Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

[Link]

Effects of the Problem-Posing Approach on Students’

Problem Solving Skills and Metacognitive Awareness
in Science Education

Nimet Akben 1

Published online: 4 May 2018

# Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract The interrelationship between mathematics and science education has frequently
been emphasized, and common goals and approaches have often been adopted between
disciplines. Improving students’ problem-solving skills in mathematics and science education
has always been given special attention; however, the problem-posing approach which plays a
key role in mathematics education has not been commonly utilized in science education. As a
result, the purpose of this study was to better determine the effects of the problem-posing
approach on students’ problem-solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science educa-
tion. This was a quasi-experimental based study conducted with 61 chemistry and 40 physics
students; a problem-solving inventory and a metacognitive awareness inventory were admin-
istered to participants both as a pre-test and a post-test. During the 2017–2018 academic year,
problem-solving activities based on the problem-posing approach were performed with the
participating students during their senior year in various university chemistry and physics
departments throughout the Republic of Turkey. The study results suggested that structured,
semi-structured, and free problem-posing activities improve students’ problem-solving skills
and metacognitive awareness. These findings indicated not only the usefulness of integrating
problem-posing activities into science education programs but also the need for further
research into this question.

Keywords Mathematics education . Metacognitive awareness . Problem posing . Problem-

solving skills . Science education

* Nimet Akben
nakben@[Link]

1
Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Elementary Education, Ankara University, Ankara,
Turkey
1144 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

Introduction and Background

The integration of science and mathematics disciplines has been referred to as early as 1989,
and specific focus has long been placed on common procedures followed by both disciplines
(National Research Council [NRC] 1996; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
[NCTM] 2000; The Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS] 2013). The Principles and
Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 2000) included a connections strand at each grade
level which stressed students recognize and understand how mathematics ideas relate to other
mathematics concepts, as well as how they relate to concepts from other disciplines, especially
to science (Morlier 2012). In addition, throughout the USA, national and state standards have
often called for an integration of science and mathematics disciplines within school curriculum
(American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] 1989, 1993; NRC 1996;
Texas Education Agency [TEA] 2010). More currently, strong philosophical support exists for
the integration of science and mathematics education as a means of enriching students’
learning experiences, as well as improving their understanding and attitude toward these
disciplines (Kaberman and Dori 2009). In the USA, a new approach to education has not
only incorporated science and mathematics education but also technology and engineering.
This approach, coined STEM for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, is based
on research-oriented innovative strategies which stress the interrelationship between these
disciplines (NRC 2011, 2012; NGSS 2013). STEM education relies on the idea that, at the K-
12 level, the content of mathematics and science intersects in processes such as problem
solving and obtaining numerical results (NGSS 2013).
Although the goals of mathematics and science education are distinct, they overlap in their
aim to improve students’ thinking and problem-solving skills, as well as to enable them to
acquire the requisite skills necessary for solving life’s everyday problems (MoNE 2005, 2013a,
b, c; NCTM 2000; NGSS 2013; NRC 2012). Since the goals of mathematics and science
education overlap, it is particularly important to not only identify but also compare and
contrast the instructional methodologies from these disciplines which are required to achieve
these goals. The following section discusses the types of problems encountered and the
methodologies utilized for solving problems in mathematics and science education.

Problem Types and Problem Solving in Mathematics and Science Education

Mathematical problems vary from routine problems to open-ended questions which

necessitate more in-depth thinking processes. The range of varying mathematical
problems is categorized under three main types: closed-ended problems, open-ended
problems, and research projects.
Brief information regarding both closed-ended and open-ended problems is provided
below:

& Closed-ended problems: This type of problem is solved by following a simple procedure,
and the requisite information for solving the problem is available within the problem
statement. This category is divided into two subcategories: Broutine problems^ and Bnon-
routine problems.^ A routine problem is defined as an exercise for directly putting into
practice any knowledge and/or skills acquired through the course. Solutions for routine
questions are primarily based on four operations. A non-routine problem is any complex
problem that cannot be solved solely with four-operation skills and requires the
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1145

organization and classification of data and the skill to detect relations between data (Arslan
and Altun 2007). The most important aspect of non-routine problems is not the
correct solving the problem, but instead which approaches and logical estimations
were utilized to obtain the result. There are two types of non-routine problems:
Breal-life problems^ and Bprocess problems.^ Real-life problems which are formu-
lated as routine problems include some original feature relating to real-life condi-
tions. As a result, even when mathematical thinking and operations are followed
correctly, determining a correct solution may not be possible without also consid-
ering any related real-life conditions. The major factor for determining success in
solving non-routine real-life problems is the student’s ability to put their mathe-
matical knowledge into real-world practice for finding real-life solutions (Greer
1993). When solving these non-routine real-life problems, there may be more than
one solution possible or there may not be a solution at all. The uncertainty in
determining an appropriate solution may cause cognitive conflict in some students
(Nesher and Hershkovitz 1997). The most important aspect of process problems is
the mathematical thinking processes utilized in problem solving.
& Open-ended problems: These problems are unique because they are based on problems
faced in real life; there is not only one correct answer, and they include assumptions and
missing information. For open-ended questions, there is no precise way to solve these
problems; instead, there are several ways of solving the problems with several solutions.
By not having a set method or pattern for solving open-ended questions; students may be
able to develop more creativity and imagination in their problem-solving skills (Akay
2006).

In science courses, problems are usually categorized into two types: Balgorithm-based
problems^ and Bconcept-based problems^ (Nakiboğlu and Kalın 2003). Algorithm-
based problems are mathematical problems which require the use of some formulae
and operations. Also, for mathematical problems, students can utilize memorized
equations and formulae without the need for further interpretation and/or thinking
(Lin et al. 2004; Nakhleh and Mitchell 1993). With concept-based problems; however,
the aim is more to identify how students define and interpret certain concepts. As a
result, concept-based problems require deeper consideration and understanding than
mathematical problems (Watkins and Hattie 1985). By comparing student success in
concept-based problems and mathematical problems involving the same chemistry
content, Nakhleh and Mitchell (1993) determined that students with high success in
mathematical problems had a lower success rate with concept-based problems. This
indicated that students were able to solve mathematical problems by way of memo-
rized formulations yet lacked in a thorough understanding of chemical concepts
(Boujaoude et al. 2004; Nakhleh and Mitchell 1993). Research from Nakiboğlu and
Kalın (2003) revealed that teachers generally preferred to include mathematical prob-
lems on tests because of a belief that students had difficulty in solving concept-based
questions. It is clear from these studies that mathematical and concept-based problems
are not sufficient in developing students’ high-level thinking skills including creativity,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which are ultimately needed in solving real-life
problems. As a result, it is important that students be challenged to use information
organized in their minds, as well as call upon higher-level thinking skills, instead of
memorized formulae and knowledge.
1146 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

