Student Teachers’ Problem-posing skills in Ratios and Proportional Reasoning: A systematic Review

Student Teachers’ Problem-posing skills in Ratios and Proportional Reasoning: A systematic Review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Student Teachers’ Problem-posing skills in Ratios and Proportional Reasoning: A systematic Review Christian Kerker, Francis Kwadwo Awuah This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9347871/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Problem-posing plays an important role in the teaching and learning of mathematics, as it is enables teachers to effectively assess the conceptual understanding, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills among students. In Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs), student teachers are expected to develop the ability to construct meaningful mathematical problems that enhance learning. However, research indicates that many student teachers exhibit difficulties when posing problems in mathematical concepts such as ratio and proportional reasoning. On this premise, this study systematically review empirical literature on student teachers’ problem-posing skills related to fractions, ratios and proportional reasoning within the context of TE. The review followed the PRISMA guideline to identify and screen relevant studies published between 2010 and 2025 from databases including Google scholar, ERIC, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and JSTOR; this resulted in the inclusion of 15 studies. Findings from the review revealed key themes, including conceptual difficulties, dominance of low-cognitive demand, awareness performance gap, contextual influences, and geographical skewness in research. The study highlights the need for stronger instructional support and more context-specific research, especially in underrepresented regions such as the Sub-Saharan Africa. Problem-posing ratios and proportional reasoning student teachers teacher education mathematics Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 INTRODUCTION In mathematics classrooms, the questions that teachers pose often shape how students think, reason, and understand mathematical concepts (Cai et al., 2020 ; Silver, 1994 ). In our contemporary educational systems where inquiry-based instructional approaches are increasingly rated central to critical thinking and problem-solving in the learning of mathematics (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007 ; Prince & Feldfer, 2006), problem-posing emerges as a valuable pedagogical tool due to the nature of inquiry-based instructions that often requires that teachers pose varied cognitive tasks that stimulates deeper reasoning among students (Artigue & Blomhøj, 2013 ; Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). As such, the creation of problems or tasks in the mathematics classroom has long been considered as a significant practice for effective teaching and learning. In designing test items, teachers may pose series of problems to diagnose and ascertain students’ levels of understanding in specific concepts (Mishra & Iyer, 2015 ). The level of problems posed by teachers are expected to range from low-level to high-level cognitive demands. Consequently, problem posing is widely used by teachers to enhance students’ critical thinking and conceptual understanding, especially in cognitively demanding subjects such as mathematics (Bosra et al., 2025 ). By definition, problem-posing encompasses the science of creating new questions from scratch or formulating them from existing ones for an intended instructional purpose (Cai & Hwang, 2020; Silver, 1994 ). As a facet of critical thinking in mathematics, problem-posing requires that a situation is well analysed in order to identify valid mathematical possibilities to ascertain if a problem is worthwhile (Leavy & Hourigan, 2020 ). This makes problem posing functions not just as an instructional strategy but an assessment tool for evaluating students’ understanding of mathematical concepts. In view of this, it is important for mathematics teachers to possess the adequate knowledge of effective problem-posing strategies (Leavy & Hourigan, 2020 ). For this reason, attention has to be shifted to TEIs, where teachers’ problem-posing competences are ideally developed during their training; within these institutions, student teachers are expected to be taught how to design mathematical problems at varying cognitive levels depending on the intended learning outcome. This is because, student teachers under training to become professional teachers are expected to possess the adequate knowledge and skills that is required to pose meaningful problems that promotes reasoning and deepens students’ understanding (Ball et al., 2008 ). This expectation raises the need for mathematics student teachers to develop comprehensive understanding of what constitutes meaningful problems in mathematical concepts, including ratios and proportion (Crespo & Sinclair, 2008 ). Proportional reasoning, a mathematical concept which involves rates, ratios, and proportional reasoning, has consistently been identified as a challenging area for students (Van Dooren et al., 2018 ). Ratios and proportion is a concept that comprises finding relations between quantities, form the foundation for several concepts in mathematics, including algebra, measurement, and data analysis. These concepts are also widely applied in real-life contexts such as the banking sector, marketplaces, and other educational or industrial settings where proportional relations are applied (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010 ). Notwithstanding this importance, reports indicate that many student teachers struggle when posing appropriate problems in mathematical concepts including ratios and proportional reasoning (Burgos et al., 2024 ; Hilton et al., 2016 ; Şengül & Katrancı, 2015). Evidence abounds that, beyond the difficulties that students teacher and students in general face in ratios and proportion (Kastberg et al., 2015 ; Thanheiser et al., 2014 ), student teachers specifically encounter additional challenges when posing mathematical problems. For instance, Kohar et al. (2024) observed that, despite the importance of problem-posing, many student teachers tend to generate low-level problems that do not sufficiently promote critical thinking in mathematical concepts such as proportional reasoning. On the other hand, studies (e.g., Burgos & Hernández, 2022; Tizón-Escamilla & Burgos, 2023 ) report that, student teachers often find it challenging to construct meaningful problems in ratios and proportional reasoning, and that, it is difficult identifying algebraic reasoning parts even in the solutions to the problems that student teachers pose. Some of these difficulties have been attributed to limited awareness and inadequate preparation. This is because, student teachers either have no or little knowledge about problem-posing even though they knew its significance (Burgos et al., 2024 ). On the contrary, Kastberg et al. ( 2015 ) further argued that, student teachers’ difficulties in problem-posing are mostly influenced by their overreliance on rote procedures when solving problems, which results in superficial conceptual understanding. Subsequently, even though student teachers may have their own way of successfully solving examination questions or other tests during their training, they may lack the competence required to create appropriate mathematical problems that foster students’ critical thinking in proportional reasoning. This lack of synthesis limits a comprehensive understanding of existing patterns, challenges, and research gaps in the field Despite these contributions, there still remains limited synthesis of studies examining student teachers’ problem posing skills in ratios and proportional reasoning within the TE context. This lack of synthesis limits a comprehensive understanding of what characterises student teachers’ problem-posing competences in this domain, most importantly for teacher educators. A systematic synthesis of existing literature is therefore needed to consolidate and ascertain current stance of knowledge about the phenomenon in context. On this premise, this systematic review synthesises empirical studies on student teachers’ problem-posing practices related to fractions and ratios and proportion. By bringing together findings from different studies from 2010 to 2025, this review was guided by the following research questions: What themes categorises problem-posing competencies demonstrated by student teachers in ratios and proportional reasoning? What methodological approaches have been used in existing literature to investigate problem-posing in the TEI domain? (i) What gaps exist in the literature? METHODOLOGY The current study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline. PRISMA was used to provide a structured framework for identifying, screening, and reporting studies that were included in the review. The systematic approach used was to ensure that the search for literature is transparent and, also, to ensure that the synthesis of the findings form studies included is rigorous (Page et al., 2021 ). For the synthesis, a thematic approach was used to analyse the findings of the studies because of the conceptual and pedagogical direction of the study. 2.1 Eligibility Criteria The eligibility criteria captured the inclusion and exclusion procedures that determines whether or not a study be factored into the study, and provided justification for such criterion. 2.1.1 Inclusion Criteria The inclusion criteria involved studies published between 2010 and 2025 in order to capture recent and relevant developments in the research domain; Problem-posing in fractions, ratio and proportion due to how related they are in proportional reasoning as the focus for the review; Student teachers; Peer reviewed empirical studies in a bid to capture methodological rigor and reliability of evidence; Publications in English language due to accessibility and feasibility of analysis; Full-text availability in order to allow complete evaluation of methodology and findings. 2.1.2 Exclusion Criteria Studies were excluded if they focused on problem-solving rather than problem-posing; involved only school pupils with no TE component; addressed mathematics broadly without clear reference to ratios and proportional reasoning of fractions; were theoretical papers, editorials, dissertations, or book reviews; and inaccessible in full text. 2.2 Search Source and Strategy Databases including Google Scholar, ERIC, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and JSTOR were used in identifying the related studies for this review. Through that, a combination of keywords related to problem posing, proportional reasoning, TE, and student teachers were used as a search strategy to identify the studies. The search string containing Boolean operators to refine the research were: (“pre-service teacher” OR “preservice teacher” OR “student teacher” OR “prospective teacher” OR “teacher candidate” OR “trainee teacher”) AND (“problem posing” OR “problem creation” OR “problem formulation” OR “problem generation” OR “posing problem”) AND (“ratio” OR “proportion” OR “proportional reasoning” OR “fraction”). For Google Scholar, screening was restricted to the first 15 pages of research results because the relevance studies decreased beyond this point, a practice commonly adopted in systematic reviews using this database. 