"The System of Experimental Problems for

Investigating Schoolchildren’s Mathematical Abilities"

This passage describes the development and application of a system of experimental
problems designed to investigate mathematical abilities in schoolchildren.

Key Points:

 Development of the System: Researchers created a complex system of problems

after trials and refinements. The system aimed to reveal the mental processes of
students with varying mathematical abilities.
 Grouping of Problems: The problems are categorized into four main groups based on
the steps involved in solving a mathematical problem (gathering information, processing
information, retaining results) and a fourth group focused on investigating types of
mathematical ability. Further subdivisions within these groups are based on the specific
aspects of mathematical ability being assessed.
 Test Design and Administration: The passage clarifies the distinction between
"diagnostic" and "research" tests. The study used research tests with various problem
types (arithmetic, algebraic, geometric, etc.). Completing a full solution wasn't always
necessary; sometimes explaining the approach or structure sufficed.
 Selection of Problems: The problems came from various sources like textbooks,
magazines, etc. The researchers don't provide specific references due to the sheer
number of sources (around 50).
 Target Age Group: The system was designed for detailed investigation in grades six
and seven. This age was chosen because mathematical abilities are considered to
begin developing more definitively around this time with the introduction of algebra and
geometry in the curriculum.
 Applicability: The system can be adapted for a broader range (grades five to eight) by
selecting specific series based on student age, preparation level, and study goals.

The passage concludes by mentioning a later section that will provide a detailed
description of each experimental series, its purpose, presentation techniques, and
analysis methods.

Series 1: Problems with an Unstated Question

In this series of problems, the question is not stated explicitly or indirectly, but rather
emerges logically from the mathematical relationships given in the problem. The goal
was to determine whether the examinee could formulate the question, whether they
perceived the logic of the relationships and dependencies given in the problem, and
whether they understood the essence of the problem. This series was intended to
reveal some characteristics of the pupils' mental perception of mathematical problems.
Problems of this type were used in Doblaev's psychological study, but with an entirely
different purpose: to reveal the nature of the associations underlying the composition of
equations (114). For the researchers, the point of the series is to clarify how pupils
perceive mathematical problems. Do they see them only as a collection of odd and
unconnected facts (which still must be explicitly connected) or does the problem exist
naturally for them as a complex of interrelated quantities?

In the former case, one would expect that the pupil, as a rule, will not realize the hidden
question, or at least will not be aware of it immediately. Whereas if the examinee
catches on quickly to the problem's basic relationships, they will see the hidden
question, which always proceeds organically from these relationships.

This series consists of three tests: an arithmetic test, an algebra test, and a geometry
test, which are given one after another. After receiving a card with the problem on it, the
pupil was to read it and formulate the question as soon as possible. The whole course
of the examinee's reasoning was ascertained, and the time spent doing the tests was
also recorded.

Series 2: Problems with Incomplete Information

This series presents problems where some crucial information is missing,

making it impossible to find an exact answer. However, the examinee can still
analyze the relationships between the given quantities and identify the
missing data. This series, similar to Series 1, aims to reveal aspects of the
pupils' mental perception of mathematical problems.

Similar problems have been used by other researchers like Menchinskaya,

Kalmykova, and Galperin, but for different purposes. Notably, Galperin used
them to assess learning process control.

The key point is that only by perceiving the problem's formal structure (the
interrelated quantities that define it) can one pinpoint the missing information.
Even with incomplete data, some insights can be gained. For example, in one
problem, the answer could be that the train has at least 15 units and some
freight cars. Students should learn to extract whatever possible from the
available information, even if it doesn't lead to a precise solution.

This series consists of two tests (arithmetic and geometry) presented one
after another. After receiving the problem, the examinee either immediately
stated they couldn't give an exact answer or reached that conclusion after
pondering. In both cases, they were asked:
 Why can't you give a precise answer?
 What information is missing?
 What needs to be added to solve the problem precisely?

More capable students were further challenged to see if any conclusions

could be drawn from the available information, even if the answer is
imprecise.

The passage emphasizes that simply stating the problem is impossible to

solve without justification or identifying the missing data is not considered a
proper answer.

The problems in this series are presented with the missing information for an
accurate solution included in parentheses.

Examples:

 Arithmetic: A train has tank cars, freight cars, and flatcars. There are fewer
tank cars than both other types. How many of each type are there? (Total
number unknown)
 Geometry: Two circles are given. One has a radius of 5 cm, and the distance
between their centers is 10 cm. Do the circles intersect? (We need to know
the radius of the other circle)

Series III: Problems with Surplus Information

This series introduces problems with irrelevant or unnecessary information that can
mask the crucial facts needed for solving them. The goal was to assess whether the
examinee could identify the essential relationships among the mathematical quantities
required to solve the problem and discard the extraneous details.

Similar to Series 1 and 2, this series aimed to reveal aspects of the pupils' mental
perception of mathematical problems. Other researchers like Menchinskaya,
Kalmykova, and Galperin used similar problems for different purposes.

This series helps us understand how pupils can isolate the essential relationships from
a collection of provided information. These relationships form the core of the problem
and are sufficient for reaching a solution.

The series consists of two tests (arithmetic and geometry) presented one after another.
For more advanced math students, an additional challenge was introduced: problems
from Series 2 and 3 were presented in a mixed order to avoid suggesting a pattern of
 missing or extra information in each series. This however, proved to be too complex for
less capable students.

After receiving a problem card, the examinee had to choose the minimum number of
facts necessary for a solution and explain why the others were superfluous. The
examinees' reasoning process, the number of problems solved, and the time spent were
all recorded.

To study mathematical memory, the pupils were asked to reproduce the problems after
a lesson, a week, and three months. This helped researchers understand how pupils
remembered the problems in terms of:

1. Problem type
2. Specific facts
3. Unnecessary information

The problems in this series are presented with the superfluous information shown in
italics.

Examples:

 Arithmetic: A store has sacks of potatoes weighing 5 kg and 3 kg each. The weight of
all the 5-kg sacks is equal to the weight of all the 3-kg sacks. How much does each
weigh? (Irrelevant information: there are more 5-kg sacks than 3-kg sacks)
 Geometry: Given an isosceles triangle with one side 5 cm and another 10 cm. Find the
third side. (Irrelevant information: the third side is equal to one of the two given sides)

Series IV: Problems with Interpenetrating Elements

This series focuses on a single geometry test where geometric figures have elements
that "interpenetrate" each other. This concept was introduced by I.S. Yakimanskaya,
who used similar problems to study students' ability to analyze geometric drawings for
solving proofs.

The underlying principle comes from B. Zhuravlev's notion of "mathematical vision" - the
ability to see not only what's explicitly shown in a drawing but also what's implied or not
shown at all.

This series aims to assess various aspects of students' geometric perception:

 Analytic-synthetic thinking: Can they break down and rebuild the figures?
 Discerning interpenetrating elements: Can they identify elements that overlap or coexist
in different ways?
 Isolating elements: Can they separate individual elements from the background or
larger figures?
 Including elements in different figures: Can they re-interpret the same element in
different contexts?

The researchers assessed the completeness of the answers and the role of "vision"
(perception) vs. reasoning in arriving at the solutions.

An example (Figure 5) clarifies the task: Segment DB can be interpreted as:

1. Perpendicular to segment AC
2. Altitude of triangle ABC
3. Side of triangle ADB
4. Side of triangle BDC

The ability to perceive an element from multiple perspectives is not limited to geometry.
For instance, the number 2 can also be seen as 3 (on a 3-point scale), 1A out of 8
(ranking), 2 squared, or the square root of 16.

Test Content:

The test consists of ten figures (Figures 6-15) with various questions about them:

 Finding the number and type of segments, angles, or sectors.

 Identifying triangles (type and number) within a figure.
 Recognizing the common area between overlapping shapes.
 Determining the interpretation of a specific segment within a complex figure.

These questions test the students' ability to analyze and interpret geometric shapes
considering how elements might coexist or overlap in different ways.

This series is designed for pupils who are still unfamiliar with formulas for short
multiplication (as a rule, this means pupils in the first six grades). This is a teaching
experiment. The generalization process is being studied, based on the placement of
objects within a newly developed concept, the process of transferring a developed
method of operation to similar conditions, and the ability to differentiate externally
similar material on the basis of substance. For this, one must isolate what is basic,
principal, and essential from the standpoint of the problem’s type, abstracting oneself
from the irrelevant or the secondary, from details (that is, characteristics of pupils’
perception of mathematical material are also being studied here).

We judge the extent of the ability to generalize by how well the pupil can see a general
type in different problems, how he passes from solving simpler problems to solving
more complex ones of the same type, how he can differentiate problems of one type
from externally similar problems of another type. We judge the nature of the
“curtailment” of reasoning by analyzing from this standpoint the reasoning process and
the system of corresponding operations during the sequential solution of problems of a
single type.
 The series is represented by two algebraic tests. The first (test A) is intended for
studying pupils of average and above-average mathematical ability; the second (test B),
for pupils who are less able mathematically. The first test was replaced by the second
(the easier one) if the examinee’s work on the former confronted him with difficulties that
he could not overcome. Each of the two tests represents distinct “staircase of problems”
of single type, from easy to very complicated. The examinee was not obliged to solve all
of the problems (in a number of instances, at the experimenter’s discretion, it was
satisfactory for the examinee to tell the plan of solution or to explain how he intended to
solve the problem). The main thing was to clarify how he was able to show that the
given problem, despite its external difference, belonged to the same type, and how,
considering the problem’s specific features, he intended to solve it according to the
general scheme for solving problems of the established type.

Below are descriptions of the tests.

A. Algebra test

1. (a + b)^2 = 1a. a^2 + b^2 =

2. (1 1/2a^3b^2)^2 2a. (1/3 ab^3)^2 (2a^3 - 0.6xy^2)^2 3a. (-5x^2 + 0.6xy^2)^2
3. (3x + 6y)^2 4a. (3x + 6y)^2x
4. (m + x + b)^2 = 5a. 2(m^2 + x^2 + b^2) =
5. (4x + y^3 - a)^2 = 6a. 4x^2 + y^2 - a^2 =
6. 512 7a. 983
7. (C + D + E)(E + C + D) = 8a. (c + m + x)(c - m + x) =

In the left column is a system of problems of increasing complexity dealing with the
application of one of the formulas for short multiplication (the square of the sum). With
each problem the possibility of applying the formula becomes harder to see. The right
column contains problems externally resembling those in the left column but essentially
completely different. The examinee was to generalize the problems on the left and to
differentiate them from the problems on the right.

The order of presenting the problems was as follows: first the pupils, with the
experimenter’s help, became familiar with the formula for short multiplication; they
mastered its mathematical meaning with elementary examples. Afterward they were
asked to apply this formula to the solution of problem (the most remote). Did the
examinee recognize the square of sum in this algebraic expression? If he found this
difficult to do (he usually did), the consecutive links were introduced (problems 1, 2, 3,
4, etc.), gradually approaching problem 8, with the examinee being asked to return to
problem again and again after each link.

This was done as follows: Problem was given. “Can’t you solve it? Then do this one
[problem 1]. You’ve solved it correctly. Now try to solve problem 8. Again no? Then
solve this one [problem 2]. You did it right. Now again try to solve problem 8. Doesn’t it
turn out now? Then solve this one [problem 3].” And so on. Along with each problem in
 the left column the corresponding problem from the right column was presented. To
avoid always giving problem on the application of the

Series VI: Systems of Problems of Different Types

This series consists of six arithmetic tests and one geometry test designed to assess
students' abilities to generalize different types of problems.

Structure of Arithmetic Tests:

 Each test (A-F) contains 3-6 problems of varying difficulty. Difficulty increases from test
A to test F.
 Problems within each test are chosen based on:
o Shared mathematical structure (single type)
o Different external presentation
 Some problems are similar in appearance but fundamentally different in type.
 Students must group problems based on type and justify their reasoning.
 The number of problems of each type varies within a test to prevent students from
relying on a set pattern.
 Students can solve problems arithmetically or algebraically.

Goals of the Series:

 Assess students' ability to generalize problems based on structure alone, not just
solution methods.
 Understand the process of "curtailment" in reasoning as students solve problems of the
same type.
o This involves analyzing:
 The number and content of reasoning steps for each problem.
 How the reasoning process becomes more concise with each problem.
o Students can be asked to elaborate on their reasoning process if needed.
 Evaluate students' memory of problem types and specific details.
o Students are asked to recall problems after a lesson, a week, and three months.

Geometry Test:

 This test presents five panels with various geometric shapes (triangles, polygons,
curves, angles, etc.).
 Students are asked a series of questions about the shapes in each panel, focusing on:
o Identifying similarities and differences.
o Recognizing common features and their significance.
o Grouping shapes based on shared characteristics.
o Naming the group based on its defining features.

Overall, Series VI provides insights into students' ability to generalize

mathematical concepts across different problem formats and presentations.
 Series VII: Systems of Problems with Gradual
Transformation
This series assesses a student's ability to generalize problem-solving from concrete
situations to abstract concepts.

Test Structure:

 One test ("A. Combined Test") with ten problems.

 Each problem progresses from a specific scenario (variant a) to a general mathematical
form (variant e).
 Intermediate variants (b, c, d) bridge the gap by gradually removing details and
introducing symbols.
 Students attempt the most abstract variant (e) first. If unsuccessful, they are given more
concrete variants (a, b, c, d) in a specific order until they solve the problem or run out of
variants.

Problem Difficulty:

 Problems (1-10) increase in difficulty and are presented in that order.

 Not all problems have all variants (some may have 2 or 3).

Evaluation:

 Two metrics assess student performance:

o Number of problems solved directly in the general framework (variant e).
o Average number of variants needed to solve a problem (starting from concrete and
progressing to abstract).

Additional Notes:

 An index is used to account for the varying number of variants per problem.
 After completing the task, students recall both solved and unsolved problems to gauge
their memory for specifics.

Series VIII: Composition of Problems of Given Type

This series investigates a student's ability to independently generalize problem
structures after seeing just one example.

Test Structure:

 Four separate tests: Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, and Logic.

 Each test presents several problems of an unknown type to the student.
 After analyzing (or solving) the given problem, the student is asked to create new
problems:
o One problem of the same type (different numerical values)
o One problem of a different type

Goal:

 Assess if a student can identify the essential structure of a problem and its solution
without comparing multiple examples.

Evaluation:

 Three-point scale:
o 1 (Lowest): New problem similar to the original (only numbers changed)
o 2: New problem with a different subject matter and different numbers
o 3 (Highest): New problem with a different subject matter formulated in a general
framework

Example Problems:

Arithmetic Test:

1. Two workers working together make 243 parts in x hours. One worker makes 13 parts
per hour. How many parts does the other worker make per hour?

Series IX: Problems on Proof

This series assesses a student's ability to generalize problem-solving methods and
apply them to increasingly complex proofs.

Test Structure:

 Four separate tests: Algebra (A & B), Geometry (C), and Logic (D)
 Each test presents a series of problems that require proving a statement.
 Problems within each series increase in difficulty.
 Students may not have encountered similar proofs before.

Test Order:

 Students are presented with the easiest problem (1) first.

 If successful, they move to the most difficult problem (7).
 If they struggle with the most difficult problem, they are presented with problems in
descending order (6, 5, 4, etc.) until successful or they run out of problems.
 Evaluation:

 Two aspects are evaluated:

o Generalization: Analyzed by the reasoning process used to solve the problems. The
number of steps needed to move from the first to the last solved problem (and the size
of the final step) indicates the level of generalization.
o Abbreviation of Reasoning: Analyzes how much students shorten their reasoning
process for complex problems compared to a detailed explanation.

Sample Problems:

Algebra Test (A):

1. Can it be proven that any value of x will result in a non-negative value for x^2? (7. Prove
that for any value of a, the expression (a + 1)...)

Key: This series tests understanding of properties of exponents.

Geometry Test (C):

1. Prove that the total length of the sides of a triangle formed by connecting the midpoints
of another triangle's sides is shorter than the total length of the original triangle's sides.
(7. Prove that the sum of the distances from any point on the base of an isosceles
triangle to its lateral sides is constant.)

Key: This series tests understanding of geometric properties and applying them to
proofs.

Series X: Composition of Equations Using the Terms

of a Problem
This series investigates how students develop the ability to translate word problems into
mathematical equations.

Goal:

 Assess how readily students can form a habit of composing equations and generalize
this approach to solve increasingly complex problems.

Test Structure:

 One test with twelve progressively difficult word problems.

 Students haven't learned how to solve these problems with algebra yet.
 Students are first explained how to approach the first (easiest) problem by composing
an equation.
 Evaluation:

 Three aspects are evaluated:

o Zone of Transfer: The number of problems a student can solve independently after
seeing the approach demonstrated on the first problem.
o Maximal Progress: The most difficult problem a student can solve independently.
o Zone of Next Development: The most difficult problem a student can solve with some
help.
 These aspects are combined into a single index reflecting a student's progress in
generalizing the equation-composing method.

Test Order:

 Similar to Series IX:

o Start with the most difficult problem (12).
o If unsuccessful, move down to easier problems (11, 10, etc.) until the student solves
one.
o Then, move back up from the solved problem (e.g., problem 4) towards the most difficult
problem (12), noting where the student needs help.

