Mathematical Thinking and Learning: To Cite This Article: Jinfa Cai (2000) Mathematical Thinking Involved in U.S

This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]
On: 17 November 2014, At: 08:21

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Mathematical Thinking and

Learning
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmtl20
Mathematical Thinking Involved

in U.S. and Chinese Students'
Solving of Process-Constrained
and Process-Open Problems
Jinfa Cai
Published online: 18 Nov 2009.
To cite this article: Jinfa Cai (2000) Mathematical Thinking Involved in U.S.
and Chinese Students' Solving of Process-Constrained and Process-Open
Problems, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2:4, 309-340, DOI: 10.1207/
S15327833MTL0204_4
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL0204_4
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING, 2(4), 309340

Copyright 2000, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mathematical Thinking Involved

in U.S. and Chinese Students Solving
of Process-Constrained and
Process-Open Problems
Jinfa Cai
Department of Mathematical Sciences
University of Delaware
This study examined U.S. and Chinese 6th-grade students mathematical thinking
and reasoning involved in solving 6 process-constrained and 6 process-open problems. The Chinese sample (from Guiyang, Guizhou) had a significantly higher mean
score than the U.S. sample (from Milwaukee, Wisconsin) on the process-constrained
tasks, but the sample of U.S. students had a significantly higher mean score than the
sample of the Chinese students on the process-open tasks. A qualitative analysis of
students responses was conducted to understand the mathematical thinking and reasoning involved in solving these problems. The qualitative results indicate that the
Chinese sample preferred to use routine algorithms and symbolic representations,
whereas the U.S. sample preferred to use concrete visual representations. Such a qualitative analysis of students responses provided insights into U.S. and Chinese students mathematical thinking, thereby facilitating interpretation of the cross-national
differences in solving the process-constrained and process-open problems.
It is widely accepted that the golden ring of educational research is to improve the
learning opportunities for all students. To improve students learning, it is necessary to understand the developmental status of their thinking and reasoning. The
more information teachers obtain about what students know and think, the more opportunities they create for student success (Darling-Hammond, 1994). Teachers
knowledge of students thinking has a substantial impact on their classroom instruction and, hence, on students learning (Fennema & Franke, 1992; Gardner,
Requests for reprints should be sent to Jinfa Cai, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University
of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: jcai@math.udel.edu
310
CAI
1999; Wittrock, 1986). Cross-national studies in the teaching and learning of mathematics provide unique opportunities to understand students thinking and reasoning. They also provide diagnostic and decision-making information about how we
can improve students learning. This study was intended to provide detailed information about U.S. and Chinese students mathematical thinking and reasoning in
problem solving.
The results of cross-national studies in mathematics have received considerable
attention by the educational research community as well as by the general public
(e.g., Becker, Sawada, & Shimizu, 1999; Gardner, 1989; Lapointe, Mead, &
Askew, 1992; Robitaille & Garden, 1989; Silver, Leung, & Cai, 1995; Stevenson
et al., 1990; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; Stigler, Lee, &
Stevenson, 1990; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, 1996, 1997, 1998). However, in discussing cross-national performance
differences, much of the attention has been focused on international rankings. It is
useful to know the performance differences in terms of mean scores, but such simple comparisons provide little guidance for understanding and improving students mathematics learning. If cross-national studies are to provide the education
community with a deeper understanding of teaching and learning mathematics, it
is essential for cross-national comparisons to include evidence of students thinking and reasoning beyond reporting mean scores and percentages correct. Therefore, in a cross-national study, the information about how students approach the
solution of a given problem is more important than whether they are able to recognize the correct solution. Detailed information about students mathematical
thinking in problem solving can help us to understand how mathematics is taught
by teachers and how it is learned by students in different countries. Such information should be useful for identifying effective ways to improve students learning
(Bradburn & Gilford, 1990; Robitaille & Travers, 1992).
In this study, I investigated the relative performance of a sample of U.S.
sixth-grade students and a sample of Chinese sixth-grade students on process-constrained and process-open problems and provided in-depth information about U.S.
and Chinese students mathematical thinking and reasoning in solving these problems. The study reported here is part of the ongoing effort investigating U.S. and
Chinese students thinking and reasoning in both problem solving and problem
posing. The study extended earlier work (Cai, 1995, 1997, 1998a; Cai & Silver,
1995) to include the examination of students thinking and reasoning in solving
process-constrained and process-open problems. A process-constrained problem
can be solved either with a standard algorithm or with a more flexible application
of an algorithm. However, for a process-open problem, there is not a formal algorithm to solve the problem.
In an earlier study (Cai, 1995), I examined U.S. and Chinese sixth-grade students performance on various tasks. I found that Chinese students outperformed
U.S. students on multiple-choice tasks that assessed computation and simple prob-
U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING
311
lem solving but not on performance assessment tasks that assessed complex problem solving. A performance assessment task refers to an assessment task that
requires students to produce their own answers and explain or justify their solution
processes. When differences for each of the performance assessment tasks were
examined, the differences were not consistent across these tasks. For some of the
performance assessment tasks, U.S. students had higher mean scores than Chinese
students. For other tasks, Chinese students had higher mean scores than U.S. students. These results left a number of unanswered questions: What is the nature of
the tasks for which Chinese students had higher mean scores than the U.S. students? Was it possible that the processes involved in the performance assessment
tasks in which Chinese students had higher mean scores are more constrained than
those in which U.S. students had higher mean scores?
This study was designed to explore these unanswered questions by examining
U.S. and Chinese sixth-grade students performance on process-constrained and
process-open problems. In solving each of the problems, students were required to
produce a complete solution, an explanation of the strategy or method used, and a
justification of the solution obtained. Such visible written records allowed me to
analyze the kinds of strategies and representations U.S. and Chinese students used.
This study was thus designed to (a) investigate whether the performance differences between U.S. and Chinese students are different on process-constrained and
process-open tasks and (b) examine how U.S. and Chinese students selection of
solution strategies and representations contribute to the performance differences.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 310 sixth-grade Chinese students from six schools in Guiyang, Guizhou
and 232 sixth-grade U.S. students from four public schools in the Milwaukee metropolitan area of Wisconsin were tested. A similar number of boys and girls were
represented in both the Guiyang sample (150 girls and 160 boys) and the Milwaukee sample (110 girls and 122 boys).
Guiyang, Guizhou and Milwaukee, Wisconsin were chosen as research sites
for several reasons. Guizhou province is located in southwestern China, and
Guiyang is the capital city of Guizhou province. Economically, Guizhou is not
as developed as cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Quandong. Guiyang and its
surrounding suburban regions have a population of about 1 million people. The
Milwaukee metropolitan area is located in the midwestern region of the United
States. Similarly, this area is not as economically developed as areas in the western or eastern parts of the United States. There are about 1 million people in the
Milwaukee metropolitan area.
312
CAI
The same procedures were followed in selecting U.S. and Chinese samples. In
particular, the schools were chosen based on the recommendations of educators at
each research site. Three of the six Chinese schools were above average schools,
and the remaining three were average. Although these schools were selected on the
recommendations of a group of Chinese teachers and mathematics education professors, they were not in any significant way atypical in the region. After the
schools were chosen, one sixth-grade mathematics teacher from each school was
selected on a volunteer basis. All students in one of the selected teachers classes
from each school were tested. The Milwaukee sample involved four public
schools. Two of the four were above average and the remaining two were average
in the Milwaukee metropolitan area. As in China, the U.S. schools were selected
based on the recommendations of a group of mathematics supervisors in a school
district and mathematics education professors in Milwaukee. These schools were
typical of the area in terms of students population and family background. After
the schools were chosen, one sixth-grade mathematics teacher from each of the
four U.S. schools was selected on a volunteer basis. All of the sixth-grade students
taught by each of these selected teachers in each school were studied.
All six participating Chinese schools used the national unified textbooks, edited
and published by the Peoples Education Press (Division of Mathematics, 1993).
The four U.S. schools used three different textbooks. One school used Exploring
Mathematics, published by the Scott Foreman series (Bolster et al., 1995); two
schools used Mathematics: Application and Connections (Course 2), published by
Glencoe/McGraw Hill (Balch et al., 1995); and one school was piloting the materials from The Connected Mathematics Project (Glenda, Fey, Friel, Fitzgerald, &
Phillips, 1995). Because of the diversity of the U.S. textbooks and the focus of this
study, detailed comparisons of the U.S. and Chinese textbooks were not conducted. Nevertheless, results from a teacher questionnaire showed that all six Chinese and four U.S. teachers indicated that their sixth-grade students had been
taught relevant concepts and should have enough information to correctly answer
each of the 12 problems. It should be noted that each of the participating Chinese
schools had spent about 20 lessons to introduce algebraic concepts and representations before the data were collected for this study. In particular, the Chinese students had been taught the concept of a variable, concepts of equation and equation
solving, and solving word problems by setting up equations. Also, the Chinese students were consistently encouraged to represent and solve problems both arithmetically and algebraically (Cai, 1998b). Unlike the Chinese students, the U.S.
students were not formally taught algebraic concepts and representations before
the data were collected for this study.
Tasks and Administration
Twelve performance assessment tasks, shown in the Appendix, were administered
to both samples. Five of the tasks (Tasks 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10) were adopted from the
313
Quantitative Understanding: Amplifying Student Achievement and Reasoning

(QUASAR) Project (Lane, 1993; Silver & Lane, 1992). Four of the tasks (Tasks 1,
3, 5, and 12) used in this study were originally developed for a study by Cai, Moyer,
and Wang (1999). The remaining 3 tasks (Tasks 6, 9, and 11) were developed by me
for the purpose of this study. These tasks required students not only to produce their
own answers but also to explain their solutions. Because these problems allow for
multiple solution strategies and representations, they have advantages over multiple-choice tasks for assessing students thinking and reasoning (Cai, 1997). The 12
performance assessment tasks were embedded in various content topics. After
these tasks were designed or selected, local contacts (mathematics supervisors and
professors) in both the United States and China were asked to evaluate whether students had been exposed to the various content topics on which the problems were
based. In addition, the U.S. and Chinese teachers completed a questionnaire that
asked them whether their students had the required content knowledge for the problems and were familiar with tasks that asked them to explain their answers. Both the
local contacts and the results from the teacher questionnaire indicated that the U.S.
and Chinese students met these requirements.
Tasks 1 through 6 were process-constrained tasks. Tasks 7 through 12 were
relatively process-open tasks when compared to Tasks 1 through 6. A process-constrained task requires a student to carry out a procedure or a set of routine procedures in solving the problem. In other words, the task is set in such a
way that it constrains a students solution to a rather limited process. Usually, a
process-constrained task can be solved by applying a standard algorithm. On the
other hand, a task that is process-open may not require an execution of a procedure or a set of procedures; instead, it requires an exploration of the problem situation and then the solution to the problem. Therefore, the task is set in such a
way that it allows students to use alternative, acceptable solution strategies.
Usually, a process-open task cannot be solved by following a standard algorithm. Two U.S. mathematics educators and two Chinese mathematics educators
were asked to independently classify the 12 tasks into 6 process-constrained
tasks and 6 process-open tasks. The four educators agreed on the classification
for almost all of the tasks, except that one Chinese educator classified Task 9
(Division Problem) as a process-constrained task, and one U.S. educator classified Task 2 (Hat Averaging Problem) as a process-open task. The discrepancy
was resolved through discussion.
The 12 performance assessment tasks were evenly distributed in two booklets
with 6 tasks in each booklet. Process-constrained tasks and process-open tasks
were mixed in the test booklets, which were handed out on 2 separate days by the
students regular mathematics teachers. Before the data collection, I provided a detailed set of directions by letter to each of the sixth-grade mathematics teachers. In
addition, the first page of each booklet contained a set of instructions for students.
Each teacher was asked to read the instructions to students before they worked on
the problems in the booklet. Part of the instructions emphasized the requirement
314
CAI
that the students explain their thinking: Your job is to obtain the correct answer
and show or explain how you found your answer. Your work or explanation should
be clear enough so that another person could read it and understand your thinking.
After the teacher read the instructions, students had 40 min to complete each booklet. Students were not permitted to use calculators.
Task Translation
The use of a test with different cultural groups has often led to controversies
(e.g., Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992). Therefore, it was necessary to
ensure the equivalence of the two language versions of the tests. To address this,
a process of English back translation was used. In this process, two people, each
literate in both Chinese and English contributed to the translation of the tasks.
The tasks were originally written in English. The first person translated from
English into Chinese. Then, the second person translated the Chinese back into
English. This final translation was then compared to the original task to ensure
equivalence. The English back translation and the original English were consistent except for the intentional changes involving culturally appropriate words
like personal names, object names, contexts, and terminology. After the back
translation, the test items in the Chinese version were edited to create smooth
sentences to ensure comprehension by students.
Data Analyses
Each response to a performance assessment task was scored according to two analysis schemes: a holistic scoring scheme (or quantitative analysis) and a cognitive
analysis scheme (or qualitative analysis). The details of this kind of scoring can be
found in other studies (Cai, Magone, Wang, & Lane, 1996; Lane, 1993; Magone,
Cai, Silver, & Wang, 1994; Silver & Lane, 1992).
In the quantitative analysis, each students response was assigned a numerical
score from a five-level (04) scoring rubric. To receive a score of 4, a students explanation or solution process had to show a correct and complete understanding of
the problem. To receive a score of 3, a students explanation or solution process
had to be basically correct and complete, except for a minor error, omission, or ambiguity. To receive a score of 2, the explanation or solution process had to show
some understanding of the problem but be otherwise incomplete. If a students explanation or solution process showed a limited understanding of the problem, it
was scored as 1. If a students answer and explanation showed no understanding of
the problem, the response received a score of 0. If a student omitted a task, the student response would also be scored as 0. It should be noted that, in quantitative
315
scoring, the sophistication and types of solution strategies used to produce correct
answers were not considered. In other words, regardless of the strategy used (e.g.,
a sophisticated algebraic approach or a trial-and-error approach), as long as the
student used the strategy appropriately to yield a correct answer for a problem, the
student was scored at the appropriate level.
A qualitative analysis of each response to the performance assessment tasks focused on critical cognitive aspects, such as solution strategies, mathematical errors,
and mathematical representations. These components have been identified as significant dimensions in cognitive psychology in general (e.g., Royer, Cisero, &
Carlo, 1993) and in mathematical problem solving in particular (e.g., English &
Halford, 1995; Schoenfeld, 1992; Sternberg, 1991). Competence in using appropriate problem-solving strategies reflects students degrees of performance proficiency in mathematics. The representations and strategies that students use and the
success of those applications can provide important information regarding students
mathematical thinking and reasoning processes. Students mathematical errors can
provide information with respect to the characteristics of their misconceptions and
the extent to which they modify their misconceptions during problem solving.
A specific qualitative coding scheme, based on these cognitive aspects, was
developed for each problem to examine solution strategies, mathematical errors,
and mathematical representations. For convenience, qualitative analysis was
conducted on 100 U.S. and 100 Chinese student responses, which were randomly selected from the 232 U.S. and the 310 Chinese students, respectively.
Such analyses have proven to be highly reliable and have provided important information about students thinking and reasoning in previous studies. To ensure
a high reliability of both quantitative and qualitative scoring for the purpose of
this study, 60 students testing booklets were randomly selected (30 Chinese
booklets and 30 U.S. booklets) and were independently coded by two raters,
who are literate in both Chinese and English. The interrater agreements for qualitative coding ranged from 87% to 100%. The interrater agreements for holistic
scoring ranged from 84% to 91%.
RESULTS
How Did U.S. Students Perform Compared
to Chinese Students?
Table 1 shows the mean scores for the U.S. and Chinese students on both the process-constrained tasks and process-open tasks. A one-way multivariate analysis of
variance indicated that, overall, there was a significant difference in mean scores
between the U.S. and Chinese students, F(1, 542) = 46.17, p < .001. Clearly, overall, the sample of Chinese students outperformed the sample of U.S. students on
316
CAI
TABLE 1
Mean Scores of U.S. and Chinese Students
on the Process-Constrained and Process-Open Tasks
Sample
Task
Process constrained
M
SD
Process open
M
SD
an
U.S.a
Chineseb
12.85
7.16
17.97
5.19
14.70
6.07
13.59
4.81
= 232. bn = 310.
these tasks. However, when these U.S. and Chinese students performance on the
process-constrained and process-open tasks were examined, a different performance difference pattern was revealed. The sample of U.S. students had a significantly higher mean score than the sample of Chinese students on the process-open
tasks, t(540) = 2.37, p < .05, whereas Chinese students had a significantly higher
mean score than the U.S. students on the process-constrained tasks, t(540) = 9.65, p
< .001. For the U.S. sample, the mean score on the process-open tasks was significantly higher than that on the process-constrained tasks, t(231) = 2.99, p < .01. For
the Chinese sample, however, the mean score on the process-constrained tasks was
significantly higher than that on the process-open tasks, t(309) = 10.90, p < .001.
These results indicate that the overall mean difference between the two samples
was due to the fact that the Chinese students outperformed the U.S. students on the
process-constrained tasks.
Table 2 shows the mean scores of the U.S. and Chinese students on each of
the tasks. The comparisons of the mean scores on each of these tasks generally
supported the observation that the sample of Chinese students outperformed the
sample of U.S. students on the process-constrained assessment tasks but not necessarily on the process-open assessment tasks. On each of the process-constrained tasks, the mean score for the Chinese students was significantly higher
than that for the U.S. students. On three of the process-open tasks (Tasks 9, 11,
and 12), the mean score for the U.S. sample was significantly higher than that
for the Chinese sample. For two of the process-open tasks (Tasks 7 and 8), both
samples had similar mean scores. However, for the remaining process-open task
(Task 10), the mean score for the Chinese students was significantly higher than
that for the U.S. students. The two most difficult problems for the U.S. sample
were process-constrained tasks (Tasks 2 and 3). However, the two most difficult
problems for the Chinese sample were process-open tasks, the two pattern problems (Tasks 11 and 12). On the other hand, the easiest problem for the U.S. sam-
TABLE 2
Scores of U.S. and Chinese Students on Each of the Tasks
Sample
Task
1. Can averaging problemc
M
SD
2. Hats averaging problemc
M
SD
3. Area problemc
M
SD
4. Map ratio problemc
M
SD
5. Pizza ratio problemc
M
SD
6. Camping ratio problemc
M
SD
7. Prealgebra problem
M
SD
8. Number theory problem
M
SD
9. Division problemd
M
SD
10. Estimation problemc
M
SD
11. Block pattern problemd
M
SD
12. Odd number pattern problemd
M
SD
U.S.a
Chineseb
2.91
1.56
3.70
0.96
1.85
1.92
2.93
1.63
0.97
1.28
2.06
1.50
2.33
1.77
3.55
1.17
2.27
1.58
2.71
1.67
2.53
1.67
3.02
1.40
2.73
1.63
2.85
1.51
2.28
1.86
2.17
1.79
3.00
1.26
2.44
0.80
2.44
1.56
2.87
1.45
2.15
1.30
1.79
1.29
2.04
1.19
1.46
1.09
t
6.80
6.89
9.09
9.17
3.12
3.64
0.53
0.67
5.98
3.34
3.17
5.84
an = 232. bn = 310. cFor this problem, Chinese students had a significantly higher mean score than U.S.
students (p < .01). dFor this problem, U.S. students had a significantly higher mean score than did
Chinese students (p < .01).
317
318
CAI
ple was a process-open task (Task 9), and the easiest problem for the Chinese
sample was a process-constrained task (Task 1).
Why were there different patterns of performance on the various tasks? Why
were the most difficult tasks for the U.S. students not necessarily the most difficult
tasks for the Chinese students? As reported in the next three sections, response
analyses for selected tasks were conducted to examine U.S. and Chinese students
thinking in solving these problems. Such analyses reveal how the nature of the
tasks was related to the patterns of performance differences shown here. The analyses also provide insights into the U.S. and Chinese students thinking and reasoning involved in solving these problems.
On Which Tasks Did U.S. Students Have Higher
Mean Scores Than Chinese Students?
The sample of U.S. students had significantly higher mean scores than the sample
of Chinese students on the division problem (Task 9), the block pattern problem
(Task 11), and the odd number pattern problem (Task 12). The results from the response analysis for both pattern problems are presented to understand possible reasons for the U.S. students outperforming Chinese students on these problems.
Response analysis for the block pattern problem (Task 11). To solve
the block pattern problem, students are required to find the number of blocks
needed to build staircases of 5 and 20 steps each and to explain how they found their
answers. The response analysis for this problem focused on the correctness of the
students answers and their solution strategies and representations. The majority of
the U.S. and Chinese students (91% and 92%, respectively) correctly found the
number of blocks needed to build a staircase of 5 steps. In contrast, only a relatively
small proportion of the U.S. and Chinese students (28% and 22%, respectively)
correctly found the number of blocks needed to build a staircase of 20 steps.
It is interesting to note that students did not always use the same strategy to find
the number of blocks needed to build staircases of 5 and 20 steps. Thus, the strategies students used to find the number of blocks needed to build staircases of 5 and
20 steps are presented separately. Table 3 describes the different strategies that
these two samples of U.S. and Chinese students used and shows the percentage of
students using each strategy. About 90% of the students in each nation clearly used
an appropriate solution strategy to find the number of blocks needed to build a
staircase of 5 steps. The Chinese students used Strategies 1 and 2 most frequently
to find the number of blocks needed. The majority of the U.S. students used Strategy 3 to determine the number of blocks needed.
The percentages of the U.S. and Chinese students (28% and 22%, respectively) who correctly found the number of blocks needed for 20 steps were not
significantly different. However, a significantly larger percentage of the U.S.
319
TABLE 3
Descriptions of Each Solution Strategy and Percentages of U.S. and Chinese Students
Using Each Strategy for Solving the Block Pattern Problem
Sample (%)a
Task and Strategy Description

5-step staircase
Strategy 1: The student realized that the staircase of 5 steps is made of 1
block, 2 blocks, 3 blocks, 4 blocks, and 5 blocks. Therefore, the
number of blocks needed to build a staircase of 5 steps could be found
by adding 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (i.e., 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15).
Strategy 2: The student found the number of blocks in a staircase of 4
steps and realized that a 5-step staircase has 5 more blocks than the
number of blocks in a 4-step staircase. Therefore, 15 (10 + 5) blocks
were needed to build a staircase of 5 steps.
Strategy 3: The student correctly drew a staircase of 5 steps on the paper
and counted the number of blocks in it, which was 15.
Strategy could not be identified, or student used an incorrect strategy.
20-step staircase
Strategy 1: The student realized that the staircase of 20 steps is made of
1 block, 2 blocks, 3 blocks, , and 20 blocks. Therefore, the number
of blocks needed to build a staircase of 20 steps could be found by
adding 1, 2, 3, 4, , and 20 (i.e., 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + + 20 = 210).
Strategy 2: The student realized that the number of blocks in an n-step
staircase is n more than the number of blocks in an (n 1)-step
staircase. For example, the number of blocks in a 5-step staircase has
5 more blocks than the number of blocks in a 4-step staircase.
Through a recursive process, the student found the number of blocks
in a 19-step staircase and, by adding 20 to it, finally found the number
of blocks needed to build a staircase of 20 steps.
Strategy 3: The student correctly drew a staircase of 20 steps on the
paper and counted the number of blocks in it, which was 210.
Strategy could not be identified, or student used an incorrect strategy.
U.S.b
Chineseb
12
34
18
40
61
13
13
21
24
10
25
47
61
aRecall that, for convenience, response analysis for each task was conducted based on 100 U.S. and
100 Chinese student responses, which were randomly selected from the 232 U.S. and the 310 Chinese
students. bn = 100.
students (53%) compared to the Chinese students (39%) showed a clear indication of using an appropriate strategy, z = 2.29, p < .05. For both of the samples,
the relatively large percentage difference between students with correct solution
processes and students with the correct answer was primarily due to errors in
computation or counting. For example, when using Strategy 1 to find the sum of
1 + 2 + 3 + + 20 by adding the numbers in the original order, some students
forgot to add some of the numbers or added incorrectly. When students used
Strategy 3 and drew the staircase of 20 steps, some students did not count the
number of blocks correctly.
320
CAI
Comparing the two samples of students solution strategies in these two parts,
there were differences in the percentage distributions both for the number of
blocks needed to build the staircase of 5 steps, 2(3, N = 200) = 50.73, p < .001, and
the number of blocks needed to build the staircase of 20 steps, 2(3, N = 200) =
15.88, p < .01. In particular, 61% of the U.S. students actually drew a staircase of 5
steps to find the number of blocks in it, but only 13% of the Chinese students drew
the staircase to find the answer, z = 7.03, p < .001. Similarly, a larger percentage of
the U.S. students (25%) compared to the Chinese students (5%) actually drew a
staircase of 20 steps to find the number of blocks in it, z = 3.09, p < .01. From the
5-step to the 20-step staircase, the number of U.S. students who used Strategy 3
(drew the 20-step staircase) decreased proportionally, but Strategy 3 was still the
most frequently used strategy for U.S. students. On the other hand, from the 5-step
to the 20-step staircase, the number of U.S. students who used Strategy 1 increased
proportionally. It is interesting to note that 8 Chinese and 3 U.S. students applied
the Gausss approach to find the sum of the integers 1 through 20 (1 + 2 + 3 + +
20). These students reordered the numbers in the addition so that numbers could be
paired in easier sums:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 +
17 + 18 + 19 + 20
= (1 + 20) + (2 + 19) + (3 + 18) + (4 + 17) + (5 + 16) + (6 + 15) + (7 + 14)
+ (8 + 13) + (9 + 12) + (10 + 11)
= 21 + 21 + 21 + 21 + 21+ 21 + 21+ 21 + 21+ 21 = 21 10 = 210
Response analysis for the odd number pattern problem (Task 12). When
they were asked to find the number of guests entering on the 10th ring of the doorbell, 71% of the U.S. students and 57% of the Chinese students produced the correct
answer. The difference was significant, z = 2.06, p < .01. Similarly, a larger percentage of the U.S. students (72%) compared to the Chinese students (58%) used appropriate strategies to find the number of guests entering on the 10th ring, z = 2.08, p <
.01. The strategies can be classified into two categories: concrete and abstract.
Using a concrete strategy, students made a table or a list or noticed that, each time
the doorbell rang, two more guests entered than on the previous ring, and they actually added 2s sequentially to find the number of guests who entered on the 10th ring
of the doorbell. Using an abstract strategy, some students noticed that the number of
guests who entered on a particular ring of the doorbell equaled 2 times that ring
number minus 1 (i.e., y = 2n 1, where y represents the number of guests and n represents the ring number). Others noticed that the number of guests who entered on a
particular ring equaled the ring number plus the ring number minus 1 (i.e., y = n + [n
1], where y represents the number of guests and n represents the ring number).
321
Then, using the generalized rule, students found the number of guests who entered
on the 10th ring. For those U.S. and Chinese students using appropriate strategies,
the percentage distributions of using concrete and abstract strategies between the
two samples were different, 2(1, N = 130) = 11.69, p < .01. Figure 1 shows the percentages of U.S. and Chinese students who used concrete and abstract strategies.
Nearly 30% of the Chinese students used abstract strategies, but only 6% of the U.S.
students did. On the other hand, 94% of the U.S. students used concrete strategies,
whereas only about 70% of the Chinese students did.
In solving the odd number pattern problem, students were also asked to write a
rule or describe in words how to find the number of guests who entered on each
ring of the doorbell. Over 70% of the U.S. students described the rule that can be
used to find the number of guests that entered on each ring, but only 53% of the
Chinese students were able to describe the rule, z = 2.93, p < .01. Similarly, the
kinds of descriptions U.S. and Chinese students provided were quite different. One
of the most notable differences is that a larger percentage of the Chinese students
described the rule using a mathematical expression. Of the students who described
the rule, 42% (22 of 53) of the Chinese students used a mathematical expression to
describe the rule as y = 2n 1 or y = n + (n 1), with y representing the number of
guests and n representing the ring number. However, only 4% (3 of 73) of the U.S.
students described the rule using a mathematical expression. A majority of the
U.S. students (over 70%, or 52 of 73) described the rule with words like count by
FIGURE 1 Percentages of U.S. and Chinese students using each strategy for the odd number
pattern problem (Task 11).
322
CAI
odd numbers or keep adding 2 to the pattern. About 25% of the U.S. students
described it as a list, such as the pattern goes 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, Only about 30% of
the Chinese students described the rule with words such as count by odd numbers or keep adding 2 to the pattern. About 27% of the Chinese students described the rule with words like each ring has 2 more guests than the one before.
Only a few of the Chinese students described it as a list like the pattern goes 1, 3,
5, 7, 9,
Students were asked to answer three questions in the odd number pattern problem. The third question was: 99 guests entered on one of the rings. What ring was
it? Although the U.S. students were more successful than the Chinese students in
answering the first two questions, the Chinese students performed slightly better
than the U.S. students in answering the third question. In fact, 27% of the Chinese
students and 22% of the U.S. students had the correct answer for the third question.
This may be due to the fact that more Chinese students than U.S. students described
the rule using mathematical expressions. Such abstract strategies are more efficient
than concrete strategies (e.g., keep adding 2 to the pattern or making a table or a list)
to answer the third question, which involves undoing (i.e., knowing the number of
guests for finding the ring number).
Summary. All three problems for which the sample of U.S. students had
higher mean scores than the sample of Chinese students required sense making out
of the problem situations. For both pattern problems (Task 11 and Task 12), there
was no routine students could follow to solve them. Instead, students needed to use
inductive reasoning skills to determine the rule or regularity. They then had to use
this information to interpret their solution in extensions to the problem. The response analysis showed that a significantly larger percentage of the U.S. students
compared to the Chinese students used concrete drawing approaches to solve these
problems. Because of the exploratory requirements in solving the pattern problems,
it may be to students advantage to use concrete drawing approaches for finding answers to some questions. Thus, the U.S. students higher mean scores on these pattern problems may have been due to the advantages of using concrete strategies,
such as drawing or making a list. On the other hand, a larger percentage of Chinese
students used generalized, symbolic approaches. By using generalized, symbolic
approaches, the sample of Chinese students had the advantage when answering the
question involving undoing.
On Which Tasks Did U.S. and Chinese Students

