THE QUALITY OF MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS - EVALUATION AND SELF-EVALUATION

Authors

  • Eva Patáková Charles University in Prague

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2013.060302

Keywords:

Quality of mathematical problems, Self-evaluative comments, Problem posing, Expert – specialist – novice comparison

Abstract

The research presented in the article consists of two parts. Firstly, opinions on mathematical problem quality are explored within four groups of participants (novices, specialists and experts in problem posing; high school students who never posed their own problems). Secondly, self-reflections written by the participants who have some experience in problem posing (novices, specialists and experts) are explored and compared with the general view of problem quality received in the first part of the research. The more experienced problem posers have more requirements on problem quality (both as general requirements and within their own work on posing problems). There is a slight decrease in ability to notice important features of mathematical problem quality after the first experience in problem posing. Experts lay stress on mathematical features of the problem whilst novices and specialists more on problem – student interaction.

References

  • Kotásek, J. et al. (2012) National programme for the development of education in the Czech Republic: White paper, Prague: Tauris.

  • Patáková, E. (2013a) ‘The quality of mathematical problems – how we evaluate it’. In Kvasnička, R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference Efficiency and Responsibility in Education, Prague: Czech University of Life Sciences, pp. 488-496.

  • Patáková, E. (2013b) ‘Teachers’ Problem Posing in Mathematics’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Ltd, Forthcoming.

  • Pelczer, I., Gamboa, F. (2009) ‘Problem Posing: Comparison between Experts and Novices’, Proceedings of the 18th International Conferrence of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Atlanta, pp. 353-360.

  • Stehlíková, N. (2000) ‘Analýza písemného řešení žáka, jedna z možných technologií’. In Novotná, J. (Ed.), Analýza řešení slovních úloh. Prague: PedF UK, pp. 98-117.

  • Stoyanova, E., Ellerton, N.F. (1996). ‘A framework for research into students’ problem posing’. In P. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in Mathematics Education. Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, pp. 518-525.

  • Tarhan, L., Ayar-Kayali, H., Urek, R., Acar, B. (2008) ‘Problem-based learning in 9th grade chemistry class: Intermolecular forces’, Research in Science Education, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 285–300.

  • Vondrová, N., Žalská, J. (2012) ‘Do student teachers attend to mathematics specific phenomena when observing mathematics teaching on video?’, Orbis scholae, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 85–101.

  • Zhou, C. (2012) ‘Teaching Engineering Students Creativity: A Review of Applied Strategies’, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 99–114.

  • Zhouf, J. (2010) Tvorba matematických problémů pro talentované žáky, Prague: PedF UK.

    • Additional Files

    Published

    2013-09-30

    How to Cite

    Patáková, E. (2013) ’THE QUALITY OF MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS - EVALUATION AND SELF-EVALUATION’, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 143–154. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2013.060302

    Issue

    Vol. 6 No. 3 (2013)

    Section

    Research Paper

    License

    Authors declare with this manuscript intended for publication to ERIES Journal that:

    • all co-authors agree with the publication of the manuscript even after amendments arising from peer review;
    • all co-authors agree with the posting of the full text of this work on the web page of ERIES Journal and to the inclusion of references in databases accessible on the internet;
    • no results of other researchers were used in the submitted manuscript without their consent, proper citation, or acknowledgement of their cooperation or material provided;
    • the results (or any part of them) used in the manuscript have not been sent for publication to any other journal nor have they already been published (or if so, that the relevant works are cited in this manuscript);
    • submission of the manuscript for publication was completed in accordance with the publishing regulations pertaining to place of work;
    • experiments performed comply with current laws and written consent of the Scientific Ethics Committee / National Animal Care Authority (as is mentioned in the manuscript submitted);
    • grant holders confirm that they have been informed of the submitted manuscript and they agree to its publication.

    Authors retain copyright and grant ERIES Journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the published work with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ERIES Journal. Moreover, authors are able to post the published work in an institutional repository with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ERIES Journal. In addition, authors are permitted and encouraged to post the published work online (e.g. institutional repositories or on their website) as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.