Methods/Procedures

Introducing and Re-Teaching Concept Models: Comparison and Part Whole

To gain insight into my wondering, I introduced my students to two different concept
models over the course of four weeks to help them solve word problems. Cheng (2015) refers to
them as the comparison model and the part-whole model. I taught this to my whole group during
math as a strategy to solve addition and subtraction word problems.
Example of comparison model

Smaller
value

Larger
value

The comparison model (Cheng, 2015) is a drawing of two rectangles, one being smaller
than the other. They are placed next to each other so students can compare the two different
quantities, one small quantity to one large quantity. This model is used with either subtraction or
addition, but is more appropriate for subtraction since it is showing the difference between the
two quantities.
Example of part-whole model
Whole

Part

Part

The part-whole model (Cheng, 2015) is a drawing of two rectangles side by side, each
labeled part, with one side of each rectangle touching so together they look like one big

rectangle. Depending on the problem this model is being used with, the two sizes of the
rectangles will be altered. There is a bracket drawn above the two rectangles to demonstrate that
both smaller parts equal one whole. This strategy can be used for either addition or
subtraction, but works best with addition since it is a part-part-whole model.
I introduced the part-whole and comparison model on January 29th to my whole class by
having two word problems, one subtraction and one addition, and the two models drawn under
the doc cam. I modeled for them how to use the part-whole model for addition and then the
comparison for subtraction. I continued to teach the part-whole model and comparison model
(Cheng, 2015) to the whole class over the course of three lessons. After the three whole group
lessons, I consistently asked my students to visualize the word problem using the appropriate
model during instruction for the remainder of the four weeks until the summative on February
23rd. As for lesson structure, I always start with a word problem on the board and my students
read it to themselves quietly twice. Then I pose the questions, Is the problem asking you to add
or subtract? How do you know? and Will I use the part-whole or comparison model? I
typically have them turn and talk about what they think and have them provide evidence to
support their thinking. We have a class discussion about it and then I ask them to reread the
problem using that visual and then to solve on their own. We go over the problem using the
visual on the big white board and students follow along checking their work to make sure they
understand.
For example, during the first lesson on January 29th, on the board I had a word problem
that read, Brian had 13 pencils. Andrea gave him some more pencils. He ended up having a total
of 27 pencils. How many pencils did Andrea give Brian? I asked my students, is this a part-partwhole question or is this a comparison question where we have to find the difference of two

numbers? Overall, my class agreed it was a comparison question so I drew the comparison model
on the board. I asked them to think about what information we are missing and asked them to
solve independently on their white boards. I used a sticky note for observational notes to assess
students understanding. This sticky note can be found in Appendix A.
Then during the same lesson I moved on to an addition word problem that read, There
were 17 flowers in my garden. The next day, 14 more flowers bloomed. How many flowers do I
have altogether? I asked students if this was a comparison question or a part-part-whole
questions. Students agreed it was a part-part-whole question so I drew the corresponding model
on the board without the bracket. I asked them to think about what the question was asking them
and to use the visual to solve on their own with their white boards. Again, I took observational
notes on the same sticky note (Appendix A) mentioned above to keep track of who understood
and who did not.
As a result of analyzing my observation notes, I have discovered that three of my
students, Aiden (pseudonym), Nolan (pseudonym), and Steven (pseudonym) did not understand
as a result of them switching the models and the operations. Since they used the opposite models
that were intended, they all had incorrect answers on their white boards for both of the word
problems mentioned above. I kept track of these students using the sticky note to pull into small
group to re-teach the new model.
Teaching the Strategy Pinpoint and Underline
When walking around the class and observing students while working on an individual
practice assignment on February 2nd, I noticed that Julie (pseudonym) and Nolan had completed
the first two problems and added all of the numbers they saw in each problem, which was
incorrect. When looking at other students work I could see that students were underlining and

circling important information they needed in order to solve the problem. Then I looked back at
Julie and Nolans papers and they were not using the pinpoint and underline strategy (CastroMartinez & Frias-Zorilla, 2013). I decided to take ask Julie and Nolan to join me at my table so
that I could teach this strategy to them explicitly.
I chose this particular strategy because it seemed to be helping the other students and it is
something I noticed Mrs. Wallace show another student who was struggling. I had previously
found literature to provide more information about the pinpoint and underline strategy (CastroMartinez & Frias-Zorilla, 2013) as a back-up plan for struggling students and decided to put it to
use. Castro-Martinez & Frias-Zorilla (2013) claim this strategy is useful for students who just
search for numbers and key words (took, solve, bought, left, came, joined, etc.) to solve or who
are overwhelmed by the amount of words in a problem and have no idea where to begin. This
strategy is used to help students search for and focus on the only information they need to solve
and ignore the names, context/environment, and sometimes the units.
First, I gave both Julie and Nolan a new worksheet and had each student walk me through
their thought process when solving the first problem. An example of this worksheet can be found
in Appendix B. Julie and Nolan would both tell me what they thought, but in the form of a
question so I could tell they were unsure. My next step was to read the word problem aloud to
them, Erica has 64 dollars. She spent 18 dollars on a necklace. Then, she earned 15 dollars for
cleaning her room. How much money does she have now? I asked them to tell me what they
knew about Erica and her money. Julie wanted to subtract for both steps, but when I asked her
why, she could not tell me. I asked them to tell me what was important information they needed
to know to solve. Nolan said, Well, she started with 64 dollars and then spent 18 dollars. I
asked them to underline the 64 dollars and the spent 18 dollars, then I asked, What

operation should we use to figure out how much money Erica has now? Remember, she spent the
money, so think about what operation that would mean. They both knew it was subtraction so I
asked them to put a subtraction symbol above the words spent 18 dollars. I asked them what
other information was important and they knew to underline earned 15 dollars and Nolan
automatically put an addition symbol above it. When I asked, he could tell me why it was
addition. Julie put a subtraction symbol but as soon as I asked her to explain why she paused and
thought for a few seconds, and then said oh! and switched it.
After the first problem, they both successfully pinpointed and underlined important
content and solved the next problem with less guidance from me. Then I let them finish problems
#3, 4, and 5 on their own and they completed them correctly. I collected data on this strategy by
using observational notes during the small group instruction time at the table. I took notes on
their understanding of the strategy as we moved from question to question. I also wrote a minireflection at the bottom as an overall assessment on how the small group went. My observation
notes for this day can be found in Appendix C. Six days later I gave the whole class a formative
and assessed individual scores to identify if any students needed re-teaching and to determine
how well the strategy was working for Julianne and Nolan. An example of the formative and the
scores for my class can be found in Appendix D. Julianne and Nolan received a 3, which means
they scored 9 out of 12 problems correct or higher. Julianne got 10/12 and Nolan got 12/12. I
noticed that they both were using the same strategy we had discussed and I believe it helped
them make sense of the word problem and get rid of unnecessary information. Over the course of
the next three weeks, until the summative on February 23rd, I would check to make sure they
were using the strategy and remind them to use it if they were not. The summative and their
scores can be found in Appendix E.

Findings
As a result of analyzing my data, two important things I learned include students
understand word problems better after being given a visual to relate them to and they preform
better with guided questions in a small group setting. They can also better understand what the
word problem is asking and what information they are given when using the pinpoint and
underlining strategy (Castro-Martinez & Frias-Zorilla, 2013).
Learning Statement 1
Students can understand and visualize word problems better after being shown a visual
part-whole or comparison model that will help them organize the information in the problem.
(Cheng, 2015)
Learning Statement 2
Students are better able to accurately solve word problems when using the pinpoint and
underline strategy (Castro-Martinez & Frias-Zorilla, 2013).

My first learning statement is based on the strategies that Cheng (2015) introduces as the
part-whole strategy and the comparison strategy. I introduced the strategies on January 29th, 2016
to the whole class and 17 students successfully completed their 5 problems with no major
mistakes. Three of my students, Aiden, Nolan, and Steven, did not understand the strategies and
how they connect to word problems. I took them into a small group on the carpet and had them
try to solve without using the strategies. Then if I noticed they were having trouble, I gave them
a mini lesson and used guiding questions to help them drift their thinking in the right direction.
An example of observational notes and a sample of the worksheet can be found in Appendix A.
By the time we finished the whole group lesson, they all answered the fifth question completely

on their own and got it correct. On the first formative they took on February 8th, 2016 with word
problems, 16 of my students passed, three students almost passed, and two students were far
from passing. An example of the formative can be found in Appendix D. Then we took the
summative on February 23rd, 2016 and all of the students passed, with the lowest being a 77%.
An example of the summative and my class scores can be found in Appendix E.
My second learning statement is based on a pinpoint and underline strategy introduced by
Castro-Martinez and Frias-Zorilla (2013). I taught this strategy on the board to the whole class
through the modeling approach on February 2nd, 2016. I noticed two students, Julie and Nolan,
who were still struggling during our whole class instruction so I took them into small group after
instruction had finished. I had them read the word problem twice and then pinpoint and underline
important information needed to solve the problem. Nolan usually only gets 2-3 problems
completed but on this day he completed all five problems 10 minutes early. Julie made a couple
small mistakes but was able to correct them, and then solved the last three problems with no
mistakes. An example of the worksheet we worked through can be found is Appendix B. Both of
these students passed their formative (Appendix D) and their summative (Appendix E)
assessments with a 77% or above.
Conclusion
Overall, my students have learned a vast amount of strategies through my inquiry
process. They successfully learned how to visualize word problems using the comparison and
part-whole models (Cheng, 2015) as well as how to pinpoint and underline important
information needed to solve word problems (Castro-Martinez and Frias-Zorilla, 2013). I have
learned that my students are willing to learn new strategies and they respond positively to
repeated practice. It is evident that they respond positively to new strategies when being able to

use them repeatedly based on the amount of weeks we spent on word problems. I believe my
findings mean that my students have effectively understood the previous two math units as
evidence by their formative and summative test results.
I have learned to research effective strategies for certain mathematical concepts to give
my student a variety of strategies to use when learning and practicing the new concepts. I will
continue to enforce these strategies in the future when applicable during math instruction as long
as my future students respond positively to them. I will take my time and plan out my lessons
and incorporate any new strategies to students that I see are struggling to help them improve and
practice their skills, and hopefully build their self-esteem when it comes to mathematics. After
this semester long inquiry I still wonder how my students will preform in third grade
mathematics and if they will remember the strategies that I have taught them.

References
American Reading Company (2016). Retrieved from

(http://www.americanreading.com/leveling/).
Castro-Martinez, E. & Frias-Zorilla, A. (2013). Two-step arithmetic word problems. The
Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(1&20), 379-406.
Cheng, L. P. (2015). Error analysis for arithmetic word problems a case study of primary
three students in one Singapore school. National Institute of Education, 1-28.
Hart, J. M. (1996). The effect of personalized word problems. Teaching Children Mathematics,
2(8), 504-505.
Pareto, L., Haake, M., Lindstrom, P., Sjoden, B., & Gulz, A. (2012). A teachable agent-based
game affording collaboration and competition: Evaluating math comprehension and
motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development 60(5), 723-751.
Peake, C., Jimenez, J., Rodriguez, C., Bisschop, E., & Villarroel, R. (2015). Syntactic
awareness and arithmetic word problem solving in children with and without learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(6), 593-601.
Selter, C. (2001) Addition and subtraction of three-digit numbers: German elementary
childrens success, methods, and strategies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2),
pp. 145-173.