Advertisement

Word problems in mathematics education: a survey

  • 122 Accesses

Abstract

Word problems are among the most difficult kinds of problems that mathematics learners encounter. Perhaps as a result, they have been the object of a tremendous amount research over the past 50 years. This opening article gives an overview of the research literature on word problem solving, by pointing to a number of major topics, questions, and debates that have dominated the field. After a short introduction, we begin with research that has conceived word problems primarily as problems of comprehension, and we describe the various ways in which this complex comprehension process has been conceived theoretically as well as the empirical evidence supporting different theoretical models. Next we review research that has focused on strategies for actually solving the word problem. Strengths and weaknesses of informal and formal solution strategies—at various levels of learners’ mathematical development (i.e., arithmetic, algebra)—are discussed. Fourth, we address research that thinks of word problems as exercises in complex problem solving, requiring the use of cognitive strategies (heuristics) as well as metacognitive (or self-regulatory) strategies. The fifth section concerns the role of graphical representations in word problem solving. The complex and sometimes surprising results of research on representations—both self-made and externally provided ones—are summarized and discussed. As in many other domains of mathematics learning, word problem solving performance has been shown to be significantly associated with a number of general cognitive resources such as working memory capacity and inhibitory skills. Research focusing on the role of these general cognitive resources is reviewed afterwards. The seventh section discusses research that analyzes the complex relationship between (traditional) word problems and (genuine) mathematical modeling tasks. Generally, this research points to the gap between the artificial word problems learners encounter in their mathematics lessons, on the one hand, and the authentic mathematical modeling situations with which they are confronted in real life, on the other hand. Finally, we review research on the impact of three important elements of the teaching/learning environment on the development of learners’ word problem solving competence: textbooks, software, and teachers. It is shown how each of these three environmental elements may support or hinder the development of learners’ word problem solving competence. With this general overview of international research on the various perspectives on this complex and fascinating kind of mathematical problem, we set the scene for the empirical contributions on word problems that appear in this special issue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

References

  1. Achmetli, K., Schukajlow, S., & Rakoczy, K. (2019). Multiple solutions to solve real-world problems and students’ procedural and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,100, 43–60.

  2. Alghamdi, A., Jitendra, A. K., & Lein, A. E. (2020). Solving multiplication and division word problems with schematic diagrams: The role of schema-based instruction in supporting mathematical thinking skills of students with mathematics learning disabilities. ZDM Mathematics Education, this issue (in press).

  3. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences,4, 167–207.

  4. Apple, M. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher,21(7), 4–11.

  5. Berends, I. E., & van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2009). The effect of illustrations in arithmetic problem solving: Effects of increased cognitive load. Learning and Instruction,19, 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.012.

  6. Blum, W. (2015). Quality teaching of mathematical modelling: What do we know, what can we do? In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 73–96). Cham: Springer.

  7. Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solving, modelling, applications, and links to other subjects—State, trends and issues in mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics,22, 37–68.

  8. Böckmann, M., & Schukajlow, S. (2018). Value of pictures in modelling problems from students’ perspective. In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, M. Granberg, & L. Sumpter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 263–270). Umeå: PME.

  9. Boonen, A. J. H., van Wesel, F., Jolles, J., & van der Schoot, M. (2014). The role of visual representation type, spatial ability, and reading comprehension in word problem solving: An item-level analysis in elementary school children. International Journal of Educational Research,68, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.08.001.

  10. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield (Eds. & Trans.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  11. Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Jacobs, V., Fennema, E., & Empson, S. B. (1997). A longitudinal study of intervention and understanding in children’s multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,29, 3–30.

  12. Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,15, 179–202.

  13. Chang, Y.-P., Krawitz, J., Schukajlow, S., & Yang, K.-J. (2020). Comparing German and Taiwanese secondary school students’ knowledge in solving mathematical modelling tasks requiring their assumptions. ZDM Mathematics Education, this issue (in press).

  14. Chapman, O. (2006). Classroom practices for context of mathematics word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics,62, 211–230.

  15. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  16. Cramer, K., Post, T., & Currier, S. (1993). Learning and teaching ratio and proportion: Research implications. In D. T. Owens (Ed.), Research ideas for the classroom: Middle grades mathematics (pp. 159–178). New York: Macmillan.

  17. Csíkos, C., & Szitányi, J. (2020). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in teaching word problem solving strategies. ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  18. Csíkos, C., Szitányi, J., & Kelemen, R. (2012). The effects of using drawings in developing young children’s mathematical word problem solving: A design experiment with third-grade Hungarian students. Educational Studies in Mathematics,81, 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9360-z.

  19. Daroczy, G., Wolska, M., Meurers, W. D., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2015). Word problems: A review of linguistic and numerical factors contributing to their difficulty. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 348. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00348.

  20. De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., & Janssens, D. (1998). Solving problems involving length and area of similar plane figures and the illusion of linearity: An inquiry of the difficulties of secondary school students. Educational Studies in Mathematics,35, 65–83.

  21. De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Learning and teaching mathematics. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 491–549). New York: Macmillan.

  22. De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1987). The effect of semantic structure on first graders’ solution strategies of elementary addition and subtraction word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,18, 363–381.

  23. de Kock, W. D., & Harskamp, E. G. (2014). Can teachers in primary education implement a metacognitive computer programme for word problem solving in their mathematics classes? Educational Research and Evaluation,20, 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2014.901921.

  24. Depaepe, F., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Analysis of the realistic nature of word problems in upper elementary mathematics education. In L. Verschaffel, B. Greer, W. Van Dooren, & S. Mukhopadhyay (Eds.), Words and worlds: Modelling verbal descriptions of situations (pp. 245–264). Rotterdam: Sense Publications.

  25. Depaepe, F., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2010a). Teachers’ approaches towards word problem solving: Elaborating or restricting the problem context. Teaching and Teacher Education,26, 152–160.

  26. Depaepe, F., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2010b). Teachers’ approaches towards heuristic and metacognitive skills and its relationship with students’ beliefs and problem-solving skills. ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics Education,42, 205–218.

  27. Dewolf, T., Van Dooren, W., Kellen, A., & Verschaffel, L. (2012). The influence of narrative and depictive elements in solving mathematical word problems realistically. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,11(1–2), 17–33.

  28. diSessa, A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,19, 385–398.

  29. Elia, I. (2020). Word problem solving and pictorial representations: Insights from an exploratory study in kindergarten. ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  30. Elia, I., & Philippou, G. (2004). The functions of pictures in problem solving. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 327–334). Bergen, Norway: University College.

  31. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives,19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732.

  32. Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York: MacMillan.

  33. Gerofsky, S. (1997). An exchange about word problems. For the Learning of Mathematics,17(2), 22–23.

  34. Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Proportional reasoning as a heuristic-based process: Time constraint and dual-task considerations. Experimental Psychology,56, 92–99.

  35. Goldin, G. A., & McClintock, E. (Eds.). (1984). Task variables in mathematical problem solving. Philadelphia: Franklin.

  36. Goulet-Lyle, M.-P., Voyer, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2020). How does teaching a step-by-step solution method impact students’ approach to mathematical word problem solving? ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  37. Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 276–295). New York: Macmillan.

  38. Greer, B. (1993). The modeling perspective on wor(l)d problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,12, 239–250.

  39. Gros, H. (2019). What we count dictates how we count. A tale of two encodings. PhD thesis, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

  40. Gvozdic, K., & Sander, E. (2020). Learning to be an opportunistic word problem solver: Going beyond informal solving strategies. ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  41. Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal,28, 567–590.

  42. Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual–spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology,91, 684–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684.

  43. Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. (1996). The effects of schema-based instruction on the mathematical word-problem solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,29, 422–432.

  44. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  45. Kaiser, G. (2017). The teaching and learning of mathematical modeling. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 267–291). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  46. Kaiser, G., & Brand, S. (2015). Modelling competencies: Past development and further perspectives. In G. Stillman, W. Blum, & M. S. Biembengut (Eds.), Mathematical modelling in education research and practice. Cultural, social and cognitive influences (pp. 129–149). Cham: Springer.

  47. Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390–419). New York: Macmillan.

  48. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up. Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  49. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review,85, 363–394.

  50. Kouba, V. (1989). Children’s solution strategies for equivalent set multiplication and division word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,20, 147–158.

  51. Krawitz, J., Schukajlow, S., & Van Dooren, W. (2018). Unrealistic responses to realistic problems with missing information: What are important barriers? Educational Psychology,38, 1221–1238.

  52. Lave, J. (1992). Word problems: A microcosm of theories of learning. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 74–92). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

  53. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Modeling and argument in the elementary grades. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 29–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  54. Leiss, D. (2010). Adaptive Lehrerinterventionen beim mathematischen Modellieren—empirische Befunde einer vergleichenden Labor- und Unterrichtsstudie. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik,31, 197–226.

  55. Leiss, D., Plath, J., & Schwippert, K. (2019). Language and mathematics - Key factors influencing the comprehension process in reality based tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,21, 131–153.

  56. Leiss, D., Schukajlow, S., Blum, W., Messner, R., & Pekrun, R. (2010). The role of the situation model in mathematical modelling—task analyses, student competencies, and teacher interventions. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik,31, 119–141.

