Abstract
This article focuses on the construction, description and testing of a theoretical model of problem posing. We operationalize procesess that are frequently described in problem solving and problem posing literature in order to generate a model. We name these processes editing quantitative information, their meanings or relationships, selecting quantitative information, comprehending and organizing quantitative information by giving it meaning or creating relations between provided information, and translating quantitative information from one form to another. The validity and the applicability of the model is empirically tested using five problem-posing tests with 143 6th grade students in Cyprus. The analysis shows that three different categories of students can be identified. Category 1 students are able to respond only to the comprehension tasks. Category 2 students are able to respond to both the comprehension and translation tasks, while Category 3 students are able to respond to all types of tasks. The results of the study also show that students are more successful in first posing problems that involve comprehending processes, then translation processes and finally editing and selecting processes.
Kurzreferat
Gegenstand des Artikels ist die Konstruktion, Beschreibung und das Testen eines theoretischen Modells für das Problemstellen. Die eigentlich hinlänglich bekannten Prozesse, die in der Literatur über Problemlösen und Problemstellen beschrieben werden, sind Ausgangspunkt für eine Operationalisierung. Die Autoren unterscheiden die folgenden Prozesse: Editieren quantitativer Informationen, das Zuweisen von Bedeutungen oder Beziehungen, das (bewusste) Auswählen von quantitativen Informationen, das Verstehen und Organisieren quantitativer Informationen (durch inhaltliche Zuordnung von Bedeutung oder Kontextherstellung) und das Übersetzen von Informationen in andere Kontexte. Die Validität und die Brauchbarkeit des Modells werden anhand von fünf Tests des Problemstellens bei 143 Schülern (Klasse 6) in Zypern getestet. Die Analyse zeigt, dass drei unterschiedliche Kategorien von Schülern identifiziert werden können. Bei Gruppe 1 handelt es sich um Schüler, die lediglich auf die Verstehensaufgabe reagieren, während sich Gruppe 2 aus Schülern zusammensetzt, die sowohl den Kontext erfassen als auch eine Übersetzung vornehmen. Schüler aus Gruppe 3 reagieren auf alle Typen der Aufgabe. Die Ergebnisse der Studie belegen überdies, dass Schüler bei erstmaligem Problemstellen erfolgreicher mit Kontexten umgehen, bei denen es um Verstehensprozesse geht, als dass sie Übersetzungsprozesse oder schließlich Auswahlprozesse umsetzen können.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. C.; Gerbing D. W. (1988): Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.—In: Psychological Bulletin 103(No.3), p. 411–423.
Brown, S. I.; Walter, M. (1990): The art of problem posing.—NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cai, J. (1998): An investigation of U.S. and Chinese students' mathematical problem posing and problem solving.—In: Mathematics Education Research Journal 10(No.1), p. 37–50.
Cai, J.; Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in U.S. and Chinese students' mathematical problem solving and problem posing.—In: Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21(No.4), p. 401–421.
Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture (2000): 6th grade math textbooks. Second Edition.—Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Ellerton, N. F.; Clarkson, P.C. (1996): Language factors in mathematics teaching.—In: A. J. Bishop, et al. (Eds.), International Handbook of Mathematics Education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
English, L. D. (1997a): The development of fifth-grade children's problem-posing abilities.—In: Educational Studies in Mathematics 34(No.3), p. 183–217.
English, L. D. (1997b): Development of seventh-grade students' problem posing.—In: E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol.2. Lahti, Finland, 1997, p. 241–248.
English, L. D. (1998): Children's problem posing within formal and informal contexts.—In: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 29(No.1), p. 83–106.
English, L. D. (2003): Problem posing in elementary curriculum. —In: F. Lester & R. Charles (Eds.), Teaching Mathematics through Problem Solving. Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
English, L.D. (2005): Combinatorics and the development of children's combinatorial reasoning.—In: G.A. Jones (Ed.), Exploring Probability in School: Challenges for teaching and learning. Springer Science and Business Media Inc. p. 121–144.
Healy, C.C. (1993): Creating miracles: A story of student discovery.—Berkeley, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
Kilpatrick, J. (1987): Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from?—In: A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 123–147.
Leung, S.K. (1996): Problem posing as assessment: reflections and reconstructions.—In: The Mathematics Educator 1, p. 159–171.
Lowrie, T. (1999): Free problem posing: Year 3/4 students constructing problems for friends to solve.—In: J. Truran & K. Truran (Eds.), Making a difference. Panorama, South Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, p. 328–335.
Lowrie, T. (2002): Designing a framework for problem posing: Young children generating open-ended tasks.—In: Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 3(No.3), p. 354–364.
Mamona-Downs, J. (1993). On analyzing problem posing.—In: I. Hirabayashi, N. Nohada, K. Shigematsu & F. L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol. 3. Tsukuba, Japan, 1993, p. 41–47.
Marcoulides, G. A.; Schumacker, R. E. (1996): Advanced structural equation modelling: Issues and techniques.—NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marshall, S. (1995): Schemas in problems solving.—Cambridge University Press.
Mestre, P. J. (2002): Probing adults' conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing.—In: Applied Developmental Psychology 23, p. 9–50.
Muthen, L. K.; Muthen, B. O. (2004): Mplus User's Guide. Third Edition.—Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000): Principles and standards for school mathematics.—Reston: Va, NCTM.
Root-Bernstein, R. (2003): The role of flexibility in innovation. —In: L.V. Shavinina (Ed.). The International Handbook of Innovation (Chp. 10). Pergamon Press.
Silver, E. A. (1994): On mathematical problem posing.—In: For the Learning of Mathematics 14(No.1), p. 19–28.
Silver, E. A.; Cai, J. (1996): An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school students.—In: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 27(No. 5), p. 521–539.
Silver, E. A. (1995): The nature and use of open problems in mathematics education: mathematical and pedagogical perspectives.—In: International Reviews on Mathematical Education 27, p. 67–72.
Sriraman, B (2002): How do mathematically gifted students abstract and generalize mathematical concepts.—In: NAGC 2002 Research Briefs 16, p. 83–87.
Sriraman, B (2003): Mathematical giftedness, problem solving, and the ability to formulate generalizations.—In: The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 14(No.3), p. 151–165.
Stoyanova, E. (1998): Problem posing in mathematics classrooms.—In: A. McIntosh & N. Ellerton (Eds.), Research in Mathematics Education: a contemporary perspective. Edith Cowan University: MASTEC, p. 164–185.
Winograd, K. (1991): Writing, solving, and sharing original math story problems: Case Studies of Fifth Grade Children's Cognitive Behavior.—Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M. et al. An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. Zentralblatt füur Didaktik der Mathematik 37, 149–158 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-005-0004-6
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-005-0004-6