AN ANALYSIS OF ARITHMETICP ROBLEM POSING BY MIDDLE SCHOOL

STUDENTS

EDWARD A. SILVER, Universityo f Pittsburgh JINFA CAI, Universityo f Delaware

The mathematical problems generatedb y 509 middles chool students, who were given a brief
writ- ten "story-problem" description and askedt o pose questions thatc ould be answered
using the infor- mation, were examined for solvability,l inguistic andm athematical
complexity, and relationships within the sets of posed problems. It was found that students
generated a large number of solv- able mathematical problems, many of which were
syntactically and semanticallyc omplex, and that nearly half the students generated sets of
related problems.S ubjects also solved eight fairly complexp roblems, and the relationship
betweent heir problem-solvinpg erformance andt heir prob- lem posing was examined to
reveal that "good"p roblem solvers generated more mathematical problems and more
complex problems than "poor"p roblem solvers did. The multiple-step data analysis scheme
developed and usedh erein should be useful to teachersa nd otherr esearchers inter- ested in
evaluating students' posing of arithmetic story problems.

Recentr ecommendations for the reform of school mathematics suggest an impor- tant role
for student-generapterdo blem posing. For example, the Curriculum andE valuation
Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989) explicitly states that students should" have
some experiencer ecognizing and formulating theiro wn problems, an activity that is at theh
eart of doing mathematics" (p. 138). Furthermore, the Professional Standards for Teaching
Mathematics (NCTM, 1991) suggests the importance of teachers' providingo pportunities for
studentst o pose theiro wn problems: "Students should be given opportunities to formulate
problems from given situationsa nd create new problemsb y modifying the conditions of a
given problem"( p. 95). Thesed ocu- ments reflect an apparenht igh level of interest amongm
any practitioners to make prob- lem posing a more prominent featureo f classroomi
nstruction. Evidenceo f this inter- est cana lso be inferredfr om ther ecent publication of a
collectiono f practitioner-oriented articlesr elated to problemp osing (Brown & Walter, 1993)
andt he appearance of numer- ous articles in popularjo urnals whose audience is primarily
elementary school teach- ers (e.g., Silverman, Winograd, & Strohauer, 1992;M addon, 1994).
In fact, at this time, it appears that practitioner interesti s running far aheado f the
development of credi- ble techniques for assessing mathematical problem posing and the
accumulation of solid researche vidence regarding its nature.

