Abstract This study investigated teachers' perspectives of difficulties students have solving mathematical word problems and causes of those difficulties. Classroom practices and strategies teachers used in their attempts to foster student problem solving success were also studied. Participants were 70 second-fifth grade teachers from 42 different schools in a south central region of the United States. Data included analyses of interview transcriptions of teachers' responses. Findings from teachers' responses showed students' abilities to read and understand the problem was the most frequently cited difficulty; standardized testing and text difficulties were the most cited causes of those difficulties. Examination of teachers' responses to practices and strategies used in the classroom revealed the most cited practice was working the problem independently and the most cited strategy taught to students was to identify key words. This study revealed the significant role reading plays in teachers' perspectives of students' difficulties solving mathematical word problems and provided insight into practices and strategies teachers reported using to teach word problems. With attention to teacher-reported causes of difficulties and importance of this ability for students, this study also showed the impact state mandated testing has on instruction of mathematical word problems.

This paper describes the problem solving behavior of two preservice teachers as they worked individually on three nonroutine geometry problems. A dynamic tool software, namely the Geometer’s Sketchpad, was used as a tool to facilitate inquiry in order to uncover and investigate the patterns of metacognitive processes. Schoenfeld’s (1981) model of episodes and executive decisions in mathematics problem solving was used to identify patterns of metacognitive processes in a dynamic geometry environment. During the reading, understanding, and analysis episodes, the participants engaged in monitoring behaviors such as sense making, drawing a diagram, and allocating potential resources and approaches that helped make productive decisions. During the exploring, planning, implementation, and verification episodes, the participants made decisions to access and consider knowledge and strategies, make and test conjectures, monitor the progress, and assess the productivity of activities and strategies and the correctness of an answer. Cognitive problem-solving actions not accompanied by appropriate metacognitive monitoring actions appeared to lead to unproductive efforts. Redirection and reorganizing of thinking in productive directions occurred when metacognitive actions guided the thinking and when affective behaviors were controlled.