• Chong Ho Yu
  • Hyun Seo Lee


Implementing problem-solving is one of the core objectives of Hong Kong’s Learning to Learn project. Hong Kong recognizes the fundamental importance of problem-solving in math and science education.


  1. American College Testing [ACT], Inc. (2007). Rigor at risk: Reaffirming quality in the high school core curriculum. Iowa City, IA: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. B., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228, 456–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., … & Tsai, Y. M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.Google Scholar
  4. Bhaskar, R., & Simon, H. (1977). Problem solving in semantically rich domains: An example from engineering thermodynamics. Cognitive Science, 1(2), 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindset: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Buffon, G. (1777). Essai d’arithmétique morale. Histoire naturelle, générale er particulière, Supplément, 4, 46–123.Google Scholar
  7. Camillia, G., & Dossey, J. (2019). Multidimensional national profiles for TIMSS 2007 and 2011 mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior [Online First].
  8. Chaitin, G. J. (1998). The limits of mathematics: A course on information theory and the limits of formal reasoning. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheung, Q. P. (2017). Break the convention: A question in the interview. School Mathematics Newsletter, 21, 64–76.Google Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2016). Mathematical standards. Retrieved from
  13. Csapó, B., & Funke, J. (Eds.). (2017). The nature of problem solving: Using research to inspire 21st century learning, educational research and innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. Scholar
  14. Davis, G. A. (1973). Psychology of problem solving: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Dossey, J., Mullis, I., Lindquist, M., & Chambers, D. (1988). The mathematics report card: Are we measuring up? Trends and achievements based on the 1986 national assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, A., Greiff, S., & Funke, J. (2012). The process of solving complex problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 4(1), Article 3.
  17. Fortunato, I., Hecht, D., Tittle, C. K., & Alvarez, L. (1991). Metacognition and problem solving. The Arithmetic Teacher, 39(4), 38–40.Google Scholar
  18. Frensch, P. A., & Funke, J. (1995). Complex problem solving: The European perspective. New York, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Friedman, T. (2013, October 22). The Shanghai secret. New York Times. Retrieved from
  20. Fung, C. Y. (2014). Mathematical knowledge is “autocratic”. School Mathematics Newsletter, 18, 19–34.Google Scholar
  21. Funke, J., & Frensch, P. A. (2007). Complex problem solving: The European perspective - 10 years after. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Learning to solve complex scientific problems (pp. 25–47). New York, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Gadidov, B. (2017, April). Predicting highly qualified math teachers in secondary schools in the United States. Paper presented at SAS Global Forum, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  23. Grobler, G. C. (2016a). Interdisciplinary Forensic Science Programme. Hong Kong Science Teachers’ Journal, 31, 14–18.Google Scholar
  24. Grobler, G. C. (2016b). Let our students teach! Teaching as a way of mastering knowledge. Hong Kong Teacher’s Journal, 32, 79–83.Google Scholar
  25. Heppner, P. P., & Krauskopf, C. J. (1987). An information-processing approach to personal problem solving. Counseling Psychologist, 15, 371–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hewitt, D. (2002). Arbitrary and Necessary: A way of viewing the mathematics curriculum. In L. Haggarty (Ed.), Teaching mathematics in secondary schools: A reader (pp. 47–63). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., … & Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.Google Scholar
  28. Hong Kong Education Bureau. (2018). HK Mathematics Creative Problem-Solving Competition. Retrieved from
  29. Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2016). Category A: Senior secondary subjects. Retrieved from
  30. Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (Eds.). (1996). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Klein, D. (2003). A brief history of American K-12 mathematics education in the 20th Century. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), Mathematical Cognition (pp. 175–259). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Klieme, E. (2004). Assessment of cross-curricular problem-solving competencies. In J. H. Moskowitz & M. Stephens (Eds.), Comparing learning outcomes: International assessments and education policy (pp. 81–107). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Laxman, K. (2013). Epistemology of well and ill structured problem solving. In Sebatien Helie (Ed.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, C. M. (2015). Geometrical probability and Bertrand’s Paradox. School Mathematics Newsletter, 19, 14–27.Google Scholar
  36. Leung, K. S. (2015). You will never get a zero in this exam no matter what your answer is. School Mathematics Newsletter, 19, 5–13.Google Scholar
  37. Lloyd, C. (2018, June 21). Why our smartest students are failing math. Retrieved from
  38. Lockhart, P. (2009). A mathematician’s lament: How school cheats us out of our most fascinating and imaginative art. New York, NY: Bellevue Literary Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ma, L. (2010). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marinoff, L. (1994). A Resolution of Bertrand’s Paradox. Philosophy of Science, 61(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  43. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–303). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Moser, J., Schroder, H. S., Heeter, C., Moran, T. P., & Lee, Y. H. (2011). Mind your errors: Evidence for a neural mechanism linking growth mindset to adaptive post error adjustments. Psychological Science, 22, 1484–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  47. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2013a). Technical report of the survey of adult skills (PIAAC). Retrieved from
  48. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2013b). The survey of adult skills: Reader’s companion. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from:
  49. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving, PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  50. Polya, G. (1954a). Mathematic and plausible reasoning—Volume I: Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Polya, G. (1954b). Mathematic and plausible reasoning—Volume II Patterns of plausible inference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Santos, L. (2017). The role of critical thinking in science education. Journal of Education and Practice, 8, 159–173.Google Scholar
  54. Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, 26(2), 145–159. Scholar
  55. Skinner, B. F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem solving. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method, and theory (pp. 225–257). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Soh, K. (2019). PISA and PIRLS: The effects of culture and school environment. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  57. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.Google Scholar
  58. Wai, M. Y. (2011). Further applications of mathematics: Explore Ptolemy’s theorem and its applications. School Mathematics Newsletter, 17, 43–58.Google Scholar
  59. Wenke, D., Frensch, P. A., & Funke, J. (2005). Complex problem solving and intelligence: Empirical relation and causal direction. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Pretz (Eds.), Cognition and intelligence: Identifying the mechanisms of the mind (pp. 160–187). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wilson, J., & Clarke, D. (2004). Towards the modelling of mathematical metacognition. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 16(2), 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wong, N. Y., Marton, F., Wong, K. M., & Lam, C. C. (2002). The lived space of mathematics learning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wong, P. W. (2018). STEM for parents. Hong Kong: Shing Tao Publisher.Google Scholar
  63. Young, A. E., & Worrell, F. C. (2018). Comparing metacognition assessments of mathematics in academically talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yu, C. H., Anthony, S, & Behrens, J. T. (1995, April). Identification of misconceptions in learning central limit theorem and evaluation of computer-based instruction as a remedial tool. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395 989).Google Scholar
  65. Yu, C. H., DiGangi, S., & Jannasch-Pennell, A. (2008). The role of abductive reasoning in cognitive-based assessment. Elementary Education Online, 7(2), 310–322. Retrieved from
  66. Yu, C. H., Lee, H. S., Lara, E., & Gan, S. G. (2018). The ensemble and model comparison approaches for big data analytics in social sciences. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 23(17). Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chong Ho Yu
    • 1
  • Hyun Seo Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.Azusa Pacific UniversityAzusaUSA
  2. 2.Azusa Pacific UniversityAzusaUSA

Personalised recommendations