Over the past several decades, considerable progress has been made in studying many
importanta spects of mathematical problem solving, including detailed analyses of problem-
solvinpge rformance and studiesr elated to the learning and teach- ing of problems olving
(Charles & Silver, 1988; Silver, 1985; Schoenfeld, 1985). Researchh as described many of
the cognitive processes associatedw ith the solu- tion of mathematical problems that are
posed by a source outside the solver. Although currenitn terest in mathematical problemp
osing can be seen as representing a new facet of a longstanding interest in mathematical
problem solving (Stanic & Kilpatrick, 1988), far less is known about the cognitive processes
involved when solvers generate their own problems (Kilpatrick, 1987), or about instructional
strategies that can effectively promotep roductive problemp osing, although more progress
has been made on the latterf ront than on the former. Thereh ave been several reports of
instructional approaches used to incorporate problemp osing into the mathematicsin struction
of studentsa t a wide range of edu- cationall evels in the U.S. (e. g., Healy, 1993; Keil,
1964/1965;P erez, 1985/1986; Winograd, 1990) and abroad (e.g., Hashimoto, 1987; van den
Brink, 1987). Some reports have also includeda n examinationo f the impact on students of
experience or formali nstruction emphasizing mathematical problemp osing (e.g., Keil,
1964/1965; Perez, 1985/1986; Scott, 1977). In general, these studiesh ave foundt hat having
stu- dents engage in some kind of generative activity relatedt o problemp osing--often
something as simple as rewritingg iven storyp roblems-has a positive influence on their word-
problem-solving achievement (Hashimoto, 1987;K eil, 1964/1965;P erez, 1985/1986S; cott,
1977) ort heir attitudteo ward mathematics (Perez, 1985/1986; Winograd, 1990/1991). Thus,
the evidencea ccumulated in these studies suggests that even very simplee xperiences with
mathematical problem posing can have a positivei mpact on students. Nevertheless, despite
thef act thats ome accounts of instructionainl terventions emphasizing mathematical
problemp osing have shownt he positive effectso f the inter- ventions on student achievement
and attitude, these studiesh ave not directly exam- ined mathematical problemp osing itself.
This prior researchh as therefore provided relatively little informationab out eithert he
processes used by students in problem gen- erationo r the products of students' problem-
posing activity. A few researchers have examined the mathematics problems posed by
children (e.g., Ellerton, 1986; Silverman et al., 1992), by prospective elementary school or
secondary school teachers (e.g., Leung, 1993; Silver, Mamona-Downs, Leung, & Kenney,
1996), or by in-service middle school teachers (e.g., Silver et al., 1996). Thus far, research on
children's problemp osing has tendedt o focus on small num- bers of subjects and to provide
only a fairly superficial analysis of the posed problems, if any analysis at all. For example,
Ellerton (1986) compared the math- ematical problems generated by eight high-ability young
children with those gen- erated by eight low-ability young children by asking each to pose a
mathematical problem thatw ould be difficult for a friend to solve. Ellerton reported that the
more able students posed problems thatw ere more complex than those posed by the less able
students, but her criteria for determiningp roblem complexity were not well specified. In
another investigation, Silverman et al. (1992) reported that a class of fifth-grade studentsw as
able to generate storyp roblems that exceeded in difficulty, novelty, and interestt he word
problem exercises found in their textbooks, but their criteriaf or judging these qualities were
likewise underspecified. If progress is to be made in understanding the natureo f
mathematical problem posing, or if rigor- ous attempts are to be madet o study the
instructional impact of interventions related to mathematical problem posing, thenb etter
analytic techniques mustb e developed to study problemp osing by elementary school and
middle school students. Some guidance for the development of schemes to analyze children's
mathematical problem posing is provided by the approach used in those studieso f adult
problem posing thath ave included moree xtensive and rigorous analyses. For example,L
eung (1993) successfully useda variety of cognitive analysis tools, sucha s General Problem
Solver (GPS) graphs (Newell & Simon, 1972) and arithmetic story problem schema analysis
(Marshall, 1995), to examinet he problem-posinpgr oducts and processes of about 50
prospective elementary school teachers who posed written arithmetic story problems in
response to written prompts. In another investigation involving adult subjects, Silver et al.
(1996) developed a differentk ind of scheme to analyze the written-problem-posingp roducts
of about 80 preservice secondary school teachersa nd in-service middle school teachers who
posed mathematical problems relatedt o a complex task environment involving the
hypothesizedp ath of a billiard ball on tableso f various sizes and shapes. Their analytic
schemea ttended to the nature of posed problems in relationt o the information given in the
task environment. They also examined the relationship between subjects' problem posing and
their solu- tion of a specified mathematical problem in the same task environment. Aspects of
the analytic approaches used by Leung (1993) and by Silver et al. (1996) were incor- porated
into the current study. A major goal of the study reported herew as to develop and use an
analytic scheme to examinet he problem posing of middle school students.I n particular, the
scheme developed and used in this study employed semantic category analysis and other
analytic tools borrowed and adapted from research on mathematical problem solving. This
analytic scheme provided the basis for an examinationo f the nature and complexity of the
arithmetic story problems posed by middle school stu- dents.A nother goal of this study was
to examinet he relationship between students' problem posing and their problem solving. In
this study, this goal was accomplished by probing the differences between the problem
posing of studentsw ho were suc- cessful problem solvers and that of studentsw ho were less
successful. Silver (1994) has noted that the term "problem posing" is generally applied to
three quite distinct forms of mathematical cognitive activity: (a) presolution pos- ing, in
which one generates original problems from a presented stimulus situation; (b) within-
solution posing, in whicho ne reformulateas problem as it is being solved; and (c)
postsolution posing, in which one modifiest he goals or conditionso f an already solved
problem to generate new problems. It is a form of presolution posing that is examined in this
investigation. The decision to focus on arithmetic story prob- lems was based on the
availability of an extensive research base on which to build, on the appropriateness of this
type of activity for middle school students, and on the fact that prior research has shown the
efficacy for elementary and commu- nity college students of problem-posing experiences
related to the writing or rewriting of arithmetic story problems. A greater understanding of
this particular type of mathematical problemp osing can have botha practical anda
theoretical pay- off. In particular, a scheme to analyze the complexity of arithmetic story
problems generated by studentsc ould be useful both to teachers, who might wish to use such
a schemet o evaluatet he effectivenesos f their instructioonr to measures tudent progress, and
to researchers, who might use it and/ort he results obtainedf rom its use to help them
understanda t least one form of a cognitive activity called problem posing.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were 509 sixth-a nd seventh-grade middles chool students attending schools in four
differentl ow-income communities in urbanl ocations in the United States. The students
attendedf our middle schools thatw ere part of the QUASAR project during the 1990-91
school year. QUASAR was intended to foster innovative mathematics instruction in middles
chools serving economicallyd isadvantaged com- munities (Silver & Stein, 1996). Except fort
heir interest in participating in the QUASAR project, the schools were typical of urbanm
iddle schools in the U.S. The students in the schools were also typical: An ethnically and
linguistically diverse popula- tion (about 50% of the students were African American, about
20% were White, about2 0% Latino, anda bout 10% Asian American) who performed
generally below average on standardized achievement tests. The sample was divided approxi-
mately equally between boys and girls.

