Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 139–150 | Cite as

The effect of a conceptual model-based approach on ‘additive’ word problem solving of elementary students struggling in mathematics

  • Yan Ping XinEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Whole number arithmetic is the foundation of higher mathematics and a core part of elementary mathematics. Awareness of pattern and underlying problem structure promote the learning of whole number arithmetic. A growing consensus has emerged on the necessity to provide students with the opportunity to engage in algebraic reasoning earlier in their education. In fact, the U.S. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics curriculum standards and the nationwide mathematics reform call for algebra readiness in elementary mathematical learning. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of Conceptual Model-based Problem Solving (Xin, Conceptual model-based problem solving: Teach students with learning difficulties to solve math problems. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2012) intervention program, with the Singapore bar model method (Kaur, The model method—A tool for representing and visualising relationships, In: Conference proceedings of ICMI study 23: Primary mathematics study on whole numbers, pp 448–455, 2015) serving as the bridge towards symbolic mathematical model equations, on enhancing additive word problem-solving performance of elementary students who are struggling in mathematics. Findings from this study indicate the promise of this program. Through representing a range of additive word problem situations in one cohesive mathematical model equation, students are prepared for generalized problem-solving skills.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study reported in this paper was assisted by You Luo, a former graduate students at Purdue University. The author would like to thank the administrators, teachers, and students at Lafayette School Corporation who facilitated this study.

References

  1. Blomhøj, M. (2004). Mathematical modelling—A theory for practice. In B. Clarke et al. (Eds.), International perspectives on learning and teaching mathematics (pp. 145–159). Göteborg: National Center for Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing. Oxford: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  3. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Pfannenstiel, K. H., Porterfield, J., & Gersten, R. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 7–23.Google Scholar
  4. Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 87–115.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Franke, M., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s mathematics: Cognitively Guided Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., Franke, M., & Zeringue, J. (2005). Algebra in the elementary school: Developing rational thinking. ZDM, 37(1), 53–59.Google Scholar
  7. Chappell, M. F., & Strutchens, M. E. (2001). Creating connections: Promoting algebraic thinking with concrete models. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(1), 20–25.Google Scholar
  8. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012). Common core state standards for mathematics practice. http://www.corestandards.org. Accessed 15 Mar 2018
  9. Connolly, A. J. (1998). Keymath revised/normative update. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  10. Devlin, K. (2012). Introduction to mathematical thinking. Palo Alto, CA: Keith Devlin.Google Scholar
  11. Fede, J. j., Pierce, M. E., Matthews, W. J., & Wells, C. S. (2013). The effects of a computer-assisted, schema-based instruction intervention on word problem-solving skills of low-performing fifth grade students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. N. (2007). Expanding responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at first and third grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 276–295). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  14. Hord, C., & Xin, Y. P. (2013). Intervention research for helping elementary school students with math learning difficulties understand and solve word problems: 1996–2010. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  15. Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multi-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jitendra, A. (2002). Teaching students math problem-solving through graphic representations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(4), 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Designing research-based instruction for story problems. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3), 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaur, B. (2015). The model method—A tool for representing and visualising relationships. In Sun, X., Kaur, B. & Novotna, J. (Eds.) Conference proceedings of ICMI study 23: Primary mathematics study on whole numbers (pp. 448–455). Macau, Macao SAR: University of Macau.Google Scholar
  19. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Kratochwill, T. R., & Williams, B. L. (1988). Perspective on pitfalls and hassles in single-subject research. Journal of the Association for Persons with severe Handicaps, 13, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maletsky, E. M., et al. (2004). Harcourt math (Indiana edition). Chicago: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  22. Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mulligan, J., & Woolcott, G. (2016). What lies beneath? Conceptual connectivity underlying whole number arithmetic. In Sun, X., Kaur, B., & Novotna, J. (Eds.) Conference proceedings of ICMI study 23: Primary mathematics study on whole numbers (pp. 220–228). Macau, Macao SAR: University of Macau.Google Scholar
  24. National Assessment of Educational Progress Result (NEAP) (2015). http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#mathematics/acl?grade=4. Accessed 15 Mar 2018
  25. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  26. Nunes, T., Dorneles, B. V., Lin, P.-J., & Rathgeb-Schnierer, E. (2016). Teaching and learning about whole numbers in primary school. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Summarizing single subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sherin, M. G. (2001). Developing a professional vision of classroom events. In T. Wood, B. S. Nelson & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy: Teaching elementary school mathematics (pp. 75–93). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Snyder, T. (2005). GO Solve word problems: Using graphic organizers to understand and solve word problems. Position statement. Watertown: Tom Snyder Productions.Google Scholar
  30. Sowder, L. (1988). Children’s solutions of story problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 7, 227–238.Google Scholar
  31. Thompson, P. W. (1989). Artificial intelligence, advanced technology, and learning and teaching algebra. Research Issues in the Learning and Teaching of Algebra, 135–161.Google Scholar
  32. Vergnaud, G. (1979). The acquisition of arithmetical concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 10, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams, K. T. (2004). GMADE Group mathematics assessment and diagnostic evaluation. Assessment and diagnostic evaluation. Technical manual. Circe Pines: AGS Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Xin, Y. P. (2007). Word-problem-solving tasks presented in textbooks and their relation to student performance: A cross-curriculum comparison case study. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xin, Y. P. (2012). Conceptual model-based problem solving: Teach students with learning difficulties to solve math problems. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xin, Y. P., Liu, J., & Zheng, X. (2011a). A cross-cultural lesson comparison on teaching the connection between multiplication and division. School Science and Mathematics, 111(7), 354–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xin, Y. P., & Zhang, D. (2009). Exploring a conceptual model-based approach to teaching situated word problems. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xin, Y. P., Zhang, D., Park, J. Y., Tom, K., Whipple, A., & Si, L. (2011b). A comparison of two mathematics problem-solving strategies: Facilitate algebra-readiness. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations