See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258510520

Posing Mathematical Problems: An Exploratory Study

Article in Journal for Research in Mathematics Education · May 1996

DOI: 10.2307/749366

CITATIONS READS

182 1,550

4 authors, including:

Edward A. Silver Joanna Mamona

University of Michigan University of Patras
121 PUBLICATIONS 6,424 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 439 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Shukkwan Leung
National Sun Yat-sen University
5 PUBLICATIONS 369 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

UPDATE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edward A. Silver on 13 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Posing Mathematical Problems: An Exploratory Study
Author(s): Edward A. Silver, Joanna Mamona-Downs, Shukkwan S. Leung and Patricia Ann
Kenney
Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 27, No. 3 (May, 1996), pp. 293-
309
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749366 .
Accessed: 24/02/2014 16:09

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

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation
1996, Vol. 27, No. 3, 293-309

POSINGMATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS:
AN EXPLORATORYSTUDY

EDWARD A. SILVER, Universityof Pittsburgh

JOANNA MAMONA-DOWNS,Universityof Macedonia, Greece
SHUKKWANS. LEUNG, National Chiayi TeachersCollege, Taiwan
PATRICIAANN KENNEY, Universityof Pittsburgh

In this study, 53 middle school teachersand 28 prospectivesecondaryschool teachersworked

eitherindividuallyor in pairsto pose mathematicalproblemsassociatedwith a reasonablycom-
plex task setting,before and duringor afterattemptingto solve a problemwithinthat task set-
ting. Writtenresponseswere examinedto determinethe kindsof problemsposed in thistask set-
ting, to makeinferencesaboutcognitiveprocessesused to generatetheproblems,andto examine
differencesbetweenproblemsposedpriorto solving theproblemandthose posed duringor after
solving. Althoughsome responseswere ill-posed or poorly statedproblems,subjectsgenerated
a largenumberof reasonableproblemsduringboth problem-posingphases,therebysuggesting
thatthese teachersandprospectiveteachershad some personalcapacityfor mathematicalprob-
lem posing.Subjectsposedproblemsusingbothaffirmingandnegatingprocesses;thatis, notonly
by generatinggoal statementswhile keepingproblemconstraintsfixed but also by manipulating
the task'simplicitassumptionsandinitialconditions.A sizableportionof theposedproblemswere
producedin clustersof relatedproblems,therebysuggestingsystematicproblemgeneration.Subjects
posedmoreproblemsbeforeproblemsolvingthanduringor afterproblemsolving,andtheytended
to shift the focus of theirposing betweenposing phasesbased at least in parton the intervening
problem-solvingexperience.Moreover,the posed problemswere not always ones thatsubjects
could solve, norwere they always problemswith "nice"mathematicalsolutions.

Problemposingis of centralimportancein the disciplineof mathematicsandin the

natureof mathematicalthinking.Somedistinguished leadersin mathematicsandmath-
ematicseducation(e.g.,Freudenthal, 1973;Polydi,1954)haveidentifiedproblempos-
ing as an importantpartof a student'smathematicalexperience,anddocumentspro-
motingcurricularandpedagogical in mathematics
innovation education(NationalCouncil
of Teachers of Mathematics[NCTM], 1989, 1991) have recently called for an
increasedemphasison problem-posingactivitiesin the mathematicsclassroom.For
example,theNCTM Curriculumand EvaluationStandardsfor SchoolMathematics
(1989) advocatesthatstudentsbe given increasedopportunities for"investigating
and

The researchreportedhereinwas supportedby NationalScience FoundationgrantMDR-

8850580. The opinions and conclusionsexpressedare those of the authorsanddo not neces-
sarilyreflectthe view of the Foundation.The authorswish to acknowledgethe contributions
of severalpersonsto the workreportedhere:Diane BriarsandMartinCohen,who facilitated
accessto the middleschoolteachersandthe preservicesecondaryschoolteachers,respectively;
AnthonyGabrieleandSwapnaMukhopadyay,who assistedin the collection of datafromthe
middleschool teachersample;AdamDeutsch,CarolS. Parke,andLoraJ. Shapiro,who con-
tributedto earlydiscussionsof resultsobtainedfromthe preservicesecondaryteachersample;
and Denine C. Pruszynski,who assistedwith the reanalysisof datafromboth samplesin the
latterstages of the work.We also acknowledgethe helpful commentsof the editorand sev-
eralanonymousreviewerswho suggestedways to improvean earlierdraftof this manuscript.

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
294 PosingMathematical
Problems

formulating questionsfromproblemsituations" (p.70), andrefersexplicitlyto problem

posingby arguing that"students should alsohave someexperiencerecognizingandfor-
mulating theirown an
problems, activity whichis at the heartof doingmathematics"
(p. 138). Included in the Professional Standards for TeachingMathematics(1991) is
theideathat"studentsshouldbe givenopportunities to formulateproblemsfromgiven
situationsandcreatenew problemsby modifyingtheconditionsof a givenproblem"
(p. 95). Despitetheimportanceof problemposingas a formof mathematicalactivity,
anddespiteinterestin its use as an instructionalactivity,therehas been littlesystem-
aticinvestigation of mathematical problemposingas a cognitiveprocessinvolvinggen-
eratinga problemfroma situationor an experience.
The term"problemposing"has been used to referboth to the generationof new
problemsand to the reformulationof given problems(Silver, 1994). One kind of
problem posing, usually referredto as problem formulationor reformulation,
occurs within the process of solving a complex problemwhen a solver restatesor
recreatesa given problemin some way to makeit moreaccessiblefor solution.This
is the formof problemposing thatpromptedDuncker(1945) to commentabout50
years ago thatproblemsolving consists of successive reformulationsof an initial
problem.Sincethattime,problemformulation hasbeenextensivelystudiedby researchers
interestedin understandingcomplex problemsolving, and it has become increas-
ingly common to view problem solving as a process involving establishing a
series of successively morerefinedproblemrepresentationsthatincorporaterela-
tionships between the given informationand the desired goal, and into which
new informationis addedas subgoals are satisfied. In fact, one of the majorfind-
ings of anextensivebodyof researchon the differencesbetweenexpertsandnovices
in a varietyof complextaskdomainsis thatexpertstendto spendconsiderabletime
engaging in problemformulationand reformulation,usually engaging in qualita-
tive ratherthanquantitativeanalysis, in contrastto novices who spend relatively
little time in formulationand reformulation(Silver & Marshall,1989).
Whenthetermproblemposingis usedin contemporary mathematics educationreform
documents(e.g., NCTM, 1989, 1991),however,it usuallyrefersto a somewhatdif-
ferentkindof activity,in whichproblemposingitself is thefocus of attention.In this
case, thegoal is not the solutionof a givenproblembutthecreationof a new problem
froma situationor experience.Suchproblemposingcan occurpriorto anyproblem
solving,as wouldbe thecaseif problemsweregeneratedfroma contrivedornaturalistic
situation.Thistypeof problemgenerationis alsosometimesreferredto as problemfor-
mulation,buttheprocessbeingdescribedhereis differentfromthereformulation that
occurswithincomplexproblemsolvingitself.Problemposingcanalsooccuraftersolv-
ing a particularproblem,when one mightexaminethe conditionsof the problemto
generatealternativerelatedproblems.Thislatterformof problemposingis associated
with the "LookingBack"phaseof problemsolvingdiscussedby Polydi(1957).
Althoughthe forms of activitybeing advocatedin currentcalls for mathematics
instructionalreformhave been subjectedto far less researchscrutinythanhas the
processof problemreformulation withinproblemsolving,someinteresting instructional
explorations involvingproblemposinghavebeenundertaken (e.g.,Brown& Walter,1990;
Hashimoto, 1987; Healy, 1993; Keil, 1965; Skinner,1991; van den Brink, 1987;

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E. A. Silver, J. Mamona-Downs,S. S. Leung,and P. A. Kenney 295

Winograd,1991).Forexample,BrownandWalter(1990)havewrittenextensivelyabout
a versionof problemposingin whichproblemconditionsandconstraintsareexamined
andmanipulatedthrougha processtheyreferto as "What-if-not?" Theseexplorations
have suggestedsomeproductiveapproachestowardtheintegrationof problemposing
intomathematics classroom butthattherehasbeenalmostno systematic
instruction research
conductedon mathematicalproblemposing as it occurs priorto or afterproblem
solving,andlittleis knownaboutthe natureof problemposingas a cognitiveprocess
(Kilpatrick,1987).Therefore,thisexploratorystudywas undertakento providesome
informationaboutthe natureof problemposingas a complexcognitiveprocess.
Two basic questionswere exploredin this study:Whatarethe kindsof problems
posedby peoplewithina reasonablycomplextasksetting?Whatarethe differences,
if any, between the kinds of problemspeople pose in that setting priorto solving
a problemembeddedin thatsetting andthe kinds of problemsposed in the setting
duringor aftersolving the problem?In orderto illuminatemathematicalproblem-
posing processes, it would have been reasonableto conductinterviewswith a few
selected subjectsand to analyze theirverbalprotocols.However, when we found
thatit would be possible to collect datafrom a large numberof subjects,we chose
to have subjectsrespondin writingratherthanin interviewsettings.Furthermore,
becauseothershaveusedwrittendatasuccessfullyto uncovercognitiveprocessinfor-
mationaboutmathematicalproblemsolving (e.g., Hall, Kibler,Wenger,& Truxaw,
1989), we decided that it would be appropriateto use paper-and-pencildatahere
as the basis for an analysis of mathematicalproblemposing.
The subjectsin thisinvestigationwerein-servicemiddleschoolmathematicsteach-
ers andpreservicesecondaryschool mathematicsteachers.Becausecurrentreform
documentshave suggestedthe importanceof problemposing, andbecausethis type
of activity has not been a feature of conventional mathematics instruction, it
seemed reasonableto examinethe capacityof teachersthemselvesto engage in the
process of problemposing. If actualandprospectiveteachersexhibit a generative
capacity in their own mathematicalactivity, then it is reasonableto expect that a
lack of personalcompetencewill notbe a majorobstacleto theirincorporating prob-
lem-posing activities into theirteaching.

METHOD

Subjects
The subjectswere 53 middleschool mathematicsteachersand28 preservicesec-
ondaryschool mathematicsteachers.The middle school teacherswere participants
in a week-longmathematicsteachingworkshopsponsoredby theirschooldistrictin
Summer1988;theirformalmathematicsbackgroundrangedfromhavinganunder-
graduatedegreein mathematics(oneteacher)to havingalmostno formalcollege-level
mathematicscoursework(12 teachers),andtheirteachingexperiencerangedfrom2
yearsto morethan20 years.Thepreservice
secondarymathematicsteacherswereenrolled
in a mathematicsteachingmethodscourseat a publicuniversityin Fall 1989;all had
recentlycompletedsubstantial
courseworkin mathematics
(essentiallyanundergraduate

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
296 Posing MathematicalProblems

major).Given the natureof the performancestudiedhere,the differencesbetween

the two groupsin the extent andrecency of theirsubject-matterknowledge andin
theirteachingexperiencewere thoughtto be of offsetting importancein influenc-
ing performance.Thatis, althoughdifferencesin formalsubject-matter knowledge
andin the recentstudyof mathematicsfavoredthe preservicesecondaryteachers,
the specific requirementsof the task used in this study were closely aligned with
the mathematicscontentcommonly taughtin middle school ratherthanthattypi-
cally studiedin college. Thus,resultsarereportedhereonly for the aggregatedsam-
ple. A reportof preliminaryanalysesof dataobtainedfromthemiddleschoolteacher
sampleis providedby Silver and Mamona(1989).

The Taskand Administration

The BilliardBall Mathematics(BBM) taskconsistedof threeparts,eachof which
is shownin Figure1. TheBBM taskwas presentedto all subjectsin exactlythe same
way. In thefirstandthirdparts,subjectswereaskedto pose problemsrelatedto a task
settingin whicha billiardball is projectedfromthe lowerleft cornerof a rectangular
tableat an angleof 450 to the sides;in the middlepartof the task,they were askedto
solve a particularnontrivialproblemrelatedto thistaskenvironment.Subjectscom-
pletedall partsof the BBM taskin 45 minutes.They were given 10 minutesto gen-
erateproblemsin thefirstphase,InitialPosing(IP),and30 minutesto solve theprob-
lemin thesecondphase,ProblemSolving(PS).Thefinalphase,AdditionalPosing(AP),
coincidedwiththe 30-minutePS phase,duringwhichtimesubjectsrecordedproblems
generatedduringproblemsolving,andanadditional5 minutesafterthePS phase,dur-
ing whichtime they could generateadditionalproblemsrelatedto the tasksetting.
The BBM taskwas adaptedfor use as a problem-posingandproblem-solvingtask
fromversionsthatexist in publishedsourcesfor use as a problem-solvingtaskwith
middle school students (e.g., the "PaperPool Activity" in Fitzgerald, Winter,
Lappan,& Phillips, 1986) andwith secondaryschool andcollege students(e.g., the
pool tableproblemin Jacobs,1970).The taskwas thoughtto be anenvironmentrich
enoughto permittheposingof interestingproblemsandconjectures,yet one in which
the requiredproblemsolvingwouldbe possible,becauseit requiredonly knowledge
of rathersimple mathematicalconcepts (e.g., factors,multiples,ratios).
Eachsubjecteitherworkedon the BBM taskindividuallyor as a memberof a pair.
Of the53 middleschoolteachers,25 workedindividuallyand28 workedin 14pairs.Of
the28 preservicesecondaryteachers,8 workedindividuallyand20 workedin 10pairs.

