JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MATHEDU Archives


MATHEDU Archives

MATHEDU Archives


MATHEDU@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MATHEDU Home

MATHEDU Home

MATHEDU  December 2010

MATHEDU December 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: The problem with problem-solving

From:

Alexandre Borovik <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Alexandre Borovik <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 24 Dec 2010 19:42:26 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (367 lines)

Dear Colleagues,

a few years ago Tony Gardiner and I prepared a sample list of archetypal mathematical problems, very elementary, very natural; these problems are not artificial "brainteasers" (I hate "brainteasers" as pollutants of mathematical education). Have a look at 

http://manchester.academia.edu/AlexandreBorovik/Papers/370441/A_dozen_problems

When I hear about generic "problem solving", I wonder: will it help to solve any of these problems? For me it is a basic criterion of efficiency of "problem solving" methods.

Seasons Greetings -- Alexandre Borovik


On 23/12/2010 22:47, Jonathan Groves wrote:
> Anne and others,
>
> Another problem is that many mathematics classes reduce "problem
> solving" to mere "exercise solving" by reducing everything to
> recipes, by assigning as homework only those questions that are
> similar to worked examples in the book (mimic the solution just
> by changing the numbers), and giving only these kinds of
> questions on exams.  Thus, according to traditional ways of
> assessing students' learning of mathematics, everything is just
> okie-dokie if students can work questions similar to the worked-out
> examples in a textbook.  It does not matter if they have no
> earthly clue about how to approach a problem they do not know
> immediately how to solve as long as this problem is not one
> of the "standard" ones.
>
> Yet another problem is that only the "final answer" matters
> on many mathematics exams.  As long as the student can get
> the correct number for the answer, everything is okie-dokie.
> Their work does not matter.  Their ability to write clear,
> correct solutions using correct mathematical language and
> notation also does not matter.  I blame this attitude in
> mathematics teaching for one major reason why many of my
> students are very sloppy about writing their mathematical
> solutions and why they complain when I insist in discussions
> that they show their work and explanations; what they want
> is to get away with writing just a number down for the
> answer.  Many of the statistics projects I review for
> the Kaplan Math Center are also very sloppily written.
> When only the "final answer" matters, much of the excitement
> and lessons we can learn through problem solving are lost.
> Problem solving motivates mathematics not merely because
> we can find "the answer" but because solutions to problems
> reveal further questions and techniques that we can use on
> other problems.  There is also strong pleasure and excitement
> from finding a particularly elegant solution to a problem.
> A beautiful solution to a problem is a work of art.
> Yet these lessons cannot be taught and the role of problem
> solving in mathematics cannot be seen if students hide their
> solutions on exams and other assignments and treat only the
> "final answer" as what is important, not "the stuff
> in between."
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Groves
>
>
>
>
> On 12/20/2010 at 3:01 am EST, Anne Watson wrote:
>
>> I am entering this discussion rather late I expect.
>>
>> One of the problems around this issue is the language
>> itself.  There are indeed many teachers who make the
>> goals of problem-solving the problem-solving methods
>> themselves, and not the mathematics, and also not the
>> specific mathematical contributions to
>> problem-solving.  The truncated problem-solving
>> algorithm of 'understand the problem; make a plan;
>> carry out a plan; evaluate the plan' is far too vague
>> and generic. What does it take to understand a
>> problem mathematically?  You have to coordinate a
>> search for variables with your knowledge of how the
>> situation works, or is likely to work; you have to
>> get a sense of covariation, constraints, the domain
>> of enquiry in terms of those variables.  You have to
>> set up some representation and - if you are really
>> good- make that representation minimal in terms of
>> the numkber of variables and amenable to variation
>> --- etc. etc.  Yet many mathematics lessons orientate
>> themselves around trial and error approaches,
>> arithmetical or engineering type testing, until the
>> 'problem' is 'solved'.  Once a problem is solved -
>> who is interested in generalisation or
>> mathematisation for other similar problems?
>>
>> I agree with Jonathan that there is too little
>> written about these particularly mathematical aspects
>> of mathematical problem-solving - as a field we are
>> inarticulate about what it is like to gaze and gaze
>> at a situation, trying this, trying that, until
>> suddenly we see a familiar structure that we can
>> symbolise and manipulate in order to gain insight.
>> This isn't quite like 'reducing the problem to one
>> e you know how to solve' which in Polya's hands is a
>> mathematising technique but in less skilled hands is
>> a mish-mash.
>>
>> The missing ingredient is what the Freudenthal
>> Institute call vertical mathematisation - to work on
>> several problems that have some structrure in common,
>> and then to extract from that family of situations
>> the core mathematical structure that can become a
>> tool.  Generic PS algorithms just talk about
>> evaluating the answer; mathematicians ask 'what other
>> problems have I worked on that have similarities to
>> this?' Until this stage is included in problem-based
>> mathematics teaching - as the main part of the
>> process instead of as an optional add-on - it will be
>> quite legitimate to be criticised. I speak as someone
>> who used extended exploratory tasks throughout my own
>> school teaching - with some success - and know well
>> the pitfalls. Studnets will not learn to be
>> mathematical if the end point of problem-solving is
>> the answer.  They will also not learn to be
>> mathematical if the end point of anything is an
>> answer, so this applies to so-called traditional
>> methods too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anne Watson
>> Professor of Mathematics Education, Department of
>> Education, University of Oxford (Linacre College)
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Post-calculus mathematics education
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Groves
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 19 December 2010 15:01
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based
>> learning
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Thanks for mentioning this article in the AMS and for
>> posting this
>> information on the reactions of others on the RUME
>> list.
>>
>> It is clear that the authors John Sweller, Richard
>> Clark, and Paul
>> Kirschner misunderstand what many advocates of
>> teaching problem solving
>> say about this.  Are there some who want to try to
>> teach problem solving
>> without really teaching content?  Are there some who
>> want to try to
>> teach problem solving with "minimal guidance"?  I
>> would not be surprised
>> if this is so.  Perhaps such people exist in large
>> numbers.  But not all
>> advocates of a problem solving approach to
>> mathematics do this or
>> suggest that we take such an extreme approach to
>> problem solving.  This
>> is yet another classic example modeled after the
>> fights in the Math
>> Wars: Assume that all opponents take extreme
>> positions, refute those
>> extreme positions, and then conclude that all your
>> opponents are wrong
>> and hence that your views are the only sane ones to
>> take.
>>
>> Yes, there is value in refuting extreme positions,
>> but all such refutals
>> do (as long as they focus on just those extreme
>> positions) is show that
>> such an extreme view will not work--not that all
>> views are unworkable.
>> Hence, we cannot prove that a problem solving
>> approach to teaching
>> mathematics cannot work simply by refuting extreme
>> views on this
>> approach even if it were true that all advocates take
>> such an
>> extreme view.
>>
>> General problem solving skills greatly enhance the
>> teaching and learning
>> of problem solving in mathematics because general
>> problem solving skills
>> teach us to think.  Many students fail to learn
>> simply because they
>> were never taught and never encouraged to think,
>> simply to regurgitate
>> or simply to do the work--no matter how shoddy the
>> work is--or just
>> show up for class for an A.  And many approaches to
>> problem solving
>> in mathematics are applications of general problem
>> solving: Reduce
>> the problem to one you know how to solve, consider
>> special cases,
>> do the required research if you need to know
>> something to solve
>> the problem that you do not know, and so on.  Other
>> approaches
>> are mathematics-specific such as proofs, but even
>> much of our
>> thinking in discovering a proof is similar to the
>> kind of thinking
>> we do for general problem solving.
>>
>> It is also clear that the authors have ignored
>> mountains of evidence
>> that the teaching of mathematics via studying worked
>> examples does
>> not in itself teach students much of anything,
>> especially when
>> all the students are asked to do on homework and
>> exams is to
>> replicate the solutions to similar questions.
>>   Studying worked
>> examples can definitely help students in their
>> learning of
>> mathematics, but they need to study the underlying
>> logic behind
>> the mathematics being used.  They should also study
>> what
>> problem solving techniques and mathematical ideas are
>> being
>> illustrated and used in these solutions.  And they
>> should seek
>> understanding from these solutions, not memorization.
>> We know that mathematicians have learned a lot of
>> mathematics
>> and problem solving by studying others' solutions to
>> problems.
>> But they did not just sit there and try to memorize
>> the
>> solutions.  That is, they study these solutions in
>> ways that
>> most students do not.  Finally, students will not get
>> far if the
>> only questions they end up working for homework and
>> quizzes and
>> exams and other assignments are similar to the
>> worked-out examples;
>> they must work on problems that they are not expected
>> to know
>> immediately how to solve.  In short, studying the
>> work of others
>> in mathematics can contribute greatly to our learning
>> of
>> mathematics only when we ask ourselves the right
>> questions
>> while studying the work.  And few students ask
>> themselves
>> the right questions, which is why they gain little
>> value
>> from studying the work of others.  Why is none of
>> this crucial
>> information stated?  Without it, all we end up doing
>> is
>> continuing to teach mathematics mindlessly via
>> approaches
>> that contradict how people actually learn
>> mathematics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Groves
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/9/2010 at 2:30 pm, Richard Hake wrote:
>>
>>> Some subscribers to MathEdu might be interested in
>> a
>>> recent post
>>> "Latest Doceamus against inquiry-based learning"
>>> [Hake (2010)].  The
>>> abstract reads:
>>>
>>> ********************************************
>>> ABSTRACT: A recent thread "Latest Doceamus against
>>> inquiry-based
>>> learning" on the "Research in Undergraduate
>>> Mathematics Education"
>>> (RUME) list has discussed an article by Sweller,
>>> Clark,&  Kirschner
>>> (SCK) (2010) titled "Teaching General
>> Problem-Solving
>>> Skills is Not a
>>> Substitute for, or a Viable Addition to, Teaching
>>> Mathematics"
>>> <http://bit.ly/i7wori>  and published in the
>> November
>>> 2010 issue of
>>> "Notices of the AMS."
>>>
>>> Math-problem guru Alan Schoenfeld wrote: "Sweller
>> and
>>> colleagues set
>>> up a straw man, the notion of 'general problem
>>> solving' as a
>>> counterpoint to mathematical knowledge [but] there
>>> are techniques of
>>> mathematical problem solving, and there's plenty of
>>> evidence that
>>> students can learn them, so the opposition Sweller
>>> and colleagues use
>>> to frame their paper is nonsensical. . . . ."
>>>
>>> Sweller and colleagues have previously set up straw
>>> men -  the title
>>> of their tract "Why Minimal Guidance During
>>> Instruction Does Not
>>> Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,
>>> Discovery,
>>> Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based
>>> Teaching"
>>> <http://bit.ly/duJVG4>   invokes the straw men
>>> "Minimal Guidance" and
>>> "Failure" but critics of Sweller et al. point out
>>> that these methods
>>> are generally neither: (a) "un-guided or minimally
>>> guided," nor (b)
>>> "failures."
>>> ******************************************
>>>
>>> To access the complete 23 kB post please click on
>>> <http://bit.ly/etl0dc>.
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics,
>> Indiana
>>> University
>>> Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The
>>> Netherlands
>>> President, PEdants for Definitive Academic
>> References
>>> which Recognize the
>>>         Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
>>> <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
>>> <http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com>
>>> <http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
>>>
>>> REFERENCES [URL shortened by<http://bit.ly/>  and
>>> accessed on 09
>>> December 2010.]
>>> Hake, R.R. 2010. "Latest Doceamus against
>>> inquiry-based learning,"
>>> online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at
>>> <http://bit.ly/etl0dc>. Post
>>> of 8 Dec 2010 19:58:52-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold.
>>> The abstract and
>>> link to the complete post are being distributed to
>>> various discussion
>>> lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at
>>> <http://bit.ly/fFzJn8>  with a provision for
>> comments.

Professor Alexandre Borovik * http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/~avb/
Blog: http://micromath.wordpress.com/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
December 2012
September 2012
June 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011
April 2011
March 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
February 2006
January 2006
August 2005
July 2005
February 2005
December 2004
September 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
January 2004
October 2003
July 2003
May 2003
April 2003
February 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager