ZDM (2020) 52:1–16

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01130-4

SURVEY PAPER

Word problems in mathematics education: a survey

Lieven Verschaffel1 · Stanislaw Schukajlow2 · Jon Star3 · Wim Van Dooren1

Accepted: 7 January 2020 / Published online: 13 January 2020

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2020

Abstract
Word problems are among the most difficult kinds of problems that mathematics learners encounter. Perhaps as a result,
they have been the object of a tremendous amount research over the past 50 years. This opening article gives an overview
of the research literature on word problem solving, by pointing to a number of major topics, questions, and debates that
have dominated the field. After a short introduction, we begin with research that has conceived word problems primarily
as problems of comprehension, and we describe the various ways in which this complex comprehension process has been
conceived theoretically as well as the empirical evidence supporting different theoretical models. Next we review research
that has focused on strategies for actually solving the word problem. Strengths and weaknesses of informal and formal solu-
tion strategies—at various levels of learners’ mathematical development (i.e., arithmetic, algebra)—are discussed. Fourth,
we address research that thinks of word problems as exercises in complex problem solving, requiring the use of cognitive
strategies (heuristics) as well as metacognitive (or self-regulatory) strategies. The fifth section concerns the role of graphical
representations in word problem solving. The complex and sometimes surprising results of research on representations—both
self-made and externally provided ones—are summarized and discussed. As in many other domains of mathematics learn-
ing, word problem solving performance has been shown to be significantly associated with a number of general cognitive
resources such as working memory capacity and inhibitory skills. Research focusing on the role of these general cognitive
resources is reviewed afterwards. The seventh section discusses research that analyzes the complex relationship between
(traditional) word problems and (genuine) mathematical modeling tasks. Generally, this research points to the gap between
the artificial word problems learners encounter in their mathematics lessons, on the one hand, and the authentic mathematical
modeling situations with which they are confronted in real life, on the other hand. Finally, we review research on the impact
of three important elements of the teaching/learning environment on the development of learners’ word problem solving
competence: textbooks, software, and teachers. It is shown how each of these three environmental elements may support or
hinder the development of learners’ word problem solving competence. With this general overview of international research
on the various perspectives on this complex and fascinating kind of mathematical problem, we set the scene for the empirical
contributions on word problems that appear in this special issue.

1 Introduction

Word problems are typically defined as verbal descriptions

of problem situations, presented within a scholastic setting,
* Lieven Verschaffel wherein one or more questions are raised the answer to
Lieven.Verschaffel@kuleuven.be which can be obtained by the application of mathematical
operations to numerical data available in the problem state-
1
Center for Instructional Psychology and Technology, ment or on numerical data derived from them (Verschaffel
University of Leuven, KU Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, pb 3773,
3000 Louvain, Belgium
et al. 2000). As such they differ both from bare sums pre-
2
sented in written (e.g., 4 + 5 = .; 5x + 2 = 22) or oral form
Department of Mathematics, University of Münster,
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster,
(e.g., How much is 40 divided by 5?; What is the mean of
Apffelstaedtstr. 21, 48149 Münster, Germany the numbers 12, 17, 17, 18?).
3
Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, 442
Word problems also differ from authentic problems we
Gutman Library, 6 Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138, encounter in daily life. These real-life problems can also be
USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2 L. Verschaffel et al.
solved by using mathematics, but there typically is less clar-
ity about the precise nature of the question(s), the numerical
information and/or what operations to be used, the tools that
can be used to solve the problem, the (most) correct answer,
etc. (e.g., Which type of loan should we take? Can I drive
home from here without filling the tank?). Such real-world
or authentic problems often include vague or ambiguous
conditions, which may require demanding transfer processes
between reality and mathematics and cannot straightfor-
wardly be solved by the application of one or more math-
ematical operations to numerical data that are given in the
problem statement, as is the case in word problems (Blum
2015; Blum & Niss, 1991; Kaiser 2017; Palm 2002; Ver-
schaffel, Greer, et al. 2000).
Within the mathematics education research community
there is no consensus about how to conceptualize the rela-
tionship between word problems and real-life or authentic
problems. Some authors, such as Kaiser (2017), argue for
a clear theoretical distinction between the two. In Kaiser’s
view, the critical distinction between word problems and
real-life problems—or, as she would call them: mathemati-
cal modelling problems—is that a word problem does not
contain a real question or problem of importance in the real
world or an authentic context—its solution is only important
in the school context. Therefore, the shortened solution pro-
cess of a word problem neither contains an extended phase
of making real world assumptions—as the real world is not
important—nor is the evaluation or validation phase car-
ried out (Kaiser, 2017). For authors who take this stance,
terms such as “real-life modeling problems” or “authentic
modeling activities” do not make sense, because the term
“modeling” by definition includes the real-life or authentic-
ity aspect. Likewise, these authors would object to the use
of the word “modeling” to describe the thinking processes
vis-à-vis word problems, because these problems miss—
again by definition—the most critical aspects of a situation
wherein mathematical modeling is at stake. Importantly, this
viewpoint does not exclude the use of modeling tasks within
mathematics educational settings, as long as the reference to
reality is prominently present.
Other researchers—including the authors of this introduc-
tory article—conceive word problems as a specific—some
might say: over-simplified—type of mathematical mod-
eling problems. According to this point of view, while there
always will remain a difference between a word problem
being presented and solved in a school setting and an authen-
tic real-life modeling problem with which one is confronted
outside school, word problems, if appropriately designed
and handled in a mathematics educational context, can act
as accurate and valuable “simulacra” of authentic mathe-
matical modeling problems one could encounter in real life.
Accordingly, all mathematical modeling tasks can be put
on a “reality” or “authenticity” continuum, with traditional
13
word problems constituting the negative pole, Kaiser’s
(2017) modeling problems forming the positive pole, and
with various kinds of problem situations requiring the use
of mathematics in between.
During the last decades, mathematics educators work-
ing at all educational levels have made strong pleas for the
replacement in mathematics lessons or tests of traditional
word problems with problems that are better simulations of
the modeling problems people encounter in their personal
or professional lives, in terms of the realism and complex-
ity of the mathematical modeling to be done (Blum 2015;
Kaiser 2017; Palm 2002; Verschaffel et al. 2000). The
research literature uses different terms to refer to this latter
kind of mathematical modeling problems used in mathemat-
ics education: context problems, contextualized problems,
real-world problems, realistic (modeling) problems, authen-
tic (modeling) problems, or—as stated above—modeling
problems. As indicated by its title, the scope of the present
special issue—and, thus, also of this Introductory article—is
on word problems. However, given the great similarities and
subtle boundaries between (traditional) word problems and
these more realistic or authentic kinds of modeling prob-
lems, the latter types of problems are also addressed in some
contributions to this special issue.
The term “problem” in “word problem” does not nec-
essarily imply that every task or situation that meets the
above definition of word problem represents a true problem
in the cognitive-psychological sense of the word for a given
person, i.e., a task for which no routine answer or solution
method is available and which therefore requires the activa-
tion of (meta)cognitive strategies (Mayer 1998). Whether
a word problem that a person encounters constitutes a true
problem depends on his/her familiarity with the problem,
his/her mastery of the various kinds of required knowledge
and skills, the available tools, etc. (Verschaffel, Depaepe,
et al. 2014).
Word problems have always constituted an important part
of school mathematics all over the world. Historically, their
role in mathematics education dates back even to antiquity.
One can find word problems almost 4000 years ago in Egyp-
tian papyri, they figure in ancient Chinese and Indian manu-
scripts as well as in arithmetic textbooks from the early days
of printing, such as the Treviso arithmetic of 1487, and they
continue to fill current elementary and (lower) secondary
school mathematics textbooks (Swetz 2009).
Throughout their history word problems have been included
with the aim of accomplishing several goals, the most impor-
tant one being to offer practice for everyday situations of
applied problem solving and mathematical modeling in which
learners will need what they have learnt in school (the so-
called application function of word problems). But they have
played, and still play, other goals as well: to motivate learners
to study mathematics, to train them to think creatively and to
Word problems in mathematics education: a survey 3
develop their problem-solving abilities, and to assist in the
development of new mathematical concepts and skills (Ver-
schaffel et al. 2000).
Word problems have for a long time attracted the attention
of researchers in psychology and (mathematics) education
(Daroczy, Wolska, et al. 2015; Thevenot and Barrouillet 2015;
Verschaffel et al. 2000; Verschaffel, Depaepe, et al. 2013). Up
to the 1970 s, research on word problems focused mainly on
the effects of various kinds of linguistic, computational, and/
or presentational task features (e.g., number of words, gram-
matical complexity, presence of particular key words, num-
ber and nature of the required operations, nature and size of
the given numbers) and subject features (e.g., age, gender,
general intelligence, linguistic and mathematical ability of
the problem solver) on learners’ success rates (Goldin and
McClintock 1984). With the rise of the information-processing
approach, researchers shifted their attention to the underlying
cognitive structures and thinking processes, and, accordingly,
their research methods changed as well. Analyses of response
accuracies on paper-and-pencil word problem tests were
complemented with analyses of verbal protocols, individual
interviews, reaction times, eye-movements, and, most recently,
neuropsychological measurements. Since the 1990 s, insights
from ethnomathematics and socio-cultural theories have con-
tributed to the insight that classical information-processing
models are insufficient to grasp the full complexity of learners’
word problem-solving processes, and that these models need
to be enriched with the idea that word problem solving is a
human activity situated in the particular microcosm of a math-
ematics classroom (Lave 1992; Verschaffel et al. 2000, 2014).
The purpose of this introduction to the special issue on
word problem solving is to give a brief and global overview of
the research on word problem solving of the last five decades,
by pointing to several major themes, questions and debates that
have dominated the field. Our choice of these topics has been
influenced by the ones addressed in the contributions to this
special issue. In doing so, this overview provides an “advanced
organizer” for comprehending, situating, and appreciating the
contributions to this special issue, which altogether provide
a rather good reflection of today’s international research on
this theoretically and practically important research area in
mathematics education. At the same time, this introduction
offers only a partial and selective overview of the impressive
amount of word problem solving research that has been done
over the past five decades.
2 Word problems as problems
of comprehension
As explained above, even though word problems have elic-
ited interesting personal observations and reflections and
more systematic research for a long time, the rise of the
information-processing paradigm in the 1970s transformed
this topic into a prominent research area.
Initially research interest was focused on one-step addi-
tion and subtraction problems involving small natural num-
bers. A basic distinction emerged wherein three classes of
additive problem situations were distinguished: change,
combine, and compare problems. Within each of these
three categories, further distinctions were made on the basis
of the nature of the action (increase/decrease) or relation
(more/less) and of the unknown set (e.g., the start, change
or result rest of a change situation), resulting in 14 different
types of one-step addition and subtraction problems (Riley
et al. 1983; see also Daroczy et al. 2015; Fuson 1992; Ver-
schaffel and De Corte 1997). Numerous empirical studies
carried out during this period with children between 5 and
8 years old demonstrated the psychological significance of
this classification scheme, by showing that word problems
that can be solved by the same arithmetic operation (i.e., a
direct addition or subtraction with the two given numbers in
the problem) but that belong to different semantic problem
types, yield different degrees of difficulty, different ways
of representing and solving these problems, and different
types of errors (for reviews of this research, see Fuson 1992;
Verschaffel and De Corte 1997).
Probably because of the greater complexity of the mul-
tiplicative conceptual field, research on multiplication and
division word problems developed somewhat later, and with
less intensity and integration, than that on addition and sub-
traction word problems. But based on a review of the work
done throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, particularly on
earlier classifications of multiplicative problem situations by
scholars such as Vergnaud (1983), Greer (1992) proposed his
synthesis of types of multiplicative word problems including
categories such as equal groups, comparison, rectangular
area, and Cartesian product. Some of these categories were
characterized as “psychologically commutative” (with the
multiplicand and multiplier playing equal roles in the prob-
lem’s semantic structure), whereas others were considered
as “psychologically non-commutative” (with both operands
playing different roles). With respect to division problems,
for the asymmetric cases two types of division were distin-
guished, namely division by the multiplier (called partitive
division) and division by the multiplicand (called quotitive
division). As with the conceptual field of addition and sub-
traction, accuracy, strategy, and error data provided support
for the validity of the distinctions or characterizations in this
conceptual framework.
Particularly for additive word problems, problem solv-
ing models were developed too, some of which were imple-
mented in computer simulation programs (for reviews, see
Fuson 1992; Reed 1999; Verschaffel and De Corte 1997).
Relying heavily on linguistic theories, particularly the text
comprehension model of Kintsch and van Dijk (1978; see
13
4 L. Verschaffel et al.
also Reusser 1989), these models assumed that the most
critical steps in the solution of a word problem were the con-
struction of a mental representation of the problem situation
(i.e. situational model) and the transformation of that situ-
ational model into a mathematical model. As a more recent
empirical confirmation of this theoretical claim, Schukajlow,
et al. (2010) and Leiss, Plath, et al. (2019) found that con-
structing a situation model is crucial for a correct solution of
the problem and that this step in the solution process gener-
ally takes about 40% of the total solution time, depending
considerably on the linguistic complexity of the task. Moreo-
ver, students’ general and domain-specific reading compre-
hension abilities contribute considerably to the accuracy of
the situation model and the performance in mathematical
modeling (Leiss et al. 2010, Leiss et al. 2019).
These theoretical models further claimed that schematic
knowledge about these different semantic structures played
a crucial role in the construction of the situational model and
its transformation into a mathematical model. More specifi-
cally, these theories assumed that a skillful solution process
of a word problem involves the selection of the appropriate
cognitive scheme on the basis of cues in the propositional
text-base and the instantiation of the empty slots of that
scheme with the appropriate information elements in the
problem statement. Even though these schema-based theo-
ries continue to play a prominent role in research on the cog-
nitive processes involved in the understanding of word prob-
lems, they also have been increasingly criticized because of
their inability to account for content and context effects that
are ubiquitous in word problem solving (Thevenot, 2010;
Thevenot and Barrouillet 2015; Vicente, Orrantia, et al.,
2007). This limitation prompted the emergence of alterna-
tive theories that are more in line with a theoretical approach
that considers the representation of a word problem as a
specific and temporary mental structure constructed in work-
ing memory, not dependent on pre-developed schemes, as in
Johnson-Laird’s (1983) mental model theoretical framework
(for an extensive discussion of these different theoretical
frameworks see Thevenot, 2010; Gros, 2019; Thevenot and
Barrouillet 2015).
Inspired by the above-mentioned schema-based theories
of mathematical word problem solving, various kinds of
intervention programs for teaching elementary arithmetic
word problems were developed and tested, wherein children
were taught to externally schematize the semantic structure
of a word problem before actually solving it. While some
of these programs focused on learning to select and make a
different schematic drawing for every distinct semantic prob-
lem type, others taught learners to (re-)represent all problem
types in terms of one or a restricted set of more generic
schemes, such as the part-whole scheme for all additive word
problems (for a review, see Fuson 1992; Verschaffel and De
Corte 1997). The question how to optimally help learners
13
with the schematization of their comprehension and solution
process of word problems is still an intensively debated and
investigated topic today (see also Sect. 5).
3 Word problems at the transition
from informal to formal mathematics
Traditionally, word problems are thought of as textual prob-
lems that can be solved by means of applying a mathematical
concept, rule or technique previously learnt at school. In line
with this conceptualization, it was assumed, first, that word
problems are also actually solved in that way—namely by
identifying and applying the mathematical concept, rule or
technique being “hidden” in the word problem, second, that
word problems therefore can only be solved by learners who
have already acquired this mathematical knowledge, and,
third, that a word problem is consequently also more difficult
than its corresponding symbolic representation.
However, another important result of the above-men-
tioned line of cognitive analyses of elementary arithmetic
word problem solving was the discovery and systematic
analysis of the various informal ways in which children
successfully solve these problems, well before being taught
the corresponding mathematical knowledge and skills in
school. For instance, for the domain of addition and sub-
traction word problems, various researchers such as Carpen-
ter and Moser (1984) and De Corte and Verschaffel (1987)
have provided detailed descriptions and categorizations of
how kindergarten and beginning elementary school chil-
dren solve one-step addition and subtraction word prob-
lems by means of material and verbal counting strategies
that directly model the actions or relations described in the
problem, before making the step towards mental calcula-
tion strategies based on known and derived number facts.
Likewise, before children have been instructed in multipli-
cation or division, many of them can already solve certain
problem types involving these operations by means of a
variety of informal strategies based on extensive material
or verbal counting or on repeated addition/subtraction strat-
egies that match the actions or relations described in the
problem (Carpenter et al. 1997; Kouba 1989; Mulligan and
Mitchelmore 1997; Nunes and Bryant 1995). Researchers
have further documented how children’s strategy proficiency
gradually develops in two significant directions. One direc-
tion is from these informal, externalized, laborious strat-
egies towards more formalized, internalized, abbreviated
calculation strategies. The other direction is from having
a different solution method for each different type of prob-
lem that is a direct reflection or simulation of the problem’s
semantics, to a single general method that can be used for
all problems with a similar underlying arithmetic operation
(see also Gvozdic and Sander, this issue; Kilpatrick et al.
Word problems in mathematics education: a survey 5
2001). The recognition and appreciation of the educational
potential of these informal strategies explains why cur-
rent constructivist and realistic approaches to (elementary)
mathematics education, such as the “Realistic Mathematics
Education” approach (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen 2001),
give such a prominent role to word problems as a vehicle
for the building of more formal mathematical concepts and
skills. However, the question how this development can be
optimally enhanced through instruction is still a matter of
serious debate.
Somewhat analogous to the major shift that is required
from children who, in the transition between kindergarten
and elementary school, have to exchange their informal and
problem-related solution strategies for a more formal-math-
ematical approach consisting of selecting and executing the
correct arithmetic operation(s) hidden in the problem, when
children make the transition from elementary to secondary
education they have to gradually replace their concrete,
arithmetically-based solution strategies for word problems
with a more general and abstract solution method, namely
the algebraic method. Interestingly, without any knowledge
of algebra one can obtain a correct answer to a problem of
the type “Ben is 4 years older than Juan. In 2 years the sum
of their ages will be 50. How old is each person now?”,
by applying arithmetic solution strategies that consist of a
sequence of direct operations on either given number of the
problem or on intermediate values derived thereof (Fuson
1992), including a “systematic guess-and-check” strategy or
by “working backwards”. In both cases, this happens purely
arithmetically, usually without any formalization of either
the problem situation or the method of solution. However,
as stated by Kieran (1992), a drastic turnaround must occur
in the thinking of beginning algebra learners when they are
asked to solve word problems no longer in terms of solving
one or more direct arithmetic operations but to set up and
syntactically solve equations containing numbers, variables,
and operations that represent the structure of the problem in
an abstract way. During the past decades, many research-
ers have analyzed the difficulties experienced by learners
in making this major conceptual turnaround (e.g., Swafford
and Langrall 2000), as well as various ways of attempting to
help learners in this process of deep conceptual change with
or without the support of Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) (e.g., Yerushalmy 2006).
4 Word problems as exercises in complex
problem solving
Even though we emphasized at the start of this Introduc-
tion that a word problem is not necessarily a true problem
for everyone, historically, word problems have typically
been considered as a kind of (mathematical) problem “par
excellence” (Verschaffel et al. 2000). That is why several
classical intelligence tests contain a subtest consisting
of mathematical word problems, why in many curricula
for elementary and secondary school mathematics word
problems are treated as the most suitable vehicle for reach-
ing the educational targets about mathematical problem
solving, and, finally, why so many researchers interested
in mathematical problem solving have used word prob-
lems as a preferential field for developing and testing their
theories. Importantly, researchers and practitioners who
are interested in word problems from this point of view
focus on another kind of mathematical word problem
than the standard ones that learners typically encounter in
their daily mathematics lessons and tests, as these latter
problems are typically too simple for that purpose. Word
problems that are created and used particularly with this
“problem solving” goal in mind are built around situations
that learners do not encounter in their daily mathemat-
ics lessons (such as problems built around a Cartesian
product situation, which many people do not recognize
as multiplicative), multi-step problems (that require the
solver to set up and monitor a plan of the subsequent solu-
tion steps), problems with irrelevant data (requiring the
solver to decide which numerical and non-numerical data
are needed for the solution), etc. In short, researchers and
educators who want to use word problems as exercises
in (complex) problem solving have tended to rely upon
word problems that cannot be solved in a routine way but
require, in addition to domain-specific knowledge and
skills, heuristics and metacognitive strategies (De Corte
et al. 1996; Mayer 1998; Schoenfeld 1992; Verschaffel
et al. 2013a, b, 2014).
Heuristics are cognitive strategies that help to solve a task
for which one does not have a clear answer or ready-made
solution method. More specifically, heuristics are search
strategies for problem analysis and transformation that do
not guarantee, but significantly increase the probability of,
finding a correct solution because they induce an active and
systematic approach to the task. Typical examples of heu-
ristics are decomposing a problem into smaller problems,
thinking of an analogous problem, making a graphical repre-
sentation of the problem, working backwards, etc. Heuristics
can be defined at various levels of specificity. The more spe-
cifically formulated they are, the more successful they tend
to be. But also, the more specific they are, the smaller their
domain of applicability is (Polya, 1945; Schoenfeld 1992).
Metacognitive or self-regulatory strategies are strategies that
learners apply prior, during, and after the execution of a
cognitive task to regulate one’s own thinking and learning.
Typical examples of metacognitive strategies are planning
one’s own solution or learning process, monitoring one’s
own progression, evaluating the outcome, reflecting on the
past solution or learning process, etc. (Schoenfeld 1992).
13
6 L. Verschaffel et al.
Since the seminal work on heuristic and metacognitive
thinking in mathematical (word) problem solving by Polya
(1945) and Schoenfeld (1992), many scholars have docu-
mented, especially by means of verbal protocol methods, the
important role of heuristic and metacognitive processes in
successful word problem solving, at various levels of educa-
tion (for a review see Mevarech, Verschaffel, et al. 2018).
As far as heuristics are concerned, numerous studies have
revealed how the spontaneous use of the above-mentioned
heuristic methods may help to solve unfamiliar and com-
plex word problems as well as challenging real-world mod-
eling tasks (e.g., van Essen, 1991). Similarly, research by
Lester, Garofalo, and Kroll (1989), Maaß (2006), and Still-
man (2011) has amply emphasized the importance of meta-
cognitive activity during mathematical modeling activities
vis-à-vis non-routine, complex problems, especially in the
orchestration of the transitions between the different stages
of the modeling cycle.
Moreover, given this well-documented association
between these (meta)cognitive strategies and mathematical
problem solving, researchers have also looked for ways of
improving learners’ mathematical reasoning and problem
solving by teaching heuristic and metacognitive skills. Over
the years, several such “metacognitive pedagogies” have
been designed, particularly in the context of mathematical
word problem solving. For instance, Mevarech, Kramar-
ski, and colleagues (e.g., Mevarech and Kramarski 1997)
designed and investigated an instructional method the core
of which consists of training learners through a systematic
instructional approach to use four kinds of metacognitive
self-directed questions when confronted with a mathematical
(word) problem: (1) Comprehension: What is the problem
all about? (2) Connection: How is the problem at hand simi-
lar to or different from problems you have solved in the past?
(3) Strategies: What strategies are appropriate for solving
the problem and why? (4) Review: Does the solution make
sense? Can you solve the problem differently, how? Are you
stuck, why? Likewise, Verschaffel, De Corte, et al. (1999)
designed a learning environment aimed at upper elemen-
tary school children’s acquisition of competence in math-
ematical word problem solving. This environment focused
on a set of heuristic strategies (such as: I draw a picture of
the problem situation, I differentiate between relevant and
irrelevant data…) embedded in a metacognitive strategy for
problem solving consisting of five stages: (1) I build a rep-
resentation of the problem, (2) I decide how to approach and
solve the problem; (3) I do the necessary calculations; (4)
I interpret the outcome and formulate an answer, and (5) I
control and evaluate the solution. To elicit and support this
metacognitive strategy, the environment was designed based
on the following three pillars: (1) a varied set of complex,
realistic, and open problems that elicit the intended heuris-
tic and metacognitive skills; (2) a balanced set of powerful
13
instructional techniques, namely small group work, whole
class discussion, and individual assignments; (3) the estab-
lishment of an innovative classroom culture through the
introduction of new social and socio-mathematical norms
with respect to learning and teaching word problem solving.
The positive effects of the intervention programs of Mevar-
ech and Kraminski (1997) and Verschaffel et al. (1999), and
of many others, on mathematical (word) problem solving are
documented in numerous studies, from elementary school to
higher education (for overviews see Kaiser, 2017; Mevarech
et al. 2018; Mevarech and Kramarski 2014). However, these
positive effects are typically rather moderate, especially
when the program was implemented in realistic rather than
experimental settings.
5 Word problems and their graphical
representations
Another important topic in word problem solving research
relates to the role of graphical representations—either self-
made or provided ones. Constructing a graphical represen-
tation oneself for a given word problem is to be considered
as a heuristic strategy that the problem solver brings to the
task with a view to reduce the problematic nature of the
task to be solved (see Sect. 4). On the other hand, providing
the word problem solver not only with a textual but also a
graphical representation can be considered as an instruc-
tional decision from the part of the textbook author or the
teacher aimed at facilitating the problem-solving process
in one way or another. Presented representations alter the
nature of a mathematical task: tasks with and without exter-
nal representations are different from the learner’s perspec-
tive, even if the underlying mathematical structures of the
tasks are the same. Regardless of who generated the rep-
resentation, the idea is that graphical representations may
particularly help in the initial phases of the solution process
of a word problem wherein the situational and mathematical
model are constructed, by providing an additional relevant
source of information. Moreover, getting or creating oneself
a description of the problem situation may prevent learners
from running into an impulsive, superficial or mindless solu-
tion approach (Verschaffel 2016).
Research on graphical representations revealed wide vari-
ety in representations accompanying word problems. As far
as the nature of a representation is concerned, Hegarty and
Kozhevnikov (1999) distinguished between pictorial and
schematic representations. The first kind of representations
are characterized as concrete visualizations of objects and
actions that appear within the problem; the second are of a
more abstract nature and focus on the significant relations in
the problem. As far as the representation’s function is con-
cerned, a frequently used categorization (Elia and Philippou
Word problems in mathematics education: a survey 7
2004) distinguishes four types of (pictorial) representations:
(1) decorative pictures are pictures that have no relation
whatsoever with the problem and/or its solution; they sim-
ply decorate the page; (2) representational pictures, in con-
trast, illustrate the problem partly or entirely, for example, by
providing a picture that portrays the scene being described
in the problem or a particular part of it; (3) organizational
pictures provide directions for drawing or written work that
support the solution procedure; (4) informational pictures
provide information that is essential for understanding and/
or solving the problem, such as numerical information that
is not provided in the problem statement.
Relying on a systematic review of the role of graphi-
cal representations in mathematical word problem solving
consisting of about 80 entries, Verschaffel (2016) analyzed
the impact of given and self-made representations in word
problem solving. Hereafter we summarize the results of
this review for, respectively, given and self-made graphical
representations.
The results for given representations are mixed and highly
dependent on the nature and function of the representations.
Not surprisingly, even though mathematics textbooks make
ample use of decorative pictures, empirical evidence for
their effectiveness is nonexistent. As far as representational
and organizational pictures are concerned, the results are
mixed. Sometimes they turn out to be beneficial, but some-
times they are not. Typically, they are of little or no help,
and even risk slowing down the solution process, when the
word problems are simple routine problems. On the other
hand, when the problems are difficult and non-routine for the
given learner(s), adding a representational or organizational
representation results in better performance most of the time
(see e.g., Orrantia, Munez, et al. 2014). However, for a given
representational or organizational picture to realize its poten-
tial added value, it is critical that the learner notices the
representation and acknowledges its usefulness. If not, it will
be of little or no help simply because it will not get sufficient
and adequate attention from the problem solver, as shown in
studies of De Bock, Verschaffel, et al. (1998) and Dewolf,
Van Dooren, et al. (2012). Another important condition for
success, which is not always met, is that the picture con-
tains sufficient extra information about the problem or how
it can be solved, compared to the textual information itself.
Although students assign higher utility value to representa-
tive and informative than to decorative pictures (Böckmann
and Schukajlow 2018), they do not necessarily perform bet-
ter when solving rich mathematical modeling problems. So
far, the fourth category, informative representations, has
elicited little research. The scarce available research suggests
that they also do not lead to better performance, and even
may tend to lower performance compared to word problems
wherein all necessary information is contained in the text or
accompanied with other forms of graphical representations
(Berends and van Lieshout 2009). Relying on cognitive load
theory, these authors explained this finding by arguing that
the correct answer requires integration of information from
two physically separate sources, putting heavy (extraneous)
cognitive load on learners’ limited working memory capac-
ity, and thus leaving fewer resources for the original math-
ematical task at hand.
Whereas research on given representations is mainly
about pictorial representations, research on self-made repre-
sentations deals mostly with schematic ones. A smaller part
of this research is of an observational nature, linking learn-
ers’ use of self-made representations in non-interventionist
settings to word problem solving success. Hegarty and Koz-
hevnikov (1999) found that the use of schematic representa-
tions was associated with success in word problem solving,
whereas the use of pictorial representations was negatively
correlated with success. Subsequently, Boonen, van Wesel,
et al. (2014) commented that the distinction between picto-
rial and schematic representations is insufficient to under-
stand and predict word problem solving performance. They
argued that one has to distinguish between two types of self-
made schematic representations, namely those in which the
externally represented relationships are complete and correct
(accurate schematic representations), and those in which the
relationships between solution-relevant elements of the word
problem text are incorrectly drawn or missing (inaccurate
schematic representations). Using this more fine-grained
classification scheme, they found that only accurate sche-
matic representations had a positive influence on the correct
solution of a word problem. This is in line with the finding
of De Bock et al. (1998), who also found that only when sec-
ondary school students’ self-made drawings were sufficiently
correct and complete did they lead to better word problem
solving accuracies. Rellensmann, Schukajlow, et al. (2017)
examined these results for different types of self-made draw-
ings and investigated the role of knowledge about drawings
for modelling. They prompted students to construct both a
pictorial and a schematic representation for each problem
before solving it. Results showed that, while the accuracy
of a schematic representation was strongly positively related
to modelling performance, the correlation between accuracy
of pictorial representation and modeling was much weaker.
Accuracy of pictorial representation had another important
function in students’ solution processes, as it helped con-
structing an accurate schematic representation and had an
indirect effect on modeling performance.
However, the vast majority of the research on self-made
representations has been done in the context of studies that
investigate the impact of instructional interventions on
learners’ word problem solving performance. Basically,
two different instructional approaches can be distinguished
(Verschaffel 2016). In one approach, learners are taught to
solve a well-defined set of word problems by identifying,
13
8 L. Verschaffel et al.
drawing and completing a teacher-imposed schematic dia-
gram. Illustrative for this approach is the very productive
line of research by Jitendra and colleagues (e.g., Jitendra
and Hoff 1996), who demonstrated the effectiveness of such
a schema-based approach in a wide variety of types of word
problems, age levels, and target groups. In fact, this approach
essentially also lies at the basis of the so-called “model
method” or “bar method” for solving word problems, which
plays a pivotal role in the internationally well known “Singa-
pore Math” (Ng and Lee, 2005). In the alternative approach,
called the “schema-broadening approach”, the set of word
problems being addressed is not specified and there are no
fixed graphical representations that are explicitly taught by
the teacher and that have to be practiced by the learners
under strict control of the teacher. Rather, generalization
and transfer of the visualization skill as a general or generic
heuristic device is the major goal of instruction. Further-
more, this visualization heuristic is typically embedded in a
more general metacognitive problem-solving strategy (which
may also contain several other heuristics). Csíkos, Szitányi,
et al. (2012, in Verschaffel 2016) designed an experimental
program for learners as young as 8–9 years old that is illus-
trative for this schema-broadening approach. In a follow-up
design study the researchers demonstrated positive effects
of a teaching method that focuses on constructing graphi-
cal representations on word problem solving accuracy of
9–10 year old students (Csíkos et al. 2012). In sum, both
instructional approaches, the schema-based and the schema-
broadening approach, have their documented successes.
The available research, which lacks direct comparisons
of the two approaches, does not allow for the determination
of which of these two approaches is optimal, and so further
research is needed. Possibly, schema-based instruction may
be more successful in an educational setting that aims for
short-term and specific learning effects tailored to specified
types of word problems, whereas the schema-broadening
approach may be more promising if one takes a broader edu-
cational perspective that capitalizes on adaptive and transfer-
able learning outcomes (Verschaffel 2016).
So, according to the current state-of-the-art, the ques-
tion “how effective are graphical representations of math-
ematical word problems” cannot be answered in a simple,
straightforward way. Rather the answer should begin with: It
depends. More specifically, the available research evidence
suggests that the efficacy of a given or self-made graphical
representation will depend on the complex interaction of the
features of the representation itself, the word problem to be
solved, the knowledge and skills of the problem solver, and
the broader context wherein the problem-solving process is
taking place (Verschaffel 2016).
We end this section with a note on the role of meta-rep-
resentational competence in relation to mathematical word
problems. The term “meta-representational competence”
13
refers, first, to learners’ knowledge about various graphi-
cal representations, and, second, their ability to select, pro-
duce and use representations in relation to word problems.
But, analogous to other competencies, this competence also
involves a productive disposition with graphical representa-
tions, which involves seeing them as beneficial, worthwhile,
and sensible for solving word problems, coupled with the
belief and confidence in one’s own ability to use them. Pre-
vious work on meta-representational competence has been
done by DiSessa and associates (see e.g., DiSessa and Sherin
2000) and by Verschaffel, Reybrouck, et al. (2013), but in
the domain of, respectively, science and music education.
During the past few years, researchers have started to apply
this notion to the domain of mathematics too and examined
the importance of knowledge about drawing (Rellensmann
et al. 2017), in combination with drawing motivation (costs
of constructing a graphical representation) and drawing-
related emotions (enjoyment of drawing activity), for use
of drawings and accuracy in problem solving (Uesaka and
Manalo 2012, Schukajlow, Blomberg, et al. 2019b). But,
except for these few studies, research focusing on the role of
meta-representational competence in the particular domain
of word problem solving is still very scarce. So, if we want
to develop a better theoretical understanding of the role of
graphical representations in expertise in word problem solv-
ing and if we want to improve the teaching of word problem
solving, more research on learners’ meta-representational
competence is strongly needed.
6 Domain‑general cognitive factors
affecting word problem solving
In the previous sections, we pointed to the role of various
kinds of learner characteristics in word problem solving per-
formance: their knowledge of problem schemata, their rep-
ertoire of informal and formal computation strategies, their
mastery of heuristics and metacognitive skills, etc. However,
throughout the history of word problem solving research,
research has documented, typically on the basis of correla-
tional research, the importance of other, more domain-gen-
eral kind of cognitive resources, such as general intelligence
or general level of logico-mathematical development (in the
Piagetian sense), or, more recently, working memory and
inhibition. Hereafter, we briefly review the research related
to the latter two subject factors.
For a long time, it has been suggested that working
memory plays a significant role in explaining individual
differences in word-problem competence. In several major
theories of mathematical word problem solving, the role of
working memory is explicitly acknowledged, particularly
in the steps of constructing a coherent representation of the
problem situation and its transformation into some kind of
Word problems in mathematics education: a survey 9
mathematical model (see e.g., the computer models of addi-
tive word problem solving mentioned above). Several studies
provided empirical support for the importance of working
memory in mathematical word-problem solving, by show-
ing that good and poor problem solvers differ significantly
on working memory or that individual differences in work-
ing memory account for variance in word problem solving
even after controlling for other cognitive variables (Wang,
Fuchs, et al. 2016). However, these studies are correlational
in nature, which makes it hard to make causal attributions.
Gillard, Van Dooren, et al. (2009) showed that for a set of
non-standard word problems (i.e., problems that superfi-
cially looked as if they were proportional but actually needed
a non-proportional solution) the number of erroneous (i.e.,
inadequate proportional) answers increased when working
memory was experimentally limited. But even though work-
ing memory has been shown to have a causal impact on word
problem solving, we are not aware of intervention studies
that trained learners’ working memory skills and showed a
resulting improvement in word problem solving.
Inhibitory control—the ability to ignore salient but
unhelpful stimuli and responses—is increasingly consid-
ered to be important for learning mathematics in general
and mathematical word problem solving in particular. At
the end of their review on the literature on inhibitory con-
trol in mathematical thinking, learning and problem solving,
Van Dooren and Inglis (2015, p. 713) conclude that “a great
deal of theoretical work in mathematics education research
seems to reference the notion of inhibitory control, albeit not
always explicitly”. Indeed, roaming around the research field
of word problem solving, one encounters numerous exam-
ples of well-documented persistent errors due to learners’
failure to inhibit superficial erroneous response tendencies.
This is, for instance, the case for learners’.
• failure to inhibit the strong association between the key
word “more” and the operation “add” in problems such
as “Pete has 8 apples. He has 5 more apples than Ann.
How many apples does Ann have?” leading to the errone-
ous response 13 (instead of 3),
• erroneous response 24 (instead of 12) to the pseudo-pro-
portional problem “Mam puts 3 towels on the clothesline.
After 12 h, they are dry. The neighbors have 6 towels on
their clothesline. After how many hours are they dry?”
due to their inability to inhibit the activation of the pro-
portional reasoning scheme when being confronted with
a word problem with a “proportional” surface structure,
• wrong choice for the operation 55:0,75 (instead of 55 ×
0.75) when asked to indicate what arithmetic operation
with the given numbers will lead to the correct solution
of the problem “Lobster is priced 55 euro per kilogram.
How much does 0.75 kg cost?”, because of their inability
to inhibit the intuitive rule “multiplication makes big-
ger—division makes smaller” constructed based on their
numerous experiences with operations on natural num-
bers, where this rule does apply (Verschaffel 2019).
With a view to measure this general cognitive factor,
Frederick (2005) composed the Cognitive Reflection Test,
comprised of several mathematical problems—mainly word
problems—that have as a common feature that they are
hard to solve, not because of their linguistic or mathemati-
cal demands but rather because the correct answer requires
the inhibition of a very easy, seemingly correct answer. For
instance, consider the problem “A bat and a ball together
cost $1.10. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How
much does the ball cost? ___ cents.” The answer 10 cents
tends to spring to one’s mind. Only if this response is inhib-
ited will the correct answer, 5 cents, be found.
While there is already strong evidence that general math-
ematics achievement is associated with inhibitory control,
the relation between inhibitory capacities and the perfor-
mance on specific mathematical tasks, and particularly on
word problem solving, has been explored much less inten-
sively. Actually, we are not aware of any study that addressed
this relationship in a direct and systematic way. The above
examples taken from word problem solving research seem
to suggest that inhibition may be a particularly important
explanatory mechanism as far as word problem solving is
concerned, particularly in the case when learners have to
refrain from starting to conduct well-automatized procedures
that are triggered by superficial features of the word prob-
lem such as its general formulation or key words. Expecting
that future research on this topic will yield strong evidence
for the role of inhibitory control in word problem solving
performance, several additional questions are waiting for an
answer: How to complement correlational research showing
the predictive value of inhibitory capacity by evidence for
the causal nature of this relationship? And if there is a causal
relationship, is it possible, feasible, or educationally relevant
to train inhibitory skills in order to improve mathematical
learning, rather than devote attention to mathematics instruc-
tion itself? (Van Dooren and Inglis 2015). With respect to
the latter question, mathematics educators might argue that
when people take into account a task feature they should not,
it may be because of their failure to understand something
deep at a conceptual level and not primarily because they
are weak on inhibition.
7 Word problems as exercises
in mathematical modeling
As explained in the introductory section of this review,
word problems are traditionally considered as an efficient
vehicle to bring learners into real-world problem situations
13
10
wherein they can apply and practice the mathematics learnt
in their mathematics lessons. For a very long time, word
problems have played this “application function” without
much reflection and critical concern. Of course, there always
have been individuals showing awareness of the bridging
problem between reality and mathematics, and the risks
involved (Lewis Carroll being a marvelous example), but
many teachers, textbook writers, and researchers, have been
using, and still use nowadays, word problems as if there was
no bridging problem at all (Verschaffel et al. 2000).
During the last 10–15 years, it has been argued by many
scholars from different disciplines such as mathematics edu-
cation, psychology, linguistics, and anthropology, that the
current practice of word problems in school mathematics
does not foster in students a genuine disposition towards
mathematical modeling (as defined in the first section of
this Introduction). For instance, in her in-depth linguistic
analysis of word problems as a text genre, Gerofsky (1997,
p. 22, see also Lave 1992) serious questions the “unprob-
lematic acceptance of concepts of separable mathematical
and real worlds and of word problems as a transparent bridge
between the two”. Inspired by these theoretical analyses,
empirical studies, mostly grounded in socio-cultural and
socio-constructivist theories, showed that after several years
of schooling many students have constructed an approach to
word problems—and to mathematical modeling problems
more broadly—whereby this activity is reduced to the execu-
tion of one or more arithmetic operations with the numbers
in the problem, without any serious consideration of possible
constraints of the realities of the problem context that may
jeopardize the appropriateness of their standard models and
solutions (for an overview, see Verschaffel et al. 2000 and
Verschaffel, Greer, et al. 2009). In other words, they treat
every mathematical modeling problem as if it was a straight-
forward word problem.
In an attempt to study more systematically learners’ non-
realistic approach towards word problem solving, Greer
(1993) and Verschaffel et al. (1994) confronted pupils aged
between 10 and 14 years old with a word problem solv-
ing test consisting not only of standard problems that can
be solved by means of a straightforward operation with
the numbers in the problem (S-items) but also with word
problems that are problematic from a realistic modeling
perspective (P-items) in the sense that real-life knowledge
should be taken into account to come to a reasonable or
meaningful solution reaction. For example, the P-item “A
man wants to have a rope long enough to stretch between two
poles 12 m apart, but he has only pieces of rope 1.5 m long.
How many of these pieces would he need to tie together
to stretch between the poles?” cannot be solved realisti-
cally simply by dividing 12 m by 1.5. The learner has to
take into account that some extra rope is needed to make
the knots and to stretch the rope between the poles. They
13
L. Verschaffel et al.
found that most pupils solved these P-items as if there was
no realistic modeling issue at all; they simply applied the
arithmetic operation(s) suggested by the situation described,
under the assumption that the situation could be straight-
forwardly mapped onto these operations, like one would do
when confronted with an S-item. The authors’ conclusion
that most pupils tend to neglect their everyday knowledge
when solving mathematical word problems, was subse-
quently confirmed in many other studies (for an overview see
Verschaffel et al. 2009). For instance, Krawitz, Schukajlow,
et al. (2018) analyzed students’ barriers in solving P-items,
by comparing their performance in solving P-items versus
related quantitative problems with no numerical informa-
tion (e.g., “How many centimeters of toothpaste are used
in a month?”). Their analysis revealed that students did not
notice the missing data in a P-item (e.g., the extra rope for
the knots in the P-item rope) and as a result developed unre-
alistic solutions.
Several follow-up studies have tested the effectiveness of
variations in the experimental setting on children’s tendency
to solve problems in a realistic way, e.g., by making students
more alert at the beginning of the test to consider aspects
of reality and to legitimize alternative forms of answer-
ing (Yoshida et al. 1997) or by complementing the text of
the P-items with a picture that was specifically designed to
emphasize the realistic modeling complexity in the problem
situation (Dewolf, Van Dooren, et al. 2012). However, these
manipulations did not result in a significant increase in the
number of realistic reactions to the P-items in the test.
This brings us to the question: How do these non-realistic
strategies for school arithmetic word problem develop? The
development of students’ tactics for word problem solving
is assumed to occur implicitly, gradually, and tacitly through
being immersed in the culture of the mathematics classroom
in which they engage. Put another way, students’ strategies
and beliefs develop from their perceptions and interpreta-
tions of the didactical contract (Brousseau 1997) or the
socio-mathematical norms (Yackel and Cobb 1996) that
determine(s)—explicitly to some extent, but mainly implic-
itly—how to behave in a mathematics class, how to think,
how to communicate with the teacher, and so on. More spe-
cifically, this enculturation seems to be mainly caused by
two aspects of current instructional practice, namely (1) the
nature of the problems given and (2) the way in which these
problems are conceived and treated by teachers (Verschaffel
et al. 2000).
Starting from the above criticisms on the traditional prac-
tice surrounding word problems in schools and from the
modeling perspective described above, researchers have set
up design studies wherein they developed, implemented and
evaluated experimental programs aimed at the enhancement
of students’ mathematical modeling and problem solving
along the lines mentioned above. To mention just a few:
Word problems in mathematics education: a survey 11
Lehrer and Schauble’s (2005) experimental curriculum for
mathematics and science teaching in young children built
upon the modeling approach, the Jasper studies of the Cog-
nition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997) wherein
mathematical problem solving is anchored in realistic con-
texts using new information technologies, Verschaffel et al.’s
(1999) above-mentioned study about the design and evalu-
ation of a learning environment for mathematical modeling
and problem solving in upper elementary school children,
or the various design studies on how to promote mathemati-
cal modeling competences in secondary mathematics class-
rooms, and various interventions for improving the math-
ematical modeling skills of secondary and higher education
students designed by scholars active within the International
Study Group for Mathematical Modelling and Applications
(ICTMA) (Kaiser, 2017; Maaß, 2006; Stillman, 2011).
A major issue in these intervention studies relates to the
question as to how the teaching of mathematical modeling
abilities can be optimally designed. Whereas some research-
ers plea for explicit and separate instructional attention to
every subskill involved in this complex and multi-aspectual
ability (e.g., every phase of the mathematical modeling
cycle, every heuristic strategy that may be relevant in a par-
ticular phase,…) in every individual learner, other research-
ers adhere to a holistic instructional approach wherein all
subskills are taught and practiced in a more implicit and
integrated way. Kaiser and Brand (2015) showed that both
holistic and atomistic approaches to the teaching of the
complex ability of solving modelling problems can improve
students’ accuracy in solving such problems. A series of
interventional studies revealed the importance of a teaching
method oriented toward students’ self-regulation for mod-
elling, motivation, and emotions (Blum 2015; Schukajlow
et al. 2012), and that the effects of this teaching method can
be improved by using a designed scaffold such as a stepwise
solution plan involving several heuristic strategies (Schu-
kajlow et al. 2015) or by prompting students to construct
multiple solutions for modelling problems (Achmetli, Schu-
kaljlow, et al. 2019; Schukajlow, Achmetli et al. 2019a) (for
an overview of these intervention studies, see Schukajlow
et al. 2018).
In sum, in most of these design experiments positive out-
comes have been obtained in terms of performance, under-
lying processes, and motivational and affective aspects of
learning, although the results were sometimes moderate and/
or the research methodology applied in some of these studies
do not allow for strong claims. At the end of his review of
the available research evidence at the time, Niss (2001, p.
8) concluded that “application and modeling capability can
be learnt, and according to the above-mentioned findings
has to be learnt, but at a cost, in terms of effort, complexity
of task, time consumption, and reduction of syllabus in the
traditional sense”. Surely, this conclusion is still valid today.
Elaborating on Niss’ above warnings about the complex
and demanding nature of the teacher’s task, Verschaffel
(2002) raised several questions that pop up when advocat-
ing the modeling perspective towards word problem solving
for serious consideration in real mathematics classrooms,
particularly at elementary and lower secondary school lev-
els. A first critical issue is: how far can and should we go
in our efforts to make the word problems more realistic or
authentic? Stated differently: How much reference to the
complexity and ambiguity of reality is possible and appro-
priate in the classroom context? Second: does the (realistic)
modeling perspective exclude the use of traditional word
problems in the mathematics classroom? If not, how can we
manage the existence of these different kinds of problems in
the classroom? And, finally, is teaching and learning math-
ematical applications according to the (realistic) modeling
perspective important and feasible for all categories of learn-
ers, including the mathematically weaker ones? To answer
these and other questions, we need more methodologically
rigorous and ecologically valid empirical research in the
future (Kaiser 2017; Schukajlow et al. 2018).
8 The classroom as a context for word
problem solving
Given the complexity of the knowledge, skills, and affects
involved in the solution of word problems, it is reasona-
ble to assume that learners’ competence in solving word
problems will depend heavily on the quantity and quality
of the instruction they received in this topic. In the previous
sections, we have already referred frequently to the role of
instruction, and this role has already been documented in a
number of teaching experiments or design studies. In this
section, we briefly discuss research on the impact of three
important factors in the teaching/learning environment on
learners’ word problem solving development: textbooks,
software, and teachers.
A first relevant aspect of educational practice with respect
to word problem solving that has received in-depth analysis
are the mathematics textbooks. This is not surprising, given
that they are recognized as a major instructional resource
that is frequently and intensively used by teachers in most
countries around the world. In this respect, Apple (1992,
cited by Hagarty and Pepin 2002, pp. 568–569) pointed
out that “the curriculum in most schools is not defined by
courses of study or suggested programs, but by […] the
standardized, grade-level-specific text […], because it ‘dom-
inates what students learn; they set the curriculum, and often
the facts learnt, in most subjects”. Various studies have been
set up with a view toward analyzing mathematics textbooks
either in one single educational setting or toward compar-
ing textbooks from two or more countries or regions and/
13
12
or with respect to the curricular domain of word problem
solving (e.g., Stigler, Fuson, et al., 1986; Vicente, Rosario
Sanchez, et al., in press). For instance, Stigler, Fuson, et al.
(1986) compared the nature of addition and subtraction word
problems in first years’ textbooks of children in the U.S. and
the Soviet Union, and found that the latter children received
a much wider variety of one-step addition and subtraction
problems (in terms of the 14 semantic categories framework
mentioned before) as well as many more two-step problems
involving two different one-step problem types from that
framework. Palm and Burman (2004) analyzed the realistic
nature of word problems in Norwegian upper elementary
school mathematics education by means of Palm’s (2002)
framework for assessing the level of realism of word prob-
lems and came to the conclusion that the vast majority of
the word problems simulated the major aspects that are
assumed to be important in realistic situations according to
that framework. Depaepe, De Corte, et al. (2009) did the
same for Flemish upper elementary school textbooks, and
came to roughly the same conclusion, except that they made
the important additional comment that word problems with
interesting or puzzling realistic modeling complexities (as
the P-items mentioned above) were complete lacking in
textbooks.
Since the introduction of ICT in (mathematics) education,
researchers have also explored the potential of ICT for the
learning of word problem solving too. This has resulted in
a variety of lines of research and development, including
(a) classical drill-and-practice programs wherein learners
practice certain types of word problems with basic feed-
back (right/wrong) and support (e.g., a hint or scaffold, in
case of error) from the computer, (b) intelligent tutoring
systems that provide adaptive feedback and support based
on a cognitive model of learners’ progression (Anderson
et al. 1995), (c) software that is directly aimed at enhancing
students’ systematic use of a metacognitive approach based
on the IMPROVE model or a related general model of expert
problem solving (Teong 2003), (d) ICT environments that
primarily try to make the word problem solving experience
more personalized or more realistic, as in the famous Jasper
series of the Cognition and Technology Group at Vander-
bilt (1997). Although most of these studies report positive
learning outcomes, their methodological design frequently
does not allow for the making of valid conclusions of the
unique contribution of ICT on these results. Moreover, to
the best of our knowledge, except for the classical drill-and-
practice programs and a few of the other cases (De Kock and
Harskamp 2014), many of these ICT environments being
developed and tested by researchers have not found their way
to real school settings.
Although many research papers on word problem solv-
ing involve explicit or implicit criticisms of the profes-
sional knowledge, beliefs, and/or teaching practices of
13
L. Verschaffel et al.
(mathematics) teachers, the number of studies that actually
focus on the teacher and his/her teaching with respect to
word problem solving is relatively small. In some studies the
content and/or pedagogical content knowledge of (future)
teachers related to word problem solving was assessed. They
typically document that a significant number of teachers
experience difficulties solving correctly the word problems
they have to teach to their students. For instance, Cramer,
Post, et al. (1993) reported that almost all US preservice
elementary education teachers in their sample solved the
following problem by setting up and solving a proportion:
9/3 = x/15; 3x = 135; x = 45 instead of reasoning additively:
“Sue and Julie were running equally fast around a track. Sue
started first. When she had run 9 laps, Julie had run 3 laps.
When Julie completed 15 laps, how many laps had Sue run?”
Likewise, Verschaffel et al. (1997) found that, just as upper
elementary school children, the vast majority of (future)
Flemish elementary school teachers reacted non-realistically
to a series of P-items mentioned above. Interestingly, these
authors also found that these future teachers gave higher
scores to non-realistic than to realistic responses to these
P-items in an additional paper-and-pencil questionnaire
when they were asked to evaluate various (imaginary) pupil
answers. Other studies on elementary or secondary mathe-
matics teachers have explicitly focused on their actual teach-
ing with word problems by systematically observing and
analyzing their instructional practice. For instance Chapman
(2006) and Depaepe, De Corte, et al. (2010a) investigated
practicing teachers’ ways of handling reality in word prob-
lems, and found that many teachers strongly preferred an
instructional approach wherein they restricted rather than
enriched the problem context paradigmatic rather than a
realistic approach in their word problem solving lessons.
Analysis of teacher actions while solving modeling prob-
lems in a case study demonstrated that teachers intervene
into solution processes because of their own claims rather
than because of students’ difficulties (Leiss 2010). This and
other results underline teachers’ difficulties in fostering
students’ performance in solving rich modeling problems
that have been pointed out repeatedly (Blum 2015; Kaiser
2017). Using a multiple-case study approach, Depaepe, De
Corte, et al. (2010b) analyzed, during a whole school year,
two upper elementary school teachers’ approach towards
heuristic and metacognitive skills in word problem solving
lessons and its relationship with students’ beliefs and prob-
lem-solving skills. They found large differences between the
two teachers, and although the students in the classroom
more frequently stressing heuristic skills performed better,
these differences were not statistically significant. Besides
that case study, we are not aware of studies that directly and
specifically compared teacher characteristics with student
learning outcomes, for the domain of word problem solving.
Word problems in mathematics education: a survey 13
9 Conclusion
The current special issue brings together papers that deal
with the great variety of issues related to word problem solv-
ing, and mathematical modeling problems more broadly, that
have been addressed in the above review, with learners of a
wide age range and from different cultural and educational
backgrounds, and with a large variety of research methods
and techniques. Several papers focus on young children’s
use of informal strategies (and graphical representations of
simple (additive) word problems (Alghamdi, Jitendra, et al.,
this issue; Elia, this issue; Gvozdic & Sander, this issue;
Powell, this issue; van Lieshout and Xenidou-Dervou, this
issue). Others touch upon a variety of other research top-
ics reviewed above, such as how and why various subject
and task characteristics affect the difficulty of elementary
school children’s word problem solving (Pongsakdi, Kaja-
mies, et al., this issue), a cross-cultural analysis of how word
problems are read using eye-movement tracking (Strohm-
aier, Schiepe-Tiaska, et al., this issue), the role of students’
knowledge for solving modeling problems requiring realistic
assumptions in Germany and Taiwan (Chang, Krawitz, et al.,
this issue), an attempt to improve mathematical word prob-
lem solving by means of working memory training (Fuchs,
this issue), and the development and use of a new instrument
for assessing students’ meta-representational skills in the
context of word problem solving (Rellensmann, Schukajlow,
et al., this issue). Finally, two studies try to get deeper insight
into the practice of teaching and learning word problem
solving by analyzing how teachers and learners make actual
use of research-based metacognitive scaffolds (Goulet-Lyle,
Voyer, et al., this issue) and by interviewing teachers about
various aspects of their views on and attitudes about word
problems and their teaching (Csíkos and Szitányi, this issue).
We hope that bringing together this variety of papers pro-
vides a convincing case for the continued research interest
in this topic among researchers from different disciplinary
backgrounds and for the relevance of these continued efforts
for furthering theory and research methodology and improv-
ing educational practice.
References
Achmetli, K., Schukajlow, S., & Rakoczy, K. (2019). Multiple solu-
tions to solve real-world problems and students’ procedural and
conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 100, 43–60.
Alghamdi, A., Jitendra, A. K., & Lein, A. E. (2020). Solving multi-
plication and division word problems with schematic diagrams:
The role of schema-based instruction in supporting mathematical
thinking skills of students with mathematics learning disabilities.
ZDM Mathematics Education, this issue (in press).
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R.
(1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.
Apple, M. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational
Researcher, 21(7), 4–11.
Berends, I. E., & van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2009). The effect of
illustrations in arithmetic problem solving: Effects of increased
cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 19, 345–353. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.learn​instr​uc.2008.06.012.
Blum, W. (2015). Quality teaching of mathematical modelling: What
do we know, what can we do? In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education
(pp. 73–96). Cham: Springer.
Blum, W., & Niss, M. (1991). Applied mathematical problem solv-
ing, modelling, applications, and links to other subjects—State,
trends and issues in mathematics instruction. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 22, 37–68.
Böckmann, M., & Schukajlow, S. (2018). Value of pictures in mod-
elling problems from students’ perspective. In E. Bergqvist,
M. Österholm, M. Granberg, & L. Sumpter (Eds.), Proceed-
ings of the 42th conference of the international group for the
psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 263–270).
Umeå: PME.
Boonen, A. J. H., van Wesel, F., Jolles, J., & van der Schoot, M. (2014).
The role of visual representation type, spatial ability, and read-
ing comprehension in word problem solving: An item-level
analysis in elementary school children. International Journal
of Educational Research, 68, 15–26. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2014.08.001.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics.
N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield (Eds. &
Trans.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Jacobs, V., Fennema, E., & Empson, S.
B. (1997). A longitudinal study of intervention and understand-
ing in children’s multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 3–30.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition
and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179–202.
Chang, Y.-P., Krawitz, J., Schukajlow, S., & Yang, K.-J. (2020). Com-
paring German and Taiwanese secondary school students’ knowl-
edge in solving mathematical modelling tasks requiring their
assumptions. ZDM Mathematics Education, this issue (in press).
Chapman, O. (2006). Classroom practices for context of mathemat-
ics word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62,
211–230.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper
project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and
professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cramer, K., Post, T., & Currier, S. (1993). Learning and teaching ratio
and proportion: Research implications. In D. T. Owens (Ed.),
Research ideas for the classroom: Middle grades mathematics
(pp. 159–178). New York: Macmillan.
Csíkos, C., & Szitányi, J. (2020). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowl-
edge in teaching word problem solving strategies. ZDM Math-
ematics Education (this issue, in press).
Csíkos, C., Szitányi, J., & Kelemen, R. (2012). The effects of using
drawings in developing young children’s mathematical word
problem solving: A design experiment with third-grade Hun-
garian students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81, 47–65.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1064​9-011-9360-z.
Daroczy, G., Wolska, M., Meurers, W. D., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2015).
Word problems: A review of linguistic and numerical factors
contributing to their difficulty. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 348.
https​://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg​.2015.00348​.
13
14
De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., & Janssens, D. (1998). Solving problems
involving length and area of similar plane figures and the illusion
of linearity: An inquiry of the difficulties of secondary school
students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 65–83.
De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Learning and teach-
ing mathematics. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology (pp. 491–549). New York: Macmillan.
De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1987). The effect of semantic structure
on first graders’ solution strategies of elementary addition and
subtraction word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 18, 363–381.
de Kock, W. D., & Harskamp, E. G. (2014). Can teachers in primary
education implement a metacognitive computer programme
for word problem solving in their mathematics classes? Edu-
cational Research and Evaluation, 20, 231–250. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/13803​611.2014.90192​1.
Depaepe, F., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Analysis of the
realistic nature of word problems in upper elementary mathemat-
ics education. In L. Verschaffel, B. Greer, W. Van Dooren, &
S. Mukhopadhyay (Eds.), Words and worlds: Modelling ver-
bal descriptions of situations (pp. 245–264). Rotterdam: Sense
Publications.
Depaepe, F., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2010a). Teachers’
approaches towards word problem solving: Elaborating or
restricting the problem context. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 26, 152–160.
Depaepe, F., De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2010b). Teachers’
approaches towards heuristic and metacognitive skills and its
relationship with students’ beliefs and problem-solving skills.
ZDM—International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42,
205–218.
Dewolf, T., Van Dooren, W., Kellen, A., & Verschaffel, L. (2012). The
influence of narrative and depictive elements in solving math-
ematical word problems realistically. Mediterranean Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 11(1–2), 17–33.
diSessa, A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduc-
tion. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385–398.
Elia, I. (2020). Word problem solving and pictorial representations:
Insights from an exploratory study in kindergarten. ZDM Math-
ematics Education (this issue, in press).
Elia, I., & Philippou, G. (2004). The functions of pictures in problem
solving. In M. J. Hoines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 28th conference of the international group for the psychol-
ogy of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 327–334). Bergen,
Norway: University College.
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https​://doi.
org/10.1257/08953​30057​75196​732.
Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtrac-
tion. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathemat-
ics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York: MacMillan.
Gerofsky, S. (1997). An exchange about word problems. For the Learn-
ing of Mathematics, 17(2), 22–23.
Gillard, E., Van Dooren, W., Schaeken, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009).
Proportional reasoning as a heuristic-based process: Time con-
straint and dual-task considerations. Experimental Psychology,
56, 92–99.
Goldin, G. A., & McClintock, E. (Eds.). (1984). Task variables in
mathematical problem solving. Philadelphia: Franklin.
Goulet-Lyle, M.-P., Voyer, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2020). How does
teaching a step-by-step solution method impact students’
approach to mathematical word problem solving? ZDM Math-
ematics Education (this issue, in press).
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: Macmillan.
13
L. Verschaffel et al.
Greer, B. (1993). The modeling perspective on wor(l)d problems. Jour-
nal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 239–250.
Gros, H. (2019). What we count dictates how we count. A tale of two
encodings. PhD thesis, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Gvozdic, K., & Sander, E. (2020). Learning to be an opportunistic word
problem solver: Going beyond informal solving strategies. ZDM
Mathematics Education (this issue, in press).
Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics text-
books and their use in English, French and German classrooms:
Who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational
Research Journal, 28, 567–590.
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual–spatial
representations and mathematical problem solving. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 91, 684–689. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684.
Jitendra, A. K., & Hoff, K. (1996). The effects of schema-based instruc-
tion on the mathematical word-problem solving performance of
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabili-
ties, 29, 422–432.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive sci-
ence of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kaiser, G. (2017). The teaching and learning of mathematical mod-
eling. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathemat-
ics education (pp. 267–291). Reston, VA: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Kaiser, G., & Brand, S. (2015). Modelling competencies: Past devel-
opment and further perspectives. In G. Stillman, W. Blum, &
M. S. Biembengut (Eds.), Mathematical modelling in education
research and practice. Cultural, social and cognitive influences
(pp. 129–149). Cham: Springer.
Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D.
A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning (pp. 390–419). New York: Macmillan.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up. Helping
children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text com-
prehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Kouba, V. (1989). Children’s solution strategies for equivalent set mul-
tiplication and division word problems. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 20, 147–158.
Krawitz, J., Schukajlow, S., & Van Dooren, W. (2018). Unrealistic
responses to realistic problems with missing information: What
are important barriers? Educational Psychology, 38, 1221–1238.
Lave, J. (1992). Word problems: A microcosm of theories of learn-
ing. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition:
Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 74–92). New York: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Modeling and argument in the
elementary grades. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter, & F.
Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science mat-
ters (pp. 29–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leiss, D. (2010). Adaptive Lehrerinterventionen beim mathematischen
Modellieren—empirische Befunde einer vergleichenden Labor-
und Unterrichtsstudie. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31,
197–226.
Leiss, D., Plath, J., & Schwippert, K. (2019). Language and mathemat-
ics - Key factors influencing the comprehension process in reality
based tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 21, 131–153.
Leiss, D., Schukajlow, S., Blum, W., Messner, R., & Pekrun, R. (2010).
The role of the situation model in mathematical modelling—task
analyses, student competencies, and teacher interventions. Jour-
nal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31, 119–141.
Lester, F., Garofalo, J., & Kroll, D. (1989). The role of metacognition
in mathematical problem solving. A study of two seventh classes.
Word problems in mathematics education: a survey 15
(Final report to the National Science Foundation, NSF project n°
MDR 85-50346). Bloomington: Indiana University, Mathematics
Education Development Center.
Lynn Fuchs, L. (2020). The role of working memory in mathematical
word-problem solving Implications for instruction and interven-
tion. ZDM Mathematics Education (this issue, in press).
Maaß, K. (2006). What are modeling competencies? ZDM—The Inter-
national Journal on Mathematics Education, 38, 113–142.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational
aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63.
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (1997). IMPROVE: A multidimen-
sional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous class-
rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 365–395.
Mevarech, Z. R., & Kramarski, B. (2014). Critical maths in innovative
societies: The effects of metacognitive pedagogies on mathemati-
cal reasoning. Paris, France: OECD.
Mevarech, Z., Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (2018). Metacognitive
pedagogies in mathematics classrooms: From kindergarten to
college and beyond. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.),
Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp.
109–123). New York/London: Routledge.
Mulligan, J., & Mitchelmore, M. (1997). Young children’s intuitive
models of multiplication and division. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28, 309–330.
Ng, S.-F., & Lee, K. (2005). How primary five pupils use the model
method to solve word problems. The Mathematics Educator,
9(1), 60–83.
Niss, M. (2001). Issues and problems of research on the teaching and
learning of applications and modelling. In J. F. Matos, W. Blum,
S. K. Houston, & S. P. Carreira (Eds.), Modelling and mathemat-
ics education. ICTMA 9: Applications in science and technology
(pp. 72–89). Chichester: Horwood.
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1995). Do problem situations influence chil-
dren’s understanding of the commutativity of multiplication?
Mathematical Cognition, 1, 245–260.
Orrantia, J., Munez, D., & Tarin, J. (2014). Connecting goals and
actions during reading: The role of illustrations. Reading and
Writing, 27, 153–170.
Palm, T. (2002). The realism of mathematical school tasks. Features
and consequences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Univer-
sity of Umea, Sweden.
Palm, T., & Burman, L. (2004). Reality in mathematics assessment:
An analysis of task-reality concordance in Finnish and Swedish
national assessments. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education,
9(3), 1–33.
Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Pongsakdi, N., Kajamies, A., Veermans, K., Hannula-Sormunen, M.
M., Lertola, K., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E. (2020). What makes
mathematical word problem solving challenging? Exploring the
roles of word problem characteristics, text comprehension, and
arithmetic skills. ZDM Mathematics Education (this issue, in
press).
Powell, S. R. (2020). The role of algebraic reasoning within a word-
problem intervention for third-grade students with mathematics
difficulty. ZDM Mathematics Education (this issue, in press).
Reed, S. K. (1999). Word problems. Research and curriculum reform.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rellensmann, J., Schukajlow, S., & Leopold, C. (2017). Make a draw-
ing. Effects of strategic knowledge, drawing accuracy, and type
of drawing on students’ mathematical modelling performance.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95, 53–78.
Rellensmann, J., Schukajlow, S., & Leopold, C. (2020). Measuring
and investigating strategic knowledge about drawing to solve
geometrical modelling problems. ZDM Mathematics Education
(this issue, in press).
Reusser, K. (1989). Vom Text zur Situation zur Gleichung. Kognitive
Simulation von Sprachverständnis und Mathematisierung beim
Lösen von Textaufgaben. Bern: Universität Bern.
Riley, M. S., Greeno, J. G., & Heller, J. I. (1983). Development
of children’s problem-solving ability in arithmetic. In H. P.
Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp.
153–196). New York: Academic Press.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically. Problem
solving, metacognition and sense-making in mathematics. In
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.
Schukajlow, S., Achmetli, K., & Rakoczy, K. (2019a). Does con-
structing multiple solutions for real-world problems affect
self-efficacy? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100, 43–60.
Schukajlow, S., Blomberg, J., & Rellensmann, J. (2019b). I enjoy
making drawings! Enjoyment, knowledge about drawings, use
of drawings, and students’ performance. In M. Graven, H. Ven-
kat, A. A. Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43th
conference of the international group for the psychology of
mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 297–304). Pretoria, South
Africa: PME.
Schukajlow, S., Kaiser, G., & Stillman, G. (2018). Empirical research
on teaching and learning of mathematical modelling: A survey
on the current state-of-the-art. ZDM Mathematics Education,
50, 5–18.
Schukajlow, S., Kolter, J., & Blum, W. (2015). Scaffolding math-
ematical modelling with a solution plan. ZDM Mathematics
Education, 47, 1241–1254.
Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., &
Messner, R. (2012). Teaching methods for modelling prob-
lems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and
self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
79, 215–237.
Stigler, J. W., Fuson, K. C., Ham, M., & Kim, M. S. (1986). An
analysis of addition and subtraction word problems in Ameri-
can and Soviet elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition
and Instruction, 3, 153–171.
Stillman, G. (2011). Applying metacognitive knowledge and strate-
gies in applications and modeling tasks at second-aryschool. In
G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri, & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends
in teaching and learning of mathematical modeling: ICTMA14
(pp. 165–180). Dordrecht: Springer.
Strohmaier, A. R., Schiepe-Tiska, A., Chang, Y.-P., Müller, F., Lin,
F.-L., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). Comparing eye movements dur-
ing mathematical word problem solving in Chinese and Ger-
man. ZDM Mathematics Education (this issue, in press).
Swafford, J. O., & Langrall, C. W. (2000). Grade 6 student’s pre-
instructional use of equations to describe and represent prob-
lem situations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa-
tion, 31, 89–112.
Swetz, F. (2009). Culture and the development of mathematics: A
historical perspective. In B. Greer, S. Mukhupadhyay, A. B.
Powell, & N. Nelson-Barber (Eds.), Culturally responsive
mathematics education (pp. 11–42). Routledge: Taylor and
Francis.
Teong, S. K. (2003). The effect of metacognitive training on mathemat-
ical word-problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learn-
ing, 19, 46–55. https​://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00005​
.x.
Thevenot, C. (2010). Arithmetic word problem solving: Evidence for
the construction of a mental model. Acta Psychologica, 133,
90–95.
Thevenot, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2015). Arithmetic word problem
solving and mental representations. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A.
Dowker (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition
(pp. 158–179). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13
16
Uesaka, Y., & Manalo, E. (2012). Task-related factors that influence
the spontaneous use of diagrams in math word problems. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 26, 251–260.
Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (Ed.). (2001). Children learn math-
ematics. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute, Uni-
versity of Utrecht.
Van Dooren, W., & Inglis, M. (2015). Inhibitory control in mathemati-
cal thinking, learning and problem solving: A survey. ZDM: The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47, 713–721.
van Essen, G. (1991). Heuristics and arithmetic word problems.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
van Lieshout, E. C. D. M., & Xenidou-Dervou, I. (2020). Simple pic-
torial mathematics problems for children: Locating possible
sources of cognitive load and how to reduce it. ZDM Mathemat-
ics Education (this issue, in press).
Vergnaud, G. (1983). Multiplicative structures. In R. Lesh & M. Lan-
dau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes
(pp. 127–174). New York: Academic Press.
Verschaffel, L. (2002). Taking the modeling perspective seriously at
the elementary school level: Promises and pitfalls (Plenary lec-
ture). In A. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th
annual conference of the international group for the psychology
of mathematics education, vol. 1. (pp. 64–82). School of Educa-
tion and Professional Development, University of East Anglia,
UK.
Verschaffel, L. (2016). Get the picture? On the role of graphical rep-
resentations in the solution of mathematical word problems.
Plenary lecture at the Conference of the EARLI SIG 2, Compre-
hension of Text and Graphics, University of Geneva, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Verschaffel, L. (2019). 40 years of mathematical word problem solv-
ing research (in Leuven): What did I learn from it and want to
share? Invited lecture presented at a workshop organized by the
University of Roskilde, Denmark.
Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (1997). Word problems. A vehicle for
promoting authentic mathematical understanding and problem
solving in the primary school. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.),
Learning and teaching mathematics: An international perspec-
tive (pp. 69–97). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Borghart, I. (1997). Pre-service teach-
ers’ conceptions and beliefs about the role of real-world knowl-
edge in mathematical modelling of school word problems. Learn-
ing and Instruction, 4, 339–359.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., & Lasure, S. (1994). Realistic consid-
erations in mathematical modeling of school arithmetic word
problems. Learning and Instructi-on, 4, 273–294.
Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., Lasure, S., Van Vaerenbergh, G.,
Bogaerts, H., & Ratinckx, E. (1999). Design and evaluation of
13
L. Verschaffel et al.
a learning environment for mathematical modeling and prob-
lem solving in upper elementary school children. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 1, 195–230.
Verschaffel, L., Depaepe, F., & Van Dooren, W. (2013a). Mathematical
problem solving. In P. Andrews & T. Rowland (Eds.), Master-
class in mathematics education. International perspectives on
teaching and learning (pp. 113–124). London: Bloomsbury.
Verschaffel, L., Reybrouck, M., Van Dooren, W., & Degraeuwe, G.
(2013b). The relative importance of children’s criteria for repre-
sentational adequacy in the perception of simple sonic stimuli.
Psychology of Music, 41, 691–712.
Verschaffel, L., Depaepe, F., & Van Dooren, W. (2014). Word problems
in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
mathematics education (pp. 641–645). Dordrecht: Springer.
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word
problems. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., Van Dooren, W., & Mukhopadhyay, S.
(Eds.). (2009). Words and worlds: Modelling verbal descriptions
of situations. Rotterdam: Sense Publications.
Vicente, S., Orrantia, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2007). Influence of situ-
ational and conceptual rewording on word problem solving. Brit-
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 829–848.
Vicente, S., Rosario Sanchez, M., & Verschaffel, L. (in press). Word
problem solving approaches in mathematics textbooks: a com-
parison between Spain and Singapore. European Journal of Psy-
chology of Education.
Wang, A. Y., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2016). Cognitive and linguis-
tic predictors of mathematical word problems with and without
irrelevant information. Learning and Individual Differences, 52,
79–87.
Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumenta-
tions, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.
Yerushalmy, M. (2006). Slower algebra students meet faster tools:
Solving algebraic word problems with graphing software. Jour-
nal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 356–387.
Yoshida, H., Verschaffel, L., & De Corte, E. (1997). Realistic con-
siderations in solving problematic word problems: Do Japanese
and European children have the same difficulties? Learning and
Instruction, 7, 329–338.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.