See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/369305890

Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom

Chapter · March 2023

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-18868-8_7

CITATIONS READS

57 1,989

2 authors:

Jinfa Cai Stephen Hwang

University of Delaware University of Delaware
248 PUBLICATIONS 9,775 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 2,183 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinfa Cai on 02 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 7
Making Mathematics Challenging
Through Problem Posing in the Classroom

Jinfa Cai and Stephen Hwang

7.1 Introduction

A well-established observation in education is that challenge can provide fertile

ground for students to learn. In order to understand mathematical concepts deeply,
students need opportunities to struggle productively with challenging mathematical
problems (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). This kind of productive struggle, in which
students actively grapple with concepts that are within their grasp but that they do
not yet clearly understand, forms the basis for constructing conceptual understand-
ing. A primary question, then, is how to provide appropriate challenges for students
so they may engage in productive struggle that leads to deeper understanding of
mathematics. Instructional tasks that engage students in effortful reasoning and
problem solving constitute a critical part of the answer to this question (Arbaugh
et al., 2010).
In this chapter, we begin by discussing instructional tasks and their role in foster-
ing productive struggle through appropriate challenge. We then focus on a particular
kind of instructional task—mathematical problem posing—that can promote pro-
ductive struggle. In particular, we consider problem posing from both the perspec-
tive of the student, who may be asked to pose problems based on given situations or
by reformulating existing problems, and the perspective of the teacher, who can
either pose problems for students to solve or use problem-posing tasks as instruc-
tional tasks with students (Cai & Hwang, 2020). In particular, we argue that
problem-­posing tasks have an inherent benefit in that they are able to provide levels
of mathematical challenge that scale to the level of understanding of the student. We

J. Cai (*)
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA
e-mail: jcai@[Link]
S. Hwang
University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 115
R. Leikin (ed.), Mathematical Challenges For All, Research in Mathematics Education,
[Link]
116 J. Cai and S. Hwang

then consider how problem posing could be implemented effectively in the mathe-
matics classroom, both by providing examples of problem-posing tasks and by out-
lining ideas for professional development that can help teachers use problem posing
to teaching mathematics. Finally, we discuss some findings from empirical research
(and future directions for such research) on teaching mathematics through prob-
lem posing.

7.2 Challenging and Worthwhile Instructional Tasks

Instructional tasks, referred to by some researchers as “academic tasks” or “mathe-

matical tasks” (e.g., Doyle, 1983; Hiebert & Wearne, 1993), can be defined broadly
as activities related to projects, questions, problems, constructions, applications,
and exercises with which students engage. Instructional tasks provide intellectual
environments for students’ learning and the development of mathematical thinking.
Tasks govern not only students’ attention to particular aspects of content but also
their ways of processing information. Doyle (1988) argued that tasks with different
cognitive demands are likely to induce different kinds of learning. In particular,
instructional tasks that are truly challenging have the potential to provide the intel-
lectual contexts for students’ mathematical development. Such tasks can promote
students’ conceptual understanding, foster their ability to reason and communicate
mathematically, and capture students’ interests and curiosity (National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1991). Indeed, standards documents have rec-
ommended that, in classrooms, students should be exposed to challenging tasks
specifically to promote mathematical sense making (NCTM, 1991, 2000).
A number of studies support this connection between the nature of instructional
tasks and student learning (Cai, 2014; Hiebert & Wearne, 1993; Stein & Lane,
1996). In the QUASAR project, classrooms using instructional tasks that are cogni-
tively demanding produced the highest gains in students’ conceptual understanding
(Stein & Lane, 1996). Similarly, in a longitudinal analysis of the effects of the
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) middle school mathematics curriculum ver-
sus traditional curricula, CMP students exhibited greater gains in conceptual under-
standing (and comparable gains in procedural skill) than their non-CMP counterparts
(Cai, 2014). Notably, in classrooms using the CMP curriculum, a significantly
larger proportion of implemented instructional tasks were at a higher level of cogni-
tive demand than the instructional tasks implemented in the non-CMP classrooms.
Given that high-cognitive-demand instructional tasks are particularly “worth-
while” for creating opportunities for students to solidify and extend what they know
and stimulate mathematics learning (NCTM, 1991), it would be useful to know
what makes a task worthwhile. Regardless of the context, worthwhile tasks should
be intriguing, with a level of challenge that invites speculation and hard work. Most
importantly, worthwhile mathematical tasks should direct students to investigate
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 117

important mathematical ideas and ways of thinking toward the learning goals.
Lappan and Phillips (1998) developed a set of useful criteria to choose worthwhile
problems for mathematics instruction:
• The problem has important, useful mathematics embedded in it.
• Students can approach the problem in multiple ways using different solution
strategies.
• The problem has various solutions or allows different decisions or positions to be
taken and defended.
• The problem encourages student engagement and discourse.
• The problem requires higher-level thinking and problem solving.
• The problem contributes to the conceptual development of students.
• The problem connects to other important mathematical ideas.
• The problem promotes the skillful use of mathematics.
• The problem provides an opportunity to practice important skills.
• The problem creates an opportunity for the teacher to assess what his or her stu-
dents are learning and where they are experiencing difficulty.
The two tasks below exhibit some of these criteria. The first task comes from
Heid (1995):
Given the two job offers below, determine the better-paying summer job. Justify your answer.
Offer 1: At Timmy’s Tacos you will earn $4.50 an hour. However, you will be
required to purchase a uniform for $45.00. You will be expected to work
20 hours each week.
Offer 2: At Kelly’s Car Wash you will earn $3.50 an hour. No special attire is
required. You must agree to work 20 hours each week.

In response to this task, students could generate a wide variety of solutions, such
as the following:
SOLUTION 1:
In a 20 hr. week,
Offer 1 will pay $4.50 × 20 = $90.00.
Offer 2 will pay $3.50 × 20 = $70.00.
Since the difference is $20 per week and the uniform for Offer 1 costs $45.00, it will
take ($45.00/$20/week =) 2.25 weeks to pay for the uniform and break even. If you
keep the job for 3 weeks or more, you should take Offer 1.
SOLUTION 2:
At Timmy’s you make $1.00 more for each hour of work. After 45 hours of work,
you’d make $45 more at Timmy’s than Kelly’s. This extra money would pay for the
uniform. From that point on, you’d make $1 more an hour at Timmy’s than Kelly’s.
118 J. Cai and S. Hwang

SOLUTION 3:
Let x be the number of weeks you intend to work. The total amount for
Offer 1 =90x – 45 and the total amount for Offer 2 =70x.
If 90x – 45 = 70x, then x = 2.25. So if you work less than 3 weeks, you should
take Offer 2, otherwise take Offer 1.
SOLUTION 4:
Let x be the number of weeks you intend to work, y1 be the total amount for Offer 1
after working x weeks, and y2 be the total amount for Offer 2 after working x weeks.
Therefore, y1 = 90x – 45 and y2 = 70x. Using a graphing calculator to graph them,
you will see they intersect at (2.25, 157.5). From the graph, you will see that if you
have the job for 3 weeks or more, you take Offer 1.
SOLUTION 5:
Construct a table to show the amount of income for Offers 1 and 2 for 1 week, 2
weeks, and 3 weeks…, and then compare the information from the table to deter-
mine which offer you will take.
SOLUTION 6:
Let x be the number of weeks you intend to work. The total amount for
Offer 1 =4.5 × 20 x – 45 and the total amount for Offer 2 =3.5 × 20 x.
If (90x – 45) < 70x, then x < 2.25. So if you work less than 3 weeks, you should
take Offer 2, otherwise take Offer 1.
After students solve a given problem like this, they often think they have accom-
plished their mission and stop further exploration. However, generating alternative
solutions and then analyzing and discussing them in class can create additional
learning opportunities for students. Each of the solutions above highlights how the
total amount of earnings for each offer is related to the payment for each hour and
the expense required for taking the offer. However, the total amount of earnings for
each offer is represented differently in these solutions. This first task is not only
embedded in important and useful mathematics but can also be approached in mul-
tiple ways using different solution strategies. In addition, the problem allows differ-
ent decisions or positions to be taken and defended and contributes to students’
conceptual development.
The second task focuses on detecting and correcting errors in the use of the long-­
division algorithm:
John was asked to divide 1308 by 12. His work is shown below.

Is John’s work correct? Why or why not?

7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 119

Although long division problems are a staple of elementary school mathematics,

students frequently make computation errors when using this algorithm. For exam-
ple, as in this task, when computing 1308 ÷ 12, many students overlook the zero that
should be in the tens place of the quotient. This may reflect a careless error or a lack
of understanding of the reasoning behind the algorithm. By asking students to ana-
lyze work, as in this task, instead of simply applying the algorithm to find the quo-
tient, this task has the potential to provide both the student and the teacher with a
new perspective. The student, in order to explain why the work is incorrect, may
draw on (or construct) understanding of the conceptual underpinning of the algo-
rithm. The teacher, then, gains an opportunity to perceive the nature of the student’s
understanding of long division. Thus, this task not only encourages student engage-
ment and discourse but also contributes to students’ conceptual development.
Keeping these criteria in mind, we turn our attention to one particular type of
worthwhile instructional task: problem-posing tasks. Problem posing has been dis-
cussed and studied in different ways. Here, we will focus on three aspects. First, we
examine how teachers can pose problems properly to engage students and provide
learning opportunities for students. That is, we consider how teachers should pres-
ent mathematical problems so as to create more learning opportunities for students.
Second, we discuss how students can be provided with opportunities to pose their
own mathematical problems and how they may better understand mathematics
through posing and solving their own problems. Third, we consider how teachers
themselves learn to use problem posing to teach mathematics.

7.3 Posing Problems Properly: From Routine Problem

Solving to Non-routine Problem Solving

Teachers may engage in problem posing in several ways. We consider teachers’

problem posing as consisting of the following specific intellectual activities: (a)
Teachers themselves pose mathematical problems based on given problem situa-
tions which may include mathematical expressions or diagrams, (b) teachers predict
the kinds of problems that students can pose based on given problem situations, (c)
teachers pose problems by changing existing problems, (d) teachers generate math-
ematical problem-posing situations for students to pose problems, and (e) teachers
pose mathematical problems for students to solve (Cai & Hwang, 2020).
Perhaps the most common way that teachers engage with problem posing is the
last of these, that is, when teachers pose problems for their students to solve.
Although this is still in the domain of presenting problems for students to solve, this
aspect of teachers’ problem posing highlights the importance of the ways teachers
can present problems so as to increase learning opportunities for students.
In fact, as early as 1980, Butts discussed the value of posing problems properly,
noting that the way in which a problem is posed has a significant impact on the
problem solver’s motivation to solve it as well as their understanding of key
120 J. Cai and S. Hwang

underlying concepts of the problem. He proposed five types of problems—recogni-

tion, algorithmic, application, open-search, and problem situations—and provided
suggestions for improving the presentation of each type to maximize the learners’
motivation and understanding when solving them.
Recognition problems require the solver to recognize or recall something such as
a theorem or definition. They often rely on true–false, multiple-choice, and fill-in-­
the-blank formats. An example of this type is: “The line segment joining a vertex of
a triangle to the midpoint of the opposite side is called a …?” (Butts, 1980, p. 24).
To encourage the solver to understand the underlying concepts rather than merely
memorizing, an effective way to pose these problems is the “give an example of”
format, for example: Give “an example of…a proper fraction greater than 3/4”
(Butts, 1980, p. 26).
Algorithmic problems require the solver to perform a particular procedure or
algorithm, for example: “Solve 2x2 − 3x − 5 = 0” (Butts, 1980, p. 24). He notes that
the challenge with these problems is to make them interesting to the problem solver
rather than routine. One of the ways to make it more interesting is to present appli-
cation problems. Application problems require the solver to apply an algorithm to a
problem that is not formulated symbolically, for example: “If the length and width
of a rectangle are each increased by 20%, by what percent is the area increased?”
(Butts, 1980, p. 24). He again notes the need to keep these problems interesting and,
particularly in the case of word problems, realistic.
The less common problem types are open-search problems and problem situa-
tions. According to Butts (1980), “an open-search problem is one that does not
contain a strategy for solving the problem in its statement” (p. 25), for example:
“How many different triangles with integer sides can be drawn having a longest side
(or sides) of length 5 cm? 6 cm? n cm?” (Butts, 1980, p. 25). The key function of
these problems is to encourage guessing and exploration, which he claims is the
preliminary step on the path to proof writing. Thus, the best way to pose these prob-
lems is in a way that encourages the solver to make guesses at the solution. One
example of this is what he refers to as “whimsical problems” which pose superreal-
istic situations that keep the solvers’ interest by using realistic elements but with
outlandish characteristics. Finally, problem situations are, as their name suggests,
not explicit problems but rather situations in which the solver has to identify the
problem in the situation before identifying the solution that will address that prob-
lem. An example of this problem type is:
Design a parking lot. Possible problems to consider could include the following. There are
many, many others.
(a) How large should each space be?
(b) At what angle should each space be placed? (Butts, 1980, p. 25)
It goes without saying that the most important criterion of a worthwhile mathe-
matical problem is that the problem should serve as a means for students to learn
important mathematics. Such a problem does not have to be complicated with a
fancy format. As long as a problem can reach the goal of fostering students’ learning
of important mathematics, it is a worthwhile problem. As Hiebert et al. (1996) have
noted, a problem as simple as finding the difference in heights between two
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 121

children, one 62 and the other 37 inches tall, can be a worthwhile problem if teach-
ers use it appropriately for students’ learning of multidigit addition. Teachers must
decide what mathematical tasks to select or develop according to specific learning
goals of a lesson. Textbooks can be a useful resource for selecting worthwhile math-
ematical tasks. In fact, teachers can develop worthwhile and interesting mathemati-
cal tasks by simply modifying problems from the textbooks.

7.4 Students and Problems: From Solving to Posing

Typically, when talking about instructional tasks, educators focus on problem-­

solving tasks, just as in Butts’ (1980) analysis above. In that context, the role of
teachers is to select and develop problem-solving tasks that are likely to foster stu-
dents’ development of understanding and mastery of procedures in a way that also
promotes their development of abilities to solve problems and reason and commu-
nicate mathematically (NCTM, 1991). Brown and Walter (1983) took this a step
further, examining instructional tasks in which students pose their own problems
and then solve them. They described processes for posing new problems from exist-
ing situations or problems, including asking “what-if-not” questions that encourage
the variation of the conditions and constraints of a mathematical problem or phe-
nomenon (this process echoes the “looking back” phase of Polya’s [1945] approach
to problem solving). Moreover, Brown and Walter noted that the activity of asking
questions in mathematics (that is, mathematical problem posing) may be helpful in
addressing students’ mathematics anxiety because, although some questions may be
more productive than others, questions are not inherently “right” or “wrong.”
Indeed, the value of a posed problem is frequently not obvious without delving into
it and thus thinking more deeply about the underlying mathematics (which is ulti-
mately a positive outcome for an instructional task).
For the purposes of this chapter, when we consider the perspective of students as
problem posers, we use the term “problem-posing tasks” to mean instructional tasks
that engage students in generating new problems and questions based on given situ-
ations (including mathematical expressions or diagrams) or changing (i.e., reformu-
lating) existing problems (Cai & Hwang, 2020; Kilpatrick, 1987; Silver, 1994).
Problem-posing tasks put the students into the role of problem generator instead of
teacher. Educationally, this switching of roles is theoretically sound based on both
constructivist and sociocultural aspects of learning, and it can actually increase stu-
dents’ access to mathematical sense making and learning. When students have the
opportunity to pose their own mathematical problems based on a situation, they
must make sense of the constraints and parameters that can be mathematized (which
also happens to be a mathematical modeling competency). They then extend from
that sense-making activity to build connections between their existing understand-
ing and the new context and its related mathematical ideas.
Although problem-posing activities are cognitively demanding tasks, they are
adaptable to students’ abilities and thus can increase students’ access such that
122 J. Cai and S. Hwang

students with different levels of understanding can still participate and pose poten-
tially productive problems based on their own sense making. Indeed, what is a chal-
lenging problem to one student may be easier for another student and impossible for
yet another. In our view of problem posing, we consider challenge (conceived as
mathematical difficulty) as somewhat orthogonal to the capacity to successfully
pose problems. In fact, prior research has shown that students and teachers without
problem-­posing experience are quite capable of posing mathematically complex
problems. In this context, challenge is not something that needs to be overcome but,
instead, is a source of productive struggle. The more students can productively
struggle while posing problems, the more they can learn. Because problem posing
is an activity with a high ceiling and low floor (Cai et al., 2015), it offers access to
all students to opportunities for productive struggle and mathematical sense mak-
ing. The problems different students pose may reflect different levels of complexity
and challenge, but each student still benefits from making sense of the problem situ-
ation and the mathematical concepts embedded therein.
More generally, we consider that in problem posing, mathematical challenge
does not simply refer to mathematical difficulty. We see mathematical challenge in
problem-posing tasks as referring to their capacity to challenge students to be more
engaged with the mathematics by making it more accessible to them. In this way,
problem-posing tasks increase the potential for students’ learning. Certainly,
problem-­posing tasks can be cognitively demanding, but they also challenge stu-
dents in this other way.
In addition, problem-posing tasks can foster students’ positive mathematics
identities by stimulating their creativity (Silver, 1997); sparking their interest and
curiosity (NCTM, 1991); and positioning them as agents within the problem, that is,
empowering them with agency as explorers of mathematics (NCTM, 2020). It pro-
vides a way for them to connect mathematics to their interests, something that is
often not the case with routine problem solving, and allows them to personalize
their responses. Students can connect to their different experiences and backgrounds
and pose very different problems, all of which are related to the mathematical con-
text (Cai & Leikin, 2020). They can make sense of and take ownership of the con-
cepts from which they build their problems. Allowing not just teachers and textbooks
but also students to pose the problems considered by the class creates shared math-
ematical authority and positions students as people who are capable of making
sense of mathematics. When students then share their posed problems with their
peers in the classroom and solve each other’s problems, they expand their horizons
and build a shared understanding (Silver, 1994).

7.5 Problem-Posing Tasks

Just as there are many types of problems and problem-solving tasks, there are sev-
eral types of problem-posing tasks. In this section, we present a number of examples
of such tasks, discussing the learning opportunities they offer. We begin by
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 123

describing a categorization scheme for these tasks that is based on the nature of the
problem situations and on the prompts used to initiate students’ posing activity.
With respect to prompts, there are many choices, some of which result in more open
tasks and others of which result in more closed tasks.
We note that other researchers have proposed categorization schemes for prob-
lem posing (e.g., Baumanns & Rott, 2020; Stoyanova & Ellerton, 1996). For exam-
ple, Stoyanova and Ellerton (1996) considered the degree to which a problem-posing
task constrained the students’ freedom to pose problems, establishing three catego-
ries: free problem posing, semi-structured problem posing, and structured problem
posing. Free problem posing imposed almost no constraints, even including very
little in the way of context on which to build a problem. Semi-structured problem
posing provided more context but allowed students to pose relatively freely based
on that context. Structured problem posing imposed the most conditions, such as
providing a problem or an equation on which to base the posed problem. Baumanns
and Rott (2020) built on this categorization by including consideration of whether a
situation leads to problem posing or not and whether the initial given problem in a
structured posing task can be considered routine or non-routine.
We do not intend to present a competing categorization of problem-posing tasks,
but rather we have chosen to frame our categorization with respect to the consider-
ations that have played a part in our own research on problem posing (e.g., Cai &
Hwang, 2021). We first discuss problem-posing situations and then discuss the
prompts that could be used in problem-posing tasks.

7.5.1 Problem Situations in Problem-Posing Tasks

In a problem-posing task, the problem situation is what provides the context and
data that the students may draw on (in addition to their own life experiences and
knowledge) to craft problems. Problem-posing tasks can begin from many differ-
ent kinds of problem situations. The context for posing can involve words, pic-
tures, graphs, patterns, tables, and mathematical expressions. We consider
problem situations that are based on real-world referents and problem situations
that are purely mathematical or abstract. Within each of these two categories,
there are several subcategories of problem situations that differ in how the contex-
tual information or data are presented. Figure 7.1 shows the various types of prob-
lem situations in our categorization. Note that, although we highlight real-life
contexts and purely mathematical contexts as a way to characterize problem situ-
ations, we are not specifically focusing on the interplay between real life and pure
mathematics. Rather, we aim to illustrate (and provide some systematization for)
the diversity of contexts that can be used for problem-posing tasks. Fundamentally,
problem posing in both purely mathematical contexts and real-life situations can
provide mathematical challenges which non-problem-posing tasks would ordi-
narily not provide.
124 J. Cai and S. Hwang

Words/text

Problem situation
Real-life context Picture/figure/graph

Table

Mathematical
expression

Picture/figure/graph
Purely mathematical
context
Table

Pattern

Fig. 7.1 Types of problem situations in problem-posing tasks

[Link] Real-Life Context Examples

Example 7.1 Text Based (Percent)

Some students submitted paintings for a competition. The total number of paintings submit-
ted was 125. Six paintings received first prize, 6% of the total number of paintings received
second prize, and the number of paintings receiving third prize was 40% more than the
number of paintings receiving second prize. Pose percent-related problems and then
solve them.

This task uses mathematics with a real-life context as the problem situation (Cai &
Xu, 2019). The context and data are communicated through text—a story about a
painting competition. The teacher tells the students the total number of entries, the
quantitative relationship of each award, and other information, and asks the students
to ask and answer questions that can be solved by using percents. The student’s
activity is not to directly answer an existing mathematical problem but to ask ques-
tions based on this given information and then solve them. Each student may ask
one or more math problems, and different students may ask different questions,
leading to potentially useful comparisons across posed problems to highlight spe-
cific concepts related to percents.
Example 7.2 Text Based (Waiter)
Some curriculum materials include the beginnings of support for student problem
posing. For example, the problem-posing task below comes from Illustrative
Mathematics (2019a), which includes in its design an instructional routine called
Co-Craft Questions. When teachers use the Co-Craft Questions routine, they mod-
ify a problem-solving task in the lesson they are teaching into a problem-posing task
by only showing the students the problem situation (withholding the rest of the
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 125

problem) and then asking the students to write possible mathematical questions.
(We will return to this strategy for turning problem-solving tasks into problem-­
posing tasks below.) Drawing on Zwiers et al. (2017), Illustrative Mathematics
states that the purpose of this routine is “to allow students to get inside of a context
before feeling pressure to produce answers” and “to create space for students to
produce the language of mathematical questions themselves” (Illustrative
Mathematics, n.d.).
During one waiter’s shift, he delivered 13 appetizers, 17 entrées, and 10 desserts. Before
students begin work, display the waiter’s situation without revealing the questions. Ask
students to write down possible mathematical questions that might be asked about the situ-
ation. Invite pairs to compare their questions, and then ask for a few to be shared in a
whole-class discussion. Reveal the actual questions about the waiter’s situation that stu-
dents will answer. This will help students make sense of the problem before attempting to
solve it.

The problem situation in this task is again expressed through words. Note that the
data from the waiter’s shift is simply expressed through a single sentence. Problem
situations need not be overly complex. There is plenty of context and data in this
sentence to allow students to generate many kinds of problems.
Example 7.3 Graph Based (Running Graph)
This example of a problem-posing task from the Illustrative Mathematics Grade 8
curriculum (Illustrative Mathematics, 2019b) uses a graph to present students with
the context for posing problems about speed. The instructions for the teacher sug-
gest selecting pairs of students to present their problems to the class in order to bring
out the idea of relationships between distance and time.
Display only the graph and context (i.e., “Kiran was running around the track. The graph
shows the time, t, he took to run various distances, d.”). Ask pairs of students to write pos-
sible questions that could be answered by the graph. Invite pairs to share their questions
with the class. Look for questions that ask students to interpret quantities represented in
the graph.
126 J. Cai and S. Hwang

Example 7.4 Graph Based (Bar Graph)

The graph below shows the number of orphans whose parents died due to AIDS in 2002 and
2010 in the entire world, in Africa, and in Asia. Analyze the data in the graph and pose
mathematical problems based on the data that can be solved using linear equations.

Number of orphans whose parents died due to AIDS

(unit is 10,000 people)

World 1340
2500

Africa 1133
2000

Asia 200
432
2002 2010

In this task, the problem situation includes data presented in the form of a bar
graph (Cai & Xu, 2019). In addition to providing students with the opportunity to
makes sense of this method of displaying data, the instructions (that is, the prompt)
for this task focus the students on posing problems that can be solved by using
linear equations. There are many types of problems that could be posed based on
these data; this is a key characteristic of many problem-posing tasks. However, in
order to use the task effectively to achieve particular learning goals, it is some-
times useful to add constraints to the task. We discuss the role of prompts in
greater detail below.
Example 7.5 Table Based (Animal Speed)

Animal Crawling speed (km/h)

Snail 0.045
Tortoise 0.32
Spider 1.9

Based on the information in the table, about how many times as fast is a spider compared
to a tortoise? Can you pose other mathematical problems and solve them?

As with the previous two examples, this task presents students with data related to
a real-world phenomenon (Cai & Xu, 2019). This time, the data are presented in a
table, which supports a natural tendency to make comparisons across entries in the
table. The task includes a given problem that makes a multiplicative comparison.
This may help students think of making multiplicative comparisons in their own
posed problems rather than relying only on additive comparisons.
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 127

[Link] Purely Mathematical Context Examples

Example 7.6 Mathematical Expression Based (Writing Stories)

A common instructional task involves asking students to interpret a story and solve
the so-called “story problem.” Story problems are sometimes application problems
like those Butts (1980) discussed, although they can also be much more routine and
algorithmic. Notably, when teachers (or curriculum writers) generate story prob-
lems, they are already setting up the parallel between the mathematical situation and
common the story context. A much less common task in mathematics classes is to
ask students to make up their own stories. When students are asked to write stories
to go with mathematical situations, they must take up the work of setting up the
connection between the mathematics and their chosen context. To do so, they need
to understand the meaning of the mathematical concepts or procedures as well as
the features of the proposed context. For example, writing stories to go with number
sentences can provide students with the opportunity to focus on the meaning of the
operations and procedures involved. Consider, for example, these problem-posing
tasks that ask students to write stories (Ma, 1999):
(1) Write story problems to show the application of the following computation: 1
3/4 ÷ 1/2=?
(2) Make up a word problem that can be solved by using the following expressions:
295 − 43 × 4 and (74 − 52) + (67 − 23).
(3) Write a story problem that can be answered by finding the value of n in the equation
−4n = −24.
(4) Write a story problem that can be answered by finding the value of n in the equation
x2 + 2x = 20.

Example 7.7 Mathematical Expression Based (Distributive Property over

Addition)
Problem-posing tasks based on given mathematical expressions can also be used to
help students understand other kinds of mathematical concepts. The following
whole-class task uses problem posing to develop students’ understanding of the
distributive property of multiplication over addition (Chen & Cai, 2020):
Divide the class into 4 groups. Provide the expression “(5+7)×4” to the students in groups
1 and 2, and provide the expression “5×4+7×4” to the students in groups 3 and 4. (The
teacher deliberately hides the two formulas to prevent the students in each group from
knowing the other group’s expression.) Students in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 know each other’s
calculations, respectively. Ask students to pose mathematical problems based on daily life
according to their assigned expression. In the follow-up discussion, let the students guess
what expression the other group of students based their problems on.

Example 7.8 Mathematical Expression Based (Pythagorean Theorem)

Please help John think of a mathematical problem that can be solved by the Pythagorean
Theorem.

In this task, the students’ posed problems must be solvable using the Pythagorean
Theorem. Thus, the information in the problem should, in some way, satisfy that
theorem. Similar to writing stories based on given expressions, this task begins with
128 J. Cai and S. Hwang

a given expression. However, in this case, the expression does not use particular
numbers. It is a general relationship expressed symbolically. Still, in order to pose
problems that satisfy the expression, students must make use of their understanding
of the Pythagorean Theorem and potentially deepen that understanding as they work
to pose an appropriate problem.
Example 7.9 Graph Based (Linear Function)
Use the graph below to answer the following questions.

[Link] an equation that will produce the above graph when x is greater than or equal
to zero.
[Link] a real-life situation that could be represented by this graph. Be specific.

This graph task (Cai et al., 2013) provides a purely mathematical context—a
linear graph—but invites the student to provide a real-life situation that could be
represented by the graph. In one sense, the task is asking the students to transform
a purely mathematical context into a real-world context. As with Example 7.6, a
goal of this type of task is to assess students’ understanding of a mathematical con-
cept by examining how the student creates a connection between the concept and
their chosen real-life context. For example, one might check that the student has
used their knowledge that a line that points up and to the right represents an increas-
ing relationship by describing an increasing relationship in their word problem. In
addition, students’ understanding of the meaning of a positive y-intercept could be
assessed by how they set up their story to reflect this feature of the graph.
Example 7.10 Figure Based (Parallel Line Geometry)
Consider the following geometry task based on a given figure:
In the figure below, AB//CD.

Show that the sum of the measures of <A, <E, and <C is 360°.
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 129

This is a very common, if closed, way of presenting this kind of geometry problem
in regular textbooks (Cai et al., 2015). There are several ways to make the problem
more open. Instead of prompting the student to show that the sum of the measures
of the specified angles is 360°, we may instead ask, “What is the sum of the mea-
sures of <A, <E, and <C?” Although the second version of the prompt leaves the
student in a more open position (in terms of given information), neither of these
prompts results in a problem-posing task. In addition, we may ask students to make
a generalization of the problem by asking “What is the sum of the three angle mea-
sures with different locations of point E?” This again opens the problem to a wider
set of possibilities, but it remains ultimately a problem-solving task. If, instead, we
change the prompt to, “Please pose as many mathematical problems as you can
with respect to the relationships in the figure,” the task is now a problem-posing
task, and it has become even more open, hence increasing the opportunities for stu-
dents’ learning. Some students may indeed generate problems similar to the ones
presented above. However, others may explore the figure and pose completely dif-
ferent problems.
Example 7.11 Table Based (Pythagorean Theorem)
Consider the following task, adapted from Brown and Walter (1983), that, like
Example 7.8, focuses on the Pythagorean theorem. This time, however, the problem
situation proceeds from a table of data:

x y z
3 4 5
5 12 13
7 24 25
8 15 17
9 40 41
12 35 37

The table above shows several triples that satisfy the Pythagorean Theorem x2 + y2 = z2.
Using this table, what questions can you ask?

In this task, the focus is less on finding a context or problem that satisfies the
Pythagorean Theorem and more on exploring patterns in the given data. Students
may make any number of conjectures and pose several kinds of questions based on
the numbers. For example, students might ask whether z is always odd. Or, they
might ask whether y is always divisible by 4 or 5.
Example 7.12 Pattern Based (Black and White Dots)
The pattern-based problem-solving task below (Cai & Hwang, 2002) is interesting
because there is no immediate pathway suggested by the task. It requires students to
discover underlying mathematical structures.
Look at the figures below.
130 J. Cai and S. Hwang

(Figure 1) (Figure 2) (Figure 3)

1. Draw the 4th figure.

2. How many black dots are there in the 6th figure? Explain how you found your answer.
3. How many white dots are there in the 6th figure? Explain how you found your answer.
4. Figure 1 has 8 white dots. Fig. 3 has 16 white dots. If a figure has 44 white dots, which
figure is this? Explain how you found your answer.

However, we can examine students’ thinking from a different perspective if we

ask them to generate their own mathematical problems. Research shows that stu-
dents are capable of generating interesting mathematical problems and that there is
a direct link between students’ problem-solving and problem-posing skills (Cai &
Hwang, 2002; Silver & Cai, 1996). A more open, problem-posing version of this
task might look like the following:
Mr. Miller drew the following figures in a pattern, as shown below.

(Figure 1) (Figure 2) (Figure 3)

For his student’s homework, he wanted to make up three problems BASED ON THE
ABOVE SITUATION: an easy problem, a moderate problem, and a difficult problem. These
problems can be solved using the information in the situation. Help Mr. Miller make up
problems and write these problems in the space below.
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 131

7.5.2 Prompts in Problem-Posing Tasks

In addition to a problem situation that provides context and data for students to use
in their posed problems, a problem-posing task must include a prompt that lets stu-
dents know what they are expected to do. Depending on the goal of the task, for the
same problem-posing situation, there can be many different kinds of prompts. Some
possible prompts include the following:
• Pose as many mathematical problems as possible
• Pose problems of different levels of difficulty (e.g., “Pose one easy problem, one
moderately difficult problem, and one difficult problem.”)
• Given a sample problem, pose similar problems (or problems that are structurally
different)
The choice of prompt can influence both the mathematical focus for the students
and the level of challenge that the posing task presents. Consider the problem-­
posing task in Example 7.4 above (the bar graph task). Certainly, this context could
be used to address a variety of content, including interpreting graphs and data or
understanding linear equations. However, problem-posing tasks are often con-
structed specifically to address the learning goals of a particular lesson. Example
7.4 came from a lesson related to linear equations. Thus, a constraint (solvable using
linear equations) was included in the prompt in order to increase the likelihood of
the task supporting the students’ understanding of linear equations. In this case, the
prompt constraint does increase the challenge of the task (e.g., by preventing simple
arithmetic problems) relative to the lesson and its learning goals, but, generally
speaking, the effect of the prompt is still an open area of research. Does the prompt
always affect challenge this way? The answer probably depends on the lesson goals.
For example, if the learning goals had to do with exponential functions, this prompt
might actually decrease the challenge (in addition to making the task disconnected
from the goal of the lesson).
Indeed, from a research perspective, it is not yet well understood what prompts
are best to pair with a given problem situation or what prompts are most suited to
achieving a desired degree of challenge or to address particular learning goals. That
is, research has not yet illuminated the connections between different kinds of
problem-­ posing prompts and different cognitive processes in problem posers.
Research on problem-solving tasks has established that different prompts can elicit
different cognitive processes and impact students’ problem-solving performance
(Goldin & McClintock, 1984). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the prompt in a
problem-posing task also shapes students’ engagement with the task. A few studies
have investigated how different prompts in problem-posing tasks impact students’
or teachers’ problem-posing performance and problem-posing processes (e.g.,
Silber & Cai, 2017). Silber and Cai (2017) compared preservice teachers’ problem
posing using structured prompts and free prompts, finding that the preservice teach-
ers in the structured-posing condition more closely attended to the mathematical
concepts in each task. Moreover, the effect of the prompt depends, in part, on the
132 J. Cai and S. Hwang

setup of the task. For example, in their review of problem posing in textbooks, Cai
and Jiang (2017) identified four common types of problem-posing tasks: posing a
problem that matches the given/specific kinds of arithmetic operations, posing vari-
ations on a question with the same mathematical relationship or structure, posing
additional questions based on the given information and a sample question, and
posing questions based on given information. A similar prompt (e.g., “Pose a math-
ematical problem.”) could be used with many of these types of tasks, but its mean-
ing to the student could be different for each type.
Based on practice, it does seem that encouraging students to pose different dif-
ficulty levels of problems has some advantages for eliciting deeper student thinking
about some kinds of problems (Cai & Hwang, 2002) and for adjusting the level of
challenge of the task relative to each student. For example, the prompt, “Create a
problem that would be difficult for you to solve,” can challenge each student to
stretch toward the edge of their own ability. Although each student may still engage
the problem-posing task at a level that is appropriate for their existing mathematical
understanding, such a prompt could result in the overall level of challenge increas-
ing. Ultimately, we believe that the choice of problem-posing prompt has the poten-
tial to make a difference in how students engage with problem-posing tasks. More
research in this area is needed to explore the effects of problem-posing prompts,
including identifying what kinds of prompts are most inviting or engaging to stu-
dents, determining how providing example problems may shape students’ posing
activity (for better or worse with respect to the learning goals), and what the effects
of other features of prompts (e.g., including conceptual cues, as in Yao et al.,
2021) may be.
The following tasks provide examples of various ways that prompts can be used
to engage students in problem posing.
Example 7.13 Number Pattern Task (Odd Numbers)
Look at the pattern of numbers in the arrangement below.

1
3 5
7 9 11
13 15 17 19
21 23 25 27 29


The pattern continues. I wanted to make up some problems that used this pattern for a
group of high school students/college freshmen. Help me by writing as many problems as
you can in the space below.

In this task (Cai, 2012), there are many possible observations that students might
make about the pattern. By using a prompt that asks for “as many problems” as the
student can generate, this task encourages students to explore the pattern in greater
depth (i.e., beyond the first thing they notice). For example, students might ask
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 133

mathematical questions like, “What is the sum of the numbers in the nth row?” or
“What is the sum of the numbers in the first n rows?” or “What is the relationship
between the first number in each row?”
Other prompts could also be used with this problem situation. For example, by
using a prompt like, “Help me by writing one problem that would be easy for the
students to solve and one problem that would be difficult for them to solve,” could
help illuminate what features of the pattern the students consider to be more or less
accessible. Moreover, a discussion of posed “easy” and “difficult” problems across
students could be used to identify characteristics that make problems more or less
challenging (e.g., number of steps required to solve, degree to which the problem
generalizes beyond the given information).
One could also provide a sample problem (e.g., “What is the sum of the numbers
in the 10th row?”) before asking students to pose additional problems. In that case,
the choice of sample problem could encourage students to look in a particular direc-
tion when posing their own problems, perhaps guiding them toward a particular
target concept or generalization.
Example 7.14 Plane Geometry Task (Conjectures)
Problem-posing tasks based on pictures and diagrams can enrich students’ experiences with
plane geometry. Often, problem-solving tasks in geometry require students to prove state-
ments that are either obvious from the diagram (although the proof may not be obvious) or
statements that are obscure and for which little motivation is provided. By providing a
geometric diagram without an obvious statement to prove, instead prompting students to
make conjectures and explore them, problem-posing tasks of the type below can stimulate
students’ interest, creativity, and initiative in learning.

In the diagram above, △ABC and △DEF are congruent triangles.

Please use this diagram to make three conjectures and then prove or
disprove them.
134 J. Cai and S. Hwang

In response to this task, adapted from Brown and Walter (1983), a student
could, for example, explore the positioning of the two overlapping congruent
triangles, realizing that the intersection is only sometimes a regular hexagon.
This might lead the student to wonder what conditions the positions of the
triangles satisfy in order to make the hexagon GHILMF a regular hexagon (as
it appears to be in the picture).

Example 7.15 Mirroring a Given Problem (Clothing Combination Task)

Anna has three shirts: one white, one red, and one yellow, and three skirts: one black, one
green, and one blue. (1) How many different ways are there to pair one shirt with one skirt?
(2) Pose a new mathematical problem that has the same mathematical structure as the given
problem (a combination problem), and solve it.

As with Example 7.1 (the painting contest situation), this task provides a real-life
context in the problem situation, and students are invited to ask mathematical ques-
tions. The difference here is that an example problem is provided for students to
imitate. This type of prompt is what Cai and Jiang (2017) categorized as posing
variations on a question with the same mathematical relationship or structure. The
intention is for students to vary the context, data, or unknown quantities in the prob-
lem situation while keeping the most basic mathematical relationships and struc-
tures (in this case, a combinatorics problem) consistent with the example problem.
Example 7.16 Mirroring a Given Problem (Ages)
A similar type of problem-posing task asks students to take a given problem and
explicitly change the numbers (without changing the rest of the problem situation)
to produce analogous problems. For example,
The sum of the ages of Sana and her father is 45. Sana’s age is 2/7 of her father’s. How old
is Sana? Please pose a similar question by varying the two numbers in the situation.

This task, adapted from Arikan and Unal (2013), relies on students recognizing
certain practical, real-life constraints on how they may modify the problem. For
example, Sana’s age is assumed to be less than her father’s age, and one might
expect her father’s age to be at least 18 years old. A student might also decide that,
by convention, the age should be a whole number. Moreover, this task could be
broadened to allow students to add conditions or steps. For example, a student might
augment the given problem as follows: “The sum of the ages of Sana and her father
is 54. Sana’s age is one-fifth of her father’s age. In 4 years, how old will Sana’s
father be?”

7.6 Teachers Learning to Teach Mathematics through

Problem Posing

If problem-posing tasks have the potential to be a powerful class of instructional

tasks that are both challenging to a wide range of students and effective at helping
students learn mathematics deeply, a pressing question is how to integrate problem
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 135

posing into day-to-day school mathematics instruction. Based on standards docu-

ments, problem posing is already recognized as an important activity for students.
For example, in NCTM’s (1989) Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School
Mathematics, problem posing was advocated for in the hopes that students would
“have some experience recognizing and formulating their own problems, an activity
that is at the heart of doing mathematics” (p. 138). Paralleling this recommendation
for mathematics curriculum was an explicit call for teachers to create problem-­
posing learning opportunities: “Students should be given opportunities to formulate
problems from given situations and create new problems by modifying the condi-
tions of a given problem” (NCTM, 1991, p. 95). Subsequent updates to NCTM’s
recommendations placed an even stronger emphasis on student thinking and prob-
lem posing (e.g., NCTM, 2000; 2020). Moreover, the Common Core State Standards
for Mathematics promote mathematical modeling, a process in which formulating
the problem is a critical step (National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
Given the ongoing call for problem posing in standards documents, it would
seem logical that problem-posing tasks would be built into the curriculum materials
that teachers use regularly. Unfortunately, this is not the case. For example, widely
used curriculum materials in the United States fail to incorporate problem posing in
a substantial and consistent way. Only a very small proportion of problem-posing
activities are included in popular elementary and middle school mathematics text-
books (Cai & Jiang, 2017; Silver, 2013). In addition to being sparse, the problem-­
posing activities in textbooks can be very unevenly distributed across grade levels
and content areas. Of the limited number of problem-posing activities, the vast
majority are related to number and operations. Very few involve algebra, geometry,
measurement, or data analysis (Cai & Jiang, 2017). The unrepresentative distribu-
tion of problem-posing tasks reflects a haphazard approach to incorporating prob-
lem posing in the intended curriculum.

7.6.1 Changing Beliefs and Increasing Knowledge About

Teaching Through Problem Posing

A consequence of the lack of problem-posing tasks in curriculum materials is that

teachers, who are at the heart of implementing changes in instruction, do not have
consistent support to implement problem posing in their classrooms. Thus, there is
a critical need to support teachers to integrate problem posing into their instruction
despite the lack of curricular support. Fundamentally, this means supporting teach-
ers to develop their knowledge and beliefs about teaching through problem posing.
Figure 7.2 shows a teacher professional learning model guiding a large research
project on teachers’ learning to teach through problem posing (Cai et al., 2020).
Through teacher learning, teachers increase their knowledge and change their
beliefs and then change their classroom instruction, aiming to improve students’
learning. Indeed, both teachers’ knowledge and teachers’ beliefs are consistently
136 J. Cai and S. Hwang

Increase
Knowledge
Change Improve
Teacher Students’
Instruction
Learning Learning
Change
Beliefs

Fig. 7.2 A teacher professional learning model

important factors in teachers’ professional learning and classroom instruction

(Richardson, 1996; Thompson, 1992), influencing how they interact with curricu-
lum (Handal & Herrington, 2003; Hill & Charalambous, 2012; Lloyd et al., 2017),
their instructional practices (Stipek et al., 2001; Wilkins, 2008), and how their stu-
dents learn (Hill & Chin, 2018; Peterson et al., 1989). Thus, attempts to change
instruction by incorporating problem posing as a teaching method will necessarily
need to attend to teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about teaching through prob-
lem posing.
Through professional learning opportunities that offer extended experiences
with problem posing, teachers are able to increase their knowledge about teaching
with problem posing and develop positive beliefs about it. Indeed, Cai and Hwang
(2021) have shown that participation in professional development workshops
focused on problem posing results in teachers gaining expertise at posing problems
themselves as well as knowledge about the kinds of problems their students might
pose. Moreover, they exhibit increased confidence about teaching using problem
posing, and they develop more specific and comprehensive beliefs about the advan-
tages and challenges of teaching with problem posing.
Although there is the potential for teachers to change their instructional practice
based on developing their knowledge and beliefs about teaching through problem
posing, it remains important to consider the degree to which teachers (and the sys-
tems within which they operate) buy into the proposed change (Kramer et al., 2015).
Without buy-in, instructional reforms cannot be sustained. Thus, to gain buy-in
from teachers, it is critical to consider the impact of changing instruction on teach-
ers’ resources (e.g., time, energy, attention).

7.6.2 Equipping Teachers to Develop Problem-Posing Tasks

When considering how to integrate problem posing more effectively in mathematics

classrooms, it is important to avoid the change being perceived as a burden or a radi-
cal change in practice that would require too much time to adapt to. Rather, problem
posing may be more readily accepted if it builds on existing, common practices.
Ideally, problem posing would be introduced through small, incremental changes
that would be accessible to teachers and students but that offer the promise of rich
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 137

returns in student learning (Cai & Hwang, 2021). One natural way to support teach-
ers to work around the limited support for problem posing in published curricula
would therefore be to support them in reshaping existing problem-solving tasks in
simple ways that transform lessons to create learning opportunities with problem
posing. Teachers are already active participants in translating the intended, written
curriculum into the enacted curriculum, engaging with their curriculum materials in
a design process (e.g., Cai & Hwang, 2021; Lloyd et al., 2017; Remillard, 2005;
Stein et al., 2007). Thus, it makes sense to tap into this existing process to empower
teachers to adapt their curriculum materials to introduce more substantial problem-­
posing tasks and opportunities. This allows teachers to work with familiar tasks that
they modify in simple ways to serve a new purpose.
In that vein, we describe two strategies for integrating problem posing into the
school mathematics curriculum. The first strategy is empowering teachers as cur-
riculum redesigners to change problem-solving elements of their curriculum mate-
rials to create learning opportunities for mathematical problem posing. For example,
teachers could add a follow-up problem-posing prompt such as “Can you pose a
similar problem that could be solved?” or “Can you pose another problem using this
information?” at the end of a problem-solving task. As with Polya’s “looking back”
step, this would encourage students to make use of the mathematical thinking they
have already been engaging in to generalize a mathematical relationship or to find
additional connections. Another simple modification would be to change the
problem-­solving prompt into a problem-posing prompt. For example, in a word
problem, such as “Jenna, Eli, and Angela are driving home from a trip. Angela drove
150 miles less than Eli. Eli drove twelve times as far as Jenna drove. Jenna drove 50
miles. How many miles did they drive altogether?” teachers could replace the ques-
tion “How many miles did they drive altogether?” with a request that students pose
problems based on this situation. Research has shown that students are capable of
posing linguistically and semantically complex problems based on such situations
(Silver & Cai, 1996).
The second strategy is to encourage students to pose problems at different levels
of complexity. As we noted above, prompts that ask students to pose different dif-
ficulty levels of problems may help elicit deeper student thinking. For example, Cai
and Hwang (2002) used parallel pattern-based tasks to examine the problem solving
and problem posing of U.S. and Chinese sixth graders, finding that the Chinese
students’ posed problems reflected their use of abstract problem-solving strategies
and the kinds of critical thinking involved in solving pattern-based problems. To
gain insight into students’ mathematical thinking with problem posing requires
more than a single posed problem. Once teachers and students have had some expe-
rience with posing mathematical problems in the classroom, asking students to pose
more than one problem for a given problem-posing situation is again an incremental
change in practice. In addition to providing useful data for the teacher to get a sense
of the students’ level of understanding of a mathematical situation (Cai & Hwang,
2002), when students generate a sequence of posed problems of varying difficulty,
they are again prompted to engage with the mathematics more deeply. Consider the
black and white dots task in Example 7.12 above. By asking students to provide
138 J. Cai and S. Hwang

three problems of varying difficulty for a problem situation, the teacher is poten-
tially increasing the level of cognitive demand of the task, creating an opportunity
for students to think beyond simple pattern recognition. Silver and Cai (1996) have
found that when students are asked to pose a sequence of problems, their later prob-
lems tend to be more complex and mathematically sophisticated than their earlier
ones. Thus, by making this incremental change to a one-shot problem-posing task,
a teacher can obtain both a different level of access to student thinking and elicit
different levels of cognitive demand from the students.

7.6.3 Supporting Teachers to Develop Teaching Cases

With respect to understanding how problem posing can be enacted in classrooms,

there is a need for careful analyses of practice that can be shared with teachers,
researchers, and professional developers to build a common basis and image of
effective problem-posing instruction. One mechanism for documenting practice and
disseminating it is the development of teaching cases (Zhang & Cai, 2021). Teaching
cases serve as representations of detailed and careful analyses of teaching practice
(Merseth, 2003; Stein et al., 2009). A teaching case includes major elements of a
lesson and related analysis, but it is not a transcribed lesson. Teaching cases include
narratives describing instructional tasks and related instructional moves for the
tasks. Cases also include information about the underlying thinking of major
instructional decisions as well as reflections on and discussions of those decisions.
The development of teaching cases is based on real lessons and typical instructional
events from the lessons. Research has documented the effectiveness of using case-­
based instruction for professional learning. This approach is effective because it
situates instruction in meaningful contexts in order to learn to teach (e.g., Hillen &
Hughes, 2008; Smith et al., 2014).
Often, teaching cases are created by researchers to support teacher learning
(e.g., Merseth, 2003, 2016; Smith et al., 2014; Stein et al., 2009). However,
although the effectiveness of using the case-based approach for teacher learning
has been demonstrated (e.g., Smith et al., 2014), we anticipate that engaging teach-
ers in creating and writing teacher cases would also be effective (if not more so) for
teacher learning. Moreover, we have argued elsewhere that teaching cases could
potentially serve as physical artifacts for storing and improving professional
knowledge for teaching (Cai et al., in press). More work is needed to accumulate
teaching cases in problem posing. With more successfully implemented teaching
cases using problem posing as a resource, teachers could learn from the cases to
teach using problem posing even though they lack problem-posing tasks in their
curriculum materials. In addition, after accumulating more teaching cases, it will
be possible to explore multiple discourse patterns for handling students’ posed
problems as well as to identify the most effective discourse patterns in teaching
mathematics through problem posing.
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 139

