an analysis of addition and subtraction · web view2011/02/07 · an analysis of...

Brunei Int.J.of Sci.& Math. Edu., 2010, Vol 2(1), 68-85 ISSN 2076-0868

AN ANALYSIS OF ADDITION AND SUBTRACTION WORD PROBLEMS IN

MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOKS USED IN MALAYSIAN PRIMARY SCHOOL CLASSROOMS

Parmjit Singh, University of Technology MARA, Malaysia, < [email protected]>Teoh Sian Hoon, University of Technology MARA, Malaysia

Mathematics textbooks are integral in most classroom-based teaching and learning as both teachers and pupils use them as a source of mathematical learning. This study embarked on a mission to uncover the types of word problems associated with addition and subtraction available in the text books used in Malaysian Primary Schools. Firstly, it examines the distribution of 11 categories of addition and subtraction word problems based on Van de Walle’s (1998) model, and secondly, it analyses pupils’ achievement in accordance with these categories. The findings revealed that the textbooks did not adequately distribute or represent all the 11 categories of word problems, and analysis of the pupils’ scores based on tests made up of questions representing the various categories suggested a relationship with the distributions of the types of problems.

Background

In almost every subject area, at nearly every grade level, students and teachers of mathematics are expected to use a textbook as a resource (Amit & Freid, 2002; Kluth, 2005).Textbooks play a very important part in the teaching and learning process in schools as the textbooks provide an important foundation for teachers in assisting pupils to learn mathematics (Ministry of Education, 2003). Currently in Malaysia, all textbooks are provided free for pupils in government schools. These textbooks are written by a team of writers working for a number of publishers and can be considered the best according to the specifications outlined by the Ministry of Education. In 2003 and 2004, the Ministry of Education published new mathematics textbooks for Primary 1 and Primary 2, while the publication of the new textbooks for Primary 3, Primary 4, Primary 5 and Primary 6 occurred from 2005 to 2008. These textbooks are the basis of school instruction and the primary source of information for schools and teachers. This is because the problems set as exercises in these textbooks are almost always assigned as homework for the pupils and act as a platform for discussion of mathematical concepts among pupils and teachers. The assignments of these exercises as homework for pupils’ conceptual development are sourced

mailto:[email protected]

69 Addition and subtraction problems

from these textbooks by most teachers (Porter, Floden, Freeman, Schmidt & Schwille, 1988). Schmidt, Mcknight and Raizen (1997) have described in general terms the role of textbooks as “bridges between the worlds of plan and intentions, and of classroom activities shaped in part by those plans and intentions” (p. 53). In short, one could say that textbooks may play a significant role in the attempt to achieve an intended learning outcome for classroom teaching, and for most pupils, they provide the groundwork for the content to be learned as well as the conceptual understanding that pupils construct during class activities (Amit & Freid, 2002; Porter et al., 1988).

Various researchers (e.g., Fan & Kaeley, 2000; Fan, & Yan, 2007; Freeman & Porter, 1989; Stodolsky, 1989; Yan & Fan, 2006) have investigated, from different perspectives, the ways mathematics teachers use textbooks in their classroom settings. Freeman and Porter’s (1989) study focused on textbook usage by elementary teachers based on the content taught and textbook content, while other studies (Yan & Fan, 2006; and Fan &Yan, 2007) compared American, Chinese, and Singaporean school textbooks. Schmidt, Mcknight and Raizen (1997) analysed textbooks based on depth-of-content-coverage in the textbooks used in the United States and in other countries. Stodolsky (1989) studied the use and influence of textbooks in classroom learning and teaching. She proposed that the use and influence of textbooks should be analyzed with respect to topics, content, and its comparison with literature on a similar topic. Olkun and Toluk (2003) analyzed the content of school mathematics textbooks in Turkey. Their study found that textbooks did not adequately represent all types of addition and subtraction problems and students were less successful on the problem types underrepresented in textbooks. In echoing this line of investigation, this current research investigated the distribution of word problems, in the topical context of addition and subtraction in Malaysian Primary School textbooks. It is significant to highlight that one of the main thrusts of the Primary Mathematics curriculum in Malaysia is to develop basic computation skills comprising the four operators of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. The usage of the operators of addition and subtraction are introduced as early as Primary one in Malaysia schools with the objective to develop computation skills and the ability to use these skills in solving word problems. Furthermore, the curriculum also places emphasis on problem solving, communication, mathematical reasoning, and mathematical connections and representations (Curriculum Development Centre, 2003).

The investigation reported in this paper studied the distribution of word problems related to the operations of addition and subtraction, in Malaysian primary school mathematics textbooks. Solving word problems embodying additive structures is an important aspect of the new curriculum for primary and secondary Schools in Malaysia. The term ‘word problem’ is often used to refer to any mathematical exercise for pupils stated in a way that enhances awareness of the semantic structure of the problem in conjunction with the numerical representation. According to Carpenter, Moses and Bebout (1988), it is essential for the pupil to think about and analyze a word problem before making an attempt to solve it. This is because, as stated by Krulik and Rudrick (1982), the word problem is a situation which demands resolution and that there is no easy approach to solving it. In this sense, for example, carefully chosen word-problems can provide a rich context for learning addition and subtraction concepts (Greer, 1997).

The term “additive structures” covers problems involving addition and subtraction operations, and knowledge of addition and subtraction concepts and skills is a prerequisite for almost all primary school mathematics topics. Substantial research (Carpenter, Moser & Bebout, 1988; Clements, 1999; Peterson, Fennema & Carpenter, 1989) has investigated and

Paramjit 70

found that pupils’ conceptions of word problems demanding addition and subtraction were often vague. For young pupils, it is not easy to model problem situations mathematically. Pupils who have difficulties with reading, computation or both are likely to encounter difficulties when attempting to solve word problems (Jitendra & Xin, 1997). They are unable to comprehend the semantics of the word problems and this affects the translation into mathematical symbolism. The cure for the “I can’t do word problems” syndrome would appear to be adequate instruction in using mathematics as a language for problem solving in the curriculum (Parmjit, 2006).

Table 1Categorizing Additive and Subtractive Word Problems Using Van De Walle’s (1998) Model

SNo Category Information Problem1. JRU Join Result

Unknown Hani has 12 flowers in the basket. Sarah gave her 7 more. How many flowers does Hani have altogether?

2. JCU Join Change Unknown

Nadzirah had 8 mangoes. Farah gave her some more. Now Nadzirah has 15 mangoes. How many did Farah give her?

3. JIU Join Initial Unknown

Tasha had some sweets. Aisha gave her 9 more. Now Tasha has 20 sweets. How many sweets did Tasha have at first?

4. SRU Separate Result Unknown

Azhar bought 12 pencils. He gave 5 pencils to Ranjit. How many pencils does Azhar have now?

5. SCU Separate Change Unknown

Halim catches 18 fishes. He gave some to Ali. Now Halim has 7 fishes left. How many did he give to Ali?

6. SIU Separate Initial Unknown

Anis baked some cookies. She gave 6 to Chong. Now Anis has 12 cookies left. How many cookies did Anis bake at first?

7. CDU Compare Difference Unknown

Dinesh has 13 balloons and Lina has 4 balloons. How many more balloons does Dinesh have than Lina?

8. CLU Compare Larger Unknown

Mira read 6 storybooks. Alya read 12 storybooks more than Mira. How many storybooks did Alya read?

9. CSU Compare Smaller Unknown

Azman has 4 stamps fewer than Lim. Lim has 17 stamps. How many stamps does Azman have?

10. PWU Part-whole Whole Unknown

Siti has 13 small teddy bears and 6 big teddy bears. How many teddy bears does she have altogether?

11. PPU Part-whole Part Unknown

Mimi bought 18 apples from the supermarket. 13 of them are red and the rest are green. How many


green apples did Mimi buy?Some writers have argued that, from a structural perspective, there are 11 different

categories of questions in the form of word problems for addition and subtraction operations (Peterson, Fennema & Carpenter, 1989; Van de Walle, 1998). Although outwardly similar, questions in the 11 categories (see Table 1) can vary greatly in difficulty for pupils (Olkun & Toluk, 2003; Peterson, Fennema & Carpenter, 1989). While solving different word problems, pupils are not only challenged to comprehend relationships between language and mathematical processes, but also to experience sense making and mathematization of realities (Greer, 1997; Reusser & Stebler, 1997; Wyndhamn & Saljo, 1997).

Parmjit’s (2006) study of pupils’ achievement in addition and subtraction word problems used Van de Walle’s model. He reported that many pupils found questions in the CDU, CSU and PPU categories (refer to Table 1) as difficult based on their low scores. Although one might expect pupils to be able to contextualize problems that relate to real-world settings, often they are unable to move between the semantic structures to the associated mathematical symbolisms because of the mismatch between their theoretical knowledge and what they have experienced in the mathematics classroom.

A study by Olkun and Toluk (2003) utilizing Van De Walle’s model, found that the textbooks used in primary schools in Turkey did not adequately represent all types of addition and subtraction problems. The JCU, JIU, SCU, SIU, CDU, CLU, and CSU categories were under-represented. They further argued that this unsystematic distribution of word problems categories may prevent pupils from developing a rich repertoire of the addition and subtraction concepts in the categories that are under-represented.

The Purpose of the Study

Both textbooks and word problems occupy an important position in the teaching and learning process, and as Ball and Cohen (1996) pointed out, “curriculum materials could contribute to professional practice if they were created with closer attention to processes of curriculum enactment” (p. 7). Taking into consideration, the importance of mathematics textbooks used in classrooms, coupled with the difficulty pupils face in solving word problems, especially in the concepts of additive structures, this research was designed to analyze the content of additive structures in textbooks used in Malaysian primary schools.

Researchers (Riley, Greeno and Heller, 1983; Van de Walle, 1998) have modeled addition and subtraction problems into categories based on the kind of relationships involved. The classification by Riley, et. al., (1983) model was based on the classification of Change (2 types), Combine (6 types), and Compare (6 types) comprising 14 categories. While Van de Walle’s (1998) model was classified into Join problems (3 types), Separate Problems (3 types), Part - Part - Whole Problems/compare problems (2 types) and Compare or Equalize Problems (3 types) comprising 11 categories. From these two models, Riley, et. al., (1983) 14 categories model seemed more extensive than Van De Walle’s 11 categories. This was because problems such as the following were not addressed in Van De Walle’s model. Both these models comprise similar categories using different names. However, Van de Walle’s model seemed not able to represent the following three types in his category:

1. There were 4 apples in the basket. Two more apples were added. Now there is the same number of apples as oranges in the basket. How many oranges are in the basket?

2. There were 12 apples in the basket. 5 of them were removed so there would be the same number of apples as oranges in the basket. How many oranges were in the

Paramjit 72

basket?

3. There were some boys in the team. Four of them sat down so each girl would have a partner. There are 7 girls in the team. How many boys are in the team?

In general, both Van de Walle’s model and Riley, et. al’s., model were similar besides the absence of the three types of problems shown above from the latter. However, this study adopted the former model because it was easier to analyze the content of a textbook based on 11 categories compared to the 14 categories of the latter. Secondly, as this study focused on Primary 1 and Primary 2 textbooks, the types of problems as shown above were not included at this level (primary 1 and Primary 2) based on the Malaysian mathematics syllabus.

According to Van de Walle’s model, there are 11 different categories of problems in addition and subtraction; out of which four require addition, while seven require subtraction. Therefore, the intention of this two-fold study was to analyze:

1. The distribution of the types of word problems with regards to addition and subtraction concepts available in textbooks used in Malaysian schools in Primary 1 and Primary 2 using Van de Walle’s (1998) model.

2. Pupils’ relative achievement on word problems in these 11 different categories. If textbooks play an important role in the teaching and learning of mathematics is it possible that pupils’ conceptual understanding of addition and subtraction is inhibited due to inadequate opportunities provided to experience these different types of problems as a result of imbalance in their school textbooks? Furthermore, is it possible that pupils are facing these difficulties because they are not exposed to certain types of problems in their classroom learning? Questions such as these draw attention to the need to investigate which of the categories cause most difficulty for pupils, and why.

Together with these textbooks, there were also activity books which were to supplement the textbooks. In other words, at each level, a textbook and two activity books were supposed to be used in the teaching and learning process in the Malaysian primary mathematics classroom.

To be noted that these textbooks used in this study were published in the English language adhering to the policy of teaching Mathematics and Science in English since early 2003. However, this policy has been reversed in August 2009 where effective from 2012 the teaching of mathematics and science will be reverted back to Bahasa Malaysia, the national language. The Education Ministry is in the process of translating all the math books into Bahasa Malaysia. Although the policy has been reversed, the content of the books remains the same. In view of this, this paper is not affected with the reversal of the policy.

Method

Two modes of methodological analysis were utilized for this research. First, document analysis was used in analyzing the distribution of the type of word problem categories involving addition and subtraction operations in Primary 1 and Primary 2 textbooks, together with the accompanying activity books for each grade. For purposes of comparative analysis, commercial texts (or workbooks) from an established publisher were also


analyzed. These texts were analyzed according to the benchmark of the eleven types of standard word problems as shown in Table 1, modeled by Van de Walle (1998). The researcher independently categorized each problem in these textbooks in accordance with the given categories. In ensuring the validity of the analysis, inter-rater member check was also undertaken to determine the accuracy of the analysis. Inter-rater member check is a process whereby another rater, other than the researcher is asked to verify the problem in accordance to the category. All word problems that could be solved using addition and subtraction of natural numbers were included, while symbolic expressions such as “8 + 7 = ?” and phrases such as “3 less than 10?” were excluded.

Secondly, an achievement test was administered to 302 pupils from Primary 1 and Primary 2 in order to quantify the pupils’ achievements according to the eleven categories. The samples comprised 116 and 186 pupils from Primary 1 and Primary 2 classes, respectively, with ages ranging from seven to nine years. The actual schools in which the students were located were selected randomly from five urban schools in a district in the state of Selangor, Malaysia. Once the schools had been selected, the pupils were selected from the “top” classes for each of the respective grades, the aim being to measure their understanding of word problems in each of the 11 Van de Wall categories. These pupils were selected from the top classes because the researchers want the content knowledge to be the main issue in this study instead of the language, if the weaker pupils were to be selected. An instrument was constructed in which the problems were adapted from the 11 categories (see Table 1). There were 11 problems in this instrument with one representative problem for each category. Pupils’ responses were categorized based on the following 4-point scale: 3 – All correct; 2 – Minor/careless/silly error(s); 1 – Some attempt but unlikely to lead to a solution; 0 – No attempt

Table 2Distribution of Word Problems in the Malaysian Primary 1 Textbook and the Commercially-Published Workbook

JRU JCU JIU SRU SCU SIU CDU CLU CSU PWU PPU

Primary 1School Textbook (%)

25.8 5.2 6.2 39.2 3.1 3.1 5.2 2.1 0 8.3 2.1

Primary 1 Commercial workbook (%)

25 2 2 24 4 5 5 7 11 11 5

Results

Distribution of Word Problems in the Primary 1 Textbook and in the Commercially-Published Workbook, across the 11 Categories

This section details the distribution of word problems in textbooks used in schools across the 11 categories for each of the respective levels. Table 2 shows the distribution of word problems according to categories found in the Malaysian Primary 1 mathematics textbook (together with activity books). It indicates that in the Primary 1 textbook, the SRU category had the highest representation (39.2% of all problems), followed by the JRU category (25.8% of all problems). The other categories were, relatively speaking, infrequently

Paramjit 74

represented (ranging from 0% to 8.3%) – a problem in the CSU category was not to be found in the Primary 1 text.

Figure 1a. Percentage of distribution of word problems in the Primary 1 School

textbook

Figure 1b. Percentage of distribution of word problems in the Primary 1

commercial workbook.

As shown in Figure 1b, the commercially-published text had reasonably similar representations, with JRU (25%) having the highest representation and SRU (24%) the next highest. However, categories such as CLU (7%), CSU (11%), and PWU (11%) have a much higher representation than in the text used in the schools. Clearly, in both texts the emphasis is on SRU and JRU questions. However, the more abstract categories, such as CLU, CSU, and PWU receive greater attention in the commercially-published text. Figures 1a and 1b show the distributions in a bar chart.


Figure 1c. Percentage of correct answers in the test according to the eleven categories among Primary 1 pupils

Primary 1 Pupil’s Achievements on Questions in the 11 Categories

Figure 1c indicates the percentage of correct responses obtained by Primary 1 pupils for the questions in the 11 categories. The highest scores were obtained for categories JRU (94.8% correct), followed by PWU (81%), CLU (73.3%), and SIU (56%). The categories which posed the greatest difficulty for the pupils were JIU (9.5%), CSU (14.6%), JCU (22.4%) and CDU (23.2%). It is to be noted that the four categories for which pupils gave the most correct responses were JRU, SIU, CLU and PWU, and each of these involved the operation of addition. The questions for other seven categories, which involved the operation of subtraction, were not as well answered.

Table 3Distribution of Word Problems in the Malaysian Primary 2 School Textbook (P2ST) and Commercially-Published Workbook (P2CPW)

JRU JCU JIU SRU SCU SIU CDU CLU CSU PWU PPU

P2ST 31.3 3.1 0 25.0 3.1 4.7 7.8 0 1.6 15.6 7.8P2CPW 15.2 3 0 24.2 6.1 0 0 6.1 12.1 27.3 6.1

Distribution of Word Problems in the Primary 2 Textbook and the Commercially-Published Workbook across the 11 Categories

Table 3 shows the distribution of the categories for questions in the Primary 2 mathematics textbook used in schools. It indicates that in the Primary 2 textbook, the JRU category had the highest representation (31.3% of all problems), followed by the SRU category (25.0% of all problems) and the PWU category (15.6%). The other categories were, relatively

Paramjit 76

speaking, infrequently represented (ranging from 0% to 7.8% representation, there being no problem in either the JIU or the CLU categories).

Figure 2a. % of distribution of word problems in the Primary 2 school textbook.

Figure 2b. % of distribution of word problems in the Primary 2 commercially-

published book.

Figure 2b shows the distribution of the categories in the commercially-produced book. The highest representations are for the PWU (27.3%), SRU (24.2), JRU (15.2), and CSU (12.1%) categories. There were no problems in the JIU, SIU and CDU categories. Clearly Figures 2a and 2b, the emphasis in both of these books is on problems in the JRU, SRU and PWU categories.

Primary 2 Pupils’ Achievements According to the 11 Categories

Figure 2c shows the percentage of correct responses obtained by Primary 2 pupils for the questions in each of the 11 categories. Questions that were answered correctly most frequently were in the JRU (87.6.8% correct), PWU (75.3%), SCU (70.5%), CLU (67.73%), and SRU (66.7%) categories. The most difficult questions were in the CDU (25.2% correct), CSU (30.1%), JCU (31.8%), JIU (35%), and SIU (36.5%) categories. Three of the four categories for which correct responses were most frequently were in the JRU, CLU and PWU categories, which involved the operation of addition. The questions in the seven “subtraction” categories were less likely to be answered correctly. Comparison across the categories for Primary 1 and Primary 2 indicated that results tended to be similar, especially for questions in the JRU, PWU and CLU categories.


Figure 2c. Percentage of correct answers according to the 11 categories among Primary 2 pupils.