2.3 Selection Criteria The number of records that were produced from the initial search were 203. After removing duplicates and inaccessible records, a total of 91 studies were obtained for the screening process. During the screening of the obtained studies, the titles and abstracts of the studies were assessed against the inclusion criteria for the study. This resulted in the in the exclusion of studies that did not align with the focus of the review. Afterwards, a full text assessment was conducted for the remaining articles, which lead to a final sample of 15 studies that met all the eligibility criteria. 2.4 Data Extraction A data extraction form was developed to capture bibliometric information from each of the studies included in the review. This process helped to map studies descriptively and, also, thematically synthesise the findings of the various studies. Table 1 contains the bibliometric information extracted from included studies. Author(s) Year of Publication Source type (Book/Book Chapter/ Article/Thesis) Context (Study area) Topic Contribution Research design Results/ Conclusion What the author(s) missed (Delimitation) Table 1 : Bibliometric data extraction form 2.5 Data Analysis and Synthesis The data were analysed using thematic synthesis. Initial codes were generated based on recuring pattern identifies during data familiarisation. These codes were then grouped onto broader themes, reflecting conceptual and pedagogical issues related to problem-posing in proportional reasoning among student teachers in TEIs. The review did not treat fractions, ratio, and proportion differently; the analysis conceptualised them as interrelated components of proportional reasoning, taking into consideration views in mathematics education research (Lamon, 2007 ). The themes identified were refined through constant comparison across studies to ensure that they are coherence and in-depth in analysis. FINDINGS To answer the research questions, the results from the studies were presented according to the research questions. RQ 1 What themes categorises problem-posing competencies and difficulties demonstrated by student teachers in ratios and proportional reasoning? The review of studies revealed several recurring themes in conceptual and pedagogical concerns about student teachers’ problem posing competences in ratios and proportional reasoning. These themes are presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Themes categorising problem-posing competencies and difficulties demonstrated by student teachers in ratios and proportional reasoning. S/N THEMES 1. Problem-Posing as a Diagnostic Lens for Proportional Reasoning. 2. Conceptual Weakness in Proportional Reasoning. 3. Dominance of Low-Cognitive-Demand Problem-Posing. 4. Influence of Context in Shaping the Quality of Problems. 5. Awareness-Performance Gap in Problem Posing. RQ 2: What methodological approaches have been used by existing literature to investigate problem-posing in the TE domain? Figure 2 presents the methodologies used in the included studies according to the contexts in which they were conducted. Most of the studies used Qualitative approaches (n = 9, 60%), with case study and content analysis being the commonly used designs (Serin, 2020 ; Şengül & Katranci, 2015 ; Xie & Masingila, 2017 ). This was followed by Mixed method approach (n = 5, 33.3%), where quantitative measures (e.g., statistical tests, accuracy etc) were combined with qualitative error analysis (Kar & Isik, 2014 ; Kiymaz, 2024 ; Kuzu & Çil, 2022 ; Sosa-Martín et al., 2024 ; Tizón-Escamilla & Burgos, 2023 ). Then, a Quantitative approach (n = 1, 6.7%) using a quasi-experimental design to test the effect of problem-posing interventions (Elwan, 2016 ). Context wise, literature was highly concentrated geographically; thus, 7 out of the 15 studies (47%) were conducted in Turkey, 5 in Spain (33%), with only single studies from the USA, and Oman as shown in Fig. 2 . All studies except one were conducted at single institutions, limiting generalizability across TE contexts such as Sub-Saharan African countries. RQ 2 (i): What gaps exist in the literature? The synthesis of various studies revealed notable gaps in literature about student teachers’ problem posing skills in ratios and proportional reasoning. These include: Contextual gaps: There is absence of studies situated in African TE contexts, which limits the contextual diversity of the evidence base. Much focus on primary/elementary student teachers: Majority of the studies focused on elementary teachers with little or no studies on Junior High School or Senior High School Practice gaps: Limited research explored how student teachers’ problem-posing skills influence their instructional practices in real classroom settings. Limited qualitative depth: Most studies utilised descriptive qualitative rather than explanatory Technology integration: Limited studies investigating the role of digital tools in problem-posing Pedagogical gaps: Few studies explicitly examine how TE programme structure sustained opportunities for learning to pose problems in proportional reasoning. Intervention effectiveness: Which training approaches work best DISCUSSION The findings provide relevant insights into the way teachers competencies in posing problems related to ratios and proportional reasoning. The results are interpreted in connection with existing studies on the subject in context within mathematics education. The five themes identified from the findings were discussed respectively. First, A finding across the literature was the positioning of problem-posing as a diagnostic lens for student teachers’ proportional reasoning competence (Coskun, 2019 ; Tizón-Escamilla & Burgos, 2023 ; Xie & Masingila, 2017 ). This suggests that, problem posing serves as assessment tool that helps to unearth how competent and skilful student teachers are in posing problems in ratios and proportional reasoning. This finding resonates with Xie and Masingila ( 2017 ) who, through problem posing task, discovered that although student teachers could solve fraction problems procedurally, only 67% of them posed solvable problems, and 25% of them were able to pose problems that required three or more operational steps. Similarly, Serin ( 2020 ) reported that although 79% of student teachers posed fraction-related problems, 57% showed weak understanding of improper fraction. Also, Coskun ( 2019 ) underscored that only 36.1% of student teachers could pose fraction or division problems while 47% failed to pose any problem, and 14.5% produced problems that were considered invalid. This contrast between multiplication and division shows that student teachers’ conceptual understanding is uneven across different operations. Burgos et al. ( 2025 ) and Şengül and Katranci ( 2015 ) stressed that all these findings point to a disconnection between procedural competence and conceptual generativity of mathematical problems. This suggests that asking student teachers to create their own problems in mathematics is an ideal way to possibly reveal how well they grasp concepts such as ratios and proportional reasoning, not just solving them routinely. This study’s finding backs the claims that problem-posing serves as an instructional strategy and diagnostic tool for uncovering students’ depth of understanding in ways that traditional assessment may not fully capture (Leavy & Hourigan, 2020 ) Second, a theme discovered across the studies was conceptual weakness in proportional reasoning among student teachers when posing problems (Iskenderoglu, 2018 ; Serin, 2020 ; Sosa-Martín et al., 2024 ). These difficulties were not limited to just one topic; they span fractions, ratios, and proportional comparison. Common errors included part-whole relationship errors (Kar & Isik, 2014 ), semantic confusion, operational mismatch (Coskun, 2019 ), and unit confusion. This finding suggests that proportional reasoning remains a significant conceptual barrier for student teachers, especially when posing problems. This result is consistent with Burgos et al. ( 2024 ), and Şengül and Katranci ( 2015 ) who reported that many student teachers interpret ratios as fixed numbers rather than relational concept, confuse fractions with division procedures, and failed to maintain consistent multiplicative relationships when posing problems. Importantly, these difficulties persisted even among student teachers who were nearing the completion of their training (Kar & Isik, 2014 ; Kiymaz, 2024 ; Kuzu & Çil, 2022 ). This raises concerns about the effectiveness of current mathematics teacher preparation practices in TEIs. This finding is suggestive that, many future teachers may struggle to effectively teach practical concepts such as ratios and proportions, which can affect their student’ ability to thoroughly comprehend the concept and apply it their everyday situations. Third, a consistent theme that was found in literature is the dominance of low-cognitive-demand problem posed by student teachers. This means that student teachers tend to engage more in procedural that conceptual problem-posing, especially ratios and proportional reasoning. This also implies student teachers’ limited ability to design tasks that require deeper reasoning and multiple solution steps. This finding resonates with Şengül and Katranci ( 2015 ) who found that 69% of the problems that student teachers were simple exercises that needed a single procedural step. Likewise, Xie and Masingila ( 2017 ) affirmed that only 25% of posed problems by student teachers required three or more operational steps, while most of the problems required direct use of familiar heuristics. The level of cognitive demand varied across contexts, with Burgos et al. ( 2024 ) further indicating that less familiar mathematical domains may constrain the quality of problems that student teachers pose. However, findings Elwan ( 2016 ) argued that, providing instructional support to student teachers can significantly improve both their problem-posing and problem-solving skills. This highlights the potential effectiveness of structured instructional interventions in enhancing student teachers’ capacity to design appropriate cognitively demanding tasks. This implies that, notwithstanding the challenge that student teachers exhibit when posing problems, implementing appropriate interventions in TEIs could be of help. Fourth, the influence of context in shaping the quality of problems also emerged as theme across literature. This finding indicates that, the contexts in which problems are posed influences the quality of problems. Thus, student teachers tend to produce more engaging problems when embedded in real-life meaningful context. This is consistent with Sosa-Martín et al. ( 2024 ), who emphasized that, although there was little difference in overall plausibility in problems that student teachers posed (92.4% of problems were considered plausible), problems that were posed in real-life contexts showed a greater variety of multi-step tasks. However, the dominance of part-whole interpretations (68.6%) and limited use of ratios and measurement meaning in posed problems, student teachers often rely on familiar representation even when contexts are provided. Also, language and clarity issues made contextualisation more difficult; Şengül and Katranci ( 2015 ) reported that 82.96% of the problems posed by student teachers had clear wording, 12% of such contained grammatical or expression errors that made the meaning of the context weak. In most cases, contexts were used only superficially and served as story elements rather than an important aspect of proportional reasoning (Tizón-Escamilla & Burgos, 2023 ; Şengül & Katranci, 2015 ). Consequently, many of the problems posed were inconsistent mathematically, with contextual quantities that did not relate to intended proportional relationships. That said, Studies that allowed student teachers to use familiar or everyday experiences in posing problems (Kiymaz, 2024 ) reported higher engagement and improved coherence in problems posed. These findings point to the fact that, culturally grounded contexts have a potential in strengthening problem-posing practices within TEIs. Nevertheless, embedding problems in real-life situations is insufficient because context must be meaningfully aligned with underlying mathematical structures Fifth, another significant theme in literature is awareness-performance gap. This finding emphasises that there is a gap between student teachers’ stated beliefs about problem-posing and their actual practices (Burgos et al., 2024 ; Iskenderoglu, 2018 ). This implies that awareness alone may not be sufficient in developing student teachers’ problem-posing competences; complementing strong conceptual understanding and pedagogical content knowledge with actual practice could be helpful This is in conjunction with Burgos et al.’s ( 2024 ) discovery that, while many student teachers demonstrated awareness of what constitutes a meaningful mathematical problem, it did not clearly reflect in their actual problem-posing practices. Likewise, Şengül and Katranci ( 2015 ), noted that about 25% of student teachers stated that they experienced no difficulties when posing problems meanwhile the problems that they posed showed clear errors after analysis, and about 35.56% of them found free problem-posing to be the most demanding task. Even in situations where they were given structured formats which were expected to be easier, 74.07% of them still posed low cognitively demanding exercises. In summary, this awareness performance gap reflects a broader challenge in TEI as it throws more light on difficulties that student teachers’ and even teachers are likely to be facing in translating pedagogical beliefs into effective classroom practices, especially in cognitively demanding areas such as ratios and proportional reasoning. Last but not least, findings for research question two have has it that, there is dominance of qualitative across literature (Serin, 2020 ; Şengül & Katranci, 2015 ; Xie & Masingila, 2017 ). This suggest that researchers focus more on understanding student teachers’ competencies in problem-posing instead of just measuring its impact. Also, the use of mixed methods approach (Kiymaz, 2024 ; Kuzu & Çil, 2022 ; Sosa-Martín et al., 2024 ; Tizón-Escamilla & Burgos, 2023 ) shows that researchers combine quantitative performance measures with qualitative error analysis to gain more comprehension of problem-posing competencies among student teachers. Nevertheless, the limited use of quantitative designs (Elwan, 2016 ) reduces strong evidences about the effectiveness of interventions. This denotes the need for more experimental studies to determine effective interventions for improving problem-posing skills among mathematics student teachers. Additionally, the concentration of studies in Turkey (Şengül & Katranci, 2015 ; Dogan-Coskun, 2019 ) and Spain (Burgos et al., 2024 ; Sosa-Martín et al., 2024 ; Tizón-Escamilla & Burgos, 2023 ), and the use of single institutions limits how the findings from those contexts could apply to other contexts, especially the underrepresented regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa. The number of gaps identified in literature also speaks volume about how ratios and proportional reasoning has been underexplored in terms of student teachers’ problem-posing skills in TEIs globally and in Africa. This calls for more research into the various gaps identified to provide data, understanding and knowledge on the matter. Implications for TE The findings from the reviewed studies imply that, TE programmes should move beyond irregular exposure to problem-posing tasks and, instead, embed or reinforce problem-posing as a core pedagogical practice in TE programmes. This includes providing structured opportunities for practice, explicit instruction on task design, and feedback mechanisms that support the development of cognitively demanding and conceptually meaningful problems, especially within the mathematics education context. Suggestions for Future Research Based on findings from the current study, future research should focus on: How student teachers pose or create problems teacher, especially in the African context, ascertaining the difficulties that they may be facing. Tracking the development of how problem-posing skills is built across semesters. Testing teaching methods to figure out the approaches that actually improve problem-posing skills among student teachers. Observing classrooms practice about how problem-posing ability affect teaching. Exploring language issues, for example how the use using English affect problem quality. Future reviews should also consider broadening their scope to include a wider range of sources. Integration Technology to investigate the role of digital tools in problem posing CONCLUSION This review demonstrate that effective problem-posing requires deep conceptual understanding rather than overreliance on procedural knowledge. The persistent difficulties that were observed among student teachers highlights gaps in both content knowledge and pedagogical preparation. Addressing the identified challenges, it recommended that TE programmes systematically integrate or reinforce problem-posing practices. This should be supported by sustainable instructional practices, and opportunities realistic classroom implementation. Adhering to this can help contribute to developing teacher competencies in a bid to fostering critical thinking and meaningful learning in mathematics. Declarations Declaration of conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. References Artigue M, Blomhøj M (2013) Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education 45(6):797–810. https://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT7050/articles/Artigue &Blomhoj(2013).pdf Ball DL, Thames MH, Phelps G (2008) Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? J Teacher Educ 59(5):389–407. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1177/0022487108324554?casa_token=MlWXb8lMbFkAAAAA:0kJRcfCO51gsxMFlsrxKAOUoJ4sxKNQu . rpJUA4MVg8GiKVK39GGEP3_dFlFahn92JFU Bosra N, Naufal MA, Johnny J (2025) The Role of Problem Posing in Developing Students' Mathematical Communication: A Systematic Literature Review. Venn: J Sustainable Innov Educ Math Nat Sci 4(2):110–122. https://journal.web.id/journals/venn/article/view/293 Burgos M, Chaverri J, Muñoz-Escolano JM (2024) Problem posing in mathematics teacher training: Developing proportional reasoning (No. ART-2024-141326). https://zaguan.unizar.es/record/147788/files/texto_completo.pdf Burgos M, Tizón-Escamilla N, Chaverri J (2025) Problem creation to articulate proportional and algebraic reasoning. Int Electron J Math Educ 20(1):em0801. https://www.iejme.com/download/problem-creation-to-articulate-proportional-and-algebraic-reasoning-15650.pdf Cai J, Chen T, Li X, Xu R, Zhang S, Hu Y, Song N (2020) Exploring the impact of a problem-posing workshop on elementary school mathematics teachers’ conceptions on problem posing and lesson design. Int J Educational Res 102:101404. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035518315842 Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010) Common core state standards for mathematics . National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/ Coskun SD (2019) An Examination of Meanings and Error Types Associated with Pre-Service Elementary Teachers' Posed Problems for the Multiplication and Division of Fractions. Online Submiss 6(4):99–113. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602949.pdf Crespo S, Sinclair N (2008) What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems. J Math Teacher Educ 11(5):395–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9081-0 Dogan-Coskun S (2019) The Analysis of the Problems Posed by Pre-Service Elementary Teachers for the Addition of Fractions. Int J Instruction 12(1):1517–1532. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1201366.pdf Elwan RA (2016) Mathematics problem posing skills in supporting problem solving skills of prospective teachers . In C. Csíkos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitányi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 3–10). PME. https://weizmann.elsevierpure.com/ws/portalfiles/portal/112742406/rh_PME40_Vol2_ImpactOfStudents_PV2016.pdf#page=16 Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA (2022) PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis Campbell Systematic Reviews. 18e1230. .https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230 Hiebert J (2007) The effects of classroom mathematics teaching. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics , 1 , 371. https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/cmcsouth2019/bb/equity.pdf Hilton A, Hilton G, Dole S, Goos M (2016) Promoting middle school students' proportional reasoning skills through an ongoing professional development programme for teachers. Educational Stud Math 92(2):193–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9694-7 Hmelo-Silver CE, Duncan RG, Chinn CA (2007) Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational Psychol 42(2):99–107. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00461520701263368?needAccess=true Iskenderoglu TA (2018) Fraction multiplication and division word problems posed by different years of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers. Eur J Educational Res 7(2):373–385. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/453195 Kar T, Isik C (2014) Analysis of problems posed by pre-service primary teachers about adding fractions in terms of semantic structures. Int Electron J Math Educ 9(2):135–146. https://www.iejme.com/download/analysis-of-problems-posed-by-pre-service-primary-teachers-about-adding-fractions-in-terms-of.pdf Kastberg SE, D’Ambrosio B, McDermott G, Saada N (2015) Differences and differences: Prospective elementary teachers examine proportional relationships. In Mathematical Problem Posing (pp. 357–375). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6258-3_17 Kiymaz Y (2024) Investigating Problems Posed by Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers for the Four Operations in Fractions. Math Enthus 21(1):423–442. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1635&context=tme Kuzu O, Çil O (2022) Examination of preservice teachers’ skills in classifying learning objectives and problem posing involving fractions. Kastamonu Educ J 30(1):141–160. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1313445 Lamon SJ (2007) Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629–667). Information Age Publishing. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=198859 Leavy A, Hourigan M (2020) Posing mathematically worthwhile problems: Developing the problem-posing skills of prospective teachers. J Math Teacher Educ 23(4):341–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-018-09425-w Mishra S, Iyer S (2015) An exploration of problem posing-based activities as an assessment tool and as an instructional strategy. Res Pract Technol enhanced Learn 10(1):5. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/ 10.1007/s41039-015-0006-0.pdf Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj , 372 . https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n71.full.pdf Prince MJ, Felder RM (2006) Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J Eng Educ 95(2):123–138. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x Şengül S, Katranci Y (2015) Free problem posing cases of prospective mathematics teachers: Difficulties and solutions. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 174:1983–1990. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.864 Şengül S, Katranci Y (2015) The analysis of the problems posed by prospective mathematics teachers about ‘ratio and proportion’subject. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 174:1364–1370. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.760 Serin MK (2020) Investigation of Content and Curricular Knowledge Related to Fractions Within the Context of Problem Posing and Problem Solving Processes. Int Online J Educational Sci 12(2):214–229 Silver EA (1994) On mathematical problem posing. Learn Math 14(1):19–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40248099.pdf Sosa-Martín D, Perdomo-Díaz J, Bruno A, Almeida R, García-Alonso I (2024) The influence of problem-posing task situation: Prospective primary teachers working with fractions. J Math Behav 73:101139 Thanheiser E, Browning C, Edson AJ, Lo JJ, Whitacre I, Olanoff D, Morton C (2014) Prospective elementary mathematics teacher content knowledge: What do we know, what do we not know, and where do we go? Math Enthus 11(2):433–448. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=tme Tizón-Escamilla N, Burgos M (2023) Creation of problems by prospective teachers to develop proportional and algebraic reasonings in a probabilistic context. Education Sciences , 13 (12), 1186. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/12/1186 Van Dooren W, Vamvakoussi X, Verschaffel L (2018) Proportional reasoning. In Heterogeneity of Function Assumptions in Mathematics Education (pp. 1–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73951-5_1 Xie J, Masingila JO (2017) Examining interactions between problem posing and problem solving with prospective primary teachers: A case of using fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 96 (1), 101–118. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45184581.pdf?casa_token=n-1pKKe14qMAAAAA:hdR7MgXqEbG5TzJ8OI0jP5k6aql0QxaMHR-gj0FHn1lidDPUCcb-KBNLUpaipFh7Wgb4gSGS89NnvBEbh3rRaGuKx8LdhqyEB31QHhJe-vURZ-c_Wg_wqw Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9347871","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":619119854,"identity":"ddfbd170-18a6-4c4e-8a28-635f057f59de","order_by":0,"name":"Christian Kerker","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9586-7455","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah university of Science and Technology, Ghana","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christian","middleName":"","lastName":"Kerker","suffix":""},{"id":619119855,"identity":"13212ec1-1da2-485f-9e0d-23dda6594f32","order_by":1,"name":"Francis Kwadwo Awuah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah university of Science and Technology, Ghana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Francis","middleName":"Kwadwo","lastName":"Awuah","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-07 16:47:56","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9347871/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9347871/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106401027,"identity":"cdb0a947-111c-4ef8-93ff-b4668bba5bbf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 08:43:57","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":747005,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePRISMA flowchart of selection process \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eHaddaway et al., 2022)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9347871/v1/e6fd3b53fe3736b898e08d11.png"},{"id":106401030,"identity":"3024810d-62cd-4f30-93fa-7d8e361118c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 08:43:57","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":10819,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDistribution of studies based on methods used and country\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9347871/v1/ce5ec1d8f45832388e99cbca.png"},{"id":106401242,"identity":"ca01039a-fb35-45ad-913e-f13107dd485d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 08:44:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1374123,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9347871/v1/734e2ce4-35a2-4f05-a8a8-52d4477744c2.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eStudent Teachers’ Problem-posing skills in Ratios and Proportional Reasoning: A systematic Review\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn mathematics classrooms, the questions that teachers pose often shape how students think, reason, and understand mathematical concepts (Cai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Silver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). In our contemporary educational systems where inquiry-based instructional approaches are increasingly rated central to critical thinking and problem-solving in the learning of mathematics (Hmelo-Silver et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Prince \u0026amp; Feldfer, 2006), problem-posing emerges as a valuable pedagogical tool due to the nature of inquiry-based instructions that often requires that teachers pose varied cognitive tasks that stimulates deeper reasoning among students (Artigue \u0026amp; Blomh\u0026oslash;j, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Hiebert \u0026amp; Grouws, 2007). As such, the creation of problems or tasks in the mathematics classroom has long been considered as a significant practice for effective teaching and learning. In designing test items, teachers may pose series of problems to diagnose and ascertain students\u0026rsquo; levels of understanding in specific concepts (Mishra \u0026amp; Iyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The level of problems posed by teachers are expected to range from low-level to high-level cognitive demands. Consequently, problem posing is widely used by teachers to enhance students\u0026rsquo; critical thinking and conceptual understanding, especially in cognitively demanding subjects such as mathematics (Bosra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). By definition, problem-posing encompasses the science of creating new questions from scratch or formulating them from existing ones for an intended instructional purpose (Cai \u0026amp; Hwang, 2020; Silver, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). As a facet of critical thinking in mathematics, problem-posing requires that a situation is well analysed in order to identify valid mathematical possibilities to ascertain if a problem is worthwhile (Leavy \u0026amp; Hourigan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This makes problem posing functions not just as an instructional strategy but an assessment tool for evaluating students\u0026rsquo; understanding of mathematical concepts. In view of this, it is important for mathematics teachers to possess the adequate knowledge of effective problem-posing strategies (Leavy \u0026amp; Hourigan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor this reason, attention has to be shifted to TEIs, where teachers\u0026rsquo; problem-posing competences are ideally developed during their training; within these institutions, student teachers are expected to be taught how to design mathematical problems at varying cognitive levels depending on the intended learning outcome. This is because, student teachers under training to become professional teachers are expected to possess the adequate knowledge and skills that is required to pose meaningful problems that promotes reasoning and deepens students\u0026rsquo; understanding (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). This expectation raises the need for mathematics student teachers to develop comprehensive understanding of what constitutes meaningful problems in mathematical concepts, including ratios and proportion (Crespo \u0026amp; Sinclair, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProportional reasoning, a mathematical concept which involves rates, ratios, and proportional reasoning, has consistently been identified as a challenging area for students (Van Dooren et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Ratios and proportion is a concept that comprises finding relations between quantities, form the foundation for several concepts in mathematics, including algebra, measurement, and data analysis. These concepts are also widely applied in real-life contexts such as the banking sector, marketplaces, and other educational or industrial settings where proportional relations are applied (Common Core State Standards Initiative, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotwithstanding this importance, reports indicate that many student teachers struggle when posing appropriate problems in mathematical concepts including ratios and proportional reasoning (Burgos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hilton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Şeng\u0026uuml;l \u0026amp; Katrancı, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence abounds that, beyond the difficulties that students teacher and students in general face in ratios and proportion (Kastberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Thanheiser et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), student teachers specifically encounter additional challenges when posing mathematical problems. For instance, Kohar et al. (2024) observed that, despite the importance of problem-posing, many student teachers tend to generate low-level problems that do not sufficiently promote critical thinking in mathematical concepts such as proportional reasoning. On the other hand, studies (e.g., Burgos \u0026amp; Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, 2022; Tiz\u0026oacute;n-Escamilla \u0026amp; Burgos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) report that, student teachers often find it challenging to construct meaningful problems in ratios and proportional reasoning, and that, it is difficult identifying algebraic reasoning parts even in the solutions to the problems that student teachers pose. Some of these difficulties have been attributed to limited awareness and inadequate preparation. This is because, student teachers either have no or little knowledge about problem-posing even though they knew its significance (Burgos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). On the contrary, Kastberg et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) further argued that, student teachers\u0026rsquo; difficulties in problem-posing are mostly influenced by their overreliance on rote procedures when solving problems, which results in superficial conceptual understanding. Subsequently, even though student teachers may have their own way of successfully solving examination questions or other tests during their training, they may lack the competence required to create appropriate mathematical problems that foster students\u0026rsquo; critical thinking in proportional reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis lack of synthesis limits a comprehensive understanding of existing patterns, challenges, and research gaps in the field\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these contributions, there still remains limited synthesis of studies examining student teachers\u0026rsquo; problem posing skills in ratios and proportional reasoning within the TE context. This lack of synthesis limits a comprehensive understanding of what characterises student teachers\u0026rsquo; problem-posing competences in this domain, most importantly for teacher educators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA systematic synthesis of existing literature is therefore needed to consolidate and ascertain current stance of knowledge about the phenomenon in context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn this premise, this systematic review synthesises empirical studies on student teachers\u0026rsquo; problem-posing practices related to fractions and ratios and proportion. By bringing together findings from different studies from 2010 to 2025, this review was guided by the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhat themes categorises problem-posing competencies demonstrated by student teachers in ratios and proportional reasoning?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhat methodological approaches have been used in existing literature to investigate problem-posing in the TEI domain? (i) What gaps exist in the literature?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe current study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline. PRISMA was used to provide a structured framework for identifying, screening, and reporting studies that were included in the review. The systematic approach used was to ensure that the search for literature is transparent and, also, to ensure that the synthesis of the findings form studies included is rigorous (Page et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). For the synthesis, a thematic approach was used to analyse the findings of the studies because of the conceptual and pedagogical direction of the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Eligibility Criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe eligibility criteria captured the inclusion and exclusion procedures that determines whether or not a study be factored into the study, and provided justification for such criterion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.1 Inclusion Criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe inclusion criteria involved studies published between 2010 and 2025 in order to capture recent and relevant developments in the research domain; Problem-posing in fractions, ratio and proportion due to how related they are in proportional reasoning as the focus for the review; Student teachers; Peer reviewed empirical studies in a bid to capture methodological rigor and reliability of evidence; Publications in English language due to accessibility and feasibility of analysis; Full-text availability in order to allow complete evaluation of methodology and findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.2 Exclusion Criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies were excluded if they focused on problem-solving rather than problem-posing; involved only school pupils with no TE component; addressed mathematics broadly without clear reference to ratios and proportional reasoning of fractions; were theoretical papers, editorials, dissertations, or book reviews; and inaccessible in full text.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Search Source and Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDatabases including Google Scholar, ERIC, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and JSTOR were used in identifying the related studies for this review. Through that, a combination of keywords related to problem posing, proportional reasoning, TE, and student teachers were used as a search strategy to identify the studies. The search string containing Boolean operators to refine the research were: (\u0026ldquo;pre-service teacher\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;preservice teacher\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;student teacher\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;prospective teacher\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;teacher candidate\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;trainee teacher\u0026rdquo;) AND (\u0026ldquo;problem posing\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;problem creation\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;problem formulation\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;problem generation\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;posing problem\u0026rdquo;) AND (\u0026ldquo;ratio\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;proportion\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;proportional reasoning\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;fraction\u0026rdquo;). For Google Scholar, screening was restricted to the first 15 pages of research results because the relevance studies decreased beyond this point, a practice commonly adopted in systematic reviews using this database.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Selection Criteria\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe number of records that were produced from the initial search were 203. After removing duplicates and inaccessible records, a total of 91 studies were obtained for the screening process. During the screening of the obtained studies, the titles and abstracts of the studies were assessed against the inclusion criteria for the study. This resulted in the in the exclusion of studies that did not align with the focus of the review. Afterwards, a full text assessment was conducted for the remaining articles, which lead to a final sample of 15 studies that met all the eligibility criteria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Data Extraction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA data extraction form was developed to capture bibliometric information from each of the studies included in the review. This process helped to map studies descriptively and, also, thematically synthesise the findings of the various studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003econtains the bibliometric information extracted from included studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor(s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear of Publication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSource type\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Book/Book Chapter/ Article/Thesis)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContext\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Study area)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTopic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContribution\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults/\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat the author(s) missed\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Delimitation)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e: \u003cb\u003eBibliometric data extraction form\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Data Analysis and Synthesis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data were analysed using thematic synthesis. Initial codes were generated based on recuring pattern identifies during data familiarisation. These codes were then grouped onto broader themes, reflecting conceptual and pedagogical issues related to problem-posing in proportional reasoning among student teachers in TEIs. The review did not treat fractions, ratio, and proportion differently; the analysis conceptualised them as interrelated components of proportional reasoning, taking into consideration views in mathematics education research (Lamon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The themes identified were refined through constant comparison across studies to ensure that they are coherence and in-depth in analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"FINDINGS","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo answer the research questions, the results from the studies were presented according to the research questions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat themes categorises problem-posing competencies and difficulties demonstrated by student teachers in ratios and proportional reasoning?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe review of studies revealed several recurring themes in conceptual and pedagogical concerns about student teachers\u0026rsquo; problem posing competences in ratios and proportional reasoning. These themes are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThemes categorising problem-posing competencies and difficulties demonstrated by student teachers in ratios and proportional reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS/N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTHEMES\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProblem-Posing as a Diagnostic Lens for Proportional Reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptual Weakness in Proportional Reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDominance of Low-Cognitive-Demand Problem-Posing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfluence of Context in Shaping the Quality of Problems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAwareness-Performance Gap in Problem Posing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ 2: What methodological approaches have been used by existing literature to investigate problem-posing in the TE domain?\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the methodologies used in the included studies according to the contexts in which they were conducted. Most of the studies used Qualitative approaches (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9, 60%), with case study and content analysis being the commonly used designs (Serin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Şeng\u0026uuml;l \u0026amp; Katranci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Xie \u0026amp; Masingila, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This was followed by Mixed method approach (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5, 33.3%), where quantitative measures (e.g., statistical tests, accuracy etc) were combined with qualitative error analysis (Kar \u0026amp; Isik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Kiymaz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kuzu \u0026amp; \u0026Ccedil;il, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sosa-Mart\u0026iacute;n et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tiz\u0026oacute;n-Escamilla \u0026amp; Burgos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Then, a Quantitative approach (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, 6.7%) using a quasi-experimental design to test the effect of problem-posing interventions (Elwan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContext wise, literature was highly concentrated geographically; thus, 7 out of the 15 studies (47%) were conducted in Turkey, 5 in Spain (33%), with only single studies from the USA, and Oman as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. All studies except one were conducted at single institutions, limiting generalizability across TE contexts such as Sub-Saharan African countries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRQ 2 (i): What gaps exist in the literature?\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe synthesis of various studies revealed notable gaps in literature about student teachers\u0026rsquo; problem posing skills in ratios and proportional reasoning. These include:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eContextual gaps: There is absence of studies situated in African TE contexts, which limits the contextual diversity of the evidence base.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMuch focus on primary/elementary student teachers: Majority of the studies focused on elementary teachers with little or no studies on Junior High School or Senior High School\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractice gaps: Limited research explored how student teachers\u0026rsquo; problem-posing skills influence their instructional practices in real classroom settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited qualitative depth: Most studies utilised descriptive qualitative rather than explanatory\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTechnology integration: Limited studies investigating the role of digital tools in problem-posing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003ePedagogical gaps: Few studies explicitly examine how TE programme structure sustained opportunities for learning to pose problems in proportional reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntervention effectiveness: Which training approaches work best\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings provide relevant insights into the way teachers competencies in posing problems related to ratios and proportional reasoning. The results are interpreted in connection with existing studies on the subject in context within mathematics education. The five themes identified from the findings were discussed respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, A finding across the literature was the positioning of problem-posing as a diagnostic lens for student teachers’ proportional reasoning competence (Coskun, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Tizón-Escamilla \u0026amp; Burgos, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Xie \u0026amp; Masingila, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that, problem posing serves as assessment tool that helps to unearth how competent and skilful student teachers are in posing problems in ratios and proportional reasoning. This finding resonates with Xie and Masingila (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) who, through problem posing task, discovered that although student teachers could solve fraction problems procedurally, only 67% of them posed solvable problems, and 25% of them were able to pose problems that required three or more operational steps. Similarly, Serin (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) reported that although 79% of student teachers posed fraction-related problems, 57% showed weak understanding of improper fraction. Also, Coskun (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) underscored that only 36.1% of student teachers could pose fraction or division problems while 47% failed to pose any problem, and 14.5% produced problems that were considered invalid. This contrast between multiplication and division shows that student teachers’ conceptual understanding is uneven across different operations. Burgos et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) and Şengül and Katranci (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) stressed that all these findings point to a disconnection between procedural competence and conceptual generativity of mathematical problems. This suggests that asking student teachers to create their own problems in mathematics is an ideal way to possibly reveal how well they grasp concepts such as ratios and proportional reasoning, not just solving them routinely. This study’s finding backs the claims that problem-posing serves as an instructional strategy and diagnostic tool for uncovering students’ depth of understanding in ways that traditional assessment may not fully capture (Leavy \u0026amp; Hourigan, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, a theme discovered across the studies was conceptual weakness in proportional reasoning among student teachers when posing problems (Iskenderoglu, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Serin, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sosa-Martín et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These difficulties were not limited to just one topic; they span fractions, ratios, and proportional comparison. Common errors included part-whole relationship errors (Kar \u0026amp; Isik, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), semantic confusion, operational mismatch (Coskun, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and unit confusion. This finding suggests that proportional reasoning remains a significant conceptual barrier for student teachers, especially when posing problems. This result is consistent with Burgos et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and Şengül and Katranci (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) who reported that many student teachers interpret ratios as fixed numbers rather than relational concept, confuse fractions with division procedures, and failed to maintain consistent multiplicative relationships when posing problems. Importantly, these difficulties persisted even among student teachers who were nearing the completion of their training (Kar \u0026amp; Isik, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Kiymaz, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kuzu \u0026amp; Çil, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This raises concerns about the effectiveness of current mathematics teacher preparation practices in TEIs. This finding is suggestive that, many future teachers may struggle to effectively teach practical concepts such as ratios and proportions, which can affect their student’ ability to thoroughly comprehend the concept and apply it their everyday situations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, a consistent theme that was found in literature is the dominance of low-cognitive-demand problem posed by student teachers. This means that student teachers tend to engage more in procedural that conceptual problem-posing, especially ratios and proportional reasoning. This also implies student teachers’ limited ability to design tasks that require deeper reasoning and multiple solution steps. This finding resonates with Şengül and Katranci (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) who found that 69% of the problems that student teachers were simple exercises that needed a single procedural step. Likewise, Xie and Masingila (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) affirmed that only 25% of posed problems by student teachers required three or more operational steps, while most of the problems required direct use of familiar heuristics. The level of cognitive demand varied across contexts, with Burgos et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) further indicating that less familiar mathematical domains may constrain the quality of problems that student teachers pose. However, findings Elwan (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) argued that, providing instructional support to student teachers can significantly improve both their problem-posing and problem-solving skills. This highlights the potential effectiveness of structured instructional interventions in enhancing student teachers’ capacity to design appropriate cognitively demanding tasks. This implies that, notwithstanding the challenge that student teachers exhibit when posing problems, implementing appropriate interventions in TEIs could be of help.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourth, the influence of context in shaping the quality of problems also emerged as theme across literature. This finding indicates that, the contexts in which problems are posed influences the quality of problems. Thus, student teachers tend to produce more engaging problems when embedded in real-life meaningful context. This is consistent with Sosa-Martín et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), who emphasized that, although there was little difference in overall plausibility in problems that student teachers posed (92.4% of problems were considered plausible), problems that were posed in real-life contexts showed a greater variety of multi-step tasks. However, the dominance of part-whole interpretations (68.6%) and limited use of ratios and measurement meaning in posed problems, student teachers often rely on familiar representation even when contexts are provided. Also, language and clarity issues made contextualisation more difficult; Şengül and Katranci (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) reported that 82.96% of the problems posed by student teachers had clear wording, 12% of such contained grammatical or expression errors that made the meaning of the context weak. In most cases, contexts were used only superficially and served as story elements rather than an important aspect of proportional reasoning (Tizón-Escamilla \u0026amp; Burgos, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Şengül \u0026amp; Katranci, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, many of the problems posed were inconsistent mathematically, with contextual quantities that did not relate to intended proportional relationships. That said, Studies that allowed student teachers to use familiar or everyday experiences in posing problems (Kiymaz, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) reported higher engagement and improved coherence in problems posed. These findings point to the fact that, culturally grounded contexts have a potential in strengthening problem-posing practices within TEIs. Nevertheless, embedding problems in real-life situations is insufficient because context must be meaningfully aligned with underlying mathematical structures\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFifth, another significant theme in literature is