Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

39

MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING: WHERE ARE WE HEADING ? Parmjit Singh Lau Ngee Kiong Universiti Teknologi Mara Penyelesaian masalah amat periling dalam pembelajaran matematik. Artikel ini mengupas dapatan kajian ke atas car a pelajar semester pertama maktab tempatan mengendalikan penyelesaian masalah dalam matematik. Sampel seramai 536 orang telah diberi ujian mengandungi 12 item. Dapatan menunjukkan bahawa secara keseluruhan responden memperolehi tahap pencapaian yang kurang memuaskan dalam ujian matematik tersebut. Beberapa cadangan diberi untuk meningkatkan keupayaan pelajar menyelesaikan masalah dalam pembelajaran matematik. Problem solving has a special importance in the study of mathematics. Many educators (Cai, 2003; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000; Smith, 1991) have come to an agreement that teaching mathematics through problem solving holds great promise. This pedagogical style should embrace rich opportunities for students to experience various mathematical processes such as hypothesis making, justification, generalization and searching for new solutions. A primary goal of mathematics teaching and learning is to develop the ability to solve a wide variety of complex mathematics problems. Problem solving is defined as the process used to obtain the best possible answer to an unknown, "drawing on the pertinent subject knowledge and objectively and critically assessing the quality, accuracy and pertinence of that knowledge and data rather than trying to combine various memorized ample solutions" (Woods, 1997). It involves an exploratory phase and "understanding" develops throughout the problem solving process. Charles, Lester, and O'Daffer (1987) described problem solving as "the coordination of knowledge, previous experience, intuition, attitude, beliefs, and various abilities" (p. 7). "Solving a problem means finding a way out of difficulty, a way around an obstacle, attaining an aim that was not immediately attainable" (Wheatley, 1991). In short, it is what one does when one does not know what to do. Steffe (1994) noted some of the ineffective practices which are prevalent in today's classroom as: teachers expecting students to learn mathematics by listening and imitating, teachers teaching as they were taught rather than as they were taught to teach, teachers are teaching only what is in textbooks, and students learning only what will be in the test. Studies have indicated that many students faced difficulty in solving non-routine problems. A study by Selden, Selden, Hauk, and Mason (2000), involving first year college students who had completed one and one-half years of traditional calculus and were in the midst of an ordinary differential equations course, found that students were unable to. solve problem solving tasks and more than a third made no substantial progress toward any solution. In a Malaysian scenario, a study by Parmjit (2000) found that only a small

40

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

percentage of students who did well in the Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) were able to solve complex proportional problems and the grades obtained in this examination were not indicative of their knowledge of ratio and proportion. Individuals are always trying to make sense of their experiences (Wheatley, 1991). Thus, much of cognition is actually problem solving while little of what typically occurs in classrooms could be considered problem solving because the learner is rarely allowed to make decisions. Since a primary goal of mathematics teaching and learning is to develop the ability to solve a wide variety of complex mathematical problems, problem solving as a learning tool must be emphasized, for today's students are the people who will lead the world tomorrow. The tools they learn in school now will be applied to the many serious problems they will face in the "real world". In view of this, research in problem solving has a special importance in the study of mathematics. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to investigate college freshmen's understanding and their ability to solve non-routine problems, which are within their zone of potential construction. The primary purpose of mathematical problem solving instruction is not to equip students with a collection of skills and processes, but rather to enable them to think for themselves (Garfola & Lester, 1985, p. 166). These students have been formally taught the fundamental mathematical concepts in schools before coming to college and this research will enable us to assess their quality of understanding. In other words, successful mathematics students do indeed construct a fairly large number and variety of algorithms in order to continue to achieve good results in mathematics examinations. What is the quality of this knowledge? This will provide a general level of a student's knowledge and understanding of basic mathematical concepts inherited from schools and hopefully, it can act as an initial effort directed towards obtaining an assessment on college freshmen's fundamental understanding of mathematics. Another major motivation for conducting this research will be to use the results to guide the development of curriculum that matches the needs and abilities of college entrants. METHODOLOGY The aim of this study is to develop a comprehensive description of college freshmen's understanding of basic mathematical concepts as applied to problem solving. The methodology used in this study was both quantitative and qualitative where the former data were collected through written assessment and the latter through interviews. This data provided an insight into the students' relational understanding of their application of mathematical concepts in problem solving and had a bearing on how college freshmen respond to a given problem solving task. Subjects for the Study. Five hundred and thirty six college freshmen, aged 18-19 years participated in this study. These students were in the first semester of college and the data collection was done during their lecture hours. The students selected have just been

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

41

through a standardized examination, namely the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), and thus the researchers could easily cluster the students based on their SPM results in mathematics and consequently pursue the question on how well SPM mathematics grades reflect the students' relational understanding of mathematics. Instrument. There were altogether 12 items in the test and the responses were grouped into categories according to the criterion behavior exhibited. A numerical value was assigned to each of these criterion behaviors. Students' responses were categorized on a 5 point scale based on the reasoning employed. The 5 point scale used was: 4 All correct, good reasoning 3 Good reasoning, small error(s) 2 Some promising work but it is not clear on whether a solution would be reached. 1 Some workout unlikely to lead to a solution 0 Blank For the purpose of this paper, due to space constraints only selected pertinent items will be presented and discussed. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Table 1 reveals that 345 students obtained a grade 1 A, 108 grade 2A, and the rest obtained grades 3B, 4B, 5C and 6C in their SPM mathematics examination. In other words, 453 subjects obtained distinctions (1A and 2A) as compared to 83 who did not. Table 1 Distribution of Subjects According to SPM Mathematics Grades __________ Grade _______________ Frequency___________ Percentage____ 1A 345 64.4 2A 108 20.1 3B 53 9.9 4B 16 3.0 5C 7 1.3 6C 7 L3 Total 536 100.0 For this study, the 453 students who obtained 1A and 2A grades in SPM mathematics were clustered as "A Math Students" compared to the balance of 83 as "Non A Math Students". The distribution of these two groups of students is shown in Table 2.

42

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

Table 2 Clustering Students by SPM Mathematics Grades Type of Student Frequency A Math 453 Non A Math 83 Total 536 Table 3 Students' Performance Test Items on Mean Score Item Number Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 (Max Score: 4) 1.76 2.69 2.25 2.59 2.22 1.85 1.80 2.03 1.33 1.21 2.44 2,46

Percentage 84.5 15.5 100.0

Standard Deviation .87 1.38 1.19 1.46 1.38 1.00 1.23 .80 1.00 .99 1.21 1.41

It is not surprising to see a large number of "A math" students in this study because one of the prerequisites for entering college is to have a minimum of 6C in SPM Mathematics. From Table 3, the items that have very low mean scores (less than 2.00) are Item 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10. Those with higher scores (more that 2.50) are Items 2 and 4. The above data can be an important indication of college freshmen's fundamental relational understanding of mathematical concepts in problem solving. Descriptive Analysis of Students' Relational Understanding in Problem Solving In order to understand the results more clearly, the approach taken here is to give descriptive analysis of selected items of this study followed by the interview data in giving descriptive actions utilized by students. (R denotes Researcher.) Item 1. The cost of a lunch of 3 sandwiches, 7 cups of coffee and 1 donut is RM3.15. The cost of a lunch of 4 sandwiches, 10 cups of coffee and 1 donut was RM4.20 at the same cafe. How much will 1 sandwich, 1 cup of coffee and 1 donut cost? In this item, the majority of students were able to write the two equations, 3s + 7c + Id = 3.15 and 4s + 10c +ld = 4.20, where s, c and d represent 'sandwich', 'coffee' and 'donut' respectively. However, the majority were unable to make use of the two equations to find the total cost of 1 sandwich, 1 cup of coffee and 1 donut. The reasoning employed, from the interviews, was that "we can't use 2 equations to find 3 variables. One equation

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

43

is missing!" They did try to manipulate using the simultaneous equation procedure but could not find the total price of one of each. Some of the students gave the following reasoning in producing the answer: Student (M): Mula-mula say a campur semua ini (showing his worksheet 3 + 7 + 1 = 11). Untuk dapatkan harga satu makanan, saya bahagikan harga ini (RM 3.15) dengan sebelas. Soalan minta jumlah harga 1 sandwich, 1 cawan kopi dan 1 donut, jadi saya darab 3.

It could be inferred that these students treated 3 sandwiches, 7 cups of coffee and 1 donut as 11 items and got the average cost for each item as the answer! A few of the students went further and assumed that the donut is free since the latter equation" aW^oThave^afi uiiknowrrfbT the donut. Therefbrer they could solve the 2 equations with 2 unknowns only to get the cost for a cup of coffee and the cost for 1 sandwich. Student (S): R: Student (S): R: Student (S): R: Student (S): Untuk soalan ini, ada maklumat yang tak cukup. Apa maklumat yang sepatutnya ada ? Donut ini membuatkan saya keliru. Kalau tiada donut, boleh diselesaikan? Persamaan serentak boleh digunakan tapi donut ini memberikan masalah kepada saya. Apa masalah? Jika ditolak kita dapat 3 cawan kopi dan 1 sandwich harganya RM 1.05. Donut itu tidak diketahui harganya.

From the interviews with these students, it was found that they lacked problem formulation skills. The interview further showed that the student neglected the importance to check the solution with the second statement in order to detect error in the selected strategy. The average cost for the second statement RM4.20 divided by 15 equals to 28 sen and this is different from 29 sen obtained earlier from statement 1. A low mean of 1.76 in this item indicates that the students were only able to write the two linear equations but could not proceed from there although this fundamental understanding of simultaneous equations has been taught in schools since Form Three. Item 3. A dog chasing a rabbit, which has a start of 45m, jumps 3m every time the rabbit jumps 2m. In how many leaps does the dog overtake the rabbit? The mean score for this item was 2.25 with an approximate 39.6% correct response. This is an algebraic task and some students were observed using interesting heuristic action to solve the problem such as:

44

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

Difference of distance of every leap is 1 m. To cover the difference of 45 m, it requires 45 leaps. Therefore, the dog will over take the rabbit in the 46th leap. The majority of them saw the problem as a difference of 1 meter between each jump of the rabbit and dog. Then they classified the problem as sequences: 2, 4,6,8,... as the sequence for the distance travelled by the rabbit and 3, 6, 9, 12, ... as the sequence for the distance travelled by the dog. These heuristics were correct but unfortunately they got the wrong answer because they didn't take into consideration that the rabbit was already 45m ahead of the dog. Another variation of this heuristic action is exhibited by a student who was interviewed. R: . Awak kata 45 bahagi 3, awak dapat 15. Kenapa 45 bahagi 3? Student (P): Anjing boleh lompat 3 meter, arnab boleh lompat 2 meter. Untuk anjing memintas arnab, jadi 45 meter bahagi 3 meter. Anjing dapat 15 lompatan. Jadi dalam 15 lompatan tu, anjing boleh memintas arnab. He saw that the rabbit was 45 meters in front of the dog, therefore, in 15 leaps the dog would overcome the rabbit. This student was not aware of the extra information in the problem, that is, when the dog leaps, the rabbit also leaps. Surprisingly, students faced difficulty in expressing the problem as a mathematical algebraic equation of 45 + 2(x) = 3x where x is the number of jumps. None of the students used this algebraic equation to solve the problem, as one would normally expect of college students. Item 7. Eva and Alex want to paint the door of their garage. They first mix 2 cans of white paint and 3 cans of black paint to get a particular shade of gray. They add one more can of each. Will the new shade of gray be lighter, darker or are they the same? Approximately 76,4% of the students got this item wrong with a low mean of 1.80. They reasoned that if one adds 1 can of black paint and 1 can of white paint, their color should still be the same. Their reasoning was based on the assumption that since one can of each paint was added and the quantity of both colors was the same, the outcome of the new mixture should have the same shade. Their reasoning was based on primitive additive reasoning and approximately 42.2% of the students gave this additive reasoning. In short, these students failed to construct a coordination of two ratios simultaneously as: 2 white to 3 black and 3 white to 4 black. Responses from the interview with student T shows that some of the students had some idea as to how to solve the problem. T: Saya mendapat nisbah 2/3 dan 3/4 R: Bagaimana nisbah ini digunakan untuk mendapatkan yang lebih terang, gelap atau sama? T: Kalau hendak sama, nisbah mesti sama. R: Kalau 2/3, kita bandingkan dengan?

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

45

T: 4/6 kalau hendak sama. R: Bagaimana dengan 213 dan 3/4? T: Kita lihat berdasarkan cat. Kalau lebih banyak nisbah cat hitam, lebih gelap. The researcher needed to ask the right questions to perturb the students. The student then used proportional reasoning and proceeded to use multiplicative reasoning stating that in orderto get the same shade, the ratio must be 4/6. They were then able to see that 2/3 and 3/4 represented the ratios of white paint to black paint and the greater the number, the lighter the shade of the mixture. A second group of students used the percentage method. On their earlier attempt, they tried utilizing proportional reasoning but were unable to comprehend the meaning of the percentages of 66.3% and 75%. R: S: R: S: R: S: R: S: You obtained these figure, 66.3% and 7-5%. And then you said that the shade is darker. Why? It is the same Same? Same shade. Why, now you say its the same? Because they added one can of white and one can of black.. .the same number of cans for each. What about the percentages you computed? It is wrong.

They could not relate the percentages to the problem given. This led them to use additive reasoning to get a similar shade. They then concluded that an equal amount of each type of paint was added on the mixture, therefore, the mixture has the same shade. A third group of students also used additive reasoning, with the reasoning that, if an equal number of cans for each type of paint is added to the mixture, the shade will remain the same. They were unable to see the proportion of white paint to the black paint before and after the addition of two cans of paint. S: Pada pendapat soya, sama jika ditambah satu tin cat putih dan satu tin cat hitam,kerana bezanya sama. Jika ingin mendapatkan yang lebih terang, kita akan menambahkan lebih banyak cat putih dan cat hitam dan jika ingin mendapatkan yang lebih gelap, kita akan tambah lebih banyak cat hitam dan cat putih. R: Apakah warna yang akan dihasilkan? S: Kelabu R: Jadi anda berpendapat kalau ditambah satu tin cat putih dan satu tin cat hitam, warna kelabunya? S: Sama.

46

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

Comparison of Problem Solving Abilities of "A-Math" Students and "Non-A Math" Students Table 4 indicates the mean difference between the "A Math" students and "Non A Math" students in each of the items. There was a significant difference at the .05 level between the means of the "A Math" students and the means of "Non-A Math" students for item 2, item 3, item 5, item 7, item 9, item 11 and item 12, while in item 1, item 4, item 6, item 8, item 10, there was no significant difference between the means of the two groups of students. It is quite surprising that most A Math students could not solve some of these problems, especially the items which showed quite a low mean value. Those items are item 1, which requires the skill of constructing and solving simultaneous equations, item 6, which requires the skill of utilizing ratios and item 10, which requires some skill in organizing data. Table 4 Performance of "A Math" Students Versus "Non A Math" Students Means of Non Mean Difference Mean of Item A-Students A's Students' 1 1.78 1.61 .17 2 2.78 2.20 .57* 3 2.32 1,87 .45* 4 2.64 2.30 .34 5 2.32 1.67 .64' 6 1.89 1.69 .20 7 1.85 1.53 .32* 8 2.06 1.90 .15 9 1.37 1.13 .2410 1.22 1.17 .05 11 2.50 2.12 ,38* 12 2.52 2.18 .24' 'The mean difference is significant at the .05 level DISCUSSION There were 536 subjects in this study of whom 453 obtained a mathematical grade of A in the National Examination. These students, especially the A students, were expected to have a good grasp in the understanding of fundamental mathematical concepts. Before going further, we should clarify what the term "understanding" means. Skemp (1976) distinguishes between the two approaches that he believes actually teach two different kinds of mathematics, one based on relational understanding -- "knowing both what to do and why" -- and instrumental understanding, which is easier to achieve because less knowledge is involved and it leads to the right answer rather quickly. Relational understanding is more adaptable to new situations, and once learnt, it is easier to apply and adapt. The findings of this study seem to indicate that these students have an instrumental

Sig. .106 .000 .001 .051 .000 .098 .031 .107 .047 .673 .008 .046

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

47

understanding rather than a relational understanding, being unable to apply knowledge to new contextual situations. This is not a surprising result, given the paucity of instruction on problem posing and problem solving they encountered in the high school mathematics curriculum. It seems that students have learned how to do numerical computation at the expense of learning how to think and solve problems. Specifically, the following general conclusions were obtained from analyses of the quantitative and qualitative data: 1. Students obtained a very low mean score in the problem solving test. 2. There are no significant differences among the mean score of "A Math" students and "Non A Math" students' performance in about 50% of the items in the problem solving test. 3. Students who obtained a high grade on the SPM Mathematics examination do not seem to score likewise on the problem-solving test. 4. The primary goal for most of these student is to see an algorithm that will give them the answer quickly. 5. Many students know how to carry out basic mathematical procedures when problems are presented in symbolic form but are unable to apply these procedures to solve problems presented in words because of low level of conceptual understanding. Results from this research indicate that certain incorrect ideas about the fundamental mathematical concepts are common to college freshmen. There is evidence that college freshmen often have many of the same conceptual and reasoning difficulties that are common among younger students. There seems to be little change in conceptual understanding before and after formal instruction. Moreover, these students seem unable to apply the concepts they have learnt to the task of solving non-routine problems. The grades students obtained in the SPM do not indicate their mathematical knowledge as shown by their performance in the problem solving test. These grades do not measure how well educated the students are. As Parmjit (2001) observes: "the more we focus on raising test scores, the more instruction is distorted, and the less credible are the scores themselves" (p. 107). Rather than serving as accurate indicators of knowledge and performance, the tests become indicators of the amount of instruction time and attention paid to a narrow range of skills assessed. Furthermore, as Kieran (1988) has pointed out, symbolic knowledge not based on understanding is highly dependent on memory and is subject to deterioration. The data of this study seems to suggest that the current focus of instruction in the mathematics curriculum is on the product and not the process of mathematical activity. Why is the situation still prevalent in the Malaysian context? Most of the formulation of a problem solving approach in Malaysian mathematics textbooks attributes some relationship to Polya's (1957) problem solving stages. However, it is important to note that Polya's "stages" - understanding the problem, making a plan, carrying out the plan, and looking back ~ were more flexible than the "steps" often delineated in textbooks. To Polya (1957), problem solving was a major theme in mathematics and "teaching students to think" was of primary importance. However, care must be taken so that efforts to teach students "how to think" are not transformed into teaching "what to think" or "what to do."

48

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

CONCLUSION We believe it is long overdue for schools to focus on preparing students to be good adaptive learners as Resnick (1987) mentioned, so students can learn how to apply mathematics to unfamiliar situations. Approaching mathematics through problem solving can create a simulated real life context for students. Students get plenty of 'problems' as homework in the mathematics curriculum. However, we should be aware of the differences between exercises and problems. Exercises are tasks for which students learn appropriate solution procedures even though they have yet to become adept at applying these procedures or at matching the procedures to appropriate problems. Exercises may be hard or easy, but they are never puzzling, for it is always immediately clear how to proceed and solve a problem algorithmically by recognition, recall and reproduction. While selecting appropriate algorithms and modifying them to accommodate the unique aspects of a problem are important in problem solving, algorithms have sometimes been defined as "black boxes used to produce answers" with little or no understanding (Lochhead & Collura, 1981, p. 47). In contrast, true problem solving is a more difficult task requiring analysis and reasoning toward a goal (or solution) based on an understanding of the domain from which the task is drawn (Smith, 1991). It requires more than just simple recognition or recall. Problems cannot be solved algorithmically with little or no understanding of what has been done or why it was correct; they require analysis that must be based on an understanding of the content. Much of the current classroom mathematics involves "exercises", not true problems and students are only asked to apply procedures or match them to appropriate problems. Although we promote critical and analytical thinking in school mathematics, at the end of the day the assessment propels the learning rather than the other way round, which tends to inhibit the development of both these skills. As Schoenfeld (1987) describes it: All too often we focus on a narrow collection of well-defined tasks and train students to execute those tasks in a routine, if not algorithmic fashion. Then, we test the students on tasks that are very close to the ones they have been taught. If they succeed on those problems, we and they congratulate each other on the fact that they have learnt some powerful mathematical techniques. In fact, they may be able to use such techniques mechanically while lacking some rudimentary skills. To allow them, and ourselves, to believe that they "understand" the mathematics is deceptive and fraudulent, (p. 30) Schoenfeld (1979) indicates that capable mathematics students when removed from the context of coursework have difficulty doing what may be considered as elementary mathematics for their level of achievement. As the data shows, these college freshmen faced difficulty in applying elementary mathematical concepts to the given problems. We need a holistic approach to problem solving as the success of students' learning must be evaluated by a wider range of measures than conventional tests. Assessment can accelerate reform, but only if learning rather than measurement is the driving force. Because assessment is the key determinant of what students learn and teachers teach, it must be consistent with the vision of teaching and learning which emphasizes meaning.

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

49

Students can be told to do something, but they cannot be told to understand. To apply a biological metaphor, the finger of an embryo grows out by differentiation. The leaves of a tree likewise grow out of the plant by differentiation from it. We can change the environmental factors such as soil composition, temperature, and ambient light, but there is nothing we can do directly to the plant to make a leaf come out of it. Leaves can be grown only by the plant, from within. Traditional education is like trying to grow trees by pasting leaves from the outside. No wonder the leaves get un-pasted as soon as the.exam is over! REFERENCES 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 * 244-254), Resto&rVA: NatiormlCounciLof Teachers-of Mathematics^ Charles, R. I., Lester, F. K., & O' Daffer, P. (1987). How to evaluate progress in problem solving. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Garfola, J. & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 163-176. Kieran, T. (1988). Personal knowledge of rational numbers: Its intuitive and formal development. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 45 - 90). New York: Academic. Lochhead, J., & Collura, J. (1981). A cure for the cookbook laboratories. The Physics Teacher, 19, 46-50. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Parmjit, S. (2000). Understanding the concepts of proportion and ratio among grade nine students in Malaysia. International Journal of Mathematics Education, Science and Technology, 31(4), 577-599. Parmjit, S. (2001). Understanding the concepts of proportion and ratio constructed by two grade six students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 271-292. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it, Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Learning in and out of school. Educational Researcher, 16,13-20. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1979). Can heuristics be taught? In J. Lockhead, Cognitive process instruction (pp. 315-338). Philadelphia, PA: Franklin Institute. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). Cognitive science and mathematics education: An overview. In A. H. Schoenfeld, Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 1-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 1-7. Selden, A., Selden, J., Hauk, S., & Mason, A. (2000). Why can't calculus students access their knowledge to solve non-routine problems? In E. Dubinsky, A.H Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.) Issues in Mathematics education: Research in collegiate Mathematics education TV (pp.128-155). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

50

Jurnal Pendidikan 2006, Universiti Malaya

Smith, M. U. (1991). A view from biology. In Teaching mathematics word problem solving to deaf students. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.rit.edu/~comets/ pages/workshops/problemsolvingpreread.html Steffe, L. P. (1994). Children's multiplying scheme. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of Mathematics (pp. 3-39). New York: SUNY Press. Wheatley, G. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on mathematics and science learning. Science Education, 75(1), 9- 1. Woods, D. (1997). Developing problem solving skills: The McMaster problem solving program. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(2), 75-91.