Model-Drawing Strategy

to Solve Word Problems

for Students with LD

Dr. Olga Jerman

The Frostig Center
IARLD Conference
Miami, Florida
January 14-16, 2010
FrostigCenter
Abstract
The study examined the effectiveness of
using model-drawing methodology to
solve problems for a group of high school
students. The 30-week intervention used
a single-subject design to teach an 8-step
model-drawing approach for solving
problems with fractions and percentages.
The results showed improvement in
solution accuracy.

FrostigCenter
Word-problem Solving and LD
Word problem-solving is an area of
difficulty and frustration for a considerable
number of students, and this, to a great
extent, could be attributed to a large
number of cognitive processes involved in
successful problem completion. It is an
especially difficult area for those students
who are identified with learning disabilities
(LD).

FrostigCenter
 Recently, a considerable amount of work
has been done to examine the sources of
difficulties in problem-solving, predictors
of success, and the best practices and
programs aimed at helping struggling
learners to better problem-solve.
Research findings indicate that the
reduction of demands on the working
memory system (WM) seems to be highly
beneficial. Different ways to minimize
these demands on the WM system have
been tested (e.g. use of visual support via
pictures, diagrams & schemas, and use of
cognitive strategies).
Purpose of the Study
An 8-step model-drawing technique is
intended to enhance the conceptual
understanding of the problem at task and to
reduce the amount of information to be held in
working memory, which, consequently, would
lead to the increased chances of solving
problems correctly. Although the approach was
found to be successful for a regular student
population (typically-achieving kids), no
studies, to the author’s knowledge, have
examined the effectiveness of this methodology
for students with learning disabilities.
Therefore, the primary purpose of this study
was to assess the usefulness of Singapore
model drawing technique for students with LD.
Model Drawing Strategy
 8 Steps of Model drawing
1. Read the problem
2. Decide who is involved
3. Decide what is involved
4. Draw unit bars
5. Read each sentence
6. Put the question mark
7. Work computation
8. Answer the question

FrostigCenter
Example:
Word Problems with Percentage

40% of the school students went to the

National History Museum for a field trip.
20% of students went to the zoo. 50%
of the remaining students went to a
farm. Only 60 students didn’t have a
field trip and stayed at school. How
many students are there in this school?

FrostigCenter
Solution
Step 1: Draw a unit bar and divide it into 10 equal parts
50% of remaining
40% 20% Farm 60
Museum Zoo school

Total students = ?
100% remaining students

One unit bar = ?

1) 60 : 2 = 30
2) 30 x 10 = 300

Answer: There are 300 students in the school

FrostigCenter
 Example: Fraction Problems
a) Rosie baked 63 cookies. 3/7 of them were
chocolate chip cookies and the rest were
sugar cookies. How many sugar cookies did
Rosie bake?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

63

63 : 7 = 9 (one unit bar equals 9) 63 : 7 = 9 (one unit bar equals 9)

3 x 9 = 27 (chocolate chip cookies)
9 x 4 = 36 (sugar cookies) 63 – 27 = 36 (sugar cookies)

FrostigCenter
Example: Fraction Problems
b) 5/8 of the students in my class are boys.
1/5 of the boys have black hair. If 40 boys
don’t have black hair, how many students
are in my class in all?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1)
5/8 - boys 3/8 - girls
1 2 3 4 5
2) 5 units - boys
1/5 – boys with black hair Or 4/5 without black hair
1 2 3 4
3) 40

40 : 4 = 10 (one unit bar) =>

10 x 8 = 80 (students in the class)
FrostigCenter
Method
• 5 students (2 control)
 2 girls & 3 boys (mean age 16-1)
 10th grade
• 30 weeks intervention
• 20 weeks for fraction problems, 10
weeks percent problems
• Treatment fidelity 73%

FrostigCenter
 Scores and Progress of a Control Student #1

R____
Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention 3
Baseline Fractions No Intervention Fractions Percentiles

No Intervention
110

100

90

80

70
Scores

60

50

Follow-up Percentiles
Follow-up Fractions
40

30

M=20 20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24a 24b 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Weeks

Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage

FrostigCenter
 Scores and Progress of a Control Student #2

E____
Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention 3
Baseline Fractions No Intervention Fractions Percentiles

No Intervention
110

100

90

Follow-up Percentiles
80

Follow-up Fractions
70
Scores

60

50

40

30
M=21.33
20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24a 24b 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Weeks

Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage

FrostigCenter
 Scores and Progress of a Tx student #1

C______

Follow-up Percentiles
Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention 3

Follow-up Fractions
Baseline Fractions No Intervention Fractions Percentiles

No Intervention
110

100

90

80

70
Scores

60

50

40

30

20

10
M=1.25
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24a 24b 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Weeks

Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage

FrostigCenter
 Scores and Progress of a Tx student #2

J____

Follow-up Percentiles
Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention 3

Follow-up Fractions
Baseline Fractions No Intervention Fractions Percentiles

No Intervention
110

100

90

80

70
Scores

60

50

40

30

20

10
M=1 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24a 24b 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Weeks

Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage

FrostigCenter
 Scores and Progress of a Tx student #3

O____

Follow-up
Intervention 1 Intervention 2 Intervention 3

Follow-up Fractions
Baseline Fractions No Intervention Fractions Percentiles

No Intervention
110
100
90

80
70
Scores

60
50
40

30

20
10
M=2
0

b
a
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

24
24
Weeks

Accuracy Points Accuracy Percentage

FrostigCenter
Conclusion
• Model-drawing strategy can be an effective
alternative method of teaching fraction and
percent problems to students with LD;
• Although the training yielded improvement,
it took longer for the students to learn the
technique than initially planned;
• Students’ performance remained higher than
their pre-intervention scores, though it
slightly declined at the 4-week follow-up;

FrostigCenter
Implications
The current results have important theoretical and
practical considerations. Because of the abstract
nature and complex calculation processes
involved, word problems with percent and
fractions are especially hard to tackle for students
with LD. The model-drawing approach gives
students a more concrete method in
comprehending and solving word problems in
order to get past their language difficulties. By
drawing out what they are reading, the students
are creating a concrete visual application of the
problem. This helps them to manipulate the
numbers more easily.
FrostigCenter
Implications (cont.)
The word problem instruction could also be
applied in different ways: either in the large-group
format or as part of differentiated instruction. The
model drawing gives students a clear procedure
for comprehending and executing problems. As
students understand each level of a problem, the
problem of the day or of the lesson can eventually
be taught at grade level.

FrostigCenter
References
• Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., McGoey, K., Gardill, M. C., Bhat, P., & Riley, T. (1998). Effects
of mathematical word problem-solving by students at risk or with mild disabilities. Journal
of Educational Research, 91, 345-355.
• Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving, Cambridge University Press.
• Montague, M. Self-Regulation strategies for better math performance in middle school. (In
M Montague and A Jitendra 2006, pp. 86-106).
• Newcombe, N. S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J., et al (2009). Psychology’s Role in mathematics
and Science Education. American Psychologist, 64, 6, 538-551.
• Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Do word-
problem features affect problem difficulty as a function of students’ mathematics difficulty
with and without reading difficulty? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 99-111.
• Swanson, H. L. & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working
memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious
math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 471-491.
• Xin, Y. P., Wiles, B., & Lin, Y. (2008). Teaching conceptual model-based word problem story
grammar to enhance mathematics problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 42,
163-178.