Logo for FHSU Digital Press

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

Problem Solving

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.

Needlepoint of cats

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

Back of a needlepoint

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

Teacher teaching a math lesson

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?

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

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

Light bulb

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

Making Sense of Mathematics

Making Sense of Mathematics

Teaching Mathematics through Problem Solving- An Upside-Down Approach

By inviting children to solve problems in their own ways, we are initiating them into the community of mathematicians who engage in structuring and modeling their “lived worlds” mathematically.

 Fosnot and Jacob, 2007

Teaching mathematics through problem solving requires you to think about the types of tasks you pose to students, how you facilitate discourse in your classroom, and how you support students use of a variety of representations as tools for problem solving, reasoning, and communication.

This is a different approach from “do-as-I-show-you” approach where the teacher shows all the mathematics, demonstrates strategies to solve a problem, and then students just have to practice that exact same skill/strategy, perhaps using a similar problem.

Teaching mathematics through problem solving means that students solve problems to learn new mathematics through real contexts, problems, situations, and strategies and models that allow them to build concept and make connections on their own.

The main difference between the traditional approach “I-do-you-do” and teaching through problem solving, is that the problem is presented at the beginning of the lesson, and the skills, strategies and ideas emerge when students are working on the problem. The teacher listens to students’ responses and examine their work, determining the moment to extend students’ thinking and providing targeted feedback.

Here are the 4 essential moves in a math lesson using a student-centered approach or problem-solving approach:

  • Number Talk (5-8 min) (Connection)

The mini-lesson starts with a Number Talk. The main purpose of a Number Talk is:

*to build number sense, and 

*to provide opportunities for students to explain their thinking and respond to the mathematical thinking of others.

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

Please refer to the document Int§roducing Number Talks . Or watch this video with Sherry Parrish to gain understanding about how Number Talks can build fluency with your students.

Here are some videos of Number Talks so you can observe some of the main teaching moves.

The role of the teacher during a number talk is crucial. He/she needs to listen carefully to the way student is explaining his/her reasoning, then use a visual representation of what the student said. Other students also share their strategies, and the teacher represents those strategies as well. Students then can visualize a variety of strategies to solve a problem. They learn how to use numbers flexibly, there is not just one way to solve a problem. When students have a variety if strategies in their math tool box, they can solve any problem, they can make connections with mathematical concepts.

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

There are a variety of resources that can be used for Math Talks. Note : the main difference between Number Talks and Math Talks, is that one allows students to use numbers flexibly leading them to fluency, develop number sense, and opportunities to communicate and reason with mathematics; the other allows for communicating and reasoning, building arguments to critique the reasoning of others, the use of logical thinking, and the ability to recognize different attributes to shapes and other figures and make sense of the mathematics involved.

  • 2. Using problems to teach (5-8 min) Mini Lesson

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

Problems that can serve as effective tasks or activities for students to solve have common features. Use the following points as a guide to assess if the problem/task has the potential to be a genuine problem:

*Problem should be appropriate to their current understanding, and yet still find it challenging and interesting.

*The main focus of the problem should allow students to do the mathematics they need to learn, the emphasis should be on making sense of the problem, and developing the understanding of the mathematics. Any context should not overshadow the mathematics to be learned.

*Problems must require justification, students explain why their solution makes sense. It is not enough when the teacher tells them their answer is correct.

*Ideally, a problem/task should have multiple entries. For example “find 3 factors whose product is 108”, instead of just “multiplying 3 numbers. “

The most important part of the mini-lesson is to avoid teaching tricks or shortcuts, or plain algorithms. Our goal is always to help guide students to understand why the math works (conceptual understanding). And most importantly how different mathematical concepts/ideas are connected! “Math is a connected subject”  Jo Boaler’s video

“Students can learn mathematics through exploring and solving contextual and mathematical problems vs. students can learn to apply mathematics only after they have mastered the basic skills.” By Steve Leinwand author of Principles to Action .

  • 3. Active Engagement (20-30 min)

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

This is the opportunity for students to work with partners or independently on the problem, making connections of what they know, and trying to use the strategy that makes sense to them. Always making sure to represent the problem with a visual representation. It can be any model that helps student understand what the problem is about.

The job of the teacher during this time, is to walk around asking questions to students to guide them in the right direction, but without telling too much. Allowing students to come up with their own solutions and justifications.

  • Teacher can clarify any questions around the problem, not the solution.
  • Teacher emphasizes reasoning to make sense of the problem/task.
  • Teacher encourages student-student dialogue to help build a sense of self.

Some lessons will include a rich task, or a project based learning, or a number problem (find 3 numbers whose product is 108). There are a variety of learning target tasks to choose from, for each grade level on the Assessment Live Binders website created by Erma Anderson and Project AERO.

Again, keep in mind that some lessons will follow a different structure depending on the learning target for that day. Regardless of instructional design, the teacher should not be doing the thinking, reasoning, and connection building; it must be the students who are engaged in these activities

  • 4. Share (8-12 min) (Link)

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

The most crucial part of the lesson is here. This is where the teaching/learning happens, not only learning from teacher, but learning from peers reaching their unique “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978).

We bring back our students to share how they solved their problem. Sometimes they share with a partner first, to make sure they are using the right vocabulary, and to make sure they make sense of their answer. Then a few of them can share with the rest of the class. But sharing with a partner first is helpful so everyone has the opportunity to share.

“Talk to each other and the teacher about ideas – Why did I choose this method? Does it work in other cases? How is the method similar or different to methods other people used?” Jo Boaler’s article “How Students Should Be Taught Mathematics.”

Students make sense of their solution. The teacher listens and makes connections between different strategies that students are sharing. Teacher paraphrases the strategy student described, perhaps linking it with an efficient strategy.

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

“It is a misperception that student-centered classrooms don’t include any lecturing. At times it’s essential the teacher share his or her expertise with the larger group. Students could drive the discussion and the teacher guides and facilitates the learning.” Trevor MacKenzie

If the target for today’s lesson was to introduce the use a number line, for example, this is where the teacher will share that strategy as another possible way to solve today’s problem!

This could also be a good time for any formative assessment, using See Saw, using exit slips, or any kind of evidence of what they learned today.

References.

“Teaching Student-Centered Mathematics” Table 2.1 page 26 , Van de Walle, Karp, Lovin, Bay-Williams

“Number Talks” , Sherry Parrish

“How Students Should be Taught Mathematics: Reflections from Research and Practice” Jo Boaler

“Erma Anderson, Project AERO Assessments live binders

“Principles to Action” , Steve Leinwand

“ Turning Teaching Upside Down “, by Cathy Seeley

“Four Inquiry Qualities At The Heart of Student-Centered Teaching”

By Trevor MacKenzie

“The Zone of Proximal Development” Vygotsky, 1978

*** Here is a link to my favorite places to plan Math padlet, you will find a variety of resources, videos, articles, etc. By Caty Romero

***One more padlet for many resources to plan, teach, and assess mathematics that make sense: Making Sense of Mathematics Padlet.

Share this:

  • learning math
  • making sense of math
  • number sense

' src=

Published by Caty Romero - Math Specialist

Passionate about learning and making sense of mathematics. Teacher, Math Learning Specialist, K-8 Math Consultant, and Instructional Coach. Student-Centered-Learning is my approach! Contact me at [email protected] or follow me on Twitter @catyrmath View all posts by Caty Romero - Math Specialist

Leave a comment Cancel reply

' src=

  • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
  • Subscribe Subscribed
  • Copy shortlink
  • Report this content
  • View post in Reader
  • Manage subscriptions
  • Collapse this bar
  • Open access
  • Published: 19 December 2019

Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM education

  • Yeping Li 1 &
  • Alan H. Schoenfeld 2  

International Journal of STEM Education volume  6 , Article number:  44 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

104k Accesses

76 Citations

13 Altmetric

Metrics details

Mathematics is fundamental for many professions, especially science, technology, and engineering. Yet, mathematics is often perceived as difficult and many students leave disciplines in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as a result, closing doors to scientific, engineering, and technological careers. In this editorial, we argue that how mathematics is traditionally viewed as “given” or “fixed” for students’ expected acquisition alienates many students and needs to be problematized. We propose an alternative approach to changes in mathematics education and show how the alternative also applies to STEM education.

Introduction

Mathematics is commonly perceived to be difficult (e.g., Fritz et al. 2019 ). Moreover, many believe “it is ok—not everyone can be good at math” (Rattan et al. 2012 ). With such perceptions, many students stop studying mathematics soon after it is no longer required of them. Giving up learning mathematics may seem acceptable to those who see mathematics as “optional,” but it is deeply problematic for society as a whole. Mathematics is a gateway to many scientific and technological fields. Leaving it limits students’ opportunities to learn a range of important subjects, thus limiting their future job opportunities and depriving society of a potential pool of quantitatively literate citizens. This situation needs to be changed, especially as we prepare students for the continuously increasing demand for quantitative and computational literacy over the twenty-first century (e.g., Committee on STEM Education 2018 ).

The goal of this editorial is to re-frame issues of change in mathematics education, with connections to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. We are hardly the first to call for such changes; the history of mathematics and philosophy has seen ongoing changes in conceptualization of the discipline, and there have been numerous changes in the past century alone (Schoenfeld 2001 ). Yet changes in practice of how mathematics is viewed, taught, and learned have fallen far short of espoused aspirations. While there has been an increased focus on the processes and practices of mathematics (e.g., problem solving) over the past half century, the vast majority of the emphasis is still on what content should be presented to students. It is thus not surprising that significant progress has not been made.

We propose a two-fold reframing. The first shift is to re-emphasize the nature of mathematics—indeed, all of STEM—as a sense-making activity. Mathematics is typically conceptualized and presented as a body of content to be learned and processes to be engaged in, which can be seen in both the NCTM Standards volumes and the Common Core Standards. Alternatively, we believe that all of the mathematics studied in K-12 can be viewed as the codification of experiences of both making sense and sense making through various practices including problem solving, reasoning, communicating, and mathematical modeling, and that students can and should experience it that way. Indeed, much of the inductive part of mathematics has been lost, and the deductive part is often presented as rote procedures rather than a form of sense making. If we arrange for students to have the right experiences, the formal mathematics can serve to organize and systematize those experiences.

The second shift is suggested by the first, with specific attention to classroom instruction. Whether mathematics or STEM, the main focus of most instruction has been on the content and practices of the discipline, and what the teacher should do in order to make it accessible to students. Instead, we urge that the main focus should be on the student’s experience of the discipline – on the affordances the environment provides the student for disciplinary sense making. We will introduce the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) Framework, which can be used to problematize instruction and guide needed reframing. The first dimension of TRU (The Discipline) focuses on the re-framing discussed above: is the content conceptualized as something rich and connected that can be experienced and codified in meaningful ways? The second dimension (Cognitive Demand) examines opportunities students have to do that kind of sense-making and codification. The third (Equitable Access to Content) examines who has such opportunities: is there equitable access to the core ideas? Dimension 4 (Agency, Ownership, and Identity) asks, do students encounter the discipline in ways that enable them to see themselves as sense makers, building both agency and positive disciplinary identities? Finally, dimension 5 (Formative Assessment) asks, does instruction routinely use formative assessment, allowing student thinking to become public so that instruction can be adjusted accordingly?

We begin with a historical background, briefly discussing different views regarding the nature of mathematics. We then problematize traditional approaches to mathematics teaching and learning. Finally, we discuss possible changes in the context of STEM education.

Knowing the background: the development of conceptions about the nature of mathematics

The scholarly understanding of the nature of mathematics has evolved over its long history (e.g., Devlin 2012 ; Dossey 1992 ). Explicit discussions regarding the nature of mathematics took place among Greek mathematicians from 500 BC to 300 AD (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mathematics ). In contrast to the primarily utilitarian approaches that preceded them, the Greeks pioneered the study of mathematics for its own sake and pursued the development and use of generalized mathematical theories and proofs, especially in geometry and measurement (Boyer 1991 ). Different perspectives about the nature of mathematics were gradually developed during that time. Plato perceived the study of mathematics as pursuing the truth that exists in external world beyond people’s mind. Mathematics was treated as a body of knowledge, in the ideal forms, that exists on its own, which human’s mind may or may not sense. Aristotle, Plato’s student, believed that mathematicians constructed mathematical ideas as a result of the idealization of their experience with objects (Dossey 1992 ). In this perspective, Aristotle emphasized logical reasoning and empirical realization of mathematical objects that are accessible to the human senses. The two schools of thought that evolved from Plato’s and Aristotle’s contrasting conceptions of the nature of mathematics have had important implications for the ensuing development of mathematics as a discipline, and for mathematics education.

Several more schools of thought were developed as mathematicians tackled new problems in mathematics (Dossey 1992 ). Davis and Hersh ( 1980 ) provides an entertaining and informative account of these developments. Three major schools of thought in the early 1900s dealt with paradoxes in the real number system and the theory of sets: (1) logicism, as an outgrowth of the Platonic school, accepts the external existence of mathematics and emphasizes the form rather than the interpretation in a specific setting; (2) intuitionism, as influenced by Aristotle’s ideas, only accepts the mathematics to be developed from the natural numbers forward via “valid” patterns of mental reasoning (not empirical realization in Aristotle’s thought); and (3) formalism, also aligned with Aristotle’s ideas, builds mathematics upon the formal axiomatic structures to free mathematics from contradictions. These three schools of thought are similar in that they view the contents of mathematics as products , but they differ in whether products are viewed as pre-existing or created through experience. The development of these three schools of thought illustrates that the view of mathematics as products has its long history in mathematics.

With the gradual development of school mathematics since 1900s (Stanic and Kilpatrick 1992 ), the conception of the nature of mathematics has increasingly received attention from mathematics educators. Which notion of mathematics mathematics education adopts and uses has a direct and strong impact on the way of school mathematics being presented and approached in education. Although the history of school mathematics is relatively short in comparison with mathematics itself, we can find ample examples about the influence of different views of mathematics on curriculum and classroom instruction in the USA and other education systems (e.g., Dossey et al. 2016 ; Li and Lappan 2014 ; Li, Silver, and Li 2014 ; Stanic and Kilpatrick 1992 ). For instance, the “New Math” movement of 1950s and 1960s used the formalism school of thought as the core of reform efforts. The content was presented in a structural format, using the set theoretic language and conceptions. But the result was not a successful progression toward a school mathematics that is best for students and teachers (e.g., Kline 1973 ). Alternatively, Dossey ( 1992 ), in his review of the nature of mathematics, identified and selected scholars’ works and ideas applicable to both professional mathematicians and mathematics educators (e.g., Davis and Hersh 1980 ; Hersh 1986 ; Tymoczko 1986 ). Those scholars' ideas rested on what professional mathematicians do, not what mathematicians think about what mathematics is. Dossey ( 1992 ) specifically cited Hersh ( 1986 ) to emphasize mathematics is about ideas and should be accepted as a human activity, not strictly governed by any one school of thought.

Devlin ( 2000 ) argued that mathematics is not a single entity but has four different faces: (1) computation, formal reasoning, and problem solving; (2) a way of knowing; (3) a creative medium; and (4) applications. Further, he contended school mathematics typically focuses on the first face, makes some reference to the fourth face, but pays almost no attention to the other two faces. His conception of mathematics assembles ideas from the history of mathematics and observes mathematical activities occurring across different settings.

Our brief review shows that the nature of mathematics can be understood as having different faces, rather than being governed by any single school of thought. At the same time, the ideas of Plato and Aristotle continue to influence the ways that mathematicians, mathematics educators, and the general public perceive mathematics. Despite nearly a half century of process-oriented research (see below), let alone Pólya’s work on problem solving, mathematics is still perceived of largely as products —a body of knowledge as highlighted in the three schools (logicist, intuitionist, formalist) of thought, rather than ideas that call for active thinking and creation. The evolving conceptions about the nature of mathematics in history suggests there is room for us to decide how mathematics can be perceived, rather than being bounded by a pre-occupied notion of mathematics as “given” or “fixed.” Each and every learner can experience mathematics through different practices and “own” mathematics as a human activity.

Problematizing what is important for students to learn in and through mathematics

The evolving conceptions about the nature of mathematics suggest that choices exist when deciding what and how to teach and learn mathematics but they do not specify what and how to make the choice. Decisions require articulating options for conceptions of what is important for students to learn in and through mathematics and evaluating the advantages and drawbacks for the students for each option.

According to Stanic and Kilpatrick ( 1992 ), the history of school mathematics curricula presents two important and real changes over the years: one is at the turn of the twentieth century when school mathematics was reformed as a unified and applied curriculum to accommodate dramatically increased student populations from diverse backgrounds, and the other is the “New Math” movement of the 1950s and 1960s, intended to integrate modern mathematics into school curriculum. The perceived failure of the “New Math” movement led to the “Back to Basics” movement in the 1970s, followed by “Problem Solving” in the 1980s, and then the Curriculum Standards movement in the 1990s and after. The history shows school mathematics curricula have emphasized teaching and learning mathematical knowledge and skills, together with problem solving and some applications of mathematics, a picture that is consistent with what Devlin ( 2000 ) refers to as the 1st face and some reference to the 4th face of mathematics.

Therefore, although there have been reforms in mathematics curriculum and instruction, there are hardly real changes in how mathematics is conceptualized and presented in school education in the USA (Stanic and Kilpatrick 1992 ) and other education systems (e.g., Leung and Li 2010 ; Li and Lappan 2014 ). The dominant conception remains mathematics as products , frequently referring to a body of static knowledge and skills that need to be learned and acquired (Fisher 1990 ). This continues to be largely the case in practice, despite advances in conceptualization (see below).

It should be noted that conceptualizing mathematics as “a body of knowledge and skills” is not wrong, especially with such a long history of knowledge creation and accumulation in mathematics, but it is not adequate for school mathematics nowadays. The set of concepts and procedures, after years of development, exceeds what could be covered in any school curricula. Moreover, this body of knowledge and skills keeps growing, as the product of human intelligence and scholarship in mathematics. Devlin ( 2012 ) pointed out that school mathematics mainly covers what was developed in the Greek mathematics, plus just two further advances from the seventh century: calculus and probability theory. It is no wonder if someone questions the value of learning such a small set of knowledge and skills developed more than a thousand years ago. Meanwhile, this body of knowledge and skills are often abstract, static, and “foreign” to many students and teachers who learned to perceive mathematics as an external entity in existence (Plato’s notion) rather than Aristotelian emphasis on experimentation (Cooney 1987 ). It is thus not surprising for so many students and teachers to claim that mathematics is difficult (e.g., Fritz et al. 2019 ) and “it is ok—not everyone can be good at math” (Rattan et al. 2012 ).

What can be made meaningful should be critically important to those who want to (or need to) learn and teach mathematics. In fact, there is significant evidence that students often try to make sense of mathematics that is “presented” or “given” to them, although they made numerous errors that can be decoded to study their thinking (e.g., Ashlock 2010 ). Indeed, misconceptions are best thought of not as errors that need to be “fixed,” but as plausible abstractions on the basis of what students have learned—i.e., attempts at sense-making (Smith et al. 1993 ). Conceiving mathematics as about “ideas,” we can help students to play, own, experience, and think about some key ideas just like what they do in many other activities, such as game play (Gee 2005 ). Definitions of concepts and formal languages and procedures can be postponed until students are ready to consider why and how they are needed. Mathematics should be taken and accepted as a human activity (Dossey 1992 ), and developing students’ mathematical thinking (about ideas) should be emphasized in learning mathematics itself (Devlin 2012 ) and in STEM (Li et al. 2019a ).

Along with the shift from products to ideas in mathematics, scholars have already focused on how people work with ideas in mathematics. Elaborated in detail by Schoenfeld ( in press ), the revolution began with George Pólya (1887–1985) who had a fundamental interest in having students learn and understand content via problem solving. For Pólya, mathematics was about inquiry, sense making, and understanding how and why mathematical ideas (instead of content as products) fit together the way they do. The call for problem solving in the 1980s in the USA was (at least partially) inspired by Pólya’s ideas after a decade of “back to basics” in the 1970s. It has been recognized since that the practices of mathematics (including problem solving) are every bit as important as the content itself, and the two shouldn’t be separated. In the follow-up standards movement, the content and practices have been the “warp and weave” of the fabric doing mathematics, as articulated in Principles and Standards for School Standards (NCTM 2000 ). There were five content standards and five process standards (i.e., problem solving, reasoning, connecting, communicating, representing). It is widely acknowledged, also in the Common Core State Standards in the USA (CCSSI 2010 ), that both content and processes/practices are essential and they form the base for next steps.

Problematizing how mathematics is taught and learned, with connections to STEM education

How the ways that mathematics is often taught cause concerns.

Conceiving mathematics as a body of facts and procedures to be “mastered” has been long-standing in mathematics education practice, and it often results in students’ learning by rote memorization. For example, Schoenfeld ( 1988 ) provided a detailed account of the disasters of a “well-taught” mathematics course, documenting a 10th-grade geometry class taught by a confident and experienced teacher. The teacher taught and managed his class well, and his students also did well on standardized examinations, which focused on content and procedures. At the same time, however, Schoenfeld pointed out that the students developed counterproductive views of mathematics. Although the students developed some level of proficiency in content and procedures, they gained (or were reinforced in) the kinds of beliefs about mathematics as being fragmented and disconnected. Schoenfeld argued that the course led students to develop a robust and counterproductive set of beliefs about the nature of geometry.

Seeking possible origins about students’ counterproductive beliefs about mathematics from mathematics instruction motivated Schoenfeld’s study (Schoenfeld 1988 ). Such an intuitive motivation is also evident in other studies. Keitel ( 2006 ) compared the lessons of two teachers (T1 and T2) in Germany who taught their classes very differently. T1 regularly taught the class emphasizing routine individual practice and memorization of specific algebraic rules. T1 emphasized the importance of such practices for test taking, and the students followed his instruction. Even when T1 one day introduced a non-routine problem that connects algebra and geometry, the overwhelming emphasis on mastering routines and algorithms seemed to overshadow in dealing such a non-routine problem. In contrast, T2’s teaching emphasized students’ initiatives and collaboration, although T2 also used formal routine tasks. At the end, students in T2’s class reported positively about their experience, enjoyed working together, and appreciated the opportunities of thinking mathematically. Studies by Schoenfeld ( 1988 ) and Keitel ( 2006 ) indicate how students’ experience in mathematics classes influences their perceptions of mathematics and also imply the importance of learning about teachers’ perceptions of mathematics that likely guide their instructional practice (Cooney 1987 ).

Rattan et al. ( 2012 ) found that teachers with different perceptions of mathematics teach differently. Specifically, Rattan et al. looked at these teachers holding an entity (fixed) theory of mathematics intelligence (G1) versus incremental theory (G2). Through their studies, Rattan and colleagues found that G1 teachers more readily judged students to have low ability, comforted students for low mathematical ability, and used “kind” strategies (e.g., assigning less homework) unlikely to promote their engagement with the field than G2 teachers. Students who received comfort-oriented feedback perceived their teachers’ entity theory and low expectations and reported lowered motivation and expectations for their own performance. The results suggest how teachers’ inadequate perceptions of mathematics and beliefs about the nature of students’ mathematical intelligence contributed to low achievement, diminished self-esteem and viewed mathematics is only a set of static facts and procedures. Further, the results suggest that how mathematics is taught influences more than students’ proficiency with mathematics content in a class. Sun ( 2018 ) made a similar argument after synthesizing existing literature and analyzing classroom observation data.

Based on the 2012 US national survey of science and mathematics education conducted by Horizon Research, Banilower et al. ( 2013 ) reported that a vast majority of mathematics teachers, from 81% at the high school level to 90% at the elementary level, believe that students should be given definitions of new vocabulary at the beginning of instruction on a mathematical idea. Also, many teachers believe that they should explain an idea to students before having them consider evidence for it and that hands-on activities should be used primarily to reinforce ideas students have already learned. The report suggests many teachers emphasized pedagogical practices of “give” and “present,” perhaps influenced by conceptions of mathematics that are more Platonic than Aristotelian, similar to what was reported about teachers’ practices more than two decades ago (Cooney 1987 ).

How to change?

Given that the evidence demonstrates a compelling case for changing how mathematics is taught, we turn our attention to suggesting how to realize this transformation. Changing how mathematics is taught and learned is not a new endeavor for both mathematics educators and mathematicians (e.g., Li, Silver, and Li 2014 ; Schoenfeld in press ). For example, the “Moore Method,” developed and used by Robert Lee Moore (a famous topologist) in the early twentieth century, shifted instruction from teacher-centered lecturing to student-centered mathematical development (Coppin et al. 2009 ). In its purest form, students were presented with mathematical definitions and asked to develop and/or prove theorems from them after class, without reading mathematics books or using other resources. When students returned to the class, they were asked to prove a theorem. As a result, students developed the mathematics themselves, instead of the instructor presenting the proofs and doing the mathematics for students. The method has had its own success in producing many great mathematicians; however, the high-pressure environment also drowned many students who might have been successful otherwise (Schoenfeld in press ).

Although the “Moore Method” was used primarily in advanced mathematics courses at the post-secondary level, it illustrates how a different conception of mathematics led to a different instructional approach in which students developed mathematics. However, it might be the opposite end of a spectrum, in comparison to approaches that present mathematics to students in accommodating and easy-to-digest ways that can be as much easy as possible. Neither extreme is a good option for K-12 students. Again, it becomes important for us to consider options that can support the value of learning mathematics.

Our discussion in the previous section highlights the importance of taking mathematics as a human activity, ensuring it is meaningful to students, and developing students’ mathematical thinking about ideas, rather than simply absorbing a set of static and disconnected knowledge and skills. We call for a shift in teaching mathematics based on Platonic conceptions to approaches based on more of Aristotelian conceptions. In essence, Plato emphasized ideal forms of mathematical objects, perhaps inaccessible through people’s sense making efforts. As a result, learners lack ownership of the ideal forms of mathematical objects, because mathematical objects cannot and should not be created by human reasoning. In contrast, Aristotle emphasized that mathematical objects are developed through logic reasoning and empirical realization. In other words, mathematical objects exist only when they can be sensed and verified by people's efforts. This differs from Plato’s passive perspective, highlights human ownership of mathematical ideas and encourages people to make mathematics make sense, termed as making sense by McCallum ( 2018 ). Aristotelian conceptions view mathematics as objects that learners can actively develop and structure as mathematically meaningful, which is more in line with what research mathematicians do. McCallum ( 2018 ) argued that both sense-making and making-sense stances are needed for a complete view of mathematics and learning, recognizing that not attending to both stances carries risks. “Just as it is a risk of the sense-making stance that the mathematics gets ignored, it is a risk of the making-sense stance that the sense-maker gets ignored.” (McCallum 2018 ).

In addition, there is the issue of personal identity: if students come to avoid mathematics because they are uncomfortable with it (in fact, mathematics anxiety has become a widespread problem for all ages across the globe, see Luttenberger et al. 2018 ) then mathematics instruction has failed them, regardless of test scores.

In the following, we discuss sense-making and making-sense stances first with specific examples from mathematics. Then, we discuss connections to STEM education.

Sense making is much more than the acquisition of knowledge and skills

Sense making has long been emphasized in mathematics education community. William A. Brownell is a well-known, early 20 th century scholar who advocated the value of sense making in the learning of mathematics. For example, Brownell ( 1945 ) discussed how arithmetic can and should be taught and learned not only as procedures, but also as a meaningful system of thinking. He shared many examples like the following division,

Brownell suggested to ask questions: what does the 5 of 576 mean? Why must 57 be the first partial dividend? Do you actually divide 8 into 57, or into 57…’s? etc., instead of simply letting students memorize how to carry out the procedure. What Brownell advocated has been commonly accepted and emphasized in mathematics education nowadays as sense making (e.g., Schoenfeld 1992 ).

There can be different ways of sense making of the same computation. As an example, the sense making process for the above long division can come out with mental math as: I am looking to see how close I can get to 570 with multiples of 80; 7 multiples of 80 gives me 560, which is close. Of course, given base 10 notation, that’s the same as 8 multiples of 70, which is why the 7 goes over the 57. And when I subtract 560, there are 16 left over, so that’s another 2 8 s. Such a sense-making process also works, as finding the answer (quotient, k ) of 576 ÷ 8 is the same operation as to find k that satisfies 576 = k × 8. In mathematics, division and multiplication are alternate but equivalent ways of doing the same operation.

To help students build numerical reasoning and make sense of computations, many teachers use number talks in their classrooms for students to practice and share these mental math and computation strategies (e.g., Parrish 2011 ). In fact, new terms are being created and used in mathematics education about sense making, such as number sense (e.g., Sowder 1992 ) and symbol sense (Arcavi, 1994 ). Some instructional programs, such as Cognitively Guided Instruction (see, e.g., Carpenter et al., 1997 , 1998 ), make sense making the core of instructional activities. We argue that such activities should be more widely adopted.

Making sense makes the other side of mathematical practice visible, and values idea development and ownership

The making-sense stance, as termed by McCallum ( 2018 ), is not commonly practiced as it is pertinent to expert mathematician’s practices. Where sense making (as discussed previously) emphasizes the process of making sense of what is being learned, making sense emphasizes the process of making mathematics make sense. Making sense highlights the importance for students to experience mathematics through creating, designing, developing, and connecting mathematical ideas. As an example, for the above division computation, 8 \( \overline{\Big)576\ } \) , students may wonder why the division procedure is performed from left to right, which is different from the other operations (addition, subtraction, and multiplication) that are all performed from right to left. In fact, students can be encouraged to explore if the division can also be performed from right to left (i.e., starting from the one’s place). They may discover, with possible support from the teacher, that the division can be done in this way. However, once the division is moved to the high-value places, it will require the process to go back down to the low-value places for completion. In other words, the division process starting from the low-value place would require repeated processes of returning to the low-value places; as a result, it is inefficient. As mathematical procedure is designed to improve efficiency, the division procedure is thus set to be carried out from the high-value place to low-value place (i.e., from left to right). Students who work this out experience mathematics more deeply than the sense-making described by Brownell ( 1945 ).

There are plenty of making-sense opportunities in classroom instruction. For example, kindergarten children are often given opportunities to play with manipulatives like cube trains and snub cubes, to explore and learn about patterns, numbers, and measurement through various connections. The recording of such activities typically results in numerical expressions or operations of these connections. In addition, such activities can also serve as a context to encourage students to design and create a way of “recording” these connections directly with a drawing line next to the connected train cubes. Such a design activity will help students to develop the concept of a number line that includes the original/starting point, unit, and direction (i.e., making mathematics make sense), instead of introducing the number line to students as a mathematical concept being “given” years later.

Learning how to provide students with opportunities to develop mathematics may occur with experience. Huang et al. ( 2010 ) found that expert and novice teachers in China both valued students’ mastering of mathematical knowledge and skills and their development in mathematical thinking methods and abilities. However, novice teachers were particularly concerned about the effectiveness of their guidance, in contrast to expert teachers who emphasized the development of students’ mathematical thinking and higher-order thinking abilities and properly dealing with important and difficult content points. The results suggest that teachers’ perceptions and pedagogical practices can change and improve over time. However, it may be worth asking if support for teacher development would accelerate the process.

Connecting changes in mathematics and STEM education

Although it is commonly acknowledged that mathematics is foundational to STEM, mathematics is being related to STEM education at a distance in practice and also in scholarship development (English 2016 , see additional notes at the end of this editorial). Holding the conception of mathematics as products does not support integrating mathematics with other STEM disciplines, as mathematics can be perceived simply as a set of tools for these disciplines. At the same time, mathematics and science have often proceeded along parallel tracks, with mathematics focused on “problem solving” while science has focused on “inquiry.” To better connect mathematics and other disciplines in STEM, we should focus on ideas and thinking development in mathematics (Li et al. 2019a ), unifying instruction from the student perspective (the Teaching for Robust Understanding framework, discussed below).

Emphasizing both sense making and making sense in mathematics education opens opportunities for connections with similar practices in other STEM disciplines. For example, sense making is very much emphasized in science education (Hogan 2019 ; Kapon 2017 ; Odden and Russ 2019 ), often combined with reflections in engineering (Kilgore et al. 2013 ; Turns et al. 2014 ), and also in the context of using technology (e.g., Antonietti and Cantoia 2000 ; Dick and Hollebrands 2011 ). Science is fundamentally about discovery and understanding of the natural world. This notion provides a natural link to mathematical modeling (e.g., Burkhardt 1981 ). Beyond that, in science education, sense making places a heavy focus on the construction and evaluation of explanation (Kapon 2017 ), and can even be defined as a process of constructing an explanation to resolve a perceived gap or conflict in knowledge (Odden and Russ 2019 ). Design and making play vital roles in engineering and technology education (Dym et al., 2005 ), as is student reflection on these experiences (e.g., Turns et al. 2014 ). Indeed, STEM disciplines share the same conceptual process of sense making as learners, individually or in a group, actively engage with the natural or man-made world, explore it, and then develop, test, refine, and use ideas together with specific explanation. If mathematics was conceived as an “empirical” discipline, connections with other STEM disciplines would be strengthened. In philosophical terms, Lakatos ( 1976 ) made similar claims Footnote 1 .

Similar to the emphasis on sense making placed in the Mathematics Curriculum Standards (e.g., NCTM, 1989 , 2000 ), Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013 ) prompted a shift in science education away from simply knowing science content and procedures to practicing and using science, together with engineering, to make sense of the world and create the future. In a review, Fitzgerald and Palincsar ( 2019 ) concluded sense making is a productive lens for investigating and characterizing great teaching across multiple disciplines.

Mathematics has stronger linkages to creation and design than traditionally imagined. Therefore, its connections to engineering and technology could be much stronger. However, the deep-rooted conception of mathematics as products has traditionally discouraged students and teachers from considering and valuing design and design thinking (Li et al. 2019b ). Conceiving mathematics as making sense should help promote conceptual changes in mathematical practice to value idea generation and design activity. Connections generated from such a shift will support teaching and learning not only in individual STEM disciplines, but also in integrated STEM education.

At the same time, although STEM education as a commonly recognized field does not have a long history (Li 2014 , 2018a ), its rapid development can help introduce ideas for exploring how mathematics can be taught and learned. For example, the concept of projects is common in engineering professional practice, and the project-based learning (PjBL) as an instructional approach is a key component in some engineering programs (e.g., Berger 2016 ; de los Ríos et al. 2010 ; Mills and Treagust 2003 ). de los Ríos et al. ( 2010 ) highlighted three main advantages of PjBL: (1) development in technical, personal, and contextual competences; (2) students’ engagement with real problems from professional contexts; and (3) collaborative learning facilitated through the integration of teaching and research. Such advantages are important for students’ learning of mathematics and are aligned well with efforts to develop 21 st century skills, including problem solving, communication, collaboration, and critical thinking.

Design-based learning (DBL) is another instructional approach commonly used in engineering and technology fields. Gómez Puente et al. ( 2013 ) conducted a sampled review and concluded that DBL projects consist of open-ended, hands-on, authentic, and multidisciplinary design tasks. Teachers using DBL facilitate both the process for students to gain domain-specific knowledge and thinking activities to generate innovative solutions. Such features could be adapted for mathematics education, especially integrated STEM education, in concert with design and design thinking. In addition to a few examples discussed above about making sense in mathematics, there is a growing body of publications developed by and for mathematics teachers with specific examples of investigations, design projects, and instructional activities associated with STEM (Li et al. 2019b ).

A framework for helping students to gain important experiences in and through mathematics, as connected to other disciplines in STEM

For observing and evaluating classroom instruction in general and mathematics classroom instruction in specific, there are several widely used frameworks and rubrics available. However, a trial use of selected frameworks with sampled mathematics classroom instruction episodes suggested their disagreements on what counts as high-quality instruction, especially with aspects on disciplinary thinking being valued and relevant classroom practices (Schoenfeld et al. 2018 ). The results suggest the importance of choice making, when we consider a framework in discussing and evaluating teaching practices.

Our discussion above highlights the importance of shifting away from viewing mathematics simply as a set of static knowledge and skills, to focusing on ideas and thinking development in teaching and learning mathematics. Further discussion of several aspects of changes specifies the needs of developing and using practices associated with sense making, making sense, and connecting mathematics and STEM education for changes.

To support effective mathematics instruction, we propose the use of the Teaching for Robust Understanding (TRU) framework to help characterize powerful learning environments. With the conception of mathematics as “empirical” and a focus on students’ experience, then the focus of instruction should also be changed. We argue that shift is from instruction conceived as “what should the teacher do” to instruction conceived as “what mathematical experiences should students have in order for them to develop into powerful thinkers?” It is the shift in the frame of TRU that makes it so powerful and pertinent for all these proposed changes. Moreover, TRU only uses a small number of actionable dimensions after distilling the literature on teaching for robust or powerful understanding. That makes TRU a practical mechanism for problematizing instruction.

Figure 1 presents the TRU Math framework that identifies five key dimensions along which powerful classroom environments can be characterized: the mathematics; cognitive demand; equitable access; agency, ownership, and identity; and formative assessment. These five dimensions were distilled from an extensive literature review, thus capturing what the literature considers to be essential. They were tested against classroom videotapes and data on student performance, and the results indicated that classrooms that did well on the TRU dimensions produced students who did correspondingly well on tests of mathematical knowledge, thinking, and problem solving (e.g., Schoenfeld 2014 , 2019 ). In brief, the argument regarding the importance of the five dimensions of TRU Math is as follows. First, the quality of the mathematics discussed (dimension 1) is critical. What individual students learn is unlikely to be richer than what they experience in the classroom. Whether individual students’ understanding rises to the level of what is discussed/presented in the classroom depends on other factors, which are captured in the remaining four dimensions. For example, you surely have had the experience, at a lecture, of hearing beautiful content presented, and then not being able to do any of the assigned problems! The remaining four dimensions capture aspects needed to support the development of all students with respect to sense making, making sense, ownership, and feedback loop. Dimension 2: Cognitive Demand. Are students engaged in sense making and making sense? Are they engaged in “productive struggle”? Dimension 3: Equitable Access. Are all students fully engaged with the central content and practices of the domain so that every student can profit from it? Dimension 4: Agency, Ownership, and Identity. Do all students have opportunities to develop idea ownership and mathematical agency? Dimension 5: Formative Assessment. Are students encouraged and supported to share their thinking with a meaningful feedback loop for instructional adjustment and improvement?

figure 1

The TRU Mathematics Framework: The five dimensions of powerful mathematics classrooms

The first key point about TRU is that students learn more in classrooms that are powerful along the five TRU dimensions. Second, the shift of attention from the teacher to the environment is fundamentally important. The key question is not “Is the teacher doing particular things to support learning?”; instead, it is, “Are students experiencing instruction so that it is conducive to their growth as mathematical thinkers and learners?” Third, the framework is not prescriptive; it respects teacher autonomy. There are many ways to be an excellent teacher. The question is, Does the learning environment created by the teacher provide each student rich opportunities along the five dimensions of the framework? Specifically, in describing the dimensions of powerful instruction, the framework serves to problematize instruction. Asking “how am I doing along each dimension; how can I improve?” can lead to richer instruction without prescribing or imposing a particular style or particular norms on teachers.

Extending to STEM education

Now, we suggest the following. If you teach biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, or any other STEM field, replace “mathematics” in Fig. 1 with your discipline. The first dimension is about rich content and practices in your field. And the remaining four dimensions are about necessary aspects of your students’ classroom engagement with the discipline. Practices associated with sense making, making sense, and STEM education are all be reflected in these five dimensions, with central attention on students’ experience in such classroom environments. Although the TRU framework was originally developed for characterizing effective mathematics classroom environments, it has been carefully framed in a way that is applicable to many different disciplines (Schoenfeld 2014 ). Our discussion above already specified why sense making, making sense, and specific instructional approaches like PjBL and DBL are shared across disciplines in STEM education. Thus, the TRU framework is applicable to other STEM disciplines. The natural analogue of the TRU framework for any field is given in Fig. 2 .

figure 2

The domain-general version of the TRU framework

Both the San Francisco Unified School District and the Chicago Public Schools adopted the TRU Math framework and found results within mathematics sufficiently promising that they expanded their efforts to all subject areas for professional development and instruction, using the domain-general TRU framework. Work is still in its early stages. Current efforts might be best conceptualized as a laboratory for exploration rather than a promissory note for improvement across all different disciplines. It will take time to accumulate data to show effectiveness. For further information about the domain-general TRU framework and tools for professional development are available at the TRU framework website, https://truframework.org/

Finally, as a framework, TRU is not a set of specific tools or guidelines, although it can be used to guide their development. To help lead our discussion to something more practical, we can use the framework to check and identify aspects that are typically under-emphasized and move them to center stage in order to improve classroom instruction. Specifically, the following is a list of sample under-emphasized norms and practices that can be identified (Schoenfeld in press ).

Establishing a climate of inquiry, in which mathematics is experienced as a discipline of exploration and sense making.

Developing students’ ownership of ideas through the process of developing, sharing, refining, and using ideas; concepts and language can come later.

Focusing on big ideas, and not losing the forest for the trees.

Making student thinking central to classroom discourse.

Ensuring that classroom discourse is respectful and inviting.

Where to start? Begin by problematizing teaching and the nature of learning environments

Here we start by stipulating that STEM disciplines as practiced, are living, breathing fields of inquiry. Knowledge is important; ideas are important; practices are important. The list given above applied to all STEM disciplines, not just mathematics.

The issue, then, is developing teacher capacity to craft environments that have the properties described immediately above. Here we share some thoughts, and the topic itself can well be discussed extensively in another paper. To make changes in teaching, it should start with assessing and changing teaching practice itself (Hiebert and Morris 2012 ). Opening up teachers’ perceptions of teaching practices should not be done by telling teachers what to do!—the same rules of learning apply to teachers as they apply to students. Learning environments for teachers should offer teachers the same opportunities for rich engagement, challenge, equitable access, and ownership as we hope students will experience (Schoenfeld 2015 ). Working together with teachers to study and reflect on their teaching practices in light of the TRU framework, we can help teachers to find out what their students are experiencing and why changes are needed. The framework can also help guide teachers to learn what changes would be needed, and to try out changes to learn how their students’ learning may differ. It is this iterative and concrete process that can hopefully help shift participating teachers’ perceptions of mathematics. Many tools for problematizing teaching are available at the TRU web site (see https://truframework.org/ ). If teachers can work together with a focus on selected lessons like what teachers often do in China, the process would help form a school-based learning community that can contribute to not only participating teachers’ practice change but also their expertise improvement (Huang et al. 2011 ; Li and Huang 2013 ).

As reported before (Li 2018b ), publications in the International Journal of STEM Education show a mix of individual-disciplinary and multidisciplinary education in STEM over the past several years. Although one journal’s publications are limited in its scope of providing a picture about the scholarship development related to mathematics and STEM education, it can allow us to get a sense of related development.

If taking a closer look at the journal’s publications over the past three years from 2016 to 2018, we found that the number of articles published with a clear focus on mathematics is relatively small: three (out of 21) in 2016, six (out of 34) in 2017, and five (out of 56) in 2018. At the same time, we should point out that these publications from 2016 to 2018 seem to reflect a trend, over these three years, of moving toward issues that can go beyond mathematics itself, as what was noted before (Li 2018b ). Specifically, for these three articles published in 2016, they are all about mathematics education at either elementary school (Ding 2016 ; Zhao et al. 2016 ) or university levels (Schoenfeld et al. 2016 ). Out of the six published in 2017, three are on mathematics education (Hagman et al. 2017 ; Keller et al. 2017 ; Ulrich and Wilkins 2017 ) and the other three on either teacher professional development (Borko et al. 2017 ; Jacobs et al. 2017 ) or connection with engineering (Jehopio and Wesonga 2017 ). For the five published in 2018, two are on mathematics education (Beumann and Wegner 2018 ; Wilkins and Norton 2018 ) and the other three have close association with other disciplines in STEM (Blotnicky et al. 2018 ; Hayward and Laursen 2018 ; Nye et al. 2018 ). This trend likely reflects a growing interest, with close connection to mathematics, in both mathematics education community and a broader STEM education community of developing and sharing multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary scholarship.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Interestingly, Lakatos was advised by both Popper and Pólya—his ideas being in some ways a unification of Pólya’s emphasis on mathematics as an empirical discipline and Popper’s reflections on the nature of the scientific endeavor.

Antonietti, A., & Cantoia, M. (2000). To see a painting versus to walk in a painting: An experiment on sense-making through virtual reality. Computers & Education, 34 , 213–223.

Article   Google Scholar  

Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14 (3), 24–35.

Google Scholar  

Ashlock, R. B. (2010). Error patterns in computation (Tenth Edition) . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., et al. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from http://www.nnstoy.org/download/stem/2012%20NSSME%20Full%20Report.pdf

Berger, C. (2016). Engineering is perfect for K-5 project-based learning. Engineering is Elementary (EiE) Blog, https://blog.eie.org/engineering-is-perfect-for-k-5-project-based-learning

Beumann, S. & Wegner, S.-A. (2018). An outlook on self-assessment of homework assignments in higher mathematics education. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 :55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0146-z

Blotnicky, K. A., Franz-Odendaal, T., French, F., & Joy, P. (2018). A study of the correlation between STEM career knowledge, mathematics self-efficacy, career interests, and career activities on the likelihood of pursuing a STEM career among middle school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 :22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0118-3

Borko, H., Carlson, J., Mangram, C., Anderson, R., Fong, A., Million, S., Mozenter, S., & Villa, A. M. (2017). The role of video-based discussion in model for preparing professional development leaders. International Journal of STEM Education, 4 :29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0090-3

Boyer, C. B. (1991). A history of mathematics (2nd ed.) . New York: Wiley.

Brownell, W. A. (1945). When is arithmetic meaningful? The Journal of Educational Research, 38 (7), 481–498.

Burkhardt, H. (1981). The real world and mathematics . Glasgow: Blackie, reissued Nottingham: Shell Centre Publications.

Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. (1997). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. Elementary School Journal, 97 , 3–20.

Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Jacobs, V. R., & Fennema, E. (1998). A longitudinal study of invention and understanding in children’s multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29 (1), 3–20.

Committee on STEM Education, National Science & Technology Council, the White House (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education . Washington, DC. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf Retrieved on 18 January, 2019.

Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics . Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice

Cooney, T (1987). The issue of reform: What have we learned from yesteryear? In Mathematical Sciences Education Board, The teacher of mathematics: Issues for today and tomorrow (pp. 17-35). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Coppin, C. A., Mahavier, W. T., May, E. L., & Parker, E. (2009). The Moore Method . Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Davis, P., & Hersh, R. (1980). The mathematical experience . Boston: Birkhauser.

de los Ríos, I., Cazorla, A., Díaz-Puente, J. M., & Yagüe, J. L. (2010). Project–based learning in engineering higher education: Two decades of teaching competences in real environments. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 , 1368–1378.

Devlin, K. (2000). The four faces of mathematics. In M. J. Burke & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), Learning Mathematics for a New Century: 2000 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 16–27). Reston, VA: NCTM.

Devlin, K. (2012). Introduction to mathematical thinking. Stanford, CA: The author.

Dick, T. P., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2011). Focus on high school mathematics: Technology to support reasoning and sense making . Reston, VA: NCTM.

Ding, M. (2016). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ specialized content knowledge: The case of associative property. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 , 9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0041-4 .

Dossey, J. A. (1992). The nature of mathematics: Its role and its influence. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 39–48). New York: MacMillan.

Dossey, J. A., McCrone, S. S., & Halvorsen, K. T. (2016). Mathematics education in the United States 2016: A capsule summary fact book . Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 103–120.

English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3:3, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1

Fisher, C. (1990). The research agenda project as prologue. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21 , 81–89.

Fitzgerald, M. S., & Palincsar, A. S. (2019). Teaching practices that support student sensemaking across grades and disciplines: A conceptual review. Review of Research in Education, 43 , 227–248.

Fritz, A., Haase, V. G., & Rasanen, P. (Eds.). (2019). International handbook of mathematical learning difficulties . Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Gee, J. P. (2005). What would a state of the art instructional video game look like? Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1 (6) Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol1/iss6/1 .

Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9212-x .

Hagman, J. E., Johnson, E., & Fosdick, B. K. (2017). Factors contributing to students and instructors experiencing a lack of time in college calculus. International Journal of STEM Education, 4 , 12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0070-7 .

Hayward, C. N. & Laursen, S. L. (2018). Supporting instructional change in mathematics: Using social network analysis to understand online support processes following professional development workshops. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 :28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0120-9

Hersh, R. (1986). Some proposals for reviving the philosophy of mathematics . In T. Tymoczko (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 9–28). Boston: Birkhauser.

Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63 (2), 92–102.

Hogan, M. (2019). Sense-making is the core of NGSS. In Illuminate education blog, https://www.illuminateed.com/blog/2019/03/sense-making-is-the-core-of-ngss/ Accessed 15 Oct 2019.

Huang, R., Li, Y., & He, X. (2010). What constitutes effective mathematics instruction: A comparison of Chinese expert and novice teachers’ views. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10 (4), 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2010.524965

Huang, R., Li, Y., Zhang, J., & Li, X. (2011). Improving teachers’ expertise in mathematics instruction through exemplary lesson development. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43 (6-7), 805–817.

Jacobs, J., Seago, N., & Koellner, K. (2017). Preparing facilitators to use and adapt mathematics professional development materials productively. International Journal of STEM Education, 4 , 30 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0089-9 .

Jehopio, P. J., & Wesonga, R. (2017). Polytechnic engineering mathematics: assessing its relevance to the productivity of industries in Uganda. International Journal of STEM Education, 4 , 16 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0078-z .

Kapon, S. (2017). Unpacking sensemaking. Science Education, 101 (1), 165–198.

Keitel, C. (2006). ‘Setting a task’ in German schools: Different frames for different ambitions. In D. Clarke, C. Keitel, & Y. Shimizu (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms in 12 countries: The insiders’ perspective (pp. 37–58). Rotterdam Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Keller, R. E., Johnson, E., & DeShong, S. (2017). A structural equation model looking at student’s participatory behavior and their success in Calculus I. International Journal of STEM Education, 4 , 24 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0093-0 .

Kilgore, D., Sattler, B., & Turns, J. (2013). From fragmentation to continuity: Engineering students making sense of experience through the development of a professional portfolio. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (6), 807–826.

Kline, M. (1973). Why Johnny can’t add: The failure of new math . New York: St. Martin’s.

Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Leung, F. K. S., & Li, Y. (Eds.). (2010). Reforms and issues in school mathematics in East Asia – Sharing and understanding mathematics education policies and practices . Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Li, Y. (2014). International Journal of STEM Education – A platform to promote STEM education and research worldwide. International Journal of STEM Education, 1 , 1 https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-1 .

Li, Y. (2018a). Journal for STEM Education Research – Promoting the development of interdisciplinary research in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1 (1-2), 1–6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0009-z .

Li, Y. (2018b). Four years of development as a gathering place for international researcher and readers in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 , 54 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0153-0 .

Li, Y., & Huang, R. (Eds.). (2013). How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching . New York: Routledge.

Li, Y., & Lappan, G. (Eds.). (2014). Mathematics curriculum in school education . Dordrecht: Springer.

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Grasser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019a). On thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00014-x .

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Grasser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019b). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2 (2), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z .

Li, Y., Silver, E. A., & Li, S. (Eds.). (2014). Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices . Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Luttenberger, S., Wimmer, S., & Paechter, M. (2018). Spotlight on math anxiety. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 11 , 311–322.

McCallum, W. (2018). Sense-making and making sense. https://blogs.ams.org/matheducation/2018/12/05/sense-making-and-making-sense/ Retrieved on October 1, 2019.

Mills, J. E. & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education – Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education , https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathan_Scott2/publication/238670687_AUSTRALASIAN_JOURNAL_OF_ENGINEERING_EDUCATION_Co-Editors/links/0deec53a08c7553c37000000.pdf Retrieved on October 15, 2019.

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

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

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nye, B., Pavlik Jr., P. I., Windsor, A., Olney, A. M., Hajeer, M., & Hu, X. (2018). SKOPE-IT (Shareable Knowledge Objects as Portable Intelligent Tutors): Overlaying natural language tutoring on an adaptive learning system for mathematics. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 , 12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0109-4 .

Odden, T. O. B., & Russ, R. S. (2019). Defining sensemaking: Bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct. Science Education, 103 , 187–205.

Parrish, S. D. (2011). Number talks build numberical reasoning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 18 (3), 198–206.

Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s ok – Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012 .

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23 (2), 145–166.

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

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2001). Mathematics education in the 20th century. In L. Corno (Ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume (100th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education) (pp. 239–278). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively interwined. Educational Researcher, 43 (8), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X1455 .

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015). Thoughts on scale. ZDM, the International Journal of Mathematics Education, 47 , 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0662-3 .

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Reframing teacher knowledge: A research and development agenda. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01057-5

Schoenfeld, A. H. (in press). Mathematical practices, in theory and practice. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education .

Schoenfeld, A. H., Floden, R., El Chidiac, F., Gillingham, D., Fink, H., Hu, S., Sayavedra, A., Weltman, A., & Zarkh, A. (2018). On classroom observations. Journal for STEM Educ Res, 1 (1-2), 34–59 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0001-7 .

Schoenfeld, A. H., Thomas, M., & Barton, B. (2016). On understanding and improving the teaching of university mathematics. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 , 4 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0038-z .

Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (2), 115–163.

Sowder, J. (1992). Estimation and number sense. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–389). New York: MacMillan.

Stanic, G. M. A., & Kilpatrick, J. (1992). Mathematics curriculum reform in the United States: A historical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 17 (5), 407–417.

Sun, K. L. (2018). The role of mathematics teaching in fostering student growth mindset. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49 (3), 330–355.

Turns, J. A., Sattler, B., Yasuhara, K., Borgford-Parnell, J. L., & Atman, C. J. (2014). Integrating reflection into engineering education. Proceedings of 2014 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference , Paper ID #9230.

Tymoczko, T. (1986). New directions in the philosophy of mathematics . Boston: Birkhauser.

Ulrich, C., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2017). Using written work to investigate stages in sixth-grade students’ construction and coordination of units. International Journal of STEM Education, 4 , 23 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0085-0 .

Wilkins, J. L. M., & Norton, A. (2018). Learning progression toward a measurement concept of fractions. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 , 27 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0119-2 .

Zhao, X., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Veldhuis, M. (2016). Teachers’ use of classroom assessment techniques in primary mathematics education – An explorative study with six Chinese teachers. International Journal of STEM Education, 3 , 19 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0051-2 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Jeffrey E. Froyd for his careful review and detailed comments on an earlier version of this editorial that help improve its readability and clarity. Thanks also go to Marius Jung for his valuable feedback.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4232, USA

University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Alan H. Schoenfeld

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed ideas to conceptualize this article. YL took the lead in developing and drafting the article, and AHS reviewed drafts and contributed to revisions. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yeping Li .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A.H. Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM education. IJ STEM Ed 6 , 44 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9

Download citation

Received : 15 November 2019

Accepted : 19 November 2019

Published : 19 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9

Share this article

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

  • Design-based learning
  • Making sense
  • Mathematics
  • Project-based learning
  • Sense making
  • STEM education

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

Teaching and Learning

Elevating math education through problem-based learning, by lisa matthews     feb 14, 2024.

Elevating Math Education Through Problem-Based Learning

Image Credit: rudall30 / Shutterstock

Imagine you are a mountaineer. Nothing excites you more than testing your skill, strength and resilience against some of the most extreme environments on the planet, and now you've decided to take on the greatest challenge of all: Everest, the tallest mountain in the world. You’ll be training for at least a year, slowly building up your endurance. Climbing Everest involves hiking for many hours per day, every day, for several weeks. How do you prepare for that?

The answer, as in many situations, lies in math. Climbers maximize their training by measuring their heart rate. When they train, they aim for a heart rate between 60 and 80 percent of their maximum. More than that, and they risk burning out. A heart rate below 60 percent means the training is too easy — they’ve got to push themselves harder. By combining this strategy with other types of training, overall fitness will increase over time, and eventually, climbers will be ready, in theory, for Everest.

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

Knowledge Through Experience

The influence of constructivist theories has been instrumental in shaping PBL, from Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development, which argues that knowledge is constructed through experiences and interactions , to Leslie P. Steffe’s work on the importance of students constructing their own mathematical understanding rather than passively receiving information .

You don't become a skilled mountain climber by just reading or watching others climb. You become proficient by hitting the mountains, climbing, facing challenges and getting right back up when you stumble. And that's how people learn math.

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

So what makes PBL different? The key to making it work is introducing the right level of problem. Remember Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development? It is essentially the space where learning and development occur most effectively – where the task is not so easy that it is boring but not so hard that it is discouraging. As with a mountaineer in training, that zone where the level of challenge is just right is where engagement really happens.

I’ve seen PBL build the confidence of students who thought they weren’t math people. It makes them feel capable and that their insights are valuable. They develop the most creative strategies; kids have said things that just blow my mind. All of a sudden, they are math people.

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

Skills and Understanding

Despite the challenges, the trend toward PBL in math education has been growing , driven by evidence of its benefits in developing critical thinking, problem-solving skills and a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts, as well as building more positive math identities. The incorporation of PBL aligns well with the contemporary broader shift toward more student-centered, interactive and meaningful learning experiences. It has become an increasingly important component of effective math education, equipping students with the skills and understanding necessary for success in the 21st century.

At the heart of Imagine IM lies a commitment to providing students with opportunities for deep, active mathematics practice through problem-based learning. Imagine IM builds upon the problem-based pedagogy and instructional design of the renowned Illustrative Mathematics curriculum, adding a number of exclusive videos, digital interactives, design-enhanced print and hands-on tools.

The value of imagine im's enhancements is evident in the beautifully produced inspire math videos, from which the mountaineer scenario stems. inspire math videos showcase the math for each imagine im unit in a relevant and often unexpected real-world context to help spark curiosity. the videos use contexts from all around the world to make cross-curricular connections and increase engagement..

This article was sponsored by Imagine Learning and produced by the Solutions Studio team.

Imagine Learning

More from EdSurge

How My School Chooses Courage Over Fear to Prioritize DEI

How My School Chooses Courage Over Fear to Prioritize DEI

By deaunna watson.

What Educators Need to Know about Generation Alpha

What Educators Need to Know about Generation Alpha

By jessica kato.

One State Rolled Out a Promising Child Care Model. Now Others Are Replicating It.

One State Rolled Out a Promising Child Care Model. Now Others Are Replicating It.

By emily tate sullivan.

Collaborating for the Future of Teaching and Learning With Technology

Collaborating for the Future of Teaching and Learning With Technology

By anthony baker.

Journalism that ignites your curiosity about education.

EdSurge is an editorially independent project of and

  • Product Index
  • Write for us
  • Advertising

FOLLOW EDSURGE

© 2024 All Rights Reserved

  • Open supplemental data
  • Reference Manager
  • Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, mathematical problem-solving through cooperative learning—the importance of peer acceptance and friendships.

www.frontiersin.org

  • 1 Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  • 2 Department of Education, Culture and Communication, Malardalen University, Vasteras, Sweden
  • 3 School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Sodertorn University, Huddinge, Sweden
  • 4 Faculty of Education, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden

Mathematical problem-solving constitutes an important area of mathematics instruction, and there is a need for research on instructional approaches supporting student learning in this area. This study aims to contribute to previous research by studying the effects of an instructional approach of cooperative learning on students’ mathematical problem-solving in heterogeneous classrooms in grade five, in which students with special needs are educated alongside with their peers. The intervention combined a cooperative learning approach with instruction in problem-solving strategies including mathematical models of multiplication/division, proportionality, and geometry. The teachers in the experimental group received training in cooperative learning and mathematical problem-solving, and implemented the intervention for 15 weeks. The teachers in the control group received training in mathematical problem-solving and provided instruction as they would usually. Students (269 in the intervention and 312 in the control group) participated in tests of mathematical problem-solving in the areas of multiplication/division, proportionality, and geometry before and after the intervention. The results revealed significant effects of the intervention on student performance in overall problem-solving and problem-solving in geometry. The students who received higher scores on social acceptance and friendships for the pre-test also received higher scores on the selected tests of mathematical problem-solving. Thus, the cooperative learning approach may lead to gains in mathematical problem-solving in heterogeneous classrooms, but social acceptance and friendships may also greatly impact students’ results.

Introduction

The research on instruction in mathematical problem-solving has progressed considerably during recent decades. Yet, there is still a need to advance our knowledge on how teachers can support their students in carrying out this complex activity ( Lester and Cai, 2016 ). Results from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) show that only 53% of students from the participating countries could solve problems requiring more than direct inference and using representations from different information sources ( OECD, 2019 ). In addition, OECD (2019) reported a large variation in achievement with regard to students’ diverse backgrounds. Thus, there is a need for instructional approaches to promote students’ problem-solving in mathematics, especially in heterogeneous classrooms in which students with diverse backgrounds and needs are educated together. Small group instructional approaches have been suggested as important to promote learning of low-achieving students and students with special needs ( Kunsch et al., 2007 ). One such approach is cooperative learning (CL), which involves structured collaboration in heterogeneous groups, guided by five principles to enhance group cohesion ( Johnson et al., 1993 ; Johnson et al., 2009 ; Gillies, 2016 ). While CL has been well-researched in whole classroom approaches ( Capar and Tarim, 2015 ), few studies of the approach exist with regard to students with special educational needs (SEN; McMaster and Fuchs, 2002 ). This study contributes to previous research by studying the effects of the CL approach on students’ mathematical problem-solving in heterogeneous classrooms, in which students with special needs are educated alongside with their peers.

Group collaboration through the CL approach is structured in accordance with five principles of collaboration: positive interdependence, individual accountability, explicit instruction in social skills, promotive interaction, and group processing ( Johnson et al., 1993 ). First, the group tasks need to be structured so that all group members feel dependent on each other in the completion of the task, thus promoting positive interdependence. Second, for individual accountability, the teacher needs to assure that each group member feels responsible for his or her share of work, by providing opportunities for individual reports or evaluations. Third, the students need explicit instruction in social skills that are necessary for collaboration. Fourth, the tasks and seat arrangements should be designed to promote interaction among group members. Fifth, time needs to be allocated to group processing, through which group members can evaluate their collaborative work to plan future actions. Using these principles for cooperation leads to gains in mathematics, according to Capar and Tarim (2015) , who conducted a meta-analysis on studies of cooperative learning and mathematics, and found an increase of .59 on students’ mathematics achievement scores in general. However, the number of reviewed studies was limited, and researchers suggested a need for more research. In the current study, we focused on the effect of CL approach in a specific area of mathematics: problem-solving.

Mathematical problem-solving is a central area of mathematics instruction, constituting an important part of preparing students to function in modern society ( Gravemeijer et al., 2017 ). In fact, problem-solving instruction creates opportunities for students to apply their knowledge of mathematical concepts, integrate and connect isolated pieces of mathematical knowledge, and attain a deeper conceptual understanding of mathematics as a subject ( Lester and Cai, 2016 ). Some researchers suggest that mathematics itself is a science of problem-solving and of developing theories and methods for problem-solving ( Hamilton, 2007 ; Davydov, 2008 ).

Problem-solving processes have been studied from different perspectives ( Lesh and Zawojewski, 2007 ). Problem-solving heuristics Pólya, (1948) has largely influenced our perceptions of problem-solving, including four principles: understanding the problem, devising a plan, carrying out the plan, and looking back and reflecting upon the suggested solution. Schoenfield, (2016) suggested the use of specific problem-solving strategies for different types of problems, which take into consideration metacognitive processes and students’ beliefs about problem-solving. Further, models and modelling perspectives on mathematics ( Lesh and Doerr, 2003 ; Lesh and Zawojewski, 2007 ) emphasize the importance of engaging students in model-eliciting activities in which problem situations are interpreted mathematically, as students make connections between problem information and knowledge of mathematical operations, patterns, and rules ( Mousoulides et al., 2010 ; Stohlmann and Albarracín, 2016 ).

Not all students, however, find it easy to solve complex mathematical problems. Students may experience difficulties in identifying solution-relevant elements in a problem or visualizing appropriate solution to a problem situation. Furthermore, students may need help recognizing the underlying model in problems. For example, in two studies by Degrande et al. (2016) , students in grades four to six were presented with mathematical problems in the context of proportional reasoning. The authors found that the students, when presented with a word problem, could not identify an underlying model, but rather focused on superficial characteristics of the problem. Although the students in the study showed more success when presented with a problem formulated in symbols, the authors pointed out a need for activities that help students distinguish between different proportional problem types. Furthermore, students exhibiting specific learning difficulties may need additional support in both general problem-solving strategies ( Lein et al., 2020 ; Montague et al., 2014 ) and specific strategies pertaining to underlying models in problems. The CL intervention in the present study focused on supporting students in problem-solving, through instruction in problem-solving principles ( Pólya, 1948 ), specifically applied to three models of mathematical problem-solving—multiplication/division, geometry, and proportionality.

Students’ problem-solving may be enhanced through participation in small group discussions. In a small group setting, all the students have the opportunity to explain their solutions, clarify their thinking, and enhance understanding of a problem at hand ( Yackel et al., 1991 ; Webb and Mastergeorge, 2003 ). In fact, small group instruction promotes students’ learning in mathematics by providing students with opportunities to use language for reasoning and conceptual understanding ( Mercer and Sams, 2006 ), to exchange different representations of the problem at hand ( Fujita et al., 2019 ), and to become aware of and understand groupmates’ perspectives in thinking ( Kazak et al., 2015 ). These opportunities for learning are created through dialogic spaces characterized by openness to each other’s perspectives and solutions to mathematical problems ( Wegerif, 2011 ).

However, group collaboration is not only associated with positive experiences. In fact, studies show that some students may not be given equal opportunities to voice their opinions, due to academic status differences ( Langer-Osuna, 2016 ). Indeed, problem-solvers struggling with complex tasks may experience negative emotions, leading to uncertainty of not knowing the definite answer, which places demands on peer support ( Jordan and McDaniel, 2014 ; Hannula, 2015 ). Thus, especially in heterogeneous groups, students may need additional support to promote group interaction. Therefore, in this study, we used a cooperative learning approach, which, in contrast to collaborative learning approaches, puts greater focus on supporting group cohesion through instruction in social skills and time for reflection on group work ( Davidson and Major, 2014 ).

Although cooperative learning approach is intended to promote cohesion and peer acceptance in heterogeneous groups ( Rzoska and Ward, 1991 ), previous studies indicate that challenges in group dynamics may lead to unequal participation ( Mulryan, 1992 ; Cohen, 1994 ). Peer-learning behaviours may impact students’ problem-solving ( Hwang and Hu, 2013 ) and working in groups with peers who are seen as friends may enhance students’ motivation to learn mathematics ( Deacon and Edwards, 2012 ). With the importance of peer support in mind, this study set out to investigate whether the results of the intervention using the CL approach are associated with students’ peer acceptance and friendships.

The Present Study

In previous research, the CL approach has shown to be a promising approach in teaching and learning mathematics ( Capar and Tarim, 2015 ), but fewer studies have been conducted in whole-class approaches in general and students with SEN in particular ( McMaster and Fuchs, 2002 ). This study aims to contribute to previous research by investigating the effect of CL intervention on students’ mathematical problem-solving in grade 5. With regard to the complexity of mathematical problem-solving ( Lesh and Zawojewski, 2007 ; Degrande et al., 2016 ; Stohlmann and Albarracín, 2016 ), the CL approach in this study was combined with problem-solving principles pertaining to three underlying models of problem-solving—multiplication/division, geometry, and proportionality. Furthermore, considering the importance of peer support in problem-solving in small groups ( Mulryan, 1992 ; Cohen, 1994 ; Hwang and Hu, 2013 ), the study investigated how peer acceptance and friendships were associated with the effect of the CL approach on students’ problem-solving abilities. The study aimed to find answers to the following research questions:

a) What is the effect of CL approach on students’ problem-solving in mathematics?

b) Are social acceptance and friendship associated with the effect of CL on students’ problem-solving in mathematics?

Participants

The participants were 958 students in grade 5 and their teachers. According to power analyses prior to the start of the study, 1,020 students and 51 classes were required, with an expected effect size of 0.30 and power of 80%, provided that there are 20 students per class and intraclass correlation is 0.10. An invitation to participate in the project was sent to teachers in five municipalities via e-mail. Furthermore, the information was posted on the website of Uppsala university and distributed via Facebook interest groups. As shown in Figure 1 , teachers of 1,165 students agreed to participate in the study, but informed consent was obtained only for 958 students (463 in the intervention and 495 in the control group). Further attrition occurred at pre- and post-measurement, resulting in 581 students’ tests as a basis for analyses (269 in the intervention and 312 in the control group). Fewer students (n = 493) were finally included in the analyses of the association of students’ social acceptance and friendships and the effect of CL on students’ mathematical problem-solving (219 in the intervention and 274 in the control group). The reasons for attrition included teacher drop out due to sick leave or personal circumstances (two teachers in the control group and five teachers in the intervention group). Furthermore, some students were sick on the day of data collection and some teachers did not send the test results to the researchers.

www.frontiersin.org

FIGURE 1 . Flow chart for participants included in data collection and data analysis.

As seen in Table 1 , classes in both intervention and control groups included 27 students on average. For 75% of the classes, there were 33–36% of students with SEN. In Sweden, no formal medical diagnosis is required for the identification of students with SEN. It is teachers and school welfare teams who decide students’ need for extra adaptations or special support ( Swedish National Educational Agency, 2014 ). The information on individual students’ type of SEN could not be obtained due to regulations on the protection of information about individuals ( SFS 2009 ). Therefore, the information on the number of students with SEN on class level was obtained through teacher reports.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 1 . Background characteristics of classes and teachers in intervention and control groups.

Intervention

The intervention using the CL approach lasted for 15 weeks and the teachers worked with the CL approach three to four lessons per week. First, the teachers participated in two-days training on the CL approach, using an especially elaborated CL manual ( Klang et al., 2018 ). The training focused on the five principles of the CL approach (positive interdependence, individual accountability, explicit instruction in social skills, promotive interaction, and group processing). Following the training, the teachers introduced the CL approach in their classes and focused on group-building activities for 7 weeks. Then, 2 days of training were provided to teachers, in which the CL approach was embedded in activities in mathematical problem-solving and reading comprehension. Educational materials containing mathematical problems in the areas of multiplication and division, geometry, and proportionality were distributed to the teachers ( Karlsson and Kilborn, 2018a ). In addition to the specific problems, adapted for the CL approach, the educational materials contained guidance for the teachers, in which problem-solving principles ( Pólya, 1948 ) were presented as steps in problem-solving. Following the training, the teachers applied the CL approach in mathematical problem-solving lessons for 8 weeks.

Solving a problem is a matter of goal-oriented reasoning, starting from the understanding of the problem to devising its solution by using known mathematical models. This presupposes that the current problem is chosen from a known context ( Stillman et al., 2008 ; Zawojewski, 2010 ). This differs from the problem-solving of the textbooks, which is based on an aim to train already known formulas and procedures ( Hamilton, 2007 ). Moreover, it is important that students learn modelling according to their current abilities and conditions ( Russel, 1991 ).

In order to create similar conditions in the experiment group and the control group, the teachers were supposed to use the same educational material ( Karlsson and Kilborn, 2018a ; Karlsson and Kilborn, 2018b ), written in light of the specified view of problem-solving. The educational material is divided into three areas—multiplication/division, geometry, and proportionality—and begins with a short teachers’ guide, where a view of problem solving is presented, which is based on the work of Polya (1948) and Lester and Cai (2016) . The tasks are constructed in such a way that conceptual knowledge was in focus, not formulas and procedural knowledge.

Implementation of the Intervention

To ensure the implementation of the intervention, the researchers visited each teachers’ classroom twice during the two phases of the intervention period, as described above. During each visit, the researchers observed the lesson, using a checklist comprising the five principles of the CL approach. After the lesson, the researchers gave written and oral feedback to each teacher. As seen in Table 1 , in 18 of the 23 classes, the teachers implemented the intervention in accordance with the principles of CL. In addition, the teachers were asked to report on the use of the CL approach in their teaching and the use of problem-solving activities embedding CL during the intervention period. As shown in Table 1 , teachers in only 11 of 23 classes reported using the CL approach and problem-solving activities embedded in the CL approach at least once a week.

Control Group

The teachers in the control group received 2 days of instruction in enhancing students’ problem-solving and reading comprehension. The teachers were also supported with educational materials including mathematical problems Karlsson and Kilborn (2018b) and problem-solving principles ( Pólya, 1948 ). However, none of the activities during training or in educational materials included the CL approach. As seen in Table 1 , only 10 of 25 teachers reported devoting at least one lesson per week to mathematical problem-solving.

Tests of Mathematical Problem-Solving

Tests of mathematical problem-solving were administered before and after the intervention, which lasted for 15 weeks. The tests were focused on the models of multiplication/division, geometry, and proportionality. The three models were chosen based on the syllabus of the subject of mathematics in grades 4 to 6 in the Swedish National Curriculum ( Swedish National Educational Agency, 2018 ). In addition, the intention was to create a variation of types of problems to solve. For each of these three models, there were two tests, a pre-test and a post-test. Each test contained three tasks with increasing difficulty ( Supplementary Appendix SA ).

The tests of multiplication and division (Ma1) were chosen from different contexts and began with a one-step problem, while the following two tasks were multi-step problems. Concerning multiplication, many students in grade 5 still understand multiplication as repeated addition, causing significant problems, as this conception is not applicable to multiplication beyond natural numbers ( Verschaffel et al., 2007 ). This might be a hindrance in developing multiplicative reasoning ( Barmby et al., 2009 ). The multi-step problems in this study were constructed to support the students in multiplicative reasoning.

Concerning the geometry tests (Ma2), it was important to consider a paradigm shift concerning geometry in education that occurred in the mid-20th century, when strict Euclidean geometry gave way to other aspects of geometry like symmetry, transformation, and patterns. van Hiele (1986) prepared a new taxonomy for geometry in five steps, from a visual to a logical level. Therefore, in the tests there was a focus on properties of quadrangles and triangles, and how to determine areas by reorganising figures into new patterns. This means that structure was more important than formulas.

The construction of tests of proportionality (M3) was more complicated. Firstly, tasks on proportionality can be found in many different contexts, such as prescriptions, scales, speeds, discounts, interest, etc. Secondly, the mathematical model is complex and requires good knowledge of rational numbers and ratios ( Lesh et al., 1988 ). It also requires a developed view of multiplication, useful in operations with real numbers, not only as repeated addition, an operation limited to natural numbers ( Lybeck, 1981 ; Degrande et al., 2016 ). A linear structure of multiplication as repeated addition leads to limitations in terms of generalization and development of the concept of multiplication. This became evident in a study carried out in a Swedish context ( Karlsson and Kilborn, 2018c ). Proportionality can be expressed as a/b = c/d or as a/b = k. The latter can also be expressed as a = b∙k, where k is a constant that determines the relationship between a and b. Common examples of k are speed (km/h), scale, and interest (%). An important pre-knowledge in order to deal with proportions is to master fractions as equivalence classes like 1/3 = 2/6 = 3/9 = 4/12 = 5/15 = 6/18 = 7/21 = 8/24 … ( Karlsson and Kilborn, 2020 ). It was important to take all these aspects into account when constructing and assessing the solutions of the tasks.

The tests were graded by an experienced teacher of mathematics (4 th author) and two students in their final year of teacher training. Prior to grading, acceptable levels of inter-rater reliability were achieved by independent rating of students’ solutions and discussions in which differences between the graders were resolved. Each student response was to be assigned one point when it contained a correct answer and two points when the student provided argumentation for the correct answer and elaborated on explanation of his or her solution. The assessment was thus based on quality aspects with a focus on conceptual knowledge. As each subtest contained three questions, it generated three student solutions. So, scores for each subtest ranged from 0 to 6 points and for the total scores from 0 to 18 points. To ascertain that pre- and post-tests were equivalent in degree of difficulty, the tests were administered to an additional sample of 169 students in grade 5. Test for each model was conducted separately, as students participated in pre- and post-test for each model during the same lesson. The order of tests was switched for half of the students in order to avoid the effect of the order in which the pre- and post-tests were presented. Correlation between students’ performance on pre- and post-test was .39 ( p < 0.000) for tests of multiplication/division; .48 ( p < 0.000) for tests of geometry; and .56 ( p < 0.000) for tests of proportionality. Thus, the degree of difficulty may have differed between pre- and post-test.

Measures of Peer Acceptance and Friendships

To investigate students’ peer acceptance and friendships, peer nominations rated pre- and post-intervention were used. Students were asked to nominate peers who they preferred to work in groups with and who they preferred to be friends with. Negative peer nominations were avoided due to ethical considerations raised by teachers and parents ( Child and Nind, 2013 ). Unlimited nominations were used, as these are considered to have high ecological validity ( Cillessen and Marks, 2017 ). Peer nominations were used as a measure of social acceptance, and reciprocated nominations were used as a measure of friendship. The number of nominations for each student were aggregated and divided by the number of nominators to create a proportion of nominations for each student ( Velásquez et al., 2013 ).

Statistical Analyses

Multilevel regression analyses were conducted in R, lme4 package Bates et al. (2015) to account for nestedness in the data. Students’ classroom belonging was considered as a level 2 variable. First, we used a model in which students’ results on tests of problem-solving were studied as a function of time (pre- and post) and group belonging (intervention and control group). Second, the same model was applied to subgroups of students who performed above and below median at pre-test, to explore whether the CL intervention had a differential effect on student performance. In this second model, the results for subgroups of students could not be obtained for geometry tests for subgroup below median and for tests of proportionality for subgroup above median. A possible reason for this must have been the skewed distribution of the students in these subgroups. Therefore, another model was applied that investigated students’ performances in math at both pre- and post-test as a function of group belonging. Third, the students’ scores on social acceptance and friendships were added as an interaction term to the first model. In our previous study, students’ social acceptance changed as a result of the same CL intervention ( Klang et al., 2020 ).

The assumptions for the multilevel regression were assured during the analyses ( Snijders and Bosker, 2012 ). The assumption of normality of residuals were met, as controlled by visual inspection of quantile-quantile plots. For subgroups, however, the plotted residuals deviated somewhat from the straight line. The number of outliers, which had a studentized residual value greater than ±3, varied from 0 to 5, but none of the outliers had a Cook’s distance value larger than 1. The assumption of multicollinearity was met, as the variance inflation factors (VIF) did not exceed a value of 10. Before the analyses, the cases with missing data were deleted listwise.

What Is the Effect of the CL Approach on Students’ Problem-Solving in Mathematics?

As seen in the regression coefficients in Table 2 , the CL intervention had a significant effect on students’ mathematical problem-solving total scores and students’ scores in problem solving in geometry (Ma2). Judging by mean values, students in the intervention group appeared to have low scores on problem-solving in geometry but reached the levels of problem-solving of the control group by the end of the intervention. The intervention did not have a significant effect on students’ performance in problem-solving related to models of multiplication/division and proportionality.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 2 . Mean scores (standard deviation in parentheses) and unstandardized multilevel regression estimates for tests of mathematical problem-solving.

The question is, however, whether CL intervention affected students with different pre-test scores differently. Table 2 includes the regression coefficients for subgroups of students who performed below and above median at pre-test. As seen in the table, the CL approach did not have a significant effect on students’ problem-solving, when the sample was divided into these subgroups. A small negative effect was found for intervention group in comparison to control group, but confidence intervals (CI) for the effect indicate that it was not significant.

Is Social Acceptance and Friendships Associated With the Effect of CL on Students’ Problem-Solving in Mathematics?

As seen in Table 3 , students’ peer acceptance and friendship at pre-test were significantly associated with the effect of the CL approach on students’ mathematical problem-solving scores. Changes in students’ peer acceptance and friendships were not significantly associated with the effect of the CL approach on students’ mathematical problem-solving. Consequently, it can be concluded that being nominated by one’s peers and having friends at the start of the intervention may be an important factor when participation in group work, structured in accordance with the CL approach, leads to gains in mathematical problem-solving.

www.frontiersin.org

TABLE 3 . Mean scores (standard deviation in parentheses) and unstandardized multilevel regression estimates for tests of mathematical problem-solving, including scores of social acceptance and friendship in the model.

In light of the limited number of studies on the effects of CL on students’ problem-solving in whole classrooms ( Capar and Tarim, 2015 ), and for students with SEN in particular ( McMaster and Fuchs, 2002 ), this study sought to investigate whether the CL approach embedded in problem-solving activities has an effect on students’ problem-solving in heterogeneous classrooms. The need for the study was justified by the challenge of providing equitable mathematics instruction to heterogeneous student populations ( OECD, 2019 ). Small group instructional approaches as CL are considered as promising approaches in this regard ( Kunsch et al., 2007 ). The results showed a significant effect of the CL approach on students’ problem-solving in geometry and total problem-solving scores. In addition, with regard to the importance of peer support in problem-solving ( Deacon and Edwards, 2012 ; Hwang and Hu, 2013 ), the study explored whether the effect of CL on students’ problem-solving was associated with students’ social acceptance and friendships. The results showed that students’ peer acceptance and friendships at pre-test were significantly associated with the effect of the CL approach, while change in students’ peer acceptance and friendships from pre- to post-test was not.

The results of the study confirm previous research on the effect of the CL approach on students’ mathematical achievement ( Capar and Tarim, 2015 ). The specific contribution of the study is that it was conducted in classrooms, 75% of which were composed of 33–36% of students with SEN. Thus, while a previous review revealed inconclusive findings on the effects of CL on student achievement ( McMaster and Fuchs, 2002 ), the current study adds to the evidence of the effect of the CL approach in heterogeneous classrooms, in which students with special needs are educated alongside with their peers. In a small group setting, the students have opportunities to discuss their ideas of solutions to the problem at hand, providing explanations and clarifications, thus enhancing their understanding of problem-solving ( Yackel et al., 1991 ; Webb and Mastergeorge, 2003 ).

In this study, in accordance with previous research on mathematical problem-solving ( Lesh and Zawojewski, 2007 ; Degrande et al., 2016 ; Stohlmann and Albarracín, 2016 ), the CL approach was combined with training in problem-solving principles Pólya (1948) and educational materials, providing support in instruction in underlying mathematical models. The intention of the study was to provide evidence for the effectiveness of the CL approach above instruction in problem-solving, as problem-solving materials were accessible to teachers of both the intervention and control groups. However, due to implementation challenges, not all teachers in the intervention and control groups reported using educational materials and training as expected. Thus, it is not possible to draw conclusions of the effectiveness of the CL approach alone. However, in everyday classroom instruction it may be difficult to separate the content of instruction from the activities that are used to mediate this content ( Doerr and Tripp, 1999 ; Gravemeijer, 1999 ).

Furthermore, for successful instruction in mathematical problem-solving, scaffolding for content needs to be combined with scaffolding for dialogue ( Kazak et al., 2015 ). From a dialogical perspective ( Wegerif, 2011 ), students may need scaffolding in new ways of thinking, involving questioning their understandings and providing arguments for their solutions, in order to create dialogic spaces in which different solutions are voiced and negotiated. In this study, small group instruction through CL approach aimed to support discussions in small groups, but the study relies solely on quantitative measures of students’ mathematical performance. Video-recordings of students’ discussions may have yielded important insights into the dialogic relationships that arose in group discussions.

Despite the positive findings of the CL approach on students’ problem-solving, it is important to note that the intervention did not have an effect on students’ problem-solving pertaining to models of multiplication/division and proportionality. Although CL is assumed to be a promising instructional approach, the number of studies on its effect on students’ mathematical achievement is still limited ( Capar and Tarim, 2015 ). Thus, further research is needed on how CL intervention can be designed to promote students’ problem-solving in other areas of mathematics.

The results of this study show that the effect of the CL intervention on students’ problem-solving was associated with students’ initial scores of social acceptance and friendships. Thus, it is possible to assume that students who were popular among their classmates and had friends at the start of the intervention also made greater gains in mathematical problem-solving as a result of the CL intervention. This finding is in line with Deacon and Edwards’ study of the importance of friendships for students’ motivation to learn mathematics in small groups ( Deacon and Edwards, 2012 ). However, the effect of the CL intervention was not associated with change in students’ social acceptance and friendship scores. These results indicate that students who were nominated by a greater number of students and who received a greater number of friends did not benefit to a great extent from the CL intervention. With regard to previously reported inequalities in cooperation in heterogeneous groups ( Cohen, 1994 ; Mulryan, 1992 ; Langer Osuna, 2016 ) and the importance of peer behaviours for problem-solving ( Hwang and Hu, 2013 ), teachers should consider creating inclusive norms and supportive peer relationships when using the CL approach. The demands of solving complex problems may create negative emotions and uncertainty ( Hannula, 2015 ; Jordan and McDaniel, 2014 ), and peer support may be essential in such situations.

Limitations

The conclusions from the study must be interpreted with caution, due to a number of limitations. First, due to the regulation of protection of individuals ( SFS 2009 ), the researchers could not get information on type of SEN for individual students, which limited the possibilities of the study for investigating the effects of the CL approach for these students. Second, not all teachers in the intervention group implemented the CL approach embedded in problem-solving activities and not all teachers in the control group reported using educational materials on problem-solving. The insufficient levels of implementation pose a significant challenge to the internal validity of the study. Third, the additional investigation to explore the equivalence in difficulty between pre- and post-test, including 169 students, revealed weak to moderate correlation in students’ performance scores, which may indicate challenges to the internal validity of the study.

Implications

The results of the study have some implications for practice. Based on the results of the significant effect of the CL intervention on students’ problem-solving, the CL approach appears to be a promising instructional approach in promoting students’ problem-solving. However, as the results of the CL approach were not significant for all subtests of problem-solving, and due to insufficient levels of implementation, it is not possible to conclude on the importance of the CL intervention for students’ problem-solving. Furthermore, it appears to be important to create opportunities for peer contacts and friendships when the CL approach is used in mathematical problem-solving activities.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Uppsala Ethical Regional Committee, Dnr. 2017/372. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

NiK was responsible for the project, and participated in data collection and data analyses. NaK and WK were responsible for intervention with special focus on the educational materials and tests in mathematical problem-solving. PE participated in the planning of the study and the data analyses, including coordinating analyses of students’ tests. MK participated in the designing and planning the study as well as data collection and data analyses.

The project was funded by the Swedish Research Council under Grant 2016-04,679.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to teachers who participated in the project.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.710296/full#supplementary-material

Barmby, P., Harries, T., Higgins, S., and Suggate, J. (2009). The array representation and primary children's understanding and reasoning in multiplication. Educ. Stud. Math. 70 (3), 217–241. doi:10.1007/s10649-008-914510.1007/s10649-008-9145-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67 (1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Capar, G., and Tarim, K. (2015). Efficacy of the cooperative learning method on mathematics achievement and attitude: A meta-analysis research. Educ. Sci-theor Pract. 15 (2), 553–559. doi:10.12738/estp.2015.2.2098

Child, S., and Nind, M. (2013). Sociometric methods and difference: A force for good - or yet more harm. Disabil. Soc. 28 (7), 1012–1023. doi:10.1080/09687599.2012.741517

Cillessen, A. H. N., and Marks, P. E. L. (2017). Methodological choices in peer nomination research. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2017, 21–44. doi:10.1002/cad.20206

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Clarke, B., Cheeseman, J., and Clarke, D. (2006). The mathematical knowledge and understanding young children bring to school. Math. Ed. Res. J. 18 (1), 78–102. doi:10.1007/bf03217430

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Rev. Educ. Res. 64 (1), 1–35. doi:10.3102/00346543064001001

Davidson, N., and Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. J. Excell. Coll. Teach. 25 (3-4), 7.

Google Scholar

Davydov, V. V. (2008). Problems of developmental instructions. A Theoretical and experimental psychological study . New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc .

Deacon, D., and Edwards, J. (2012). Influences of friendship groupings on motivation for mathematics learning in secondary classrooms. Proc. Br. Soc. Res. into Learn. Math. 32 (2), 22–27.

Degrande, T., Verschaffel, L., and van Dooren, W. (2016). “Proportional word problem solving through a modeling lens: a half-empty or half-full glass?,” in Posing and Solving Mathematical Problems, Research in Mathematics Education . Editor P. Felmer.

Doerr, H. M., and Tripp, J. S. (1999). Understanding how students develop mathematical models. Math. Thinking Learn. 1 (3), 231–254. doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0103_3

Fujita, T., Doney, J., and Wegerif, R. (2019). Students' collaborative decision-making processes in defining and classifying quadrilaterals: a semiotic/dialogic approach. Educ. Stud. Math. 101 (3), 341–356. doi:10.1007/s10649-019-09892-9

Gillies, R. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Ajte 41 (3), 39–54. doi:10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3

Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How Emergent Models May Foster the Constitution of Formal Mathematics. Math. Thinking Learn. 1 (2), 155–177. doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0102_4

Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., and Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for the society of the future? Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 15 (S1), 105–123. doi:10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6

Hamilton, E. (2007). “What changes are needed in the kind of problem-solving situations where mathematical thinking is needed beyond school?,” in Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education . Editors R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, and Kaput (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ), 1–6.

Hannula, M. S. (2015). “Emotions in problem solving,” in Selected Regular Lectures from the 12 th International Congress on Mathematical Education . Editor S. J. Cho. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_16

Hwang, W.-Y., and Hu, S.-S. (2013). Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving. Comput. Edu. 62, 308–319. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.005

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Johnson Holubec, E. (2009). Circle of Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom . Gurgaon: Interaction Book Company .

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Johnson Holubec, E. (1993). Cooperation in the Classroom . Gurgaon: Interaction Book Company .

Jordan, M. E., and McDaniel, R. R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. J. Learn. Sci. 23 (4), 490–536. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.896254

Karlsson, N., and Kilborn, W. (2018a). Inclusion through learning in group: tasks for problem-solving. [Inkludering genom lärande i grupp: uppgifter för problemlösning] . Uppsala: Uppsala University .

Karlsson, N., and Kilborn, W. (2018c). It's enough if they understand it. A study of teachers 'and students' perceptions of multiplication and the multiplication table [Det räcker om de förstår den. En studie av lärares och elevers uppfattningar om multiplikation och multiplikationstabellen]. Södertörn Stud. Higher Educ. , 175.

Karlsson, N., and Kilborn, W. (2018b). Tasks for problem-solving in mathematics. [Uppgifter för problemlösning i matematik] . Uppsala: Uppsala University .

Karlsson, N., and Kilborn, W. (2020). “Teacher’s and student’s perception of rational numbers,” in Interim Proceedings of the 44 th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education , Interim Vol., Research Reports . Editors M. Inprasitha, N. Changsri, and N. Boonsena (Khon Kaen, Thailand: PME ), 291–297.

Kazak, S., Wegerif, R., and Fujita, T. (2015). Combining scaffolding for content and scaffolding for dialogue to support conceptual breakthroughs in understanding probability. ZDM Math. Edu. 47 (7), 1269–1283. doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0720-5

Klang, N., Olsson, I., Wilder, J., Lindqvist, G., Fohlin, N., and Nilholm, C. (2020). A cooperative learning intervention to promote social inclusion in heterogeneous classrooms. Front. Psychol. 11, 586489. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586489

Klang, N., Fohlin, N., and Stoddard, M. (2018). Inclusion through learning in group: cooperative learning [Inkludering genom lärande i grupp: kooperativt lärande] . Uppsala: Uppsala University .

Kunsch, C. A., Jitendra, A. K., and Sood, S. (2007). The effects of peer-mediated instruction in mathematics for students with learning problems: A research synthesis. Learn. Disabil Res Pract 22 (1), 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00226.x

Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2016). The social construction of authority among peers and its implications for collaborative mathematics problem solving. Math. Thinking Learn. 18 (2), 107–124. doi:10.1080/10986065.2016.1148529

Lein, A. E., Jitendra, A. K., and Harwell, M. R. (2020). Effectiveness of mathematical word problem solving interventions for students with learning disabilities and/or mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 112 (7), 1388–1408. doi:10.1037/edu0000453

Lesh, R., and Doerr, H. (2003). Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning and Teaching . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .

Lesh, R., Post, T., and Behr, M. (1988). “Proportional reasoning,” in Number Concepts and Operations in the Middle Grades . Editors J. Hiebert, and M. Behr (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ), 93–118.

Lesh, R., and Zawojewski, (2007). “Problem solving and modeling,” in Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . Editor L. F. K. Lester (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub ), vol. 2.

Lester, F. K., and Cai, J. (2016). “Can mathematical problem solving be taught? Preliminary answers from 30 years of research,” in Posing and Solving Mathematical Problems. Research in Mathematics Education .

Lybeck, L. (1981). “Archimedes in the classroom. [Arkimedes i klassen],” in Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences (Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gotoburgensis ), 37.

McMaster, K. N., and Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of Cooperative Learning on the Academic Achievement of Students with Learning Disabilities: An Update of Tateyama-Sniezek's Review. Learn. Disabil Res Pract 17 (2), 107–117. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00037

Mercer, N., and Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Lang. Edu. 20 (6), 507–528. doi:10.2167/le678.0

Montague, M., Krawec, J., Enders, C., and Dietz, S. (2014). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle-school students of varying ability. J. Educ. Psychol. 106 (2), 469–481. doi:10.1037/a0035176

Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Christou, C., and Stiraman, B. (2010). “Tracing students’ modeling processes in school,” in Modeling Students’ Mathematical Modeling Competencies . Editor R. Lesh (Berlin, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media ). doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0561-1_10

Mulryan, C. M. (1992). Student passivity during cooperative small groups in mathematics. J. Educ. Res. 85 (5), 261–273. doi:10.1080/00220671.1992.9941126

OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do . Paris: OECD Publishing . doi:10.1787/5f07c754-en

CrossRef Full Text

Pólya, G. (1948). How to Solve it: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press .

Russel, S. J. (1991). “Counting noses and scary things: Children construct their ideas about data,” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics . Editor I. D. Vere-Jones (Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago ), 141–164., s.

Rzoska, K. M., and Ward, C. (1991). The effects of cooperative and competitive learning methods on the mathematics achievement, attitudes toward school, self-concepts and friendship choices of Maori, Pakeha and Samoan Children. New Zealand J. Psychol. 20 (1), 17–24.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics (reprint). J. Edu. 196 (2), 1–38. doi:10.1177/002205741619600202

SFS 2009:400. Offentlighets- och sekretesslag. [Law on Publicity and confidentiality] . Retrieved from https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/offentlighets--och-sekretesslag-2009400_sfs-2009-400 on the 14th of October .

Snijders, T. A. B., and Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel Analysis. An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling . 2nd Ed. London: SAGE .

Stillman, G., Brown, J., and Galbraith, P. (2008). Research into the teaching and learning of applications and modelling in Australasia. In H. Forgasz, A. Barkatas, A. Bishop, B. Clarke, S. Keast, W. Seah, and P. Sullivan (red.), Research in Mathematics Education in Australasiae , 2004-2007 , p.141–164. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers .doi:10.1163/9789087905019_009

Stohlmann, M. S., and Albarracín, L. (2016). What is known about elementary grades mathematical modelling. Edu. Res. Int. 2016, 1–9. doi:10.1155/2016/5240683

Swedish National Educational Agency (2014). Support measures in education – on leadership and incentives, extra adaptations and special support [Stödinsatser I utbildningen – om ledning och stimulans, extra anpassningar och särskilt stöd] . Stockholm: Swedish National Agency of Education .

Swedish National Educational Agency (2018). Syllabus for the subject of mathematics in compulsory school . Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-och-kursplaner-for-grundskolan/laroplan-lgr11-for-grundskolan-samt-for-forskoleklassen-och-fritidshemmet?url=-996270488%2Fcompulsorycw%2Fjsp%2Fsubject.htm%3FsubjectCode%3DGRGRMAT01%26tos%3Dgr&sv.url=12.5dfee44715d35a5cdfa219f ( on the 32nd of July, 2021).

van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and Insight. A Theory of Mathematics Education . London: Academic Press .

Velásquez, A. M., Bukowski, W. M., and Saldarriaga, L. M. (2013). Adjusting for Group Size Effects in Peer Nomination Data. Soc. Dev. 22 (4), a–n. doi:10.1111/sode.12029

Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., and De Corte, E. (2007). “Whole number concepts and operations,” in Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . Editor F. K. Lester (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub ), 557–628.

Webb, N. M., and Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39 (1), 73–97. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00074-0

Wegerif, R. (2011). “Theories of Learning and Studies of Instructional Practice,” in Theories of learning and studies of instructional Practice. Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and Performance technologies . Editor T. Koschmann (Berlin, Germany: Springer ). doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7582-9

Yackel, E., Cobb, P., and Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. J. Res. Math. Edu. 22 (5), 390–408. doi:10.2307/749187

Zawojewski, J. (2010). Problem Solving versus Modeling. In R. Lesch, P. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, and A. Hurford (red.), Modelling student’s mathematical modelling competencies: ICTMA , p. 237–243. New York, NY: Springer .doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0561-1_20

Keywords: cooperative learning, mathematical problem-solving, intervention, heterogeneous classrooms, hierarchical linear regression analysis

Citation: Klang N, Karlsson N, Kilborn W, Eriksson P and Karlberg M (2021) Mathematical Problem-Solving Through Cooperative Learning—The Importance of Peer Acceptance and Friendships. Front. Educ. 6:710296. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.710296

Received: 15 May 2021; Accepted: 09 August 2021; Published: 24 August 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Klang, Karlsson, Kilborn, Eriksson and Karlberg. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Nina Klang, [email protected]

  • 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.

Photo of elementary school teacher with students

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.

Teaching mathematics through problem posing: insights from an analysis of teaching cases

  • Original Paper
  • Published: 12 April 2021
  • Volume 53 , pages 961–973, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

  • Huirong Zhang 1 &
  • Jinfa Cai 2  

1987 Accesses

16 Citations

Explore all metrics

In this study we aimed to understand teaching mathematics through problem posing based on an analysis of 22 teaching cases. Teaching mathematics through problem posing starts with problem-posing tasks. This study provides not only specific examples of problem-posing tasks used in classrooms but also related task variables to consider when developing problem-posing tasks. This study also contributes to our understanding of how teachers can deal with student-posed problems in the classroom. In these 22 teaching cases, there was a typical pattern to how teachers dealt with the students’ posed problems in the classroom according to the instructional goals. For future research, we need to accumulate additional teaching cases and explore possible discourse patterns concerning how teachers handle students’ posed problems, as well as identify the most effective discourse patterns when teaching mathematics through problem posing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

Australian Education Council. (1991). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools: A jointproject of the States, Territories and the Commonwealth of Australia initiated by the Australian Education Council . . Curriculum Corporation.

Google Scholar  

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better . . Harvard Education Press.

Cai, J. (2003). What research tells us about teaching mathematics through problem solving. In F. Lester (Ed.), Research and issues in teaching mathematics through problem solving. (pp. 241–254). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Cai, J., Chen, T., Li, X., Xu, R., Zhang, S., Hu, Y., Zhang, L., & Song, N. (2020). Exploring the impact of a problem-posing workshop on elementary school mathematics teachers’ problem posing and lesson design. International Journal of Educational Research, 102 , 101404.

Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in U.S. and Chinese students’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21 , 401–421.

Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2020). Learning to teach mathematics through problem posing: Theoretical considerations, methodology, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.01.001 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2021). Teachers as re-designers of curriculum to teach mathematics through problem posing: Conceptualization and initial findings of a problem-posing project . ZDM-Mathematics Education.

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. Springer.

Cai, J., Hwang, S., Melville, M. & Robison, V. (in press). Theories for teaching and teaching for theories: Artifacts as tangible entities for storing and improving professional knowledge for teaching. In A. Praetorius & C. Y. Charalambous (Ed), Theorizing teaching . Springer.

Cai, J., & Jiang, C. (2017). An analysis of problem-posing tasks in Chinese and U.S. elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15 (8), 1521–1540.

Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., Hwang, S., Nie, B., & Garber, T. (2013). Mathematical problem posing as a measure of curricular effect on students’ learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83 , 57–69.

Cai, J., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., Wang, C., & Nie, B. (2011). Longitudinal investigation of the curriculum effect: An analysis of student learning outcomes from the LieCal Project. International Journal of Educational Research , 50 , 117–136.

Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Jacobs, V. R., Fennema, E., & Empson, S. B. (1998). A longitudinal study of invention and understanding in children’s multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29 , 3–20.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning . . Heinemann.

Chinese Ministry of Education. (2001a). Curriculum standards for school mathematics of nine-year compulsory education (Trial version) . . Beijing Normal University Press.

Chinese Ministry of Education. (2001b). Guidelines for curriculum reform of elementary education (Trial version) . . Beijing Normal University Press.

Chinese Ministry of Education. (2003). Curriculum standards of high school mathematics (Trial version) . People’s Education Press.

Chinese Ministry of Education. (2011). Mathematics curriculum standard of compulsory education (2011 version) . . Beijing Normal University Press.

Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures . . Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., & Perlwitz, M. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22 , 3–29.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53 , 159–199.

Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23 , 167–180.

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

Forman, E., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. (pp. 323–347). Cambridge University Press.

Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., & Drueck, J. V. (2000). Achievement results for second and third graders using the standards-based curriculum everyday mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31 , 277–295.

Goldin, A. G., & Mcclintock, E. C. (1984). Task variables in mathematical problem solving . . Franklin Institute Press.

Hembree, R., & Marsh, H. (1993). Problem solving in early childhood: Building foundations. In R. J. Jenson (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: Early childhood mathematics. (pp. 151–170). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Henningsen, M. A., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and students’ cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28 , 524–549.

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding . . Heinemann.

Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional task, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second grade. American Educational Research Journal, 30 , 393–425.

Hillen, A. F., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Developing teachers’ abilities to facilitate meaningful classroom discourse through cases: The case of accountable talk. In M. S. Smith & S. Friel (Eds.), Cases in mathematics teacher education: Tools for developing knowledge needed for teaching. AMTE Fourth monograph of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.

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

Kontorovich, I., Koichu, B., Leikin, R., & Berman, A. (2012). An exploratory framework for handling the complexity of mathematical problem posing in small groups. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31 (1), 149–161.

Kroll, D. L., & Miller, T. (1993). Insights from research on mathematical problem solving in the middle grades. In D. T. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: Middle grades mathematics. (pp. 58–77). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27 , 29–63.

Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and expert competence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20 (1), 52–75.

Lloyd, G. M., Cai, J., & Tarr, J. E. (2017). Issues in curriculum studies: Evidence-based insights and future directions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Lu, C., & Wang, B. (2006). Research on mathematics teaching through using mathematical situations and posing problems in high school and primary school [in Chinese] . . Guizhou People’s Publishing House.

Matsko, V. J., & Thomas, J. (2015). Beyond routine: Fostering creativity in mathematics classrooms. In F. M. Singer, N. F. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Mathematical problem posing. (pp. 125–139). Springer.

Merseth, K. K. (2003). Windows on teaching math: Cases of middle and secondary classrooms . . Teachers College Press.

Merseth, K. K. (2016). The early history of case-based instruction: Insights for teacher education today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (4), 243–249.

Ministry of Education (Singapore). (2012). Primary mathematics teaching and learning Syllabus . . Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . . Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics . . Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics . . Author.

Perry, M., VanderStoep, S. W., & Yu, S. L. (1993). Asking questions in first-grade mathematics classes: Potential influences on mathematical thought. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 , 31–40.

Resnick, L. B. (1989). Developing mathematical knowledge. American Psychologist, 44 , 162–169.

Ridgeway, J., Zawojewski, J. S., Hoover, M. N., & Lambdin, D. (2002). Student attainment in the connected mathematics curriculum. In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Romberg, T. A., & Shafer, M. (2002). Mathematics in Context (MiC): Preliminary evidence about student outcomes. In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schroeder, T. L., & Lester, F. K., Jr. (1989). Developing understanding in mathematics via problem solving. In P. R. Trafton (Ed.), New directions for elementary school mathematics. (pp. 31–42). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Silber, S., & Cai, J. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ free and structured mathematical problem posing. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48 (2), 163–184.

Silver, E. A., & Cai, J. (1996). An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (5), 521–539.

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

Singer, F. M., & Moscovici, H. (2008). Teaching and learning cycles in a constructivist approach to instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (6), 1613–1634.

Smith, M. S., Boyle, J., Arbaugh, F., Steele, M. D., & Stylianides, G. (2014). Cases as a vehicle for developing knowledge needed for teaching. In Y. Li, E. A. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices. Cham: Springer.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33 , 455–488.

Stein, M. K., Henningsen, M. A., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development . (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers. Harvard Educational Review, 69 , 237–269.

Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39 (3), 247–280.

Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 127–146). Macmillan.

Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (4), 367–427.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues and Answers Report REL 2007, No. 033). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Southwest University, Chongqing, China

Huirong Zhang

University of Delaware, 437 Ewing Hall, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinfa Cai .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zhang, H., Cai, J. Teaching mathematics through problem posing: insights from an analysis of teaching cases. ZDM Mathematics Education 53 , 961–973 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01260-3

Download citation

Accepted : 28 March 2021

Published : 12 April 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01260-3

Share this article

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

  • Teaching through problem posing
  • Teaching cases
  • Problem-posing task
  • Classroom instruction
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Front Psychol

Challenges of teachers when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills are essential as the skills can improve the ability to deal with various mathematical problems in daily life, increase the imagination, develop creativity, and develop an individual’s comprehension skills. However, mastery of these skills among students is still unsatisfactory because students often find it difficult to understand mathematical problems in verse, are weak at planning the correct solution strategy, and often make mistakes in their calculations. This study was conducted to identify the challenges that mathematics teachers face when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches used to address these challenges. This study was conducted qualitatively in the form of a case study. The data were collected through observations and interviews with two respondents who teach mathematics to year four students in a Chinese national primary school in Kuala Lumpur. This study shows that the teachers have faced three challenges, specifically low mastery skills among the students, insufficient teaching time, and a lack of ICT infrastructure. The teachers addressed these challenges with creativity and enthusiasm to diversify the teaching approaches to face the challenges and develop interest and skills as part of solving sentence-based mathematics problems among year four students. These findings allow mathematics teachers to understand the challenges faced while teaching sentence-based mathematics problem solving in depth as part of delivering quality education for every student. Nevertheless, further studies involving many respondents are needed to understand the problems and challenges of different situations and approaches that can be used when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

1. Introduction

To keep track of the development of the current world, education has changed over time to create a more robust and effective system for producing a competent and competitive generation ( Hashim and Wan, 2020 ). The education system of a country is a significant determinant of the growth and development of the said country ( Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013 ). In the Malaysian context, the education system has undergone repeated changes alongside the latest curriculum, namely the revised Primary School Standard Curriculum (KSSR) and the revised Secondary School Standard Curriculum (KSSM). These changes have been implemented to ensure that Malaysian education is improving continually so then the students can guide the country to compete globally ( Adam and Halim, 2019 ). However, Malaysian students have shown limited skills in international assessments such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).

According to the PISA 2018 results, the students’ performance in mathematics is still below the average level of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; Avvisati et al., 2019 ). The results show that almost half of the students in Malaysia have still not mastered mathematical skills fully. Meanwhile, the TIMSS results in 2019 have shown there to be a descent in the achievements of Malaysian students compared to the results in 2015 ( Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2020b ). This situation is worrying as most students from other countries such as China, Singapore, Korea, Japan, and others have a higher level of mathematical skills than Malaysian students. According to Mullis et al. (2016) , these two international assessments have in common that both assessments test the level of the students’ skills when solving real-world problems. In short, PISA and TIMSS have proven that Malaysian students are still weak when it comes to solving sentence-based mathematics problems.

According to Hassan et al. (2019) , teachers must emphasize the mastery of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and apply it in mathematics teaching in primary school. Sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills can improve the students’ skills when dealing with various mathematical problems in daily life ( Gurat, 2018 ), increase the students’ imagination ( Wibowo et al., 2017 ), develop the students’ creativity ( Suastika, 2017 ), and develop the students’ comprehension skills ( Mulyati et al., 2017 ). The importance of sentence-based mathematic problem-solving skills is also supported by Ismail et al. (2021) . They stated that mathematics problem-solving skills are similar to high-level thinking skills when it comes to guiding students with how to deal with problems creatively and critically. Moreover, problem-solving skills are also an activity that requires an individual to select an appropriate strategy to be performed by the individual to ensure that movement occurs between the current state to the expected state ( Sudarmo and Mariyati, 2017 ). There are various strategies that can be used by teachers to guide students when developing their problem-solving skills such as problem-solving strategies based on Polya’s Problem-Solving Model (1957). Various research studies have used problem-solving models to solve specific problems to improve the students’ mathematical skills. Polya (1957) , Lester (1980) , Gick (1986) , and DeMuth (2007) are examples. One of the oldest problem-solving models is the George Polya model (1957). The model is divided into four major stages: (i) understanding the problem; (ii) devising a plan that will lead to the solution; (iii) Carrying out the plan; and (iv) looking back. In contrast to traditional mathematics classroom environments, Polya’s Problem-Solving Process allows the students to practice adapting and changing strategies to match new scenarios. As a result, the teachers must assist the students to help them recognize whether the strategy is appropriate, including where and how to apply the technique.

In addition, problem-solving skills are one of the 21st-century skills that need to be mastered by students through education now so then they are prepared to face the challenges of daily life ( Khoiriyah and Husamah., 2018 ). This statement is also supported by Widodo et al. (2018) who put forward four main reasons why students need to master problem-solving skills through mathematics learning. One reason is that sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills are closely related to daily life ( Wong, 2015 ). Such skills can be used to formulate concepts and develop mathematical ideas, a skill that needs to be conveyed according to the school’s content standards. The younger generation is expected to develop critical, logical, systematic, accurate, and efficient thinking when solving a problem. Accordingly, problem solving has become an element that current employers emphasize when looking to acquire new energy sources ( Zainuddin et al., 2018 ). This clearly shows that problem-solving skills are essential skills that must be mastered by students and taken care of by mathematics teachers in primary school.

In the context of mathematics learning in Malaysia, students are required to solve sentence-based mathematics problems by applying mathematical concepts learned at the end of each topic. Two types of sentence-based mathematics problems are presented when teaching mathematics: routine and non-routine ( Wong and Matore, 2020 ). According to Nurkaeti (2018) , routine sentence-based math problems are questions that require the students to solve problems using algorithmic calculations to obtain answers. For non-routine sentence-based math problems, thinking skills and the ability to apply more than one method or solution step are needed by the student to solve the problem ( Shawan et al., 2021 ). According to Rohmah and Sutiarso (2018) , problem-solving skills when solving a non-routine sentence-based mathematical problem is a high-level intellectual skill where the students need to use logical thinking and reasoning. This statement also aligns with Wilson's (1997) opinion that solving non-routine sentence-based mathematics always involves high-order thinking skills (HOTS). To solve non-routine and HOTS fundamental sentence-based math problems, a student is required to know various problem-solving strategies for solving the problems ( Wong and Matore, 2020 ). This situation has indirectly made the mastery of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills among students more challenging ( Mahmud, 2019 ).

According to Alkhawaldeh and Khasawneh’s findings (2021) , the failure of students stems from the teachers’ inability to perform their role effectively in the classroom. This statement is also supported by Abdullah (2020) . He argues that the failure of students in mastering non-routine sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills is due to the teachers rarely supplying these types of questions during the process of learning mathematics in class. A mathematics teacher should consider this issue because the quality of their teaching will affect the students’ mastery level of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

In addition, the teachers’ efforts to encourage the students to engage in social interactions with the teachers ( Jatisunda, 2017 ) and the teachers’ method of teaching and assessing the level of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills ( Buschman, 2004 ) are also challenges that the teachers must face. Strategies that are not appropriate for the students will affect the quality of delivery of the sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills as well as cause one-way interactions to exist in the classroom. According to Rusdin and Ali (2019) , a practical teaching approach plays a vital role in developing the students’ skills when mastering specific knowledge. However, based on previous studies, the main challenges that mathematics teachers face when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem solving are due to the students. These challenges include the students having difficulty understanding sentence-based math problems, lacking knowledge about basic mathematical concepts, not calculating accurately, and not transforming the sentence-based mathematics problems into an operational form ( Yoong and Nasri, 2021 ). This also means that they cannot transform the sentence-based math problems into an operational form ( Yoong and Nasri, 2021 ). As a result, the teacher should diversify his or her teaching strategy by emphasizing understanding the mathematical concepts rather than procedural teaching to reinforce basic mathematical concepts, to encourage the students to work on any practice problems assigned by the teacher before completing any assignments to help them do the calculation correctly, and engaging in the use of effective oral questioning to stimulate student thinking related to the operational need when problem solving. All of these strategies actually help the teachers facilitate and lessen the students’ difficulty understanding sentence-based math problems ( Subramaniam et al., 2022 ).

Meanwhile, Dirgantoro et al. (2019) stated several challenges that the students posed while solving the sentence-based problem. For example, students do not read the questions carefully, the students lack mastery of mathematical concepts, the students solve problems in a hurry due to poor time management, the students are not used to making hypotheses and conclusions, as well as the students, being less skilled at using a scientific calculator. These factors have caused the students to have difficulty mastering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills, which goes on to become an inevitable challenge in maths classes. Therefore, teachers need to study these challenges to self-reflect so then their self-professionalism can be further developed ( Dirgantoro et al., 2019 ).

As for the school factor, challenges such as limited teaching resources, a lack of infrastructure facilities, and a large number of students in a class ( Rusdin and Ali, 2019 ) have meant that a conducive learning environment for learning sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills cannot be created. According to Ersoy (2016) , problem-solving skills can be learned if an appropriate learning environment is provided for the students to help them undergo a continuous and systematic problem-solving process.

To develop sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills among students, various models, pedagogies, activities, etc. have been introduced to assist mathematics teachers in delivering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills more effectively ( Gurat, 2018 ; Khoiriyah and Husamah., 2018 ; Özreçberoğlu and Çağanağa, 2018 ; Hasibuan et al., 2019 ). However, students nowadays still face difficulties when trying to master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. This situation occurs due to the lack of studies examining the challenges faced by these mathematics teachers and how teachers use teaching approaches to overcome said challenges. This has led to various issues during the teaching and facilitation of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills in mathematics classes. According to Rusdin and Ali (2019) , these issues need to be addressed by a teacher wisely so then the quality of teaching can reach the best level. Therefore, mathematics teachers must understand and address these challenges to improve their teaching.

However, so far, not much is known about how primary school mathematics teachers face the challenges encountered when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and what approaches are used to address the challenges in the context of education in Malaysia. Therefore, this study needs to be carried out to help understand the teaching of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills in primary schools ( Pazin et al., 2022 ). Due to the challenges when teaching mathematics as stipulated in the Mathematics Curriculum and Assessment Standard Document ( Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2020a ) which emphasizes mathematical problem-solving skills as one of the main skills that students need to master in comprehensive mathematics learning, this study focuses on identifying the challenges faced by mathematics teachers when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches that mathematics teachers have used to overcome those challenges. The results of this study can provide information to mathematics teachers to help them understand the challenges when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches that can be applied to overcome the challenges faced. Therefore, it is very important for this study to be carried out so then all the visions set within the framework of the Malaysian National Mathematics Curriculum can be successfully achieved.

2. Conceptual framework

The issue of students lacking mastery of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills is closely related to the challenges that teachers face and the teaching approach used. Based on the overall findings of the previous studies, the factors that pose a challenge to teachers when delivering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills include challenges from the teacher ( Buschman, 2004 ; Jatisunda, 2017 ; Abdullah, 2020 ), challenges from the pupils ( Dirgantoro et al., 2019 ), and challenges from the school ( Rusdin and Ali, 2019 ). As for the teaching approach, previous studies have suggested teaching approaches such as mastery learning, contextual learning, project-based learning, problem-based learning, simulation, discovery inquiry, the modular approach, the STEM approach ( Curriculum Development Division, 2019 ), game-based teaching which uses digital games ( Muhamad et al., 2018 ), and where a combination of the modular approach especially the flipped classroom is applied alongside the problem-based learning approach when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem solving ( Alias et al., 2020 ). This is as well as the constructivism approach ( Jatisunda, 2017 ). The conceptual framework in Figure 1 illustrates that the teachers will face various challenges during the ongoing teaching and facilitation of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-1074202-g001.jpg

Conceptual framework of the study.

3. Methodology

The objective of this study was to determine the challenges that teachers face while teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches used when teaching those skills. Therefore, a qualitative research approach in the form of a case study was used to collect data from the participants in a Chinese national type of school (SJKC) in Bangsar and Pudu, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. The school, SJKC, in the districts of Bangsar and Pudu, was chosen as the location of this study because the school is implementing the School Transformation Program 2025 (TS25). One of the main objectives of the TS25 program is to apply the best teaching concepts and practices so then the quality of the learning and teaching in the classes is improved. Thus, schools that go through the program are believed to be able to diversify their teachers’ teaching and supply more of the data needed to answer the questions of this study. This is because case studies can develop an in-depth description and analysis of the case to be studied ( Creswell and Poth, 2018 ). All data collected through the observations, interviews, audio-visual materials, documents, and reports can be reported on in terms of both depth and detail based on the theme of the case. Therefore, this study collected data related to the challenges and approaches of SJKC mathematics teachers through observations, interviews, and document analysis.

Two primary school mathematics teachers who teach year four mathematics were selected to be the participants of this research using the purposive sampling technique to identify the challenges faced and the approaches used to overcome those challenges. The number of research participants in this study was sufficient enough to allow the researcher to explore the real picture of the challenges found when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches that can be applied when teaching to overcome the challenges faced. According to Creswell and Creswell (2018) , the small number of study participants is sufficient when considering that the main purpose of the study is to obtain findings that can give a holistic and meaningful picture of the teaching and learning process in the classroom. However, based on the data analysis for both study participants, the researcher considered repeated information until it reached a saturation point. The characteristics of the study participants required when they were supplying the information for this study were as follows:

  • New or experienced teachers.
  • Year four math teacher.
  • Teachers teach in primary schools.
  • The teacher teaches the topic of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

The types of instruments used in the study were the observation protocol, field notes, interview protocol, and participants’ documents. In this study, the researcher used participatory type observations to observe the teaching style of the teachers when engaged in sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills lessons. Before conducting the study, the researcher obtained consent to conduct the study from the school as well as informed consent from the study participants to observe their teaching. During the observation, the teacher’s teaching process was recorded and transcribed using the field notes provided. Then, the study participants submitted and validated the field notes to avoid biased data. After that, the field notes were analyzed based on the observation protocol to identify the teachers’ challenges and teaching approaches in relation to sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. Throughout the observation process of this study, the researcher observed the teaching of mathematics teachers online at least four times during the 2 months of the data collection at the research location.

Semi-structured interviews were used to identify the teachers’ perspectives and views on teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills in terms of the challenges faced when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches used by the teachers to overcome those challenges. To ensure that the interview data collected could answer the research questions, an interview protocol was prepared so then the required data could be collected from the study participants ( Cohen et al., 2007 ). Two experts validated the interview protocol, and a pilot study was conducted to ensure that the questions were easy to understand and would obtain the necessary data. Before the interview sessions began, the participants were informed of their rights and of the related research ethics. Throughout the interview sessions, the participants were asked two questions, namely:

  • What are the challenges faced when teaching mathematical problem-solving skills earlier?
  • What teaching approaches are used by teachers when facing these challenges? Why?

Semi-structured interviews were used to interview the study participants for 30 min every interview session. The timing ensured sufficient time for both parties to complete the question-and-answer process. Finally, the entire interview process was recorded in audio form. The audio recordings were then transcribed into text form and verified by the study participants.

The types of document collected in this study included informal documents, namely the daily lesson plan documents of the study participants, the work of the students of the study participants, and any teaching aids used. All of the documents were analyzed and used to ensure that the triangulation of the data occurred between the data collected from observations, interviews, and document analysis.

All data collected through the observations, interviews, and documentary analyses were entered into the NVIVO 11 software to ensure that the coding process took place simultaneously. The data in this study were analyzed using the constant comparative analysis method including open coding, axial coding, and selective coding to obtain the themes and subthemes related to the focus of the study ( Kolb, 2012 ). The NVIVO 11 software was also used to manage the data stack obtained from the interviews, observations, and document analysis during the data analysis process itself. In order to ensure that the themes generated from all of the data were accurate, the researcher carried out a repetitive reading process. The process of theme development involved numerous steps. First, the researcher examined the verbatim instruction data several times while looking for statements or paragraphs that could summarize a theme in a nutshell. This process had already been completed during the verbatim formation process of the teaching, while preparing the transcription. Second, the researcher kept reading (either from the same or different data), and if the researcher found a sentence that painted a similar picture to the theme that had been developed, the sentence was added to the same theme. This process is called “pattern matching” because the coding of the sentences refers to the existing categories ( Yin, 2003 ). Third, if the identified sentence was incompatible with an existing theme, a new theme was created. Fourth, this coding procedure continued throughout each data set’s theme analysis. The repeated reading process was used to select sentences able to explain the theme or help establish a new one. In short, the researcher conducted the data analysis process based on the data analysis steps proposed by Creswell and Creswell (2018) , as shown in Figure 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-1074202-g002.jpg

Data analysis steps ( Creswell and Creswell, 2018 ).

4. Findings

The findings of this study are presented based on the objective of the study, which was to identify the challenges faced by teachers and the approaches used to addressing those challenges when imparting sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills to students in year four. Several themes were formed based on the analysis of the field notes, interview transcripts, and daily lesson plans of the study participants. This study found that teachers will face challenges that stem from the readiness of students to master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills, the teachers’ teaching style, and the equipment used for delivering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. Due to facing these challenges, teachers have diversified their teaching approaches ( Figure 3 ; Table 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-13-1074202-g003.jpg

Sentence-based mathematics problem-solving teaching approaches.

Teacher challenges when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

5. Discussion

5.1. challenges for teachers when imparting sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

A mathematics teacher will face three challenges when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. The first challenge stems from the low mastery skills held by a student. Pupils can fail to solve sentence-based mathematics problems because they have poor reading skills, there is a poor medium of instruction used, or they have a poor mastery of mathematical concepts ( Johari et al., 2022 ). This indicates that students who are not ready or reach a minimum level of proficiency in a language, comprehension, mathematical concepts, and calculations will result in them not being able to solve sentence-based mathematics problems smoothly.

These findings are consistent with the findings of the studies by Raifana et al. (2016) and Dirgantoro et al. (2019) who showed that students who are unprepared in terms of language skills, comprehension, mathematical concepts, and calculations are likely to make mistakes when solving sentence-based mathematics problems. If these challenges are not faced well, the students will become passive and not interact when learning sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. This situation occurs because students who frequently make mistakes will incur low self-confidence in mathematics ( Jailani et al., 2017 ). This situation should be avoided by teachers and social interaction should be encouraged during the learning process because the interaction between students and teachers can ensure that the learning outcomes are achieved by the students optimally ( Jatisunda, 2017 ).

The next challenge stems from the teacher-teaching factor. This study found that how teachers convey problem-solving skills has been challenging in terms of ensuring that their students master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills ( Nang et al., 2022 ). The mastery teaching approach has caused the teaching time spent on mathematical content to be insufficient. Based on the findings of this study, the allocation of time spent ensuring that the students master the skills of solving sentence-based mathematics problems through a mastery approach has caused the teaching process not to follow the rate set in the annual lesson plan.

In this study, the participants spent a long time correcting the students’ mathematical concepts and allowing students to apply the skills learned. The actions of the participants of this study are in line with the statement of Adam and Halim (2019) that teachers need more time to arouse their students’ curiosity and ensure that students understand the correct ideas and concepts before doing more challenging activities. However, this approach has indirectly posed challenges regarding time allocation and ensuring that the students master the skills of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving. Aside from ensuring that the students’ master problem-solving skills, the participants must also complete the syllabus set in the annual lesson plan.

Finally, teachers also face challenges in terms of the lack of information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure when implementing the teaching and facilitation of sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. In this study, mathematics teachers were found to face challenges caused by an unstable internet connection such as the problem of their students dropping out of class activities and whiteboard links not working. These problems have caused one mathematics class to run poorly ( Mahmud and Law, 2022 ). Throughout the implementation of teaching and its facilitation, ICT infrastructure equipment in terms of hardware, software, and internet services has become an element that will affect the effectiveness of virtual teaching ( Saifudin and Hamzah, 2021 ). In this regard, a mathematics teacher must be wise when selecting a teaching approach and diversifying the learning activities to implement a suitable mathematics class for students such as systematically using tables, charts, or lists, creating digital simulations, using analogies, working back over the work, involving reasoning activities and logic, and using various new applications such as Geogebra and Kahoot to help enable their students’ understanding.

5.2. Teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills—Approaches

In this study, various approaches have been used by the teachers facing challenges while imparting sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. Among the approaches that the mathematics teachers have used when teaching problem-solving skills are the oral questioning approach, mastery learning approach, contextual learning approach, game approach, and modular approach. This situation has shown that mathematics teachers have diversified their teaching approaches when facing the challenges associated with teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. This action is also in line with the excellent teaching and facilitation of mathematics proposal in the Curriculum and Assessment Standards Document revised KSSR Mathematics Year 4 ( Curriculum Development Division, 2019 ), stating that teaching activities should be carefully planned by the teachers and combine a variety of approaches that allow the students not only to understand the content in depth but also to think at a higher level. Therefore, a teacher needs to ensure that this teaching approach is applied when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills so then the students can learn sentence-based mathematics problem-solving teaching skills in a more fun, meaningful, and challenging environment ( Mahmud et al., 2022 ).

Through the findings of this study, the teaching approach used by mathematics teachers was found to have a specific purpose, namely facing the challenges associated with teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills in the classroom. First of all, the oral questioning approach has been used by teachers facing the challenge of students having a poor understanding of the medium of instruction. The participants stated that questioning the students in stages can guide them to understanding the question and helping them plan appropriate problem-solving strategies. This opinion is also supported by Maat (2015) who stated that low-level oral questions could help the students achieve a minimum level of understanding, in particular remembering, and strengthening abstract mathematical concepts. The teacher’s action of guiding the students when solving sentence-based mathematics problems through oral questioning has ensured that the learning takes place in a student-centered manner, providing opportunities for the students to think and solve problems independently ( Mahmud and Yunus, 2018 ). This action is highly encouraged because teaching mathematics through the conventional approach is only effective for a short period, as the students can lack an understanding or fail to remember the mathematical concepts presented by the teacher ( Ali et al., 2021 ).

In addition, this study also found that the participants used the mastery approach to overcome the challenges of poor reading skills and poor mastery of mathematical concepts among the students. The mastery approach was used because it can provide more opportunities and time for the students to improve their reading skills and mastery of mathematical concepts ( Shawan et al., 2021 ). This approach has ensured that all students achieve the teaching objectives and that the teachers have time to provide enrichment and rehabilitation to the students as part of mastering the basic skills needed to solve sentence-based mathematics problems. This approach is very effective at adapting students to solving sentence-based mathematics problems according to the solution steps of the Polya model as well as the mathematical concepts learned in relation to a particular topic. The finding is in line with Ranggoana et al. (2018) and Mahmud (2019) study, which has shown that teaching through a mastery approach can enhance the student’s learning activities. This situation clearly shows that the mastery approach has ensured that the students have time to learn at their own pace, where they often try to emulate the solution shown by the teacher to solve a sentence-based mathematics problem.

Besides that, this study also found that mathematics teachers apply contextual learning approaches when teaching and facilitating sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. In this study, mathematics teachers have linked non-routine problems with examples from everyday life to guide the students with poor language literacy to help them understand non-routine problems and plan appropriate solution strategies. Such relationships can help the students process non-routine problems or mathematical concepts in a more meaningful context where the problem is relevant to real situations ( Siew et al., 2016 ). This situation can develop the students’ skill of solving sentence-based math problems where they can choose the right solution strategy to solve a non-routine problem. This finding is consistent with the results of Afni and Hartono (2020) . They showed that the contextual approach applied in learning could guide the students in determining appropriate strategies for solving sentence-based math problems. These findings are also supported by Seliaman and Dollah (2018) who stated that the practice of teachers giving examples that exist around the students and in real situations could make teaching and the subject facilitation easier to understand and fun.

Furthermore, the game approach was also used by the participants when imparting sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills. According to Sari et al. (2018) , the game approach to teaching mathematics can improve the student learning outcomes because the game approach facilitates the learning process and provides a more enjoyable learning environment for achieving the learning objectives. In this study, the game approach was used by the teachers to overcome the challenge of mastering the concept of unit conversion, which was not strong among the students ( Tobias et al., 2015 ; Hui and Mahmud, 2022 ). The participants used the game approach to teach induction sets that guided the students in recalling mathematical concepts. The action provided a fun learning environment and attracted the students to learning mathematical concepts, especially in the beginning of the class. This situation is consistent with the findings of Muhamad et al. (2018) . They showed that the game approach improved the students’ problem-solving skills, interests, and motivation to find a solution to the problem.

Regarding the challenge of insufficient teaching time and a lack of ICT infrastructure, modular approaches such as flipped classrooms have been used to encourage students to learn in a situation that focuses on self-development ( UNESCO, 2020 ). In this study, the participants used instructional videos with related content, clear instructions, and worksheets as part of the Google classroom learning platform. The students can follow the instructions to engage in revision or self-paced learning in their spare time. This modular approach has ensured that teachers can deliver mathematical content and increase the effectiveness of learning a skill ( Alias et al., 2020 ). For students with unstable internet connections, the participants have used a modular approach to ensure that the students continue learning and send work through other channels such as WhatsApp, by email, or as a hand-in hardcopy. In short, an appropriate teaching approach needs to be planned and implemented by the mathematics teachers to help students master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

6. Conclusion

Overall, this study has expanded the literature related to the challenges when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches that can be applied while teaching to overcome the challenges faced. This study has shown that students have difficulty mastering sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills because they do not achieve the minimum mastery of factual knowledge, procedural skills, conceptual understanding, and the ability to choose appropriate strategies ( Collins and Stevens, 1983 ). This situation needs to be taken into account because sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills train the students to always be prepared to deal with problems that they will be faced with in their daily life. Through this study, teachers were found to play an essential role in overcoming the challenges faced by choosing the most appropriate teaching approach ( Baul and Mahmud, 2021 ). An appropriate teaching approach can improve the students’ sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills ( Wulandari et al., 2020 ). Teachers need to work hard to equip themselves with varied knowledge and skills to ensure that sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills can be delivered to the students more effectively. Finally, the findings of this study were part of obtaining extensive data regarding the challenges that mathematics teachers face when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills and the approaches used to address those challenges in the process of teaching mathematics. It is suggested that a quantitative study be conducted to find out whether the findings obtained can be generalized to other populations. This is because this study is a qualitative one, and the findings of this study cannot be generalized to other populations.

The findings of this study can be used as a reference to develop the professionalism of mathematics teachers when teaching mathematical problem-solving skills. However, the study’s findings, due to being formulated from a small sample size, cannot be generalized to all mathematics teachers in Malaysia. Further studies are proposed to involve more respondents to better understand the different challenges and approaches used when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills.

Data availability statement

Ethics statement.

This study was reviewed and approved by The Malaysian Ministry of Education. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

AL conceived and designed the study, collected and organized the database, and performed the analysis. AL and MM co-wrote the manuscript and contributed to manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the final submitted version.

The publication of this article is fully sponsored by the Faculty of Education Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and University Research Grant: GUP-2022-030, GGPM-2021-014, and GG-2022-022.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the commitment from the respondent. Thank you to the Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, and University Research Grant: GUP-2022-030, GGPM-2021-014, and GG-2022-022 for sponsoring the publication of this article. Thanks also to all parties directly involved in helping the publication of this article to success.

  • Abdullah N. A. (2020). Kompetensi Penyelesaian Masalah Dan Pengetahuan Konseptual guru Matematik Sekolah Menengah [Problem solving competence and conceptual knowledge of middle school mathematics teachers] . Jurnal Kurikulum Pengajaran ASIA Pasifik 8 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Adam N. A. B., Halim L. B.. (2019). “The challenge of integrating STEM education into the Malaysian curriculum,” in Seminar Wacana Pendidikan 2019 (SWAPEN 2.0) . 252–260.
  • Afni N., Hartono (2020). “Contextual teaching and learning (CTL) as a strategy to improve students mathematical literacy,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: The 3rd International Seminar on Innovation in Mathematics and Mathematics Education (ISIMMED 2019) .
  • Ali S., Shanmugam S. K. S., Kamaludin F. A. (2021). Effectiveness of teacher facilitation skills and breakouts room for problem-based learning methods in enhancing student involvement during mathematics online classes . Pract. Res. 3 , 191–210. doi: 10.32890/pr2021.3.10 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Alias M., Iksan Z. H., Karim A. A., Nawawi A. M. H. M., Nawawi S. R. M. (2020). A novel approach in problem-solving skills using flipped classroom technique . Creat. Educ. 11 , 38–53. doi: 10.4236/ce.2020.111003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Alkhawaldeh M. A., Khasawneh M. A. S. (2021). Learning disabilities in English at the primary stage: a qualitative study from the students’ perspective . Int. J. Multi-Discip. Res. Publ. 4 , 42–45. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Avvisati F., Echazarra P., Givord P., Schwabe M.. (2019). Programme for international student assessment (PISA) results from PISA 2018 . OECD Secretaries-General, Paris, France: Avvisati’s publisher. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Baul A. L. N., Mahmud M. S. (2021). “Sentence-based mathematics problem solving skills in primary school mathematics learning: a literature review,” in International Virtual Conference on Education, Social Sciences and Technology 2021 , 3, 123–134.
  • Buschman L. (2004). Teaching problem solving in mathematics . Teach. Child. Math. 10 , 302–309. doi: 10.5951/TCM.10.6.0302 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Cohen L., Manion L., Morrison K.. (2007). Research methods in education . Vol. 55 . (London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; ). [ Google Scholar ]
  • Collins A., Stevens A. L. (1983). “ A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching ” in Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status . Vol. 247 . ed. Reigeluth C. M. (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; ), 247–278. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Creswell J. W., Creswell J. D. (2018). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . 5th Edn (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc; ). [ Google Scholar ]
  • Creswell J. W., Poth C. (2018). Qualitative inguiry research design choosing among five approaches . 5th Edn (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc; ). [ Google Scholar ]
  • Curriculum Development Division (2019). Dokumen standard Kurikulum Dan Pentaksiran KSSR Semakan 2017 Matematik Tahun 5 [revised KSSR 2017 standard document for year 5 mathematics curriculum and assessment] . Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, putrajaya: Curriculum Development Division publisher. [ Google Scholar ]
  • DeMuth D. (2007). A logical problem-solving strategy . New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Dirgantoro K. P., Sepdikasari M. J. S., Listiani T. (2019). Analisis Kesalahan Mahasiswa Pgsd Dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Statistika Penelitian Pendidikan Ditinjau Dari Prosedur Newman an analysis of primary teacher education students solving problems in statistics for educational research using the Newman procedure . JOHME: J. Holistic Math. Educ. 2 , 83–96. doi: 10.19166/johme.v2i2.1203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ersoy E. (2016). Problem solving and its teaching in mathematics . Online J. New Horiz. Educ. 6 , 79–87. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gick K. (1986). Problem Solving Process, in Principles for teaching Problem Solving . New York: Plato Learning Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Gurat M. G. (2018). Mathematical problem-solving strategies among student teachers . J. Effic. Responsibility Educ. Sci. 11 , 53–64. doi: 10.7160/eriesj.2018.110302 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hashim M. I., Wan M. W. M. R. (2020). Faktor Ketidaksediaan guru Terhadap Pelaksanaan Kelas Bercampur Aras murid [Factors of teacher unpreparedness of classroom mixed student implementation] . J. Dunia Pendidikan 2 , 196–204. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hasibuan A. M., Saragih S., Amry Z. (2019). Development of learning devices based on realistic mathematics education to improve students’ spatial ability and motivation . Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 14 , 243–252. doi: 10.29333/iejme/4000 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hassan N. H., Hussin Z., Siraj S., Sapar A. A., Ismail Z. (2019). Kemahiran Berfikir Kritis Dalam Buku Teks Bahasa Melayu Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah Tahap II [Critical Thinking Skills in Malay Language Textbooks Primary School Curriculum Standard Level II] . Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran ASIA Pasifik (JuKu) 7 , 18–29. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Hui H. B., Mahmud M. S. (2022). Teachers’ perception towards DELIMa learning platform for mathematics online teaching and learning in Sibu District teachers’ perception towards DELIMa learning platform for mathematics online teaching and learning in Sibu District . Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Social Sci. 12 , 1888–1908. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v12-i11/15240 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ismail F., Nasir A. A., Haron R., Kelewon N. A.. (2021). Mendominasi Kemahiran Penyelesaian Masalah [Dominate Problem Solving Skills] . Res. Manag. Technol. Bus. 2 , 446–455. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jailani J., Sugiman S., Apino E. (2017). Implementing the problem-based learning in order to improve the students’ HOTS and characters . Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika 4 , 247–259. doi: 10.21831/jrpm.v4i2.17674 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Jatisunda M. G. (2017). Pengaruh Pendekatan Konstruktivisme Terhadap Pemecahan Masalah Matematik Peserta Didik [The influence of constructivism approach on students’ mathematical problem solving] . Jurnal THEOREMS (The Original Research Of Mathematics) 2 , 57–66. doi: 10.31949/th.v2i1.574 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Johari M. I., Rosli R., Maat S. M., Mahmud M. S., Capraro M. M., Capraro R. M. (2022). Integrated professional development for mathematics teachers: a systematic review . Pegem J. Educ. Instr. 12 , 226–234. doi: 10.47750/pegegog.12.04.23 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Khoiriyah A. J., Husamah (2018). Problem-based learning: creative thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and learning outcome of seventh grade students . J. Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia 4 , 151–160. doi: 10.22219/jpbi.v4i2.5804 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Kolb S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: valid research strategies for educators . J. Emerg. Trends Educ. Res. Policy Stud. 3 , 83–86. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Lester F. K. (1980). “ Issues in teaching mathematical problem solving in the elementary grades . Sch. Sci. Math. 82 , 93–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1982.tb11532.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Maat S. M. (2015). “ Implementation KBAT issues and challenges in mathematics education ,” in Isu Dan Cabaran Dalam Pendidikan Matematik . 37–52. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mahmud M. S. (2019). The role of wait time in the process of Oral questioning in the teaching and learning process of mathematics . Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 28 , 691–697. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mahmud M. S., Law M. L. (2022). Mathematics teachers’ perception s on the implementation of the Quizizz application . Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 21 , 134–149. doi: 10.26803/ijlter.21.4.8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mahmud M. S., Maat S. M., Rosli R., Sulaiman N. A., Mohamed S. B. (2022). The application of entrepreneurial elements in mathematics teaching: challenges for primary school mathematics teachers . Front. Psychol. 13 , 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.753561, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mahmud M. S., Yunus A. S. M. (2018). The practice of giving feedback of primary school mathematics teachers in Oral questioning activities . J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 10 , 1336–1343. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ministry of Education Malaysia (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025 . Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ministry of Education Malaysia (2020a). Laporan Kebangsaan TIMSS (2019) [TIMSS National Report 2019].
  • Ministry of Education Malaysia (2020b). TIMSS National Report 2019-Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study . Putrajaya: Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Muhamad N., Zakaria M. A. Z. M., Shaharudin M., Salleh, Harun J. (2018). Using digital games in the classroom to enhance creativity in mathematical problems solving . Sains Humanika 10 , 39–45. doi: 10.11113/sh.v10n3-2.1486 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mullis I. V. S., Martin M. O., Foy P., Hooper M. (2016). TIMSS 2015 international results in mathematics . Chestnut Hill, MA, United States: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Mulyati T., Wahyudin T. H., Mulyana T. (2017). Effect of integrating Children’s literature and SQRQCQ problem solving learning on elementary school Student’s mathematical Reading comprehension skill . Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 12 , 217–232. doi: 10.29333/iejme/610 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nang A. F. M., Maat S. M., Mahmud M. S. (2022). Teacher technostress and coping mechanisms during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review . Pegem Egitim ve Ogretim Dergisi 12 , 200–212. doi: 10.47750/pegegog.12.02.20 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Nurkaeti N. (2018). Polya’S strategy: an analysis of mathematical problem solving difficulty in 5Th grade elementary school . Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar 10 , 140–147. doi: 10.17509/eh.v10i2.10868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Özreçberoğlu N., Çağanağa Ç. K. (2018). Making it count: strategies for improving problem-solving skills in mathematics for students and teachers’ classroom management . EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 14 , 1253–1261. doi: 10.29333/ejmste/82536 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Pazin A. H., Maat S. M., Mahmud M. S. (2022). Factor influencing teachers’ creative teaching: a systematic review . Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 15 , 1–17. doi: 10.18844/cjes.v17i1.6696 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Polya G. (1957). How to Solve it. A New Aspect of Mathematical Method . 2nd Princeton: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Raifana S. N., Saad N. S., Dollah M. U. (2016). Types through the Newman error method in the solution of mathematical problems among year 5 students . Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Matematik Malaysia 6 , 109–119. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Ranggoana N., Maulidiya D., Rahimah D. (2018). Learning strategy (mastery learning) with the help of learning videos to improve learning activity of students class vii Smp N 22 Kotabengkulu . Jurnal Penelitian Pembelajaran Matematika Sekolah (JP2MS) 2 , 90–96. doi: 10.33369/jp2ms.2.1.90-96 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rohmah M., Sutiarso S. (2018). Analysis problem solving in mathematical using theory Newman . EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 14 , 671–681. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/80630 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Rusdin N. M., Ali S. R.. (2019). “Amalan Dan Cabaran Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran Abad Ke-21 [practices and challenges of 21st century learning implementation],” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Islamic Civilization and Technology Management , 87–105.
  • Saifudin N. H. A., Hamzah M. I. (2021). Challenges in implementing home teaching and learning (PdPR) among primary school students . Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan 3 , 250–264. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sari N. R., Anggo M., Kodirun (2018). Design of learning numbers through game-Sut Sut using PMRI approach in class III elementary school . Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika 9 , 33–42. doi: 10.36709/jpm.v9i1.5758 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Seliaman N., Dollah M. U. (2018). Teaching of primary school mathematics using a contextual approach: a case study . Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia 8 , 27–34. doi: 10.37134/jpsmm.vol8.2.3.2018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Shawan M., Osman S., Abu M. S. (2021). Difficulties in solving non-routine problems: preliminary analysis and results . ASM Sci. J. 16 , 1–14. doi: 10.32802/asmscj.2021.800 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Siew N. M., Geofrey J., Lee B. N. (2016). Students’ algebraic thinking and attitudes towards algebra: the effects of game-based learning using Dragonbox 12 + app . Res. J. Math. Technol. 5 , 66–79. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Suastika K. (2017). Mathematics learning model of open problem solving to develop students’ creativity . Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 12 , 569–577. doi: 10.29333/iejme/633 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Subramaniam S., Maat S. M., Mahmud M. S. (2022). Computational thinking in mathematics education: a systematic review . Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 17 , 2029–2044. doi: 10.18844/cjes.v17i6.7494 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Sudarmo M. N. P., Mariyati L. I. (2017). Problem solving ability with readiness to enter elementary school . Psikologia: Jurnal Psikologi 2 , 38–51. doi: 10.21070/psikologia.v2i1.1267 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Tobias S., Fletcher J. D., Chen F. (2015). Digital games as educational technology: promise and challenges in the use of games to teach . Educ. Technol. 55 , 3–12. [ Google Scholar ]
  • UNESCO (2020). COVID-19 response-remote learning strategy. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/unesco-covid-19-response-toolkit-remote-learning-strategy.pdf [ PubMed ]
  • Wibowo T., Sutawidjaja A., Asari A. R., Sulandra I. M. (2017). Characteristics of students sensory mathematical imagination in solving mathematics problem . Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ. 12 , 609–619. doi: 10.29333/iejme/637 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Widodo S. A., Darhim, Ikhwanudin T. (2018). Improving mathematical problem solving skills through visual media . J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 948 :012004. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/948/1/012004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wilson J.. (1997). “Beyond the basis: Assesing students’ metacognitions,” in Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of Hong Kong Educational Research Association . 14. Hong Kong.
  • Wong K. Y. (2015). “ Use of student mathematics questioning to promote active learning and metacognition ” in Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education . ed. Cho S. J. (Cham: Springer International Publishing; ), 877–895. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wong W. T., Matore M. E. E. M. (2020). Kemahiran Penyelesaian Masalah Berayat Matematik Melalui model Bar: Sorotan Literatur Bersistematik [mathematical problem solving through Bar model: systematic literature review] . Malays. J. Social Sci. Humanit. (MJSSH) 5 , 144–159. doi: 10.47405/mjssh.v5i12.569 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Wulandari N. P., Rizky N. D., Antara P. A. (2020). Pendekatan Pendidikan Matematika Realistik Berbasis Open EndedTerhadap Kemampuan Pemecahan Masalah Matematika Siswa . Jurnal Ilmiah Sekolah Dasar 4 , 131–142. doi: 10.23887/jisd.v4i2.25103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
  • Yin R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods . 3rd ed.. Thousand oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Yoong Y. Q., Nasri N. F. M. (2021). Analisis Kesilapan Newman Dalam Penyelesaian Masalah Matematik Berayat [Error Analysis Newman in Mathematical Word Problem Solving] . Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan 3 , 373–380. [ Google Scholar ]
  • Zainuddin S. A., Mohamed M. A., Aziz A., Zaman H. A. (2018). Tahap Kemahiran Penyelesaian Masalah Pelajar Sarjana Muda Teknologi Kejuruteraan Pembuatan (Rekabentuk automotif) Setelah Menjalani work based learning level of problem solving skills of bachelor of manufacturing engineering technology automotive design . Politeknik Kolej Komuniti J. Social Sci. Humanit. 3 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ]

Opinion The trouble with schools is too much math

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

I know only two people who can readily recite the quadratic formula. My wife is one. She’s always been a whiz at school, but, as a choir teacher, she has absolutely no use for the equation (other than as an occasional party trick). The other person is my brother, who works with electron-beam technology as a mechanical engineer. He’s in the minority of people who actually use advanced math daily.

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

For most of us, the formula was one of many alphabet soup combinations crammed into our heads in high school long enough to pass a math test, then promptly forgotten. I’m queasy all over again just thinking about it. As a functioning adult in society, I have no use for imaginary numbers or the Pythagorean theorem. I’ve never needed to determine the height of a flagpole by measuring its shadow and the angle of the sun.

Only 22 percent of the nation’s workers use any math more advanced than fractions, and they typically occupy technical or skilled positions. That means more than three-fourths of the population spends painful years in school futzing with numbers when they could be learning something more useful.

I’m talking about applied logic. This branch of philosophy grows from the same mental tree as algebra and geometry but lacks the distracting foliage of numbers and formulas. Call it the art of thinking clearly. We need this urgently in this era of disinformation, in which politicians and media personalities play on our emotions and fears.

Logic teaches us how to trace a claim back to its underlying premises and to test each link in a chain of thought for unsupported assumptions or fallacies. People trained in logic are better able to spot the deceptions and misdirection that politicians so often employ. They also have a better appreciation for different points of view because they understand the thought processes that produce multiple legitimate conclusions concerning the same set of facts. They are comfortable with spirited dialogue about what’s best for our society.

I once asked my pre-calculus teacher whether I would ever use the information she taught in real life. Her answer was surprisingly frank: I probably wouldn’t. The reason to take the class was to score well on the advanced placement test, which would give me a leg up on the math requirements in college. In other words, numbers for the sake of numbers.

Math advocates claim to be teaching complex problem solving, mental discipline and a better understanding of our world. Logic teaches the same things more directly. Geometry can’t teach me when an argument is manipulating my emotions, but logic can. Calculus doesn’t help me solve moral dilemmas, but philosophy does.

Admittedly, all students need to master the basic math of everyday life so they can manage money, compare prices, find the center of a wall to hang a picture and so on. And some students, like my brother, will fall in love with math. That’s a good thing, because they will use it to make bridges safe, to predict the weather, to land spacecraft on the moon and Mars — you get the idea.

It’s reasonable to suggest that public schools all provide a standardized core curriculum. But what makes up a fundamental education? America has not thought through this question in a national conversation since the 1983 release of “ A Nation At Risk .” The product of a presidential commission on education, this report warned of declining achievement in the country’s schools and diagnosed “the urgent need for improvement.” Among its recommendations were a minimum of three years of math for all high school graduates.

Since that time, the digital revolution has placed massive computational power in the palm of every student’s hand. Should the need for a cube root arise in someone’ life, Siri is available 24/7 to provide the answer. That same revolution has given us a crisis of conspiracy theories and a polluted public discourse. What’s at risk now is our ability to reason together as citizens. Skills such as these might not be able to solve for X, but they could go a long way in the pursuit of happiness and the health of America. You can’t punch those things into a calculator.

The need to solve problems is eternal, but many of life’s weightiest problems don’t boil down to numbers. Prioritizing higher-level numeracy over other forms of logical reasoning is not turning us into a nation of engineers and physicists. It’s letting us become a nation that can’t think straight.

America’s Founders knew it would take educated citizens for this democratic republic to succeed. But nowhere did they mention the quadratic formula.

About guest opinion submissions

The Washington Post accepts opinion articles on any topic. We welcome submissions on local, national and international issues. We publish work that varies in length and format, including multimedia. Submit a guest opinion or read our guide to writing an opinion article .

  • Opinion | A superpower of older age: Powerlessness February 14, 2024 Opinion | A superpower of older age: Powerlessness February 14, 2024
  • Opinion | I was head of the NSA. In a world of threats, this is my biggest worry. February 14, 2024 Opinion | I was head of the NSA. In a world of threats, this is my biggest worry. February 14, 2024
  • Opinion | The surge in immigration is a $7 trillion gift to the economy February 13, 2024 Opinion | The surge in immigration is a $7 trillion gift to the economy February 13, 2024

arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

IMAGES

  1. PPT

    arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

  2. PPT

    arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

  3. PPT

    arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

  4. PPT

    arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

  5. Problem Solving Strategies for Math Poster by TeachPlanLove

    arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

  6. Teaching through Problem Solving

    arguments for the teaching of mathematics through problem solving

VIDEO

  1. Maths

  2. A Nice Mathematical Problem

  3. Solving a math problem Algebra I

  4. problem solving

  5. NEET PART III of Chemistry Question Paper 2023 and Discussion

  6. basic maths problem solving

COMMENTS

  1. Learning to Teach Mathematics Through Problem Solving

    Teaching and learning mathematics through problem solving supports learners' development of deep and conceptual understandings (Inoue et al., 2019 ), and is regarded as an effective way of catering for diversity (Hunter et al., 2018 ).

  2. Teaching Mathematics Through Problem Solving

    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.

  3. Teaching Mathematics through Problem Solving- An Upside-Down Approach

    Teaching mathematics through problem solving means that students solve problems to learn new mathematics through real contexts, problems, situations, and strategies and models that allow them to build concept and make connections on their own.

  4. Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as "given" in STEM

    Alternatively, we believe that all of the mathematics studied in K-12 can be viewed as the codification of experiences of both making sense and sense making through various practices including problem solving, reasoning, communicating, and mathematical modeling, and that students can and should experience it that way.

  5. Elevating Math Education Through Problem-Based Learning

    The Traditional Approach. Problem-based learning has a rich history in American education, with John Dewey laying the theoretical groundwork in 1916 and McMaster University pioneering the PBL program for medical education in 1969. More recently, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published Principles and Standards for School Mathematics in 2000, setting forth a vision that ...

  6. PDF Teaching Math Through Problem Solving

    1999). However, teaching mathematics through problem solving is a relatively new idea in the history of problem solving in the mathematics curriculum (Lester, 1994). In fact, because teaching mathematics through problem solving is a rather new conception, it has not been the subject of much research.

  7. NAIS

    In the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, the very first Standard for Mathematical Practice is that students should "understand problems and persevere in solving them."1 Whether you are beholden to the Common Core or not, this is certainly something you would wish for your students.

  8. Learning to teach mathematics through problem posing ...

    Any effort to integrate problem-posing instruction in school mathematics must attend to teachers' beliefs about the advantages of teaching through problem posing and especially their beliefs about the challenges of teaching in this way. This study investigated teachers who were learning how to teach mathematics through problem posing. The primary foci were the teachers' beliefs about ...

  9. Problem Solving in Mathematics Education

    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.

  10. Learning Mathematics Through Reasoning and Problem Solving

    88 October 2017 • teaching children mathematics | Vol. 24, No. 2 www.nctm.org that guided the recommendations of the task force. Specifically, "argumentative writing serves to have elementary students use writ-ing to 'construct viable arguments and cri-tique the reasoning of others' (CCSSI 2010a)" (Casa et al. 2016, p. 13).

  11. (PDF) Teaching Mathematics Through Problem-Solving: A Pedagogical

    Takahashi (2021) has listed a few criteria for the choice of the triangle: (i) it must be small enough to fit on a page in the student's notebook but large enough to be seen by the whole class...

  12. Problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: From domain‐general

    The mathematician Paul Halmos ( 1980, p. 519) argued that, rather than theorems and proofs, solving problems is 'the heart of mathematics' and 'the mathematician's main reason for existence'. Today, computers can perform routine mathematical calculations far more quickly and accurately than any human.

  13. Frontiers

    Mathematical problem-solving constitutes an important area of mathematics instruction, and there is a need for research on instructional approaches supporting student learning in this area. This study aims to contribute to previous research by studying the effects of an instructional approach of cooperative learning on students' mathematical problem-solving in heterogeneous classrooms in ...

  14. Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Research perspectives

    In book: Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Grades 6-12 (pp.245-256) ... Solving a problem requires creativity, arguments for method choices and conclusions, as well as anchoring in ...

  15. PDF Developing mathematical problem-solving skills in primary school by

    solving (Goldenberg et al., 2003 ). The aim of teaching mathematics through problem - solving is to equip students with skills to apply previously learned techniques in non - routine and novel situations (Leppäaho, 2018, p. 379). Polya's four-step model is still useful in today's mathematics classroom and was

  16. PDF Teaching Through Problem Solving: Practices of Four High School

    Teaching Through Problem Solving Teaching through problem solving is an instructional approach in which teachers use problem solving as a primary means to teach mathematical concepts and help students synthesize their mathematical knowledge. In this dissertation, I use the term instructional approach—or

  17. Teaching Mathematics Through Problem-Solving

    Teaching Mathematics Through Problem-Solving gives educators the tools to restructure their lesson and curriculum design to make creative and adaptive problem-solving the main way students learn new procedures. Takahashi showcases TTP lessons for elementary and secondary classrooms, showing how teachers can create their own TTP lessons and ...

  18. Mathematics Through Problem Solving

    What Is A 'Problem-Solving Approach'? As the emphasis has shifted from teaching problem solving to teaching via problem solving (Lester, Masingila, Mau, Lambdin, dos Santon and Raymond, 1994), many writers have attempted to clarify what is meant by a problem-solving approach to teaching mathematics.

  19. 6 Tips for Teaching Math Problem-Solving Skills

    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 ...

  20. What research tells us about teaching mathematics through problem solving

    This approach to teaching through problem-solving, which entails guided constructivist learning with scaffolding, emphasizes that students engage in authentic mathematical activity and thus seems ...

  21. Teaching mathematics through problem posing: insights from ...

    In this study we aimed to understand teaching mathematics through problem posing based on an analysis of 22 teaching cases. Teaching mathematics through problem posing starts with problem-posing tasks. This study provides not only specific examples of problem-posing tasks used in classrooms but also related task variables to consider when developing problem-posing tasks. This study also ...

  22. Full article: Promoting critical thinking through mathematics and

    1 Introduction and background. Critical thinking has been considered a key twenty-first century competence by different frameworks (Voogt and Roblin Citation 2012) and by STEM educators (Jang Citation 2016).An education contributing to the development of twenty-first century competences requires, among other things, a reconsideration of instructional processes and a shift from teaching to know ...

  23. Challenges of teachers when teaching sentence-based mathematics problem

    This study found that how teachers convey problem-solving skills has been challenging in terms of ensuring that their students master sentence-based mathematics problem-solving skills ( Nang et al., 2022 ). The mastery teaching approach has caused the teaching time spent on mathematical content to be insufficient.

  24. Full article: Teacher-student interaction supporting students' creative

    Introduction. Programming as a means to engage students in problem-solving and develop mathematical understanding has become increasingly common in the elementary school curriculum during the last decades (Balanskat & Engelhardt, Citation 2014).As programming becomes more common in teaching, interest in research that focuses on learning related to programming in mathematics education has ...

  25. Opinion

    Math advocates claim to be teaching complex problem solving, mental discipline and a better understanding of our world. Logic teaches the same things more directly. Logic teaches the same things ...