Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150315?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Studies in Mathematics
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
DIANA F. STEELE and DEBRA I. JOHANNING
1. INTRODUCTION
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
66 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 67
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
68 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 69
5. PURPOSE
One of the questions raised by Mason and Pimm (1984) in the implications
of their research on algebraic representation was "How can you expose the
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
70 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
6. METHODOLOGY
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 71
6.2. Participants
6.3. Procedures
We did not first model how to solve the types of problems in this stud
instead we gave students the problems and asked them to solve them wi
any method they chose. We chose problem contexts that had potential
lead to pattern generalization to support students' understanding of qua
titative relationships. The geometric contexts were (1) size and shape a
(2) growth and change. The students in this study solved eight generalizi
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
72 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 73
6.5. Findings
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
74 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
TABLE I
3x3 8
4x4 12
5x5 16
6x6 20
121110 8
2456 42
456 4 5
In a 25 x 25 grid, 96 s
squares to a side. But 4
them twice. I will use a
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 75
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1 2 3 4
TABLE II
1 4
2 7
3 10
4 13
5 16
shared corner
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 77
25 + 24 + 24 + 23 = 96 shaded squares
(s) + (s - 1) + (s - 1) + (s - 2)
s-2 s -1i
s-1
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
78 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
First I thought about the number of shaded squares in the small fig
noticed that on the top you counted all 3 squares but on the [right] side y
counted 2 because 1 is shared. You do the same for the third [bottom] s
the final [left] side you only count 1 of the squares. So I came up with a
(s) + (s - 1) + (s - 1) + (s - 2). I also used this to get the number of
squares in the 25 x 25 grid, 25 + 24 + 24 + 23 = 96.
Mike then went back to his generalization from his smaller figu
provided a closed form for the symbolic generalization for any nu
shaded squares on the perimeter: (S . 4) - 4.
For this problem Mike used a smaller example (the given di
to make a generalization rather than the particular case that w
for in the question (the 25 x 25). He then found the number of
squares for the 25 x 25 before simplifying his symbolic expression
we asked him how he knew to subtract 4, he explained that h
1 + 1 + 2 (the numbers he had subtracted from the sides in Figure
subtracted that amount. He had not really collected like terms, but
had added like terms by thinking about each side of each diagram
though the final form of his equation utilized subtraction, and he
ticed the shared corners, he did not use a subtracting pattern to bu
generalization. Instead, he added on or built up the number of squ
each side to find the generalization. He partitioned figure into top,
bottom, and left, and then added these partitioned sections to ma
generalization.
The key difference between Cathy and Mike's approach was tha
did not associate minus 4 in the shaded square problem with the ove
corners. Rather he worked around the square analyzing each side
was in the process of building each side. This approach is differen
Cathy's; she described the structure as one whole in which each sid
square visually had the same number of squares, but when counti
side as 3 in length, she developed the idea of overlap or sharing.
Once Mike saw this building-up pattern based on the diagram,
tinued to use it and was able to express his thinking symbolically
like Cathy, applied his generalization from the shaded squares to so
triangle dot problem. He wrote:
First I noticed that this problem was the square problem with 3 sides inst
So, all I did was modify my formula to (n - 3) - 3. In a 13-dot triangle t
36 dots. I checked and the formula (n - 3) - 3 works for all the triangles.
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 79
TABLE III
D's Corners
1 4
2 7
3 10
4 13
100 301
1 2 3 4 10 +1
JO~ E
Figure 7. Mike's
First I tried to find a relationship in the table between the # of squares and the # of
vertices. I found no noticeable pattern. But I noticed [in the diagram] that there are
half of the O's on the top and half on the bottom [if it is even]. So, if you multiply
the number on the top times 4 you get a number. Then if you multiply the number
of D's on the bottom by two you also get a number. [I]f you add the 2 numbers
and add 1 ... you get the number of comers. You ... ad [sic] 1 ... because there is
an extra comer sticking out at the end ....
His use of tables here seemed more of a way to verify or organize counts
rather than a springboard for the symbolic generalization. It was his use
of the diagram and the building-up schema as he partitioned the figure
into top, bottom, and left over sections that led to his generalization and
his ability to identify and generalize the relatioznship between the quan-
tities in the problem. He had accommodated his building-up schema to
include a problem with somewhat different but similar mathematical struc-
ture. Later in other problems in the teaching experiment, Mike used tables
more to help him identify the patterns and generalize to the nth case. For
example, the following is Mike's solution for the diagonals of a polygon
problem.
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
80 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
TABLE IV
3 0 (s - 3) (s 2) 0
4 2 (s - 3) (s + 2) 1
5 5 (s - 3). (s - 2) 2
6 9 (s - 3) - (s 2) 3
To solve this problem Mike again began with smaller problems. He drew
several polygons (see Figure 8). Then Mike made a table to help him look
for patterns between the number of diagonals and the number of sides on a
polygon (see Table IV). His table listed his data and also included columns
that explained how he used his data to obtain the number of diagonals of a
polygon.
Mike explained how he reasoned about the problem:
First I tried to find a pattern in the sides, diagonals, and diagonals per vertex that
I did not need to carry out to the target # [8 in this case]. The formula that I came
up with was
The way I found this was the (sides - 3) equals lines [diagonals] per vertex. The
(sides +- 2) is the number of pairs that equal to the maximum number of lines
[diagonals] you can draw from each vertex. In a[n] octagon the sides minus three
is five. Then you multiply it by 4 because there are 4 groups of 5 and you get
twenty. [T]hat formula works for all polygons.
When we asked Mike how he first saw the number of diagonals, he said,
"I was drawing the diagonals for each shape, and I noticed the pattern."
He observed the pattern of increasing numbers of diagonals coming from
each vertex as the number of vertices increased. He then developed the
idea of pairs of diagonals as he counted. In the table he added and divided
to obtain the numbers in the diagonals column as a way to explain the
process of drawing the diagonals and keeping count as he went along. He
built up the diagonals as he went from each set of vertices, and then used the
table to help him complete the symbolic generalization. Mike had already
generalized the relationships from drawing the diagrams. But he adapted
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 81
(N + 2) x (N - 3)+ N
7 x 11 + 14 = 91
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
82 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
Zeke also used a building-up schema to solve the problems in the teaching
experiment. Like Mike, Zeke used diagrams and sometimes tables. In the
diagonals of the polygon problem Zeke made the same type of diagrams
as Mike for 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7-sided polygons. He also created a table (see
Table V) to summarize the information from the diagrams and to look
for patterns. He did not see the "pairs" relationship that Mike had seen in
which two vertices shared the same diagonal, but did systematically draw
and count the diagonals for each of the vertices. In his table, Zeke recorded
how he constructed the diagonals in the "how you get it" column after
drawing the following figures.
He wrote:
The formula I figured out is subtract 3 from the number of sides and write the
number down twice. Then count down from that number until you reach 0. Then
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 83
TABLE V
4 1+1= 2
5 2+2+1= 5
6 3+3+2+1= 9
7 4+4+3+2+1= 14
After creating the table, Zeke then looked for a numeric pattern that
would lead to a way to generalize the numbers in the "how to get it"
column. He added up all the diagonals to get his generalization (a building-
up approach); however, he found the number of diagonals as an out-
come of his arithmetic operations, not from observing the way he had
drawn the diagonals from the vertices. His generalization was recursive
and worked only when all previous number of diagonals for each poly-
gon were known. He was not able to see past the numbers to understand
what was general in them, because he was not putting the numbers in a
context.
When Zeke later solved the roads problem he again used diagrams to
build up a systematic and organized way to find all the routes. He reco
nized the relationship to the earlier diagonals of the polygon problem aft
drawing only two diagrams for a smaller number of cities. He wrote:
I started by tring [sic] to visualize four cities so I made a model of it. Then I tr
to make a model of the 10 city kingdom and tried to connect the roads. When
made the roads I noticed that it was like the vertices [diagonals on the polygo
problem. I noticed each time was one less road th[a]n the time before. I count
45 roads for the 10 city kingdom because 9 + 8 + 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 45
Then I noticed there was a pattern. The formula is (N - 1) + (N - 2) + (N
3) + (N - 4)... - - - + (N - N) = answer. I next tried to find a[n] easier fo
mula. I tried a lot of things but they did not work. Then I tried distrubiting
[sic] with the original four-city kingdom and got N . (N - 1) - (N . 2). Th
I checked it on a five-city kingdom and got the same answers as ... using the
one.
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
84 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
he did not connect the numeric patterns with the context of how
drawn the diagonals for the four and ten-city problem even thou
recognized the relationship to the previous problems when drawin
diagonals.
Zeke recognized the need to find a closed form for a symbolic gen-
eralization. Perhaps this need came from cooperative group discussion
when other students constructed unclosed symbolic generalizations, i.e.,
(n - 1) + (n - 2) .. .). While observing students in groups, we sometimes
heard statements such as, "What if you had 1000 cities? It would take for-
ever." Because of these group discussions several students began to see the
need for simpler expressions (expressions in closed form) to express their
generalizations and began looking for "shortcuts" and evaluating them to
make sure they were equivalent.
In other problems similar in mathematical structure to the diagonals of
the polygon problem and the roads problem, Zeke did not see the structural
relationship because the diagrams looked differently from his diagrams to
connect vertices. Zeke also had not seen relationships between the earlier
shaded squares, triangle dot, or squares/vertices problems, even though he
had used a building-up schema similar to Mike's to solve those problems.
Because Zeke did not or could not relate how the numbers were generated,
as Mike and Cathy did by using how they drew their diagrams, he struggled
to find a closed-form generalization. Instead, he manipulated numbers to
find numeric patterns he could generalize. This lack of understanding did
not allow Zeke to apply his previous generalizations. Zeke often stayed
in the particulars. Because his schema for generalizing problem situations
was still only partially formed, he was not able to clearly articulate how
to get from the general case from previous problems to find solutions for
new related problems.
9. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Piaget (1952) believed that for a schema to develop students need repetition,
recognition, and generalization. We adapted and progressively sequenced
problems that had similar, but slightly different mathematical structure,
to address these three components. Repetition helped students develop
schemas for solving the problems. Oftentimes, students were able to easily
recognize the new problem situation and assimilate their existing schemas
to solve them. However, many times they needed to accommodate their
existing schemas. Through the process of assimilation and accommoda-
tion, all students successfully generalized verbally, and students with well-
connected schemas also successfully generalized symbolically.
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 85
TABLE VI
Cathy X
Mike X
Zeke X
Jane X
Steve X
Rebecca X
Tommy X
Josh X
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
86 DIANA E STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
All students used diagrams to recognize individual parts for solving par-
ticular problems. Diagrams became powerful tools to build successful
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 87
In answering Mason and Pimm's (1984) question, "How can you expose
the genericity of an example to someone who sees only its specificity"? (p.
149), findings from this study suggest that you can do this by designing
instruction that gives students maximum opportunities to see the general
in the particular and to see the particular in the general. If teachers are
intentional about instructional design for algebraic thinking (the essence of
which is generalization) they will help students develop effective problem-
solving schemas. To do this teachers can design instruction around the use
of schema theory. The contexts of size and shape and growth and change
promote the use of diagrams and help students develop effective schemas
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
88 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Esther H. Billings for her insights while reading early drafts of
this paper. Her ideas helped us focus on key details in the data. We also
thank the anonymous referee who read our paper several times during the
review process and gave us valuable feedback.
REFERENCES
Algebra Working Group: 1997, 'A Framework for Constructing a Vision of Algebra: A
Discussion Document', Paper Prepared by National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Arcavi, A.: 1994, 'Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematic', For the
Learning of Mathematics, 14, 24-35.
Balacheff, N.: 1988, 'Aspects of proof in pupils' practice of school mathematics', in D.
Pimm (ed.), Mathematics, Teachers and Children, Open University, Milton, Keynes, pp.
216-235.
Bell, A.: 1976, 'A study of pupils' proof-explanations in mathematical situations', Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 7, 23-40.
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
PROBLEM-SOLVING SCHEMAS 89
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
90 DIANA F. STEELE AND DEBRA I. JOHANNING
Sfard, A.: 1991, 'On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on p
and objects as different sides of the same coin', Educational Studies in Mathema
1-36.
Sfard, A.: 2003, 'Balancing the unbalanceable: The NCTM standards in light of theories of
learning mathematics', in J. Kilpatrick, W.G. Martin and D. Schifter (eds.), A Research
Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, pp. 353-392.
Silver, E.A.: 198 1, 'Recall of mathematical problem information: Solving related problems',
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12, 54-64.
Spradley, J.P.: 1980, Participant Observation, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Chicago.
Stacey, K.: 1989, 'Finding and using patterns in linear generalising problems', Education
Studies in Mathematics, 20, 147-164.
Steffe, L.P. and Thompson, P.W.: 2000, 'Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying
principles and essential elements', in A.E. Kelly and R.A. Lesh (eds.), Handbook of
Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education, Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp. 267-
306.
Steele, D.F.: 2000, 'Pre-algebra Students' Solution Strategies for Algebraic Problems',
Paper Presented at Annual Meeting of the Research Council on Mathematics Learning,
Las Vegas, NV.
Swafford, J.O. and Langrall, C.W.: 2000, 'Grade 6 students' preinstructional use of equa-
tions to describe and represent problem situations', Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 31, 89-112.
Tall, D.: 1991, 'The psychology of advanced mathematical thinking', in D. Tall (ed.),
Advanced Mathematical Thinking, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 3-21.
Thompson, P.W.: 1994, 'The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to
concepts of rate', in G. Harel and J. Confrey (eds.), The Development Of Multiplicative
Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics, State University of New York Press, Albany,
pp. 181-236.
von Glasersfeld, E.: 1995, 'Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning',
Falmer Press, Washington DC.
DIANA F. STEELE
DEBRA I. JOHANNING
This content downloaded from 148.225.8.2 on Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:07:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms