International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

An elementary mathematics teacher learning to teach using

problem posing: A case of the distributive property of
multiplication over addition
Ting Chena, Jinfa Caib,
⁎

a
Southwest University, China
b
University of Delaware, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this study, we analyzed how an experienced mathematics teacher learned to teach the dis-
Distributive property of multiplication over tributive property of multiplication over addition using problem posing. The teacher taught two
addition lessons on this topic, one with the use of problem posing and the other without. First, we analyze
Mathematics teacher the differences between the two lessons, followed by a discussion of the advantages of teaching
Problem posing
using problem posing. Second, we document and analyze the challenges encountered by the
Teacher learning
teacher in the process of designing and teaching the lesson using problem posing and the tactics
she used to overcome those challenges. This study also demonstrates the importance of context-
based teacher-researcher partnerships for teachers’ learning.

1. Introduction

Teaching as a profession requires continuous professional development. A basic assumption is that through teacher professional
development, teachers will change their instructional practice by changing their beliefs and knowledge, thereby improving student
learning. Research on the professional development of teachers has highlighted the complex relationships among professional de-
velopment, changes in classroom instruction, and improvements in student learning (e.g., Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree,
Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). Reviews of this line of research have shown that most
programs are ineffective at bringing about changes in teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and instructional practices (Maughan, Teeman, &
Wilson, 2012). In fact, evidence indicates that classroom instruction has changed very little in the past century (Fan et al., 2015;
Stigler, Hiebert, & Givvin, 2018).
Despite the challenges associated with changing instructional practice, the educational research community has long attempted to
facilitate positive instructional changes given that classroom instruction has been shown to be the most important factor in students’
learning (Cai, 2004, 2017; Rogoff & Chavajay, 1995). The good news is that although teachers’ professional development involves
many challenges, research has also demonstrated that it is possible to create positive changes in teaching by having teachers work on
leadership, planning and preparation, practice development, and monitoring and evaluation (Borko, 2004; Borko et al., 1992;
Hiebert, 2013; Stigler et al., 2018; Maughan et al., 2012). In addition, some case studies have also shown that, with time and
continued intervention, support, and collaboration, teachers can make changes to their practice (e.g., Eisenhart et al., 1993; Lord,
1994).
Most studies about teacher change have focused on general institutional support or specific support to examine, from the

⁎
Corresponding author at: University of Delaware, 437 Ewing Hall, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
E-mail address: jcai@udel.edu (J. Cai).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.03.004
Received 2 November 2018; Received in revised form 15 March 2019; Accepted 20 March 2019
0883-0355/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Ting Chen and Jinfa Cai, International Journal of Educational Research,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.03.004
T. Chen and J. Cai International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

researchers’ perspectives, what led to the changes (Maughan et al., 2012); few studies have focused on teachers’ struggles to make
positive changes from the teachers’ perspectives. Prior research has shown that examining teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and
instructional practices from their own perspectives provides a unique window into their beliefs (e.g., Cai & Wang, 2010; Cai, Ding, &
Wang, 2014). In this study, we adopt a similar approach and try to understand a teacher’s struggles to implement instructional
changes from her own perspective, particularly in the context of learning to teach mathematics using problem posing methods.

2. Theoretical bases

2.1. Learning to teach mathematics using problem posing

This study was conducted in the context of a teacher learning to teach the distributive property of multiplication over addition
using a problem-posing approach. There were three reasons for our choice to use this context and this mathematical topic. The first
was the natural opportunity that arose to address a problem that the teacher was experiencing, which was that the teacher was
looking for an alternative way to teach the distributive property of multiplication over addition, which she had previously taught
using a problem-solving approach. Problem posing can foster students’ deep understanding and complex problem-solving abilities
(Cai, Hwang, Jiang, & Silber, 2015; Singer & Voica, 2015). The teacher had a strong desire to teach the same lesson using a problem-
posing approach.
Secondly, the teacher had been recognized as an award-winning teacher with a well-established style of teaching, suggesting that
it would be more difficult to transform her teaching approach. However, she expressed a strong desire to move out of her comfort
zone to learn a new approach. Thus, a natural opportunity arose to witness the struggles that she would experience while attempting
to implement instructional changes and to examine how she might change her practice to make problem posing a part of her
instructional practice. Indeed, the prevailing norms that shape school mathematics teaching are rooted in both teachers’ and students’
understanding of what is expected of them (Herbst, 2002) and the practical rationality (Herbst & Chazan, 2003) that guides teachers’
judgments about what actions are appropriate in the classroom. Moore-Russo and Weiss (2011) have also pointed out the potential
difficulty that reform efforts usually face in challenging and altering these norms and expectations, including teachers’ own teaching
styles.
The third reason for our choice of this topic and the context was that problem posing in general, and teaching mathematics
through problem posing in particular, represented a new approach for the teacher in this study. Although Cai et al. (2015) analyzed
the promise of using a problem-posing approach for fostering students’ learning, few researchers have attempted to carefully describe
the dynamics of instruction in a classroom where students are engaged in problem-posing activities. Because classroom instruction is
generally complex with many salient features that can be investigated, this study allowed for understanding those features that are
most relevant for problem posing and which may be most influenced by the introduction of problem-posing activities.
Given this context, this study was designed to answer the following research questions:

1 What does instruction using a problem-posing approach look like and how is it different from instruction that doesn’t use a
problem-posing approach?
2 What challenges did the teacher encounter while learning to teach using problem posing, and how did she overcome those
challenges?

2.2. Situated perspective of teacher learning

We chose the situated perspective of teacher learning as a theoretical underpinning for this study (Borko, 2004; Cobb, 1994;
Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Resnick, 1987) because we believe that learning is situated. That is, how a person learns a particular set
of knowledge and practices and the situation in which a person learns are fundamental parts of what is learned (Borko, 2004). In
addition, learning is a process of active individual construction and a process of enculturation into the mathematical practices of
wider society (Cobb, 1994). Thus, teacher professional learning is not only dependent on teachers’ own conditions and needs but also
follows general social rules, especially as they relate to changing their teaching practice to foster students’ learning.
Studies based on the situated perspective indicate that there are two key aspects of promoting teacher professional development
and helping teachers to overcome difficulties: (a) providing situational support for teacher professional development, and (b) cul-
tivating teachers’ sense of identity to undertake their professional development, meaning that teachers are invested in changing their
teaching, overcoming psychological obstacles, and identifying new teaching methods (Borko, 2004; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
Taking this perspective, situational support for teachers is fundamental to their learning, and teachers require professional learning
opportunities that are tailored to their own needs as well as teacher educators who have different knowledge, skills, and expertise to
support and challenge them throughout their career (Livingston, 2017). Teacher―researcher partnerships, therefore, can aid tea-
chers’ learning and provide situational support (Cai, Chen et al., 2019; Cai, Morris et al., 2019).
In this study, one of the authors served as the partner and a researcher with respect to the teacher’s learning. Cai et al. (2017)
noted the potential but often underutilized role that researchers can play in partnering with teachers to address important problems
of instruction. Long-term, closely connected teacher-researcher partnerships have the potential to improve instructional practice by
combining the unique expertise of both groups and making each an equal contributor in achieving their common goals of improving
students’ learning (2018, Cai et al., 2017).
Meanwhile, the situated perspective of teacher learning also acknowledges the sociocultural participation of teachers in the

2
T. Chen and J. Cai International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

processes and activities of professional learning communities (Borko, 2004). The collaborative interaction among teachers in a
community is beneficial to their practice. This line of research also provides evidence that “strong professional development com-
munities are important contributors to instructional improvement and school reform” (Little, 2002, p. 936) and that professional
learning communities are central to fostering teacher change and student learning (Stein, Smith, & Silver, 1999). Grossman, Ronfeldt,
and Cohen, (2011) argued that teachers cannot create a community of learners among students if they do not have a parallel
community to nourish their own growth. That is, teacher’s struggles to learn to teach can guide teachers to help students overcome
their struggles through a community of learners among students.

2.3. Instructional improvement

In this study, we also adopted the perspective of improvement science to understand the teacher’s learning to teach using problem
posing. Traditional methods of improving educational outcomes have often emphasized the hypothesizing and testing of the ap-
plicability of large-scale theories that apply broadly across contexts, representing a top-down approach to instructional improvement.
Alternatively, improving educational outcomes using the improvement science approach represents a bottom-up approach that fo-
cuses on solving problems identified by actively participating in local contexts using evidence gained from those contexts (Cai, Chen
et al., 2019; Cai, Morris et al., 2019; Stigler et al., 2018). This approach, one with a long history of demonstrated success in other
fields of study but having only recently gained attention in applications to education research (Stigler et al., 2018), has been proposed
as an alternative pathway to instructional improvement and referred to by Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, and LeMahieu, (2005) as a science
of improvement.
Improvement science is based on six core principles of improvement proposed by Bryk et al. (2005). The first principle underlying
this approach is that the work problem be specific and user centered. It begins with a single question: “What specifically is the
problem we are trying to solve?” The better the problem is understood, the better one can solve the problem. According to the second
principle, variation is at the core of the problem, with varying performance resulting from context-specific factors. This leads to the
third principle, which is that understanding the varying outcomes across different situations requires understanding the operations of
different systems that produce those outcomes. Using appropriate measurement tools to gauge the progress and effectiveness of
improvements (fourth principle), improvements are anchored in Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles to enable quick and efficient
learning from things that do not work well (fifth principle). Throughout this process, the sixth principle encourages a codevelopment
orientation that involves engaging key participants early and often within a networked community.
In accordance with the above principles, the teacher in this study followed cycles of designing, implementing, revising, and
redesigning her lesson based on evidence gained from delivering the lesson using a problem-posing approach. Through this continued
and cyclic improvement process, the teacher both addressed the challenges she faced in improving the lesson and learned to design,
refine, and teach the lesson using a problem-posing approach through both a teacher-researcher partnership and a community of
teachers.

3. Methods

3.1. Subject

Ms. D, the teacher who is the focus of this study, graduated from a normal school in China and had approximately 20 years of
teaching experience. In 2015, she was named as one of the “special class” of teachers in her province, the highest honor in the
teaching profession in China. This honor is based on excellence in teaching and involvement in teaching-research activities including
academic publications. It is equivalent to the presidential award for excellence in teaching in the United States. The special class
teachers are considered “master teachers” and give demonstration lessons for other teachers. Additionally, in 2017, Ms. D was
promoted to the teacher-researcher position in her city because of her excellence in teaching and teaching research. This position is
equivalent to the mathematics supervisor position in Western countries (see Paine, 1990, for a detailed description about teacher-
researchers in China). The teacher-researcher position does not require daily classroom teaching duties but instead involves su-
pervising other teachers and helping them to improve their teaching, primarily through organizing various instructional activities for
elementary school mathematics teachers throughout the city. Ms. D is an outgoing and hard-working person who has a strong desire
to learn new ways to teach mathematics.

3.2. The two lessons

The two lessons analyzed in this study were delivered by Ms. D during the national teaching competitions in 2011 and 2016, and
they both won the top-level award. In China, teaching competitions are organized at district, city, provincial, and national levels. Ms.
D participated in national competitions in both years with approximately 10 additional teachers. The competitions included three
parts: (1) delivering a lesson, (2) explaining the design, and (3) answering audience questions. Such teaching competitions are quite
popular in China as a means for teacher professional development. The two lessons involved the same topic—the distributive
property of multiplication over addition—and both targeted fourth graders in their second semesters. However, the two lessons were
designed and taught with different teaching methods in 2011 and 2016. The 2016 lesson was the first public lesson using a problem-
posing approach in China for any mathematical topic.

3
T. Chen and J. Cai International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

3.3. Data sources and analysis

Data from three sources were collected and analyzed in this study. The first and the third data sources were used to answer
Research Question 1. The second and the third data sources were used to answer Research Question 2.
The first data source comprises transcriptions of the two video-taped lessons along with the teacher’s reflection on the underlying
design principles of the two lessons. We analyzed this data with the goal of understanding the nature of the two lessons, with a focus
on the instructional tasks and the organization of the classroom discourse. It should be indicated that although it was Ms. D’s first
time teaching the topic using a problem-posing approach, she had designed and taught the lesson several times and then tried to
revise the lesson based on her teaching. The version of the lesson used in this analysis was the first one in which the students were
taught using the problem-posing approach.
The second data source comprises online communications between the researcher (Dr. C) and Ms. D over a period of 3 months
during her attempts to redesign the lesson using problem posing. Ms. D was a student of Dr. C in a 2-year advanced teacher training
program; the online communication occurred 5 years after the completion of the program. Ms. D and Dr. C have a strong professional
relationship built on mutual trust, and they remained in contact after the completion of the training program, with Dr. C serving as a
resource person for Ms. D. Through the online communication, Dr. C assisted Ms. D in designing the lesson using a problem-posing
approach and answered any questions that Ms. D had. This communication process allowed Dr. C to understand the teacher’s
challenges as well as her thinking involved in delivering the lesson using a problem-posing approach, an approach that was quite new
and different from her well-established approach.
The third data source comprises an interview conducted by a research assistant that took place after Ms. D taught the lesson in
2016. This data was analyzed to further understand and confirm the teacher’s challenges in using the problem-posing approach to
design and teach the lesson as well as the challenges of continuously using this approach for subsequent lessons. The set of interview
questions can be found in Appendix A.
The two lessons were analyzed by first identifying major episodes according to instructional tasks. Then, a comparative analysis of
the two lessons was conducted to understand the features of the lesson using problem posing. The qualitative data collected from the
online correspondence and the post-lesson interview were analyzed together to fully understand the challenges that the teacher faced
and the ways in which she overcame the challenges as well as her reflections from designing and delivering lessons using a problem-
posing approach. Over the 3 months of interaction between the researcher (Dr. C) and the teacher (Ms. D), the major themes
regarding her challenges emerged naturally from Ms. D. The analysis focused on the teacher’s own perspective with respect to her
challenges and the ways that she overcame those challenges. In the analysis, we have attempted to use as little interpretation as
possible so as to let Ms. D “speak” about her challenges.

4. Results

We report the results in three parts. First, we present an overall description of the two lessons, one with problem posing and the
other with problem solving (see Table 1). Second, we present the differences between the two lessons. The purpose of these two parts
is to understand the roles that problem posing played in designing and delivering the lesson. Finally, based on a qualitative data
analysis, we interpret and discuss the teacher’s challenges in transforming her instructional approach and the ways in which she
attempted to overcome these challenges as well as the experience and knowledge she gained in designing and delivering the lesson
using a problem-posing approach.

4.1. Description of the two lessons

Table 1 shows the two lessons, one of which used problem posing (2016) whereas the other used problem solving (2011), both
teaching the distributive property of multiplication over addition. Each lesson is split into five main episodes. For the first episode,
both lessons used the same motivational activity to introduce students to the lesson. Episodes 2–5 consist of two activities used by the
teacher to teach the distributive law of multiplication over addition, with one lesson using problem-solving and the other using
problem-posing situations. Although these teaching episodes were identified by the authors, the validity of dividing the lesson into
these five episodes was confirmed by the teacher, Ms. D.
After a motivational activity, the first lesson began with the problem-solving situation shown in Table 1. Using situations drawn
from the textbook, the students were presented with the situation of building walls using bricks and buying a school uniform. In
addition to resembling students’ real-life experiences, the situation supported students’ understanding of the distributive property and
set the stage for Ms. D to use two different expressions to introduce the new lesson (distributive property). Then, Ms. D guided the
students to observe the different expressions. The purpose of doing so was to guide the students’ attention to the structure of the
mathematical expressions and then to let the students verify the expressions’ computational results, which were identical. This
process was intended to foster students’ understanding of the relationship between the two expressions: different structures but
identical computational results.
The instructional design was more innovative in the second lesson than in the first lesson. In the second lesson, the students were
asked in groups to pose mathematical problems from real life according to two expressions: (5 + 7) × 4 and 5 × 4 + 7 × 4. Ms. D
guided the students to discover that the same problem could be posed and solved using the two different expressions. This activity
created a “cognitive conflict” for students when they posed problems according to the two expressions, (5 + 7) × 4 and
5 × 4 + 7 × 4, and then solved the posed problems. After the problem-posing episode, through a combination of symbolic and

4
T. Chen and J. Cai
Table 1
Comparison of the Two Lessons on the Distribution Law of Multiplication Over Addition.
Lesson without problem posing (2011)
Episode 1: Motivational activity
Both lessons begin with the same motivational activity. First, the teacher asks the students to pose any 2-digit numbers they can think of. The teacher then multiplies
these numbers by 101 and quickly produces their product. Finally, she invites the students to think about why their teacher was able to produce the product of
these numbers so quickly.
Episode 2: Problem-solving situation
The teacher presents two situations. In the first situation, students are
asked to produce an arithmetic expression that represents the
number of bricks needed for two walls connected at the corner.
The students are encouraged to use different ways to determine
the number of bricks in total, and justify the reasons for using two
expressions: (6＋4) × 9 and 6 × 9＋4 × 9 to represent the
number of bricks.
The second situation involves three sets of clothing that each
includes a shirt, costing 35 yuan each, and a pair of pants, costing
25 yuan each. Students are encouraged to use different ways to
determine the cost of three sets of clothing, and justify reasons for
using these two expressions: (35＋25) × 3 and 35 × 3＋25 × 3 to
represent the total cost.
Episode 3: Analysis of arithmetic expressions
1. The students devise two expressions representing the number of
bricks needed to build the two connected walls:
(6＋4) × 9 6 × 9＋4 × 9
They also devise two expressions representing the total cost of
three sets of clothing:
(35＋25) × 3 35 × 3＋25 × 3
2. The teacher guides the students to examine the four
expressions, asking them to think about why the expressions are
different when the number of bricks or sets of clothing are the
same.
3. The students are divided into two groups to verify whether the
first two expressions lead to the same results and whether the
bottom two expressions produce the same results, too.
Episode 4: Verification and generalization
1. The teacher divides the class into small groups and guides the
students to generalize across the two situations: In both situations,
the left expression involves addition first and then multiplication,
whereas the right side involves multiplication first followed by
addition. Although the order of the operations is different, the
final numerical results are the same for the two expressions.
2. The teacher presents the expressions (20 + 4) × 25 and
235 × 8 + 365 × 8 and then asks the students to devise
equivalent expressions for each, verifying the results.
3. The students verify their results individually and then present
their expressions in small groups.
4. The teacher guides the students to generalize the distributive
property as (a＋b) × c ＝ a × c＋b × c.
Episode 5: Summary and homework
1. The teacher asks the students to reflect on the motivational activity
and to explain why the teacher could multiply any 2-digit number
by 101 so quickly.
2. The teacher summarizes the main focus of the lesson, the
distributive property of multiplication over addition: Although the
order of multiplication and addition is different, the numerical
results are the same.
3. The students are assigned nine exercises for homework.
International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Lesson with problem posing (2016)
Episode 2: Problem-posing situation
The teacher divides the class into four groups. Students in Groups 1 and 2 are asked
to pose mathematical problems which can be solved using the expression (5 + 7) ×
4. Students in Groups 3 and 4 are asked to pose problems using the expression
5 × 4 + 7 × 4. Students in Groups 1 and 2 do not see what expression students in
Groups 3 and 4 received and vice versa.
Each group has a group leader. One of the group leaders from Groups 3 and 4
presents their posed problem to the entire class and asks students in Groups 1 and 2
to determine which expression they based their posed problem on.
The problem posed by Groups 3 and 4 is the following: One bottle of whole milk costs 5
yuan. One bottle of skim milk costs 7 yuan. How much money does it cost to purchase four
bottles of each type of milk?
The students in Groups 1 and 2 find that either of the two expressions can be used to
solve the milk problem. The teacher then asks students in Groups 1 and 2 to present a
problem and students in Groups 3 and 4 to guess which expression they used to pose
their mathematical problem. Students in Groups 3 and 4 also discover that either
expression can be used to solve the problem posed by Groups 1 and 2. At this point, a
question is raised to the class: Why can a problem posed for one expression be solved
by using another expression?
Episode 3: Analysis of posed problems
1. The teacher presents Diagram 1 shown below, using the dots to represent the milk
problem posed by students in Groups 3 and 4. The students connect Diagram 1 to the
other expression used by Groups 1 and 2.
2. Similarly, the students connect Diagram 2 to the problem posed by students in
Groups 1 (3) and 2 (4). Students were encouraged to observe and find the total
number of red dots and blue dots, which can be expressed by 5 × 4 + 7 × 4,
or(5 + 7)×4.
3. The students are asked to observe Diagram 3, which depicts five fours and seven
fours, the total of which is 12 fours. They are encouraged to see that the same
diagram can be viewed in different ways—in other words, both Diagrams 1 and 2 can
be viewed as 12 fours, which is why the two expressions are equivalent.
Diagram 1 Diagram 2 Diagram 3
1. The teacher guides the students to use the dots diagrams to show why both
expressions are equivalent. The teacher then asks the students to use words to
describe the relationship, which is that two numbers added together and then
multiplied by a third number is equal to multiplying two numbers by a third number
and adding the product.
2. The teacher writes = 72 × 5 + 28 × 5 and then asks the students to write an
equivalent expression. The teacher repeats this task with the expression (100 + 2) ×
7 =.
3. The students are asked to independently verify the results of the above sets of
expressions.
4. The teacher guides the students to generalize the distributive property as (a＋b) ×
c ＝ a × c＋b × c.
1. The teacher asks the students to reflect on the motivational activity and to explain
why the teacher could multiply any 2-digit number by 101 so quickly.
2. The teacher summarizes the main focus of the lesson, the distributive property of
multiplication over addition: Although the order of multiplication and addition is
different, the numerical results are the same.
3. The students are assigned five exercises for homework.
5
T. Chen and J. Cai International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

graphical representations, students were guided to understand the distributive property and verify (5 + 7) × 4 = 5 × 4 + 7 × 4. As
the lesson continued, Ms. D led students to analyze why (5 + 7) × 4 is equivalent to 5 × 4 + 7 × 4 using the meaning of multi-
plication and in terms of the computational results.

4.2. Comparative analysis of the two lessons

A general description of these two lessons reveals a major difference in the second episode about the distributive property. Thus,
we provide a detailed analysis of the second episode of the two lessons here. In the first lesson, Ms. D provided problem situations and
students solved them independently. She directly gave students two problem situations from real life—building a wall with bricks and
buying school uniforms—and let the students solve them. Thus, students were provided the opportunity to solve the given problem
situations.
Based on their structures, the following expressions can be grouped into two columns:

With this grouping, students were able to verify that the results of the first column of expressions are equal to the results of the
corresponding expressions in the second column. Meanwhile, the expressions grouped in two columns guided the students to un-
derstand the equivalence of the two expressions using the meaning of multiplication, thus leading to the distributive property of
multiplication over addition. This part of the instruction contributes to students’ thinking about structural characteristics of the
expressions as well as the distributive property of multiplication over addition.
In the second lesson, students were asked to pose mathematical problems based on the two mathematical expressions provided by
Ms. D.
The students in Groups 1 and 2 posed problems based on (5 + 7) × 4, and the students in Groups 3 and 4 posed problems based
on 5 × 4 + 7 × 4. It should be noted that this lesson was deliberately designed in such a way that students in Groups 1 and 2 did not
know about the mathematical expression assigned to Groups 3 and 4 and vice versa.
Compared to the first lesson, students’ posing of mathematical problems in different groups likely generated an atmosphere of
teamwork. Because of the novelty of problem-posing activities, in the second lesson, students were highly motivated to pose problems
through collaboration with their team members. Subsequently, in the second lesson, groups were invited to present their problems
and guess each other’s expressions.
By means of guessing and questioning, the students were quite engaged in connecting the two expressions of multiplying and
adding in the activities of posing problems, exchanging explanations and solving problems, communicating the essential connections
between the two expressions, and establishing conceptual relationships between the two ideas of “separate calculation” and “com-
bined calculation” with the problem-posing activities. The equivalent relationship between the “separate calculation” and “combined
calculation” was discovered by students through the problem-posing activities rather than told and verified in the problem-solving
lesson.

4.3. The teacher’s challenges

In this section, we discuss how Ms. D made her instructional transition from the typical problem-solving-oriented teaching
approach to the problem-posing-oriented approach. In particular, we seek to identify the challenges that she faced during the
transition and how she struggled from initial confusion to gradual understanding and to final delivery of the lesson using problem
posing. Several challenges were identified based on an analysis of the online communication as well as the post-instruction interview
data. These major challenges naturally emerged from analyzing the frequent online communications between Ms. D and Dr. C over a
3-month period. The post-instruction interview confirmed that these were the challenges that she faced.
First, Ms. D was faced with the challenge of overcoming her own fear of failure. As an experienced and established teacher
recognized for her excellence in teaching, she had become used to teaching effectively in a familiar way. Thus, she had to face her
psychological fears as well as the risks involved in trying new methods that were not guaranteed for success. She had known Dr. C for
over 7 years, and he had served as her advisor for her teaching research as well as her instructor for a 2-year advanced teacher
training program. Thus, she reached out to Dr. C for help. It is clear that, on the one hand, she worried about the influence on her
reputation in the event of failure at trying a new approach. That is, she had much to lose by changing the way she had always taught
the lesson. On the other hand, she was eager to continuously grow and move out of her comfort zone with regards to her teaching
profession. As she described,
I have been invited to the national teaching competition, representing my province. I taught the lesson in 2011 and won the first
prize in the similar national teaching competition. However, I don’t want to use the same lesson and teach it in the same way, even
though if I teach it in the same way, I can still do well… I am in a bottleneck now in my teaching profession, so I am eager to learn
new ways to teach mathematics. This might be a push for my professional development. I do understand the risk for trying new
ideas in this teaching competition… It is so difficult…

6
T. Chen and J. Cai International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

It should be noted that the trust built up over time with Dr. C was key for her to open up about her dilemma. Upon the advice of
Dr. C, she was exposed to the problem-posing approach to teaching mathematics. Although it represented an entirely new approach
for her, with encouragement from Dr. C, she was willing to try it. Ms. D’s response during the interview to the question, “How did you
make up your mind to teach the distributive property of multiplication over addition using problem posing?” demonstrated a clear
willingness to try a new approach:
For a new teaching method, if you do not try, how can you test its effectiveness in promoting students’ learning? How can you
achieve a new breakthrough? And how can a lesson reach new heights? Lessons can be imperfect, but teachers must have new
ideas and new thinking to improve classroom instruction. Plus, Dr. C provided support and guidance throughout the preparation
process for the lesson.
Second, Ms. D faced the challenge of becoming familiar with an approach that was new to her. What is problem posing? How can
it be used to teach mathematics in school? Before she was introduced to the approach, Ms. D had not heard much about problem
posing and had never taught mathematics using this approach. Moreover, she had neither observed a lesson using this approach nor
read any articles or books about problem posing. She reflected on this in the post-instruction interview, saying,
I never heard of this problem-posing approach. It is totally new to me. I have not heard of any others who have used this teaching
approach. With Dr. C’s explanation of the approach, this approach makes sense. It has a feature which is not there when using my
usual way of teaching. It sounds really good, so I want to try… Students can actively engage in the process of knowing the
equivalence of the two expressions using problem posing.
Through online discussion with Dr. C, she was somewhat convinced about the value of engaging students in problem posing and
the innovative nature of the problem-posing approach to teaching mathematics. Dr. C developed a plan for Ms. D to become familiar
with problem posing as an intellectual activity and problem posing as an instructional approach. First, he introduced her to two
readings about how elementary and middle school students can pose mathematical problems based on problem situations as well as
how these students pose mathematical problems. Second, he introduced her to two teaching cases of using problem posing to teach
elementary mathematics (one case is about a Chinese teacher teaching first-grade mathematics and the other case is about a U.S.
elementary teacher teaching fifth-grade mathematics). Finally, he introduced initial ideas of using the problem-posing approach to
teach the distributive property of multiplication over addition.
This plan was quite challenging given that she only had 3 months to prepare the lesson for the teaching competition, but it seemed
to work. One month later, Ms. D developed the first draft of the lesson plan. She had shared the lesson ideas with her peer teachers
and had tried to refine the lesson several times (there is a word in Chinese, 磨课, for the process of refining the lesson over and over
again). She found that the problem-posing component was quite exciting but also difficult to integrate into the rest of the lesson
episodes. It should be indicated that the Chinese method of teacher-research (lesson study) is very consistent with the ideas of
improvement science. Ms. D’s learning about how to design the lesson took place in the context of a community of peer teachers.
Through several rounds of designing, revising, and redesigning, she was eventually ready to try the lesson with her students without
knowing what to expect from them.
This led to the third challenge that she faced: not knowing what to expect from her students with the lesson, given that the
students had not experienced the process of posing their own mathematical problems. In the post-instruction interview, Ms. D said
that
Fourth-grade students are good at applying formulas to solve mathematical problems presented to them, but it is very challenging
for them to pose mathematical problems using their real-life experience according to the mathematical expressions. What if they
cannot pose any problems? What if they don’t like the vagueness of the activity? It is so unpredictable.
The students were used to working on the formulated problems and then solving the problems. However, with the problem-posing
approach, they were given the opportunity to pose their own problems, which is somewhat reversed from the traditional approach to
learning that they were familiar with. Thus, it was unclear what to expect from the students.
Because it was unclear what to expect from her students, Ms. D was encouraged to predict the kinds of problems that typical
fourth-grade students might generate and include that information as part of her lesson plan. During Ms. D’s trial period of teaching
using this approach, she found that it was quite difficult to get students fully engaged in this activity. In fact, the students were quite
resistant to the idea of being asked to pose problems based on mathematical expressions. However, according to her online com-
munication with Dr. C, she remained encouraged by seeing the value of problem-posing activities even though the lesson didn’t go
entirely well because the problem-posing aspect was not as integrated as she would have liked. She found that students used one
expression to pose mathematical problems but that they were able to use the other expression to solve the problem and began to
wonder about the reasons behind it:
The top one third students could pose various mathematics problems from real life easily, however the bottom one third students
did not know where to start… I am still very happy, very happy, because some students were able to pose problems, and
discovered the following. That is, posed problems using one expression can be solved using another expression. It was so good to
see students open their eyes big for this discovery… But the lesson is still not as coherent as I wanted…
In online communication, Dr. C suggested to use group work, and Ms. D thought it might also work. Through a series of dis-
cussions with Dr. C, she decided to incorporate group work into the lesson to facilitate students’ learning. In addition, group learning
was also a way to address the possibility of students not being able to pose any problems based on the two expressions. She divided all

7
T. Chen and J. Cai International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

50 students in one class into small groups and required each group to present only two of their best posed problems within the given
time. Thus, students with different skill levels could pose different problems and everyone could gain a sense of accomplishment.
Although this lesson finally proved to be quite successful and won the top prize in the national teaching competition in 2016, the
process had just begun, according to Ms. D. This experience was not only a good beginning for Ms. D but also a good opportunity to
improve her teaching. As she stated,
It is a breakthrough in my teaching career. I never thought that mathematics can be taught in this way. What lessons are most
suitable for using problem posing? Which part of a lesson can use problem posing? … So many questions. But the journey has just
started, and I have many things to learn. I hope that Dr. C can continue to guide us.

5. Discussion

In this paper, we presented a study of an experienced mathematics teacher who learned to teach the distributive property of
multiplication over addition using problem posing. We not only presented the features of the lesson using problem posing in contrast
to her traditional lesson on the same topic but also described her struggles in learning to teach using the new approach. By analyzing
the process of Ms. D’s instructional design and implementation with a problem-posing approach, we began to understand an ex-
perienced mathematics teacher’s challenges related to changing her teaching approach.

5.1. Learning to teach using problem posing

Teacher learning is highly situated and closely related to individual practice (Borko, 2004; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). This
study used the situated perspective to investigate how a teacher learned to teach mathematics using problem posing. It not only
provides evidence for the appropriateness of this perspective for designing a program for Ms. D to learn to teach using problem posing
but also shows the benefits of this situated perspective for understanding teachers’ professional development.
Specifically, Ms. D received robust situational support to overcome both the emotional and pedagogical challenges that she faced
as she learned to teach mathematics using problem posing. This was accomplished through a specific teacher-researcher partnership
in which situational emotional support helped her overcome challenges through discussions with her partner, Dr. C. Throughout the
process of learning to design and to teach mathematics using problem posing, a number of challenges arose for Ms. D. However, using
online communication, she was able to discuss the issues with Dr. C and found answers to her questions. With different perspectives
and expertise, Dr. C was able to help her to identify and address the problems that arose in her planning and teaching using the
problem-posing approach. Thus, instructional improvement for Ms. D was accomplished through a strong, collaborative teacher-
researcher partnership in which the specialized and unique knowledge of both Ms. D and her mentor was combined to improve her
instructional practice. Such improvement would not have been achieved by either of them individually (Cai et al., 2017, 2018).
The findings of this study echo those of Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) research in which they discussed three kinds of
knowledge for teaching: knowledge for practice, knowledge of practice, and knowledge in practice. The findings of this study confirm
their findings about knowledge for teaching, which highlighted that generation of knowledge during practice directly helps teachers
improve their own learning and teaching. In particular, the findings of this study support the situated perspective of teacher learning
that practical knowledge is developed through reflection on personal teaching experience (Borko, 2004; Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999; Jones & Riley, 2017).
This study also demonstrates the value of the improvement science approach for effective instructional improvement. Lessons are
the basic unit underlying teachers’ teaching and students’ learning. Thus, lesson improvement is the primary mechanism for teachers’
professional development as well as improved classroom instruction. As this study shows, lesson improvement is an iterative process
rather than a one-time event. This study not only demonstrates the appropriateness of improvement science for designing, improving,
and refining a lesson, it also shows how improvement science provides a model for teachers to learn how to improve their teaching. In
this particular study, in addition to her teacher-researcher partnership with Dr. C which facilitated the improvement of the lesson, Ms.
D’s peers observed her lesson and discussed it with her, providing feedback to her. This peer teacher community provided another
mechanism for promoting her learning to teach this particular lesson using problem posing. Building on support from her teacher-
researcher partnership with Dr. C and her community of practice with other teachers, Ms. D was able to refine her lesson using the
problem-posing approach with incremental and continuous adjustments over time. Based on the individual case of Ms. D, this study
demonstrates the effectiveness of using the improvement science approach to enhance teacher learning and overcome struggles along
the process rather than the traditional approach of attempting to scale up and apply large-scale theories across all contexts (Cai, Chen
et al., 2019; Cai, Morris et al., 2019; Stigler et al., 2018).

5.2. Advantages of teaching mathematics using problem posing

The field of mathematics education has just begun to explore problem posing as a way to teach mathematics. It is believed that
teaching through mathematical problem posing has greater potential than teaching through problem solving, and the potential
benefits of teaching mathematics through problem posing are widely acknowledged (Cai et al., 2015). Specific reasons for this
include the open nature of posing mathematics problems, the potential connections that students can make (between knowledge and

8
T. Chen and J. Cai International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

real-life experiences) while they try to pose problems, and students’ increased engagement in this process of generating problems.
In particular, this study not only shows what teaching through mathematical problem posing looks like as evidenced by Ms. D’s
lesson but also demonstrates the potential benefits of creating cognitive conflict for students as they wonder why the two expressions
are equal. Cognitive conflict created through problem posing represents quite a different approach from teaching using the usual
problem-solving approach to verify that the two expressions are equal in accordance with the distributive property of multiplication
over addition. In what follows, we describe four potential advantages of using a problem-posing approach to teach mathematics,
based on evidence collected from Ms. D’s lesson using the problem-posing approach.
First, as can be seen in this study, the students in the problem-posing lesson gradually became actively engaged in thinking and
participating within a lively class atmosphere. These fourth-grade students had never engaged in the experience of posing their own
problems before. Both the form and content of the lesson were new, original, interesting, and vivid. In putting forward their own
problems, they were able to pose meaningful real-life problems aligned with their own lives and learning experiences while being
fully engaged in active thinking.
Second, problem-posing stimulates students’ thinking. Using problem posing as a strategy, students are instructed to start their
thinking with real-life images and experiences from which they put forward real-life mathematical problems to suit an abstract
formula. Different from the traditional instructional approach of problem solving, the problem-posing approach enables students to
deeply understand the fundamental meaning of the distributive property while being connected to the figurative experience and
engaged in the activities of raising problems, solving problems, and communicating and explaining the methods and results of solving
those problems. In this way, students’ minds are stimulated to think creatively and differently. It also facilitates students’ creativity,
which is difficult to achieve when solving routine problems (Silver, 1997).
The third advantage of the problem-posing approach is that it promotes students’ understanding of concepts and clarification of
mathematical principles. In the problem-posing lesson in this study, students of different groups put forward their own problems and
guessed the other groups’ expressions. In the process of engaging in the teaching activities, the students generated activities for
others. By posing problems, students’ thinking was stimulated not only to gain a deep understanding of the structure of the dis-
tributive property—that is, to answer the question of “what it is”—but also to dig into the implicit mathematical essence of the
property behind the structure—in other words, the question of “why it is.” Through problem-posing lessons, teachers may effectively
break through students’ cognitive gap between the form and the nature or essence of the distributive property and help students
achieve an in-depth, firm, and clear understanding of its essence.
Finally, problem posing eliminates the boundaries between students with different levels of achievement. That is, students of all
mathematical backgrounds can be equally involved in posing meaningful problems.
Although additional studies are needed to better understand the advantages of using a problem-posing approach to teach
mathematics, we believe that the four advantages we have described here may apply to other lessons using a problem-posing ap-
proach. In particular, more research is needed to understand how problem-posing lessons should be designed to realize such ad-
vantages for fostering students’ learning of mathematics.
In fact, the field of mathematics education has been exploring ways that help teachers to learn to teach using problem posing (e.g.,
Cai, Chen et al., 2019; Cai, Morris et al., 2019). Although this study contributes to our understanding about teaching using problem
posing as well as the teacher’s emotional and pedagogical challenges of learning to teach using problem posing, this study only
presents a case of an experienced teacher who tried to learn to teach using problem posing. This case study is also unique in that the
teacher was self-motivated to learn to teach in new ways. We are continuing our work with Ms. D to witness the transformation of her
teaching using problem posing. She is currently designing a unit on solving equations using problem posing. Additional studies are
also needed to explore how less experienced teachers learn to teach mathematics using problem posing. In particular, future studies
should explore the kinds of challenges that less experienced teachers face and how they overcome those challenges. Most importantly,
additional studies are needed to explore how to scale up the type of teacher-researcher partnership demonstrated by Ms. D and Dr. C
and its role in learning to teach using problem posing.

Appendix A

Interview Questions

1 Hello, Ms. D! Had you heard of problem posing before Dr. C introduced you to the instructional method of using problem posing
to teach the distributive property of multiplication over addition? To what extent were you familiar with the problem posing at
that time?
2 As I understand, when Dr. C introduced and suggested that you use problem posing to teach the topic, you were quite hesitant
with struggles. So why did you struggle with it? What were the major challenges you faced at that time? Later, what made you
decide to teach the distributive property of multiplication using problem posing and to use this approach to teach the lesson for
your national teaching competition? That is to say, how did you make up your mind to design and deliver this lesson using
problem posing?
3 Do you remember how many times you discussed the lesson with your peer teachers before the competition? What were the
difficulties you encountered in the discussion? What were the challenges? In those discussions about design and revising processes
with peer teachers, how did you get to grasp the problem-posing approach to teach mathematics?

9
T. Chen and J. Cai International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

4 In those designing-revising processes, how did you resolve issues about teaching the topic using problem posing?
5 How did you feel about the lesson you delivered for the competition? As for problem posing as an instructional approach for the
lesson, which part do you feel you did well? Is there any aspect of the lesson you wish to improve and change? If you could repeat
the lesson, what would you do differently?
6 I learned that you were awarded the first prize, weren’t you? It should be the top prize. The judges recognized the merits of the
lesson. Specifically, could you please talk about how the judges and other teachers actually view this lesson?
7 I know that you sent a document to Dr. C, which consists of a set of questions raised by teachers who were in the teaching
competition. How did you answer these questions?
8 Now that you have accepted the challenge to teach this lesson using problem posing, have gone through a number of designing-
revising processes for the lesson, and have won the top prize, when you reflect on the entire process, what would you say about
the problem-posing approach? In such a process, as a teacher, in what aspects do you think you have grown professionally about
teaching the distributive property of multiplication using problem posing?
9 As an experienced and well-established teacher, you are mentoring other teachers. At the same time, you are also a teacher
researcher and train other teachers. In your role, will you encourage other teachers to learn to teach mathematics using problem
posing? How do you help them master this method of teaching and improve their teaching in this way?
10 Do you have anything else to add?

References

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors
give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194–222.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2005). Learning to improve: How American schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
Cai, J. (2004). Why do U.S. and Chinese students think differently in mathematical problem solving? Exploring the impact of early algebra learning and teachers’
beliefs. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 135–167.
Cai, J. (Ed.). (2017). Compendium for research in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cai, J., & Wang, T. (2010). Conceptions of effective mathematics teaching within a cultural context: Perspectives of teachers from China and the United States. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2), 265–287.
Cai, J., Ding, M., & Wang, T. (2014). How do exemplary Chinese and U.S. mathematics teachers view instructional coherence? Educational Studies in Mathematics,
85(2), 265–280.
Cai, J., Hwang, S., Jiang, C., & Silber, S. (2015). Problem posing research in mathematics: Some answered and unanswered questions. In F. M. Singer, N. Ellerton, & J.
Cai (Eds.). Mathematical problem posing: From research to effective practice. New York, NY: Springer.
Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., & Hiebert, J. (2017). A future vision of mathematics education research: Blurring the boundaries of research
and practice to address teachers’ problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(5), 466–473. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.48.5.0466.
Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., & Hiebert, J. (2018). Reconceptualizing the roles of researchers and teachers to bring research closer to
teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(5), 514–520. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.5.0514.
Cai, J., Chen, T., Li, X., Xu, R., Zhang, S., Hu, Y., et al. (2019). Exploring the impact of a problem-posing workshop on elementary school mathematics teachers’
problem posing and lesson design. International Journal of Educational Research.
Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., & Hiebert, J. (2019). Research pathways that connect research and practice. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 50(1), 2–10.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development
in the United States and abroad. Executive summaryDallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1993). Conceptual knowledge falls through the cracks: Complexities of learning to teach
mathematics for understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 8–40.
Fan, L., Wong, N.-Y., Cai, J., & Li, S. (Eds.). (2015). How Chinese teach mathematics: Perspectives from insiders. World Scientific Publishers.
Grossman, P., Ronfeldt, M., & Cohen, J. (2011). The power of setting: The role of field experience in learning to teach. In S. Graham, K. Harris, & T. Urdan (Eds.). APA
educational psychology handbook. American Psychological Association.
Herbst, P. G. (2002). Establishing a custom of proving in American school geometry: Evolution of the two-column proof in the early twentieth century. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 49(3), 283–312.
Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2003). Exploring the practical rationality of mathematics teaching through conversations about videotaped episodes: The case of engaging
students in proving. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(1), 2–14.
Hiebert, J. (2013). The constantly underestimated challenge of improving mathematics instruction. In K. R. Leatham (Ed.). Vital directions for mathematics education
research (pp. 45–56). New York, NY: Springer.
Jones, P., & Riley, M. W. (2017). Trying, failing, succeeding, and trying again and again: Perspectives of teachers of pupils with severe profound multiple learning
difficulties. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 271–285.
Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ professional community: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18(8), 917–946.
Livingston, K. (2017). The complexity of learning and teaching: Challenges for teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 141–143.
Lord, B. (1994). Teachers’ professional development: Critical colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.). The future of education:
Perspectives on national standards in education (pp. 175–204). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Maughan, S., Teeman, D., & Wilson, R. (2012). What leads to positive change in teaching practice? Slough: NFER.
Moore-Russo, D., & Weiss, M. (2011). Practical rationality, the disciplinary obligation, and authentic mathematical work: A look at geometry. The Mathematics
Enthusiast, 8(3).
Paine, L. (1990). Teacher as virtuoso: A Chinese model for teaching. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 49–81.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? The American Psychologist, 50(10), 859–877.

10
T. Chen and J. Cai International Journal of Educational Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Zentralbatt für Didaktik der Mathematik (ZDM),
97(3), 75–80.
Singer, F. M., & Voica, C. (2015). Is problem posing a tool for identifying and developing mathematical creativity? In F. M. Singer, N. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.).
Mathematical problem posing (pp. 141–174). New York, NY: Springer.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard
Educational Review, 69(3), 237–269.
Stigler, J. W., Hiebert, J., & Givvin, K. B. (2018). Does VAM + MET = improved teaching? In R. P. Ferretti, & J. Hiebert (Eds.). Teachers, teaching, and reform:
Perspectives on efforts to improve educational outcomes (pp. 56–74). New York, NY: Routledge.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues
and Answers Report REL 2007 – No. 033)Retrieved from. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

11