International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences

Vol-6, Issue-5; Sep-Oct, 2021

Journal Home Page Available: https://ijels.com/

Journal DOI: 10.22161/ijels

Peer-Reviewed Journal

Mathematical Problems Solving Conception (MaProSC)

Scale
Dulce E. Catindoy

Instructor III, Head, Department of Teacher Education, Visayas State University-Alangalang, Alangalang Leyte, Philippines

Received: 13 Sep 2021; Received in revised form: 16 Oct 2021; Accepted: 22 Oct 2021; Available online: 31 Oct 2021
©2021 The Author(s). Published by Infogain Publication. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract— The problem of the current research is to develop and instrument that will assess students’
conception on mathematical problem solving as a process and as to its characteristics as an activity in a
classroom setting. A confirmatory factor analysis with Varimax rotation and elimination loadings were
used in the validation of the pre-identified constructs which are problem solving as a process and problem
solving as to its characteristics. There were 19-items retained in the first factor about students’ views on
problem solving as a process and 17 items describing on students’ perception of mathematical problem
solving as to its characteristics. The results of this study also need to be re-examined to determine if they
can be replicated with other samples of students as well as adding factors and items that would measure
students’ conception on mathematical problem solving.
Keywords— Problem solving, mathematical knowledge, NCTM.

I. INTRODUCTION students fully understand what is mathematical problem

Problem solving is a fundamental means of solving as a process and as to its characteristics.
developing mathematical knowledge at any level. As The NCTM (1989) has strongly endorsed the
emphasized by the National Council of Mathematics inclusion of problem solving in school mathematics. There
Teachers (NCTM, 1979), “Problem solving means are many reasons for doing this.
engaging in a task for which the solution method is not “First, problem solving is a major part of
known in advance. In order to find a solution, students or mathematics. It is the sum and substance of our discipline
problem solver must know on their knowledge, and and to reduce the discipline to a set of exercises and skills
through this process, they will often develop new devoid of problem solving is misrepresenting mathematics
mathematical understandings. Solving problems is not only as a discipline and shortchanging the students. Second,
a goal of learning mathematics, but also a major means of mathematics has many applications and often those
doing so.” (NCTM, 1978). As also stresses by Lester applications represent important problems in mathematics.
(2013)&Schoenfeld (1992), “problem solving is the heart Our subject is used in the work, understanding, and
of mathematics”. Learning to solve problems is the communication within other disciplines. Third, there is an
principal reason for studying mathematics.To become a intrinsic motivation embedded in solving mathematics
good problem solver in mathematics, one must develop a problems. We include problem solving in school
base of mathematics knowledge. Silver (1979) found that mathematics because it can stimulate the interest and
successful problem solvers were more likely to categorize enthusiasm of the students. Fourth, problem solving can be
math problems on the basis of their underlying similarities fun. Many of us do mathematics problems for recreation.
in mathematical structure. In connection, it is pointed out Finally, problem solving must be in the school
in the study conducted by Tan &Limjap (2018) that the mathematics curriculum to allow students to develop the
first phase students will be able to bear in mind is to art of problem solving.”
understand the problem. But this will be realized if

IJELS-2021, 6(5), (ISSN: 2456-7620)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.65.53 346
Dulce E. Catindoy Mathematical Problems Solving Conception (MaProSC) Scale

The Mathematical Problem Solving Conception The questionnaire is originally composed of 42 –

Scale (MaProSC) instrument will assess student’s items originally formulated by the author based on the
conception on mathematical problem solving as a process definitions of mathematical problem solvingas a process
and as to its characteristics as an activity in a classroom (22 items) and as to its characteristics (20 items). These
setting. It is important that students will be able to know two constructs (mathematical problems solving as a
the importance of problem solving in mathematical process and mathematical problems solving as to its
thinking because this is very essential in mathematics characteristics) defined the mathematical problems solving
education (Doorman et.al, 2007). The author of this conception (MaProSC) scale.
MaProSC is guided with Scott Chamberlin’s article on The researcher consulted three experts for the
What is problem solving in the mathematics classroom?In pretesting of the questionnaire who were at the field of
his article, he pointed out on that characteristics and education and experienced teachers in mathematics.
processes may be used to identify true problem solving. Relevance (4 - very relevant and succinct, 3 – relevant but
But in the current study, set of items were formulated to needs revision, 2 - unable to assess relevance, 1 – not
answer how do students view mathematical problem relevant) and representativeness(4 – item is representative,
solving as a process and as to its characteristics. 3 – item needs minor revisions to be representative, 2 –
As a teacher of basic mathematics in tertiary item needs major revisions to be representative, 1 – item is
level, it is important to instill in the mind of students on the not representative) were the basis how do experts score
problem solving with the emphasis not only focusing on each item. The experts were also requested to recommend
the steps how to solve problems but also determining their revisions that would strengthen the item descriptions of the
conceptions about mathematical problem solving. two constructs.At the end of the pretesting, 39 – items (
The Instrument 21-items for problem solving as a process; 18-items for
problems solving as to its characteristics.Content validity
The instrument is composed of two sections
of individual items was computed using Lynn (1986)
namely student’s conception on mathematical problem
recommendation. She recommended that with a panel of
solving (PS) as a process and students view of problem
‘‘five or fewer experts, all must agree on the content
solving as to its characteristics in a classroom setting. This
validity for their rating to be considered a reasonable
is composed of 39 items, 21 – items for PS as a process
representation of the universe of possible ratings’’; in other
and 18 – items as to its characteristics. The respondents
words, if there are five or fewer judges should be 1.00.
will respond the questionnaire using Likert scale, 5
(strongly agree) as the highest while 1 (strongly disagree) All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale
as the lowest. The purpose of this scale is to assess which ranging from “1” as “Strongly Disagree” to “5” to
students’ conception on mathematical problem solving as a “Strongly Agree”. Based on the reliability analysis, the
process and as to its characteristics as an activity in a Cronbach alpha value of the whole questionnaire is 0.915
classroom setting. which is acceptable since it is above the recommended
value (Spector, 1992 & Colton & Covert, 2007).

II. METHODOLOGY
III. RESULT, CONCLUSION AND
The constructed questionnaire was pilot tested
RECOMMENDATIONS
among 117 sample education students in one of the state
university in Leyte through personal administration with During the pretesting, three experts rated each item based
the help of fellow faculty of the author. Of the complete on the constructed scale on relevance (4 - very relevant
sample, 91 (77.8%) were female and 26 (22.22%) were and succinct, 3 – relevant but needs revision, 2 - unable to
males. Moreover, 50.4% were Bachelor of Secondary assess relevance, 1 – not relevant) and representativeness
Education-Math (BSEd) students and 49.6% were from (4 – item is representative, 3 – item needs minor revisions
Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED). From this two to be representative, 2 – item needs major revisions to be
courses, there were 54 (46.2%) third year students, 36.8% representative, 1 – item is not representative). The mean
came from second year, and 17.1% were fourthyear was computed and those items with mean ranges from 3 to
students. The author used convenience sampling in 4 were retained while items whose mean were below 3
choosing the respondents. Letter of consent was written to were deleted. So that two (item 3 and 14) items were
the Teacher Education Department head and to the deleted on how do students view problem solving as a
respective classes who will answer theMaProSCscale.Pilot process while 5-items (items 4,8, 9, 10, and 11) were
testing used the rule of thumb range from 3:1 (Williams, eliminated on students’ view of problem solving as to its
et.al, 2010) characteristics. Some of the retained items were suggested

IJELS-2021, 6(5), (ISSN: 2456-7620)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.65.53 347
Dulce E. Catindoy Mathematical Problems Solving Conception (MaProSC) Scale

by experts to be revised since the author seeks suggestions of problem solving as a process and 18-items were retained
and recommendations of the items. After the pretesting on problems solving as to its characteristics.
there were 21-items which were retained on students’ view The result of the pre-testing can be gleaned in Table 1
below.
Table 1. Pre-testing Result
Level of Level of
Statements DECISION
Representativeness Relevance
A..As student/problem solver, I successfully complete a
Mean Mean
mathematical problem solving task if...
1. I can propose a solution. 3.67 3.67 Retained
2. I can find solution to a mathematical problem through writing
3.67 3.67 Retained
an equation.
3. I can transfer ideas to peers. 2.67 2.67 Deleted
4. I can create a plan in solving the problem through drawing a
3.67 3.67 Retained
picture.
5. I can generate written record of the way/s I think. 3.33 3.33 Retained
6. I can seek multiple solutions. 3.33 3.33 Retained
7. I can make an answer to a mathematical problem with the use
3.67 3.67 Retained
of current knowledge.
8. I can mathematically think a situation to solve a problem. 3.33 3.33 Retained
9. I can produce assumptions. 3.33 3.33 Retained
10. I use assumptions in relation to my final solution. 3.33 3.67 Retained
11. I can apply current knowledge to solve a problem. 3.67 3.67 Retained
12. I am always ready for a mathematical challenge. 3.00 3.33 Retained
13. I can create new techniques to solve a problem. 3.67 3.67 Retained
14. I do not implement a pre-learnt process to solve it. 2.33 2.67 Delete
15. I can analyze relevant data in a specific problem 4.00 4.00 Retained
16. I can directly create a potential solution. 3.67 3.67 Retained
17. I can easily identify appropriate formula for the problem. 4.00 4.00 Retained
18. I can identify what are given conditions. 4.00 4.00 Retained
19. I can describe mathematical condition. 3.67 3.67 Retained
20. I can easily pin point unique method to solve problem than
3.33 3.00 Retained
others.
21. I can evidently explain the process in given situation. 4.00 4.00 Retained
22. I can solve a problem using tabular representations. 4.00 4.00 Retained
B. .As a student/problem solver, I view mathematical problem
solving activity as...
1. real-life application. 4.00 4.00 Retained
2. requiring reasoning skills. 3.33 3.33 Retained
3. solving with more than one method. 3.67 3.67 Retained
4. finding a way around a difficult situation. 3.33 3.33 Retained
5. innovation of situation for problem solver/s. 2.33 2.33 Delete

IJELS-2021, 6(5), (ISSN: 2456-7620)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.65.53 348
Dulce E. Catindoy Mathematical Problems Solving Conception (MaProSC) Scale

6. measurement of level of understanding. 2.67 2.67 Retained

7. a series of processes to arrive a correct solution. 3.67 3.67 Retained
8. demanding mindful responses. 2.00 2.00 Delete
9. flexible way of thinking. 2.00 2.00 Delete
10. applying multiple steps for successful solution. 2.67 2.67 Delete
11. task for solving fixed mathematical problems. 2.33 2.33 Delete
12. solvingpuzzles. 3.67 3.67 Retained
13. playing games by reasoning. 4.00 4.00 Retained
14. application of mathematical concepts 4.00 4.00 Retained
15. development of creative thinking. 4.00 4.00 Retained
16. solving non-routine situations. 3.00 3.33 Retained
17. condition that requires open - ended situation. 2.67 3.00 Retained
18. explanation of accurate mathematical data. 3.33 3.67 Retained
19. requirement of unique mathematical situations. 3.33 2.67 Retained
20. enhancement self-realization. 3.33 3.33 Retained
Using confirmatory factor analysis with Varimax rotation and elimination loadings below o.40, validation of the
pre-identified constructs (problem solving as a process and problem solving as to its characteristics) was performed for the
39-items.

After meeting the desired sampling adequacy load to this first factor. These were item 5 ‘I can seek
(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.895), the reliability of the multiple solutions’ and item 21 ‘I can solve a problem
MaProSC scale using Cronbach alpha coefficient resulted using tabular representations’. These were excluded in the
a reliability coefficient of 0.915(91.5%). Originally, final composition of the MaProSC scale.
MaProSC scale has two factors. Using confirmatory factor The second factor accounted 49.53% of the
analysis to validate the two pre-identified constructs of variance and included items describing on students’
mathematical problems solving conception and eliminate perception of mathematical problem solving as to its
factor loadings <0.40, 36-items remained in the two factors characteristics. Item 7 ‘application of critical thinking
extraction with an accounted total variance of 49.53% with skills’ loads with the highest value which is 0.848. There
reliability coefficient0.915 (91.5%). were seventeen items
After validation, the two factors consist of the (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,17,18) load in the said
same items from the original questionnaire but with some factor while only one item did not load for this factor. This
statements which did not load to the respective factors. item 13 which states ‘condition that requires open-
First factor, item 15 ‘I can directly create a potential endedness’. This was excluded in the scale. As the result
solution’ was the item with highest factor loading (0.736). of the study conducted by Prayitno (2018) students must
This statements agrees to Polya’s (1980) definition of possess critical thinking skills to solve mathematical
problem solving as a way where there is no known way problem solving.
around an obstacleas stated in the article What is problem Therefore, result of this study revealed
solving ability by Carmen Laterell. In short, finding a way satisfaction in attaining the purpose of developing a
is finding potential solution to solve a mathematical Mathematical Problem Solving Conception Scale
problem solving. Rest of the items which load in this factor questionnaire and of meeting the least desired validity,
with factor loadings greater than 0.40 had to do with reliability and practicality of the researcher. Within the
students’ views of mathematical problems solving as a acceptable range of validity and reliability, the final
process. The items that were retained in the first factor version of the instrument can be utilized in attaining the
were items 1,2,3,4, 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 19 purpose of developing it. Moreover, the clear description
and 20. So that, there were 19-items retained in the first of the response category as well as the elimination of some
factor about students’ views on problem solving as a undesirable items determines that the questionnaire can be
process. Meanwhile, there were two statements did not used to measure mathematical problem solving conception.

IJELS-2021, 6(5), (ISSN: 2456-7620)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.65.53 349
Dulce E. Catindoy Mathematical Problems Solving Conception (MaProSC) Scale

Furthermore, the result of factor analysis which enables the

identification of a more inclusive naming of factors would
be helpful enough for future users. It would guide
mathematics educators assess the level of mathematical
problem solving conception of students.
The results of this study also need to be re-
examined to determine if they can be replicated with other
samples of students as well as adding factors and items
that would measure students’ conception on mathematical
problem solving.

REFERENCES
[1] National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989).
Curriculum and evaluation standards for school.
mathematics. Reston, VA: The Author
[2] National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. (1978).
Position paper on basic mathematical skills. Mathematics
Teacher, 71(2), 147-52. (Reprinted from position paper
distributed to members. January 1977.)
[3] Prayitno, Anton. 2018. Characteristics of students’ critical
thinking in solving mathematics problem. The Online
Journal of New Horizons in Education
[4] Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
[5] Silver, E. A. (1979). Student perceptions of relatedness
among mathematical verbal problems. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 10(3), 195-210.

IJELS-2021, 6(5), (ISSN: 2456-7620)

https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.65.53 350