Educational Studies in Mathematics (2020) 105:367–387

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09972-1

Affective determinants of mathematical problem

posing: the case of Chinese Miao students

Meng Guo 1 & Frederick K. S. Leung 1 & Xiang Hu 2

Published online: 8 October 2020

# Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
Students’ affective characteristics have been confirmed to shape their mathematics
learning outcomes, including problem-solving performance and mathematics achieve-
ment. However, it remains unclear whether affect influences student mathematical
problem posing - a process closely related to mathematical problem solving. Drawn from
the expectancy-value theory (EVT), this study examined the relationship between stu-
dents’ affective factors (self-concept, intrinsic value, and test anxiety) and their mathe-
matical problem posing performance (complexity, quantity, and accuracy). Structural
equation models were employed to analyze the data of 302 Chinese Miao students. The
results showed that self-concept had a positive association with the complexity and
accuracy of the problems posed. Intrinsic value was positively related to the complexity
and quantity of the problems posed. Conversely, test anxiety negatively predicted the
complexity of the problems. Our findings provide quantitative evidence of the significant
influence of students’ affective characteristics on their problem posing performance and
offer a better understanding of the problem-posing ability of Chinese minority students.
Moreover, this study validates an instrument measuring student affect in mathematical
problem posing based on EVT.

Keywords Problem posing . Motivation . Affect . Minority students . Expectancy-value theory .

Anxiety

1 Introduction

Problem posing has been a topic of enduring interest in the mathematics education community,
given its important role in advancing students’ mathematical thinking and understanding
(English, 2019). Improving students’ mathematical problem-posing ability has been identified

* Xiang Hu
huxianghfp@gmail.com

1
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, SAR, China
2
School of Education, Renmin University of China, Haidian District, Beijing, China

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

368 Guo M. et al.

as an essential learning outcome in many national mathematics standards, including China

(Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2012) and the USA (National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000). Extant research has provided detailed information
on the development of students’ problem-posing ability (Silver & Cai, 1996; Zakaria & Ngah,
2011), the cognitive determinants of problem posing (e.g., field dependence versus
independent cognitive style in Nicolaou & Xistouri, 2011), the relationship between problem
posing and problem solving (Cai & Hwang, 2002; Xie & Masingila, 2017) and between
problem posing and creativity (Leikin & Elgrably, 2019) and students’ mathematical knowl-
edge (Van Harpen & Presmeg, 2013), teaching mathematics via problem posing (Cai &
Hwang, 2019), teacher education through problem posing (Cai et al., 2019; Chen & Cai,
2019; Crespo & Harper, 2019), and cross-national differences in problem posing (Van Harpen
& Sriraman, 2013).
However, to our knowledge, few studies have investigated the potential role of affect in
problem posing. This investigation is important as affect has been shown to play an important
role in students’ mathematics learning (Zan, Brown, Evans, & Hannula, 2006). For instance,
previous studies have found that students’ affective factors (e.g., self-concept, intrinsic value,
and task anxiety) have significant influence on mathematics achievement (Zhu & Leung,
2011) and problem-solving performance (Furinghetti & Morselli, 2009). However, it remains
unclear whether affective factors help shape students’ problem-posing process.
Considerable studies have been conducted on mathematical problem posing in China
(Cai & Hwang, 2002; Van Harpen & Sriraman, 2013). However, these studies have mainly
focused on Han Chinese students, with few studies conducted with other Chinese ethnic
populations. China represents more than 20% of the world’s population, of which Han is the
only ethnic majority cultural group and the other 55 groups are ethnic minority groups.
Previous research has confirmed the existence of striking cultural challenges (e.g., language
and religion) for Chinese minorities, putting them at a disadvantage in terms of access to
educational resources, academic performance, and access to higher education (Postiglione,
1999). Furthermore, students’ mathematics learning has been found to vary across different
cultural/ethnic groups (Guo & Leung, 2020; Hu, Leung, & Teng, 2018a; Leung, Graf, &
Lopez-Real, 2006). In other words, minority students’ mathematics learning including
problem posing might be different from mainstream groups. Therefore, it is essential to
pay attention to Chinese minority students’ mathematical problem posing.
To address the aforementioned issues, this study aims to investigate Chinese Miao students’
performance in mathematical problem posing and their affective determinants of problem
posing. The Miao group has a stable culture and a large population in China (National Bureau
of Statistics of China, 2012), providing a good example of Chinese minority groups.

2 Literature review

2.1 Mathematical problem posing

Mathematical problem posing refers to “the process by which, on the basis of mathematical
experience, students construct personal interpretations of concrete situations and formulate
them as meaningful mathematical problems” (Stoyanova & Ellerton, 1996, p. 519). Problem
posing has been recognized as a key learning outcome in mathematics education (English,
2019; Silver & Cai, 1996).

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 369

Given its importance, a series of measurement frameworks have been proposed to assess
student performance in mathematical problem posing. For instance, Silver and Cai (2005)
suggested three criteria to evaluate students’ problem posing: quantity, originality, and com-
plexity. Quantity refers to the number of solvable mathematical problems posed by students,
reflecting their fluency in posing task (Silver & Cai, 2005; Van Harpen & Sriraman, 2013).
Originality of problem posed by students can be measured by its rareness (i.e., the frequency of
this problem in all responses generated by participants in the group, Van Harpen & Sriraman,
2013) and can be considered as “part of a test of creativity” (Silver & Cai, 2005). Complexity
reveals the depth of mathematical thinking in problem posing and has been considered by
many researchers as a crucial criterion (e.g., Nicolaou & Xistouri, 2011; Xie & Masingila,
2017). Various approaches have been considered to measure the complexity of mathematical
problems (e.g., Koichu, Harel, & Manaster, 2013; Leung, 1993). For instance, Silver and Cai
(1996, 2005) assessed the complexity of posed problems by counting the number of semantic
relations in the problems. This approach is mainly used in the context of posing arithmetic
story problems. Alternatively, Leung (1993) considered the number of operations required to
solve a problem as the measure of complexity. The latter is applicable in various types of
mathematical problems, including arithmetic and geometry problems; thus, it was adopted in
the present study.
Chen, Van Dooren, and Verschaffel (2013) followed Silver and Cai’s (2005) practices but
added a fourth dimension (i.e., diversity) to address “the relationship between the two
problems that had to be generated by students in a given problem posing item” (p. 152).
Nicolaou and Xistouri (2011) evaluated students’ problem-posing ability based on the cor-
rectness and complexity of the posed problems, in which correctness is similar to quantity used
by Silver and Cai (2005).
As mentioned above, multiple indicators have been used to measure students’ problem-posing
skills in literature, mainly including complexity, quantity, originality, and diversity. Of these,
quantity and complexity were the most frequently used criteria as they reveal fluency and cognitive
depth which are the critical information on problem-posing ability, thus the two criteria are included
in the present study. Besides complexity and quantity, we proposed a novel measure of student
posing performance: accuracy (i.e., the proportion of solvable mathematical problems posed). While
quantity and complexity can capture the number of solvable problems posed and how complicated
these posed problems are, respectively, these measures fail to take students’ unsolvable problems
into account, which can be overcome by adding the consideration of accuracy of posed problems.
Originality and diversity were mainly used to evaluate students’ creativity in posing mathematical
problem (Van Harpen & Sriraman, 2013), thus are not included in this study. In summary, this study
adopts three measures to evaluate student problem-posing performance: complexity, quantity, and
accuracy.

2.2 The relationship between mathematics affect and problem posing

Affect has been a hot topic in mathematics education for over 50 years (Goldin, 2014; Zan
et al., 2006). Its importance is emphasized by evidence of growing student disinterest in STEM
careers and the critical role of affective factors in advancing student learning. However,
mathematics-related affect is somewhat nebulous in its conceptualization due to the existence
of many affective constructs and various theoretical stances. McLeod (1992) made a substan-
tial contribution to the conceptualization of the affective domain of mathematics in three
aspects: beliefs, attitudes, and emotions. More recently, DeBellis and Goldin (2006) further

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

370 Guo M. et al.

distinguished the differences between values and beliefs and extend the affective structures
into four aspects: beliefs, attitudes, values, and emotions. Most recently, Goldin (2014)
stressed the important role of the four affective aspects, especially emotion (e.g., mathematics
anxiety), in student mathematics learning.
Due to the existence of a mass of affective factors, it is inadvisable to include all of them in a
single study; rather, researchers should take a particular theoretical stance to study the affective
elements of interest. Drawing from the expectancy-value theory (EVT; Eccles et al., 1983), the
present study focused on three affective factors: self-concept, intrinsic value, and anxiety. EVT,
serving as one of most important theories of students’ achievement motivation, has been found to be
useful and powerful in explaining student engagement and achievement-related results (Pintrich &
De Groot, 1990; Wigfield et al., 2015). EVT posits that students’ performance is influenced by their
expectancies (e.g., self-concept), perceived task values (e.g., intrinsic value), and emotional reactions
related to the task (e.g., anxiety). The EVT model was chosen as these three affective factors have
been confirmed to have significant influences on students’ mathematics learning outcomes (Guo,
Marsh, Parker, Morin, & Yeung, 2015; Marsh & Yeung, 1997).
The existing literature has overwhelmingly confirmed that students’ self-concept and intrin-
sic value were positively related to their mathematics performance (Zhu & Leung, 2011; Eccles,
2009; Guo et al., 2015). For example, Zhu & Leung (2011) found that students’ intrinsic value
was positively associated with their mathematics achievement in five East Asian countries/
regions (Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan) and four Western countries
(Australia, England, the Netherlands, and the USA). By using three waves of Hong Kong
TIMSS data, Guo et al. (2015) revealed that students’ mathematics self-concept positively
predicted their mathematics achievement. Furthermore, the causal effect of self-concept and
intrinsic value on mathematics performance has been confirmed by longitudinal studies in
Australia (Marsh & Yeung, 1997) and Germany (Arens, Schmidt, & Preckel, 2019).
Conversely, mathematics anxiety has been consistently found to have a negative role in
students’ mathematics learning (e.g., Ashcraft & Krause, 2007). For instance, by analyzing
data from 41 countries participating in PISA 2003, Lee (2009) showed that students’ test
anxiety had a significantly negative effect on their mathematics performance, although the
effect size varied between countries.
Previous research has shown that expectancy and value are domain-specific (Guo et al.,
2015). That is, students can have different expectancies and values for different school
subjects, such as mathematics, reading, and science, or even for different tasks in a particular
subject (e.g., mathematical problem solving and problem posing). Moreover, the relationship
of expectancies and values to outcome-related factors could also be different for different
domains. Consequently, although the EVT model has been confirmed to be effective in
explaining students’ general mathematics achievement and problem-solving performance,
conclusions cannot be drawn that students’ expectancies and values for mathematical problem
posing influence their problem-posing performance.
Few studies have examined whether affective factors play a role in students’ mathematical
problem posing (e.g., Chen et al., 2013; Nicolaou & Philippou, 2007). Zakaria and Ngah
(2011) surveyed 35 secondary students about their attitudes towards problem solving and their
problem-posing ability. Their results indicated no association between the two factors. The
non-significant result may be partially due to the small sample size. Alternatively, it may be
due to the mismatch between assessed attitudes and abilities. As mentioned earlier, the EVT
model is domain-specific. Thus, attitudes towards problem solving may predict problem-
solving ability, but not problem-posing ability. By surveying 176 fifth-graders and 89 sixth-

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 371

graders from Cyprus, Nicolaou and Philippou (2007) found that students’ self-efficacy in
posing problems positively predicted their problem-posing ability and mathematics
achievement. A similar positive correlation was identified by Philippou, Charalambous, and
Christou (2001) in pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in problem posing and their problem-
posing ability.
The studies reviewed above all treated problem posing as one integrated ability without
examining the relationship between affect and specific aspects of problem posing. As men-
tioned above, the problems posed by students can be evaluated in at least two dimensions:
correctness and complexity. Although previous research (e.g., Nicolaou & Philippou, 2007) has
considered both aspects to measure student performance in problem posing, none has separately
linked them with student affective factors. One exception is the study conducted by Chen et al.
(2013), which evaluated student performance in problem posing using four dimensions (i.e.,
correctness, complexity, originality, and diversity) and linked them with student affect in
problem posing among 69 fifth-grade Chinese students. The correlation analysis showed that
student affect in problem posing only had a statistically significant association with originality,
but not with the other three dimensions (correctness, complexity, and diversity). However,
Chen et al.’s (2013) study might, to some extent, have lacked precision in capturing the
relationship between affect and problem-posing performance due to two issues. First, it did
not distinguish different aspects of affect. The study used 20 Likert-scale items to assess
students’ values, confidence, preference, and perseverance in problem posing. Despite the
comprehensiveness of the affective factors considered, the authors treated student affect as a
general construct by averaging the 20 items to represent student affect in problem posing.
Previous research (e.g., Liu, Hau, & Zheng, 2018) has demonstrated that different affective
factors have different effects on outcome-related factors. Second, the sample size of the study
(N = 69) was small, which makes the generalization of the results unconvincing.
In summary, only a few studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between
student affect and mathematical problem-posing ability (e.g., Chen et al., 2013; Nicolaou &
Philippou, 2007).

2.3 Mathematical problem posing research in China

Several studies have been conducted in China to examine students’ and teachers’ mathematical
problem posing (e.g., Chen & Cai, 2019; Van Harpen & Sriraman, 2013). One line of research
has focused on domestic studies in China, as illustrated by Chen et al. (2013). Another
example is the study of 80 pre-service teachers and 48 in-service teachers in Tianjin Province,
China, conducted by Chen, Van Dooren, Chen, and Verschaffel (2011). Their results indicated
that most teachers were adequate in solving and posing realistic division-with-remainder
(DWR) word problems. Besides, their problem-solving and problem-posing skills were
positively related to their performance in rating elementary students’ problem-solving and
problem-posing abilities, respectively.
Moreover, most of the current literature on problem posing has focused on the cross-national
comparison between China and the USA (e.g., Cai & Hwang, 2002; Van Harpen & Sriraman,
2013). These studies revealed considerable differences between Chinese and American stu-
dents’ problem-posing performance. For instance, Cai and Hwang (2002) compared 155
Chinese and 98 US sixth-graders and found that Chinese and US students had similar results
in terms of the percentage of students posing multiple distinct problems, but strikingly different
results in the types of problems posed. The US students generated more extension problems

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

372 Guo M. et al.

than the Chinese students did. Moreover, the two groups of students varied considerably in both
the types and sequences of posed problems. In a more recent comparative study of high school
students (eleventh or twelfth grade) from two Chinese cities (i.e., Shanghai and Jiaozhou) and
one US city (Normal, IL), Van Harpen and Sriraman (2013) found that Jiaozhou students had
better performance in mathematical problem posing than their counterparts from Shanghai and
Normal. This study not only showed a cross-national difference between the USA and China,
but also identified a within-country difference in China.

2.4 The present investigation

The extant literature has provided valuable information to advance our understanding of
mathematical problem posing. However, several issues still need to be addressed. First, little
attention has been paid to the affective determinants of students’ problem-posing ability.
Second, the posing literature in China has mainly focused on the Chinese Han population.
China is a multinational country, with Han as the only ethnic majority group and 55 minority
groups. To fully understand Chinese students’ problem-posing performance, it is necessary to
conduct a more in-depth investigation of Chinese minority groups to avoid neglecting under-
represented Chinese populations.
To fill these research gaps, this study aims to investigate Chinese Miao students’ perfor-
mance and affective characteristics in mathematical problem posing and explore the affective
antecedences of mathematical problem-posing performance. This study sampled Chinese Miao
students for mainly four reasons. First, the Miao group has a stable culture and a large
population (the fourth largest minority group in China; National Bureau of Statistics of
China, 2012). Second, Chinese Miao students are exposed to various mathematics contents,
especially geometric content, in their culture, and life context (e.g., Miao embroidery and
silverware; Luo & Xiao, 2016), which may make the problems posed by Miao students differ
from the mainstream Han students. Third, Miao (also named “Hmong”) is distributed not only
in China but also in America, England, Lao, etc. Thus, the investigations on Chinese Miao
students’ problem posing can also provide important information for educational practitioners
working with Hmong students worldwide. Fourth, previous studies have found that different
with the outstanding academic performance of Asians (e.g., Chinese Han students), Hmong
students still met many challenges in learning (Vang, 2005). Therefore, it is necessary to pay
attention to Miao (Hmong) students’ mathematics learning, including mathematical problem-
posing performance.
Specifically, this study aims to address the following two questions: (1) what are the
profiles of Chinese Miao students’ affective characteristics (self-concept, intrinsic value, and
test anxiety) and performance in mathematical problem posing? (2) are Chinese Miao students’
affective factors related to their mathematical problem-posing performance?
Based on the EVT model, extant studies have consistently confirmed that students’
mathematics self-concept and intrinsic value have positive effects on their mathematics
performance, while mathematics anxiety negatively influences mathematics performance
(Arens et al., 2019; Ashcraft & Krause, 2007). Since problem posing is one type of mathe-
matical task, the role affect plays in students’ problem-posing learning process might be
similar to its role in their general mathematics learning. Therefore, we hypothesize that (1)
students’ self-concept and intrinsic value in problem posing would positively predict their
performance in mathematical problem posing; and (2) students’ test anxiety would be nega-
tively related to their mathematical problem-posing performance.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 373

3 Methodology

3.1 Participants

This study recruited five public secondary schools in Qiandongnan Miao and Dong Autono-
mous Prefecture in Guizhou Province, China, including one school in the city center, one in
the suburban region, and three in the county. The five schools were typical public schools in
Qiandongnan, in which students had average academic performance. Three hundred and two
ninth-grade Miao students participated in this study. Of these, 146 (48.3%) were boys and 155
were girls (51.3%); One student did not provide gender information. The average age of
participating students was 14.75 years (SD = 0.705).

3.2 Measures

3.2.1 Mathematical problem posing

Based on Stoyanova and Ellerton’s (1996) framework, problem-posing situations can be

classified into three types: free, semi-structured, and structured. A free situation allows
students to pose problems without limitations. A semi-structured situation asks students to
explore the structure of a given situation and pose problems based on their discovery and
previous knowledge and experience. In a structured situation, students are asked to pose new
problems based on given problems. In this study, a free and two semi-structured tasks were
used to measure problem-posing performance, as the two types of situations provide students
more chance to connect with daily life and stimulate their creative thinking (Bonotto & Dal
Santo, 2015). Given that geometry plays an important role in Miao students’ life and culture
(Luo & Xiao, 2016), the three tasks all focused on geometry.

Task 1 (free situation): Make up as many solvable and challenging mathematical prob-
lems as possible related to circles.
Task 2 (semi-structured situation): There is a triangle and its inscribed circle (see Fig. 1).
Make up as many solvable and challenging mathematical problems as possible related to
Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 A triangle and its inscribed

circle

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

374 Guo M. et al.

Task 3 (semi-structured situation): There are four right-angled triangles in a square (see
Fig. 2). Make up as many solvable and challenging mathematical problems as possible
related to Fig. 2.

Task 1 was adapted from Stoyanova’s (1997) task “Make up some problems which relate to
right-angled triangles” (p. 64). Circles are related to important mathematical knowledge (e.g.,
the circumferential angle theorem and symmetry) and life situations (e.g., bridges, gardens,
Miao embroidery, and Miao silverware), allowing Miao students to pose mathematical
problems from different perspectives.
Task 2 was developed based on Stoyanova (1997) and Van Harpen and Sriraman (2013).
Students may connect this task with different mathematical contents, such as triangle, the similarity
and congruence of geometric shapes, analytical geometry, and three-dimensional figures. This task
was used to test the mathematical problem posing of Chinese high school students and showed
good validity and adaptability in the Chinese context (Van Harpen & Sriraman, 2013).
Task 3 was designed based on Zhao Shuang’s figure (see Fig. 2) in the annotation of an
ancient Chinese mathematical book entitled Zhoupi Math Scripture. This figure can be related
to rich mathematical content (e.g., Pythagorean theorem, congruent graphs, similar graphs, and
central symmetry graphs) and students’ life context (e.g., floor tiles and Miao embroidery),
allowing them to pose mathematically rich and life-related problems.
According to the mathematics textbooks used in Qiandongnan and interviews with local
teachers, the participating students had already learned related geometric concepts, theorems,
and skills when they participated in this study (e.g., the definition of the inscribed circle in a
triangle, Pythagorean theorem, the circumferential angle theorem, area of sector). Before the
test, the researchers gave the students the definition of mathematical problem posing and
explained the differences between problem posing and problem solving. The students were
encouraged to pose as many challenging mathematical problems and life-related mathematical
problems as possible. They had 40 min to complete the three tasks in class.

Fig. 2 Four right-angled triangles

in a square

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 375

3.2.2 Affective factors

Three factors were involved to measure student problem-posing affect according to EVT
(Eccles, 2009; Wigfield et al., 2015): self-concept, intrinsic value, and test anxiety. A five-item
self-concept scale (α = 0.814) was developed to assess students’ beliefs about their ability to
pose mathematical problems. The items were adapted from the self-concept scale of the PISA
student questionnaire (OECD, 2017). All self-concept items were revised to focus on the
problem-posing context, which was also the case for intrinsic value and test anxiety (see
Table 3 in Appendix 1 for all items). The intrinsic value scale, which included four items (α =
0.813), reflected the students’ internal interest and enjoyment for mathematical problem posing
(Eccles et al., 1983). The items were adapted from the intrinsic value subscale in the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). The test anxiety
scale employed four items (α = 0.820) to assess students’ feelings of stress and pressure during
the problem-posing test (Hembree, 1990). These items were developed based on the math
anxiety scale in the PISA student questionnaire (OECD, 2017) and the test anxiety subscale in
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). The
students were asked to evaluate the degree of agreement with each item on a four-point scale,
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
According to previous studies (e.g., Hu, Leung, & Chen, 2018b; Eccles, 2009; Guo et al.,
2015), family background and student gender have significant effects on students’ mathemat-
ics achievement and motivation. To clarify the influence of affective factors on student
performance in mathematical problem posing, parental education level (1 = primary school
or below; 2 = secondary school; 3 = high school; 4 = bachelor’s degree; 5 = master’s degree or
above), family resources (the number of following goods at home: car; students’ own room;
computer; study; and two or more bathrooms), and student gender (0 = female; 1 = male) were
included as control variables in the analysis.

3.3 Data analysis procedures

3.3.1 Coding methods and inter-rater reliability

As discussed in the literature, complexity and quantity serve as two useful criteria for assessing
students’ problem-posing performance and have demonstrated satisfactory validity in previous
studies (Nicolaou & Xistouri, 2011; Silver & Cai, 2005; Van Harpen & Sriraman, 2013).
Accuracy serves as another important criterion, as it reveals students’ ability of organizing and
providing valid information in problem-posing processes. This study, therefore, evaluates
problem-posing performance by the three dimensions accuracy, quantity, and complexity.
Based on Van Harpen and Sriraman (2013) and Silver and Cai (2005), student responses
were first divided into nonmathematical problems and mathematical problems. Then, the
solvability of the mathematical problems was tested by the researchers. Unsolvable mathe-
matical questions were considered as non-valid problems, including insufficient questions (a
question without the necessary information, e.g., “What is the area of the square?” that did not
give information on the length of the sides) and impossible questions (questions with unrea-
sonable information, e.g., “the length of the sides of the triangle is 1, 2 and 3 cm, respectively,
please find the area of the triangle”). The total number of solvable mathematical problems
posed by each student in the three tasks was defined as the quantity score. The percentage of
solvable mathematical problems was defined as the accuracy score.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

376 Guo M. et al.

Number of solvable mathematical problems

Accuracy ¼  100%
Number of posed mathematical problems

As mentioned in the literature, researchers have successfully used the number of operations
needed in a hypothesized solution to evaluate the complexity of mathematical problems
(Leung, 1993; Xie & Masingila, 2017). For instance, Leung (1993) applied the number of
computational steps to evaluate the complexity of arithmetic problems and confirmed the
validity and reasonability of this method. However, in some geometric problems, in addition to
operations, the justification of geometric propositions (e.g., parallel of line segments, congru-
ence, or similarity of figures) was also necessary in the solution. As this study focused on the
geometry field, both mathematical justification and operation were considered in measuring
complexity. The complexity of mathematical justification was judged by the reasoning steps
needed to justify the propositions. The complexity of operation (e.g., geometric measurement)
was measured by the number of computational steps required to calculate the results. The sum
of reasoning and computational steps was considered as the complexity of the mathematical
problems. For instance, one student posed a problem for Task 1: “There is a circle ⊙O with a
radius of one cm; AB is a diameter of ⊙O; C is one point on ⊙O, ∠ BAC = 30o. Please calculate
the area of the circular sector BOC.” To solve this problem, three reasoning steps are needed:
1) ∵ A and C are two points on ⊙O; ∴ OA = OC; 2) and ∵ ∠ BAC = 30o; ∴ ∠ ACO = ∠
BAC = 30°; 3) ∴ ∠ BOC = ∠ ACO + ∠ BAC = 60o. Then, a one-step operation is needed: the
2
π
area of the circular sector BOC ¼ nπr 360 ¼ 6 cm . Thus, the complexity of this problem was
2

coded as four (three reasoning steps and a computational step; see Appendix 2 for examples of
the coding process). Notably, we also consider abstracting a “life situation” into a mathemat-
ical model as one step of reasoning; thus, an extra step was added to complexity if the
problems posed by students involve “life situations.” As many students posed more than
one problem in a task, the most complex problem they posed in the task was selected to
represent their complexity performance in this task. To obtain the overall complexity score, the
scores of the three tasks were summed.
To test the reliability of the coding methods, the first author and the third author randomly
selected 30 students and coded their performance in mathematical problem posing based on
the mentioned coding criteria. The inter-rater agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient) for
complexity, quantity, and accuracy was 0.781, 0.839, and 0.840, respectively, suggesting
satisfactory reliability of coding methods. Finally, the first author coded all of the problems
posed by the 302 Miao students and discussed uncertain cases with the other authors.

3.3.2 Data analysis

Before the analysis, the expectation-maximization algorithm was used to impute the missing
values of student responses. Then, descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis were conducted
to present basic information on student affective characteristics and performance in mathe-
matical problem posing. Finally, structural equation models (SEM) were conducted with
maximum likelihood estimation to examine the relationship between students’ affect and
performance in problem posing. The affective factors were treated as exogenous variables,
while the three aspects of mathematical problem-posing performance were treated as outcome

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 377

variables. The covariates included student gender, parental education level, and family re-
sources. The SEM analysis was conducted using AMOS (Version 25.0), while the other
analysis was done using SPSS (Version 25.0).

4 Results

4.1 Preliminary analysis

The results of the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of all included variables were
listed in Table 1. The results of descriptive statistics showed that 63.3% of the mathematical
problems posed by Chinese Miao students were solvable problems. Students posed on average
2.858 solvable mathematical problems in the test. The average complexity score for each task
was 2.453 (7.358/3), indicating that the most complex problem of each task required on
average 2.453 steps to solve. More specifically, students averagely posed 0.83(66%),
0.80(52%), and 1.23 (72%) valid problems in task 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Of these, the
most complex problems in the three tasks averagely need 1.79, 1.97, and 3.60 steps to solve,
respectively. Students posed more life-related problems in task 1 (e.g., the area of Olympic
rings, the height of arch bridge, the rotation of pinwheel, and the area of flowerbed) than in
tasks 2 and 3 (see Appendix 1 for some examples of student response), which suggests that the
free-structured tasks may provide more chances for students to connect mathematics knowl-
edge with their life situations than semi-structured tasks.
The results of the bivariate analysis indicated that the complexity, quantity, and accuracy
scores were closely associated (see Table 1). Self-concept and intrinsic value were positively
related to the three outcome variables. Test anxiety had significant negative correlations with
complexity (r = − 0.323, p < 0.01), quantity (r = − 0.191, p < 0.01), and accuracy (r = − 0.184,
p < 0.01), respectively.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the variables in the study

CS QS AS SC IV TA SG PE FR

CS 1
QS .672** 1
AS .682** .579** 1
SC .463** .283** .317** 1
IV .374** .288** .259** .492** 1
TA − .323** − .191** − .184** − .375** − .154** 1
SG .098 − .010 .042 .171** − .039 − .166** 1
PE .041 − .034 .109 .157** .054 − .141* .073 1
FR .079 − .004 .109 .238** .128* − .045 .170** .481** 1
Mean 7.358 2.858 .633 2.420 3.080 2.482 .480 2.225 2.548
SD 4.537 1.865 .306 .592 .662 .842 .500 .940 1.216

CS, complexity score; QS, quantity score; AS, accuracy score; SC, self-concept; IV, intrinsic value; TA, test
anxiety; SG, student gender; PE, parental education level; FR, family resources
* p < 0.05

** p < 0.01

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

378 Guo M. et al.

In addition, the covariates were significantly related to the students’ affective factors.
Gender and parental education level had positive associations with self-concept, but negative
associations with test anxiety. Self-concept (r = 0.238, p < 0.01) and intrinsic value (r = 0.128,
p < 0.05) were positively related to family resources. Thus, student gender, parental education
level, and family resources were controlled in the subsequent data analysis.

4.2 Structural equation model

After the normality test (skewness − 1.099 to 1.016; kurtosis − 2.007 to 1.629), we examined
the relationship between student affect and performance in problem posing by SEM. As the
three outcome variables (complexity, quantity, and accuracy) were strongly related to each
other and somewhat overlapped, their errors were correlated in the model (Byrne, 2004).
Based on previous studies (e.g., Byrne, 2010), GFI, CFI, and NNFI values greater than 0.90,
RMSEA values less than 0.06, and χ2/df less than 2 represent an acceptable model fit. In this
study, the model fitted the data adequately, as indicated by the following fit indices: χ2(df =
122, N = 302) = 214.084, p < 0.001;χ2/df= 1.755; GFI = 0.932; NNFI = 0.938; CFI = 0.956;
RMSEA = 0.050 (90% CI 0.039, 0.061). The factor loadings of the items in the model were
all statistically significant (p < 0.001; see Table 3 in Appendix 1).
The SEM results are presented in Fig. 3. The model explained 31%, 14%, and 14% of the
variance in complexity, quantity, and accuracy in problem posing, respectively. Self-concept
positively predicted the complexity (β = 0.35, p < 0.001) and accuracy (β = 0.24, p = 0.019) of
the problems posed; self-concept had no effects on the quantity of the problems posed.
Intrinsic value had positive associations with the quantity (β = 0.20, p = 0.023) and complexity
(β = 0.19, p = 0.020), but no correlations with the accuracy of posed problems. Test anxiety
negatively predicted the complexity (β = − 0.16, p = 0.010) but had no associations with the
quantity and accuracy of the problems posed.

Fig. 3 The results of structural equation model. The numbers correspond to standardized coefficients. *p < 0.05;
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; The factor loadings and control variables (gender, parental education level, and family
resources) are not included in the figure for simplification

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 379

5 Discussion

Based on the EVT model, this study examined the relationship between three important affective
factors (i.e., self-concept, intrinsic value, and anxiety) and mathematical problem-posing perfor-
mance among Chinese Miao secondary students. Our results contribute to the problem-posing
literature in three ways. First, while previous studies only focused on Chinese Han students, this
study extends our understanding of Chinese students’ problem-posing performance by studying
Chinese ethnic minority students. Second, this study developed and validated an instrument to
measure student affect in mathematical problem posing. More importantly, to our knowledge, this
is the first study which applied the EVT model to substantiate the important role of student affect
in shaping their problem-posing performance by quantitative methods.
This study advances our knowledge of Chinese Miao students’ mathematical problem
posing. The results indicate that the most complex problems posed by Miao students on
average need 2.453 steps in the solution, with average 1.79, 1.97, and 3.60 steps in task 1, 2,
and 3, respectively, which suggests that the participating Miao students were to some extent
adequate for posing complex mathematical problems. This study also finds that ninth-grade
Chinese Miao students posed an average of 2.858 solvable mathematical problems in all
three tasks. In addition, about 63.3% of the posed mathematical problems were solvable.
These results indicate that Miao students in this study performed well (at least not too badly)
in terms of quantity, accuracy and complexity of problem posing.
The present study applied the EVT model to conceptualize student problem-posing affect,
including self-concept, intrinsic value, and test anxiety. The results of the structural equation
model and the reliability analysis showed satisfactory validity and reliability of the instrument,
indicating that this instrument was appropriate for measuring student affective characteristics
in mathematical problem posing among Miao secondary students.
After establishing the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, student problem-
posing affect was further linked with problem-posing performance in the study, which
contributes to firstly revealing the joint contribution of self-concept, intrinsic value, and test
anxiety to problem-posing performance. The model explains a certain proportion of vari-
ance in all the three aspects of students’ problem-posing performance (complexity, quantity,
and accuracy), suggesting an important role of student affect in the problem-posing process.
Specifically, our results show that self-concept was a positive predictor of the complexity
and accuracy of the problems posed, which is consistent with Nicolaou and Philippou’s
(2007) findings. Several possible reasons can help explain the association. Pintrich and De
Groot (1990) pointed out that students’ mathematics performance was closely related to
their “will” and “skill.” Students with higher self-concepts are likely to have higher “will”
(expectation to success; Guo et al., 2015), and tend to put more efforts in posing tasks, which
lead to better performance. Besides, high self-concept students may be more resourceful in
alternative mathematical knowledge, cognitive strategies (e.g., linking the task information
to similar problems they have encountered), and metacognitive skills (e.g., planning and
monitoring problem-posing activities), thus can pose problems with higher complexity and
accuracy. An alternative explanation is that high self-concept students may experience
fewer distractions because of worry and obstacle (Hoffman & Schraw, 2009) and can
efficiently concentrate on problem-posing activities, so they can avoid mistakes and in-
crease the accuracy of the problems posed.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

380 Guo M. et al.

Intrinsic value is found to positively predict the complexity and quantity of the problems
posed, suggesting students who are interested in problem posing tended to pose more solvable
and challenging mathematical problems. The positive influence is in line with previous EVT
studies focusing on other domains (e.g., Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, & Baumert, 2005;
Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). This might be because students who believe problem posing was
interesting might be more cognitively engaged, self-regulated, persistent, and hard-working in
mathematical problem-posing tasks, and in turn, posed more complex problems. It is worth
noting that intrinsic value was positively linked to complexity and quantity but not the accuracy
of the problems posed. This might be caused by the fact that students with high intrinsic value
may have high passion to pose as many problems as possible, thus increasing the number of
posed problems; on the other hand, emphasis on the quantity may be at the expense of the
accuracy, which contributes to the insignificant relationship between intrinsic value and the
accuracy.
This study also find that test anxiety exerted negative effects mainly on the complexity of
the problems posed, indicating that if students perceived higher anxiety and pressure in a
problem-posing test, they tended to pose easier mathematical problems. In line with
previous research (e.g., Ashcraft & Krause, 2007), our findings provide new evidence for
the detrimental influence of test anxiety in mathematics learning. A plausible explanation is
that highly math-anxious students likely made little use of self-regulated skills and deep
strategies, and easily give up when they meet difficult tasks; thus, they can only pose simple
problems. This interpretation was supported by Metallidou and Vlachou’s (2007) study,
which found that test anxiety led to less cognitive engagement and self-regulation. Besides,
based on the processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992), anxiety may cause a
heavy burden on students’ working memory and distract them from engagement to dealing
with the stressful emotions evoked in tasks. In other words, students with increased anxiety
may devote their attentional resources to managing worries about failure, rather than to
engage in mathematics thinking, resulting in their inability to pose complex problems.
Another possibility would be that highly anxious students may want to end the tasks as
quickly as possible by posing very simple questions, so that they can escape from the stress
and psychological burden evoked in the test.

6 Conclusions and implications

Overall, our study substantiates that students’ problem-posing affect (self-concept, intrinsic
value, and anxiety) is an important determinant of their problem-posing performance. Self-
concept in problem posing positively predicted the complexity and accuracy of the problems
posed. Intrinsic value was a positive predictor of the complexity and quantity of the problems
posed. Conversely, test anxiety had negative influences on the complexity of the problems
posed. This study makes a substantial contribution to the literature by demonstrating the
affective consequences on mathematical problem posing. Moreover, given that few studies
have focused on problem posing among Chinese minority students, our study fills this gap by
providing insight into Chinese Miao students’ affect and problem-posing performance.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 381

Our findings also have important implications for educational practitioners, especially
for those working with Miao students in China and Hmong students worldwide. Given the
confirmed role of affect in shaping student problem-posing performance, school adminis-
trators are suggested to improve teachers’ awareness and understanding of the importance of
affective characteristics in problem posing, and further help them enhance students’ math-
ematical problem posing abilities by affective interventions. For teachers, they should
increase students’ successful experience and interest in problem posing by tailoring effec-
tive methods, such as integrating problem-posing tasks with regular mathematics teaching
(Leung, 2013), developing appropriate posing tasks based on students’ competence, pro-
viding constructive support and positive feedbacks, connecting the posing tasks with
students’ life experience and ethnic artworks (Luo & Lyu, 2014), and encouraging explo-
ration and cooperation in problem-posing projects (Crespo & Harper, 2019). Furthermore,
teachers could use more ethnic artworks as stimulus to attract minority students’ interest and
further improve their problem-posing abilities. This study also indicated a maladaptive role
of test anxiety in problem posing. Thus, teachers are advised to create mastery of the
learning environment in mathematical problem-posing activities to reduce students’ pres-
sure and fear of failure. Teachers could adopt a more constructive assessment on problem-
posing outcomes instead of only test scores. Especially, when students make some errors in
the problem-posing process, teachers need to provide them with more supportive sugges-
tions and guidance instead of criticism.

7 Limitations

Some limitations of the study should be noted. First, the study only surveyed around 300
students from one Chinese minority group; thus, any interpretation of the results beyond the
sample should be treated with caution. Future research on different samples is needed to
scrutinize the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, more comparative research be-
tween students from different countries and between students from different ethnic groups is
suggested to further clarify the cross-cultural and cross-ethnic generalizability of the relation-
ship. Second, the included variables in our model only explain a small proportion of variance
of students’ problem-posing performance, especially for accuracy (14%) and quantity (14%).
To expand our findings, other potential influential factors (e.g., engagement) should be
considered in future studies. Third, using only a quantitative method, this study does not
empirically analyze why affective factors shape student performance in mathematical problem
posing. Thus, further qualitative studies are needed to explain the relationship. Fourth, this
study only focused on the quantity, complexity, and accuracy of student response and paid no
attention to the creativity of the problems students posed. Future studies are needed to explore
how affective factors affect student creativity in problem posing. Last, this study regards
unsolvable problems as non-valid problems, which may lose information and underestimate
students’ performance in some cases. Thus, future researchers should take this type of
problems into special consideration to more precisely evaluate students’ problem-posing
performance.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

382 Guo M. et al.

Appendix 1

Table 2 The example responses of the three problem-posing tasks

Tasks Figures Examples of student responses

Task 1 As shown in Fig. 4, the Point A, B, C are three points on the ⨀ .

1) The radius of ⨀ is ,ğ = 120°. Find the area of ∆ .

2) Prove: ğ = 2ğ .

3) A cow is tied to a tree on a grassland with a two-meter-long rope. How large

area of grass can the cow eat?

Fig. 4

Task 2 As shown in Fig. 5, the ⨀O is the inscribed circle of △ C, Point E and F

are the tangent points of ⨀O on line AC and AB, respectively.

1)ğ = 60°, ind ğ .

2) ğ = 60°, the radius of ⨀O is 1 cm, find the area of the shaded region.

3) A circular pond is the inscribed circle of a triangle lawn. ğBAC=60°; AE =

Fig. 5
5 m, find the area of the pond.

Task 3 As shown in Fig. 6, there are four right triangles in square ABCD. Point O is the

center of the square ABCD. Point E, F, G, H are the right-angle vertices of the

four right triangles and locate on AH, BE, CF and DG, respectively.

1) Prove: ğ = ğ .