Have Similar Mean Scores?
The prealgebra problem (Task 7) and the number theory problem (Task 8) are the
two tasks on which the two samples had similar mean scores. To understand the
323
U.S. and Chinese students thinking and reasoning involved in these tasks, the results from the response analysis for the prealgebra problem are presented here.
Response analysis for the prealgebra problem (Task 7). For this task,
the analysis focused on the number of solutions and the types of solution strategies.
Table 4 shows the percentage distribution of the students in each sample who generated different solutions to the prealgebra problem (Task 7). Although U.S. and
Chinese students performed equally well when determining the correctness of the
response, the percentage distributions of different solutions vary. In particular, a
significantly greater percentage of the Chinese students (65%) compared to the
U.S. students (53%) was able to generate at least two different, correct solutions or
two different solutions with minor errors, z = 2.03, p < .05. On the other hand, a
greater percentage of the U.S. students compared to the Chinese students generated
only one solution or gave two repeated solutions (33% and 14%, respectively). The
finding that more Chinese than U.S. students were able to generate two different solutions may be due to the Chinese students experiences in generating multiple solutions to mathematical problems in classroom instruction (Cai, 1995). It is worth
noting that 20% of U.S. students generated two repeated solutions, but only 5% of
the Chinese students did so. It is interesting to note that two Chinese students generated more than two solutions to the problem. One of them explicitly noted that there
are an infinite number of correct solutions. None of the U.S. students generated
more than two solutions.
The solution strategies used by U.S. and Chinese students who provided at least
one correct solution were examined. Three commonly used strategies were identified: common multiple strategy, tabular strategy, and direct computation strategy.
Table 5 describes these solution strategies and the percentage of students using
each of them. The majority of the students in both samples solved the problem by
direct computation (69% of U.S. students and 88% of Chinese students). However,
the U.S. and Chinese students appear to have used different solution strategies,
TABLE 4
Percentage Distribution of U.S. and Chinese Students Solutions to the Prealgebra Problem
Sample (%)
Number of Solutions
More than two different solutions
Two different solutionsb
Two repeated solutionsb
One solutionb
Completely incorrect solution or no solution
an
U.S.a
Chinesea
0
53
20
11
16
2
65
5
9
19
= 100. bMay or may not have contained a minor, careless error.
324
CAI
TABLE 5
Description of Each Solution Strategy and Percentages of U.S. and Chinese Students
Using Each Strategy for the Prealgebra Problem
Sample (%)
Strategy and Description

Common multiple strategy
The student first found a common multiple of 10 and 15, then divided
the common multiple by 10 and 15 to find the number of days
Margarita and Sam each worked so that they earned the same total
amount of money.
Tabular strategy
The student made a table to examine the amount of money Margarita
and Sam earned if they worked 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, and so on. Then,
the student pointed out the certain number of days each worked to
have the same total amount of money.
Direct computation strategy
The student directly performed computation to decide the number of
days Margarita and Sam each worked so that they earned the same
total amount of money. A few examples are listed:
Example 1: 30 10 = 3 and 30 15 = 2. So, Margarita worked 2
days. Sam worked 3 days.
Example 2: 60 10 = 6 and 60 15 = 4. So, Margarita worked 4
days. Sam worked 6 days.
Example 3: 150 10 = 15 and 150 10 = 10. So, Margarita worked
10 days. Sam worked 15 days.
No clear indication that the student used a strategy
an
U.S.a
Chinesea
25
69
88
= 100.
2(3, N = 200) = 32.86, p < .001. About one fourth of the U.S. students used a tabular strategy, but none of the Chinese students did. On the other hand, nearly 10% of
the Chinese students used the common multiple strategy, but only 1% of the U.S.
students used this strategy.
Both the common multiple strategy and the direct computation strategy require
students to generate mathematical expressions. Combining these two categories
shows that over 90% of the Chinese students used mathematical expressions to
show the solution processes, but only about 70% of the U.S. students used mathematical expressions. This difference is statistically significant, z = 3.46, p < .01.
For those U.S. and Chinese students who generated two correct solutions, all used
the same strategy for both solutions.
Summary. Both problems for which U.S. and Chinese students had similar
mean scores were considered process-open tasks, and both problems also had many
325
features in common. For example, both problems had an infinite solution set. For
each of the problems, after a critical answer was found, multiples of the critical answer could be used to generate another correct answer. Most important, for each
problem, there was no formal algorithm to solve the problem. Although U.S. and
Chinese students had similar mean scores on these two tasks, U.S. and Chinese students performed differently. A larger percentage of the sample of Chinese students
generated at least two different solutions. More Chinese students used mathematical expressions in their solutions; more U.S. students used tabular approaches.
On Which Tasks Did Chinese Students Have

Higher Mean Scores Than U.S. Students?
The sample of Chinese students had higher mean scores than did the sample of U.S.
students on all six process-constrained tasks and on one of the process-open tasks
(the estimation problem). Two of the process-constrained tasks on which Chinese
students had higher mean scores were the map ratio problem (Task 4) and the pizza
ratio problem (Task 5). The map ratio problem assessed students problem-solving
skills in a map-reading context that involved ratio and proportion. The pizza ratio
problem assessed students abilities to create ratios and determined their understanding of fractions. Response analyses for these two problems are presented here.
Results for other tasks are summarized later.
Response analysis for the map ratio problem (Task 4). Nearly 50% of
the U.S. students and 85% of the Chinese students gave a correct numerical answer
for the map ratio problem. The difference was statistically significant, z = 5.30, p <
.01. Over 90% of the Chinese and 64% of the U.S. students explanations provided
clear indications of the solution strategies. This difference was also statistically significant, z = 4.58, p < .01. For those explanations providing clear indications of the
solution strategy used, five particular solution strategies were identified. Table 6
describes each of these strategies and includes the percentages of the U.S. and Chinese students who used each strategy. Both Strategies 1 and 2 involve a unit rate.
The unit rate in Strategy 1 was 18 miles per centimeter, and the unit rate in Strategy
2 was 54 miles per 3 cm. Strategy 1 was most frequently used for both samples. In
fact, 50% of the Chinese students and 32% of the U.S. students used Strategy 1, but
only 14% of Chinese students and 19% of U.S. students used Strategy 2.
Substantial differences between the two samples of students solution strategies can be noted in Table 6. About one fourth of the Chinese students used an
equation representing the proportional relation to find the actual distance between Martinsburg and Rivertown (Strategy 5), but only 1% of the U.S. students
used this strategy. On the other hand, 11% of the U.S. students used Strategy 3,
326
CAI
TABLE 6
Descriptions of Each Solution Strategy and Percentages of U.S. and Chinese Students
Using Each Strategy for the Map Ratio Problem
Sample (%)
Strategy and Description

Strategy 1
A student first found how many miles 1 cm on the map represented
(54 3 = 18) and then multiplied by 12 to get the actual distance that
the 12 cm on the map represented (18 12 = 216).
Strategy 2
A student first divided 12 by 3 and got 4. Because 3 cm represented 54
miles, the actual distance the 12 cm represented was 216 (4 54 =
216).
Strategy 3
A student used a finger, paper clip, or pencil to mark or measure the
distance between Martinsburg and Grantsville on the map and then
used the measurement unit to measure the length between Martinsburg
and Rivertown on the map and to find the number of the unit of the
length. By dividing 54 by the number of the measurement unit
between Martinsburg and Grantsville, the student found the number of
actual miles per measurement unit. By multiplying the number of the
measurement unit between Martinsburg and Rivertown by the number
of actual miles per measurement unit, the student found the number of
actual miles between Martinsburg and Rivertown.
Strategy 4
A student used a finger, paper clip, or pencil to measure the distance
between Martinsburg and Grantsville on the map and then used the
measurement unit to measure the length between Martinsburg and
Rivertown on the map and to find the number of the unit of the length.
By multiplying the number of unit by 54, the student found the
distance between Martinsburg and Rivertown.
Strategy 5
A student set up a formal proportional relation to find the actual distance
3 54
(i.e., = , x = 216).
12 x
Strategy could not be identified
an
U.S.a
Chinesea
32
50
19
14
11
24
33
12
= 100.
but none of the Chinese students did. Similarly, 4% of the U.S. students used
Strategy 4, but none of the Chinese students did. Strategy 3 was similar to Strategy 1 in nature. In both Strategy 1 and Strategy 3, students first tried to find the
unit rate (number of miles per unit) and then to find the actual distance between
Martinsburg and Rivertown. However, the way to find the unit rate in Strategy 1
was different from that in Strategy 3. In Strategy 1, students used the numerical
327
equation or representation to find the unit rate (number of miles per centimeter),
whereas in Strategy 3, students used a drawing or a physical object and invented
their own unit (number of miles per their invented unit). In the same way, Strategy 2 was similar to Strategy 4.
In both Strategy 2 and Strategy 4, students used the map distance between
Martinsburg and Grantsville as a unit, and then they found the number of units between Martinsburg and Rivertown on the map and the actual distance between
Martinsburg and Rivertown by multiplying 54 by the number of units between
Martinsburg and Rivertown on the map. In most of the cases, students who used either Strategy 3 or Strategy 4 got an estimate of the distance between Martinsburg
and Rivertown.
Response analysis for the pizza ratio problem (Task 5). This task required students to justify whether each girl got the same amount of pizza as each
boy and, if not, who got more. One of the distinctive features in their justifications
was that the majority of the U.S. students used visual drawings and the majority of
the Chinese students used numerical relations. Table 7 shows the percentage distributions of U.S. and Chinese students representations used in their justifications. In
particular, 68% of the Chinese students used numerical symbols, and 67% of the
U.S. students used visual drawings in their justification. In contrast, only 3% of the
Chinese used visual drawings, and only 4% of the U.S. students used numerical
symbols. About one fourth of the U.S. and Chinese students used written words in
their justifications.
Further analysis of the written words shows additional differences between the
two samples. For the 26 U.S. students using written words, 22 of them used descriptions that involved distributing slices of pizza. For example, 1 student explained that each pizza could be cut into 21 pieces with each girl getting 6 pieces
and each boy getting 7 pieces. Therefore, each boy got more than each girl. Although this student did not draw any pictures, the response contained the descripTABLE 7
Percentage Distribution of Students Representations for the Pizza Ratio Problem
Sample (%)
Representation of Justifications
Visual drawings
Numerical symbols
Written words
No justification
an
= 100.
U.S.a
Chinesea
67
4
26
3
3
68
24
5
328
CAI
tion of cutting pizza. However, only two of the Chinese students using written
words in their justifications had such descriptions of cutting pizza. Combining the
students who used visual drawings in their justifications and those who used written words containing descriptions of cutting pizza, 89% of the U.S. sample attempted to justify that each boy got more than each girl by actually cutting the
pizza in drawings or describing cutting in written words. Recall that 3% of the U.S.
students did not provide any justifications. Therefore, only 8% of students in the
U.S. sample did not attempt to justify by actually cutting the pizza in drawings or
describing cutting in written words. In contrast, only 5% of the Chinese sample attempted to justify that each boy gets more than each girl by actually cutting the
pizza in drawings or describing this cutting in written words.
Students justifications were classified into four levels: (a) complete and convincing argument, (b) vague or incomplete argument, (c) incorrect or incomprehensible argument, and (d) no argument. An example of a complete and convincing
argument is If there were 6 girls, each girl and each boy would have the same. But
you have 7 girls, so each girl gets less than each boy. Other examples of complete
and convincing arguments can be found in Table 8. An example of a vague or incomplete argument is Boys get bigger slices and girls get smaller slices. So boys get
more than girls. An example of an incorrect argument is You can cut girls pizza
into 7 pieces and cut the boys pizza into 3 pieces. You get more pieces for girls than
boys, so each girl gets more. Table 9 shows percentages of the U.S. and Chinese students different levels of justification. A significantly greater percentage of Chinese
students provided complete and convincing arguments to justify that each girl got a
different amount than each boy and that each boy got more than each girl, z = 2.43, p <
.05. A significantly greater percentage of U.S. than Chinese students provided
vague, incomplete, incorrect, or incomprehensible arguments, z = 3.14, p < .01.
In a final analysis, I looked at the complete and convincing arguments provided
by the U.S. and Chinese students to this problem. Table 8 describes these arguments
and the percentage of the students who provided each argument. Of those providing
complete and convincing arguments, the majority of the Chinese students provided a
numerical argument (Argument 1). None or only a few of the Chinese students used
any of the other types of arguments. In their numerical arguments, Chinese students
tended to use fractions instead of decimals. In fact, five times as many students used
fractions as used decimals in their numerical arguments. Argument 4 was the most
commonly used by the U.S. students (29%). About one fifth of the U.S. students used
the numerical argument, and one student used Argument 8. About 10% of the U.S.
students used each of the remaining arguments.
Summary. The sample of Chinese students had higher mean scores than the
sample of U.S. students on all six process-constrained tasks and one of the process-open tasks (the estimation problem). For five of these process-constrained
TABLE 8
Description of Various Convincing Arguments Provided by the U.S. and Chinese Samples
for the Pizza Ratio Problem
Sample (%)
U.S.a
Chineseb
Convincing Argument 1
1
2
Each boy will get of a pizza, and each girl will get of a pizza. If
3
7
1 2
1
2
you compared to , you would know that is bigger than by
3 7
3
7
1 7
2
transforming them into common fractions ( =
and =
3 21
7
6 7 6
1
1
2
;
= ) or decimals ( = .33 and = .29; .33

21 21 21 21
3
7
.29 = .04).
If there were six girls, each girl and each boy would have the same. But
you have seven girls, so each girl gets less than each boy.
Three girls share one pizza, and another three girls share another pizza.
Each of these six girls will get the same amount of the pizza as each of
the three boys. But one of the girls has no pizza. So, each boy will get
more.
21
90
14
Three girls share one pizza and remaining four share one pizza. Each
piece that each of the remaining four girls get are smaller than those
boys get. So, boys get more.
29
Seven girls get two pizzas, and three boys get one pizza. Girls have twice
as many pizzas as boys. But the number of girls is more than twice as
the number of boys. So boys get more.
Each pizza was cut into four pieces. Each girl gets one piece, and one
piece is left over. Each boy gets one piece, and one piece left over.
One piece left over must be shared by the seven girls, but the one piece
left over will be shared by three boys. So boys get more.
10
7
3
= 3.5 and = 3. Therefore, 3.5 girls will share one pizza, and 3
2
1
boys will share one pizza. Thus, each boy gets more.
Each pizza is cut into 21 pieces. Each girl will get 6 pieces, and each boy
will get 7 pieces.
10
Argument and Description
an
= 42. bn = 59.
330
CAI
TABLE 9
Percentage Distribution of U.S. and Chinese Students Using Each Level of Justification
for the Pizza Ratio Problem
Sample (%)
Level of Argument
Complete and convincing argument
Vague or incomplete argument
Incorrect or incomprehensible argument
No argument
an
U.S.a
Chinesea
42
22
34
2
59
13
21
5
= 100.
tasks, the reason that the Chinese students had higher mean scores than the U.S. students is that more of the Chinese students used numerical or algebraic equations
and more of the U.S. students used drawings or physical objects to solve these problems. In fact, response analysis showed that using numerical or algebraic equations
is more efficient and accurate than using drawings or physical objects to solve
them. The remaining process-constrained task (the area problem) and process-open
task (the estimation problem) were measurement and geometry problems. The response analysis showed that nearly 20% of the U.S. students responses contained
evidence of confusion between the concept of area and the concept of perimeter.
For example, for the estimation problem (Task 10), which assessed students
proficiencies in estimating the area of an irregular shape, 17% of the U.S. students
estimated the perimeter of the irregular figure instead of its area. However, only 1%
of the Chinese students estimated the perimeter of the irregular figure. The U.S. students confusion between the concept of area and the concept of perimeter may explain why Chinese students had a higher mean score on the estimation problem,
which is classified as a process-open task.
DISCUSSION
In this study, I analyzed the responses by a sample of sixth-grade U.S. students
from Milwaukee, Wisconsin and a sample of sixth-grade Chinese students from
Guiyang, Guizhou to six process-constrained and six process-open performance
assessment tasks. The results of this study showed that, although the Guiyang
sample had a significantly higher overall mean score than the Milwaukee sample, quantitative analysis of student responses showed that performance trends
were related to the types of tasks. The Guiyang sample performed better than the
Milwaukee sample on the process-constrained tasks, but the Milwaukee sample
performed better than the Guiyang sample on the process-open tasks. Quantitative analyses also showed that the Milwaukee sample performed better on the
331
process-open tasks than on the process-constrained tasks; however, the Guiyang

sample performed better on the process-constrained tasks than on the process-open tasks.
It is useful to know the performance differences in terms of mean scores, but
such simple comparisons of status that use mean scores lose comparative insights about U.S. and Chinese students mathematical thinking. The qualitative
analysis of the solution processes provided in-depth information about how U.S.
and Chinese students think and solve these problems. Such information may
help us make progress in understanding the different performance trends between the two samples. Consider, for example, the solutions students provided
to the block pattern problem (Task 11). The U.S. students were more likely than
the Chinese students to draw all of the blocks in the 5-step and the 20-step staircase to solve the problem. This solution provides a greater opportunity for the
students to determine the correct number of blocks by simply counting the number of blocks. Very few Chinese students used this solution strategy. Similarly,
the U.S. students were more likely to use concrete strategies such as making a
table or a list to solve the odd number pattern problem (Task 12); more Chinese
students preferred to use abstract strategies such as expressing the rule using a
general formula. This difference in strategies can help explain the fact that the
Milwaukee sample was more successful than the Guiyang sample in finding the
number of guests entering on the 10th ring of the doorbell, but the Guiyang sample was more successful than the Milwaukee sample in finding the ring number
when 99 guests entered. Finding the ring number when 99 guests entered relies
more heavily on generalization skills than does finding the number of guests entering on the 10th ring. The results from the Third International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS) also suggest the relative advantage of the U.S. students in items with concrete nature over items with abstract nature when compared to students in other countries (Harmon et al., 1997).
Possible reasons for performance differences can also be seen in the solutions
to tasks in which the Chinese students were more successful than the U.S. students.
For example, in solving the map ratio problem (Task 4), a considerable number of
the U.S. students tried to use a nonstandard measuring device, creating a proportion from the number of nonstandard units used to measure each map distance. In
solving the pizza ratio problem (Task 5), the majority of the U.S. students actually
drew and described pizza cutting to solve the problem. On the other hand, the majority of the Chinese students set up numerical ratios and compared the ratios to
solve the problem. Such qualitative differences also existed in the problems for
which there were no mean differences. For example, the two samples had similar
success rates in their solving the prealgebra problem (Task 7), but an analysis of
their responses showed that a large portion of the U.S. students made a list to compare Margaritas and Sams earnings, whereas none of the Chinese students used
this strategy. On the other hand, a number of the Chinese students found the least
332
CAI
common multiple of the two numbers, whereas only one U.S. student used this
method. In addition, many more Chinese students than U.S. students provided two
unique solutions, but many more U.S. students than Chinese students repeated the
same solution in both parts of the problem.
The qualitative analysis of the solution processes contributes to our understanding of the different performance trends between the two samples on the
process-constrained and process-open problems, but the reasons for the use of
different solution strategies and representations between the two samples are not
yet completely understood. Because of the central role of classroom instruction
in understanding the dynamic processes and the organization of students thinking and learning (Rogoff & Chavajay, 1995; Schoenfeld, 1992), it is plausible
that the difference in the use of solution strategies is due to the variations of
classroom instruction that U.S. and Chinese students receive. It is well-documented that, in China, students in their fifth or sixth grade start to formally learn
concepts of variables, equations, and equation solving (Cai, 1998b). In contrast,
most U.S. students will not learn these concepts until eighth or ninth grade. In
this study, the Milwaukee sample had not been formally taught algebraic concepts, but the Guiyang sample had received about 20 lessons on the topic. It is
possible that the learning opportunity of algebra may have had impact on Chinese students using more generalized, symbolic-based strategies. If learning algebra does have an impact on students use of more generalized, symbolic-based
strategies, it should be the case that U.S. eighth-grade or ninth-grade students,
who have been formally introduced to algebraic concepts, would use generalized, symbolic-based representations similar to those used by the Chinese sample. It is also likely that Chinese fourth- or fifth-grade students, who have not
been formally introduced to algebraic concepts, may use concrete, visual-based
representations just as the U.S. sample did. Unfortunately, the design of this
study did not allow me to answer to these questions. Additional studies are
needed to explore them.
Although the Chinese sample was more likely to construct mathematical expressions in the solutions than the U.S. sample, still a considerable number of
Chinese students did not construct mathematical expressions in their solutions.
Then why did these Chinese students not use concrete, visual approaches to
solve the problems instead? Concrete, visual strategies provide a basic level of
assistance in solving problems (Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef,
1989). In fact, for those Chinese students who did not use mathematical expressions, visual strategies may be beneficial in solving the problems, but many of
them chose not to use such strategies. For example, in solving the block pattern
problem (Task 11), only a small proportion of the Chinese students actually
drew the staircase of 20 steps to answer the question. One possibility may be
that the instructional strategy in China does not support visual strategies. Chinese students may be discouraged by their teachers from using such visual strat-
333
egies in problem solving. Such plausible interpretation is consistent with my

personal experience working and interacting with Chinese teachers. In fact,
many Chinese teachers may not view visual strategies as mathematical (B.
Wang, personal communication, April 17, 1997). Chinese students may be capable of using visual strategies if they knew that visual approaches were acceptable strategies in problem solving. If this were the case, would Chinese students
outperform U.S. students on the process-open tasks as well?
In contrast, in the United States, many teachers use concrete, visual representations to get students engaged in problem solving because concrete, visual representations can help students begin to think about problems (Hiebert &
Carpenter, 1992). The results of this study indeed showed that a considerable
number of U.S. students did use such strategies. Nevertheless, concrete strategies have limitations. They are context- or task-specific strategies in problem
solving. They will limit students thinking and further learning unless we can
help students shift to more generalized approaches (Dreyfus & Eisenberg, 1996).
One of the common misconceptions held by many U.S. teachers is that concrete
representations or manipulatives are the basis for all learning because they believe that concrete representations or manipulatives can facilitate students conceptual understanding (Burrill, 1997). Therefore, it is plausible that U.S. and
Chinese students uses of different representations in their solutions may be a reflection of different views of U.S. and Chinese teachers about the roles of various representations in students learning.
A major objective of cross-national studies is to understand students mathematical thinking and reasoning and then to improve students learning of mathematics. This study provides a starting point for a deeper understanding of
cross-national differences in students thinking and reasoning. The results of this
study may contribute to the interpretation of cross-national performance differences and inform policy recommendations that emerge from other cross-national
studies, such as the TIMSS. Unfortunately, at this point, the reasons for the use
of different solution strategies and representations between U.S. and Chinese
students are not yet completely understood. Additional studies are needed to understand such differences. In particular, studies are needed to investigate how
U.S. and Chinese teachers view and construct various representations to help
students learn mathematics and solve problems in classroom instruction. We
also need to investigate how learning algebra impacts students selection of
strategies and representations in problem solving.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this article was supported by a National Academy of Education
Spencer Fellowship and by a grant from the Spencer Foundation. Any opinions ex-
334
CAI
pressed herein are mine and do not necessarily represent the views of the National
Academy of Education or the Spencer Foundation.
I acknowledge the assistance of Connie Laughlin for collecting the U.S. data
and Bingyi Wang and Chunghan Lu for collecting the Chinese data. I am grateful
for the editorial assistance provided by Patricia Ann Kenney, Margaret Smith, and
Ron Wenger. Special thanks go to Lyn English, Jim Hiebert, and three anonymous
reviewers who made valuable suggestions concerning an earlier version of this article, thereby contributing to its improvement.
REFERENCES
Balch, K., et al. (1995). Mathematics: Application and connections. Columbus, OH: Glencoe/
McGraw-Hill.
Becker, J. P., Sawada, T., & Shimizu, Y. (1999). Some findings of the U.S.Japan cross-cultural research on students problem-solving behaviors. In G. Kaiser, E. Luna, & I. Huntley (Eds.), International comparisons in mathematics education (pp. 121139). New York: Falmer.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bolster, L. C., et al. (1995). Exploring mathematics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Bradburn, M. B., & Gilford, D. M. (1990). A framework and principles for international comparative
studies in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Burrill, G. (1997). The NCTM standards: Eight years later. School Science and Mathematics, 97,
335339.
Cai, J. (1995). A cognitive analysis of U.S. and Chinese students mathematical performance on tasks involving computation, simple problem solving, and complex problem solving (Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education Monograph Series 7). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Cai, J. (1997). Beyond computation and correctness: Contributions of open-ended tasks in examining
U.S. and Chinese students mathematical performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and
Practice, 16(1), 511.
Cai, J. (1998a). An investigation of U.S. and Chinese students mathematical problem posing and problem solving. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10, 3750.
Cai, J. (1998b). Research into practice: Developing algebraic reasoning in the elementary grades.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 5, 225229.
Cai, J., Magone, M., Wang, N., & Lane, S. (1996). A cognitive analysis of QUASARs performance assessments and their sensitivity to measuring changes in middle school students thinking. Research
in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 19(3), 6394.
Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., & Wang, N. (1999). Parental roles in students learning of mathematics: An exploratory study. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 22(3), 118.
Cai, J., & Silver, E. A. (1995). Solution processes and interpretations of solutions in solving a division-with-remainder story problem: Do Chinese and U.S. students have similar difficulties? Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 491497.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of childrens mathematical thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational
Research Journal, 26, 499531.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Education Review, 64, 530.
Division of Mathematics. (1993). Mathematics. Beijing, China: Peoples Education Press.
335
Dreyfus, T., & Eisenberg, T. (1996). On different facets of mathematical thinking. In R. J. Sternberg &
T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 253284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
English, L. D., & Halford, G. S. (1995). Mathematics education: Models and processes. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147164). New York:
Macmillan.
Gardner, H. (1989). To open mind: Chinese clues to the dilemma of contemporary education. New
York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Glenda, L., Fey, J., Friel, S., Fitzgerald, W., & Phillips, E. (1995). The connected mathematics project.
Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour.
Harmon, M., Smith, T. A., Martin, M. O., Kelly, D. L., Beaton, A. E., Mullis, I., Gonzalez, E. J., &
Orpwood, G. (1997). Performance assessment in IEAs Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, TIMSS International Study Center.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 6597). New York:
Macmillan.
Lane, S. (1993). The conceptual framework for the development of a mathematics assessment for QUASAR. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(2), 1623.
Lapointe, A. E., Mead, N. A., & Askew, J. M. (1992). Learning mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Magone, M., Cai, J., Silver E. A., & Wang, N. (1994). Validating the cognitive complexity and content
quality of a mathematics performance assessment. International Journal of Educational Research,
21, 317340.
Robitaille, D. F., & Garden, R. A. (1989). The IEA study of mathematics: II. Contexts and outcomes of
school mathematics. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Robitaille, D. F., & Travers, K. J. (1992). International studies of achievement in mathematics. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 687709). New
York: Macmillan.
Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). Whats become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? American Psychologist, 50, 859877.
Royer, J. M., Cisero, C. A., & Carlo, M. S. (1993). Techniques for assessing cognitive skills. Review of
Educational Research, 63, 201243.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense
making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 334370). New York: Macmillan.
Silver, E. A., & Lane, S. (1992). Assessment in the context of mathematics instruction reform: The design of assessment in the QUASAR project. In M. Niss (Ed.), Assessment in mathematics education
and its effects (pp. 5970). London: Kluwer Academic.
Silver, E. A., Leung, S. S., & Cai, J. (1995). Generating multiple solutions for a problem: A comparison
of the responses of U.S. and Japanese students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 3554.
Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Cognitive theory and psychometrics. In R. K. Hambleton & J. N. Zaal (Eds.),
Advances in educational and psychological testing: Theory and applications (pp. 367393).
Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., Chen, C., Lummis, M., Stigler, J. W., Liu, F., & Fang, G. (1990). Mathematics achievement of children in China and the United States. Child Development, 61, 10531066.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap. New York: Summit.
336
CAI
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the worlds teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Stigler, J. W., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1990). Mathematical knowledge of Japanese, Chinese, and
American elementary school children. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Pursuing excellence: A
study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement in international context (NCES
97198). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
study of U.S. fourth-grade mathematics and science achievement in international context (NCES
study of U.S. twelfth-grade mathematics and science achievement in international context (NCES
Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (3rd ed., pp. 297314). New York: Macmillan.
APPENDIX
Process-Constrained and Process-Open Tasks
Can Averaging Problem (Task 1)
For their clubs food drive, Tasha has 11 cans, David has 6 cans, Jeffrey has 5 cans,
and Dwayne has 2 cans.
What is the average number of cans for those four people?
Explain how you found your answer.
Hats Averaging Problem (Task 2)
Angela is selling hats for the Mathematics Club. This picture shows the number of
hats Angela sold during the first three weeks.
337
How many hats must Angela sell in Week 4 so that the average number of hats
sold is 7?
Show how you found your answer.
Area Problem (Task 3)
There is an empty room in Miller Middle School which will be used for sixth-grade
students activity room.
Look at the Figure above. A part of the room will not be carpeted. It will have a
table. The rest of the room will be carpeted.
A. What is the area of the room that will NOT be carpeted?
B. What is the area of the room that will be carpeted?
C. What fraction of the room will be carpeted?
Map Ratio Problem (Task 4)
The map below shows the locations of three cities.
338
CAI
The actual distance between Grantsville and Martinsburg is 54 miles. On the

map, Grantsville and Martinsburg are 3 centimeters apart. On the map, Martinsburg
and Rivertown are 12 centimeters apart.
What is the actual distance between Martinsburg and Rivertown?
Pizza Ratio Problem (Task 5)

Here are some children and pizzas. 7 girls share 2 pizzas equally and 3 boys share 1
pizza equally.
A. Does each girl get the same amount as each boy?

Explain or show how you found your answer.
B. If each girl does not get the same amount as each boy, who gets more?
Camping Ratio Problem (Task 6)
A group of 10 people are going camping for 3 days and need to carry their own water. They read in a guide book that 8 liters are needed for a group of 5 people for 1
day.
How much water should they carry?
Prealgebra Task (Task 7)
Margarita and Sam worked at the local park. Margarita earned $15 a day selling
food. Sam earned $10 a day cleaning tables. Margarita worked a different number
of days than Sam. Margarita and Sam earned the same total amount of money.
A. How many days could each person have worked? Show how you got your
answer.
B. There is more than one answer to this problem. Try to find another answer.
Show how you got your answer.
339
Number Theory Task (Task 8)

Yolanda was telling her brother Damian about what she did in math class.
Yolanda said, Damian, I used blocks in my math class today. When I

grouped the blocks in groups of 2, I had 1 block left over. When I grouped the
blocks in groups of 3, I had 1 block left over. And when I grouped the blocks in
groups of 4, I had 1 block left over.
Damian asked, How many blocks did you have?
What was Yolandas answer to her brothers question?
Division Problem (Task 9)
Students and teachers at Gunming elementary school will go by bus for Spring
sightseeing. There is a total of 1128 students and teachers. Each bus holds 36 people. How many buses are needed?
Show your work.
Explain your answer.
Estimation Problem (Task 10)
The shaded region below represents an island.
Each small square equals one square mile.

A. Estimate the area of the island in square miles.
B. Explain how you found your estimate. You may use the drawing above in
your explanation.
340
CAI
Block Pattern Problem (Task 11)
Look at the figures below.
A. How many blocks are needed to build a staircase of 5 steps?

B. How many blocks are needed to build a staircase of 20 steps?
Odd Number Pattern Problem (Task 12)
Sally is having a party.
The first time the doorbell rings, 1 guest enters.
The second time the doorbell rings, 3 guests enter.
The third time the doorbell rings, 5 guests enter.
The fourth time the doorbell rings, 7 guests enter.
Keep going in the same way. On the next ring, a group enters that has 2 more
persons than the group that entered on the previous ring.
A. How many guests will enter on the 10th ring?
B. In the space below, write a rule or describe in words how to find the number
of guests that entered on each ring.
C. 99 guests entered on one of the rings. What ring was it?

Mathematical Thinking and Learning: To Cite This Article: Jinfa Cai (2000) Mathematical Thinking Involved in U.S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematical Thinking and Learning: To Cite This Article: Jinfa Cai (2000) Mathematical Thinking Involved in U.S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]

On: 17 November 2014, At: 08:21

Mathematical Thinking and

Mathematical Thinking Involved

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

MATHEMATICAL THINKING AND LEARNING, 2(4), 309340

Mathematical Thinking Involved

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Quantitative Understanding: Amplifying Student Achievement and Reasoning

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Task and Strategy Description

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

On Which Tasks Did U.S. and Chinese Students

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

= 100. bMay or may not have contained a minor, careless error.

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Strategy and Description

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

On Which Tasks Did Chinese Students Have

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Strategy and Description

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

= ) or decimals ( = .33 and = .29; .33

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Argument and Description

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

process-open tasks than on the process-constrained tasks; however, the Guiyang

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

egies in problem solving. Such plausible interpretation is consistent with my

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

U.S. AND CHINESE STUDENTS MATHEMATICAL THINKING

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

The actual distance between Grantsville and Martinsburg is 54 miles. On the

Downloaded by [University of Guelph] at 08:21 17 November 2014

Pizza Ratio Problem (Task 5)