awareness-performance gap. This finding emphasises that there is a gap between student teachers’ stated beliefs about problem-posing and their actual practices (Burgos et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Iskenderoglu, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This implies that awareness alone may not be sufficient in developing student teachers’ problem-posing competences; complementing strong conceptual understanding and pedagogical content knowledge with actual practice could be helpful This is in conjunction with Burgos et al.’s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) discovery that, while many student teachers demonstrated awareness of what constitutes a meaningful mathematical problem, it did not clearly reflect in their actual problem-posing practices. Likewise, Şengül and Katranci (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), noted that about 25% of student teachers stated that they experienced no difficulties when posing problems meanwhile the problems that they posed showed clear errors after analysis, and about 35.56% of them found free problem-posing to be the most demanding task. Even in situations where they were given structured formats which were expected to be easier, 74.07% of them still posed low cognitively demanding exercises. In summary, this awareness performance gap reflects a broader challenge in TEI as it throws more light on difficulties that student teachers’ and even teachers are likely to be facing in translating pedagogical beliefs into effective classroom practices, especially in cognitively demanding areas such as ratios and proportional reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLast but not least, findings for research question two have has it that, there is dominance of qualitative across literature (Serin, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Şengül \u0026amp; Katranci, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Xie \u0026amp; Masingila, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This suggest that researchers focus more on understanding student teachers’ competencies in problem-posing instead of just measuring its impact. Also, the use of mixed methods approach (Kiymaz, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kuzu \u0026amp; Çil, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sosa-Martín et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tizón-Escamilla \u0026amp; Burgos, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) shows that researchers combine quantitative performance measures with qualitative error analysis to gain more comprehension of problem-posing competencies among student teachers. Nevertheless, the limited use of quantitative designs (Elwan, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) reduces strong evidences about the effectiveness of interventions. This denotes the need for more experimental studies to determine effective interventions for improving problem-posing skills among mathematics student teachers. Additionally, the concentration of studies in Turkey (Şengül \u0026amp; Katranci, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Dogan-Coskun, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and Spain (Burgos et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sosa-Martín et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tizón-Escamilla \u0026amp; Burgos, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and the use of single institutions limits how the findings from those contexts could apply to other contexts, especially the underrepresented regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa. The number of gaps identified in literature also speaks volume about how ratios and proportional reasoning has been underexplored in terms of student teachers’ problem-posing skills in TEIs globally and in Africa. This calls for more research into the various gaps identified to provide data, understanding and knowledge on the matter.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eImplications for TE\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings from the reviewed studies imply that, TE programmes should move beyond irregular exposure to problem-posing tasks and, instead, embed or reinforce problem-posing as a core pedagogical practice in TE programmes. This includes providing structured opportunities for practice, explicit instruction on task design, and feedback mechanisms that support the development of cognitively demanding and conceptually meaningful problems, especially within the mathematics education context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSuggestions for Future Research\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on findings from the current study, future research should focus on:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow student teachers pose or create problems teacher, especially in the African context, ascertaining the difficulties that they may be facing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTracking the development of how problem-posing skills is built across semesters.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTesting teaching methods to figure out the approaches that actually improve problem-posing skills among student teachers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eObserving classrooms practice about how problem-posing ability affect teaching.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eExploring language issues, for example how the use using English affect problem quality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture reviews should also consider broadening their scope to include a wider range of sources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegration Technology to investigate the role of digital tools in problem posing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis review demonstrate that effective problem-posing requires deep conceptual understanding rather than overreliance on procedural knowledge. The persistent difficulties that were observed among student teachers highlights gaps in both content knowledge and pedagogical preparation. Addressing the identified challenges, it recommended that TE programmes systematically integrate or reinforce problem-posing practices. This should be supported by sustainable instructional practices, and opportunities realistic classroom implementation. Adhering to this can help contribute to developing teacher competencies in a bid to fostering critical thinking and meaningful learning in mathematics.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of conflict of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArtigue M, Blomh\u0026oslash;j M (2013) Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education 45(6):797\u0026ndash;810. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT7050/articles/Artigue\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT7050/articles/Artigue\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u0026amp;Blomhoj(2013).pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBall DL, Thames MH, Phelps G (2008) Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? J Teacher Educ 59(5):389\u0026ndash;407. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/0022487108324554?casa_token=MlWXb8lMbFkAAAAA:0kJRcfCO51gsxMFlsrxKAOUoJ4sxKNQu\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0022487108324554?casa_token=MlWXb8lMbFkAAAAA:0kJRcfCO51gsxMFlsrxKAOUoJ4sxKNQu\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. rpJUA4MVg8GiKVK39GGEP3_dFlFahn92JFU\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBosra N, Naufal MA, Johnny J (2025) The Role of Problem Posing in Developing Students' Mathematical Communication: A Systematic Literature Review. Venn: J Sustainable Innov Educ Math Nat Sci 4(2):110\u0026ndash;122. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://journal.web.id/journals/venn/article/view/293\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://journal.web.id/journals/venn/article/view/293\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurgos M, Chaverri J, Mu\u0026ntilde;oz-Escolano JM (2024) \u003cem\u003eProblem posing in mathematics teacher training: Developing proportional reasoning\u003c/em\u003e (No. ART-2024-141326). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/147788/files/texto_completo.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://zaguan.unizar.es/record/147788/files/texto_completo.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurgos M, Tiz\u0026oacute;n-Escamilla N, Chaverri J (2025) Problem creation to articulate proportional and algebraic reasoning. Int Electron J Math Educ 20(1):em0801. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.iejme.com/download/problem-creation-to-articulate-proportional-and-algebraic-reasoning-15650.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.iejme.com/download/problem-creation-to-articulate-proportional-and-algebraic-reasoning-15650.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCai J, Chen T, Li X, Xu R, Zhang S, Hu Y, Song N (2020) Exploring the impact of a problem-posing workshop on elementary school mathematics teachers\u0026rsquo; conceptions on problem posing and lesson design. Int J Educational Res 102:101404. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035518315842\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035518315842\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCommon Core State Standards Initiative (2010) \u003cem\u003eCommon core state standards for mathematics\u003c/em\u003e. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.corestandards.org/Math/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.corestandards.org/Math/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoskun SD (2019) An Examination of Meanings and Error Types Associated with Pre-Service Elementary Teachers' Posed Problems for the Multiplication and Division of Fractions. Online Submiss 6(4):99\u0026ndash;113. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602949.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602949.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrespo S, Sinclair N (2008) What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems. J Math Teacher Educ 11(5):395\u0026ndash;415. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9081-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10857-008-9081-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDogan-Coskun S (2019) The Analysis of the Problems Posed by Pre-Service Elementary Teachers for the Addition of Fractions. Int J Instruction 12(1):1517\u0026ndash;1532. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1201366.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1201366.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElwan RA (2016) \u003cem\u003eMathematics problem posing skills in supporting problem solving skills of prospective teachers\u003c/em\u003e. In C. Cs\u0026iacute;kos, A. Rausch, \u0026amp; J. Szit\u0026aacute;nyi (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2, pp. 3\u0026ndash;10). PME. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://weizmann.elsevierpure.com/ws/portalfiles/portal/112742406/rh_PME40_Vol2_ImpactOfStudents_PV2016.pdf#page=16\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://weizmann.elsevierpure.com/ws/portalfiles/portal/112742406/rh_PME40_Vol2_ImpactOfStudents_PV2016.pdf#page=16\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA (2022) PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis Campbell Systematic Reviews. 18e1230. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e.https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\".10.1002/cl2.1230\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHiebert J (2007) The effects of classroom mathematics teaching. \u003cem\u003eSecond handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 371. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://static.sched.com/hosted_files/cmcsouth2019/bb/equity.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/cmcsouth2019/bb/equity.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHilton A, Hilton G, Dole S, Goos M (2016) Promoting middle school students' proportional reasoning skills through an ongoing professional development programme for teachers. Educational Stud Math 92(2):193\u0026ndash;219. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9694-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10649-016-9694-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHmelo-Silver CE, Duncan RG, Chinn CA (2007) Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational Psychol 42(2):99\u0026ndash;107. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00461520701263368?needAccess=true\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/00461520701263368?needAccess=true\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIskenderoglu TA (2018) Fraction multiplication and division word problems posed by different years of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers. Eur J Educational Res 7(2):373\u0026ndash;385. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/453195\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/453195\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKar T, Isik C (2014) Analysis of problems posed by pre-service primary teachers about adding fractions in terms of semantic structures. Int Electron J Math Educ 9(2):135\u0026ndash;146. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.iejme.com/download/analysis-of-problems-posed-by-pre-service-primary-teachers-about-adding-fractions-in-terms-of.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.iejme.com/download/analysis-of-problems-posed-by-pre-service-primary-teachers-about-adding-fractions-in-terms-of.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKastberg SE, D\u0026rsquo;Ambrosio B, McDermott G, Saada N (2015) Differences and differences: Prospective elementary teachers examine proportional relationships. In \u003cem\u003eMathematical Problem Posing\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 357\u0026ndash;375). Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6258-3_17\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-1-4614-6258-3_17\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKiymaz Y (2024) Investigating Problems Posed by Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers for the Four Operations in Fractions. Math Enthus 21(1):423\u0026ndash;442. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1635\u0026amp;context=tme\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1635\u0026amp;context=tme\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKuzu O, \u0026Ccedil;il O (2022) Examination of preservice teachers\u0026rsquo; skills in classifying learning objectives and problem posing involving fractions. Kastamonu Educ J 30(1):141\u0026ndash;160. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1313445\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1313445\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLamon SJ (2007) Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eSecond handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 629\u0026ndash;667). Information Age Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=198859\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=198859\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeavy A, Hourigan M (2020) Posing mathematically worthwhile problems: Developing the problem-posing skills of prospective teachers. J Math Teacher Educ 23(4):341\u0026ndash;361. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-018-09425-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10857-018-09425-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMishra S, Iyer S (2015) An exploration of problem posing-based activities as an assessment tool and as an instructional strategy. Res Pract Technol enhanced Learn 10(1):5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s41039-015-0006-0.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s41039-015-0006-0.pdf\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePage MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003ebmj\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e372\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n71.full.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n71.full.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrince MJ, Felder RM (2006) Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J Eng Educ 95(2):123\u0026ndash;138. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞeng\u0026uuml;l S, Katranci Y (2015) Free problem posing cases of prospective mathematics teachers: Difficulties and solutions. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 174:1983\u0026ndash;1990. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.864\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.864\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞeng\u0026uuml;l S, Katranci Y (2015) The analysis of the problems posed by prospective mathematics teachers about \u0026lsquo;ratio and proportion\u0026rsquo;subject. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 174:1364\u0026ndash;1370. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.760\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.760\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSerin MK (2020) Investigation of Content and Curricular Knowledge Related to Fractions Within the Context of Problem Posing and Problem Solving Processes. Int Online J Educational Sci 12(2):214\u0026ndash;229\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSilver EA (1994) On mathematical problem posing. Learn Math 14(1):19\u0026ndash;28. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40248099.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40248099.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSosa-Mart\u0026iacute;n D, Perdomo-D\u0026iacute;az J, Bruno A, Almeida R, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Alonso I (2024) The influence of problem-posing task situation: Prospective primary teachers working with fractions. J Math Behav 73:101139\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThanheiser E, Browning C, Edson AJ, Lo JJ, Whitacre I, Olanoff D, Morton C (2014) Prospective elementary mathematics teacher content knowledge: What do we know, what do we not know, and where do we go? Math Enthus 11(2):433\u0026ndash;448. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308\u0026amp;context=tme\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308\u0026amp;context=tme\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTiz\u0026oacute;n-Escamilla N, Burgos M (2023) Creation of problems by prospective teachers to develop proportional and algebraic reasonings in a probabilistic context. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1186. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/12/1186\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/12/1186\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Dooren W, Vamvakoussi X, Verschaffel L (2018) Proportional reasoning. In \u003cem\u003eHeterogeneity of Function Assumptions in Mathematics Education\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;11). Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73951-5_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-73951-5_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie J, Masingila JO (2017) Examining interactions between problem posing and problem solving with prospective primary teachers: A case of using fractions. \u003cem\u003eEducational Studies in Mathematics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e96\u003c/em\u003e(1), 101\u0026ndash;118. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45184581.pdf?casa_token=n-1pKKe14qMAAAAA:hdR7MgXqEbG5TzJ8OI0jP5k6aql0QxaMHR-gj0FHn1lidDPUCcb-KBNLUpaipFh7Wgb4gSGS89NnvBEbh3rRaGuKx8LdhqyEB31QHhJe-vURZ-c_Wg_wqw\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45184581.pdf?casa_token=n-1pKKe14qMAAAAA:hdR7MgXqEbG5TzJ8OI0jP5k6aql0QxaMHR-gj0FHn1lidDPUCcb-KBNLUpaipFh7Wgb4gSGS89NnvBEbh3rRaGuKx8LdhqyEB31QHhJe-vURZ-c_Wg_wqw\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Problem-posing, ratios and proportional reasoning, student teachers, teacher education, mathematics","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9347871/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9347871/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eProblem-posing plays an important role in the teaching and learning of mathematics, as it is enables teachers to effectively assess the conceptual understanding, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills among students. In Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs), student teachers are expected to develop the ability to construct meaningful mathematical problems that enhance learning. However, research indicates that many student teachers exhibit difficulties when posing problems in mathematical concepts such as ratio and proportional reasoning. On this premise, this study systematically review empirical literature on student teachers\u0026rsquo; problem-posing skills related to fractions, ratios and proportional reasoning within the context of TE. The review followed the PRISMA guideline to identify and screen relevant studies published between 2010 and 2025 from databases including Google scholar, ERIC, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and JSTOR; this resulted in the inclusion of 15 studies. Findings from the review revealed key themes, including conceptual difficulties, dominance of low-cognitive demand, awareness performance gap, contextual influences, and geographical skewness in research. The study highlights the need for stronger instructional support and more context-specific research, especially in underrepresented regions such as the Sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Student Teachers’ Problem-posing skills in Ratios and Proportional Reasoning: A systematic Review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-08 08:41:55","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9347871/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"f9cb8fc5-7c51-4e7b-9c2f-c31748496b18","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 8th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-08T08:41:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-08 08:41:55","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9347871","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9347871","identity":"rs-9347871","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}