RESULTS
A totalof 399 responsesweregeneratedin theproblem-posingphases(IPandAP)
of the BBM task. In examining the natureof a subject's response, the written
responsewas consideredalong with any accompanyingdiagramsor drawings
madeon accompanyingpages. Because this reportis concernedwith mathematical
problemposing, only the resultsfor the two problem-posingphases(IP andAP) are
presentedin detailhere. Resultsfor the problem-solvingphase (PS) arementioned
only briefly as they relateto interpretingthe problem-posingfindings.

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A

(Part1)
Imaginebilliardballtables likethe ones shown below. Suppose a ballis shot
at a 450 angle fromthe lowerleftcorner(A)of the table.Whenthe ballhits a
side of the table, it bounces off at a 450 angle.

Ineach of the examplesshown below,the ballhitsthe sides severaltimes

and then eventuallylands in a cornerpocket. InExample1, the balltravels
on a 6-by-4 table and ends up in pocket D, after3 hitson the sides. In
Example2, the balltravelson a 4-by-2 table and ends up in pocket B, after
1 hiton the sides.

D C
D C

S
A B4B B

Lookat the examples,thinkaboutthe situationfortables of othersizes, and

writedown any questionsor problemsthatoccur to you.

(Part2)
[NOTE:Thefirsttwo paragraphsand the examplesfromIPphase repeated]

Lookat the examples,thinkaboutthe situationfortables of othersizes,

consideras manyexamplesas you need, and tryto predictthe final
destinationof the ball.Thatis, when willthe balllandin pocketA? Whenwill
it landin pocket B? Inpocket C? Inpocket D?

(Part3)
As you workout yoursolutionto the problem,otherquestionsmayalso
come to mind.Inthe space providedbelow,writedown any questionsor
problemsthatoccur to you.

Figure 1. The billiardball mathematics(BBM) task.

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
298 Posing MathematicalProblems

Initial Examination of Posed Problems

Most of the subjects'responseswere expressedas problemsor questionsregard-
ing the pathor destinationof the billiardball on tablesof varyingsizes, the effect of
varyingthe task's given conditions,or the underlyingassumptionsof the task.The
followingarerepresentative of thesetypesof responses:"Ifthetabledimensionswere
decreasedby 2, will thenumberof hitsdecreaseby 2?""Wouldtheballendupin pocket
C if thetableweresquare?""Whatis thepocketandnumberof hitsfor a 6 x 3 table?"
"Whatwouldhappenif theangleweredifferent, like60o?' Morethan60%of theresponses
werestatedclearlyas problemsorquestions,expressedas completeornearlycomplete
sentences,with a connectionto theBBM task.
Anotherset of responses(about25%of the total)were expressednot in the form
of questionsbut ratherin the form of conjectures.Responses such as the follow-
ing arerepresentativeof the kindsof conjecturesgeneratedby subjects:"Thelarger
the table, perhapsthe more bounces off the side." "Itseems thatthe ball will end
up in the pocketin a + b - 2 ricochetson an an x bn table,provideda andb arerel-
ativelyprime.""Squaretablestakezero hits on the sides.""Tablesizes andhits are
relatedproportionally.""Size of table is not a factor."As can be seen from these
examples,conjectureswere sometimesstatedin a tentativeformandsometimesas
definitiveassertions(thoughnot alwayscorrect,because"Size of tableis not a fac-
tor"is clearlya false assertion).Nevertheless,thesestatementsweretreatedas appro-
priateresponsesto the BBM taskrequestto generatequestionsor problemsrelated
to the situation,becauseeach assertioncan be takento representan implicitlystated
problemthateitherwas or could be investigatedfurther.
The remaining responses (about 15%) were judged not to be appropriate
responsesto the BBM task, andthese responseswere eliminatedfrom furthercon-
sideration.Some of these eliminatedresponsesmay have representedreasonable
thinkingon the partof the subject,but the writteninformationwas fartoo ambigu-
ous to allow interpretation.Many of the ambiguousresponseswere expressedas
isolated words or phrases,such as the following examples:"square?isosceles tri-
angle?" "points, start, hit, form a triangle (1 hit)"; and "If you stay with the
sequence of units of." The otherresponsesin the set eliminatedfrom furthercon-
siderationweremeta-levelcomments,suchas thefollowing:"Ifeel frustrated because
I am havingtroublefindinga pattern.""Canprotractors be used?""Howcan I orga-
nize all this info?""Whatdo they want solved?""To tell you the truth,I'm con-
fused!""Not familiarwith the game of pool." and "Thisseems like a progression
problem,but I just didn't have enough time to figure it out."
Although there was considerable variety in the nature and form of written
responses given by subjects in the IP and AP phases, most were appropriate
responsesthatrepresentedexplicitlyor implicitlyposedproblems.Therefore,a more
extensive analysiswas conductedon the 334 appropriateresponses(i.e., all except
the meta-level commentsand the ambiguousstatements).

Commonly Posed Problems

Giventhevarietyof waysin whichsubjectsin thisstudyexpressedtheirposedprob-
lems, determiningwhen theresponsesof two differentpersonsexpressedessentially

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E. A. Silver, J. Mamona-Downs,S. S. Leung,and P. A. Kenney 299

the same underlyingproblemwas a nontrivialtask, and therewere relativelyfew

instances in which the responses of two different persons matched exactly.
Moreover, some responses were vague and somewhat difficult to interpret.
Nevertheless,subjects'responsescould be groupedinto clusterscorrespondingto
prototypeproblemsin orderto examine the types of problemsposed. In this way
we found that a majorityof the posed problemsdealt with relationshipsbetween
and among the table dimensions (length and width), the numberof times the ball
hits the sides on its path to its final destination, and the final pocket the ball
enters.Problemssuch as the following were prototypical:
* Whatis the relationshipbetweenthe lengthandwidthof the tableandthe num-
ber of times the ball hits the sides?
* Whatis the relationshipbetweenthe lengthandwidthof the tableandthe final
pocket the ball enters?
* What is the relationshipbetween the numberof hits and the final pocket the
ball enters?
* Whatis the numberof hits (orfinalpockettheball enters)whenthetabledimen-
sions are 6 x 5? Both odd numbers?Both even numbers?
* Whatis thenumberof hits(orfinalpockettheballenters)whenthetableis square?

