Research in Middle Level Education

ISSN: 1082-5541 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umle17

Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades

Mathematics

Ron Zambo

To cite this article: Ron Zambo (1992) Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades Mathematics,
Research in Middle Level Education, 16:1, 143-157, DOI: 10.1080/10825541.1992.11670006

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10825541.1992.11670006

Published online: 08 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 851

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umle17
 Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades Mathematics

Word Problem Solving in

Middle Grades
Mathematics

Ron Zambo
Arizona State University West
Phoenix, Arizona

Abstract
The purpose of this project was to synthesize a step by step problem
solving plan for routine mathematical word problems and to investigate its
usefulness. A review of middle grades mathematics textbooks identified nine
commonly recommended steps to problem solving. Those same nine steps
were supported in the literature of problem solving. Sixth and eighth grade
students (n=302) solved 10 two-step, routine word problems using the step
by step plan. The problem solving plan predicted 66% ofthe observed variance
in the problem solutions. The individual steps uniquely contributing most
were Choosing the correct operations (31%), Identifying the facts (14%),
Identifying the question (8%), and Computing the answer (5%). Other steps
contributed lesser amounts. The eighth grade data considered separately
indicated that the step of Diagramming (12%) contributed significantly
compared to sixth grade Diagramming (4%).

143
 Research in Middle Level Education • Fall 1992

Mathematical problem solving ability and strategies to increase

problem solving achievement have long been topics of interest to
educators. Students tend to be more proficient at computation than
problem solving. For example, the National Assessment of Educa-
tional Progress (NAEP) (1986) found that at age thirteen 100% of the
subjects had mastered Simple Arithmetic Facts, but only 73.1% had
mastered Beginning Problem Solving. This discrepancy between
computational skills and problem solving skills leads to questions
about the effectiveness of problem solving instruction.
Solving a word problem is a multistep process (Kantowski, 1977)
and the approach to problem solving typically found in middle grades
mathematicstextbooksistheuseofstepbystepprocedures.Schimizzi
(1988) recommended that research should investigate the effectiveness
of these step by step problem solving plans.
This study was designed with a twofold purpose: 1) to synthesize
a problem solving plan representative of problem solving plans in
middle grades mathematics textbooks and consistent with the litera-
ture of mathematical problem solving, and 2) to investigate the
usefulness of that problem solving plan for solving routine word
problems.

Problem Solving as a Process

Many models of the processes used to solve word problems have

been proposed. These models can be classified into two categories,
prescriptive and descriptive (Uprichard, Phillips & Soriano, 1984).
Prescriptive models recommend how a problem solver should pro-
ceed when solving a problem. Descriptive models describe problem
solving as it is hypothesized to operate, or as it is observed in
operation.

Prescriptive plans

The prescriptive models found in textbooks list steps for students

to follow when solving word problems. These plans are designed for
use with the routine word problems, problems which can be solved
through the direct application of algorithms, found in the same
textbooks. Although routine word problems are only one component
of problem solving as envisioned by the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (1989), they comprise the majority of textbook word
problems (Stigler, Fuson, Ham & Kim, 1986). The modifier "routine"
should not be confused with "easy." Many students experience
frustration and failure in solving even "routine" problems.
A review of the middle grades mathematics textbooks adopted for
use in Florida in 1990 (Algebra, Addison Wesley; Invitation to Math-

