researches on mathematics education

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

An official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), JRME is the premier research journal in mathematics education and is devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels--preschool through college.

• eTOC Alerts
• Latest Issue TOC RSS

A Way to Consider Balance Among JRME Publications: Descriptive, Transformative, and Reflective Research

Looking inside the black box: measuring implementation and detecting group-level impact of cognitively guided instruction.

Studies have found that some teacher professional development programs that are based on Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) can increase student mathematics achievement. The mechanism through which those effects are realized has been theorized, but more empirical study is needed. In service of this need, we designed a novel measure of instructional practice to assess the extent to which observable features of mathematics instruction are consistent with the principles of CGI. We describe the conceptual foundations and first use of the instrument, which we call M-CLIPS. We found that teachers involved in the first 2 years of a CGI program were using methods consistent with the principles. In contrast, instructional practice in the comparison condition was mostly inconsistent with those principles.

Understanding Preservice Elementary Teachers as Mathematical Modelers and Their Perceptions of the Process

A growing consensus holds that preservice K–8 teachers (PSTs) need to experience the modeling process as learners to understand it and envision teaching modeling in their future classrooms. We examine this recommendation by exploring how PSTs construct models and how collaborative learning practices influence them in revising and refining their models. We also explore their reflections on modeling as a pedagogical experience. We introduce Modeling Decision Maps as a tool to examine how PSTs construct and refine mathematical models, and we draw on reflective journal entries to capture PSTs’ perspectives on the process. Our findings indicate that realistic modeling tasks provide opportunities to foster PSTs’ understanding of modeling, grow their mathematical modeling skills, and attune them to important pedagogical practices.

The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education is published online five times a year—January, March, May, July, and November—at 1906 Association Dr., Reston, VA 20191-1502. Each volume’s index is in the November issue. JRME is indexed in Contents Pages in Education, Current Index to Journals in Education, Education Index, Psychological Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, and MathEduc.

An official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), JRME is the premier research journal in mathematics education and is devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels--preschool through college. JRME presents a variety of viewpoints. The views expressed or implied in JRME are not the official position of the Council unless otherwise noted.

JRME is a forum for disciplined inquiry into the teaching and learning of mathematics. The editors encourage submissions including:

• Research reports, addressing important research questions and issues in mathematics education,
• Brief reports of research,
• Research commentaries on issues pertaining to mathematics education research.

More information about each type of submission is available here . If you have questions about the types of manuscripts JRME publishes, please contact [email protected].

Editorial Board

The  JRME  Editorial Board consists of the Editorial Team and Editorial Panel.  The Editorial team, led by JRME Editor Patricio Herbst, leads the review, decision and editorial/publication process for manuscripts.  The Editorial Panel reviews manuscripts, sets policy for the journal, and continually seeks feedback from readers. The following are members of the current JRME Editorial Board.

Editorial Staff   

Editorial Panel  

International Advisory Board   

Headquarters Journal Staff  

The editors of the  Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME)  encourage the submission of a variety of manuscripts.

Manuscripts must be submitted through the JRME Online Submission and Review System . 

Research Reports

JRME publishes a wide variety of research reports that move the field of mathematics education forward. These include, but are not limited to, various genres and designs of empirical research; philosophical, methodological, and historical studies in mathematics education; and literature reviews, syntheses, and theoretical analyses of research in mathematics education. Papers that review well for JRME generally include these Characteristics of a High-Quality Manuscript . The editors strongly encourage all authors to consider these characteristics when preparing a submission to JRME. 

The maximum length for Research Reports is 13,000 words including abstract, references, tables, and figures.

Brief Reports

Brief reports of research are appropriate when a fuller report is available elsewhere or when a more comprehensive follow-up study is planned.

• A brief report of a first study on some topic might stress the rationale, hypotheses, and plans for further work.
• A brief report of a replication or extension of a previously reported study might contrast the results of the two studies, referring to the earlier study for methodological details.
• A brief report of a monograph or other lengthy nonjournal publication might summarize the key findings and implications or might highlight an unusual observation or methodological approach.
• A brief report might provide an executive summary of a large study.

The maximum length for Brief Reports is 5,000 words including abstract, references, tables, and figures. If source materials are needed to evaluate a brief report manuscript, a copy should be included.

Other correspondence regarding manuscripts for Research Reports or Brief Reports should be sent to

Ilana Seidel Horn, JRME Editor, [email protected] .

Research Commentaries

The journal publishes brief (5,000 word), peer-reviewed commentaries on issues that reflect on mathematics education research as a field and steward its development. Research Commentaries differ from Research Reports in that their focus is not to present new findings or empirical results, but rather to comment on issues of interest to the broader research community. 

Research Commentaries are intended to engage the community and increase the breadth of topics addressed in  JRME . Typically, Research Commentaries —

• address mathematics education research as a field and endeavor to move the field forward;
• speak to the readers of the journal as an audience of researchers; and
• speak in ways that have relevance to all mathematics education researchers, even when addressing a particular point or a particular subgroup.

Authors of Research Commentaries should share their perspectives while seeking to invite conversation and dialogue, rather than close off opportunities to learn from others, especially those whose work they might be critiquing. 

Foci of Research Commentaries vary widely. They may include, but are not restricted to the following:

• Discussion of connections between research and NCTM-produced documents
• Advances in research methods
• Discussions of connections among research, policy, and practice
• Analyses of trends in policies for funding research
• Examinations of evaluation studies
• Critical essays on research publications that have implications for the mathematics education research community
• Interpretations of previously published research in JRME that bring insights from an equity lens
• Exchanges among scholars holding contrasting views about research-related issues

Read more about Research Commentaries in our May 2023 editorial . 

The maximum length for Research Commentaries is 5,000 words, including abstract, references, tables, and figures.

Other correspondence regarding Research Commentary manuscripts should be sent to: 

Tesha Sengupta-Irving, JRME Research Commentary Editor, [email protected] .

Editorial Policies

Appeals Process Policy

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

Tools for Authors

The forms below provide information to authors and help ensure that NCTM complies with all copyright laws: 

Student Work Release

Photographer Copyright Release

Video Permission

Want to Review?

Find more information in this flyer  about how to become a reviewer for JRME . 

The  Journal for Research in Mathematics Education  is available to individuals as part of an  NCTM membership  or may be accessible through an  institutional subscription .

The  Journal for Research in Mathematics Education  ( JRME ), an official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), is the premier research journal in math education and devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels--preschool through college.

JRME is published five times a year—January, March, May, July, and November—and presents a variety of viewpoints.  Learn more about   JRME .

© 2024 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)

Powered by: PubFactory

• [185.80.151.9]
• 185.80.151.9

Character limit 500 /500

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education

DOI link for Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education

Get Citation

This third edition of the Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education provides a comprehensive overview of the most recent theoretical and practical developments in the field of mathematics education. Authored by an array of internationally recognized scholars and edited by Lyn English and David Kirshner, this collection brings together overviews and advances in mathematics education research spanning established and emerging topics, diverse workplace and school environments, and globally representative research priorities.

New perspectives are presented on a range of critical topics including embodied learning, the theory-practice divide, new developments in the early years, educating future mathematics education professors, problem solving in a 21st century curriculum, culture and mathematics learning, complex systems, critical analysis of design-based research, multimodal technologies, and e-textbooks. Comprised of 12 revised and 17 new chapters, this edition extends the Handbook’s original themes for international research in mathematics education and remains in the process a definitive resource for the field.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section i | 150  pages, priorities in international mathematics education research, chapter 1 | 16  pages, changing agendas in international research in mathematics education, chapter 2 | 41  pages, perspectives on priority mathematics education, chapter 3 | 38  pages, approaches to embodied learning in mathematics, chapter 4 | 53  pages, configuring learning theory to support teaching 1, section ii | 160  pages, democratic access to mathematics learning, chapter 5 | 38  pages, young children's access to powerful mathematics ideas, chapter 6 | 28  pages, powerful ideas in elementary school mathematics, chapter 7 | 20  pages, students' access to mathematics learning in the middle and junior secondary schools, chapter 8 | 18  pages, mathematical structure, proof, and definition in advanced mathematical thinking, chapter 9 | 18  pages, reform as an issue for mathematics education research, chapter 10 | 22  pages, prospective mathematics teachers' learning and knowledge for teaching, chapter 11 | 14  pages, educating future mathematics education professors 1, section iii | 122  pages, transformations in learning contexts, chapter 12 | 23  pages, problem solving in a 21st-century mathematics curriculum, chapter 13 | 23  pages, critical issues in culture and mathematics learning, chapter 14 | 15  pages, mathematics education and democracy, chapter 15 | 21  pages, toward a sociology of mathematics education, chapter 16 | 21  pages, mathematics learning in and out of school, chapter 17 | 17  pages, perspectives on complex systems in mathematics learning, section iv | 108  pages, advances in research methodologies, chapter 18 | 27  pages, researching mathematical meanings for teaching 1 , 2, chapter 19 | 19  pages, measurement challenges in mathematics education research, chapter 20 | 23  pages, design research, chapter 21 | 19  pages, the intertwining of theory and practice, chapter 22 | 18  pages, knowledge creation through dialogic interaction between the practices of teaching and researching, section v | 146  pages, influences of advanced technologies, chapter 23 | 20  pages, foundations for the future, chapter 24 | 32  pages, statistical software and mathematics education, chapter 25 | 22  pages, the use of digital technology in mathematical practices, chapter 26 | 19  pages, computerized environments in mathematics classrooms, chapter 27 | 26  pages, e-textbooks in/for teaching and learning mathematics, chapter 28 | 25  pages, digital technologies in the early primary school classroom, part | 26  pages, final comment, chapter 29 | 24  pages, mathematics education research.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Book series

Research in Mathematics Education

About this book series.

