Conditions for Supporting Problem Solving: Vertical Non-permanent Surfaces

  • Peter LiljedahlEmail author
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)


For many teachers, the incorporation of problem solving into their practice is often met with difficulty as students who are not accustomed to this form of mathematics teaching struggle with, and resist, these efforts. In this chapter, I present results from two research projects in which I studied the effects of various teaching methods on students’ problem solving. In particular, I look at the affordances of a variety of work spaces on students’ engagement while problem solving. Results indicate that the use of vertical whiteboards is exceptionally conducive to engaging students and eases the introduction of problem solving. Results also indicate that teachers were willing to implement, and did implement, VNPS in their classroom even after only a single workshop.


Problem solving VNPS Engagement Thinking 


  1. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1991). Analogies from the philosophy and sociology of science for understanding classroom life. Science Education, 75(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8, 35–37.Google Scholar
  7. Fenstermacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37–49). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Fenstermacher, G. (1994, revised 1997). On the distinction between being a student and being a learner. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  9. Glaeser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Jasper, B., & Taube, S. (2004). Action research of elementary teachers’ problem-solving skills before and after focused professional development. Teacher Education and Practice, 17(3), 299–310.Google Scholar
  11. Liljedahl, P. (2014). The affordances of using visually random groups in a mathematics classroom. In Y. Li, E. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 127–144). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Liljedahl, P. (2016). Building thinking classrooms: Conditions for problem solving. In P. Felmer, J. Kilpatrick, & E. Pekhonen (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical problems: Advances and new perspectives (pp. 361–386). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liljedahl (2018). Building thinking classrooms. In A. Kajander, J. Holm, & E. Chernoff (Eds.), Teaching and learning secondary school mathematics: Canadian perspectives in an international context (pp. 307–316). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liljedahl, P. & Allan, D. (2013a). Studenting: The case of “now you try one”. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 257–264). Kiel, Germany: PME.Google Scholar
  15. Liljedahl, P. & Allan, D. (2013b). Studenting: The case of homework. In Proceedings of the 35th Conference for Psychology of Mathematics Education—North American Chapter (pp. 489–492). Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Little, J. W., & Horn, I. S. (2007). ‘Normalizing’ problems of practice: Converging routine conversation into a resource for learning in professional communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth, and dilemmas (pp. 79–92). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and the roles of professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education: Perspectives on national standards in America (pp. 175–204). New York, NY: The College Board.Google Scholar
  18. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2004). The critical role of institutional context in teacher development. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of 28th Annual Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 281–288).Google Scholar
  19. Middleton, J. A., Sawada, D., Judson, E., Bloom, I., & Turley, J. (2002). Relationships build reform: Treating classroom research as emergent systems. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 409–431). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Norton, A. H., & McCloskey, A. (2008). Teaching experiments and professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(4), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  22. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. Deci & R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). New York, NY: The University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  23. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Taylor, S., & Bogden, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meaning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Wakeling, E. (1995). Rediscovered Lewis Carroll puzzles. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yackel, E. & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yackel, E., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Beliefs and norms in the mathematics classroom. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 313–330). London: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations