- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Preservice physics teachers’ nonroutine problem-posing process: Metacognitive strategies and beliefs

Alican Kaya1 and Sema Ç𝚤ld𝚤r2

  • Contact author: sselman@hacettepe.edu.tr
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010119 – Published 17 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/mjpn-hycd

Abstract

Integrating problem-posing activities into instruction fosters students’ critical and creative thinking while deepening their understanding of problem solving. However, complementing the problem-solving process with direct mental processes such as recalling memorized information will make a limited contribution to meaningful learning. In this context, having students construct their own problems and use metacognitive strategies while doing so will increase their cognitive awareness in the problem-solving process. Drawing on this perspective, the present study investigates the processes through which preservice physics teachers pose nonroutine physics problems, focusing on the metacognitive strategies they employ and the pedagogical beliefs they hold during these processes. The study was conducted with 20 volunteer preservice physics teachers from different grade levels at a public university. Data were collected through a five-item problem-posing task, a metacognition-oriented reflection form, and a process-based opinion form, and were analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicated that nonroutine problem-posing performance generally increased with grade level and that preservice physics teachers actively used metacognitive strategies such as ease of learning, decision making about learning, experiencing a sense of knowing, and confidence in the answer during the problem-posing process. Nevertheless, participants faced difficulties, particularly in evaluating alternative solutions and engaging in creative thinking. Despite these challenges, they maintained a positive attitude toward problem-posing activities, highlighting the potential of nonroutine problem posing as an effective pedagogical tool in physics teacher education.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (57)

  1. T. Carlgren, Communication, critical thinking, problem solving: A suggested course for all high school students in the 21st century, Interchange 44, 63 (2013).
  2. M. Reddy and B. Panacharoensawad, Students problem-solving difficulties and implications in physics: An empirical study on influencing factors, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 8, 14 (2017).
  3. D. Dodlek, G. Planinsic, and E. Etkina, How to help students learn: An investigation of how in-and pre-service physics teachers respond to students’ explanations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010120 (2024).
  4. B. Apar𝚤, K. Özgen, and Y. Zengin, Developing students’ problem posing skills with dynamic geometry software and active learning framework, Turk. J. Educ. 11, 2 (2022).
  5. N. F. Ellerton, Engaging pre-service middle-school teacher-education students in mathematical problem posing: Development of an active learning framework, Educ. Stud. Math. 83, 87 (2013).
  6. H. Polat and M. Özkaya, The effect of problem posing-based active learning activities on problem-solving and posing performance: The case of fractions, J. Pedagog. Res. 7, 67 (2023).
  7. J. P. Mestre, Probing adults’ conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing, J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 23, 9 (2002).
  8. Y. N. Lin, L. H. Hsia, and G. J. Hwang, Developing students’ creative problem-solving strategies in the context of blended sports education, Br. J. Educ. Technol. 56, 190 (2025).
  9. P. Chen and Y. C. Chang, Incorporating creative problem-solving skills to foster sustainability among graduate students in education management, Cleaner Prod. Lett. 7, 100082 (2024).
  10. M. Urban, F. Děchtěrenko, J. Lukavský, V. Hrabalová, F. Svacha, C. Brom, and K Urban, ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study, Comput. Educ. 215, 105031 (2024).
  11. G. Molnár, S. A. Alrababah, and S. Greiff, How we explore, interpret, and solve complex problems: A cross-national study of problem-solving processes, Heliyon 8, e08775 (2022).
  12. M. A. Almulla, Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for students’ critical thinking, creativity, and problem solving to affect academic performance in higher education, Cogent Educ. 10, 2172929 (2023).
  13. X. Zhou, D. Teng, and H. Al-Samarraie, The mediating role of generative AI self-regulation on students’ critical thinking and problem-solving, Educ. Sci. 14, 1302 (2024).
  14. M. Santos-Trigo, Problem solving in mathematics education: Tracing its foundations and current research-practice trends, ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ. 56, 211 (2024).
  15. A. Maries and C. Singh, Helping students become proficient problem solvers part I: A brief review, Educ. Sci. 13, 156 (2023).
  16. F. Reif and J. I. Heller, Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics, Educ. Psychol. 17, 102 (1982).
  17. J. H. Larkin and F. Reif, Understanding and teaching problem-solving in physics, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 191 (1979).
  18. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  19. M. Good, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Additional unexpected benefits of rewarding students for effective problem solving strategies: Supporting gender equity in physics, Phys. Educ. 57, 055005 (2022).
  20. D. E. Meltzer and R. K. Thornton, Resource letter ALIP–1: Active-learning instruction in physics, Am. J. Phys. 80, 478 (2012).
  21. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment–A science process approach to learning physics, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007).
  22. N. Akben, Effects of the problem-posing approach on students’ problem solving skills and metacognitive awareness in science education, Res. Sci. Educ. 50, 1143 (2020).
  23. J. Chai, An investigation of U.S. and Chinese students mathematical problem posing and problem solving, Math. Educ. Res. J. 10, 37 (1998).
  24. A. L. Brown, Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanism in metacognition, in Motivation and Understanding (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987), pp. 65–116.
  25. J. T. Dillon, Problem finding and solving, J. Creative Behav. 16, 97 (1982).
  26. A. W. Chickering and Z. F. Gamson, Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education, Biochem. Educ. 17, 140 (1989).
  27. J. H. Flavell, Metacognitive and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry, Am. Psychol. 34, 906 (1979).
  28. S. Karakelle and S. Saraç, Üst Biliş Hakkında Bir Gözden Geçirme: Üstbiliş Çalışmaları mı Yoksa Üst Bilişsel Yaklaşım mı?, Türk. Psikol. Yazıları 13, 45 (2010), https://www.proquest.com/openview/5ad8a70ce749476f46d0f3c7ea87b5ec/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=296200.
  29. Z. Dulger and F. Ogan-Bekiroglu, Students’ metacognition knowledge and skills during physics problem-solving process, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020106 (2025).
  30. M. Modi, Meta-cognition-driven problem solving in physics education, Grad. J. Interdiscip. Res. Rep. Rev. 2, 110 (2024).
  31. J. W. Morphew, G. E. Gladding, and J. P. Mestre, Effect of presentation style and problem-solving attempts on metacognition and learning from solution videos, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010104 (2020).
  32. K. L. Van De Bogart, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, H. J. Lewandowski, and M. R. Stetzer, Investigating the role of socially mediated metacognition during collaborative troubleshooting of electric circuits, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020116 (2017).
  33. M. Zhang, J. Morphew, and T. Stelzer, Impact of more realistic and earlier practice exams on student metacognition, study behaviors, and exam performance, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010130 (2023).
  34. A. Y𝚤ld𝚤r𝚤m and H. Şimşek, Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araşt𝚤rma Yöntemleri (Seçkin Yay𝚤nc𝚤l𝚤k, Ankara, 2016).
  35. M. Wang and C. Walkington, Investigating problem-posing during math walks in informal learning spaces, Front. Psychol. 14, 1106676 (2023).
  36. S. Ç𝚤ld𝚤r and N. Sezen, Skill levels of prospective physics teachers on problem posing, Hacettepe Üniv. Eğitim Fak. Derg. 40, 105 (2011).
  37. N. Ngah, Z. Ismail, Z. Tasir, and M. N. H. Mohamad, Said, students’ ability in free, semi-structured and structured problem posing situations, Adv. Sci. Lett. 22, 4205 (2016).
  38. M. Pittalis, C. Christou, N. Mousoulides, and D. Pitta-Pantazi, A structural model for problem posing, in Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME, Bergen, Norway, 2004), Vol. 4, pp. 495–496.
  39. X. Yuan and B. Sriraman, An exploratory study of relationships between students‘ creativity and mathematical problem posing abilities: Comparing Chinese and U.S. students, in The Elements of Creativity and Giftedness in Mathematics, edited by B. Sriraman and K. Lee (Sense, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2011), pp. 5–28.
  40. M. Guo, F. K. S. Leung, and X. Hu, Affective determinants of mathematical problem posing: The case of Chinese Miao students, Educ. Stud. Math. 105, 367 (2020).
  41. T. Wang, S. Li, C. Tan, J. Zhang, and S. P. Lajoie, Cognitive load patterns affect temporal dynamics of self-regulated learning behaviors, metacognitive judgments, and learning achievements, Comput. Educ. 207, 104924 (2023).
  42. P. R. Pintrich, The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing, Theory Pract. 41, 219 (2002).
  43. G. Schraw, A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring, Metacognit. Learn. 4, 33 (2009).
  44. M. V. Veenman, B. H. Van Hout-Wolters, and P. Afflerbach, Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations, Metacognit. Learn. 1, 3 (2006).
  45. A. Efklides, Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process?, Educ. Res. Rev. 1, 3 (2006).
  46. H. Ergün, Z. Gürel, and M. A. Çorlu, Problem Tasarlama Performansının Değerlendirilmesinde Kullanılabilecek Bir Rubriğin Geliştirilmesine Ílişkin Bir Araştırma, Milli Eğitim Dergisi 41, 39 (2011), https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/442529.
  47. S. Krulik and J. A. Rudnick, Problem Solving: A Handbook for Elementary School Teachers, 2nd ed. (Allyn & Bacon, Massachusetts, 1988).
  48. S. R. Tekin and A. Iş𝚤k, S𝚤n𝚤f Öğretmeni Adaylar𝚤n𝚤n Serbest Problem Kurma Becerilerinin İncelenmesi, Gazi Üniv. Gazi Eğitim Fak. 38, 919 (2018).
  49. V. Say𝚤n and K. Orbay, S𝚤n𝚤f Öğretmeni Adaylar𝚤n𝚤n Serbest Problem Kurma Durumlar𝚤, Gazi Üniv. Gazi Eğitim Fak. Derg. 43, 563 (2023).
  50. Y. Guo, J. Yan, and T. Men, Chinese junior high school students’ mathematical problem-posing performance, ZDM Int. J. Math. Educ. 53, 905 (2021).
  51. S. Ç𝚤ld𝚤r and N. Sezen, A study on the evaluation of problem posing skills in terms of academic success, Procedia 15, 2494 (2011).
  52. Z. Y𝚤ld𝚤z, Matematikte problem kurma çalışmalarının öğretmen adaylarının problem kurma becerilerine ve üst bilişsel farkındalık düzeylerine etkisi, Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, 2014.
  53. B. J. Zimmerman, Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective, in Handbook of Self-Regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Academic Press, New York, NY, 2000), pp. 13–39.
  54. R. A. Beghetto, Does assessment kill student creativity?, Educ. Forum 69, 254 (2005).
  55. G. Pólya, How to Solve It (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1945).
  56. P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 60, 627 (1992).
  57. A. H. Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving (Academic Press, New York, NY, 1985).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010119– Published 17 February, 2026
  • Received 29 May 2025
  • Accepted 19 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation