TCX

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 52­–60. Copyright 2023 The Author(s). DOI: 10.1177/00400599231157029

Solving Algebraic Word

Problems Using General
Heuristics Instruction
Bradley Witzel , Western Carolina University,
and Jonté A. Myers, Georgia State University

52
Mr. Rhodes is a high school co-teacher who
works tirelessly to help his students meet
secondary mathematics standards. Most of his
students have difficulties learning
mathematics, and some of these students are
identified with specific learning disabilities.
One of his frequent concerns is students
applying their knowledge through word
problems. Even if his students can accurately
apply accurate computation to solve a problem,
he also wants his students to develop analytical
skills necessary for success in the workplace
and daily living. However, his students have
three distinct difficulties with word problems:
(a) comprehending what is required in the
word problem, (b) developing an appropriate
plan to solve the problem, and (c) making
sense of whether the solution they reached is
reasonable. Mr. Rhodes is examining effective
strategies to help his high school students with
word problem solving.
All students should develop algebraic
proficiency. Students who are proficient
in algebra can better master advanced
mathematics topics in high school and are
prepared for college-level mathematics
(Loveless, 2013). Success in algebra is also
predictive of positive technical and
vocational education and high-paying
STEM career outcomes (National
Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).
Algebra 1 and 2 focus on factoring,
solving, and graphing equations;
functions; inequalities; exponent rules;
and geometric applications such as
trigonometry (e.g., find the length of a
side of a triangle with a given angle of 53°
x retention along with organization,
using tan = . Students who took
21
Algebra 2 level content in high school
were 3 times more likely to achieve
positive postsecondary outcomes (Bielby
et al., 2013). If schools are to prepare high
school students to contribute positively to
society through various professions, such
as technical and vocational careers (e.g.,
automotive repair and electrician), they
must increase efforts on helping students
reach and master algebra content.
While the need for mastering algebra
content is high, performance among
secondary students on assessments that
assess algebra topics, especially assessments
with word problems, is low. Word
problems are mathematical problems
written in general language. Often, these
problems are contextual such that students
must understand the application of the
mathematics in a given situation, which is
important to both career and personal
needs. Data from international and
national mathematics assessments
requiring students to apply algebraic
knowledge and skills to solve word
problems demonstrate gaps in
achievement of algebraic concepts. In
2019, U.S. eighth graders ranked 11th
among the 46 participating countries and
territories in mathematics on the Trends
in International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) assessment (National
Center for Education Statistics [NCES],
2020), which involves multiple-step word
problems on complex content. In the same
year, only 31% of eighth graders and 24%
of 12th graders scored at or above
proficient on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics
exam (NCES, 2020). Students' low
performance on these assessments is
concerning. To access postsecondary
education and training, high school
students must often pass statewide exams
and obtain high scores on other
standardized summative mathematics
assessments (e.g., SAT) that include
algebra concepts embedded in word
problems. More troublingly, data from
these assessments show considerable
achievement gaps between students who
demonstrate mathematics difficulties, such
as those with specific learning disabilities
(SLDs), and their same-aged peers without
disabilities. Students with SLDs have, at
least, average intelligence and need
support with content acquisition and
planning, attention, and abstract
reasoning.
In 2019, the score between the 10th
and 90th percentiles among U.S. algebra
students on the TIMSS mathematics
assessment was an astounding 322 points,
which was substantially larger than 31 of
the 45 other participating countries and
territories assessed (NCES, 2020). The
NAEP 2019 mathematics results also
demonstrate potential inequity between
students with disabilities, most of whom
are students with SLDs, and those without
disabilities within the education system.
The percentage of eighth- and 12th-grade
students with disabilities scoring below
basic on the NAEP was 68% and 75%,
respectively, compared with 25% and 36%
of students without disabilities (NCES,
2020). These data reveal a problem with
learning the precursor mathematics skills
that prepare students, especially those
with learning disabilities, to develop
algebra proficiency in what is commonly
called the “arithmetic to algebra gap”
(Hercovics & Linchevski, 1994; Witzel,
2016). The arithmetic to algebra gap in
the field seeks to understand why students
who appear to succeed in arithmetic fail to
achieve in secondary mathematics and
how to tackle these difficulties. While
secondary mathematics teachers might not
directly impact students' preparatory
instruction, students may still succeed in
algebra coursework if taught using
evidence-based practices.
For students with SLDs, the
difficulties transitioning from arithmetic
to algebra intensify as course rigor
increases. These students have processing
deficits in language and mathematics
calculations (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, 2004), which combine
and manifest into difficulties in
mathematics. Because students with
SLDs struggle in learning foundational
mathematics, the requirement to master
algebra content only increases that
difficulty (Impecoven-Lind & Foegen,
2010). Helping secondary students with
SLDs improve their mathematics
performance requires effective
interventions in precursor skills and
effective evidence-based practices that
increase their mastery of algebra content.
In using these practices, teachers must
connect the traits of students with SLDs
with the challenge these students face in
solving word problems involving
advanced algebra content.
Word Problem Solving
and Students With SLDs
For students with SLDs, word problem
solving is a consistent area of concern.
One of the many reasons they face
challenges on standardized mathematics
exams is that they struggle with word
problem solving (Lein et al., 2020; Myers
et al., 2023). Their lack of proficiency in
solving word problems is problematic
September/October 2023
because students' competence in solving
word problems predicts success in algebra
(Hoffer et al., 2007). The difficulties
experienced by students with SLDs in
solving word problems can be attributed
to several factors. Some students with
SLDs have deficits in mathematical
53
 F i g u r e 1 Word problem analyzing situational algebra
Example 1: Jill’s Flower Shop pays $20/hour for up to 5 hours of deliveries but only $10/hour for each
additional hour over 5. If an employee earned $150 in a day, then how many hours must they have worked?
calculations and language (Toll & Van
Luit, 2014), limiting their capacity to
extract pertinent information from word
problems to select appropriate strategies
to solve problems (Verschaffel et al.,
2020). They also have limited visuospatial
working memory capacity, inhibiting
their ability to make sense of problems,
evidenced by issues related to processing
speed, computational facility, and
implementation of appropriate solution
strategy (Peterson et al., 2017; Powell et
al., 2020; Willcutt et al., 2013). In
addition, some students with SLDs also
face significant reading challenges, such as
vocabulary decoding and comprehension
(Cirino et al., 2015; Willcutt et al., 2013).
The comorbidity of reading and
mathematics difficulties inhibits these
students' ability to connect language
presented in word problems with
mathematical concepts (Scheibling-Sève
et al., 2020).
In the example presented in Figure 1,
students must decipher the meaning of a
delivery service for flowers and a variable
wage structure. Because many students
take algebra content before being old
enough to work, it is unlikely that all
students would understand both of these
concepts, let alone the mathematics, to
solve the given problem. For students
with SLDs, the added roadblocks of
reading the two sentences and
interpreting relevant from irrelevant
information may impede progress toward
developing an appropriate attack strategy
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 1
to solve the problem (Scheibling-Sève
et al., 2020). Teachers must effectively
implement evidence-based practices that
facilitate the three-way connection
between the unique challenges faced by
students with SLDs, the difficulties
associated with solving word problems,
and the complex algebra content that must
be mastered. Encouragingly, research has
identified promising instructional
strategies for improving the algebra
performance generally (Hughes et al.,
2014) and word problem proficiency in
54
algebra (Zhang & Xin, 2012) of secondary
students with SLDs.
Approaches to Word
Problem Solving
In his investigation into word problem
solving for advanced-level algebra students
with disabilities, Mr. Rhodes comes across both
schema-based instruction (SBI) and general
heuristics instruction (GHI). He is interested in
which one will help his students immediately
and be generalizable to the complexity of the
content he teaches.
Recent meta-analyses demonstrate that
both SBI and GHI, such as interventions
that use (meta)cognitive strategies
(Montague et al., 2014; Swanson et al.,
2013), were associated with positive
effects on mathematics problem solving
for students with mathematics difficulties,
including those with SLDs (Lein et al.,
2020; Myers et al., 2023; Zhang & Xin,
2012). Myers et al. (2023) summarized
empirical evidence from 52 experimental
and quasi-experimental studies. Findings
indicated SBI and GHI were both effective
for increasing word problem accuracy
among elementary students with
mathematics difficulties, with the former
category producing higher effects. Myers
et al. (2022) found similar results when
they examined mathematics interventions
for supporting the word problem
performance of students with
mathematics difficulties in the upper
elementary and secondary grades, making
GHI a promising approach for teaching
problem solving to students in more
complex mathematics.
Lein et al. (2020) also reported positive
treatment effects for SBI and GHI for
students with mathematics difficulties in
Grades K–12, with interventions using SBI
yielding stronger effects. In a study on
word problem solving interventions for
students with math difficulties, Zhang and
Xin (2012) found positive effects for SBI
and GHI, which they categorized as
cognitive interventions in 12 treatments.
Furthermore, Maccini and colleagues
(2007) encourage GHI, called cognitive
strategies, as an effective approach with
students with disabilities in secondary
mathematics. In a meta-analysis of algebra
interventions for students with disabilities
and difficulties, both approaches address
specific needs of students with SLDs, from
support with understanding the meaning
of the problems to the use of visuals to
support working memory (Myers et al.,
2023). The major difference is that SBI
aligns strategies specific to problem types,
which directly supports calculations. While
this is important, there are many more
problem types than researched schemas.
GHI is a generalized cognitive strategy that
builds flexibility in mathematical thinking,
allowing it to be used broadly across a large
range of problems, but calculation support
is not as direct.
SBI
SBI engages students in semantic analysis
of word problems to understand a
problem's underlying structure and develop
schematic diagrams to represent the
problem type presented. Students use SBI
to analyze the semantics of word problems
and identify the specific problem structure
included (e.g., change, group, and compare
or equal group, compare, and proportions).
Each problem type has a specific visual
representation that helps the student apply
language processing skills and cognitive
processes to connect relevant information
from the word problem and set up the
computation to solve the problem. This
approach benefits students with SLDs
because it helps students use semantic
analysis, cognitive process, and visual
representations, three essential strategies
for supporting mathematics achievement
among secondary students with SLDs
(Myers et al., 2022; Powell et al., 2021). For
information on implementing SBI, see IRIS
module adapted from Stevens and Powell
(2016).
 Although SBI is effective for solving
word problems, it is restricted to the
problem types that have been developed
and tested, and there are too few studies
focused on secondary math standards to
verify it as effective for all mathematics
constructs (Cook et al., 2020). SBI has
shown effective for one- and two-step
algebraic solutions (Root & Browder,
2017; Xin, 2008) and has the capability of
answering algebra word problems with
intricate number patterns. Although
special education literature includes
several examples and applications of SBI
(e.g., IRIS module), the underlying
structures needed to solve secondary
mathematics are still underdeveloped and
less researched. Students should be taught
to use SBI until word problems become
more complex, around algebra. Teaching
flexible approaches, such as GHI, may
benefit students for solving advanced
mathematics word problems.
GHI
Applying generalized processes (i.e.,
heuristics) is a normal part of advanced
mathematics found helpful in solving
secondary and college-level problems
(Safarini et al., 2021). When problems
have an infinite number of possible
approaches, providing a heuristic narrows
the approach to be more manageable. If a
problem has a defined number of steps,
that approach is called an algorithm. For
complex mathematics, adding a heuristic
to one’s instruction may be superior to
modeling alone (Calucag, 2016). In
problem solving, GHI involves the
execution of action sequences to select
relevant versus irrelevant information in a
word problem. Like SBI, most of the time
in problem solving is spent analyzing the
problem and generating an approach.
However, unlike SBI, GHI "exemplifies a
generic approach for solving a problem"
(Gersten et al., 2009, p. 1210). GHI
strategies' generic and parsimonious
nature makes them flexible for guiding
students through many problem types.
Rather than a stepwise approach for
individual problems, heuristics present
students with goal-based sequences that
provide checkpoints in their problem-
solving approach that may be used across
a range of problems, making them more
flexible than specific and stepwise
algorithms. Although an algorithm is
powerful in connecting procedural
knowledge with conceptual knowledge,
heuristics are more flexible. If there are a
hundred equally effective and efficient
ways to solve a problem, then GHI is more
appropriate than an algorithm to solve the
problem (Al-Fayez & Jubran, 2012). For
students with SLDs, heuristics reduce
cognitive load, which lessens the
complexity involved in evaluating
problem-solving possibilities (de Blas
et al., 2021). Hutchinson (1993) found
using a cognitive-based approach (i.e.,
GHI) yielded high effects when teaching
students with mathematics difficulties to
solve for multiple variable equations.
Otherwise, problem-solving approaches
can tax these students' deductive
reasoning skills, cognitive capacity, and
working memory (Stanovich & Toplak,
2012). GHI has a history of aiding
students’ word problem solving accuracy
and also higher-order thinking
(Tambunan, 2018). Furthermore, students
who are typically inflexible in their
problem solving, such as those with SLDs,
gain flexibility in their mathematical
thinking when using GHI (Rott, 2015).
Heuristics have long been used in
education to provide students self-
guidance to solve complex problems
(Pólya, 1973). Students should learn
heuristics sequentially to tackle problems
step by step. Each step requires modeling
using think alouds so that students see and
hear how to analyze the problem, develop
a plan, carry out the plan, and check on
the reasonableness of the solution. Based
on Pólya's (1975) problem-solving
heuristic, a standard four-stepwise
technique (UMDR, sometimes referred to
as UPSCheck) is presented in many
mathematics textbooks:
•• Understand the problem.
•• Make a plan.
•• Do the plan.
•• Reflect and analyze.
Although GHI approaches, like Pólya’s
(1973), are well known, it is more
beneficial to employ GHI approaches that
combine visual and verbal information to
improve information processing (Mayer,
2003). "Solving word problems is a
complex task that demands individuals to
activate the underlying working memory
executive processes to inhibit non-
relevant information, semantic biases,
overlearned procedures (heuristics) or
superficial responses induced by the
statement of the problem" (de Blas et al.,
2021). Examining the different uses of
heuristics, as we do in the following, will
shed light on how students may analyze
word problems. In some cases, consider
teaching students multiple heuristic
approaches (e.g., work backward, make a
list, use Venn diagrams, or think of a
related problem) to provide students with
alternatives to solve novel problems.
Applying GHI. Applying Pólya's (1973)
approach to the generic UMDR model,
students review the problem and devise a
plan rather than randomly combining
numbers, which often happens with
students with SLDs (Gersten et al., 2009).
Using GHI, there are key steps and
questions that guide student thinking (see
Table 1). Within understand the problem,
students determine what they know and
do not and possibly develop a visual to
support their understanding. For make a
plan, the students connect an attack
strategy to solving the problem. With
GHI, several approaches exist that students
may select from that most efficiently meet
the students’ problem-solving needs. This
often includes further developing one’s
visual to connect to potential calculations.
For do the plan, the students complete the
calculations and develop a solution to the
problem. The students finish their GHI
approach through reflect and analyze by
reviewing their solution and determining
whether it or they make sense.
GHI within algebra. In Example 1 (see
Figure 1), the students are asked to solve
an algebra problem. Following the
aforementioned steps, the students with
SLDs analyze and solve the problem using
GHI in an efficient and practical manner.
Understand the problem. During
this stage of the process, students
read the problem and share with
the teacher and their peers what
is occurring in the problem and
what is needed to obtain a solution.
September/October 2023
This means that reading aloud the
problem is insufficient. Rather,
students must read to understand
key features of the problem. In
Example 1, students should discuss
what is a flower delivery business and
the variable payment schedule within
and then after 5 hours of deliveries.
55
 T a b l e 1 Steps Within General Heuristics Instruction

Step Guiding student decision making

Understand the problem What is known from the problem description?

What is unknown from the description?
Develop a visual to make sense of the problem.

Make a plan Determine how to connect computation to determine what is

unknown.
What heuristics approach is the best fit for this problem? Why is this
a reasonable approach?

Do the plan Complete calculations and equation development.

Reflect and analyze Does the answer make sense? If so, why? If not, then why not?

Note. The student follows these steps to guide their use of general heuristics instruction.

F i g u r e 2 Visual model for making a plan

5 hours
$10

$20 $20 $20 $20 $20

$0 $150

F i g u r e 3 Visual model for do the plan

5 hours 5 hours

$20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10

They should also understand the
delivery person earned $150, which
means they likely worked for over
5 hours. Have the student use self-
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 1
connection of the first 5 hours of started with a visual to make sense
deliveries at $20 per hour compared of the problem, the student could
to the remainder of the delivery extend it using several lengths of
hours at $10 per hour. $20 and $10 to reach $150. Using this

questioning (e.g., What do I already illustration, the first 5 hours would be

know to solve the problem? What
additional information do I need?)
to drive their thinking regarding
the problem. Questioning what
is known and unknown from the
problem and even developing a
visual to make sense of the problem
will help students decipher key
points within the problem situation.
For Jill’s Flower Shop, sketching a
length-based conceptual view of the
problem may help students see the
Make a plan. Planning is one
of the most critical stages in
the process and the most time-
consuming. Too often, students will
go into trial and error to guess how
best to tackle the problem based on
what they understand. To reduce the
likelihood of students using trial and
error, encourage them to incorporate
visual representations to make a plan
using that visual, such as help make
sense of the problem. If the student
accounted for using $20 increments,
followed by adding additional
hours using $10 increments (see
Figure 2).
Do the plan. This stage requires
students to enact the plan they
devised to solve the problem.
They may opt to use a visual
representation to execute the
computation or a graphic to set up
an equation that explains the visual.

