Page 417 - Istenič Andreja, Gačnik Mateja, Horvat Barbara, Kukanja Gabrijelčič Mojca, Kiswarday Vanja Riccarda, Lebeničnik Maja, Mezgec Maja, Volk Marina. Ur. 2023. Vzgoja in izobraževanje med preteklostjo in prihodnostjo. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem
P. 417
The Development of Strategies for Solving Arithmetic Word Problems
ation(s) by encouraging learners to circle, underline or highlight the key-
word(s) in the problem text and then to perform the operation(s) evoked by
the linguistic marker(s). Interestingly, this approach was the most popular
problem solving strategy reported by teachers in 2013 (Pearce et al. 2013).
However, as previously mentioned, the keyword strategy is a misleading
problem solving practice that often leads to an incorrect solution. In fact, this
strategy seems to be quick and effective when solving simple and consistent
word problems, but it is not appropriate for inconsistent problems (Koning et
al. 2017) and, in general, more so for non-conventional word problems such
as problems with no solution, problems containing an insufficient amount
of data for solution and multiple-solution problems (Cotič and Valenčič Zul-
jan 2009). According to Van de Walle (2004), the keyword strategy sends
a completely wrong message about doing mathematics. By employing this
approach students overlook the meaning and semantic structure of the word
problem. Carpenter and colleagues (1980) warned that a keyword-based
problem solving strategy does not support the development of reasoning
skills and creative thinking necessary for approaching more complicated and
unfamiliar problems. Indeed, creativity and creative researching are funda-
mental elements of maths problem solving (Cotič and Felda 2011) that should
be encouraged in order to develop better maths reasoning skills. In this re-
spect, Cotič and Valečič Zuljan (2009) found that nine-year-old students who
received a problem-based instruction focused on non-conventional word
problems (e.g. problems with less data than needed for arriving at a solu-
tion, problems that included more data than needed for arriving at a solution,
problems that could not be solved without a sketch, drawing or additional
computation, and problems with more than one line long text) displayed
greater ability in solving difficult word problems compared to the group
that received conventional maths instruction.
Finally, it must be noted that the repeated engagement of the shortcut
approach may result in limited opportunities for representing the mental
models. This may further result in difficulties in identifying different problem
types and, thus, lower word problem solving performance. Therefore, we dis-
courage educators and teachers from instructing children, especially those
who manifest a mathematical learning disability, to use a strategy based on
keywords selection.
The Use of Diagrams
Practitioners should rather focus on teaching children to integrate a prob-
lem’s textual information into an adequate mental representation, which is
417
ation(s) by encouraging learners to circle, underline or highlight the key-
word(s) in the problem text and then to perform the operation(s) evoked by
the linguistic marker(s). Interestingly, this approach was the most popular
problem solving strategy reported by teachers in 2013 (Pearce et al. 2013).
However, as previously mentioned, the keyword strategy is a misleading
problem solving practice that often leads to an incorrect solution. In fact, this
strategy seems to be quick and effective when solving simple and consistent
word problems, but it is not appropriate for inconsistent problems (Koning et
al. 2017) and, in general, more so for non-conventional word problems such
as problems with no solution, problems containing an insufficient amount
of data for solution and multiple-solution problems (Cotič and Valenčič Zul-
jan 2009). According to Van de Walle (2004), the keyword strategy sends
a completely wrong message about doing mathematics. By employing this
approach students overlook the meaning and semantic structure of the word
problem. Carpenter and colleagues (1980) warned that a keyword-based
problem solving strategy does not support the development of reasoning
skills and creative thinking necessary for approaching more complicated and
unfamiliar problems. Indeed, creativity and creative researching are funda-
mental elements of maths problem solving (Cotič and Felda 2011) that should
be encouraged in order to develop better maths reasoning skills. In this re-
spect, Cotič and Valečič Zuljan (2009) found that nine-year-old students who
received a problem-based instruction focused on non-conventional word
problems (e.g. problems with less data than needed for arriving at a solu-
tion, problems that included more data than needed for arriving at a solution,
problems that could not be solved without a sketch, drawing or additional
computation, and problems with more than one line long text) displayed
greater ability in solving difficult word problems compared to the group
that received conventional maths instruction.
Finally, it must be noted that the repeated engagement of the shortcut
approach may result in limited opportunities for representing the mental
models. This may further result in difficulties in identifying different problem
types and, thus, lower word problem solving performance. Therefore, we dis-
courage educators and teachers from instructing children, especially those
who manifest a mathematical learning disability, to use a strategy based on
keywords selection.
The Use of Diagrams
Practitioners should rather focus on teaching children to integrate a prob-
lem’s textual information into an adequate mental representation, which is
417