Given that problem types in mathematics and science have similar characteristics, it is
understandable that similar processes can be followed in solving problems from both disci-
plines. In Polya’s study (Polya 1957) on mathematics and science education, a four-step
problem-solving process for the solution of mathematical problems was suggested (i.e.,
Bunderstanding the problem,^ Bdevising a plan,^ Bcarrying out the plan,^ and Blooking back^),
and Gonzales (1994) added a fifth step to Polya’s problem-solving methodology (i.e.,
Bproblem posing^). According to Erkaper (2007), problem-solving steps specific to science
were categorized by Reif (1995) into three groups (i.e., Banalysing the problem,^ Bconstruction
of a solution,^ and Bchecks^). In addition, Nakiboğlu and Kalın (2003) stated that Herron
(1996) went one step further by categorizing these problem-solving steps into four groups (i.e.,
Bunderstanding the problem,^ Bdefining the problem,^ Bcarrying out a plan to solve the
problem,^ and Bverification^) (see Fig. 1).
Previous research has indicated that both mathematics and science include the steps of
analyzing the problem, developing a plan to solve the problem, and checking the result;
however, science education has not included problem posing as a step. Given that mathematics
and science are interrelated and follow common methods of instruction, the question that
comes to mind is BWhy has problem posing not been a part of science education?^ In order to
better understand and answer this question, it is first necessary to comprehend the problem-
posing approach.

Problem Posing

The Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM) suggests that students be
provided opportunities for posing problems related to mathematical connections or daily life
and integrates the problem-posing approach into the standards of mathematics educa-
tion (NCTM 2000). Also, the National Statement on Mathematics for Australian
Schools stressed the importance of utilizing open-ended questions in courses, moti-
vating students to carry out advanced mathematics activities, such as problem-posing
and multidimensional thinking, as well as to construct and solve their own problems
(Australian Education Council 1991). To be clear, mathematics education that under-
lines the importance of the problem-posing approach is not restricted to programs in
the USA and Australia. For example, mathematics education programs in China and
the UK also support using open-ended questions in courses, and as a result, refer to
the use of problem-posing, problem-solving, and solution justification exercises. Fur-
thermore, the importance of problem solving not only is contributing to achieving
important program goals but also is a tool for achieving other goals such as mathe-
matical solutions and reasoning (Senior Secondary Mathematics Curriculum Standards
[SSMCS] 2003). In Turkey, the goal of mathematics education at all levels (i.e.,
primary, secondary, and upper secondary) is improving students’ problem-solving
strategies and fostering the use of these strategies in problem solving (MoNE
2013b, c). The idea of problem-solving competence, based on the improvement of
problem-solving skills, is associated with Polya’s four-step problem-solving process
plus the problem-posing step added by Gonzales. As a result, in problem-solving
processes, students are expected to achieve the steps of Bunderstanding the problem,
planning the solution, carrying out the plan/strategy, checking the correctness of the
solution, and posing similar/original problems by generalizing the solution^ (MoNE
2013b, c).
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1147

Polya Reif Herron

Understanding the Understanding the
Problem analysis
problem problem

Devising a plan Construction of a solution Defining the problem

Carrying out the plan Carrying out a plan

Looking Back Checks Verification

Gonzales
PROBLEM POSING

Fig. 1 Steps to problem solving in mathematics and science education

The problem-posing approach is defined as producing a new problem under specific

conditions or creating new problems by making changes to an existing problem (English
1997; Silver 1994). More specifically, Stoyanova and Ellerton (1996) divide problem-posing
into three categories: Bstructured problem posing,^ Bsemi-structured problem posing,^ and
Bfree problem posing.^

& Structured problem-posing situations: Structured problem-posing is concerned with spe-

cial problem situations; for example, a new problem is formulated based on a previously
solved problem, a new problem is posed by changing data in an existing problem, or a new
problem is posed by retaining data and changing the result.
& Semi-structured problem-posing situations: In semi-structured problem-posing situations,
students are queried through open-ended problems and expected to solve these problems
utilizing previous knowledge, skills, and/or experience. Semi-structured problem-posing
situations are comprised of open-ended questions (i.e., mathematical exercises), problems
similar to already stated problems, those problems related to specific theorems, problems
based on stated figures, and verbal problems.
& Free problem-posing situations: With free problem-posing situations, a scenario is
established for students by proposing daily life situations and then asking them to structure
a problem. In free problem-posing activities, the teacher does not structure a problem for
students but instead expects students to design a simple problem through the natural course
of reasoning and without limitations. Teachers may establish a connection between real-
life situations and mathematical topics, and then have students generate new problems
based on the established connection. Six strategies may be utilized in these situations:
generating the same type or similar problem, formulating problems that are connected,
posing a problem based on different formats, developing structural characteristics for a
special solution, generating a problem with changes that affect and/or do not affect the
result, and reformulating a problem based on the solution.

Children are naturally inquisitive, and according to NCTM (1991, 2000), children should
be provided ample opportunities to pose questions. As a result, courses can include problem-
1148 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

posing activities appropriate to the students’ level, the desired learning outcomes, and the
established course content. By carrying out these activities, students can develop a more
multidimensional approach to learning and as a result better distinguish the structure
of problems, put their knowledge into practice, generate new ideas, and gain a more
thorough understanding of a topic. Through this process, students’ comprehension of
mathematical concepts should increase, they will have more opportunity to internalize
these concepts, and as a result, their problem-solving skills can improve. This point of
view is supported by past research, which suggests that problem-posing activities can
be effective in improving mathematical thinking and problem-solving skills, as well as
developing a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts (Akay 2006; Cai and
Cifarelli 2005; English 1998; Silver 1994, 2013; Singer and Voica 2013; Turhan
2011). Also, problem-posing situations focus more on the relationship between math-
ematical ideas than on completing the mathematical activity, and as a result, students’
high-order-thinking, divergent thinking, and metacognitive skills are stimulated
(Ghasempour et al. 2013).

Metacognition

Learning, thinking, and working are all mental abilities which constitute cognitive strategies
and are all important parts of comparing, deducing, and remembering information. Use of
cognitive strategies not only is important for solving mathematics problems but also aids
people in achieving certain goals. These metacognitive strategies play an important role in
planning the learning process, use of appropriate skills, and strategies for problem solving, in
evaluating the process, and to conduct adequate self-assessments.
Flavell (1979), who coined the concept of metacognition, defined it as the aware-
ness of how one learns, knowledge of how to use information in achieving a goal,
and ability to judge the cognitive demands of a particular reassignment, while
Meichenbaum (1985) defined the concept as the awareness of one’s own knowledge
and one’s ability to understand, control, and manipulate one’s cognitive processes.
Later, Livingstone (1997) furthered the concept stating: Bhigher order thinking which
involves active control over the cognitive processes engaged in learning.^ In addition,
Schraw and Dennison (1994), as well as Flavell (1979, 1987), indicated that meta-
cognition consists of both metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. For
metacognitive knowledge was divided by Flavell (1979) into three groups: Bperson
variable,^ Btask variable,^ and Bstrategy variable.^ Livingstone (1997) exemplified the
variables that constitute metacognitive knowledge as BI know that (person variable), I
have difficulty with word problems (task variable), so I will answer the computational
problems first and save the word problems for last (strategy variable).^ Finally,
metacognitive regulation is an individual’s control over their learning and is com-
prised of the stages of planning, monitoring, and evaluating (Teaching Excellence in
Adult Literacy [TEAL] 2012). The stages of metacognitive regulation are described
below:

& Planning refers to selecting the best strategy to achieve the learning goal. An example of
this is solving a mathematics problem. At this stage, individuals may ask themselves
BWhat am I being asked to do?,^ BWhich strategies will I use?,^ and BAre there any
strategies that I have used before that might be useful?^
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1149

& Monitoring refers to implementing the plans and then monitoring the process followed to
achieve the learning goal. The following questions are likely to contribute to the moni-
toring process: BIs the strategy that I am using working?^ and BDo I need to try something
different?^
& Evaluating refers to determining the efficiency of the strategy in achieving the learning
goal. The questions that guide an individual at this stage may be BHow well did I do?,^
BWhat did not go well?,^ BWhat could I do differently next time?,^ BWhat went well?,^
and BWhat other types of problem can I use this strategy for?^

To enable students to fully develop their metacognitive thinking skills, teachers need to
design courses which stimulate students’ use of metacognitive strategies rather than merely
focusing on course content. As a result, in mathematics courses, students should be provided
more leeway to ask questions; for example, BThere is a lot of information here; at which point
should I start? I already know _____, is there anything else I know?^ In science courses,
students should be provided activities which allow them to organize knowledge, as well as put
it into practice, and as a result, develop a more complete understanding of course content. To
carry out this process, students should first focus on what they already know and then later
determine what else they want to learn. Scanlon (2012) explained that having students describe
similarities and differences between two related concepts may be an appropriate activity to
stimulate this process.
Therefore, research findings as well as information discussed here suggest that
metacognitive skills play a key role in implementing metacognitive strategies and that
problem-posing activities can enable students to develop their problem-solving skills. Figure 2
below diagrams a holistic approach to the cycle of problem posing, problem solving, and
metacognition.
It may be concluded that a close relationship between problem-posing and problem-solving
skills exists, that problem-posing activities are as important and necessary as problem-solving
activities, and that it is important to foster learners’ problem posing within general education
(Kojima et al. 2015).

Problem
Metacognition
Posing

Problem Solving

Fig. 2 The cycle of problem posing, problem solving, and metacognition

1150 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

Research Aim

To begin, it is clear that science and mathematics education share a common goal of
developing students’ skills in mathematical problem solving. The aim of this research
was to better understand why the problem-posing approach, commonly used in
mathematics education for mathematical problem solving has not been widely adopted
for mathematical problem solving being carried out in science education. In addition,
it is important to remember that problem-posing activities reportedly play an effective
role in problem-solving and metacognitive skills gains among students. Based on this
information, the present study also aimed to better determine the importance and role
of problem-posing within the teaching of mathematical problem solving in science
courses. As a result, in order to gain the information necessary to understand the
research question, a group of chemistry students were asked to carry out problem-
posing activities regarding chemical equilibrium, and a group of physics students
were asked to carry out problem-posing activities regarding plane and spherical
mirrors. The activities carried out by both the chemistry and the physics students
were designed to answer the following research questions:

– Do problem-posing activities have an impact on the development of chemistry and physics

students’ problem-solving skills?
– Do problem-posing activities have an impact on the development of chemistry and physics
students’ metacognitive awareness?

Method

Research Design

This study focused on the idea that the problem-posing approach, widely used for
solving mathematical problems in mathematics education, should also be utilized for
solving mathematical problems encountered in science education. An attempt was
made to determine the effect of utilizing the problem-posing approach on students’
mathematical problem-solving skills and metacognition awareness in science educa-
tion. In the data collection phase, a quasi-experimental model including a pre-test and
post-test and control group was utilized. The problem-solving inventory and metacog-
nition awareness scale were administered as pre-tests and post-tests for both the
experimental and control groups.

Participants

This study was developed in order to determine the usefulness of the problem-posing approach
to the solving of mathematical problems in science education. It was concluded that the study
should be carried out with student participants from the departments of chemistry and physics;
as a result, the findings would not be specific to only one subject area, and sufficient
information would be available to provide generalizations regarding science education. Based
on these considerations, students from both disciplines of chemistry and physics were included
in this study, and a total of 101 students studying in the Faculty of Sciences at three different
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1151

state universities during the 2017–2018 academic years constituted the participant groups. In
order to observe the impact of the problem-posing approach on different grade levels,
third-grade students from chemistry and first-grade students from physics were
selected as participants for the study. The groups were separated with 31 students
from chemistry placed in the experimental group and 30 students from chemistry
placed in the control group. For the physics students, 20 were placed in the exper-
imental group and the remaining 20 students were placed in the control group. All
student participation in the research study was voluntary.

Data-Collecting Tools

In order to fully determine the effects of problem-posing activities on students’ problem-

solving skills, this research utilized the BThe Problem Solving Inventory,^ a 35-item inventory
6-point Likert scale, established by Heppner and Petersen (1982) and adapted into Turkish by
Sahin et al. (1993). For the inventory, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was
calculated at 0.88, and the reliability coefficient was 0.85.
Another data-collection tool utilized in this study was BThe Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory (MAI),^ developed by Schraw and Dennison (1994), and designed to measure
adults’ metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. For this study, the 52-item
inventory 5-point Likert scale MAI was adapted into Turkish and tested for reliability and
validity by Akın et al. (2007). For the MAI, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient
obtained by test-retest was 0.95, and the reliability coefficient was 0.89. The experimental
design of this study is presented in Table 1.

Data-Collecting Process

The research study was conducted over a 5-week period with one 2-h session each
week. During the research period, the experimental group solved a total of 10
different problem-posing and solving questions, while the control group solved a total
of 12 problems. The sessions were conducted as separate activities during out-of-

Table 1 Experimental design of the study

Groups Pre-test Process Post-test

Chemistry Experimental Problem Solving Inv. Problem-posing-based Problem Solving Inv.

Metacognitive problem-solving Metacognitive
Awareness Inv. activities related to chemical Awareness Inv.
equilibrium
Control Problem Solving Inv. Problem-solving activities related to Problem Solving Inv.
Metacognitive chemical equilibrium Metacognitive
Awareness Inv. Awareness Inv.
Physics Experimental Problem Solving Inv. Problem-posing-based Problem Solving Inv.
Metacognitive problem-solving Metacognitive
Awareness Inv. activities related to plane and Awareness Inv.
spherical mirrors
Control Problem Solving Inv. Problem-solving activities related Problem Solving Inv.
Metacognitive to plane and spherical mirrors Metacognitive
Awareness Inv. Awareness Inv.
1152 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

school hours for both the experimental and control groups. The research process is
explained below:

First Session: In this session, firstly, general and brief information about the problem-
posing approach was provided to all the student participants. The researcher also stated
that problem-posing approach is widely used in mathematics education and it is effective
in the development of students’ problem-solving skills and level of metacognitive
awareness. Despite these positive effects, this approach is not used in science education;
thus, students were told that present study also aimed to better determine the
effects of problem-solving activities, based on problem-posing approach, on
science students’ problem-solving skills and metacognition awareness. Following
the explanations, the experimental and control groups were established on a
voluntary basis. After the groups were determined, the problem-solving inventory
and the metacognitive awareness inventory were applied to all the participants as
a pre-test. At the end of the session, participants were told that the students in
the Department of Chemistry will work on Bchemical equilibrium^ and the
students in the Department of Physics will work on Bplane and spherical
mirrors,^ so they could get the resources that they want for the next session.
Second Session: Before this session, the equivalency of the experimental and control
groups was investigated according to the average scores of applied pre-test. After
determining the equivalence of the groups, this session started. Because of the
students’ from the experimental group’s lack of experience in problem-posing, in
this session, it was preferred to utilize a structured problem-posing situation that
is easier to implement. After the necessary explanations were provided, the
activities were started. Data regarding two separate questions were given to the
students. Chemistry students in the experimental group received data about
chemical equilibrium, and Physics students in the experimental groups received
data about plane and spherical mirrors. Chemistry students from the control group
were asked to solve three problems about equilibrium, and Physics students from
the control group were asked to solve three problems about mirrors. Following
the students’ completion of the problem solutions, again, the problems were
solved in the classroom and the students were asked to assess their solutions.
Third Session: In this session, one structured and one semi-structured problem were given
to the students from the experimental group. The semi-structured problem of Chemistry
students was based on Le Chatelier’s principle that required writing and solving three
question sentences and expressing them verbally. The semi-structured problem of Physics
students was based on writing and solving three question sentences that were related to
plane and/or spherical mirrors in everyday life.

Chemistry students in the control group received three problems based on Le Chatelier’s
principle, while Physics students received one problem regarding planar mirror and two
problems regarding spherical mirrors. The students in the control group was asked to solve
the given problems. Following the students’ completion of the problem solutions, again, the
problems were solved in the classroom and the students were asked to assess their solutions.

Fourth Session: In this session, Chemistry and Physics students in the experimental group
were given two semi-structured problem-posing situation, and students were asked to
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1153

write and solve their own problems. Four problems were given to the students in the
control group. After students solved these problems, again, the problems were solved in
the classroom and the students were asked to assess their solutions.
Fifth Session: In this last session, two free problem-posing situation was administered to
both Chemistry and Physics students in the experimental group. These students were also
asked to express their opinions in writing about the applications. Students in the control
group solved two problems. At the end of this session, data collection tools were applied
to all the students as the post-test.

Examples of problem-posing situations provided to Chemistry students in the

experimental group and examples of problems posed by the students are provided
in Appendix 1. Examples of problem-posing situations provided to Physics students in
the experimental group and examples of problems posed by the students are provided
in Appendix 2.

Data Analysis

Two groups of students, 61 chemistry students and 40 physics students, participated in this
study. During data analysis, the first step was to conduct descriptive statistical analysis of
scores obtained from the two groups during data collection. The test scores had a normal
distribution, and as a result, parametric techniques were utilized in the data analyses. Activities
conducted with students were considered effective given that a significant difference was
present between the groups pre-test and post-test scores. The statistical software utilized to
analyze the data was SPSS 22.0. At the culmination of the data analysis, experimental group
students were requested to provide written opinions regarding the study, and these written
opinions were later utilized in interpreting the research data. In doing so, a coding scheme was
utilized to represent the participants in the study, for example, BC^ referred to chemistry
students, and BP^ referred to physics students.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of chemistry and physics students’ test scores

Variables Groups N SS Mode Median Range K S

X

Problem Solving Inv. Chemistry Experi. 31 121.83 20.12 99.00 123.00 70.00 − 0.64 0.42
Pre-test Control 30 125.70 21.87 125.00 125.00 75.00 − 0.82 0.06
Physics Experi. 20 128.40 16.02 120.00 125.50 62.00 − 0.20 0.44
Control 20 131.35 15.97 119.00 128.00 60.00 − 0.10 0.70
Problem Solving Inv. Chemistry Experi. 31 154.51 17.10 155.00 155.00 64.00 − 0.65 − 0.23
Post-test Control 30 128.16 19.90 100.00 126.50 72.00 − 0.69 0.24
Physics Experi. 20 151.30 16.76 127.00 149.50 52.00 − 0.92 0.24
Control 20 136.25 14.24 125.00 131.00 51.00 − 0.29 0.67
Meta-cognitive Awar. Inv. Chemistry Experi. 31 158.61 18.34 157.00 158.00 74.00 − 0.12 − 0.08
Pre-test Control 30 158.23 27.23 120.00 158.00 86.00 − 1.24 0.01
Physics Experi. 20 158.00 12.29 136.00 157.00 42.00 − 0.45 − 0.08
Control 20 159.85 13.15 136.00 160.00 52.00 0.16 0.01
Meta-cognitive Awar. Inv. Chemistry Experi. 31 192.29 14.97 198.00 196.00 53.00 0.24 − 0.98
Post-test Control 30 160.00 29.43 120.00 164.00 92.00 − 1.19 − 0.27
Physics Experi. 20 178.75 16.91 163.00 181.50 56.00 − 1.25 0.05
Control 20 159.20 24.83 160.00 160.00 86.00 − 0.08 0.17
1154 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

Table 3 The t test results of chemistry and physics students’ pre-test scores

Variables Groups N SS SD t p
X

Problem Solving Inv. Pre-test Chemistry Experimental 31 121.83 20.12 59 0.718 0.47
Control 30 125.70 21.87
Physics Experimental 20 128.40 16.02 38 0.583 0.56
Control 20 131.35 15.97
Meta-cognitive Awareness Inv. Chemistry Experimental 31 158.61 18.34 59 0.064 0.94
Pre-test Control 30 158.23 27.23
Physics Experimental 20 158.25 12.29 38 0.397 0.69
Control 20 159.85 13.15

Findings

The descriptive statistics related to test scores obtained from the data analyses are
provided in Table 2. Analyses results showed that the kurtosis and skewness coeffi-
cients remained within the limit of ± 2, which can be considered a normal distribution
(George and Mallery 2010), and as a result, parametric tests were utilized in the
analysis.
In the study, the equivalence of the experimental and control groups was assessed, in order
to better understand the effect of problem-solving activities based on the problem-posing
approach on problem-solving skills and metacognitive awareness of students from the depart-
ments of chemistry and physics departments. In doing so, the arithmetic means of pre-test
scores for both the chemistry and physics student participants were compared using the
independent samples t test (see Table 3).
The t test results in Table 3 illustrate no significant differences between the experimental
and control groups of chemistry and physics students’ pre-test average scores received from
the problem-solving inventory and the metacognition awareness tests (p ˃ 0.01). Their scores
were very similar, and based on these results, the students’ problem-solving skills and level of
metacognition awareness were considered equal in nature for both the experimental and
control groups.
After statistically determining the equivalence of the groups, in order to find an answer to
the first research question, a comparison was made between the problem-solving skills of
students in the experimental group who performed problem-solving applications based on
problem-posing approach and those in the control group who performed only problem-solving
applications. In order to do so, the experimental and control groups’ average means of the
independent samples t test results from the post-test were examined. The test results are
provided in Table 4.

Table 4 The t test results of experiment and control group students’ average post-test scores from problem-
solving inventory

Groups N SS SD t p
X

Chemistry Experimental 31 154.516 17.10 59 5.551 0.000

Control 30 128.166 19.90
Physics Experimental 20 151.300 16.761 38 3.060 0.004
Control 20 136.250 14.245
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1155

Table 5 The t test results of experiment and control group students’ pre-test and post-test scores from problem-
solving inventory

Groups Variables N SS SD t p
X

Chemistry Experiment Pre-test Post-test 31 121.83 20.12 30 10.06 0.000

31 154.51 17.10
Control Pre-test Post-test 30 125.70 21.87 29 1.94 0.061
30 128.16 19.90
Physics Experiment Pre-test Post-test 20 128.40 16.02 19 15.64 0.000
20 151.30 16.76
Control Pre-test Post-test 20 131.35 15.97 19 1.37 0.184
20 136.25 14.24

The values in Table 4 illustrated that there was a significant difference exhibited in problem
solving from the chemistry student participants in the experimental group who had completed
problem-solving activities based on the problem-posing approach versus the students in the
control group who only worked on the problem-solving activities (t = 5.51, p < 0.01). In the
same way, a significant difference (t = 3.06, p < 0.01) between the experimental and control
groups was observed for the students studying physics.
After reaching these findings, differences between the experimental and control groups’
pre-test and post-test scores were also investigated. To do so, the averages of the paired
samples t test results of each group’s pre-test and post-test were examined (see Table 5).
After taking various chemistry courses throughout their undergraduate education in which
these students solved countless chemistry-based problems, the average pre-test score of
chemistry students from the experimental group was 121.83, and even though they had
experienced problem-solving applications based on the problem-posing approach for the first
time, these students’ post-test score was calculated as 154.51. Similarly, the average pre-test
score of physics students was 128.40, and following the problem-solving activities based on
problem-posing approach, the post-test score increased to 151.30. On the other hand, the
chemistry students’ test scores increased from 125.70 to 128.16 and the physics students from
the control group from 131.35 to 136.25.
The results listed in Table 5 illustrated that there was a significant difference in pre-test and
post-test scores, in favor of post-test scores (t = 10.06, p ˂ 0.01), for chemistry students that
had both posed and also solved problems. The same results applied to the students who studied
physics. A significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores was observed in
favor of the post-test scores (t = 15.64, p ˂ 0.01); however, a significant difference between the
pre-test and post-test scores of chemistry students was not observed based on the problem-
solving inventory from the control group where students had only worked on problem-solving
activities (t = 1,94, p > 0.01). Similarly, a significant difference between pre-test and post-test
scores of physics students was not determined (t = 1,94, p > 0.01). These findings revealed that
problem-posing activities were effective for increasing problem-solving skills among both
chemistry and physics students.
The results of statistical analyses supported the opinions which were provided by the student
participant groups in their written responses following completion of the activities. For
example, some chemistry students provided the following statements regarding the relationship
between problem-posing and problem solving: B…I was able to distinguish which types of
questions I could write using the data available. When answering the questions, I planned to
1156 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

Table 6 The t test results of experiment and control group students’ average post-test scores from metacognition
awareness inventory

Groups N SS SD t p
X

Chemistry Experimental 31 192.29 14.97 59 5.34 0.000

Control 30 160.50 29.43
Physics Experimental 20 178.75 16.91 38 2.91 0.006
Control 20 159.20 24.83

advance step-by-step. First, based on the data, I determined which method and formulae I
would use in the solution. As a result, with this activity, I gained experience of problem
generating and solving.^ (C7), and BThis activity made me develop different points of view.
It enabled me to see how to construct a problem with data I have, how to use these data, how to
solve the problem, and how to interpret the problem after writing it.^ (C18). The physics
students provided similar comments: BThis activity made me become aware that question
writing is more difficult than question solving.^ (P3), and BWith this activity, I have become
aware that question writing is more difficult and requires more attention than question solving. I
have seen that we need more information to write a question than to solve a problem.^ (P9).
After determining the impact of problem-posing activities on chemistry and physics students’
problem-solving skills, it was important, in answering the next research question, to determine what
impact these activities had on the students’ metacognitive awareness. To determine this impact, an
independent samples t test was carried out to compare the metacognitive awareness inventory post-
test scores of chemistry and physics students with those of control group students. The results of the
independent samples t test are presented in Table 6.
The values in Table 6 illustrated that there was a significant difference in the metacognitive
awareness of chemistry students from the experimental group utilizing problem-solving
applications based on problem-posing approach versus students in the control group who only
worked on the problem-solving applications (t = 5.34, p < 0.01). Similarly, a significant dif-
ference between the experimental and control groups from physics was also observed (t = 2.91,
p < 0.01). As a result of these findings, the differences between the experimental and control
groups’ pre-test and post-test were also investigated. In doing so, the averages of the paired
samples t test results for each group’s pre-test and post-test were examined (see Table 7).
The results listed in Table 7 illustrate that there is a significant difference between pre-test
and post-test scores for students’ levels of metacognitive awareness, in favor of post-test scores

Table 7 The t test results of experiment and control group students’ pre-test and post-test scores from
metacognition awareness inventory

Groups Variables N SS SD t p
X

Chemistry Experiment Pre-test 31 158.61 18.34 30 14.13 0.000

Post-test 31 192.29 14.97
Control Pre-test 30 158.23 27.23 29 1.88 0.070
Post-test 30 160.43 29.52
Physics Experiment Pre-test 20 158.25 12.29 19 4.63 0.000
Post-test 20 178.75 16.91
Control Pre-test 20 159.85 13.15 19 1.92 0.069
Post-test 20 167.70 21.94
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1157

(t = 14.13, p ˂ 0.01), for those who studied chemistry and also posed and as well as solved
problems. The same results applied to the students studying in physics. A significant difference
between pre-test and post-test scores was observed in favor of post-test scores (t = 4.63,
p ˂ 0.01); however, a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of
students studying chemistry was not found on the level of metacognition awareness as that
of the control group where students worked on only problem-solving applications (t = 1.88,
p > 0.01). Similarly, a significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores of students
studying physics was not found (t = 1.92, p > 0.01). These research findings showed that
problem-posing applications were effective in increasing students’ levels of metacognition
awareness in both the disciplines of chemistry and physics. These findings indicate that
problem-posing activities were effective in developing metacognitive awareness of both
chemistry and physics students.
The participants from the chemistry student group provided the following comments regarding
the activities: BThis activity made me ask how many types of questions I was able to construct with
the available data. It helped me think about problem statements^ (C3), BFurthermore, I
have found that I can write questions in which I use knowledge of other courses. I
believe that the benefits of these activities go far beyond the courses.^ (C11), BI
found that constructing questions is not easy even when you have necessary data.
Knowing when, how, and in which ways to use knowledge is more important than
having a lot of knowledge.^ (C12), and BAfter this activity, questions arose about
writing a problem or drawing a picture: What would this be? What should I do to
obtain the correct result?^ (C27). With regard to metacognitive awareness, the physics
students stated the following: BWith this activity, I have become aware that there is a
need for a strong connection between values provided and asked, in addition to
knowledge of the subject.^ (P8), and BI have realized that although I have the
knowledge, I cannot turn it into a question. I have become aware of what I do not
know. Now, I know that question writing requires more knowledge.^ (P18). Based on
the findings from this study, it can be concluded that problem-posing activities are
likely to positively impact learners’ problem-solving skills, as well as their
metacognitive awareness in both chemistry and physics.

Conclusion

In all areas of life, it is important to possess a wide range of skills, and in particular, it is
important to acquire effective problem-solving skills. The importance of problem-solving
skills is evident in the fact that they are at the heart of all mathematics education programs
(Jitendra et al. 2007; Kayan and Cakıroglu 2008; NCTM 1989, 1991, 2000; Polya 1957;
Schoenfeld 1989). According to the NCTM (2000), mathematical problem solving is related to
learning in general, and more specifically to mathematical reasoning and understanding
mathematics as a whole. It is important to point out that problems that can be solved utilizing
memorized formulae fail to enable students to gain an adequate understanding of mathematics
as well as develop robust mathematical thinking. For this reason, problem solving should focus
on not only comprehending the problem but also developing various types of solutions. For
example, students should be engaged in processes that assist them in gaining the essence of
problems, (i.e., improving a given problem, changing data in a problem statement, or con-
structing completely new problems). In other words, these intellectual processes play an
1158 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

important role in gaining a deeper understanding of problems. More importantly, the processes
included in making changes to a given problem or writing a completely new problem are
considered problem-posing activities and make-up one dimension of problem solving.
A wealth of past research has shown that problem solving and problem-posing are in effect
related and support one another (Kilpatrick 1987; Lowrie 2002; Silver 1995; Stoyanova 2003;
Stoyanova and Ellerton 1996). Problem posing is a student-centered method that aids students
in improving their mathematical thinking skills (Silver et al. 1990), developing better under-
standing of mathematical concepts (English 1997; Lowrie 1999; Mestre 2002; Silver 1997;
Stoyanova 2005), and as a result elevating their academic success. It is important to note that
problem-posing approach, which constitutes an indispensable element of education programs
which bring together mathematics and science, in particular, the STEM programs which are an
important part of education in many countries, has yet to be included in science education in
Turkey. This study was based on the premise that the problem-posing approach, which plays
an effective role in not only learning mathematical concepts but also improving problem-
solving skills and metacognitive awareness, should be more commonly and widely utilized for
mathematical problem solving in science courses.
Studies conducted with students taking mathematics courses have revealed significant
improvements in these students’ problem-solving skills subsequent to their engagement in
problem-posing-based problem-solving activities; furthermore, there has been evidence of
significant connections between problem-posing and problem-solving skills (Akay 2006;
Kar et al. 2010; Isık et al. 2012). A significant increase was observed from pre-test to post-
test in students’ problem-solving inventory scores for the experimental group. There was a
significant difference between these two tests; however, a small increase was observed in the
post-test scores of students in the control group who only worked on problem-solving
activities. The results from this study demonstrate that the problem-posing approach improved
students’ skills in the solving of mathematical problems encountered in their chemistry and
physics courses. The implication is that the problem-posing approach to mathematical problem
solving is as valuable in science courses, as it is in mathematics courses.
Research has shown that problem-posing activities do not only contribute to the improvement of
problem-solving skills but also help students become more aware of their learning, improve their
monitoring and assessing of learning processes, and as a result, develop metacognitive awareness. In
this study, similar findings were revealed, with a significant difference in the average scores of
metacognition awareness exhibited from pre-test to post-test for participants from the experimental
group who were students studying chemistry and physics; however, a significant increase in
metacognition awareness in the control group, where students only worked on problem-solving
applications, was not observed. The results of this study are consistent with the findings of previous
studies revealing that problem-posing activities improve problem-solving skills and metacognitive
awareness of mathematics students. The most critical difference in this research study was that the
student participants were studying chemistry and physics and the problem-posing activities utilized
here were related to science.
In conclusion, the study results revealed that use of the problem-posing approach for
solving mathematical problems as part of teaching science did increase students’ problem-
solving skills. These results were not unexpected because the problem-posing ap-
proach had already been known to increase students’ problem-solving skills in math-
ematics education. The results from this study imply that the problem-posing
approach, which has been so effective in mathematics education, could also be of
great value in science education.
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1159

Appendix 1
A. Problem-posing activities carried out by chemistry students

1) Considering the reaction below and values provided for this reaction, write (construct) a
problem related to chemical equilibrium and solve the problem.
H2 (g) + I2 (g) 2HI (g)
Reaction Temperature (K) Kp
298 794
500 160
700 54
2) Based on the reaction (reactions) provided below, write a problem whose answer would be
“We must lower/elevate the temperature to increase the amount of products” and solve the
problem.

2 SO2 (g) + O2 (g) 2 SO3 (g) ∆ H o = - 197,8 kJ

N2O4 (g) 2NO 2 (g) ∆ Ho = + 57,2 kJ

3) Four types of gases (HCl, I2, HI and Cl2) are mixed in a reaction vessel and
2 HCl (g) + I2 (k) 2HI(g) + Cl 2 (g) are expected to reach an equilibrium after
reaction. Using this information, write three questions that can be answered according to
Le Chatelier’s principle and answer the questions.

4) NH4HS (k) NH3 (g) + H2S (g) For reaction, the total pressure of gases is
0.620 atm. at 27 oC. Write a problem about the concentration of gases at the same
temperature and solve the problem.

5) FeO (k) + CO (g) Fe (k) + CO 2 (g) For equilibrium, Kp value at 1000 oC

is 0.403. Using the equilibrium reaction above and information related to this reaction,
write a problem and solve it.

6) CO (g) + 2 H2 (g) CH3OH (g)

Kc value of an equilibrium reaction at 500 K temperature is 14.5. Three experiments are
provided below for the reaction that takes place in a balloon of 10.0 L. Based on this
reaction and experiment data, construct a problem and solve it. (In this problem, you can
use any experiment data and information provided to you; you do not have to use all
data and information. The result/results to be obtained after you solve the problem might
pertain to the data given to you.)

CO (g) H2 (g) CH3OH (g)

Experiment I
İnitial concentrations (mol) 1,000 1,000 0,000
Equilibrium concentrations (mol /L) 0,0911 0,0822 0,00892
Experiment II
İnitial concentrations (mol) 0,000 0,000 1,000
Equilibrium concentrations (mol /L) 0,0753 0,151 0,0247
Experiment III
İnitial concentrations (mol) 1,000 1,000 1,000
Equilibrium concentrations (mol /L) 0,138 0,176 0,062

7) There is yellow bromine solution in the beaker.

When sodium hydroxide solution is added to the solution, the original color of solution
disappears.
When diluted hydrochloric acid is added to colorless solution, the solution again turns into
yellow.

NaOH is added HCl is added

1160 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

Based on the below equilibrium reaction of bromine solution, write a question and answer it.

Br2 (aq) + NaOH (aq) Na + (aq) + OBr – (aq) + HBr (aq)

Yellow Colorless

2H + (aq) + OBr – (aq) + HBr (aq) H 2O (l) + Br2 (aq)

B. The examples of problems that chemistry students posed in the first problem-posing situation are as follows

Problem (C8) : For; H2 (g) + I2 (g) 2HI (g) reaction, the equilibrium constant in
terms of pressure (Kp) is 794 at 25 0C.
a.) At the same temperature, find the equilibrium constant of concentration (Kc).
b.) Find whether this equilibrium reaction takes place automatically.

Problem (C17): For; H2 (g) + I2 (g) 2HI (g) reaction,

Temperature (K) Kp
298 794
500 160
700 54
For each temperature value, find the Kc constant, and interpret the
relationship between Kp and Kc based on the results.

Problem (C27): For; H2 (g) + I2 (g) 2HI (g) reaction,

Temperature (K) Kp
298 794
500 160
700 54
Find ΔG values pertaining to these temperatures and interpret these values in
connection with the temperature.

Problem (C21): For; H2 (g) + I2 (g) 2HI (g) reaction,

Temperature (K) Kp
298 794
500 160
700 54

a) At this temperature, 0.250 mol H2 and 0.250 mol I2 are mixed. Calculate the
amount of HI in the system when equilibrium position is achieved.
b) At the same temperature, 0.250 mol I2 and 0.350 mol HI are mixed. How much
mol H2 is required to achieve the equilibrium position?

Problem (C29): For; H2 (g) + I2 (g) 2HI (g) reaction,

Temperature (K) Kp
298 794
500 160
700 54
Based on these values, which of the following statements is true?
I. The reaction is exothermic.
II. As temperature increases, the equilibrium shifts towards the direction of input.
III. Potential energy increases during the reaction.
IV. The enthalpy of reaction is greater than zero. (ΔH>0)

A) Only II B) I and II C) I and IV D) II and III E) All

Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1161

Appendix 2

A. Problem-posing activities carried out by physics students

1)

Based on plane mirrors K and L and ray X, write and answer a question.
2)

Using point light source A and given rays, write and answer a question.

3) Using two plane mirrors and a light ray, write and answer a question.

4)

The point object K, as shown in the figure, moves with a velocity of v at height h on a plane. There is an
observer at each point of G1 and G2. Based on the data given here, write and answer a question. (You can use any
part of information provided to you or add other data.)

5)

Based on the plane mirror and concave mirror in the figure, write and answer a question.

6)

Based on ray I and spherical mirror in the figure, write and answer a question.
1162 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

7) Write and answer a question, using plane and/or spherical mirrors.

B. The examples of problems that physics students posed in the first problem-posing situation are as follows

Problem (P 2): Draw the path that ray X follows to hit mirror K at 45 o. What is the angle of
outgoing beam?

Problem (P 7): a.) Considering plane mirrors K and L and ray X in the figure, find where
the fourth image will be formed.
b.) Through which of points A, B, C and D does ray X pass?

Problem (P 11): From which of the numbered areas does ray X, reflected from the plane
mirrors in the figure, reflect when leaving?

Problem (P13) : Ray X in the figure hits mirror K n K times and mirror L nL times. Then
what is the ratio of nK / nL?

Problem (P19) : After hitting plane mirror K and L, from which of points A, B and C
does ray X leave?
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1163

References

Akın, A., Abacı, R., & Cetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive
awareness. Inventory Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(2), 671–678.
Akay, H. (2006). The examination of the effect of mathematics instruction with problem posing approach on
students’ academic achievement, problem solving ability and creativity. (Doctoral dissertation). Gazi
University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989). Science for All Americans: Project
2061. Washington DC: AAAS. [Link] Accessed 7 March 2013.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Science for all Americans: Project 2061.
Washington DC: AAAS. [Link] Accessed 7 March 2013.
Arslan, C., & Altun, M. (2007). Learning to solve non-routine problems. Elementary Education Online, 6(1), 50–
61.
Australian Education Council (1991). Australian Education Council. A national statement on mathematics for
Australian schools. Curriculum Corporation, Melbourne. [Link] Accessed
24 Feb 2014.
Boujaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships between selective cognitive variables
and students’ ability to solve chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 63–84.
Cai, J., & Cifarelli, V. (2005). Exploring mathematical exploration: How two college students formulated and
solved their own mathematical problems. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 27(3), 43.
English, L. D. (1997). The development of fifth grade children’s problem posing abilities. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 34, 183–217.
English, L. D. (1998). Children’s problem posing within formal and informal contexts. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 29(1), 83–106.
Erkaper, Ş. (2007). Determination of correlation between short term memory capacity and problem solving skills
in elementary school science courses. (Master dissertation). Balıkesir University, Institute of Science,
Balıkesir.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental inquiry.
American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H.
Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
George, D. & Mallery, M. (2010). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference (14. Ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Ghasempour, Z., Bakar, M. N., & Jahanshahloo, G. R. (2013). Innovation in teaching and learning through
problem posing tasks and metacognitive strategies. International Journal Pedagogical. Innovations, 1, 53–
62.
Gonzales, N. A. (1994). Problem posing: a neglected component in mathematics courses for prospective
elementary and middle school teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 94(2), 78–84.
Greer, B. (1993). The mathematical modelling perspective on world problems. Journal of Mathematical
Behavior, 12, 239–250.
Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem-solving
inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1), 66–75.
Herron, J. D. (1996). The Chemistry Classroom: Formulas For Successful Teaching. Washington: American
Chemical Society, p. 63.
Isık, A., Ciltas, A., & Kar, T. (2012). The effect of problem posing instruction on problem solving success of 6th
grade students with different number sense. Pegem Education and Teaching Journal, 2(4), 71–80.
Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., Deatline-Buchman, A., & Sczesniak, E. (2007). Mathematical word problem
solving in third-grade classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 283–302.
Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: question posing in the case-based
computerized learning environment. Instrumental Science, 37, 403–436. [Link]
008-9054-9.
Kar, T., Ozdemir, E., Ipek, A. S., & Albayrak, M. (2010). The relation between the problem posing and problem
solving skills of prospective elementary mathematics teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2,
1577–1583.
Kayan, F., & Cakıroglu, E. (2008). Preservice elementary mathematics teachers’ mathematical problem solving
beliefs. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35, 218–226.
Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: where do good problems come from. Cognitive science and
mathematics education, 123-147.
1164 Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165

Kojima, K., Miwa, K., & Matsui, T. (2015). Experimental study of learning support through examples in
mathematical problem posing. Research and Practice in Techology Enhanced Learning., 10(1), 2–18.
[Link]
Lin, H. S., Chiu, H. L., & Chou, C. Y. (2004). Student understanding of the nature of science and their problem
solving strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 101–112.
Livingstone, J. A. (1997). Metacognition an overview. Retrieved from [Link]
edu/fas/shuell/cep564/[Link]. Accessed 14 July 2015.
Lowrie, T. (1999). Free problem posing: year 3/4 students constructing problems for friends to solve. Making A
Difference, 328–335.
Lowrie, T. (2002). Young children posing problems: the influence of teacher intervention on the type of problems
children pose. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(2), 87–98.
Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Teaching thinking: a cognitive-behavioral perspective. In S. F., [Link]
[Link]/data/upload s/[Link]. Accessed 5 Aug 2016.
Mestre, J. P. (2002). Probing adults’ conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 9–50.
Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2005). Primary science and technology curriculum. T.C. Ministry of
National Education, Board of Education. [Link]
Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013a). Primary education science curriculum. T.C. Ministry of
National Education, Board of Education. [Link] Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013b). Middle school mathematics curriculum. T.C. Ministry of
National Education, Board of Education. [Link] Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013c). Curriculum of secondary mathematics. T.C. Ministry of
National Education, Board of Education. [Link] Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
Morlier, R. (2012). Evaluation of the correlated science and mathematics professional development model
(Master dissertation). [Link] Accessed 22 Sept 2016.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving: there is a difference.
Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 190–192.
Nakiboğlu, C., & Kalın, Ş. (2003). High school students’ difficulties about problem solving in chemistry courses
I: according to experienced chemistry teachers. Kastamonu Education journal, 11(2), 305–316.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school
mathematics. Retrieved from [Link]
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics.
[Link] Accessed 25 Feb 2014.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2000). The principles and standards for school
mathematics. Retrieved from [Link]
Accessed 12 Jan 2016.
National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press. [Link] Accessed 18 Jan 2015.
National Research Council (NRC) (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: ıdentifying effective approaches in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The National Academes Press. [Link]
edu/download/13158. Accessed 10 June 2016.
National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: practices, crosscutting
concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [Link] Accessed 10
June 2016.
Nesher, P., & Hershkovitz, S. (1997). Real-world knowledge and mathematical knowledge. In E. Pehkonen
(Eds.), Proceedings of 21st Conference on the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education, 3, pp. 280–287.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press. [Link] Accessed 10 June 2016.
Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton.
[Link] Accessed 1 June 2013.
Reif, F. (1995) Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes. American Journal of Physics,
63, 17–35.
Sahin, N. H., Sahin, N., & Heppner, P. (1993). Psychometric properties of the problem solving inventory in a
group of Turkish university students. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17(3), 379–385.
Scanlon, D. (2012). Just write! guide. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education
(OVAE) Staff to the Work of the Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy (TEAL) Center. [Link]
gov/sites/default/files/TEAL_JustWriteGuide.pdf.
Res Sci Educ (2020) 50:1143–1165 1165

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Explorations of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 338–355.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.
Senior Secondary Mathematics Curriculum Standards [SSMCS] (2003). Mathematics curriculum standards.
Ministry of Education of People’s Republic of China.
Singer, M., & Voica, C. (2013). A problem-solving conceptual framework and its implications in designing
problem-posing tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics., 83(1), 9–26. [Link]
012-9422-x.
Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.
Silver, E. A. (1995). The nature and use of open problems in mathematics education: mathematical and
pedagogical perspectives. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 27(2), 67–72.
Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem
posing. ZDM, 29(3), 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. [Link]
3.
Silver, E. A., Kilpatrick, J., & Schlesinger, B. (1990). Thinking through mathematics. New York: College
Entrance Examination Board.
Stoyanova, E. (2003). Extending students’ understanding of mathematics via problem posing. The Australian
Mathematics Teacher, 59(2), 32–40.
Stoyanova, E. (2005). Problem solving strategies used by years 8 and 9 students. Australian Mathematics
Teacher, 61(3), 6–11.
Stoyanova, E., & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students’ problem posing. In P. Clarkson
(Ed.), Technology in Mathematics Education (pp. 518–525). Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia.
Teaching Excellence in Adult Literacy (TEAL) (2012). Just write! Guide. Washington, DC: Author. https://
[Link]/sites/default/files/TEAL_JustWriteGuide.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2014.
Texas Education Agency (TEA) (2010). Enrollment in Texas public schools. Austin, TX: Author https://
[Link]/perfreport/account/2010/[Link]
Turhan, B. (2011). Examination of effects of mathematics teaching with problem posing approach on sixth grade
students’ problem solving success, problem posing abilities and views towards mathematics. (Master
dissertation). Anadolu University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Eskisehir.
Watkins, D., & Hattie, J. (1985). A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary
students. Human Learning, 4, 127–141.