Forum 10 -  Lesson 10

L10-Q1 Problem Solving

 

Instructor:  Tom Anderson

 

Submitted By Kim Fitzer

 

For the following problem-solving exercises, I  chose the two problems listed below:

 

 

1.  You wake up in a pitch-black room in a hunting lodge, and there's no light handy. In your duffel bag there are six black socks and six white

 ones, all mixed together. You want to pick out a matching pair. What is the smallest number of socks you can take out of the bag and be sure of

 getting a pair of the same color? How many socks _3____?

This problem was fairly easy to solve.  Fortunately, there are only two colors, if there were more, this problem would be considerably more difficult.  We know from the question that there are three pairs of black and three pairs of white socks.  In order to solve this problem, we must generate a set schema.  The set schema has four components:  the object slot (socks), the quantity slot (6 of each color), the specification (6 black, 6 white), and the role slot (smallest number of socks to make a pair).  This also requires knowing how many socks are in a pair, so we are scaffolding information:  old on top of new.  Our action strategy is to determine how many socks we must remove in order to make a pair (Bruning, Ronning, & Schraw, 1999). 

If we remove just two socks, the chances are fairly good that we may be removing one of each color.  So good are the odds in fact, that we cannot be sure that we will be getting a pair, so based on this uncertainty, two cannot be the answer.  However, by removing one more, we will be adding one more of either color sock we originally selected, therefore creating a matching pair.  Of course, the answer of the problem is also text dependent.  The language of the problem states that we must create a pair of either color, not specifically black or white.  This does make it easier to solve, and the answer would be would be considerably different if we needed to be choosy.  So, being able to decode the text is an important step in being able to solve mathematical word problems.

Of course, there are other questions, such as:  If you wake up in a pitch black room, how do you know you are in a hunting lodge?  Or how do yuo find your duffle bag.  But these questions cannot be answered here.

 

 

2.  A camp cook wanted to measure four ounces of syrup out of a jug but he had only a five-oz and a three-oz bottle. How did he manage it?

 Write out the steps, such as pour 3oz into 5oz bottle, and such.

The Answer: 

  1. The cook begins by pouring syrup into the three-oz. bottle, filling it to the top. 
  2. He then pours the syrup in the three-oz. bottle into the five oz. bottle.
  3. Then, he refills the three-oz. bottle and pours two of the three ounces into the five ounce bottle.  This leaves just one oz. in the three-oz. bottle.  There are now five oz. of syrup in the five oz. bottle.
  4. Now the cook pours the entire contents of the five oz. bottle back into the jug, and pours the one oz. of syrup in the three oz. bottle into the five oz. bottle.
  5. The cook refills the three oz. bottle, and pours the entire contents into the five oz. bottle.  He now has his objective:  four oz. of syrup in the five oz. bottle.

Solving this problem was considerably more difficult, because of inconsistencies in schema selection.  At first, we knew that at some point, there needed to be a third bottle.  However, the third bottle is not mentioned in the text.  Also, text comprehension also played a part.  We knew that three oz. was less than five oz., and that four oz. was in between.  We also knew that the difference between five and three were two, and the difference between three and four and four and five were one.  But how to isolate the one oz., on which the whole problem would depend?

The schema used to solve the problem proceeded from the problem schemata, by drawing a mental image of a three and a five oz. bottle.  We began by mentally pouring three oz. into the five oz. bottle.  But then, how to find the one oz.?  This presents the action schemata, or the essential question in the problem.  At first, we tried dividing the two oz. left in the five oz. bottle visually in half, and filling up the remaining two oz. halfway.  However, this was inaccurate.  The strategic schemata used in the first attempt, to divide the remaining two oz. in half, proved to be inconclusive.  A different strategy would have to be formed (Bruning, et. al., 1999).  Suddenly, it became clear that if the three oz. bottle were to be filled again, and two of the three oz. were poured into the five oz. bottle, the elusive one oz. of syrup would be left in the three oz. bottle.  At this point, it was simply a matter of figuring out how to get the one oz. and an additional three oz. into the five oz. bottle.  The third bottle, into which the five oz. bottle is poured in step 4, is the original jug of syrup.   And of course, by refilling the three oz. bottle and adding it to the one oz. already in the five oz. bottle, the four oz. measure is created.  

 

Students often use faulty schemata to solve problems.  They often do not utilize estimation schema to evaluate their answers.  S.K. Reed (1984) conducted several studies to determine students’ abilities to isolate and select the correct strategic schema for solving word problems.  Students often select the simplest solution, or schemata, without regard for appropriateness of their answers (this does not apply just to mathematics and word problem solving).  Students also often have difficulties in applying previously learned information to solve new problems.  In a study that Gick and Holyoak (1980, 1983) conducted, students were given practice problems to solve prior to being given a new set of problems.  While students were able to solve the practice problems, they were not successful in solving the new problems because they failed to connect the old informatioin with the new.  The new problems differed from the old just enough to prevent the students from drawing an analogy between the two.  It became apparent to the researchers that while the selection and implementation of schema may occur easily at lower-level problem-solving situations, higher-order problem-solving such as algebraic word problems often failed to generate the correct schema.  Students continued to apply the same schema that worked well for the lower-level problems to the more difficult problems, and found these techniques and strategies inadequate (Bruning, et. al. 1999).  If this information is true, and classroom observations appear to support these findings, then new strategies and problem-solving methodologies must be taught. 

 

References

 

Bruning, Roger H., Schraw, Gregory J. and Ronning, Royce R.  1999.  Cognitive Psychology and Instruction:  Third Edition. 

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc.  pp. 331-341.