Sample Problems:

Algebra Test (A):

1. A teacher accidentally performs the wrong calculation on a student's answer. The

student gets the right answer regardless. What was the original number? (This problem
can be solved by setting up an equation to represent the teacher's incorrect calculation.)

Key: This series looks at how students translate word problems with various structures
into mathematical equations.

Series XI: Unrealistic Problems

This series presents a single test with problems containing nonsensical numerical data
but realistic problem structures.

Goal:

 Investigate how students approach and solve problems, focusing on:

o Generalization: Do students solve problems based on the general structure or get
bogged down in the unrealistic specifics?
o Memory: How well do students remember problem details after varying time intervals
(one week, three months)?

Test Structure:
 Students are asked to solve a series of problems quickly, one after another, without
analyzing them deeply.
 If a student identifies an unrealistic detail, the experimenter dismisses it as an error and
prompts them to move on.

Evaluation:

 The focus is on how students approach the problems, not necessarily getting the correct
answer.
 Students' memory for the problems is tested after one week and three months.

Sample Problems:

1. A right triangle has a perimeter of 3.72 meters, and two sides are each 1.24 meters
long. Find the length of the third side. (The perimeter is too small for the given side
lengths.)

Key: This problem tests if students recognize the unrealistic data (tiny perimeter for
large sides) or attempt to solve it regardless.

Series XII: Formation of Artificial Concepts

This series investigates students' general ability to form concepts independent of
academic knowledge.

Test Design:

 Adapted from Vygotskii-Sakharov's method of forming artificial concepts.

 Students are presented with cards depicting shapes with three attributes: color, size,
and shape.
 An artificial term ("kok," "gok," or "lok") signifies a concept based on two of these
attributes (e.g., all large red shapes).
 Some cards have the term printed on the front (example). Students must identify all
cards belonging to the concept by turning over unmarked cards.

Evaluation:

 The number of cards a student needs to turn over before identifying all concept
members reflects their ability to:
o Isolate relevant attributes (color and size in the examples)
o Abstract from irrelevant attributes (shape in the examples)
o Form a generalization (the concept)
 A lower number of trials indicates a stronger ability to form concepts.

Sample Tests:
 Test A: Concept "kok" depends on shape and size (cards 1 & 6). Color (red or blue) is
irrelevant.
 Test B: Concept "gok" depends on color and size (cards 4, 5, & 6). Shape is irrelevant.
 Test C: Concept "lok" depends on shape and color (cards 2, 10, 12, & 14). Size is
irrelevant.

Series XIII: Problems with Several Solutions

This series investigates a student's ability to solve problems in multiple ways and their
preference for efficient solutions.

Test Design:

 Three tests (arithmetic, algebra, and geometry) with problems that have multiple
solutions.
 The most efficient solution is not readily apparent.

Evaluation:

 The focus is on the process, not necessarily finding all solutions:

o Does the student attempt to find more than one solution on their own?
o How easily do they switch between different approaches (mental operations)?
 After finding multiple solutions, students:
o Compare and evaluate the solutions.
o Choose their preferred solution and justify their choice.
 One week later, recall of the different solutions is assessed.

Flexibility of Thinking:

 Measured by the variety of approaches a student attempts and their ease of switching
between them.

Sample Problems:

Arithmetic Test (A):

1. How many ways can 78 rubles be paid using 3-ruble and 5-ruble notes?

Key: This problem can be solved by trial and error, by using a system of equations, or
with other algebraic techniques.

Series XIV: Problems with Changing Content

 This series investigates how students adapt their problem-solving approach when a
seemingly minor change alters the problem entirely.

Test Design:

 Each problem comes in two variants: an initial variant and a second variant.
 The second variant has one seemingly minor detail changed compared to the first.
 However, this change alters the underlying problem type entirely.

Evaluation:

 Students are presented with the first variant and asked to solve it.
 Then, they are presented with the second variant, either by itself or immediately
after solving the first variant.
 Researchers are interested in:
o How the solution to the first variant influences the approach to the second variant.
o Whether students can adjust their thinking and solve the second variant effectively
despite the seemingly minor change.

Prior Training:

 Students practiced solving problems similar to the second variants (but with different
numbers) a month before this series.
 This allows researchers to compare how students solve the second variant:
o In isolation (without the influence of the first variant)
o Immediately following the first variant

Sample Problems:

Arithmetic Test (A):

1. Variant 1: Two trains travel toward each other at different speeds. How long will it take
them to meet? Variant 2: Two trains travel in the same direction at different speeds.
How long will it take them to meet? (This seemingly minor change - traveling in the
same direction - completely changes the problem)

Key: This series tests if students are misled by the surface similarity of the problems
and can recognize the fundamental difference between the variants.

Series XV: Problems on Reconstructing an Operation

This series investigates how students can adapt their problem-solving approach after
forming a strong habit for a specific type of problem.

Test Design:
 Similar to Series XIV, but focuses on established habits (stereotypes) for solving
problems.
 Students complete a series of seemingly monotonous problems of the same type.
 This reinforces a specific solution algorithm.
 Finally, they are presented with a problem that appears similar but is actually much
easier and requires a different approach.

Evaluation:

 Students are instructed to solve the problems as quickly as possible.

 Time to solve each problem, especially the last one, is measured.
 The expectation is that the formed stereotype will interfere with solving the last problem,
even though it's easier.
 Researchers also assess how students solve the last problems independently
(presented a month before).

Sample Problems:

Arithmetic Test (A):

1. A schoolyard is divided into sections: trees (50%), vegetables (remaining 50% * 50%),
and flowers (remaining area). Students are asked to find the total schoolyard area.

Key: This problem is similar to the previous ones where students had to find the area
based on percentages of a larger area. However, the last problem is easier because
they only need to find one area (flowers) instead of multiple sections.

Series XVI: Problems Suggesting “Self-Restriction”

This series investigates how students deal with problems that appear unsolvable due to
limitations they impose on the problem themselves.

Test Design:

 Problems are designed to have solutions, but students might perceive limitations that
aren't there.
 These limitations could be:
o Restrictions on the interpretation of the problem's terms.
o Unjustified exclusion of possible solutions.

Evaluation:

 Researchers observe if students:

o Can overcome their initial assumptions and recognize the possibility of alternative
solutions.
o Break free from "commonplace" or limited approaches.
o Reason effectively to find a solution.
 If a student gets stuck, the experimenter provides a general hint suggesting they might
be imposing unnecessary limitations.

Sample Problems:

1. Dividing a quadrilateral with a line segment: Students might restrict themselves to

convex quadrilaterals and assume triangles must be inside the shape (not true).
2. Family age problem: Students might think there's an error because the age difference
between years ago and now isn't exactly 15 (forgetting the youngest child wasn't born
yet).

Key: This series assesses a student's ability to think creatively and avoid getting stuck
due to self-imposed limitations on the problem.

Series XVII: Direct and Reverse Problems

This series investigates how students can reverse their thinking process to solve
problems.

Concept:

 Direct vs. Reverse Problems:

o Direct: Given known information, solve for the unknown.
o Reverse: The unknown from the direct problem becomes known information, and new
unknowns are sought.
 Two-way (reversible) associations: The ability to think in both the forward and backward
direction for a problem.

Test Design:

 Pairs of direct and reverse problems are presented.

 Some reverse problems are presented alone (a month before) to see if students can
solve them independently.
 Researchers record solution times for both direct and reverse problems.

Evaluation:

 The focus is on how easily students can switch from direct to reverse thinking:
o Can they solve the reverse problem correctly?
o Is their solution process efficient (considering the influence of the direct problem)?

Sample Problems:

Arithmetic Test (A):

1. Direct: A tank is filled to 2/5 of its volume with 16 liters of water. What is the volume of
the tank? Reverse: 80 liters of water fill a tank to 2/5 of its capacity. What is the volume
of the tank?

Key: This series assesses students' ability to reformulate problems and solve them from
a different perspective

Series XVIII: Heuristic Tasks

This series investigates how students learn new concepts and solve problems
independently.

Focus:

 Heuristic learning: Students discover rules and relationships on their own through
exploration and experimentation.
 Generalization: Students develop general rules from specific examples.

Test Design:

 Students are presented with tasks or materials that are new to them.
 They are expected to:
o Discover underlying principles or formulas.
o Develop their own solution algorithms (e.g., for squaring numbers ending in 5).
o Formulate general rules based on observations (e.g., triangle side length relationships).

Evaluation:

 Researchers observe:
o Which examples or trials helped students discover the key principle.
o How many examples were needed before students could solve similar problems
independently.
o The strategies students used to arrive at a solution (e.g., trial and error, pattern
recognition).

