Simulating Creative Reasoning in

Mathematics Teaching
Tomas Bergqvist and Johan Lithner

Research reports, No 2, 2005

in Mathematics Education

Simulating Creative Reasoning in

Mathematics Teaching
Tomas Bergqvist and Johan Lithner
Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to study how regular teaching simulates non-routine problem solving in the sense that the presented reasoning is creative and the conclusions are justified by explicit reference to mathematical properties of the components. In the
situations analysed this is sometimes the case, but in rather limited
and modest ways. The teaching is mainly focussed on presenting
algorithmic methods by solving routine tasks.

Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Quality in teaching
1.2. Observation of practice
1.3. Practice and change
1.4. Teacher - student interaction
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Creative reasoning
2.2. Imitative reasoning
2.3. Simulation of creative reasoning
2.4. Research question
3. Method
4. Data presentation and local analysis
4.1. Insufficient explanations
4.2. Solving equations: Presentation of algebraic rules
4.3. An inequality: Non-creative explanations
4.4. Finding Angles: Creative questions
4.5. Proving a theorem: Creative reasoning without reflections
5. Global analysis and results
5.1. Mathematical foundation
5.2. Creativity
1

2
3
4
5
5
6
6
8
10
11
12
12
13
15
16
18
20
22
22
23

5.3. Reflection
5.4. Focus
5.5. Summary
6. Discussion
References

23
24
24
25
26

1. Introduction
For several years the mathematics education community has been aware
of the difficulties in helping students to develop fundamental mathematical abilities like conceptual understanding, problem solving ability, critical
thinking, and creative reasoning. Mathematics is often reduced to a large
set of isolated incomprehensible facts and procedures to be memorised and
recalled at written tests. (Skemp, 1978) distinguishes between instrumental understanding and relational understanding of mathematical procedures. The former can be apprehended by a person as true (relational)
understanding, but is only the mastering of a rule or procedure without
any insight in the reasons that make it work. Other research has pointed
to the relation between weak conceptual understanding and a procedural
focus, e.g. Tirosh and Graeber (1990); Tall (1996); White and Mitchelmore
(1996).
Previous research, Lithner (2000a,b, 2003b) and Bergqvist et al. (2003),
on mathematical reasoning indicate that students often rely on non-creative
and mathematically superficial strategies when they meet problematic situations. The reasoning is dominated by what is remembered and familiar
rather than focusing on intrinsic properties of the mathematical objects.
In these studies it seemed like the students didnt hold the belief (see
Schoenfeld (1985) for a discussion about beliefs) that problematic situations could be solved with creative reasoning. Due to the astonishing
complexity of mathematical learning, as it is formulated by (Niss, 1999)
when summarising the results of research in mathematics education, many
factors will affect the ways that students learn to reason mathematically.
These include influences from school and from the individuals home and
community cultures Brenner (1998). Concerning research in both traditional and alternative classroom practices, (Hiebert, 2003) summarises the
baseline conclusion as students can learn what they have opportunity to
learn. So a crucial question arises: what opportunities do they have to
2

develop different forms of mathematical reasoning? In a series of studies

different parts of the learning environment are analysed, using the mathematical reasoning framework presented in Section 2 below. In Lithner
(2004) it was shown that a majority of items in calculus textbooks were
possible to solve with superficial reasoning, and in Lithner (2003b) that
students use such reasoning. In ongoing studies students seat-work and
course tests are analysed.
In this study we focus on the presentations made by teachers, and their
reasoning as apprehended by students. If we want to foster reflecting and
creative students, what kind of reasoning should they meet? In what ways
can the teachers provide this to the students? One possibility would be for
the teacher to present genuine problem solving on the black board. The
main objection to this is, of course, that a genuine problem to the teacher
is normally mathematically to difficult for most of the teachers students.
One alternative is to show the students a simulation of a solution of a
non-routine problem by reasoning as if it was the first time the teacher
solved it. The general research question of this paper is: In what ways
are simulations of creative reasoning utilised by the teachers as a means
to help students to learn mathematical problem solving?
In the Sections 1.1 to 1.4 other research on classroom practices will be
presented.
1.1. Quality in teaching. Analyses of quality in teaching has been
made by some researchers, often connected to implementation of changes.
(Artzt and Armour-Thomas, 1999) suggests a framework for examining
teachers instructional practice. The authors argue that the value of the
model lies in its usefulness when it comes to enabling teachers to reflect
over their own teaching. In the framework a lesson is divided into phases
and dimensions. The phases are the initiation, the development and the
closure of an instructional episode. within each of these three phases, instructional dimensions are examined. The dimensions are tasks, learning
environment and discourse. They are chosen since the NCTM Standards
NCTM (2000) suggests them as areas of instructional practice that might
foster learning with understanding, a central conception in this study.
Our research would in this framework partly concern the task -dimension
(i.e. sequencing and modes of representation), and partly the learning
environment-dimension (modes of instruction).
A similar framework is suggested by (Kahan et al., 2003). Their starting point is somewhat different in that they look at the importance of
3

teachers content knowledge in their teaching. The lessons are here divided into processes and elements. The authors argue that the difference
from (Artzt and Armour-Thomas, 1999) is that they identify teaching processes rather than phases. Processes can overlap and be ongoing, while
phases are temporal stages. The four processes are preparation, instruction, assessment and reflection. For each of these there are six elements
of teaching. The authors propose that by looking into several of the 24
cells, it is possible to reach a better founded conclusion concerning the
teachers mathematical content knowledge, but also concerning the pedagogical content knowledge. In relation to this framework, our research
questions would concern the mathematical development and sequencing
during instruction.
An other kind of structure in order to analyse how teachers develop a
concept in the classroom is proposed by (Bromme and Steinbring, 1994).
Starting from a model of communicated meaning, the meaning of meaning triangle, object - symbol - concept, they identify the extent to which
a concept is described using an object or using a symbol. The quality of
the teaching becomes higher if the teachers develop both sides of a concept, both the object and the symbol. The authors mean that even more
important for the quality of the teaching is how the teachers treat the
relationship between object and symbol.

