Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reading-enhanced word problem solving: a theoretical model

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a reciprocal relationship between mathematics and reading cognition. Metacognitive training within reading-enhanced problem solving should facilitate students developing an awareness of what good readers do when reading for meaning in solving mathematical problems enabling them to apply these strategies. The constructs for each cognitive component articulated in the manuscript are supported by research demonstrating benefits in reading and mathematics achievement and how they operate together to help students’ conceptualize mathematical problems. Teachers need to think less about students deriving an answer and more in terms of facilitating students’ application of the cognitive components of reading and mathematics. Thus, teachers can implement reading-enhanced problem solving in mathematics when students struggle, rather than having to manipulate their local curriculum.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, T. L. (2003). Reading mathematics: more than words can say. The Reading Teacher, 56, 786–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: a multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and U.S. Department of Education

  • Ashlock, R. B. (2001). Error patterns in computation: using error patterns to improve instruction. Columbus: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, M. L., & Heidema, C. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics (2nd ed.). Aurora: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, S., & Reddy, L. (2007). What content-area teachers should know about adolescent literacy. Jessup: National Institute for Literacy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blachowicz, C., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 503–523). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, T. R., Rupley, W. H., & Nichols, W. D. (2007). The effective teacher of reading: considering the “what” and “how” of instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60, 432–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, W., Lankes, E., Prenzel, M., Schwippert, K., Walther, G., Valtin, R., et al. (2003). Welche fragen konnen auseinergemeinsamen interpretation derbefundeaus PISA and IGLU fundiertbeantwortetwerden? [To which questions does a combined interpretation of the results yielded by both PISA and IGLU provide well-grounded answers?]. Zeitschrift fur Padagogik, 49(2), 198–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D. P., Ugel, N., Thompson, S., & Hamff, A. (1999). Instructional strategies for content-area reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calfee, R. C., & Drum, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 804–849). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2006). Are you really going to read us a story? Learning geometry through children’s mathematics literature. Reading Psychology, 27, 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, M. M., & Joffrion, H. (2006). Algebraic equations: Can middle-school students meaningfully translate from words to mathematical symbols? Reading Psychology, 27, 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R. M., & Yetkiner, Z. E. (2008). Teacher’s role in developing representational fluency in middle grades. In G. Kulm (Ed.), Teacher knowledge and practice in middle grades mathematics (pp. 273–286). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, R. M., Kulm, G., Hammer, M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). The origin and persistence of misconceptions in statistical thinking. In D. S. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G. Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 1339–1340. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

  • Capraro, M. M., Kulm, G., & Capraro, R. M. (2005). Middle grades: misconceptions in statistical thinking. School Science and Mathematics Journal, 105, 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Cifarelli, V. V. (2007). What are students thinking as they solve open-ended mathematics problems? In D. K. Pugalee, A. Rogerson, & A. Schnick (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference of Mathematics Education in a Global Community. Charlotte, NC

  • Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Rupley, W. H. (2010). Semantics and syntax: a theoretical model for how students may build mathematical mis-understandings. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 58–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, T. P., Lindquist, M. M., Brown, C. A., Kouba, V. L., Silver, E. A., & Swafford, J. O. (1988). Results of the fourth NAEP assessment of mathematics: trends and conclusions. Arithmetic Teacher, 36(4), 38–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). Poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 2(1), 14–15. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

  • Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2005). Effective reading programs for English language learners and other language minority students. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 241–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cifarelli, V. V. (1998). The development of mental representations as a problem solving activity. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Dingfelder, S. (2007). Schema-based instruction improves math skills. Monitor on Psychology, 38(4). Available from: http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr07/schema.aspx

  • Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61, 239–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esty, W. (1992). Language concepts of mathematics. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 14, 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M. (2005). Predicting math outcomes: reading predictors and comorbidity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 308–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: from identification to intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fordham, N. W. (2006). Crafting questions that address comprehension strategies in content reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49, 390–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving profiles of students with mathematics disabilities with and without comorbid reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 563–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction among students with risk for mathematics disability with and without risk for reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, D. (2007). Children’s immediate understanding of vocabulary: contexts and dictionary definitions. Reading Psychology, 28, 331–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: problem solving differences and cognitive deficits. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 199–212). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M. D., Greenwood, C. R., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 10(5), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: on land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66(3), 331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, C. J., & Braun, C. (1983). Using story schema as an aid to reading and writing. The Reading Teacher, 2, 116–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haapasalo, L., & Kadijevich, D. (2000). Two types of mathematical knowledge and their relation. Journal fur Mathematik-Didktik, 21(2), 139–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanich, L. B., Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 615–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, A. J., Blair, T. R., & Rupley, W. H. (2002). Principles and practices of teaching reading (10th ed.). Columbus: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, E. H. (1994). Becoming literate through authentic tasks: evidence and adaptations. In R. B. Rudell, M. R. Rudell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 391–411). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the world: scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and stagnant reading comprehension. American Educator, 27(1), 10–13. 16–22, 28–29, 48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jetton, T., Rupley, W. H., & Willson, V. L. (1995). Comprehension of narrative and expository texts: the role of content, domain, discourse, and strategy knowledge. In K. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research andpractice. 44th yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 197–204). Chicago: NRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jitendra, A. K., Di Pipi, C. M., & Perron-Jones, N. (2002). An exploratory study of schema-based word-problem-solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: an emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 23–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. D., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Teaching reading vocabulary (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  • Jordan, N. C., & Hanich, L. B. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 567–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Hanich, L. B. (2002). Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics: findings of a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 586–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., & Kaplan, D. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74, 834–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Understanding mathematical literacy: the contribution of research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 129–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouba, V. L., & Wearne, D. (2000). Whole number properties and operations. In E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenney (Eds.), Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progress (pp. 141–161). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouba, V. L., Brown, C. A., Carpenter, T. P., Lindquist, M. M., Silver, E. A., & Swafford, J. O. (1988). Results of the fourth NAEP assessment of mathematics: number, operations, and word problems. Arithmetic Teacher, 35(8), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. R. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 127–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: a review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Morris, R. D., Morrow, L. M., Woo, D. G., Meeisinger, E. B., et al. (2006). Teaching children to become fluent and automatic readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 357–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulm, G., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2007). Teaching and learning middle grades mathematics with understanding. Middle Grades Research Journal, 2, 23–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 492–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The nation’s report card: reading 2007 (NCES 2007–496). Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee Swanson, H., Jerman, O., & Zheng, X. (2009). Math disabilities and reading disabilities: can they be separated? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepik, M. (1990). Algebraic word problems: role of linguistic and structural variables. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalisticinquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlefield, J., & Rieser, J. J. (1993). Semantic features of similarity and children’s strategies for identification of relevant information in mathematical story problems. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 133–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodholz, R. (1990). The transition from arithmetic to algebra. In E. L. Edwards Jr. (Ed.), Algebra for everyone (pp. 24–33). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matteson, S. M. (2007). Middle school students’ representational understandings and justification schemes: Gleanings from cognitive interviews. Dissertation abstracts. Texas A&M University.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehler, J., Jusczyk, P., Lambertz, G., Halsted, N., Bertoncini, J., & Amiel-Tison, C. (2002). A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. In G. T. M. Altman (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: critical concepts in psychology. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education, 20, 507–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreau, S., & Coquin-Viennot, D. (2003). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems by fifth-grade pupils: representations and selection of information. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second readers and at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009). Nation’s report card. Available from: http://nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/. Accessed 15 May 2009

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The condition of education 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

  • National Research Council. (2005). On evaluation curricular effectiveness: judging the effectiveness of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003 Assessment framework: mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, D., Donahue, M. Stillisano, J., Capraro, M. M., Goldsby, D., Yetkiner, E., & Capraro, R. M. (2007, November). Communication and representations. Presented at the regional conference of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Houston, TX.

  • Piccolo, D. L., Harbaugh, A. P., Carter, T. A., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Quality of instruction: examining discourse in middle school mathematics instruction. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 376–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Do word-problem features differentially affect problem difficulty as a function of students’ mathematics difficulty with and without reading difficulty? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2002a). Comprehension strategies instruction: a turn-of-the-century status report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 11–27). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2002b). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291–309). Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T. V. (2000). Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 54, 146–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N. D. (1996). Five lessons to increase reading fluency. In L. R. Putnam (Ed.), How to become a better reading teacher (pp. 255–265). Englewood Cliffs: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Readance, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1998). Content area literacy: an integrated approach (Vol. 6th). Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: an iterative process. Journal of Education and Psychology, 93, 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupley, W. H. (2006). Reading and mathematics: introduction. Reading Psychology: An International Journal, Special Issue on Reading and Mathematics, 27, 87–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupley, W. H., & Slough, S. S. (2008). Building prior knowledge and vocabulary in science in the intermediate grades: Creating hooks for learning. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

  • Rupley, W. H., & Willson, V. L. (1997). The relationship of reading comprehension to components of word recognition: support for developmental shifts. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30, 255–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, J. (1994). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading, revisited. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 816–837). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

  • Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13, 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., et al. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: a meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematic semantics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E. A. (2000). Improving mathematics teaching and learning: how can principles and standards help? Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6, 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15(9), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics; a best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 427–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., & Groff, C. (2007). Effective programs for middle and high school mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education. Available from www.bestevidence.org. Accessed 9 October 2009

  • Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: a best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 290–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smagorinsky, P., Cook, S. L., & Reed, P. M. (2005). The construction of meaning and identity in the composition and reading of an architectural text. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, S., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: a model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 278–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2006). Math disabilities: a selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 249–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teubal, T. N. (1975). Verbal cues as an interfering factor in verbal problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 6(1), 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. G., Phillip, R. A., Thompson, P. W., & Boyd, B. (1994). Calculational and conceptual orientations in teaching mathematics. In D. Achele & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development of teachers of mathematics (pp. 79–92). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Henst, J., Sperber, D., & Politzer, G. (2002). When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking & Reasoning, 8, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., & Coleman, M. (2004). The role of mentoring in promoting use of research-based practices in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & de Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 211–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Wagner, S., & Parker, S. (1993). Advancing algebra. Research ideas for the classroom: high school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson, V. L., & Rupley, W. H. (1997). A structural equation model for reading comprehension based on background, phonemic, and strategy knowledge. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reading, 1, 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan Ping, X., Jitendra, A., & Deatline-Buchman, A. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zevenbergen, R. L. (2000). Cracking the code of mathematics classrooms: school success as a function of linguistic, social and cultural background. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 201–223). Westport: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M University and the Aggie STEM Center, College Station, TX, 77843-4232, USA

    Robert M. Capraro & Mary Margaret Capraro

  2. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4232, USA

    William H. Rupley

Authors
  1. Robert M. Capraro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Margaret Capraro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William H. Rupley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert M. Capraro.

Additional information

Robert M. Capraro is a Professor of Mathematics Education at Texas A&M University and Aggie STEM Center with research interests in mathematical representation, quantitative research methods, and the factors influencing mathematics achievement.

Current themes of research:

Mathematical representation. Quantitative research methods. Factors influencing mathematics achievement

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Capraro, R. M., Yetkiner, Z. E., Özel, S., Corlu, M. S., Capraro, M. M., Ye, S., & Kim, H. G. (2011). An international perspective on students’ understanding of the equal sign. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education: An International Journal, 10, 187–213

Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Rupley, W. H. (2010). Semantics and syntax: A theoretical model for how students may build mathematical mis-understandings. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 58–66.

Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., Carter, T. A., & Harbaugh, A. (2010). Questioning, curiosity, and representing: What makes a difference mathematically? Research in Middle Level Education Online, 34(4), 1–19.

Beal, G., Sulentic, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2006). How do literacy experiences affect the teaching propensities of elementary pre-service teachers? Reading Psychology, 27, 235–255.

Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2006). Are you really going to read us a story? Learning geometry through children’s mathematics literature. Reading Psychology, 27, 21–36.

Mary Margaret Capraro is an assistant professor of Mathematics Education at Texas A&M University and Aggie STEM Center. Her research interests include teacher beliefs about mathematics, the acquisition of mathematics in early grades, and cultural influences on mathematics achievement.

Current themes of research:

Teacher beliefs about mathematics. The acquisition of mathematics in early grades. Cultural influences on mathematics achievement

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Rowntree, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2010). Understanding and aiding students’ perceptions of algebraic inequalities. Texas Mathematics Teacher. Fall, 10–17.

William H. Rupley, Professor of Reading Education conducts research in reading acquisition. Correspondence can be sent to authors at 4232 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4232 (rcapraro@tamu.edu).

Appendix

Appendix

* Indicates article used in meta synthesis.

*Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

*Adams, T. L. (2003). Reading mathematics: More than words can say. Reading Teacher, 56, 786–795.

*Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373.

*Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1988). On selecting “considerate” content area textbooks. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 47–52.

*Ashlock, R. B. (2001). Error patterns in computation: Using error patterns to improve instruction. Columbus, OH: l Prentice Hall.

*Baroody, A. J. (1989). One point of view: Manipulatives don’t come with guarantees. Arithmetic Teacher, 37, 4–5.

*Barton. M. L., & Heidema, C. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics. (2nd). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

*Barton, M. L., Heidema, C., & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and science. Educational Leadership. 60, 24–28.

*Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E. M., Olejnik, S., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth-grade students’ ability to derive and infer word meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 447–494.

*Baxter, S., & Reddy, L. (2007). What content-area teachers should know about adolescent literacy. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.

*Bintz, W. P., & Moore, S. D. (2002). Using literature to support mathematical thinking in middle school. Middle School Journal, 34(2), 25–32.

*Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent learners. New York: Gilford.

*Bryant, D. P., Ugel, N., Thompson, S., & Hamff, A. (1999). Instructional strategies for content-area reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 293–302.

*Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Petrella, J. N. (2004). Effective reading comprehension instruction: Examining child x instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 682–698.

*Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 131–143.

*Esty, W. (1992). Language concepts of mathematics. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 14, 31–54.

*Fennema, E. (1972). The relative effectiveness of a symbolic and a concrete model in learning a selected mathematics principle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 3, 233–38.

*Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving profiles of students with mathematics disabilities with and without comorbid reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 563–573.

*Gardner, D. (2007). Children’s immediate understanding of vocabulary: Contexts and dictionary definitions. Reading Psychology, 28, 331–373.

*Harmon, J. M., Hedrick, W. B., & Wood, K. D. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 261–280.

*Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., & Kaplan, D. (2003a). Arithmetic fact mastery in young children: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 103–119.

*Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

*Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109–129.

*Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 129–164.

*Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Morris, R. D., Morrow, L. M., Woo, D. G., Meeisinger, E. B., Sevcik, R. A., et al. (2006). Teaching children to become fluent and automatic readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 357–386.

*Littlefield, J., & Rieser, J. J. (1993). Semantic features of similarity and children’s strategies for identification of relevant information in mathematical story problems. Cognition & Instruction, 11, 133–188.

*MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Cognitive models underlying students’ formulation of simple linear equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 217–232.

*Meijnen, G. W., Lagerweij, N. W., & de Jong, P. F. (2003). Instruction characteristics and cognitive achievement of young children in elementary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(2) 159–187.

*Moreau, S., & Coquin-Viennot, D. (2003). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems by fifth-grade pupils: Representations and selection of information. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 109–121.

*Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second readers and at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730–742.

*Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III. pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

*Neufeld, P. (2005). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. The Reading Teacher, 59, 302–312.

*Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematic semantics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.

*Suydam, M. N., & Higgins, J. L. (1976, September). Review and synthesis of studies of activity-based approaches to mathematics teaching. Final report, NIE Contract No. 400-75-0063. Columbus, OH: Information Analysis Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.

*Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

*Teubal, T. N. (1975). Verbal cues as an interfering factor in verbal problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 6, 41–51.

*Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & de Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 211–213.

*Zevenbergen, R. L. (2000). Cracking the code of mathematics classrooms: School success as a function of linguistic, social and cultural background. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 201–223). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Capraro, R.M., Capraro, M.M. & Rupley, W.H. Reading-enhanced word problem solving: a theoretical model. Eur J Psychol Educ 27, 91–114 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0068-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0068-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation