LUMAT Special Issue 2022: Mathematical Thinking and Understanding in Learning of Mathematics

Developing mathematical problem-solving skills in

primary school by using visual representations on
heuristics
Susanna Kaitera and Sari Harmoinen
Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Finland

Developing students’ skills in solving mathematical problems and supporting ARTICLE DETAILS
creative mathematical thinking have been important topics of Finnish National Core
Curricula 2004 and 2014. To foster these skills, students should be provided with LUMAT Special Issue
Vol 10 No 2 (2022), 111–146
rich, meaningful problem-solving tasks already in primary school. Teachers have a
crucial role in equipping students with a variety of tools for solving diverse Pages: 36
mathematical problems. This can be challenging if the instruction is based solely on References: 60
tasks presented in mathematics textbooks. The aim of this study was to map
Correspondence:
whether a teaching approach, which focuses on teaching general heuristics for [email protected]
mathematical problem-solving by providing visual tools called Problem-solving
Keys, would improve students’ performance in tasks and skills in justifying their https://doi.org/10.31129/
reasoning. To map students' problem-solving skills and strategies, data from 25 fifth LUMAT.10.2.1696
graders’ pre-tests and post-tests with non-routine mathematical tasks were
analysed. The results indicate that the teaching approach, which emphasized
finding different approaches to solve mathematical problems had the potential for
improving students’ performance in a problem-solving test and skills, but also in
explaining their thinking in tasks. The findings of this research suggest that teachers
could support the development of problem-solving strategies by fostering
classroom discussions and using for example a visual heuristics tool called Problem-
solving Keys.

Keywords: mathematical problem-solving, heuristics, proportional reasoning

1 Introduction

During the primary school years, students develop their understanding of concept of
numbers and fluency in arithmetic skills (FNBE, 2016, p. 307). Learning
mathematical procedures is important, but it is also crucial to equip students with
strong problem-solving, reasoning, and thinking skills (e.g. Lester, 2003; Pehkonen
et al., 2013) to give tools for functioning in a complex, unpredictable future.
Mathematical problem-solving requires skills to apply variety of different solution
strategies and models (Leppäaho, 2018, p. 374). It is not uncommon that while
students may excel on routine exercises (those that they have already seen and
practiced), they fail to solve problems that differ from those they have previously
encountered (OECD, 2014).

LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education

Published by the University of Helsinki, Finland / LUMA Centre Finland | CC BY 4.0
 LUMAT

Traditional teaching approaches often focus on learning mathematical facts and

procedures. Teachers could take advantage on creating learning environments, which
engage students in investigating problems and seeking solutions in an active manner.
(Pehkonen et al., 2013, 13.) Näveri et al. (2011, p. 169) point out that if teachers rely
on using routine tasks in mathematics lessons, also the learning of students stays on
the routine level. Mathematical thinking skills can be developed via problem-solving
(e.g. Schoenfeld, 1985; Lester, 2003, Leppäaho, 2018), and on the other hand,
problem-based teaching methods can be used to foster deeper understanding.
The importance of developing mathematical reasoning and problem-solving skills
is also recognised in international assessments, such as PISA and TIMSS. In PISA the
problem-solving competence is defined as “an individuals’ capacity to engage in
cognitive processing to understand and resolve problem situations where a method of
solution is not immediately obvious” (OECD, 2014, p. 30).
As Leppäaho (2018, p. 368) points out, mathematical problem-solving is learned
only by practising it repeatedly. Mathematics can actually be taught through problem-
solving (see for example Schoenfeld, 1985; Hiebert, 2003; Lester, 2013). This teaching
method enables students themselves to engage with meaningful, rich problem tasks
and instead of superficial procedure-learning, develop understanding of
mathematical concepts and methods. Students should have possibilities to explore a
variety of different and unfamiliar problems, even though they would not yet master
certain methods or algorithms (Goldenberg et al., 2003, p. 28).
Developing students’ mathematical thinking and problem-solving skills have been
flagged as important goals in Finnish National Core Curricula for basic education
(FNBE 2004; FNBE 2016). Students should be guided not only to solving problems,
but also finding and modifying them (FNBE, 2004, p. 158). According to the
mathematics curriculum in Finland, instruction should “support the development of
the pupils’ skills in presenting their mathematical thinking and solutions to others in
different ways and with the help of different tools” (FNBE, 2016, p. 307).
Expressing mathematical ideas and justifying thinking can be challenging for
primary-school aged students, but as Finnish Curriculum (FNBE, 2016, p. 306)
underlines, it would be important to learn to communicate ideas and collaborate with
peers. Collaborative problem-solving situations, identifying and discussing ideas and
participating in explanation-building discourse can help learners in developing their
thinking skills (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014, p. 3). Collaborative problem-solving
situations are excellent opportunities to explore also complex problems, because

112
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

different examples and explanations by group members enable better understanding

(Sears & Reagin, 2013).
In this research, fifth grade students were introduced general heuristics, which
were understood to serve as stepping stones in solving non-routine mathematical
problems. At the beginning of the school year, it appeared that many students seemed
to struggle in mathematical tasks and especially in explaining their problem-solving
processes in written form. Students were introduced to concrete tools called Problem-
solving Keys, which were modified from Strategy Keys based on work by Herold-
Blasius (2021). The aim was to provide students with a visual reminder of heuristics
for mathematical problem-solving tasks. Similar heuristics were outlined also in the
Singaporean Mathematics Syllabus 2013 and used as a reference when classifying and
modifying the Keys for teaching purposes in Finland (Kaitera, 2021).
The research aimed to map fifth graders’ skills and strategies before and after the
intervention, which was designed to offer wide variety of mathematical problems and
techniques to solve them. The interest was in finding out if the problem-oriented
teaching approach influenced on how students solved mathematical problems, which
required proportional reasoning.
This research aimed to answer the following questions:

1. What kind of influence did teaching approach, which focused on

mathematical problem-solving, have on students’ general performance in
proportional reasoning tasks and abilities to explain thinking?
2. What kind of differences appeared in students’ use of erroneous and correct
problem-solving strategies between pre- and post-tests?

The study outlines possibilities to develop mathematics teaching towards a

direction, in which students become more active participants in learning process and
develop their mathematical problem-solving skills. Another aspect was to answer the
21st-century demands for analysing the teaching practises and creating knowledge as
a practicing teacher (see for example Niemi & Nevgi, 2014). The study includes
features of a teaching experiment and in this report is referred to as such.

113
 LUMAT

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Mathematical problem-solving: focus on heuristics

In many countries, mathematics curricula emphasize the importance of exploring

versatile problem-solving activities. These have been a part of mathematics
classrooms for a long time, but there is still confusion on what it means in practice.
Teachers often understand it as solving word problems (e.g. Lester, 2003; Näveri et
al., 2011), or even solving simple, routine arithmetic tasks presented in mathematics
textbooks (Näveri et al., 2011). In this study, students were provided with non-routine
tasks, which require skills to devise and implement a plan (Polya, 1945/1973) and
combine previously learned solution strategies in a novel way (Lester, 2013;
Leppäaho, 2018).
An ability to solve mathematical problems in different contexts is an important
skill, which can, and should be taught at schools. To be able to invent and test
strategies, students need to have basic skills and understanding of problem-solving
processes. As Leppäaho (2018, 374–375) points out, in addition to mathematical skills
(e.g. how students can use different strategies), for example motivational aspects and
reading and writing skills play important roles in an individual’s capacity in
mathematical problem-solving situations.
Mathematical problem-solving techniques are often called heuristics (Polya,
1945/1973; Schoenfeld, 1985; Goldenberg et al., 2003). Heuristics can be described
as non-rigorous, general suggestions for strategies, which can be helpful when solving
different types of problems. Learning these techniques and becoming familiar with
different problem-solving methods helps students to tackle mathematical problems
also in unfamiliar contexts.
Heuristics were linked to everyday teaching by Polya in his book “How to solve it”
(1945). Polya outlined a simple four-step problem-solving process, and the following
phases are often referred to when defining heuristics:

1. Understanding the problem: what is being asked? What is known, what is

unknown?
2. Creating a plan for solving the problem, considering whether the type of the
problem is already familiar, choosing the most appropriate heuristic.
3. Solving the problem by carrying out the plan and assessing whether the steps
are correct.

114
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

4. Looking back and checking if the answer makes sense. (Polya, 1973, 5–6.)

Important first steps of understanding a problem and choosing methods for

solving the task are often forgotten when describing elements linked to mathematical
problem-solving (Näveri et al., 2011, p. 169). School mathematics often emphasizes
teaching certain algorithms to fit certain types of problems instead of providing a
wider variety of general tools for problem-solving (Näveri et al., 2011; Leppäaho,
2018). Another important aspect linked to problem-solving can be derived from
Polya’s views: he outlined the function of the last phase as not only reviewing the
process but also discussing it (1973, p. 6).
Heuristics are not the same as algorithms: they rarely prompt a solution, while
carrying out an algorithm, which is suitable for a certain type of mathematical
problem, leads to a rather unambiguous solution. According to Polya (1973, p. 113),
heuristics cannot be used as a tool for rigorous proof. Instead, heuristics belong to a
problem-solving process as a part of it. Whereas algorithms are usually constructed
of certain predetermined steps, heuristics involve a decision-making process.
Students make assumptions on whether a certain approach would work or not and try
out different ways to implement the method: for example, in this study, making first
a diagram or table provides numerous chances to proceed in solving the problem.
Heuristics can be learned and practiced (Schoenfeld, 1985; Bruder & Collet, 2011)
and are generally more applicable in different types of mathematical domains and
problems than plain algorithms. Due to the nature of transferability, learning
heuristics also supports the development of confidence in mathematical problem-
solving (Goldenberg et al., 2003). The aim of teaching mathematics through problem-
solving is to equip students with skills to apply previously learned techniques in non-
routine and novel situations (Leppäaho, 2018, p. 379).
Polya’s four-step model is still useful in today’s mathematics classroom and was
referred to as a framework to underline different phases of problem-solving;
mathematics is more than just filling in the textbook, it could be understood as an
activity. Devising a plan and choosing the most appropriate heuristic were supported
by visual tools called Problem-solving Keys, which are introduced in Chapter 3.2.

115
 LUMAT

2.2 Proportional reasoning as a problem-solving domain

Fifth graders’ problem-solving skills were mapped by proportional reasoning tasks. It

is an excellent domain to solve mathematical problems linked to everyday life. For
example, adjusting the recipe, preparing juice from a concentrate, calculating the
most beneficial buy or comparing discounts between two products, calculating the
consumption of the petrol in a car trip, or using a map and its scale to calculate the
distance between two targets require skills to reason proportionally. Traditional
symbolic representations or algorithms linked to proportional reasoning are not
familiar for Finnish fifth graders and was therefore chosen as a domain to assess
students’ intuitive problem-solving skills and strategies in non-routine problems.
Proportional reasoning is often described as a cornerstone to higher mathematical
and scientific thinking and cognitive development (e.g. Lesh et al., 1988; Lamon,
2007; 2012). Understanding proportionality requires reasoning with ratios. In
textbooks and mathematics dictionaries the word proportion is often defined as an
equivalence of ratios or statement of equal ratios or fractions, written as follows:
𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐
𝑏𝑏
= 𝑑𝑑 or a : b = c : d.

Proportional reasoning requires skills to convey the same relationship for example
in producing or comparing ratios or finding a missing value. Abilities to reason
proportionally are a marker of a move towards more developed forms of reasoning
and form a foundation for example for algebra. Previous research indicates that
students are capable of solving proportional word problems already during their early
years of primary school (e.g. Tourniaire, 1986; Van Dooren et al., 2005; Vanluydt et
al., 2019).
Understanding ratio and proportion requires the ability to reason with
multiplicative relationships and distinguish them from relationships, which are
additive in nature (Van Dooren et al., 2010; Son, 2013). In an additive approach, the
student operates with an invariant difference between two values, whereas a
multiplicative approach requires an understanding of an invariant ratio between two
values (Van Dooren et al., 2010). Even if some proportional reasoning tasks can be
solved by additive approaches, also in those situations students need to understand
the co-varying situation of given values. Building-up or scaling-down by skip-
counting until the anticipated value is reached represents one of the strategies, which

116
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

often bases in additive reasoning. These types of solution methods can be supported
as steps towards multiplicative and proportional strategies.
Reasoning is an integral part of mathematical problem-solving and skills reach
beyond solving routine problems. Reasoning requires logical and systematic thinking,
being a process, which requires making conclusions on how to achieve certain goals;
these conclusions guide problem-solving and decision-making behaviour (Leighton,
2004; Grønmo et al., 2013). Students make notions on patterns and regularities and
use that information on making decisions on problem-solving approaches. Reasoning
involves skills to make conjectures, logical deductions based on assumptions and
rules, and abilities to justify results. (Grønmo et al., 2013, p. 27.) Teachers can help
students to develop these skills by presenting mathematical problems linked to
unfamiliar contexts and providing opportunities to solve open-ended or multi-step
problems (e.g. Grønmo et al., 2013). This has not been typically encouraged in school
culture (e.g. Pehkonen et al., 2013). Close-ended textbook examples do not necessarily
support students’ skills to apply the learned procedures or algorithms outside the
school context, and the applications to real-world situations can seem rare to them.

3 Teaching experiment: Heuristics for problem-solving

Interest towards improving primary-aged students’ mathematical problem-solving

skills was based on data, which was collected in Finland and Indonesia in 2014-2015
for Kaitera’s doctoral research. A preliminary analysis of the mentioned data indicated
that Finnish students had severe difficulties in explaining their thinking in tasks. This
led to wondering whether these skills could be developed by implementing a teaching
approach, which provided tools for solving a wide variety of out-of-the-textbook
problems. The teaching experiment was carried out during the following academic
year in a class of fifth graders. The learning environment was designed to support the
development of students’ mathematical problem-solving skills. The quasi-
experimental design was conducted in real-world learning settings, attempting to
discover aspects that could be useful for example for teachers aiming to develop
mathematics teaching practices.
Teaching heuristics for mathematical problem solving is often linked to working
with students with challenges in learning mathematics (e.g. Gallagher Landi, 2001;
Fuchs & Fuchs, 2003; Swanson et al., 2013). General heuristics are not associated
directly to certain kinds of mathematical problems and therefore can facilitate
integrating the given information with steps for action (Swanson et al., 2013, p. 170).

117
 LUMAT

This report suggests that any student would benefit from getting familiar with a range
of generalisable problem-solving approaches instead of just learning a variety of
algorithms fit for certain types of mathematical problems.

3.1 Participants and background for the research

Research was carried out in a large urban school in Northern Finland with a class of
25 fifth graders (12 boys and 13 girls). In the beginning of academic year 2015-2016,
students’ skills and strategies were mapped by a pre-test with proportional reasoning
problems. At that time, students’ mean age was 11 years and 2 months (range from 10
years and 9 months to 11 years and 7 months). During the autumn semester, the class
got familiar with a range of generalisable heuristics, which were used in solving a
variety of mathematical problems. Participating class followed the guidelines of
mathematics education outlined in the Finnish National Core Curriculum. Students
had attended five years of elementary school, but not received any formal instructions
in solving proportional reasoning tasks, which were the main domain for assessing
the development of mathematical problem-solving skills in this research. The class-
teacher had a degree as a Master of Education and had been teaching for 10 years in
primary and secondary schools. She was working on her Doctoral research on
mathematical problem-solving, and the study described in this report was carried out
of an interest towards developing students’ problem-solving skills.
At the beginning of the fifth school year, it appeared that many students seemed
to struggle in mathematical tasks and especially in explaining their problem-solving
processes in written form. Students were introduced to concrete tools called Problem-
solving Keys, which were modified from Strategy Keys based on work by Herold-
Blasius (2021). The aim was to provide students with a visual reminder of heuristics
for mathematical problem-solving tasks. Similar heuristics were outlined also in the
Singaporean Mathematics Syllabus 2013 and used as a reference when classifying and
modifying the Keys for teaching purposes in Finland.
Fifth graders had three mathematics lessons every week. Mathematics textbooks
were used, but in addition to those, during the autumn semester the class spent on a
weekly basis on average one mathematics lesson on working with mathematical tasks
in a practical context and learning a variety of general heuristics for problem-solving.
Out-of-the-textbook problems were solved during the spring semester, too, but
learning heuristics was not the focus anymore. Post-test data was collected at the end
of the fifth grade in 2016 by using the same test than in the beginning of the school

118
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

year. At that time, the mean age of students was 12 years (range from 11 years and 7
months to 12 years and 5 months).

3.2 Framework for practicing mathematical problem-solving

The central idea of study in a real-life context was to teach mathematics and general
heuristics through solving a variety of out-of-the-textbook problems. Mathematical
problems were sourced for example from everyday situations, children’s literacy, and
local, national and international news. In addition to that, students created word
problems for their peers and learned to solve them in various ways. Problems were
often integrated into other subjects, such as Environmental Studies and other Science
themes, Finnish as a mother tongue and Arts and Crafts.
Exploration of mathematical problems followed a framework with different
phases of problem-solving (Stein et al., 2008; OECD, 2014, p. 31): first, the task was
presented by the teacher to the students (a launch phase), then students worked on
problems either in small groups or individually (an exploration phase, planning and
executing) and finally the outcomes were shared and discussed (a summarising and
reflecting phase). In practice, the process was not a linear, step-by-step progressing
path, but rather a flexible model for moving between different phases. Quite often
discussing and sharing the ideas led to returning to the exploration phase and
assessing the problem-solving approaches from new perspectives. Polya’s
(1945/1973) four step model was followed especially during the exploration and
summarising phases. Problems were solved in collaborative settings always when it
was possible: this enabled discussion and made the importance of justifying thinking
more visible.
Heuristics or general techniques for solving mathematical problems were
introduced to students by using a visual tool called Problem-solving Keys, which are
based on for example Polya’s (1945/1973) and Bruder and Collet’s (2011) heuristics,
and the same ideas were outlined in Singaporean Mathematics Curriculum 2013.
These heuristics were modified into a concrete tool by Herold-Blasius and Rott (2016)
and named as Strategy Keys. They describe these tools as “door openers” for a
problem-solving process and reminders of general heuristics that students have
learned (Herold-Blasius & Rott, 2016; Herold-Blasius, 2021).
Keys were modified for teaching experiment purposes, translated in Finnish, and
renamed as Problem-solving Keys. Keys that were used in this study were chosen
based on their generalisability, transferability and fit for the mathematics curriculum

119
 LUMAT

for this age group. The guidance progressed by introducing one or two keys
(heuristics) at the time, linking them in a variety of out-of-the-textbook problems. As
the new heuristic was introduced and practised, the key linked to that particular
heuristic was added to a student’s personal “Problem-solving key chain”. Each key
was linked to a mathematical problem, which was often open-ended, or at least had
multiple different solution paths to choose from. The problem was chosen so that the
heuristic in that Key worked well in solving a particular problem: for example,
Gravett’s The Rabbit Problem (2009) was based in Fibonacci’s approach and used
when practising the problem solving by using a table. Literature often offers an
excellent context to bring abstract and complicated concepts closer to real-world
situations. The following Figure 1 shortly illustrates the keys which were chosen as a
focus area in this study, and some prompts, which were presented in guiding the
learning processes.

Figure 1. Examples of Problem-solving Keys and prompts presented to students.

In addition to the keys described in Figure 1, students had three additional keys,
which were called “When I’m stuck” -keys:

120
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

• Read the task again,

• Guess and check,
• Solve part of the problem.

These ideas often enabled either using other heuristics or continuing with other
steps in the process. Key called “Solve part of the problem” turned out to be well used.
Breaking the problem down into more approachable steps and solving even a small
part of the problem opened new insights on how to proceed in tasks. The notion is not
new: Duncker (1945, p. 8) linked “reformulation of the original problem” as one of the
important characteristics in the problem-solving process and referred to this
reformulation as a step or phase on a path towards solution. As Kilpatrick (2016, p.
45) points out, it might be easier to solve the problem if it is broken into smaller pieces
or modified into another form.
It is important that teachers value attempts for intuitive problem-solving methods
and will be able to guide the student forward. Children often use everyday logic and
apply that also to mathematical problems. They can be invited to justify their thinking
and invent proofs for their ideas. Later students should learn about mathematical
proof and formalities. They need to recognise that there is a difference between a
guess, a conjecture, and a proven assertion. It is important to encourage students to
wonder why things are as they are and guide them in providing a logical chain of
reasons as the explanation. (Goldenberg et al., 2003, p. 24.) An educated guess differs
from a random guess by its metacognitive aspects. True mathematical problem
solving is challenging, but at the same time rewarding for both students and the
teacher, as Schoenfeld (1992, p. 354) points out.
Students benefit from having opportunities to explain their thinking not only by
using mathematical language, but also pictorial and natural language: possibilities to
draw and write during the problem-solving process may strengthen the
understanding of mathematical concepts and contribute to mathematical thinking
skills (Joutsenlahti & Kulju, 2017). Open-ended problems or planted error tasks are
excellent domains for developing students’ skills in negotiating and articulating their
mathematical ideas to others. According to D’Ambrosio and Prevost (2008, p. 276)
“all contributions should be valued and respected“. By assessing students’ solution
methods, also the self-generated ones, teachers can correct the ones which are
mathematically acceptable, or guide students forward in partially constructed
explanations. Classroom discussions provide crucial information on students’
understanding on topic and problem-solving processes. Effective teaching includes

121
 LUMAT

listening to students’ ideas and explanations and using that information as a guide in
making decisions on instruction (e.g. Lester, 2013; Ivars et al. 2020; Shaughnessy et
al., 2021). These views were at the centre point of the study, because a variety of out-
of-the-textbook problems enabled interesting mathematical discussions in the
classroom. Conversations were emphasized as important steps in learning problem-
solving. Students were advised and expected to show their thinking in tasks by writing
down the calculations or drawing the stages in solving the problem in a
mathematically understandable way. That can be surprisingly difficult even for the
10-12-year-old students, who have already attended several mathematics lessons per
week for multiple years.

4 Mapping the problem-solving skills

4.1 Data collection instruments

Students’ performance was assessed by individually completed paper-and-pencil

tests, which were taken in the beginning and in the end of fifth grade. Tasks included
different types of proportional reasoning problems and are presented in more detail
in Table 1 and Table 2. Students had a 45-minute lesson to complete the pre- and post-
tests, but most of them used 20-30 minutes for tasks.
Multiple-choice questions 1-5 and 8 represented typical comparison problems, in
which students needed to determine the relationship(s) of two or more ratios, for
example by judging whether one ratio is greater or less than the other one(s) or are
they equal. In task three with mixtures two of the given ratios were similar. The
rationale for having two equivalent ratios in the task was to map whether students
were favouring one of the choices over the other, in this case whether they took the
first choice, 2:4 or rather chose 1:2, which is used in several everyday contexts.

122
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

Table 1. Proportional reasoning tasks with ratios (multiple-choice questions)

Item Description Context and

source

1. Mum is making lemon tea. She mixes tea and sugar in a jug. Comparing ratios
Lemon tea in mixtures
Which one tastes the most sweet? Choose. (qualitative
1 glass of tea and 1 spoon of sugar comparison),
4 glasses of tea and 4 spoons of sugar adapted from
1 glass of tea and 3 spoons of sugar Noelting (1980)
and Kaput and
2. Which one tastes the most sweet? Choose. West (1994)
Lemon tea 1 glass of tea and 2 spoons of sugar
2 glasses of tea and 2 spoons of sugar
2 glasses of tea and 1 spoon of sugar

3. Which one tastes the most sweet? Choose.

Lemon tea 2 glasses of tea and 3 spoons of sugar
1 glass of tea and 2 spoons of sugar
2 glasses of tea and 3 spoons of sugar

4. Which one tastes the most sweet? Choose.

Lemon tea 2 glasses of tea and 3 spoons of sugar
1 glass of tea and 2 spoons of sugar
1 glass of tea and 3 spoons of sugar

5. Which one tastes the most sweet? Choose.

Lemon tea 6 glasses of tea and 3 spoons of sugar
5 glass of tea and 2 spoons of sugar
5 glasses of tea and 3 spoons of sugar

8. Paint- Green paint is made by mixing two buckets of blue paint and three Comparing ratios
mixture buckets of yellow paint. The painter needs to get more paint. How (quantitative
many buckets of blue and yellow paint does he need to get the comparison),
exactly same shade of green? Choose one option. similarity,
3 buckets of blue and 4 buckets of yellow paint adapted from
4 buckets of blue and 6 buckets of yellow paint Tourniaire
5 buckets of blue and 6 buckets of yellow paint (1986)
6 buckets of blue and 8 buckets of yellow paint

Tasks 6A, 6B, 7 and 9 required proportional reasoning with ratios, inverse
proportionality or similarity of mixtures. Students were explicitly asked to record
their thinking in these tasks and explain their problem-solving processes by
mathematical, pictorial and/or natural language in written form.

123
 LUMAT

Table 2. Tasks used in assessing strategies: Proportional reasoning tasks with ratios, inverse proportionality
or similarity of mixtures

Item Description Context and

source

6A. Students are building geometric shapes. They make two similar Determining a
Rectangles rectangles and triangles by using short and long sticks. missing value with
continuous ratio-
How many sticks do they need in x? preserving,
geometric
similarity, idea
adapted from Mr.
Tall and Mr. Small
tasks by Karplus et
al. (1974), Lamon
6B. How many sticks do they need in x? (1993) and
Triangles research by Son
(2013)

7. Six painters paint a house in three days. If they all work at the same Inverse
Painters speed, how many painters would be needed to paint the same proportionality,
house in one day? item was created
for this research

9. Paint- Orange paint is made by mixing four buckets of yellow paint and one Comparing ratios
mixture bucket of red paint. To get exactly the same shade of orange, how (quantitative
many buckets of red would the painter need to mix to six buckets of comparison),
yellow? similarity, adapted
from Tourniaire
(1986)

Timing of pre-test was before students were introduced Problem-solving Keys,

and therefore they were not used while solving the items. Post-test was in the end of
the school year and students were allowed to use their “key chain”, if they wished, in
a similar way they could during the ordinary mathematical tests as well. None of the
students felt that they needed the Problem-solving Keys at the post-test in June. The
aim of this study was not to map the role or usage of these tools for heuristics but
would be another interesting viewpoint for the future research (see Herold-Blasius,
2021). Problem-solving Keys were on a very important role when teaching different

124
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

ways to approach a wide variety of non-routine mathematical problems especially

during the autumn semester.

4.2 Data analysis

First, students’ overall test performance in tasks 1-9 was assessed by awarding points
on correct and erroneous answers, but also on intermediate steps towards correct
explanation. In multiple choice items 1-5 and 8, students received 1 point for a correct
answer and 0 points for an erroneous one. In item 3, students were expected to choose
both options A and B to gain 1 point, and 0,5 points were given, if they chose either A
or B. Maximum points for multiple choice questions were 6. In items 6A, 6B, 7 and 9
students were expected to explain their thinking, and their answers were serving as a
base for building a framework for correct and erroneous strategies from intuitive to
more sophisticated ones. Maximum points for these items were 2 points for each. The
in-between marks were the following:

• 0 points: erroneous explanation and/or answer, or no answer provided

• 0,5 points: some explanation towards correct answer provided, answer
incorrect
• 1 point: no explanation provided, answer correct
• 1,5 points: some explanation provided, answer correct
• 2 points: correct explanation provided, answer correct.

With this grading, it was possible to gain a maximum of 8 points in items 6A, 6B,
7 and 9. This approach was close to rating used in school mathematics tests for this
age group, and took also the partially correct answers into account. Numerical scores
were used as indicators of overall performance and possible development between
pre- and post-tests. Maximum points for the whole test were 14.
Exploring and mapping the strategies that students used in task began by
dismantling the data (students’ responses in items 6A, 6B, 7 and 9). This was done on
a detailed level by creating codes based on how students justified their thinking and
explained it by using numbers, drawings or written explanations. Coding was
concluded with Grounded Theory methods, which provide systematic, yet flexible
guidelines for collecting and analysing data (Charmaz, 2014; Birks & Mills, 2015;
Chun Tie et al., 2019). Written explanations were worked through in three phases of
analysis (Charmaz, 2014), and the framework for coding was created by classifying
similar responses to sub-categories (focused coding phase) and core categories

125
 LUMAT

(theoretical coding phase). This scheme was used as the analytical tool to assess the
strategies that students used in solving tasks and on the other hand, as an indicator
on whether the teaching approach provoked a shift from intuitive to more
sophisticated heuristics linked to proportional reasoning.
Table 3 illustrates students’ correct answers in Task 6A, and how they were
grouped as sub-categories during the focused coding phase.

Table 3. Dismantling the data during the initial coding phase and sub-categories in focused coding phase:
example from correct approaches in Task 6A
Initial coding phase: observable behaviour Focused coding phase: sub-category
Student understands that the long side on the Demonstration of relative thinking between given
second rectangle is “three times longer” than the quantities but failing to provide mathematically
corresponding side on the first rectangle. understandable explanations.
Demonstrates thinking by addition: 20+20+20=60
and 15+15+15=45, but cannot clearly explain
where ”three times” comes from.
Student understands that 20 long sticks = 60 short
sticks by comparing corresponding parts but
cannot explain how he/she gets x=45.
Student calculates the ratio between the sides of Demonstration of relative thinking between
the first rectangle and applies the same logic to quantities e.g. by using ratio as a unit in
another picture. calculations, but not necessarily able to create
Student calculates that on the first rectangle the generalisable formulas.
vertical side is ¾ of the horizontal side and applies
the logic to the second rectangle to determine x
(for example by deducting ¼ from 60).
Student understands that long sticks are three
times longer than short sticks, and is able to utilize
the knowledge to solve missing value x.
Student works with both rectangles simultaneously Use of formal operations based on ratio or use of a
by using the ratio 3:4 to solve the missing value certain algorithm, such as cross-multiplication or
(ability to form generalisable calculations). “rule of three”.
Student uses a formula, such as a cross-
multiplication algorithm, “rule of three” or
equivalent to solve the task.

Consistency for the coding scheme was ensured by comparing the original data in
several phases of the coding by student to another student, student’s answer to
anticipated strategy and strategy by strategy. This involved repeated visits to original
answers to ensure that they were understood and interpreted correctly. Final scheme
for coding can be found in Appendix 1.

126
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

5 Results

5.1 Performance in tasks

Tasks 1-5 and 8 were multiple choice mixture tasks, and even though the student’s
choice of option could give some indication on solution strategy as well, this report
focuses on analysis and classification of solution approaches in tasks 6A, 6B, 7 and 9.
Students’ performance in tests provided insights on whether the teaching
approach, which focused on mathematical problem-solving, improved students’
general skills in solving also proportional reasoning tasks. In the beginning of fifth
grade, the mean for total score in the proportional reasoning test was 6,1 points (SD
2,5 p.). Boys (N=12) performed better than girls, their mean being 6,5 points (SD 2,1
p., minimum 3,5 p. and maximum 11 p.), whereas girls (N=12, one being absent) had
a mean of 5,5 points (SD 2,9 p., minimum 0,5 p. and maximum 12 p.).
After getting familiar with a variety of different heuristics (but not explicitly
algorithms) for solving mathematical problems, the post-test in June indicated
positive results: the mean score of students had risen to 8,9 points (SD 3,6 p.). It was
interesting to notice that this time girls performed better than boys. Female students’
mean had risen from pre-tests’ 5,5 points to 9,3 points (SD 3,3 p., min. 5 p. and max.
13,5 p.). Male students also improved their performance: in the pre-test they had a
mean of 6,5 points and in the post-test 8,4 points (SD 4 p., min. 0,5 p., max. 13,5 p.).
Development of total points is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Total points in pre- and post-tests.

127
 LUMAT

The following Figure 3 visualises individual students’ performance. Blue marks

indicate an individual’s total points in the beginning of the fifth grade, whereas orange
marks are for post-test points in the end of the school year. Development of skills was
visible especially among those students, who in the pre-test scored below the average
points, but it seems that the intervention had a positive influence on skills of almost
all students 1.

Figure 3. Development of total points by individual students in problem-solving

pre-test in August and post-test in July.

Difficulty of tasks is often linked to the number structure and numerical

complexity. For example, mathematical problems with small, integer ratios are easier
than tasks with non-integer ratios (e.g. Tourniaire, 1986). For assessing the difficulty
of items, students’ answers were combined with a larger set of data from Finnish fifth
graders’, which completed the same test. Difficulty of items was done by assessing
frequencies of correct and erroneous answers by 95 students. Items in the test sheets

1
Student number 24 was absent during pre-test tasks 7-9 and the total points are not calculated. In the post-test,
student 1 did not answer any of the questions 6-9, which affected the final score. Student 11 left several tasks
unanswered, or it was not possible to determine the answer.

128
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

were designed to get gradually more challenging, but it seems that the difficulty of
items in this test did not match students’ skills and therefore the interpretations on
students’ performance need to be addressed with reservations. Tasks 1-5 were too easy
for fifth graders, and on the other hand the success rate in tasks 6A, 6B and 9 was 20-
28%. With this setting, the difficulty of task 7 was fairly ideal (success rate 58%) and
task 8 was almost too difficult. If the results of the post-test would be considered, too
difficult items would appear to be more ideal also in tasks, which required skills to
explain reasoning.
Results indicate that there was no significant improvement in how students
performed in multiple-choice mixture tasks in pre- and post-tests. High success rates
suggest that tasks 1-5 were easy for fifth graders at the first place. Development of
skills is visible in more difficult tasks 6, 7, 8 and 9, which are discussed in more detail
in Chapter 5.2. These results indicate that the teaching approach with a focus on
problem-solving may have had a positive influence on students’ abilities to solve tasks,
which require proportional reasoning skills.
Mathematical problems were usually not presented in a written form in a similar
way as typical word problems in mathematics books. Students did not get any extra
training in solving word problems and therefore the development of skills cannot be
explained by them getting more fluent in solving mathematical problems presented
in written form. A table describing students’ ability to solve tasks correctly can be
accessed in Appendix 2 and will be discussed task by task in the next sub-chapter.

5.2 Strategies in tasks

One of the aims of the study was to find out if teaching approach, which offered tools
for heuristics, improved students’ skills in explaining their thinking in mathematical
tasks. In addition to getting familiar with problem-solving techniques, the practical
aim for the intervention was to build up students’ mathematical self-confidence so
that they would become active in describing their problem-solving processes.
Questions 6A, 6B, 7 and 9 were assessed as indicators, if students were able to give an
understandable explanation on how they processed the task. Informal techniques and
strategies provided an insight on how students understood problem-solving concepts
and were able to progress even in an unfamiliar type of a problem. Explanations and
heuristics were also assessed to see if there were differences in students’ use of correct
and erroneous strategies between the pre-test and the post-test.

129
 LUMAT

In the beginning of fifth grade, students had major difficulties in describing their
problem-solving path and often left the explanation completely out. Teaching
approach, which encouraged students to describe their thinking even with partially
complete explanations and solving problems one step after another, seemed to have a
positive impact on their performance during the later phases of the academic year.

5.2.1 Task 6A: Rectangles

Tasks 6A and 6B represented typical proportional reasoning problems with a missing
value. According to Karplus et al. (1983, p. 21), these types of problems involve
“reasoning in a system of two variables between which there exists a linear functional
relationship”. To maintain proportional values, students carry out parallel
transformations within or between variables (Son, 2013). The relation between
quantities is invariant, whereas the quantities in the problem co-vary.
In task 6A, a correct approach required the ability to compare corresponding parts
between two rectangles. 17 students (68%) provided an answer to the question 6A,
and six students (24%) were able to solve the task correctly. 10 students out of 17 were
able to explain their solution process, whether the answer was erroneous or correct.
Almost a quarter of all students (N=6) were skilled enough to explain their thinking
with the correct approach. Seven students provided an answer but did not explain how
they ended up in that. Eight students (32%) did not answer the question at all.
It appears that the problem-based teaching approach had a positive impact on
students’ skills: in the post-test 92% of students (N=23) answered the question and
68% (N=17) were able to provide a correct answer. 20 students out of 23, who
answered the question, were able to explain their thinking in written form. Almost a
half (N=12) of all students in the post-test approached the task with the correct
strategy. Only three students answered the question but did not explain their thinking
and two students (8%) did not answer the question at all.
In pre-test 16% (N=4) were able to implement a correct ratio or unit factor
approach in task 6A, demonstrating relative thinking between quantities in solving
the unknown quantity. In post-test the number of students using a correct strategy
had more than doubled, being 40% (N=10). Even though in many cases an
explanation for the solution process did not include all the mathematically correct
steps, students were demonstrating the understanding of long sticks being three times
longer than the short sticks.

130
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

During the pre-test, the most common erroneous strategy was additive reasoning
(16%, N=4). It was typical to focus on dimensions within one rectangle, for example
reasoning that because the difference between the sides of the first figure was five (20-
15=5), the same difference applies for the second figure (60-5=55). In some cases,
students calculated the perimeter of the first rectangle and tried to apply or modify
the logic to find the missing value in the second rectangle. In both examples students
failed to understand the relational nature of the task: if 20 long sticks equal the length
of 60 short sticks, the same ratio should be maintained with 15 long sticks and x short
sticks. According to the previous research, students often rely on additive strategies
also in multiplicative situations (e.g. Tourniaire & Pulos, 1985; Nunes & Bryant, 1996;
Van Dooren et al., 2010; Son, 2013). Still, it is not clear how students choose their
preferations between additive and multiplicative relations (Vanluydt et al., 2019).
Both approaches can be characterised as intuitive in nature, yet it is difficult to
verbally describe reasoning; the given explanations are not necessarily in line with
students’ actual solution processes (Degrande et al., 2020).
Distinguishing multiplicative missing value problems from additive ones is
challenging for students. Additive thinking is emphasized during the first years of
school and the transition towards multiplicative ideas is not always straightforward.
On the other hand, additive reasoning could support the development of
multiplicative reasoning. Yet, the shift from additive to multiplicative thinking
requires a qualitative change in thinking (e.g. Nunes & Bryant, 1996). In the beginning
of the fifth grade, only one student approached the problem via multiplicative
reasoning but ended up in an erroneous end-result. After the intervention, one fifth
(N=5) of students turned into this approach. Even though these solution attempts
were erroneous, they could be interpreted as a shift towards understanding the
relative nature of the task. A more detailed description on the range of strategies that
students used can be accessed in Appendix 3.
Development of solution approaches and possible shifts between the strategies
was visualised as individual students’ performance in tasks. In Figure 4, explanation
categories are presented in an order, which suggests a hierarchy from erroneous and
intuitive ones to more sophisticated and generalisable strategies. Light green area
marks correct approaches. Opaque fill-ins in pre- and post-test markers indicate that
the student was able to solve the task correctly.

131
 LUMAT

Figure 4. Individual students’ strategies in pre- and post-tests in task 6A.

Correct solution approaches were rare in the pre-test, even though the task was
relatively easy. In the end of the fifth school year the frequency for correct strategies
had increased and students were able to approach the task by correct ratio or unit
factor approach.

5.2.2 Task 6B: Triangles

Task 6B was more difficult than 6A. It would have been possible to solve the task only
by focusing on dimensions on one triangle and using Pythagorean theorem, but that
is a topic for Finnish secondary school curriculum and therefore not expected that any
of the students would use that algorithm. In the pre-test 16 students (64%) answered
task 6B and only two (8%) of them solved the task correctly. Seven students of 16
explained their thinking process in writing, but only one of them was able to choose a
correct strategy. Nine students gave an answer, but no explanation. Nine students
(36%) did not answer the question 6B in pre-test.
Before the intervention, students had difficulties in explaining their thinking, 72%
of students (N=18) either leaving the explanation out (N=9) or not answering the
question at all (N=9). By the end of the school year, the number of empty explanation
spaces (36%, N=9) had decreased to half, even though the task was challenging. In the

132
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

post-test 76% of students (N=19) answered the question and less than a quarter did
not (N=6). 48% (N=12) of students were able to provide a correct answer. The
majority, 16 students out of 19, tried to explain their thinking in a written form. Three
students answered the question but did not provide any insights on the solution
process. In the pre-test only one student was able to choose a correct strategy, but in
the post-test the number increased to seven students (37% of 19 students answering
this question). This was quite an interesting finding, because students had not
encountered any similar mathematical problems during the academic year.
In the pre-test, only one student was able to explain thinking by demonstrating
mathematically correct reasoning. During the intervention the variety of correct
solution strategies increased. Students came to conclusions by additive reasoning or
more sophisticated multiplicative reasoning, and there were also some examples of
abilities to create correct, generalisable formulas to solve these types of problems.
None of the students solved the task by using ratio or unit factor.
Students often relied on erroneous intuitive strategies, such as trying to solve the
problem by random calculations on given numbers or basing the problem-solving
process on visual observations on given pictures, and not mathematically valid
concepts. The range of observable strategies in this task can be accessed in Appendix
3. Figure 5 illustrates the changes in used strategies that individual students had
between from the pre-test and to the post-test.

Figure 5. Individual students’ strategies in pre- and post-tests in task 6B.

133
 LUMAT

As one can see from Figure 5, task 6B was more difficult than 6A for this student
group. After the teaching experiment, successful students chose usually correct
additive or multiplicative reasoning, but many students left the explanation out still
during the post-test.

5.2.3 Task 7: Painters

Seventh task was based on inverse proportionality. Painting a house involved a
situation, in which the time spent on painting was reduced from three days to one day,
and students were calculating the number of people needed in painting work. In this
task, it was crucial to understand that it would take three times as many painters to
complete the work in 1/3 of the time. The analysis of students’ responses raised a
question, whether many of them solved the task correctly without really
understanding the concept. Due to the numerical structure in this task, it was possible
to end up in a correct answer of 18 painters by simply multiplying the word problems’
given numbers, six and three.
67% (N=16) of students in the pre-test solved the problem correctly, and in the
post-test the frequency had increased to 80% (N=20). Only one student in both tests
did not answer the question at all. In the pre-test 70% of students (N=16) who
answered the questions also explained their thinking, but only one of them was able
to choose a correct strategy. In the post-test 24 out of 25 students gave an explanation
on their solution process, and at that point 83% (N=20) of them used the correct
approach. In the post-test none of them left the explanation slot empty. High success
rates in all student groups are possibly linked also to the possible bias caused by the
number structure. Majority of students based their explanation on this particular task
simply stating 3x6=18 but did not provide any additional information on how they
were thinking, or where the numbers came from. Only a few of the participants with
correct answers were able to express that they understood the concept instead of
performing a random calculation. They, for example, reasoned the number of painters
by building up or scaling down with the figures (e.g., 6 painters=3 days, 12 painters=2
days, 18 painters=1 day) or used the addition or multiplication, but were rarely able
to justify, why they chose certain procedures. Even though multiplicative reasoning
was the most common correct strategy, it is difficult to assess whether the concept of
inverse proportionality was really understood. Range of strategies in task 7 can be
accessed in Appendix 4 and development of strategies between pre- and post-tests in
Figure 6.

134
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

Figure 6. Individual students’ strategies in pre- and post-tests in task 7.

It is likely that the wording and the number structure of this task also guided the
choice of erroneous approaches: students often relied on erroneous multiplicative
reasoning, which was the most common erroneous strategy. To map the real
understanding of inverse proportionality, the task could be worded for example by
“Two painters paint the house in three days. If they all work at the same speed, how
many painters would be needed to paint the same house in two days?” In this case,
multiplying two by three would not result in a correct answer.

5.2.4 Task 9: Paint-mixtures

Task 9 was a mixture task, in which students had to maintain the same ratio of paint
buckets per mixture to determine the missing value (number of red paint buckets) for
the similar mixture. This was a difficult test item for fifth graders, but on the other
hand, provided interesting insights on students’ development of problem-solving
skills.
During the pre-test 29% of students (N=7) did not answer the question at all,
whereas the percentage in the comparison group was lower, 14% (N=7). In the post-
test, only two students did not answer the question and in both cases, they expressed
their unwillingness to engage with the task at all.

135
 LUMAT

17% of students (N=4) had a correct answer in pre-test, but clearly struggled in
providing explanations on their reasoning processes: 12 out of 17 students, who
answered the question, left the explanation out. Only one student was able to choose
the correct strategy in this task, the other four relied on erroneous approaches. Post-
test results indicated significant improvement. 52% of students (N=13) ended up with
a correct answer, and 10 out of 23 students answering this question also described
their thinking with a correct strategy.
When having a closer look on strategies that students used, in the pre-test only
one student was able to provide an explanation while solving the problem correctly,
turning into a building-up strategy. Development of skills was visible in the post-test:
more students were able to not only explain their correct problem-solving process, but
also use a more sophisticated strategy by working with the ratio. Even though students
did not necessarily have skills to explain thinking with mathematically valid
expressions, they became more confident in using different strategies. Figure 7
illustrates the ratio approach, in which student proceeds one step at the time. In this
example, the student correctly reasons that because there is one red paint bucket in
every four yellow paint buckets, you need to add 1,5 buckets of red to six buckets of
yellow.

Figure 7. Correct example in item 9 (student 42159 in post-test).

During the pre-test, only one of the students was able to provide a correct
explanation for the task, working with building-up strategy. In the end of the school
year there were indications on improved skills of explaining thinking also visible: 32%
(N=8) utilised either building-up or scaling-down strategy, ratio or unit factor
approach (the most common) or even correct formal operations with generalisable
formulas. In the post-test, five students (20%) were able to work through the task by
expressing that for every two buckets of yellow you need 0,5 buckets of red paint.
54% (N=13) of students gave an erroneous answer in the pre-test. Three students
relied on multiplicative reasoning but failed to understand the relative nature of the

136
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

task. They multiplied the given amounts of yellow paint, 6x4=24 or only stated
“Calculated by multiplication”, without providing a more detailed explanation.
During the post-test the most common erroneous strategy was additive reasoning.
24% (N=6) of students chose that strategy. They often based their reasoning on the
idea that “you need three more yellow than red”, focusing on the difference between
the given numbers in the original paint mixture and ignoring the need to maintain the
same relationship for the second paint. More detailed frequencies for the strategies
visible in task 9 can be accessed in Appendix 4.

Figure 8. Individual students’ strategies in pre- and post-tests in task 9.

Assessing and classifying students’ strategies was not always straightforward. For
example, student could state that multiplication was needed, but on the other hand,
relied on additive reasoning when providing an answer: “Because in the beginning
you needed three more yellow buckets than red buckets, so you just need to multiply
it”, providing three as an answer.

137
 LUMAT

5.2.5 Students with the lowest and highest points

To have a closer look on possible development of strategies of so-called low- and high-
performing students, the performance of three students with lowest points and four
students with the highest points in the pre-test were considered. Three low-
performing students gained a maximum of 3,5 points in the pre-test and four high-
performing students 8,5-12 points (for the overview of students’ performance, see
Figure 3).

Figure 9. Development of strategies of three students scoring the lowest points in pre-test.

These three students tended to leave the answers completely out in the beginning
of the fifth grade. By the end of the fifth grade, frequencies for solving the tasks
correctly increased. With some individuals the difference was remarkable: for
example, student 7 got correct answers in the post-test, but would still have needed a
bit of support in explaining thinking (see Figure 9). After the problem-based teaching
period, students were more willing to engage in attempts to solve mathematical
problems, even though the strategies might not have been valid. With a correctly

138
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

timed intervention the teacher has a change to support the shift from erroneous
strategies to correct ones.
If lacking the skills to explain thinking with mathematically correct processes,
students often started to explore the dimensions between the given values by
implementing intuitive methods. Consider the explanation in Figure 10 that student
22 gave in Task 6B: the answer was correct 40 sticks, and in this case, the student
seemed to calculate the solution by exploring the given values and their relationships
within the first triangle. This student calculated the difference between the
hypotenuse and opposite side is multiplied by two to get the adjacent side.

Figure 10. It was not uncommon that the answers were correct,
but not necessarily based on generalisable ideas.

In these kinds of examples, which are very common in primary school, students
would benefit from opportunities to discuss their ideas with the teacher or with a peer;
what is the purpose of short and long sticks in this task, and how should that
information guide the solution process? If the strategy works with the given values,
can that be generalised to all triangles with a 90-degree angle? How about all types of
triangles?
Findings of the study indicated that especially students with lower points
benefited from exploring different problems and heuristics to approach them.
Students with high points in the pre-test were able to develop their skills in explaining
their ideas and on the other hand, to move towards more advanced strategies (see
Figure 11).

139
 LUMAT

Figure 11. Development of strategies of four students scoring the highest points in pre-test.

Problem-oriented teaching approach, which emphasized the importance of

discussing and explaining ideas, no matter even if they are just partially constructed
or immature, seemed to have a positive influence on how students communicated
their thinking in written tasks. By the end of the school year there was a significant
improvement on students’ reasoning skills, use of heuristics and abilities to explain
their thinking. Some limitations on these observations needs to be addressed: with
this research design, it is not possible to assess, whether the skills would have been
improved by more traditional teaching approach as well. Another challenge is linked
to the test items: several of them appeared to be too easy for Finnish students and
tasks were completed in a shorter time than expected. A test with a wider variety of
difficulty and more items would provide more reliable information on possible
development of skills and strategies.

6 Discussion

The study focused on exploring whether students benefitted from a problem-solving

focused teaching approach, which introduced them to a general set of heuristics as a
concrete tool called Problem-solving Keys. This tool worked as visual reminders of a
variety of generalisable approaches for mathematical problems. The study aimed to

140
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

explore whether this kind of an active, heuristics-based teaching approach would

improve fifth graders’ performance and use of strategies and develop students' skills
in explaining their thinking in mathematical tasks.
The analysis indicated that skills to explain thinking improved. Before the
intervention, students generally relied on intuitive strategies or opted to leave the
justification completely out. After getting familiar with concrete tools for general
heuristics, students became more confident in expressing their ideas and justifying
their strategies and were also willing to help the others by explaining solution
methods. Mathematical discourse helps students not only to develop their
understanding of mathematical ideas, but also to build a personal relationship with
mathematics on an emotional level (D’Ambrosio & Prevost, 2008). After the
intervention students’ variety of heuristics increased and they were able to choose
more sophisticated ones when solving different tasks. This can be interpreted as a
positive development. This development was visible also in situations, in which the
student still worked by implementing an erroneous strategy: in many cases, there was
a shift from an intuitive approach towards a more sophisticated, yet erroneous
approach. For example, an ability to base decisions on multiplication and
demonstrate some understanding of the relative nature of the task can be interpreted
as a step towards proportional reasoning, even though the student would not be able
to expand the idea to cover the whole concept on a certain task. Findings of this study
suggests that also the erroneous approaches can be viewed as hierarchical steps
towards more sophisticated skills and correct reasoning. Teacher has a crucial role in
recognising these small steps, for example student’s transition from erroneous
intuitive approaches (for example drawing) towards additive and multiplicative
reasoning and emerging skills in understanding relational nature of proportional
reasoning tasks.
In Polya’s model (1945/1973), the last phase of “looking back” provides
opportunities to assess and discuss ideas that emerged during the problem-solving
process. This research underlines the importance of discussing different approaches
and heuristics already during the earlier phases of problem-solving. This increases
students’ confidence in presenting also the partially correct ideas, which can be seen
as steps forwards. Teacher’s role is to make sure that students are not left with the
impression that any answer is mathematically valid, and to guide them towards
correct methods and mathematically correct language.

141
 LUMAT

By teaching heuristics, students learn to solve complex word problems, reason

mathematically in everyday situations and develop their thinking skills. Heuristics
should be understood as general guidelines, methods, or possibilities to approach a
diverse set of mathematical problems. Still, learning heuristics does not alone help
students, and heuristics as such should not be reduced to learning certain techniques
or sets of algorithms to choose from. Learning to describe and justify thought
processes is equally important. It can be asked whether school mathematics in
primary schools supports students’ development in explaining their thinking, or is the
focus still on finding the correct answer? This is problematic when considering the
transition to secondary school, where students are expected to be able to explain their
thinking by using mathematical language. Teaching approach, which guides students
in justifying their ideas by using various methods, develops mathematical problem-
solving skills and creates an excellent foundation for learning more complex
mathematical concepts. Classroom discussions enable the teacher to make decisions
on which state students benefit from teacher’s guidance, and when it is more fruitful
to let them find out the solution by themselves.
A few limitations of this study need to be addressed. The data for this research was
collected from one sub-urban, monolingual primary school in Northern Finland. With
a larger sample from Finnish schools, it would have been possible to gain more
generalisable results on whether the students’ performance and use of certain
strategies would follow similar trends in schools in different areas. Another limitation
is linked to the development of problem-solving skills and the possible effect that the
teaching approach had on the results: it would have been beneficial to have the same
pretest-posttest setting with a group of students without the intervention. At the point
of implementing the teaching approach and collecting the data, this was not the main
focus of the research, but the aim was to develop and assess the heuristics-based
teaching approach, practicing teacher being also the researcher (e.g. Niemi & Nevgi,
2014). Further research is needed to understand the natural development of problem-
solving skills and strategies, and whether and what kind of “out-of-the-textbook”
approaches in mathematics classrooms could enhance these skills.
Students should be provided rich mathematical problems and taught a variety of
problem-solving heuristics to tackle the demands of the 21st century. Mathematics
should work as a tool, which would help in facing everyday situations. Even though
not everyone becomes a mathematician, students’ fluency as mathematical thinkers
and problem solvers can be supported by paying attention in developing their skills

142
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

already in primary school. Mathematics curriculum in Finland offers flexibility to shift

from arithmetic “fill-in-the-book” exercises towards a meaningful problem-solving
teaching approach. Teaching mathematics through problem-solving provides
opportunities to develop a wide variety of problem-solving strategies and heuristics.
Problem-solving Keys are one easily accessible tool to enhance these skills.

Acknowledgements

Strategy Keys as concrete tools were first introduced to the author by Raja Herold-
Blasius in 2015 at the Joint Conference of ProMath and the GDM Working Group of
Problem Solving in Halle, Germany. Thank you for the idea.

References
Baxter, G. P. & Junker, B. (2001). Designing Cognitive-Developmental Assessments: A Case Study
in Proportional Reasoning. In National Council for Measurement in Education. Washington.
Birks, M. & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: a practical guide (2nd Ed.). Sage.
Bruder, R. & Collet, C. (2011). Problemlösen lernen im Mathematikunterricht. Cornelsen Verlag.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd Ed). Sage.
Christou, C. & Philippou, G. (2002). Mapping and development of intuitive proportional
thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(3), 321-336.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00077-9
Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M. & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for
novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927
D'Ambrosio, B. S. & Prevost, F. J. (2008). Highlighting the humanistic dimensions of mathematics
activity through classroom discourse. In P. C. Elliott. & C. M. E. Garnett (Eds.), Getting into
the mathematics conversation: valuing communication in mathematics classrooms:
readings from NCMT's school-based journals (pp. 273-277). National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Degrande, T., Verschaffel, L. & Van Dooren, W. (2020). To add or to multiply in open problems?
Unraveling children’s relational preference using a mixed-method approach. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 104(3), 405-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09966-z
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i-113.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet
2004. Opetushallitus.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education
2014. Opetushallitus.
Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2003). Enhancing the mathematical problem solving of students with
mathematics disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of
learning disabilities (pp. 306-322). Guilford Press.
Fujimura, N. (2001). Facilitating Children's Proportional Reasoning: A Model of Reasoning
Processes and Effects of Intervention on Strategy Change. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(3), 589-603. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.589