1.2. Observation of practice. The difference in the structuring of a

lesson between expert and novice teachers has been examined by (Leinhardt and Greeno, 1986). The authors argue that teaching rest on two
fundamental systems of knowledge, lesson structure and subject matter
(p. 75). The study focus almost entirely on the lesson structure. The
main difference between expert and novice teachers found in the study was
that the experts both more flexible and more consistent in their structure.
More flexible in the sense that they quickly could change what routine
they would use, and more consistent in that the routines, once decided
upon, was well-practised and mutually known to both the teacher and the
students.
Teachers preferences of methods for problem solving was examined by
(Leikin, 2003). The results suggests that teachers choose different problem
solving strategies depending on the goal, whether it is to solve the problem,
to explain the problem, to teach the problem or a solution they like. One
interesting finding is that when the goal is to teach the problem, teachers
4

prefer a strategy which is more convincing, and not a strategy which makes
the problem easier to solve or easier to explain.
Observations of teachers practice can also be found in several other
studies. In (McDuffie, 2004) teachers reflective thinking were investigated
in relation to their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Teachers use
of manipulatives in teaching mathematics was looked upon by (Moyer,
2002), and teachers awareness and handling of the fact that students have
a tendency to finish algebraic expressions (3x + 2 = 5x) was examined by
(Tirosh et al., 1998).
1.3. Practice and change. Analyses of practice connected to changes
of some kind is also present in the research literature. (Simon and Tzur,
1999) propose a methodology for studying teachers development in relation to reform, creating accounts of practice, which can help researchers
to find the specific pedagogical problems related to teachers development
from traditional to reform teaching.
Results of specific inservice courses for teachers is also an important issue. Teachers change of practices as a result of a problem solving course
was analysed by (Chapman, 1999). A comparison of three groups of teachers, participating in different programmes for change was made by (Saxe
et al., 2001).
Observation as a means for implementing change has also been investigated. (Grant et al., 1998) found that teachers observing lessons performed by reform minded teachers is an effective approach, at least if the
observing teacher already has a vision or mental image of a better way to
teach. According to (Nilssen et al., 1998) observations in teacher education can be a way to improve the teacher students practice, but then it
is necessary to let the student discuss the observations with a mentor or
supervisor.
1.4. Teacher - student interaction. Communication in the classroom
is an interesting research focus. One example of a study in this area
is a case study by (Brendefur and Frykholm, 2000) They investigated
two novice teachers interest in and ability to use communication in the
classroom. They found that there was an interesting contrast between
the two teachers and their ability and willingness to implement various
forms of communication in the classroom (p. 144). One of them really
tried to give the students opportunities for communication, while the other
believed that instructions from the teacher was the best way to enable
student learning.
5

Two other examples are (Forster, 1999) and (Forster and Taylor, 2003),
where analysis of a teachers interaction with a student presented. In these
studies the teacher and researcher were the same person. In the study
by (Forster and Taylor, 2003), the goal was to identify communicative
competencies when the use of graphics calculators.

2. Theoretical framework
The framework is a summary of Lithner (2003a) which is a theoretical
structuring of the outcomes of a series of empirical studies (Section 1)
aiming at analysing characteristics the relation between reasoning types
and learning difficulties in mathematics.
2.1. Creative reasoning. Reasoning in this paper is the line of thought,
the way of thinking, adopted to produce assertions and reach conclusions.
It is not necessarily based on formal deductive logic, and may even be
incorrect as long as there are some kind of sensible (to the reasoner) arguments that guide the thinking. Argumentation is the substantiation,
the part of the reasoning that aims at convincing oneself, or someone else,
that the reasoning is appropriate. In particular, in a task solving situation, which is called problematic situation if it is not clear how to proceed,
two types of argumentation are central:
1) The strategy choice, where choice is seen in a wide sense (choose, recall, construct, discover, guess, etc.). This choice can be supported by
predictive argumentation: Will the strategy solve the difficulty?
2) The strategy implementation, which can be supported by verificative
argumentation: Did the strategy solve the difficulty?
In this paper, creative reasoning is seen as what you do when you solve
non-routine problems Schoenfeld (1985). According to (Haylock, 1997)
there are at least two major ways in which the term is used: i) Thinking
that is divergent and overcomes fixation. ii) The thinking behind a product that is perceived as creative by a large group of people, e.g. works of
arts. Central here are the creative aspects of ordinary mathematical task
solving thinking, thus notion ii) is not very useful here. (Haylock, 1997)
sees two types of fixation. Content universe fixation is in terms of range
of elements seen as appropriate for application to a given problem: useful knowledge is not seen as useful. Algorithmic fixation is shown in the
repeated use of an initially successful algorithm when this becomes inappropriate. (Silver, 1997) argues that Although creativity is being associated with the notion of genius or exceptional ability, it can be productive
6

for mathematics educators to view creativity instead as an orientation or

disposition toward mathematical activity that can be fostered broadly in
the general school population. He adds that students hardly experience
mathematics as the highly creative intellectual domain it is. Silver sees
fluency, flexibility and novelty as the core components of creativity.
In school tasks, one of the goals is also to achieve a high degree of certainty, but one crucial distinction from professional tasks is that within
the didactic contract Brousseau (1997) of school it is allowed to guess, to
take chances, and use ideas and reasoning that are not completely firmly
founded. Even in exams it is accepted to have only, for example, 50% of
the answers correct, while it is absurd if the mathematician, the engineer,
or the economist are correct only in 50% of their conclusions. This implies that it is allowed, and perhaps even encouraged, within school task
solving to use forms of mathematical reasoning with considerably reduced
requirements on logical rigour. (Polya, 1954) stresses the important role of
reasoning that is less strict than proof: In strict reasoning the principal
thing is to distinguish a proof from a guess, a valid demonstration from
an invalid attempt. In plausible reasoning the principal thing is to distinguish a guess from a guess, a more reasonable guess from a less reasonable
guess.
In this framework, well-founded arguments are anchored in intrinsic
properties of components involved in the reasoning. The components one
is reasoning about consist of objects, transformations, and concepts. The
object is the fundamental entity, the thing that one is doing something
with or the result of doing something. E.g. numbers, variables, functions,
graphs, diagrams, matrices, etc. A transformation is what is being done
to an object (or several), and the outcome is another object (or several).
Counting apples is a transformation applied to real-world objects and the
outcome is a number. To calculate a determinant is a transformation on a
matrix. A concept is a central mathematical idea built on a related set of
objects, transformations, and their properties. For example the concept of
function or the concept of infinity. Since a property of a component may
be more or less relevant in a particular context and problematic situation,
it is necessary to distinguish between intrinsic properties that are central
and surface properties that have no or little relevance. In deciding which
of the fractions 99/120 and 3/2 that is largest, the size of the numbers
(99, 120, 3, and 2) is a surface property that is insufficient to consider in
this particular task while the quotient captures the intrinsic property.

Creative reasoning (CR) fulfils the following conditions:

i) Novelty: A new (to the reasoner) sequence of solution reasoning is
created, or a forgotten sequence is re-created. To imitate an answer or a
solution procedure is not included in CR.
ii) Flexibility: It admits different approaches and adaptations to the
situation. It does not suffer from fixation that hinders the progress.
iii) Plausibility: There are reasons supporting the argumentation in the
strategy choice and/or strategy implementation, motivating why the conclusions are true or plausible. This means that pure guesses or vague
intuitions are not considered, neither are affective reasons.
iv) Mathematical foundation: The argumentation is founded on intrinsic mathematical properties of the components involved in the reasoning.
2.2. Imitative reasoning. More frequent than CR are different versions
of imitative reasoning, that is, copying or following a model or example
without any attempt at originality. (Hiebert, 2003) finds massive amounts
of converging data showing that students know some basic elementary
skills but there is not much depth and understanding. Students are more
proficient in processes like calculating, labelling, and defining then reasoning, communicating, conjecturing, and justifying. Learning difficulties
are partly related to a reduction of complexity that appears as a procedural focus on facts and algorithms and a lack of relational understanding
Lithner (2003a). The framework should also capture reasoning that is not
justified by mathematical reasons, but has other origins Vinner (1997).
The definitions below aims at characterising imitative reasoning that may
be based on surface clues in non- or semi-cognitive attempts to cope.
Memorised reasoning (MR) is when:
(i) The strategy choice is founded on recalling by memory an answer.
(ii) The strategy implementation consists only of writing it down. One can
describe any part of the answer without having considered the preceding
parts.
An example is to recall every step of a proof.
An algorithm is a set of rules that will if followed solve a particular task
type. The most common algorithms consist of procedures (sequences of
transformations of mathematical objects).

Algorithmic reasoning (AR) is when:

(i) The strategy choice is founded on recalling by memory, not the whole
answer in detail as in MR, but a set of rules that will guarantee that a
correct solution will be reached.
(ii) After this set of rules is given or recalled the reasoning parts that remain in the strategy implementation are trivial for the reasoner and only
a careless mistake can hinder that an answer to the task is reached.
Fundamental in AR is how to identify a suitable algorithm. If this can be
done, the rest is straightforward. AR based on surface property considerations is common, often dominating, and the studies mentioned in Section
1 have distinguished three (partly overlapping) families of common reasoning:
Familiar AR This reasoning consists of strategy choice attempts to identify a task as being of a familiar type and with a corresponding known
solution algorithm. The simplest example is a version of the Key word
strategy where the word more in a text task is connected to the addition
algorithm and less to subtraction Hegarty et al. (1995). Another example is in Lithner (2000a) where students make a holistic but superficial
interpretation of the task text and reach a clear but faulty image that it
is of a particular familiar type.
Delimiting AR The algorithm is chosen from a set of algorithms that are
available to the reasoner, and the set is delimited by the reasoner through
the included algorithms surface property relations to the task. E.g. if
the task contains a second degree polynomial the reasoner can chose to
solve the corresponding equation p(x) = 0 even if the task asks for the
maximum of the polynomial Bergqvist et al. (2003). Here, the reasoner
do not have to see the task as a familiar one.
Guided AR An individuals reasoning can be guided by a source external
to the task. The two main types empirically found are:
(i) Piloted reasoning, when someone (e.g. a teacher) pilots a students
solution.
(ii) Identification of similarities, where the strategy choice is founded on
identifying similar surface properties in an example, definition, theorem,
or some other situation in a text source connected to the task.

2.3. Simulation of creative reasoning. In order to capture the quality of the correlation between the simulated and the real situation, (Fitzpatrick and Morrison, 1971) uses the term representativeness which refers
to the combination of comprehensiveness and fidelity. Comprehensiveness
refers to the range of different aspects of the situation that are simulated and fidelity to the degree to which each aspect approximates a
fair representation of that aspect in the criterion situation. In order to
analyse whether the simulated problematic situation solution is of high
representativeness or not, it is tested against the following CR simulation
criteria:
1. Mathematical foundation: The reasoning is founded on intrinsic mathematical properties of the components involved in the reasoning, in the
same way as CR. This criteria is seen as fulfilled if the conclusions are
based on explicit considerations of relevant properties. The properties
need to be discussed, and this is often done in a form that is, or can be
reformulated as, the statement is true since the components has these
mathematical properties which has these consequences. If this is not
present, e.g. in a pure algorithmic description, then the criteria is seen as
not fulfilled.
2. Creativity: The reasoning is similar to CR in the sense that a new (to
the students) sequence of reasoning is created, that starts from a (simulated) problematic situation and, through explicit predictive argumentation that in advance supports the strategy choices, terminates in a conclusion. In the examples analysed in this study the CR criteria ii) is always
fulfilled since the teachers control over the reasoning guarantees that a
solution is reached without being hindered by fixations. The criterion is
not fulfilled if the reasoning starts with a conclusion that is afterwards
explained.
3. Reflection: Reflections and/or (simulated) uncertainty is present. In
routine task solving there is no uncertainty since the solver knows from
the start exactly what to do. In a real problematic situation, the strategy
choices are not all evident and metacognitive control Schoenfeld (1985)
may be required in the strategy implementation. This can appear as reflections, hesitations or openness for alternative solution strategies, e.g.
in the form of explicit strategy choice questions. It could also be fulfilled
by the presence of (simulated) mistakes. It is not fulfilled by questions
or mistakes that concern very local and elementary parts of algorithmic
procedures, e.g. asking what is 12/4? when using the standard formula
10

to solve a second degree equation.

4. Focus: The teachers main simulated problematic situations and solution goals are similar to the students. In some situations there is clear
evidence that the teachers (simulated) problematic situations differ from
the students, then the focus criteria is seen as not fulfilled. Another cause
of different focus may be that the teachers reasoning is unrealistic in the
sense that it is much too difficult or based on facts and knowledge that
is clearly not accessible to the students. If there are no indications of a
different focus, it is categorised as fulfilled.
The comprehensiveness, that the criteria are the proper ones, originates
from the CR definition (if not 1 and 2 are fulfilled there is no CR, and
from preliminary analyses of empirical data: 3 and 4 were found to be
the main additional aspects were low fidelity lead to simulations with low
representativeness. In analysing a specific reasoning situation, a criteria
is classified as Y if it is fulfilled and as N otherwise. Since this is mainly
a qualitative study and a data sample that is representative of Swedish
teaching is hard to reach (see Section 3), the goal is not to produce a
quantitative description of how many criteria that were fulfilled. The
purpose is instead to find in what sense, and why, the teachers reasoning
can be seen as simulations of creative problem solving and in what ways
it is not.
2.4. Research question. The main teacherstudent interaction in Swedish upper secondary mathematics classrooms is through teacher-lead presentations and dialogues. In essentially all of them the teachers do not
present real problematic situations, but ones (e.g. exercise solutions) where
the teacher has prepared a solution. Thus they are not real problematic
situations, and the teachers intention may not be to simulate one. There
are two types of teaching situations where simulated CR can be studied:
Teaching that is designed specifically with the purpose to emphasise CR or
regular teaching. Since there are indications (Section 1) that the former is
uncommon it is important to study how teachers ordinary presentations
involve elements of creative, mathematically well-founded, reasoning. This
study is based on the following research question:
In what ways do teachers in regular teaching manage or fail to
engage themselves and students in simulating CR as a means of
making progress in solving tasks?
11

3. Method
Since teaching can take place in numerous ways it is impossible, (simply
due to the huge variety of contents, tasks, goals, students, teaching styles,
etc., and their different combinations) to try to capture even the most common types of teaching situations and therefore also to specify in a unique
way what the regular teaching mentioned in the research question really
is. The lessons visited for data collection were due to this complexity not
possible to choose as a representative selection from the Swedish school.
Instead, we visited several different teachers whose teaching were judged
by us to be of common, or at least not uncommon, types.
The data collected consisted of field-notes from three educational levels: two lessons from lower secondary school, six from upper secondary
school and four from undergraduate mathematics education. An observer
took notes focusing on the presentation and on the interaction between
the teacher and the students. After each lesson a brief discussion with the
teacher was initiated. The teacher was asked questions about the lesson,
e.g. if the general goal with the lesson was met.
The analysis of each transcribed teacher presentation was done in three
steps:
1. Interpretation.: A description of the researchers interpretation
of the reasoning as situated in the classroom context, and of how
the groups of students may apprehend it.
2. Identification of (simulated) problematic situations.: The
notion of problematic situation (Section 2.1) is extended to include
simulations (Section 2.4). The central actual and simulated problematic situations are identified, and the argumentation is characterised. The teachers actual thought and goals, e.g. conceptual
understanding, algorithm description, or problem solving, are not
considered in this analysis, only the presented explicit reasoning.
3. Characterisation: Characterise the reasoning from the previous
step according to the framework in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

4. Data presentation and local analysis

From 23 teaching situations analysed the five examples below represent
different types of reasoning. Summarised versions of the actual analyses
are presented.
12

4.1. Insufficient explanations. In a ninth grade classroom the teacher

starts by briefly repeating some earlier items like What is 34 ? and How
do you write x x x x x?. The questions below are more difficult, still
clearly within the basic curricula, but the students have great difficulties
in answering them Lithner (2002):
The teacher writes x(x + 5) = and asks what this is. No student replies.
Teacher: We start with the first two. What will that be, Max?
Max: 2x.
Teacher: No, what was x x x x x?
Max: Could it be 5x2 ?
Teacher: No. It is x2 + 5x. What is 4x(2x + y)?
Jan: 8x
The teacher interrupts: No, and writes without discussion (8x2 +4xy).
Teacher: What does this become? Remove the parenthesis.
Eve: 8x2 4xy.
Teacher: What is 3x(2x + y) (3x + 2y)(x 2y)?
Ann seems able to solve the task and starts to answer, but the teacher does
not let Ann speak herself. Instead, the teacher leads Ann by formulating
all sub tasks, for example What is 2 3?, What is x x, etc., without
discussing why these particular steps should be taken. The teacher summarises by writing: = 6x2 + 3xy 3x2 + 6xy 2xy + 4y 2 = 3x2
Bea: Bea interrupts the teachers writing: Does it become 3x2 ?
Teacher: If you have six apples and remove three apples, what remains?
Bea: Three apples.
Teacher: Yes, therefore it gets 3x2 The teacher finishes the interrupted
writing: = 3x2 + 7xy + 4y 2 . Is it correct, Joe?
Joe: Dont know.
After this dialogue the students turn to their textbook exercises. The observer asks the students (individually) what they are doing. Most of them
give answers like I dont know or I havent got a clue.
4.1.1. Interpretation and identification of problematic situations.
Four problematic situations are identified: three tasks and Beas question:
PS1: How do you expand x(x + 5)? Max believes wrongly that the first
two (whatever that means to him) becomes 2x. The teachers implicit
strategy choice contains two parts: i) The algorithm is to multiply the left
factor with the two right terms one by one. ii) The first multiplication is
done using the definition of powers (x x = x2 ), as in the earlier example
13

(x x x x x = x5 ). Max may understand this simple earlier example,

as many of the other students seem to do, but not that the algorithm
a(b + c) = ab + ac should be applied. Therefore Max is unable to use the
teachers guidance, and implements some faulty algorithm to reach 5x2 .
The teacher gives without argumentation the correct answer and proceeds
to the next task.
PS2: How do you expand 4x(2x + y)? Jan does not know the correct
algorithm or makes a careless mistake. The teacher just states the correct
answer.
PS3: How do you expand and simplify 3x(2x + y) (3x + 2y)(x 2y)?
Instead of letting Ann try to reason herself, the teacher makes all strategy
choices and leaves only the elementary local transformations to her.
PS4: How come 3x2 remains (as one of the terms) when simplifying 6x2 +
3xy 3x2 + 6xy 2xy + 4y 2 ? The teachers strategy choice is to use
the apple analogy. The intention is probably to demonstrate that you
should add the terms that are of the same type (x2 ), but there is no
explicit connection made between this and Beas problematic situation,
which concern the mathematical foundation for simplifying the whole sixterm expression. Bea surely knows that six apples take away three makes
three, but that does not explain the connection to the task.
4.1.2. Characterisation. For each of the four criteria a letter N will mean
that the criterion is not fulfilled and a letter Y will mean that the criterion
is fulfilled.
(1) Mathematical foundation: (N) Several of the students seem to know
the basic power property that am = a a a (with m factors a), but not
the rule for multiplying parentheses, (a + b)(c + d) = ac + ad + bc + bd,
which seems to be the intrinsic property in their problematic situations.
This key rule is never articulated by the teacher.
(2) Creativity: (N) Most of the teachers reasoning is based on short algebraic transformations without predictive argumentation, explanations,
or references to relevant intrinsic properties. There are a few exceptions,
where the rule am = a a a is referred to.
(3) Reflection: (N) There are no signs of uncertainty and no time for reflection. The teacher describes the algorithmic solution steps and quickly
answers the questions posed when the students can not do so. One minor
exception is when the teacher tries to help Max relate the solution to an
earlier example.
(4) Focus: (N) The teacher focuses on the basic power property but the
14

students main difficulties seem related to multiplication of parentheses,

and perhaps also the combination of these two and other rules. The
teacher makes no attempt to find out what the students problematic
situations are, and may believe that the students problems are only related to the basic power property.
Summary: None of the CR simulation criteria are fulfilled. The presentation is AR based on algorithmic transformations that are not motivated
through arguments founded in intrinsic mathematical properties, and not
even through descriptions of the relevant rules.
4.2. Solving equations: Presentation of algebraic rules. An example from the first mathematics course, the second year, at the Hotel,
Restaurant and Catering programme at upper secondary school.
The lesson was about rules for solving linear equations. You are good
at finding x, but this lesson is more about the rules the teacher said, and
then she started show the solutions of three different equations. The two
first were the equations x 11 = 32 and 2x + 12 = 28. The solution of
the third equation, 3x 14 = 2 x, will be discussed here.
The teacher writes the third example on the board, 3x 14 = 2 x,
and says Now we will make things even more complicated. This is almost
outside the syllabus. She then says that she wants all the x:es on the
left side and the numbers on the right side, because we want the x:es on
the side where we have the most of them, where they are positive. Here
we must move x to the left and 14 to the right. The teacher writes +14
on both sides, and then +x on both sides. One student protests and asks
where the x comes from. She gets no answer from the teacher, but some
other students try to explain, but without success. One other student
asks Is it always like that, that they change sign?. The teacher answers
yes. The teacher proceeds by simplifying the new expression and gets
16
4x = 16, 4x
4 = 4 , x = 4, and then the presentation ends.
4.2.1. Interpretation and identification of problematic situations.
The third example appeared to be new to the students. The reasoning
presented here was highly connected to the use of the rules, e.g. we
want the x on the side where we have the most of them, where they are
positive.
The problematic situation was how to solve the equation by use of the
rules. The two central rules seemed to be that you should put the x:es on
the side where there are the most of them, and that you should add the
same number (or amount of x:es), but with changed sign, to both sides.
15

4.2.2. Characterisation. (1) Mathematical foundation: (N) The presented

reasoning is based on the use of two rules. The first, that you should put
all the x:es on the side where we have the most of them, is not based on
intrinsic properties of equations but on practical experiences. The second
rule, that you should add the same number to both sides, is based on
intrinsic properties of equations. The criterion is not fulfilled since none
of these properties are made explicit. Since the two rules are presented in
the same manner, it would be hard for the students to realise the difference in character between the two rules.
(2) Creativity: (N) No argumentation is offered, the teacher only describes
the solution of the equation. In an algorithmic perspective, new knowledge
is presented to the students, i.e. a way to solve a new kind of equation.
(3) Reflection: (N) There is no uncertainty or reflection in the teachers
presentation of the method. Some uncertainty may be found in the situation where a student questions the adding of x to both sides, but since
the teacher doesnt address the question, there is no reflection.
(4) Focus: (Y) The problematic situation is how to use the rules to solve
the equation.
Summary: No simulated CR is used, the reasoning is a presentation of a
method, how to follow the rules, without creative argumentation of why
or how they work. The students can learn the method this way, but only
for equations of exactly this type (ax + b = cx + d or maybe only for
ax + b = d x). The teaching in this example does probably not help the
students to learn how to create their own solution strategies if new types
of equations are encountered.
4.3. An inequality: Non-creative explanations. The task is to prove
the inequality ln(1 + x2 ) < x2 , x 6= 0. The transcript contains what the
teacher says and writes on the blackboard (B) when presenting a solution
to an undergraduate class.
When showing this inequality, it is easier if everything is moved to one
side of the inequality sign. If we move ln(1 + x2 ) we obtain
B: x2 ln(1 + x2 ) > 0, for x 6= 0
The advantage with moving over is that we can study the left part as a
function, interpret the graph and see if the function lies above the x-axis.
So define
B: f (x) = x2 ln(1 + x2 )
What happens at x = 0?
B: f (0) = 02 ln(1 + 02 ) = 0 ln 1 = 0
(1)
16

f (0) says that the inequality is not true for x = 0. Now it has to be
shown for other x-values. The derivative
is
2x(1+x2 )2x
1
2x+x3 2x
2x3
B: f 0 (x) = 2x 1+x
2x
=
=
= 1+x
2
2
1+x2
1+x2
which is less than 0 if x < 0 and greater than 0 if x > 0. We have earlier
seen that the sign of the derivative determines if the function is increasing
or decreasing. If x < 0 the nominator is negative and the denominator is
positive, then the quotient is negative. If x is positive a positive nominator and denominator is obtained, and the quotient
becomes positive.

f (x) is strictly decreasing on (, 0)
B:
(2)
f (x) is strictly increasing on (0, )
The conclusion can be drawn by studying the sign of f 0 (x) [He sketches
a curve that looks like y = x2 ] We have seen that f 0 (0) = 0, that if x < 0
then f (x) is decreasing, and that if x > 0 then f (x) is increasing. We do
not need to know exactly what the function looks like. If we combine this,
we get that the graph lies above the x-axis.
B: (1)+(2) implies that f (x) > 0 for all x 6= 0, that is x2 > ln(1 + x2 )
for x 6= 0
We see that we have an application of the derivative, we are studying
where the function is increasing and decreasing, and we can draw conclusions about inequalities. Sometimes the derivative is difficult to handle,
but then we have seen that we can differentiate again.
4.3.1. Interpretation and identification of problematic situations.
One global and three main local problematic situations are identified:
PS1: The global strategy choice, which is not fully articulated until the
end of the presentation is: First, rewrite the inequality to form a function
to study. Then, instead of studying the function values explicitly, find
the local minimum and use the derivative to show that the function is
deceasing to the left and increasing to the right and thus lies above the
minimum.
PS2: How to form a function? Transform the inequality by rewriting it
so that the right side is zero. Let f (x) = x2 ln(1 + x2 ) (the left side).
PS3: How to find the minima? The teacher does not mention that or
why the minima are sought, or why x=0 is chosen as the point were f is
evaluated.
PS4: Show that f is positive if x 6= 0 by using derivatives to show that f
is decreasing to the left and increasing to the right of its minimum.
4.3.2. Characterisation. (1) Intrinsic properties: (Y) The argumentation
is in summary: The inequality is true since f (x) > 0, x 6= 0. The latter
17

is true since f (0) = 0 and the derivative shows that this is the functions
minimum.
(2) Creative: (N) The strategy choices are not constructed through predictive argumentation, only afterwards (partly) explained in the strategy
implementations.
(3) Reflection: (N) No uncertainty, no strategy choice reflections or questions.
(4) Focus: (Y) The students are, as the teacher, focused on solving the
task, and most students can probably follow the well structured reasoning.
Since explanations are given after conclusions there are some situations
were the students may not realise why things are done the way they are,
for example why f (0) should be evaluated, until afterwards. Thus there
may be some situations where the teacher and the students have different
focus temporarily, but the criterion is essentially fulfilled.
Summary: A well structured description of a (to the teacher) known
method were most of the strategy choices are explained after they have
been done, and thus can not be seen as a simulation of a creative solution
to a problematic situation.
4.4. Finding Angles: Creative questions. The example comes from
the second year at the upper secondary Natural science programme.
Consider a circle with centre in O, and three points A, B and C on the
circumference. The theorem which this lesson concerns then states that
the angle AOB is twice the angle ACB (below referred to as T1). The
teacher started by reminding the students of the theorem, and then she
handed out a paper with four tasks. Towards the end of the lesson the
students were invited to go to the board and present solutions of the tasks.
When nobody wanted to do the second task, the teacher let the students
guide her instead. The task was to find the values of x and y in Figure 1.
One student said that y is 120 since the four points A, B, C and D on the
circle form an inscribed quadrilateral, and then opposite angles are 180
together (the theorem will here be referred to as T2). The teacher agreed
and said that you can do like that if you have understood that theorem
(T2). Another student said that the angle at the centre (x) is twice as
much as 60 [uses T1].
Now the teacher asked if anybody had found the value of y in another
way. When she didnt get any answer she said: If you turn the paper
upside down? If y is the angle at the circumference, where is the angle
at the centre? She marked the reflex angle at the centre (opposite x).
18

Figure 1. Task 2
Now one student says that the angle the teacher marked is 240 , since it
is 360 120 [using that x = 120 ]. Another student asked a question
if you have to know x in order to get y using this method. The teacher
answered yes.
4.4.1. Interpretation and identification of problematic situations.
The angle x was found by a direct use of T1, the angle at the centre (x)
is two times the angle at the circumference (D).
Two different ways of finding the angle y was presented, one by a student
and one by the teacher. The first way was based on a theorem which
has not been mentioned during the lesson, that opposite angles in an
inscribed quadrilateral sum up to 180 (T2). A student not familiar with
T2 would find the solution very hard to understand or construct. The
second solution was based on the central theorem of the lesson, T1. The
theorem was used in a not obvious way, since the angle at the centre is a
reflex angle (between 180 and 360 ). The argumentation for the second
method is that if you turn the circle upside down, and if y is the angle at
the circumference, the angle at the centre is 360 x.
4.4.2. Characterisation. (1) Mathematical foundation: (Y) The reasoning in all three problematic situations was based on the properties of T1
or T2.
(2) Creativity: (Y) New knowledge was created by applying T1 in a new
way (with a central angle larger than 180 ). The creative argumentation
19

was limited to identifying the angles in relation to the T1. The arguments
were indicated by questions from the teacher.
(3) Reflection: (Y) Since the task of finding y was solved in two different
ways, and the second version in a not directly obvious way, the criterion
was met.
(4) Focus: (Y) Good correspondence of the general problematic situations
since all students had been working with the tasks in advance. It is not
obvious that all students had the same problematic situation at a more
local level, for instance how to apply the theorem.
Summary: Although the creativity criterion was met in a relatively simple and limited way, the reasoning is an example of a simulated CR. The
discussion concerning the angles, and the questions from the teacher, lead
up to a solution of the problematic situation. The students were given
opportunities to understand and learn something new, as well as learning
more about using theorems since direct application of the theorems also
was a part of the lesson.
4.5. Proving a theorem: Creative reasoning without reflections.
The transcript contains what the teacher says and writes on the blackboard (B) when presenting a proof to an undergraduate class. This proof
can be found in most undergraduate calculus textbooks.
B: Theorem: Assume that limn an+1
anP = L exists,
1
n
B: then the radius of convergence for
n=0 an (x c) is R = L .
Then we know, except for two points, where it converges and diverges.
B: L = 0 is interpreted as if R = .
That is, the interval is infinite on both sides.
B: L = is interpreted as if R = 0. Convergence only for c.
We will prove this, it will be the proof of this book section. We shall
check if the series converges, and we will use the criteria we know for ordinary series.
B: Proof:
We investigatePabsolute convergence, that is, in the series
P

n
B:
|a
|an ||(x c)|n
n=0 n (x c) | =
n=0 |
{z
}
bn

We can take the absolute value term-wise in a product. This is a positive

series, we have studied this in book Section 10.3. In a positive series, the
convergence is often so coarse that we can use the ratio test.
|an+1 |
|an+1 ||xc|n+1
B: limn bn+1
=
lim
|x c| =
bn = limn
|an ||xc|n
n |an |
|
{z
}
Assumed existence
20

L|x c|
The ratio testPtells us that:
B: The series
n=0 bn converges on L|x c| < 1, that is if |x c| <
B: and diverges if L|x c| > 1, that is if |x c| > L1 .
This means that the original series converges absolutely.
B: Therefore R = L1

1
L,

4.5.1. Interpretation and identification of problematic situations.

One global and three main local problematic situations are identified:
PS1: The global strategy choice is presented at the start of the proof: Test
convergence for the power series in question by using tests for ordinary
series (without a variable, x in this case). This way of extending familiar
tests is new to the students.
PS2: How adapt the familiar tests? This strategy choice is not articulated: i) Test for absolute convergence, since it it easier in this case and
absolute convergence implies conditional convergence. ii) Form the new
term bn which is in a form that familiar tests can be applied to.
PS3: Which of the familiar tests should be applied? The use of the Ratio
test is motivated by the coarseness of positive series. This argument is
not elaborated, and not explicitly founded on any mathematical properties, and probably difficult for the students to understand. The teacher
probably means that the ratio test is suitable when the terms decrease at
least exponentially fast, that is, limn bn+1
bn < 1.
PS4: How interpret the outcome of the Ratio test in this new situation?
The series converges if |x c| < 1 which implies that the radius of convergence is 1/L.
4.5.2. Characterisation. (1) Mathematical foundation: (Y) The criterion
is fulfilled in most of the conclusions. That convergence tests can be used
to determine convergence for power series is an intrinsic property in this
(simulated) problematic situation. That the sequence is positive is an intrinsic property when choosing the ratio test. The reasons for choosing
this test is not supported by explicit intrinsic property considerations, as
discussed above.
(2) Creativity: (Y) A series test that have not been used for power series
earlier (only for series with constant terms) is used in a new way to prove
the theorem. The strategy choices are explicitly motivated in advance.
(3) Reflection: (N) No uncertainty, no strategy choice reflections or questions. The teacher could, for example, have asked Can ordinary tests be
21

used, and how?

(4) Focus: (Y) The students are, as the teacher, focused on solving the
task, and most students can probably follow the well structured reasoning,
perhaps apart from PS3.
Summary: This is a traditional way of presenting a mathematical proof:
It starts in a set of conditions (properties of a mathematical phenomena)
and through an unbroken chain of arguments terminates in a conclusion.
The traditional proof is normally a very economic and structured way of
summarising the main arguments and key ideas that lay behind the original proof of the theorem, the first time it was proved. The mathematical
foundation and the predictive argumentation remain (though idealised),
but the reflections and uncertainty are missing.

5. Global analysis and results

In this study 23 teaching situations have been analysed, five of them are
presented in Section 4. In this section the outcomes of the 23 analyses
will be summarised, one simulation criterion at a time.
5.1. Mathematical foundation. The criterion was fulfilled in 13 situations, that is, the intrinsic mathematical properties were made explicit
to the students by being discussed in some way.
Advanced discussions were not required for the criterion to be fulfilled.
One example of a situation classified as fulfilled is when a teacher uses a
theorem as a base for the reasoning around a task (see Section 4.4). In
another situation the teacher discusses the meaning of the constant term
in the function y = x2 + 2 and says that it gives the intersection with
the y-axis since x = 0 gives y = 2. Here the teacher uses the intrinsic
properties of the relationship between the function and the graph when
he motivates his answer. If the teacher would have said only that the
constant term gives the y-coordinate in the intersection with the x-axis,
the conclusion is just stated and not justified by explicit reference to any
intrinsic properties. In both these situations a deeper discussion concerning the underlying mathematics would have been possible, for instance in
the latter the teacher could have discussed how the function behave for
other x-values.
Where the criterion wasnt fulfilled, the most frequent reason for this
was that the teacher presented a solution of a task or an algorithm of
some kind, without discussing the underlying mathematical properties.
22

We found one situation where the presented reasoning was founded on nonmathematical properties, when a teacher compared the shape of a graph
to a quadratic equation with a positive coefficient to the x2 -term with
a happy mouth. The connection positive happy has no mathematical
ground when no other motivation is given.
5.2. Creativity. We found three situations where the reasoning was
classified as creative. Our demands on creativity were not set very high.
In one of these three examples (see Section 4.4) the teacher uses questions to guide the students into a new way to use a theorem. However,
one more advanced situation was also found (see Section 4.5). Here the
teacher builds up a solution by careful argumentation how to use a series
test in a new way.
The situations where the criterion wasnt fulfilled consisted most often
of descriptions of algorithms (see Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3) by solving
tasks as examples. The solutions to the tasks was then described without
explicit argumentation supporting the strategy choices.
One of the main findings in this study concerns the absence of predictive argumentation as a contrast to the (at least occasional) presence
of verifying argumentation. The message to a listening student exposed
only to verifying argumentation is that you always have to know exactly
what to do from the start, and the only relevant argumentation concerns
explaining what you already know. This is a reality transparent in the
classroom situations of this study, the teacher is always in full control and
is never in a real problematic situation, and consistent with findings on
students beliefs about what they are supposed to accomplish Schoenfeld
(1992).
5.3. Reflection. In most cases in this study (18 situations out of 23)
there were no reflection or uncertainty. The reasoning was guided by the
teacher, and it was clear that the goals would be met.
Extensive uncertainty simulations were not required in order for the
criterion to be fulfilled. In two of the five situations where the criterion
was fulfilled, the teacher asked questions to the student on how to proceed,
and in two other situations the teacher made an error that had to be
corrected. This means that in the eighteen situations without uncertainty
or reflection, the teacher asked no questions to the students and posed no
reflective statements. In the remaining situation where the criterion was
fulfilled, the task was solved in more than one way (see Section 4.4).
23

5.4. Focus. In this study we found eleven situations where the criterion
wasnt fulfilled. In five of these there were clear differences concerning the
problematic situations. In the other six situations the teacher presented
very difficult creative reasoning, or reasoning that was based on knowledge
clearly inaccessible to students. These are other aspects that can lead to
different focus.
The criterion was often fulfilled since the the teacher and the students
were trying to solve the same task and no indications of differences in
focus could be found. Sometimes the students had been working on the
task in advance which made the fulfilment of the criterion very obvious
(see Section 4.4). In other situations student activity indicated common
focus, most often by asking questions.
The nature of the difference in problematic situations varied. In one
situation the teacher worked with very local steps, but the students problematic situation was the global strategy choice. In the example in Section
4.1 the teacher focused on one mathematical property while the students
difficulties concerned other, more basic, properties. In another situation
the teacher asked a question concerning what kind of solution you will get
when you solve an equation of the type y = ax + b. The teacher discussed
that the equation x + 5 = 11 has a solution which is a number and the
equation x2 = 25 has a solution which is two numbers. After this the students made guesses (i.e. a table, a number, a new equation) and
the teacher said which guess was correct. Here the teachers focus concerned how to generalise his examples, while the students focused of more
coming up with more guesses. Several of the students guesses has clearly
no connection to the teachers examples. The point is not that the guesses
are wrong, but that they to such a large extent lack any relationship to
the teachers reasoning.
It essential in all teaching that the teacher and the students have the
same focus. If, in a teaching situation, the students have one problematic
situation and the teacher addresses another, there is a risk that no learning
will take place, or at least not the learning the teacher intended.
5.5. Summary. There were two significant ways that the teachers managed to meet CR simulation criteria. The first was by discussing mathematical properties with students, letting them come up with ideas and
solutions, helping them along by asking questions or posing statements
concerning the mathematical properties involved (see Section 4.4). The
other was by using motivational argumentation when presenting a new
24

way to use a theorem (see Section 4.5). In all cases where the reasoning was classified as creative, there was an argumentation of some kind
present.
When the teachers failed to use simulated CR, several reasons for this
was found in this study. The lack of motivating as well as explaining argumentation was one important reason. Another was that the presented
reasoning was free from reflection and uncertainty, in which cases it often was a straight forward presentation of an algorithm. We also found
situations where the teacher and the students had different problematic
situations, and situations where it was clearly unrealistic for the students
to carry out the presented reasoning themselves.
When the analysed reasoning wasnt CR, it was either strict presentations of methods or algorithms, or a teacher guided process where the
teacher guided the students by posing leading questions (often on a very
basic level) which the students tried to answer, sometimes (we believe) by
guessing. In these cases, the possible learning gains for the students was
how to solve tasks very similar to those presented by the teacher. The
algorithm presentations were of three types:
(1) to carry out the algorithm without comments.
(2) to carry out the algorithm with comments on exactly what is done.
(3) to carry out the algorithm with arguments on what rules or methods are used.
One may note that if 3 contains predictive argumentation concerning the
use of the rules, then the reasoning would be classified as CR.

6. Discussion
The focus of this study was not on lessons that were specifically designed
to enhance CR. Thus the lessons may have many other qualities that does
not appear in the analysis above.
Some situations in this study fulfils several of our criteria for simulation of creative reasoning. However, in these cases the criteria are with
few exceptions met in rather modest ways as is described in Section 5.
The results indicate that algebraic methods for solving specific tasks often is what students may learn from a presentation. In most situations in
this study there is no creative argumentation. It is hard to find situations
where the teachers explain what they are doing during presentations, and
we especially find the lack of predicting argumentation troublesome. If
the students almost never see CR, simulated CR, or some other type of
25

creative mathematical reasoning which builds on the intrinsic mathematical properties, how can we expect them to learn mathematical reasoning
and become problem solvers even in an elementary way? If the teachers
seldom uses predictive argumentation during presentations, how can we
expect students learn creative reasoning?
In the Swedish national curriculum, logical reasoning is pointed out as
a central competence for students at all levels. In the syllabus for the
compulsory school (year 1 to 9) it says:
The school in its teaching of mathematics should aim to ensure that pupils develop their ability to understand, carry
out and use logical reasoning, draw conclusions and generalise, as well as orally and in writing explain and provide the arguments for their thinking. Swedish National
Agency for Education (2000)
One possible way to help students develop this ability could be to let
creative reasoning and argumentation be a normal part of the activities in
the classroom. In this, simulated CR according to our definitions could be
one of the ways to introduce a higher presence of creative mathematical
reasoning in everyday teaching.

References
Artzt, A. and Armour-Thomas, E. (1999). A cognitive model for examining teachers instructional practice in mathematics: A guide for facilitating teacher reflection. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(3):211
235.
Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J., and Sumpter, L. (2003). Reasoning characteristics in upper secondary school students task solving. Research Reports
in Mathematics Education 1, Department of Mathematics, Ume
a University.
Brendefur, J. and Frykholm, J. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: Two preservice teachers conceptions and
practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3:125153.
Brenner, M. (1998). Adding cognitive to the formula for culturally relevant
instruction in mathematics. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29.
Bromme, R. and Steinbring, H. (1994). Interactive development of subject
matter in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27:217248.
26

Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics.

Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chapman, O. (1999). Inservice teacher development in mathematical
problem solving. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2:121
142.
Fitzpatrick, R. and Morrison, E. (1971). Performance and product evaluation. In Thorndike, R., editor, Educational Measurement, pages 237
270. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, second edition.
Forster, P. A. (1999). Student participation: Phenomenon and analysis.
In Truran, J. M. and Truran, K. M., editors, Making the difference,
Proceedings of the twenty-second annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia, pages 207214. Sydney:
MERGA.
Forster, P. A. and Taylor, P. C. (2003). An investigation of communicative
competence in an upper-secondary class where using graphics calculators was routine. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52:5777.
Grant, T. J., Hiebert, J., and Wearne, D. (1998). Observing and teaching
reform-minded lessons: What do teachers see? Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 1:217236.
Haylock, D. (1997). Recognising mathematical creativity in schoolchildren. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3):6874.
Hegarty, M., Mayer, R., and Monk, C. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: a comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1):1832.
Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In
Kilpatrick, J., Martin, G., and Schifter, D., editors, A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, pages 526.
Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kahan, J., Cooper, D., and Bethea, K. (2003). The role of mathematics
teachers content knowledge in their teaching: A framework for research
applied to a study of student teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 6:223252.
Leikin, R. (2003). Problem-solving preferences of mathematics teachers:
Focusing on symmetry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
6:297329.
Leinhardt, G. and Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78:7595.

27

Lithner, J. (2000a). Mathematical reasoning and familiar procedures. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31:8395.
Lithner, J. (2000b). Mathematical reasoning in task solving. Educational
studies in mathematics, 41:165190.
Lithner, J. (2002). Lusten att lara, Osby (The motivation to learn, Osby).
Skolverkets nationella kvalitetsgranskningar (Quality inspections of the
Swedish National Agency for Education), in Swedish.
Lithner, J. (2003a). A framework for analysing qualities of mathematical
reasoning: Version 2. Research Reports in Mathematics Education 3,
Department of Mathematics, Ume
a University.
Lithner, J. (2003b). Students mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises. Educational studies in mathematics, 52:2955.
Lithner, J. (2004). Mathematical reasoning in calculus textbook exercises.
Journal of mathematical behavior, 23:405427.
McDuffie, A. R. (2004). Mathematics teaching as a deliberate practice:
An investigation of elementary pre-service teachers reflective thinking
during student teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
7:3361.
Moyer, P. (2002). Are we having fun yet? how teachers use manipulatives
to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47:175197.
NCTM (2000). NCTM Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Nilssen, V., Gudmundsdottir, S., and Wangsmo-Cappelen, V. (1998).
Mentoring the teaching of multiplication: a case study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 21(1).
Niss, M. (1999). Aspects of the nature and state of research in mathematics education. Educational studies in mathematics, 40:124.
Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Vol. I and II.
Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., and Nasir, N. S. (2001). Enhancing students
understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches
to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,
4:5579.
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition and sense-making in mathematics. In Grouws, D.,
editor, Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning,
28

pages 334370. New York: Macmillan.

Silver, E. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Zentralblatt fuer Didaktik
der Mathematik, 29(3):7580.
Simon, M. A. and Tzur, R. (1999). Explicating the teachers perspective
from the researchers perspectives: Generating accounts of mathematics
teachers practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
30(3):252264.
Skemp, R. (1978). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 26(3):915.
Swedish National Agency for Education (2000). Kursplan i matematik
f
or grundskolan (Syllabus in mathematics for the compulsory school).
Internet:
http://www3.skolverket.se.
Tall, D. (1996). Functions and calculus. In Bishop, A., Clements, K., Keitel, C., Kilpatrick, J., and Laborde, C., editors, International Handbook
of Mathematics Education, pages 289325. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tirosh, D., Even, R., and Robinson, N. (1998). Simplifying algebraic
expressions: Teacher awareness and teaching approaches. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 35:5164.
Tirosh, D. and Graeber, A. (1990). Inconsistencies in preservice elementary teachers beliefs about multiplication and division. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12:6574.
Vinner, S. (1997). The pseudo-conceptual and the pseudo-analytical
thought processes in mathematics learning. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 34:97129.
White, P. and Mitchelmore, M. (1996). Conceptual knowledge in introductory calculus. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27:79
95.

29