Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Santiago Vicente, Eva Manchado & Lieven Verschaffel (2018): Solving
arithmetic word problems. An analysis of Spanish textbooks / Resolución de problemas
aritméticos verbales. Un análisis de los libros de texto españoles, Cultura y Educación, DOI:
10.1080/11356405.2017.1421606
Article views: 14
Abstract: This study analyses whether the primary school mathematics text-
books from two Spanish publishers show a varied instructional diet of addi-
tion and multiplication problems at different levels of complexity. To do so, it
analyses the problems in all the primary grades by the publishers Santillana
and SM according to two levels of complexity: (a) procedural (number of
steps needed to solve the problem); and (b) semantic/mathematical (addition
or multiplication structures, with their different subtypes). The results show
that: (a) these problems are so simple that the books themselves cannot be
regarded as a sufficient tool to teach students to solve the more complex
problems; and (b) if we compare them with previous studies, the design of the
problems has hardly changed in 10 years. These results show that the variety
of problems in books should be expanded both procedurally and semantically/
mathematically, and teachers should be given assistance to compensate for
these shortcomings when using these textbooks in class.
Keywords: solving word problems; learning mathematics; textbooks
Primary school teachers in Spain and in many other countries very often use
mathematics textbooks in their classes to teach students how to solve word
problems (henceforth WPs) (Hiebert et al., 2003; Mullis et al., 2008; Vicente,
Rosales, Chamoso, & Múñez, 2013). For example, the results of the 2007 Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) show that 60% of
teachers in countries belonging to the Organisation of Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) use textbooks as the basic material for articulating
and implementing their mathematics classes and 34% use them as supplementary
materials, while 6% do not use them. The information available on some of the
regions in Spain shows that teachers use these books even more intensively
(Mullis et al., 2008). This led us to consider whether the WPs proposed in the
textbooks provide students with the opportunities they need to adequately develop
their ability to solve them. To answer this question, this study analyses the level of
procedural and semantic/mathematical complexity of the additive and multiplica-
tive WPs posed by the textbooks from two well-known Spanish publishers.
superficial way. This superficial processing has been amply documented through
the use of the keyword strategy (e.g., Hegarty, Mayer, & Monk, 1995; Verschaffel,
De Corte, & Pauwels, 1992).
In order for students to learn how to solve WPs strategically, they need the
opportunity to deal with solving a wide range of WPs. In this sense, textbooks can
have a major influence, since they are the most widely used tools to teach students
how to solve WPs (Hiebert et al., 2003; Mullis et al., 2008; Stigler & Hiebert,
1999). In fact, according to Apple (1992), the curriculum in the majority of
schools is not defined so much by the programmes suggested from different
social or political stakeholders but by the textbooks, since they dominate what
the students learn.
Different studies have analysed the distribution of WPs in the textbooks from
different countries according to their mathematical complexity. Stigler, Fuson,
Ham, and Kim (1986) found that the WPs involving addition and subtraction in
American books were much less varied and much simpler than those found in
Soviet books. Schoenfeld (1991) estimated that 95% of the WPs from an
American publisher could be solved using the keyword strategy. Mayer, Sims,
and Tajika (1995) found that the lessons related to whole numbers in Japanese
textbooks promoted more complex reasoning than those in American textbooks.
Xin (2007) found that Chinese textbooks provided students with much more
varied and balanced opportunities to solve multiplicative WPs than American
books. Finally, in Spain, Orrantia, González, and Vicente (2005) found that of all
the possible WPs, only those that could be solved superficially appeared in the
books of three of the most popular publishers in Spain.
In summary, despite the fact that solving WPs is a complex task that requires
different kinds of reasoning, most WPs included in mathematics textbooks in
countries like the United States and Spain are simple from the mathematical
standpoint, and solving them seldom requires reasoning. In contrast, the books
in countries like China, Japan and Russian include a wider variety of WPs, thus
providing more opportunities for students to reason and promoting their acquisi-
tion of better mathematical and problem-solving skills.
This study
The purpose of this study is to check whether the textbooks analysed provide a
varied instructional diet in relation to WPs by presenting sufficient opportunities
for students to gain practice solving any kind of problem. To do so, we shall
assess the diversity of the WPs which can be solved with any combination of
addition, subtraction, multiplication and division found in the textbooks by two
well-known Spanish publishers according to two kinds of complexity: (a) proce-
dural, that is, the number of calculation steps needed to solve it; and (b) semantic/
mathematical, that is, the additive or multiplicative structure of the WP and,
within these structures, the semantic sub-structure of the WP.
Regarding previous studies, our study offers two contributions. First, our
analysis is more comprehensive than the one performed by Orrantia et al.
4 S. Vicente et al.
(2005), since it also includes WPs with a multiplicative structure and analyses the
level of procedural complexity of the WPs. Secondly, our study updates the
analysis performed by Orrantia et al. (2005) by analysing versions of the books
by the same publishers 10 years later, which allows us to determine whether
during this interval the distribution of the WPs has changed at all and, if so, in
what direction.
Method
Procedure
This study is planned as a quantitative descriptive study. The sample was com-
prised of all the WPs found in the textbooks and complementary workbooks by
Santillana and SM in their 2009 and 2010 editions. We only considered tasks in
which: (a) words were used to describe real or imaginary situations in which a
mathematical question was asked whose answer required students to execute at
least one of the four basic arithmetic operations; and (b) they could be classified
according to the structure of additive and multiplicative WPs described below.
The problems involving other mathematical structures, like statistics or certain
geometry problems (e.g., calculating the perimeter of a circular field in order to
install a fence) were not considered. In order to delimit our study, we performed a
preliminary analysis in which the two authors separately chose the WPs from the
first two school grades by the same publisher. The doubts prompted by some WPs
(less than 2% of the cases) were resolved via discussion. The rest of the selection
was made by the first author. In this way, of the 15,948 mathematical tasks
included in the materials analysed, 3,535 were analysed (2,274 from Santillana
and 1,261 from SM).
(a) Low: WPs that contain no sub-problems or tasks that can be considered
problems themselves;
(b) Medium: WPs that contain a sub-problem;
(c) High: WPs that contain two or more sub-problems.
Thus, our study considered WPs with low procedural complexity those which
could be solved in a single operation; WPs with medium procedural complexity
those which could be solved with two operations; and those with high procedural
complexity those which could be solved with three or more operations.
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 5
Semantic/mathematical complexity
We used two different classifications: one for WPs with an additive structure and
another for those with a multiplicative structure. In this sense, the complexity of a
WP varies according to elements such as the syntactic component, the logical
structure and the semantic component (Nesher, 1982, cited in Puig & Cerdán,
1995). Of these components, the semantic structure along with the unknown seem
to be the ones that most determine the difficulty of the task (García, Jiménez, &
Hess, 2006), such that these are the variables that were considered to describe the
different kinds of WPs.
Table 1. Type of problems with an additive structure organized by level of semantic/mathematical complexity.
CHANGE COMPARISON EQUALIZATION COMBINATION
Low 1 Juan had five marbles. In a Juan has eight marbles. Juan has eight marbles. Pedro has Juan has three marbles. Pedro has
S. Vicente et al.
game he won three marbles. Pedro has five five marbles. How many five marbles. Between the two of
How many marbles does marbles. How many marbles would Pedro have to be them, how many marbles do
Juan have now? more marbles does given to have the same number they have?
Juan have than Pedro? as Juan?
2 Juan had eight marbles. In a Juan has eight marbles. Juan has eight marbles. Pedro has
game he lost three marbles. Pedro has five five marbles. How many
How many marbles does marbles. How many marbles would have to be taken
Juan have now? fewer marbles than away from Juan so he would
Juan does Pedro have? have the same number as Pedro?
Medium 3 Juan had five marbles. In a Juan has five marbles. Pedro has five marbles. If Pedro
game he won several Pedro has three fewer were given three more marbles
marbles. Now Juan has eight marbles than Juan. he’d have the same number as
marbles. How many marbles How many marbles Juan. How many marbles does
did Juan win? does Pedro have? Juan have?
4 Juan had eight marbles. In a Juan has eight marbles. Juan has eight marbles. If three Combination 5
game he lost several marbles. Pedro has three fewer marbles were taken away from Juan and Pedro have eight marbles
Now Juan has five marbles. marbles than Juan. Juan, he’d have the same between the two of them. Juan
How many marbles did Juan How many marbles number as Pedro. How many has three marbles (or Pedro has
lose? does Pedro have? marbles does Pedro have? five marbles). How many
High 5 Juan had several marbles. In a Juan has eight marbles. Juan has eight marbles. If Pedro marbles does Pedro (or Juan)
game he won three marbles. Juan has three more were given three more marbles have?
Now Juan has eight marbles. marbles than Pedro. than he has, he’d have the same
How many marbles did Juan How many marbles number as Juan. How many
start with? does Pedro have? marbles does Pedro have?
6 Juan had several marbles. In a Pedro has five marbles. Pedro has five marbles. If three
game he lost three marbles. Pedro has three fewer marbles were taken away from
Now Juan has five marbles. marbles than Juan. Juan, he’d have the same
How many marbles did Juan How many marbles number as Pedro. How many
start with? does Juan have? marbles does Juan have?
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 7
Overall complexity
To simultaneously describe the two levels of complexity (procedural and seman-
tic/mathematical), we analysed the overall semantic-global level of complexity of
the WPs with one operation, two operations and three or more operations. In WPs
with more than one operation, the most frequent level of difficulty in the WP was
8
Table 2. Kinds of problems with multiplicative structure. The complex problems appear in italics.
OPERATION
Ratio Simple Juan buys three marbles. Each marble costs eight Partition
cents. How much does Juan spend on the marbles? Juan has nine marbles. He divides them equally among
three of his friends. How many marbles does each friend
get?
Quotition
Juan has nine marbles to divide equally among three
friends. If each friend got three marbles, how many
friends did Juan give marbles to?
Multiple Luis and Sara were in charge of getting the drinks ready for last week’s party. They used three lemons for every two
glasses of lemonade. If they used 12 lemons, how many glasses of lemonade were they able to make?
Comparison ‘Times more’ Juan has three marbles. Pedro has eight times more Partition
marbles than Juan. How many marbles does Pedro Juan has 40 marbles, which is eight times more than Pedro.
have? How many marbles does Pedro have?
Quotition
Toño has 100 euros. Toño has how many times more money
than Ana?
‘Times fewer’ Juan has three marbles. Juan has eight times fewer Partition
marbles than Pedro. How many marbles does Juan has 40 marbles. Pedro has eight times fewer marbles
Pedro have? than Juan. How many marbles does Pedro have?
Quotition
Pedro has 56 euros. Pablo has eight euros. How much less
money does Pablo have compared to Pedro?
Cartesian product Product Measure
Juan has three pairs of trousers in different colours Juan has three pairs of trousers in different colours and
and eight different shirts. How many different ways several different shirts. If he can combine them in 18
can he combine them? different ways, how many shirts does he have?
Rectangular matrix Product Measure
Juan has a plot of land measuring 25 metres wide Juan has a plot of land measuring 3,950 m2. The plot is 150
and 150 metres long. What is the area of the plot? m long. How wide is it?
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 9
assigned as semantic/mathematical difficulty, and in the case of a tie, the one with
greater complexity. For example, a WP with two steps that included a problem
with a medium level of semantic/mathematical difficulty and another one with a
low level were assigned an overall medium level of semantic/mathematical
difficulty.
Data coding
Each WP with a single operation was categorized as additive or multiplicative.
For WPs which needed more than one operation to be solved (more than one
step), the underlying mathematical structure in each of these steps was analysed
independently, so the total number of elements on the tables does not correspond
to the total number of WPs contained in the textbooks. For example, the following
WP: ‘Nacho distributes 25 light bulbs in packages of three. How many more light
bulbs does he need so that he has none left over?’ (SM, grade 4, p. 53) is
considered medium procedural complexity because it is solved via two operations
(25 light bulbs/3 bulbs per package = 8 boxes + 1 bulb; and 3–1 = 2 bulbs), and
the two sub-problems are categorized as ratio-division-quotition and equalization
1, both with a low semantic/mathematical difficulty.
Predictions
Our prediction is that the majority of the WPs included in the textbooks will be
low complexity from both the procedural and semantic-mathematical standpoint
(especially additive WPs involving combination and change and multiplicative
WPs involving simple ratios) which only require a superficial processing to solve.
On the other hand, we expect to find differences by school grade — namely
that the proportion of procedurally and semantically-mathematically complex
WPs is more frequent in the higher grades — but not by publisher.
Results
Procedural complexity
The procedural complexity of the majority of the WPs analysed (53.45%) was low, in
line with our first prediction. WPs with medium complexity accounted for 35.99% of
the total, while WPs with high procedural complexity accounted for 10.56%.
According to our second prediction, the proportion of procedurally complex
WPs increased with school grade, even though in all the grades (except in fifth)
the procedural complexity of at least half of the WPs was low (see Table 3).
Counter to our second prediction, differences were found in the two publish-
ers: Santillana included more WPs with medium (40.88%) or high (12.76%)
procedural complexity than SM (27.63% medium and 6.79% high), while SM
included more WPs with low procedural complexity (65.88%) than Santillana
(46.36%). In any case, the proportion of WPs with high procedural complexity
was low in both publishers.
10 S. Vicente et al.
Semantic/mathematical complexity
A total of 35.40% of the WPs analysed were additive, 43.95% were multiplicative
and 20.65% were mixed. In line with our first prediction, 77.21% showed low
complexity, 19.19% medium and 3.09% high. Regarding the result by grade,
counter to our second prediction, the WPs in the higher grades were not more
complex than those in the lower levels, as shown in Figure 1. In this sense, very
few differences were found between the publishers (77.32%, 19.82% and 2.86%
at Santillana and 76.98%, 19.42% and 3.60% at SM for WPs with low, medium
and high complexity, respectively).
Additive WPs
The majority of additive WPs (57.53%) were combinations: 25.28% were change,
16.2% were comparison and 0.89% were equalization. The majority of these pro-
blems (73.60%) were low complexity involving combination and change, in line with
our first prediction. Medium and high complexity WPs accounted for 25.37% and
Figure 1. Results of the problems with additive and multiplicative structure by level of
semantic/mathematical complexity and school grade.
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 11
1.03%, respectively (see Figure 2). Finally, there were hardly any differences between
the publishers (73.38%, 25.59% and 1.03% in Santillana and 72.15%, 26.86% and
0.99% in SM for WPs with low, medium and high complexity, respectively),
With regard to school grade, Figure 3 shows how the proportion of additive
WPs with medium semantic/mathematical complexity increased with the grade,
while complex WPs were virtually non-existent in the majority of grades. This
partly confirms our second prediction.
Finally, regarding the comparison between our results and those of the study
by Orrantia et al. (2005), hardly any differences were found: the most notable one
is the drop in the percentage of WPs involving combination 1 (5.6%) and
comparison 1 (3.2%) and the increase in the percentage of WPs involving
combination 2 (4.6%), change 1 (2.5%) and comparison 3 (2%). In any case,
the distribution of the WPs by level of complexity hardly changed.
Multiplicative WPs
A full 81.09% of the multiplicative WPs showed low complexity, 13.92% medium
and 5% high complexity. We found minor differences by publisher in this kind of
problem, too (80.90%, 14.58% and 4.53% in Santillana and 81.51%, 12.44% and
6.05% in SM for WPs with low, medium and high complexity, respectively). This
means that the majority of WPs in both publishers belonged to the simple proportion
categories. The majority of the WPs with the greatest complexity were problems
involving the area of rectangles. These results are shown in Figure 4.
Regarding the results by school grades, shown in Figure 5, we found that the
proportion of multiplicative WPs with medium semantic/mathematical complexity
Figure 2. Distribution of the different kind of additive problems according to their level
of semantic/mathematical complexity.
12 S. Vicente et al.
Figure 4. Distribution of multiplicative problems. Black for low complexity, dark grey
for medium complexity and light grey for high complexity.
dropped between grades two and three and between grades three and four, and
then once again rose in subsequent grades. Complex WPs were only present in
grades five and six, at a low percentage (see Figure 5).
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 13
Overall complexity
As shown in Figure 6, the majority of WPs were semantically/mathematically
simple at all three levels of procedural complexity, although both kinds of
complexity tended to converge, such that the most procedurally complex WPs
included problems with medium semantic/mathematical complexity and, to a
much lesser extent, high semantic/mathematical complexity.
Discussion
Textbooks are the materials used the most by the majority of teachers to teach
students how to solve WPs (Hiebert et al., 2003; Mullis et al., 2008). For this
reason, we can assume that the variety of WPs included in them is going to exert a
considerable influence on the students’ opportunities to deal with different kinds
of WPs which allow them to develop their problem-solving strategies. In this
sense, students must genuinely understand WPs which are procedurally or seman-
tically/mathematically complex in a situational and mathematical way (Verschaffel
et al., 2000), while easier problems can be solved in a superficial way, jumping
from the data to the operation and from there to the solution.
Our study strives to answer two questions. The more general one is whether
the primary school mathematics textbooks in Spain offer a balanced diet of
experiences in solving WPs (like Chinese, Japanese or Russian books) or
whether these WPs are limited to those that can be solved superficially (like
the American books analysed by Stigler et al., 1986; Schoenfeld, 1991; and Xin,
2007). The second question refers to whether there has been any change in the
variety of WPs in Spanish textbooks over the past 10 years, and if so, in what
direction.
To answer these questions, the WPs included in the books from all school grades
from the two publishers used the most by primary schoolteachers in our study
(Santillana and SM) were described according to their level of procedural and
semantic/mathematical complexity. Furthermore, we used school grades as a variable
to analyse the evolution of the procedural and semantic/mathematical complexity of
the problems.
With regard to the first question, the majority of the WPs analysed in both
publishers and in all school grades (especially the lower ones) were simple and
not very varied; that is, they showed low or medium procedural complexity (they
required just one or two operations) and low semantic/mathematical complexity
(additive WPs involving combination 1, change 1 and 2, and multiplicative WPs
involving simple ratios). Therefore, the books that contain them can hardly be
considered effective tools for the students to learn how to solve any kind of WP.
Thus, the Spanish books more closely resemble the American textbooks analysed
by Stigler et al. (1986), Schoenfeld (1991) and Xin (2007).
Considering all of these results together, and given that the superficial pro-
blem-solving strategies are enough to solve the vast majority of the WPs analysed,
we could conclude that teaching students to solve WPs using these textbooks
could encourage students to solely develop superficial problem-solving strategies
to the detriment of genuine problem-solving. In this sense, more complex WPs
which students may find outside of school are underrepresented in the textbooks
and probably in the educational practices based on them. Thus, when students are
confronted with having to solve a complex WP, they will probably use their
informal strategies instead of applying the formal problem-solving procedures
learned in class, or they may apply the formal procedures improperly. In any
event, this would be reinforcing the dichotomy between school mathematics and
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 15
the students’ informal maths, that is, the dissociation between the real world and
school (Verschaffel et al., 2000).
Regarding the second question related to the evolution of the textbooks over
time, the instructional diet of the sample books studied does not show any
evolution compared to the texts analysed by Orrantia et al. (2005). In this sense,
the books seem to have been immune from the successive educational reforms
undertaken in our country: while in 1999 and 2001 (dates when the Santillana and
SM books analysed by Orrantia et al. were published), the Organic Law on the
General Organisation of the Educational System of Spain (LOGSE) was in force,
by 2010 the Organic Education Law (LOE) was in force, following the Organic
Law on Education Quality (LOCE), which was in force between 2002 and 2006.
Given this, we could infer that amending educational laws without amending
aspects that are the closest to school culture, such as textbooks, may have a very
limited impact in what students learn, along the lines of Apple (1992), who states
that what students end up learning is defined more by textbooks than by the
programmes suggested by different social or political stakeholders. In other
cultural contexts, when the educational laws are amended, the textbooks are
also given an in-depth revision. For example, Singapore (where students went
from showing low mathematics performance in 1979 to leading the international
mathematical evaluations after 1995) has its own educational institution (the
Curriculum Development Institute), which is devoted to producing high-quality
textbooks which adapt to the solid theoretical framework underpinning the coun-
try’s mathematics curriculum (Stewart, 2011).
Educational implications
First of all, it seems obvious that the design of textbooks should receive more
attention so they include more WPs with high procedural complexity (includ-
ing more problems with more than two steps), as well as medium and high
semantic/mathematical complexity in both additive and multiplicative struc-
tures. In this sense, we should stress that that enrichment should happen jointly
in relation to both levels of complexity analysed since if, for example, more
procedurally complex WPs are included but the different situations they pose
have low semantic/mathematical complexity, this will not actually be promot-
ing reasoning more than the current distribution of problems does. This first
suggestion is joined by others, such as the one mentioned by Sánchez and
Vicente (2015) about the need to include reasoning as a necessary step in
solving WPs in the sections that teach the process of solving WPs, since the
current versions of the books tend to limit the problem-solving process to
extracting data, choosing operations and expressing the result.
Secondly, given that the relationship between the textbooks and student learn-
ing is mediated by the teacher, it is essential for teachers to become aware of the
characteristics of the WPs in the textbooks in order to try to compensate for their
shortcomings. For this to happen, teachers should be better trained in analysing
and improving the WPs found in textbooks. In this sense, the handful of studies
16 S. Vicente et al.
that have striven to document how teachers implement the textbook tasks in class
(see Chapman, 2006; Rosales, Orrantia, Vicente, & Chamoso, 2008a, 2008b,
2012) suggest that the teacher’s behaviour in the mathematics class is usually
quite consistent with the content and orientation of the textbooks.
Finally, it seems that new educational policies are needed that go beyond the
mere enactment of laws and that instead guide and oversee key aspects of
school culture, such as textbooks, based on solid curricula (such as the ones
proposed by the NCTM in the United States and the Ministry of Education of
Singapore).
Note
1. To classify the WPs, it is also important to consider the extensive (e.g., kilometres) or
intensive (e.g., km/h) nature of the amounts involved in the WPs, although this
extends beyond the objectives of this study; see Puig and Cerdán (1995, pp.
127–129).
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 17
El presente estudio
El propósito de este estudio es comprobar si los libros de texto analizados
proporcionarían una dieta instruccional variada en relación a los PAVs, presentando
oportunidades suficientes para ejercitarse en la resolución de cualquier tipo de pro-
blema. Para ello se valorará la diversidad de los PAVs que pueden resolverse con
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 19
Método
Procedimiento
El presente estudio se plantea como un estudio descriptivo de carácter cuantita-
tivo. La muestra estaba compuesta por todos los PAVs incluidos en los libros de
texto y los cuadernillos complementarios de Santillana y SM, en sus ediciones de
los años 2009 y 2010. Se consideraron únicamente las tareas en las que (a) se
describía mediante palabras situaciones reales o imaginarias en las que se
proponía una pregunta matemática cuya respuesta requería la ejecución de al
menos una de las cuatro operaciones aritméticas básicas; y (b) podían clasificarse
de acuerdo con las estructuras de los PAVs aditivos y multiplicativos que se
describen más adelante. Los problemas de otras estructuras matemáticas, como
estadística o determinados problemas geométricos (e.g., calcular el perímetro de
un campo circular para colocar una valla) no fueron considerados. Para delimitar
la muestra se hizo un primer análisis en el que dos de los autores seleccionaron
por separado los PAVs de los dos primeros cursos de la misma editorial. Las dudas
que plantearon algunos PAVs (menos del 2% de los casos) fueron resueltas
mediante discusión. El resto de la selección fue realizada por el primer autor.
De esta manera, de las 15,948 tareas matemáticas incluidas en los materiales
analizados, se analizaron 3,535 (2,274 de Santillana y 1,261 de SM)
(a) Baja: PAVs que no contienen sub-problemas o tareas que pudieran con-
siderarse como problemas por sí mismas;
(b) Moderada: PAVs que contienen un sub-problema;
20 S. Vicente et al.
Complejidad semántico/matemática
Se utilizaron dos clasificaciones diferentes: una para los PAVs de estructura
aditiva y otra para los de estructura multiplicativa. En este sentido, la complejidad
de un PAV varía en función de elementos como el componente sintáctico, la
estructura lógica, y el componente semántico (Nesher, 1982, citado en Puig &
Cerdán, 1995). De esos componentes, la estructura semántica, junto con cuál es el
conjunto desconocido, parecen ser los más determinantes en la dificultad de la
tarea (García, Jiménez, & Hess, 2006), de modo que serán estas variables las que
se consideren para describir los diferentes tipos de PAVs.
6 Juan tenía algunas canicas. En una Pedro tiene cinco Pedro tiene cinco canicas. Si a
partida perdió tres canicas. canicas. Pedro tiene Juan le quitaran tres canicas
21
Ahora Juan tiene cinco canicas. tres canicas menos tendría las mismas que Pedro.
¿Cuántas canicas tenía Juan al que Juan. ¿Cuántas ¿Cuántas canicas tiene Juan?
principio? canicas tiene Juan?
22 S. Vicente et al.
requieren la reestructuración mental que el resto de PAVs de este nivel sí requieren, por
lo que finalmente fue considerado de nivel de complejidad media.
Juan tiene tres pantalones de colores diferentes y Juan tiene tres pantalones de colores diferentes y varias
ocho camisetas distintas. ¿De cuántas formas camisetas distintas. Si puede combinarlas de 18 formas
distintas puede combinarlas? distintas, ¿Cuántas camisetas tiene?
23
Complejidad global
Para describir simultáneamente los dos niveles de complejidad (procedimental y
semántico-matemática) se analizó el nivel de complejidad semántico-matemática
global de los PAVs de una operación, de dos operaciones o de tres o más. En los
PAVs de más de una operación se asignó como dificultad semántico/matemática el
nivel de dificultad más frecuente en el PAV, y en caso de empate, el de mayor
complejidad. Por ejemplo, en un PAV de dos pasos que incluyera un problema de
dificultad semántico-matemática media y otro de baja, se consideró de un nivel
global medio de dificultad semántico-matemática.
Predicciones
Nuestra predicción es que la mayoría de los PAVs incluidos en los libros de texto
serán de baja complejidad tanto desde un punto de vista procedimental como
semántico/matemático (especialmente, PAVs aditivos de combinación y cambio, y
multiplicativos de razón simple), cuya resolución requiere únicamente un proce-
samiento superficial.
Por otra parte, esperamos encontrar diferencias en función del curso escolar —
que la proporción de PAVs complejos procedimental y semántico/matemáticamente
sean más frecuentes en los cursos superiores — pero no por editorial.
Resultados
Complejidad procedimental
La complejidad procedimental de la mayor parte de los PAVs analizados (53.45%)
fue baja, en línea con nuestra primera predicción. Los PAVs de complejidad
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 25
moderada representaron el 35.99% del total, mientras que los PAVs de alta
complejidad procedimental representaron el 10.56%.
De acuerdo con nuestra segunda predicción, la proporción de PAVs procedi-
mentalmente complejos se incrementaron con el nivel académico, a pesar de lo
cual en todos los niveles (excepto en 5º) la complejidad procedimental de al
menos la mitad de los PAVs fue baja (ver Tabla 3).
En contra de nuestra segunda predicción, se encontraron diferencias entre las
dos editoriales: Santillana incluyó más PAVs con una complejidad procedimental
moderada (40.88%) o alta (12.76) que SM (27.63% moderada y 6.79% alta),
mientras que SM incluyó más PAVs con una complejidad procedimental baja
(65.88%) que Santillana (46.36%). En cualquier caso, en ambas editoriales la
proporción de PAVs con una alta complejidad procedimental fue bajo.
PAVs aditivos
La mayoría de los PAVs aditivos (57.53%) fueron de combinación; el 25.28%
fueron de cambio, el 16.20% de comparación y el 0.89% de igualación. La
mayoría esos problemas (73.60%) eran de baja complejidad, de combinación y
cambio, en línea con nuestra primera predicción. Los PAVs de complejidad media
y alta representaban un 25.37% y un 1.03% respectivamente (ver Figura 2). Por
último, apenas existieron diferencias entre las editoriales (73.38%, 25.59% y
1.03% en Santillana, y 72.15%, 26.86% y 0.99% en SM para los PAVs de baja,
media y alta complejidad, respectivamente).
PAVs multiplicativos
El 81.09% de los PAVs multiplicativos fueron de una complejidad baja, el 13.92%
media y el 5% alta. En este caso tampoco se encontraron diferencias por editorial
(80.90%, 14.58% y 4.53% en Santillana, y 81.51%, 12.44% y 6.05% en SM para
los PAVs de baja, media y alta complejidad, respectivamente). Esto implica que la
mayoría de los PAVs en ambas editoriales pertenecían a las categorías de
proporción simple. La mayor parte de los PAVs de mayor complejidad fueron
problemas de área rectangular. Estos resultados se muestran en la Figura 4.
Respecto a los resultados por curso, que se muestran en la Figura 5, se observó
que la proporción de PAVs multiplicativos de complejidad semántico/matemática
media disminuyeron entre 2º y 3º, y 3º y 4º, aumentando de nuevo en los cursos
posteriores. Los PAVs complejos únicamente estuvieron presentes en 5º y 6º, en
un porcentaje bajo (ver Figura 5).
Complejidad global
Tal y como se muestra en la Figura 6, la mayoría de los PAVs fueron semántico-
matemáticamente simples en los tres niveles de complejidad procedimental, si bien
ambos tipos de complejidad tendían a converger, de modo que los PAVs más complejos
28 S. Vicente et al.
Discusión
Los libros de texto son los materiales más utilizados por la mayoría de profesores
para enseñar a los alumnos a resolver PAVs (Hiebert et al., 2003; Mullis et al.,
2008). Por este motivo puede asumirse que la variedad de los PAVs incluidos en
ellos va a ejercer una influencia muy notable en las oportunidades que tienen los
alumnos de enfrentarse a PAVs diversos que le permitan desarrollar adecuada-
mente sus estrategias de resolución. En este sentido, aquellos PAVs que son
procedimental o semántico/matemáticamente complejos requieren que el alumno
los comprenda de manera situacional y matemáticamente genuina (Verschaffel
et al., 2000), mientras que los más fáciles pueden resolverse de manera superficial,
saltando de los datos a la operación y de ésta a la solución.
Nuestro estudio trata de responder a dos cuestiones. La más general es si los
libros de texto de matemáticas de Primaria españoles proponen una dieta equili-
brada de experiencias de resolución de PAVs (como los libros chinos, japoneses o
rusos), o si esos PAVs se limitan a aquellos que pueden resolverse de manera
superficial (como los libros americanos analizados por Stigler et al., 1986;
Schoenfeld, 1991; Xin, 2007). La segunda cuestión alude si se ha producido
algún cambio en la variedad de PAVs en los libros españoles de matemáticas en
los últimos 10 años, y en qué sentido.
Para responder a estas cuestiones se han descrito los PAVs incluidos en los
libros de todos los cursos de dos de las editoriales más utilizadas por los
profesores de Primaria de nuestro país (Santillana y SM), según su nivel de
complejidad procedimental y semántico/matemática. Además, se tomó el nivel
académico como variable para analizar la evolución de la complejidad procedi-
mental y semántico/matemática de los problemas.
30 S. Vicente et al.
alta calidad que se adapten al sólido marco teórico que subyace al currículo de
matemáticas del país (Stewart, 2011)
Implicaciones educativas
En primer lugar, parece evidente que el diseño de los libros de texto debería
recibir una mayor atención para incluir más PAVs de complejidad procedimental
alta (incluyendo más problemas de más de dos pasos), pero también de comple-
jidad semántico/matemática media y alta, tanto de estructura aditiva como multi-
plicativa. En este sentido, cabe destacar que ese enriquecimiento debería
producirse de manera conjunta en relación a los dos niveles de complejidad
analizados, ya que si, por ejemplo, se incluyen más PAVs procedimentalmente
complejos, pero las distintas situaciones que plantea son de baja complejidad
semántico/matemática en realidad no se estará promoviendo mucho más el razo-
namiento que con la actual distribución de problemas. Esta primera sugerencia se
une a otras, como la señalada por Sánchez y Vicente (2015) acerca de la necesidad
de incluir, en las secciones de enseñanza del proceso de resolución de PAVs, el
razonamiento como paso necesario para resolver los PAVs, ya que las versiones
actuales de los libros suelen limitar el proceso de resolución a la extracción de los
datos, elección de operaciones y expresión del resultado.
En segundo lugar, y dado que la relación entre los libros de texto y el
aprendizaje de los alumnos está mediatizada por el profesor sería necesario que
los profesores tomaran conciencia de las características de los PAVs de los libros
de texto para tratar de compensar las carencias de los mismos. Para ello sería
conveniente formarles en el análisis y mejora de los PAVs de los libros. En este
sentido, los escasos estudios que han intentado documentar cómo los profesores
implementan las tareas de los libros de texto en clase (ver Chapman, 2006;
Rosales, Orrantia, Vicente, & Chamoso, 2008a, 2008b, 2012) sugieren que el
comportamiento de los maestros en clase de matemáticas generalmente es muy
consistente con el contenido y la orientación de los libros de texto.
Finalmente, parecen necesarias nuevas políticas educativas que vayan más allá
de la mera promulgación de leyes y que, basándose en currículos sólidos (como
los propuestos por en NCTM en Estados Unidos o el Ministerio de Educación de
Singapur), orienten y supervisen aspectos clave de la cultura escolar, como los
libros de texto.
Nota
1. Para clasificar los PAVs sería importante también considerar el impacto del carácter
extensivo (e.g., kilómetros) o intensivo (e.g., km/h) de las cantidades implicadas en
los PAVs, si bien excede de los objetivos del presente estudio; ver Puig y Cerdán
(1995, pp. 127–129).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. / Los autores no han referido
ningún potencial conflicto de interés en relación con este artículo.
Funding / Financiacion
This work was supported by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad [PSI2015-
66802-P]. / Este estudio fue financiado por el Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
[PSI2015-66802-P].
ORCID
Santiago Vicente http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2072-8133
Eva Manchado http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7849-3250
Lieven Verschaffel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5283-6470
References / Referencias
Apple, M. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 4–11.
Analysis of word problems in textbooks / Análisis de los problemas verbales en los libros de texto 33
Carpenter, P., Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s
mathematics. Cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction
concepts. In: R. Lesh, & M. Landau (Eds.), The acquisition of mathematical concepts
and processes (pp. 7–44). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Chapin, S., & Johnson, A. (2000). Math matters: Understanding the Math You Teach,
grades K-6. Sausalico, CA: Mach Solucions Publications.
Chapman, O. (2006). Classroom practices for context of mathematics word problems.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62, 211–230.
Cummins, D. D., Kintsch, W., Reusser, K., & Weimer, R. (1988). The role of under-
standing in solving word problems. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 405–438.
García, A., Jiménez, J. E., & Hess, S. (2006). Solving arithmetic word problems: An
analysis of classification as a function of difficulty in children with and without
arithmetic LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 270–281.
Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. A. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 276–295).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
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 Psychology, 87, 18–32.
Heller, J. I., & Greeno, J. G. (1978). Semantic processing in arithmetic word problem
solving. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association Convention,
Chicago.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., . . .
Stigler, P. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries. Results from the TIMSS
1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
Mayer, R. E., Sims, V., & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks teach
mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational
Research Journal, 32, 443–460.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report:
Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the
fourth and eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study
Center, Boston College. Retrieved from http://pirls.bc.edu/timss2007/mathreport.html
Orrantia, J., González, L. B., & Vicente, S. (2005). Analysing arithmetic word problems
in Primary Education text books. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 28, 429–451.
Puig, L., & Cerdán, F. (1995). Problemas aritméticos escolares. Madrid: Editorial
Síntesis.
Riley, M. S., & Greeno, J. G. (1988). Developmental analysis of understanding language
about quantities of solving problems. Cognition & Instruction, 5, 49–101.
Rosales, J., Orrantia, J., Vicente, S., & Chamoso, J. (2008a). Arithmetic problem solving
in the classroom: What do teachers do when they work jointly with students? Cultura
y Educación, 20, 423–439.
Rosales, J., Orrantia, J., Vicente, S., & Chamoso, J. (2008b). Studying mathematics
problem-solving classrooms. A comparison between the discourse of in-service tea-
chers and student teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23, 275–
294.
Rosales, J., Vicente, S., Chamoso, J., Múñez, D., & Orrantia, J. (2012). Teacher student
interaction in joint word problem solving. The role of situational and mathematical
knowledge in mainstream classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1185–
1195.
Sánchez, M. R., & Vicente, S. (2015). Modelos y procesos de resolución de problemas
aritméticos verbales propuestos por los libros de texto de matemáticas españoles.
Cultura y Educación, 27, 695–725.
34 S. Vicente et al.