International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(4) 1-16

An Examination of Open-Ended Mathematics Questions’ Affordances

Erhan Bingölbali & Ferhan Bingölbali

pp. 1 - 16   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2006-28-0003.R2

Published online: August 08, 2021  |   Number of Views: 200  |  Number of Download: 328


This study explores the affordances that the open-ended questions hold in comparison with those of closed-ended questions through examining 6th grade students’ performance on a mathematics test. For this purpose, a questionnaire including 2 open-ended and 2 closed-ended questions was applied to 36 6th grade students. The questions were prepared in the light of four categories: (i) question with one correct outcome (closed-ended), (ii) question with multiple fixed outcomes (closed-ended), (iii) question with multiple variable outcomes (open-ended), and (iv) question with limitless outcomes (open-ended). The collected data were analysed in terms of correct, incorrect, uncategorized and unanswered categories as well as with regard to the diversity of the responses. The findings reveal that students showed lower performances for the question that requires limitless outcomes, there were a lack of generalizations or general rules in their responses and they provided more diverse responses for the open-ended questions. The findings were discussed with regard to higher-order thinking skills such as creativity and divergent thinking as they are often associated with open-ended questions and their affordances. Finally some implications are put forward and further research areas are highlighted.

Keywords: Open-Ended Question, Question With Multiple Correct Outcomes, Creativity, Divergent and Convergent Thinking, Mathematic Teaching

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Bingolbali, E. & Bingolbali, F. (2021). An Examination of Open-Ended Mathematics Questions’ Affordances . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(4), 1-16. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.366.1

Bingolbali, E. and Bingolbali, F. (2021). An Examination of Open-Ended Mathematics Questions’ Affordances . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(4), pp. 1-16.

Chicago 16th edition
Bingolbali, Erhan and Ferhan Bingolbali (2021). "An Examination of Open-Ended Mathematics Questions’ Affordances ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (4):1-16. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.366.1.

  1. Al-Absi, M. (2013). The effect of open-ended tasks–as an assessment tool-on fourth graders’ mathematics achievement, and assessing students’ perspectives about it. Jordan Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(3), 345-351. [Google Scholar]
  2. Becker, J. P., & Shimada, S. (1997). The Open-ended Approach: A New Proposal for Teaching Mathematics: Reston, Virgina. Mathematics National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, INC. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennevall, M. (2016). Cultivating creativity in the mathematics classroom using open-ended tasks: A systematic review. Retrieved from  [Google Scholar]
  4. Bingolbali, E. (2020). An analysis of questions with multiple solution methods and multiple outcomes in mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(5), 669-687.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Bingölbali, E., & Bingölbali, F. (2020). Çok doğru cevaplı ve çok çözüm metotlu etkinliklerin ortaokul matematik ders kitaplarındaki yeri. International Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7(4), 214-235. [Google Scholar]
  6. Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29 (1), 41-62. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bragg, L. & Nicol, C. (2008). Designing open-ended problems to challenge pre-service teachers' views on mathematics and pedagogy, Proceedings of the 32nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 201-208). Mexico: Morelia. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cai, J. (2000). Mathematical thinking involved in US and Chinese students' solving of process-constrained and process-open problems. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(4), 309-340. [Google Scholar]
  9. Clarke, D.J., Sullivan, P.A., & Spandel, U. (1992). Student Response Characteristics to Open-ended Tasks in Mathematical and Other Academic Contexts. Research Report No. 7. Oakleigh, Vic.: MTLC. [Google Scholar]
  10. Evans, E. W. (1964). Measuring the ability of students to respond in creative mathematical situations at the late elementary and early junior high school level (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA. [Google Scholar]
  11. Foster, C. (2015). The convergent–divergent model: An opportunity for teacher–learner development through principled task design. Educational Designer, 2(8), 1-25. [Google Scholar]
  12. Glasnovic Gracin, D. (2018). Requirements in mathematics textbooks: a five-dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and examples. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1003-1024. [Google Scholar]
  13. Han, S. Y., Rosli, R., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2011). The textbook analysis on probability: The case of Korea, Malaysia and US textbooks. Research in Mathematical Education, 15(2), 127-140. [Google Scholar]
  14. Imai, T. (2000). The influence of overcoming fixation in mathematics towards divergent thinking in open-ended mathematics problems on Japanese junior high school students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and technology, 31(2), 187-193. [Google Scholar]
  15. Inprasitha, M. (2006). Open-ended approach and teacher education. Tsukuba Journal of Educational Study in Mathematics, 25, 169-177. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kasar, N. (2013). To what extent alternative solution methods and different question types are given place in mathematics teaching?: Examples from real classroom practices (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Gaziantep: Gaziantep, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  17. Klavir, R., & Hershkovitz, S. (2008). Teaching and evaluating ‘open-ended’ problems. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 20(5), 1-24. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kwon, O. N., Park, J. H., & Park, J. S. (2006). Cultivating divergent thinking in mathematics through an open-ended approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7(1), 51–61. [Google Scholar]
  19. Leung, S. S. (1997). On the open-ended nature in mathematical problem posing. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.) Use of Open-Ended Problems in Mathematics Classroom (pp. 26-33). Finland: University of Helsinki. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lin, C. Y., Becker, J., Ko, Y. Y., & Byun, M. R. (2013). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ fraction knowledge through open approach instruction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 309-330. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236-260. [Google Scholar]
  22. MoNE (2017). Open-ended questions from eighty grade central common mathematics exams and the answer key examples. Retrieved from  [Google Scholar]
  23. Morgan, C. (2003). Criteria for authentic assessment of mathematics: Understanding success, failure and inequality. Quadrante, 12(1), 37-51. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O'Sullivan, C. Y., & Preuschoff, C. (2009). TIMSS 2011 Assessment Frameworks. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  25. Munroe, L. (2015). The open-ended approach framework. European Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 97-104. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nohda, N. (2000). Teaching by open-approach method in Japanese mathematics classroom. In: T. Nakahara, & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 39–53). Hiroshima, Japan: Hiroshima University. [Google Scholar]
  27. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematics, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pehkonen, E. (1997). Introduction to the concept “open-ended problem”. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.). Use of Open-ended Problems in Mathematics Classroom (pp. 7-11). Finland: University of Helsinki. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pehkonen, E. (1999). Open-ended problems: A method for an educational change. In International Symposium on Elementary Maths Teaching (SEMT 99). Prague: Charles University. [Google Scholar]
  30. Reitman, W. (1965). Cognition and Thought. New York: Wiley.  [Google Scholar]
  31. Silver, E. A. (1992). Assessment and mathematics education reform in the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 17(5), 489-502. [Google Scholar]
  32. Silver, E. A., & Lane, S. (1993). Assessment in the context of mathematics instruction reform: The design of assessment in the QUASAR project. In M. Niss (Ed.), Cases of Assessment in Mathematics Education (pp. 59-69). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
  33. Silver, E. A. (1995). The nature and use of open problems in mathematics education: Mathematical and pedagogical perspectives, ZDM, 27(2), 67-72.  [Google Scholar]
  34. Sullivan, P., & Clarke, D. (1992). Problem solving with conventional mathematics content: Responses of pupils to open mathematical tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 4(1), 42-60. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sullivan, P., Warren, E., & White, P. (2000). Students’ responses to content specific open-ended mathematical tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(1), 2-17. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sullivan, P., Warren, E., White, P., & Suwarsono, S. (1998). Different forms of mathematical questions for different purposes: Comparing student responses to similar closed and open-ended questions. Teaching Mathematics in New Times, 572-579. [Google Scholar]
  37. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basis of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. California: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  38. TIMSS (2015). Science and Mathematics 4th and 8th grade released questions. Retrieved from  [Google Scholar]
  39. Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Tabach, M., & Levenson, E. (2010). Multiple solution methods and multiple outcomes—is it a task for kindergarten children?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 73(3), 217-231. [Google Scholar]
  40. Uçar, Z. T. (2016). Sociomathematical norms. In E. Bingölbali, S. Arslan,  & I.O. Zembat (Ed.). Theories in Mathematics Education (pp. 605-627). Pegem Akademi: Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  41. Viseu, F., & Oliveira, I. B. (2017). Open-ended tasks in the promotion of classroom communication in mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(2), 287-300. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4) 458-477. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yang, D. C., Tseng, Y. K., & Wang, T. L. (2017). A comparison of geometry problems in middle-grade mathematics textbooks from Taiwan, Singapore, Finland, and the United States. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 2841-2857. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zaslavsky, O. (1995). Open-ended tasks as a trigger for mathematics teachers' professional development. For the Learning of Mathematics, 15(3), 15-20. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(4), 609-626. [Google Scholar]