Sample Problems:

Arithmetic Test (A):

 Students square a series of two-digit numbers ending in 5 and are expected to discover
the general formula (10a + 5)^2 = 100a^2 + 100a + 25.

Key: This series assesses students' ability to learn new concepts and solve problems
by themselves, rather than relying on memorized formulas.
 Series XIX: Problems on Comprehension and Logical
Reasoning
This series assesses students' mathematical abilities and logical reasoning skills
through various problems.

Key Characteristics:

 Requires minimal mathematical knowledge but strong reasoning skills.

 Problems can be mathematical or purely logical.
 Focuses on students' thought process and problem-solving strategies.
 Evaluates how students:
o Reason logically and deduce information.
o Simplify complex problems.
o Remember and reproduce problem details.

Sample Problems:

General Mathematics Test (A):

1. Why does the square of a multi-digit number end in the same digit as the square
of the units digit? (Understanding of place value and squaring)

Logic Test (B):

7. There are 16 beads: black, white, and red ones. There are 4 times fewer red beads
than white ones. How many black beads are in the box? (Logical deduction)

Evaluation:

Researchers analyze students' solutions to understand:

 The steps they take to solve the problem.

 How efficient their reasoning process is.
 How well they remember the problem and their thought process after some time.

Series XX: Series Problems

This series assesses students' logical reasoning and analytical thinking through number
and figural series problems.

Tests:
 Numerical Test: Students are presented with number series and asked to identify the
underlying principle and continue the series.
 Figural Test: Students are presented with series of shapes and asked to:
o Identify the odd element out.
o Complete a series by finding the missing figure based on a pattern.
o Identify the figure that relates to a given figure in the same way another pair of figures
relate.

Evaluation:

 Researchers are looking for students to:

o Identify the rule governing the sequence of numbers or shapes.
o Apply the rule to continue the series or identify the missing element.
o Recognize that there might be multiple solutions for some series.

Complexity:

 The difficulty lies not in the underlying mathematical operations but in identifying the
governing principle and considering alternative possibilities.
 Series can be solved in multiple ways, but higher-level thinking involves recognizing this
and exploring different solutions.

Sample Problems:

Numerical Test:

1. 2; 4; 6; 8; 10; ... (What is the next number? Answer: 12) (Principle: Adding 2)

Figural Test:

1. Identify the odd element out in a series of shapes that follow a specific rotation pattern.

Key Points:

 This series goes beyond basic math skills and assesses students' analytical thinking
and ability to recognize patterns.
 It also explores potential differences in how students approach numerical vs. spatial
reasoning problems.

Series XXI: Mathematical Sophisms

This series assesses students' critical thinking skills and ability to identify logical
fallacies in mathematical reasoning.
 Focus:

 Identifying mathematical sophisms (arguments with a hidden flaw).

 Recognizing errors in seemingly logical reasoning.
 Demonstrating flexibility in thinking and breaking free from misleading patterns.

Test Design:

The series consists of four short tests with seven problems total, each presenting a
seemingly valid mathematical argument that leads to an incorrect conclusion.

Sample Problems:

Arithmetic Test (A):

1. Problem: A flawed argument claiming that multiplying 1 ruble 100 kopeks by a gets you
1 ruble, not 100a rubles.

Error: The mistake lies in multiplying terms by term in an equation where variables
represent units, not coefficients.

Key Points:

 This series goes beyond basic math skills and assesses students' ability to critically
evaluate mathematical reasoning.
 It helps identify students who can break free from seemingly logical patterns and
pinpoint the hidden error.

Series XXII: Problems with Terms That Are Hard to

Remember
This series assesses students' memory, perception, and problem-solving skills using
problems with complex or cumbersome wording.

Key Characteristics:

 Problems contain a large amount of numerical data or intricate relationships.

 Deliberately designed to be difficult to memorize after one reading.
 Evaluates how students:
o Extract key information from complex problems.
o Focus on problem structure and relationships.
o Apply reasoning and problem-solving skills without relying solely on memorization.

Sample Problems:
 Arithmetic Test (A):

1. Problem: A story problem involving potatoes shipped out over three days with fractions
and a final remaining amount. (Requires understanding of fractions, percentages, and
remembering details)

Key Point: This series goes beyond basic math skills and assesses how students
handle complex worded problems and extract relevant information.

Additional Notes:

 The series also reveals aspects of students' perception and ability to generalize
information.
 It is important to note that students were not asked to memorize the problems, but
rather how they approached them after a single reading.

Series XXIII discusses problems categorized based on varying degrees of visuality in their
solutions. These problems are grouped into tests, depending on how visual or verbal-logical
components contribute to their resolution.

1. Visual Problems (Group V): These problems are optimized for visual solutions and are
relatively easy to solve using visual means. While they can be solved verbally, it's more
challenging.
2. Average Problems (Groups A1 and A2): These offer equal opportunities for solution through
both visual and verbal-logical methods.
3. Mental Problems (Groups M1 and M2): These don't require visual concepts and are typically
solved mentally. While visual means can be used, they complicate the process.

Each group contains six problems ranked from easiest to most complex. The problems are
arranged in a grid based on visuality and difficulty.

The series includes arithmetic and geometry tests. For arithmetic, problems vary in complexity
and visual requirement, while geometry problems are always solved with visual aids. Examinees
are encouraged to use different methods of solution, and their approaches are noted.

The solutions to problems A1 and A2 are particularly interesting, as they reveal differences in
how students with visual-pictorial versus verbal-logical thinking solve problems. The research
highlights the relative nature of "visual solutions" and the abstract nature of graphic schemes in
problem-solving.

Series XXIV: Problems with Verbal and Visual

Formulations
 This series assesses a student's ability to translate between verbal and visual
representations of mathematical concepts. It consists of three parts:

A. Algebra Test:

 Measures understanding of coefficients and exponents in algebraic expressions.

 Tasks involve identifying coefficients and exponents, manipulating expressions to
achieve specific coefficient or exponent values.

B. Geometry Test (Part 1):

 Focuses on discrepancies between verbal descriptions and corresponding drawings.

 Presents geometric statements with misleading drawings.
 Analyzes if students rely more on the visuals or the verbal descriptions.

C. Geometry Test (Part 2):

 Presents geometric problems in both verbal and visual formats (drawings).

 Evaluates a student's preference for solving problems visually or verbally.
 Assesses memory by asking students to recall the format (verbal or visual) of problems
presented the prior day.

Overall, this series helps identify students who struggle with translating between
abstract mathematical concepts and their visual representations.

This series assesses a student's ability to visualize and manipulate spatial objects in
their mind. It avoids using paper, pencils, or physical objects to solve problems.

A. Geometry Test (Flat Shapes):

 Problems involve circles, squares, rectangles, and their properties.

 Examples include: finding intersection points, calculating angles formed by hands on a
clock, determining distances related to circles, analyzing areas formed by connecting
midpoints of squares, and solving perimeter problems for rectangles.

B. Geometry Test (Solids):

 Focuses on 3D objects like cubes, cylinders, spheres, and tori (not covered in school
curriculum).
 Problems involve: counting faces, edges, and vertices of cubes, visualizing sections
formed by cutting various solids with planes, and analyzing how segments and triangles
are positioned relative to projection planes.

C. Figural Test (Counting Cubes):

 Requires mentally visualizing and counting 3D cubes from a 2D image.

 D. Figural Test (Mental Rotation):

 Assesses mental rotation abilities by asking students to identify a figure identical to a

reference figure among rotated versions.
 Another task involves mentally unfolding a cube to identify unseen faces based on
visible ones.

Overall, Series XXV helps identify students who struggle with spatial reasoning and
manipulating objects in their mind's eye

Summary of Series XXVI: Correlations between Visual

and Verbal Thinking
This series investigates the relationship between visual-pictorial and verbal-logical
components of memory used in non-mathematical tasks. It builds upon a method
developed by M. N. Borisova.

The Method:

 Two tests are used:

o Test 1: Emphasizes visual recognition - Students identify a previously seen image from
similar pictures (mainly relies on visual memory).
o Test 2: Emphasizes verbal description - Students describe a briefly shown image in
detail, allowing others to identify it (mainly relies on verbal memory).
 Both tests use collections of outline leaf shapes.

Evaluation:

 Scores are assigned based on the number of correctly identified images in each test
(maximum of 5 per test).
 The correlation between these scores indicates the balance between visual and verbal
memory in each student.

Series XXVI in Context:

 This series is part of a larger research project that explores various components of
intellectual ability.
 Table 3 (not provided in the text) summarizes the focus of different problem series
within this project.
 The method used in Series XXVI has been adapted for younger and older school
children.

Overall, Series XXVI helps assess a student's ability to utilize both visual and
verbal aspects of memory in non-mathematical tasks.