Model-Drawing Strategy

to Solve Word Problems

for Students with LD
Dr. Olga Jerman
The Frostig Center

IARLD Conference
Miami, Florida
January 14-16, 2010
FrostigCenter
Abstract
The study examined the effectiveness
of using model-drawing methodology
to solve problems for a group of high
school students. The 30-week
intervention used a single-subject
design to teach an 8-step model-
drawing approach for solving problems
with fractions and percentages. The
results showed improvement in
solution accuracy.
FrostigCenter

FrostigCenter

Word-problem Solving and LD
Word problem-solving is an area of
difficulty and frustration for a considerable
number of students, and this, to a great
extent, could be attributed to a large
number of cognitive processes involved in
successful problem completion. It is an
especially difficult area for those students
who are identified with learning disabilities
(LD).

Recently, a considerable amount of work
has been done to examine the sources of
difficulties in problem-solving, predictors
of success, and the best practices and
programs aimed at helping struggling
learners to better problem-solve.
Research findings indicate that the
reduction of demands on the working
memory system (WM) seems to be highly
beneficial. Different ways to minimize
these demands on the WM system have
been tested (e.g. use of visual support via
pictures, diagrams & schemas, and use of
cognitive strategies).
Purpose of the Study
An 8-step model-drawing technique is
intended to enhance the conceptual
understanding of the problem at task and to
reduce the amount of information to be held in
working memory, which, consequently, would
lead to the increased chances of solving
problems correctly. Although the approach was
found to be successful for a regular student
population (typically-achieving kids), no
studies, to the authors knowledge, have
examined the effectiveness of this methodology
for students with learning disabilities.
Therefore, the primary purpose of this study
was to assess the usefulness of Singapore
model drawing technique for students with LD.
FrostigCenter

Model Drawing Strategy
8 Steps of Model drawing
1. Read the problem
2. Decide who is involved
3. Decide what is involved
4. Draw unit bars
5. Read each sentence
6. Put the question mark
7. Work computation
8. Answer the question

FrostigCenter

Example:
Word Problems with Percentage
40% of the school students went to the
National History Museum for a field trip.
20% of students went to the zoo. 50%
of the remaining students went to a
farm. Only 60 students didnt have a
field trip and stayed at school. How
many students are there in this school?
Solution
40%
Museum
20%
Zoo
50% of remaining
Farm
60
school
Total students = ?
1) 60 : 2 = 30
2) 30 x 10 = 300
Answer: There are 300 students in the school
Step 1: Draw a unit bar and divide it into 10 equal parts
One unit bar = ?
100% remaining students

FrostigCenter

Example: Fraction Problems
a) Rosie baked 63 cookies. 3/7 of them were
chocolate chip cookies and the rest were
sugar cookies. How many sugar cookies did
Rosie bake?


1 2 3 4 5 6
7
63
63 : 7 = 9 (one unit bar equals 9)

9 x 4 = 36 (sugar cookies)
63 : 7 = 9 (one unit bar equals 9)
3 x 9 = 27 (chocolate chip cookies)
63 27 = 36 (sugar cookies)
FrostigCenter

Example: Fraction Problems
b) 5/8 of the students in my class are boys.
1/5 of the boys have black hair. If 40 boys
dont have black hair, how many students
are in my class in all?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5/8 - boys 3/8 - girls
1)
5 units - boys
2 1 3 4 5
1/5 boys with black hair Or 4/5 without black hair
1 3 4 2
40
3)
2)
40 : 4 = 10 (one unit bar) =>
10 x 8 = 80 (students in the class)
FrostigCenter

FrostigCenter

Method
5 students (2 control)
2 girls & 3 boys (mean age 16-1)
10
th
grade
30 weeks intervention
20 weeks for fraction problems, 10
weeks percent problems
Treatment fidelity 73%
Scores and Progress of a Control Student #1
R____
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
a
2
4
b
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
2
3
3
Weeks
S
c
o
r
e
s
Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage
Baseline No Intervention
Intervention 1
Fractions
Intervention 2
Fractions
Intervention 3
Percentiles
N
o

I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
s
M=20
FrostigCenter

Scores and Progress of a Control Student #2
E____
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
a
2
4
b
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
2
3
3
Weeks
S
c
o
r
e
s
Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage
Baseline No Intervention
Intervention 1
Fractions
Intervention 2
Fractions
Intervention 3
Percentiles
M=21.33
N
o

I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
s
FrostigCenter

Scores and Progress of a Tx student #1
C______
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
a
2
4
b
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
2
3
3
Weeks
S
c
o
r
e
s
Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage
Baseline No Intervention
Intervention 1
Fractions
Intervention 2
Fractions
Intervention 3
Percentiles
M=1.25
N
o

I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
s
FrostigCenter

J____
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
a
2
4
b
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
2
3
3
Weeks
S
c
o
r
e
s
Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage
Baseline No Intervention
Intervention 1
Fractions
Intervention 2
Fractions
Intervention 3
Percentiles
N
o

I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
s
M=1
Scores and Progress of a Tx student #2
FrostigCenter

O____
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
a
2
4
b
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
2
3
3
Weeks
S
c
o
r
e
s
Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage
Baseline No Intervention
Intervention 1
Fractions
Intervention 2
Fractions
Intervention 3
Percentiles
N
o

I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

M=2
Scores and Progress of a Tx student #3
FrostigCenter

FrostigCenter

Conclusion
Model-drawing strategy can be an effective
alternative method of teaching fraction and
percent problems to students with LD;
Although the training yielded improvement,
it took longer for the students to learn the
technique than initially planned;
Students performance remained higher than
their pre-intervention scores, though it
slightly declined at the 4-week follow-up;
Implications
The current results have important theoretical and
practical considerations. Because of the abstract
nature and complex calculation processes
involved, word problems with percent and
fractions are especially hard to tackle for students
with LD. The model-drawing approach gives
students a more concrete method in
comprehending and solving word problems in
order to get past their language difficulties. By
drawing out what they are reading, the students
are creating a concrete visual application of the
problem. This helps them to manipulate the
numbers more easily.
FrostigCenter

FrostigCenter

Implications (cont.)
The word problem instruction could also be
applied in different ways: either in the large-
group format or as part of differentiated
instruction. The model drawing gives students a
clear procedure for comprehending and
executing problems. As students understand
each level of a problem, the problem of the day
or of the lesson can eventually be taught at
grade level.

References
Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., McGoey, K., Gardill, M. C., Bhat, P., & Riley, T. (1998).
Effects of mathematical word problem-solving by students at risk or with mild
disabilities. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 345-355.
Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving, Cambridge University Press.
Montague, M. Self-Regulation strategies for better math performance in middle school.
(In M Montague and A Jitendra 2006, pp. 86-106).
Newcombe, N. S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J., et al (2009). Psychologys Role in
mathematics and Science Education. American Psychologist, 64, 6, 538-551.
Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Do word-
problem features affect problem difficulty as a function of students mathematics
difficulty with and without reading difficulty? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 99-
111.
Swanson, H. L. & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working
memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious
math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 471-491.
Xin, Y. P., Wiles, B., & Lin, Y. (2008). Teaching conceptual model-based word problem
story grammar to enhance mathematics problem solving. The Journal of Special
Education, 42, 163-178.