• James A. Middleton

Book titles in this series

Research studies on learning and teaching of mathematics.

Dedicated to Edward A. Silver

• Gabriel J. Stylianides
• Patricia Ann Kenney
• Copyright: 2023

Available Renditions

Mathematical Challenges For All

• Roza Leikin

Piaget’s Genetic Epistemology for Mathematics Education Research

• Paul Christian Dawkins
• Amy J. Hackenberg
• Anderson Norton
• Copyright: 2024

Mathematical Creativity

A Developmental Perspective

• Scott A. Chamberlin
• Peter Liljedahl
• Miloš Savić
• Copyright: 2022

Enabling Mathematics Learning of Struggling Students

• Yan Ping Xin
• Helen Thouless

Publish with us

Abstracted and indexed in.

Research in Mathematics Education

• Professional Development
• Collaborations

We are committed to engaging in research and outreach that will make a significant and lasting difference at the student, classroom, school, district, state and national levels.

Integrating Student Voice into Assessment Item Design

In this video, we showcase how one of our Measuring Early Mathematical Reasoning Skills (MMaRS) team members elicited student feedback during the development of formative assessments that measure numerical relational reasoning and spatial reasoning with the purpose of guiding teachers’ instructional decisions. We conducted think aloud interviews with K-2 students to examine the functioning of various item features and analyzed the information prior to finalizing the items for pilot testing.

Computational Thinking, Game Design, and Assessment

In this video, we feature the early work of our NSF funded project, STEM+C , led by Corey Clark, Ph.D., Leanne Ketterlin Geller, Ph.D., and Eric Larson, Ph.D. This research project focuses on creating a more stable, ethical, and inclusive data science workforce by broadening the interest in data science to a more diverse population of students. It spans the fields of game design, human computer interaction, machine learning, curriculum design, and assessment by integrating essential computer science standards into Minecraft.

Developing STEM Access in K-2 Students through the MMaRS Project

In this video, we feature the early work of our NSF funded Measuring Early Mathematical Reasoning Skills (MMaRS) Project . We describe the importance of these early mathematics constructs, illustrate the iterative nature of our research to articulate and empirically validate learning progressions, and share prototypical classroom assessment tasks designed to elicit student thinking and reasoning in the constructs.

Conference Presentations

Learn more about RME projects disseminated at recent educational research conferences around the country and world.

Presentations

RME Researchers Recent Article Published in Applied Measurement in Education

Latest article from the RME team proposes the Assessment Triangle for operationalizing and instantiating validation.

Give to RME

Follow us @RME_SMU

Research-to-Practice Conference

RME's annual conference synthesizes the latest education policy, and presents practical solutions for K-12 mathematics educators.

Learn more.

Response to Intervention Resources

RME's work with TEA includes the state's guidance project delivered via a mobile app and website and has since expanded to include five webinars by leading experts in RTI.

• Announcements
• About AOSIS
• Editorial Team
• Submission Procedures
• Submission Guidelines
• Submit and Track Manuscript
• Publication fees
• Make a payment
• Journal Information
• Journal Policies
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Reviewer Guidelines
• Article RSS
• Support Enquiry (Login required)
• Aosis Newsletter

Open Journal Systems

Original research, learners’ algebraic and geometric connections when solving euclidean geometry riders, about the author(s).

In this article, we explored Grade 11 learners’ algebraic and geometric connections when solving Euclidean geometry riders. A qualitative interpretive case study design was followed. Thirty Grade 11 learners from a non-fee-paying secondary school in the Capricorn North district of South Africa were conveniently sampled to participate in this study. Data were collected through learners’ responses to classwork, homework exercises, and task-based interviews. Data were analysed thematically. The findings revealed that to solve Euclidean geometry riders successfully, learners need to establish the feature connections embedded in the given figure or diagram. The ability to make feature connections provides a point of departure in the solution process of a geometric problem.

Contribution:  Once the feature connection is established, other connections will subsequently emerge. In addition, the reversibility connections become a form of feature connection when solving Euclidean geometry riders. Therefore, we recommend that mathematics teachers emphasise and use mathematical connections in their daily teaching of mathematics.

Sustainable Development Goal

Crossref citations.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get specific, domain-collection newsletters detailing the latest CPD courses, scholarly research and call-for-papers in your field.

Pythagoras    |    ISSN: 1012-2346 (PRINT)    |    ISSN: 2223-7895 (ONLINE)

ISSN: 2223-7895

• Social Justice
• Environment
• Health & Happiness
• Get YES! Emails
• Teacher Resources

• Give A Gift Subscription

Analysis Based on factual reporting, although it incorporates the expertise of the author/producer and may offer interpretations and conclusions.

Making Equity Part of the Equation in Math Education

Math education outcomes in the United States have been unequal for decades. Learners in the top 10% socioeconomically tend to be about four grade levels ahead of learners in the bottom 10%—a statistic that has remained stubbornly persistent for 50 years.

To advance equity, policymakers and educators often focus on boosting test scores and grades and making advanced courses more widely available. Through this lens, equity means all students earn similar grades and progress to similar levels of math .

With more than three decades of experience as a researcher, math teacher, and teacher educator, I advocate for expanding what equity means in mathematics education. I believe policymakers and educators should focus less on test scores and grades and more on developing students’ confidence and ability to use math to make smart personal and professional decisions. This is mathematical power—and true equity.

What Is “Equity” in Math?

To understand the limitations of thinking about equity solely in terms of academic achievements, consider a student whom I interviewed during her freshman year of college.

Jasmine took Algebra 1 in ninth grade, followed by a summer online geometry course. This put her on a pathway to study calculus during her senior year in an AP class in which she earned an A. She graduated high school in the top 20% of her class and went to a highly selective liberal arts college. Now in her first year, she plans to study psychology.

Did Jasmine receive an equitable mathematics education? From an equity-as-achievement perspective, yes. But let’s take a closer look.

Jasmine experienced anxiety in her math classes during her junior and senior years in high school. Despite strong grades, she found herself “in a little bit of a panic” when faced with situations that require mathematical analysis. This included deciding the best loan options.

In college, Jasmine’s major required statistics. Her counselor and family encouraged her to take calculus over statistics in high school because calculus “looked better” for college applications. She wishes now she had studied statistics as a foundation for her major and for its usefulness outside of school. In her psychology classes, knowledge of statistics helps her better understand the landscape of disorders and to ask questions like, “How does gender impact this disorder?”

These outcomes suggest Jasmine did not receive an equitable mathematics education, because she did not develop mathematical power. Mathematical power is the know-how and confidence to use math to inform decisions and navigate the demands of daily life—whether personal, professional, or civic. An equitable education would help her develop the confidence to use mathematics to make decisions in her personal life and realize her professional goals. Jasmine deserved more from her mathematics education.

The Prevalence of Inequitable Math Education

Experiences like Jasmine’s are unfortunately common. According to one large-scale study, only 37% of U.S. adults have mathematical skills that are useful for making routine financial and medical decisions.

A National Council on Education and the Economy report found that coursework for nine common majors, including nursing, required relatively few of the mainstream math topics taught in most high schools. A recent study found that teachers and parents perceive math education as “ unengaging, outdated, and disconnected from the real world .”

Looking at student experiences, national survey results show that large proportions of students experience anxiety about math class , low levels of confidence in math, or both. Students from historically marginalized groups experience this anxiety at higher rates than their peers. This can frustrate their postsecondary pursuits and negatively affect their lives.

How to Make Math Education More Equitable

In 2023, I collaborated with other educators from Connecticut’s professional math education associations to author an equity position statement . The position statement, which was endorsed by the Connecticut State Board of Education, outlines three commitments to transform mathematics education.

1. Foster positive math identities .

The first commitment is to foster positive math identities, which includes students’ confidence levels and their beliefs about math and their ability to learn it. Many students have a very negative relationship with mathematics. This commitment is particularly important for students of color and those new to the English language to counteract the impact of stereotypes about who can be successful in mathematics.

A growing body of material exists to help teachers and schools promote positive math identities. For example, writing a math autobiography can help students see the role of math in their lives. They can also reflect on their identity as a “math person.” Teachers should also acknowledge students’ strengths and encourage them to share their own ideas as a way to empower them.

2. Modernize math content .

The second commitment is to modernize the mathematical content that school districts offer to students. For example, a high school mathematics pathway for students interested in health care professions might include algebra, math for medical professionals, and advanced statistics. With these skills, students will be better prepared to calculate drug dosages, communicate results and risk factors to patients, interpret reports and research, and catch potentially life-threatening errors.

3. Align state policies and requirements .

The third commitment is to align state policies and school districts in their definition of mathematical proficiency and the requirements for achieving it. In 2018, for instance, eight states had a high school math graduation requirement insufficient for admission to the public universities in the same state. Other states’ requirements exceed the admission requirements. Aligning state and district definitions of math proficiency clears up confusion for students and eliminates unnecessary barriers.

What’s Next?

As long as educators and policymakers focus solely on equalizing test scores and enrollment in advanced courses, I believe true equity will remain elusive. Mathematical power—the ability and confidence to use math to make smart personal and professional decisions—needs to be the goal.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Inspiration in Your Inbox

Sign up to receive email updates from YES!

5 Ways to Protect the Planet Without Disenfranchising People With Disabilities

The Shooting Statistics Are Clear: It’s Not Schools That Are Dangerous

The Surprising Link Between Dogs and Neighborhood Segregation

Why Fast Fashion Needs to Slow Down

Related stories.

A New Generation of Black Farmers Is Returning to the Land

Inspiration in your inbox..

Problem solving in mathematics education: tracing its foundations and current research-practice trends

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2024
• Volume 56 , pages 211–222, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Manuel Santos-Trigo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7144-2098 1  

2972 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In tracing recent research trends and directions in mathematical problem-solving, it is argued that advances in mathematics practices occur and take place around two intertwined activities, mathematics problem formulation and ways to approach and solve those problems. In this context, a problematizing principle emerges as central activity to organize mathematics curriculum proposals and ways to structure problem-solving learning environments. Subjects’ use of concrete, abstract, symbolic, or digital tools not only influences the ways to pose and pursue mathematical problems; but also shapes the type of representation, exploration, and reasoning they engage to work and solve problems. Problem-solving foundations that privilege learners’ development of habits of mathematical practices that involve an inquiry method to formulate conjectures, to look for different ways to represent and approach problems, and to support and communicate results shed light on directions of current research trends and the relevance of rethinking curriculum proposals and extending problem-solving environments in terms of teachers/students’ consistent use of digital tools and online developments.

Similar content being viewed by others

Reflections on Problem-Solving

Designing opportunities to learn mathematics theory-building practices

Forging New Opportunities for Problem Solving in Australian Mathematics Classrooms through the First National Mathematics Curriculum

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction and rationale

Mathematical problem solving has been a prominent theme and research area in the mathematics education agenda during the last four decades. Problem-solving perspectives have influenced and shaped mathematics curriculum proposals and ways to support learning environments worldwide (Törner et al., 2007 ; Toh et al., 2023 ). Various disciplinary communities have identified and contributed to connect problem-solving approaches with the students’ learning, construction, and application of mathematical knowledge. The mathematics community recognizes that the formulation and resolution of problems are central activities in the development of the discipline (Halmos, 1980 , Polya, 1945 ). Indeed, the identification and presentation of lists of unsolved mathematical problems have been a tradition that has inspired the mathematics community to approach mathematical problems and to generate mathematical knowledge (Hilbert, 1902 ; Devlin, 2002 ). Thus, mathematical problems, results, and solution attempts provide information regarding what areas and contents were studied at different times during the development of the discipline (Santos-Trigo, 2020a , b ). Cai et al. ( 2023 ) stated that “ …[E]ngaging learners in the activity of problem posing reflects a potentially strong link to the discipline of mathematics” (p. 5). Thurston ( 1994 ) recognized that understanding and applying a mathematical concept implies analysing, coordinating, and integrating diverse meanings (geometric, visual, intuitive, and formal definition) associated with such concept and ways to carry out corresponding procedures and operations in problematic situations.

The centrality of problem-solving in mathematicians’ own work and in their teaching, is incontrovertible. Problem-solving is also a central topic for mathematics educators, who have developed conceptual frameworks to formulate general ideas about problem-solving (as opposed to the specific ideas needed for solving specific problems) (Fried, 2014 ; p.17).

That is, the mathematics education community is interested in analysing and documenting the students’ cognitive and social behaviours to understand and develop mathematical knowledge and problem-solving competencies. “…the idea of understanding how mathematicians treat and solve problems, and then implementing this understanding in instruction design, was pivotal in mathematics education research and practice” (Koichu, 2014 ). In addition, other disciplines such as psychology, cognitive science or artificial intelligence have provided tools and methods to delve into learners’ ways to understand mathematical concepts and to work on problem situations. Thus, members of various communities have often worked in collaboration to identify and relate relevant aspects of mathematical practices with the design and implementation of learning scenarios that foster and enhance students’ mathematical thinking and the development of problem-solving competencies.

2 Methods and procedures

Research focus, themes, and inquiry methods in the mathematical problem-solving agenda have varied and been influenced and shaped by theoretical and methodological developments of mathematics education as a discipline (English & Kirshner, 2016 ; Liljedahl & Cai, 2021 ). Further, research designs and methods used in cognitive, social, and computational fields have influenced the ways in which mathematical problem-solving research are framed. An overarching question to capture shifts and foundations in problem-solving developments was: How has mathematical problem-solving research agenda varied and evolved in terms of ways to frame, pose, and pursue research questions? In addressing this question, it was important to identify and contrast the structure and organization around some published problem-solving reviews (Lester, 1994 ; Törner et al., 2007 ; Rott et al., 2021 ; Liljedahl & Cai, 2021 ; Toh et al., 2023 ) to shed light on a possible route to connect seminal developments in the field with current research trends and perspectives in mathematical problem-solving developments. The goal was to identify common problem-solving principles that have provided a rational and foundations to support recent problem-solving approaches for learners to construct mathematical knowledge and to develop problem-solving competencies. The criteria to select the set of published peer-reviewed studies, to consider in this review, involved choosing articles published in indexed journals (ZDM-Mathematics Education, Educational Studies in Mathematics, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, and Journal for Research in Mathematics Education); contributions that appear in International Handbooks in Mathematics Education; and chapters published in recent mathematical problem-solving books. The initial search included 205 publications whose number was reduced to 55, all published in English, based on reviewing their abstracts and conclusions. Around 100 of the initial selection appeared in the references of an ongoing weekly mathematical problem-solving doctoral seminar that has been implemented during the last six years in our department. In addition, some well-known authors in the field were asked to identify their most representative publications to include in the review list. Here, some suggestions were received, but at the end the list of contributions, that appears in the references section, was chosen based on my vision and experience in the field. The goal was to identify main issues or dimensions to frame and analyse recent research trends and perspectives in mathematical problem-solving developments. Thus, seminal reviews in the field (Schoenfeld, 1992 ; Lester, 1994 ; Törner et al., 2007 ) provided directions on ways to structure and select the questions used to analyse the selected contributions. Table  1 shows chosen issues that resemble features of an adjusted framework that Lester ( 1994 ) proposed to organize, summarize, and analyse problem-solving developments in terms of research emphasis (themes and research questions), methodologies (research designs and methods), and achieved results that the problem-solving community addressed during the 1970–1994 period. Furthermore, relevant shifts in the mathematical problem-solving agenda could be identified and explained in terms of what the global mathematics education and other disciplines pursue at different periods.

It is important to mention that the content and structure of this paper involve a narrative synthesis of selected articles that includes contributions related to mathematical problem-solving foundations and those that address recent developments published in the last 9 years that involve the use of digital technologies. Table  1 shows themes, issues, and overarching questions that were used to delve into problem-solving developments.

To contextualize the current state of art in the field, it is important to revisit problem-solving principles and tenets that provide foundations and a rationale to centre and support the design and implementation of learning environments around problem-solving activities (Santos-Trigo, 2020a , b ). The identification of mathematical problem-solving foundations also implies acknowledging what terms, concepts, and language or discourse that the problem-solving community has used to refer to and frame problem-solving approaches. For example, routine and nonroutine tasks, heuristic and metacognitive strategies, students’ beliefs, mathematical thinking and practices, resources, orientations, etc. are common terms used to explain, foster, and characterize students’ problem-solving behaviours and performances. Recently, the consistent use of digital technologies in educational tasks has extended the problem-solving language to include terms such as subjects’ tool appropriation, dynamic models, dragging or moving orderly objects, tracing loci, visual or empirical solution, ChatGPT prompts, etc.

3 On mathematical problem-solving foundations and the problematizing principle

There might be different ways to interpret and implement a problem-solving approach for students to understand concepts and to solve problems (Törner, Schoenfeld, & Reiss, 2007 ; Toh et al., 2023 ); nevertheless, there are common principles or tenets that distinguish and support a problem-solving teaching/learning environment. A salient feature in any problem-solving approach to learn mathematics is a conceptualization of the discipline that privileges and enhance the students’ development of mathematical practices or reasoning habits of mathematical thinking (Cuoco, et, al., 1996 ; Dick & Hollebrands, 2011 ; Schoenfeld, 2022 ). In this context, students need to conceptualize and think of their own learning as a set of dilemmas that are represented, explored, and solved in terms of mathematical resources and strategies (Santos-Trigo, 2023 ; Hiebert et al., 1996 ).

Furthermore, students’ problem-solving experiences and behaviours reflect and become a way of thinking that is consistent with mathematics practices and is manifested in terms of the activities they engage throughout all problem-solving phases. Thus, they privilege the development of mathematics habits such as to always look for different ways to model and explore mathematical problems, to formulate conjectures, and to search for arguments to support them, share problem solutions, defend their ideas, and to develop a proper language to communicate results. In terms of connecting ways of developing mathematical knowledge and the design of learning environments to develop mathematical thinking and problem-solving competencies, Polya ( 1945 ) identifies an inquiry approach for students to understand, make sense, and apply mathematical concepts. He illustrated the importance for students to pose and pursue different questions around four intertwined problem-solving phases: Understanding and making sense of the problem statement (what is the problem about? What data are provided? What is asked to find? etc.), the design of a solution plan (how the problem can be approached? ), the implementation of such plan (how the plan can be achieved? ), and the looking-back phase that involves reviewing the solution process (data used, checking the involved operations, consistency of units, and partial and global solution), generalizing the solution methods and posing new problems. Indeed, the looking-back phase involves the formulation of new or related problems (Toh et al., 2023 ). “For Pólya, mathematics was about inquiry; it was about sense making; it was about understanding how and why mathematical ideas fit together the ways they do” (cited in Schoenfeld, 2020 , p. 1167).

Likewise, the Nobel laureate I. I. Rabi mentioned that, when he came home from school, “while other mothers asked their kids ‘ Did you learn anything today ?’ [my mother] would say, ‘ Izzy, did you ask a good question today ?’” (Berger, 2014 , p.67).

Thus, the problematizing principle is key for students to engage in mathematical problem-solving activities, and it gets activated by an inquiry or inquisitive method that is expressed in terms of questions that students pose and pursue to delve into concepts meaning, representations, explorations, operations, and to work on mathematical tasks (Santos-Trigo, 2020a , b ).

4 The importance of mathematical tasks and the role of tools in problem-solving perspectives

In a problem-solving approach, learners develop a way of thinking to work on different types of tasks that involve a variety of context and aims (Cai & Hwang, 2023 ). A task might require students to formulate a problem from given information, to estimate how much water a family spend in one year, to prove a geometry theorem, to model genetic sequences or to understand the interplay between climate and geography. In this process, students identify mathematical resources, concepts, and strategies to model and explore partial and global solutions, and ways to extend solution methods and results. Furthermore, mathematical tasks or problems are essential for students to engage in mathematical practice and to develop problem-solving competencies. Task statements should be situated in different contexts including realistic, authentic, or mathematical domains, and prompts or questions to solve or respond or even provide information or data for students to formulate and solve their own problems (problem posing). Current events or problematic situations such as climate change, immigration, or pandemics not only are part of individuals concerns; but also, a challenge for teachers and students to model and analyze those complex problems through mathematics and others disciplines knowledge (English, 2023 ). Santos-Trigo ( 2019 ) proposed a framework to transform exercises or routine textbook problems into a series of nonroutine tasks in which students have an opportunity to dynamically model, explore, and extend, the initial problem. Here, the use of technology becomes important to explore the behavior of some elements within the model to find objects’ mathematical relationships. That is, students work on tasks in such a way that even routine problems become a starting point for them to engage in mathematical reflection to extend the initial nature of the task (Santos-Trigo & Reyes-Martínez, 2019 ). Recently, the emergence of tools such as the ChatGPT has confirmed the importance for learners to problematize situations, including complex problems, in terms of providing prompts or inputs that the tool processes and answers. Here, students analyze the tool’ responses and assess its pertinence to work and solve the task. Indeed, a way to use ChatGPT involves that students understand or make sense of the problem statement and pose questions (inputs or prompts) to ask the tool for concept information or ways to approach or solve the task. Then, students analyze the relevance, viability, and consistency of the tool’s answer and introduce new inputs to continue with the solution process or to look for another way to approach the task. Based on the ChatGPT output or task solution, students could always ask whether the tool can provide other ways to solve the task.

5 Main problem-solving research themes and results

In this section the focus will be on identifying certain problem-solving developments that have permeated recent directions of the field. One relates to the importance of extending research designs to analyse and characterize learners’ problem-solving process to work on different types of tasks. Another development involves ways in which theoretical advances in mathematics education have shaped the mathematical problem-solving research agenda and the extent to which regional or national educational systems or traditions influence the developments of conceptual frameworks in the field and ways to implement problem-solving activities within the corresponding system. Finally, research results in the field have provided directions to design and implement curriculum proposals around the world and these proposals have evolved in terms of both content structure and classroom dynamics including the use of digital technologies. Santos-Trigo ( 2023 ) stated that the teachers and students’ systematic use of digital technologies not only expands their ways of reasoning and solving mathematical problems; but also opens new research areas that aim to analyse the integration of several digital tools in curriculum proposals and learning scenarios. The focus of this review will be on presenting problem-solving directions and results in the last 9 years; however, it became relevant to identify and review what principles and tenets provided bases or foundations to support and define current research trends and directions in the field. That is, accumulated research that has contributed to advance and expand the problem-solving research agenda included shifts in the tools used to delve into learners’ problem approaches, the development of conceptual frameworks to explain and characterize students’ mathematical thinking, the tools used to work on mathematical tasks (from paper and pencil, ruler and compass or semiotic tools to digital apps), and in the design of curriculum proposals and the implementation of problem-solving learning scenarios.

5.1 Relevant shifts in problem-solving developments and results

Questions used to analyse important developments in the field include: What research designs and tools are used to foster and analyse learners’ problem-solving performances? How have conceptual frameworks evolved to pose and frame research questions in the field? How have accumulated research results in the field been used to support curriculum proposals and their implementation?

5.1.1 Methodological and research paradigms

Research designs in problem-solving studies have gradually moved from quantitative or statistical paradigms to qualitative perspectives that involve data collection from different sources such as task-based interviews, fieldnotes from observations, students’ written reports, etc. to analyse students’ problem-solving approaches and performances. Trustworthiness of results included triangulating and interpreting data sources from students’ videotapes transcriptions, outside observer notes, class observations, etc. (Stake, 2000 ). Hence, the work of Krutestkii ( 1976 ) was seminal in providing tools to delve into the students’ thinking while solving mathematical tasks. His research program aimed to study the nature and structure of children’ mathematical abilities. His methodological approach involved the use of student’s task-based interviews, teachers, and mathematicians’ questionaries to explore the nature of mathematical abilities, the analysis of eminent mathematicians and physicists regarding their nature and emergence of their talents and case studies of gifted children in mathematics. A major contribution of his research was the variety of mathematical tasks used to explore and analyse the mathematical abilities of school children. Recently, the mathematical problem-posing agenda has been revisited to advance conceptual frameworks to enhance the students’ formulation of problems to learn concepts and to develop problem-solving competencies (Cai et al., 2023 ). In general, the initial qualitative research tendency privileged case studies where individual students were asked to work on mathematical tasks to document their problem-solving performances. Later, research designs include the students’ participation in small groups and the analysis of students’ collaboration with the entire group (Brady et al., 2023 ). Bricolage frameworks that share tenets and information from different fields have become a powerful tool for researchers to understand complex people’ problem-solving proficiency (Lester, 2005 ; English, 2023 ).

5.1.2 Theoretical developments in mathematics education

In mathematics education, the constructivism perspective became relevant to orient and support research programs. Specifically, the recognition that students construct mathematical concepts and ideas through active participation as a part of a learning community that fosters and values what they bring into the classroom (eliciting students’ understanding) and sharing and discussing with peers their ways to work on mathematical activities. Further, it was recognized that students’ learning of mathematics takes place within a sociocultural environment (situated learning) that promotes the students’ interaction in small groups, pairs, and whole group discussions. Thus, problem-solving environments transited from teachers being a main figure to organize learning activities and to model problem-solving behaviours to being centred on students’ active participation to work on a variety of mathematical tasks as a part of a learning community (Lester & Cai, 2016 ). English ( 2023 ) proposed A STEM-based problem-solving framework that addresses the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and experiences to work on complex problems. Here, students develop a system of inquiry that integrates critical thinking, mathematical modelling, and a creative and innovative approach to deal with problematic situations situated in contexts beyond school problems. The STEM-based problem-solving framework enhances and favours the students’ development of multidisciplinary thinking to formulate and approach challenging problematic situations. To this end, they need to problematize information to characterize local and global problems and to collaboratively work on feasible approaches and solutions. It integrates 21st century skills that include an inquiry problem-solving approach to develop and exhibit critical thinking, creativity, and innovative solutions.

5.1.3 Countries or regional education traditions and their influence on the problem-solving agenda

The emergence of problem-solving frameworks takes place within an educational and socio-cultural context that provides conditions for their development and dissemination, but also limitations in their applications inside the mathematics education community. Brady et al. ( 2023 ) pointed out that:

…shifts in the theoretical frameworks of mathematics education researchers favored a widening of the view on problem solving from information-processing theories toward sociocultural theories that encouraged a conception of problem-solving as situated cognition unfolding within a community of practice (p. 34).

In addition, regional or national educational systems and research traditions also shape the problem-solving research and practice agenda. For example, in France, problem-solving approaches and research are framed in terms of two relevant theoretical and practical frameworks: Theory of Didactic Situation and the Anthropological Theory of Didactics (Artigue & Houdement, 2007 ). While, in the Netherlands, problem-solving approaches are situated within the theory of Realistic Mathematics that encourages and supports the students’ construction of meaning of concepts and methods in terms of modelling real-life and mathematical situations (Doorman et al., 2007 ). Ding et al. ( 2022 ) stated that the Chinese educational system refers to problem solving as an instructional goal and an approach to learn mathematics. Here, students deal with different types of problem-solving activities that include finding multiple solutions to one problem, one solution to multiple problems, and one problem multiple changes. Thus, ‘teaching with variation’ is emphasized in Chinese instruction in terms of “variations in solutions, presentations, and conditions/conclusions” (p. 482). Cai and Rott ( 2023 ) proposed a general problem-posing process model that distinguishes four problem-posing phases: Orientation (understanding the situation and what is required or is asked to pose); Connection that involves finding out or generating ideas and strategies to pose problems in different ways such as varying the given situation, or posing new problems; Generation refers to making the posed problem visible for others to understand it; and Reflection involves reflecting on her/his own process to pose the problem including ways to improve problem statements. The challenge in this model is to make explicit how the use of digital technologies can contribute to providing conditions for students to engage in all phases around problem- posing process.

5.1.4 Curriculum proposals and problem-solving teaching/learning scenarios

In the USA, the Common Core State Mathematics Standards curriculum proposal (CCSMS) identifies problem solving as a process standard that supports core mathematical practices that involve reasoning and proof, communication, representation, and connections. Thus, making sense of problems and persevering in solving them, reasoning abstractly and quantitatively, constructing viable arguments and critiquing the reasoning of others, modelling with mathematics, etc. are essential activities for students to develop mathematics proficiency and problem-solving approaches (Schoenfeld, 2023 ). In Singapore, the curriculum proposal identifies problem solving as the centre of its curriculum framework that relates its development with the study of concepts, skills, processes, attitudes, and metacognition (Lee et al., 2019 ). Recently, educational systems have begun to reform curriculum proposals to relate what the use of digital technologies demands in terms of selecting and structuring mathematical contents and ways to extend instructional settings (Engelbrecht & Borba, 2023 ). Indeed, Engelbrecht et al. ( 2023 ) identify what they call a classroom in movement or a distributed classroom - that transforms traditional cubic spaces to study the discipline into a movable setting that might combine remote and face-to-face students work.

It is argued that previous results in mathematical problem-solving research not only have contributed to recognize what is relevant and what common tenets distinguish and support problem-solving approaches; but also have provided bases to identify and pursue current problem-solving developments and directions. Hence, the consistent and coordinated use of several digital technologies and online developments (teaching and learning platforms) has opened new routes for learners to represent, explore, and work on mathematical problems; and to engage them in mathematical discussions beyond formal class settings. How does the students’ use of digital technologies expand the ways they reason and solve mathematical problems? What changes in classroom environments and physical settings are needed to recognize and include students’ face-to-face and remote work? (Engelbrecht et al., 2023 ).

In the next sections, the goal is to characterize the extent to which the consistent use of digital technologies and online developments provides affordances to restructure mathematical curriculum proposals and classrooms or learning settings and to enhance and expand students’ mathematical reasoning.

6 Current mathematical problem-solving trends and developments: the use of digital technologies

Although the use of technologies has been a recurrent theme in research studies, curriculum proposals, and teaching practices in mathematics education; during the COVID-pandemic lockdown, all teachers and students relied on digital technologies to work on mathematical tasks. At different phases, they developed and implemented not only novel paths to present, discuss, and approach teaching/learning activities; but also, ways to monitor and assess students’ problem-solving performances. When schools returned to teachers and students’ face-to-face activities, some questions emerged: What adjustments or changes in school practices are needed to consider and integrate those learning experiences that students developed during the social confinement? What digital tools should teachers and students use to work on mathematical tasks? How should teaching/learning practices reconcile students remote and face-to-face work? To address these questions, recent studies that involve ways to integrate technology in educational practices were reviewed, and their main themes and findings are organized and problematized to shed light on what the use of digital technologies contributes to frame and support learning environments.

6.1 The use of technology to reconceptualize students mathematical learning

There are different studies that document the importance and ways in which the students’ use of tools such as CAS or Excel offers an opportunity for them to think of concepts and problems in terms of different representations to transit from intuitive, visual, or graphic to formal or analytical reasoning (Arcavi et al., 2017 ). Others digital technologies, such as a Dynamic Geometry System Footnote 1 DGS, provide affordances for students to dynamically represent and explore mathematical problems. In students’ use of digital technologies, the problematizing principle becomes relevant to transform the tool into an instrument to work on mathematical tasks. Santos-Trigo ( 2019 ) provides examples where students rely on GeoGebra affordances to reconstruct figures that are given in problem statements; to transform routine problem into an investigation task; to model and explore tasks that involve variational reasoning; and to construct dynamic configurations to formulate and support mathematical relations. In this process, students not only exhibit diverse problem-solving strategies; but also, identify and integrate and use different concepts and resources that are studied in algebra, geometry, and calculus. That is, the use of technology provides an opportunity for students to integrate and connect knowledge from diverse areas or domains. For instance, Sinclair and Ferrara ( 2023 ) used the multi-touch application (TouchCounts) for children to work on mathematical challenging tasks.

6.2 The use of digital technologies to design a didactic route

There is indication, that the use of digital technologies offers different paths for students to learn mathematics (Leung & Bolite-Frant, 2015 ; Leung & Baccaglini-Frank, 2017 ). For instance, in the construction of a dynamic model of a problem, they are required to think of concepts and information embedded in the problem in terms of geometric representation or meaning. Thus, focusing on ways for students to represent and explore concepts geometrically could be the departure point to understand concepts and to solve mathematical problems. In addition, students can explore problems’ dynamic models (dragging schemes) in terms of visual, empirical, and graphic representations to initially identify relations that become relevant to approach and solve the problems. Thus, tool affordances become relevant for students to detect patterns, to formulate conjectures and to transit from empirical to formal argumentation to support problem solutions (Pittalis & Drijvers, 2023 ). Engelbrecht and Borba ( 2023 ) recognized that the prominent use of digital technologies in school mathematics has produced pedagogical shifts in teaching and learning practices to “encourage more active students learning, foster greater engagement, and provide more flexible access to learning’ (p. 1). Multiple use technologies such as internet, communication apps (ZOOM, Teams, Google Meet, etc.) become essential tools for teachers and students to present, communicate, and share information or to collaborate with peers. While tools used to represent, explore, and delve into concepts and to work and solve mathematical problems (Dynamic Geometry Systems, Wolframalpha, etc.) expand the students’ ways of reasoning and solving problems. Both types of technologies are not only important for teachers and students to continue working on school tasks beyond formal settings, but they also provide students with an opportunity to consult online resources such as Wikipedia or KhanAcademy to review or extend their concepts understanding, to analyse solved problems, and to contrast their teachers’ explanation of themes or concepts with those provided in learning platforms.

6.3 Students’ access to mathematics learning

Nowadays, cell phones are essential tools for people or students to interact or to approach diverse tasks and an educational challenge is how teachers/students can use them to work on mathematical tasks. During the COVID-19 social confinement, students relied on communication apps not only to interact with their teachers during class lectures; but also, to keep discussing tasks with peers beyond formal class meetings. That is, students realized that with the use of technology they could expand their learning space to include sharing and discussing ideas and problem solutions with peers beyond class sessions, consulting online learning platforms or material to review or extend their concepts understanding, and to watch videos to contrast experts’ concepts explanations and those provided by their teachers. In this perspective, the use of digital technologies increases the students’ access to different resources and the ways to work on mathematical tasks. Thus, available digital developments seem to extend the students collaborative work in addition to class activities. Furthermore, the flipped classroom model seems to offer certain advantages for students to learn the discipline and this model needs to be analysed in terms of what curriculum changes and ways to assess or monitor students learning are needed in its design and implementation (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2022 ).

6.4 Changes in curriculum and mathematical assessment

It is recognized that the continuous development and availability of digital technologies is not only altering the ways in which individuals interact and face daily activities; but is also transforming educational practices and settings. Likewise, people’s concerns about multiple events or global problems such climate change, immigration, educational access, renewable resources, or racial conflicts or wars are themes that permeate the educational arena. Thus, curriculum reforms should address ways to connect students’ education with the analysis of these complex problems. English ( 2023 ) stated that:

The ill-defined problems of today, coupled with unexpected disruptions across all walks of life, demand advanced problem-solving by all citizens. The need to update outmoded forms of problem solving, which fail to take into account increasing global challenges, has never been greater (p.5).

In this perspective, mathematics curriculum needs to be structured around essential contents and habits of mathematical thinking for students to understand and make sense of real-world events that lead them to formulate, represent, and deal with a variety of problem situations. “Educators now increasingly seek to emphasise the practical applications of mathematics, such as modelling real-life scenarios and understanding statistical data (Engelbrecht & Borba, 2023 , p. 7). For instance, during the pandemic it was important to problematize the available data to follow, analyze and predict its spread behavior and to propose health measures to reduce people contagion. Thus, exponential functions, graphics, and their interpretations, data analysis, etc. were important mathematics content to understand the pandemic phenomena. Drijvers and Sinclair ( 2023 ) recognized that features of computational thinking share common grounds with mathematical thinking in terms of problem-solving activities that privilege model construction, the use of algorithms, abstraction processes and generalization of results. Thus, “a further integration of computational thinking in the mathematics curriculum is desirable”. In terms of ways to assess and monitor students’ learning, the idea is that with the use of a digital tool (digital wall or log), students could organize, structure, register, and monitor their individual and group work and learning experiences. That is, they could periodically report and share what difficulties they face to understand concepts or to work on a task, what questions they posed, what sources consult, etc. The information that appears in the digital wall is shared within the group and the teacher and students can provide feedback or propose new ideas or solutions (Santos-Trigo et al., 2022 ).

6.5 The integration of technologies and the emergence of conceptual frameworks

Institutions worldwide, in general, are integrating the use of different technologies in their educational practices, and they face the challenge to reconcile previous pandemic models and post confinement learning scenarios. “A pedagogical reason for using technology is to empower learners with extended or amplified abilities to acquire knowledge…technology can empower their cognitive abilities to reason in novice ways (Leung, 2011 , p. 327). Drijvers and Sinclair ( 2023 ) proposed a five-dimensional framework to delve into the rationale and purposes for the mathematics education community to integrate the use of digital technologies in mathematical teaching environments and students learning. The five interrelated categories address issues regarding how teachers and students’ use of digital technology contributes to reconceptualize and improve mathematics learning; to understand and explain how students’ mathematics learning develops; to design environments for mathematics learning; to foster and provide equitable access to mathematics learning; and to change mathematics curricula and teaching and assessment practices (Drijvers & Sinclair, 2023 ). Schoenfeld ( 2022 ) stated that “The challenge is to create robust learning environments that support every student in developing not only the knowledge and practices that underlie effective mathematical thinking, but that help them develop the sense of agency to engage in sense making” (p. 764). Højsted et al. ( 2022 ) argue about the importance of adjusting theoretical frameworks to explicitly integrate the use of digital technologies such as DGS and Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) in teaching practices. They referred to the Danish “Competencies and Mathematical Learning framework” (KOM) that gets articulated through tenets associated with the Theory of Instrumental Orchestration (TIO) and the notion of Justification Mediation (JM). In general terms, the idea is that learners get explicitly involved in a tool’ appropriation process that transforms the artifact into an instrument to understand concepts and to solve mathematical problems. That is, learners’ tool appropriation involves the development of cognitive schemata to rely on technology affordances to work on mathematical tasks. Koichu et al. ( 2022 ) pointed out that the incorporation of problem-solving approaches in instruction should be seen as a specific case of implementing innovation. To this end, they proposed a framework of problem-solving implementation chain that involves “a sequence of actions and interactions beginning with the development of a PS resource by researchers, which teachers then engage with in professional development (PD), and finally, teachers and students make use of in classrooms” (p. 4). In this case, problem-solving resources include the design of problematic situations (tasks) to engage students in mathematical discussions to make sense of problem statements or to ask them to pose a task.

7 Reflections and concluding remarks

Throughout different periods, the research and practice mathematical problem-solving agenda has contributed significantly to understand not only essentials in mathematical practices; but also, the development of conceptual frameworks to explain and document subjects’ cognitive, social, and affective behaviours to understand mathematical concepts and to develop problem-solving competencies. Leikin and Guberman ( 2023 ) pointed out that “…problem-solving is an effective didactical tool that allows pupils to mobilize their existing knowledge, construct new mathematical connections between known concepts and properties, and construct new knowledge in the process of overcoming challenges embedded in the problems” (p. 325). The study of people cognitive functioning to develop multidisciplinary knowledge and to solve problems involves documenting ways in which individuals make decisions regarding ways to organize their subject or disciplinary learning (how to interact with teachers or experts and peers; what material to consult, what tools to use, how to monitor their own learning, etc.) and to engage in disciplinary practices to achieve their learning goals. Both strategic and tactic decisions shape teachers and students’ ways to work on mathematical tasks. Kahneman ( 2011 ) shed light on how human beings make decisions to deal with questions and problematic situations. He argues that individuals rely on two systems to make decisions and engage in thinking processes; system one (fast thinking) that involves automatic, emotional, instinctive reasoning and system two (slow thinking) that includes logical, deliberative, effortful, or conscious reasoning. In educational tasks, the idea is that teachers and students develop experiences based on the construction and activation of system two. Thus, how teachers/students decide what tools or digital developments to use to work on mathematical problems becomes a relevant issue to address in the mathematics education agenda. Recent and consistent developments and the availability of digital technologies open novel paths for teachers and students to represent, explore, and approach mathematical tasks and, provide different tools to extend students and teachers’ mathematical discussions beyond classroom settings. In this perspective, it becomes important to discuss what changes the systematic use of digital technologies bring to the mathematics contents and to the ways to frame mathematical instruction. For example, the use of a Dynamic Geometry System to model and explore calculus, geometry or algebra classic problems dynamically not only offer students an opportunity to connect foundational concepts such as rate of change or the perpendicular bisector concept to geometrically study variational phenomena or conic sections; but also, to engage them in problem-posing activities (Santos-Trigo et al., 2021 ). Thus, teachers need to experience themselves different ways to use digital technologies to work on mathematical tasks and to identify instructional paths for students to internalize the use of digital apps as an instrument to understand concepts and to pose and formulate mathematical problems. Specifically, curriculum proposal should be structured around the development of foundational concepts and problem-solving strategies to formulate and pursue complex problems such as those involving climate changes, wealth distribution, immigration, pollution, mobility, connectivity, etc. To formulate and approach these problems, students need to develop a multidisciplinary thinking and rely on different tools to represent, explore, and share and continuously report partial solutions. To this end, they are encouraged to work with peers and groups as a part of learning community that fosters and values collective problem solutions. Finding multiple paths to solve problems becomes important for students to develop creative and innovative problem solutions (Leikin & Guberman, 2023 ). In this perspective, learning environments should provide conditions for students to transform digital applications in problem-solving tools to work on problematic situations. Online students’ assignments become an important component to structure and organize students and teachers’ face-to-face interactions. Likewise, the use of technology can also provide a tool for students to register and monitor their work and learning experiences. A digital wall or a problem-solving digital notebook (Santos-Trigo et al., 2022 ) could be introduced for students to register and monitor their learning experiences. Here, Students are asked to record on a weekly basis their work, questions, comments, and ideas that include: Questions they pose to understand concepts and problem statements; online resources and platforms they consult to contextualize problems and review and extend their understanding of involved concepts; concepts and strategies used to solve problems through different approaches; the Identification of other problems that can be solved with the methods that were used to solve the problem; digital technologies and online resources used to work on and solve the problem; dynamic models used to solve the problem and strategies used to identify and explore mathematical relations (dragging objects, measuring object attributes, tracing loci, using sliders, etc.; the formulation of new related problems including possible extensions for the initial problem; discussion of solutions of some new problems; and short recorded video presentation of their work and problem solutions. That is, the digital wall becomes an space for learners to share their work and to contrast and reflect on their peers work including extending their problem-solving approaches based on their teachers feedback and peers’ ideas or solutions.

The term Dynamic Geometry System is used, instead of Dynamic Geometry Environment or Dynamic Geometry Software, to emphasize that the app or tool interface encompasses a system of affordances that combines the construction of dynamic models, the use of Computer Algebra Systems and the use spreadsheet programs.

Arcavi, A., Drijvers, P., & Stacy, K. (2017). The learning and teaching of algebra. Ideas, insights, and activities . NY: Routledge. ISBN 9780415743723.

Artigue, M., & Houdement, C. (2007). Problem solving in France: Didactic and curricular perspectives. ZDM Int J Math Educ , 39 (5–6), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0048-x .

Article   Google Scholar  

Berger, W. (2014). A more beautiful question . Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Brady, C., Ramírez, P., & Lesh, R. (2023). Problem posing and modeling: Confronting the dilemma of rigor or relevance. In T. L. Toh et al. (Eds.), Problem Posing and Problem Solving in Mathematics Education, pp: 33–50, Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7205-0_3 .

Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2023). Making mathematics challenging through problem posing in classroom. In R. Leikin (Ed.), Mathematical Challenges For All , Research in Mathematics Education, Springer: Switzerland, pp. 115–145, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18868-8_7 .

Cai, J., & Rott, B. (2023). On understanding mathematical problem-posing processes. ZDM – Mathematics Education , 56 , 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01536-w .

Cai, J., Hwang, S., & Melville, M. (2023). Mathematical problem-posing research: Thirty years of advances building on the publication of on mathematical problem solving. In J. Cai et al. (Eds.), Research Studies on Learning and Teaching of Mathematics, Research in Mathematics Education, Springer: Switzerland, pp: 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35459-5_1 .

Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Can flipped classroom pedagogy offer promising perspectives for mathematics education on pan- demic-related issues? A systematic literature review. ZDM – Math- ematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01388-w .

Cuoco, A., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior , 15 , 375–402.

Devlin, K. (2002). The millennium problems. The seven greatest unsolved mathematical puzzles of our time . Granta.

Dick, T. P., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2011). Focus in high school mathematics: Technology to support reasoning and sense making . National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, NCTM: Reston Va. ISBN 978-0-87353-641-7.

Ding, M., Wu, Y., Liu, Q., & Cai, J. (2022). Mathematics learning in Chinese contexts. ZDM -Mathematics Education , 54 , 577–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01385-z .

Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Dekker, T., Van den Heuvel- Panhuizen, M., de Lange, J., & Wijers, M. (2007). Problem solving as a challenge for mathematics education in the Netherlands. ZDM Int J Math Educ , 39 (5–6), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0043-2 .

Drijvers, P., & Sinclair, N. (2023). The role of digital technologies in mathematics education: Purposes and perspectives. ZDM-Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01535-x .

Engelbrecht, J., & Borba, M. C. (2023). Recent developments in using digital technology in mathematics education. ZDM -Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01530-2 .

Engelbrecht, J., Borba, M. C., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Will we ever teach mathematics again in the way we used to before the pandemic? ZDM– Mathematics Education , 55 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01460-5 .

English, L. D. (2023). Ways of thinking in STEM-based problem solving. ZDM -Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01474-7 .

English, L. D., & Kirshner, D. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of international research in mathematics education . NY. ISBN: 978-0-203-44894-6 (ebk). https://www.routledge.com/Handbook-of-International-Research-in-Mathematics-Education/English-Kirshner/p/book/9780415832045

Fried, M. N. (2014). Mathematics & mathematics education: Searching for common ground. In M.N. Fried, T. Dreyfus (Eds.), Mathematics & Mathematics Education: Searching for 3 Common Ground , Advances in Mathematics Education, pp: 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7473-5_1 . NY: Springer.

Halmos, P. (1980). The heart of mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly , 87 (7), 519–524.

Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher , 25 (4), 12–21.

Hilbert, D. (1902). Mathematical problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , 8 , 437–479.

Højsted, I. H., Geranius, E., & Jankvist, U. T. (2022). Teachers’ facilitation of students’ mathematical reasoning in a dynamic geometry environment: An analysis through three lenses. In U. T. Jankvist, & E. Geraniou (Eds.), Mathematical competencies in the Digital era (pp. 271–292). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10141-0_15 .

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Koichu, B. (2014). Problem solving in mathematics and in mathematics education. In M.N. Fried, T. Dreyfus (Eds.), Mathematics & Mathematics Education: Searching for 113 Common Ground , Advances in Mathematics Education, pp: 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7473-5_8 .

Koichu, B., Cooper, J., & Widder, M. (2022). Implementation of problem solving in school: From intended to experienced. Implementation and Replication Studies in Mathematics Education , 2 (1), 76–106. https://doi.org/10.1163/26670127-bja10004 .

Krutestkii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in school children . University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ISBN: 0-226-45492-4.

Lee, N. H., Ng, W. L., & Lim, L. G. P. (2019). The intended school mathematics curriculum. In T. L. Toh et al. (Eds.), Mathematics Education in Singapore , Mathematics Education – An Asian Perspective, pp: 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3573-0_3 .

Leikin, R., & Guberman, R. (2023). Creativity and challenge: Task complexity as a function of insight and multiplicity of solutions. R. Leikin (Ed.), Mathematical Challenges For All , Research in Mathematics Education, pp: 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18868-8_17 .

Lester, F. K. Jr. (1994). Musing about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 25 (6), 660–675.

Lester, F. K. Jr. (2005). On the theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundation for research in mathematics education. Zdm Mathematics Education , 37 (6), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655854 .

Lester, F. K. Jr., & Cai, J. (2016). Can mathematical problem solving be taught? Preliminary answers from 30 years of research. In P. Felmer, et al. (Eds.), Posing and solving Mathematical problems, Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 117–135). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28023-3_8 .

Leung, A. (2011). An epistemic model of task design in dynamic geometry environment. Zdm , 43 , 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0329-2 .

Leung, A., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (Eds.). (2017). (Eds.). Digital Technologies in Designing Mathematics Education Tasks, Mathematics Education in the Digital Era 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43423-0_1 .

Leung, A., & Bolite-Frant, J. (2015). Designing mathematics tasks: The role of tools. In A. Watson, & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design in mathematics education (pp. 191–225). New ICMI Study Series. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09629-2_6 .

Liljedahl, P., & Cai, J. (2021). Empirical research on problem solving and problem pos- ing: A look at the state of the art. ZDM — Mathematics Education , 53 (4), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01291-w .

Pittalis, M., & Drijvers, P. (2023). Embodied instrumentation in a dynamic geometry environment: Eleven-year‐old students’ dragging schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 113 , 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10222-3 .

Pólya, G. (1945).; 2nd edition, 1957). How to solve it . Princeton University Press.

Rott, B., Specht, B., & Knipping, C. (2021). A descritive phase model of problem-solving processes. ZDM -Mathematics Education , 53 , 737–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01244-3 .

Santos-Trigo, M. (2019). Mathematical Problem Solving and the use of digital technologies. In P. Liljedahl and M. Santos-Trigo (Eds.). Mathematical Problem Solving. ICME 13 Monographs , ISBN 978-3-030-10471-9, ISBN 978-3-030-10472-6 (eBook), Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Pp. 63–89 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10472-6_4 .

Santos-Trigo, M. (2020a). Problem-solving in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 686–693). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0 .

Santos-Trigo, M. (2020b). Prospective and practicing teachers and the use of digital technologies in mathematical problem-solving approaches. In S. Llinares and O. Chapman (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education , vol 2, pp: 163–195. Boston: Brill Sense, ISBN 978-90-04-41896-7.

Santos-Trigo, M. (Ed.). (2023). Trends and developments of mathematical problem-solving research to update and support the use of digital technologies in post-confinement learning spaces. InT. L. Toh (Eds.), Problem Posing and Problem Solving in Mathematics Education , pp: 7–32. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7205-0_2 .

Santos-Trigo, M., & Reyes-Martínez, I. (2019). High school prospective teachers’ problem-solving reasoning that involves the coordinated use of digital technologies. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology , 50 (2), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1489075 .

Santos-Trigo, M., Barrera-Mora, F., & Camacho-Machín, M. (2021). Teachers’ use of technology affordances to contextualize and dynamically enrich and extend mathematical problem-solving strategies. Mathematics , 9 (8), 793. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9080793 .

Santos-Trigo, M., Reyes-Martínez, I., & Gómez-Arciga, A. (2022). A conceptual framework to structure remote learning scenarios: A digital wall as a reflective tool for students to develop mathematics problem-solving competencies. Int J Learning Technology , 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2022.123686 .

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grows (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). Macmillan.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2020). Mathematical practices, in theory and practice. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, pp: 1163–1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01162-w .

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2022). Why are learning and teaching mathematics so difficult? In M. Danesi (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive mathematics (pp. 1–35). Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44982-7_10-1%23DOI .

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2023). A theory of teaching. In A. K. Praetorius, & C. Y. Charalambous (Eds.), Theorizing teaching (pp. 159–187). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25613-4_6 .

Sinclair, N., & Ferrara, F. (2023). Towards a Socio-material Reframing of Mathematically Challenging Tasks. In R. Leikin (Ed.), Mathematical Challenges For All , Research in Mathematics Education, pp: 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18868-8_16 .

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–454). Sage.

Thurston, P. W. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bull Amer Math Soc , 30 (2), 161–177.

Toh, T. L., Santos-Trigo, M., Chua, P. H., Abdullah, N. A., & Zhang, D. (Eds.). (2023). Problem posing and problem solving in mathematics education: Internationa research and practice trends . Springer Nature Singpore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7205-0 .

Törner, G., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Reiss, K. M. (Eds.). (2007). Problem solving around the world: Summing up the state of the art [Special Issue]. ZDM — Mathematics Education , 39 (5–6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-007-0053-0 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Research and Advanced Studies, Mathematics Education Department, Mexico City, Mexico

Manuel Santos-Trigo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Santos-Trigo .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Santos-Trigo, M. Problem solving in mathematics education: tracing its foundations and current research-practice trends. ZDM Mathematics Education 56 , 211–222 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01578-8

Download citation

Accepted : 18 April 2024

Published : 30 April 2024

Issue Date : May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01578-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mathematical problem solving
• Conceptual frameworks
• Digital and semiotic tools-
• Mathematical reasoning
• Mathematics education developments
• Digital technologies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Academic Achievement Gaps: Racial and Economic Disparities

Giving compass' take:.

• Hannah Vinueza McClellan examines research about how racial and socioeconomic status disparities influence academic achievement gaps.
• What are the root causes of these gaps in academic achievement? How can funders help build more equitable education systems to close these gaps?
• Learn more about key issues in education and how you can help.
• Search our Guide to Good for nonprofits focused on education in your area.

What is Giving Compass?

We connect donors to learning resources and ways to support community-led solutions. Learn more about us .

A new report from the  Thomas B. Fordham Institute released this week studied the influence of socioeconomic status (SES) on disparities in reading, mathematics, science and overall academic achievement gaps among racial and ethnic groups of elementary students in the United States.

Among other things, the study looked at which SES factors best explain existing academic achievement gaps, along with disparities among high-achieving students. The authors analyzed two sets of data from the federal Early Child Longitudinal Study, from 1998-99 and 2010-11.

The study’s resulting analysis  shows that “a broad set of family SES factors explains a substantial portion of racial academic achievement gaps: between 34 and 64 percent of the Black-white gap and between 51 and 77 percent of the Hispanic-white gap, depending on the subject and grade level.”

“Racial achievement gaps in schools are well documented and remain a significant cause of concern in education. Troubling too is that the role of socioeconomic disparities in mediating these gaps remains unresolved,” the  institute’s website says.  “While SES accounts for much of the racial achievement disparities, closing these gaps requires a comprehensive approach, including improving school quality and supporting family stability.”

The institute’s study used a broad set of measures of family background, including parents’ education, family finances, household structure, and “household opportunity factors.” The latter measure refers to academic, enrichment, and familial activities.

Key Findings About the Factors Contributing to Academic Achievement Gaps

• Racial achievement gaps decrease significantly when controlling for the SES factors (though SES explains more of the Hispanic-white gap than the Black-white gap).
• Of all the SES factors analyzed, household income best explains the Black-white academic achievement gap and mother’s education best explains the Hispanic-white gap.
• SES indicators, and the extent to which they explain racial/ethnic academic achievement gaps, are stable over time (1998-99 and 2010-11).

Read the full article about academic achievement gaps by Hannah Vinueza McClellan at The 74. Read the full article

More Articles

Back-to-school stress: neurodivergent students face added challenges, the hechinger report, aug 26, 2024, south african educators benefit from data, michael & susan dell foundation.

Become a newsletter subscriber to stay up-to-date on the latest Giving Compass news.

Donate to Giving Compass to help us guide donors toward practices that advance equity.

Partnerships

© 2024 Giving Compass Network

A 501(c)(3) organization. EIN: 85-1311683

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NSF announces 4 new Engineering Research Centers focused on biotechnology, manufacturing, robotics and sustainability

Engineering innovations transform our lives and energize the economy.  The U.S. National Science Foundation announces a five-year investment of $104 million, with a potential 10-year investment of up to $208 million, in four new NSF Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) to create technology-powered solutions that benefit the nation for decades to come.   

"NSF's Engineering Research Centers ask big questions in order to catalyze solutions with far-reaching impacts," said NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan. "NSF Engineering Research Centers are powerhouses of discovery and innovation, bringing America's great engineering minds to bear on our toughest challenges. By collaborating with industry and training the workforce of the future, ERCs create an innovation ecosystem that can accelerate engineering innovations, producing tremendous economic and societal benefits for the nation."  

The new centers will develop technologies to tackle the carbon challenge, expand physical capabilities, make heating and cooling more sustainable and enable the U.S. supply and manufacturing of natural rubber.  

The 2024 ERCs are:  

• NSF ERC for Carbon Utilization Redesign through Biomanufacturing-Empowered Decarbonization (CURB) — Washington University in St. Louis in partnership with the University of Delaware, Prairie View A&M University and Texas A&M University.   CURB will create manufacturing systems that convert CO2 to a broad range of products much more efficiently than current state-of-the-art engineered and natural systems.    
• NSF ERC for Environmentally Applied Refrigerant Technology Hub (EARTH) — University of Kansas in partnership with Lehigh University, University of Hawaii, University of Maryland, University of Notre Dame and University of South Dakota.   EARTH will create a transformative, sustainable refrigerant lifecycle to reduce global warming from refrigerants while increasing the energy efficiency of heating, ventilation and cooling.    
• NSF ERC for Human AugmentatioN via Dexterity (HAND) — Northwestern University in partnership with Carnegie Mellon University, Florida A&M University, and Texas A&M University, and with engagement of MIT.  HAND will revolutionize the ability of robots to augment human labor by transforming dexterous robot hands into versatile, easy-to-integrate tools.     
• NSF ERC for Transformation of American Rubber through Domestic Innovation for Supply Security (TARDISS) — The Ohio State University in partnership with Caltech, North Carolina State University, Texas Tech University and the University of California, Merced.   TARDISS will create bridges between engineering, biology, and agriculture to revolutionize and on-shore alternative natural rubber production from U.S. crops.  

Since its founding in 1985, NSF's ERC program has funded 83 centers (including the four announced today) that receive support for up to 10 years. The centers build partnerships with educational institutions, government agencies and industry stakeholders to support innovation and inclusion in established and emerging engineering research.  

Visit NSF's website and read about NSF Engineering Research Centers .  

Research areas