Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 261–271 | Cite as

Children's made-up mathematics problems — a new perspective on talented mathematicians

  • Nerida F. Ellerton
Article

Abstract

As part of a large scale mathematics study, students were asked to make up a mathematics problem that would be difficult for a friend to solve. They were also asked to solve the problem themselves. A sub-sample of 11- to 13-year-olds was interviewed while they worked through the items in the study.

The problems made up by a group of eight more able and eight less able children from this sub-sample are reported here, together with the comments the children made during the interviews about their respective problems.

The results highlight features of the problems made up by the two groups of children. In general, the more able children made up problems of greater computational difficulty, with more complex number systems and with more operations than their less able peers. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the more able students planned their problems and were able to work out the answer, while their less able peers had difficulty with both the planning and the solution of their own problems.

As the substance and style of the problem made up by each child uniquely reflects that child's mathematical experiences and ideas, the made up problem is a particularly useful tool for studying mathematically talented children for whom routine tasks are usually completed quickly and accurately.

Keywords

Complex Number Mathematics Problem Number System Mathematics Study Computational Difficulty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin J. L. and Howson A. G.: 1979, ‘Language and mathematical education’,Educational Studies in Mathematics 10, 161–197.Google Scholar
  2. Bell A., Fischbein E. and Greer B.: 1984, ‘Choice of operation in verbal arithmetic problems: the effects of number size, problem structure and context’,Educational Studies in Mathematics 15, 129–147.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop A. J.: 1985, ‘The social psychology of mathematics education’, in Streefland L. (ed.),Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol II, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, July 22–27, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  4. Creed K.: 1980, ‘Gifted children-acceleration as an option’, in Williamson P. (ed.)Learn to Love Mathematics, Mathematical Association of Victoria, Melbourne, pp. 423–427.Google Scholar
  5. Ellerton N. F.: 1980, ‘An extension of Piaget's theory of cognitive development’, Research Report, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. August, 1980.Google Scholar
  6. Ellerton N. F.: 1985, ‘The development of abstract reasoning-results from a large scale mathematical study in Australia and New Zealand’, in Streefland L. (ed.),Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Vol I, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, July 22–27, pp. 204–209.Google Scholar
  7. Hall N.: 1983, ‘Problem solving for children talented in mathematics’ in Blane D. (ed.),The Essentials of Mathematics Education, Mathematical Association of Victoria, Melbourne, pp. 440–443.Google Scholar
  8. Hart K. M. (Editor): 1981,Children's Understanding of Mathematics: 11–16, John Murray, London.Google Scholar
  9. Jercinovic J.: 1983, ‘An enrichment program for students of exceptional capability’, in Shufelt G. and Smart J. R. (eds.),The Agenda in Action, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp. 191–194.Google Scholar
  10. Kennedy W.: 1985, ‘Writing letters to learn Math’,Learning 13, 59, 61.Google Scholar
  11. Krutetskii V. A.: 1976,The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren, (translated by Teller, J.; edited by Kilpatrick J. and Wirszup I), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Richardson, J. and Williamson, P.: 1982, ‘Towards autonomy in infant mathematics’,Research in Mathematics Education in Australia, pp. 109–136.Google Scholar
  13. Ridge H. L. and Renzulli J. S.: 1981, ‘Teaching mathematics to the talented and gifted’, in Glennon V. J. (ed.),The Mathematical Education of Exceptional Children and Youth, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp. 190–266.Google Scholar
  14. Shuard H. and Rothery A.: 1984 (eds.),Children Reading Mathematics, J. Murray, London.Google Scholar
  15. van den Brink, F. J.: (1985), discussion paper presented to the Working Group ‘Principles of Teaching Design’, at the Ninth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, July 22–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nerida F. Ellerton
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationDeakin UniversityVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations