Preventing School Failure, 54(3), 145–151, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LCC
ISSN: 1045-988X print
DOI: 10.1080/10459880903493104
Schema-Based Instruction: Facilitating
Mathematical Word Problem Solving
for Students with Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders
Asha K. Jitendra, Michael P. George, Sheetal Sood, and Kelly Price
ABSTRACT: The authors describe how schema-based instruction
(SBI), a conceptual teaching approach that integrates the National
Council for Teachers of Mathematics (2000) Standards, improved
the mathematical problem-solving ability of 2 students with emo-
tional and behavioral disorders (EBD). The authors illustrate the
application of SBI to support students as they make sense of, and
successfully solve, word problems. Last, the authors report on the
factors that may have contributed to the effectiveness of SBI for
students with EBD.
KEYWORDS: emotional and behavioral disorders, mathemat-
ics, problem-solving ability, schema-based instruction, teaching
approach
CHILDREN WITH EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL
DISORDERS (EBD) evidence severe behavioral and aca-
demic problems that negatively affect their overall function-
ing at school (e.g., poor grades, retention, suspensions or
expulsions from school). Although research on these students’
academic status has suggested that students perform signifi-
cantly below grade level in all subject areas, students seem to
experience the greatest deficits in mathematics and spelling
(Reid, Gonzalez, Nordness, Trout, & Epstein, 2004). Further,
deficits in mathematics tend to persist and increase over time
(Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004). To date, most instruc-
tional interventions in mathematics for students with EBD
have targeted basic skills rather than higher level mathematics
skills such as problem solving (Hodge, Riccomini, Buford, &
Herbst, 2006).
Proficiency in mathematics, in particular, knowing how
to reason and solve problems, is crucial to adequately func-
tion in the context of daily life situations such as on the job,
at home, and in the community. In addition, the National
145
Research Council’s Adding It Up (Kilpatrick, Swafford, &
Findell, 2001) report suggested, “All young Americans
must learn to think mathematically, and they must think
mathematically to learn” (p. 1). For teachers working
with students with special needs, the challenge is to shift
from a focus on procedural skills and rote procedures to
new ways of conceptualizing mathematics instruction to
broaden students’ experiences in developing proficiency in
mathematics. Central to this instruction is the act of fos-
tering students’ conceptual understanding. One approach
that accentuates conceptual understanding and is known to
improve students’ problem-solving skills is schema-based
instruction (SBI; Jitendra et al., 2007).
What is SBI?
SBI emphasizes the essential role of the mathematical
structure of problems as critical to problem comprehen-
sion and representation. Instruction highlights problem
structure through the use of schematic diagrams that help
the learner categorize various problem types and organize
information to determine the most appropriate solution
procedures. For example, using semantic cues (e.g., both
red apples and green apples are apples) and schematic
diagrams, SBI involves modeling the problem situation
to highlight the relations (red apples and green apples are
subsets and all apples are supersets) between objects in
Address correspondence to Asha K. Jitendra, University of
Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology, 245 Educa-
tion Sciences Building, 56 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN
55455, USA; jiten001@umn.edu (e-mail).
146 Preventing School Failure
the problem text. The understanding of those relations is
critical to setting up the mathematical model (e.g., n red
apples ⫹ m green apples ⫽ x apples) and selecting an
appropriate mathematical operation to solve the problem
(add to solve for the superset or subtract to solve for the
subset). Because the linking of the algorithmic procedure
(e.g., adding or subtracting) to the conceptual idea (e.g.,
the sum of the parts is equal to the whole) is much more
important than knowing that procedure itself, procedural
rules (add when the whole or total is unknown; subtract
when one of the parts is unknown) in SBI are not taught
in isolation. Instead, they are linked to the underlying
concepts.
The research by Jitendra and colleagues (e.g., Jitendra
et al., 2007) on SBI has resulted in a problem-solving pro-
gram in which instruction is aligned with the National Coun-
cil of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000). Standards by
emphasizing the mathematical processes of problem solv-
ing, communicating, connecting, reasoning, and represent-
ing word problems (Jitendra, 2007). At the same time, the
SBI mathematics program incorporates research-supported
instructional practices (e.g., explicit instruction, strategic
integration, judicious review) for struggling learners. Specifi-
cally, SBI uses a paradigm of teacher-mediated instruction
followed by paired partner learning and independent learning
activities. It scaffolds student learning using visual diagrams
(see Figure 1) and checklists that are eventually faded as
students become independent learners. A self-monitoring
heuristic or plan (FOPS; in which F represents Find the
problem type, O represents Organize the information in
the problem using the diagram, P represents Plan to solve
the problem, and S represents Solve the problem) is used to
anchor student learning in preparation for the transition from
teacher-mediated instruction to independent learning (see
Figure 2). The FOPS problem-solving heuristic serves to
guide students in self-regulating (e.g., “Why is this a change
problem?”) their strategy use, justifying the derived solu-
tions using the problem features as anchors for explanations
and elaborations, and checking the accuracy of not only the
computation but also the representation. These procedures
ensure that students engage in thinking and reasoning rather
than applying rote procedures. Last, frequent measures of stu-
dent word problem solving performance that have been vali-
dated in previous research (Jitendra, Sczesniak, & Deatline-
Buchman, 2005; Leh, Jitendra, Caskie, & Griffin, 2007) are
used to monitor student progress and inform instruction.
Teaching Problem Solving Using SBI
Although some students are able to translate and integrate
information in the problem into a coherent mental repre-
sentation (Mayer, 1999; Mayer & Hegarty, 1996), students
who struggle in mathematics have difficulty with problem
comprehension and would benefit from explicit instruction in
Vol. 54, No. 3
constructing a model to represent the situation in the text fol-
lowed by solution planning on the basis of the model (Hegarty,
Mayer, & Monk, 1995). SBI is one approach to address these
students’ difficulties. Rather than beginning with word prob-
lems, each problem schema or problem type for a additive
problem structure (e.g., change, group, compare) is presented
first as a story situation with no unknown information so that
students focus on identifying and representing the features of
the story situation using schematic diagrams (see Figure 1).
Next, word problems with unknowns that require using either
addition or subtraction operation to solve them are intro-
duced. The compare problem “Arthur’s brother, Andrew, is
25 inches tall. He is 8 inches shorter than Arthur. How tall
is Arthur?” is used to illustrate the application of the FOPS
strategy. As students apply each step of the FOPS strategy
(see Figure 2), they learn to monitor their strategy use. The
following are the word problem-solving steps.
Step 1: Find the Problem Type
To find the problem type, SBI focuses students’ attention
on reading the problem and then paraphrasing it in their own
words by emphasizing what is known in the problem and
what is unknown to understand the problem context. Next,
teacher explanations and elaborations of the problem context
help students identify it as a compare the problem because
it involves the comparison of two disjoint sets; that is, the
problem compares Andrew’s height to that of his brother,
Arthur, and the compare words, “shorter than,” cue the
learner to the compare situation in the problem.
Step 2: Organize the Information in the Problem Using a
Compare Diagram
To facilitate problem representation, students are prompt-
ed to use the schematic diagram for organizing or represent-
ing the information in the problem text. For the compare
problem, it involves reading the comparison sentence (i.e.,
Andrew is 8 in shorter than Arthur) to identify the two sets
compared in the problem, determining the identity of the
bigger (Arthur) and smaller (Andrew) sets, labeling them in
the diagram for the bigger and smaller sets, and writing the
difference amount (8 in) in the diagram. Next, students read
the problem to find the quantities associated with the two sets
and write them in the diagram (see Figure 1). The unknown
quantity in the diagram is represented using a question mark.
Last, students summarize the information in the story using
the completed diagram and check the accuracy of the rep-
resentation by reviewing the information related to each set
(i.e., bigger, smaller, and difference). In this step, underlining
of critical information (e.g., the comparison sentence) and
circling of quantities associated with the objects and relations
in the problem helps students with attention and memory
problems to disregard irrelevant information and focus on the
essential information needed to solve the problem.
Vol. 54, No. 3 Jitendra, George, Sood, & Price 147

Change: Bobby prepared a lot of meals for his long hike. He ate 42 meals as he hiked through
the mountains. There were 15 meals left at the end of his hike. How many meals did he prepare
for his hke?

42
meals

Change

Whole or
total not ?
meals 15
known meals

Beginning Ending

42 + 15 = ?
So ? = 57

Answer: He prepared 57 meals for his hike.

Group: Farmer Jake has 88 animals on his farm. He only has horses and goats. There are 49
horses on the farm. How many goats are on the farm?

Horses Goats Horses and

goats (all
animals)
Whole or
49 ? 88 total
known

Small groups Large group or

or parts whole (sum)

88 – 49 = ?
So ? = 39

Answer: There are 39 goats are on the farm.

FIGURE 1. Sample of change, group, and compare word problems and schematic diagrams.
Note. Change diagram adapted from Schemas in Problem Solving (p. 133), by S. P. Marshall, 1995. Copyright 1995 by Cambridge
University Press. Adapted with permission. Word problems from Solving Math Word Problems: Teaching Students with Learning
Disabilities Using Schema-Based Instruction (p. 31, 78, 118), by A. K. Jitendra, 2007, Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Copyright 2007 by
PRO-ED, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

Step 3: Plan to Solve the Problem
This step emphasizes planning to solve for the unknown
quantity by first selecting the appropriate operation. For
compare problems, students learn that the bigger set is
the whole or total and the smaller set and difference are
the two parts that make up the whole. On the basis of this
information, they transform the information in the diagram
into a number sentence (i.e., 25 ⫹ 8 ⫽ ?) even though the
semantic equation derived directly from the compare dia-
gram is ? ⫺ 25 ⫽ 8. The semantic equation lists the num-
bers in “the order that follows the meaning of the problem”
and may not necessarily isolate the unknown on one side
of the equal sign (Van de Walle, 2004, p. 138). As such,
by writing an equivalent equation, 25 ⫹ 8 ⫽ ?, referred to
148 Preventing School Failure Vol. 54, No. 3

Compare: Arthur’s brother, Andrew, is 25 inches tall. He is 8 inches shorter than Arthur. How tall
is Arthur?

Arthur
Whole or Andrew
total not ? 25 8
known inches inches inches

Bigger Smaller Difference

25 + 8 = ?
So ? = 33

Answer: Arthur is 33 inches tall.

FIGURE 2. Compare problem checklist.

TABLE 1. General Description of the Two Case-Study Participants

Description Matt Debbie

Gender Male Female

Grade 5 4
Race Caucaçsian African American
Age (in years) 12.0 13.0
Free/Reduced Lunch Yes No
Diagnosis Behavioral disorder Emotional disturbance
Medication Yes (5 types) No
Cognitive functioning Borderline to average: Average to above average: verbal IQ 112;
verbal IQ 102; performance IQ 72 performance IQ 123
Achievementa
Math 85 109
Reading and oral language 97 NA
Writing 83 82
Math computation CBM 31 dcpm 28 dcpm
Reading CBM NA 114 wcpm

Note. CBM ⫽ curriculum-based measurement; dcpm ⫽ digits correct per minute; NA ⫽ not available.
a
Standard scores on Wechsler Individual Achievement Test II (Psychological Corporation, 2001).

as the computational form of the equation, the unknown is
isolated on one side of the equation, which, for students, is
easier than the earlier semantic equation to solve.
Step 4: Solve the Problem
Last, students solve for the unknown in the math sen-
tence using the operation identified in Step 3 and write the
complete answer (i.e., number and unit). They are prompt-
ed to check not only the reasonableness of their answer
but also the accuracy of their representation and computa-
tion. For example, students reason that their answer (i.e.,
“Andrew is 33 inches tall”) seems right, because Andrew
is taller than Arthur, who is 25 inches tall. Also, they
check the answer by subtracting 33 ⫺ 25 ⫽ ? (i.e., the dif-
ference) or 33 ⫺ 8 ⫽ ? (i.e., the smaller set amount).
Case Study on SBI Implementation with 2 Students with
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
Matt and Debbie were two students who were diagnosed
with EBD participated in this case study (for a summary of
student characteristics, see Table 1). Debbie was diagnosed
with severe learning disability in addition to an emotional
Vol. 54, No. 3 Jitendra, George, Sood, & Price 149

100

90

80

70
Percent correct scores

60

50

40

30

20

10 Matt
0
WPS pretest WPS-F time 1 WPS-F time 2 WPS-F time 3 WPS-F time 4 WPS-F time 5 WPS-F time 6 WPS post-test

WPS test WPS-F probes

100

90

80
Percentage correct scores

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Debbie
WPS pretest WPS-F time 1 WPS-F time 2 WPS-F time 3 WPS-F time 4 WPS-F time 5 WPS-F time 6 WPS post-test

WPS test WPS-F probes

FIGURE 3. Performance data on word problem solving (WPS) pretest, word problem solving-fluency (WPS-F) probes, and
WPS posttest by students.

disorder; Matt had bipolar disorder and exhibited oppo-
sitional defiant and disruptive behavior disorders. Both
students were receiving instruction from a special educa-
tion teacher in a private school for children and adolescents
with challenging behavior problems. We selected these two
students for the case study because they received support
from the same teacher in the same classroom. Matt was
functioning below grade level in mathematics, and Debbie
had chronically underachieved in school. These students
were pretested on their mathematics computational skills
and were similar in their performance as measured by cur-
riculum-based measurement (see Table 1). The study was
implemented over 20 school weeks. Students received SBI
in solving one-step and two-step addition and subtraction
word problems during their regularly scheduled mathemat-
ics instructional period for 45 min daily, 5 days per week,
for a total of 225 min weekly. The classroom teacher who
received in-service training in implementing SBI taught
all lessons with a high degree of treatment implementation
fidelity (M ⫽ 98.9%; range ⫽ 92–100) as determined by
independent observations that were conducted nine times
during the study.
150 Preventing School Failure
Case Study Findings
Figure 3 presents the performance data for problem solv-
ing by both Matt and Debbie across the study. Matt’s perfor-
mance on the word problem-solving 16-item test improved
substantially from 27% at pretest to 97% for an overall
improvement of 70%; Debbie’s performance indicated an
increase of 25%. Her scores improved from 73% at pretest
to 98% at posttest. Results of an eight-item word problem-
solving fluency (WPS-F) probe administered every 3 weeks
following instruction to monitor student progress indicated a
mean performance of 59% for Matt and 93% for Debbie. For
Matt, data during intervention indicated somewhat variable
performance, with an increasing trend. Although the perfor-
mance on the probe at Time 6 showed a decrease, the score
was higher than at Time 1 (see Figure 3). In contrast, data for
Debbie during the intervention were stable, with an increas-
ing trend. These data are noteworthy given that the progress
made by both students during the intervention was either
maintained or increased at posttest to a level that is deemed
proficient (less than 95% correct). Evidently, proficient levels
of performance are necessary for maintenance and general-
ization of problem solving skills. Further, the mean percent-
age of on-task behavior during the intervention was 96%
for Matt and 97% Debbie, which is encouraging given that
students with EBD characteristically experience behavioral
problems that interfere with their learning.
Summary
The case study results suggest that students with EBD can
successfully learn problem-solving skills when instruction
is designed to promote understanding. It appears that the
schematic diagrams in SBI provided a “level of concreteness
and support to help understand key concepts” (Gersten, 2005,
p. 203) necessary for successful problem solving. Three
factors seemed to contribute to the effectiveness of SBI for
improving the two students’ problem-solving performance
in the present case study. Using SBI, the teacher (a) empha-
sized problem comprehension and representation (conceptual
knowledge) as well as linked the algorithmic procedure (e.g.,
adding and subtracting) to the conceptual idea (e.g., the sum
of the parts is equal to the whole), (b) appropriately scaf-
folded instruction (e.g., consistent, logical, and complete
explanations; schematic diagrams; self-regulation strategy
checklists), and (c) focused on ongoing progress monitoring
to inform subsequent instruction. Although SBI in this case
study was effective and represents a promising approach for
teachers to meet the provisions of the No Child Left Behind
Act (2001) with regard to closing the achievement gap for
students with EBD, the intensity of the 20-week interven-
tion for the two students with EBD may call into question
the efficiency of SBI. Nonetheless, if the goal of instruction
is to promote conceptual understanding, SBI is appropriate
Vol. 54, No. 3
because it is one of the few explicit approaches advocated
by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) that
addresses effective problem solving and reasoning skills that
tend to develop over a long period of time. At the same time,
future research with larger samples and rigorous experimen-
tal designs should be conducted to determine not only the
effectiveness of SBI for improving the problem solving per-
formance of students with EBD, but also to examine transfer
effects and outcomes over time.
AUTHOR NOTES
Asha K. Jitendra is the Rodney Wallace Professor for the
Advancement of Teaching and Learning in the Department of
Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota. Her
research interests include academic and curricular strategies in
mathematics and reading for students with learning disabilities,
assessment practices to inform instruction, as well as instruc-
tional design and textbook analysis. Michael P. George is the
director of the Centennial School of Lehigh University. His
research interests are the design and development of effective
special education programs and prevention and intervention in
the field of emotional and behavioral disorders. Sheetal Sood is
an assistant professor at the University of Hartford. Her research
interests include early mathematics and reading intervention.
Kelly Price is the elementary program coordinator at the Centen-
nial School of Lehigh University. Her research interests include
school and classwide positive behavior support systems, preven-
tion and intervention strategies, direct instruction, and active
engagement techniques.
REFERENCES
Gersten, R. (2005). Behind the scenes of an intervention
research study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
20, 200–212.
Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E., & Monk, C. A. (1995). Comprehension
of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and
unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 87, 18–32.
Hodge, J., Riccomini, P. J., Buford, R., & Herbst, M. H. (2006).
A review of instructional interventions in mathematics for
students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 31, 297–311.
Jitendra, A. K. (2007). Solving math word problems: Teaching stu-
dents with learning disabilities using schema-based instruction.
Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C., Haria, P., Leh, J., Adams, A., &
Kaduvetoor, A. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple
strategy instruction on third grade students’ mathematical prob-
lem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 115–127.
Jitendra, A. K., Sczesniak, E., & Deatline-Buchman, A. (2005).
Validation of curriculum-based mathematical word problem
solving tasks as indicators of mathematics proficiency for third
graders. School Psychology Review, 34, 358–371.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up:
Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Leh, J., Jitendra, A. K., Caskie, G., & Griffin, C. (2007). An evalu-
ation of CBM mathematics word problem solving measures
for monitoring third grade students’ mathematics competence.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 90–99.
Vol. 54, No. 3
Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology:
Learning in the content areas (Vol. 1). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Mayer, R. E., & Hegarty, M. (1996). The process of understanding
mathematics problems. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.),
The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 29–53). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles
and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for
success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory
Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Jitendra, George, Sood, & Price 151
Nelson, R. J., Benner, G. J., Lane, K., & Smith, B. W.
(2004). Academic achievement of K–12 students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children,
71, 59–73.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).
Psychological Corporation (2001). WIAT II: Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
Reid, R., Gonzalez, J. E., Nordness, P. D., Trout, A., & Epstein, M. H.
(2004). A meta-analysis of the academic status of students with
emotional/behavioral disturbance. Journal of Special Educa-
tion, 38, 130–143.
Van de Walle, J. A. (2004). Elementary and middle school math-
ematics: Teaching developmentally (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Copyright of Preventing School Failure is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.