Students’ understanding of a geometric theorem: A case of grade 9 problem posing

Adriano Jr Villarosa Patac(1*), Louida Penera Patac(2), Nicolas Ensomo Crispo(3)

(1) Surigao State College of Technology
(2) Surigao State College of Technology
(3) Department of Education
(*) Corresponding Author


Teaching axiomatic representation of mathematical objects in all grades can and should be done. The paper analyzes students' understanding and how they perceive theorems using problem posing. We looked at how English-language learners create questions about four geometric theorems from a 9th-grade math textbook. The analysis looks at the question's distinctiveness, its elements' relationships, and sentence structure flaws. These lines, angle, and triangle theorems were chosen to exemplify problem scenarios when a theorem is conveyed in words but not explicitly symbolized. The difficulty of posing mathematically relevant problems stems from the required process of simultaneously changing the theorem language, home language, and formal mathematics language. In Van Hiele's methodology, the pupils' issues aren't classified as a formal or informal deduction. Questions either deduce from a formal system or emphasize theorems. Mastering the required representation registers can assist students in posing problems that reflect, at the very least, at the formal deduction level. The absence of symbolic representation increases the difficulty in posing original problems involving geometric theorems. As a result, how problems are made, especially how they are written, shows how well students understand math through problem-posing.


Problem posing, Students understanding, teaching problem posing, geometric interpretation, natural language, mathematics formal language

Full Text:



Abdullah, A. H., & Zakaria, E. (2013). Enhancing students’ level of geometric thinking through van Hiele’s phase-based learning. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 6(5), 4432-4446.

Adarlo, G., & Jackson, L. (2017). For whom is K-12 education: A critical look into twenty-first century educational policy and curriculum in the Philippines. In Educating for the 21st Century (pp. 207-223). Springer, Singapore

Akay, H., & Boz, N. (2009). Prospective teachers’ views about problem-posing activities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1192-1198.

Altakhyneh, B. H. (2018). Levels of Geometrical Thinking of Students Receiving Blended Learning in Jordan. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 12(2), 159-165.

Anderson, L. W. (2003). Classroom assessment: Enhancing the quality of teacher decision making. Routledge.

Ayllón, M. F., Gómez, I. A., &Ballesta-Claver, J. (2016). Mathematical Thinking and Creativity

through Mathematical Problem Posing and Solving. Journal of Educational Psychology-Propósitos y Representaciones, 4(1), 195-218.

Bolden, D. S., Harries, A. V., & Newton, D. P. (2010). Pre service primary teachers’ conceptions of creativity in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(2), 143-157.

Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2021). Teachers as redesigners of curriculum to teach mathematics through problem posing: conceptualization and initial findings of a problem‑posing project. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 1-14.

Cañadas, M. C., Molina, M., & Del Rio, A. (2018). Meanings given to algebraic symbolism in

problem-posing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 98(1), 19-37.

Crespo, S., & Sinclair, N. (2008). What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(5), 395-415.

Cuevas, G. J. (1984). Mathematics learning in English as a second language. Journal for research in mathematics education, 15(2), 134-144.

Diezmann, C., & Lowrie, T. (2009). Primary students' spatial visualization and spatial orientation: an evidence base for instruction. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 417-424). PME.

Dindyal, J. (2015). Geometry in the early years: A commentary. ZDM, 47(3), 519-529.

Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational studies in mathematics, 61(1), 103-131.

English, L. D., & Sriraman, B. (2010). Problem solving for the 21st century. In B. Sriraman & L. D. English (Eds.), Advances in Mathematics Education. Theories of mathematics education: Seeking new frontiers (pp. 263–285). New York: Springer.

Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 105-121.

Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 3, i-196.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American political science review, 341-354.

Gerring, J. (2006). Single-outcome studies: A methodological primer. International sociology, 21(5), 707-734.

Hahn, C. G., Saalbach, H., & Grabner, R. H. (2019). Language-dependent knowledge acquisition: investigating bilingual arithmetic learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(1), 47-57.

K to 12 Mathematics Curriculum Guide. (2016). Retrieved from Learning Resources Management and Development System:

Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from. Cognitive science and mathematics education, 123-147.

Koichu, B., &Kontorovich, I. (2012). Dissecting success stories on mathematical problem

posing: A case of the billiard task. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 71–86.

Kontorovich, I., Koichu, B., Leikin, R., & Berman, A. (2012). An exploratory framework for handling the complexity of mathematical problem posing in small groups. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 149-161.

Leavy, A., & Hourigan, M. (2020). Posing mathematically worthwhile problems: developing the problem-posing skills of prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(4), 341-361.

Leikin, R., & Elgrably, H. (2020). 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, 102, 101424.

Leung, S. S., & Silver, E. A. (1997). The role of task format, mathematics knowledge, and creative thinking on the arithmetic problem posing of prospective elementary school teachers. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 5-24.

Lin, P. J. (2004). Supporting Teachers on Designing Problem-Posing Tasks as a Tool of Assessment to Understand Students' Mathematical Learning. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

Ma, H. L., Lee, D. C., Lin, S. H., & Wu, D. B. (2015). A Study of Van Hiele of Geometric Thinking among 1st through 6th Graders. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 1181-1196.

Matus, P. (2018). Discursive representation: Semiotics, theory, and method. Semiotica, 2018(225), 103-127.

Mestre, J. P. (2002). Probing adults' conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 9-50.

Mielicki, M. K., Kacinik, N. A., & Wiley, J. (2017). Bilingualism and symbolic abstraction: Implications for algebra learning. Learning and Instruction, 49, 242-250.

Montebon, D. T. (2014). K12 science program in the Philippines: Student perception on its implementation. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(12), 153-164.

Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: some

definitions and characteristics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 285-291.

Nazari, A., & Allahyar, N. (2012). Grammar Teaching Revisited: EFL Teachers between Grammar Abstinence and Formal Grammar Teaching. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2).

Orbe, J. R., Espinosa, A. A., & Datukan, J. T. (2018). Teaching chemistry in a spiral progression approach: Lessons from science teachers in the Philippines. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 43(4), 17-30.

Peng, A., & Luo, Z. (2009). A framework for examining mathematics teacher knowledge as used in error analysis. For the learning of mathematics, 29(3), 22-25. Retrieved from:

Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010).Assessment of creativity. In J.C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Prayitno, L. L., Purwanto, P., Subanji, S., & Susiswo, S. (2018). Identification Errors of Problem Posed by Prospective Teachers About Fraction Based Meaning Structure. International Journal of Insights for Mathematics Teaching, 01(1), 76–84. Retrieved from

Pohl, M., & Doppler Haider, J. (2017). Sense-making strategies for the interpretation of visualizations—bridging the gap between theory and empirical research. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1(3), 16.

Prayito, M., Suryadi, D., & Mulyana, E. (2019). Geometric thinking level of the Indonesian seventh grade students of junior high school. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1188, No. 1, p. 012036). IOP Publishing.

Robertson, S. A., & Graven, M. (2020). Language as an including or excluding factor in mathematics teaching and learning. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(1), 77-101.

Rosli, R., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2014). The Effects of Problem Posing on Student

Mathematical Learning: A Meta-Analysis. International Education Studies, 7(13).

Shaughnessy, J. M., & Burger, W. F. (1985). Spadework prior to deduction in geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 78(6), 419-428.

Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the learning of mathematics, 14(1), 19-28.

Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Zdm, 29(3), 75-80.

Škrbec, M., & Čadež, T. H. (2015). Identifying and fostering higher levels of geometric thinking. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(3), 601-617.

Tyler, R. (2016). Discourse-shifting practices of a teacher and learning facilitator in a bilingual mathematics classroom. Per Linguam: a Journal of Language Learning= Per Linguam: Tydskrif vir Taalaanleer, 32(3), 13-27.

Vacc, N. (1993). Questioning in the mathematics classroom. Arithmetic Teacher, 41(2), 88–91.

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. (2012). 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

Van Hiele, P. M. (1999). Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with play. Teaching children mathematics, 5(6), 310-317.

Voica, C., & Pelczer, I. (2010). Problem posing by novice and experts: Comparison between students and teachers. CERME 6–WORKING GROUP 12, 2356.

Volmer, E., Grabner, R. H., & Saalbach, H. (2018). Language switching costs in bilingual mathematics learning: Transfer effects and individual differences. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 21(1), 71-96.

Wechsler-Kashi, D., Schwartz, R. G., & Cleary, M. (2014). Picture naming and verbal fluency in children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(5), 1870-1882.

Xu, B., Cai, J., Liu, Q., & Hwang, S. (2020). Teachers’ predictions of students’ mathematical thinking related to problem posing. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101427.

Yuan, X., & Sriraman, B. (2011). An exploratory study of relationships between students’

creativity and mathematical problem-posing abilities: Comparing Chinese and US students. In The elements of creativity and giftedness in mathematics (pp. 5-28).Brill Sense.

Yunus, M., Suraya, A., Ayub, M., & Fauzi, A. (2019). Geometric Thinking of Malaysian Elementary School Students. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1095-1112.

Article Metrics

Abstract view(s): 698 time(s)
PDF: 495 time(s)


  • There are currently no refbacks.