Executive Functions and Mathematical Problem Solving in the Perception of Mathematics Teachers

Franciely Machado Dutra Cezar; Fernanda Lelis

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602928

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

The perception of Mathematics teachers from the state network of São Paulo regarding the relationship between executive functions and mathematical problem-solving in their teaching practice was investigated. The study aimed to understand how Mathematics teachers perceive this relationship, identifying cognitive aspects relevant to teaching and learning. The research, of an applied nature and mixed approach, used an online questionnaire administered to 15 Mathematics teachers. Quantitative data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, and discursive responses by Content Analysis. The results revealed that teachers recognized the importance of executive functions, such as working memory, planning, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility, for mathematical problem-solving, although this understanding could be implicit. It was observed that students’ difficulties, such as impulsivity, interpretation problems, and lack of planning, were perceived as factors that compromise performance. Pedagogical strategies, such as guided reading of the problem statement, encouragement for strategy development, and verification of answers, were identified as favoring the use of these functions. The findings indicated the need for greater pedagogical intentionality to support cognitive self-regulation and optimize students’ performance in mathematical problem-solving.

Keywords: Mathematics Education; Cognitive Neuroscience; Teaching Practice.

1. Introduction

Problem Solving, in the context of Mathematics education, has been understood as a practice that requires the student to do more than merely apply procedures. It involves analyzing the situation, choosing strategies, and reflecting on the results obtained (Echeverría and Pozo, 1994). Unlike approaches based solely on the repetition of procedures, problem-solving demands understanding the statement, developing strategies, making decisions, and verifying results, which requires a coordinated set of complex cognitive processes.

In this sense, classic authors in Mathematics Education, such as Polya (1995), already highlighted that solving mathematical problems requires more than technical mastery, demanding organization of thought, planning, and reflection on the resolution process itself. Schoenfeld (1988, 1996) expanded this perspective by demonstrating that students’ performance in mathematical problems is strongly related to metacognitive aspects, such as monitoring the strategies used, decision-making, and the ability to review adopted paths. In the Brazilian context, Onuchic and Allevato (2011) reinforce this conception by advocating for problem-solving as a teaching methodology, in which the student assumes an active role in the construction of mathematical knowledge.

In parallel with advances in the field of Mathematical Education, studies in Cognitive Neuroscience have contributed to a deeper understanding of the mental processes involved in learning. In light of this, the concept of executive functions has gained prominence, being understood as a set of cognitive skills responsible for the control and regulation of goal-oriented behavior. According to Diamond (2013), executive functions primarily include working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility, fundamental skills for planning actions, keeping information active, controlling impulses, and adapting strategies in the face of new demands. Miyake et al. (2000) corroborate this perspective by pointing out that these functions, although interrelated, can be analyzed differently, especially in contexts of complex task resolution.

In the educational context, executive functions have been directly associated with academic performance, especially in Mathematics, where Barkley (2012) highlights that difficulties in planning, organization, and self-regulation compromise the individual’s ability to deal with tasks that require sequential reasoning and decision-making, characteristics intrinsic to mathematical problem-solving. However, understanding how these functions operate in the school context becomes fundamental for considering more effective and inclusive pedagogical practices.

Despite the theoretical advance on the relationship between executive functions and mathematical learning, it is observed that, in teaching practice, this dialogue does not always occur explicitly. Many teachers recognize recurring student difficulties, such as impulsivity, interpretation problems, difficulty organizing strategies, or maintaining problem information, without necessarily associating them, in a systematized way, with the components of executive functions.

Investigating teachers’ perceptions of this relationship therefore becomes relevant both for the continuing education of teachers and for the improvement of Mathematics teaching practices, especially in the context of public schools. By articulating references from Mathematics Education and Cognitive Neuroscience, the study seeks to contribute to the strengthening of pedagogical practices that favor students’ cognitive development and meaningful learning in Mathematics. Therefore, the general objective of this study was to investigate how Mathematics teachers perceive the relationship between executive functions and the resolution of mathematical problems in their teaching practice, identifying cognitive aspects considered relevant for teaching and learning.

2. Material and Methods

This research was characterized as a study of an applied nature, seeking to generate knowledge with the potential to contribute to pedagogical practice and the training of Mathematics teachers. A mixed methodological approach was adopted, integrating quantitative and qualitative procedures, with the purpose of broadening the understanding of the investigated phenomenon regarding teacher perception of executive functions and mathematical problem-solving.