Responses associatedwith this type of problemwere thus fairly closely associ-

ated with the kinds of relationshipsbetween table dimensionsandnumberof hits
or finalpocketthatunderlieproblemsthataretypicallyposed for studentswhen the
BBM tasksettingis usedin curriculummaterials(e.g., Fitzgeraldet al., 1986;Jacobs,
1970).Nevertheless,theresponsesproducedby subjectsin this studyvariedin degree
of generalityor specificity.Some responseswere statedin a very generalway (e.g.,
Given an M x N table, in which pocket will the ball land?),andotherswere stated
with less generality(e.g., For a 3 x 5 table, how many hits?).
Theremainderof theposedproblemstendedto dealwithotheraspectsof theBBM
task setting (e.g., initial angle, characteristicsof table, ball, or pathtraveled).The
following are prototypicalexamples of these kinds of responses:
"*Whathappensif the angle is differentfrom 450 (e.g., 600, 1100)?
"*How does the speed (or velocity) of the ball affect the outcome?
"*Whathappenswhen spin ("English")is put on the ball?
"*Will the ball alwayslandin a pocket?(or,Will the ball neverlandin a pocket?)
"*Will a ball shot from pocket A ever land in pocket A?
"*Whathappensif the ball is shot from a pocket otherthanA?
"*Excludingdimensions,whatarethecharacteristics of the table?(e.g., How many
pockets?Where are the pockets located?Is the table level and flat?)
"*Will the angle of incidence always equal the angle of reflection?
"*How does the force of the shot affect the outcome?(e.g., Whathappensif you
hit the ball too hard?Too easy?)
* Whatarethe characteristicsof the paththe ball follows? (e.g., In which direc-
tion does the ball travelon an 8-by-6 table?)

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
300 Posing MathematicalProblems

Responsesassociatedwiththistypeof problemwerenot at all like thekindsof tasks

thataretypicallyposedfor studentswhenthe BBM tasksettingis usedin curriculum
materials(e. g., Fitzgerald
et al., 1986;Jacobs,1970).Moreover,manyof theseresponses
indicateda concernwiththepracticalaspectsof pooltables(e.g.,locationof extrapock-
ets, flatness)or thepathof pool balls(e.g., spin,friction),therebysuggestingthatsome
subjectswere treatingthe taskas practicalratherthanabstract.

Differences in Posing Problems in the IP and AP Phases

Table 1 displaysthe mean numberof posed problemsfor each posing phase (IP
andAP) of theBBM taskforsubjectswho workedindividuallyandthosewho worked
in pairs.Subjectsposed an averageof aboutfourproblemsin the IP phase;the dif-
ferencebetweenthe averagenumberof problemsposedin the IP phaseby individuals
andpairswas not statisticallysignificant.Therewerefewerproblemsposedby indi-
viduals and by pairs in the AP phase than in the IP phase, but the differencewas
statisticallysignificantonly for the responsesof pairs(t(46) = 3.6, p < .01). Within
the AP phase, individualsposed an averageof aboutone moreproblemthanpairs,
but this differencewas not statisticallysignificant.

Table 1
Mean Numberof Posed Problemsby Posing Phasefor Individualsand Pairs
IP phase AP phase
Individuals 3.7 2.6
(n = 33) (1.9) (2.9)
Pairs 3.7 1.6
(n = 24) (1.8) (2.2)
Note. Standarddeviationsare in parentheses.

Beyond a generalexaminationof responsefrequencyin the two task phases, it

is also interestingto considerthe frequencywith which particularproblemswere
posed in each phase. A carefulconsiderationof particularresponsesin each task
phasehas the potentialto reveal importantaspectsof subjects'thinkingwhile pos-
ing problems.Therewere some interestingsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthe
IP and AP phasesboth with respectto the generalityof the posed problemsandto
the frequencywith which certaintypes of problemswere posed, and these differ-
ences appearto be due to the influenceof the interveningproblem-solvingphase.
Forexample,in boththeIP andAP phases,subjectsfrequentlyposedproblemsinvolv-
ingtabledimensions,thenumberof hits,andthefinalpocket.Moresuchproblemswere
posedin verygeneralformin the IP phase,butthesegenerallystatedproblemsrepre-
sentedaboutthe sameproportionof problemsposedin boththe IP andAP phases.
The lack of an increasein statingproblemsin generalform is somewhatsurpris-
ing, becauseit is reasonableto assumethatthe interveningproblem-solvingphase,
in which a fairlygeneralproblemwas thetargetof solution,wouldhave encouraged
generalization.Nevertheless,thenatureof theproblemsolvingdoneby mostsubjects

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E. A. Silver, J. Mamona-Downs,S. S. Leung,and P. A. Kenney 301

probablymitigatedagainsta trendtowardgreatergeneralityin the AP phase.In par-

ticular,most subjectswere not able to solve the problemcompletely in the allot-
ted time for the PS phase,andmost attempteda solutionthrougha processof exam-
ination of specific cases in an effort to find patternsand generategeneralizations.
Thus, it is likely thatthe combinationof attemptingto solve by examiningspecific
cases and failing to achieve a general solution actually influenced subjects to
pose problemswith less generalitythanexpected. This explanationis fortifiedby
the finding thatthe solution attemptsproducedby subjectsgenerallycontaineda
solutionor partialsolutionfor pocketsB, C, andD but not for pocketA, andprob-
lems concernedwith gettingthe ball (which was originallyshot from pocketA) to
returnto pocketA becamemuchmoreprevalentin theAP phasethanin the IP phase.
Only6 problemsdealingwithpocketA wereposedin theIP phase,but24 suchprob-
lems were posed in the AP phase. In fact, the problemconcernedwith gettingthe
ball into pocket A was the most frequentlyposed (and often the only) problemin
the AP phase for subjectsworkingin pairs.

TheProcess of Posing Problems

InposingproblemsduringtheIP andAP phases,someresponsesindicatedthatsub-
jects generatedproblemsby keepingtheproblemconstraintsfixed andfocusingtheir
attentionsimplyon generatinggoals. Such problemsinvolvedeithera specific goal
(e.g., determiningthe numberof hits or the final destinationof the ball for a tableof
specifieddimensions)or a generalgoal (e.g., seekinga relationshipbetweenthe size
of the tableandthe numberof hits or the final destinationof the ball).In thisprocess
of generatingproblems,one "acceptsthe given"(Brown& Walter,1990, p. 15), but
otherresponsesalsosuggestedthatanotherprocesswasusedto generateproblems.Some
responsesindicatedthatsubjectsmanipulatedthe given constraintsof thetasksetting
as theygeneratedgoals,usinga processBrownandWaltercall "challenging thegiven"
(1990, p. 15). These problems involvedeither the
changing underlyingassumptions
in the BBM task (e.g., introducingspin on the ball, introducingor removingfriction
as a consideration,varyingthe ball's speedor momentum,questioningthe relation-
ship between angle of incidence and the angle of reflection)or on changingthe
explicitlystatedconditionsof thetask(e.g.,shootingtheballatanangleotherthan450,
movingthe startingpointfromthe lowerleft cornerto anotherposition,changingthe
numberof pockets).Eachof the 334 posed problemscould thusbe categorizedas a
Goal problem(GL) or as one of two types of constraint-manipulation problems:
InitialConditions(IC)or ImplicitAssumptions(IA).
The posed problemswere coded by two ratersworking independently.For the
purposeof establishinginterrater reliability,about75%of the posed problemswere
coded by bothraters.Theirinterrateragreementwas quitehigh (Kappa> .90), and
the few disagreementswere resolved throughdiscussion to reachconsensus.
Table 2 shows the frequencyof problemsposed in each categoryfor individu-
als andpairsin each posing phase. Overall,about60-70% of the problemsposed
were classified as goal problems;withinthe 30-40% of the problemsclassified as
constraint-manipulation problems,they were aboutequallydividedbetweenthose

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
302 Posing MathematicalProblems

involving changes in the underlyingassumptionsand the initial conditionsof the

task setting. A similarproportionaldistributionof posed problemsinto these cat-
egories was observed in both posing phases. Therewas no significantdifference
betweentheproportionsof goal andconstraint-manipulation problemsposedby sub-
in or
jects working pairs individually,although patternacrossthe two kinds of
the
constraint-manipulationproblemswas significantlydifferentforpairsandindividuals
in the two phases (Z2[2, N = 125] = 6.36; p < .05).

Table 2
Frequencyof Posed Problemsin Each Categoryfor Each Posing Phasefor Individualsand Pairs
Constraintmanipulation Goal generation
Implicit Initial
assumptions conditions Goals Total
(IA) (IC) (GL)
IP phase
Individuals 23 23 75 121
Pairs 14 22 50 86
AP phase
Individuals 9 19 60 88
Pairs 11 3 25 39
Total 57 67 210 334

Althoughproblemsgeneratedvia constraintmanipulationwere fairlycommon

in the set of responses,very few subjectsgeneratedtheirproblemssolely fromthis
perspective.If each set of IP responsesandeach set of AP responsesfor the 33 indi-
viduals and 24 pairs is consideredas a unit, only about9% (10 of the 114 sets of
responses) contained only problems generated via constraintmanipulation.In
contrast,about33%(38 of the 114 sets of responses)containedonly problemsgen-
eratedby keeping the constraintsfixed andposing new goals. The proportionsof
"pure"constraintmanipulation responsesand"pure"goal generationresponseswere
quite similarin the IP and AP phases.

RelationshipsAmongPosed Problems
Theposedproblemswerealsoexaminedforevidenceof possiblerelationships among
clustersof problemsposedby eachsubjectin orderto detectunderlying
cognitiveprocesses.
Severaldifferentkindsof relatednessweredetectedin the problems,the mostpromi-
nent of which were chaining and systematicvariation.
One kind of relatedness evident in subjects' responses was called chaining,
becausethe set of relatedproblemsappearedto have a sequentiallylinkedcharacter.
A formof chainingoccurredwhen the answerto one problemwas neededin order
to generatetheanswerto thenextproblemin sequence.Themostcommonlyobserved
form of chaining,illustratedin the set of problemsdenotedClusterA in Figure2,
involved a clusterin which the first few problemswere structuredso as to lead to

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E. A. Silver, J. Mamona-Downs,S. S. Leung,and P. A. Kenney 303

(or be closely associatedwith) a generalizationstatedor implied in the first or last

problemposed in the chain. A somewhatdifferentkind of chainingrelationshipis
illustratedin the set of problemsdesignatedas ClusterB in Figure2, in which the
firstthreeproblems(statedin the formof conjectures)undergirdthe final problem
(also statedin the form of a conjecture).

ClusterA
Wheredoes the balllandfora 2 x 4 table?
Wheredoes it landfora 3 x 6 table?
Wheredoes it landfora 4 x 8 table?
Wheredoes it landfora tablewithlengthtwice
as long as width?
ClusterB
Assumingno spin, a tablethat is 2n x n will
alwaysend up withthe ballinthe B pocketwith
one ricochet.
A table 3n x 2n willalwaysend up withthe ball
in pocket D withthree ricochets.
A table 4n x 3n willalwaysend up withthe ball
in pocket B afterfivericochets.
Itseems thatthe ballwillend up inthe pocket in
a + b - 2 ricochetson an an x bn table, provided
a and b are relativelyprime.
ClusterC
Whathappens [Howmanyhits]inthe case of a
squaretable?
Whathappenswhen I = 2w?
Whathappenswhen I = 3w?
ClusterD
Whatifthe tablewere square?
Whatifthe angle were not 45 degrees?
Whatifthe ballhad not originallybeen shot from
a corner?
Whatifthe ballis shot witha differentinitialforce?
Whatifthe ballspins?

Figure 2. Examplesof clustersof relatedproblems.

Otherproblemclusterscontained problemsthatwereconsidered to be relatedin another

way, as systematicvariantsof each other.In this type of relatedness,a criticalaspect

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
304 Posing MathematicalProblems

of a problemis heldconstantwhileothercriticalaspectsarevariedsystematically.
The
followingpairof posedproblemsis anexampleof relatednessby systematicvariation:
Whatis the relationof the table dimensionsto the final pocket?
Whatis the relationof the table dimensionsto the numberof hits?
Here, concernsabouttable dimensionsremainconstantacrossthe pair,and the
criticalfeaturesof finalpocketandnumberof hitsarevariedbetweenthepair.Systematic
clusterswere occasionallylargerthanpairsof problems,as is evidentin the set of
posedproblemsdesignatedas ClusterC in Figure2. In thisexample,systematicvari-
ation is evidentin a constantconcernaboutan outcome (it is fairly clearfrom the
otherproblemsposed by this subjectthatwhatwas meanthere by "whathappens"
was "how many hits occur")when the dimensionsof the table are varied.
Other examples of relatedness were also found in subjects' responses. For
example,a few pairsof problemsillustrateda typeof relatednessthatmightbe called
symmetry, in whichthegoalsandconditionsof oneproblemaresymmetrically exchanged
in the otherproblem:
Given the numberof hits and the final pocket, can you determinethe dimen-
sions of the table?
Given the dimensionsof the table, can you determinethe numberof hits and
the final pocket?
Anotherset of relatedproblems,designatedClusterD in Figure2, was posed by
a pairof subjectsworkingtogether,andit is evocativeof BrownandWalter'swhat-
if-not problem-posingprocess (1990). The relatednesshere is basedon a common
tendencyto challengeimplicitor exlicit constraintsandto statetheproblemsin very
open-endedform.A somewhatmore generalversionof this kind of problemrelat-
edness was evident when all (or nearlyall) the problemsgeneratedby an individ-
ual or pairappearedto be focused on a singularset of concerns,such as generating
problemsdealingexclusivelywith the set of implicitassumptionsin the taskor with
thefeasibilityof havingtheballreturnto thepocketfromwhichit was originallyshot.
Morethanhalfof thesubjectsgenerated problemsthatgaveexplicitevidenceof atleast
onetypeof problemrelatedness.Theresponsesof individualswereabout50%morelikely
thanthoseof pairsto showevidenceof relatednessamongclustersof posedproblems.

DISCUSSION
In this study,middle school teachersandprospectivesecondaryschool teachers
workedindividuallyor in pairsto pose mathematicalproblemsassociatedwith a
reasonablycomplex task setting,before and duringor after attemptingto solve a
problemwithinthattasksetting.In responseto theBBM problem-posing taskusedin
this study,subjectswereableto generatea largenumberof reasonableproblemsdur-
ing bothproblem-posingphases,therebysuggestingthattheseteachersandprospec-
tiveteachershavesomepersonalcapacityformathematicalproblemposing.Infact,almost
all subjectssuccessfullyposed at least one problemin both posing phases. These
findingssuggestthatmiddleschoolandsecondaryschoolteachersareableto engage

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E. A. Silver,J. Mamona-Downs,S. S. Leung,and P. A. Kenney 305

in reasonablewayswithmathematical problemposing,therebysuggestingthattheirown
lackof substantialeducationalexperiencewithproblemposingshouldnotbe a barrier
to theirbeingableto useproblemposingwiththeirstudents. Nevertheless,
manyresponses
werealsoill-posedorpoorlystatedproblems.Forexample,a sizableportionof the 15%
of BBM task responsesthat were excludedfrom analysiswere too ambiguousto
allowadequateinterpretation, andevenamongthosejudgedtobe adequate, it wassome-
timesnecessaryto be quitegenerousin interpreting the meaningof theresponses.
Giventhatthe subjectsin this studywere eithermiddleschool mathematicsteach-
ers, presumablyaccustomedto developingor providingproblemsfortheirstudents,
or preservicesecondarymathematicsteacherswith experiencein doing university-
level mathematics, thefrequencyof inadequately statedproblemsis quitedisappointing.
Thus, thereappears to be a need to provide more opportunitiesfor prospectiveand
in-service teachersto engage in mathematicalproblemposing and to analyze the
emerging problems for their feasibility and their quality. As teachers become
more proficientin their own problemposing, it is reasonableto assume that they
will become more willing to have their studentsengage in such activities.
It was hopedthatthis studywould suggestsome interestingways in whichcollab-
orationmightinfluencemathematical problemposing.Infact,veryfew differenceswere
detectedbetweentheresponsesto theBBM taskby individualsandpairs,andtheonly
differenceof notewas thatsubjectsworkingindividuallygave moreevidenceof relat-
ednessamongclustersof posedproblemsthansubjectsworkingin pairs.The general
findings,andtheparticular resultregardingrelatedness,suggestthatthepairsmay not
havebeen functioningwell as collaborators in theirproblemposing,perhapsbecause
the two personsin eachpairwerenot accustomedto workingtogetherorperhapsdue
to thenoveltyof theproblem-posing task.If a pairfunctionedas two individualswork-
ing in parallel,thenone wouldexpectto find littleevidenceof relatednesswithinthe
set of posedproblems,andthisis whatwas foundin thisstudy.Thus,thepossibleinflu-
ence of collaborationon mathematical problemposingawaitsfurtherinvestigation.
Althoughgeneralization from the results of this studyis limitedby thefact thatthe
resultsarebasedon writtenresponsesto a singleproblem-posingtask,therearenev-
erthelessseveralfindingsthatappearto illuminateaspectsof problemposingas a cog-
nitiveprocessandsuggestthefeasibilityandvalueof furtherresearchin thisarea.For
example,it was foundthatsubjectsspontaneouslyengagednotonly in "acceptingthe
givens,"whentheyposedproblemsby keepingtheimplicitlyandexplicitlygivencon-
straintsfixedandsimplygeneratinggoals,butalso"challenging thegivens,"whenthey
variedthe initialconditionsor implicitassumptionsof the given tasksetting.Almost
40%of thetotalnumberof posedproblemsgaveevidenceof subjects'readiness to manip-
ulatetheimplicitassumptionsorexplicitconditionsof thetask,yet only 9%of thesets
of responsesgeneratedby subjectsin bothposingphasesof the BBM taskcontained
problemsposedexclusivelyin thisway.Thus,thedatafromthisstudysuggestthatmany
subjectsengagedin suchbehaviorat leastonce in theirproblemposing,andthe large
numberof problemsapparentlyposedin thisway suggeststhe likelihoodthatmostof
the subjectsin this studymightbe receptiveto the what-if-notinstructionalapproach
to problemposing(Brown& Walter,1990),in whichtheconditionsandconstraintsof
a problemaresystematicallyvariedas a meansof generatingnew problems,because
they spontaneouslyengagedin suchan approachin theirown problemposing.

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
306 Posing MathematicalProblems

Theextentto whichpeoplearewillingto engagein challengingthe givens,andthe

relationshipbetweenthistendencyandreceptivityto what-if-notinstructionmayboth
be fruitfulareasforfurtherresearch.If suchresearchwereundertaken, however,it would
be wise also to consideranotherfindingof this study;namely,thatsubjectstendedto
generatemoreproblemsin the InitialPosing(IP)phasethanin theAdditionalPosing
(AP)phase.Thisresultmaysuggesta naturaltendencyorpreferenceforproblemgen-
erationpriorto problemsolving,therebysuggestinga possiblecomplicationin imple-
mentingthe what-if-notinstructionalapproach,which relies on post-hocproblem
generation. Itis possible,however,thatthedifferential problem-posing frequencyin the
two phasesmaybe dueas muchto taskandtimeconstraintsas to naturaltendenciesin
humanproblemposers,becausemost subjectsdid not generateanyproblemsduring
theproblem-solving portionof thetimeavailablefortheAP phase,therebyleavingonly
5 minutesfor problemposingfor the AP phase(i.e., halfthe time availablefor the IP
phase).Nevertheless,thisfindingshouldbe consideredandsubjectedto furtherexam-
inationin futureresearchrelatedto post-hocproblemposing.
Anotherpotentiallyinterestingprocess-relatedfindingis the suggestionthatsub-
jects' problemposingmayhavebeeninfluencednotonlyby theirmathematical knowl-
edge but also by otherexperiencesin relatedtask settings.Forexample,some sub-
jects posed problemssuch as "Willthe angle of incidence always equal the angle
of reflection?"and"Whateffect does frictionhave on the outcome?"Was theirpos-
ing affectedby a perceptionof the BBM taskas an appliedphysicsproblem?Other
subjectsposed problemssuch as "Whathappensif you move the shooterto another
pocket?"and"Whathappensif you put 'English'(spin)on the ball?"Was theirpos-
ing affectedby theirrecreationalexperiencesin playing pool? Althoughthe writ-
ten responsedataalonedo not allow us to know with certaintyif subjectswere actu-
allytryingto applyphysicalprinciplesrelatedto theplayingof poolor to themovement
of objectson frictionlesssurfaces,or if thetaskevokedin themexperiencesandideas
relatedto what they may have perceivedas impedimentsor difficulties (literally,
problems)thatmight interferewith the idealizedpathof the ball in the BBM task.
Nevertheless,the influence of such priorexperience seemed evident in the prob-
lem posingof some subjects.Understanding the effectsof priorexperienceson math-
ematicalproblemposing appearsto be a promisingareafor furtherinvestigation.
Yetanotherimportant process-relatedconsiderationin problemgeneration is theextent
to whichsubjectsgaveevidenceof beingsystematicin posingproblems.As Kilpatrick
(1987)hasnoted,therearemanycognitivemechanisms,suchas reasoningby analogy,
thatcouldbe usedto generatenew problems.Inthisstudy,it was possiblethatsubjects
couldengagein problemposingby generatingproblemsthroughanessentiallyrandom
processof goal generationorconstraintmanipulation, orit was possiblefor subjectsto
generateclustersof relatedproblems.Thefindingthatmorethanhalfof thesubjectsgen-
eratedproblemsthatgaveevidenceof a leastone typeof problemrelatedness(system-
aticvariation,chaining,symmetry)stronglysuggeststhatmuch,althoughcertainlynot
all,of theproblemposingby noviceproblemposersin thisstudywasdonein a systematic
manner.If thistendencyto be fairlysystematiccanbe foundin otherpopulationsand
acrossmanytasks,thisresultmayhaveimportant instructionalimplications,becausesys-
tematicapproaches to problemposing,suchas BrownandWalter'swhat-if-notinstruc-
tion,couldbe seenasrelatedto theinformalapproaches takenby noviceproblemposers.

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
E. A. Silver, J. Mamona-Downs,S. S. Leung,and P. A. Kenney 307

Instructionalrelevancecanalsobe foundin theresultsregardingthecorrespondence

betweentheproblemsgeneratedby subjectsin thisstudyandtheproblemsthataretyp-
icallyincludedwhentheBBM tasksettingis includedin curriculum materialsformid-
dle schoolandhighschoolstudents(e. g., Fitzgeraldet al., 1986;Jacobs,1970).Some
problemsroutinelyincludedin curriculummaterialsrelatedto the BBM tasksetting
were also ones thatwere posed by the subjectsin this study.For example,problems
regardingtherelationshipbetweentablesize andthefinaldestinationof theballorthe
numberof hitswerenotonly quitecommonlyposedby subjects,buttheyalso appear
in the curriculummaterials.On the otherhand,otherproblemsfoundin the curricu-
lummaterialswererarelyornevergeneratedby subjectsin thisinvestigation. Forexam-
the of
ple, problem determining a relationship between tablesize andthe distance
trav-
eled by the ball duringits patharoundthe tableis foundin the curriculummaterials,
but not one of the 33 individualsor 24 pairsin this studygeneratedthis problem.
Thissetof findingsappearsto be important fortworelatedreasons.Froma pragmatic
instructional perspective,it seemsimportant toknowthatsomeproblemstypicallyincluded
in curriculummaterialsmightbe fairly"natural" for subjectsto pose for themselves,
if theyweregiven an opportunityto do so (e.g., in thiscase, determiningtherelation-
shipbetweentablesize andfinaldestinationof theball).Becausestudentsmaybe more
highlymotivatedto solvea problemif theyhaveposedit forthemselvesratherthanhav-
ing it posedby an externalsource,theremay be instructionaladvantageto providing
studentswithopportunities to pose problemsforthemselves,wheneverit is feasibleto
do so. As was doneherewiththe BBM tasks,manystandardproblem-solvingactivi-
ties couldbe similarlytransformed intomoreopen-endedexplorationsinvolvingprob-
lemposingandproblemsolving(Silver,Kilpatrick, & Schlesinger,1990).Nevertheless,
it is alsotruethatotherproblemsmaybe less naturalforstudentsto poseforthemselves
(e.g., in this case, determininga relationshipbetweentablesize andthe distancetrav-
eledby theballduringits patharoundthetable).Thus,evenif teachersprovidestudents
withopportunities to generatetheirown problems,certainproblemsmaynotarisenat-
urally from theproblem-posingactivityof students;thus,someproblemsmayneedto
be introducedin anotherway.
Anotherreasonfortheimportance of thesefindingsis moretheoretical,becausethese
results (taken togetherwith others in this study) suggest a complex relationship
betweenproblemposingandproblemsolving.Ithadbeenhopedthatthedesignof this
studywouldallow some deep insightsintothis relationshipby affordingan opportu-
nity to analyze differencesin the problemposing of successful and unsuccessful
solvers,andby analyzingdifferencesin the problemsolving of those who posed the
targetproblempriorto solutionandthose who did not. Unfortunately,the PS phase
targetproblemwas successfullysolved in the allottedtime by only a few subjects,
andthenumberwas notsufficientto supporta carefulanalysisof thedifferencesnoted
above. Despitethis limitation,the findingsof the studydid illuminatesome aspects
of the relationshipbetweenproblemposing andproblemsolving.
A generalconcernis whetheror not a personwill pose only problemsthathe or she
has alreadysolved or is confidentof solving. If so, thenone's problemposingcould
be consideredan indexof one's problemsolving(Kilpatrick,1987).Thefindingthat
some subjectsposedproblemsthatwouldbe verydifficult(probablyimpossible)for
themto solve suggeststhatthey were not always awareof solutionsfor theirposed

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
308 Posing MathematicalProblems

problems.Forexample,notonlydidsomesubjectsposetheproblemaboutdetermining
therelationshipbetweenthetable'sdimensionsandthefinalpocket,whichtheywere
thennotableto solvecompletelyin theallottedtime,butalsosomesubjectsposedprob-
lems involving changingthe measureof the initial angle from 450 to a different
anglemeasure.Problemsin thistasksettinginvolvinganglemeasuresotherthan450
aremuchmoredifficultto solve thanthoseinvolvingan initialangleof 450, andthis
is why suchproblemsdo notappearin curriculum materialsformiddleschoolandhigh
school students.In general,the problemsin thosecurriculummaterialsappearthere
becausethey have "neat"mathematicalsolutionsthatcan be obtainedfairlydirectly
fromthe use of commonlytaughtelementarymathematicalideas.Thus,the finding
thatsubjectsposedproblemsaboutvaryingtaskconstraintslike theinitialanglesug-
gests that they did not simply pose problemsthey knew they could solve or for
whichtheyhadalreadydetermineda solution.On the otherhand,thefrequentposing
of conjectures,someof whichwereaccompanied by supportingsketches,suggeststhat
problemposingwas not alwaysdone in a mannerindependentof problemsolving.
Anotherfindingsuggestsa clearinfluenceof problem-solvingactivityon the post-
hoc posing of subjectsin this study.In particular,the most frequentlyposed prob-
lem in the AP phaseconcernedgettinga ball originallyshotfrompocketA to return
to pocketA, andthis problemwas posed morethanthreetimes as often afterprob-
lem solvingthanbefore.Thefactthattheproblemof gettingtheballshotfrompocket
A to returnto pocketA remainedan unsolvedpartof the problemfor most persons
duringthe ProblemSolving(PS)phaseof the BBM tasksuggestsa good reasonwhy
this problembecamemoresalientin the post-solutionposing.The findingthatsub-
jects' problemswere not statedwith more generalityin the AP phase than in the
IP phase is also suggestive of a way in which subjects'problemposing was influ-
encedby theirproblemsolving,becausethe solutionattemptstendedto involvecheck-
ing specificcasesto generatepatternsandbecausefew generalsolutionswereobtained.
Thus,furtherinvestigationintothe differencesbetweenposingbeforeandafterprob-
lem solving is likely to be fruitful,as is otherexplorationof the generalrelation-
ship between mathematicalproblemposing and problemsolving.

CODA
It is saidthatthe hallmarkof a good exploratorystudyis thatit raisesmanymore
questionsthanit answers.By thatcriterion,thisstudywas a success.We hopethatour
initialforayintothelargelyunchartedwildernessof mathematical problemposingwill
encourage othersto make similarjourneys.Mathematical problemposingis central
to the disciplineof mathematics,andit is also viewed as desirableinstructional prac-
tice.If ourunderstandingof mathematical activityis to increaseandourcapacityto improve
mathematicsinstruction is to strengthen,
thenmuchmoreresearchis neededto develop
a deeperunderstanding of this andrelatedformsof generativecognitiveactivity.
REFERENCES
Brown, S. I., & Walter,M. I. (1990). Theart of problemposing (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duncker,K. (1945). On problem-solving.Psychological Monographs,58, (5, Whole No. 270).

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 E. A. Silver, J. Mamona-Downs, S. S. Leung, and P. A. Kenney 309

Fitzgerald,W., Winter,M. J., Lappan,G., & Phillips, E. (1986). Middlegrades mathematicsproject:

Factors and multiples.Menlo Park,CA: Addison-Wesley.
Freudenthal,J. (1973). Mathematicsas an educationaltask. Dordrecht,Netherlands:Reidel.
Hall, R., Kibler,D., Wenger,E., & Truxaw,C. (1989). Exploringthe episodic structureof algebrastory
problemsolving. Cognitionand Instruction,6, 185-221.
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). Creatingmiracles:A storyof studentdiscovery.Berkeley,CA: Key Curriculum Press.
Jacobs,H. R. (1970). Mathematics:A humanendeavor.San Francisco:W. H. Freeman.
Keil, G. E. (1965).Writingandsolvingoriginalproblemsas a meansof improvingverbalarithmeticprob
lem solving ability.DissertationAbstracts,25(12), 7109. (UniversityMicrofilmsNo. 65-02376)
Kilpatrick,J. (1987). Problemformulating:Wheredo good problemscome from?In A. H. Schoenfeld
(Ed.), Cognitivescience and mathematicseducation (pp. 123-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculumand evaluation standardsfor
school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics.(1991). Professionalstandardsfor teachingmathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.
Polyi, G. (1954). Mathematicsand plausible reasoning. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress.
Poly6, G. (1957). How to solve it (2nd ed.). New York:Doubleday.
Silver,E. A. (1994). On mathematicalproblemposing.For theLearningof Mathematics,14(1), 19-28.
Silver, E. A., Kilpatrick,J., & Schlesinger,B. (1990). Thinkingthroughmathematics.New York:The
College EntranceExaminationBoard.
Silver, E. A., & Mamona,J. (1989). Problemposing by middle school teachers.In C. A. Maher,G. A.
Goldin, & R. B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the EleventhAnnualMeetingof the NorthAmerican
Chapterof theInternationalGroupfor the Psychologyof MathematicsEducation(pp.263-269). New
Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversity.
Silver, E. A., & Marshall,S. P. (1989). Mathematicaland scientific problemsolving: Findings,issues
and instructionalimplications.In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.),Dimensionsof thinkingand cognitive
instruction(pp. 265-290). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skinner,P. (1991). What'syourproblem?Posing and solvingmathematicalproblems,K-2. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
vandenBrink,J.F. (1987).Childrenas arithmetic bookauthors.FortheLearningofMathematics, 7(2),44-48.
Winograd,K. (1991). Writing,solving, and sharingoriginalmathstory problems:Case studies in the
cognitive behaviorof fifth gradechildren.(Doctoraldissertation,Universityof NorthernColorado,
1991). DissertationAbstractsInternational,51(10), 3324A.

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; e-mail: eas@vms.cis.pitt.edu
JOANNA MAMONA-DOWNS, Assistant Professor, Departmentof Internationaland European
Economic and Political Studies, Universityof Macedonia,54006 Thessaloniki,Greece
SHUKKWANS. LEUNG, Associate Professor,Departmentof Mathematicsand Science Education,
NationalChiayi TeachersCollege, Chiayi, Taiwan,R.O.C.;e-mail: law@cc.nsysu.edu.tw
PATRICIAANN KENNEY,ResearchAssociate,LearningResearchandDevelopmentCenter;andAdjunct
AssistantProfessor,School of Education;Universityof Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh,PA 15260; e-mail:
kenney@vms.cis.pitt.edu

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:09:10 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
View publication stats