7.7 Summary and Looking to the Future

Teaching through problem posing, like teaching through problem solving, holds
great potential for students’ learning not only because of the mathematically chal-
lenging nature of problem-posing tasks but also because problem posing is a low-­
floor-­and-high-ceiling activity that allows for students at all levels to be challenged
through engaging in problem-posing tasks. In this chapter, we have defined problem-­
posing tasks and examined a variety of examples that vary in the type of problem
situation and the type of prompt. Note, however, that we have not attempted to
establish an overall ranking of the level of challenge of problem-posing tasks. This
is primarily because the appropriateness of a problem-posing task needs to be deter-
mined with respect to the learning goals of a particular lesson. If the challenge of a
problem-posing task is adaptable to the individual learner, the level of understand-
ing that the learner brings to the task is key to the task’s challenge for that learner.
Moreover, as we indicated above, it is an open question how to choose and use dif-
ferent prompts with the same situations and how such choices can create different
learning opportunities for students. Thus, the ranking of challenge is a focus for
problem posing only insofar as it is oriented toward understanding how problem
posing can create effective learning opportunities.
Even though there is empirical evidence of using problem posing to effectively
assess students’ mathematical thinking and learning as well as evidence of the posi-
tive effect of teaching mathematics through problem posing on students’ learning
(Cai & Hwang, 2021; Cai et al., 2015), there are a number of areas which need
further research. To conclude this chapter, we point out three areas of future research
with respect to problem-posing tasks, teaching through problem posing, and teach-
ers learning to teach through problem posing. We do not claim that these are the
only areas of research with respect to the mathematically challenging nature of
problem-posing tasks, but we do believe that these three areas of research would
help the field capitalize on the mathematically challenging nature of problem-­posing
tasks to maximize students’ learning.

7.7.1 Problem-Posing Tasks

With respect to problem-posing tasks, we have focused on problem situations and

prompts. Every problem-posing task includes these two features, but it is an open
question how the different situations and prompts influence students’ problem pos-
ing and their overall mathematical thinking. Given the diversity of problem-posing
tasks, extensive and detailed study is needed to increase the field’s understanding of
how best to design a problem-posing task to help students meet a particular learning
goal. With respect to mathematical challenge, we can, for example, ask what kinds
of prompts increase (or decrease) the level of challenge for students. What kinds of
140 J. Cai and S. Hwang

prompts tend to guide students toward mathematically sound problems that are
challenging to themselves?
Fundamentally, the cognitive and affective processes involved in problem posing
are still being mapped out. The implications for how problem-posing tasks may be
designed to present particular levels of challenge are therefore not yet known.
However, preliminary research findings have pointed to directions for further work.
For example, sample problems in a problem-posing task can facilitate students’
problem posing and help them overcome some challenges in the problem-posing
process. Also, when students better understand the problem situation, they are likely
to be more successful in posing problems. The link between problem-solving think-
ing and problem-posing thinking may suggest that one may help the student with
challenges they experience in the other (bidirectionally) because these can develop
in tandem.
Currently, there is preliminary empirical evidence suggesting that asking stu-
dents to pose problems at various difficulty levels may deepen their engagement
with and exploration of the mathematical concepts in a problem-posing task. Much
more detailed research is needed to secure the bases of our understanding of the
impact of problem-posing task characteristics. This is true for both cognitive impacts
and impacts on non-cognitive aspects of students’ learning such as affect, engage-
ment, and creativity (Cai & Leikin, 2020).

7.7.2 Teaching Through Problem Posing

With respect to teaching through problem posing, it is important to recognize that

problem-posing tasks do not exist in isolation. Even if they are included in curricu-
lum materials, the implementation of problem-posing tasks in the classroom
involves many other considerations. Teachers are responsible for choosing worth-
while and challenging instructional tasks to foster their students’ learning. In the
realm of problem-posing tasks, the field is still just beginning to conceptualize how
to choose the most appropriate problem-posing tasks for a given set of learning
goals in a lesson.
Moreover, because problem posing is not a frequent practice in mathematics
classrooms at present, we do not yet have a robust understanding of effective class-
room routines for using problem-posing tasks to challenge students and teach math-
ematics. Critical issues to be addressed in this area include how teachers can most
effectively handle and make use of students’ posed problems to further the learning
goals. What makes one student’s posed problem the right choice to discuss with the
class? How would a teacher make this choice? Also, what patterns of classroom
discourse and activity (e.g., social and sociomathematical norms) might need to be
established in order for teachers to be able to use problem-posing tasks effectively
to engage all students in the class?
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 141

7.7.3 Supporting Teachers to Learn to Teach Through

Problem Posing

Finally, there is much work yet to do with respect to supporting teachers to learn to
teach through problem posing. Although teachers often have experience posing
problems for their students, many teachers have little experience with students pos-
ing their own problems as a mechanism for teaching mathematics. Teaching through
problem posing is therefore a challenging task for teachers. As we have discussed
above, there are many elements of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs that may be
relevant to helping them overcome the challenge of teaching with problem posing:
their own conceptual understanding, their own experience with problem posing as
posers themselves, their knowledge of their students’ problem posing, their beliefs
about problem posing and teaching with problem posing (e.g., beliefs about the
advantages and challenges), and their buy-in to teaching with problem posing (and
the persistence to work on their teaching with problem posing that the buy-in sup-
ports). Because current curriculum materials do not substantively include problem-­
posing opportunities, other kinds of efforts are needed to support teachers to learn
to teach through problem posing.
For example, teachers need support to develop productive beliefs about teaching
through problem posing, including beliefs about the advantages and challenges to
expect. There is early-stage evidence to show that teachers, through professional
development, are able to both increase their own problem-posing performance and
develop more positive and detailed beliefs about problem posing and teaching
mathematics through problem posing (Cai et al., 2020; Cai & Hwang, 2021). This
helps support them in their efforts to incorporate problem posing into their practice.
Clearly, more systematic research is needed to explore multiple prongs for sup-
porting teachers to learn to teach mathematics through problem posing, whether
that is during preservice teacher preparation (e.g., Crespo, 2003, 2015), through
focused in-service professional development experiences (Cai et al., 2020), or
through ongoing collaborative work between teachers and researchers. We believe
one promising avenue that merits further exploration is engaging teachers with
researchers to develop teaching cases for problem posing. Such teaching cases
could both serve as a form of professional development for the teachers engaged in
creating the cases and act as a type of artifact, sharable with other teachers, for
accumulating and storing professional knowledge about specific implementations
of problem posing to challenge students and achieve desired mathematical learning
goals. As the field moves forward with teaching mathematics through problem pos-
ing, we will need longitudinal studies that track the entire process: how teachers
learn to teach through problem posing, how problem posing is enacted in their class-
rooms, and how well problem posing helps students achieve challenging learning
goals. Initial studies of this type are currently underway in China (Cai & Hwang,
2021) and as part of a newly launched design and development project in the
United States.
142 J. Cai and S. Hwang

7.7.4 Problem Posing and Mathematical Challenge

Problem posing as an instructional activity holds great promise for improving stu-
dents’ learning opportunities by creating situations in which students may produc-
tively struggle with challenging mathematics. However, the connection between
problem posing and challenge is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, as we
noted above, one can consider problem posing (as a cognitive and an instructional
activity) as somewhat orthogonal to challenge. This is partly because of the inherent
adaptability of problem-posing tasks to students’ various ability levels and existing
understanding. That is, students who have a greater understanding of the problem
situation and associated mathematics may pose both simple problems (from the
perspective of a knowledgeable observer) and quite challenging problems (in that
the problem is itself challenging for the solver/student and that the act of posing the
problem is challenging for the poser). Yet, students who have less robust under-
standing may also be challenged by the same problem-posing task. Although the
problems they pose may be less challenging (again, from the perspective of a knowl-
edgeable observer), they may yet experience a high degree of mathematical chal-
lenge relative to their level of understanding.
On the other hand, there are aspects of problem posing that are more intrinsically
related to mathematical challenge. For teachers, as we discussed above, there are
quite a few potential challenges related to teaching mathematics through problem
posing. Some of these challenges are external, such as the lack of curricular support.
Others are internal, including understanding how to use problem posing to create
learning opportunities and how to make use of students’ posed problems to help
achieve the learning goals for a lesson. Overcoming these kinds of challenges
requires the development of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. For students, the
degree of challenge they encounter when posing problems may be related to aspects
of our framework such as the nature of the prompts used in problem-posing tasks.
For example, as we noted above in the case of constraints, it is possible that some
kinds of constraints in the problem-posing prompt may increase (or decrease) the
challenge of the activity for students. However, this is always relative to the students
or to the learning goals of the lesson. Ultimately, there is much need for research
that illuminates how the design of problem-posing tasks may best engage students
in productive struggle with challenging mathematics so as to maximize their learn-
ing opportunities.

Acknowledgement Preparation of this manuscript was supported, in part, by a grant from the
National Science Foundation (DRL- 2101552). Any opinions expressed herein are those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jinfa Cai, Department of
Mathematical Sciences, 437 Ewing Hall, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716. Phone:
(302) 831-1879, Email: jcai@[Link].
7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 143

References

Arbaugh, F., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Ramirez, N., Knuth, E., Kranendonk, H., & Quander,
J. R. (2010). Linking research & practice: The NCTM research agenda conference report.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Arikan, E. E., & Unal, H. (2013). Problem posing and problem solving ability of students with dif-
ferent socio economics levels. International Journal of Social Science Research, 2(2), 16–25.
Baumanns, L., & Rott, B. (2020). Rethinking problem-posing situations: A review. Investigations
in Mathematics Learning., 13, 59. [Link]
Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (1983). The art of problem posing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Butts, T. (1980). Posing problems properly. In S. Krulik & R. E. Reys (Eds.), Problem solving in
school mathematics (pp. 23–33). National Council of Teachers and Mathematics.
Cai, J. (2012). Problem posing as lenses of improving students’ learning in classroom. University
of Delaware.
Cai, J. (2014). Searching for evidence of curricular effect on the teaching and learning of math-
ematics: Some insights from the LieCal project. Mathematics Education Research Journal,
26, 811–831.
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in U.S. and Chinese students’
mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21,
401–421.
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2020). Learning to teach mathematics through problem posing: Theoretical
considerations, methodology, and directions for future research. International Journal of
Educational Research, 102, 101391.
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2021). Teachers as re-designers of curriculum to teach mathematics through
problem posing: Conceptualization and initial findings of a problem-posing project.. ZDM-­
Mathematics Education.
Cai, J., & Jiang, C. (2017). An analysis of problem-posing tasks in Chinese and U.S. elemen-
tary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15,
1521–1540.
Cai, J., & Leikin, R. (2020). Affect in mathematical problem posing: Conceptualization, advances,
and future directions for research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105, 287–301.
Cai, J., & Xu, T. (2019). Mathematical problem posing: Its meaning, types, and examples.
Elementary Teaching (Mathematics), Z1, 34–40.
Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., Hwang, S., Nie, B., & Garber, T. (2013). Mathematical prob-
lem posing as a measure of curricular effect on students’ learning. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 83, 57–69.
Cai, J., Hwang, S., Jiang, C., & Silber, S. (2015). Problem posing research in mathematics: Some
answered and unanswered questions. In F. M. Singer, N. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Mathematical
problem posing: From research to effective practice (pp. 3–34). Springer.
Cai, J., Chen, T., Li, X., Xu, R., Zhang, S., Hu, Y., Zhang, L., & Song, N. (2020). Exploring the
impact of a problem-posing workshop on elementary school mathematics teachers’ problem
posing and lesson design. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101404.
Cai, J., Hwang, S., Melville, M., & Robison, V. (in press). Theories for teaching and teaching for
theories: Artifacts as tangible entities for storing and improving professional knowledge for
teaching. In A. Praetorius & C. Y. Charalambous (Eds.), Theorizing teaching. Springer.
Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice
teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 243–270.
Crespo, S. (2015). A collection of problem-posing experiences for prospective mathematics teach-
ers that make a difference. In F. M. Singer, N. F. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Mathematical prob-
lem posing (pp. 493–511). Springer.
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–199.
Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruc-
tion. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180.
144 J. Cai and S. Hwang

Goldin, A. G., & McClintock, E. C. (1984). Task variables in mathematical problem solving.
Franklin Institute Press.
Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59–69.
Heid, M. (1995). Algebra in a technological world (Addenda Series Grades 9–12). National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’
learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age.
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional task, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in
second grade. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.
Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Wearne,
D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of
mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25, 12–21.
Hill, H. C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and qual-
ity of instruction: Lessons learned and open issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4),
559–576. [Link]
Hill, H. C., & Chin, M. (2018). Connections between teachers’ knowledge of students, instruc-
tion, and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1076–1112.
[Link]
Hillen, A. F., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Developing teachers’ abilities to facilitate meaningful class-
room discourse through cases: The case of accountable talk. In M. S. Smith & S. Friel (Eds.),
Cases in mathematics teacher education: Tools for developing knowledge needed for teaching
(Fourth monograph of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators). San Diego.
Illustrative Mathematics. (2019a). Illustrative mathematics grade 7, unit 4.9 – [Link]://
[Link]/MS/teachers/2/4/9/[Link]
Illustrative Mathematics. (2019b). Illustrative mathematics grade 8, unit 5.4 – teachers. https://
[Link]/MS/teachers/3/5/4/[Link]
Illustrative Mathematics. (n.d.). Supporting English-language learners. [Link]
[Link]/HS/teachers/supporting_ell.html
Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from? In
A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 123–147). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Kramer, S., Cai, J., & Merlino, F. J. (2015). A lesson for the common core standards era from the
NCTM standards era: The importance of considering school-level buy-in when implementing
and evaluating standards-based instructional materials. In J. A. Middleton, J. Cai, & S. Hwang
(Eds.), Large-scale studies in mathematics education (pp. 17–44). Springer.
Lappan, G., & Phillips, E. (1998). Teaching and learning in the connected mathematics project.
In L. Leutzinger (Ed.), Mathematics in the middle (pp. 83–92). National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
Lloyd, G. M., Cai, J., & Tarr, J. E. (2017). Issues in curriculum studies: Evidence-based insights
and future directions. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education
(pp. 824–852). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Merseth, K. K. (2003). Windows on teaching math: Cases of middle and secondary classrooms.
Teachers College Press.
Merseth, K. K. (2016). The early history of case-based instruction: Insights for teacher education
today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 243–249.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching math-
ematics. Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school math-
ematics. Author.
 7 Making Mathematics Challenging Through Problem Posing in the Classroom 145

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2020). Catalyzing change in middle school math-
ematics: Initiating critical conversations. Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Authors.
Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teacher’s pedagogical content
beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 1–40.
Polya, G. (1945/1971). How to solve it. Princeton University Press.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics cur-
ricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119) Macmillan.
Silber, S., & Cai, J. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ free and structured mathematical problem posing.
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48, 163–184.
Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14, 19–28.
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving
and problem posing. Zentralbatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 97, 75–80.
Silver, E. A. (2013). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: Looking back, looking
around, and looking ahead. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 157–162.
Silver, E. A., & Cai, J. (1996). An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school stu-
dents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 521–539.
Smith, M. S., Boyle, J., Arbaugh, F., Steele, M. D., & Stylianides, G. (2014). Cases as a vehicle for
developing knowledge needed for teaching. In Y. Li, E. A. Silver, & S. Li (Eds.), Transforming
mathematics instruction: Multiple approaches and practices (pp. 311–333). Springer.
Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to
think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform
mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 50–80.
Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning.
In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 319–369). Information Age.
Stein, M. K., Henningsen, M. A., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-­
based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (2nd ed.). Teachers
College Press.
Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and
practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213–226.
Stoyanova, E., & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students’ problem pos-
ing in school mathematics. In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education
(pp. 518–525). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research.
In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 127–146) Macmillan.
Wilkins, J. L. M. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge, atti-
tudes, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 139–164. https://
[Link]/10.1007/s10857-­007-­9068-­2
Yao, Y., Hwang, H., & Cai, J. (2021). Preservice teachers’ mathematical understanding exhibited
in problem-posing and problem-solving. ZDM – Mathematics Education (Vol. 53, p. 937).
Zhang, H., & Cai, J. (2021). Teaching mathematics through problem posing: Insights from an
analysis of teaching cases. ZDM-Mathematics Education (Vol. 53, p. 961).
Zwiers, J., Dieckmann, J., Rutherford-Quach, S., Daro, V., Skarin, R., Weiss, S., & Malamut,
J. (2017). Principles for the design of mathematics curricula: Promoting language and content
development. Understanding Language/Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity
at Stanford University. [Link]
Principles_MLRs_Final_v2.0_030217.pdf

View publication stats