Lesh1981 Article AppliedMathematicalProblemSolv

R I C H A R D LESH
APPLIED MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING
ABSTRACT. A case is presented for the importance of focusing on (1) average ability
students, (2) substantive mathematical content, (3) real problems, and (4) realistic settings
and solution procedures for research in problem solving. It is suggested that effective
instructional techniques for teaching applied mathematical problem solving resembles
"mathematical laboratory" activities, done in small group problem solving settings.
The best of these laboratory activities make it possible to concretize and externalize
the processes that are linked to important conceptual models, by promoting interaction
with concrete materials (or lower-order ideas) and interaction with other people.
Suggestions are given about ways to modify existing applied problem solving materials
so they will better suit the needs of researchers and teachers.
INTRODUCTION
Applied mathematical problem solving processes constitute an important part

of the basic skills required for mathematical literacy among average citizens;
yet they have not been emphasized by spokespersons for either "basic skiUs"
or "problem solving".
In the United States, results of recent National Assessments of Educational
Progress in mathematics suggest that " J o h n n y can a d d ; c o m p u t a t i o n with whole
numbers is far from a lost art" (Carpenter, Coburn, Reys, & Wilson, 1975,
p. 457). However, knowing how to compute does not ensure that a person will
know when to compute, which operation to use in a particular situation, or
how to use an answer once it is obtained. NAEP performance has been most
discouraging on items on which youngsters were asked to use arithmetic and
number ideas to answer questions about measurement or consumer situations.
If it were necessary to single out one area that demands urgent attention, it would clearly
be problem solving. At all age levels, and in virtually every content area, performance was
extremely low on exercises requiring problem solving or applications of mathematical
skills. In general, respondents demonstrated a lack of the most basic problem solving
skills.., drawing a picture of a figure described in a problem or checking the reasonable-
ness of a result. (Carpenter, Corbitt, Kepner, Lindquist, & Reys, 1980, p.338)
In general, "being able to use a concept" involves something more than

simply "having the concept". Getting an idea into a youngster's head does not
guarantee that the new idea will be integrated with other ideas that are
already understood, nor that situations in which the idea is relevant will be
recognized, nor that library-type "look-up" skills will be available to retrieve
ideas when they are needed.
Educational Studies in Mathematics 12 (1981) 235-264. 0013-1954/81/0122--0235 $03.00

Copyright © 1981 by D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston, U.S.A.
236 RICHARD LESH
Problem solving processes that enable an individual to use mathematical

ideas in real situations are not necessarily the type that have been discussed
by Polya (1957), Landa (1974), Wickelgren (1974), Davis (1973) or other
problem solving theorists who are popular among mathematics educators.
Research and instruction on problem solving have made little progress in
addressing the issue of what it is, beyond having an idea, that allows a normally
intelligent person to use the idea to deal with mathematics related problems
in everyday situations (Bell, 1979).
Most information about problem solving processes has come from studies
of older students, gifted students, individuals working in isolation (often in
artificial laboratory situations), or situations involving highly contrived word
problems, proofs, or puzzles based on underlying ideas that are of questionable
mathematical value (Bell, 1979). Elementary or middle school children, average
or below average ability students, and applied problem solving processes, such
as modeling and mathematical representation, have been neglected.
In recent years, researchers have observed and carefully recorded problem
solving activities in several areas: teacher decision making (Shavelson, 1973;
Shavelson, Caldwell, & Izu, 1977; Shulman, 1965), medical decision making
(Elstein, Shulman, & Sprafka, 1978), chess (e.g., Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi,
1978), story comprehension (Stein&Goldman, 1979), etc. A conclusion
based on these studies is that problem solving processes are more closely tied
to specific content than may have been anticipated. However, no comparable
body of research exists in the area of applied mathematical problem solving;
therefore, many widely held notions about problem solving in general, some
of which have been rejected in other areas, have never been examined with
respect to applied mathematical problem solving.
Past research and instructional development efforts have made the implicit
assumption that one must first learn a set of basic ideas, then add general
problem solving processes, and finally (if ever) use the ideas and processes to
solve real problems- i.e., those in which some knowledge about the situation
is needed to supplement knowledge about the underlying mathematical ideas
and processes. Educators and researchers who subscribe to this incorrect
assumption tend to question the wisdom of going on to "something even more
complicated" (i.e., applied problem solving) when we have yet to deal effec-
tively with traditional types of problem solving processes. This objection
derives from an artificial separation of problem solving and concept formation
which has distorted the true nature of both these areas. Students do not first
learn an idea, then learn to solve problems using the idea, and finally learn to
solve applied problems. There is a dynamic interaction between basic math-
ematical concepts and important applied problem solving processes.
APPLIED MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 237
Research is needed which will focus on processes that contribute not only
to students' mathematical problem solving capabilities but also to the meaning-
fulness of the underlying ideas that mathematics students should learn. This
characteristic is important because applications and problem solving are un-
likely to find a place in the curriculum if they are not understood to play an
important role in helping students acquire mathematical ideas. If applications
are considered to be appropriate only after learning has occurred, then they
will, and perhaps should, be neglected.
In a variety of subject matter areas, the existence of widely applicable
content-independent, prescriptive processes is currently being challenged
(Elstein et al., 1978)..Many such processes have proven to have descriptive,
but little prescriptiv~b, value (Schoenfeld, 1979b). That is, the processes may
provide a useful rubric for giving "after the fact" descriptions of problem
solving episodes, but they may be of little use to a problem solver who is
actively engaged in a solution attempt. For those content-independent processes
which do appear to have some prescriptive value, the transferability of"learned"
processes has been extremely limited; a problem solver who is "good" in one
content area is often mediocre in others. In fact, even within a given content
area, students typically exhibit profiles of abilities which vary considerably
from topic to topic. Furthermore, in recent research using problems with rich
semantic structures, Simon and Simon (1978) have shown that experts (i.e.,
"good" problem solvers) in a given area tend to use powerful content-related
processes whereas novices (i.e., "poorer" problem solvers) use general but
weak (e.g., inefficient) strategies of the type identified in earlier research using
content-independent tasks. It is poor problem solvers, notgood ones, who use
general strategies such as "working backwards", "hill climbing", or other
"means-ends analysis" procedures (Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980).
The central concern of this paper is: What is it, beyond having an elementary
mathematical concept, that enables an individual to use the idea in an everyday
problem solving situation? A possible answer is that the ability to use an idea
depends on the way it is linked to other ideas and processes within an appro-
priate conceptual model, i.e., a cognitive structure which integrates a set of
ideas with a system of processes. On the other hand, pilot studies have indi-
cated that the ability to use a particular process depends on its connectedness
with ideas and other processes, again within an appropriate conceptual model
(Lesh, 1979b).
Average ability individuals may have the ideas they need in an applied math-
ematical problem solving situation but may be unable to use them because
they lack certain processes which would allow them to "fit" their knowledge
systems to the problem situation. Typically, however, individuals do have the
238 RICHARD LESH
needed processes- the difficulty arises because the processes are linked to
conceptual models apparently unconnected with the mathematics in the
problem at hand. For example, many processes needed in mathematical
problem solving are available to the individual in reading.
Understanding a paragraph is like solvinga problem in mathematics. It consists of selecting

the right elements of the situation and putting them together in the right relations, and
also with the right amount of weight or influence or force for each. The mind is assailed
as it were by every word in the paragraph. It must select, repress, soften, emphasize,
correlate, and organize, all under the influence of the right mental set or purpose or
demand. (Thorndike, 1917, p. 326)
By manipulating factors in the instructional situation, individuals can learn to