Analyses of Artefacts: Pupils’ Work Based on Computations in Worksheets

This section analyses pupils’ (Primary 1 and Primary 2) incorrect responses. The data from the worksheets based on pupils’ computations suggested that pupils tended to utilize the operation of addition instead of subtraction when they faced obstacles in modeling the situation. The following examples from pupils’ work exemplify this reasoning.

Item 3Tasha had some sweets. Aisha gave her 9 more. Now Tasha has 20 sweets. How many sweets did Tasha have at first? Pupils Computation:

Item 5Halim catches 18 fishes. He gave some to Ali. Halim has 7 fishes left. How many did he give to Ali?Pupils Computation:

Paramjit 78

Item 7Dinesh has 13 balloons and Lina has 4 balloons. How many more balloons does Dinesh have than Lina? Pupils Computation:

Item 9Azman has 4 stamps fewer than Lim. Lim has 17 stamps. How many stamps does Azman have?Pupils Computation:

Item 11Mimi bought 18 apples from the supermarket. 13 of them are red and the rest are green.How many green apples did Mimi buy?Pupils Computation:

These five items indicate that both Malaysian Primary 1 and Primary 2 pupils used the addition operation instead of subtraction to solve the given problems. For example, the response shown for Item 3 seems to indicate that the pupil did not comprehend the relationship between the quantities 9 and 20. The word problem stated that, “Aisha gave her one more”. Pupils might have interpreted the word “more” as addition. The recognition and application of key words during the computational process might have played a role in pupils’ faulty reasoning thus leading to incorrect responses.

Similarly, for Items 5 and 7, the key words “gave” and “more” probably influenced pupils when modeling the situation. The word “gave” in Item 5 might have been interpreted as becoming more as which might have misled them into using the addition operation. The majority of the students who obtained an incorrect response gave the answer 25 which is the sum of 18 and 7 or 7 and 18. Again in item 7, the word “more” again seems to have triggered the pupils to add 13 to 4, which equals 17.

The probable reason that young children are confused is probably because during their first year at school, children are told by their teachers that you get more by "joining", or "adding" or "getting", or "finding", etc., and you get less by "taking away" or "separating", or "giving away", or "losing", or "finding the difference between" (Coombs and Harcourt, 1986, p. xxvii). According to Lean, Clements and Del Campo (1990) analysis, the confusion which young children experience with questions which specifically contain the words


"more" and "less" often carries over to questions involving giving, taking, finding, losing, etc., and questions in which two sets are combined or compared. They tend to apply to such questions the same kind of strategies that they apply to questions which contain "more" and "less".

Relationship between the Category of Word Problems and Problem Difficulty

According to Tables 2 and 3, the JRU and SRU categories had the highest representation in the Primary 1 and Primary 2 textbooks. Not surprisingly, pupils in both these levels obtained a high percentage of success rates of 94.8% and 87.6% in both these categories with Primary 1 pupils doing better than their counterparts in Primary 2.

Although the JRU category is highly represented in textbooks and activity books, it was found that both Primary 1 and Primary 2 pupils failed to respond correctly in this category. Only 47.4% and 66.7% of Primary 1 and Primary 2 pupils, respectably, answered this question correctly. Category had the lowest representation in the primary mathematics textbooks. According to Figures 1a and 1b, this category was unrepresented (0%) for Primary 1, and under-represented (1.6 %) for Primary 2. The results from pupils’ achievement were also unsatisfactory, with only 14.6% and 30.1% of Primary 1 and Primary 2 pupils responding correctly to the question in this category.

Table 4 shows a strong statistically significant correlation (r = 0.85, p < 0.01) between corresponding item facilities for Primary 1 and Primary 2 pupils. This means that if a question in a certain category was answered correctly by Primary 1 students, then it was also tended to be answered correctly by Primary 2 pupils. Likewise, a question answered poorly by Primary 1 pupils tended to be answered poorly by Primary 2 pupils.

There was also a strong statistically significant correlation (r = 0.86, p < 0.01) between the distribution categories of word problems between Primary 1 and Primary 2 school textbooks. This indicated, for example, that where there was a high percentage for a particular category in the Primary 1 text, the same would be likely to be true in the Primary 2 text. A similar statement would be true if “high” were to be replaced with “low.” A moderately statistically significant correlation (r = 0.64, p < 0.05) existed between scores item facilities for Primary 2 pupils and the distribution of word problem categories in the Primary 2 school text. This suggested that if a certain category was well represented in the Primary 2 textbook, then the pupils tended to answer the question from that category correctly.. Similarly, if a certain category was unrepresented, or poorly represented, in the Primary 2 textbook, then the pupils tended to answer the question from that category incorrectly. Interestingly, though, there was no statistically significant correlation (r = 0.36, p > 0.05) between scores item facilities for Primary 1 pupils and the distribution of word problem categories in the Primary 1 school text.

Table 4Correlations Matrix between Pupils’ Scores and distribution of Word Problems in Primary 1 and Primary 2 Categories

Pri

mary 1 Prima

ry 2 Text

Primary 1 Text

Primary 2Primary 1 score

Pearson Correlation 1 .847(**) .358 .613(*)Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .280 .045N 11 11 11

Paramjit 80

Primary 2 score

Pearson Correlation 1 .508 .641(*)Sig. (2-tailed) .111 .034N 11 11

Dist. Text Primary 1

Pearson Correlation 1 .863(**)Sig. (2-tailed) .001N 11

Dist.Text Primary 2

Pearson Correlation 1Sig. (2-tailed)N 11

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Discussion and Conclusions

Textbooks play a crucial role in the Malaysian mathematics teaching and learning process in schools. The two important pedagogic functions, as succinctly put by Van Dormolen (1986, cited in Johnson, 2005), are the curricular and conceptual perspectives. The former relates to the progression of learning materials while the latter relates to the conceptual development of learners. The role of textbooks in the twin processes of teaching and learning mathematics has received increasing attention over the last two decades, at least.

As mentioned earlier, the study that has been summarized was a two-fold study. The distribution of word problem categories found in Malaysian primary schools mathematics textbooks based on Van de Walle’s (1998) 11 model was identified, and pupils’ achievement on questions representing the various categories were compared. Also, a comparison of the school textbooks with similar commercially-published workbooks was carried out.

Entries in Table 5 indicate that the word problem categories based on Van de Walle’s model were not systematically distributed throughout the Primary 1 and Primary 2 mathematics textbooks. Three of the categories namely JRU (28.6%), SRU (32.1%) and PWU (12%) were well represented, but other categories were either under-represented or not represented at all. In terms of pupils’ achievements across the categories, the findings of this study were similar to that obtained by Parmjit (2006). Analyses indicated that pupils in Primary 1 and Primary 2 experienced difficulties with comprehending questions in categories JCU (27.1%), JIU (22.3%), CDU (24.2%), CSU (22.4%), and PPU (43.6%). There are at least two reasons that might have been responsible for this.

Table 5Distribution of Word Problems and Pupils’ Achievement across the 11 Categories

Categories Pr 1 Pr 2 Mean Pr 1 Pr 2 Mean1. JRU 25.8 31.3 28.6 94.8 87.6 91.22. JCU 5.2 3.1 4.2 22.4 31.8 27.13. JIU 6.2 0 3.1 9.5 35.0 22.34. SRU 39.2 25.0 32.1 47.4 66.7 57.15. SCU 3.1 3.1 3.1 42.2 70.5 56.46. SIU 3.1 4.7 3.9 51.2 56.5 53.97. CDU 5.2 7.8 6.5 23.2 25.2 24.2


8. CLU 2.1 0 1.1 73.3 67.7 70.59. CSU 0 1.6 0.8 14.6 30.1 22.410. PWU 8.3 15.6 12.0 81.0 75.3 78.211. PPU 2.1 7.8 5.0 38.8 48.4 43.6Category 1, 4 and 10 with highest distribution; Category, 1, 4, 8 and 10 utilizing addition operations

First, the comparison between the textbook analysis and pupils’ achievements, indicated that that pupils performed least well on questions in categories that were under-represented or not represented at all in the school textbooks. On the other hand, the students tended to do well on questions for categories (e.g., JRU, SRU and PWU) that were well represented in the text.

The assumptions here is that questions in those categories that were well-represented in the textbooks tended to be correctly answered because pupils had considerable experience in solving such problems in their schools’ mathematics classrooms.

The second point is that four of these eleven categories in the Van de Walle model involve the operation of addition, but the other seven categories involve the operation of subtraction. The questions for the four categories (with the success rate in parenthesis) involving the operations of addition were as follows:

JRU (91.2%)Hani has 12 flowers in the basket. Sarah gave her 7 more. How many flowers does Hani have altogether?Number sentence: 12 + 7 = ___The operation needed to solve this problem is addition.

SIU (53.9%)Anis baked some cookies. She gave 6 to Chong. Now Anis has 12 cookies left. How many cookies did Anis bake at first?Number sentence: ___ – 6 = 12The operation needed to solve this problem is addition.

CLU (70.5%)Mira read 6 storybooks. Alya read 12 storybooks more than Mira. How many storybooks did Alya read?Number sentence: 12 + 6 = ___The operation needed to solve this problem is addition.

PWU (78.2%)Siti has 13 small teddy bears and 6 big teddy bears. How many teddy bears does she have altogether?Number sentence: 13 + 6 = ___The operation needed to solve this problem is addition.

The success rate obtained by pupils in the test were higher in these four categories (91.2%, 53.9%, 70.5% and 78.2%) than the scores in the other categories (e.g. 27.1%, 22.3%,57.1%, 56.4%, 53.9%, 24.2%, 22.4 and 43.6%). There is a strong possibility that the high scores obtained for these four categories involving addition might not be linked to pupils’ ability in modeling the situation, but rather through guessing. This is because from these four

Paramjit 82

categories, it can be said that SIU (53.9%) and CLU (70.5%) involve a higher order problem-solving skill as compared to that required for the computation of SRU or JIU, and yet the pupils obtained a higher percentage success rate in the former categories when compared to the latter. These pupils might have computed the numbers utilizing addition operations in deriving the answers. It may not have been based on their conceptual understanding in modeling the situations. This may be because the first arithmetic operation that pupils learn in early mathematics after counting is addition, and pupils tend to fall back on their prior experience of construction which they are familiar with in modeling the situation. This study suggests that when pupils face difficulties in comprehending problems, they fall back on the operation with which they are most familiar, namely addition. They tend to commit to the operation of addition if there is a barrier that prevents them from comprehending or contextualizing the given problem. This was quite prevalent when these pupils obtained a much higher success rate in CLU (70.5) as compared to CSU (22.4%) though it involves similar contexts with differences in terms of “more” and “fewer”, where the former category involves the operation of addition, and the latter subtraction. Another category that concurs with this line of reasoning is the analysis of SIU as compared to JCU or JIU. From the problems given, SIU requires a higher thinking mode of contextualization as compared to JCU or JIU. Yet, the success rate obtained by pupils on the former is much higher (53.9%) as compared to the latter (27.1% and 22.3%). In other words, the more difficult category (SIU) which requires the operation of addition produced a higher success rate as compared to the less difficult categories (JCU and JIU) which produced a lower success rate. In this respect, a qualitative study ought to be undertaken in assessing pupils’ construction of knowledge based on their conceptual advances in Malaysian settings.

The three categories (JRU, SRU and PWU) that are most frequently represented in the primary school textbooks seem to represent the lowest cognitive process needed for the solution, as compared to the other categories (especially CDU, CLU and CSU) which are under-represented or not-represented at all. The lexicon in the semantic structure such as “fewer” and “more” in the latter categories (CLU and CSU) require a higher-order cognitive operation in order to comprehend and contextualize the problems as compared with the other categories. The inability of pupils to comprehend and contextualize the problems compounded with the lexicon used might be the root of the difficulties that the pupils experienced. The failure of many pupils to answer correctly some of the problems, especially those for categories CDU, CSU and PPU, appears to have been due to their lack of experience with certain situations rather than with any difficulty with operating on numbers (Parmjit, 2006).

Word problems which start with unknowns are relatively difficult for young pupils (Peterson, Fennema & Carpenter, 1989), since they find it difficult to model the problem situations mathematically. Textbooks often include only a few of these categories of word problems, thus limiting children’s ability to learn the operations meaningfully (Greer, 1997; Peterson, Fennema & Carpenter, 1989). That kind of conclusion concurs with the findings of this study with Primary 1 and Primary 2 pupils, and their textbooks, in Malaysian schools.

Both textbooks and word problems occupy an important position in the teaching and learning process, and as pointed earlier by Ball and Cohen (1996) “curriculum materials could contribute to professional practice if they were created with closer attention to processes of curriculum enactment” (p. 7). This simply means that there is a possibility that


the pupils’ inability to solve difficult problems may be due to the fact that they have not obtained adequate exposure to or experience working with these problems in their classroom learning. The presumption here is that an analysis of textbooks is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to understand what really happens in actual classroom teaching (Fan & Zhu, 2000). When categories of word problems have been rarely experienced by pupils, then the pupils can be forgiven for having difficulty “translating” the problems into mathematically correct statements, if, all of a sudden, they are asked to solve them. This can result in the pupils’ conceptual development in addition and subtraction being inhibited.

Educational Implications

The first implication is that pupils’ ability to link addition and subtraction with additive and subtractive word problem situations develops slowly throughout pupils’ early stages of mathematics learning (Greer, 1997; Munirah, 2005; Parmjit, 2004, 2006; Wyndhamn, 1997). It is likely that this shortcoming might be directly linked to the inadequate balance of content in the mathematics textbooks used in classroom teaching. The result of this research indicates that Primary 1 and Primary 2 textbooks published by the Ministry of Education since 2003 (in stages) used in Malaysian classroom teaching, do not adequately represent the totality of different categories for addition and subtraction word problem questions which have been well-researched in the literature. Less exposure to these types of problems might be one reason that many pupils’ faced difficulties in these concepts. In view of this, textbooks developers should consider including more of the different types of problems in textbooks.

Secondly, the distribution of the word problem categories in the textbooks has not been systematically based on research findings. In the Malaysian Primary 1 and Primary 2 textbooks there is an over emphasis on certain categories while other categories are hardly represented, or indeed not represented at all. The Education Ministry should emphasize the need for textbook writers to take into account the findings of research outputs.

It is recommended that in-depth research study be carried out by the Ministry of Education on the content adequacy of current mathematics textbooks used in classrooms, especially for the early primary grades. This is necessary because, at this stage pupils are being exposed and becoming familiar to word problems. Carefully chosen word-problems can provide a rich context for learning mathematical concepts (Greer, 1997). Secondly, at these early grades, pupils who have trouble with fundamental mathematical concepts will be likely to continue having problems with mathematics throughout their schooling life. Struggling pupils can quickly cultivate a strong negative attitude towards mathematics. Further research is clearly essential to explore how knowledge of children’s learning of mathematics can be applied to the design of instruction via textbooks to bridge that gap that still exists between teachers’ teaching and children’s learning in mathematics.

References

Amit, M., & Fried, M. (2002). Research, reform and times of change. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 355-382). New Jersey: LEA Publishers

Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is – or might be – the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8.

Paramjit 84

Carpenter, T.P., Moser, J.M., & Bebout, H.C. (1988). Representation of addition and subtraction word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(4), 345-357.

Clements, M.A. (1999). Language aspects of mathematical modeling in primary school. In M.A. Clements & Y.P. Leong (Eds.), Cultural and language aspects of science, mathematics and technical education (pp. 363-372). Gadong: University Brunei Darussalam.

Coombs, B. & Harcourt, L. (1986). Explorations 1, Addison-Wesley, Don Mills (Ontario).Fan, L., & Kaeley, G.S. (2000). The influence of textbook on teaching strategies: An

empirical study. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 13(4), 2-9.Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2000). Problem solving in Singaporean Secondary Mathematics

Textbooks. The Mathematics Educator, 5(1/2), 117-141.Fan, L & Zhu Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative

look at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 61-75.

Freeman, D.J., & Porter, A.C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 403-421.

Greer, B. (1997). Modeling reality in mathematics classrooms: The case of word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 293-307.

Jitendra, A., & Xin, Y.P. (1997). Mathematical word problem-solving instruction for students with mild disabilities and students at risk for math failure: A research synthesis. Journal of Special Education 30(4), 412–439.

Johansson, M. (2005). Mathematics textbooks – The link between the intended and the implemented curriculum? The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project University Technology Malaysia: Reform, Revolution and Paradigm Shifts in Mathematics Education Nov 25 – Dec 1. Johor Bahru: Malaysia..

Kluth, P. (2005). Rewriting history and 9 other ways to adapt textbooks. Assessed on 25 August 2008, http://www.paulakluth.com/articles/textbookadapt.html

Krulik, S., & Rudnick, J.A. (1982). Teaching problem solving to pre-service teachers. Arithmetic Teacher, February, 42-49.

Lean, C;.A., Clements, M.A., & Del Campo, G. (1990). Linguistic and pedagogical factors affecting children's understanding of arithmetic word problems: A comparative study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 165-191.

Ministry of Education (2003). Textbook division. Retrieved 11 December 2007, from www.moe.gov.my/bbt/modulppsmi.php

Munirah, G. (2005). Primary school children’s number sense. In S. Parmjit & C. S. Lim (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning of mathematics: From research to practice, (pp. 129-150). University Publication Center, UPENA, University Technology MARA, Malaysia.

Olkun, S., & Toluk, Z. (2003). Textbooks, word problems and student success on addition and subtraction. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on 15 August 2008. http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal

Parmjit, S. (2006). An analysis of word problems in school mathematics texts: Operation of addition and subtraction. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in South East Asia, 29(1), 41-61.

http://www.moe.gov.my/bbt/modulppsmi.php


Parmjit S. (2004). Gaps in children’s mathematical learning: Additive and multiplicative. In C. Irene, H. S Dhindsa, I. J Kyeleve & O. Chukwu (Eds., Globalization Trends in Science, Mathematics and Technical Education, pp.127-136, Brunei: University Brunei Darussalam.

Parmjit S. (2001). Understanding the concepts of proportion and ratio constructed by two grade six students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 271 – 292.

Peterson, P., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T.P. (1989). Using knowledge of how students think about mathematics. Education Leadership, 46(4), 42-46.

Porter, A., Floden, R., Freeman, D., Schmidt, W., & Schwille, J. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In D. A. Grouws, T. J. Cooney, & D. Jones (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching (pp. 96-113). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Ressser, K., & Stebler, R. (1997). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: teaching developmentally (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Riley, M. S., Greeno, J. G., & Heller, J. I. (1983). Development of children’s problem-solving ability in arithmetic. In H. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153-196). New York: Academic Press.

Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., & Raizen, S.A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science & mathematics education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer

Stodolsky, S. S. (1989). Is teaching really by the book? In P. W. Jackson & S.Haroutunian- Gorden (Eds.), From Socrates to software (88th Primary book of the National Society for the study of Education, Pt. 1). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

Van de Walle (1998). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally, (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Wyndhamn, J. (1997). Word problems and mathematical reasoning: A study of children’s mastery of reference and meaning in textual realities. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 361-382.

Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from Mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(4), 609-626.

an analysis of addition and subtraction · web view2011/02/07 · an analysis of...

Documents