144
 Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades Mathematics

ematics, Scott Foresman; Pre-Algebra, Heath; and Mathematics Today,

Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich) found that step by step plans varied
from text to text, but there were several commonly recommended steps
and strategies.
This similarity of plans is no doubt due to the influence of Polya's
(1945) seminal work on problem solving. Textbook authors have used
Polya's four phases of problem solving, insufficient in themselves as a
prescription, as a framework for building step by step plans workable
for middle grade students. The four phases of problem solving
proposed by Polya are: 1) Understand the problem. 2) Devise a plan.
3) Follow the plan. 4) Look back.
Abbott and Wells (1985) (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich) used the
following four steps (paraphrases of Polya's): 1) Read the problem. 2)
Plan. 3) Find the answer. 4) Check the answer. Abbott and Wells also
provided suggestions for working through each step of their plan.
Students were prompted to focus on identifying both the given facts and
the question when reading the problem. Drawing a diagram or model
was recommended as help in planning what to do. Additional recom-
mendations included: Choosing an operation, Writing an equation,
Solving the equation, Estimating, and Checking that the answer makes
sense.
Bolster, Crown, Linquist, McNerney, Nibbelink, Prigge, Rahlfs,
Robitaille, Schultz, Swafford, Vance, Wilson, & Wisner (1985) (Scott
Foresman) prescribed a five step plan: 1) Read. 2) Plan. 3) Solve. 4)
Answer. 5) Look back. These steps subdivided Polya's step 3- Follow the
plan, into Solving the problem and Answering the question. Recom-
mended strategies included: Choosing an operation, Writing an equa-
tion, Estimating the answer, and Verifying that the answer is sensible.
Lowry, Ockenga and Rucker (1986) (Heath) offered no problem
solving plan per se, but included instruction on problem solving
strategies. These strategies included: Focusing on the facts, Drawing
a picture, Choosing an operation, and Writing an equation.
Keedy, Bittinger, Smith and Orfan (1985) (Addison Wesley) pro-
vided a four step plan for solving word problems: 1) Choose a variable
for the unknown. 2) Translate the problem into an equation. 3) Solve
the equation. 4) Check the answer with the original problem. They also
recommended that students read the problem carefully to decide
which information is to be used, and draw a diagram of the problem.
The Phillips and Uprichard Model for Problem Solving (Phillips,
Uprichard &Johnson, 1974; Soriano & Phillips, 1982; Uprichard et al.,
1984) included eleven steps intended to make Polya's plan workable
for children. Steps for understanding the problem were: Read the
problem, Paraphrase the problem, Circle the facts, List the known
facts, and List the unknown facts. Steps for devising a plan were:
Diagram the problem, Estimate an answer, Choose the operations,

145
Table 1 Step by Step Comparison of Prescriptive Problem Solving Plans -

Polya Abbott and Bolster, et al. Lowry, et al. Keedy, et al. Phillips and
Wells Uprichard
Read the Read the problem
problem Read the problem
carefully Write the problem
Understand the Focus on the
problem Read Focus on the facts Choose the Circle the facts
facts
needed List the known
What's the information facts and unknown
question? facts
Plan Diagram the
Make a drawing Draw a picture Often a drawing problem
Choose the Choose an Decide which helps
Choose the
Devise a plan operation operation operations to operations to use
Choose a variable
Write an equation Write an equation use Write an equation
Translate to an
Estimate to choose Estimate Write an equation Estimate the
a sensible answer equation answer

Solve the
Solve the Solve Solve the equation
Follow the plan equation
Answer equation Answer the
problem

Look back
Check the
Look back Check your
answer Compare to
Check the results result with the
Give a sensible estimate
Does the answer words of the
make sense? answer problem Check
computation
 Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades Mathematics

and Write an equation. Following the plan involved Solving the

equation and Writing the answer. Looking Back was operationalized
as Comparing the answer to the estimate and Checking the computa-
tions. The problem solving plans discussed here are compared in Table
1.

Descriptive plans

The second strand of the problem solving literature consisted of

theoretical models of the processes students use to solve problems,
and empirical studies describing problem solving strategies used by
students.

Theoretical models
Kintsch and Greeno (1983) described the process of solving an
arithmetic word problem with a three component processing model.
The first component is the translation of the sentences comprising the
problem into propositions, or units of understanding. A proposition
could be a statement of numerical value (e.g., the cardinality of set A
is 3) or it could be a statement which relates one quantity to another
(e.g., the value of A is less than B). The second component is the
construction by the problem solver of a conceptual representation of
the problem situation. A conceptual representation includes both the
propositions and the relationships between them. This representation
activates a schema identifying the problem as a specific type. The third
component of the processing model is the activation of the appropriate
schema necessary to solve the problem.
Gagne (1983) described three mental actions necessary for prob-
lem solving which are very similar to the three components proposed
by Kintsch and Greeno (1983). Gagne suggested that a student must
first translate a verbal problem statement into a mathematical expres-
sion. This translation of a verbal problem statement to a mathematical
expression parallels Kintsch and Greeno (1983) except Gagne refers to
a representation in the form of a mathematical expression, not a
conceptual representation. Gagne's second action, Carry out opera-
tions on the mathematical expression, is similar to the third compo-
nent in the Kintsch and Greeno (1983) model in which a schema is
activated to perform the required operations. Gagne's third action is
validation of the solution. Gagne stated that estimation of a solution
is a way to check on the validity of the overall solution. Kintsch and
Greeno omitted verification from their three component model.
Schoenfeld (1985) studied the manner in which problem solvers
solve problems, using a problem solving protocol containing the
following six components of the problem solving process: Read,
Analyze, Explore, Plan, Implement, and Verify. These components

147
Table 2 Step by Step Comparison of Descriptive Problem Solving Plans
··~ ~

Kintsch and ,. ,_
Romberg and
Gagne " Schoenfeld Webb Sherrill
Greeno Collis

Read
Translate Translate verbal
English sentence problem into Analyze Reading the problem Read the problem
in top repositions mathematical
expression

Produce a problem
representation that
Explore Drawing a diagram Draw a diagram Direct modeling
shows the relation-
ships between the sets

Plan Writing an equation Write an equation Written open

sentences

Activation of the Implement Use an algorithm

correct schema to Carry out the Use an algorithn
carry out calculations indicated operations Counting Use an algorithm

Validate the solution Verify Verifying the Check the answer

solution
 Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades Mathematics

parallel those previously discussed. (See Table 2 for a comparison of

these theoretical descriptive models as well as the empirical descrip-
tive models which follow.) To translate a word problem into propo-
sitions, the problem must be read and analyzed to determine the facts
and the relationships between those facts. Exploration of the relation-
ships inherent in the problem situation assists in the identification of
the problem type. Once the problem type is established the problem
solver is ready to plan a method of solution. The fifth component,
Implementation, is the computation of the answer. Schoenfeld listed
a final component, Verify.

Empirical studies
Other researchers have observed students solving problems and
identified the strategies they used. The findings suggest that students
use the problem solving strategies found in textbooks.
Webb (1979), studying college algebra students, found that after
reading the problem (a necessary first step in all plans) students used
strategies such as: Drawing a diagram (the most commonly used
strategy), Writing an equation, Using an algorithm, and Verifying the
solution.
Sherrill (1983) conducted a similar study with seventh grade
mathematics students. Sherrill found strategies used by the subjects
included: Reading the problem, Drawing a diagram, Writing an
equation, Using an algorithm to compute, Counting, and Checking the
answer.
As early as the third grade, the use of strategies becomes apparent
in the solution to mathematics word problems. Romberg and Collis
(1985) interviewed third graders about their problem solving tech-
niques. Strategies which the students incorporated into their problem
solving included: Producing a model of the problem (At this grade
level the models were not diagrams but were produced with fingers
or counting chips), Writing open sentences, and Using algorithms to
compute.

Problem Solving Model for this Study

The review of the literature revealed that recommendations for

word problem solving were similar across textbooks and descriptive
studies on word problem solving supported steps recommended in
textbooks. The strategies which appeared in at least two of the
prescriptive problem solving plans (Table 1) and which were sup-
ported by the descriptive literature (Table 2) were included in the
problem solving model used for this study. The eight process steps, in
addition to the solution (step 8- State the answer), comprising the
problem solving plan for this study are: 1. List (find) the facts that are

149
 Research in Middle Level Education • Fall 1992

given. 2. List (decide) what must be found . 3. Draw a diagram

(pictorial representation) of the problem. 4. Choose the operations you
will use to solve the problem. 5. Write an open sentence. 6. Estimate
the answer. 7.Computetheanswer. 8.Statetheanswer. 9. Validate the
answer by assessing its reasonableness and its proximity to the
estimate.
These nine steps seem to form a logical approach to solving
routine arithmetic word problems. The problem solverreads the word
problem and identifies the given facts and the question. (For this study
the subjects were asked to list both the facts that were given and what
is to be found.) This identification is a necessary first step for under-
standing the problem. The problem solver then analyzes the relation-
ships which exist between the givens and the unknown. Drawing a
diagram (a model of the problem situation) is a way to clarify the
relationships. The diagram of the problem situation, as well as the
understanding which preceded the diagram, suggests to the problem
solver which operation(s) are needed to arrive at a solution. The
selection of the required operations and the relationships expressed in
the diagram lead to the composition of an open sentence, a mathemati-
cal representation of the problem situation. Guided by the open
sentence the problem solver ascertains the appropriateness of the plan
through estimation. If the estimate is deemed reasonable as a solution,
the problem solver will then compute an answer. The result of the
computations is then written in the form of an answer appropriate to
the specific problem situation. Finally, the problem solver verifies the
solution by comparing it to the estimate and evaluating its fit to the
question.

Method

Sample

The sample consisted of nine randomly selected sixth grade

classes and nine randomly selected eight grade classes in a west
central Florida school district. The sample included 153 sixth grade
subjects, 75 males and 78 females; and 149 eighth grade subjects, 78
males and 71 females, for a grand total of 302. The sample was
heterogeneous at both the sixth and the eighth grade levels in terms of
mathematical ability with stanine ranges from two to ni..Qe on the Total
Mathematics subtest of the Stanford Achievement Test.

Procedure

The subjects at each grade level were given a 50 minute period, on

each of two consecutive days, to solve 10 routine, two-step word

150
 Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades Mathematics

problems. Each of the problems was presented on a problem solving

worksheet, a page containing each step of the nine step problem
solving plan followed by space for the required work. The pupils were
instructed to respond to each step of the plan as they attempted to
solve each of the word problems. On the first day the test proctors
worked through one sample problem to demonstrate the format and
usP. of the problem solving worksheets. The mathematics teachers of
all the pupils in this study indicated, prior to the data collection, that
they taught problem solving as a multi-step process and that the nine
steps of the problem solving plan had been included in their instruc-
tion.

Scoring

Each subject's work was scored on each of the steps of the problem
solving plan for each problem. A subject's step score was the average
of scores for that step across alllO problems. The responses to each of
the process steps were scored two, one, or zero. A "two" was assigned
to a totally correct response," one" was assigned to a partially correct
response, and a "zero" was assigned to a totally incorrect response.
The solution step, step eight, was scored as "one" (correct) or "zero"
(incorrect).

Results

Reliability

Criterion scoring reliability was determined from a sample of 20

student packets randomly selected from the total of 302 scored
packets. The 20 randomly selected packets were independently
rescored by an authority in the field of mathematical problem solving.
The resulting percent of agreement was 99.84%.
Internal consistency reliability estimates were computed for nine
distinct subsets of the responses. Each subset was composed of the
responses to one step across alllO problems. The resulting coefficients
ranged from .66 to .94 with a median of .86 for the sixth grade subjects
and from .69 to .96 with a median of .80 for the eighth grade subjects.
In addition, an overall measure of internal consistency for the combi-
nation of all the steps across all of the problems was computed for the
sixth grade subjects (.80) and the eighth grade subjects (.80).

Mean scores

Mean step scores, the mean score of all subjects across one step,
and standard deviations, by grade level are contained in Table 3. The

151
 Research in Middle Level Education • Fall 1992

Table 3

Mean Step Scores and Standard Deviations

by Grade Level

Grade n Mean so
MSTEP1 6 153 1.68 0.30
8 149 1.86 0.19

MSTEP2 6 153 1.73 0.51

8 149 1.89 0.37

MSTEP3 6 153 0.91 0.46

8 149 0.82 0.44

MSTEP4 6 153 1.54 0.38

8 149 1.79 0.22

MSTEP5 6 153 1.09 0.59

8 149 1.51 0.51

MSTEP6 6 153 1.00 0.74

8 149 1.56 0.59

MSTEP7 6 153 1.69 0.31

8 149 1.88 0.20

MSTEP8 6 153 0.54 0.29

8 149 0.79 0.22

MSTEP9 6 153 1.51 0.44

8 149 1.80 0.26

NOTE 1. Stating the given facts, 2. Stating the unknown facts, 3. Drawing a diagram, 4.
Choosing the operations, 5. Writing an equation, 6. Estimating the answer, 7. Computing
the answer, 8. Stating the answer, and 9. Verifying the answer.

NOTE The maximum score for MSTEP 8 is one. The maximum score for all of the other
MSTEPs is two.

sixth and eighth grade subjects correctly solved 54% and 79% of the
problems, respectively. Mean scores on the process steps ranged from
1.89 to .82 out of a possible score of 2. The lowest scores occurred on
step 3-Diagramming the problem, with the sixth and the eighth
grade subjects scoring .91 and .82, respectively:
A regression analysis was computed including all the data. The

152
 Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades Mathematics

Table4

R-Squared and Semi-partial Correlation

Coefficients Squared in Predicting Step 8-
the Correct Solution to the Problem For All
Subjects Across Grades Six and Eight (n=302)

Step 4 0.31
Step 1 0.14
Step 2 0.08
Step 7 0.05
Step 9 0.03
Step 3 0.02
Step 5 0.01
Step 6 0.01

Rsqrd 0.66

NOTE 1. Stating the given facts, 2. Stating the unknown facts, 3. Drawing a diagram, 4.
Choosing the operations, 5. Writing an equation, 6. Estimating the answer, 7.
Computing the answer, 8. Stating the answer, and 9. Verifying the answer.

eight process steps of the problem solving plan (steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

and 9) were entered as independent variables and the solution step
(step 8) as the dependent variable. The R-squared and semi-partial
correlations squared listed in rank order are presented in Table 4.
The regression for the combined data resulted in an R-squared of
.66. Semi-partial correlations squared indicated that Choosing the
correct operation accounted for 31% of the total variance, Stating the
given facts accounted for 14% of the total variance, Stating the
unknown facts accounted for 8% of the variance, and Computing the
answer accounted for 5% of the total variance. The remaining four
process steps: Diagramming the problem (2%), Writing an equation
(1%), Estimating the answer (1%), and Verifying the answer (3%),
accounted for an additional 7% of the total variance.
Two additional regression analyses were computed for the sixth
grade data and the eighth grade data, separately. The resulting Rs-
squared and semi-partial correlations squared listed in rank order are
presented in Table 5.
At the sixth grade level the four steps in order of strength of
contribution to the solution are: step four- Choosing the operation
(29%), step one- Stating the known facts (13%), step two- Stating the
unknown facts (8%), and step seven- Computing the answer (4%). It
is noted that these are the same four steps which contributed most

153
 Research in Middle Level Education • Fall 1992

Table 5

Rs-Squared and Semi-partial Correlation

Coefficients Squared in Predicting Step 8,
the Correct Solution to the Problem for
Grade 6 (n=153) and for Grade 8 (n=l49)

Grade 6 Grade 8

Step4 0.29 Step4 0.22

Step 1 0.13 Step3 0.12
Step 2 0.08 Step 2 0.10
Step 7 0.04 Step 7 0.09
Step 3 0.04 Step 9 0.06
Step 9 0.02 Step 1 0.02
Step 6 0.01 Step 5 0.01
StepS 0.001 Step 6 0.00

Rsqrd 0.62 Rsqrd 0.61

NOTE 1. Stating the given facts, 2. Stating the unknown facts, 3. Drawing a diagram, 4.
Choosing the operations, 5. Writing an equation, 6. Estimating the answer, 7. Computing
the answer, 8. Stating the answer, and 9. Verifying the answer.

highly in the regression analysis for all subjects. However, when the
eighth grade subjects are considered separately, a change is apparent.
For the eighth grade subjects, separately, step four - Choosing the
operation (22%), still contributed the largest amount to the total
variance, but step 3- Diagramming the problem, became the second
largest contributor accounting for 12% of the total variance in solving
word problems. At the sixth grade level, the same step three accounted
for only 4% of the total variance in problem solving, step two -Stating
the unknown facts (10%), and step seven- Computing the answer
(9%), ranked third and fourth in strength of contribution at the eighth
grade level, the same rankings those steps occupied in each of the
regression analyses. An additional difference is that step 9- Verifying
the answer, also increased in relative importance at the eighth grade
level accounting for 6% of the total variance comparetl to 2% of the
total variance at the sixth grade level.

Discussion

The mean scores on step 8 - the solution step: 54% for sixth graders

154
 Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades Mathematics

and 79% for eighth graders, were high success rates for two-step
problems when compared to Quintero's (1983) finding that only 20%
of subjects could solve two-step word problems. This high success rate
may be due, in part, to the problems used in this study. The use of
whole numbers and the omission of extraneous information would
tend to decrease the level of difficulty. The high success rate may have
also been due, in part, to the use of the problem solving plan. If the plan
is an effective approach for solving routine word problems, relatively
high scores would be expected. Because there was no control group
solving the same 10 problems without the use of the problem solving
plan, it is difficult, on the basis of percent correct, to determine the
effectiveness of the plan.
However, the R-squared for the combined data of .66 indicates
that 66% of the total variance of the solution step was predicted for by
variance associated with the process steps of the problem solving plan.
This large contribution indicates that the step by step problem solving
plan did contribute significantly to word problem solving achieve-
ment and is a useful approach to routine word problem solving.
The semi-partial correlations squared indicated the unique contri-
bution of each of the eight process steps. The four steps ranked highest
in their unique contributions: Choosing an operation (31 %), Identify-
ing the unknown facts (14%), Stating the unknown facts (8%), and
Computing the answer (5%), describe what a person must minimally
do to solve a problem, i.e., determine the facts which are given, decide
what is to be found, choose the appropriate operation(s), and then
compute the answer.
The remaining four process steps: Diagramming the problem,
Estimating the answer, Writing an equation, and Verifying the solu-
tion, accounted for a combined total of 7% of the variance. These four
steps could be viewed as potentially helpful, but not essential, to the
minimal problem solving process. They are steps intended to help the
problem solver analyze the problem situation and to evaluate the
appropriateness of the solution. It is hypothesized that increasing the
difficulty level of the problems would increase the need for analysis
and verification, thereby increasing the contributions of the peripheral
steps.
A comparison of the regression results by grade level reveals
changes in the contribution of steps. At the eighth grade level,
Diagramming was the second largest contributor, accounting for 12%
of the total variance. At the sixth grade level, the same step accounted
for only 4% of the total variance. Verifying the answer also increased
in importance at the eighth grade level accounting for 6% of the total
variance compared to 2% of the total variance at the sixth grade level.
The effectiveness of those two individual steps appears to be a
function of grade level. Other steps of the problem solving plan might

155
 Research in Middle Level Education • Fall 1992

also vary as a function of grade level prior to the sixth grade and
beyond the eighth grade.

Recommendations for Practice

This study indicated that the use of a step by step problem solving
plan was highly predictive of success in solving routine, mathematical
word problems. Although textbooks vary in recommended strategies,
the steps included in this study represent a solid foundation of skills
for successful problem solving. The use of a step by step plan should
prove to be especially helpful for students who do not know how to
"attack" a word problem. Teachers should introduce a plan for
problem solving and provide for practice on each of the individual
steps, as well as, the overall process.
Although this study dealt with routine word problems, many of
the steps are also applicable to the solution of non-routine word
problems. For example, identifying the given information and the
question are steps which would apply; whereas, deciding on the
operation might not. With variations, the use of a step by step problem
solving plan is applicable to non-routine word problems and could
supply a starting point for students who do not know how to proceed.

References

Abbott, J.S., & Wells, D.W. (1985). Mathematics today. Orlando, Fl: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Bolster, L. C., Crown, W., Linquist, M. M., McNerney, C., Nibbelink, W.,
Prigge, G., Rahlfs, C., Robitaille, D., Schultz, J., Swafford, J., Vance, 1.,
Wilson, J., & Wisner, R. (1985). Invitation to mathematics. Glenview, IL:
Scott Foresman.
Gagne, R. M. (1983). Some issues in the psychology of mathematics instruc-
tion. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14,7-18.
Kantowski, M.G. (1977). Processes involved in mathematical problem solv-
ing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8, 163-179.
Keedy, M. L., Bittinger, M. L., Smith, S. A., & Orfan, L. J. (1985). Algebra.
Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
Kintsch, W ., & Greeno, J. G. (1983). Understanding and solving arithmetic
problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109-129.
Lowry, D.W., Ockenga, E.G., & Rucker, W.E. (1986). Pre-algebra. Lexington,
MA: Heath.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evalu-
ation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1986) . The mathematics report
card: Are we measuring up? (ETS Publication No. 17-M-01). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Phillips, E.R., Uprichard, A.E., & Johnson, H. (1974). The correlation of
selected mathematical measures with problem solving ability. Florida

156
 Word Problem Solving in Middle Grades Mathematics

Journal of Educational Research, 16, 3-11.

Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Quintero, A.H. (1983). Conceptual understanding in solving two step word
problems with a ratio. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14,
102-112.
Romberg, T.A., & Collis, K.F. (1985). Cognitive functioning and performance
on addition and subtraction word problems. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 16, 375-382.
Schimizzi, N. V. (1988). Word problem solving. What is experimental research
saying about mathematics word problem solving? A review of forty-four
studies completed between 1980-1987. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Chicago.
Schoenfeld, A. H . (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Aca-
demic Press.
Sherrill, J. M. (1983). Solving textbook mathematical word problems. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 29, 140-152.
Soriano, A., & Phillips, E.R. (1982, November). The relationship among selected
language factors and a systematic questioning technique with the ability to
solve mathematical word problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Florida Educational Research Association, Orlando.
Stigler,]. W., Fuson, K. C., Ham, M., & Kim, S. (1986). An analysis of addition
and subtraction word problems in American and Soviet elementary
mathematics textbooks. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 153-171.
Up richard, A. E., Phillips, E.R., & Soriano, A. (1984). A conceptual schema for
solving mathematical word problems with implications for instruction.
Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 6, 79-107.
Webb, N. L. (1979). Processes, conceptual knowledge, and mathematical
problem-solving ability.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10,
83-92.

157