Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Silver - Cai - Jrme1996 - An Analysis of Arithmetic Problem
Silver - Cai - Jrme1996 - An Analysis of Arithmetic Problem
Silver - Cai - Jrme1996 - An Analysis of Arithmetic Problem
net/publication/245280700
CITATIONS READS
373 3,866
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Edward A. Silver on 18 November 2015.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
http://www.jstor.org
AN ANALYSISOF ARITHMETICPROBLEM
POSINGBY MIDDLE SCHOOLSTUDENTS
METHOD
Subjects
Question#1
Question#2
Question#3
Data Coding
Responses
Solvable Nonsolvable
Semantic Linguistic
analysis syntactic
analysis
RESULTS
The resultsare presentedin two sections. The first section providesa summary
of students'problem-posingresponses,includingthe analyses of complexity and
relatedness;andthe secondpresentsan analysisof therelationshipbetweenstudents'
problemposing andtheirproblemsolving. In the analysesreportedhere, the sam-
ple is treatedas a whole ratherthanexaminedby gradelevel (6 or 7) or by testing
occasion (fall or spring).Data for this studywere collected duringthe first year of
QUASARprojectactivityat eachof the sampleschools.Duringthatyear,substantial
attentionwas devotedto thedesignof innovativeinstructional programsandto enhanc-
ing teachers'knowledgeof contentandpedagogy;less changewas actuallyimple-
mentedin classroominstructionon a day-to-daybasis. Thus,for the datafrom this
year,thereappearedto be no compellingreasonto separatethe sampleby response
occasion or by grade.
Problem-PosingResponses
Subjectsprovideda totalof 1465responses.Morethan70%of theresponseswere
classified as mathematicalquestions,about20% were statements,and 10%were
MathematicalSolvability
Morethan90%of the mathematicalproblemsgenerated(i.e., the questionsposed
by studentsandthegiveninformation in thetaskcore)werejudgedto be mathematically
solvable.Althoughthe solutionof some solvableproblemsmighthaverequiredinfor-
mationbeyond thatgiven in the task core and the posed question,the majorityof
the solvable problemscould be answeredon the basis of informationgiven in the
task core. Twelve studentseach generatedone mathematicallysolvable problem
thatcould be answeredon the basis of the given informationandnew information
suppliedby the studentin the posed question.An example of this kind of hypoth-
esis-based mathematicalquestionis the following: "Howmany times would they
have to get gas if they got 160 miles each fill-up?"
LinguisticComplexity
The linguisticor syntacticcomplexityof the posed problemswas determinedby
examiningall posed mathematicalquestionsfor the presenceof assignment,rela-
tional, and conditionalpropositions.As mentionedearlier,the presenceof condi-
tional or relationalpropositionsin the posed questionis takento be an indication
of problemcomplexity. In the responsesobtainedin this study,nearly60% of the
mathematicalquestionsinvolvedonly assignmentpropositions,about35%involved
relationalpropositions,andonly 5%involved conditionalpropositions.Almost all
students(80%)generatedat least one mathematicalquestioninvolving an assign-
ment proposition.Althoughrelationalpropositionswere found in only aboutone
thirdof the responses, aboutone half of the studentsgeneratedat least one math-
ematicalquestioninvolving a relationalproposition.About 10%of studentsposed
at least one mathematicalquestionwith a conditionalproposition.
MathematicalComplexity
All mathematicallysolvableproblemswere examinedfor the presenceof the five
fundamentalsemanticstructural
relations--Change,
Group,Compare,Restate,Vary--
Table 1
Examplesof MathematicalProblemsand the CorrespondingNumberof SemanticRelations
Numberof relations Examples
Zero Did Arturodrive 80 miles more thanElliot?
[None]
One How many miles did Elliot drive?
[Restate]
Two How many more miles did Elliot drive thanJerome?
[Compare/restate]
Three How many miles did the threeboys drive altogether?
[Group/restate/restate]
Four How many times would they have to get gas if they got 60
miles each fill up?
[Vary/group/restate/restate]
Five Did Arturodrive a longer time thanJeromeand Elliot drove
altogetherin the regularway?
