• Osman CankoyEmail author


The aim of this study is to explore the mathematical problem posing performance of students in free structured situations. Two classes of fifth grade students (N  =  30) were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The categories of the problems posed in free structured situations by the 2 groups of students were studied through inductive and deductive content analysis and coded in categories before and after a 5-week treatment. The treatment for the experimental group was the Interlocked Problem Posing Instruction in which student cognitive engagement was emphasized, and for the control group, it was Traditional Problem Posing Instruction. The results revealed that the experimental group students posed more solvable, reasonable and start-unknown problems than the control group students after the treatment.


cognitive engagement free situations interlocked problem posing solvable 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baines, L. A. & Stanley, G. (2000). We want to see the teacher: Constructivism and the rage against expertise. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(4), 327–330.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. B. & Telfer, P. J. (1998). The process of learning. Sydney: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, S. I. & Walter, M. I. (1990). The art of problem posing (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Caplan, J. B. & Caplan, P. J. (2005). The perseverative search for sex differences in mathematics abilities. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, T. P., Kepner, H. S., Corbitt, M. K., Lindquist, M. & Reys, R. E. (1980). Solving verbal problems: Results and implications for national assessment. Arithmetic Teacher, 28(1), 8–12.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, N. (2007). Responsibilities of a teacher in a harmonic cycle of problem solving and problem posing. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(4), 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pantazi-Pitta, D. & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM, 37(3), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 16, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Einstein, A. & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  10. Ellerton, N. F. (1986). Children’s made-up mathematical problems: A new perspective on talented mathematicians. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. English, L. D. (1997a). The development of fifth-grade children’s problem-posing abilities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(3), 183–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. English, L.D. (1997b). Development of seventh-grade students’ problem posing. In E. Pehkonen (Eds.), 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Lahti, Finland (volume 2, pp. 241–248).Google Scholar
  13. English, L. D. (1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and informal contexts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. English, L. D. & Halford, G. S. (1995). Mathematics education: Models and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Fennema, E. & Carpenter, T. P. (1998). New perspectives on gender differences in mathematics: An introduction and a reprise. Educational Researcher, 27(5), 4–11. 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C. & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, M. (2009). Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivism: Reflections on lessons from practice. Educational Studies, 45(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hinton, P. R. (1996). Statistics explained. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E. & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 123–147). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Knott, L. (2010). Problem posing from the foundations of mathematics. Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 7(2&3), 413–432.Google Scholar
  23. Koedinger, K. R. & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kojima, K. & Miwa, K. (2008). A system that facilitates diverse thinking in problem posing. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(2), 209–236.Google Scholar
  25. Kong, Q., Wong, N. & Lam, C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: Development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leung, S. K. (1996). Problem posing as assessment: Reflections and reconstructions. The Mathematics Educator, 1, 159–171.Google Scholar
  27. Leung, S. K. & Silver, E. A. (1997). The role of task format, mathematics knowledge, and creative thinking on the arithmetic problem posing of prospective elementary school teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowrie, T. (1998). The importance of visual processing in non-routine and novel problem solving situations. In A. McIntosh & N. Ellerton (Eds.), Research in mathematics education: Some current trends (pp. 186–210). Perth, Western Australia: MASTEC Publication.Google Scholar
  30. 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 (pp. 328–335). Panorama, South Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
  31. Lowrie, T. (2002a). Designing a framework for problem posing: Young children generating open-ended tasks. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(3), 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowrie, T. (2002b). Young children posing problems: The influence of teacher intervention on the type of problems children pose. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(2), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lowrie, T. & Whitland, J. (2000). Problem posing as a tool for learning planning and assessment in the primary school. In T. Nakahara, T., Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Hiroshima, Japan (pp. 247–254).Google Scholar
  34. Mestre, P. J. (2002). Probing adults’ conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 9–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  38. Newmann, F., Wehlage, G. G. & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Riley, M. S. & Greeno, J. G. (1988). Developmental analysis of understanding language about quantities and of solving problems. Cognition and Instruction, 5(1), 49–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sheskin, D. J. (2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (3rd ed.). New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  41. Silver, E.A. (1993). On mathematical problem posing. In Hirabayasshi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu, & F.L Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Tsukuba, Japan (vol. 1. pp. 66–85).Google Scholar
  42. Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
  43. Silver, E. A. (1995). The nature and use of open problems in mathematics education: Mathematical and pedagogical perspectives. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 27, 67–72.Google Scholar
  44. Silver, E. A. & Cai, J. (1996). An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(5), 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sternberg, R. J. & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–272). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Stoyanova, E. (1998). Problem posing in mathematics analyses classrooms. In A. McIntosh & N. Ellerton (Eds.), Research in mathematics education: A contemporary perspective (pp. 164–185). Perth, Western Australia: MASTEC, Edith Cowan University.Google Scholar
  47. Stoyanova, E. (2000). Empowering students’ problem solving via problem posing: The art of framing “good” questions. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 56(1), 33–37.Google Scholar
  48. Stoyanova, E. (2003). Extending students’ understanding of mathematics via problem posing. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 59(2), 32–40.Google Scholar
  49. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  50. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  51. Willis, D. (1993). Academic involvement at university. Higher Education, 25, 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ataturk Teacher Training College, Atatürk Öğretmen AkademisiNicosiaNorthern Cyprus

Personalised recommendations