The methodological design consisted of a field survey, carried out by applying a structured questionnaire. The unit of analysis comprised the perceptions of Mathematics teachers. The research was conducted in the state of São Paulo, without nominal identification of schools or specific institutions, in accordance with current ethical guidelines.

The investigated population was composed of fifteen Mathematics teachers who work in the state education network of São Paulo. The participants were selected by non-probabilistic convenience sampling, including only those who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study, according to the criteria established for the research.

The data collection instrument was an “online” questionnaire, specifically designed for this study and built upon references from Mathematical Education and Cognitive Neuroscience. The questionnaire was organized into three main thematic blocks, aiming to comprehensively address the research objectives.

The first block was dedicated to the professional characterization of the participants, including information on academic background, teaching experience, and level of practice. The second block investigated teachers’ perception of executive functions in solving mathematical problems, using closed-ended Likert scale questions to assess the frequency of use and the difficulty associated with working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and planning.

The third block of the questionnaire included open-ended questions, aimed at identifying student difficulties, pedagogical strategies used, and teaching experiences related to the development of executive functions. The questionnaire was made available through the Google Forms platform, allowing for asynchronous completion, at the participants’ preferred location and time.

The quantitative data collected were subjected to initial procedures for organizing, cleaning, and standardizing the database. Subsequently, analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, with calculation of absolute and relative frequencies, as well as measures of central tendency, to identify patterns and trends in faculty perceptions. To explore possible associations between variables, chi-square and proportion association tests were applied, with a significance level of 5%, using R software.

The discursive responses were analyzed through Content Analysis, according to Bardin (2016). The pre-analysis involved a comprehensive floating reading of the material to identify recurrences and core meanings. In the exploration stage, the theme was adopted as the unit of record and the complete response of each professor as the unit of context, preserving the global meaning of the statements.

The construction of analytical categories followed a hybrid logic, initially guided by the research objectives, theoretical framework, and thematic axes of the instrument. In a second moment, thematic coding and grouping by semantic similarity refined the categories in light of the corpus, enabling the delimitation of more specific subcategories and ensuring internal homogeneity, pertinence, and distinction between them. Quantitative and qualitative results were triangulated for an integrated understanding of the data.

Regarding the ethical aspects, the research involved the participation of human beings and was conducted in accordance with current standards. Before the start of the questionnaire, participants were given access to the Consent agreement (TCLE), in which they were informed about the objectives, data collection procedures, voluntariness, anonymity, and confidentiality. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), under CAAE No. 93095525.7.0000.9927.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the collected data revealed teacher perceptions on the relationship between executive functions and mathematical problem-solving, organized into three main axes. The first axis addressed teachers’ conceptions of executive functions and the importance they attribute to them. The second investigated students’ difficulties in solving mathematical problems, their connection with executive functions, and with external factors. Finally, the third axis explored the pedagogical strategies employed, the perceived effects on executive functions, and teacher training. This structure allowed for an integrated interpretation of the results, aligned with the organization of the questionnaire applied and the established analytical categories.

Participant Characterization

The research involved the participation of 15 Mathematics teachers from the state network of São Paulo, presenting varied ages, years of experience, and educational backgrounds. Descriptive analysis indicated that 60.0% of the participants were female. In terms of schooling, specialization was the highest level for 40.0% of the teachers, while 33.3% had between 5 and 10 years of teaching experience. The majority, 53.3%, taught in both Middle School and High School. The average age of the teachers was 41 years, with a standard deviation of 11.03, suggesting moderate heterogeneity in the investigated group.

This diversity in the composition of the participant group is relevant, as it contributed to the variety of perceptions identified throughout the study, especially regarding the understanding of the role of executive functions in mathematical problem-solving. Although professional experience time did not show a statistically significant association with the other variables analyzed, the heterogeneity of the sample allowed for the exploration of a broader spectrum of pedagogical views and practices. Bivariate association tests, such as Pearson’s chi-square, were performed to investigate the relationship between experience time and various dimensions of the instrument, including the perception of working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, and planning.

The results of these tests indicated that there was no statistically significant association between experience time and any of the analyzed variables, with all p-values greater than 0.05. This means that, in the studied sample, teaching time did not prove to be a determining factor in teachers’ perception of executive functions. However, the association between experience time and difficulty related to cognitive flexibility was marginally significant at the 10% level (x² = 16.111; p = 0.065), suggesting that professionals with more than 11 years of experience were less likely to report difficulties in this function, although the confidence interval included the value 1, which prevents a statistically robust conclusion at the conventional level.

Teacher conceptions of executive functions and their attributed importance

The participating professors conceive executive functions as cognitive skills essential for organizing thought, impulse control, focus, and action planning. Expressions such as “skills necessary for learning related to cognition” and “mechanisms the brain uses when it needs to learn new pathways” were frequently used. Other participants described executive functions as “mental skills that act as a brain management system.” These formulations align with the literature that defines executive functions as goal-directed action control and coordination processes, encompassing planning, working memory, flexibility, and self-regulation (Diamond, 2013; Meltzer, 2007).

However, some responses revealed less precise or poorly systematized conceptions, such as “I don’t know how to define it” or generic associations with “functions necessary to perform a certain activity.” This finding is relevant because it suggests that, although teachers perceive the existence of cognitive processes crucial for learning, not all of them have a clear and explicit conceptual appropriation of the term. This observation converges with Meltzer (2007), who highlights the importance of executive processes for school performance, but points out that they are rarely taught or discussed systematically in teacher training, which may explain the variation in conceptual clarity among teachers.

Teachers’ perception of the frequency of adequate use and the difficulty in employing executive functions by students during mathematical problem-solving indicated a predominance of difficulties. Teachers more frequently observed deficits in the use of these functions compared to manifestations of adequate use, especially regarding working memory, cognitive flexibility, and planning. This finding suggests that, despite recognizing the relevance of executive functions for performance in Mathematics, teachers’ daily experience is more marked by the obstacles and deficits students face in these skills.

Working memory has frequently been pointed out as an area of difficulty for students, who, according to teachers, demonstrate problems in maintaining and manipulating information throughout the problem-solving process. Reports such as “the main difficulty is understanding what the problem asks for and organizing the information” and “they cannot organize or remember the problem’s data” illustrate this perception. These findings corroborate Diamond (2013), who emphasizes working memory as a central executive function for sustaining information in complex tasks, and Miyake et al. (2000), who highlight how weaknesses in this function compromise action planning and monitoring. The difficulty in maintaining and manipulating information prevents the effective transition between understanding the problem and conceiving a plan, as described by Polya (1995).

Regarding inhibitory control, quantitative data revealed a frequent perception of difficulty related to students’ impulsivity during problem-solving. Teachers reported that “many students are impulsive and already want to calculate without thinking” and that “they solve on impulse, without reading carefully.” This tendency is in line with Barkley (2012), who argues that inhibitory control is crucial for curbing impulsive responses and allowing conscious planning of actions. The absence of this function compromises fundamental stages of problem-solving, such as understanding the problem statement and choosing appropriate strategies, as pointed out by Schoenfeld (1988).

The analysis of teacher perception regarding cognitive flexibility revealed a gap between recognizing the importance of this function and its operationalization by students. One teacher observed that “when it doesn’t work one way, they have difficulty trying another strategy,” which refers to mental rigidity or attentional inertia described in the literature. Diamond (2013) explains that cognitive flexibility requires the ability to change perspective or approach, being built upon inhibitory control and working memory. The difficulty in deactivating a previous perspective and loading a new one into the mental workspace, according to Miyake et al. (2000), results in attentional inertia, where the student remains stuck in an ineffective mental set (Diamond, 2013).

This rigidity, observed in teachers’ responses, is echoed in Polya’s (1995) warnings about the need to vary the approach when progress on a problem is blocked. Students’ resistance to abandoning fruitless paths suggests that they tend to treat problems requiring strategic and flexible use as mere exercises, applying mechanical routines (Pozo and Postigo, 1994). Schoenfeld (1988) adds that traditional teaching, focused on mastering isolated procedures, can reinforce this lack of flexibility, causing students to lose the ability to think mathematically in a flexible and meaningful way.

Planning was highlighted as one of the most valued executive functions by teachers, but also as one of the main difficulties presented by students. Teachers indicated that students often begin problem-solving without organizing steps or defining an action plan. This observation aligns directly with Polya (1995), who identifies the establishment of a plan as the second crucial phase of problem-solving, warning about the futility of executing details without a main connection or a plan. A teacher’s statement, “without planning, the student starts to solve without knowing where they want to go,” illustrates this need to keep the objective in mind.

The observation of another professor, “when the student cannot think of the steps, they get lost in the solution,” highlights the failure in higher-order executive functions, especially in planning and problem-solving, according to Diamond (2013). Planning, for Diamond (2013), is a mentally effortful process that requires the ability to consider the next steps, contrasting with autopilot. The inability to sustain goals and subgoals in the mental workspace to monitor action progress is an indicator of difficulty. The perception that students impulsively start tasks aligns with Barkley’s (2012) concept of inhibitory insufficiency, which prevents the necessary pause to organize behavior oriented towards a future goal.

This convergence between teacher reports and theory is explained by Meltzer (2007), who points to the gap between teachers’ valuing of executive functions and the lack of systematic teaching of these functions in schools. This justifies the perception of significant difficulties in students, as traditional teaching often prioritizes content (the what) over the explicit teaching of planning strategies (the how). These initial results demonstrate that teachers recognize executive functions as fundamental for solving mathematical problems, although they observe significant student difficulties in using these skills.

In the hierarchy of executive functions, cognitive flexibility and planning were the most frequently classified as “most important”, both with 60.0% of responses in this category. Working memory was considered “most important” by 46.7% of teachers, while inhibition was the least prioritized, with 6.7% of responses. The proportion test indicated a significant difference between the groups, with a chi-square value of 11.674 and p = 0.0086, confirming that executive functions were not equally prioritized by the respondents.

The justifications for this hierarchical organization revealed that planning was associated with the organization of problem-solving steps, as in “planning organizes the steps and defines the path to the answer”. Cognitive flexibility was linked to the ability to revise the strategy, exemplified by “allows changing strategy when the student notices errors”. Working memory was justified by the need to keep information active during problem-solving, and inhibition, by the control of impulses and the review of the answer. These justifications align with Polya (1995), who describes problem-solving as a process that requires understanding, developing a plan, execution, and retrospective, and with the literature that addresses problem-solving as a strategic and not merely technical process (Pozo and Postigo, 1994; Schoenfeld, 1988, 1996).

Student difficulties, relations with executive functions and external conditioning factors

The most recurrent difficulties of students in solving mathematical problems, according to teachers, are concentrated in the interpretation and comprehension of the statement, mentioned by 14 participants. Next, the elaboration of strategies and planning were cited by 11 teachers, and the execution of procedures and algorithms by 10. Less frequently, mentions appeared regarding the verification of the solution, attention and focus, lack of repertoire, and, more pointedly, working memory limitations. This distribution indicates that teachers focus their attention on the initial and intermediate stages of problem-solving, which are crucial for the task’s success.

On a qualitative level, the difficulty in interpreting the problem statement was widely highlighted. One participant stated that “many students have difficulty interpreting the problem statement, identifying what is being asked, and relating the given information to the necessary mathematical concepts”. Another professor noted that “many students do not understand what is written and try to calculate only with the numbers, without understanding the context”. These statements indicate that the problem goes beyond superficial reading, involving the selection of information, the identification of the request, and the articulation between data and concepts, which approaches the first phase of problem comprehension proposed by Polya (1995).

The difficulty in planning was also very recurrent, with formulations such as “they cannot draw up a resolution plan”, “they try to perform calculations without planning the whole” and “they do not know where to start, which strategy to choose or how to organize the steps”. These results converge with Polya (1995), for whom the elaboration of a plan organizes the transition between understanding the situation and executing the actions, and with Schoenfeld (1988, 1996), who highlights the dependence of problem-solving on decisions, monitoring, and control of the process itself. Execution difficulties were also consistent, with expressions such as “simple errors in basic mathematics” and “they make mistakes in the procedure for resolving the presented situation”, reinforcing the distinction made by Pozo and Postigo (1994) between exercise and problem, where it is not enough to master a procedure, but to know when and how to mobilize it.

The professors noticed a direct connection between students’ difficulties and the core components of executive functioning. Task interpretation was mainly associated with working memory and, in some cases, cognitive flexibility, with reports on the need to “retain the information from the prompt and relate it to each other” and “mentally maintain and manipulate the information from the prompt”. Planning was repeatedly associated with the difficulty of “defining the step-by-step process” or “organizing one’s reasoning”. Inhibition emerged in responses related to review and control of impulsive responses, while cognitive flexibility appeared when the professor mentioned the need to “change the way of thinking” or “readjust the strategy”. This interpretation is consistent with Diamond (2013), Miyake et al. (2000), and Barkley (2012), who emphasize the interdependence and influence of these functions.