  57. Lester, F., Garofalo, J., & Kroll, D. (1989). The role of metacognition in mathematical problem solving. A study of two seventh classes. (Final report to the National Science Foundation, NSF project n° MDR 85-50346). Bloomington: Indiana University, Mathematics Education Development Center.

  58. Lynn Fuchs, L. (2020). The role of working memory in mathematical word-problem solving Implications for instruction and intervention. ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  59. Maaß, K. (2006). What are modeling competencies? ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education,38, 113–142.

  60. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science,26, 49–63.

  61. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal,34, 365–395.

  62. Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2014). Critical maths in innovative societies: The effects of metacognitive pedagogies on mathematical reasoning. Paris, France: OECD.

  63. Mevarech, Z., Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (2018). Metacognitive pedagogies in mathematics classrooms: From kindergarten to college and beyond. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 109–123). New York/London: Routledge.

  64. Mulligan, J., & Mitchelmore, M. (1997). Young children’s intuitive models of multiplication and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,28, 309–330.

  65. Ng, S.-F., & Lee, K. (2005). How primary five pupils use the model method to solve word problems. The Mathematics Educator,9(1), 60–83.

  66. Niss, M. (2001). Issues and problems of research on the teaching and learning of applications and modelling. In J. F. Matos, W. Blum, S. K. Houston, & S. P. Carreira (Eds.), Modelling and mathematics education. ICTMA 9: Applications in science and technology (pp. 72–89). Chichester: Horwood.

  67. Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1995). Do problem situations influence children’s understanding of the commutativity of multiplication? Mathematical Cognition,1, 245–260.

  68. Orrantia, J., Munez, D., & Tarin, J. (2014). Connecting goals and actions during reading: The role of illustrations. Reading and Writing,27, 153–170.

  69. Palm, T. (2002). The realism of mathematical school tasks. Features and consequences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Umea, Sweden.

  70. Palm, T., & Burman, L. (2004). Reality in mathematics assessment: An analysis of task-reality concordance in Finnish and Swedish national assessments. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education,9(3), 1–33.

  71. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  72. Pongsakdi, N., Kajamies, A., Veermans, K., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., Lertola, K., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E. (2020). What makes mathematical word problem solving challenging? Exploring the roles of word problem characteristics, text comprehension, and arithmetic skills. ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  73. Powell, S. R. (2020). The role of algebraic reasoning within a word-problem intervention for third-grade students with mathematics difficulty. ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  74. Reed, S. K. (1999). Word problems. Research and curriculum reform. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  75. Rellensmann, J., Schukajlow, S., & Leopold, C. (2017). Make a drawing. Effects of strategic knowledge, drawing accuracy, and type of drawing on students’ mathematical modelling performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics,95, 53–78.

  76. Rellensmann, J., Schukajlow, S., & Leopold, C. (2020). Measuring and investigating strategic knowledge about drawing to solve geometrical modelling problems. ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  77. Reusser, K. (1989). Vom Text zur Situation zur Gleichung. Kognitive Simulation von Sprachverständnis und Mathematisierung beim Lösen von Textaufgaben. Bern: Universität Bern.

  78. Riley, M. S., Greeno, J. G., & Heller, J. I. (1983). Development of children’s problem-solving ability in arithmetic. In H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153–196). New York: Academic Press.

  79. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically. Problem solving, metacognition and sense-making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.

  80. Schukajlow, S., Achmetli, K., & Rakoczy, K. (2019a). Does constructing multiple solutions for real-world problems affect self-efficacy? Educational Studies in Mathematics,100, 43–60.

  81. Schukajlow, S., Blomberg, J., & Rellensmann, J. (2019b). I enjoy making drawings! Enjoyment, knowledge about drawings, use of drawings, and students’ performance. In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A. A. Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 297–304). Pretoria, South Africa: PME.

  82. Schukajlow, S., Kaiser, G., & Stillman, G. (2018). Empirical research on teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: A survey on the current state-of-the-art. ZDM Mathematics Education,50, 5–18.

  83. Schukajlow, S., Kolter, J., & Blum, W. (2015). Scaffolding mathematical modelling with a solution plan. ZDM Mathematics Education,47, 1241–1254.

  84. Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics,79, 215–237.

  85. Stigler, J. W., Fuson, K. C., Ham, M., & Kim, M. S. (1986). An analysis of addition and subtraction word problems in American and Soviet elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction,3, 153–171.

  86. Stillman, G. (2011). Applying metacognitive knowledge and strategies in applications and modeling tasks at second-aryschool. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modeling: ICTMA14 (pp. 165–180). Dordrecht: Springer.

  87. Strohmaier, A. R., Schiepe-Tiska, A., Chang, Y.-P., Müller, F., Lin, F.-L., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). Comparing eye movements during mathematical word problem solving in Chinese and German. ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  88. Swafford, J. O., & Langrall, C. W. (2000). Grade 6 student’s pre-instructional use of equations to describe and represent problem situations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,31, 89–112.

  89. Swetz, F. (2009). Culture and the development of mathematics: A historical perspective. In B. Greer, S. Mukhupadhyay, A. B. Powell, & N. Nelson-Barber (Eds.), Culturally responsive mathematics education (pp. 11–42). Routledge: Taylor and Francis.

  90. Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathematical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,19, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00005.x.

  91. Thevenot, C. (2010). Arithmetic word problem solving: Evidence for the construction of a mental model. Acta Psychologica,133, 90–95.

  92. Thevenot, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2015). Arithmetic word problem solving and mental representations. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 158–179). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  93. Uesaka, Y., & Manalo, E. (2012). Task-related factors that influence the spontaneous use of diagrams in math word problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology,26, 251–260.

  94. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (Ed.). (2001). Children learn mathematics. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute, University of Utrecht.

  95. Van Dooren, W., & Inglis, M. (2015). Inhibitory control in mathematical thinking, learning and problem solving: A survey. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education,47, 713–721.

  96. van Essen, G. (1991). Heuristics and arithmetic word problems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  97. van Lieshout, E. C. D. M., & Xenidou-Dervou, I. (2020). Simple pictorial mathematics problems for children: Locating possible sources of cognitive load and how to reduce it. ZDM Mathematics Education(this issue, in press).

  98. Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 127–174). New York: Academic Press.

  99. Verschaffel, L. (2002). Taking the modeling perspective seriously at the elementary school level: Promises and pitfalls (Plenary lecture). In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, vol. 1. (pp. 64–82). School of Education and Professional Development, University of East Anglia, UK.

  100. Verschaffel, L. (2016). Get the picture? On the role of graphical representations in the solution of mathematical word problems. Plenary lecture at the Conference of the EARLI SIG 2, Comprehension of Text and Graphics, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

  101. Verschaffel, L. (2019). 40 years of mathematical word problem solving research (in Leuven): What did I learn from it and want to share? Invited lecture presented at a workshop organized by the University of Roskilde, Denmark.

  102. Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (1997). Word problems. A vehicle for promoting authentic mathematical understanding and problem solving in the primary school. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspective (pp. 69–97). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.

  103. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Borghart, I. (1997). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions and beliefs about the role of real-world knowledge in mathematical modelling of school word problems. Learning and Instruction,4, 339–359.

  104. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic considerations in mathematical modeling of school arithmetic word problems. Learning and Instructi-on,4, 273–294.

  105. Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Lasure, S., Van Vaerenbergh, G., Bogaerts, H., & Ratinckx, E. (1999). Design and evaluation of a learning environment for mathematical modeling and problem solving in upper elementary school children. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,1, 195–230.

  106. Verschaffel, L., Depaepe, F., & Van Dooren, W. (2013a). Mathematical problem solving. In P. Andrews & T. Rowland (Eds.), Masterclass in mathematics education. International perspectives on teaching and learning (pp. 113–124). London: Bloomsbury.

  107. Verschaffel, L., Reybrouck, M., Van Dooren, W., & Degraeuwe, G. (2013b). The relative importance of children’s criteria for representational adequacy in the perception of simple sonic stimuli. Psychology of Music,41, 691–712.

  108. Verschaffel, L., Depaepe, F., & Van Dooren, W. (2014). Word problems in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 641–645). Dordrecht: Springer.

  109. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

  110. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., Van Dooren, W., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (Eds.). (2009). Words and worlds: Modelling verbal descriptions of situations. Rotterdam: Sense Publications.

  111. Vicente, S., Orrantia, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2007). Influence of situational and conceptual rewording on word problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology,77, 829–848.

  112. Vicente, S., Rosario Sanchez, M., & Verschaffel, L. (in press). Word problem solving approaches in mathematics textbooks: a comparison between Spain and Singapore. European Journal of Psychology of Education.

  113. Wang, A. Y., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2016). Cognitive and linguistic predictors of mathematical word problems with and without irrelevant information. Learning and Individual Differences,52, 79–87.

  114. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentations, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,27, 458–477.

  115. Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools: Solving algebraic word problems with graphing software. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,37, 356–387.

  116. Yoshida, H., Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (1997). Realistic considerations in solving problematic word problems: Do Japanese and European children have the same difficulties? Learning and Instruction,7, 329–338.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Lieven Verschaffel.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verschaffel, L., Schukajlow, S., Star, J. et al. Word problems in mathematics education: a survey. ZDM Mathematics Education (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01130-4

Download citation