56
 F i g u r e 4 Word problem applying trigonometry

Example 2: Your teacher asks you to determine the height of the school’s gymnasium wall but you are not
allowed to climb to the top. The teacher has you measure 21 feet from the base of the wall. Then, you use
a laser pointer and a protractor to find the angle from the point 21 ft out to the top of the wall. Doing so
reveals a 53° angle. Apply trigonometry to determine the height of the gymnasium wall.

F i g u r e 5 Visual model supporting do the plan

x in 

53◦
21 

Using the visual in Figure 3, students
could add on from the first 5 hours
until they reach $150, which would
end at Hour 10.
Using the visual in Figure 3, the
students could develop the equation that
mathematically explains how the money
accumulates at different rates to reach
$150. Within the first 5 hours, the
amount would be ($20/hour)(5 hours).
The amount then becomes $10 per hour
after 5 hours. Students can state this
information as ($10/hour)(x – 5 hours),
where x is the total number of hours.
They can then solve for x and obtain a
value of 10, meaning that the time spent
students to connect back to the
word problem as written. If only
reviewing the visual and concluding
solution, the answer would need to
be reasonable. For this problem, $150
makes sense for 10 hours of work,
given the payment plan. The formula
development may require more
discussion. For example, $20 per hour
times the number of hours within the
first 5 hours would equal $100. Each
additional hour means finding the
difference in the total number of hours,
x, and the first 5. Thus, x – 5 must
be multiplied by $10. Overall, going
through the GHI stages and reflecting
It is stepwise in that it takes students
through specific steps to problem solving;
however, those steps are not prescriptive
but, rather, call on students to analyze
details within the word problem. This
approach is similar to the Kansas
Strategies Instruction Model (The
University of Kansas Center for Research
on Learning, 2023). In Example 2 (see
Figure 4), students can apply Pólya's
(1973) technique to solve the advanced
algebra problem.
Understand the problem. For this
example, students must be aware
of the meaning of the terms used:
September/October 2023

was 10 hours.
Reflect and analyze. The final
step of Polya's (1973) model requires
students use metacognitive techniques
(e.g., self-talk) to check their answer's
appropriateness. Establishing their
solution's reasonableness allows
on them encourages deeper analysis
of problems and helps students
explore ways to generate reasonable
approaches.
GHI provides a stepwise but flexible
approach for word problems with
complex number pattern problems,
allowing students to adapt their approach.
base, gymnasium, height, protractor,
and trigonometry. Helping students
decode the vocabulary presented
requires explicit vocabulary
instruction. Students should also
discuss that the unknown is the
height. They are given the distance
from the base (vertex) and the angle

57
 from the end of that distance to the
top of the wall.
Make a plan. Based on the
analysis from the previous stage,
students should develop appropriate
equations that make sense of the
problem. Teach students to analyze
the problem situation. Because the
word problem describes a situation,
a visual support, such as the
trigonometric triangle (see Figure
5), would be helpful. This would help
set up the computational plan. In
this case, from the given angle, the
opposite side is unknown, but the
adjacent side is known. Therefore,
a tangent function would be useful:
oppositive side
tan = .
adjacent side
Do the plan. In this stage of
the problem-solving process, the
students use the plan to complete
the computation necessary to
determine the answer. The plan
for this problem concluded that
using the tangent function would
be helpful. Inputting the given
information into the function reveals
x
that tan 53° = , leading to the
21
solution that x = 27.87 ft.
Reflect and analyze. This stage is
where students review their plan and
their answer. In this case, the answer
of 27.87 ft might be rounded to equal
28 ft because there was potential
error in their measurement of the
distance from the base of the wall as
well as the angle. The GHI stages do
not simplify complex computation
problems. Instead, they provide an
avenue to break down the complex
problem into steps to make sense of
the problem and derive an approach
to solve it.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 1
Alternative GHI Approaches
While Pólya's (1973) approach is the
standard for GHI, several variations are
available. One is the random generate and
test approach (Youssef-Shalala et al.,
2014). Using this approach, students go
through the same process of UMDR to
generate as many unknowns in the word
problem as can be determined before
focusing on the question within the
problem. For secondary students with
academic difficulties, such as those with
58
T a b l e 2 Visual Chart Showing
Accumulating Amounts
Hours $ these randomly generated plans are
1 20
2 40
3 60
4 80
5 100
6 110
7 120
8 130
9 140
10 150
Note. The student links the amount earned
with the number of hours spent delivering
flowers. This is a stepwise depiction of
varied rates of change.
SLDs, this approach shows improved
problem-solving accuracy and superior
transfer to more complex problems.
For the word problem presented in
Example 1 (see Figure 1), the student
would analyze the $20/hour by 5 hours
for $100. Next, the student could develop
a chart for accumulating money over 5
hours, such as Hour 6 provides an
additional $10, Hour 7 provides an
additional $20 more, Hour 8 an additional
$30 more, Hour 9 an additional $40 more,
and Hour 10 an additional $50. Teach
students to create visuals to support their
heuristic by making visuals—in this case, a
table with accumulating amounts of the
varied rate of change (see Table 2).
Students may also apply the random
generate and test approach to solve word
problems with complex concepts, such as
in Example 2. In this approach, the
students would dissect the problem by
first developing considerations based on
the problem. Some examples include
determining whether other trigonometric
ratios would be more helpful. The
students would determine which of sides
of the triangle they had and then align
those with the ratios of sin, cos, and tan.
Although the random generate and
test approach may sound like guess and
check, it systematically uses the
information of the problem to address as
many possible approaches within the
problem as one can determine. Then,
connected to what is given in the problem.
A benefit of this GHI approach is that it
encourages students to make more
mathematical connections with the
information and then use the data
generated to answer the problem. A vital
benefit of this GHI approach is that it
allows the students, especially those with
SLDs, to break down a complex problem
according to their current problem-
solving skill level, reducing their cognitive
load while increasing their focus on
connecting concepts. For students with
SLDs, we recommend teaching the GHI
using think alouds in a stepwise process so
that students hear and see how to analyze,
plan, and solve word problems.
Furthermore, using visuals to set up and
solves problems aids students in their
problem-solving process.
Conclusion
Mr. Rhodes concentrated his efforts on GHI
because this approach is flexible enough to
cover the entirety of the mathematics that the
students may encounter. He is pleased with the
immediate impact that GHI has on his students
with mathematics difficulties, especially those
with SLDs. GHI addresses his three main
concerns in that it (a) employs visuals that help
students comprehend what is required in the
word problem, (b) prepares students to develop
a mathematical plan to solve the problem, and
(c) allows students to analyze their solution
based on the visual model.
To increase their algebra performance,
secondary students with SLDs require
improved instruction in solving
mathematics word problems, especially
those with more advanced concepts
embedded. SBI is a powerful approach to
solving elementary and some middle-level
word problems. However, as mathematics
becomes more complex, few problems
include underlying structures validated
through SBI. Until SBI researchers develop
such structures, it is essential to include
more flexible problem-solving approaches
that allow students to adapt to the
complexity of the problems. Therefore, SBI
should be encouraged until students
approach algebra, when teachers should
consider using GHI approaches over
student-created strategies. Although we
highlighted two heuristic approaches, others
exist, such as the following: work backward,
draw a diagram, make a list, act it out, restate
the problem, use equations, use a model, use
Venn diagrams, logical reasoning, draw a
picture, and think of a related problem. We
suggest working with students with SLDs to
learn one of these at a time until each is
mastered before introducing another.
Declaration of Conflicting
Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts
of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Bradley Witzel https://orcid.org/
0000-0002-2050-8579
Bradley Witzel, Western Carolina
University, and, Jonté A. Myers, Georgia State
University.
Address correspondence concerning
this article to Bradley Witzel, Western
Carolina University, Suite 123 Killian
Building, 1 University Way, Fort Mill, NC
Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA (bwitzel@
wcu.edu).
References
Al-Fayez, M. Q., & Jubran, S. M. (2012). Teaching
method on Jordanian mathematics students.
Journal of International Education Research,
8(4), 453–460.
Bielby, R. M., House, E., Flaster, A., & DesJardins,
S. L. (2013). Instructional variables:
Conceptual issues and an application
considering high school course taking.
In M. D. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education:
Handbooks of theory and research (Vol. 28,
pp. 263–321). Springer.
Calucag, L. (2016). Divergence of scientific
heuristic method and direct algebraic
instruction. Journal of Education and Practice,
7(3), 131–135.
Cirino, P. T., Fuchs, L. S., Elias, J. T., Powell, S. R.,
& Schumacher, R. F. (2015). Cognitive and
mathematical profiles for different forms
of learning difficulties. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 48(2), 156–175. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022219413494239
Cook, S. C., Collins, L. W., Morin, L. L., &
Riccomini, P. J. (2020). Schema-based
instruction for mathematical word problem
solving: An evidence-based review for
students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 75–87.
de Blas, G. D., Gomez-Veiga, I., & Garcia-
Madruga, J. A. (2021). Arithmetic word
problems revisited: Cognitive processes and
academic performance in secondary school.
Education Sciences, 11, Article 155. https://
doi.org/10.3390/educsci11040155
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K.,
Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics
instruction for students with learning
disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional
components. Review of Educational Research,
79(3), 1202–1242.
Hercovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap
between arithmetic and algebra. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 27(1), 59–78.
Hoffer, T. B., Venkataraman, L., Hedberg, E.
C., & Shagle, S. (2007). Final report on the
National Survey of Algebra Teachers for the
National Math Panel. NORC at the University
of Chicago.
Hughes, E. M., Witzel, B. S., Riccomini, P. J., Fries,
K. M., & Kanyongo, G. Y. (2014). A meta-
analysis of algebra interventions for learners
wirth disbailities and struggling learners.
Journal of the International Association of
Special Education, 15(1), 36–47.
Hutchinson, N. (1993). Effects of cognitive
strategy instruction on algebra problem
solving of adolescents with learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
16(1), 34–63.
Impecoven-Lind, L., & Foegen, A. (2010).
Teaching algebra to students with learning
disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic,
46(1), 31–37.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20
U.S. C. § 1401–30 (2004).
Lein, A. E., Jitendra, A. K., & Harwell, M. R.
(2020). Effectiveness of mathematical word
problem solving interventions for students
with learning disabilities and/or mathematics
difficulties: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1388–1408.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000453
Loveless, T. (2013). The algebra imperative:
Assessing algebra in a national and
international context. Brown Center on
Education Policy, The Brookings Institution.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2016/06/Kern-Algebra-paper-8-30_
v14.pdf
Maccini, P., Mulcahy, C., & Wilson, M. (2007). A
follow-up of mathematics interventions for
secondary students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22,
58–74.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction.
Prentice Hall.
Montague, M., Krawec, J., Enders, C., & Dietz,
S. (2014). The effects of cognitive strategy
instruction on math problem solving of
middle-school students of varying ability.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
106(2), 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0035176
Myers, J. A., Hughes, E. M., Witzel, B. S.,
Anderson, R. D., & Owens, J. (2023). A
Meta-Analysis of Mathematical Interventions
for Increasing the Word Problem Solving
Performance of Upper Elementary and
Secondary Students with Mathematics
Difficulties. Journal of Research on
Educational Effectiveness, 1-35. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2080131
Myers, J. A., Witzel, B. S., Powell, S. R, Li, H.,
Pigott, T., Xin, Y. P., & Hughes, E. M. (2022).
A meta-analysis of mathematics word-
problem solving interventions for elementary
students who evidence mathematics
difficulties. Review of Educational
Research, 92(5), 695–742. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543211070049
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020).
NAEP report card: 2019 NAEP mathematics
assessment highlighted results at grades 4
and 8 for the nation, states, and districts.
U.S. Department of Education. https://
www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/
mathematics/2019/
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008).
Foundations for success: The final report
of the National Mathematics Advisory
Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Peterson, R. L., Boada, R., McGrath, L. M., Willcutt,
E. G., Olson, R. K., & Pennington, B. F. (2017).
Cognitive prediction of reading, math and
attention: Shared and unique influences.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 408–421.
Pólya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect
of mathematical model (2nd ed). Princeton
University Press.
Powell, S. R., Berry, K. A., Fall, A.-M., Roberts,
G., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2021).
Alternative paths to improved word-problem
performance: An advantage for embedding
prealgebraic reasoning instruction within
word-problem intervention. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 113(5), 898–910.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000513
Powell, S. R., Doabler, C. T., Akinola, O. A.,
Therrien, W. J., Maddox, S. A., & Hess,
K. E. (2020). A synthesis of elementary
mathematics interventions: Comparisons of
students with mathematics difficulty with and
without comorbid reading difficulty. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 53(4), 244–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419881646
Root, J. R., & Browder, D. M. (2019). Algebraic
problem solving for middle school students
with autism and intellectual disability.
Exceptionality, 27(2), 118–132. https://doi.org
/10.1080/09362835.2017.1394304
Rott, B. (2015). Heuristics and mental flexibility
in the problem solving processes of regular
and gifted fifth and sixth graders. CERME, 9,
1059–1065. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/
hal-01287312
Safarini, D., Nurashari, R., & Lie, M. W. (2021).
Mathematical problem-solving heuristics
used by students in college algebra class.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1776,
Article 012005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1776/1/012005
Scheibling-Sève, C., Pasquinelli, E., & Sander, E.
(2020). Assessing conceptual knowledge
through solving arithmetic word problems.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 103,
293-311.
Stanovich, K. E., & Toplak, M. E. (2012). Defining
September/October 2023
features versus incidental correlates of type
1 and type 2 processing. Mind & Society, 11(1),
3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-011-
0093-6
Stevens, E., & Powell, S. R. (2016). Unpacking
word problems for diverse learners: A guide
to using schemas. Childhood Education:
Focus on Inclusive Education, 92(1), 86–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2016.11
34253
59
 Swanson, H. L., Lussier, C., & Orosco, M. (2013).
Effects of cognitive strategy interventions
and cognitive moderators on word problem
solving in children at risk for problem solving
difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice, 28(4), 170–183. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ldrp.12019
Tambunan, H. (2018). Impact of heuristic strategy
on students’ mathematics high order
thinking. International Electronic Journal
of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 321–3287.
https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3928
The University of Kansas Center for Research on
Learning. (2023). Strategic Instruction Model
(SIM™). https://sim.ku.edu
Toll, S. W. M., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2014).
Explaining numeracy development in weak
performing kindergartners. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 124, 97–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.02.001
Verschaffel, L., Schukajlow, S., Star, J., & Van
Dooren, W. (2020). Word problems in
mathematics education: A survey. ZDM, 52(1),
1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-
01130-4
Willcutt, E. G., Petrill, S. A., Wu, S., Boada, R.,
DeFries, J. C., Olson, R. K., & Pennington,
B. F. (2013). Comorbidity between reading
disability and math disability: Concurrent
psychopathology, functional impairment, and
neuropsychological functioning. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 46(6), 500–516.
Witzel, B. S. (2016). Students with math
difficulties and the arithmetic to algebra gap.
In B. S. Witzel (Ed.), The arithmetic to algebra
gap for students with disabilities (pp. 7–20).
Council for Exceptional Children.
Xin, Y. P. (2008). The effect of schema-based
instruction in solving mathematics word
problems: An emphasis on prealgebraic
conceptualization of multiplicative relations.
Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 39, 526–551.
Youssef-Shalala, A., Ayers, P., Schubert, C., &
Sweller, J. (2014). Using a general problem-
solving strategy to promote transfer. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 20(3),
215–231.
Zhang, D., & Xin, Y. P. (2012). A follow-up
meta-analysis for word-problem-solving
interventions for students with mathematics
difficulties. The Journal of Educational
Research, 105(5), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00220671.2011.627397
TEACHING Exceptional Children,
Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 52–60.
Copyright 2023 The Author(s).

Sage Deep
Backfile
Deep Backfile for Sage’s peer-reviewed scholarly journals
are available in a wide range of subject areas including
business, humanities, social science, and science,
technology and medicine.

• Deep Backfile of over 620 journals

• More than 931,000 articles
• Lease and purchase of one entire deep backfile or individual titles
available for individual libraries and library consortia
• Coverage back to volume 1, issue 1, through the last issue of 1998
• Content ownership of purchased content
• Journal Backfile articles posted in PDF format with xml-based
headers, abstracts and references
For more information, contact your Library Sales Manager
or email librarymktg@sagepub.com
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 56, No. 1

60
Peer Reviewers
Thank you for your generously
donated time and effort
We appreciate your contribution and are grateful
to you for helping authors develop their papers.
If you have reviewed for a Sage journal you are entitled to:
• 60 days access to all Sage journals
• 25% discount on Sage books
• 20% discount for Sage Author Services
Visit the Journal Reviewer Gateway to learn more about the benefits
to reviewing for Sage journals and how to become a reviewer.
September/October 2023

Find out more

sagepub.com/reviewerrewards
61