See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226246807

Student teachers' reflections on their learning process through collaborative

problem solving in geometry

Article  in  Educational Studies in Mathematics · March 2004

DOI: 10.1023/B:EDUC.0000017690.90763.c1

CITATIONS READS

27 1,428

1 author:

Raymond Bjuland
University of Stavanger (UiS)
28 PUBLICATIONS   305 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teachers as Students View project

Teachers’ mathematical discourse on student learning and teaching practice - a commognitive perspective on teachers' professional development in Lesson Study.
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raymond Bjuland on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RAYMOND BJULAND

STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON THEIR LEARNING

PROCESS THROUGH COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING IN
GEOMETRY

ABSTRACT. This paper reports research that focuses on student teachers’ reflections on
their learning process in a collaborative problem-solving context. One group of students
with limited mathematical backgrounds worked on two problems in geometry without
teacher intervention. We focus on two episodes from the group dialogues. In the first
episode (section 5) the students basically reflect on two key issues. The first reflection
is related to the concern of making problem-solving tasks too difficult in general while the
second reflection has to do with the concern of participation in the solution process. The
students discuss how they can give hints or introduce particular ideas before presenting a
solution in order to stimulate colleague participation, thus promoting the understanding of
the solution process. The second episode (section 6) illustrates the reflection of students
on their preparation as future teachers of mathematics. They emphasise that the experience
of getting stuck with a problem may help them to better understand the frustration pupils
experience while working on unfamiliar problems in classroom. Based on the experience of
getting stuck, the students reflect on how they could motivate themselves as well as pupils
to work on mathematical problems. They suggest that a good strategy is to start working
on an easier problem. If they succeed in coming up with a solution to that problem, they
think that it is then more stimulating to proceed to a difficult one.

KEY WORDS: collaborative small groups, dialogical approach, geometry, problem solv-
ing, reflections, student teachers

1. I NTRODUCTION

A deep and comprehensive view of problem solving in the school math-

ematics curriculum emerged from the work of George Polya. This author
reformulated, extended and illustrated different ideas about mathematical
discovery in a way that teachers could see and use (Stanic and Kilpatrick,
1989). In the American literature, researchers of mathematical problem
solving have been inspired by the work of Polya (Kilpatrick, 1969, 1985;
Lester, 1980, 1994; Silver, 1987, 1994; Schoenfeld, 1985, 1992). These
researchers have made great contributions to the development of problem
solving in the school curriculum through their influence on the changing
nature of research emphases and methodologies. Linked to the American
problem-solving tradition Mason et al. (1982) and Borgersen (1994) have

Educational Studies in Mathematics 55: 199–225, 2004.

© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
200 RAYMOND BJULAND

expanded Polya’s four-stage model by presenting a framework designed to

help students to internalise the strategies of Polya and gain access to it for
themselves.
During the 1990s, there has been a trend towards a more situated un-
derstanding of cognition in the area of problem solving and a more ethno-
graphically inspired approach has been adopted by many researchers (Res-
nick, 1991; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Chaiklin and Lave, 1993; Wenger,
1998). In recent years researchers have also focused on students’ mathem-
atical reasoning in solving problems (Wyndhamn and Säljö, 1997; Lith-
ner, 2000; Lithner, 2003) and reasoning processes of students working in
collaborative working groups (Artzt and Femia, 1999; Bjuland, 2002).
The aim of this paper is to focus on student teachers’ reflections on
their learning process through collaborative problem-solving in geometry.
We are particularly concerned with two episodes from the dialogue in one
group of students with limited mathematical backgrounds. The choices of
episodes are based on the fact that the analyses of the dialogues illustrate
how these students reflect on their learning process at the end of the third
and the fourth small-group meeting respectively. Since such group reflec-
tions are important aspects of the collaborative problem-solving activity,
the following research questions have been formulated:
• Are students concerned with reflections on their learning process after
having worked on geometry problems in small groups?
• Which elements of reflections can be identified in student communic-
ation through collaborative problem-solving activity?
We believe that it is important to focus on the concerns of future teachers as
they reflect on mathematical tasks that they have tried to solve themselves.
Does the fact that they are preparing for the teaching profession play a role
in this reflection? In other words:
• Do the students reflect on their experience as learners of mathematics
or as teachers of mathematics?
In a previous study (Bjuland, 2002) we have focused on the observation,
analysis and interpretation of the discussion among student teachers work-
ing collaboratively in small groups in a problem-solving context. More
specifically, the aim has been to contribute to the understanding of how
reasoning processes are expressed in student communication. We have
tried to identify how different elements of reasoning are verbalised in the
dialogues and have focused on the heuristic strategies used by two groups
of students with different mathematical backgrounds when they worked on
two problems in geometry. We were particularly concerned with the heur-
istic strategy of posing open questions since there was reason to believe
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 201

that these verbalisations worked as triggers for the reasoning process and
for the generation of strategies used in the solution process.
In this paper we will focus on group reflection as an important aspect
of the collaborative problem-solving activity. We have chosen to focus on
one group of students with limited mathematical background in order to
illustrate how they reflected on their learning process.

2. T HEORETICAL FRAMEWORK : T HE CONCEPT OF REFLECTION

Historically, Dewey is acknowledged as a main originator in the twentieth

century of the concept of reflection (Hatton and Smith, 1995). Dewey con-
sidered it to be a particular form of problem solving, thinking to solve a
problem that involved a careful ordering of ideas linking each with its pre-
decessors. According to Hatton and Smith (1995), four key issues emerge
from Dewey’s original work and its subsequent interpretation as far as
reflection is concerned. The first issue has to do with whether reflection
is limited to the thought process about action, or whether it is more bound
up in action. The second issue relates to the time frames within which re-
flection takes place. The third issue is concerned with whether reflection is
by its very nature problem-centred or not. Finally, the fourth issue focuses
on “how consciously the one reflecting takes account of wider historic,
cultural and political values or beliefs in framing and reframing practical
problems to which solutions are being sought” (Hatton and Smith, 1995,
p. 34). This process has been identified as critical reflection (Gore and
Zeichner in Hatton and Smith, op. cit).
Much attention has been paid to the concept of reflection in the literat-
ure in the last 20 years. According to Mason and Davis (1991), the word
‘reflect’ means literally ‘to send or to go back’. These authors emphasise
that a person who investigates his own experience in order to specialise a
generality and see if it makes sense to him is concerned with a reflective
activity.
Reflection can also be defined as the conscious consideration of per-
sonal experiences (Dewey, 1933; Inhelder and Piaget, 1958; Hiebert, 1992;
Wistedt, 1994), often in the interests of establishing relationships between
ideas or actions (Hiebert, 1992). In mathematics learning, reflection is
characterised by distancing oneself from the action of doing mathematics
(Sigel, in Wheatley, 1992). According to Wheatley, it is one thing to solve
a problem and it is quite another to treat one’s action as an object of reflec-
tion. He emphasises that it is not enough for students to complete tasks,
but that they must be encouraged to reflect on their activity. For example,
being asked to justify a method of solution will promote reflection. This
202 RAYMOND BJULAND

may occur in a small-group context when a participant asks: ‘Will that

work?’ or it may occur in the whole-class discussion when the presenter is
asked to clarify an explanation.
In the problem-solving tradition, Polya’s looking-back step (1945/1957)
is often related to a reflective activity since it is possible to improve any
solution or the understanding of the solution. By looking back at the solu-
tion, students could consolidate their knowledge and develop their abil-
ity to solve problems. In our study (Bjuland, 2002) with regard to the
problem-solving tasks and the students’ attempts at coming up with a
convincing argument, we have distinguished between looking back and
reflecting. Looking back on the solution process and on the solution itself
is considered to be a heuristic strategy serving to find the solution, while
reflecting refers to the struggle to modify the solution.
Reflection is also considered in a framework particularly used in teacher
education. Schön (1983, 1987) talks about reflection-in-action, implying
conscious thinking and modification of actions virtually instantaneously
and reflection-on-action, implying conscious thinking upon action after it
has taken place. We have been inspired by Schön’s framework of reflection
related to teacher education and have adapted it to our particular context
where student teachers are concerned with problem-solving tasks in small
groups. Looking back on the solution process and reflecting on a solution
just found are related to the reflection-in-action part of Schön’s framework.
During the work on the problems in the small groups, the students were
expected to reflect on their group work and their own learning processes at
the end of each meeting. We have considered these reflections as reflection-
on-action. It can be argued that reflection-on-action involves looking back
upon action some time after it has taken place (Hatton and Smith, 1995).
One of Dewey’s key issues with regard to reflection is related to the time
frames within which reflection takes place. Dewey seems to imply that
the time frames are extended and systematic rather than immediate and
short term (Hatton and Smith, op. cit.). However, in the two episodes
presented here we focus on the students’ reflections on the learning process
chosen from the third and fourth meeting respectively, implying that the
students have experienced collaborating in small groups and worked on
these particular problems for three or four meetings.

3. M ETHOD

Our project is based on a naturalistic research paradigm (Lincoln and Guba,

1985; Erlandson et al., 1993; Brenner and Moschkovich, 2000) which as-
sumes, as a theoretical premise, that meaning is socially constructed and
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 203

negotiated in practice by the participants in the groups. The naturalistic

paradigm reflected in our study relies largely on an ethnographic approach
towards research. We believe that it is important to understand more about
what is going on in a particular small group where students are concerned
with reflections on their learning process related to their solution process
for a given problem. The analysis of the dialogues is inspired by an interac-
tionist approach (Bauersfeld, 1980; Bauersfeld et al., 1988; Voigt, 1995).
This is linked more specifically to the dialogical approach to cognition and
communication (Marková and Foppa, 1990; Cestari, 1997).
We follow Cestari (1997) in her argument for choosing this approach
“because it allows one to analyse the co-construction of formal language
among participants in a defined situation” (op. cit. p. 41). This means that
the dialogical approach permits one to identify interactional processes,
which, in the analyses of these particular episodes, are the verbalisations
expressing the students’ reflections.

3.1. Data collection

The data corpus was collected at a teacher-training college in the autumn
of 1996 in Norway. Our research project was carried out on a problem-
solving course in geometry. This course consisted of two parts: a first part
of teaching over a month in September, including group work assisted by
the teacher, and a second part of small-group work (21 groups) without
teacher intervention over three weeks in October. The corpus was doc-
umented over this period in October. It consists of fieldnotes from the
observation of three small groups of student teachers (randomly chosen)
when they work on two problems of classical geometry. It also consists of
the students’ group reports from this collaborative small-group work. The
verbalisations were registered on an audio tape (8 lessons in each group).

3.2. Procedure
In the lectures to the whole class (105 students) during the first part of
teaching, the students were encouraged to create an open learning envir-
onment in the small groups. In order to stimulate social scaffolding we
focused on some advice, introduced by Johnson and Johnson (1990), on
how cooperative learning can be used in mathematics: positive interde-
pendence, promotive interaction, individual accountability, interpersonal
and small-group skills, and group processing. We paid special attention
to the group processing. The students were expected to reflect on their
group work and their own learning processes during their work on prob-
lems in the small-group lessons. They were also expected to come up with
a general evaluation of their experience of working on problem solving
204 RAYMOND BJULAND

in collaborative working groups, stimulating for student reflections as a

preparation as future teachers of mathematics.

3.3. Problem selection

The problems chosen were the same as the problems given to the students
who attended a course in geometry at Agder University College in the
spring of 1996. Experiences from observations of one student group work-
ing on these problems helped us obtain a thorough understanding of the
problems in order to consider whether these problems could be used in
this project or not. The choice of problems has been guided by three main
criteria:
1. The problems had to be relevant to the students’ classroom and small-
group experience from the first part in September;
2. The problems had to challenge the students to experiment, to make
conjectures, to reject the conjectures and to prove them if possible.
The questions also had to invite alternative proofs and possible ways
of generalising the problems or formulating new problems;
3. The questions had to be challenging but within the capacity of the
subjects to solve with existing knowledge.
Based on these criteria three problems were chosen for the collaborative
small-group work in the second part. During the four group meetings, the
students had to work on problem 1 and choose problem 2 (see Bjuland,
2002) or problem 3 as the second one. Our particular group worked on
problem 1 and problem 3.

Problem 1
A. Choose a point P in the plane. Construct an equilateral triangle such
that P is an interior point and such that the distance from P to the
sides of the triangle is 3, 5 and 7 cm respectively.
B. Choose an arbitrary equilateral triangle
ABC. Let P be an interior
point. Let da , db , dc be the distances from P to the sides of the triangle
(da is the distance from P to the side opposite of A, etc.)
a) Choose different positions for P and measure da , db , dc each time.
Make a table and look for patterns. Try to formulate a conjecture.
b) Try to prove the conjecture in a).
c) Try to generalise the problem above.

Problem 3
Given a right-angled triangle
ABC (
B = 90◦ ) and a semicircle , with
centre O and diameter AQ, where Q is a point on AB. The points P (P
=
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 205

A) and R on  are given so that P is on AC and OR is perpendicular to

AB.

a) Find
AP R and
QP C.

b) Prove that
BQC =
BP C.

c) Prove that if B, P , R are collinear (are points on a line), then BC and

BQ are of equal lengths.

d) Formulate the converse of the theorem in c). Investigate whether this

formulation is a theorem.

Problem 1 is an open form of Viviani’s theorem, originally introduced by

the Italian mathematician Vincenzo Viviani (1622–1703). This theorem
states that the sum of the lengths of the perpendiculars from an interior
point P to the sides of an equilateral triangle equals the altitude h. By
introducing this historical problem in an open form, we aim that the student
teachers are able to find the value of the distance sum based on drawings,
measurements, and constructions of conjectures, and finally give a proof
for it.
With similar intentions, an open form of Viviani’s theorem and its gen-
eralisations has also been used in Hungarian classrooms for investigations
at different school levels (Kántor, in press).
Maybe problem 3 does not offer the same nice setting for exploration
as that of problem 1. However, based on observation of student teach-
ers working with these problems in small groups, we believe that these
problems are so difficult that the students are dependent on one another in
order to come up with a solution. A study carried out by Borgersen (1994)
shows that problems in geometry are ideal for use in small groups in order
to let students experience the entire problem-solving process. Based on
findings from the students’ group reports, Borgersen (op. cit.) claims that
it is possible to achieve interesting results at all levels of knowledge even
though students have limited mathematical background and experience.
In this respect, these problems are useful from the point of view of
our research objectives. Taking part in the process of working on one of
these problems may stimulate reflections on their experience as learners
of mathematics. It is also possible that their preparation for the teaching
profession plays a role in this reflection.
Since our group of students chose to work on problem 3, a brief recon-
struction of their solution process for this problem is presented below.
206 RAYMOND BJULAND

4. R ECONSTRUCTION OF THE SOLUTION PROCESS FOR PROBLEM 3a

AND 3b

As a background for the analysis of two episodes concerning student re-

flections on their learning process, a brief reconstruction of the solution
process for problem 3a and 3b is introduced based on the data corpus.

4.1. Drawing a figure of the problem

The students have a 25-minute discussion on problem 3 during the second
meeting. They read the problem and discuss what is meant by the mathem-
atical symbols ‘’ and ‘
=’. They decide to draw a figure of the problem.
The students agree on placing point B arbitrarily on a line through point A.
They go on to draw a right-angled triangle arbitrarily chosen. They observe
from the text that AQ is a diameter of the semicircle , and they agree on
placing point Q arbitrarily on the line segment AB. Since point O is the
centre of , it follows that O is the midpoint of AQ. The students have
so far been concerned with the placements of points A, O, Q, B and C
respectively. They draw the semi-circle  and observe that point P lies
both on  and on the line segment AC. The students help each other to
place the different points on the figure. They need some time to place point
R, but they realise that R lies on , so that RO is a perpendicular on line
segment AB.

4.2. Two possible solutions on angle
APR emerge from the figures
After having come up with a figure, the students agree on measuring angle

AP R with a protractor in order to get an idea of the size of the angle.
The measurements from four of the students show that angle
AP R is 45
degrees. However, one student’s measurement suggests that angle
AP R
is 135 degrees. The students compare this figure with the other figures, but
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 207

they do not find any mistake. They observe that point P is placed to the left
of point R.
One of the students focuses on
AP R and
AOR. The argument is
introduced that the angle
AOR at the centre is double the angle
AP R
at the circumference since they both subtend the same arc AR of the circle
(Thales’ theorem). The group members do not focus more on the fact that
there are two solutions to the problem, depending on how the points P and
R are placed in relation to each other. They just change the figure which
comes up with the 135-degree angle of
AP R. The students agree that
they have come up with a solution in which angle
AP R is 45 degrees
due to Thales’ theorem.

4.3. The solution process of finding angle
QPC

Some individual and introductory attempts have been made at the end of
the second meeting in order to find angle
QP C. They observe that the
angle is 90 degrees but without giving an argument for this. The students
start the third meeting by recapitulating the reason why angle
AP R is
45 degrees before they go on to find an argument which shows that angle

QP C is 90 degrees. They are concerned with the semi-circle and observe
that the points A, P and Q all lie on . One of the students also focuses
on the points A, O and Q. When one of the other students focuses on
Thales’ theorem, she observes that the angle at the centre is 180 degrees.
She comes up with the argument that angle
AP Q is 90 degrees since
it is an angle at the circumference. The students agree that the argument
follows directly from Thales’ theorem. From a mathematical point of view,
it is then easy to conclude that angle
QP C is 90 degrees. However, the
students choose a cumbersome way to come up with this conclusion (for
more details, see Bjuland, 2002).

4.4. The solution process for problem 3b

The development in the solution process is shown in the three consecutive
figures below.
Relevant subconfigurations from the initial and complex figure have
been found in order to make sense of the problem. The students have
focused particularly on quadrilateral QBCP on a separate figure. The
idea of the cyclic quadrilateral has been discussed, by searching for the
characteristics in a textbook. After some discussion, the students have
concluded that QBCP is a cyclic quadrilateral. The subconfiguration has
been modified by a circle which roughly circumscribes QBCP . One of the
students draws special attention to this circle. The student, who has come
up with the extended figure, suggests that this is not constructive for the
208 RAYMOND BJULAND

.
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 209

solution process. However, since the other group member is concerned

with her circle, she focuses more closely on it and suggests how they
could construct the centre of this particular circle in order to obtain a more
accurate figure. The construction of the circle triggers the breakthrough
in the solution process. It has been observed that angle
BQC and angle

BP C are both angles at the circumference, subtending the same arc. The
theorem of Thales has been used in order to justify that these angles are
equal.

5. S TUDENT REFLECTIONS ON THE LEARNING PROCESS ( FIRST

EPISODE )

The aim of the following episode is to illustrate how the students reflect
on their learning process at the end of the third meeting. The analysis
of the students’ dialogue focuses on verbalisations that show evidence of
this reflection process. During the first three meetings, the students have
worked on problem 1.
The analyses of the dialogues from our group (Bjuland, 2002) give a
detailed description of how the students approached and made sense of
problem 1B. One major difficulty for these students was to consider how
to measure the distances da , db and dc from a point P to one of the sides
of the triangle. Some of the students thought that they had to measure the
lengths of the perpendiculars from P to their intersections with the sides
of the triangles, but one of the group members had an alternative way of
doing it. She thought that they should measure the distance along the line
through P parallel to the base of the triangle. This idea challenged the
other students to focus on an alternative way of doing the measurements.
The elaboration of the two different perspectives led to agreement. The
students realised that they had to do the measurements in the same way in
order to find a pattern. The students made several efforts to come up with
a conjecture da + db + dc = constant. They did not find a proof for the
conjecture.
The students are now in the process of working on problem 3. They
have come up with a reasonable solution for problem 3b, and they have
started to work on problem 3c. After having read the formulation of the
problem and drawn a figure as a starting point, the students decide to go on
working on problem 3c at the fourth meeting. They spend the last minutes
of the third meeting on group reflections.
Before the episode presented below, the students have started this re-
flection process, and they have been concerned with the problems given
in the group work. Mia and Gry claim that the problems are too difficult,
210 RAYMOND BJULAND

while Unn suggests that they make the problems too difficult. She says
that they work too quickly and introduce too many ideas in the solution
process.
The students’ reflections on the learning process are organised in five
thematical segments, which have emerged from the analysis of the stu-
dents’ conversation.

5.1. Making problems too difficult

1538. Unn: Yes. . . but I think that we generally make all the problems too
difficult. . .
1539. Roy: What can we do about it then?. . .
1540. Unn: No. . . I don’t know. . . (laughs quietly). . .
1541. Liv: I think that it just has to be like this. . . well. . . since we are not
very good at this. . .

Unn’s initiative (1538) is a continuation of the conversation in which the

students reflect on the problems given in the group work. There is a sign
of frustration which could indicate limited experience of working on such
problems. Unn is concerned with the fact that they make the problems
too difficult. She has introduced this consideration in an earlier discussion
linked to the fact that they introduce too many ideas in the solution process
without spending any great time focusing on each idea. The word ‘gen-
erally’ suggests that Unn’s statement is not only linked to the particular
experience from the ongoing solution process for problem 3. Unn seems
to suggest that they have a general difficulty in their way of approaching
and making sense of a problem.
Roy’s open question (1539) follows up the prior verbalisation, encour-
aging a focused discussion on this statement. The question is an indicator
of the supportive and constructive atmosphere established in the group.
The students not only focus on the difficulty in the solution process, but are
also concerned with finding ways to improve their sense-making process
on a problem given. The uncertainty and the quiet laughter (1540) indicate
that this process is not easy. Liv follows up (1541) by suggesting that
they have to work on these problems in this way, reminding the students
of their limited mathematical backgrounds. This verbalisation is probably
linked to Unn’s earlier statement on making the problems too difficult.
Liv seems to emphasise the fact that they need to bring a lot of ideas into
the discussion since they do not have a very clear way of approaching the
problem. The students seem to be conscious of their limited knowledge
with mathematical problem solving.
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 211

5.2. Perceiving differences in their participation in the solution process

1542. Mia: However. . . I feel it’s unpleasant when you (Liv and Roy) sit and
think out everything. . . and we know you’ll say. . . yes what are
we going to do now, then?. . . what are we going to write now,
then?. . .don’t you agree?. . .
1543. Liv: Yes I get so incredibly keen because eeh. . .
1544. Mia: Yes but you understand it and you. . .
1545. Liv: Well. . . we do spend a lot of time on it. . .
1546. Gry: We would never have come up with a solution I think. . . if it
hadn’t been for the fact that someone maybe thought a bit by
themselves and thought aloud. . . and they found out a bit. . .
individually. . . if we had all sat here thinking about everything. . .
then we wouldn’t have . . . I don’t think we would have finished a
single problem yet. . .
1547. Mia: But everybody has to do their bit. . . well it. . .

Mia’s verbalisation (1542) shows a shift in the students’ reflections on

the learning process: from their considerations of their limited experi-
ence of working on problems to their perceptions of differences in the
participation on the solution process. Mia’s frustration is related to her
self-perception of being too little involved in the solution process. All her
questions indicate that she is just told what to do, implying that she has
difficulties in participating in the mathematical discussion. Mia reminds
the other group members of the importance of involving all the participants
in the discussion in order to achieve the expected synergetic quality for the
communication. Being involved in the discussion is also important for the
students’ learning processes.
Working on these problems also provokes excitement (1543). This af-
fective expression is probably related to the solution process for problem
3b in which Liv came up with the final step in the solution process. The
progress and understanding of the problems (1544) seem to be related
to their willingness to spend considerable time on the solution process
(1545). The student’s excuse of spending a long time on the problems
(1545) could be an indicator of willingness and perseverance to work in-
tensely on the problems. These affective involvements could be crucial in
order to succeed in solving a mathematical problem.
Gry (1546) points to the fact that in order to make progress in the solu-
tion process, the students must allow time for individual considerations.
Mia (1547) follows up and makes it clear that all the group members must
be involved in the solution process.
212 RAYMOND BJULAND

5.3. Suggesting improvements in the learning process

1548. Roy: Well. . . but is the difficulty simply that we. . . eeh. . . before every-
body in the group has understood the point. . . we go on with the
next thing?. . .
1549. Liv: I could maybe have hung on for a while . . . with the solution
(for problem 3b). . . if I had made it out. . . or. . . or perhaps. . . or
you or anybody. . . that. . . we maybe should just give some hints
how. . .
1550. Unn: which (idea) we’ll use. . .
1551. Liv: what we can do in order to find it out. . . before just introducing
the solution at once. . .
1552. Roy: Yes. . . but on the other hand. . . probably we’re all glad now we
found a solution. . .
1553. Mia: Yes of course. . . that’s quite obvious. . .
1554. Roy: instead of spending extra time on it. . .
1555: Mia: Yeah, yeah, yeah. . . that’s obvious. . .
1556. Roy: But. . . eeh. . .

The difficulty and also the frustration brought into the discussion earlier
by Mia (1542) are handled in a supportive and constructive way. Roy’s
open question (1548) is linked to Mia’s concern about not being involved
in the solution process. He focuses the discussion by inviting the other
students to mention explicitly what the difficulty in the students’ learning
process is. In his question, Roy also suggests what the difficulty is and
the verbalisation triggers suggestions of improvements for the students’
learning processes.
Liv follows up (1549) by looking back on the solution process for prob-
lem 3b, reflecting on her own way of presenting the solution for the other
students. Liv criticises herself for coming up too quickly with the solution.
Her reflection can be understood from the special case for problem 3b
to a more general way of improving the learning process when they are
dealing with problem solving. Giving hints (1549), pointing to the idea
they want to use (1550) instead of presenting the solution at once (1551)
are the students’ concrete suggestions for improving their solution process
for a particular problem.
After having introduced some general improvements for the learning
process, Roy and Mia agree on the fact that they are glad they found a
solution for problem 3b (1552)–(1555). Roy’s initiative (1552) is probably
linked to Liv’s considerations for her presentation of the solution, sup-
porting her for the fact that she came up with the last step in the solution
process. The difficulty in the learning process, the differences in student
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 213

involvement, has been elaborated on by concrete improvements and Mia’s

frustration, brought into the discussion, has been followed by satisfaction
with coming up with a solution.
Roy’s verbalisation (1556) suggests a shift in the dialogue which is
followed up by Unn’s initiative in the next segment (1557).

5.4. Perceiving how to solve the problems

1557. Unn: But there is something about these problem-solving tasks. . .
when you don’t know which methods you’re going to make use
of. . .isn’t there?. . .
1558. Liv: But it’s. . .
1559. Roy: That’s what we do by trial and error all the time. . .
1560. Unn: Yes. . .
1561. Liv: That’s why we have to use a lot of. . . (methods). . .

Unn’s verbalisation (1557) triggers a shift in the reflection process when

she focuses on the nature of the problems. This reflection is linked to
the dialogue of the first segment in which the students focused on the
obstacle of making the problem-solving tasks too difficult. Unn’s initiative
in this segment probably focuses on the particular problems given for the
group work, but her verbalisation also suggests a consideration of how
to solve problem-solving tasks in general. The students’ perceptions of a
mathematical problem are linked to the fact that they do not have a readily
accessible mathematical algorithm for the solution process. The students
seem to be aware of the complexity of the problem-solving tasks. They are
confronted with the fact that they need to find methods or generate ideas
in order to make progress in the solution process. In this sense-making
process they realise that they have to solve the problems by trial and error
(1559), (1560).
In the introduction to this episode, we pointed to Unn’s suggestion that
the students introduced too many ideas in the solution process. Liv (1561)
makes it clear that they need to introduce a lot of ideas or methods in the
solution process due to the nature of the problems.

5.5. Elaborating on improvements in the learning process

1562. Unn: Yes but. . . suppose if one (of us) maybe comes up with a
solution. . . okay we’ll use that method. . . then it’s maybe easier
for the others to understand why it’s like this. . . so that they
get to try out the method before. . . before the whole solution is
presented. . .
1563. Mia: Yes maybe. . .
214 RAYMOND BJULAND

1564. Roy: Yes. . . if. . . if one of us discovers the solution. . . then we’d rather
introduce the method. . .

The students put this idea in concrete form by focusing on the

solution for problem 3b.

1579. Roy: But the fact that we could have. . . eeh. . . we could all have con-
structed that circle. . . and then seen what it was like. . . that we
agreed on the fact that now we’re constructing a circle which
circumscribes the cyclic quadrilateral. . .
1580. Unn: Mmm. . .
1581. Roy: That’s what we could have done. . . and then we could. . .
1582. Unn: And what do we see then?. . . or something like that. . .

The students elaborate on the discussion from the third segment in which
they suggested improvements for their learning processes. Unn (1562) fo-
cuses on the relation between being involved in the solution process and
their mathematical understanding. The students are not satisfied just with
coming up with a solution, but they are concerned with the fact that all
the group members must understand ‘why’ the solution is like this. Mia
agrees to some extent (1563), while Roy (1564) repeats Unn’s initiative,
confirming that they introduce the idea or method for the other students
before presenting the whole solution.
The students put this general way of dealing with problem-solving tasks
for later discussions in concrete form by focusing on the solution for prob-
lem 3b (1565)–(1578). Roy focuses on the specific suggestion of construct-
ing a circle which circumscribes the cyclic quadrangle QBCP (1579). The
development in the solution process is shown in three consecutive figures
(see 4.4). After having finished this construction, the students could then
individually get the opportunity to observe that angle
BQC and angle

BP C are both angles at the circumference, subtending the same arc and
use Thales to conclude that these angles are equal.
The last sequences of verbalisations (1579)–(1582) show that the stu-
dents agree on Roy’s specific suggestion. The students’ reflections from
general considerations of introducing ideas or methods before presenting a
solution to put this in concrete form with the particular case with problem
3b, indicate a willingness to really make an improvement in their learning
processes. By moving from the general to the particular, their idea of deal-
ing with the solution process is exemplified for a concrete problem. Roy’s
specific suggestion of introducing the construction of the circle is expan-
ded by Unn since she focuses on the strategy of posing open questions
(1582). The question stimulates each of the group members to discover the
last step in the solution process themselves.
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 215

6. S TUDENT REFLECTIONS ON THEIR EXPERIENCE AS FUTURE

TEACHERS OF MATHEMATICS ( SECOND EPISODE )

In the previous episode we observed that the students reflected on their

learning process after having worked on two geometrical problems. The
students reflected on their experience as learners of mathematics. The aim
of the following episode is to illustrate how the students reflect on their
problem-solving experience as future teachers of mathematics. The epis-
ode is selected from the end of the fourth and last meeting.
Throughout the whole meeting the students have been concerned with
working on problem 3c, but they do not manage to come up with a solution.
Two of the students claim that they have come up with a proof for the
theorem based on measurements. However, two of the other students claim
that it is not good enough to measure the line segments BC and BQ on five
different figures and conclude that BC and BQ are of equal lengths. They
need to find a proper mathematical argument. The experience of getting
stuck with the problem has led to frustration among the students. A detailed
reconstruction of the students’ attempt at solving problem 3c can be found
in Bjuland (1997).
The students’ reflections are organised in three thematical segments,
which have emerged from the analysis of the students’ conversation.

6.1. Experiencing getting stuck and understanding pupils’ frustration

1361. Roy: Mmm. . . (14 sec. . . low voices). . . then we have maybe learnt
quite a lot about. . . how the pupils often may feel maybe. . . like
frustration and so on. . .
1362. Liv: Mmm. . .
1363. Mia: Yes. . .
1364. Roy: There is certainly a good deal to learn from that. . .
1365. Liv: Mmm. . .
1366. Mia: Yes. . .
1367. Roy: We know something about our situation. . . (experience from
solution process). . .
1368. Mia: Yes that’s for certain. . . frustration and. . .

Roy (1361) is concerned with what they have learnt from the experience of
getting stuck with problem 3c. Working on this geometrical problem has
provoked frustration among the students. Instead of remaining frustrated,
the students reflect on the experience as future teachers of mathematics by
considering pupils’ frustration in classrooms. Roy’s initiative of focusing
on the perspective of pupils is followed with agreement (1362), (1363),
216 RAYMOND BJULAND

stimulating Roy to repeat the fact that they can learn much about pupils’
affective involvement based on their own experience from the solution
process (1364), (1367). Both Liv (1365) and Mia (1366), repeat their short
responses, and Mia strengthens her agreement with this reflection (1368).

6.2. Motivating pupils in order to deal with frustration

1369. Roy: What could we have done when. . . when we were that
frustrated. . . in order to pass this situation when we look back?. . .
what could we have done differently. . . for example. . . Mia?. . .
1370. Mia: No, then I’d probably have had to. . . for example if I had been
better prepared in advance. . . personally, for my part. . .
1371. Roy: Usually a pupil in school hasn’t (done) that. . . if he is going
to learn something new. . . he gets his homework. . . but he’s so
frustrated that he doesn’t seem to be able to face working on his
homework. . .
1372. Liv: It’s like you say. . . that you don’t see the point with it. . . there are
probably quite a few pupils who have the same feeling. . . how. . .
what can we say in order to. . .
1373. Unn: motivate. . .
1374. Liv: in order to motivate?. . .

Roy’s question (1369) seems to be triggered by Mia’s confirmation, indic-

ating frustration in the solution process (1368). The question shows the
important shift in the reflection process from the state of being frustrated
while getting stuck with the problem to an invitation to the other students
to participate in discussing how to learn from this situation. The question
is repeated, elaborated on, and particularly directed to Mia. Mia criticises
herself for not being sufficiently prepared for the small-group work (1370),
stimulating Roy to focus on the situation in school. He suggests that pupils
in general are badly prepared for learning something new and easily give
up working on their homework when getting frustrated (1371).
Earlier in this discussion, Mia has told the other group members that
she cannot see the point of working collaboratively in small groups with
these geometrical problems (see Bjuland, 1997, p. 195). Liv (1372) brings
Mia’s opinion into the conversation and links it with pupils’ frustration in
classrooms. The dialogue shows how the students’ reflections on their ex-
perience as learners of mathematics trigger reflections on their preparation
as future teachers of mathematics by bringing their perspectives on pupils
into the conversation.
The open question (1372) stimulates the students to focus on how to
motivate pupils in classrooms in order to deal with frustration (1373),
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 217

(1374). Liv’s question could also be an invitation to focus on their own

motivation as learners of mathematics.

6.3. Working on another problem when getting stuck

1375. Roy: I think it’s important maybe when we get stuck (with a
problem). . . then it’s very important that we can start working
on another problem. . .
1376. Liv: Mmm. . .
1377. Roy: that we manage. . .
1378. Unn: Mmm. . .
1379. Roy: in order to increase our self-confidence. . .
1380. Mia: Yes if you manage that (problem). . . then you have made some
progress. . .

In the previous segment (6.2), we identified that the students’ reflections

as learners of mathematics and their reflections as future teachers were
both present in the dialogue. Based on their own experience from the
solution process, they used their frustration at getting stuck to reflect on
the situation of pupils in schools. Instead of elaborating on the perspective
of pupils’ frustration in classrooms, Roy’s response (1375) to Liv’s ques-
tion (1372) shows that Roy seems to be more concerned with their own
experience as learners of mathematics. His suggestion about working on
another problem when getting stuck (1375) is an important strategy which
could help them to improve their problem solving. It is also possible that
Roy thinks of this suggestion as a strategy to be used in his future work as
a teacher of mathematics.
In order to deal with frustration and to stimulate their motivation in the
problem-solving process, the students suggest starting to work on an easier
problem. By succeeding in solving the new problem (1377), they believe
that this positive experience will increase their self-confidence (1379),
(1380).

7. D ISCUSSION

We have, in the first episode, focused on one group of students and their re-
flections on their learning processes after having collaborated with problem-
solving tasks in a small-group context for three meetings. Through the
detailed analysis of the students’ conversation, we have identified some
of the students’ reflections organised in five thematical segments: Making
problems too difficult, perceiving differences in their participation in the
218 RAYMOND BJULAND

solution process, suggesting improvements in the learning process, per-

ceiving how to solve the problems, elaborating on improvements in the
learning process.
Our analysis has been based on the perspectives of the students being
studied. From a methodological point of view, this is one principal char-
acteristic of much observational research (Bryman, in Silverman, 1993).
However, we have to take into consideration, as Silverman points out, that
“any attempt to base observation on an understanding of how people ‘see’
things can speedily degenerate into a commonsensical or psychologistic
perspective” (op. cit, p. 31).

7.1. Focusing on difficulties in the learning process

If we focus more carefully on the identified group reflections which have
emerged from the analysis of the students’ conversation in the first epis-
ode, we observe that the students basically reflect on two key issues. The
first reflection is related to the concern about making problem-solving
tasks too difficult in general (segment 1). The second reflection has to
do with the concern of participation in the solution process (segment 2).
These reflections-on-action (Schön, 1983, 1987), more specifically on the
problem-solving activity, indicate the conscious thinking upon action after
it has taken place. The general concern identified in the first reflection
indicates an extended and systematic reflection since it is not only linked
to the particular activity on the third meeting. Even though the students
have been introduced to problem-solving in small groups throughout the
teaching part of September and they have been working on the group work
for three meetings in October, the students realise that they lack knowledge
and experience of working on such problems. They need to introduce a lot
of ideas into the sense-making process since they do not have a very clear
way of finding a direction for the solution process.
The students do not reflect on the fact that two possible solutions on
angle
AP R emerge from the figures in problem 3a, depending on how
the point P is placed related to R. They just change the figure which comes
up with the 135-degree angle of
AP R. An important reflection at the
end of this group meeting would have been to focus more closely on this
particular figure. Maybe it is new to the students to come up with more
than one solution to a problem. One the other hand, the two figures with
different angles of
AP R have perhaps made them aware of two possible
solutions, but they are satisfied with one solution. It is also possible that
the students want to have the same starting point for the other parts of the
problem.
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 219

The second reflection, related to the perception of differences in par-

ticipation on the solution process, is closely connected to frustration. It
is possible to argue for the fact that this affective involvement has been
triggered from experiences throughout the three meetings. However, based
on knowledge of the students’ solution processes with the two problems
(Bjuland, 2002), we believe that this reflection is relatively immediate
and related to the activity at the third meeting in which the students were
concerned with solving problem 3b. This reflection is constructive for the
learning processes in the group since the students are reminded of the
importance for all group members to participate in the mathematical dis-
cussion in order to achieve the expected synergetic quality in the commu-
nication.

7.2. Elaborating on reflections to improve their cooperation on the

solution process
The two reflections, identified in segment 1 and segment 2, focus on their
difficulties in the learning process. However, these reflections are discussed
and reflected upon at a meta-level throughout the other segments of the
dialogue. The students are concerned with finding general ways to improve
their cooperation and in this way, the understanding of the problems. On
this general meta-level, the reflections are also related to their learning
processes.
The first reflection is expanded in segment 4 in which the students focus
on the nature of problem-solving tasks in general. Their perceptions of
what they mean by a mathematical problem coincide with definitions in
which it is defined as a task for which the student does not have a readily
accessible procedure/method/algorithm sufficient to answer the question
(Blum and Niss, 1991; Schoenfeld, 1993). We follow Borgersen (1994)
when he emphasises that teachers must make an effort in order to find and
test potential problems which are suitable for cooperation in small groups.
The students’ second reflection is related to this synergetic quality of
the discussion. This reflection is expanded in segment 3 and segment 5. In
order to stimulate student participation, they reflect on how they can give
hints or introduce particular ideas before presenting a solution. The stu-
dents move from general considerations of improvements for their cooper-
ation on the problems and put their ideas into concrete form by focusing
on the solution for problem 3b. This shift from the general to the particular
shows that the students are focused on improvements for their learning
process. This becomes even more clear since they use the particular idea
of constructing a circle which circumscribes the quadrilateral for problem
3b as a starting point to reflect on how general strategies like posing open
220 RAYMOND BJULAND

questions can stimulate participation and their learning processes for future
work on problems and as future teachers.
In a previous study (Bjuland, 2002), we have seen that questions in the
students’ discussion can contribute to the process of sense-making when
they are confronted with a problem. This is also supported by Cestari
(1997), who claims that questioning could be a vehicle in a small-group
context which enhances students’ building of argument. In the analysis
of the dialogue concerning the student reflections on the learning process
presented above, open questions are used in a supportive atmosphere to
focus the reflections. The questions stimulate the shift in the reflections
from introducing the difficulties in the solution process to an elaborated
attempt at improving their learning processes.

7.3. Reflecting on their experience as future teachers of mathematics

Based on the analysis of the first episode, the student teachers’ reflections
illustrate that they are concerned with their own experience as learners
of mathematics. The fact that these students are preparing to enter the
teaching profession does not seem to play a central role in their reflection.
Why are such reflections not present in the first episode?
We have seen that the students have been so concerned with solving the
problems by encouraging one another to participate in the mathematical
discussion, stimulating all the students to focus on one particular idea, a
strategy or a mathematical concept in order to understand the different
steps in the solution process. It is likely that it is difficult for them to focus
on their future role as teachers simultaneously. We also have to take into
consideration that the students were just implicitly told to focus on their
role as teachers when they were expected to come up with a general eval-
uation of their experience of working on problem solving in collaborative
working groups.
However, the analysis of the second episode at the end of the fourth
meeting shows that the students bring this kind of reflection into the dis-
cussion. Working on these particular problems has provoked frustration
among the students. They emphasise that the experience of getting stuck
with a problem may help them to better understand the frustration pupils
experience while working on unfamiliar problems in classroom. By sug-
gesting working on an easier problem in order to promote motivation and
self-confidence, the students are aware of an important problem-solving
strategy, especially if that new problem is related to a difficult one. If they
succeed in achieving a solution to the easier problem, it is then more stim-
ulating to go on to work on the difficult one. Polya (1945/1957) claims
that in order to solve a mathematical problem it is fundamental to relate
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 221

the problem to formerly acquired mathematical knowledge. This is also

supported by Dreyfus and Eisenberg (1996), claiming that an extremely
important key in developing mathematical reasoning ability is to train one-
self to look for analogies. The students do not seem to elaborate on this
reflection since there is no indication of accommodating the easier prob-
lem into existing knowledge along with the difficult one. The students’
reflection on the experience of getting stuck is more linked to motivation.
According to Mason and Davis (1991), it is important to recognise
being stuck and to acknowledge it. These authors claim that this is a pos-
itive state since it offers a possibility to learn something about yourself
and maybe about pupils in school. We have seen that the students in our
particular group respond positively and productively on getting stuck. Re-
flections on their own learning processes trigger reflections on their pre-
paration for the teaching profession.
The analysis of the second episode has shown that the students reflect
on their experience both as learners of mathematics and as future teachers
of mathematics. Why are both these perspectives present in the second
episode and not in the first episode? Maybe it is easier for them to focus
on their future role as teachers at the end of the last meeting when they are
to finish the collaborative small-group work.

7.4. Reflecting on experience in small groups: can we take it for granted?

The analysis of these particular episodes has shown that the students with
limited mathematical backgrounds really have been concerned with reflec-
tions on their action (Schön, 1983, 1987). In the teaching part in Septem-
ber, in order to stimulate social scaffolding, we focused on some advice,
introduced by Johnson and Johnson (1990), on how cooperative learning
can be used in mathematics. Since we paid special attention to group pro-
cessing, it is probable that the students’ reflections on the cooperation, on
their learning processes, and on their preparation as future teachers have
been stimulated by the activity from the first part of the project. It could be
tempting to ask: What about the reflections in the other groups? Based on
the background knowledge about the subjects in one of the other groups,
categorised as a group of students with average mathematical background
(Bjuland, 2002), the reflections in this group are very brief and not much
elaborated. The students start to reflect on their problem-solving activity,
but they quickly run into the process of solving the problems. They are so
focused on the problems, which implies that they do not spend much time
on group reflections.
222 RAYMOND BJULAND

8. F INAL REMARKS

In order to answer the first research question, in section 1, we have, through

the analysis of the student conversation, illustrated that the group of stu-
dents with limited mathematical backgrounds are really concerned with re-
flections on their learning process after having worked on geometry prob-
lems in small groups. Even though students are stimulated for social scaf-
folding and expected to reflect on their group work, we learn from the
group of students with average mathematical background that it cannot be
taken for granted that students will focus on group reflections at the end of
a meeting. Problem-solving tasks trigger affective involvement like will-
ingness to spend considerable time on the solution process. It could there-
fore be difficult to change focus from working on a problem to reflecting
on the problem-solving activity.
Another research question was to identify elements of reflections in stu-
dent communication through collaborative problem-solving activity. Ba-
sically, the students reflect on two key issues. The first reflection is related
to the concern of making problem-solving tasks too difficult in general
while the second reflection has to do with the concern of participation
in the solution process. These reflections are discussed in order to stim-
ulate colleague participation promoting the understanding of the solution
process.
The third question focused on whether the students reflect on their ex-
perience as learners of mathematics or as teachers of mathematics. We
have seen that the students mainly reflect on their own learning process.
However, at the end of the last meeting, the students bring the perspect-
ive of pupils’ frustration in classroom into the discussion, indicating a
preparation for the teaching profession.
The analysis of the dialogue of the group of students with limited math-
ematical background gives evidence to support the argument that group
reflections at the end of a meeting are an important part of the problem-
solving activity. These reflections have emerged in the conversation without
teacher intervention.
One possible direction for future research would be to focus more closely
on observation, analysis and interpretation of the conversation of pupils at
lower levels in the school system (for example pupils aged 12–16) work-
ing collaboratively in small groups in a problem-solving context. More
specifically: Which elements of reflections can be identified in pupils’
communication at lower levels in the school system during collaborative
problem solving in small groups?
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 223

As a pedagogical implication, teachers should stimulate their students

to reflect on their cooperation in small groups. The presentation of episodes
from student dialogues in collaborative working groups can be useful in
courses at teacher-training colleges or in in-service training of teachers in
order to provide opportunities for students and teachers to observe how
group reflection develops in student groups.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would in particular like to thank the leadership at NLA College of Teacher

Education which provided the grant for doing this research. Thanks also go
to the student teachers, the teachers and the administration at the teacher
training college where the observations have been carried out. I would also
like to thank my colleagues Professor Maria Luiza Cestari and Associ-
ate Professor Hans Erik Borgersen at Agder University College for their
helpful comments on this paper.

R EFERENCES

Artzt, A.F. and Femia, S.Y.: 1999, ‘Mathematical reasoning during small-group problem
solving’, in L.V. Stiff and F.R. Curcio (eds.), Developing Mathematical Reasoning in
Grades K-12, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1999 Yearbook, pp. 115–
126. NCTM, Reston, VA.
Bauersfeld, H.: 1980, ‘Hidden dimensions in the so-called reality of a mathematics
classroom’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 11, 23–41.
Bauersfeld, H., Krummheuer, G. and Voigt, J.: 1988, ‘Interactional theory of learning and
teaching mathematics and related microethnographical studies’, in H.G. Steiner and
A. Vermandel (eds.), Foundations and Methodology of the Discipline of Mathematics
Education, Proceedings of the TME Conference, Antwerp, pp. 174-188.
Bjuland, R.: 1997, ‘Problemløsningsprosesser i geometri. Lærerstudenters samarbeid i
smågrupper: En dialogisk tilnærming. Unpublished master degree thesis. Agder Uni-
versity College, Kristiansand.
Bjuland, R.: 2002, Problem Solving in Geometry. Reasoning Processes of Student Teach-
ers Working in Small Groups: A Dialogical Approach, Published doctoral dissertation,
University of Bergen, Bergen.
Blum, W. and Niss, M.: 1991, ‘Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, applic-
ations, and links to other subjects – state, trends and issues in mathematics instruction’,
Educational Studies in Mathematics 22, 37–68.
Borgersen, H.E.: 1994, ‘Open ended problem solving in geometry’, Nordisk Matematikk-
didaktikk 2(2), 6–35.
Brenner, M.E. and Moschkovich, J.N.: 2000, ‘Integrating a naturalistic paradigm into re-
search on mathematics and science cognition and learning’, in A.E. Kelly and R.A. Lesh
(eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
224 RAYMOND BJULAND

Cestari, M.L.: 1997, Communication in Mathematics Classrooms. A Dialogical Approach,

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo, Oslo.
Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J. (eds.): 1993, Understanding Practice. Perspectives on Activity
and Context, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dewey, J.: 1933, How we think, Heath and Company, Boston.
Dreyfus, T. and Eisenberg, T.: 1996, ‘On different facets of mathematical thinking’, in
R.J. Sternberg and T.B. Zeev (eds.), The Nature of Mathematical Thinking, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L. and Allen, S.D.: 1993, Doing Naturalistic
Inquiry: A Guide to Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Hatton, N. and Smith, D.: 1995, ‘Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation’, Teaching and Teaching Education 11(1), 33–49.
Hiebert, J.: 1992, ‘Reflection and communication: Cognitive considerations in school
mathematics reform’, International Journal of Educational Research 17, 439–456.
Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J.: 1958, The Growth of Logical Thinking, Basic Books, New York.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T.: 1990, ‘Using cooperative learning in mathematics’, in
N. Davidson (ed.), Cooperative Learning in Math. A Handbook for Teachers, Addison
Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 103–125.
Kántor, T. (in press): From Vincenzo Viviani to Paul Erdos, Proceedings of Norma 2001,
The Third Nordic Conference on Mathematics Education, Kristianstad, Sweden.
Kilpatrick, J.: 1969, ‘Problem solving and creative behavior in mathematics’, in J.W.
Wilson and L.R. Carey (eds.), Review of Recent Research in Mathematics Education.
Studies in Mathematics Series, School Mathematics Study Group, Stanford, CA, Vol.
19, pp. 153–187.
Kilpatrick, J.: 1985, ‘Reflection and recursion’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 16,
205–214.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E.: 1991, Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lester, F.K.: 1980, ‘Research on mathematical problem solving’, in R.J. Shumway (ed.),
Research in Mathematics Education, NCTM, Reston, VA, pp. 286–323.
Lester, F.K.: 1994, ‘Musings about mathematical problem-solving research 1970–1994’,
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 25, 660–675.
Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E.: 1985, Naturalistic inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Lithner, J.: 2000, ‘Mathematical reasoning in task solving’, Educational Studies in
Mathematics 41, 165–190.
Lithner, J.: 2003, ‘Students’ mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises’,
Educational Studies in Mathematics 52, 29–55.
Marková, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.): 1990, The Dynamics of Dialogue, Harvester Wheatsheaf,
Hemel Hempstead.
Mason, J., Burton, L. and Stacey, K.: 1982, Thinking Mathematically, Addison-Wesley,
London.
Mason, J. and Davis, J.: 1991, Fostering and Sustaining Mathematics Thinking Through
Problem Solving, Deakin University Press, Victoria.
Polya, G.: 1957, How to solve it, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (Original work
published 1945).
Resnick, L.B.: 1991, ‘Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice’, in L.B. Resnick, J.M.
Levine and S.D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American
Psychological Association, Washington.
Schoenfeld, A.H.: 1985, Mathematical Problem Solving, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
 STUDENT TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS 225

Schoenfeld, A.H.: 1992, ‘Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacogni-

tion and sense making in mathematics’, in D.A. Grouws (ed.), Handbook of Research on
Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Macmillan, New York, pp. 334–370.
Schoenfeld, A.H.: 1993, ‘Teaching mathematical thinking and problem solving’ Sånn,
Ja! Rapport fra en konferanse om matematikkdidaktikk og kvinner i matematiske fag
(Arbeidsnotat 2/93, s. 67–89), Oslo: Norges forskningsrad, Avd. NAVF Sekretariatet for
kvinneforskning.
Schön, D.: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals think in Action, Basic
Books, New York.
Schön, D.: 1987, Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Towards a New Design for
Teaching and Learning in the Professions, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Silver, E.A.: 1987, ‘Foundations of cognitive theory and research for mathematics prob-
lem solving instruction’, in A. Schoenfeld (ed.), Cognitive Science and Mathematics
Education, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 33–60.
Silver, E.A.: 1994, ‘On mathematical problem solving’, For the Learning of Mathematics
14(1), 19–28.
Silverman, D.: 1993, Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and
Interaction, Sage, London.
Stanic, G.M.A. and Kilpatrick, J.: 1989, ‘Historical perspectives on problem solving in
mathematics curriculum’, in R.I. Charles and E.A. Silver (eds.), The Teaching and
Assessing of Mathematical Problem Solving, NCTM, Reston, VA.
Voigt, J.: 1995, ‘Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norms’, in P.
Cobb and H. Bauersfeld (eds.), The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction
in Classroom Cultures, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 163–201.
Wenger, E.: 1998, Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Wheatley, G.H.: 1992, ‘The role of reflection in mathematics learning’, Educational
Studies in Mathematics 23, 529–541.
Wistedt, I.: 1994, ‘Reflection, communication, and learning mathematics: A case study,
Learning and Instruction 4, 123–138.
Wyndhamn, J. and Saljö, R.: 1997, ‘Word problems and mathematical reasoning – a
study of children’s mastery of reference and meaning in textual realities’, Learning and
Instruction 7, 361–382.

Agder University College,

Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences
Department of Mathematics
Serviceboks 422
4602 Kristiansand
Norway
Telephone +47 51 43 20 95
E-mail: raybjul@frisurf.no
View publication stats