Challenges and Opportunities for Mathematics Software in Expert Problem Solving

Computer Algebra Systems and matrix-based mathematics packages provide sophisticated functionality to assist with mathematical problem solving. However, despite their widespread adoption, little work in the human–computer interaction community has examined the extent to which these computational tools support expert problem solving. In this article, we report findings from a qualitative study comparing and contrasting the work practices and software use of practicing researchers in mathematics and engineering who share the goal of developing and defending new mathematical formulations. Our findings indicate that although computational tools are used by both groups to support their work, current mathematics software plays a relatively minor, somewhat untrusted role in the process. Our data suggest that five primary factors limit the applicability of current mathematics software to expert work practices: (a) a lack of transparency in how current software derives its computed results; (b) the lack of clearly defined operational boundaries indicating whether the system can meaningfully operate on the user's input (whether expressions or data); (c) the need for free-form two-dimensional input to support annotations, diagrams, and in-place manipulation of objects of interest; (d) the potential for transcription problems when switching between physical and computational media; and (e) the need for collaboration, particularly in early stages of problem solving. Each of these issues suggests a concrete direction for future improvement of mathematics software for experts. These findings also have more general implications for the design of computational systems intended to support complex problem solving.

[1]  D. C. Englebart,et al.  Augmenting human intellect: a conceptual framework , 1962 .

[2]  Ellen Yi-Luen Do,et al.  Ambiguous intentions: a paper-like interface for creative design , 1996, UIST '96.

[3]  Andrea Bunt,et al.  MathBrush: a case study for pen-based interactive mathematics , 2008, SBM'08.

[4]  R. J. Bogumil,et al.  The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action , 1985, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[5]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[6]  Christian Heide Damm,et al.  Tool support for cooperative object-oriented design: gesture based modelling on an electronic whiteboard , 2000, CHI.

[7]  Philip J. Guo,et al.  Two studies of opportunistic programming: interleaving web foraging, learning, and writing code , 2009, CHI.

[8]  Karen Holtzblatt,et al.  Contextual design , 1997, INTR.

[9]  Kaye Stacey,et al.  Observations on students’ responses to learning in a CAS environment , 2001 .

[10]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Evaluation of multimodal input for entering mathematical equations on the computer , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[11]  François Guimbretière,et al.  Paper augmented digital documents , 2003, UIST '03.

[12]  Vannevar Bush,et al.  As we may think , 1945, INTR.

[13]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  What would other programmers do: suggesting solutions to error messages , 2010, CHI.

[14]  Terence Etchells,et al.  Appropriate use of a CAS in the teaching and learning of mathematics , 2002 .

[15]  George Labahn,et al.  Managing ambiguity in mathematical matrices , 2007, SBIM '07.

[16]  Joseph J. LaViola,et al.  MathPad2: a system for the creation and exploration of mathematical sketches , 2004, ACM Trans. Graph..

[17]  Robyn Pierce,et al.  CAS : student engagement requires unambiguous advantages , 2004 .

[18]  Jonathan M. Borwein,et al.  Experimentation in Mathematics: Computational Paths to Discovery , 2004 .

[19]  M. Kathleen Heid,et al.  Resequencing Skills and Concepts in Applied Calculus Using the Computer as a Tool. , 1988 .

[20]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Proceedings of the 9th Bi-annual international conference on Naturalistic Decision Making , 2009 .

[21]  Catherine M. Burns,et al.  Computer algebra systems and their effect on cognitive load , 2009 .

[22]  Eric Saund.  Bringing the Marks on a Whiteboard to Electronic Life , 1999, CoBuild.

[23]  Michèle Artigue,et al.  Learning Mathematics in a CAS Environment: The Genesis of a Reflection about Instrumentation and the Dialectics between Technical and Conceptual Work , 2002, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[24]  Joseph J. LaViola,et al.  MathPad2: a system for the creation and exploration of mathematical sketches , 2004, SIGGRAPH 2004.

[25]  Sharon L. Oviatt,et al.  Quiet interfaces that help students think , 2006, UIST.

[26]  Ellen Yi-Luen Do,et al.  Thinking with Diagrams in Architectural Design , 2001, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[27]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  Are informal tools better?: comparing DEMAIS, pencil and paper, and authorware for early multimedia design , 2003, CHI '03.

[28]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions , 2005 .

[29]  Joseph J. LaViola,et al.  An initial evaluation of MathPad2: A tool for creating dynamic mathematical illustrations , 2007, Comput. Graph..

[30]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  DEMAIS: designing multimedia applications with interactive storyboards , 2001, MULTIMEDIA '01.

[31]  Andrea Bunt,et al.  Friend or foe?: examining CAS use in mathematics research , 2009, CHI.

[32]  Sharon Oviatt,et al.  Toward High-Performance Communications Interfaces for Science Problem Solving , 2010 .

[33]  Kenneth Ruthven,et al.  Instrumenting Mathematical Activity: Reflections on Key Studies of the Educational Use of Computer Algebra Systems , 2002, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..