[Compare/restate/group/restate/vary]
Table 2
Percent and Direction of Changes in Complexityof MathematicalProblemsAcross Responses
Directionof change in complexity Responses
1st to 2nd 1st to 3rd
Less to more complex 48% 55%
Same 20% 20%
More to less complex 32% 25%
RelationshipsAmongPosed Responses
This analysisfocused on examiningpossible relationshipsamongthe responses
thatmightilluminatestrategicaspectsof the thinkingstudentsmay have done while
posing theirproblems.In particular,studentsmightpose theirsecondor thirdprob-
lems in close associationwith theirfirst or second posed problems.Adaptingthe
analysisapproachdevelopedby Silveret al. (1996), we examinedtwo differenttypes
of relationshipsamongresponses:symmetricresponsesandchainedresponses.Sets
of symmetricresponseswere those thatreflectedrelationshipsbetween or among
given or imputedobjectsin the problemspace. Anotherkind of relatednessis evi-
dentif the second or thirdposed responserequiresuse of informationderivedfrom
the solutionof an earlierposedproblem.Sets of questionshavingthis characterwere
consideredto be chainedresponses.Figure3 containsexamplesof symmetricand
chainedresponses.
Twenty-sevenpercentof the studentsgeneratedsymmetricresponses.Thesewere
usually in sets of threeresponses,but sometimestherewere only two responsesin
a symmetricset. For the studentswho gave symmetricresponses,their second or
thirdresponses appearedto be generatedby changingsome objects or conditions
froma priorposedresponse.Forexample,in thefirstexampleof thesymmetric responses
in Figure3, the secondandthe thirdquestionswereposedjust by changingthename
"Jerome"in the first questionto "Elliot"and "Arturo,"respectively.Similarly,in
the second example of the symmetricresponsesin Figure3, the second and third
questionswereposed simplyby changingtherelationalterm"most"in the firstques-
tion to the relationalterms "least"and "middle,"respectively.Thirty-sixpercent
of the studentsgeneratedchainedresponses.Almost half of the chainedresponses
were found in sets of three;thatis, all the responsesgiven by some studentswere
relatedin 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 studentsgave responsesthatwerebothsymmetricandchained,andsomeother
studentsgave only one type. Examiningthe firstresponsesof those who had sym-
metricand/orchainedresponsesrevealedthatabout40% of the studentsprovided
first responses involving Elliot, as in, "How many miles did Elliot drive?" or
"Elliotdrove 100 miles." The mileage thatElliot drove appearedto act as a primi-
tive,or"firstunknown," formanystudentsin thehypothesizeddrivingsituationdescribed
in the given situation.
Symmetric Responses
HowmanymilesdidJeromedrive?
How manymilesdid Elliotdrive?
How manymilesdidArturodrive?
OR
Whodrovethe most miles?
Whodrovethe least?
Whodrovein the middle?
Chained Responses
Howmanymilesdid Elliotdrive?
HowmanymilesdidArturodrive?
Howmanymilesdidthe threeboys drivealtogether?
OR
Howmanymilesdid Elliotdrive?
Howmanymilesdid Elliotand Jeromedrivealtogether?
HowmanymoremilesdidArturodrivethanElliotand
Jeromedrovealtogether?
Responses OtherThanMathematicalQuestions
About 10%of the students'responseswere classified as nonmathematicalques-
tions, of which aboutone of every five was the sortthatmight be asked in a read-
ing comprehensionexercisebasedon the passage(e.g., "Whatarethe namesof the
threeboys on thetrip?""Whattripdidtheygo for?""Aretheytiredof the driving?").
Aboutone thirdof the nonmathematicalquestionsinvolvedquestioningthe under-
lying rationalefor the given informationor for the mathematicalrelationships(e.g.,
"Why[did] Arturodrive 80 miles morethanElliot?""Whydid Arturodrivemore
miles than Jerome?").Other nonmathematcalquestions involved other issues,
such as students'complaintsaboutbeing asked to pose problems(e.g., "Whyare
you asking me to do this?""My teacherdid not teach us how to do this.").
Nearly20%of the students'responseswere classifiedas statements.The major-
ity of theseinvolvedrestatementsof the given information,suchas "Arturodrove80
miles morethanElliot"or interpretations or inferencesbasedon the given informa-
tion,suchas "Elliotdrove100 miles."In some cases the interpretivestatementswere
incorrectandappearedto involvemistakinga relationalpropositionfor anassignment
DISCUSSION
Problem-PosingProcesses
The analysesconductedin this studyprovidesome hints aboutthe natureof the
processesstudentsmay use when generatinga series of arithmeticstoryproblems.
Kilpatrick(1987) argued that one of the basic cognitive processes involved in
problemposing is association:"[Because]knowledgeis representedas a network
of associatedideas, thatnetworkcan be used to generateproblemsby takinga con-
ceptnodein thenetworkandraisingquestionsaboutits associates"(p. 136).Thefind-
ings of this study suggest anotherway in which associationappearsto play a role
in problemposing. In the task studiedhere, studentswere askedto generatethree
questionsfromthe given information,anda substantialportionof theresponsesgave
evidence of relationshipsor associationsbetween and amongresponses.In partic-
ular,morethanhalfof the studentsgeneratedthreemathematicalquestions,andgen-
erallythesewereall solvablemathematical problems.Thus,once studentsbegangen-
eratingproblems that were mathematicalin nature,they tended to continue to
generate such problems.Moreover, findingthatnearlyhalfthe studentsgave sym-
the
metricresponsesor chainedresponsesis directlysupportiveof a view thatthe sub-
jects in this studygeneratedproblemsusing a processof association.Manystudents
REFERENCES
Brown,S. I., & Walter,M. I. (1993).Problemposing:Reflectionsandapplications.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Charles,R. I., & Silver,E. A. (Eds.).(1988). Theteachingand assessing of mathematicalproblemsolv-
ing. Reston, VA: NationalCouncil of Teachersof Mathematics.
Cocking,R. R., & Mestre,J. P. (Eds.).(1988).Linguisticand culturalinfluenceson learningmathematics.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellerton,N. F. (1986). Children'smadeup mathematicsproblems:A new perspectiveon talentedmath-
ematicians.EducationalStudiesin Mathematics,17, 261-271.
Hashimoto,Y. (1987). Classroompracticeof problemsolving in Japaneseelementaryschools. In J. P.
Becker & T. Miwa (Eds.), Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Seminar on Mathematical Problem
Solving (pp. 94-119). Columbus,OH: ERIC/SMEACClearinghouse(ED 304-315).
Healy, C. C. (1993). Creating miracles: A story of student discovery. Berkeley, CA: Key
CurriculumPress.
Keil, G. E. (1965). Writingand solving originalproblemsas a means of improvingverbal arithmetic
IndianaUniversity,1964).Dissertation
problemsolvingability(Doctoraldissertation, Abstracts
International,
25(12), 7109.
Kilpatrick,J. (1987). Problemformulating:Wheredo good problemscome from?In A. H. Schoenfeld
(Ed.), Cognitivescience and mathematicseducation(p.123-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematicalabilities in school children. Chicago:
Universityof Chicago Press.
Lane, S. (1993). The conceptualframeworkfor the developmentof a mathematicspeformanceassess-
ment instrument.EducationalMeasurement:Issues and Practice, 12(2), 16-23.
Lane, S., & Silver, E. A. (1995). Equityand validity considerationsin the design and implementation
of a mathematicsperformanceassessment:The experienceof the QUASAR project.In M. Nettles,
& A. L. Nettles (Eds.), Equityand excellence in educationaltestingand assessment(pp. 185-219).
Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Leung, S. S. (1993). The relationof mathematicalknowledge and creativethinkingto the mathemati-
cal problemposing of prospectiveelementaryschool teacherson tasks differingin numericalinfor-
mation content (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts
International,54(06), 2082.
Maddon,P. J. (1994). Making storyproblemsrelevant.ArithmeticTeacher,41, 526-527.
Magone, M., Cai, J., Silver E. A., & Wang, N. (1994). Validatingthe cognitive complexity and con-
tent quality of a mathematics performance assessment. International Journal of Educational
Research,21(3), 317-340.
Marshall,S. P. (1995). Schemasin problem solving. New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Mayer,R. E., Lewis, A. B., & Hegarty,M. (1992). Mathematicalmisunderstandings:Qualitativerea-
soningaboutquantitativeproblems.In J. I. D. Campbell(Ed.),Thenatureand originsof mathematical
skills (pp. 137-154). Amsterdam:Elsevier.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculumand evaluation standardsfor
school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics.(1991). Professionalstandardsfor teachingmathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Humanproblemsolving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Perez,J. A. (1986). Effects of student-generatedproblemson problemsolving performance(Doctoral
dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity, 1985). DissertationAbstractsInternational,46(10), 2954.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematicalproblemsolving. Orlando,FL: Academic Press.
Scott, N. C. (1977). Inquiry strategy, cognitive style, and mathematicsachievement. Journalfor
Research in MathematicsEducation,8, 132-143.
Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity,social class, language,and achievementin mathematics.In D.
A. Grouws(Ed.),Handbookof researchon mathematicsteachingand learning(pp. 623-660). New
York:Macmillan.
Silver,E. A. (1985). Teachingand learningmathematical problemsolving:Multipleresearchperspectives.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
AUTHORS
EDWARD A. SILVER, Professor of Cognitive Studies and Mathematics Education, School of
Education; and Senior Scientist, Learning Research and Development Center; University of
Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh,PA 15260
JINFA CAI, Assistant Professor, Departmentof MathematicalSciences, University of Delaware,
Newark,DE 19716