IOJPE

ISSN: 1300 – 915X

[Link]

International Online Journal of Primary Education 2014, volume 3, issue 2

THE EFFECT OF PROBLEM POSING TASKS USED IN

MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTION TO MATHEMATICS ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDES TOWARD MATHEMATICS

Selim GUVERCĐN
Suleyman Demirel University, Engineering Faculty, Almaty, 040900, Kazakhstan, email:
selim60us@[Link]

Viktor VERBOVSKĐY
Suleyman Demirel University, Engineering Faculty, Almaty, 040900, Kazakhstan
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to examine the effects of problem posing intervention on 8th grade students’ mathematics
achievement and attitudes toward mathematics. Word problems were used in the research as a tool to observe the differences
between experimental and control groups. We analyzed the effects of problem posing instruction by specially designed tests
on pre and post activities. Meanwhile we sought student responses through individual [Link] study has been
conducted with 8th grade students at a Kazakh High School for gifted students during the second semester of 2010-2011
academic years. There were 54 students in total that were divided into two groups. One of the groups was experimental and
the other was control group. There was equal number of students in each group with a number of 27. The research took two
months in the same [Link] research used a mixed methods design with quantitative and qualitative components. Data
from quantitative component that was pre and post test which were analyzed by using SPSS computer package. Qualitative
design included data through which students were compared from pre to post intervention opinions. We used the
Mathematics Achievement Test in order to measure the students’ mathematics academic achievement. In order to measure
students’ attitudes toward mathematics, we used Mathematics Attitude Scale .The reliability of the tests were measured by
special techniques and the value of Cronbach's Alpha constant was calculated as 0.83 for achievement test and 0.90 for
attitude scale. During the problem posing instruction with experimental group students we used the activities that were
specially designed word problems in the light of problem posing stages. Traditional educational methods were used in the
control group. In addition, some questions were prepared for the students who got extreme scores from the activities. At the
end of the research, data was evaluated by using paired sample t-test and the analyses of interview with students were
conducted by using the descriptive methods.
Keywords: Problem posing, Mathematics academic achievement, Attitudes.

Educators and researchers are trying to find new methods in teaching and learning of
mathematics education to improve and develop the students’ problem solving abilities. Today many
educators around the world agree that traditional methods of teaching and learning process cannot
prepare individuals to the future. The aim of teaching mathematics is to develop cognitive abilities of
children, logical thinking, self sufficiency and empowering the memory. Meanwhile to develop
creative activities ; the ability to observe, compare, find similarities and differences; the ability to
analyze, synthesize, generalize, abstract; the skills of mental arithmetic; the skills of proper and logical
mathematical language. Generally, all curriculums about teaching and learning mathematics are agreed
that the aim of teaching mathematics is to extend the students’ ways of learning and to develop the
students’ abilities in problem solving and provide applicable mathematical knowledge, expertise and
skills for future needs. Especially problem solving is accepted as the heart of mathematics education
(NCTM, 2000). The students should understand their environment and world together and they should
apply what they learn to real life. They have to use mathematical skills and mathematical knowledge
in modern society. Otherwise students with traditional methods cannot solve the problems and cannot
make relations between real life and their learning in rapidly changing world (MEB, 2011). Instead of
teacher oriented, student oriented methods should be discussed. One of them is problem posing
approach in math education. Problem posing is not independent from problem solving (Cai, J. Hwang,
Copyright © International Online Journal of Primary Education 59
 IOJPE
ISSN: 1300 – 915X
[Link]

International Online Journal of Primary Education 2014, volume 3, issue 2

S., 2002). There is a strong relationship between problem solving and problem posing as a cognitive
process (Lowrie, T.A. 2002). Brown and Walter (1993) suggested a new approach to problem posing
and problem solving in mathematics teaching by using the “What If Not” (WIN) strategy. The strategy
is based on the idea that modifying the attributes of a given problem could yield new and original
problems that may gives very interesting results. In this approach, the students are encouraged to go
through three levels starting with the examining the problem to generate new problems. At the first
level, the students are asked to write the list of the problem attributes. And at the second level the
students should ask many questions about the attributes related “What If Not” question and then
suggest alternatives to the listed attributes. The last level of problem posing, they pose new questions
by making more generalization.
Brown and Walter (2005) also stated that one of the important consequences of mathematics
education is to provide opportunities to the students in mathematics lessons for developing their
problem posing skills. Because problem posing is not only to generate new problems from given
situations but also reformulate given problem and generalize for the solution. Problem posing has too
much interest because of its effect in creativity and mathematical ability (Silver, E.A., 1994). Problem
posing in contrast to traditional problem solving methods reduces anxiety and common fears about
mathematics and increases positive attitudes toward mathematics (Philippou, G.N. Nicolaou, 2004).
Problem posing improves not only students but also teachers’ attitudes; alleviate misunderstanding
about the nature of mathematics. Problem posing activities gives more responsibility to the students
who are motivated for the problems during the mathematics class. Problem posing methods of learning
bring up the students for the future as social an individual that meets the expectation of modern
society.
Method
In this part, research model, participants, measurement instruments, kinds of application of
research design, data gathering and evaluation of collected data were considered.
Research design of the study
In this research quantitative and qualitative methods were used. In quantitative research, problem
posing instruction and traditional methods of instruction were independent variables and Achievement
Test results, Mathematics Attitude Scale results are dependent variables. In this research, the effect of
independent variables on dependents variables will be controlled that is why research was
experimental study. The study used the matching only pre-tests post-tests control group design.
Table I
Research Design of the Present Study
Group Pre-test Treatment Post-test
EG M1, M2 PPI M1, M2
CG M1, M2 TM M1, M2

In Table I, the abbreviations have the following meanings:

EG: Represent experimental group that received instruction with the “Problem Posing” (PPI)
CG: Represent the control group, which received instruction with the Traditional
Method (TM). M1: Mathematics Achievement test (MAT); M2: Mathematics Attitude Scale
(MAS);
The MAT, MAS were administered as pre-tests and [Link] experimental group problem posing

Copyright © International Online Journal of Primary Education 60

 IOJPE
ISSN: 1300 – 915X
[Link]

International Online Journal of Primary Education 2014, volume 3, issue 2

instruction was used while traditional teaching methods were used in control groups. In both groups,
before instruction and after instruction Mathematics Achievement Test, Mathematics Attitude Scale
was used as pre and post tests.
Subjects of the Study
The students who were participated to this study were from Kazakh high school. The number of
the students who participated to the study was 54 students all of them from 8th grade. We divided the
students into two groups as experimental and control according to Mathematics Equivalent Test
results.. In qualitative part of the research, some students were selected to make interview
conservation. Their opinions about problem posing were recorded in by video capture. The average
value of the scores from the quizzes of problem posing activities determined the order of interview.
Steps of the Study
1- Before we begin the study, we apply a Mathematics Equivalent Test to divide the groups
according to adjustment level. Their average results were compared and according to results,
participants were divided into two groups as experimental and control groups.
2-The Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT), Mathematics Attitude Scale (MAS) were given to
the students. The mathematics achievement test that includes word problems was prepared by
experienced teachers and was controlled by experts. Mathematics Attitude scale was prepared as a
reconfiguration of the Fennema Sherman and Aiken model of tests. There were four groups’ questions.
These are self confidence of esteem, value, enjoyment and motivation. Each part covered negative and
positive type of questions.
3- The MAT, MAS were piloted with 128 students from 9th grade students at Kazak high school
in Almaty. This pilot study allowed testing the reliability and validity of MAT. According to the
results of this pilot study, the MAT was revised.
4- Activity sheets were prepared using appropriate problem posing statements as recommended by
reports of research found in the literature. 5- Mathematics teachers administered the MAT to the
students before and after the treatment during a mathematics lesson. The MAT test was applied to both
groups before and after study. 6- The study ran into a period of seven weeks with 8 hours .The
problem posing activities applied to the students 4 lessons per week.
Data collecting instruments
Data was collected in this research from the following instruments;
1. Mathematics Achievement Test: The test was prepared according to curriculum stated by
Ministry of Education of Kazakhstan for 8 classes.. Factor analysis of the test and the questions was
evaluated by SPSS computer program. And for each questions p (coefficient of difficulty index) and r
(coefficient of differentiable index) were calculated by the equations
2. Mathematics Attitude Scale: Mathematics attitude scale was modified by Fennama and
Sherman (Fennema E. And Sherman J. 1986). The scale consists of four different types of questions
that based on motivation, self esteem, value and enjoyment. There are 30 questions in the test which
includes 10 questions from self esteem, 6 questions from value, 9 questions from enjoyment and 5
questions from motivation. Each part has positive and negative questions. There are 15 positive
questions and 15 negative questions totally in the scale.
3. The reports of students in experimental group were about the problem posing method, as an
application of method on word problems.

Copyright © International Online Journal of Primary Education 61

 IOJPE
ISSN: 1300 – 915X
[Link]

International Online Journal of Primary Education 2014, volume 3, issue 2

4. The video record of the students in experimental group.

Findings and Recommendations.

In this part the results of mathematics achievement test, mathematics attitudes scale were
discussed. Meanwhile the writings and video presentations of the students about problem posing and
will be evaluated. Recommendations of the students about problem posing in individual meetings will
also be presented. The averages and standard deviations of pre and post test shown in the table for
experimental and control groups.
Table II
The sample paired t test results of Experimental and Control group students for Mathematics
Achievement pre test
Pre -test results N X Standard dv. Standard er. sd t p
Experimental G 27 11,33 3,94 0,75
Control G 27 10,66 3,01 0,57 25 0,17 0,861

Table III
The sample paired t test results of Experimental and Control group students for Mathematics
Achievement post test
Post-test Results N X Standard dv. Standard er. sd t p
Experimental G 27 16,18 3,49 0,67
Control G 27 10,66 3,01 0,57 26 2,92 0,007

In order to analyse the effect of problem posing instruction on students’ academic achievement,
the findings acquired in pre- and post application of the academic achievement test to the research and
control groups were drawn in tables, and some comments were made in parallel to these findings. As it
can be seen in the Table I, the arithmetic mean of the pre-test scores taken by the experimental group
students was found 11,33 and the respected figure of the control group students was found 10,66. It is
observed that there is a less point difference between group means and p value is more than 0.05. This
indicates that there is no significant difference at the 0.05 confidence interval between the pre-test
scores of the research group and control group students. By the fact that there is no significant
difference between the pre-test scores of the experimental and control group students, the condition
concerning the nearness of pre-knowledge level of the experimental and control groups before the
research is fulfilled.
As it can be seen in the Table II, when post-test scores of the experimental group and control
group students were examined, it was found that the arithmetic mean of the post-test scores taken by
the experimental group students was 16,18 and the respected figure of the control group students was
10,66. It can be seen that there is more point difference between group means and p value (0,007) is
less than 0.05. This indicates that there is a significant difference at the 0.05 confidence interval
between the post-test scores of the research group and control group students on behalf of the former
group.

Copyright © International Online Journal of Primary Education 62

 IOJPE
ISSN: 1300 – 915X
[Link]

International Online Journal of Primary Education 2014, volume 3, issue 2

Table IV
The sample paired t test results of Experimental and Control group students for Mathematics Attitude
pre Scale
Pre -test results N X Standard dv. Standard er. sd t p
Experimental G 27 3,36 0,4 0,078
Control G 27 3,38 0,39 0,077 0,12 25 0,752

Table V
The sample paired t test results of Experimental and Control group students for Mathematics Attitude
post Scale
Post-test Results N X Standard dv. Standard er. sd t p
Experimental G 27 3,78 0,32 0,06
Control G 27 3,41 0,39 0,07 26 0 0,006

As it can be seen in the Table III, the arithmetic mean of the Mathematics scale pre-attitude scores
revealed by the experimental group students was found 3.36 and the respected figure for the control
group students was found 3,38. There is no significant difference between the pre-attitude scores of the
research group and control group at the 0.05 confidence interval. As it can be seen in the Table IV, the
arithmetic mean of the post-attitude scores revealed by the research group students was found 3, 78
and the respected figure for the control group students was found 3, [Link] this respect, there is a
significant difference between the post-attitude scores of the research group and control group at the
0.05 confidence interval on behalf of the former group. Namely, it is observed that there is a positive
change in the attitudes of the experimental group students towards science class. In addition to the data
obtained, the opinions expressed by the research group students at the end of the applications
performed also mirror the positive change in their attitudes. Some of the opinions expressed by
students from this group during the activities carried out in the research process are given below.
Student 1: I liked problem posing class very much. The posing activities were enjoyable and more
interesting. The problem posing activities made us to like problems. Group works were also good as
well. I was very contented with the applications.”
Student 2: “We were motivated more to study by writing the questions of problem posing that
were fun and learning. In the problem posing method, it is so easy to produce questions and it is so
good and fruitful to add our own ideas and discuss within group.”
Student 3: “The problem posing instruction attracted me to the participation to the class activities.
It is a good method. We both learn and have fun. We started to like solving problems.
Student 4: “I overcome the fears and anxieties about mathematics problems in problem posing
lessons. I understand subject matters better. The problems seem to be so easy.”
It can be said that there is no positive improvement in the control groups to which traditional
teaching methods were applied. Yet, problem posing type of education employed in the experimental
group brought about positive improvements in the conceptual development of the students. In the
experimental group in which problem posing activities are applied, since students are in
communication with their group members and other groups, they could find the opportunity to discuss
and share their ideas. In this way, information transfer among students is accomplished. The examples
given are chosen out of daily life and they are enriched by students.
Copyright © International Online Journal of Primary Education 63
 IOJPE
ISSN: 1300 – 915X
[Link]

International Online Journal of Primary Education 2014, volume 3, issue 2

Conclusion and Discussion
Problem posing method of instruction has significantly increased students’ mathematical academic
achievement. The students who have been experimental class had high positive attitudes toward
mathematics.. In problem posing instruction, students were not motivated not only finding the correct
answers of the problems but also the ways that they followed through the solution period of the
questions. They were also more social when they tried to pose the problems. This was provided by
interaction with the students as well as with teachers. The students had a chance to ask questions to
teachers that is why they cancelled some misconceptions and they were directed right way during the
problem posing stages.
The result of this present research indicated that contrary to traditional teaching methods, problem
posing instruction produces significantly positive results in students’ attitudes toward word problems
and mathematics and mathematics achievement. Active involment and more participation gave the
students more confidence and positive attitudes. Eggen (2003) showed that problem posing instruction
emphasizes students’ active involvement in learning. Thus, problem posing teaching frequently
express that the students learn by connecting new knowledge to the real [Link] findings were
similar with English (1997a) claimed that the activities of problem posing had a strong emphasis on
children being creative, divergent, and flexible in their thinking and students were encouraged to look
beyond the basic meanings of mathematics with those activities. Dewey (1986) stated that there is a
strong relation between interest and effort that is increase in motivation because problem posing
instruction is based mostly on students who start to be interested people. Interest and motivation by
this way can be formed together; interest produces motivation and motivation produces interest.
Problem posing increases motivation and optimism (Brown & Walter, 1983). If you combine these
two statements, you can say that problem posing has a positive influence on self efficacy. Moreover
problem posing reduces anxiety that is a negative factor on self efficacy beliefs. Problem posing which
gives students more freedom and dialogue with the teachers provides a good development for self
confidence. Kliman and Richards (1992) accepted that problem posing enlarges the inner control of
the students. Inner control is an effective component of self attitude construction.
In conclusion problem posing instruction proposed new teaching methods in order to teach word
problems in mathematics education. The results of the study also showed that traditional teaching
methods can’t give them to the students. Because traditional methods don’t cover the attitudes of the
students that were basically can’t consider the psychological sides of the students. It may be just
concentrated the mathematics achievement. Of course in both type of educational system the role of
the teacher can’t be neglected. In addition to all parts of problem posing we should not forget that the
main aim is not to create the best problem posers instead of this we need to use problem posing as a
tool to produce good problem solvers.

References
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. - Reston,Virginia. : National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000. - pp. 52-55.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. - Reston,Virginia. :
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989. - p.223
Stanic, G.A., Kilpatrick, J. 1988. Historical Perspectives on Problem Solving In the Mathematics Curriculum. International Journal of
Educational Research.- Georgia Athens, GA 30602.: University of Georgia, 1992.- pp.1-22. Cai, J. Hwang, S. Generalized and
Generative Thinking in US and Chinese Students’ Mathematical Problem Solving and Problem Posing//Journal of Mathematical
Behavior. -2002. -No 21.- pp 401-421
Lowrie,T.A. [Link] a Framework for Problem posing:Young Children Generating Open Ended Tasks //Contemporary Issues
in Early Childhood.-2002 .-No3 (3).-pp. 354-364.]

Copyright © International Online Journal of Primary Education 64

 IOJPE
ISSN: 1300 – 915X
[Link]

International Online Journal of Primary Education 2014, volume 3, issue 2

Brown,S.I. Walter ,M.I. (1993) The Art of Problem Posing.(2nd Edition).- Hillsdale,[Link]:Lawrance Earlbaum Associates,1993.-
pp 16-27.]
Shoenfeld,A.H. Explorations of The Students’ Mathematical Beliefs and Behaviour//Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.-
1989.-No20(4).-pp.338-355
Polya, G. How to Solve It:A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. .-New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1973.- pp 5-6.] Silver,
E.A. On Mathematical Problem Posing//For The Learning of Mathematics.-1994.-No14.- pp 19-28
Philippou, G.N. Nicolaou, A.A. Efficacy Beliefs, Ability In Problem Posing and Mathematics Achievement // Proceedings of the 3rd
International Biennial Self Research Conference Berlin, Self-Concept,Motivation and Identity:Where to come from here .- 2004.-
pp 177-188.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests //Psychometrika.-1951.-No 16.-pp. 297-334.
Fennema E. And Sherman J. ,1986)Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales. Instruments Designed to measure attitudes
towards the learning of mathematics by females and males.- Madison.: Wisconsin Center for Education Research School of
Education, University of Wisconsin,1986-.
Rosnick,P.(1981) Some misconceptions concerning the concept of variable// Mathematics Teachers.-1981.-No 74.- pp.418-420
Stoyanova, E., Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students’ problem posing. In P. Clarkson (Ed.),Technology in
Mathematics Education (518–525). Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Torrance, E. P. The Nature of Creativity as Manifest in its testing. – In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.): The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary
Psychological Perspectives. – New York.: Cambridge University Press, 1988.-pp. 43–75.
McLeod, B. D. Research on Affect and Mathematics Learning in the 1970 to the Present //Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education.-1994.-No25 (6).-pp 637-647.
Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 52, 243-270.

Copyright © International Online Journal of Primary Education 65