Abstract
The structure of certain word-problems can be perceived in different ways, depending on the grammatical form of presentation of the problem and the student’s expectation of how it will be solved. The results of our study involving 268 school students aged 14–16 show that, for a certain class of problems, different problem presentations promote the construction of different cognitive models of the situation described. Our data provide support for the hypothesis of Nathan et al. (1992) that in the solution of algebra word-problems there are three components of interpretation and modelling: a propositional text base, a cognitive model of the situation, and a formal model of the mathematical relationships. However we show that, for certain problems, there are two equally valid cognitive models of the situation, only one of which can be linked to an algebraic representation of relationships. For problems of this type, the lack of correspondence between a cognitive model of the situation and an algebraic representation of relationships in the problem is a powerful obstacle to the use of algebraic methods.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bednarz, N., Radford, L., Janvier, B., & Lepage, A. (1992). Arithmetical and algebraic thinking in problem-solving. In W. Geeslin & K. Graham (Eds.),Proceedings of the 16th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 65–72). Durham, NH: Program Committee.
De Beaugrande, R. (1982). General constraints on process models of language comprehension. In J.-F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.),Language and comprehension (pp. 179–192). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170–218.
Hall, R., Kibler, D., Wenger, E., & Truxaw, C. (1989). Exploring the episodic structure of algebra story problem solving.Cognition and Instruction, 6, 223–283.
Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E., & Green, C. E. (1992). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: Evidence from students’ eye fixations.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 76–84.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Propositional representations, procedural semantics, and mental models. In J. Mehler, E. C. T. Walker, & M. Garrett (Eds.),Perspectives on mental representation (pp. 111–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993).Human and machine thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems.Psychological Review, 92, 109–129.
Lewis, A. B., & Mayer, R. E. (1987). Students’ miscomprehension of relational statements in arithmetic word problems.Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 363–371.
MacGregor, M. (1991).Making sense of algebra: Cognitive processes influencing comprehension. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press.
MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Cognitive models underlying students’ formulation of simple linear equations.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 217–232.
Marshall, S. P. (1995).Schemas in problem solving. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1982). Memory for algebra story problems.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 199–216.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.),The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments.Cognition and Instruction, 9, 329–389.
Paige, J. M., & Simon, H. A. (1966). Cognitive processes in solving algebra word problems. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.),Problem solving: Research, method, and theory (pp. 51–119). New York, NY: Wiley.
Piaget, J., Grize, J. B., Szeminska, A., & Vinh Bang (1977).Epistemology and psychology of functions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Reusser, K. (1990). From text to situation to equation: Cognitive simulation of understanding and solving mathematical word problems. In H. Mandl, E. de Corte, N. Bennett, & H. Friedrich (Eds.),Learning and instruction (pp. 477–498). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.),Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stacey, K. & MacGregor, M. (1995). The influence of problem representation on algebraic equation writing and solution strategies. In L. Meira & D. Carraher (Eds.),Proceedings of the 19th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 90–97). Recife, Brazil: Program Committee.
Stern, E. (1993). What makes certain arithmetic word problems involving the comparison of sets so difficult for children?Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 7–23.
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Vergnaud, G. (1990). Problem solving and concept formation in the learning of mathematics. In H. Mandl, E. de Corte, N. Bennett, & H. Friedrich (Eds.),Learning and instruction (pp. 399–413). Oxford: Pergamon.
Verschaffet L., De Corte, E., & Pauwels, A. (1992). Solving compare problems: An eye movement test of Lewis and Mayer’s consistency hypothesis.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 85–94.
Weaver, C. A. & Kintsch, W. (1992). Enhancing students’ comprehension of the conceptual structure of algebra word problems.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 419–428.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The research reported in this paper was supported by a grant to Kaye Stacey from the Australian Research Council.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MacGregor, M., Stacey, K. Cognitive models underlying algebraic and non-algebraic solutions to unequal partition problems. Math Ed Res J 10, 46–60 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217342
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217342