Page 217 - Pedagoška vizija / A Pedagogical Vision

What Makes Word Problem-Solving Difficult? Factors Influencing Word Problem-Solving Ability

Grade: Schema-Based Word-Problem Intervention with Embedded Lan-
guage Comprehension Instruction.’ Journal of Educational Psychology 113
(1): 86–103.
Haag, N., B. Heppt, P. Stanat, P. Kuhl, and H. A. Pant. 2013. ‘Second Language
Learners’ Performance in Mathematics: Disentangling the Effects of Aca-
demic Language Features.’ Learning and Instruction 28:24–34.
Haghverdi, M.,A.S.Semnani, and M. Seifi.2012. ‘The Relationship between
Different Kinds of Students’ Errors and the Knowledge Required to Solve
Mathematics Word Problems.’ Bolema: Boletim de Educação Matemática 26
(42B): 649–666.
Halliday, M., C. M. Matthiessen, and C. Matthiessen. 2014. An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. New York: Routledge.
Hegarty, M., R. E. Mayer, and C. E. Green. 1992. ‘Comprehension of Arithmetic
Word Problems: Evidence from Students’ Eye Fixations.’ Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology 84 (1): 76–84.
Hegarty, M., R. E. Mayer, and C. A. Monk. 1995. ‘Comprehension of Arithmetic
Word Problems: A Comparison of Successful and Unsuccessful Problem
Solvers.’ Journal of Educational Psychology 87 (1): 18–32.
Higgins, K., J. Huscroft-D’Angelo, and L. Crawford. 2019. ‘Effects of Technol-
ogy in Mathematics on Achievement, Motivation, and Attitude: A Meta-
Analysis.’ Journal of Educational Computing Research 57 (2): 283–319.
Jaffe,J.B., andD.J.Bolger. 2023. ‘CognitiveProcesses, Linguistic Factors, and
Arithmetic Word Problem Success: A Review of Behavioral Studies.’ Educa-
tional Psychology Review 35 (4): 105.
Jitendra,A.K.2002.‘TeachingStudentsMathProblem-SolvingthroughGraphic
Representations.’ Teaching Exceptional Children 34 (4): 34–38.
Lewis, A. B., and R. E. Mayer. 1987. ‘Students’ Miscomprehension of Relational
Statements in Arithmetic Word Problems.’ Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy 79 (4): 363–371.
Lucangeli, D., P. Tressoldi, and M. Cendron. 1998. ‘Cognitive and Metacognitive
Abilities Involved in the Solution of Mathematical Word Problems: Valida-
tion of a Comprehensive Model.’ Contemporary Educational Psychology 23
(3): 257–275.
Miyake, A., and N. P. Friedman. 2012. ‘The Nature and Organization of Individ-
ual Differences in Executive Functions: Four General Conclusions.’ Current
Directions in Psychological Science 21 (1): 8–14.
Mullis, I. V. S.,M.O. Martin, P. Foy, andA.Arora.2012. TIMSS 2011 International
Results in Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International
Study Center.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2000. Principles and Standards
for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Math-
ematics.

217