A Review on Problem Posing in Teacher Education

  • Helena P. Osana
  • Ildiko Pelczer
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)


Over the last two decades, researchers have shown increased interest in problem posing in mathematics professional development. In the context of teaching mathematics, problem posing can entail asking questions during classroom interactions to assess student understanding, modifying existing problems to adjust the difficulty level of a task, and creating problems to meet instructional objectives. In this chapter, we review the research conducted between 1990 and 2012 on problem posing in mathematics methods courses in elementary teacher education. Despite the range of foci, goals, and theoretical perspectives in the literature, we describe ways in which problem posing has been investigated in the preservice teacher population. Despite the paucity of empirical studies, we were able to group these studies into three distinct categories: (a) problem posing as a skill integral to the practice of teaching mathematics; (b) problem posing as an activity separate from teaching; and (c) problem posing as a tool to assess an outcome variable (for researchers) or as a tool for teaching or assessing the development of preservice teachers’ knowledge or beliefs. Implications for mathematics teacher educators that stem from the review of the literature are discussed.


Problem posing Elementary teacher training Mathematical knowledge for teaching Specialized content knowledge Knowledge of content and students Teacher educators’ view Mathematics methods course 


  1. Ball, D. L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(1), 40–48.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2001). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In G. Martin (Ed.), Research compendium for the principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance, nature and impact of teacher questions. In D. E. McDougall, & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 773–782). Toronto, ON: PMENA.Google Scholar
  6. Bragg, L., & Nicol, C. (2008). Designing open-ended problems to challenge preservice teachers’ views on mathematics and pedagogy. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepulveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the 32nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education and 20th Conference of the North-American Chapter (Vol. 2, pp. 256–270). Morelia, Mexico: PME.Google Scholar
  7. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (1983). The art of problem posing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in US and Chinese students’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman, O. (2012). Prospective elementary school teachers’ ways of making sense of mathematical problem posing. PNA, 6(4), 135–146.Google Scholar
  11. Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crespo, S., & Sinclair, N. (2008). What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(5), 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Perigree.Google Scholar
  15. English, L. (1997). Development of seventh-grade students’ problem posing. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 241–248). Lahti, Finland: PME.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students’ mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonzales, N. A. (1996). Problem formulation: Insights from student generated questions. School Science and Mathematics, 96(3), 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hawkins, D. (2000). The roots of literacy. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.Google Scholar
  20. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. R., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., … Human, P. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google 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). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Leung, S. S. (1994). On analyzing problem posing processes: A study of prospective elementary teachers differing in mathematics knowledge. In J. P. da Ponte, & J. F. Matos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 168–175). Lisbon, Portugal: PME.Google Scholar
  23. Leung, S. S., & 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
  24. Livy, S., & Vale, C. (2011). First-year pre-service teachers’ mathematical content knowledge: Methods of solution for a ratio question. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(2), 22–43.Google Scholar
  25. Martin, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Newton, K. J. (2008). An extensive analysis of preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge of fractions. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1080–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nicol, C., & Bragg, L. A. (2009) Designing problems: What kinds of open-ended problems do preservice teachers pose? In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 225–232). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.Google Scholar
  30. Osana, H. P., Cooperman, A., Adrien, E., Rayner, V., Bisanz, J., Watchorn, R., & Sherman LeVos, J. (2012, April). Examining teacher knowledge and classroom practices during inquiry teaching on the equal sign. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Osana, H., & Royea, D. (2011). Obstacles and challenges in preservice teachers’ explorations with fractions: A view from a small-scale intervention study. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(4), 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pirie, S. (2002). Problem posing: What can it tell us about students’ mathematical understanding? (ERIC Accession No. ED 471 760).Google Scholar
  33. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sierpinska, A., & Osana, H. (2012). Analysis of tasks in pre-service elementary teacher education courses. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silver, E. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem posing and problem solving. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 29(3), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simon, M. A. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ knowledge of division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(3), 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sinclair, N. (2004). The roles of the aesthetic in mathematical inquiry. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(3), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  40. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Ticha, M., & Hošpesová, A. (2009). Problem posing and development of pedagogical content knowledge in pre-service teacher training. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, F. Arzarello, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1941–1950). Lyon, France: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.Google Scholar
  42. Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. O. (1990). Evoking cognitive conflict to explore preservice teachers’ thinking about division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Toluk-Ucar, Z. (2009). Developing pre-service teachers understanding of fractions through problem posing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 166–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vacc, N. (1993). Questioning in the mathematics classroom. Arithmetic Teacher, 41(2), 88–91.Google Scholar
  45. Van Zoest, L., & Stockero, S. (2008). Synergistic scaffolds as a means to support preservice teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2038–2048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, S., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 173–209). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  48. Zazkis, R., & Campball, S. (1996). Divisibility and multiplicative structure of natural numbers: Preservice teachers’ understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 540–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations