Abstract
Empirical data were gathered from 51 middle-grade preservice teachers who were randomly assigned into one of two groups. The first group solved a task and then posed new problems based on the given figures, and the second group completed these activities in reverse order. Rubrics were developed to assess the written responses, and then thoughts and concerns related to problem-posing experiences were collected to understand their practices. Results revealed that the preservice teachers were proficient in solving simpler arithmetic tasks but had difficulty generalizing and interpreting numerals in an algebraic form. They were able to pose some basic and reasonable problems and to consider important aspects of mathematical problem solving when generating new tasks. Thus, teacher educators should provide substantial educational experiences by incorporating both problem-solving and problem-posing activities into engaging instruction for preservice teachers.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90, 449–466. doi:10.1086/461626.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communicative research. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cai, J. (1998). An investigation of U.S. and Chinese students’ mathematical problem posing and problem solving. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10(7), 37–50. doi:10.1007/BF03217121.
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in U.S. and Chinese students’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 401–421. doi:10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00142-6.
Cai, J., & Lester, J. F. K. (2005). Solution representations and pedagogical representations in Chinese and U.S. classrooms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3–4), 221–237. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.09.003.
Chen, L., Van Dooren, W., Chen, Q., & Verschaffel, L. (2007). The relationship between posing and solving arithmetic word problems among Chinese elementary school children. Journal of the Korea Society of Mathematical Education Series D: Research in Mathematical Education, 11(1), 1–31.
Chen, L., Van Dooren, W., Chen, Q., & Verschaffel, L. (2010). An investigation on Chinese teachers’ realistic problem posing and problem solving abilities and beliefs. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1–30. doi:10.1007/s10763-010-9259-7.
Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 37, 149–158. doi:10.1007/s11858-005-0004-6.
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 267–294.
Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 243–270. doi:10.1023/A:1024364304664.
Crespo, S., & Sinclair, N. (2008). What makes problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 395–415. doi:10.1007/s10857-008-9081-0.
Ellerton, N. F. (1986). Children’s made-up mathematics problems-A new perspective on talented mathematicians. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 261–271. doi:10.1007/BF00305073.
English, L. D. (1997). Promoting a problem posing classroom. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 172–179.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gonzales, N. A. (1994). Problem posing: A neglected component in mathematics courses for prospective elementary and middle school teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 78–84. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1994.tb12295.x.
Hatfield, M. M., Edwards, N. T., Bitter, G. G., & Morrow, J. (2003). Mathematics methods for elementary and middle school teachers (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Sage.
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: Erlbaum.
Lester, F. (1994). Musing about mathematical problem solving: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 660–675.
Moses, B. E., Bjork, E., & Goldenberg, P. E. (1990). Beyond problem solving: Problem posing. In T. J. Cooney & C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990’s (pp. 82–91). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H., & Brown, L. M. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 305–338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Newman, S., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & Paul DeMarco, G. M. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Combs, J. P. (2010). Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 397–430). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Collins, K. M. T. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 114–139. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/publication/76073.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Provalis Research. (2011). QDA Miner 4.0.6. User‘s guide. Montreal, QC, Canada: Author.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.
Silver, E. A., & Cai, J. (1996). An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 521–539. doi:10.2307/749846.
Silver, E. A., & Mamona, J. (1989). Problem posing by middle school mathematics teachers. In C. A. Maher, G. A. Goldin, & R. B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 263–269). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Mathematics, Science, and Computer Education, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey.
Silver, E. A., Mamona-Downs, J., Leung, S. S., & Kenney, P. A. (1996). Posing mathematical problems: An exploratory study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 293–309. doi:10.2307/749366.
SPSS. (2008). SPSS 17.0 for Windows. [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Author.
Stoyanova, E. (1999). Extending students’ problem solving via problem posing. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 55(3), 29–35.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Applied Social Research Methods Series, No. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12–28. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/publication/10235.
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2009). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Merrill.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In: T. Husen, & T. N. Postlethwaite, (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (supplementary vol., pp. 162–163). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Warren, E. (2003). The role of arithmetic structure in the transition from arithmetic to algebra. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15, 122–137.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix A
Problem-Solving Task
Please work individually on the task given below.
Look at the figures below.
-
i.
How many blocks are needed to build a staircase of five steps? Explain how you found your answer.
-
ii.
How many blocks are needed to build a staircase of 20 steps? Explain how you found your answer.
-
iii.
Based on part i. and ii. write a rule to generalize the solution for any number of steps or describe in words how to find the numbers of blocks used in each step.
Problem-Posing Task
Please work individually on the task given below.
-
i.
Look at the figures below.
Pose three (3) mathematically appropriate problems for middle-school students in the space provided that are based on the above figures. Use your creativity and originality when you pose your new problems. Do not solve them.
-
ii.
What did you think about when you had to pose your own mathematical problems?
-
iii.
What were your concerns when you posed your own mathematical problems?
Appendix B
Problem-Solving Task Rubric
Elements | Performance Indicators | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Unsatisfactory (one point) | Minimal (two points) | Satisfactory (three points) | Extended (four points) | |
Understanding of the problem | • Limited understanding of the mathematical concepts used to solve the problems | • Some understanding of the mathematical concepts used to solve the problems | • Substantial understanding of the mathematical concepts used to solve the problems | • Deep understanding of the mathematical concepts used to solve the problems |
Strategies/procedures | • Applies incorrect strategies/procedures | • Applies inefficient strategies/procedures | • Applies appropriate strategies/procedures | • Applies efficient and effective strategies/procedures |
Clarity and completeness of presentation | • Little/unclear explanation of attempts/solutions | • Presentation/description/diagram is not completely clear/complete | • Clear explanations | • Clear and complete explanations and reasoning |
Appendix C
Problem-Posing Task Rubric
Elements | Performance indicators | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Unsatisfactory (one point) | Minimal (two points) | Satisfactory (three points) | Extended (four points) | |
Problem structure/context | Replication/trivial changes to problem structure/context or trivial problem structure/context (for G2) | Moderate trivial changes to problem structure/context or minimal level of thinking required (for G2) | Some modifications/extensions to problem structure/context or good problem structure/context (for G2) | Major structural/contextual changes or higher level problem (for G2) |
Understanding of problem | Does not fit the required mathematical concepts | Uses similar/basic mathematical concepts | Uses other basic mathematical concepts | Uses more advanced mathematical concepts |
Mathematical expression | Unclear statement of problem (language) | Fairly clear statement of problem (language) | Moderately clear statement of problem (language) | Clear and precise statement of problem (language) |
Ineffective/inaccurate use of mathematical expressions | Somewhat effective/accurate use of mathematical expressions | Moderately effective/accurate use of mathematical expressions | Effective and accurate use of mathematical expressions | |
Appropriateness of problem-posing design | No consideration of whether situation is feasible (workable), realistic, and engaging | Somewhat feasible (workable), realistic, and engaging | Moderately feasible (workable), realistic, and engaging | Feasible (workable), realistic, and engaging |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rosli, R., Capraro, M.M., Goldsby, D., y Gonzalez, E.G., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Capraro, R.M. (2015). Middle-Grade Preservice Teachers’ Mathematical Problem Solving and Problem Posing. In: Singer, F., F. Ellerton, N., Cai, J. (eds) Mathematical Problem Posing. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6258-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6258-3_16
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6257-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6258-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)