2) This is a square windmill made up of four right triangles. How many degrees

will the square windmill ABCD need rotate around point O to make point A

move to point B?
Fig. 6 3) Establish a plane rectangular coordinate system with DA and DC as the y-

axis and x-axis, respectively. Given D (0,0), AD=2, ğ = 30°, find the

coordinates of point E.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 383

Table 3 The items in mathematical problem-posing affect scales and factor loadings

Scales Items Factor

loadings

Self-concept in mathematical SC1. I believe that I can pose better mathematical problems 0.67***
problem posing than others
SC2. I know how to pose good mathematical problems 0.69***
SC3. I think I am good at posing mathematical problems 0.71***
SC4. I believe that I can pose challenging mathematical 0.67***
problems
SC5. I know I have the ability to pose good mathematical 0.68***
problems
Intrinsic value in mathematical IV1. I like posing difficult mathematical problems, even though 0.72***
problem posing it requires more effort
IV2. Posing good mathematical problems gives me a sense of 0.73***
achievement
IV3. I like posing mathematical problems 0.73***
IV4. I think that mathematical problem-posing activities are 0.72***
interesting
Test anxiety in mathematical TA1. I feel very anxious when I take mathematical 0.85***
problem posing problem-posing tests
TA2. I feel very stressed during mathematical problem-posing 0.86***
tests
TA3. I worry a lot about my performance in mathematical 0.63***
problem-posing tests
TA4. I feel very helpless during mathematical problem-posing 0.61***
tests
*** p < 0.001

Appendix 2. Examples of coding process

Example 1:

As shown in Fig. 4, the Point A, B, and C are three points on ⨀O.

Question (a): Prove: ∠AOB = 2∠ACB.
Question (b): A cow is tied to a tree on a grassland with a two-meter-long rope. How large area
of grass can the cow eat?

Question (a): The hypothesized proving steps are presented as follows:

Point D is the intersection point of ⨀O and line OC.
Reasoning steps:
Step 1: ∵ A, B and C are three points on ⨀O.
∴ AO = OC = OB.
Step 2: ∴ ∠OAC = ∠OCA; ∠OBC = ∠OCB.
Step 3: and ∵ ∠AOD = ∠OAC + ∠OCA; ∠BOD = ∠OBC + ∠BCO.
∴ ∠AOB = ∠AOD +∠BOD = (∠OAC + ∠OCA) + (∠OBC + ∠BCO) = 2∠OCA + 2∠OCB =
2(∠OCA + ∠OCB) = 2∠ACB.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

384 Guo M. et al.

Question (b):
Reasoning step: we consider abstracting “grassland problem” (real situation) into “area of a
circle” (mathematical model) as one reasoning step.
Computational step: The area of grass = The area of a circle with a radius of 2 meters = π ∙ r2 =
4π m2.

In this example, student posed two solvable questions. Thus, quantity and accuracy of this task
were coded as two and 100%, respectively. Three and two steps are needed to solve Question
(a) and (b), respectively; thus, based on the most complex problem student posed in this task
(i.e., Question a), the complexity was coded as three.

Example 2:

As shown in Fig. 5, ⨀O is the inscribed circle of △ABC, Point E and F are the tangent points of
⨀O on line AC and AB, respectively.
(a) Prove: △ AEO ≅ △ AFO.
(b) Find the area of △ AEO.

Question (a): The hypothesized proving steps are presented as follows:

Step1: ∵ ⨀O is the inscribed circle of △ ABC, O is the center of ⨀O.
∴ AO is the angle bisector of ∠BAC (∠EAO = ∠OAF).
Step 2: ∵ Point E and F are the tangent points of ⨀O on sides AC and AB of △ABC.
∴ OE ⊥ AC; OF ⊥ AB (∠AEO = ∠AFO = 90°).
Step3: and ∵ Rt △ AEO and Rt △ AFO have the common hypotenuse AO.
∴ △ AEO ≅ △ AFO.

Question (b): this is an unsolvable problem as there is no sufficient information to calculate the
area of the triangle.
In this example, student posed two questions, only one of them is solvable. Thus, quantity and
accuracy of this task were coded as one and 50%, respectively. Three reasoning steps are
needed to prove the statement in Question (a), thus the complexity was coded as three.

Example 3:
As shown in Fig. 6, there are four right triangles in square ABCD. Point E, F, G, H are the
right-angled vertices of the four right triangles and locate on AH, BE, CF and DG, respectively.
Question: Given AB = 2 cm, ∠ABE = 30°, find the area of △ADH.

Reasoning steps:
Step1: ∵ Point E and H are the right-angled vertices of △ABE and △AHD, respectively.
Quadrilateral ABCD is square. AB = 2 cm.
∴ ∠BAD = ∠AEB = ∠AHD = 90°; AD = AB = 2 cm.
Step 2: and ∵ ∠ABE = 30°.
∴ ∠DAH = ∠BAD – ∠BAE = ∠BAD – (180° – ∠AEB – ∠ABE) = 30°.
Computational steps: pffiffiffi
Step 1: DH ¼ sin∠DAH  AD ¼p1ffiffi cm; AH ¼ cos∠DAH  AD ¼ 3 cm:
Step 2: S ΔADH ¼ 12 AH  DH ¼ 23 cm2 :

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 385

In this example, student posed one solvable question. Thus, quantity and accuracy of this task
were coded as one and 100%, respectively. Two reasoning steps and two computational steps
are needed to solve this problem; thus, the complexity was coded as four.

References

Arens, A. K., Schmidt, I., & Preckel, F. (2019). Longitudinal relations among self-concept, intrinsic value, and
attainment value across secondary school years in three academic domains. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 111(4), 663–684.
Ashcraft, M. H., & Krause, J. A. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243–248.
Bonotto, C., & Dal Santo, L. (2015). On the relationship between problem posing, problem solving, and
creativity in the primary school. In F. M. Singer, N. F. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Mathematical problem
posing. From research to effective practice (pp. 103–123). New York, NY: Springer.
Byrne, B. M. (2004). Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: A road less traveled. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(2), 272–300.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming
(multivariate applications series). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Cai, J., Chen, T., Li, X., Xu, R., Zhang, S., Hu, Y., … Song, N. (2019). Exploring the impact of a problem-
posing workshop on elementary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions on problem posing and lesson
design. International Journal of Educational Research, 101404.
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in US and Chinese students’ mathematical
problem solving and problem posing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 401–421.
Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2019). Learning to teach through mathematical problem posing: Theoretical considerations,
methodology, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 101391.
Chen, L., Van Dooren, W., Chen, Q., & Verschaffel, L. (2011). An investigation on Chinese teachers’ realistic
problem posing and problem solving ability and beliefs. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 9(4), 919–948.
Chen, L., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). The relationship between students’ problem posing and
problem solving abilities and beliefs: A small-scale study with Chinese elementary school children.
Frontiers of Education in China, 8(1), 147–161.
Chen, T., & Cai, J. (2019). An elementary mathematics teacher learning to teach using problem posing: A case of
the distributive property of multiplication over addition. International Journal of Educational Research,
101420.
Crespo, S., & Harper, F. K. (2019). Learning to pose collaborative mathematics problems with secondary
prospective teachers. International Journal of Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2019.05.003
DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving: A represen-
tational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131–147.
Eccles, J. S. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as
motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, L. J., et al. (1983). Expectancies,
values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation:
Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
English, L. D. (2019). Teaching and learning through mathematical problem posing: Commentary. International
Journal of Educational Research, 101451.
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition
& Emotion, 6(6), 409–434.
Furinghetti, F., & Morselli, F. (2009). Every unsuccessful problem solver is unsuccessful in his or her own way:
Affective and cognitive factors in proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 71–90.
Goldin, G. A. (2014). Perspectives on emotion in mathematical engagement, learning, and problem solving. In R.
Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 391–414).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Guo, M., & Leung, F. K. S. (2020). Achievement goal orientations, learning strategies, and mathematics
achievement: A comparison of Chinese Miao and Han students. Psychology in the Schools. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pits.22424

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

386 Guo M. et al.

Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Morin, A. J., & Yeung, A. S. (2015). Expectancy-value in mathematics,
gender and socioeconomic background as predictors of achievement and aspirations: A multi-cohort study.
Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 161–168.
Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 21(1), 33–46.
Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2009). The influence of self-efficacy and working memory capacity on problem-
solving efficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 91–100.
Hu, X., Leung, F. K., & Teng, Y. (2018a). The influence of culture on students’ mathematics achievement across
51 countries. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(1), 7–24.
Hu, X., Leung, F. K., & Chen, G. (2018b). School, family, and student factors behind student attitudes towards
science: The case of Hong Kong fourthgraders. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 135–
144.
Koichu, B., Harel, G., & Manaster, A. (2013). Ways of thinking associated with mathematics teachers’ problem
posing in the context of division of fractions. Instructional Science, 41(4), 681–698.
Lee, J. (2009). Universals and specifics of math self-concept, math self-efficacy, and math anxiety across 41
PISA 2003 participating countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(3), 355–365.
Leikin, R., & Elgrably, H. (2019). Problem posing through investigations for the development and evaluation of
proof-related skills and creativity skills of prospective high school mathematics teachers. International
Journal of Educational Research, 101424.
Leung, S. S. (1993). The relation of mathematical knowledge and creative thinking to the mathematical problem
posing of prospective elementary school teachers on tasks differing in numerical information content.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Leung, S. S. (2013). Teachers implementing mathematical problem posing in the classroom: Challenges and
strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 103–116.
Leung, F. K. S., Graf, K. D., & Lopez-Real, F. J. (Eds.). (2006). Mathematics education in different cultural
traditions-A comparative study of East Asia and the West: The 13th ICMI study (Vol. 9). New York, NY:
Springer Science & Business Media.
Liu, Y., Hau, K. T., & Zheng, X. (2018). Does instrumental motivation help students with low intrinsic
motivation? Comparison between Western and Confucian students. International Journal of Psychology,
1–10.
Luo, Y. C., & Lyu, C. H. (2014). Practice and exploration of introducing ethnomathematics culture into the
university mathematics classroom-taking Miao and Dong mathematical culture as an example. Journal of
Mathematics Education, 23(1), 70–74 (in Chinese).
Luo, Y. C., & Xiao, S. J. (2016). Study of the geometric elements of Miao silverware and its application in the
classroom teaching. Journal of Mathematics Education, 25(1), 94–98 (in Chinese).
Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest,
grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development,
76(2), 397–416.
Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic achievement:
Structural equation models of longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 41–54.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. A. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596). New York, NY:
Macmillan USA.
Metallidou, P., & Vlachou, A. (2007). Motivational beliefs, cognitive engagement, and achievement in language
and mathematics in elementary school children. International Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 2–15.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2012). Compulsory education mathematics curriculum
standards in China. Beijing: Normal University Press.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2012). Tabulation on the 2010 population census of the People’s
Republic of China. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston,
VA: NCTM.
Nicolaou, A. A., & Philippou, G. N. (2007). Efficacy beliefs, problem posing and mathematics achievement.
Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 29(4), 48–70.
Nicolaou, A. A., & Xistouri, X. (2011). Field dependence/independence cognitive style and problem posing: An
investigation with sixth grade students. Educational Psychology, 31(5), 611–627.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Paris:
OECD publications. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-technical-report/.
Philippou, G., Charalambous, C., & Christou, C. (2001). Efficacy in problem posing and teaching problem
posing. In M. Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of PME 25 (vol. 4, pp. 41–48). Utrecht: Utrecht
University.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: the case of... 387

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Postiglione, G. A. (1999). Introduction: State schooling and ethnicity in China. In G. A. Postiglione (Ed.),
China’s national minority education: Culture, schooling, and development (pp. 3–19). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Silver, E. A., & Cai, J. (1996). An analysis of arithmetic problem posing by middle school students. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 521–539.
Silver, E. A., & Cai, J. (2005). Assessing students’ mathematical problem posing. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 12(3), 129–135.
Stoyanova, E. (1997). Extending and exploring students’ problem solving via problem posing: A study of years 8
and 9 students involved in mathematics challenge and enrichment stages of Euler enrichment program for
young Australians. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
Stoyanova, E., & Ellerton, N. F. (1996). A framework for research into students’ problem posing in school
mathematics. Technology in Mathematics Education, 518–525.
Van Harpen, X. Y., & Presmeg, N. C. (2013). An investigation of relationships between students’ mathematical
problem-posing abilities and their mathematical content knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
83(1), 117–132.
Van Harpen, X. Y., & Sriraman, B. (2013). Creativity and mathematical problem posing: An analysis of high
school students’ mathematical problem posing in China and the USA. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
82(2), 201–221.
Vang, C. T. (2005). Hmong-American students still face multiple challenges in public schools. Multicultural
Education, 13(1), 27.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Fredricks, J. A., Simpkins, S., Roeser, R. W., & Schiefele, U. (2015). Development of
achievement motivation and engagement. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. 1–44.
Xie, J., & Masingila, J. O. (2017). Examining interactions between problem posing and problem solving with
prospective primary teachers: A case of using fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(1), 101–
118.
Zakaria, E., & Ngah, N. (2011). A preliminary analysis of students’ problem-posing ability and its relationship to
attitudes towards problem solving. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology,
3(9), 866–870.
Zan, R., Brown, L., Evans, J., & Hannula, M. S. (2006). Affect in mathematics education: An introduction.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 113–121.
Zhu, Y., & Leung, F. K. (2011). Motivation and achievement: Is there an East Asian model? International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1189–1212

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com