Tasks and Administration

Each subject completed a problem-posing task and eight problem-solving tasks in a single
class period of approximately 45 minutes. The tasks were administered by the students'
teachers during mathematics class, as part of the biannual (fall and spring) project testing at
QUASAR schools. The eight open-ended problems, together with the posing task, comprised
one of four forms in the QUASAR Cognitive Assessment Instrument (QCAI) for grades 6
and 7 (Lane, 1993). The QCAI is an assessment instrument developed by the project to
measures tudents' math- ematical thinking, reasoning, and understanding (Silver & Lane,
1993). QCAI tasks have undergone extensive scrutiny to ensure their quality andf airness
(Lane & Silver, 1995). The problem-posing task and the problem-solving tasks in this form
of the QCAI had been pilot tested several times to ensure thatt he tasks assessed the cog-
nitive processes andc ontent areas they were designed to assess (Magone, Cai, Silver, &
Wang, 1994). The eight problem-solving tasks were constructed-response tasks, involving
var- ious mathematics content areas: fractions, geometry/measurement, number theory,
patterns and relationshipsr, atio/proportion, ands tatistics. Fort hese problem-solving tasks,
students were required not only to produce answers but also to justify their solutions or to
explain theirs olution processes. The problem-posing task, which is shown in Figure 1, asked
studentst o pose three questions that could be answered on the basis of some given
information. To minimizet he effect of task order, QCAI tasksw ere systematically varieda
cross problem booklets. In particular, therew ere threed istinct arrangements of the nine tasks
within the test booklet, so that about one thirdo f the sample completed the problem-posing
taska s the secondt ask in the booklet, one third completed the prob- lem-posing task as the
fifth task in the booklet; and the othero ne third completed the problem-posing task as the
eighth task in the booklet. About half of the responses consideredi n this study were obtained
in fall 1990 and the otherh alf in spring 1991.

Writet hree different questions that can be answeredf rom the information below.

Jerome, Elliot, and Arturoto ok turns driving home froma trip. Arturod rove 80 miles more
than ElliotE. lliot drovet wice as many milesa s Jerome.J erome drove5 0 miles.

Question #1

Question #2

Question #3

Note: In the task booklet, students were given more space in whicht o writet heir responses.

Figure 1. Problem-posing task.

Data Coding A summary of the coding scheme developed and usedi n this investigation is
provided in Figure 2. Each step in the coding process is explained more fully in this section.
Students' problem-posing responses were first categorized as mathematical questions,
nonmathematical questions, or statements. Those responses given in the form of
mathematical questions, when taken together with the information given in the task core, can
be consideredt o constitutea mathematical problem. Thus, it was possible to considert he
student-generateqdu estions to be problems andt o ana- lyze them as such. The next step
involved categorizing the mathematical problems as solvableo r not solvable.P roblems were
considered to be not solvablei f they lacked sufficienti nformation or if they posed a goal
thatw as incompatible with the given informationF. or example, the response, "DidA rturo
drive faster than Jerome?"w as considered to represent a problem that was not solvable
because information regarding relative drivings peeds or times was neither given in the taskn
or supplied by the student. An example of an "impossible"p roblem-one in which the goal is
incompatible witht he conditions-is the response, "How many milesm ore did Jerome drive
thanE lliot?"
The last step in the codingp rocess involved examining the complexity of the posed problems.
One type of complexity was related to the linguistic or syntactic struc- tures embedded in the
posed problems. In some prior research (e.g., Mayer, Lewis, & Hegarty, 1992) the linguistic
structure of mathematics storyp roblems has been examined by focusing on the presence of
assignment, relational, and conditional propositions in problem statements. An assignment
proposition is a question such as "How many miles did they drive in all?"A relational
proposition is a statement such as "How many morem iles did Arturod rive thanJ erome?" A
conditional propo- sition is a question such as "If Arturod rove 80 miles more than Elliot,
how many miles did Arturo drive?" Mayer et al. (1992) found that problem-solving difficulty
appeared to be relatedt o linguistic complexity, in that problems with conditional and
relational propositions tendedt o be mored ifficult for students to solve than those containingo
nly assignmentp ropositions. Thus, the presence of conditional or rela- tional propositions can
be taken as an indication of problem complexity. It is important to note thatt he task core (i.e.,
the information presented to the students from which they were to generatep roblems)
contained two assignmentp ropositions ("Jerome, Elliot, and Arturot ook turns driving home
froma trip" and "Jerome drove 50 miles") and two relational propositions ("Arturo drove 80
miles moret han Elliot" and "Elliotd rove twice as many miles as Jerome"). The taskc ore
thereforew as itself quite complex from a linguistic perspective. Our analysis focused on the
additional complexity contributed by the questions posed by the students.B ecause this type
of complexity analysis was feasible for nonsolvable mathematics problems as well as for
those that were solvable, both types of responses were considered in the analysis reported
here. Another type of complexity relatedt o the mathematicals tructures found in the posed
problems. Because the posed problems could be solved using some combi- nation of
arithmetic operations, one plausible measureo f mathematical complex- ity would be the
numbero f operations, or the number of computational steps, required for solution. Leung
(1993) successfullya nalyzed the complexity of arithmetic prob- lems posed by preservicee
lementary school teachers by using GPS graphs to deter- mine the number of operators usedi
n solving the posedp roblems. Although this approach was shown by Leung to be very useful
and powerful, it is not the only reasonable way to measure mathematical complexity.
Counting the number of steps in a hypothesized solutionh as the advantage of assessing
complexity in a straightforward and reasonable manner, but it also has the disadvantage of
making some relatively simple arithmetic storyp roblems appear to be fairly complex. For
example, if a prob- lem' s solution involved the additiono f five numbers, then it would be
counted as requiring four operation steps for its solution. If one determines problem complex-
ity by counting operators, then this problem would be seen as more complex than another
problem that required a multiplication followed by a subtraction, because this latter problem
required only two operation steps for solution.O n the other hand, if one determines problem
complexity by enumerating distinct semantic relations, then thel atter problem wouldb e seent
o be more complex thant he first problem, because the latter problem embodies two distinct
semantic relations and the first embodies only one. It is this second approach that was takeni
n the study reported here; that is, the numbero f semanticr elations rathert han the numbero f
operators was used to determinet he mathematical complexity of the posed problems. All
mathematically solvable problems were subjected to semantic category analysis using a
classification scheme of arithmeticw ord problems developed by Marshall (1995). The posed
arithmetic word problems were classified on the basis of their underlying semantics tructural
relations using Marshall'sf ive categories: Change, Group,C ompare, Restate, Vary. A
mathematical problem that was clas- sified as involving N semantics tructural relations in the
classification scheme was designated an N-relation problem. If a mathematical problem could
be answered directly from the given information, it was designated a zero-relation problem,
and in this analysis it would be said to involve zero semantic relations. Problems involving a
greater numbero f semanticr elations are consideredt o be semantically more complex thant
hose involving fewer relations. To examine interrater reliability, one person classified all
students' problem- posing responses, afterw hich a second person randomly selected5 0
students' responses and independently classified them. Interrater agreement for the basic
classifica- tion (mathematical question, nonmathematical question, or statement) was 93%.
Rates of agreement on the classifications of linguistic andm athematical complexity of
students' posed mathematical problems were also highly acceptable, 93% for linguistic
complexity and 89% for mathematical complexity. Because there was substantial agreement
between raters, the first person's classifications of all students' problem-posing responses
were used in the subsequenta nalyses. The problem-solvingr esponses were evaluated using a
focused, holistic scoring method (Silver & Lane, 1993). A generalized scoring rubric with
threei nterrelated components (mathematical, conceptual, and procedural knowledge;
strategic knowledge; and communication) specified criteriaf or each of five score levels (0-4)
and guided the development of a specific rubricf or each task (Lane, 1993). Each of the
students' responses was scored independently by two middle school teach- ers, who were
trained to use the scoring rubric. Interrater agreements for each of the eight tasks ranged from
75% to 89%, which was judged to be acceptable.

RESULTS

The results are presented in two sections. The first section provides a summary of students'
problem-posing responses, including the analyses of complexity and relatedness; and the
second presents an analysis of the relationship betweens tudents' problemp osing and their
problem solving. In the analyses reported here, the sam- ple is treated as a whole rathert han
examined by grade level (6 or 7) or by testing occasion (fall or spring). Data for this study
were collected during the first year of QUASAR projecta ctivity at each of the sample
schools. During that year, substantial attention was devoted to the design of innovative
instructional programs andt o enhanc- ing teachers' knowledge of contenta nd pedagogy; less
change was actually imple- mented in classroomi nstruction on a day-to-day basis. Thus, for
the data from this year, there appeared to be no compelling reason to separate the sampleb y
response occasion or by grade.

Problem-Posing Responses

Subjects provided a total of 1465 responses. More than7 0% of the responses were classified
as mathematical questions, about 20% were statements, and 10% were nonmathematical
questions. Approximately the same distribution of response types was evident for each of the
three responses called for in the task. Although many combinationso f response types were
theoreticallyp ossible, the data indicate that students tended to be consistent with respect to
response types, because approximately 75% of the students generated three mathematical
questions, three nonmathematical questions, or three statements. Nearly 80% of the students
generated at least one mathematical question. More thanh alf (about5 7%) of the students
generated three mathematical questions. In fact, the studentsw ho generated three
mathematical questions accountedf or over 80% of the mathematical questions generated by
all students.I n other words, the remain- ing 40% of the students generated less than 20% of
the mathematical questions. The mathematical questions posed by the students were of
particular interest, and they were subjected to further analyses of mathematical solvability
and linguistic and mathematical complexity. The results of these analyses are discussed next.
nonmathematical questions. Approximately the same distribution of response types was
evident for each of the three responses called for in the task. Although many combinationso f
response types were theoreticallyp ossible, the data indicate that students tended to be
consistent with respect to response types, because approximately 75% of the students
generated three mathematical questions, three nonmathematical questions, or three
statements. Nearly 80% of the students generated at least one mathematical question. More
thanh alf (about5 7%) of the students generated three mathematical questions. In fact, the
studentsw ho generated three mathematical questions accountedf or over 80% of the
mathematical questions generated by all students.I n other words, the remain- ing 40% of the
students generated less than 20% of the mathematical questions. The mathematical questions
posed by the students were of particular interest, and they were subjected to further analyses
of mathematical solvability and linguistic and mathematical complexity. The results of these
analyses are discussed next.

Mathematical Solvability

More than 90% of the mathematical problems generated (i.e., the questions posed by students
andt he given informatioinn the task core) were judged to be mathematically solvable.
Although the solution of some solvable problems might have required infor- mation beyond
that given in the task core and the posed question, the majority of the solvable problems
could be answeredo n the basis of information given in the task core. Twelve studentse ach
generated one mathematically solvable problem that could be answeredo n the basis of the
given information and new information supplied by the studenti n the posed question. An
example of this kind of hypoth- esis-based mathematical question is the following: "How
many times would they have to get gas if they got 160 miles each fill-up?"

Linguistic Complexity The linguistic or syntactic complexity of the posed problems was
determined by examining all posed mathematical questions for the presence of assignment,
rela- tional, and conditional propositions. As mentioned earlier, the presence of condi- tional
or relational propositions in the posed question is taken to be an indication of problem
complexity. In the responses obtainedi n this study, nearly 60% of the mathematical questions
involved only assignment propositions, about 35% involved relational propositions, and only
5% involved conditional propositions. Almost all students (80%) generated at least one
mathematical question involving an assign- ment proposition. Although relational
propositions were found in only about one thirdo f the responses, about one half of the
students generated at least one math- ematical question involving a relational proposition.
About 10% of students posed at least one mathematical question with a conditional
proposition.

Mathematical Complexity

All mathematically solvable problems were examined for the presence of the five
fundamental semantic structural relations--Change, GroupC, ompare, Restate, Vary--or
combinationso f these relations. Using this approach, over 90% of the solvable mathematical
problems could be classifiedw ith respect to semantic complexity, or the number of relations
required for solution.T he number of relations in the posed problems ranged from 0 to 5.
Examples are provided in Table 1.

Most of the problems posed were semantically complex. In fact, about 60% of the solvable
mathematical problems involved two or more relations, and these are hereafterr eferred to as
multirelation mathematical problems. Slightly moret han 20% of the problems involved one
relation, and about 16%i nvolved zero relations. The generation of semantically complex
problems was fairly well distributed across the sample. In fact, nearly 70% of the students
generated at least one multirelation math- ematical problem, and a little less than half of the
students generated at least two multirelation problems. There was a tendency for
multirelation problems to appear later rathert han earlier in the response sequence. Only 34%
of the first responses were multirelation problems, whereas 41% of the second responses and
49% of the third responses were multirelation problems. The later responses of students
tended to be somewhat more complex semanti- cally thanw ere the earlier responses. Table 2
shows the percentages of students who shifted or did not shift the complexity levels of their
posed mathematically solv- able problems from the first to the second responses and the firstt
o the third responses. In particular, about half of those students gave a more complex problem
as their sec- ond response than their first; whereas, the responses of about one third of the stu-
dents moved in the opposite direction. A matched-pair Wilcoxon test indicated that students
had significantly more complex mathematically solvable problems in the second responses
than in their first responses (z = 2.71, p < .01). Similarr esults were obtained for shifts from
the first to the third responses (z = 5.77, p < .001).
RelationshipsA mong Posed Responses This analysis focused on examiningp ossible
relationships among the responses that might illuminate strategica spects of the thinking
students may have done while posing their problems. In particular, students might pose theirs
econd or third prob- lems in close association with their first or second posed problems.A
dapting the analysisa pproach developedb y Silver et al. (1996), we examined two different
types of relationshipsa mong responses: symmetricr esponses andc hained responses. Sets of
symmetric responses were those that reflected relationships between or among given or
imputedo bjects in the problems pace. Anotherk ind of relatednessi s evi- dent if the second
or third posed responser equires use of informationd erived from the solutiono f an earlier
posed problem. Sets of questions having this characterw ere considered to be chained
responses. Figure 3 contains examples of symmetric and chained responses. Twenty-sevenp
ercent of the students generated symmetricr esponses. Thesew ere usually in sets of three
responses, but sometimest here were only two responses in a symmetric set. For the
studentsw ho gave symmetric responses, their second or third responses appeared to be
generated by changing some objects or conditions froma prior posedr esponse. For example,
in thef irst example of the symmetrirce sponses in Figure 3, the seconda nd the third
questions were posed just by changing the name "Jerome"i n the first question to "Elliot"a nd
"Arturo," respectively. Similarly, in the second example of the symmetricr esponses in Figure
3, the second and third questions were posed simplyb y changing the relationatl erm "most"
in the first ques- tion to the relational terms "least" and "middle," respectively. Thirty-sixp
ercent of the students generated chained responses. Almost half of the chained responses
were found in sets of three; that is, all the responses given by some students were related in
this way. About 45% of the students provided responses that were either symmetric
responses, chained responses, or both. Of those who provided such responses, some students
gave responses thatw ere both symmetric and chained, ands ome other students gave only one
type. Examining the first responses of those who had sym- metric and/or chained responses
revealedt hat about 40% of the students provided first responses involving Elliot, as in, "How
many miles did Elliot drive?" or "Elliotd rove 100 miles." The mileage thatE lliot drove
appeared to act as a primi- tive, or "first unknown," for many students in the hypothesized
driving situationd escribed in the given situation.

Responses Other ThanM athematical Questions

About 10% of the students' responses were classified as nonmathematical ques- tions, of
which abouto ne of every five was the sort that might be asked in a read- ing comprehension
exercise based on the passage (e.g., "Whata re the nameso f the three boys on the trip?"
"What trip did they go for?" "Are they tiredo f the driving?"). Abouto ne third of the
nonmathematical questions involved questioning the under- lying rationale for the given
informationo r for the mathematical relationships (e.g., "Why [did] Arturod rive 80 miles
more thanE lliot?" "Why did Arturo drive more miles than Jerome?"). Other nonmathematcal
questions involved other issues, such as students' complaints about being asked to pose
problems (e.g., "Why are you asking me to do this?" "My teacher did not teach us how to do
this."). Nearly 20% of the students' responses were classified as statements. The major- ity of
thesei nvolved restatements of the given information, such as "Arturod rove 80 miles more
thanE lliot" or interpretations or inferencesb ased on the given informa- tion, such as "Elliot
drove 100 miles." In some cases the interpretive statements were incorrect and appeared to
involve mistaking a relational proposition for an assign proposition, which has been
documenteda s a common difficulty in the solving of complex storyp roblems (Cocking &
Mestre, 1988). The two most frequent incor- rect interpretations were "Arturod rove 80
miles" and "Elliotd rove 70 miles." Some others tatements appeared to involve interpretations
of the given information on the basis of the priore xperience of the studentsr ather thano n the
information explic- itly provided to them (e.g., "Jeromem ust be the youngest one since he
only drove 50 miles.")

Relating Problem Posing and Problem Solving

In order to examine the relationship between students' problem posing and their problem
solving, two extreme groups (Hi and Lo) were formedo n the basis of problem-solvingp
erformance. Thent he similaritiesa nd differencesb etween the problem posing of the groups
were examined. The Hi problem-solving group was comprised of the 50 students with the
high- est mean score on the eight problem-solving tasks; the Lo group consisted of the 50
studentsw ith the lowest mean scores. The two groups had substantially differ- ent levels of
problem-solving success-the Hi group had a significantly higher mean problem-solving
scoret han the Lo group (MeanHi = 3.14, MeanLo = 0.26; t = 50.20, p < .001)-although the
Hi group itself had only a moderate degree of success in solving the problems. The average
numbero f responsesg enerated by the two groups was identical, but therew ere intergroup
differences in the quality of the responses. The Hi groupg en- erateda significantlyg reater
proportion of mathematical questions thant he Lo group (Hi = .92, Lo = .47; Wilcoxon-
Mann-Whitney test, z = 5.67, p < .001). In contrast, Lo group students generated a
significantlyg reater proportion of statementst han Hi group students (Hi = .06; Lo = .43;
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, z = 4.58, p < .001). But a closer examination of the statements
generated by each group revealed qualitative differences. In particular, 78% (7 out of 9) of
the statements generated by the Hi group students were correct interpretations of the given
infor- mation (e.g., "Elliot drove 100 miles"), whereas only 26% (16 out of 62) of the state-
ments generated by the Lo group students were correcta nd almost half the state- ments
generated by the Lo group students involved an incorrect interpretation of the given
information (e.g., Arturo drove 80 miles). The Lo group also generated a higher percentage
of nonmathematical questions (10%) than did the Hi group (1%), but the differencew as not
statisticallys ignificant. When responses were examineda t the level of individuals tudents
rather than col- lectively within groupsp, atterns of differencew ere noteds imilar to those
foundb etween the groups as a whole. In particular, a significantlyg reater proportion of Hi
group students wrote at least one mathematical question than did Lo group students (Hi = .96,
Lo = .56; z = 4.68, p <.001). Moreover, a significantlyg reater proportion of Hi group
students generated three mathematical questions than did Lo group stu- dents (Hi = .82, Lo =
.36; z = 4.68, p < .001). Differences were also detected in the complexity of the problems
posed. On average, Hi group students posed significantly more multirelation mathematical
problems thanL o group students (MeanHi = 1.58, MeanLo = .68; t= 5.14, p < .001), and a
significantlyg reater proportion of the problems generated by Hi group stu- dents were
multirelation problems (Hi = .61, Lo = .46; Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, z = 4.68, p <
.001). Also, a significantly greater proportion of Hi group students generated at least one
multirelationm athematical problem than did Lo group stu- dents (Hi = .88, Lo = .42; z =
9.64, p < .001). Thus, students in the Hi group gen- erated not only more mathematical
problems but also more complex mathemati- cal problems than did the students in the Lo
group.

DISCUSSION

The middle school studentsi n this study were able to generate a large numbero f appropriate
mathematical questions when presented with a textbook-like story sit- uationa s a stimulus for
question generation. However, the finding thata bout 25% of the responses were eithers
tatements or nonmathematical questions suggests that the task was a novel one for many
students. Nevertheless, even though the task was novel, about 80% of the students were able
to generate at least one appropriate math- ematical question and nearly 60% of the students
generated three appropriate mathematical questions. Moreover, a considerable numbero f
students were able to generate syntactically and semantically complex mathematical
problems. The findings of this study provide some insights into the natureo f mathemati- cal
problem-posing processes and also into some aspects of the relationship between problemp
osing and problem solving. Moreover, the study also offers an approach to problem posing
and an analytic scheme that may be of use to practi- tioners as well as to researcherisn
terested in examining the posing of arithmetic story problems. Each of these contributions is
discussed next.

Problem-Posing Processes

The analyses conducted in this study provide some hints about the natureo f the processes
students may use when generating a series of arithmetic storyp roblems. Kilpatrick (1987)
argued that one of the basic cognitive processes involved in problemp osing is association:
"[Because] knowledge is represented as a network of associated ideas, thatn etwork can be
used to generate problems by taking a con- cept node in the networka nd raisingq uestions
about its associates" (p. 136). The find- ings of this study suggest another way in which
association appears to play a role in problem posing. In the task studied here, students were
asked to generate three questions from the given information, and a substantial portion of the
responses gave evidence of relationships or associations between and among responses. In
partic- ular, more thanh alf of the students generated threem athematical questions, and gen-
erally these werea ll solvablem athematical problems. Thus, once students begang en- erating
problems that were mathematical in nature, they tended to continue to generate such
problems. Moreover, the finding that nearly half the students gave sym- metric responses or
chained responses is directlys upportive of a view that the sub- jects in this study generatedp
roblems using a process of association. Many students appeared to generate their second and
third responses by using theirf irst response as a cue. As noted, the complexity of posed
problems tendedt o increase across response occasions. Much of this increased complexity is
due both to the tendency of stu- dents to pose a first problem related to Elliot-a problem that
tended to be fairly simple-and to the tendency of many students to generates equences of
chained prob- lems that moved from simpler to more complicated related problems, with the
lat- ter problems basedo n the resultso f the simplerp roblems posed earlier in the sequence.
Although a complex-to-simples equence of chained problems was also theoretically possible,
it was rarely observed in the responses obtained in this study. Thus, the findings of this study
suggest likely problem-posingp rocesses, but the datad o not allow for definitive analyses of
the thinking of subjects as they generated their prob- lem sequences. It would be interesting
to know, for example, if the studentsh ad the final problem in mind as the targetp roblem and
simply wrotet he simplerp roblems first, perhaps as a result of instructional experience, or if
the more complex prob- lems emerged from theiri nitial generation of a simpler problem.
Mored etailed inves- tigation of the processb y which a student generates her or his first
posing response (and then subsequent responses), in settings like andu nlike the one used in
this study, is warranted. The finding that so many students generated related problems is
quitei nteresting because prior research by Ellerton (1986) suggested that well-plannedp
roblem gen- erationw as a characteristic of high-performing mathematics studentsb ut was
largely absent in low-performing students.T he subjects of this study were studentsa ttend-
ing schools in economically disadvantaged communities, settings in which mathematical
performance tends to lag behind that found in more affluent communities (Secada, 1992).
Furthermore, these studentsw ere not chosen for this study because they had some special
mathematical ability. Consequently, the findings suggest thata capac- ity for thoughtfulp
roblem posing may be more generally availablet o studentst han might have been inferred
from otherr esearch reports( e.g., Ellerton,1 986; Krutetskii, 1976). Becauset hese dataw ere
collected during the first year of a mathematics instruc- tional reform project in the schools
attended by these students, it is possible that the findings aret he result, in some part, of the
influenceo f that project. Yet, even if the findings are because of the early influence of a
mathematics instructionarle form ini- tiative in the schools, the resultsa re encouraging, in
that they suggest the likely acces- sibility of problemp osing for all middle school students
Problem Posing and Problem Solving The findings of this study also contributeto an
emergingu nderstanding of the rela- tionship between problem posing and problem solving.
Students' problem-solving performance was highly correlated witht heir problem-posinpge
rformance. Compared to less successful problem solvers, good problem solvers generated
more mathematical problems, and their problems were more mathematically complex.
Moreover, the misrepresentations of problem information (e.g., converting relational
propositions to assignmentp ropositions, as in rendering "Arturod rove 80 miles moret han
Elliot" as "Arturod rove 80 miles") evident in the statements and nonmathematical questions
generatedb y the poorerp roblem solvers suggest at least one information-processing
deficiency that may contributteo their generallyp oorer problem-solvinpg erformance.
Although these results are not surprising, they lend empiricals upport to the theoret- ical
argument offered by Kilpatrick (1987) that the quality of the questions students pose might
servea s an index of how well they can solve problemsA. lthough this study has provided
crediblee vidence of a direct link between problem posing and prob- lem solving,
understanding the depth and nuanceso f the relationship between pos- ing and solving
certainly deserves more research attention. Do students pose only problems that they can
solve, or that they think they can solve? If so, then one would expect a strong link between
posing and solving, and there would be further support for the argument that posing could be
taken as an index of solving. Because subjects in this study were not asked to solve the prob-
lems they posed, therei s no directe vidence to answert his question. Indirect sup- port for an
affirmativea nswer is provided, however, by the finding that the major- ity of the questions
students posed could be solved using the information given in the situation. Nevertheless,
mathematicians certainly pose mathematical prob- lems or conjectures that they are not
certain they can solve (e.g., Goldbach's Conjecture), and researchw ith adult subjects has
found that they often pose math- ematical problems that they could not solve on theiro wn
(Silver et al., 1996). Thus, further investigation of this relationship is warranted, with special
attention being paid to the circumstances under which the problem posing occurs.

Potential Contributions of the Task and the Analysis Scheme The simple task used in this
study was successful in evoking considerable arith- metic problem-posing activity on the part
of middle school students. Furthermore, the application of the semantic category and
linguisticc omplexity analyses conducted in this study, and the examinationo f problem
relatedness, proved useful in illuminating many aspects of the students' mathematical
problemp osing. Nevertheless, it is cer- tainly true that there are limitations to the scheme
used in this study. Other mea- sures could have been used to assess the linguistic and
mathematical complexity of the posed problems. For example, linguistic complexity could
have been deter- mined by measuring text coherence rather than by examining linguisticp
ropositional structures. Similarly, it can be argued that semantic category analysis is only one
way to examine the mathematical complexity of the posed problems; the method developedb
y Leung (1993) used GPS graphs involving associated counts of prob- lem objects and
operators, is a valid alternative and may have yielded somewhat different results. Moreover,
the scheme is certainly limited to arithmetic story prob- lems, and this is only one type of
problem that may be of interest to researchers and teachers. Despite these limitations,
however, the scheme developed andu sed in this study clearly demonstrates thata rithmetic
story problems generatedb y middle school students can be analyzed and not merely
described. The analytic scheme used in this study offers teachers andr esearchers a credible
means by whicht o examinet he complexity and sophistication of the arithmetic story
problems that students pose. Fromt he perspective of educational practice, the scheme might
be used or adapted for use by teachers in order to evaluate the effective- ness of their posing-
oriented instructiono r to measure the progress of their stu- dents in problem posing over
time. From the perspective of research, it is likely thatt his scheme could be useful not only in
subsequent studieso f arithmetic prob- lem posing but also as a prototype for analyses of
problemp osing in domains other than that of arithmetic story problems. In general, the
demonstrated feasibility of adapting some of the techniques proven useful in the study of
problem solving to the analysis of problemp osing should encourage further adaptation and
analy- sis in the study of problemp osing in a broad range of mathematicadl omains. This
would, in turn, result in a better understanding of the cognitive processes involved in
mathematical problem posing. Anotherc ontribution of this studym ay also be found in the
margins of the analy- ses reported here.A bout 25%o f the responses were given in a formo
ther than math- ematical questions. The data analysis schemes used in this study treated the
state- ments and nonmathematical questions as being of marginal interest, yet these responses
actually constitute a potentially interesting datas ource for some general issues relatedt o
mathematical problem posing. Some students may have posed non- mathematical questions
or statementsb ecause of the novelty of the task and their lack of experience with problem-
posing activities or because of ambiguity in the directions, which simply asked them to pose
"questions," but some may have done so as a legitimate response to what they perceived to be
the task demandso r as a way of querying importanta spects of the quantitative relationships
in the given sit- uation.F or example, some students appear to have treatedt he task as a
reading com- prehension exercise and generated statements containing interpretations of, or
inferences from, the given informationi n the situation (e.g., Elliot drove 100 miles). Yet
other students posed nonmathematical questionsi nquiring aboutt he under- lying rationalef or
the given informationo r asking for supplemental information (e.g., Where were these people
going?). The responses of some others tudents suggest that issuesr elated to their personal
commitments andv alues (e.g., moralityj,u stice, human relationships) may have beena s
important to thema s issueso f formalm athematics. For example, some students revealeda n
apparent concern aboutt he equitable distribution of drivingr esponsibilities when they posed
the following kinds of questions: "If they each drivea n equal amount, how many miles
woulde ach person drive?" "Why does Arturo drive so long?" "Why did Elliot drive twice as
far as Jerome?" Although it is not possible to know precisely the underlying reasons for these
unexpected responses, their appearancesu ggests thata n open-ended problem-posing task,
which invites studentst o express theiro wn questions, may lead to outcomes (i.e., posed
problems or questions) differenftr om theo nes a teachero r researcher might have in mind.
These responses suggest the power of problem posing, even a simple taskl ike the one used in
this study, as an experience in which people express themselves with respect to mathematical
situationos r ideas (Silver, 1994). And these responses also sug- gest the complex educational
and research challenges connectedw ith understanding whatt he posed problems themselves
represent as products of human activity