An important element added to the discussion was the teachers’ perception of how external factors, such as stress, lack of sleep, emotional and social problems, affect executive functions and, consequently, the ability to solve mathematical problems. Terms such as “factors”, “external”, “sleep”, “stress”, “emotional”, “attention”, “memory”, “work”, “concentration”, and “performance” were highlighted, showing that participants recognize the influence of these conditions on cognitive functioning. Reports such as “when students are tired, anxious, or facing personal problems, they show less concentration and difficulty maintaining logical reasoning” and “many students go straight from work, sleeping in their seats” reinforce that difficulties in problem-solving are not restricted to mathematical content, but are perceived as a result of emotional, physiological, and social conditions that interfere with attention, persistence, planning, and working memory (Diamond, 2013; Meltzer, 2007).

Pedagogical strategies, perceived effects, and teacher training

The pedagogical strategies most mentioned by teachers to assist students in solving mathematical problems included guiding or stimulating questions, use of drawings, diagrams, or visual representations, guided reading or mediation of understanding the problem statement, reformulation or adaptation of the problem, and verification of the solution. Other relevant practices were comparison with similar situations, contextualization, collaborative work, motivational incentives, step-by-step resolution, and the use of concrete materials. These strategies suggest a teaching practice strongly focused on mediating the process and organizing the student’s action, seeking to develop skills that go beyond the mere application of formulas.

Guiding questions were one of the most recurrent strategies, with teachers reporting that they ask “questions that stimulate reasoning, such as ‘What do we already know?’ and ‘What would be the first step?’” and that they prefer “to ask rather than give the answer directly”. Such strategies indicate a mediation that aims to interrupt immediate answers and guide the student to analyze, decide, and plan, which is in line with the perspectives of Polya (1995) and Schoenfeld (1988, 1996). The use of drawings, diagrams, and visual representations also proved relevant, with teachers suggesting that students “represent the situation with diagrams, tables, or figures” or encouraging “the use of drawings” to “organize reasoning and find adequate strategies”. These resources are perceived as ways to externalize thinking and reduce cognitive load, favoring working memory and cognitive flexibility (Meltzer, 2007).

Guided reading of the problem statement, problem reformulation, and solution verification were also relevant practices. Expressions such as “underline important data and rewrite in your own words what the problem asks for,” “ask them to rephrase the statement,” and “I ask them to check if the answer makes sense” demonstrate that teachers act in understanding, reasoning organization, and result monitoring, aligning with Polya’s (1995) phases. These strategies are perceived by teachers as promoters of executive development. Guided reading and diagrams are associated with working memory, helping students to “keep and manipulate problem information in their minds.” Guiding questions and diagrams aid in inhibition and planning, while problem reformulation and comparison with similar situations stimulate cognitive flexibility.

An important aspect that emerged was the recognition, by some participants, of the limits of their own strategies. One teacher stated that, sometimes, “there are so many interventions that I end up solving the problems for them,” and another noted that explicit and excessively rigid teaching of the steps can limit students’ cognitive flexibility. These accounts are crucial, as they indicate that teacher mediation is not seen only as a facilitator, but also as something that can restrict student autonomy when it replaces their reasoning, which aligns with Schoenfeld’s (1988) criticisms of overly procedural teaching, which can inhibit the development of flexible mathematical thinking.

Regarding knowledge of approaches or curricula specifically aimed at developing executive functions in Mathematics classes, the study revealed heterogeneous knowledge among participants. Some teachers explicitly mentioned Polya’s Methodology, Mathematical Modeling, Problem-Based Learning (PBL), and active methodologies, such as flipped classrooms. However, others stated they were unaware of specific proposals, indicating that “I don’t know, I follow the São Paulo curriculum” or simply “I don’t know”.

This result suggests that, although practices potentially favorable to the development of executive functions are already present in the classroom, they are not always supported by an explicit theoretical or methodological framework. This observation converges with Meltzer (2007), who points out a gap between the relevance of executive processes for school performance and the unsystematic treatment they receive in the curriculum and teacher training. The absence of a statistically significant association between years of experience and the analyzed variables, including the dimensions of working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility, in the studied sample, suggests that teaching experience was not a determining factor in teachers’ perceptions of the adequate use or difficulties related to executive functions.

