects). This can be achieved by designing sub-actions of problem solving in connection with a (temporarily) conscious application of suitable heurisms. Empirical evidence for the success of the active principle of heurisms has been provided by Collet ( 2009 ).

Against such background, learning how to solve problems can be established as a long-term teaching and learning process which basically encompasses four phases (Bruder and Collet 2011 ):

Intuitive familiarisation with heuristic methods and techniques.

Making aware of special heurisms by means of prominent examples (explicit strategy acquisition).

Short conscious practice phase to use the newly acquired heurisms with differentiated task difficulties.

Expanding the context of the strategies applied.

In the first phase, students are familiarised with heurisms intuitively by means of targeted aid impulses and questions (what helped us solve this problem?) which in the following phase are substantiated on the basis of model tasks, are given names and are thus made aware of their existence. The third phase serves the purpose of a certain familiarisation with the new heurisms and the experience of competence through individualised practising at different requirement levels, including in the form of homework over longer periods. A fourth and delayed fourth phase aims at more flexibility through the transfer to other contents and contexts and the increasingly intuitive use of the newly acquired heurisms, so that students can enrich their own problem-solving models in a gradual manner. The second and third phases build upon each other in close chronological order, whilst the first phase should be used in class at all times.

All heurisms can basically be described in an action-oriented manner by means of asking the right questions. The way of asking questions can thus also establish a certain kind of personal relation. Even if the teacher presents and suggests the line of basic questions with a prototypical wording each time, students should always be given the opportunity to find “their” wording for the respective heurism and take a note of it for themselves. A possible key question for the use of a heuristic tool would be: How to illustrate and structure the problem or how to present it in a different way?

Unfortunately, for many students, applying heuristic approaches to problem solving will not ensue automatically but will require appropriate early and long-term promoting. The results of current studies, where promotion approaches to problem solving are connected with self-regulation and metacognitive aspects, demonstrate certain positive effects of such combination on students. This field of research includes, for instance, studies by Lester et al. ( 1989 ), Verschaffel et al. ( 1999 ), the studies on teaching method IMPROVE by Mevarech and Kramarski ( 1997 , 2003 ) and also the evaluation of a teaching concept on learning how to solve problems by the gradual conscious acquisition of heurisms by Collet and Bruder ( 2008 ).

1.2 Creative Problem Solving—Peter Liljedahl

There is a tension between the aforementioned story of Archimedes and the heuristics presented in the previous section. Archimedes, when submersing himself in the tub and suddenly seeing the solution to his problem, wasn’t relying on osmosis, memorisation, imitation, cooperation, or reflection (Kilpatrick 1985 ). He wasn’t drawing on reduction, reversibility, minding of aspects, change of aspect, or transfer (Bruder 2000 ). Archimedes was stuck and it was only, in fact, through insight and sudden illumination that he managed to solve his problem. In short, Archimedes was faced with a problem that the aforementioned heuristics, and their kind, would not help him to solve.

According to some, such a scenario is the definition of a problem. For example, Resnick and Glaser ( 1976 ) define a problem as being something that you do not have the experience to solve. Mathematicians, in general, agree with this (Liljedahl 2008 ).

Any problem in which you can see how to attack it by deliberate effort, is a routine problem, and cannot be an important discover. You must try and fail by deliberate efforts, and then rely on a sudden inspiration or intuition or if you prefer to call it luck. (Dan Kleitman, participant cited in Liljedahl 2008 , p. 19).

Problems, then, are tasks that cannot be solved by direct effort and will require some creative insight to solve (Liljedahl 2008 ; Mason et al. 1982 ; Pólya 1965 ).

1.2.1 A History of Creativity in Mathematics Education

In 1902, the first half of what eventually came to be a 30 question survey was published in the pages of L’Enseignement Mathématique , the journal of the French Mathematical Society. The authors, Édouard Claparède and Théodore Flournoy, were two Swiss psychologists who were deeply interested in the topics of mathematical discovery, creativity and invention. Their hope was that a widespread appeal to mathematicians at large would incite enough responses for them to begin to formulate some theories about this topic. The first half of the survey centered on the reasons for becoming a mathematician (family history, educational influences, social environment, etc.), attitudes about everyday life, and hobbies. This was eventually followed, in 1904, by the publication of the second half of the survey pertaining, in particular, to mental images during periods of creative work. The responses were sorted according to nationality and published in 1908.

During this same period Henri Poincaré (1854–1912), one of the most noteworthy mathematicians of the time, had already laid much of the groundwork for his own pursuit of this same topic and in 1908 gave a presentation to the French Psychological Society in Paris entitled L’Invention mathématique —often mistranslated to Mathematical Creativity Footnote 1 (c.f. Poincaré 1952 ). At the time of the presentation Poincaré stated that he was aware of Claparède and Flournoy’s work, as well as their results, but expressed that they would only confirm his own findings. Poincaré’s presentation, as well as the essay it spawned, stands to this day as one of the most insightful, and thorough treatments of the topic of mathematical discovery, creativity, and invention.

Just at this time, I left Caen, where I was living, to go on a geological excursion under the auspices of the School of Mines. The incident of the travel made me forget my mathematical work. Having reached Coutances, we entered an omnibus to go some place or other. At the moment when I put my foot on the step, the idea came to me, without anything in my former thoughts seeming to have paved the way for it, that the transformations I had used to define the Fuschian functions were identical with those of non-Euclidean geometry. I did not verify the idea; I should not have had the time, as, upon taking my seat in the omnibus, I went on with the conversation already commenced, but I felt a perfect certainty. On my return to Caen, for conscience’ sake, I verified the results at my leisure. (Poincaré 1952 , p. 53)

So powerful was his presentation, and so deep were his insights into his acts of invention and discovery that it could be said that he not so much described the characteristics of mathematical creativity, as defined them. From that point forth mathematical creativity, or even creativity in general, has not been discussed seriously without mention of Poincaré’s name.

Inspired by this presentation, Jacques Hadamard (1865–1963), a contemporary and a friend of Poincaré’s, began his own empirical investigation into this fascinating phenomenon. Hadamard had been critical of Claparède and Flournoy’s work in that they had not adequately treated the topic on two fronts. As exhaustive as the survey appeared to be, Hadamard felt that it failed to ask some key questions—the most important of which was with regard to the reason for failures in the creation of mathematics. This seemingly innocuous oversight, however, led directly to his second and “most important criticism” (Hadamard 1945 ). He felt that only “first-rate men would dare to speak of” (p. 10) such failures. So, inspired by his good friend Poincaré’s treatment of the subject Hadamard retooled the survey and gave it to friends of his for consideration—mathematicians such as Henri Poincaré and Albert Einstein, whose prominence were beyond reproach. Ironically, the new survey did not contain any questions that explicitly dealt with failure. In 1943 Hadamard gave a series of lectures on mathematical invention at the École Libre des Hautes Études in New York City. These talks were subsequently published as The Psychology of Mathematical Invention in the Mathematical Field (Hadameard 1945 ).

Hadamard’s classic work treats the subject of invention at the crossroads of mathematics and psychology. It provides not only an entertaining look at the eccentric nature of mathematicians and their rituals, but also outlines the beliefs of mid twentieth-century mathematicians about the means by which they arrive at new mathematics. It is an extensive exploration and extended argument for the existence of unconscious mental processes. In essence, Hadamard took the ideas that Poincaré had posed and, borrowing a conceptual framework for the characterization of the creative process from the Gestaltists of the time (Wallas 1926 ), turned them into a stage theory. This theory still stands as the most viable and reasonable description of the process of mathematical creativity.

1.2.2 Defining Mathematical Creativity

The phenomena of mathematical creativity, although marked by sudden illumination, actually consist of four separate stages stretched out over time, of which illumination is but one stage. These stages are initiation, incubation, illumination, and verification (Hadamard 1945 ). The first of these stages, the initiation phase, consists of deliberate and conscious work. This would constitute a person’s voluntary, and seemingly fruitless, engagement with a problem and be characterized by an attempt to solve the problem by trolling through a repertoire of past experiences. This is an important part of the inventive process because it creates the tension of unresolved effort that sets up the conditions necessary for the ensuing emotional release at the moment of illumination (Hadamard 1945 ; Poincaré 1952 ).

Following the initiation stage the solver, unable to come up with a solution stops working on the problem at a conscious level and begins to work on it at an unconscious level (Hadamard 1945 ; Poincaré 1952 ). This is referred to as the incubation stage of the inventive process and can last anywhere from several minutes to several years. After the period of incubation a rapid coming to mind of a solution, referred to as illumination , may occur. This is accompanied by a feeling of certainty and positive emotions (Poincaré 1952 ). Although the processes of incubation and illumination are shrouded behind the veil of the unconscious there are a number of things that can be deduced about them. First and foremost is the fact that unconscious work does, indeed, occur. Poincaré ( 1952 ), as well as Hadamard ( 1945 ), use the very real experience of illumination, a phenomenon that cannot be denied, as evidence of unconscious work, the fruits of which appear in the flash of illumination. No other theory seems viable in explaining the sudden appearance of solution during a walk, a shower, a conversation, upon waking, or at the instance of turning the conscious mind back to the problem after a period of rest (Poincaré 1952 ). Also deducible is that unconscious work is inextricably linked to the conscious and intentional effort that precedes it.

There is another remark to be made about the conditions of this unconscious work: it is possible, and of a certainty it is only fruitful, if it is on the one hand preceded and on the other hand followed by a period of conscious work. These sudden inspirations never happen except after some days of voluntary effort which has appeared absolutely fruitless and whence nothing good seems to have come … (Poincaré 1952 , p. 56)

Hence, the fruitless efforts of the initiation phase are only seemingly so. They not only set up the aforementioned tension responsible for the emotional release at the time of illumination, but also create the conditions necessary for the process to enter into the incubation phase.

Illumination is the manifestation of a bridging that occurs between the unconscious mind and the conscious mind (Poincaré 1952 ), a coming to (conscious) mind of an idea or solution. What brings the idea forward to consciousness is unclear, however. There are theories of the aesthetic qualities of the idea, effective surprise/shock of recognition, fluency of processing, or breaking functional fixedness. For reasons of brevity I will only expand on the first of these.

Poincaré proposed that ideas that were stimulated during initiation remained stimulated during incubation. However, freed from the constraints of conscious thought and deliberate calculation, these ideas would begin to come together in rapid and random unions so that “their mutual impacts may produce new combinations” (Poincaré 1952 ). These new combinations, or ideas, would then be evaluated for viability using an aesthetic sieve, which allows through to the conscious mind only the “right combinations” (Poincaré 1952 ). It is important to note, however, that good or aesthetic does not necessarily mean correct. Correctness is evaluated during the verification stage.

The purpose of verification is not only to check for correctness. It is also a method by which the solver re-engages with the problem at the level of details. That is, during the unconscious work the problem is engaged with at the level of ideas and concepts. During verification the solver can examine these ideas in closer details. Poincaré succinctly describes both of these purposes.

As for the calculations, themselves, they must be made in the second period of conscious work, that which follows the inspiration, that in which one verifies the results of this inspiration and deduces their consequences. (Poincaré 1952 , p. 62)

Aside from presenting this aforementioned theory on invention, Hadamard also engaged in a far-reaching discussion on a number of interesting, and sometimes quirky, aspects of invention and discovery that he had culled from the results of his empirical study, as well as from pertinent literature. This discussion was nicely summarized by Newman ( 2000 ) in his commentary on the elusiveness of invention.

The celebrated phrenologist Gall said mathematical ability showed itself in a bump on the head, the location of which he specified. The psychologist Souriau, we are told, maintained that invention occurs by “pure chance”, a valuable theory. It is often suggested that creative ideas are conjured up in “mathematical dreams”, but this attractive hypothesis has not been verified. Hadamard reports that mathematicians were asked whether “noises” or “meteorological circumstances” helped or hindered research [..] Claude Bernard, the great physiologist, said that in order to invent “one must think aside”. Hadamard says this is a profound insight; he also considers whether scientific invention may perhaps be improved by standing or sitting or by taking two baths in a row. Helmholtz and Poincaré worked sitting at a table; Hadamard’s practice is to pace the room (“Legs are the wheels of thought”, said Emile Angier); the chemist J. Teeple was the two-bath man. (p. 2039)

1.2.3 Discourses on Creativity

Creativity is a term that can be used both loosely and precisely. That is, while there exists a common usage of the term there also exists a tradition of academic discourse on the subject. A common usage of creative refers to a process or a person whose products are original, novel, unusual, or even abnormal (Csíkszentmihályi 1996 ). In such a usage, creativity is assessed on the basis of the external and observable products of the process, the process by which the product comes to be, or on the character traits of the person doing the ‘creating’. Each of these usages—product, process, person—is the roots of the discourses (Liljedahl and Allan 2014 ) that I summarize here, the first of which concerns products.

Consider a mother who states that her daughter is creative because she drew an original picture. The basis of such a statement can lie either in the fact that the picture is unlike any the mother has ever seen or unlike any her daughter has ever drawn before. This mother is assessing creativity on the basis of what her daughter has produced. However, the standards that form the basis of her assessment are neither consistent nor stringent. There does not exist a universal agreement as to what she is comparing the picture to (pictures by other children or other pictures by the same child). Likewise, there is no standard by which the actual quality of the picture is measured. The academic discourse that concerns assessment of products, on the other hand, is both consistent and stringent (Csíkszentmihályi 1996 ). This discourse concerns itself more with a fifth, and as yet unmentioned, stage of the creative process; elaboration . Elaboration is where inspiration becomes perspiration (Csíkszentmihályi 1996 ). It is the act of turning a good idea into a finished product, and the finished product is ultimately what determines the creativity of the process that spawned it—that is, it cannot be a creative process if nothing is created. In particular, this discourse demands that the product be assessed against other products within its field, by the members of that field, to determine if it is original AND useful (Csíkszentmihályi 1996 ; Bailin 1994 ). If it is, then the product is deemed to be creative. Note that such a use of assessment of end product pays very little attention to the actual process that brings this product forth.

The second discourse concerns the creative process. The literature pertaining to this can be separated into two categories—a prescriptive discussion of the creativity process and a descriptive discussion of the creativity process. Although both of these discussions have their roots in the four stages that Wallas ( 1926 ) proposed makes up the creative process, they make use of these stages in very different ways. The prescriptive discussion of the creative process is primarily focused on the first of the four stages, initiation , and is best summarized as a cause - and - effect discussion of creativity, where the thinking processes during the initiation stage are the cause and the creative outcome are the effects (Ghiselin 1952 ). Some of the literature claims that the seeds of creativity lie in being able to think about a problem or situation analogically. Other literature claims that utilizing specific thinking tools such as imagination, empathy, and embodiment will lead to creative products. In all of these cases, the underlying theory is that the eventual presentation of a creative idea will be precipitated by the conscious and deliberate efforts during the initiation stage. On the other hand, the literature pertaining to a descriptive discussion of the creative process is inclusive of all four stages (Kneller 1965 ; Koestler 1964 ). For example, Csíkszentmihályi ( 1996 ), in his work on flow attends to each of the stages, with much attention paid to the fluid area between conscious and unconscious work, or initiation and incubation. His claim is that the creative process is intimately connected to the enjoyment that exists during times of sincere and consuming engagement with a situation, the conditions of which he describes in great detail.

The third, and final, discourse on creativity pertains to the person. This discourse is space dominated by two distinct characteristics, habit and genius. Habit has to do with the personal habits as well as the habits of mind of people that have been deemed to be creative. However, creative people are most easily identified through their reputation for genius. Consequently, this discourse is often dominated by the analyses of the habits of geniuses as is seen in the work of Ghiselin ( 1952 ), Koestler ( 1964 ), and Kneller ( 1965 ) who draw on historical personalities such as Albert Einstein, Henri Poincaré, Vincent Van Gogh, D.H. Lawrence, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Igor Stravinsky, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to name a few. The result of this sort of treatment is that creative acts are viewed as rare mental feats, which are produced by extraordinary individuals who use extraordinary thought processes.

These different discourses on creativity can be summed up in a tension between absolutist and relativist perspectives on creativity (Liljedahl and Sriraman 2006 ). An absolutist perspective assumes that creative processes are the domain of genius and are present only as precursors to the creation of remarkably useful and universally novel products. The relativist perspective, on the other hand, allows for every individual to have moments of creativity that may, or may not, result in the creation of a product that may, or may not, be either useful or novel.

Between the work of a student who tries to solve a problem in geometry or algebra and a work of invention, one can say there is only a difference of degree. (Hadamard 1945 , p. 104).

Regardless of discourse, however, creativity is not “part of the theories of logical forms” (Dewey 1938 ). That is, creativity is not representative of the lock-step logic and deductive reasoning that mathematical problem solving is often presumed to embody (Bibby 2002 ; Burton 1999 ). Couple this with the aforementioned demanding constraints as to what constitutes a problem, where then does that leave problem solving heuristics? More specifically, are there creative problem solving heuristics that will allow us to resolve problems that require illumination to solve? The short answer to this question is yes—there does exist such problem solving heuristics. To understand these, however, we must first understand the routine problem solving heuristics they are built upon. In what follows, I walk through the work of key authors and researchers whose work offers us insights into progressively more creative problem solving heuristics for solving true problems.

1.2.4 Problem Solving by Design

In a general sense, design is defined as the algorithmic and deductive approach to solving a problem (Rusbult 2000 ). This process begins with a clearly defined goal or objective after which there is a great reliance on relevant past experience, referred to as repertoire (Bruner 1964 ; Schön 1987 ), to produce possible options that will lead towards a solution of the problem (Poincaré 1952 ). These options are then examined through a process of conscious evaluations (Dewey 1933 ) to determine their suitability for advancing the problem towards the final goal. In very simple terms, problem solving by design is the process of deducing the solution from that which is already known.

Mayer ( 1982 ), Schoenfeld ( 1982 ), and Silver ( 1982 ) state that prior knowledge is a key element in the problem solving process. Prior knowledge influences the problem solver’s understanding of the problem as well as the choice of strategies that will be called upon in trying to solve the problem. In fact, prior knowledge and prior experiences is all that a solver has to draw on when first attacking a problem. As a result, all problem solving heuristics incorporate this resource of past experiences and prior knowledge into their initial attack on a problem. Some heuristics refine these ideas, and some heuristics extend them (c.f. Kilpatrick 1985 ; Bruder 2000 ). Of the heuristics that refine, none is more influential than the one created by George Pólya (1887–1985).

1.2.5 George Pólya: How to Solve It

In his book How to Solve It (1949) Pólya lays out a problem solving heuristic that relies heavily on a repertoire of past experience. He summarizes the four-step process of his heuristic as follows:

Understanding the Problem

First. You have to understand the problem.

What is the unknown? What are the data? What is the condition?

Is it possible to satisfy the condition? Is the condition sufficient to determine the unknown? Or is it insufficient? Or redundant? Or contradictory?

Draw a figure. Introduce suitable notation.

Separate the various parts of the condition. Can you write them down?

Devising a Plan

Second. Find the connection between the data and the unknown. You may be obliged to consider auxiliary problems if an immediate connection cannot be found. You should obtain eventually a plan of the solution.

Have you seen it before? Or have you seen the same problem in a slightly different form?

Do you know a related problem? Do you know a theorem that could be useful?

Look at the unknown! And try to think of a familiar problem having the same or a similar unknown.

Here is a problem related to yours and solved before. Could you use it? Could you use its result? Could you use its method? Should you introduce some auxiliary element in order to make its use possible?

Could you restate the problem? Could you restate it still differently? Go back to definitions.

If you cannot solve the proposed problem try to solve first some related problem. Could you imagine a more accessible related problem? A more general problem? A more special problem? An analogous problem? Could you solve a part of the problem? Keep only a part of the condition, drop the other part; how far is the unknown then determined, how can it vary? Could you derive something useful from the data? Could you think of other data appropriate to determine the unknown? Could you change the unknown or data, or both if necessary, so that the new unknown and the new data are nearer to each other?

Did you use all the data? Did you use the whole condition? Have you taken into account all essential notions involved in the problem?

Carrying Out the Plan

Third. Carry out your plan.

Carrying out your plan of the solution, check each step. Can you see clearly that the step is correct? Can you prove that it is correct?

Looking Back

Fourth. Examine the solution obtained.

Can you check the result? Can you check the argument?

Can you derive the solution differently? Can you see it at a glance?

Can you use the result, or the method, for some other problem?

The emphasis on auxiliary problems, related problems, and analogous problems that are, in themselves, also familiar problems is an explicit manifestation of relying on a repertoire of past experience. This use of familiar problems also requires an ability to deduce from these related problems a recognizable and relevant attribute that will transfer to the problem at hand. The mechanism that allows for this transfer of knowledge between analogous problems is known as analogical reasoning (English 1997 , 1998 ; Novick 1988 , 1990 , 1995 ; Novick and Holyoak 1991 ) and has been shown to be an effective, but not always accessible, thinking strategy.

Step four in Pólya’s heuristic, looking back, is also a manifestation of utilizing prior knowledge to solve problems, albeit an implicit one. Looking back makes connections “in memory to previously acquired knowledge [..] and further establishes knowledge in long-term memory that may be elaborated in later problem-solving encounters” (Silver 1982 , p. 20). That is, looking back is a forward-looking investment into future problem solving encounters, it sets up connections that may later be needed.

Pólya’s heuristic is a refinement on the principles of problem solving by design. It not only makes explicit the focus on past experiences and prior knowledge, but also presents these ideas in a very succinct, digestible, and teachable manner. This heuristic has become a popular, if not the most popular, mechanism by which problem solving is taught and learned.

1.2.6 Alan Schoenfeld: Mathematical Problem Solving

The work of Alan Schoenfeld is also a refinement on the principles of problem solving by design. However, unlike Pólya ( 1949 ) who refined these principles at a theoretical level, Schoenfeld has refined them at a practical and empirical level. In addition to studying taught problem solving strategies he has also managed to identify and classify a variety of strategies, mostly ineffectual, that students invoke naturally (Schoenfeld 1985 , 1992 ). In so doing, he has created a better understanding of how students solve problems, as well as a better understanding of how problems should be solved and how problem solving should be taught.

For Schoenfeld, the problem solving process is ultimately a dialogue between the problem solver’s prior knowledge, his attempts, and his thoughts along the way (Schoenfeld 1982 ). As such, the solution path of a problem is an emerging and contextually dependent process. This is a departure from the predefined and contextually independent processes of Pólya’s ( 1949 ) heuristics. This can be seen in Schoenfeld’s ( 1982 ) description of a good problem solver.

To examine what accounts for expertise in problem solving, you would have to give the expert a problem for which he does not have access to a solution schema. His behavior in such circumstances is radically different from what you would see when he works on routine or familiar “non-routine” problems. On the surface his performance is no longer proficient; it may even seem clumsy. Without access to a solution schema, he has no clear indication of how to start. He may not fully understand the problem, and may simply “explore it for a while until he feels comfortable with it. He will probably try to “match” it to familiar problems, in the hope it can be transformed into a (nearly) schema-driven solution. He will bring up a variety of plausible things: related facts, related problems, tentative approaches, etc. All of these will have to be juggled and balanced. He may make an attempt solving it in a particular way, and then back off. He may try two or three things for a couple of minutes and then decide which to pursue. In the midst of pursuing one direction he may go back and say “that’s harder than it should be” and try something else. Or, after the comment, he may continue in the same direction. With luck, after some aborted attempts, he will solve the problem. (p. 32-33)

Aside from demonstrating the emergent nature of the problem solving process, this passage also brings forth two consequences of Schoenfeld’s work. The first of these is the existence of problems for which the solver does not have “access to a solution schema”. Unlike Pólya ( 1949 ), who’s heuristic is a ‘one size fits all (problems)’ heuristic, Schoenfeld acknowledges that problem solving heuristics are, in fact, personal entities that are dependent on the solver’s prior knowledge as well as their understanding of the problem at hand. Hence, the problems that a person can solve through his or her personal heuristic are finite and limited.

The second consequence that emerges from the above passage is that if a person lacks the solution schema to solve a given problem s/he may still solve the problem with the help of luck . This is an acknowledgement, if only indirectly so, of the difference between problem solving in an intentional and mechanical fashion verses problem solving in a more creative fashion, which is neither intentional nor mechanical (Pehkonen 1997 ).

1.2.7 David Perkins: Breakthrough Thinking

As mentioned, many consider a problem that can be solved by intentional and mechanical means to not be worthy of the title ‘problem’. As such, a repertoire of past experiences sufficient for dealing with such a ‘problem’ would disqualify it from the ranks of ‘problems’ and relegate it to that of ‘exercises’. For a problem to be classified as a ‘problem’, then, it must be ‘problematic’. Although such an argument is circular it is also effective in expressing the ontology of mathematical ‘problems’.

Perkins ( 2000 ) also requires problems to be problematic. His book Archimedes’ Bathtub: The Art and Logic of Breakthrough Thinking (2000) deals with situations in which the solver has gotten stuck and no amount of intentional or mechanical adherence to the principles of past experience and prior knowledge is going to get them unstuck. That is, he deals with problems that, by definition, cannot be solved through a process of design [or through the heuristics proposed by Pólya ( 1949 ) and Schoenfeld ( 1985 )]. Instead, the solver must rely on the extra-logical process of what Perkins ( 2000 ) calls breakthrough thinking .

Perkins ( 2000 ) begins by distinguishing between reasonable and unreasonable problems. Although both are solvable, only reasonable problems are solvable through reasoning. Unreasonable problems require a breakthrough in order to solve them. The problem, however, is itself inert. It is neither reasonable nor unreasonable. That quality is brought to the problem by the solver. That is, if a student cannot solve a problem by direct effort then that problem is deemed to be unreasonable for that student. Perkins ( 2000 ) also acknowledges that what is an unreasonable problem for one person is a perfectly reasonable problem for another person; reasonableness is dependent on the person.

This is not to say that, once found, the solution cannot be seen as accessible through reason. During the actual process of solving, however, direct and deductive reasoning does not work. Perkins ( 2000 ) uses several classic examples to demonstrate this, the most famous being the problem of connecting nine dots in a 3 × 3 array with four straight lines without removing pencil from paper, the solution to which is presented in Fig.  1 .

Nine dots—four lines problem and solution

To solve this problem, Perkins ( 2000 ) claims that the solver must recognize that the constraint of staying within the square created by the 3 × 3 array is a self-imposed constraint. He further claims that until this is recognized no amount of reasoning is going to solve the problem. That is, at this point in the problem solving process the problem is unreasonable. However, once this self-imposed constraint is recognized the problem, and the solution, are perfectly reasonable. Thus, the solution of an, initially, unreasonable problem is reasonable.

The problem solving heuristic that Perkins ( 2000 ) has constructed to deal with solvable, but unreasonable, problems revolves around the idea of breakthrough thinking and what he calls breakthrough problems . A breakthrough problem is a solvable problem in which the solver has gotten stuck and will require an AHA! to get unstuck and solve the problem. Perkins ( 2000 ) poses that there are only four types of solvable unreasonable problems, which he has named wilderness of possibilities , the clueless plateau , narrow canyon of exploration , and oasis of false promise . The names for the first three of these types of problems are related to the Klondike gold rush in Alaska, a time and place in which gold was found more by luck than by direct and systematic searching.

The wilderness of possibilities is a term given to a problem that has many tempting directions but few actual solutions. This is akin to a prospector searching for gold in the Klondike. There is a great wilderness in which to search, but very little gold to be found. The clueless plateau is given to problems that present the solver with few, if any, clues as to how to solve it. The narrow canyon of exploration is used to describe a problem that has become constrained in such a way that no solution now exists. The nine-dot problem presented above is such a problem. The imposed constraint that the lines must lie within the square created by the array makes a solution impossible. This is identical to the metaphor of a prospector searching for gold within a canyon where no gold exists. The final type of problem gets its name from the desert. An oasis of false promise is a problem that allows the solver to quickly get a solution that is close to the desired outcome; thereby tempting them to remain fixed on the strategy that they used to get this almost-answer. The problem is, that like the canyon, the solution does not exist at the oasis; the solution strategy that produced an almost-answer is incapable of producing a complete answer. Likewise, a desert oasis is a false promise in that it is only a reprieve from the desolation of the dessert and not a final destination.

Believing that there are only four ways to get stuck, Perkins ( 2000 ) has designed a problem solving heuristic that will “up the chances” of getting unstuck. This heuristic is based on what he refers to as “the logic of lucking out” (p. 44) and is built on the idea of introspection. By first recognizing that they are stuck, and then recognizing that the reason they are stuck can only be attributed to one of four reasons, the solver can access four strategies for getting unstuck, one each for the type of problem they are dealing with. If the reason they are stuck is because they are faced with a wilderness of possibilities they are to begin roaming far, wide, and systematically in the hope of reducing the possible solution space to one that is more manageable. If they find themselves on a clueless plateau they are to begin looking for clues, often in the wording of the problem. When stuck in a narrow canyon of possibilities they need to re-examine the problem and see if they have imposed any constraints. Finally, when in an oasis of false promise they need to re-attack the problem in such a way that they stay away from the oasis.

Of course, there are nuances and details associated with each of these types of problems and the strategies for dealing with them. However, nowhere within these details is there mention of the main difficulty inherent in introspection; that it is much easier for the solver to get stuck than it is for them to recognize that they are stuck. Once recognized, however, the details of Perkins’ ( 2000 ) heuristic offer the solver some ways for recognizing why they are stuck.

1.2.8 John Mason, Leone Burton, and Kaye Stacey: Thinking Mathematically

The work of Mason et al. in their book Thinking Mathematically ( 1982 ) also recognizes the fact that for each individual there exists problems that will not yield to their intentional and mechanical attack. The heuristic that they present for dealing with this has two main processes with a number of smaller phases, rubrics, and states. The main processes are what they refer to as specializing and generalizing. Specializing is the process of getting to know the problem and how it behaves through the examination of special instances of the problem. This process is synonymous with problem solving by design and involves the repeated oscillation between the entry and attack phases of Mason et al. ( 1982 ) heuristic. The entry phase is comprised of ‘getting started’ and ‘getting involved’ with the problem by using what is immediately known about it. Attacking the problem involves conjecturing and testing a number of hypotheses in an attempt to gain greater understanding of the problem and to move towards a solution.

At some point within this process of oscillating between entry and attack the solver will get stuck, which Mason et al. ( 1982 ) refer to as “an honourable and positive state, from which much can be learned” (p. 55). The authors dedicate an entire chapter to this state in which they acknowledge that getting stuck occurs long before an awareness of being stuck develops. They proposes that the first step to dealing with being stuck is the simple act of writing STUCK!

The act of expressing my feelings helps to distance me from my state of being stuck. It frees me from incapacitating emotions and reminds me of actions that I can take. (p. 56)

The next step is to reengage the problem by examining the details of what is known, what is wanted, what can be introduced into the problem, and what has been introduced into the problem (imposed assumptions). This process is engaged in until an AHA!, which advances the problem towards a solution, is encountered. If, at this point, the problem is not completely solved the oscillation is then resumed.

At some point in this process an attack on the problem will yield a solution and generalizing can begin. Generalizing is the process by which the specifics of a solution are examined and questions as to why it worked are investigated. This process is synonymous with the verification and elaboration stages of invention and creativity. Generalization may also include a phase of review that is similar to Pólya’s ( 1949 ) looking back.

1.2.9 Gestalt: The Psychology of Problem Solving

The Gestalt psychology of learning believes that all learning is based on insights (Koestler 1964 ). This psychology emerged as a response to behaviourism, which claimed that all learning was a response to external stimuli. Gestalt psychologists, on the other hand, believed that there was a cognitive process involved in learning as well. With regards to problem solving, the Gestalt school stands firm on the belief that problem solving, like learning, is a product of insight and as such, cannot be taught. In fact, the theory is that not only can problem solving not be taught, but also that attempting to adhere to any sort of heuristic will impede the working out of a correct solution (Krutestkii 1976 ). Thus, there exists no Gestalt problem solving heuristic. Instead, the practice is to focus on the problem and the solution rather than on the process of coming up with a solution. Problems are solved by turning them over and over in the mind until an insight, a viable avenue of attack, presents itself. At the same time, however, there is a great reliance on prior knowledge and past experiences. The Gestalt method of problem solving, then, is at the same time very different and very similar to the process of design.

Gestalt psychology has not fared well during the evolution of cognitive psychology. Although it honours the work of the unconscious mind it does so at the expense of practicality. If learning is, indeed, entirely based on insight then there is little point in continuing to study learning. “When one begins by assuming that the most important cognitive phenomena are inaccessible, there really is not much left to talk about” (Schoenfeld 1985 , p. 273). However, of interest here is the Gestalt psychologists’ claim that focus on problem solving methods creates functional fixedness (Ashcraft 1989 ). Mason et al. ( 1982 ), as well as Perkins ( 2000 ) deal with this in their work on getting unstuck.

1.2.10 Final Comments

Mathematics has often been characterized as the most precise of all sciences. Lost in such a misconception is the fact that mathematics often has its roots in the fires of creativity, being born of the extra-logical processes of illumination and intuition. Problem solving heuristics that are based solely on the processes of logical and deductive reasoning distort the true nature of problem solving. Certainly, there are problems in which logical deductive reasoning is sufficient for finding a solution. But these are not true problems. True problems need the extra-logical processes of creativity, insight, and illumination, in order to produce solutions.

Fortunately, as elusive as such processes are, there does exist problem solving heuristics that incorporate them into their strategies. Heuristics such as those by Perkins ( 2000 ) and Mason et al. ( 1982 ) have found a way of combining the intentional and mechanical processes of problem solving by design with the extra-logical processes of creativity, illumination, and the AHA!. Furthermore, they have managed to do so without having to fully comprehend the inner workings of this mysterious process.

1.3 Digital Technologies and Mathematical Problem Solving—Luz Manuel Santos-Trigo

Mathematical problem solving is a field of research that focuses on analysing the extent to which problem solving activities play a crucial role in learners’ understanding and use of mathematical knowledge. Mathematical problems are central in mathematical practice to develop the discipline and to foster students learning (Pólya 1945 ; Halmos 1994 ). Mason and Johnston-Wilder ( 2006 ) pointed out that “The purpose of a task is to initiate mathematically fruitful activity that leads to a transformation in what learners are sensitized to notice and competent to carry out” (p. 25). Tasks are essential for learners to elicit their ideas and to engage them in mathematical thinking. In a problem solving approach, what matters is the learners’ goals and ways to interact with the tasks. That is, even routine tasks can be a departure point for learners to extend initial conditions and transform them into some challenging activities.

Thus, analysing and characterizing ways in which mathematical problems are formulated (Singer et al. 2015 ) and the process involved in pursuing and solving those problems generate important information to frame and structure learning environments to guide and foster learners’ construction of mathematical concepts and problem solving competences (Santos-Trigo 2014 ). Furthermore, mathematicians or discipline practitioners have often been interested in unveiling and sharing their own experience while developing the discipline. As a results, they have provided valuable information to characterize mathematical practices and their relations to what learning processes of the discipline entails. It is recognized that the work of Pólya ( 1945 ) offered not only bases to launch several research programs in problem solving (Schoenfeld 1992 ; Mason et al. 1982 ); but also it became an essential resource for teachers to orient and structure their mathematical lessons (Krulik and Reys 1980 ).

1.3.1 Research Agenda

A salient feature of a problem solving approach to learn mathematics is that teachers and students develop and apply an enquiry or inquisitive method to delve into mathematical concepts and tasks. How are mathematical problems or concepts formulated? What types of problems are important for teachers/learners to discuss and engage in mathematical reasoning? What mathematical processes and ways of reasoning are involved in understanding mathematical concepts and solving problems? What are the features that distinguish an instructional environment that fosters problem-solving activities? How can learners’ problem solving competencies be assessed? How can learners’ problem solving competencies be characterized and explained? How can learners use digital technologies to understand mathematics and to develop problem-solving competencies? What ways of reasoning do learners construct when they use digital technologies in problem solving approaches? These types of questions have been important in the problem solving research agenda and delving into them has led researchers to generate information and results to support and frame curriculum proposals and learning scenarios. The purpose of this section is to present and discuss important themes that emerged in problem solving approaches that rely on the systematic use of several digital technologies.

In the last 40 years, the accumulated knowledge in the problem solving field has shed lights on both a characterization of what mathematical thinking involves and how learners can construct a robust knowledge in problem solving environments (Schoenfeld 1992 ). In this process, the field has contributed to identify what types of transformations traditional learning scenarios might consider when teachers and students incorporate the use of digital technologies in mathematical classrooms. In this context, it is important to briefly review what main themes and developments the field has addressed and achieved during the last 40 years.

1.3.2 Problem Solving Developments

There are traces of mathematical problems and solutions throughout the history of civilization that explain the humankind interest for identifying and exploring mathematical relations (Kline 1972 ). Pólya ( 1945 ) reflects on his own practice as a mathematician to characterize the process of solving mathematical problems through four main phases: Understanding the problem, devising a plan, carrying out the plan, and looking back. Likewise, Pólya ( 1945 ) presents and discusses the role played by heuristic methods throughout all problem solving phases. Schoenfeld ( 1985 ) presents a problem solving research program based on Pólya’s ( 1945 ) ideas to investigate the extent to which problem solving heuristics help university students to solve mathematical problems and to develop a way of thinking that shows consistently features of mathematical practices. As a result, he explains the learners’ success or failure in problem solving activities can be characterized in terms their mathematical resources and ways to access them, cognitive and metacognitive strategies used to represent and explore mathematical tasks, and systems of beliefs about mathematics and solving problems. In addition, Schoenfeld ( 1992 ) documented that heuristics methods as illustrated in Pólya’s ( 1945 ) book are ample and general and do not include clear information and directions about how learners could assimilate, learn, and use them in their problem solving experiences. He suggested that students need to discuss what it means, for example, to think of and examining special cases (one important heuristic) in finding a closed formula for series or sequences, analysing relationships of roots of polynomials, or focusing on regular polygons or equilateral/right triangles to find general relations about these figures. That is, learners need to work on examples that lead them to recognize that the use of a particular heuristic often involves thinking of different type of cases depending on the domain or content involved. Lester and Kehle ( 2003 ) summarize themes and methodological shifts in problem solving research up to 1995. Themes include what makes a problem difficult for students and what it means to be successful problem solvers; studying and contrasting experts and novices’ problem solving approaches; learners’ metacognitive, beliefs systems and the influence of affective behaviours; and the role of context; and social interactions in problem solving environments. Research methods in problem solving studies have gone from emphasizing quantitative or statistical design to the use of cases studies and ethnographic methods (Krutestkii ( 1976 ). Teaching strategies also evolved from being centred on teachers to the active students’ engagement and collaboration approaches (NCTM 2000 ). Lesh and Zawojewski ( 2007 ) propose to extend problem solving approaches beyond class setting and they introduce the construct “model eliciting activities” to delve into the learners’ ideas and thinking as a way to engage them in the development of problem solving experiences. To this end, learners develop and constantly refine problem-solving competencies as a part of a learning community that promotes and values modelling construction activities. Recently, English and Gainsburg ( 2016 ) have discussed the importance of modeling eliciting activities to prepare and develop students’ problem solving experiences for 21st Century challenges and demands.

Törner et al. ( 2007 ) invited mathematics educators worldwide to elaborate on the influence and developments of problem solving in their countries. Their contributions show a close relationship between countries mathematical education traditions and ways to frame and implement problem solving approaches. In Chinese classrooms, for example, three instructional strategies are used to structure problem solving lessons: one problem multiple solutions , multiple problems one solution , and one problem multiple changes . In the Netherlands, the realistic mathematical approach permeates the students’ development of problem solving competencies; while in France, problem solving activities are structured in terms of two influential frameworks: The theory of didactical situations and anthropological theory of didactics.

In general, problem solving frameworks and instructional approaches came from analysing students’ problem solving experiences that involve or rely mainly on the use of paper and pencil work. Thus, there is a need to re-examined principles and frameworks to explain what learners develop in learning environments that incorporate systematically the coordinated use of digital technologies (Hoyles and Lagrange 2010 ). In this perspective, it becomes important to briefly describe and identify what both multiple purpose and ad hoc technologies can offer to the students in terms of extending learning environments and representing and exploring mathematical tasks. Specifically, a task is used to identify features of mathematical reasoning that emerge through the use digital technologies that include both mathematical action and multiple purpose types of technologies.

1.3.3 Background

Digital technologies are omnipresent and their use permeates and shapes several social and academic events. Mobile devices such as tablets or smart phones are transforming the way people communicate, interact and carry out daily activities. Churchill et al. ( 2016 ) pointed out that mobile technologies provide a set of tools and affordances to structure and support learning environments in which learners continuously interact to construct knowledge and solve problems. The tools include resources or online materials, efficient connectivity to collaborate and discuss problems, ways to represent, explore and store information, and analytical and administration tools to management learning activities. Schmidt and Cohen ( 2013 ) stated that nowadays it is difficult to imagine a life without mobile devices, and communication technologies are playing a crucial role in generating both cultural and technical breakthroughs. In education, the use of mobile artefacts and computers offers learners the possibility of continuing and extending peers and groups’ mathematical discussions beyond formal settings. In this process, learners can also consult online materials and interact with experts, peers or more experienced students while working on mathematical tasks. In addition, dynamic geometry systems (GeoGebra) provide learners a set of affordances to represent and explore dynamically mathematical problems. Leung and Bolite-Frant ( 2015 ) pointed out that tools help activate an interactive environment in which teachers and students’ mathematical experiences get enriched. Thus, the digital age brings new challenges to the mathematics education community related to the changes that technologies produce to curriculum, learning scenarios, and ways to represent, explore mathematical situations. In particular, it is important to characterize the type of reasoning that learners can develop as a result of using digital technologies in their process of learning concepts and solving mathematical problems.

1.3.4 A Focus on Mathematical Tasks

Mathematical tasks are essential elements for engaging learners in mathematical reasoning which involves representing objects, identifying and exploring their properties in order to detect invariants or relationships and ways to support them. Watson and Ohtani ( 2015 ) stated that task design involves discussions about mathematical content and students’ learning (cognitive perspective), about the students’ experiences to understand the nature of mathematical activities; and about the role that tasks played in teaching practices. In this context, tasks are the vehicle to present and discuss theoretical frameworks for supporting the use of digital technology, to analyse the importance of using digital technologies in extending learners’ mathematical discussions beyond formal settings, and to design ways to foster and assess the use of technologies in learners’ problem solving environments. In addition, it is important to discuss contents, concepts, representations and strategies involved in the process of using digital technologies in approaching the tasks. Similarly, it becomes essential to discuss what types of activities students will do to learn and solve the problems in an environment where the use of technologies fosters and values the participation and collaboration of all students. What digital technologies are important to incorporate in problem solving approaches? Dynamic Geometry Systems can be considered as a milestone in the development of digital technologies. Objects or mathematical situations can be represented dynamically through the use of a Dynamic Geometry System and learners or problem solvers can identify and examine mathematical relations that emerge from moving objects within the dynamic model (Moreno-Armella and Santos-Trigo 2016 ).

Leung and Bolite-Frant ( 2015 ) stated that “dynamic geometry software can be used in task design to cover a large epistemic spectrum from drawing precise robust geometrical figures to exploration of new geometric theorems and development of argumentation discourse” (p. 195). As a result, learners not only need to develop skills and strategies to construct dynamic configuration of problems; but also ways of relying on the tool’s affordances (quantifying parameters or objects attributes, generating loci, graphing objects behaviours, using sliders, or dragging particular elements within the configuration) in order to identify and support mathematical relations. What does it mean to represent and explore an object or mathematical situation dynamically?

A simple task that involves a rhombus and its inscribed circle is used to illustrate how a dynamic representation of these objects and embedded elements can lead learners to identify and examine mathematical properties of those objects in the construction of the configuration. To this end, learners are encouraged to pose and pursue questions to explain the behaviours of parameters or attributes of the family of objects that is generated as a result of moving a particular element within the configuration.

1.3.5 A Task: A Dynamic Rhombus

Figure  2 represents a rhombus APDB and its inscribed circle (O is intersection of diagonals AD and BP and the radius of the inscribed circle is the perpendicular segment from any side of the rhombus to point O), vertex P lies on a circle c centred at point A. Circle c is only a heuristic to generate a family of rhombuses. Thus, point P can be moved along circle c to generate a family of rhombuses. Indeed, based on the symmetry of the circle it is sufficient to move P on the semicircle B’CA to draw such a family of rhombuses.

A dynamic construction of a rhombus

1.3.6 Posing Questions

A goal in constructing a dynamic model or configuration of problems is always to identify and explore mathematical properties and relations that might result from moving objects within the model. How do the areas of both the rhombus and the inscribed circle behave when point P is moved along the arc B’CB? At what position of point P does the area of the rhombus or inscribed circle reach the maximum value? The coordinates of points S and Q (Fig.  3 ) are the x -value of point P and as y -value the corresponding area values of rhombus ABDP and the inscribed circle respectively. Figure  2 shows the loci of points S and Q when point P is moved along arc B’CB. Here, finding the locus via the use of GeoGebra is another heuristic to graph the area behaviour without making explicit the algebraic model of the area.

Graphic representation of the area variation of the family of rhombuses and inscribed circles generated when P is moved through arc B’CB

The area graphs provide information to visualize that in that family of generated rhombuses the maximum area value of the inscribed circle and rhombus is reached when the rhombus becomes a square (Fig.  4 ). That is, the controlled movement of particular objects is an important strategy to analyse the area variation of the family of rhombuses and their inscribed circles.

Visualizing the rhombus and the inscribed circle with maximum area

It is important to observe the identification of points P and Q in terms of the position of point P and the corresponding areas and the movement of point P was sufficient to generate both area loci. That is, the graph representation of the areas is achieved without having an explicit algebraic expression of the area variation. Clearly, the graphic representations provide information regarding the increasing or decreasing interval of both areas; it is also important to explore what properties both graphic representations hold. The goal is to argue that the area variation of the rhombus represents an ellipse and the area of the inscribed circle represents a parabola. An initial argument might involve selecting five points on each locus and using the tool to draw the corresponding conic section (Fig.  5 ). In this case, the tool affordances play an important role in generating the graphic representation of the areas’ behaviours and in identifying properties of those representations. In this context, the use of the tool can offer learners the opportunity to problematize (Santos-Trigo 2007 ) a simple mathematical object (rhombus) as a means to search for mathematical relations and ways to support them.

Drawing the conic section that passes through five points

1.3.7 Looking for Different Solutions Methods

Another line of exploration might involve asking for ways to construct a rhombus and its inscribed circle: Suppose that the side of the rhombus and the circle are given, how can you construct the rhombus that has that circle inscribed? Figure  6 shows the given data, segment A 1 B 1 and circle centred at O and radius OD. The initial goal is to draw the circle tangent to the given segment. To this end, segment AB is congruent to segment A 1 B 1 and on this segment a point P is chosen and a perpendicular to segment AB that passes through point P is drawn. Point C is on this perpendicular and the centre of a circle with radius OD and h is the perpendicular to line PC that passes through point C. Angle ACB changes when point P is moved along segment AB and point E and F are the intersection of line h and the circle with centre M the midpoint of AB and radius MA (Fig.  6 ).

Drawing segment AB tangent to the given circle

Figure  7 a shows the right triangle AFB as the base to construct the rhombus and the inscribed circle and Fig.  7 b shows the second solution based on triangle AEB.

a Drawing the rhombus and the inscribed circle. b Drawing the second solution

Another approach might involve drawing the given circle centred at the origin and the segment as EF with point E on the y-axis. Line OC is perpendicular to segment EF and the locus of point C when point E moves along the y-axis intersects the given circle (Fig.  8 a, b). Both figures show two solutions to draw the rhombus that circumscribe the given circle.

a and b Another solution that involves finding a locus of point C

In this example, the GeoGebra affordances not only are important to construct a dynamic model of the task; but also offer learners and opportunity to explore relations that emerge from moving objects within the model. As a result, learners can rely on different concepts and strategies to solve the tasks. The idea in presenting this rhombus task is to illustrate that the use of a Dynamic Geometry System provides affordances for learners to construct dynamic representation of mathematical objects or problems, to move elements within the representation to pose questions or conjectures to explain invariants or patterns among involved parameters; to search for arguments to support emerging conjectures, and to develop a proper language to communicate results.

1.3.8 Looking Back

Conceptual frameworks used to explain learners’ construction of mathematical knowledge need to capture or take into account the different ways of reasoning that students might develop as a result of using a set of tools during the learning experiences. Figure  9 show some digital technologies that learners can use for specific purpose at the different stages of problem solving activities.

The coordinated use of digital tools to engage learners in problem solving experiences

The use of a dynamic system (GeoGebra) provides a set of affordances for learners to conceptualize and represent mathematical objects and tasks dynamically. In this process, affordances such as moving objects orderly (dragging), finding loci of objects, quantifying objects attributes (lengths, areas, angles, etc.), using sliders to vary parameters, and examining family of objects became important to look for invariance or objects relationships. Likewise, analysing the parameters or objects behaviours within the configuration might lead learners to identify properties to support emerging mathematical relations. Thus, with the use of the tool, learners might conceptualize mathematical tasks as an opportunity for them to engage in mathematical activities that include constructing dynamic models of tasks, formulating conjectures, and always looking for different arguments to support them. Similarly, learners can use an online platform to share their ideas, problem solutions or questions in a digital wall and others students can also share ideas or solution methods and engaged in mathematical discussions that extend mathematical classroom activities.

1.4 Problem Posing: An Overview for Further Progress—Uldarico Malaspina Jurado

Problem posing and problem solving are two essential aspects of the mathematical activity; however, researchers in mathematics education have not emphasized their attention on problem posing as much as problem solving. In that sense, due to its importance in the development of mathematical thinking in students since the first grades, we agree with Ellerton’s statement ( 2013 ): “for too long, successful problem solving has been lauded as the goal; the time has come for problem posing to be given a prominent but natural place in mathematics curricula and classrooms” (pp. 100–101); and due to its importance in teacher training, with Abu-Elwan’s statement ( 1999 ):

While teacher educators generally recognize that prospective teachers require guidance in mastering the ability to confront and solve problems, what is often overlooked is the critical fact that, as teachers, they must be able to go beyond the role as problem solvers. That is, in order to promote a classroom situation where creative problem solving is the central focus, the practitioner must become skillful in discovering and correctly posing problems that need solutions. (p. 1)

Scientists like Einstein and Infeld ( 1938 ), recognized not only for their notable contributions in the fields they worked, but also for their reflections on the scientific activity, pointed out the importance of problem posing; thus it is worthwhile to highlight their statement once again:

The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skills. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old questions from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science. (p. 92)

Certainly, it is also relevant to remember mathematician Halmos’s statement ( 1980 ): “I do believe that problems are the heart of mathematics, and I hope that as teachers (…) we will train our students to be better problem posers and problem solvers than we are” (p. 524).

An important number of researchers in mathematics education has focused on the importance of problem posing, and we currently have numerous, very important publications that deal with different aspects of problem posing related to the mathematics education of students in all educational levels and to teacher training.

1.4.1 A Retrospective Look

Kilpatrick ( 1987 ) marked a historical milestone in research related to problem posing and points out that “problem formulating should be viewed not only as a goal of instruction but also as a means of instruction” (Kilpatrick 1987 , p. 123); and he also emphasizes that, as part of students’ education, all of them should be given opportunities to live the experience of discovering and posing their own problems. Drawing attention to the few systematic studies on problem posing performed until then, Kilpatrick contributes defining some aspects that required studying and investigating as steps prior to a theoretical building, though he warns, “attempts to teach problem-formulating skills, of course, need not await a theory” (p. 124).

Kilpatrick refers to the “Source of problems” and points out how virtually all problems students solve have been posed by another person; however, in real life “many problems, if not most, must be created or discovered by the solver, who gives the problem an initial formulation” (p. 124). He also points out that problems are reformulated as they are being solved, and he relates this to investigation, reminding us what Davis ( 1985 ) states that, “what typically happens in a prolonged investigation is that problem formulation and problem solution go hand in hand, each eliciting the other as the investigation progresses” (p. 23). He also relates it to the experiences of software designers, who formulate an appropriate sequence of sub-problems to solve a problem. He poses that a subject to be examined by teachers and researchers “is whether, by drawing students’ attention to the reformulating process and given them practice in it, we can improve their problem solving performance” (p. 130). He also points out that problems may be a mathematical formulation as a result of exploring a situation and, in that sense, “school exercises in constructing mathematical models of a situation presented by the teacher are intended to provide students with experiences in formulating problems.” (p. 131).

Another important section of Kilpatrick’s work ( 1987 ) is Processes of Problem Formulating , in which he considers association, analogy, generalization and contradiction. He believes the use of concept maps to represent concept organization, as cognitive scientists Novak and Gowin suggest, might help to comprehend such concepts, stimulate creative thinking about them, and complement the ideas Brown and Walter ( 1983 ) give for problem posing by association. Further, in the section “Understanding and developing problem formulating abilities”, he poses several questions, which have not been completely answered yet, like “Perhaps the central issue from the point of view of cognitive science is what happens when someone formulates the problem? (…) What is the relation between problem formulating, problem solving and structured knowledge base? How rich a knowledge base is needed for problem formulating? (…) How does experience in problem formulating add to knowledge base? (…) What metacognitive processes are needed for problem formulating?”

It is interesting to realize that some of these questions are among the unanswered questions proposed and analyzed by Cai et al. ( 2015 ) in Chap. 1 of the book Mathematical Problem Posing (Singer et al. 2015 ). It is worth stressing the emphasis on the need to know the cognitive processes in problem posing, an aspect that Kilpatrick had already posed in 1987, as we just saw.

1.4.2 Researches and Didactic Experiences

Currently, there are a great number of publications related to problem posing, many of which are research and didactic experiences that gather the questions posed by Kilpatrick, which we just commented. Others came up naturally as reflections raised in the framework of problem solving, facing the natural requirement of having appropriate problems to use results and suggestions of researches on problem solving, or as a response to a thoughtful attitude not to resign to solving and asking students to solve problems that are always created by others. Why not learn and teach mathematics posing one’s own problems?

1.4.3 New Directions of Research

Singer et al. ( 2013 ) provides a broad view about problem posing that links problem posing experiences to general mathematics education; to the development of abilities, attitudes and creativity; and also to its interrelation with problem solving, and studies on when and how problem-solving sessions should take place. Likewise, it provides information about research done regarding ways to pose new problems and about the need for teachers to develop abilities to handle complex situations in problem posing contexts.

Singer et al. ( 2013 ) identify new directions in problem posing research that go from problem-posing task design to the development of problem-posing frameworks to structure and guide teachers and students’ problem posing experiences. In a chapter of this book, Leikin refers to three different types of problem posing activities, associated with school mathematics research: (a) problem posing through proving; (b) problem posing for investigation; and (c) problem posing through investigation. This classification becomes evident in the problems posed in a course for prospective secondary school mathematics teachers by using a dynamic geometry environment. Prospective teachers posed over 25 new problems, several of which are discussed in the article. The author considers that, by developing this type of problem posing activities, prospective mathematics teachers may pose different problems related to a geometric object, prepare more interesting lessons for their students, and thus gradually develop their mathematical competence and their creativity.

1.4.4 Final Comments

This overview, though incomplete, allows us to see a part of what problem posing experiences involve and the importance of this area in students mathematical learning. An important task is to continue reflecting on the questions posed by Kilpatrick ( 1987 ), as well as on the ones that come up in the different researches aforementioned. To continue progressing in research on problem posing and contribute to a greater consolidation of this research line, it will be really important that all mathematics educators pay more attention to problem posing, seek to integrate approaches and results, and promote joint and interdisciplinary works. As Singer et al. ( 2013 ) say, going back to Kilpatrick’s proposal ( 1987 ),

Problem posing is an old issue. What is new is the awareness that problem posing needs to pervade the education systems around the world, both as a means of instruction (…) and as an object of instruction (…) with important targets in real-life situations. (p. 5)

Although it can be argued that there is a difference between creativity, discovery, and invention (see Liljedahl and Allan 2014 ) for the purposes of this book these will be assumed to be interchangeable.

Abu-Elwan, R. (1999). The development of mathematical problem posing skills for prospective middle school teachers. In A. Rogerson (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematical Education into the 21st century: Social Challenges, Issues and Approaches , (Vol. 2, pp. 1–8), Cairo, Egypt.

Google Scholar  

Ashcraft, M. (1989). Human memory and cognition . Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Bailin, S. (1994). Achieving extraordinary ends: An essay on creativity . Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Bibby, T. (2002). Creativity and logic in primary-school mathematics: A view from the classroom. For the Learning of Mathematics, 22 (3), 10–13.

Brown, S., & Walter, M. (1983). The art of problem posing . Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.

Bruder, R. (2000). Akzentuierte Aufgaben und heuristische Erfahrungen. In W. Herget & L. Flade (Eds.), Mathematik lehren und lernen nach TIMSS. Anregungen für die Sekundarstufen (pp. 69–78). Berlin: Volk und Wissen.

Bruder, R. (2005). Ein aufgabenbasiertes anwendungsorientiertes Konzept für einen nachhaltigen Mathematikunterricht—am Beispiel des Themas “Mittelwerte”. In G. Kaiser & H. W. Henn (Eds.), Mathematikunterricht im Spannungsfeld von Evolution und Evaluation (pp. 241–250). Hildesheim, Berlin: Franzbecker.

Bruder, R., & Collet, C. (2011). Problemlösen lernen im Mathematikunterricht . Berlin: CornelsenVerlag Scriptor.

Bruner, J. (1964). Bruner on knowing . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burton, L. (1999). Why is intuition so important to mathematicians but missing from mathematics education? For the Learning of Mathematics, 19 (3), 27–32.

Cai, J., Hwang, S., Jiang, C., & Silber, S. (2015). Problem posing research in mathematics: Some answered and unanswered questions. In F.M. Singer, N. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Mathematical problem posing: From research to effective practice (pp.3–34). Springer.

Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2016). Framework for designing mobile learning environments. In D. Churchill, J. Lu, T. K. F. Chiu, & B. Fox (Eds.), Mobile learning design (pp. 20–36)., lecture notes in educational technology NY: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Collet, C. (2009). Problemlösekompetenzen in Verbindung mit Selbstregulation fördern. Wirkungsanalysen von Lehrerfortbildungen. In G. Krummheuer, & A. Heinze (Eds.), Empirische Studien zur Didaktik der Mathematik , Band 2, Münster: Waxmann.

Collet, C., & Bruder, R. (2008). Longterm-study of an intervention in the learning of problem-solving in connection with self-regulation. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX, (Vol. 2, pp. 353–360).

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention . New York: Harper Perennial.

Davis, P. J. (1985). What do I know? A study of mathematical self-awareness. College Mathematics Journal, 16 (1), 22–41.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think . Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry . New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ellerton, N. (2013). Engaging pre-service middle-school teacher-education students in mathematical problem posing: Development of an active learning framework. Educational Studies in Math, 83 (1), 87–101.

Engel, A. (1998). Problem-solving strategies . New York, Berlin und Heidelberg: Springer.

English, L. (1997). Children’s reasoning processes in classifying and solving comparison word problems. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images (pp. 191–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

English, L. (1998). Reasoning by analogy in solving comparison problems. Mathematical Cognition, 4 (2), 125–146.

English, L. D. & Gainsburg, J. (2016). Problem solving in a 21st- Century mathematics education. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 313–335). NY: Routledge.

Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process: Reflections on invention in the arts and sciences . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field . New York, NY: Dover Publications.

Halmos, P. (1980). The heart of mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 87 , 519–524.

Halmos, P. R. (1994). What is teaching? The American Mathematical Monthly, 101 (9), 848–854.

Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology–Rethinking the terrain. The 17th ICMI Study . NY: Springer.

Kilpatrick, J. (1985). A retrospective account of the past 25 years of research on teaching mathematical problem solving. In E. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 1–15). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problem come from? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 123–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kline, M. (1972). Mathematical thought from ancient to modern times . NY: Oxford University Press.

Kneller, G. (1965). The art and science of creativity . New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart, and Winstone Inc.

Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation . New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

König, H. (1984). Heuristik beim Lösen problemhafter Aufgaben aus dem außerunterrichtlichen Bereich . Technische Hochschule Chemnitz, Sektion Mathematik.

Kretschmer, I. F. (1983). Problemlösendes Denken im Unterricht. Lehrmethoden und Lernerfolge . Dissertation. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.

Krulik, S. A., & Reys, R. E. (Eds.). (1980). Problem solving in school mathematics. Yearbook of the national council of teachers of mathematics . Reston VA: NCTM.

Krutestkii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children . University of Chicago Press.

Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), The second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.  

Lester, F., & Kehle, P. E. (2003). From problem solving to modeling: The evolution of thinking about research on complex mathematical activity. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 501–518). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lester, F. K., Garofalo, J., & Kroll, D. (1989). The role of metacognition in mathematical problem solving: A study of two grade seven classes. Final report to the National Science Foundation, NSF Project No. MDR 85-50346. Bloomington: Indiana University, Mathematics Education Development Center.

Leung, A., & Bolite-Frant, J. (2015). Designing mathematical tasks: The role of tools. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education (pp. 191–225). New York: Springer.

Liljedahl, P. (2008). The AHA! experience: Mathematical contexts, pedagogical implications . Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.

Liljedahl, P., & Allan, D. (2014). Mathematical discovery. In E. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship . New York, NY: Springer.

Liljedahl, P., & Sriraman, B. (2006). Musings on mathematical creativity. For the Learning of Mathematics, 26 (1), 20–23.

Lompscher, J. (1975). Theoretische und experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung geistiger Fähigkeiten . Berlin: Volk und Wissen. 2. Auflage.

Lompscher, J. (1985). Die Lerntätigkeit als dominierende Tätigkeit des jüngeren Schulkindes. In L. Irrlitz, W. Jantos, E. Köster, H. Kühn, J. Lompscher, G. Matthes, & G. Witzlack (Eds.), Persönlichkeitsentwicklung in der Lerntätigkeit . Berlin: Volk und Wissen.

Mason, J., & Johnston-Wilder, S. (2006). Designing and using mathematical tasks . St. Albans: Tarquin Publications.

Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (1982). Thinking mathematically . Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Mayer, R. (1982). The psychology of mathematical problem solving. In F. K. Lester & J. Garofalo (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving: Issues in research (pp. 1–13). Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute Press.

Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34 (2), 365–394.

Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2003). The effects of metacognitive training versus worked-out examples on students’ mathematical reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 , 449–471.

Moreno-Armella, L., & Santos-Trigo, M. (2016). The use of digital technologies in mathematical practices: Reconciling traditional and emerging approaches. In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (3rd ed., pp. 595–616). New York: Taylor and Francis.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1980). An agenda for action . Reston, VA: NCTM.

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

Newman, J. (2000). The world of mathematics (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Dover Publishing.

Novick, L. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Educational Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 (3), 510–520.

Novick, L. (1990). Representational transfer in problem solving. Psychological Science, 1 (2), 128–132.

Novick, L. (1995). Some determinants of successful analogical transfer in the solution of algebra word problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 1 (1), 5–30.

Novick, L., & Holyoak, K. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17 (3), 398–415.

Pehkonen, E. K. (1991). Developments in the understanding of problem solving. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 23 (2), 46–50.

Pehkonen, E. (1997). The state-of-art in mathematical creativity. Analysis, 97 (3), 63–67.

Perels, F., Schmitz, B., & Bruder, R. (2005). Lernstrategien zur Förderung von mathematischer Problemlösekompetenz. In C. Artelt & B. Moschner (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognition. Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis (pp. 153–174). Waxmann education.

Perkins, D. (2000). Archimedes’ bathtub: The art of breakthrough thinking . New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Poincaré, H. (1952). Science and method . New York, NY: Dover Publications Inc.

Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve It . Princeton NJ: Princeton University.

Pólya, G. (1949). How to solve It . Princeton NJ: Princeton University.

Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pólya, G. (1964). Die Heuristik. Versuch einer vernünftigen Zielsetzung. Der Mathematikunterricht , X (1), 5–15.

Pólya, G. (1965). Mathematical discovery: On understanding, learning and teaching problem solving (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Wiley.

Resnick, L., & Glaser, R. (1976). Problem solving and intelligence. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 230–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rusbult, C. (2000). An introduction to design . http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/intro.htm#process . Accessed January 10, 2016.

Santos-Trigo, M. (2007). Mathematical problem solving: An evolving research and practice domain. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education , 39 (5, 6): 523–536.

Santos-Trigo, M. (2014). Problem solving in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 496–501). New York: Springer.

Schmidt, E., & Cohen, J. (2013). The new digital age. Reshaping the future of people nations and business . NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1979). Explicit heuristic training as a variable in problem-solving performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10 , 173–187.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1982). Some thoughts on problem-solving research and mathematics education. In F. K. Lester & J. Garofalo (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving: Issues in research (pp. 27–37). Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving . Orlando, Florida: Academic Press Inc.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (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 (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner . San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sewerin, H. (1979): Mathematische Schülerwettbewerbe: Beschreibungen, Analysen, Aufgaben, Trainingsmethoden mit Ergebnissen . Umfrage zum Bundeswettbewerb Mathematik. München: Manz.

Silver, E. (1982). Knowledge organization and mathematical problem solving. In F. K. Lester & J. Garofalo (Eds.), Mathematical problem solving: Issues in research (pp. 15–25). Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.

Singer, F., Ellerton, N., & Cai, J. (2013). Problem posing research in mathematics education: New questions and directions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83 (1), 9–26.

Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N. F., & Cai, J. (Eds.). (2015). Mathematical problem posing. From research to practice . NY: Springer.

Törner, G., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Reiss, K. M. (2007). Problem solving around the world: Summing up the state of the art. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39 (1), 5–6.

Verschaffel, L., de Corte, E., Lasure, S., van Vaerenbergh, G., Bogaerts, H., & Ratinckx, E. (1999). Learning to solve mathematical application problems: A design experiment with fifth graders. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1 (3), 195–229.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought . New York: Harcourt Brace.

Watson, A., & Ohtani, M. (2015). Themes and issues in mathematics education concerning task design: Editorial introduction. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education, an ICMI Study 22 (pp. 3–15). NY: Springer.

Zimmermann, B. (1983). Problemlösen als eine Leitidee für den Mathematikunterricht. Ein Bericht über neuere amerikanische Beiträge. Der Mathematikunterricht, 3 (1), 5–45.

Further Reading

Boaler, J. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex, and setting . Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.

Borwein, P., Liljedahl, P., & Zhai, H. (2014). Mathematicians on creativity. Mathematical Association of America.

Burton, L. (1984). Thinking things through . London, UK: Simon & Schuster Education.

Feynman, R. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out . Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Gardner, M. (1978). Aha! insight . New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Gardner, M. (1982). Aha! gotcha: Paradoxes to puzzle and delight . New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Glas, E. (2002). Klein’s model of mathematical creativity. Science & Education, 11 (1), 95–104.

Hersh, D. (1997). What is mathematics, really? . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Zeitz, P. (2006). The art and craft of problem solving . New York, NY: Willey.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

Peter Liljedahl

Mathematics Education Department, Cinvestav-IPN, Centre for Research and Advanced Studies, Mexico City, Mexico

Manuel Santos-Trigo

Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru

Uldarico Malaspina

Technical University Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

Regina Bruder

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Liljedahl .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license and any changes made are indicated.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included in the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or reproduce the material.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Liljedahl, P., Santos-Trigo, M., Malaspina, U., Bruder, R. (2016). Problem Solving in Mathematics Education. In: Problem Solving in Mathematics Education. ICME-13 Topical Surveys. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40730-2_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40730-2_1

Published : 28 June 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-40729-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-40730-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Math Careers

Search form

• MAA Centennial
• Spotlight: Archives of American Mathematics
• MAA Officers
• MAA to the Power of New
• Council and Committees
• MAA Code of Conduct
• Policy on Conflict of Interest
• Statement about Conflict of Interest
• Recording or Broadcasting of MAA Events
• Policy for Establishing Endowments and Funds
• Avoiding Implicit Bias
• Copyright Agreement
• Principal Investigator's Manual
• Our Partners
• Advertise with MAA
• Employment Opportunities
• Staff Directory
• 2022 Impact Report
• In Memoriam
• Membership Categories
• Membership Renewal
• MERCER Insurance
• MAA Member Directories
• New Member Benefits
• The American Mathematical Monthly
• Mathematics Magazine
• The College Mathematics Journal
• How to Cite
• Communications in Visual Mathematics
• About Convergence
• What's in Convergence?
• Convergence Articles
• Mathematical Treasures
• Portrait Gallery
• Paul R. Halmos Photograph Collection
• Other Images
• Critics Corner
• Problems from Another Time
• Conference Calendar
• Guidelines for Convergence Authors
• Math Horizons
• Submissions to MAA Periodicals
• Guide for Referees
• Scatterplot
• Math Values
• MAA Book Series
• MAA Press (an imprint of the AMS)
• MAA Library Recommendations
• Additional Sources for Math Book Reviews
• About MAA Reviews
• Mathematical Communication
• Information for Libraries
• Author Resources
• MAA MathFest
• Proposal and Abstract Deadlines
• MAA Policies
• Invited Paper Session Proposals
• Contributed Paper Session Proposals
• Panel, Poster, Town Hall, and Workshop Proposals
• Minicourse Proposals
• MAA Section Meetings
• Virtual Programming
• Joint Mathematics Meetings
• Calendar of Events
• MathFest Programs Archive
• MathFest Abstract Archive
• Historical Speakers
• Information for School Administrators
• Information for Students and Parents
• Registration
• Getting Started with the AMC
• AMC Policies
• AMC Administration Policies
• Important AMC Dates
• Competition Locations
• Invitational Competitions
• Putnam Competition Archive
• AMC International
• Curriculum Inspirations
• Sliffe Award
• MAA K-12 Benefits
• Mailing List Requests
• Statistics & Awards
• Submit an NSF Proposal with MAA
• MAA Distinguished Lecture Series
• Common Vision
• CUPM Curriculum Guide
• Instructional Practices Guide
• Möbius MAA Placement Test Suite
• META Math Webinar May 2020
• Progress through Calculus
• Survey and Reports
• "Camp" of Mathematical Queeries
• DMEG Awardees
• National Research Experience for Undergraduates Program (NREUP)
• Neff Outreach Fund Awardees
• Tensor SUMMA Grants
• Tensor Women & Mathematics Grants
• Grantee Highlight Stories
• "Best Practices" Statements
• CoMInDS Summer Workshop 2023
• MAA Travel Grants for Project ACCCESS
• 2024 Summer Workshops
• Minority Serving Institutions Leadership Summit
• Previous Workshops
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Course Resources
• Industrial Math Case Studies
• Participating Faculty
• 2020 PIC Math Student Showcase
• Previous PIC Math Workshops on Data Science
• Dates and Locations
• Past Programs
• Leadership Team
• Support Project NExT
• Section NExT
• Section Officers Meeting History
• Preparations for Section Meetings
• Bylaws Template
• Editor Lectures Program
• MAA Section Lecturer Series
• Officer Election Support
• Section Awards
• Section Liaison Programs
• Section Visitors Program
• Expense Reimbursement
• Guidelines for Bylaw Revisions
• Guidelines for Local Arrangement Chair and/or Committee
• Guidelines for Section Webmasters
• MAA Logo Guidelines
• MAA Section Email Policy
• Section Newsletter Guidelines
• Statement on Federal Tax ID and 501(c)3 Status
• Communication Support
• Guidelines for the Section Secretary and Treasurer
• Legal & Liability Support for Section Officers
• Section Marketing Services
• Section in a Box
• Subventions and Section Finances
• Web Services
• Joining a SIGMAA
• Forming a SIGMAA
• History of SIGMAA
• SIGMAA Officer Handbook
• MAA Connect
• Meetings and Conferences for Students
• Opportunities to Present
• Information and Resources
• MAA Undergraduate Student Poster Session
• Undergraduate Research Resources
• MathFest Student Paper Sessions
• Research Experiences for Undergraduates
• Student Poster Session FAQs
• High School
• A Graduate School Primer
• Reading List
• Student Chapters
• Awards Booklets
• Carl B. Allendoerfer Awards
• Regulations Governing the Association's Award of The Chauvenet Prize
• Trevor Evans Awards
• Paul R. Halmos - Lester R. Ford Awards
• Merten M. Hasse Prize
• George Pólya Awards
• David P. Robbins Prize
• Beckenbach Book Prize
• Euler Book Prize
• Daniel Solow Author’s Award
• Henry L. Alder Award
• Deborah and Franklin Tepper Haimo Award
• Certificate of Merit
• Gung and Hu Distinguished Service
• JPBM Communications Award
• Meritorious Service
• MAA Award for Inclusivity
• T. Christine Stevens Award
• Dolciani Award Guidelines
• Morgan Prize Information
• Selden Award Eligibility and Guidelines for Nomination
• Selden Award Nomination Form
• AMS-MAA-SIAM Gerald and Judith Porter Public Lecture
• Etta Zuber Falconer
• Hedrick Lectures
• James R. C. Leitzel Lecture
• Pólya Lecturer Information
• Putnam Competition Individual and Team Winners
• D. E. Shaw Group AMC 8 Awards & Certificates
• Maryam Mirzakhani AMC 10 A Awards & Certificates
• Two Sigma AMC 10 B Awards & Certificates
• Jane Street AMC 12 A Awards & Certificates
• Akamai AMC 12 B Awards & Certificates
• High School Teachers
• MAA Social Media

You are here

Problem-solving strategies in mathematics.

• From Amazon
• From the MAA Bookstore

temp hardcoded node--book.tpl.php

Alfred S. Posamentier and Stephen Krulik

• Table of Contents

This book is a guide and classroom resource that can also assist an independent student looking to broaden his or her problem-solving strategies. The level is appropriate for secondary education. The will serve both the student looking for a self-contained overview to take at any pace and the educator looking to interject fresh material into a lecture or lesson. Each of the ten strategies include contrasting solutions in a format meant to provide insight into the problem. Only elementary mathematics is used, as the goal is to improve the student’s procedure, not enlarge on mathematical techniques or even increase mathematical sophistication per se .

I feel the authors missed three opportunities: helpful duplication for contrasting, editing out unnecessarily similar examples, and including analytic geometry techniques appropriate for the target audience.

Some duplication can be helpful, such as the same problem in different chapters subjected to contrasting techniques. Within a chapter, problems that may not seem to the student to be analogous can be shown to be isomorphic for a technique. This is a missed opportunity here, however, in multiple places. Problems 4.8 and 4.15 in the chapter “Adopting a Different Point of View” are both solvable by the “Chicken McNugget Theorem.” This is clearly stated as the “exemplary solution” in the first case, while the second case urges listing possible combinations until one encounters an impossible value, which was the dismissed “common approach” in 4.8. The authors missed the chance to show that considering the least total score that cannot be obtained in 3- and 7-point football scores is identical to the problem in boxing chicken nuggets.

The ten techniques discussed are approached in this order: logical reasoning, pattern recognition (both of these have material I can use even for my college students), working backwards, point of view, extreme cases (I feel some hints to the concept of limits would improve this), analogous problems (featuring the non-standard “analgous” spelling), organizing data, visual representation, “accounting for all possibilities”, and “intelligent guessing and testing.”

Up to and including the extreme cases approach I feel the material is strong, well-organized, and lucidly enlightening for the target audience. In the extreme cases chapter, the reader is guided to solving the Monty Hall problem by considering not three doors, but the case of a thousand doors. Readers can easily understand the problem and I feel it would be an improvement to revisit this and other problems with contrasting techniques in other chapters.

The analogous problem section has much overlap with “Adopting A Different Point of View” and perhaps these chapters could have been merged. It is also at this point of the book that some weaker problems appear. Problem 6.7 begins “Given a randomly drawn pentagram…” and the Exemplary Solution begins “…since the pentagram was not specified as to shape or regularity, we could assume that it is a pentagram that is inscribed in a circle…” I would not encourage that chain of reasoning in my students!

I think this text is best used as an educator resource to present to students curated and altered selections to bolster coursework. This could even mean using the material to move student up Bloom’s taxonomy toward more active learning by asking them to compare and contrast the solutions given as well as developing their own, improved solutions, possibly using techniques from one chapter on problems stated in another.

Tom Schulte is by day a software architect for Plex Systems and by night teaches mathematics at Oakland Community College in Michigan.

• Logical Reasoning
• Pattern Recognition
• Working Backwards
• Adopting a Different Point of View
• Considering Extreme Cases
• Solving a Simpler Analgous Problem
• Organizing Data
• Making a Drawing or Visual Representation
• Accounting for All Possibilities
• Intelligent Guessing and Testing
• Log in to post comments

Dummy View - NOT TO BE DELETED

MAA Publications

• Periodicals
• MAA History
• Policies and Procedures
• Member Discount Programs
• Propose a Session
• MathFest Archive
• Putnam Competition
• AMC Resources
• Curriculum Resources
• Outreach Initiatives
• Professional Development
• Communities

Connect with MAA

Mathematical Association of America P: (800) 331-1622 F: (240) 396-5647 Email: [email protected]

Copyright © 2024

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Mobile Version

• Liberty University
• Jerry Falwell Library
• Special Collections
• < Previous

Home > ETD > Doctoral > 5880

Doctoral Dissertations and Projects

Examining the lived experiences of educators using different levels of support for teaching math to students with learning disabilities in math computation and problem-solving for teachers at public cyber charter high schools in the northeastern united states: a transcendental phenomenological study.

LeeAnn E. McCullough , Liberty University Follow

School of Education

Doctor of Philosophy in Education (PhD)

Mary Catherine Strickland

cognitive load theory, specific learning disability, math computation, math problem-solving, Sweller, learning theory

Disciplines

Mathematics | Special Education and Teaching

Recommended Citation

McCullough, LeeAnn E., "Examining the Lived Experiences of Educators Using Different Levels of Support for Teaching Math to Students with Learning Disabilities in Math Computation and Problem-Solving for Teachers at Public Cyber Charter High Schools in the Northeastern United States: A Transcendental Phenomenological Study" (2024). Doctoral Dissertations and Projects . 5880. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5880

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to describe the lived experiences of educators using different levels of support for teaching math to students with learning disabilities in math computation and problem-solving for teachers at public cyber charter high schools in the Northeastern United States. The theory guiding this study was Sweller’s cognitive load theory, as it explained the learning process of students with learning disabilities and how educators developed instructional methods that complement the learner’s needs. The central research question was, “What is the lived experience of 9-12th-grade mathematics teachers in supporting students with differing learning abilities in math computation and problem-solving?” This study design was based on the transcendental phenomenological methodology of Moustakas (1994). The participants included 12 high school cyber teachers of general and special education students with specific learning disabilities in math computation and math problem-solving. Data were gathered through a journal prompt, individual interviews, and focus groups. The data analysis identified trends in the data and highlighted the successes and failures of various approaches used in the classroom. Three themes emerged from the study: enhanced engagement and learning environment, cognitive load and assessment strategies, and supportive and inclusive instructional practices. This study uncovered educators' lived experiences using personalized instructional strategies, interactive and adaptive technology, and instructional design approaches to reduce learners’ cognitive load. This research provided insights into high school educators' experiences using these methods of teaching math in cyber classrooms to students with disabilities.

Since August 09, 2024

Included in

Mathematics Commons , Special Education and Teaching Commons

• Collections
• Faculty Expert Gallery
• Theses and Dissertations
• Conferences and Events
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Explore Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS .

Faculty Authors

• Submit Research
• Expert Gallery Login

Student Authors

• Undergraduate Submissions
• Graduate Submissions
• Honors Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Skip to Content

Current Students

Interested in more? Search Courses

• Search Input Submit Search

DU Professor Helps Solve Famous 70-Year-Old Math Problem

Jordyn reiland.

[email protected]

Assistant Professor Mandi Schaeffer Fry is the first faculty member to be published in the Annals of Mathematics since the 1880s.

University of Kaiserslautern Professor Gunter Malle, University of Denver Assistant Professor Mandi Schaeffer Fry and University of Valencia Professor Gabriel Navarro pose for a photo after announcing their theorem in Oberwolfach, Germany.

Whether it be flying trapeze, participating in competitive weightlifting or solving math problems that have confounded academics for decades, Mandi Schaeffer Fry enjoys chasing the next adventure.

Schaeffer Fry, who joined the University of Denver’s Department of Mathematics in the fall of 2023, will be the first faculty member since the 1880s to be published in the Annals of Mathematics , widely seen as the industry’s most prestigious journal.

In 2022, Schaeffer Fry helped complete a problem that dates to 1955—mathematician Richard Brauer’s Height Zero Conjecture.

“Maybe one of the most challenging parts, other than the math itself, was the knowledge of the weight that this would have on the field,” Schaeffer Fry says. “If you’re going to make an announcement like this, you have to be darn sure that it’s absolutely correct.”

Over the years, number crunchers have worked on the problem at universities across the globe, and some found partial solutions; however, the problem was not completed until now.

“Mandi’s accomplishment is exciting. Solving Brauer's Height Zero Conjecture is remarkable,” Mathematics Department Chair Alvaro Arias says. 

The work is also a testament to DU’s achievement as a Research 1 (R1) institution.

Fry and her collaborators—University of Kaiserslautern Professor Gunter Malle, University of Valencia Professor Gabriel Navarro and Rutgers University Professor Pham Huu Tiep—worked around the clock over the course of three months in eight-hour shifts during the summer of 2022 to find a solution.

In April, that work was accepted for publication in the Annals of Mathematics.

'Brauer's Height Zero Conjecture (BHZ) was the first conjecture leading to the part of my field studying 'local-global' problems in the representation theory of finite groups, which seek to relate properties of groups with properties of certain nice smaller subgroups, letting us 'zoom in' on the group using just a specific prime number and simplify things," Schaeffer Fry says. 

"The BHZ gives us a way to tell from the character table of a group (a table of data that encodes lots, but not all, information about the group) whether or not certain of these subgroups, called defect groups, have the commutativity property," she adds.

This paper was especially meaningful to Schaeffer Fry as she had always wanted to work with Malle, Tiep and Navarro as they have been her primary mentors. Tiep was her PhD advisor and this was the first time they had worked together since then.

Fry believes she has solidified her place in the field and knows she’ll likely never top this accomplishment, but she’s always looking for the next adventure—whether that’s in or out of the classroom.

Flying high and pumping iron

When Schaeffer Fry isn’t on DU’s campus working with students or conducting research, you can find her flying trapeze and competitive weightlifting.

Schaeffer Fry became involved in competitive weightlifting during graduate school, and, in the last year of her PhD at the University of Arizona, she defended her dissertation one day and got on a plane and competed at the national level for “university-aged” athletes—which included Olympians.

While she now lifts weights more casually, Schaeffer Fry competed last September in an over-35 competition and qualified for the USA Weightlifting Masters National Championships.

It was a “field trip” during a conference in Berkeley, California, in 2018 that led Fry to become enamored with flying trapeze.

In fact, she enjoyed it so much she signed up to be a member of Imperial Flyers, an amateur flying trapeze cooperative located in Westminster. Once she found out about the sport, her previous experience as a gymnast made it a natural fit.

Not only is she working on her own intermediate tricks, she’s also a “teaching assistant” at Fly Mile High, the state’s only flying trapeze and aerial fitness school.

“It’s exhilarating; it’s gotten me a bit over my fear of heights,” she says.

Related Articles

A Geology Expert’s Guide to Colorado’s Coolest Rock Formations

Research to Watch

Storytelling, Shaving Cream and Slime: Why Students Love Professor Nancy Sasaki

*BRAND NEW* Self-paced Introduction to Counting & Probability.   Enroll   today!

Something appears to not have loaded correctly.

Click to refresh .