143
 LUMAT

Gallagher Landi, M. A. (2001). Helping Students with Learning Disabilities Make Sense of Word
Problems. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37(1), 13-18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105345120103700103
Goldenberg, E. P., Shteingold, N. & Feurzeig, N. (2003). Mathematical habits of mind of young
children. In F. K. J. Lester (Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving:
Prekindergarten-Grade 6 (pp. 15-29). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Gravett, E. (2009). The Rabbit Problem. MacMillan Children's Books.
Grønmo, L. S., Lindquist, M., Arora, A. & Mullis, I. V. S. (2013). TIMSS 2015 Mathematics
Framework. In I. V. S. Mullis & M. O. Martin (Eds.), TIMSS 2015 assessment
frameworks (pp. 11-27). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of
Education, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA).
Hart, K. (1984). Ratio and proportion. In K. Hart, M. Brown, D. Kerslake, D. Küchemann & G.
Ruddock (Eds.), Chelsea Diagnostic Mathematics Test. Teacher's guide (pp. 93-100). NFER-
Nelson.
Herold-Blasius, R. (2021). Problemlösen mit Strategieschlüsseln. Eine explorative Studie zur
Unterstützung von Problembearbeitungsprozessen bei Dritt- und Viertklässlern. Springer
Spektrum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32292-2
Herold-Blasius, R. & Rott, B. (2016). Using strategy keys as tool to influence strategy behaviour. A
qualitative study. In T. Fritzlar, D. Assmus, K. Bräuning, A. Kuzle, & B. Rott (Eds.), Problem
solving in mathematics education (Vol. 6, pp. 137–147). VTM.
Hiebert, J. (2003). Signposts for teaching mathematics through problem solving. In F. K. J. Lester
(Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Prekindergarten-Grade 6 (pp. 53-
61). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Ivars, P., Fernández, C. & Llinares, S. (2020). A Learning Trajectory as a Scaffold for Pre-service
Teachers’ Noticing of Students’ Mathematical Understanding. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 18(3), 529-548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-
09973-4
Joutsenlahti, J. & Kulju, P. (2017). Multimodal Languaging as a Pedagogical Model—A Case Study
of the Concept of Division in School Mathematics. Education Sciences, 7(1),
9. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010009
Kaitera, S. (2021). Mathematical problem-solving keys. Library of Open Educational Resources.
https://aoe.fi/#/materiaali/1685
Kaput, J. J. & West, M. M. (1994). Missing-value proportional reasoning problems: Factors
affecting informal reasoning patterns. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The Development of
Multiplicative Reasoning in the Learning of Mathematics (pp. 235–287). State University of
New York Press.
Karplus, E. F., Karplus, R. & Wollman, W. (1974). Intellectual Development Beyond Elementary
School IV: Ratio, The Influence of Cognitive Style. School Science and Mathematics, 74(6),
476-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1974.tb08937
Karplus, R., Pulos, S. & Stage, E. K. (1983). Early Adolescents' Proportional Reasoning on 'Rate'
Problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14(3), 219-233.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00410539
Kilpatrick, J. (2016). Reformulating: Approaching Mathematical Problem Solving as Inquiry. In P.
Felmer, E. Pehkonen & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Posing and Solving Mathematical Problems:
Advances and New Perspectives (pp. 69-82). Springer.
Lamon, S. (1993). Ratio and proportion: Children's cognitive and metacognitive processes. In T. P.
Carpenter, E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of
research (pp. 131-156). Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

144
 KAITERA & HARMOINEN (2022)

Lamon, S. (2012). Teaching Fractions and Ratios for Understanding. Essential Content
Knowledge and Instructional Strategies for Teachers (3rd Ed.). Routledge.
Lamon, S. J. (2007). Rational Numbers and Proportional Reasoning. Toward a Theoretical
Framework for Research. In F. Lester (Eds.), Second handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 629-668). Information Age Publishing.
Langrall, C. W. & Swafford, J. (2000). Three balloons for two dollars: Developing proportional
reasoning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6, 254–261.
Leighton, J. P. (2004). Defining and describing reason. In J. P. Leighton & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
The nature of reasoning (pp. 3–11). Cambridge University Press.
Lesh, R., Post, T. & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional Reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr
(Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 93-118). Lawrence
Erlbaum & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lester, F. K. (2003). Preface. In F. Lester (Eds.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving:
Prekindergarten-Grade 6 (pp. ix-xvi). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lester, F. K. J. (2013). Thoughts about research on Mathematical problem-solving instruction. The
Mathematics Enthusiast, 10 (1-2), 245-278. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1267
Leppäaho, H. (2018). Ongelmanratkaisun opettamisesta. In J. Joutsenlahti, H. Silfverberg, & P.
Räsänen (Eds.), Matematiikan opetus ja oppiminen (pp. 368–393). Niilo Mäki Instituutti.
Ministry of Education Singapore. (2012). Mathematics Syllabus 2013. Primary One to Six.
https://www.moe.gov.sg/-
/media/files/primary/mathematics_syllabus_primary_1_to_6.pdf?la=en&hash=B401E761C
0BFC490279883CCE4826924CD455F97
Misailidou, C. & Williams, J. (2003). Diagnostic assessment of children's proportional
reasoning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 335-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-
3123(03)00025-7
Näveri, L., Pehkonen, E., Ahtee, M., Hannula, M. S., Laine, A. & Heinilä, L. (2011). Finnish
elementary teachers’ espoused beliefs on mathematical problem solving. In MAVI-17
Conference, Bochum, Germany. (pp. 161-171).
Niemi, H. & Nevgi, A. (2014). Research studies and active learning promoting professional
competences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 131-
142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.006
Noelting, G. (1980). The Development of Proportional Reasoning and the Ratio Concept Part I -
Differentiation of Stages. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 11(2), 217-
253. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00304357
Nunes, T. & Bryant, P. (1996). Children doing mathematics. Wiley.
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: Creative Problem Solving. Students' skills in tackling real-life
problems. (Volume V). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264208070-en
Pehkonen, E., Näveri, L. & Laine, A. (2013). On Teaching Problem Solving in School
Mathematics. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(4), 9-23.
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University
Press.
Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd. edition). Princeton
University Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Smart technology for self-organizing processes. Smart
Learning Environments, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0001-8
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press.

145
 LUMAT

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and

sense- making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). MacMillan.
Sears, D. A., & Reagin, J. M. (2013). Individual versus collaborative problem solving: Divergent
outcomes depending on task complexity. Instructional Science, 41(6), 1153–1172.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9271-8
Shaughnessy, M., DeFino, R., Pfaff, E. & Blunk, M. (2021). I think I made a mistake: How do
prospective teachers elicit the thinking of a student who has made a mistake? Journal of
Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(4), 335-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-020-
09461-5
Son, J. (2013). How preservice teachers interpret and respond to student errors: ratio and
proportion in similar rectangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(1), 49-
70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9475-5
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S. & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating Productive
Mathematical Discussions: Five Practices for Helping Teachers Move Beyond Show and
Tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313-340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
Swanson, H. L., Lussier, C., & Orosco, M. (2013). Effects of cognitive strategy interventions and
cognitive moderators on word problem solving in children at risk for problem solving
difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28(4), 170–183.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12019
Tourniaire, F. (1986). Proportions in Elementary School. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 17(4), 401-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00311327
Tourniaire, F. & Pulos, S. (1985). Proportional Reasoning: A Review of the Literature. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 16(2), 181-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02400937
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D., Hessels, A., Janssens, D. & Verschaffel, L. (2005). Not Everything Is
Proportional: Effects of Age and Problem Type on Propensities for
Overgeneralization. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 57-
86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_3
Van Dooren, W., De Bock, D. & Verschaffel, L. (2010). From addition to multiplication … and back.
The development of students’ additive and multiplicative reasoning skills. Cognition and
Instruction, 28(3), 360-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2010.488306
Vanluydt, E., Degrande, T., Verschaffel, L. & Van Dooren, W. (2019). Early stages of proportional
reasoning: a cross-sectional study with 5- to 9-year-olds. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 35(3), 529-547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00434-8

146