access processes that they use in other problem solving areas - reading, compre-
hension, social problem solving, decision making- and, by using carefully
sequenced problem sets, build links with mathematical content.
This paper will present arguments to support the idea that applied math-
ematical problem solving processes should be taught in conjunction with
substantive mathematical topics and that they should be presented in the
context of problem situations that can serve as prototypes for whole classes
of problems. The best prototype problems should resemble, in many ways,
Dienes' (1963, 1969) "concrete embodiments". That is, the problem situ-
ations should "embody" the idea or process being taught - and should furnish
a set of images that might be useful to help students relate the ideas or
processes to future problem situations. Effective instructional techniques
will probably resemble some of the "mathematics laboratory" activities which
encourage cognitive development through: (a) interactions with concrete
materials (or lower order ideas), and (b) interactions with other people. The
best of these laboratory activities are based on the viewpoint that cognitive
development takes place within an ecological system which includes a variety
of cognitive, social, and affective factors - as well as a variety of higher level
concepts and attitudes about mathematical ideas, problem solving processes,
and personal competencies. These techniques focus on externalizing and
concretizing important ideas and processes through the use of group problem
solving activities using concrete materials.
This paper will emphasize applied problem solving processes that have
been neglected because insufficient attention has been directed toward
problem solving research involving: (1)average ability students; (2) real
problems; (3)substantive mathematical content; and (4) realistic settings
and solution procedures. The remainder of the paper will deal with each of
these components, followed by a discussion of implications for future research
and instruction, and conclusions.
RATIONALE FOR FOCUSING ON AVERAGE ABILITY STUDENTS
The focus on average ability students grows out of the recognition that much
of the traditional problem solving research, while attempting to identify and
analyze the abilities and processes of bright students and good problem solvers,
has (a) overlooked a number of seemingly simple, but highly important,
processes which are often deficient among average ability students; (b) empha-
sized processes which are often inaccessible to average ability students, while
distorting the character of other processes which are accessible; (c) led to
questionable instructional implications for average ability students (Lesh,
1979a, 1979b). Identifying and strengthening processes which are accessible
to, but frequently not well developed in, average ability students is at least as
important as attempting to isolate and teach processes that are totally missing
in most average ability problem solvers.
Traditionally, the assumption has been that average and below average
ability youngsters can be taught to use the processes used by gifted problem
solvers. Krutetskii (1976), however, has shown that this assumption may not
always be warranted. That is, many of the processes used by gifted youngsters
are qualitatively different from those used by average ability youngsters and
many may be inaccessible to average ability youngsters. Inaccessible processes
include, among others: (a) perceiving and remembering the underlying math-
ematical structure of problem situations; (b) generalizing broadly and rapidly,
often from a single instance; (c) curtailing normal chains of reasoning- skipping
intermediate steps and moving rapidly from problem to solutions.
In many ways, Krutetskii's work can be compared/contrasted with that of
Piaget. The qualitatively different systems of thought used by gifted problem
solvers may be just as inaccessible to normal problem solvers as formal oper-
ational reasoning is to most seven year-olds. Therefore, successful problem
solving processes used by gifted adults cannot necessarily be transplanted
without modification and used as objectives for average ability children.
The above argument does not imply that research involving gifted problem
solvers is irrelevant to the training of normal students. However, it does
suggest that getting normal children to perform like gifted problem solvers (if
this is possible or desirable) may not occur through the teaching of isolated
skills, abilities, heuristics, or problem solving strategies (Begie, 1979). Rather,
a student may need to develop a whole new mode of thinking- a transfor-
mation analogous to the qualitative shift from concrete operational to formal
operational modes of thought. In mathematics, some of the most effective
techniques for facilitating cognitive development focus on broadening and
strengthening a given student's conceptual base- rather than artificially
accelerating the acquisition of isolated skills or concepts.
240 RICHARD LESH
Just as Piaget's research with preoperational children has enriched our

understanding of children's operational thought processes, research analyzing
processes of poor problem solvers or "learning disabilities" students is informa-
tive with respect to average ability students. In a recent paper on "mathematical
learning disabilities", Lesh (1979b) describes a variety of important abilities
and processes that were deficient among normally intelligent children who
were identified by their school districts as having "learning disabilities"
in mathematics. The article focused on processes that seemed to be especially
important in mathematics compared with other subject matter areas, and
on processes that are accessible to, but perhaps not well developed in, average
ability youngsters. In general, the important processes and abilities that
emerged were associated with obvious distinguishing characteristics of
mathematics-i.e., its structure and its distinctive use of language and
symbolism. These abilities and processes seemed quite different from the
content-independent processes that have been emphasized in most problem
solving research. Rather, they were closely tied to specific subject matter, and
contributed to the meaningfulness as well as to the usability of specific ideas
and topics. Often these processes were closely related to the representation,
organization, storage and retrieval of mathematical knowledge.
Among the processes identified in Lesh's (1979b) wort~ with "learning
disabilities" children, most were related to the formation (i.e., the degree of
coordination) of one of three distinct types of mathematical structures:
(a) "within idea" structures - coordinated systems of relations, operations,
or transformations that a child must use in order to make judgments concern-
ing a given mathematical concept. It is the nature of mathematical concepts
that they must have these structures and it is this structural aspect that
distinguishes mathematical ideas from other classes of ideas. A child who has
not yet coordinated a system that is related to a given concept is called
"preoperational" with respect to that concept (Beth & Piaget, 1966).
(b) "between concept" structures- which arise because the meaning of
any given mathematical idea derives from its relationship to other ideas or
from the system in which it is embedded (Lesh, 1976).
(c) "between mode" structures - related to the use of various mathematical
representational systems together with organized systems of translation
processes linking one representational system to another.
The next section of this paper will discuss translation processes related to the
use of mathematical pictures and diagrams, conceret or manipulative models,
spoken mathematical language, and various written symbol systems.
Mathematics, probably more than any other subject matter area, is based
on well organized systems o f relationships among ideas and skills. Conse-
quently, a disability affecting the overall organization and structure of a

child's concepts could be expected to have a more detrimental effect on
mathematics than on other subject areas. On the other hand, ideas and
processes which increase the manipulability of a body of knowledge are among
the most important in applied problem solving (Bruner, 1966).
Gifted students tend to compare new ideas with a vast range of things they
already know (Davis, Jockusch, & McKnight, 1978), while many students who
experience difficulties with mathematics may be characterized by the dis-
organized nature of the mathematical information they have learned. Instead
of attempting to recall isolated bits of information, outstanding mathematics
students typically focus on broad categories that organize many details and
serve as cues for mentally "looking it up".
A distinguishing characteristic of gifted students is that they have an ability
to recognize similarities among seemingly unrelated ideas, problems, and
situations; and a distinguishing characteristic of many LD children is that
situations which educators, mathematicians, and psychologists usually consider
to be closely related may be treated by an LD child (or an average ability
youngster) as being quite unrelated (Lesh, 1979b).
To the three types of structures described above, a fourth could be added:
organized systems of processes. Schoenfeld (1979a) demonstrated that learning
to manage a system of specific strategies is quite different from simply learning
each of the strategies in isolation. Students who have learned a variety of
isolated problem solving strategies may not have learned (a) to identify
situations in which particular strategies might be useful; (b) to identify stages
in the problem solving process when particular strategies might be useful;
(c) relationships among various ideas and strategies.
Whether one is dealing with systems of ideas (i.e., "between concept"
structures), systems of operations and relations (i.e., "within concept" struc-
tures) or systems of problem solving processes, a system of mathematical
objects is usually more than the sum of its parts. Individual ideas, processes,
or relations take on new significance as they are modified by being treated
as part of a whole system (Piaget calls this "reflective abstraction"). The
coordination of a system of ideas is achieved progressively, but its completion
is marked by a qualitative "jump" as the student shifts to a qualitatively
higher level of thought. As a result of this reorganization, new meaning is
assigned to the components of a system which derives from properties of the
whole system.
The above characteristics have important implications for mathematics
instruction designed to encourage applied problem solving abilities. Teachers
or researchers dealing with children wh~) have learning difficulties tend to break
242 RICHARD LESH
down complex tasks, ideas, or processes into sequences of smaller, discrete

learning units. This analysis can be quite useful, but it can also reinforce the
fragmented nature of children's thinking. Teachers must do more than teach
isolated sequences of ideas or processes. Otherwise, their analytic teaching
procedures may emphasize the very things that are causing difficulties for the
child (i.e., fragmentation)- producing short range success which lays the
groundwork for even greater future difficulties.
Most problem solving research and instruction has been guided by a naive
subtractive model for identifying instructional objectives for average ability
youngsters. That is, if E represents the processes and abilities of an expert,
and N represents those that are accessible to a novice problem solver, then the
goals, G, for instructional activities are identified by subtracting: G = E - - N .
This subtractive model fails to address the following difficulties concerning the
acquisition of problem solving processes and abilities.
(a) The difference between an expert E and a novice N may involve much
more than the fact that N lacks some isolated processes that E is able to use.
Qualitative "jumps" may be needed in order to shift to a higher order system
of ideas and processes; these "jumps" may involve concrete-to-abstract,
intuitive-to-formal, and other dimensions of cognitive growth.
(b) During the initial acquisition of problem solving processes, students
usually are not conscious of the conceptual models they use to solve problems
(Dienes, 1963, 1969). While they may be able to solve problems, they are
unable to explain the steps in the solutions. During this stage, it may be
confusing to force a student to become explicitly aware of his problem solving
processes. The situation is similar to the folktale about the centipede who
instantly became paralyzed when asked to explain the order in which he moved
his legs.
Because of the structural characteristic of mathematical concepts, learning
a concept must involve coordinating a system of relations, operations, or
processes; and these systems become coordinated in a manner analogous to
the way people learn to coordinate overt actions needed to ride bicycles or
hit tennis bails, etc. The learner begins in situations in which the complexity
of the system and the degree of coordination are minimal (e.g., all of the tennis
balls come waist high, on the forehand side, just within arm's reach), and
gradually moves to situations which require more complex and well coordinated
systems. More will be said about the structural characteristics of mathematical
concepts in the next section of this paper.
(c) The subtractive model overestimates a teacher's or researcher's ability
to accurately assess the processes and abilities for a particular student at either
the E or N levels. It also makes the incorrect assumption that an instructor
must be able to define analytically what an expert problem solver is before it is

possible to provide experiences that will help one to develop.
Even if research is unable to define what a good problem solver is, students
may be able to point to o n e - or to situations in which they themselves have
been one. At any given level of problem solving ability students may be able to
proceed in a direction that is "better", even without a clear conception of
"best" (if such a state exists). For example, teachers improve their teaching
techniques through the use of videotapes and other self-evaluative devices
that allow them to examine their own behavior objectively at various points in
time, and to modify their behavior gradually in the direction of improvement.
No assumption needs to be made that we can define what a good teacher (or
problem solver, or tennis player) is before we can help a student become one
(Lesh, Note 1).
Saari (1976, Note 2), an applied mathematician, has developed an alterna-
tive mathematical model to describe the learning and problem solving processes
described in this paper. To present the details of this model - i.e., the formal
definitions, e t c . - would require a preliminary mathematical development
beyond the scope of the present paper. It is sufficient to mention that, accord-
ing to Saari's model, problem solving abilities (or concept formation abilities)
at any given moment depend on the availability of mathematical structures of
the type discussed in Lesh (1979b), and also on certain social/affective factors
discussed in Lesh (1979c).
Saari's model is useful because: (a)it draws together "structured learning"
variables from theories like Piaget's (1971), Ausubel's (1963), or Bruner's
(1960, 1966); (b)it gives precise mathematical definitions for terms like
"intuition", "assimilation", or "accommodation"-defining key theoretical
constructs in such a way that evaluation instruments can be developed to
assess them; and (c)it provides a way to reconcile theories that predict the
gradual and continuous growth of knowledge with theories that attempt to
account for sudden insights, intuitions, or abrupt changes in learning growth
curves.
RATIONALE FOR USING PROBLEMS INVOLVING

SUBSTANTIVE MATHEMATICAL CONTENT
The statements below, made by Elstein, Shulman, and Sprafka (1978) with
reference to the field of medical education, apply equally well to mathematics
education.
With increasing frequency medical educators were told that their objective was to produce
problem solvers, inquirers, individuals skilled in gathering and interpreting information
for the purpose of rendering judgments, making decisions, and taking action. As dis-
244 R I C H A R D LESH
satisfaction with the lockstep curriculum and with a sharp distinction between basic and
efinical education grew, it was at times argued that mastery of specific content was less
important than mastery of a process, particularly since the content was likely to be
obsolete in a relatively short time (say five to ten years)...
The emphasis upon the primacy of process over content in medical education was a
major stimulus for the present research... (p. 2)
The most startling and controversial aspects of our results have been the finding of
case specificity and the lack of intraindividual consistency over problems, with the
accompanying implication that knowledge of content is more critical than mastery of a
generic problem-solving process . . . . In our opinion there is a general mental process
common to all medical problem solving . . . . However, the effectiveness with which this
process is mobilized in any particular case depends on knowledge in a particular domain.
(p. 292)
In a variety of subject matter areas, researchers and curriculum designers

have created a naive dichotomy between content-independent processes and
process-independent content. In contrast, the position taken in this paper is
that knowledge of content plus knowledge of general processes is not equivalent
to mastery of well organized idea/process systems (i.e., conceptual models):
(1) applied problem solving processes contribute significantly to the meaning-
fulness of the underlying conceptual models, and (2)some of the most
important applied problem solving processes are "cued" by a relatively small
number o f conceptual models. This is consistent with (but goes beyond) the
current trend in research toward using the language of frames, scripts, schemes,
etc., to explain how the knowledge base and knowledge state of the problem
solver cue certain processes and problem solving strategies (e.g., Davis, 1979;
Brown, 1979; Larkin, 1979; Schank & Abelson, 1977).
A. Conceptual Models
The notion of a conceptual model - which incorporates both a set of key ideas
and a system of processes - seems natural to use in the area of applied math-
ematical problem solving; it is a construct which is already familiar to applied
mathematicians, it includes most of the useful characteristics associated with
frames, scripts, etc., and it eliminates the misleading dichotomy between "static"
structures and "dynamic" processes which generate, relate, or modify structures
(Saari, 1977). It is natural to integrate ideas and processes within a single
system (i.e., conceptual model) because, in mathematics, the ideas themselves
always involve some organized system of relations, operations, or transformations
which must be coordinated and internalized to form what psychologists call
the "cognitive structure" associated with the idea (Beth & Piaget, 1966).
Recently, psychologists and mathematics educators have devoted consider-
able effort to idea analyses tracing the development of progressively more
complex and well coordinated systems characterizing children's primitive
judgments about several important elementary mathematics ideas. For example,

Carpenter, Hiebert, and Moser (1979), Steffe and Thompson (Note 3), and
Fuson (Note 4) have described the evolution of children's early number
concepts; and Karplus (Note 5), Kieren (1966), and Behr, Lesh, and Post
.(Note 6) have described the evolution of rational number concepts. These
idea analyses illustrate the interdependency between process and content - an
interdependency that is only beginning to be explored by information
processing theorists and mathematics educators.
While leading researchers have moved away from an emphasis on general,
content-independent processes toward the position that content-related
processes are more often characteristic of good problem solvers, it is hypoth-
esized in this paper that the critical component in applied problem solving
lies still further along the continuum, integrating content and processes in
conceptual models. Furthermore, it is suggested that the difficulties of poor
problem solvers can more often be traced to poorly coordinated conceptual
systems (i.e., ideas) rather than to missing or deficient processes associated
with the subsuming conceptual model.
Shifting attention away from a few general but weak processes toward
content-related processes does not mean that the number of processes
researchers and practitioners must address will be multiplied to some un-
manageable number. Researchers need only identify the major mathematical
ideas that various student populations really need or use, and then select from
among these the conceptual models that are most basic and have the greatest
generalizability, transferability, and usability. A rich set of applied problem
solving activities should then be organized around these conceptual models.
Bell's (1974) work to identify "what everyone should know from school
mathematics" is a first step in this direction.
Not every idea needs to be taught through the use of applications. Rather,
applications should be used to develop breadth of understanding for the
handful of conceptual models that are most basic to major mathematical
subject matter areas. These conceptual models contain ideas from which a
maximum number of lower order concepts can be derived and which can be
applied in a maximum number of situations. They tend to coincide with the
basic ideas to which "good" teachers already devote special time and care to
develop thoroughly. The time invested in major conceptual models is worth-
while because they contribute to the acquisition of other ideas.
B. Processes That Contribute to the Meaningfulness o f Mathematical Concepts
There are a variety of ways to make an idea meaningful - some of which involve
"translations" between different contexts in which mathematical ideas may be
246 RICHARD LESH
Models
Real \ Represent Formalize

World]. " ~ "
~ ~ Interpret ~ Illustrate
de,
' " [ Spoken

Symbols
Fig. 1. Translationprocesses.
imbedded. For example, when we say a student "understands" a mathematical

concept, part of what we mean is that he/she can use the kinds of processes
depicted in Fig. i (Lesh, 1979b).
The translation processes in Figure 1 correspond to some of the most import-
ant processes students need when they try to use basic geometric, algebraic, or
number concepts to solve real problems in real situations (Clement, 1979;
Janvier, 1978). These processes include: introducing suitable notation, looking
for a similar problem, simplifying the problem, or restating the problem in
your own words. They also involve simplified versions of the problem solving
and "modeling" processes used by gifted problem solvers (Geeslin & Steffe, in
preparation; Fuson & Geeslin, 1979).
The essential features of the modeling process are: (1)simplifying the
original situation by ignoring "irrelevant" characteristics in a real situation in
order to focus on other characteristics; (2) establishing a mapping between the
original situation and the "model"; (3) investigating the properties of the model
in order to generate predictions about the original situation; (4)translating
(or mapping) the predictions back into the original situation and checking
whether the results "fit". Thus, the most important modeling processes are
translations or mappings between contexts, e.g., as they are illustrated in

Figure 1, and transformations within a given context, to generate results or
predictions.
While the five categories in Figure 1 do not constitute a formal partition
of all possible contexts, they have proven to be useful distinctions (BEN, Lesh,
& Post, Note 6; Lesh, 1979b). For example, distinctions between a real world
situation and a manipulative model arise because the models usually involve
less "noise" (i.e., attributes that are irrelevant to the concept they are intended
to embody), and the models are typically used in a symbolic way to represent
many different real world situations. The primary distinction between manipu-
lative models and pictures derives from the actions which are an integral part
of the models - but which are difficult to incorporate into static pictures.
Within each context there are a variety of semiautonomous subsystems. For
example, (1)there usually exist several distinct written-symbolic ways of
representing a given mathematical idea (e.g., we can describe the idea using
standard English sentences or we can use several different kinds of math-
ematical symbols); (2) there usually exist several independent spoken-symbolic
ways of describing an idea (e.g., in mathematics, words like "and", "or",
" i f . . . then", add, multiply, are given meanings that do not correspond to
their everyday meanings); (3)wi~b'.'r the category of "concrete materials",
some are more concrete (or abstract) than others (see Lesh, 1979b, for a more
detailed discussion of this point).
For years, "mathematical laboratory" theorists (e.g., Dienes, 1963, 1969)
and cognitive psychologists (e.g., Bruner, 1960; Piaget, 1971)have emphasized
the role that concrete materials can play in mathematical concept formation.
But these same manipulative models can also play an important role when
students attempt to u s e the ideas they have learned. That is, concrete models
not only serve as a bridge from the real world into the world of mathematics,
they can also serve as a bridge to help students apply their ideas back in the
real world. Unfortunately, however, evaluations of laboratory programs have
seldom attempted to assess these modeling processes, and mathematics labora-
tory programs seldom explicitly attempt to facilitiate the kinds of translation
processes suggested in Figure 1.
Focusing on the translation processes in Figure 1 leads to a variety of
important instructional implications. Average and below average students can
learn to use these processes. Yet work with special education students (Lesh,
1979b) indicates that they cause difficulties for many students, severely
restricting their problem solving (or even concept formation) capabilities.
If diagnostic questions indicate a student is having unusual problems with
one of the processes in Figure 1, other processes in the diagram can be used
model type # 1
interpretation # 1 model type # 2
/ modeltype # 3
model type # 1
idea / , interpretation # 2
\
model type # 2
modeltype # 3
model type # 1
interpretation # 3 model type # 2
modeltype # 3
Fig. 2. A scheme for generating manipulative models.
to strengthen or bypass it. A child who has difficulty translating from real
situations to written symbols might find it helpful to begin by translating
from real situations to spoken words and then from spoken words to written
symbols. If a student is weak in a particular between-mode translation process,
remedial activities might involve practicing the inverse of the weak process.
Thus, a child who has difficulty translating from real world situations to
written symbols might find it helpful to practice translating from written
symbols to real world situations.
To generate a whole series of diagnostic tasks for a given idea, the teacher
can present the idea in one mode and ask the student to illustrate, describe, or
represent the same idea in another mode. Teachers do not need to wait for
large scale curriculum projects to develop special instructional activities to
teach the processes involved in Figure 1. They can be built into the kind of
lessons that are included in many textbooks and the kind of problems that
are included in the "applied" sections of national assessment tests.
A student can practice a single process across a whole series of tasks. For
example: (a) Practice selecting an appropriate concrete model to act out the
situations for a series of real world problems. (b) Practice finding real world
situations that are like three or four different kinds of prototype concrete
models. (c) Practice writing arithmetic equations to describe three or four of the
most important types of prototype concrete models. (d) Practice using three or
four different types of concrete models to illustrate written arithmetic problems.
In summary, it should be emphasized that the translation processes in
Figure 1 a r e n o t content-independent. For example, to translate from written
symbols to manipulative materials requires an understanding of a variety of
mathematical interpretations associated with the idea - as well as a variety of
different kinds of concrete models corresponding to each interpretation. This
can be illustrated with subtraction, which has three interpretations: (1)take
away (e.g., Johnny had 5 balls and Sue took away 4. How many are left?);
(2) comparison (e.g., Johnny was 5 feet tall and Sue was 4 feet tall. How much
taller was J o h n n y than Sue?); (3)missing addend (e.g., Johnny's house is

five blocks from Sue's house. Johnny has already walked four blocks. How
many more blocks must he walk?). Three basic types o f models can be
associated with each interpretation: (a) cardinal number models (e.g., counters);
(b) ordinal number models (e.g., a number line); (c)measure models (e.g.,
Cuisenaire rods).
Understanding a given idea not only means associating the idea (expressed in
spoken form or as a set of written symbols) with a given concrete situation, it
also means (a) coordinating the systems of relations and operations that
characterize various concrete models or interpretations, plus (b) recognizing
the isomorphisms between situations characterized by structurally similar
systems. That is, it means translating from one system to another - looking at
occurrences in the first situation to make predictions about the second.
R A T I O N A L E F O R F O C U S I N G ON R E A L P R O B L E M S
Among the word problems that are found in mathematics textbooks, very few
might actually occur in a sane and reasonable life, and virtually none deal with
real or even realistic data. Usually, word problems do refer to familiar objects
and events, but the questions asked are often so unreal that they reinforce
students' suspicions that the mathematical ideas they are learning are n o t truly
useful in their everyday fives (Bell, 1979).
The situation is similar in research. Elstein et al. (1978) have described some
reasons w h y past research has neglected applied problem solving situations.
One of the legacies of psychology's longstanding quest for the methodological objectivity
of the physical sciences was the practice of employing artificial tasks to study learning and
cognition . . . . The rationale w a s . . . : to devise conditions where uncontrolled encroach-
ments from the organism's prior experience could not influence performance. Doubtless
these cautions did ensure that the problem-solving behavior observed was more a function
of the novel structure of the presented problem than of unique and unobservable prior
experience of the individual problem solver. Unfortunately, the price paid for this insurance
was often exorbitant, in our opinion. While these tasks were employed in the interest of
increasing generalizability by reducing individual and task variability, a psychology of
problem solving based solely on such studies was likely to be generalizable only to a
population of problem situations that were so novel or unstructured that the individual
problem solver's prior knowledge, experience, and strategies were essentially neutralized.
[For] most human problem solving, problems are approached by a critical interplay
of capabilities developed in the past and the particular features of the problem being
attacked. The universe of such real problems fell outside the population of situations to
which the findings of traditional psychological studies could be easily generalized. (p. 4)
Newell and Simon (1972) have argued that problems have traditionally been
treated as interchangeable and suggest instead that we consider the task itself
250 RICHARD LESH
as a major determinant of human behavior. To understand the problem solving

process, then, the environments in which real problem solving occurs must be
sampled just as carefully as psychologists have long sampled the persons doing
the solving (Brunswik, 1956; Newell & Simon, 1972). A theory of problem
solving must be, first, a taxonomic or logical analysis of the interrelations
among problem types (Elstein et al., 1978); and second, an analysis of the
processes which are used in their solutions. The results of pilot investigations
indicate that an analysis of realistic mathematical problems will lead to the
identification of processes that have been neglected by past research which has,
for the most part, used highly artificial problems (Lesh, 1979a).
A. Are "'Honest'Applications Accessible to Average Ability

Elementary School Children ?
When mathematics educators talk about "applications", middle school and

elementary school children are usually exempted. Some argue that children's
meager computational skills are insufficient to handle most "honest" appli-
cations; others believe that the reasoning requirements of "real life" applications
usually depend on formal operational abilities beyond the cognitive capabilities
of most elementary school children. Yet, the characteristic feature of topics
in the elementary school curriculum is that they are useful in everyday situ-
ations, and Bell (1974) claims that among the topics listed in "What does
'Everyman' really need from school mathematics?" most can be imbedded in
real world problems involving processes that are accessible to elementary
school children.
I f . . . one takes a Piagetian point of view, there are probably some restraints on consider-
ing applications . . . . But I don't believe the restraints are very severe. Attention to many
applications that are tied to a child's direct experience should be possible even in the late
pre-operational and in the concrete operations stages. (Bell, 1975, p. 48)
Among those areas of mathematics which are becoming increasingly

necessary for informed citizenship (e.g., statistics, graphing, data processing,
sensible use of averages, estimates, or approximations), most do not require
elaborate computational skills. For those applications which do require compu-
tation, inexpensive calculators can reduce the drudgery of calculation. On the
other hand, while many honest applied problems do seem accessible even to
young children, the results of recent National Assessment tests make it clear
that researchers need not go beyond elementary mathematics to create
problems that will be quite difficult for average adults.
To understand many of the events in their daily lives, students and citizens
must acquire a basic stock of conceptual models that research shows they
typically do not possess. For example, elementary concepts involving prob-
ability, measurement, coordinate systems, etc., are often taken to be "easy",
when, in fact, many of these concepts developed rather late in the history
of science and are exceedingly unobvious to those who have not assimilated
them (Hawkins, 1979).
B. What Are the Characteristics of "Real'Problems?
Two of the most important attributes of real problems are that they should be
meaningful and interesting. The definition of a "problem" must include both
the cognitive capabilities and the interests of individual students (Saari, 1977).
Concerning interest, Papert (1972) writes:
The important difference between the work of a child in an elementary mathematics class
and that of a mathematician is not in the subject matter (old fashioned numbers versus
groups or categories or whatever) but in the fact that the mathematician is creatively
engaged in the pursuit of a personally meaningful project. (p. 249)
A child interested in flying model airplanes under computer control will work at this
project over a long period. He will have time to try different approaches to subproblems.
He will have time to talk about it, to establish a common language with a collaborator or
an instructor, to relate it to other interests and problems. This project-oriented approach
contrasts with the problem approach of most mathematics teaching: a bad feature of the
typical problem is that the child does not stay with it long enough to benefit much from
success or from failure. (p. 251)
Multi-stage, project-type problems do exist, e.g., in Statistics by Example

(Mosteller, Kruskal, Link, Pieters, & Rising, 1973), The Man Made World
(ECCP, 1971), and Mathematical Uses and Models in Our Everyday World
(Bell, 1972). However, these materials are seldom used in school instruction
and have been almost totally ignored by research. The final section of this
paper gives some reasons for this disuse, together with suggestions for modify-
ing the materials to better suit the needs of teachers and researchers. These
modifications can be made while at the same time accentuating the kinds of
"real problem" characteristics described below.
1. Real problems seldom emerge as well formulated questions
Real problems often occur as "ouches" rather than as well defined questions
with clearly specified goals (in which the "problem" is to find a set of legal
moves to get from the "givens" to the "answer"). Problem formulation is
critical in many real problem situations; the goal may be to understand a
problem, not to solve it.
Applications typically begin with an ill-defined situation outside of mathematics - in

economics, physics, engineering, biology, or almost any field of human activity. The job
is to understand this situation as well as possible. The procedure is to make a mathematical
model which hopefully will shed some light on the situation which we are trying to
understand. Thus, the heart of applied mathematics is the injunction: "Here is a situation;
think about it". (Pollak, 1970, p. 318)
In many cases, once a problem is interpreted in a clever way, solution is

quite simple. Minimally, a well formed problem requires (a) a global conception
of a final solution, to be able to determine whether or not the problem has
been solved; (b) a hope of solving the problem, including the realization that
one's problem solving capabilities are relevant to the situation; and (c) a desire
or willingness to solve the problem.
Each of the above characteristics of well formed problems is related to
important problem solving processes. For example, a good problem solver is
usually a person who interprets an unusual number of daily situations as
problems - that is, as situations where his problem solving skills may be relevant.
A good problem solver can accurately assess whether a particular situation
is one in which his problem solving capabilities can be applied. He decides
whether the problem is "do-able" or "undo-able", "easy" or "difficult". Then
appropriate solution strategies are selected to fit this appraisal. Partly as a
result of such self-evaluations of problem solving competence, problem solving
effectiveness varies considerably across knowledge domains.
Other processes also play important roles in the problem formulation stage of
problem solving. For example, to fit some mathematical description (or model)
to a real situation, many situations must be simplified considerably - ignoring
some aspects in order to focus on others. These simplification/modeling pro-
cesses, together with feedback mechanisms about the "usefulness" or"goodness"
of trial solutions are among the most important "basic skills" in mathematics
- and they should be emphasized in applied problem soMng research.
2. Real problems originate in the real world where identification o f

relevant con ten t is critical
In most mathematics textbook "applications" problems, the student is given

an idea and then is asked to use it in a variety of word problems that refer to
real objects. Presumably, these problems increase the meaningfulness and
usefulness of the underlying ideas by encouraging students to relate ideas to real
world situations. Most real problems, however, require the student to begin
with a real world situation and look for relevant mathematical ideas. The
organization of the student's prior knowledge thus interacts with important
content identification and retrieval processes as the student attempts to

represent the problem situation adequately.
3. Applied problems seldom fall into neat disciplinary categories
When a sixth grader uses arithmetic to solve problems in everyday situations,

problems are seldom simply addition or multiplication or division problems;
they are often combinations or sequences of basic arithmetic operations,
or they may involve relating ideas about measurement or geometry to ideas
about arithmetic operations or computation. The process of establishing
relationships among ideas associated with different mathematical topics is
one of the most important outcomes of applied problem solving activities.
4. Real problems often require a solution based on inadequate information
In mathematics textbooks, problems with "not enough information" are

usually identical to other short word problems, except that some relevant bit
of information is missing, and the student is expected to conclude that solution
is impossible. More realistic problem solving situations are often characterized
as "the process of making adequate decisions with inadequate information"
(Elstein et al., 1978, p. i); a "best" solution must be found, using whatever
information is available. Or, in some cases, supplementary information must
be gathered during the solution of the problem.
Applied problems typically require generating and testing hypotheses to
determine the goodness of fit of a proposed model which (a) accounts for the
given information; (b)fills in the gaps created by missing information; and
(c) suggests additional information which may be obtained.
5. Real problem situations sometimes contain too much information,

often in a disorganized form
In textbook problems containing "too much information", one or two items

of irrelevant data are usually added to an otherwise routine word problem, and
the solution is obtained simply by ignoring the unneeded data. More realistic
problems often resemble teacher decision making (Shavelson, Caldwell, & Izu,
1977) in which the teacher confronts a welter of information, all of which is
relevant, from which a small number of cues must be selected, weighted, and
organized in a way that is most useful, and which minimizes the effects of
neglected information.
R A T I O N A L E FOR F O C U S I N G ON R E A L I S T I C
PROBLEM S O L V I N G S I T U A T I O N S
Artificial restrictions on solution procedures can result in unrealistic problem

solving situations even when the problems themselves are meaingful, interesting,
and in other respects "real". People seldom work in isolation using only the
power of their own minds to solve problems. Instead, good problem solvers
learn to amplify their own powers through effective use of outside resources:
technological tools (e.g., calculators), other people (e.g., teachers, classmates),
and other resources (e.g., books, newspapers, etc.). Good problem solvers
quickly focus their attention on "critical" stages in the overall problem solving
process, and frequently use outside resources to complete the other stages.
For example, when real people solve real problems, one of the most often used
strategies is to "ask someone who can give the needed information". This is
not to say that good problem solvers usually ask someone else to do their work
for them. Recognizing situations which fit mathematical models and formu-
lating a problem in such a way that a specific bit of information can be
requested are two distinguishing characteristics of good problem solvers. They
are not trivial skills.
A. Processes Related to the Use o f Technological Tools
In elementary and secondary mathematics, many teachers doubt that there

is anything of substance left to teach if students are allowed to use hand
calculators. Many view a calculator as a "crutch" that students will use to
avoid thinking rather than as a tool that will allow them to deal more directly
with the underlying ideas and processes that should be the heart of math-
ematics instruction. Research has failed to clarify how technological devices
can contribute to the acquisition of the conceptual models that are the most
important goals of mathematics instruction; and it has failed to clarify the
processes that are needed when mathematical models and technological tools
are used to solve problems in real situations. For most problems that youngsters
encounter, there are many obstacles that make a problem difficult even when
a calculator, or computer, or other "answer giving" or "information giving"
resource is available.
The availability of technological tools, such as inexpensive calculators,
enables researchers to investigate new types of realistic problems (i.e., those
involving lengthy or messy calculations), and different types of processes
(e.g., non-computational processes which become more salient as answer
giving difficulties can be put aside to focus on other stages of problem solving).
B. Processes Related to the Availability o f Other People as Resources
In many respects, group problem solving is analogous to individual problem

solving (Gordon, 1961; Kelley & Thibaut, 1969). Groups, like individuals,
develop over time, exhibiting stages of development similar to those for
individuals (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1975). Furthermore, processes which are
implicit, internal, and quite difficult for students to master in individual
problem solving settings are often explicit, external, and considerably simpler
and more meaningful in group settings (see the examples below). Therefore,
these processes are easier for researchers to observe and describe in a form that
is relevant to instrucion with average ability students.
Two examples will be given below to illustrate how familiar (but difficult
to teach) processes may be reinterpreted (and simplified) in small group
settings. The examples are not presented to suggest that we should explicitly
teach group problem solving techniques. Rather, group problem solving is an
effective context in which to investigate and teach individual problem solving
processes, especially for relatively unsophisticated problem solvers.
(1) Problem solving strategies such as "identify the given", "identify the
unknowns", "eliminate irrelevant information", or "organize the given infor-
mation" all advise the student to "understand the problem". Unfortunately,
these suggestions may be of little use to poor problem solvers who can neither
"eliminate irrelevant information" if they do not already "understand the
problem" nor "understand the problem" apart from more specific suggestions
such as "identify the knowns and unknowns".
In small group problem solving settings, the above heuristics can be inter-
preted in a form that is more meaningful to average ability students: "Describe
the problem in such a way that a friend could give you the answer". Poor
problem solvers may flounder with a problem for a long time before noticing,
if asked, that they are unable to give a clear description of the problem.
Deficiencies in problem understanding may become apparent in the follow-
ing situation (Dickson & Patterson, 1979): Students work in pairs, sitting on
opposite sides of a partitioned table (see Figure 3). A problem, or problem situ-
ation, is given to one person in each pair - i.e., the sender (a problem presented
in written form is then taken back from the sender). It is not the sender's job
to solve the problem; rather the sender must describe the problem to her
partner so that her partner can solve the problem - or give directions for solv-
ing the problem. Trying to describe a problem to a classmate forces a student
to eliminate irrelevant information, to identify knowns and unknowns, and to
organise the given information.
(2) Problem solving strategies such as "consider a more general problem",
"consider an auxiliary problem", or "consider a special case" can be summar-
256 RICHARD LESH
Fig. 3. A game for testing communication skills.
ized: "Look for a related problem". Unfortunately, to poor problem solvers,

who akeady have one problem they cannot solve, looking at yet another
problem is not an appealing strategy. A more sensible suggestion is, "Look at
the same problem from a different point of view".
In recent research (Cardone, 1977) in which groups of four students were
supposed to work together on problems, individuals often sat together but
worked independently - all conceptualizing the problem in different ways, and
each unconscious o fmisleading biases in his/her point of view. If a student has not
yet acquired the appropriate conceptual model to fit a given problem situation,
he will generally display the following cognitive characteristics when he is
forced to make judgments based on this model: (1) centering - i.e., he will not
"read out" all of the information that is available, focusing only on the most
obvious features of the situation and failing to notice less obvious features;
(2) egocentrism - i.e, he will "read in" meaning and information because of his
own preconceived biases, distorting the situation to fit his own understanding.
To overcome these tendencies (i.e., centering and egocentrism) poor prob-
lem solvers may find it helpful to work in groups, in which they must coordinate
their own point of view with that of others. While one person may center on one
aspect of a situation, another person may center on another, and people with
different idiosyncratic interpretations of a situation will confront one another.
This is one reason why "brainstorming" is often a useful Problem solving tech-
nique. In group brainstorming sessions, students can be bombarded with a variety
of ideas and approaches. A good individual problem solver learns to behave as
though he were, within tfimself, several people sitting aroun6 a table working
together to solve a problem. He becomes objective in the sense that he sees the
problem from multiple perspectives and he is aware of (and self-critical about)
his own perspectives at any given moment. In this way he becomes more analytic
and attends to more aspects than are implicit in any single point of view.
The examples above illustrate how research in small group settings may
reinterpret traditionally defined processes, making them simpler and more
meaningful to average ability students, and leading to the identification of

important subprocesses, e.g., decentefing. Past research, focusing on the
"answer finding" stage of problem solving by individuals working in isolation,
has neglected or misrepresented other kinds of processes. For example, beyond
finding an answer, real problem solving usually involves justifying the solution
and communicating it in a form that is meaningful and useful to someone
else. However, poor problem solvers (in their egocentfism) frequently feel
little need to provide proofs, justifications, or even records of their reasoning,
and they often lack the self-critical ability to analyze their own thought
processes. Group problem solving situations impose on individuals the need
to justify their thinking to peers while it is in the formative stages, and to
represent problems, relevant information, and solution steps in clear, organized,
and economical ways. In group problem solving settings, a variety of complex
processes related to proof and the use of mathematical language and symbolism
become specializations of communication skills which are familiar (in other
contexts) and meaningful to average ability students.
TECHNIQUES FOR INDUCING PROCESSES AND

INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS
In the area of applied problem solving, the information channels between

research and development must mn both ways. One of the main obstacles to
the development of knowledge about applied problem solving has been the
scarcity of mathematically rich and psychologically interesting problem solving
settings which can serve the dual purpose of improving instruction and
facilitating research.
Among the most needed types of problem solving materials are multi-stage
problems based on realistic situations and data. Some excellent multi-stage,
project-type problems do already exist. However, these materials are not well
known among psychological researchers, and they are seldom used in school
instruction because (a) individual problem solving projects do not fit together
to form a unified, comprehensive program; (b) the activities do not lead clearly
to a better understanding of substantive mathematical ideas - and so do not fit
easily into existing curriculum outlines; (c)they are time consuming. It is
therefore especially important that applied problem solving activities be
designed to make efficient use of in-class time, encourage out-of-class thinking,
and contribute to students' understandings of the most important conceptual
models that underly their mathematics courses. But, because such activities
are usually rather open-ended, and allo~w a variety of different types (and
258 RICHARD LESH
qualities) of solutions, it is difficult to predict in advance what ideas and

processes will result from the solution of a single isolated problem.
Both researchers and teachers need applied problem solving activities which
involve substantive mathematical ideas and which contribute to the meaning-
fulness of these ideas. Teachers and researchers must be able to select individual
modules from a set of curriculum materials without being forced to adopt
an entire curriculum - or without having to rewrite an entire module to suit
their own needs. That is, they need applied problem solving activities which are
relatively self-contained, which presuppose a minimum set of specifiable (and
measurable) prerequisites, and which reach closure within some relatively brief
period of time - say one hour. They also need high quality measurement instru-
ments to assess prerequisites and objectives for particular instructional units.
It is possible to deal with the difficulty of predicting which ideas and
processes will evolve from problem solving activities by using sets of problems
rather than isolated problems. When sets of carefully selected problems are
given to groups of students, it is possible to predict with high reliability which
ideas will evolve - even when each problem in isolation is quite open-ended
and allows for a great deal of flexibility and creativity from individual students.
Three basic instructional techniques were developed in the pilot studies
to promote the emergence of particular ideas and problem solving processes.
Isomorphic problems. Each member of a three-person problem solving group

can be given one of three different, but isomorphic problems. For example,
a set of problems could involve characterizing (1)possible shadows cast by
a square; (2) photographs of the top of a square table; and (3) sections of a
square pyramid. The procedure is a variation of the "multiple embodiment"
principle of Dienes - using "prototypical problems representing some class of
problems" rather than "manipulative materials that embody some mathematical
I
concept", and giving different problems to different children(while encouraging
them to investigate similarities among problems) rather than ~iving each problem
to each child. By investigating relationships among problenls, in addition to
solving individual problems, students will be induced to no:~tee the underlying
conceptual model that is common to all three problems. Stfi~c[entsobtain clues
for solving individual problems by talking to the others who are working on
isomorphic problems. When the students recognize how the problems are
alike, they construct new ways to conceptualize individual problems, and new
solution procedures often become evident. Several examples of useful combi-
nations of isomorphic problems appear in the problem solving chapter of
Bell, Fuson, and Lesh (1976).
A second variation on the "multiple embodiment" technique is to follow
the above procedure (in which three students at a large table are given the
isomorphic problems) by giving the groups of three students a single problem
to work on together - where the new problem is isomorphic to the previous
three. In this case, rather than having a single student work on a series of
related problems (as in Dienes' multiple embodiment principle), a single
problem is worked on by several students whose previous problem solving
experiences have predisposed them to conceptualize the new problem in
different ways.
Sequences o f related problems. Groups of students can be given a sequence

of problems, graded in complexity or difficulty, which all deal with the same
basic idea or process. One method is to give the students the most difficult
problem first; if tlaey are unable to solve it, they can try the next most difficult
problem, proceeding regressively until they find a problem they can solve. If
the lower order problems are designed to provide clues for the higher order
problems, the students should be able to work their way back "up" the fist.
While the individual problems can be quite open-ended, the sequence of
related problems makes the idea or process which will be extracted from the
overall activity highly predictable. Problem sequences of this type were used
by Krutetskii (1976).
Focus on non-answer giving stages in problem solving. Instead of working

toward an answer, a group of students can focus on a particular stage or a
particular process across a number of related problems. For example, for com-
putational problems, the students can simply "set up" a whole list of problems
without actually finding the answers..; The calculations can then be carried out
using a calculator, with the students checking the reasonableness o f the results.
Many people believe that the best way to learn to solve problems is simply
by solving problems - and afterwards, looking back to reconsider processes
that were most helpful. Unfortunately, if the problem solving process is not
broken down into stages, and if students are forced to work entire problems in
isolation, the "looking back" technique seldom works. Average problem solvers
seldom solve problems quickly enough to look back on more than a few
problems. So the strategies they notice are often useful for only a small
number of problems of a particular type, and they do not leam cues to deter-
mine when each strategy might be useful. Furthermore, average problem
solvers often have difficulty focusing on the processes that they use to solve
problems. Even when they are able to give correct answers, they are notoriously
unable to give accurate descriptions of steps in the process they used. By
working in a group, students can investigate critical parts of more problems,
260 RICHARD LESH
and by working on whole sets of problems, one stage at a time, they can
focus on "non-answer giving" stages of problem solving. Furthermore, by
working with other students, average problem solvers often find it easier to
focus on processes that would otherwise have been internal and more difficult
to notice.
SUMMARY
When we ask, "What is it beyond having a concept that allows students to use
an elementary mathematics concept in everyday situations?" the answers
involve some of the most important basic skills that are needed for math-
ematical literacy among average citizens. Yet most of the processes described
in this paper have been neglected by research and instructional development
projects pertaining to either "problem solving" or "basic skills".
Processes that seem especially important in mathematics are closely related
to characteristics that distinguish mathematics from other subject matter areas
- its structure and its distinctive use of language and symbolism. Processes
associated with "non-answer giving" stages of problem solving should be a
major concern for research and instructional development. These processes
include: information gathering, selection, and organization; retrieval of
previously learned content and processes; problem representations, including
the use of mathematical language and symbolism; mathematical modeling. In
particular, attention should be directed at processes that contribute to the
meaningfulness of important mathematical ideas and conceptual models, those
that have prescriptive (rather than just descriptive) value, and those that can
be modified through instruction.
Research in other problem solving areas (e.g., Simon & Simon, 1978) has
suggested a strong relationship between successful problem solving processes
and knowledge about specific content. To identify and describe applied math-
ematical problem solving processes, therefore, it seems reasonable that future
investigations must focus on applied mathematical problem solving situations
which incorporate precisely those conditions to which one would like the
findings to be generalizable. This paper has presented a case for the importance
of focusing on: (a)average ability students; (b) substantive mathematical
content: (c) real problems; and (d) realistic settings and solution procedures.
Small group problem solving settings have been suggested as a useful research
context because of the expectation that effective instructional techniques for
teaching applied mathematical problem solving processes may resemble some
of the "mathematics laboratory" activities to which the small group situation
readily lends itself. The best of these laboratory activities make it possible to
concretize and externalize the ideas and processes that are linked in important
conceptual models by promoting interactions with concrete materials (or lower
order ideas) and interactions with other people. Suggestions were given about
ways to modify existing applied problem solving materials so they will better
suit the needs of both researchers and practitioners.
Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.
NOTES
1 Lesh, R.: 1980, 'A mathematics laboratory model for teacher training', paper presented
at the Fourth International Congress on Mathematical Education, Berkeley, California,
August.
2 Saari, D. G.: 1978, 'Cognitive development and the dynamics of adaptation: Accom-
modation', unpublished manuscript. (Available from D. G. Saari, Mathematics Department,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201.)
3 Steffe, L. P. and Thompson, P. W.: 1979, 'Children's counting in arithmetical problem
solving', paper presented at the Wisconsin Conference on the Initial Learning of Addition
and Subtraction Skills, Wingspread Conference Center, Racine, Wisconsin, November.
4 Fuson, K. C.: 1979, 'Counting solution procedures in addition and subtraction', paper
presented at the Wisconsin Conference on the Initial Learning of Addition and Subtraction
Skills, Wingspread Conference Center, Racine, Wisconsin, November.
s Karplus, R.: 'Early adolescent student reasoning in mathematics', RISE grant #SED
79-18962, The Regents of the University of California, Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley.
6 Behr, M., Lesh, R., and Post, T.: 'The role of manipulative aids in the learning of
rational numbers'. RISE grant # SED 79-20591, Northern Illinois University.
REFERENCES
Ausubel, D. P. : 1963, The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning, Grune and Stratton,
New York.
Begle, E. G.: 1979, Critical Variables in Mathematics Education: Findings from a Survey
of the Empirical Literature, The Mathematics Associafion of America, Washington, D.C.
Bell, M. S.: 1972, Mathematical Uses and Models in Our Everyday World. Studies in
Mathematics, Vol. XX. School Mathematics Study Group, Stanford, Calif.
Bell, M. S.: 1974, 'What does "everyman" really need from school mathematics?' The
Mathematics Teacher 67, 196-204.
Bell, M. S.: 1975, 'The role of applications in early mathematics learning', in J. Higgins
(ed.), CognitivePsychology and the Mathematies Laboratory. Papersfrom a Symposium,
ERIC/SMEAC, Columbus, Ohio.
Bell, M. S.: 1979, 'Applied problem solving as a school emphasis: An assessment and some
recommendations', in R. Lesh, D. Mierkiewicz, and M. Kantowski (eds.), Applied
Mathematt'cal Problem Solving, ERIC/SMEAC, Columbus, Ohio.
Bell, M. S., Fuson, K. C., and Lesh, R. A.: 1976, Algebraic and Arithmetic Structures: A
Concrete Approach for Elementary School Teachers, The Free Press, New York.
Beth, E. and Piaget, J.: 1966, Mathematical Epistemology and Psychology. D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.
262 RICHARD LESH
Brown, J. S.: 1979, 'Towards a theory of semantic and procedural skills in mathematics',
paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associ-
ation, San Francisco, April.
Brunet, J. S.: 1960, The Process of Education, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Bruner, J. S.: 1966, 'On cognitive growth', in J. S. Brunet, R. R. Ohver, and P. M. Greenfield
(eds.), Studies in Cognitive Growth, Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Brunswik, E.: 1956, Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Exper-
iments (2nd ed.), University of California Press, Berkeley, Calif.
Cardone, I. P.: 1977, Centering/Decenteringand Socio.Emotional Aspects of Small Groups:
An Ecological Approach to Reciprocal Relations, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Northwestern University.
Carpenter, T.P., Corbitt, M. K., Kepner, H. S., Lindquist, M. M., and Reys, R.: 1980,
'Results of the second NAEP mathematics assessment: Secondary school', The Math-
ematics Teacher 73, 329-338.
Carpenter, T. P., Coburn, T. G., Reys, R. E., and Wilson, J. W.: 1975, 'Results and impli-
cations of the NAEP mathematics assessment: Secondary school', The Mathematics
Teacher 68,453-470. ~
Carpenter, T. P., Hiebert, J., and Moser, J. M.: 1979, The Effect'of Problem Strueture on
First-Graders' Initial Solution Processesfor Simple Addition and Subtraction Problems
(Technical Report No. 516), Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Indi-
vidualized Schooling, Madison.
Chase, N. and Simon, H. A." 1973, 'The mind's eye in chess', in W. G. Chase (ed.), Visual
Information Processing, Academic Press, New York.
Chi, M. T. H.: 1978, 'Knowledge structures and memory development', in R. S. Siegler
(ed.), Children's Thinking." What Develops? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale~
N.J.
Clement, J.: 1979, Cognitive Microanalysis: An Approach to Analyzing Intuitive Math-
ematieal Reasoning Processes, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.
Davis, G. A.: 1973, Psychology of Problem Solving: Theory and.Practice, Basic Books,
New York. I
Davis, R. B.: 1979, 'Conceptualizing the structures underlying cognitive behavior: The
usefulness of "frames"', paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Davis, R. B., Jockusch, E., and McKnight, C.: 1978, 'Cognitive processes in learning
algebra', The Journal of Children's Mathematical Behavior 2, 1-320.
Dickson, W. P. and Patterson, J. H.: 1979, 'Criteria for evaluating curriculum materials
which use referential communication activities to teach speaking and listening skills',
working paper No. 273, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Individual-
ized Schooling, Madison. I
Dienes, Z.P.: 1963, An Experimental Study of Mathematics Learning, Hutchinson,
London.
Dienes, Z. P.: 1969, Building up Mathematics (2nd ed.), Hutchinson, London.
Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., and Spraika, S. A.: 1978, Medical Problem Solving: An
Analysts of Clinical Reasoning, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project: 1971, The Man Made World, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York.
Fuson, K. and Geeslin, W. (eds.): 1979, Explorations in the Modeling of the Learning of
Mathematics, ERIC/SMEAC, Columbus~ Ohio.
Geeslin, W. & Steffe, L. P. (eds.): in preparation, Monograph on Modeling Mathematical
Cognitive Development.
Gordon, W. J. J.: 1961, Synectics, Harper and Row, New York.
Hawkins, P.: 1979, 'An approach to science education policy', background paper for a
program of research in mathematics and scienceeducation, National Science Foundation,

Washington, D.C.
Janvier, C.: 1978, The Interpretation of Complex Cartesian Graphs Representing Situ-
ations - Studies and Teaching Experiments, Doctoral dissertation, University of
Nottingham.
Kelley, H. and' Thibaut, J.: 1969, 'Group problem solving', in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson
(eds.), The Handbook o f Social Psychology (Vol. 4;2nd ed.), Addison-Wesley,Reading,
Mass.
Kieren, T. E.: 1976, 'On the mathematical, cognitive, and instructional foundations of
rational numbers', in R. A. Lesh (ed.), Number and Measurement: Papers from a
Research Workshop, ERIC/SMEAC, Columbus, Ohio.
Krutetskii, V. A.: 1976, The Psychology of Mathematical Abilities in School Children,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Landa, L.N.: 1974, Algorithmization in Learning and Instruction, Educational Tech-
nology Publications, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Larkin, J.H.: 1979, 'Models of strategy for solving physics problems', paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D., and Simon, H. A.: 1979, Models of Competence
in Solving Physics Problems (Technical Report), Carnegie Mellon University, Physics
Department, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Lesh, R.A.: 1976, 'An interpretation of advanced organizers', Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education 7, 69-74.
Lesh, R.: 1979a, 'Applied problem solving in early mathematics learning', paper presented
at the Third International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
Warwick, England.
Lesh, R.: 1979b, 'Mathematical learning disabilities: Considerations for identification,
diagnosis, and remediation', in R. Lesh, D. Mierkiewicz, and M. G. Kantowski (eds.),
Applied Mathematical Problem Solving, ERIC/SMEAC, Columbus, Ohio.
Lesh, R.: 1979c, 'Social/affective factors influencing problem solving capabilities, paper
presented at The Third International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education, Warwick, England.
Mosteller, F., Kruskal, W. H., Link, R. F., Pieters, R. S., and Rising, G. R. (eds.): 1973,
Statistics by Example, Addison-Wesley,Reading, Mass.
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A.: 1972, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.
Papert, S.: 1972, 'Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about math-
ematics', International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology
3,249-262.
Piaget, J.: 1971, Biology and Knowledge: An Essay on the Relations between Organic
Regulations and Cognitive Processes (trans. from the French by B. Walsh), Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh.
PoUak, H.O.: 1971, 'Applications of mathematics', in E. G. Begle (ed.), Mathematics
Education, The Sixty-Ninth Yearbook of the National SOciety for the Study of Edu-
cation (Part I), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Polya, G.: 1957, How to Solve lt, Anchor Books, Garden City, N.Y.
Saari, D.: 1977, 'A qualitative model for the dynamics of cognitive processes', Journal of
Mathematical Psychology 15,145-168.
Schank, R. and Abelson, R.: 1977, Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.
Schoenfeld, A. H.: 1979a, 'Explicit heuristic training as a variable in problem solving
performance', Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 10, 173-187.
Schoenfeld, A. H. : 1979b, 'Teaching problem solving in college mathematics: The elements
264 RICHARD LESH
of a theory and a report on the teaching of general mathematical problem-solving

skills', in R. Lesh, D. Mierkiewicz, and M. G. Kantowski (eds.), Applied Mathematical
Problem Solving, ERIC/SMEAC, Columbus, Ohio.
Schmuck, R. A. and Schmuck, P. A.: 1975, Group Processes in the Classroom, 2nd ed.,
Win. C. Brown Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Shavelson, R. J.: 1973, 'What is the basic teaching skill?' The Journal of Teacher Edu-
cation 14, 144-151.
Shavelson, R. J., CaldweU, J., and Izu, T.: 1977, 'Teachers' sensitivity to the reliability of
information in making pedagogical decisions', American Educational Research Journal
14 (21), 83-97.
Shulman, L. S.: 1965, 'Seeking styles and individual differences in patterns of inquiry',
School Review 73, 258-266.
Simon, D. P. and Simon, H. A.: 1978, 'Individual differences in solving physics problems',
in R.S. Siegler (ed.), Children's Thinking: What Develops? Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.
Stein, N. L. and Goldman, S.: 1979, Children's Knowledge about Social Situations: From
Causes to Consequences (Technical Report No. 147), University of Illinois, Center for
the Study of Reading, Urbana.
Thomdike, E. L.: 1917, 'Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph reading',
Journal of Educational Psychology 8, 323-332.
Wickelgren, W. A. : 1974, How to Solve Problems, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Lesh1981 Article AppliedMathematicalProblemSolv

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lesh1981 Article AppliedMathematicalProblemSolv

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R I C H A R D LESH

APPLIED MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM SOLVING

Applied mathematical problem solving processes constitute an important part

In general, "being able to use a concept" involves something more than

Educational Studies in Mathematics 12 (1981) 235-264. 0013-1954/81/0122--0235 $03.00

Problem solving processes that enable an individual to use mathematical

Understanding a paragraph is like solvinga problem in mathematics. It consists of selecting

By manipulating factors in the instructional situation, individuals can learn to

RATIONALE FOR FOCUSING ON AVERAGE ABILITY STUDENTS

Just as Piaget's research with preoperational children has enriched our

quently, a disability affecting the overall organization and structure of a

down complex tasks, ideas, or processes into sequences of smaller, discrete

must be able to define analytically what an expert problem solver is before it is

RATIONALE FOR USING PROBLEMS INVOLVING

In a variety of subject matter areas, researchers and curriculum designers

judgments about several important elementary mathematics ideas. For example,

B. Processes That Contribute to the Meaningfulness o f Mathematical Concepts

Real \ Represent Formalize

' " [ Spoken

imbedded. For example, when we say a student "understands" a mathematical

translations or mappings between contexts, e.g., as they are illustrated in

taller was J o h n n y than Sue?); (3)missing addend (e.g., Johnny's house is

as a major determinant of human behavior. To understand the problem solving

A. Are "'Honest'Applications Accessible to Average Ability

When mathematics educators talk about "applications", middle school and

Among those areas of mathematics which are becoming increasingly

B. What Are the Characteristics of "Real'Problems?

Multi-stage, project-type problems do exist, e.g., in Statistics by Example

1. Real problems seldom emerge as well formulated questions

Applications typically begin with an ill-defined situation outside of mathematics - in

In many cases, once a problem is interpreted in a clever way, solution is

2. Real problems originate in the real world where identification o f

In most mathematics textbook "applications" problems, the student is given

content identification and retrieval processes as the student attempts to

3. Applied problems seldom fall into neat disciplinary categories

When a sixth grader uses arithmetic to solve problems in everyday situations,

4. Real problems often require a solution based on inadequate information

In mathematics textbooks, problems with "not enough information" are

5. Real problem situations sometimes contain too much information,

In textbook problems containing "too much information", one or two items

Artificial restrictions on solution procedures can result in unrealistic problem

A. Processes Related to the Use o f Technological Tools

In elementary and secondary mathematics, many teachers doubt that there

B. Processes Related to the Availability o f Other People as Resources

In many respects, group problem solving is analogous to individual problem

Fig. 3. A game for testing communication skills.

ized: "Look for a related problem". Unfortunately, to poor problem solvers,

meaningful to average ability students, and leading to the identification of

TECHNIQUES FOR INDUCING PROCESSES AND

In the area of applied problem solving, the information channels between

qualities) of solutions, it is difficult to predict in advance what ideas and

Isomorphic problems. Each member of a three-person problem solving group

Sequences o f related problems. Groups of students can be given a sequence

Focus on non-answer giving stages in problem solving. Instead of working

program of research in mathematics and scienceeducation, National Science Foundation,

of a theory and a report on the teaching of general mathematical problem-solving

You might also like