Interpretive synthesis

In summary, the results indicate that teachers recognize executive functions as important components for mathematical problem-solving and identify, in their students, recurring difficulties related to understanding the problem statement, planning the solution, executing procedures, and reviewing the answer. These obstacles are interpreted by teachers as related to working memory, cognitive flexibility, planning, and, to a lesser extent, inhibition, in addition to being influenced by emotional, physiological, and social factors. At the same time, participants report mobilizing pedagogical strategies aimed at addressing these points, such as guided reading, guiding questions, drawings and diagrams, problem reformulation, solution verification, collaborative work, and contextualization. In many cases, these practices are associated, by the teachers themselves, with specific executive processes, even if not always named with conceptual rigor. This set of evidence reinforces the connection between the field of problem-solving in Mathematics Education and studies on executive functions, suggesting that mathematical performance involves not only content mastery but also processes of self-regulation, organization, and action monitoring, as highlighted by Polya (1995), Pozo and Postigo (1994), Schoenfeld (1988, 1996), Onuchic and Allevato (2011), Diamond (2013), Miyake et al. (2000), and Meltzer (2007). The research, therefore, shows that mathematical problem-solving directly mobilizes working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility, which is manifested in recurring difficulties related to interpreting the problem statement, elaborating strategies, executing and verifying the solution, and that teachers mobilize pedagogical strategies focused on mediating understanding, organizing reasoning, and monitoring the response, recognizing the influence of contextual, emotional, and social factors on student performance.

4. Conclusion

The study aimed to investigate how Mathematics teachers perceive the relationship between executive functions and mathematical problem-solving in their teaching practice, identifying cognitive aspects relevant to teaching and learning. It was found that teachers recognized the importance of executive functions, such as working memory, planning, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility, for mathematical problem-solving, although this understanding often manifested implicitly. It was observed that students’ difficulties, such as impulsivity, interpretation problems, and lack of planning, were perceived as factors that compromised performance. In contrast, pedagogical strategies were identified, such as guided reading of the problem statement, encouragement of strategy development, and verification of answers, which favored the use of these functions. Teachers also recognized the influence of external factors, such as stress and emotional problems, on students’ cognitive functioning, demonstrating that performance is not restricted solely to content mastery.

The main contribution of this study lies in appliedly bringing together the fields of executive functions, mathematical problem-solving, and teaching practice, offering a key to understanding errors and difficulties beyond a lack of content. The findings indicated the need for greater pedagogical intentionality to support cognitive self-regulation and optimize student performance. However, the research presented limitations, notably the small number of participants and the self-reported nature of the responses, which restricts the generalization of the results. It is suggested that future investigations explore these relationships in larger samples and with complementary methodologies, contributing to the development of more effective teacher training actions and pedagogical practices in working with mathematical problem-solving.

Bibliographic References

Bardin, L. (2016). Análise de Conteúdo. Edições 70, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Barkley, R.A. (2012). Executive Functions: What They Are, How They Work, and Why They Evolved. Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA.

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology 64: 135-168.

Meltzer, L. (2007). Executive Function in Education: From Theory to Practice. Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA.

Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P.; Emerson, M.J.; Witzki, A.H.; Howerter, A.; Wager, T.D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology 41(1): 49-100.

Onuchic, L.R.; Allevato, N.S.G. (2011). Pesquisa em resolução de problemas: caminhos, avanços e novas perspectivas. Bolema: Boletim de Educação Matemática 25(41): 73-98.

Polya, G. (1995). A Arte de Resolver Problemas: Um novo aspecto do método matemático. Interciência, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Pozo Municio, J.I.; Postigo Angón, Y. (1994). La solución de problemas como contenido procedimental de la educación obligatoria. p. 179-213. In: Pozo Municio, J.I. La Solución de Problemas. Santillana, Madrid, Espanha.

Pérez Echeverría, M.P.; Pozo Municio, J.I. (1994). Aprender a resolver problemas y resolver problemas para aprender. p. 14-52. In: Pozo Municio, J.I. La Solución de Problemas. Santillana, Madrid, Espanha.

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: the disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist 23(2): 145-166.

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1996). Porquê toda esta agitação acerca da resolução de problemas? p. 61-72. In: Abrantes, P.; Leal, L.C.; Ponte, J.P. Investigar para Aprender Matemática. APM e Projecto MPT, Lisboa, Portugal.

Article originating from a Final Coursework on Neuroscience and Learning in Education

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform