Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association

2004, Vol. 96, No. 4, 635– 647 0022-0663/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.635

Enhancing Mathematical Problem Solving Among Third-Grade Students

With Schema-Based Instruction
Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs, Karin Prentice, Carol L. Hamlett, Robin Finelli, and Susan J. Courey
Vanderbilt University

The purposes of this study were to assess the effects of schema-based instruction (SBI) in promoting
mathematical problem solving and to investigate schema induction as a mechanism in the development
of mathematical problem solving. Twenty-four 3rd-grade teachers, with 366 students, were assigned
randomly to conditions that provided instruction on 4 types of word problems. The 3 16-week conditions
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

were contrast, SBI, and SBI with practice in sorting word problems into schemas. Students were pre- and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

posttested on mathematical problem-solving tests and were posttested on schema development. Students
receiving SBI, with and without sorting practice, improved more than the contrast group on problem-
solving measures. Concurrently, the SBI groups’ schema development exceeded that of the contrast
group, and schema development explained a substantial portion of unique variance in students’ post-
treatment problem-solving performance. Results also suggested the need for additional research testing
the contribution of practice in sorting word problems.

Mathematical problem solving is a form of transfer, which
requires students to apply the problem–solution rules they have
mastered to novel problems (e.g., Mawer & Sweller, 1985; Sweller
& Cooper, 1985). According to schema-induction theory, a major
challenge in producing mathematical problem-solving expertise is
the development of schemas. As defined by Gick and Holyoak
(1980), a schema is a general description of two or more problems,
which students use to group problems into types that require
similar solution methods (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981; Gick &
Holyoak, 1980; R. E. Mayer, 1992; Quilici & Mayer, 1996).
Theory suggests that the broader the schema (i.e., the more general
the description of the problem category), the greater the probability
individuals will recognize connections between novel and familiar
problems, so they will know when to apply the solution methods
they have mastered.
Consider, for example, the problems in the Appendix. Each
belongs to a step-up function schema because its structure requires
a step-up function for solution. The first problem shows a source
problem—for which a set of solution methods has been taught.
Because it is not possible to teach every step-up function problem,
however, learners must formulate a schema, or category, that
incorporates problems requiring step-up function solutions. When
learners encounter a novel (i.e., untaught) problem, they must
recognize its structure as fitting an established schema (and re-
Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs, Karin Prentice, Carol L. Hamlett, Robin
Finelli, and Susan J. Courey, Department of Special Education, Peabody
College, Vanderbilt University.
This research was supported in part by U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education Programs Grant H324C030115 and National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development Core Grant
HD15052 to Vanderbilt University. Statements do not reflect the posi-
tion or policy of these agencies, and no official endorsement by them
should be inferred.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynn S.
Fuchs, Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Box 328
Peabody, Nashville, TN 37203. E-mail: lynn.fuchs@vanderbilt.edu
635
quiring the relevant problem–solution methods); when this hap-
pens, the transfer required for mathematical problem solving oc-
curs. Novel problems differ from source problems in terms of
superficial features, which alter problems without modifying the
problem-type schema (e.g., step-up function) or the required so-
lution methods. The most basic superficial problem feature is the
cover story (see Appendix), which changes a source problem in
only minor ways and thus requires relatively narrow schema. As
novel problems become increasingly different from source prob-
lems, however, broader schemas are required to recognize novel
problems as belonging to established schema. Superficial features
that render problems more novel than cover stories (and involve
greater transfer distance) include the problem’s format, key vo-
cabulary, question posed, and scope (i.e., where the target problem
is a small piece of a larger problem; see Appendix).
Unfortunately, the development of broad schemas for mathe-
matical problem types does not occur naturally for many individ-
uals (e.g., Bransford & Schwartz, 1999; Cooper & Sweller, 1987;
R. E. Mayer, Quilici, & Moreno, 1999). Moreover, the link be-
tween the development of schemas and problem solving, espe-
cially for young and low-performing students, awaits experimental
demonstration. Establishing such a link is potentially important for
extending our understanding of problem solving and for guiding
effective instructional design in this area. Consequently, the major
purposes of this study were to assess the effects of schema-based
instruction (SBI) in promoting mathematical problem solving and
to investigate schema induction as a mechanism in the devel-
opment of mathematical problem solving among third graders.
We randomly assigned participants to a contrast group or to SBI
and assessed problem-solving skill and schema development as
a function of condition. A secondary purpose was to examine
whether guided practice in sorting problems into schemas might
provide added value in promoting schema development and
problem-solving skill. In this introduction, we review prior
related work and clarify the major and secondary purposes of
the present study.
 636 FUCHS ET AL.
Prior Work on Schema Induction Related to Mathematical
Problem Solving
Most prior work investigating schema induction and mathemat-
ical problem solving involves short-term, independent study of
problems for the purpose of inducing schemas. A smaller body of
research involves longer duration, explicit SBI designed to en-
hance mathematical problem solving.
Short-Term Independent Study
Intervention work has examined how examples can be designed
to build schemas related to mathematical problem solving. Quilici
and Mayer (1996), for example, demonstrated that college students
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
who independently studied statistics problems grouped by problem
type (t test vs. chi square vs. correlation) sorted subsequent prob-
lems more effectively into problem types compared with students
who studied without examples. These researchers also showed that
schema induction was strengthened when examples emphasized
structure rather than superficial features. Interestingly, the pattern
was stronger for lower ability students who, unless primed to do
otherwise, may tend to focus on superficial features more than
higher ability peers. Of course, Quilici and Mayer operationalized
low ability with SAT scores below 575, a definition with limited
generalizability to the public school-age population.
In related work conducted with elementary school children,
Chen (1999) examined how the variability of examples used for
independent study facilitates not only schema induction but also
problem–solution accuracy and its relation to schema develop-
ment. Results illustrated how a broader range of problems for
independent study was more likely than a narrow range of exam-
ples to build schemas and produce problem-solving transfer. This
time, however, effects were mediated by age: Older children
(10 –12-year-olds) were more effective than 8 –9-year-olds at ex-
tracting schemas from the example problems and at solving sub-
sequent problems.
As Quilici and Mayer’s (1996) and Chen’s (1999) studies illus-
trated, important questions remain about how to build schemas and
mathematical problem solving among low-performing and
younger students. Both studies, as is the case for much of the
research on analogical problem solving and schema induction,
relied on single-session interventions without explicit instruction
to build students’ schemas. As Quilici and Mayer concluded,
further study is warranted to examine whether instruction and
structured practice in schema-inducing activities, rather than inde-
pendent study of examples, might strengthen effects.
Longer Duration, Explicit SBI
In fact, some research has explored the potential of explicit SBI
as a method for promoting mathematical problem solving. For
example, in a small-group tutoring study conducted with low-
achieving students in Grades 2– 6, Jitendra et al. (1998) tested a
two-step intervention that combined SBI with the use of diagrams.
When presented with arithmetic word problems, students first
categorized the problem as a change, group, or compare problem
type; this first step was designed to develop schemas. Then,
students used a diagram representing the relevant problem type to
assist in problem solution. This multicomponent intervention re-
sulted in an effect size of 0.45 on students’ accuracy in solving
arithmetic word problems and suggests the potential for schema
construction theory to guide instruction on math problem solving.
Of course, findings do not provide the basis for separating the
effects of SBI from the use of instructional diagrams and do not
document schema induction as the mechanism by which problem
solving improves.
To isolate the contribution of SBI, Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice,
Burch, Hamlett, Owen, et al. (2003) randomly assigned third-grade
classes to contrast and experimental conditions, this time in whole-
class, rather than tutoring, format. The contrast condition involved
instruction designed and implemented by classroom teachers; in
the experimental conditions, researchers designed and conducted
lessons. One of the researcher-designed conditions taught
problem–solution methods; the other researcher-designed condi-
tions taught problem–solution methods along with SBI. SBI pro-
duced superior problem-solving outcomes compared with teacher-
designed instruction and compared with researcher-designed
problem–solution method instruction. Effect sizes ranged between
1.16 and 1.82 depending on transfer distance. As with Jitendra et
al. (1998), however, results failed to document schema induction
as a mechanism that enhanced problem solving.
Purposes of the Present Study
Prior work suggests the potential for instruction based on
schema-induction theory to enhance mathematical problem solv-
ing but fails to substantiate schema induction as the process by
which problem-solving skill develops. The primary purposes of the
present study, therefore, were to assess the effects of SBI in
promoting mathematical problem solving while investigating
whether instruction inspired by schema theory actually results in
schema development. The target population was 8 –9-year-olds.
Understanding how to build schemas and the relation between
schema building and math problem solving for this population is
important in light of studies demonstrating the difficulty 8 –9-year-
olds experience extracting schemas and succeeding with transfer
(Chen, 1999; Gentner, 1988, 1989; Gholson, Eymard, Morgan, &
Kamhi, 1987). Moreover, because previous work (Cooper &
Sweller, 1987; Fuchs, Fuchs, Karns, Hamlett, & Katzaroff, 1999;
D. P. Mayer, 1998; Woodward & Baxter, 1997) demonstrated that
mathematical problem solving (and the transfer involved) is more
difficult to effect with low-achieving students, we separated out-
comes for students at different points on the achievement contin-
uum. In a related way, because most students with disabilities
receive instruction in general education (U.S. Department of Ed-
ucation, 1999) and given the chronic, severe difficulties these
students experience in achieving transfer (e.g., White, 1984), we
examined results separately for these learners.
In addition, the experimental instruction used in the present
study was an innovative form of SBI because it sought to broaden
schemas for problem types (e.g., distinguishing step-up function
problems from half problems) by developing children’s schemas
for superficial problem features (e.g., distinguishing a problem’s
source of novelty as a different format vs. a different question). In
this article, we refer to these two types of schemas, respectively, as
problem-type schemas and superficial-feature schemas. To de-
velop superficial-feature schemas, we explicitly taught students
about transfer and how transfer involves changes in superficial
features, which make problems seem unfamiliar without modify-
ing the problem type or the required solution methods. Our SBI
 SCHEMA DEVELOPMENT AND MATH PROBLEM SOLVING
treatment taught children about four superficial-feature schemas:
format, key vocabulary, question, and scope (see the Appendix for
examples).
One method for assessing the degree to which students possess
schemas is sorting tasks (Chi et al., 1981; Cummins, 1992; Hins-
ley, Hayes, & Simon, 1977; Quilici & Mayer, 1996), which ask
students to group problems with similar solution methods. In the
present study, we relied on a variation of the sorting task by asking
students to identify the problem-type schema to which problems
belonged. We also asked students to identify whether novel prob-
lems involved transfer (i.e., representing novelty beyond a cover
story change) and, if so, to identify the superficial-feature schema
(i.e., different format or different key vocabulary or different
question or larger scope) that produced the problem’s novelty. We
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
randomly assigned participants to a contrast condition (teacher-
designed and implemented instruction on four problem types) or to
experimental conditions (researcher-designed and implemented in-
struction on the same problem types). The researcher-designed
instruction, inspired by schema-induction theory, attempted to
expand children’s problem-type schemas and their superficial-
feature schemas via explicit instruction on superficial problem
features. We assessed schema development for problem types and
for superficial features via this sorting task as well as their
problem-solving growth.
At the same time, we wondered whether practice, mediated by
teacher feedback and explanations, in sorting problems into their
problem-type schemas and their superficial-feature schemas might
help build stronger schemas and superior problem solving. Sorting
practice is designed to help students analyze and articulate simi-
larities and differences among problems and to categorize those
problems into problem-type schemas that require the same solution
methods—without the cognitive load demanded with actual prob-
lem solution. The possibility that such sorting practice might
enhance schema development and problem solution has been
raised in previous work (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998), but has not
been tested with primary-grade children of varying achievement
status or for students with disabilities, for whom schema develop-
ment is more challenging (Chen, 1999; Gentner, 1988, 1989;
Gholson et al., 1987). So, in the present study, we included another
experimental condition to which participants were randomly as-
signed: SBI plus guided sorting practice.
In sum, the purposes of this study were to assess the effects of
SBI in promoting mathematical problem solving while investigat-
ing schema induction as a mechanism for the development of
mathematical problem solving and to examine the added value of
guided sorting practice on schema development and problem-
solving skill. Across these purposes, we addressed internal validity
via random assignment of classrooms to treatments (using class-
room as the unit of analysis). We addressed external validity by
relying on whole-class instruction delivered in general education
for 16 weeks and by separating effects for high-, average-, and
low-achieving students as well as those with disabilities.
Method
Participants
In six schools in a southeastern urban district in the United States, 24
third-grade teachers (all female) volunteered to participate. Stratifying so
that each condition was represented approximately equally in each school,
637
we randomly assigned 8 teachers to each condition: contrast, SBI, SBI plus
sorting practice.1 Teacher groups were comparable on age, degree, and
years teaching (see Table 1).
Student participants were the 366 children in these classrooms for whom
we had obtained parental consent and who were present for each pre- and
posttesting. On the basis of pretreatment scores on the immediate-transfer
problem-solving measure (see below), we designated students as low
performing (LO; less than 0.5 SDs below the mean), average performing
(AV; within 0.5 SDs of the mean), or high performing (HI; greater than 0.5
SDs above the mean). Students were distributed across LO, AV, and HI
status, respectively, as follows: in contrast (n ⫽ 113), 27 (24%), 54 (48%),
and 32 (28%); in SBI (n ⫽ 127), 25 (20%), 63 (49%), and 39 (31%); and
in SBI plus sorting (n ⫽ 126), 32 (25%), 54 (43%), and 40 (32%). Within
each classroom, 12 to 19 students were represented in the database. Within
LO, AV, and HI groups, students were comparable across conditions on
gender, subsidized lunch, race, and English language learner status (see
Table 1). The 366 children in the complete data set were demographically
comparable with the remaining 83 pupils who were absent on 1 or more
testing days.
Treatment
Treatment shared by all conditions. All three conditions (contrast,
SBI, SBI plus sorting) shared three instructional features: the district
curriculum, a basal text, and a 3-week unit on general math problem-
solving strategies.2 The district curriculum required teachers to address the
same content each week of the year. To teach this curriculum, teachers
relied primarily on the basal text, Math Advantage (Burton & Maletsky,
1999).
We chose our four problem types from the curriculum to ensure that
contrast group students had instruction relevant to the study. For the
students, we labeled the four problem types (or schemas) as follows:
shopping list (e.g., “Joe needs supplies for the science project. He needs 2
batteries, 3 wires, and 1 board. Batteries cost $4 each, wires cost $2 each,
and boards cost $6 each. How much money does he need to buy sup-
plies?”), half (e.g., “Marcy will buy 14 baseball cards. She’ll give her
brother half the cards. How many cards will Mary have?”), buying bags
(e.g., “Jose needs 32 party hats for his party. Party hats come in bags of 4.
How many bags of party hats does Jose need?”), and pictograph (e.g.,
“Mary keeps track of the number of chores she does on this chart [picto-
graph is shown with label: each picture stands for 3 chores]. She also took
her grandmother to the market 3 times last week. How many chores has
Mary done?”).
All students also received a 3-week unit (two lessons per week), de-
signed and delivered by the researchers, that addressed general math
problem-solving strategies: making sure answers make sense; lining up
numbers from text to perform math operations; checking computation; and
labeling work with words, monetary signs, and mathematical symbols. This
unit, common across all three conditions, was not based on schema-
induction theory. The six lessons in this unit relied on worked examples
with explicit instruction, dyadic practice, independent work with checking,
and homework. Research assistants conducted the lessons in whole-class
format, but teachers were present for every lesson and assisted the research
assistants in answering questions, monitoring participation, and checking
work. The six lessons each lasted 30 – 40 min, for a total of 180 –240 min
of researcher-designed instruction across 6 school weeks.
1
We chose the term contrast (rather than control) group because the
contrast group involved instruction relevant to the four problem types
addressed in the experimental conditions. This included teacher-designed
and implemented instruction on the four problem types as well as a 3-week
researcher-designed and implemented unit on general problem-solving
strategies.
2
For a manual with teaching scripts and materials, contact Lynn S.
Fuchs.
 638 FUCHS ET AL.

Table 1
Demographics by Initial Achievement Status and Condition

Contrast SBI SBI plus sorting

Variable n % M SD n % M SD n % M SD ␹2 (df) F(2, 21)

Teacher age (years) 3.40 (6)

21–29 2 25 2 25 1 13
30–39 1 13 2 25 1 13
40–49 2 25 0 0 1 13
50–59 3 38 4 50 5 63
Teacher degree 1.07 (2)
Bachelor’s 4 50 2 25 3 38
Master’s 4 50 6 75 5 63
Years teaching 12.50 8.72 12.88 7.20 15.63 6.00 0.43
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

No. of male studentsa

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

LO 13 48 11 44 12 38 0.70 (2)
AV 24 44 31 49 25 46 0.27 (2)
HI 16 50 20 51 19 48 0.12 (2)
Student subsidized lunch
LO 22 81 20 80 27 84 0.20 (2)
AV 20 37 17 27 18 33 1.40 (2)
HI 4 13 3 8 4 10 0.46 (2)
No. of Black studentsa
LO 20 74 17 68 20 63 1.00 (2)
AV 19 35 25 40 23 43 0.63 (2)
HI 4 13 7 18 4 10 1.11 (2)
English language learner
LO 3 11 3 12 1 3 1.85 (2)
AV 4 7 7 11 5 9 0.47 (2)
HI 3 9 2 5 2 5 0.48 (2)

Note. SBI ⫽ schema-based instruction; LO ⫽ low-performing students; AV ⫽ average-performing students; HI ⫽ high-performing students.
a
Others were White.

SBI. All students in SBI and in SBI plus sorting also received four
additional 3-week units. Each 3-week unit comprised six lessons, with two
lessons per week (i.e., 24 lessons across the four 3-week units). SBI and
SBI plus sorting students also received two review lessons the week after
winter break, for a total of 26 SBI lessons (plus the six general math
problem-solving strategies lessons); by contrast, the contrast condition
only received the six general math problem-solving strategies lessons.
Researchers designed the lessons, and research assistants implemented the
lessons in whole-class format. Classroom teachers were present for every
lesson and assisted the research assistants in answering questions, moni-
toring participation, and checking work.
SBI lessons addressed problem–solution methods and schema-
enhancing methods. Each 3-week unit was dedicated to one of the four
problem types: shopping list problems, half problems, buying bags prob-
lems, and pictograph problems. In each 3-week unit, Lessons 1– 4 taught
children the problem–solution methods required for the problem type;
Lessons 5– 6 were designed to broaden the problem-type schema by
developing four superficial-feature schemas that make a problem seem
novel without changing the problem type or the required solution method.
In each unit, the first problem–solution lesson (Lesson 1) and the first
schema-enhancing lesson (Lesson 5) lasted about 40 min; others lasted
25–30 min. So, the number of instructional minutes delivered by research
assistants for SBI units approximated 800 (including the two cumulative
review lessons following winter break) across 14 school weeks (or 50 min
per week).
All 26 lessons relied on worked examples with explicit instruction,
dyadic practice, independent work with checking, and homework.
Problem–solution methods were taught in Lessons 1– 4 of each unit, using
problems that varied only cover stories. A poster listing the steps of the
solution method was displayed in the classroom. In Lesson 1 of each
3-week unit, research assistants taught students about the underlying con-
cepts and structure inherent in the problem type, presented a worked
example, and as they referred to the poster, explained how each step of the
solution method had been applied in the worked example. Students re-
sponded frequently to questions. After reviewing the concepts and present-
ing several worked examples in this way, research assistants presented
partially worked examples while students applied steps of the solution.
Students then completed 1– 4 problems in dyads, where stronger students
helped weaker students solve problems and check work with answer keys.
Lessons 2– 4 were structured similarly, with a greater proportion of time
spent on partially worked examples and dyadic practice. Also, at the end of
Lessons 2– 4, students completed one problem independently, checked
work against an answer key, and were assigned a problem for homework.
Classroom teachers provided students feedback on homework.
Lessons 5– 6 of each unit continued to focus on the unit’s problem type
but taught students about how four superficial problem features make
problems seem unfamiliar even though the problem type stays the same
and even though the same solution methods are required. (Research assis-
tants used the term problem types rather than problem-type schemas and
used the term transfer features rather than superficial problem features.)
Each problem used for instruction in Lessons 5– 6 varied the cover story as
well as one superficial problem feature. (Research assistants referred to
these problems as transfer problems.)
In Lessons 5– 6, the research assistant first taught that transfer means to
move: Just as we transfer (move) to a different school, we can transfer
(move) skills we learn to new situations. They also presented examples of
how children transfer skills; for example, children learn to drink from a
toddler cup, then move this skill to a real cup, then move this skill to a
glass, then move this skill to a soda bottle. Other examples were presented
from everyday life, and students volunteered examples. Math examples
were included (e.g., we learn to add two-digit horizontal problems, then
move this skill to add two-digit vertical problems, then move this skill to
add three-digit problems, then move this skill to the supermarket check-out
line).
 SCHEMA DEVELOPMENT AND MATH PROBLEM SOLVING
After discussing the meaning of transfer, research assistants taught
students about the four superficial features that change a problem without
altering its problem type or solution. Each unit covered the same four
superficial problem features but the superficial problem features were
taught in relation to the unit’s problem type. Students were taught that a
familiar problem type, for which a solution is known, can (a) be formatted
so that the problem looks novel, (b) use an unfamiliar key word, (c) pose
a different or additional question, or (d) be placed within a larger problem-
solving context. A poster, “Transfer: Four Ways Problems Change,” was
displayed in the classroom. In Lesson 5, research assistants explained the
poster by illustrating each superficial feature with a worked example. They
gradually moved to partially worked examples. Then, students worked in
pairs to apply the solution method to problems that varied superficial
features. Finally, homework was assigned, and classroom teachers de-
briefed on the homework the following day. In Lesson 6, research assis-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tants reviewed the four superficial features using similar procedures, except
students spent more time working in dyads and then completed a transfer
problem independently and scored work against a key. Throughout Lessons
5– 6, teachers also reminded students to search novel problems, in and out
of school, for superficial features to recognize familiar problem types so
they could apply the solutions they knew.
SBI sorting practice. In the SBI plus sorting condition, research assis-
tants also incorporated guided schema-based sorting practice. Sorting prac-
tice began in Unit 3 when instruction had addressed more than one
problem-type schema for categorization and had covered all four
superficial-feature schemas for categorization. The sorting activity, con-
ducted during each lesson in Units 3–5, was called “What Kind of Prob-
lem?” The research assistant read and showed a problem while students
followed along on paper. For each problem, the research assistant asked
students to answer three multiple-choice questions independently on paper:
1. What kind of problem is this? (Response options were buying
bags, shopping list, half, or pictographs.)
2. Is this a transfer problem? (Response options were yes or no.)
3. What kind of transfer problem is it? (Response options were this
is not a transfer problem, different look, different words, differ-
ent question, or small piece of a bigger problem.)
So, the first question corresponded to the problem-type schemas; the last
two questions to the superficial-feature schemas. Response options to
Question 1 included the problem-type schemas that had been addressed
instructionally (i.e., in Unit 3, buying bags and shopping list problem-type
schemas were included; in Unit 4, buying bags, shopping list, and half
problem-type schemas; in Unit 5, buying bags, shopping list, half, and
pictograph problem-type schemas). Problems were sampled systematically
to represent the different problem-type schemas and the different
superficial-feature schemas.
After students answered the questions, research assistants debriefed by
discussing answers in a large-group format and reviewing strategies for
recognizing different problem types and superficial features. The review
emphasized the structural features that defined each problem type and the
nature of the superficial problem features. Teachers also reminded students
that when presented with math problems, they should search for a familiar
problem type before initiating work. During each of the 18 relevant lessons
(i.e., Units 3–5, with six lessons per unit), the sorting activity took approx-
imately 10 min. It was added to SBI.
Delivery. Each of 4 research assistants had responsibility for classes in
every condition. All sessions were scripted to ensure consistency of infor-
mation; however, to permit natural teaching styles, scripts were studied, not
read. At the end of the study, classroom teachers reported the number of
minutes per week they spent on math, including this project (which
involved approximately 50 min per week for SBI and 70 min per week for
SBI plus sorting). Means for the contrast, SBI, and SBI plus sorting
639
conditions, respectively, were 303.13 (SD ⫽ 41.26), 289.25 (SD ⫽ 44.65),
and 301.25 (SD ⫽ 38.49), F(2, 21) ⫽ 0.61, ns.
Treatment fidelity. Prior to the first delivery of each lesson in each
condition, the research assistants agreed on the essential points of infor-
mation in the script and made a checklist of these points (i.e., each point of
essential information equaled 1 point on the fidelity scale). Every session
was audiotaped. At the end of the study, 2 research assistants indepen-
dently listened to tapes while completing the checklist to identify the
percentage of essential points addressed (i.e., 1 point ⫽ one piece of
essential information). We sampled tapes so that, within treatments, re-
search assistants and lesson types were sampled equitably. For each con-
trast class, 1–2 tapes were sampled (all Unit 1); in each of the other two
treatments, 5–7 tapes were sampled per class (distributed equally across
Units 1–5). The percentage of essential points addressed averaged 94.3
(SD ⫽ 9.56) for contrast, 96.4 (SD ⫽ 7.43) for SBI, and 94.6 (SD ⫽ 6.91)
for SBI plus sorting.
Measures
Problem solving. We used three measures of problem solving: imme-
diate transfer, near transfer, and far transfer. For problems on the
immediate-transfer measure, the only source of novelty was the cover
story; otherwise, the problems resembled those used for instruction in
Lessons 1– 4 of each unit. On the near-transfer measure, each problem
incorporated a novel cover story as well as a novel superficial feature,
resembling problems in Lessons 5– 6 of each unit, but in an unfamiliar way.
The far-transfer measure introduced multiple sources of novelty and in no
way resembled any problem used during instruction.
Each measure had two alternate forms; the problems in both forms
required the same operations and presented text with the same number and
length of words. The immediate-transfer alternate forms incorporated the
same numbers. The near-transfer alternate forms incorporated the same
numbers. The far-transfer alternate forms used similar numbers. In half of
the classes in each condition, we used Form A at pretest and Form B at
posttest; in the other half, forms were reversed.
Immediate transfer. The immediate-transfer measure comprised 10
word problems in the style of problems used for problem–solution method
instruction but with novel cover stories. The problems represented all of the
problem-solving units. Across the 10 problems, the maximum score was
43. The scoring rubric awarded points for correct computation and correct
labeling of each step of each problem. For example, for the following
problem, “You want to buy some crayons. Crayons come in bags with six
crayons in each bag. How many bags of crayons do you need to buy to get
17 crayons?”, the rubric awarded 2 points for finding three bags (or 1 point
for finding two bags) plus 1 point for labeling the answer with a word.
Cronbach’s alpha was .95; concurrent validity with the TerraNova (CTB/
McGraw-Hill, 1997) was .58. Interscorer agreement, computed on 20% of
protocols by two independent blind scorers was .983 at pretreatment and
.977 at posttreatment.
Near transfer. The near-transfer measure comprised seven problems: a
shopping list problem with a novel format, one shopping list problem with
a novel question, a buying bags problem with a different key word, a
buying bags problem with a novel question, a half problem with unfamiliar
vocabulary, a pictograph problem with a novel question, and one picto-
graph problem with a novel question. Across items, the maximum score
was 47. The scoring rubric awarded points for correct computation and
correct labeling of each step of each problem. For example, for the
following problem,
Kelly had $25 to spend on earrings. The sign at the store looked like
this: “Earrings! One pair costs $12.” When Kelly got up to the
counter, the clerk told her that earrings were half the price on the sign.
Kelly bought one pair. How much money did Kelly have left?,
the rubric awarded 1 point for calculating the cost of the earrings, 1 point
for labeling the cost with a word, 1 point for labeling the cost with a money
 640 FUCHS ET AL.
sign, 1 point for calculating the amount left, 1 point for labeling the amount
left with a word, and 1 point for labeling the amount left with a money sign.
Cronbach’s alpha was .94; concurrent validity with the TerraNova was .55.
Interscorer agreement, computed on 20% of protocols by two independent
blind scorers was .958 at pretreatment and .962 at posttreatment.
Far transfer. The far-transfer measure introduced multiple sources of
novelty by (a) combining all four problem types, (b) simultaneously
varying all four superficial features, (c) incorporating irrelevant text and
numbers, and (d) assessing application of six additional essential skills
from the district curriculum. Also, to decrease association with experimen-
tal treatment, the measure was formatted to look like a commercial test
(printed with a formal cover, on green paper, with photographs and
graphics interspersed throughout the test booklet). The measure included a
multiparagraph narrative with charts and graphs, and it posed four inter-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
related questions. Two assessments were constructed as alternate forms:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Although the context of the problem situations differed, the structure of the
problem situation and the questions were identical, and the problem solu-
tions and reading demands were equivalent. Performance was scored
according to a rubric with four dimensions: conceptual underpinnings,
computational applications, problem-solving strategies, and communica-
tive value. The original rubric (Kansas State Board of Education, 1991)
scored responses on a 6-point scale. To enhance reliability, we awarded
points on a finer basis (e.g., the problem-solving strategies score included
points for finding relevant information, accumulating to a total, showing all
computation, working the answer in distinct multiple parts, labeling at least
half of the multiple parts, and labeling work with monetary and operation
signs). The maximum score across dimensions and questions was 70.
Cronbach’s alpha was .94; concurrent validity with the TerraNova was .67.
Interscorer agreement, computed on 20% of protocols by two independent
blind scorers was .903 at pretreatment and .928 at posttreatment. Given
work (Fuchs et al., 2000) demonstrating the deleterious effects of student
unfamiliarity with performance assessments, research assistants delivered a
45-min “test-wiseness” lesson immediately before pre- and posttesting in
all treatment groups.
Schema development. The schema-development measure presented
students with 16 novel problems. Eight problems were structured like
problems on the immediate-transfer problem-solving measure (represent-
ing the four problem-type schemas with novel cover stories). Eight prob-
lems were structured like problems on the near-transfer problem-solving
measure (each representing one of the four problem-type schemas with a
novel cover story and with a novel variation in one of the four superficial-
feature schemas).
A research assistant read and showed a problem while students followed
along on paper copies. For each problem, students answered three multiple-
choice questions:
1. What kind of problem is this? (Response options were buying
bags, shopping list, half, or pictographs.)
2. Is this a transfer problem? (Response options were yes or no.)
3. If this is a transfer problem, what kind of transfer problem is it?
(Response options were this is not a transfer problem, different
look, different words, different question, or small piece of a
bigger problem.)
Two scores were derived: one for problem-type schema development
and another for superficial-feature schema development. Scores were cor-
rected for guessing with a standard correction formula {number correct –
[number incorrect/(number of response choices – 1)]}. Cronbach’s alpha
was .88 for problem-type schema development and .75 for superficial-
feature schema development. Interscorer agreement, computed on 20% of
protocols by two independent blind scorers was .996 (agreements divided
by items).
Data Collection
Trained research assistants collected data in whole-class arrangement.
On the problem-solving measures, students were pre- and posttested; on
schema-development, students were posttested. Pretesting occurred during
the 3 weeks before treatment; posttesting occurred during the 3 weeks
following treatment. For the immediate- and near-transfer problem-solving
measures and for the schema-development measure, research assistants
read aloud each item and provided students time to complete work before
progressing to the next item. For the far-transfer problem-solving measure,
research assistants read the entire assessment and reread portions to indi-
viduals, on request, as they worked. To avoid familiar research assistants
prompting awareness that experimental conditions might be applicable,
they did not collect data in classrooms where they had delivered lessons.
Data Analysis
Because teachers were assigned randomly to conditions, we used teacher
as the unit of analysis and treated students’ initial status (LO, AV, HI) as
a within-teacher factor. This allowed us to compare effects for students of
varying status in the same classrooms and to test interactions between
initial status and condition. For each initial status group of children, each
teacher had a mean pre- and posttreatment score on each problem-solving
measure and a mean set of posttreatment schema-development scores.
For each problem-solving and schema-development score, we conducted
a two-factor mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA). Condition was
the between-teachers variable; initial student status was the within-teacher
variable. For problem-solving measures, these analyses were applied to (a)
pretreatment scores to examine treatment group comparability and (b)
improvement scores to investigate treatment efficacy. (Results were anal-
ogous using change scores and analysis of covariance. Although these
procedures are equally acceptable for analyzing two-wave data, with each
presenting a different set of problems, we opted for change scores because
their interpretation is more straightforward.)
To evaluate pairwise comparisons for significant effects, we used the
Fisher least significant difference (LSD) post hoc procedure (Seaman,
Levin, & Serlin, 1991). To estimate the practical significance of effects, we
computed effect sizes (ESs): on the problem-solving scores, by subtracting
the difference between improvement means and then dividing by the
pooled standard deviation of the improvement divided by the square root of
2(1 – rxy), where x is the pretest and y is the posttest (Glass, McGaw, &
Smith, 1981); on the schema-development scores, by subtracting the dif-
ference between means and dividing by the pooled standard deviation
(Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
For students with disabilities, we ran a one-way ANOVA on each
problem-solving and schema-development score, using condition as the
factor. We used student as the unit of analysis because of the small sample
size and uneven distribution of students across classrooms. We evaluated
pairwise comparisons and computed ESs as for the larger sample.
To explore the contribution of schema development to problem-solving
development, we conducted a series of planned regression analyses, using
a combined (summed) score across problem-type and superficial-feature
schema development. For each posttreatment problem-solving measure
(immediate, near, and far transfer), we conducted a pair of regressions, first
entering the pretreatment problem-solving score and seeing how much
additional variance was explained by schema development; next entering
schema development and seeing how much additional variance was ex-
plained by the pretreatment problem-solving score.
Results
Table 2 shows means and standard deviations for the schema-
development and problem-solving measures, Table 3 shows results
of the correlation analyses, Table 4 shows results of the planned
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 2
Performance by Initial Achievement Status and Condition

LO AV HI Across

SBI plus SBI plus SBI plus SBI plus

Contrast SBI sorting Contrast SBI sorting Contrast SBI sorting Contrast SBI sorting

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Schema development
Problem-type
schemas 7.79 1.29 11.92 1.23 11.64 1.99 8.61 1.31 11.04 2.56 12.97 1.31 9.62 2.67 14.23 1.21 13.61 1.55 8.67 1.55 12.39 0.88 12.72 1.17
Superficial-feature
schema 3.11 0.22 3.65 0.64 4.41 0.50 2.81 0.48 3.80 0.82 4.56 0.71 2.91 0.73 4.72 0.50 5.05 0.91 2.94 0.37 4.06 0.40 4.67 0.31
Problem solving
Immediate transfer
Pre 2.50 1.40 2.82 0.79 3.49 1.10 7.36 2.04 7.01 1.52 5.99 0.60 11.28 2.30 14.05 4.28 12.96 3.05 7.05 0.92 7.96 1.57 7.48 1.37
Post 11.24 4.23 31.10 3.29 31.90 4.57 18.10 5.58 34.24 7.65 36.52 3.54 23.95 7.52 40.73 1.41 39.45 3.23 17.76 4.79 35.36 3.03 35.96 2.91
Improve 8.74 3.39 28.27 3.01 28.41 4.06 10.74 5.04 27.22 7.29 30.53 3.34 12.96 3.05 26.68 3.42 26.48 3.56 10.71 4.04 27.39 3.25 28.47 1.99
Near transfer
Pre 2.10 0.73 1.75 0.73 1.97 1.17 5.68 2.60 4.97 1.50 4.83 1.48 7.10 2.17 7.91 2.72 7.10 1.53 4.96 1.51 4.88 1.05 4.63 1.12
Post 5.64 1.55 21.29 2.33 19.65 3.59 9.77 3.06 25.12 6.80 25.37 5.09 13.60 5.08 33.26 2.83 29.04 6.88 9.67 2.24 26.56 2.39 24.69 4.37
Improve 3.54 1.39 19.53 2.42 17.68 3.20 4.09 2.94 20.15 6.14 20.54 4.53 6.50 4.34 25.35 4.58 21.94 6.39 4.71 2.12 21.68 3.21 20.06 3.82
Far transfer
Pre 7.93 2.64 8.78 4.40 7.52 3.85 9.89 5.92 10.58 7.62 9.11 3.99 15.79 8.33 19.24 7.64 17.31 6.30 11.20 4.85 12.87 4.48 11.31 4.05
Post 12.74 3.29 21.06 4.65 18.98 3.68 18.33 7.80 27.48 10.25 26.96 8.23 32.01 13.98 45.72 2.27 42.06 8.29 21.03 6.32 31.42 3.73 29.33 5.33
SCHEMA DEVELOPMENT AND MATH PROBLEM SOLVING

Improve 4.81 3.01 12.28 5.90 11.45 3.60 8.44 5.30 16.90 7.69 17.85 8.02 16.22 8.75 26.48 6.77 24.75 6.77 9.82 2.17 18.55 6.24 18.02 5.03

Note. SBI ⫽ schema-based instruction; LO ⫽ low-performing students; AV ⫽ average-performing students; HI ⫽ high-performing students; Pre ⫽ pretest; Post ⫽ posttest; Improve ⫽ posttest score
minus pretest score.
641
 642 FUCHS ET AL.
Table 3
Correlations Among Pretreatment Problem Solving, Schema Development, and Posttreatment
Problem Solving
Variable M SD
1. Schema development 13.90 3.98
2. Pretest immediate 7.02 5.66
3. Posttest immediate 29.19 12.62
4. Pretest near 4.47 3.98
5. Posttest near 19.84 11.73
6. Pretest far 11.19 9.96
7. Posttest far 25.25 16.66
Note. n ⫽ 366. All ps ⬍ .01. Immediate, near, and far refer to immediate-transfer, near-transfer, and
far-transfer problem solving, respectively.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
regression analyses, and Table 5 shows descriptive data on demo-
graphics and performance variables for students with disabilities.
Pretreatment Differences Among Treatment Groups
Groups were comparable prior to the study, as manifested by the
lack of significant main effects for condition or interactions be-
tween condition and students’ initial status on pretreatment
immediate-, near-, or far-transfer problem-solving measures. The
F(2, 21) values for the condition main effect on the three respec-
tive measures were 0.97, 0.15, and 0.90. The F(4, 42) values for
the interaction effect on the three respective measures were 1.79,
0.62, and 1.60.
As expected, at pretreatment, there were significant main effects
for students’ initial achievement status: For the three respective
measures, F(2, 42) values were 126.24, 75.48, and 18.62, all ps ⬍
.001. LSD (using a critical p value of .016) follow-up tests showed
that for immediate transfer, HI (M ⫽ 12.76, SD ⫽ 3.37) ⬎ AV
(M ⫽ 6.77, SD ⫽ 1.65) ⬎ LO (M ⫽ 2.94, SD ⫽ 1.15); for near
transfer, HI (M ⫽ 7.37, SD ⫽ 2.13) ⬎ AV (M ⫽ 5.16, SD ⫽
1.88) ⬎ LO (M ⫽ 1.94, SD ⫽ 3.64); for far transfer, HI (M ⫽
17.45, SD ⫽ 7.83) ⬎ AV (M ⫽ 9.86, SD ⫽ 5.80) ⫽ LO (M ⫽
8.08, SD ⫽ 3.58). These effects pertain across conditions; thus,
they do not threaten the study’s validity.3
Differential Problem-Solving Learning as a Function of
Treatment
Improvement on problem solving varied as a function of con-
dition, favoring both SBI groups over the contrast group. On
immediate-transfer problem solving, Fisher’s LSD post hoc pro-
cedure for the significant condition main effect, F(2, 21) ⫽ 77.05,
p ⬍ .001, showed that the contrast group’s improvement was less
than that of the SBI group (ES ⫽ 3.17) and less than that of the SBI
plus sorting group (ES ⫽ 3.47), but the improvement of the SBI
and the SBI plus sorting groups was comparable (ES ⫽ 0.45). This
main effect was not mediated by students’ initial achievement
status, F(4, 42) ⫽ 1.95, ns.4
For near-transfer problem solving, results were similar, again
favoring both SBI groups over the contrast group. Fisher’s LSD
post hoc procedure for the significant condition main effect, F(2,
21) ⫽ 71.48, p ⬍ .001, showed that contrast group improvement
was less than that of the SBI group (ES ⫽ 3.65) and less than that
of the SBI plus sorting group (ES ⫽ 3.10), but the improvement of
the SBI and SBI plus sorting groups was comparable (ES ⫽
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
— .37 .69 .25 .71 .37 .55
— .41 .67 .48 .56 .62
— .33 .85 .39 .61
— .39 .49 .52
— .45 .67
— .61
—
– 0.35). Again, this main effect was not mediated by students’
initial status, F(4, 42) ⫽ 0.80, ns.5
Similarly, for far-transfer problem solving, the condition main
effect was significant, F(2, 21) ⫽ 6.65, p ⬍ .01. Fisher’s LSD post
hoc procedure again showed that contrast group improvement was
less than that of the SBI group (ES ⫽ 1.55) and less than that of
the SBI plus sorting group (ES ⫽ 2.29), but the improvement of
the SBI and the SBI plus sorting groups was comparable (ES ⫽
0.65). Again, this main effect was not mediated by students’ initial
status, F(4, 42) ⫽ 1.90, ns.6
Differential Schema Development as a Function of
Treatment
Schema development (i.e., students’ ability to categorize novel
problems into the four problem types) differed as a function of
treatment. The pattern of effects differed for the two schema-
development scores. Problem-type schema development tapped
students’ capacity to categorize problems into the four problem
types (buying bags, shopping list, half, pictographs). For problem-
type schema development, the significant main effect for condi-
tion, F(2, 21) ⫽ 26.69, p ⬍ .001, was not mediated by students’
initial achievement status, F(4, 42) ⫽ 1.75, ns. Follow-ups to the
condition main effect indicated that both treatment groups ex-
ceeded the contrast group but were comparable with each other.
For SBI versus contrast, the ES was 3.06; for SBI plus sorting
versus contrast, 2.99; for SBI plus sorting versus SBI, 0.32.7
Superficial-feature schema development tapped students’ ability
to categorize superficial features of problems (i.e., as different
3
On the pretreatment problem-solving scores, the main effects for initial
achievement status are relevant. On the remaining scores, however, these
main effects are not relevant to the study questions (because they pertain
across conditions). Consequently, we report them as footnotes.
4
On immediate transfer, the main effect for initial status was not
significant, F(2, 42) ⫽ 0.47.
5
On near transfer, the main effect for initial status was significant, F(2,
42) ⫽ 9.23, p ⬍ .001; LO comparable with AV but less than HI.
6
On far transfer, the main effect for initial status was significant, F(2,
42) ⫽ 30.31; LO comparable with AV but less than HI.
7
On problem-type schema development, the main effect for initial status
was significant, F(2, 42) ⫽ 11.47, p ⬍ .001; LO and AV student scores
were lower than those of HI students, but LO and AV student scores were
comparable.
 SCHEMA DEVELOPMENT AND MATH PROBLEM SOLVING 643

Table 4
Regressions Among Pretreatment Problem Solving, Schema Development, and Posttreatment
Problem Solving

Predicted and predictor R R2 Adj. R2 SEE ⌬R2 ⌬F a

Posttest immediate
Schema development (first) .693 .481 .479 9.115 .481 336.92
Pretest immediate (second) .714 .510 .507 8.869 .029 21.45
Pretest immediate (first) .415 .172 .170 11.509 .172 75.64
Schema development (second) .714 .510 .507 8.869 .338 249.93
Posttest near
Schema development (first) .706 .498 .497 8.299 .498 362.23
Pretest near (second) .738 .545 .543 7.911 .047 37.65
Pretest near (first) .388 .151 .149 10.794 .151 64.84
Schema development (second) .738 .545 .543 7.911 .394 315.53
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Posttest far
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Schema development (first) .550 .302 .300 13.940 .302 157.25

Pretest far (second) .697 .485 .482 11.991 .183 128.64
Pretest far (first) .609 .371 .369 13.239 .371 213.86
Schema development (second) .697 .485 .482 11.991 .114 80.49

Note. n ⫽ 366. Immediate, near, and far refer to immediate-transfer, near-transfer, and far-transfer problem
solving, respectively. First and second refer to predictor order. Adj. ⫽ adjusted; SEE ⫽ standard error of
estimate.
a
dfs ⫽ 1, 364 and 1, 363 for the first and second predictors, respectively; p ⬍ .01.

format, different key vocabulary, different or additional question,
or different scope) that render them novel. For superficial-feature
schema development, the significant condition main effect, F(2,
21) ⫽ 46.66, p ⬍ .001, was not mediated by initial treatment
status, F(4, 42) ⫽ 2.01, ns. Follow-ups to the condition effect
indicated that the SBI plus sorting group exceeded the SBI group,
which in turn exceeded the contrast group. For SBI versus contrast,
the ES was 2.88; for SBI plus sorting versus contrast, 3.99; for SBI
plus sorting versus SBI, 1.24.8
The Contribution of Schema Development to
Problem-Solving Learning
For each posttreatment problem-solving measure (immediate,
near, far transfer), we conducted a pair of regressions, first entering
the pretreatment problem-solving score to see how much addi-
tional variance was explained by schema development; next en-
tering schema development to see how much additional variance
was explained by the pretreatment problem-solving score. Results,
along with the zero-order correlations, are shown in Tables 3
and 4.
As shown, in predicting posttreatment immediate-transfer
problem-solving, pretreatment problem solving and schema devel-
opment jointly accounted for 14.0% of variance (i.e., total adjusted
R2 minus [unique ⌬R2 for schema development plus unique ⌬R2
for pretreatment immediate-transfer problem-solving]), but
schema development accounted for substantially more unique vari-
ance than did initial problem-solving competence (33.8% vs.
2.9%). For near-transfer problem solving, results were similar:
Pretreatment score and schema development jointly accounted for
10.2% of variance, but schema development again accounted for
more unique variance (39.4% vs. 4.7%). For far-transfer problem
solving, pretreatment score and schema development jointly ac-
counted for 18.5% of variance, with schema development account-
ing for 11.4% unique variance and with the pretreatment score
accounting for 18.3% unique variance.
What About Students With Disabilities?
For students with disabilities, treatment groups were comparable
on demographics (see Table 5) and on pretreatment problem-
solving scores, F(2, 31) ⫽ 0.39, for immediate transfer, 1.03 for
near transfer, and 1.29 for far transfer (see Table 5).
On problem-solving improvement, the effect for condition was
significant on immediate-transfer problem solving, F(2, 31) ⫽
12.25, p ⬍ .001 (contrast ⬍ SBI ⫽ SBI plus sorting); on near-
transfer problem solving, F(2, 31) ⫽ 8.57, p ⬍ .001 (contrast ⬍
SBI ⫽ SBI plus sorting); and on far-transfer problem solving, F(2,
31) ⫽ 4.84 (contrast ⬍ SBI plus sorting, with SBI equal to both
other groups).
For problem-type schema development, the effect for condition
was not significant, F(2, 31) ⫽ 1.39. However, for superficial-
feature schema development, the effect for condition was signifi-
cant, F(2, 31) ⫽ 4.02, p ⬍ .05, with Fisher’s LSD post hoc
procedure showing that the SBI plus sorting group outperformed
the contrast group.
For problem-type schema development and superficial-feature
schema development and for immediate-, near-, and far-transfer
problem-solving measures, respectively, the ESs for SBI versus
contrast were 0.27, 0.20, 1.55, 1.78, and 0.87; for SBI plus sorting
versus contrast, 1.01, 1.13, 1.79, 1.96, and 1.04; and for SBI versus
SBI plus sorting, 0.78, 0.95, 0.55, 0.38, and 0.39.
Discussion
One major purpose of this study was to assess the effects of SBI
in promoting mathematical problem solving among young students
of varying initial achievement status, including those with disabil-
8
On superficial-feature schema development, the main effect for initial
status was significant, F(2, 42) ⫽ 4.73, p ⬍ .05, but follow-ups failed to
detect differences among the student groups.
 644 FUCHS ET AL.

Table 5
Demographics and Performance for Students With Disabilities by Condition

SBI plus sorting

Contrast (n ⫽ 12) SBI (n ⫽ 12) (n ⫽ 10)

Variable n M SD n M SD n M SD

No. of male students 10 10 7

Subsidized lunch 5 7 6
Race
African American 8 8 5
European American 4 3 4
Hispanic 0 1 1
English language learner 0 1 0
Disability
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Learning disability 6 7 7
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Mental retardation 0 1 0
Behavior disorder 0 0 1
Speech disorder 4 4 2
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder 2 0 0
Schema development
Problem-type schemas 8.45 4.00 9.39 3.72 11.07 3.51
Superficial-feature schemas 2.80 1.00 3.08 0.94 4.10 1.39
Problem solving
Immediate transfer
Pretest 2.92 3.00 2.17 3.33 3.40 3.72
Posttest 4.58 4.52 9.67 5.14 13.20 6.29
Improve 1.67 3.75 7.50 3.37 9.80 4.96
Near transfer
Pretest 3.21 3.19 1.68 1.94 2.55 2.48
Posttest 2.94 2.94 6.06 3.23 8.30 5.93
Improve ⫺0.27 2.45 4.37 3.52 5.75 4.80
Far transfer
Pretest 4.71 4.90 3.17 4.78 5.55 6.92
Posttest 8.42 8.08 13.00 9.27 20.10 15.45
Improve 3.71 5.63 9.83 8.41 14.55 10.35

Note. SBI ⫽ schema-based instruction; LO ⫽ low-performing students; AV ⫽ average-performing students;

HI ⫽ high-performing students; Improve ⫽ posttest score minus pretest score.

ities. Our approach to SBI was innovative in that it attempted to
broaden problem-type schemas by inducing a supplementary form
of schemas—for superficial problem features. The hope was that
as students learned to categorize problems according to the super-
ficial features that render problems novel, students would concur-
rently improve at identifying problem-type schemas and the solu-
tions required to solve novel problems.
Results demonstrated that this approach to SBI improved math-
ematical problem solving among third-grade students of varying
initial achievement status. On immediate-, near-, and far-transfer
problem-solving measures, students in the SBI treatment reliably
outgrew those in the contrast group. Across students with differing
levels of initial problem-solving competence, ESs were large: 3.17
on immediate transfer, 3.65 on near transfer, and 1.55 on far
transfer. The effect sizes exceeding 3 SDs for immediate and near
transfer are in part due to the alignment between the treatment and
those two measures, although it is important to note that the
problem types were borrowed from the standard curriculum, which
the contrast teachers taught. These very large ESs demonstrate that
SBI with explicit teacher-guided instruction and with sufficient
duration can impact students’ mathematical problem solving in
dramatic fashion. Of course, the strong effects on far transfer of
1.55 SDs are particularly noteworthy because this measure in no
way resembled any task used for instruction; moreover, by incor-
porating multiple sources of novelty, it represented a contextually
realistic form of mathematical problem solving.
Documenting the strength of the SBI treatment for third-grade
students across varying points on the achievement continuum on
this far-transfer measure is notable for two reasons. First, previous
work illustrates the difficulty of effecting mathematical problem
solving for primary-grade children (e.g., Chen, 1999), especially
those with initial low achievement (e.g., Cooper & Sweller, 1987;
Woodward & Baxter, 1997), probably because acquired knowl-
edge for young children is likely to be closely tied to specific
situations (e.g., Brown & Campione, 1984; Rozin, 1976). Second,
in contrast to earlier related work also conducted with third graders
(Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, Hamlett, Owen, et al., 2003;
Fuchs, Fuchs, Prentice, Burch, Hamlett, Owen, & Schroeter,
2003), the present study controlled for the potential effects of
teaching general problem-solving strategies (making sure answers
make sense; lining up numbers from text to perform math opera-
tions; checking computation; and labeling work with words, mon-
etary signs, and mathematical symbols) by incorporating that con-
tent into all three conditions. Therefore, findings isolate the effects
of SBI from the conceptually unrelated, more general problem-
solving strategies.
Of course, present findings also extend the literature on schema
induction and mathematical problem solving in another important
way. A second major purpose of the present study was to assess
whether SBI actually induces schema development concurrent
with mathematical problem solving in these relatively young chil-
dren. Results showed that students in both SBI groups did, in fact,
 SCHEMA DEVELOPMENT AND MATH PROBLEM SOLVING
develop stronger schemas, relative to the contrast group, and the
resulting ESs were large: 2.88 –3.06 for the SBI group and 2.99 –
3.99 for the SBI plus sorting group.
Moreover, results of the planned regression analyses docu-
mented the contribution of schema induction to problem-solving
competence at treatment’s end. In predicting posttreatment
immediate-transfer problem-solving performance, schema devel-
opment accounted for substantially more unique variance than did
initial problem-solving competence (33.8% vs. 2.9%). Results
were similar for the near-transfer problem-solving outcome, and
schema development again accounted for similarly more unique
variance (39.4% vs. 4.7%). At the same time, the proportion of
unique variance accounted for by schema development on the
far-transfer problem-solving measure, although smaller, was nota-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ble (11.4%), with pretreatment score explaining a similar propor-
tion of unique variance (18.3%). The weaker contribution of
schema development on far transfer is understandable given that
this outcome task introduced multiple sources of novelty, includ-
ing simultaneous inclusion of all four problem types, simultaneous
manipulation of all four superficial problem features, inclusion of
irrelevant text and numbers, incorporation of six additional essen-
tial skills from the district curriculum, and formatting that resem-
bled a commercial test.
Although effects on the far-transfer task were more muted,
findings clearly document, across all three measures, the contri-
bution of schema induction to problem-solving competence at
treatment’s end. These results extend the work of Chen (1999),
who showed that exposure to examples enhanced schema devel-
opment and problem solving in a single session for 10 –12-year-
olds but not for 8 –9-year-olds. Whereas Chen’s 8 –9-year-olds
failed to build schemas or improve problem solving in response to
a brief, inductive exposure to examples that varied structural
features, we used more explicit instruction of longer duration to
effect schema enhancement concurrent with mathematical problem
solving with this younger population, including children with
initially low achievement and those with disabilities. Of course,
the somewhat weaker demonstration of the contribution of schema
development to performance on the far-transfer measure suggests
that additional work is required to promote even broader schemas
in the service of mathematical problem solving. The link estab-
lished in this study between SBI and the actual development of
schemas concurrent with mathematical problem-solving growth
for young children of varying achievement status provides the
basis for extending the use of SBI with a larger repertoire of
problem-type schemas, via a greater variety of superficial-feature
schemas and through other related schema-building activities.
Toward the goal of exploring related schema-building activities,
the third, and secondary, purpose of this study was to assess the
added value of providing third graders with practice in sorting
problems into their problem types and into the superficial problem
features. We were interested in whether this practice, which was
mediated by teacher explanations, might result in superior schema
development and problem solving. This possibility has been raised
in previous work (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998) but has not been
tested with children. So, in the present study, we included a
condition that supplemented SBI with sorting practice that in-
cluded debriefing on the structural variables by which problem
types and superficial problem features might be categorized. The
hope was that this guided sorting practice would solidify students’
capacity to group problems requiring the same solution methods
645
and thereby enhance children’s capacity to recognize and solve
novel problems for which solutions had been taught.
Interestingly, both SBI groups, with and without the sorting
practice, developed reliably and dramatically stronger schemas for
categorizing the four problem types, compared with the contrast
group (where the curriculum incorporated the same problem
types). These ESs were large, hovering around 3 SDs. At the same
time, the sorting activity provided no added value in inducing
problem-type schemas— despite the fact that the sorting practice
task directly mirrored the schema-development measure. And, in
corresponding fashion, we saw no reliable advantage to SBI plus
sorting over SBI on the immediate- and near-transfer problem-
solving measures, where again ESs approximated 3 SDs over the
contrast group for both SBI conditions, underscoring the need for
additional research with larger samples.
We did, nevertheless, see some evidence to suggest potential for
the sorting activity. On the superficial-feature schema-
development measure, students in the SBI plus sorting condition
identified the kinds of superficial problem features that render
problems novel with greater success compared with the SBI (with-
out sorting practice) group, which in turn exceeded the contrast
group. These ESs were large (3.99 for SBI plus sorting over
contrast, 2.88 for SBI over contrast, and 1.24 for SBI plus sorting
over SBI). So, we looked to the far-transfer problem-solving
measure for additional evidence that the SBI plus sorting group’s
superior superficial-feature schema development may have en-
hanced problem-solving performance. However, both SBI groups
outperformed the contrast group on the far-transfer problem-
solving measure, without a statistically significant difference be-
tween the two experimental conditions. Of course, the effect size
of 0.65 SDs on the far-transfer problem-solving measure did favor
the SBI plus sorting condition.
And what about students with disabilities, a group of children
who receive most of their instruction in regular classrooms (U.S.
Department of Education, 1999) and for whom transfer is ex-
tremely difficult to effect (e.g., White, 1984)? No advantage ac-
crued as a function of experimental treatment for problem-type
schema development, where effects were not statistically signifi-
cant (although the ES comparing the SBI plus sorting and the
contrast groups was an encouraging 1.01). By contrast, superficial-
feature schema development was reliably stronger for the SBI plus
sorting treatment over the contrast group, with an ES of 1.13.
Interestingly, although not statistically significant, the ES compar-
ing the two SBI groups (0.95) suggests that for this lowest per-
forming group of students, the sorting practice may have added
value, at least for inducing superficial-feature schemas. In accord
with this possibility, it is interesting to note that among students
with disabilities, only those in the SBI plus sorting condition
reliably exceeded the contrast group on far-transfer problem solv-
ing, with an ES of 1.04. Consequently, results suggest that for
students with very low achievement profiles, such as students with
disabilities, the sorting practice does carry the added value neces-
sary to induce schemas and promote problem-solving competence.
This, along with the full sample ES of 0.65 favoring the SBI plus
sorting group over SBI on the far-transfer problem-solving mea-
sure, supports continued study of practice in sorting problems into
problem-type schemas and into superficial-feature schemas. That
work should be conducted with larger samples. Future research
should also explore the performance and cognitive variables asso-
ciated with responsiveness to SBI treatment.
 646 FUCHS ET AL.
In the meantime, present findings provide some guidance to
third-grade teachers as they struggle with the challenging of pro-
moting mathematical problem solving. The instructional principles
incorporated in this study’s intervention can be applied to the
range of problem types typically found in third-grade curricula,
and results show how SBI represents one approach for dramati-
cally enhancing mathematical problem-solving outcomes for third-
grade students across the achievement continuum.
References
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple
proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson
(Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 61–100). Washington, DC:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
American Educational Research Association.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1984). Three faces of transfer: Impli-
cations for early competence, individual differences, and instruction. In
M. Lamb, A. Brown, & B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in developmental
psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 143–192). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Burton, G. M., & Maletsky, E. M. (1999). Math advantage. Orlando, FL:
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Chen, Z. (1999). Schema induction in children’s analogical problem solv-
ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 703–715.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and
representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive
Science, 5, 121–152.
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule
automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 79, 347–362.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1997). TerraNova technical manual. Monterey, CA:
Author.
Cummins, D. D. (1992). Role of analogical reasoning in the induction of
problem categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1103–1124.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Dutka, S., & Katzaroff,
M. (2000). The importance of providing background information on the
structure and scoring of performance assessments. Applied Measurement
in Education, 13, 1–34.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., & Katzaroff, M. (1999).
Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects on
teacher planning and student learning. American Educational Research
Journal, 36, 609 – 646.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R.,
Hosp, M., & Janeck, D. (2003). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects
on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Ed-
ucational Psychology, 95, 293–304.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R.,
& Schroeter, K. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical
problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Ed-
ucational Psychology, 95, 306 –315.
Gentner, D. (1988). Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift.
Child Development, 59, 47–59.
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosni-
adou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp.
199 –241). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gholson, B., Eymard, L. A., Morgan, D., & Kamhi, A. G. (1987). Problem
solving, recall, and isomorphic transfer among third-grade and sixth-
grade children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 227–243.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving.
Cognitive Psychologist, 12, 306 –355.
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hinsley, D. A., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). From words to
equations: Meaning and representation in algebra word problems. In
M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in compre-
hension (pp. 89 –108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 Re-
search, 91, 345–355.
Kansas State Board of Education. (1991). Kansas Quality Performance
Accreditation. Topeka, KS: Author.
Mawer, R., & Sweller, J. (1985). What do students learn while solving
mathematics problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 272–
284.
Mayer, D. P. (1998). Do new teaching standards undermine performance
on old tests? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1–16.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.). New
York: Freeman.
Mayer, R. E., Quilici, J. L., & Moreno, R. (1999). What is learned in an
after-school computer club? Journal of Educational Computing Re-
search, 20, 223–235.
Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students
learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 144 –161.
Rozin, P. (1976). The evolution of intelligence and access to the cognitive
unconscious. Progress in Psychobiology and Physical Psychology, 6,
245–280.
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition
and Instruction, 16, 475–522.
Seaman, M. A., Levin, J. R., & Serlin, R. C. (1991). New developments in
pairwise multiple comparisons: Some powerful and practical problems.
Psychological Bulletin, 110, 577–586.
Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a
substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and In-
struction, 2, 59 – 89.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). To assure the free, appropriate
public education of all children with disabilities: Twenty-first report to
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
White, O. R. (1984). Descriptive analysis of extant research literature
concerning skill generalization and the handicapped. In M. Boer (Ed.),
Investigating the problem of skill generalization: Literature review (pp.
1–19). Seattle: University of Washington, Washington Research
Organization.
Woodward, J., & Baxter, J. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach
to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive
settings. Exceptional Children, 63, 373–388.
 SCHEMA DEVELOPMENT AND MATH PROBLEM SOLVING 647

Appendix

Sample Problems for Step-Up Function Problem Schema

Source (Taught) Problem Different Vocabulary

Greg needs 16 balloons for his birthday party. Balloons come in bags of
10. How many bags does Greg need?
Novel Problem Illustrating a Different Cover Story
Harriet serves ice cream pops to her club for a treat. She invites 12
friends. Ice cream pops are sold in bags of 3. How many bags does Harriet
need?
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Francis is buying eggs for her dinner party. She needs 26 eggs for the
dishes she’s making. Eggs are sold in dozens. How many dozens does
Francis need?
Different Question
Jose has $25 to spend on the ice hockey pucks he’s buying for the team.
He needs 7 pucks. Pucks are sold in bags of 3, and each bag costs $8. After
buying the pucks, how much money will Jose have?

Novel Problems Illustrating Four More Demanding Superficial

Scope of the Problem
Problem Features
Frieda is on her way to the store that sells office supplies. She needs to
Different Format buy 15 pencils, 2 pencil sharpeners, and 4 notebooks. Pencils come in bags
of 7, and each bag costs $3. Each pencil sharpener costs $10, and each
The sign at the supermarket reads:
notebook costs $3. How much money will she spend?
!!!Come and get it! Four frozen pizzas in a bag for one low price!!!
You see the sign and decide to serve pizza for your next dinner party.
You figure you’ll need 10 pizzas. How many bags do you need? (Select Received June 13, 2003
one answer.) Revision received October 21, 2003
2 3 4 5 Accepted April 29, 2004 䡲