Mathematical Problem-Solving

Traditionally, mathematical problem solving has been taught and assessed through the use of written word problems, mainly involving characters called Johnny and Sally and their penchant for apples. According to Bottge (2001), students are often taught to solve these inauthentic problems by identifying key words that trigger number operations, then creating an algorithm to find the solution. Naturally, this limited definition of what constitutes a problem, combined with reliance on a one-size-fits-all strategy that is ultimately flawed, does nothing to prepare students for the myriad of problem types that they will encounter in the real world.

In the real world, problems come in all different shape and sizes. For example, some problems require analysis of the unknown while others provide extraneous, too little or incorrect data. Some can be solved in more than one way or have more than one correct answer and some require multiple steps to attain a solution (Baroody, 1987). In addition, problems can be presented in written or oral form (Carraher, Carraher & Schliemann, 1987), and very rarely present themselves in a nicely formulated textbook manner. The NSW Board of Studies (2002) reflects this broader view of problem solving and its place in the real world in the Mathematics K-6 Syllabus: Across the syllabus strands attention is drawn to opportunities for students to solve meaningful and challenging problems in both familiar and unfamiliar contexts, within mathematics, in other key learning areas, at work and in everyday situations . . . In addition, teaching through problems that are relevant to students can encourage improved attitudes to mathematics and an appreciation of its importance to society. This additional complexity, therefore, requires more thinking and analysis beyond the keywordalgorithm-solution approach (Carpenter, Corbitt, Kepner, Lindquist & Reys, 1980; Parmer, Cawley & Frazita, 1996) a necessity that has many implications for the teaching and learning of the general student population, and even more-so for those students experiencing learning difficulties in mathematics.

To be a successful mathematical problem solver, one first needs to understand what it is they are trying to solve. Additionally, students need to possess a triumvirate of key attributes - declarative knowledge (basic facts and number relationships), procedural knowledge (computation and problem solving strategies) and conceptual knowledge (deep understanding evidenced by the transference of problem solving strategies to novel situations) (Goldman, Hasselbring & The Cognition and Technology group at Vanderbilt, 1997). Finally, there needs to be adequate motivation to solve the problem in the first place, and for this motivation to be sustained throughout the problem solving process. Students experiencing difficulties with problem solving, therefore, inevitably have gaps in one or more of these areas. To begin with, students need to be able to decode and comprehend the question (whether it is written or orally presented), which can be a problem for students with reading or receptive language difficulties. Primarily, this would be addressed by a complementary literacy intervention, however it should also be addressed by specifically targeting contextual mathematical vocabulary. For example, Chard (n.d.) collated five key strategies to help support students overcome language barriers in mathematics. These include assessing students current knowledge; explicitly teaching contextual vocabulary before, during and after introducing a new concept ; focussing on a small number of critical words; providing multi-modal exposure to the language and encouraging the students to use the language in various contexts. Of course, this approach is not a magic bullet, and additional scaffolding will likely be needed for many students to access the language in mathematical problems.

Once students have an understanding of what the problem is asking, the process of solving begins, utilising three knowledge areas: declarative, procedural and conceptual. Declarative knowledge is a network of basic facts that is stored in long term memory. The strength of the relationships between these facts determines their speed of retrieval (Bottge, 2001) meaning that gaps in this knowledge will contribute to a lack of automaticity. Subsequently, procedural knowledge which is being able to follow a sequence set of steps to obtain a correct solution is hampered if cognitive resources are tied up in retrieving the necessary basic facts. Finally, students need to develop conceptual knowledge, which is the ability to weave together appropriate declarative and procedural knowledge and apply it to novel problems arguably the ultimate goal of problem solving instruction. Although the general student population may have minor gaps in one area or another, students with learning difficulties have more significant gaps in multiple areas. Therefore, juggling the concurrent demands of the three knowledge areas becomes a daunting task and may even cause students to shut down cognitively and not even attempt a task (Ericcson & Simon, 1980). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a thorough diagnostic assessment to identify these gaps, so as to implement the most appropriate strategies to fill them (Parmer, Cawley & Frazita, 1996). In terms of developing basic fact knowledge and fluency, a commonly used approach is systematic and explicit instruction (Resnick & Ford, 1981), and needs to build from concrete to more visual representations of numbers and relationships (Chard, n.d.) . Meanwhile, for procedural knowledge, there are a number of strategies that can be utilised to enhance student proficiency, including worked examples (Chung & Tam, 2005), depicting problems visually and graphically (van Garderen, 2007) and voiced modelling of problem solving strategies (Montague, 1997). These strategies can all be a part of an overarching approach which merges cognitive and metacognitive strategies with direct instruction. This approach utilises the two most powerful instructional approaches in a meta-analysis of 20 years worth of learning disability interventions by Swanson (Montague & Dietz, 2009, p. 286). One of the most predominant models of this blended strategy is that of Montague (1992; Montague, Applegate & Marquard, 1993). According to Montague (2009, p. 286) this process involves (a) reading the problem for understanding (b) paraphrasing by putting the problem in ones own words (c) visualising by drawing a schematic representation (d) hypothesising and setting up a plan (e) estimating or predicting and answer (f) computing and (g) checking that the plan and answer are correct. While these methods have shown to be effective (Montague, 1992; Montague, Applegate, & Marquard, 1993; Montague & Bos, 1986; Chung & Tam, 2005), some argue that special needs educators have a tendency to focus solely on the mastery of declarative and procedural knowledge to the detriment of more conceptual understanding (Hiebert et.al., 1996; Knapp and Turnbull, 1990). In effect, any gains made are not maintained, nor are they generalised beyond the classroom (Ginsburg, 1997) it becomes inert knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Researchers with more of a constructivist approach, such as Bottge (2001), argue that students need to be immersed in meaningful and contextualised problem solving experiences, and have suggested options such as anchored instruction and situated learning as ways of promoting both deeper conceptual knowledge as well as increased motivation. However, they acknowledge that even this strategy can present problems for generalisation if knowledge is tied too closely to the arenas in which it was learned (Bottge, 2001, p. 107). So while the problem solving war is being waged on the academic battlefield, where does it leave special needs educators? Firstly, it is vital for teachers to understand the elements that contribute to successful problem solving declarative, procedural and conceptual knowledge as well as supporting learners, where necessary, with language needs. Secondly, there needs to be a thorough diagnostic assessment of students to determine their individual gaps so that interventions can target specific areas rather than taking a holus bolus approach and hoping something works. Finally, in terms of choosing strategies to resolve problem solving difficulties, teachers may want to adopt a solely cognitive/metacognitive or a constructivist approach to suit the needs of their students, however this may not be conducive to generalisation of skills. Instead, they should consider adopting a more balanced approach so that students receive the more systematic and explicit teaching involved in cognitive/metacognitive strategies whilst benefitting from the motivational and real world aspects of a constructivist approach.

REFERENCES Baroody, A. J. (1987). Childrens mathematical thinking. New York: Columbia Teachers College Press. Bottge, B. A. (2001). Reconceptualising mathematics problem solving for low-achieving students. Remedial and Special Education. 22. 102-112. Carpenter, T., Corbitt, M., Kepner, H., Lindquist, M., & Reys, R. (1980). Solving word problems: Results and implications from national assessment. Arithmetic Teacher, 28, 8-12. Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D.W., & and Schliemann, A. D. (1987). Written and oral mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 83-97. Chard,D.J. (n.d.). Thinking, Doing and Talking Mathematically: Planning Instruction for Diverse Learners [Powerpoint slides].Retrieved from http://wwwlb.aub.edu.lb/~websmec/David%20Chard%20SMEC%20Plenary.ppt Chung, K.K.H., & Tam, Y.H. (2005). Effects of cognitive-based instruction on mathematical problem solving by learners with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 30(4), 207-216. Ericcson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Mathematics learning disabilities: A view from developmental psychology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 20-33. Goldman, S. R., Hasselbring, T. S., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Achieving meaningful mathematics literacy for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 198-208. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, (245), 12-21. Knapp, M. S., & Turnbull, B. J. (1990). Better schooling for the children of poverty: Alternatives to conventional wisdom (Vol. 1. Summary). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation. Montague, M. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230-248. Montague, M. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164-177. Montague, M., Applegate, G., & Marquard, K. (1993). Cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem-solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 223-232. Montague, M., & Dietz, S. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 285-302. NSW Department of Education and Training. NSW Mathematics K-6 Syllabus. Retrieved from http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/mathematics. Parmer, R.S., Cawley, J.F.& Frazita, R.R.(1996). Word-problem solving by students with and without mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62(5), 415-429. Resnick, L. B., & Ford, W. W. (1981). The psychology of mathematics for instruction. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 83-103). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Van Garderan, D. (2007). Teaching students with LD to use diagrams to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities.40(6), 540-553. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.