Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 823–833 | Cite as

Who’s wrong? Tasks fostering understanding of mathematical relationships in word problems in elementary students

  • Annie Savard
  • Elena Polotskaia
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

Mathematical relationships are crucial elements to consider for learning mathematics. However, too often students pay more attention to the calculations to be done rather than the reasons for doing them. Relying on the relational paradigm to support elementary school students, we proposed two specially designed tasks to help students recognize and formalize the relationships in additive and multiplicative word problems. These tasks were also designed to have them learn how to represent the relationships using models and to manipulate the mathematical structure of a problem to find the required arithmetic operation. In this paper, we present the task design principles to create mathematically incoherent situation (MIS) tasks and we highlight their implementation with elementary school students. Our findings suggest that students working on MIS tasks really engage in the analysis of the mathematical relationships, which corresponds to the teacher’s intentions in problem-solving activities.

Keywords

Problem solving Additive and multiplicative structures Holistic reasoning Relational paradigm 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec.

References

  1. Artigue, M. (2011). Les défis de l’enseignement des mathématiques dans l’éducation de base. Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO), Paris.Google Scholar
  2. Barrouillet, P. & Camos, V. (2002). Savoirs, savoir-faire arithmétiques, et leurs déficiences (version longue). Ministère de la Recherche, programme cognitique, école et sciences cognitives.Google Scholar
  3. Bartolini Bussi, M.G., Canalini, R., & Ferri, F. (2011). Towards cultural analysis of content: Problems with variation in primary school. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Elementary Maths Teaching (SEMT), Prague (pp. 9–20).Google Scholar
  4. Bosch, M., Chevallard, Y., & Gascón, J. (2006). Science or magic? The use of models and theories in didactics of mathematics. In Proceedings of the fourth congress of the European Society for research in mathematics education (pp. 1254–1263).Google Scholar
  5. Brissiaud, R. (2010). La pédagogie et la didactique des opérations arithmétiques à l’école (1)†¯: Le dilemme de l’automatisation, celui de la symbolisation et l’inspection générale. http://www.cafepedagogique.net/Documents/RBrissiaud_Operationsarithmetiques1.htm. Accessed 8 Sep 2016.
  6. Brousseau, G. (1988). Théorie des situations didactiques. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.Google Scholar
  7. Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Franke, M.L., Levi, L., & Empson, S.B. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, T.P., Moser, J.M., & Bebout, H.C. (1988). Representation of addition and word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(4), 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davydov, V. V. (1982). Psychological characteristics of the formation of mathematical operations in children. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: cognitive perspective (pp. 225–238). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. De Corte, E. (2012). Résoudre des problèmes mathématiques: de la modélisation superficielle vers la modélisation experte. In GDM 2012: La recherche sur la résolution des problèmes en mathématiques: au-delà d’une compétence, au-delà des constats (pp. 1–11). Quebc.Google Scholar
  11. De Corte, E. & Verschaffel, L. (1980). Children’s solution processes in elementary arithmetic problems: Analysis and improvement. In American Educational Research Association annual meeting (Vol. 19, pp. 1–42).Google Scholar
  12. DeBlois, L. (2006). Influence des interprétations des productions des élèves sur les stratégies d’intervention en classe de mathématique. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ducharme, M., & Polotskaia, E. (2008). Développement du raisonnement algébrique par résolution de problèmes textuels chez les enfants au primaire (ingénierie didactique) 1. Envol, GRMS, 145, 21–27.Google Scholar
  14. Gamo, S., Sander, E., & Richard, J.-F. (2009). Transfer of strategy use by semantic recoding in arithmetic problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 400–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerofsky, S. (2004). A man left albuquerque heading east. Word problems as genre in mathematics education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Hegarty, M., Mayer, R.E., & Monk, C.A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hershkovitz, S., Nesher, P., & Novotná, J. (1997). Cognitive factors affecting problem solving. In CERME 2.Google Scholar
  18. Iannece, D., Mellone, M., & Tortora, R. (2009). Counting vs. measuring: Reflections on number roots between epistemology and neuroscience. In M. Tzekaki & M. Kaldrimidou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 209–216). Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
  19. Julo, J. (2002). Des apprentissages spécifiques pour la résolution de problèmes? Grand N. (69), 31–52.Google Scholar
  20. Kaput, J.J., Carraher, D.W., & Blanton, M.L. (2008). Algebra in the early grades. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates /National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  21. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (Second Edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mukhopadhyay, S., & Greer, B. (2001). Modeling with purpose: Mathematics as a critical tool. In B. Atweh, H. Forgasz & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An international perspective (pp. 295–311). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Mulligan, J., & Mitchelmore, M. (2009). Awareness of pattern and structure in early mathematical development. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21(2), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neef, N.A., Nelles, D.E., Iwata, B.A., & Page, T.J. (2003). Analysis of precurrent skills in solving mathematics story problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nesher, P., Greeno, J.G., & Riley, M.S. (1982). The development of semantic categories for addition and subtraction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 13, 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nesher, P., Hershkovitz, S., & Novotná, J. (2003). Situation model, text base and what else? Factors affecting problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ng, S.F., & Lee, K. (2009). The model method: Singapore children’s tool for representing and solving algebraic word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 282.Google Scholar
  28. Nguala, J. B. (2005). La multiprésentation, un dispositif d’aide à la résolution de problèmes. Grand N, (76), 45–63.Google Scholar
  29. Novotná, J. (1999). Pictorial representation as a means of grasping word problem structures. Psychology of Mathematical Education. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from http://people.exeter.ac.uk/PErnest/pome12/default.htm.
  30. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Evans, D., Bell, D., Barros, R. (2012). Teaching children how to include the inversion principle in their reasoning about quantitative relations. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 79(3), 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pape, S. J. (2003). Compare word problems: Consistency hypothesis revisited. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 396–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polotskaia, E. (2010). Des représentations graphiques dans l’enseignement des mathématiques-Deux jeux pour apprendre. Bulletin AMQ, L(1), 12–28.Google Scholar
  33. Polotskaia, E. (2015). How elementary students learn to mathematically analyze word problems: The case of addition and subtraction. Québec: McGill University.Google Scholar
  34. Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it. A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Riley, M.S., Greeno, J.G., & Heller, J.L. (1984). Development of children’s problem-solving ability in arithmetic. In H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153–196). Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Savard, A. (2008). Le développement d’une pensée critique envers les jeux de hasard et d’argent par l’enseignement des probabilités à l’école primaire: Vers une prise de décision. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Laval, Quebec.Google Scholar
  37. Sierpinska, A. (1990). Some remarks on understanding in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(4), 24–36.Google Scholar
  38. Thevenot, C. (2010). Arithmetic word problem solving: Evidence for the construction of a mental model. Acta Psychologica, 133(1), 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson, P.W. (1993). Quantitative reasoning, complexity, and additive structures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 25(3), 165–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valentin, J.D. & Sam, L.C. (2005). Role of semantic structure of arithmetic word problems on pupils’ ability to identify the correct operation. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1–14.Google Scholar
  41. Van de Walle, J.A., & Lovin, L.H. (2008). L’enseignement des mathématiques - L’élève au centre de son apprentissage. Canada: ERPI.Google Scholar
  42. Vergnaud, G. (1982a). A classification of cognitive tasks and operations of thought involved in addition and subtraction problems. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 39–59). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Vergnaud, G. (1982b). Cognitive and developmental psychology and research in mathematics education: some theoretical and methodological issues. For the Learning of Mathematics, 3(2), 31–41.Google Scholar
  44. Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52(2), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verschaffel, L., Corte, E. De, & Vierstraete, H. (1999). Upper elementary school pupils’ difficulties in modeling and solving nonstandard additive word problems involving ordinal numbers. Word Journal Of The International Linguistic Association, 30(3), 265–285.Google Scholar
  46. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  47. Xin, Y. P., Wiles, B., & Lin, Y.-Y. (2008). Teaching conceptual model-based word problem story grammar to enhance mathematics problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 42(3).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Integrated Studies in Education Faculty of EducationMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Université du Québec en OutaouaisOutaouaisCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options