Articles
DOI DOI: 10.66434/ijssr.v1i1.514

Exploring the integration of multiple methods of representation for the effective teaching of mathematics word problems

Sibusiso Elias Molaba 1
  1. 1 Connecticut State Department of Education

Abstract

This study looks at the attitudes of policymakers regarding equity in the practice and policy of mathematics education. In addition to the culture of mathematics education, it also examines the broader culture. It explores the effects this has on teachers, lawmakers, and students, as well as how the disorderly flow of ideas from one subject to the next shapes how language is expressed, both orally and in writing. The findings are based on a flexible, essential instructional approach to mathematical word problems that improves learning outcomes. To facilitate meaningful learning, create inclusive learning environments, and make content accessible and flexible, teaching is crucial. Consequently, to maximise learning, educators must provide adaptive instruction for mathematical word problems. The emphasis on the fifth strand is "a consistent propensity to view mathematics as meaningful, practical, and worthwhile, along with a faith in one’s own productivity and hard work.” These authors claim that students excelled in conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and strategic competence. Furthermore, a robust correlation was observed between procedural fluency and conceptual comprehension. Nonetheless, conceptual knowledge serves as the foundation for all other mathematical concepts.

How to Cite

Molaba , S. E. (2026). Exploring the integration of multiple methods of representation for the effective teaching of mathematics word problems. International Journal of Studies in Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.66434/ijssr.v1i1.514
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  2. Alex, J., & Mammen, K. J. (2018). Students’ understanding of geometry terminology through the lens of Van Hiele theory. Pythagoras, 39(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v39i1.376
  3. Alghamdi, A., Jitendra, A. K., & Lein, A. E. (2020). Solving multi­plication and division word problems with schematic diagrams: The role of schema-based instruction in supporting mathematical thinking skills of students with mathematics learning disabilities. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01078-0
  4. Alhassan, I., Sammon, D., & Daly, M. (2019). Critical success factors for data governance: A theory-building approach. Information Systems Management, 36(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/1080/10580530.2019.1589670
  5. Alkateeb, M. (2019). Multiple representations in the 8th-grade mathematics textbook and the extent to which teachers implement them. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(1), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3982
  6. Al-Mutawah, M. A., Thomas, R., Eid, A., Mahmoud, E. Y., & Fateel, M. J. (2019). Conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge, and problem-solving skills in mathematics: high school graduates' work analysis and standpoints. International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.73.258.273
  7. Anhalt, C. O., & Cortez, R. (2016). Developing an understanding of mathematical modeling in secondary teacher preparation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(6), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9309-8
  8. Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., ... & Rahwan, I. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
  9. Bobis, J., Khosronejad, M., Way, J., & Anderson, J. (2020). Sage on the stage” or “meddler in the middle: Shifting mathematics teachers’ identities to support student engagement. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(6), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09444-1
  10. Boonen, A. J., de Koning, B. B., Jolles, J., & Van der Schoot, M. (2016). Word problem solving in contemporary math education: A plea for reading comprehension skills training. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 191. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00191
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
  12. Brown, J., Skow, K., & the IRIS Center. (2016). Mathematics: Identifying and addressing student errors. Retrieved from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/case_studies/ics_matherr.pdf
  13. CAST Professional Learning. (2017). Top 5 UDL tips for fostering expert learners. Retrieved from http://castprofessionallearning.org/project/top-5-udl-tips-for-fostering-expertlearners
  14. Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A., & Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: a model for creative computational problem solving. International Journal of STEM. Education, 7(1), 938–954. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z
  15. Choy, B. H., Thomas, M. O. J., & Yoon, C. (2017). The FOCUS framework: characterizing productive noticing during lesson planning, delivery, and review. In E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 445–466). Cham: Springer.
  16. Clarke, D., Mesiti, C., Cao, Y., & Novotna, J. (2017). The lexicon project: Examining the consequences for international comparative research of pedagogical naming systems from different cultures. In T. Dooley & G. Gueudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME10, February 1–5, 2017) (pp. 1610–1617). Dublin: DCU Institute of Education and ERME.
  17. Collins, K. (2016). Ten: Participation in behaviour change: technique or tyranny?. In Beyond Behaviour Change (pp. 199–216). Bristol, UK: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447317586.ch010
  18. Collins, P. H. (2019). Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478007098
  19. Courtad, C. A. (2019). Making your classroom smart: Universal design for learning and technology. In V. Uskov, R. Howlett & L. Jain (eds.), Smart education and e-learning 2019. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, (vol. 144). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8260-4_44
  20. Cypress, B. S. (2017). Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 36(4), 253–263. https://doi.org/101097/DCC.0000000000000253
  21. Dack, H. (2019). Understanding teacher candidate misconceptions and concerns about differentiated instruction. The Teacher Educator, 54(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2018.1485802
  22. Danesh, M., & Nourdad, N. (2017). On the Relationship between Creative Problem-Solving Skill and EFL Reading Comprehension Ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(3), 234–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0703.10
  23. Darnis, S., & Dodd, J. (2021). Increasing the Learning Result of Early Mathematics Odd and Even Numbers through Montessori "Cards and Counters" Activity: A Quasi-experimental Study. Al-Athfal: Jurnal Pendidikan Anak, 7(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.14421/al-athfal.2021.72-01
  24. Darsih, E. (2018). Learner-centered teaching: What makes it effective. Indonesian EFL Journal, 4(1), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.25134/ieflj.v4i1.796
  25. De Klerk, E. D. & Palmer, J. M. (2020). Exploring transformative social justice teaching: A South African education policy perspective. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3), 828–844. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.465153513116157
  26. Demirsoy, E. (2020). Challenges faced by newly arrived students with low English proficiency and their English teachers in Sweden: Three teachers’ accounts (Unpublished PhD thesis). Trollhättan: University West, Sweden
  27. Deschaine, M. E., & Whale, D. E. (2017). Increasing student engagement in online educational leadership courses. Journal of Educators Online, 14(1), 36–47.
  28. Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y
  29. Emanuel, E. P. L., Kirana, A., & Chamidah, A. (2021, March). Enhancing students’ ability to solve word problems in Mathematics. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1832, No. 1, p. 012056). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1832/1/012056
  30. Ergen, Y. (2020). 'Does mathematics fool us?' A study on fourth-grade students' non-routine maths problem-solving skills. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3), 828–848. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.465172146087415
  31. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
  32. Fatmanissa, N., & Kusnandi (2017). The linguistic challenges of mathematics word problems: A research and literature review. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, Special issue on Graduate Students' Research on Education, 73–92. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli.2017.7798
  33. Fernández, C., & Choy, B. H. (2019). Theoretical lenses to develop mathematics teacher noticing: Learning, teaching, psychological, and social perspectives. In S. Llinares & O. Chapman (eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 337–360). Boston: Brill
  34. Friesen, M. E. (2017). Teachers' competence of analysing the use of multiple representations in mathematics classroom situations and its assessment in a vignette-based test (Unpublished PhD thesis), Ludwigsburg: Pädagogische Hochschule Ludwigsburg, Germany.
  35. Ghali, R., Abdessalem, H. B., Frasson, C., & Nkambou, R. (2018). Identifying brain characteristics of bright students. Journal of Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications, 10(03), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.4236/jilsa.2018.103006
  36. Haegele, J. A., Holland, S. K., Wilson, W. J., Maher, A. J., Kirk, T. N., & Mason, A. (2024). Universal design for learning in physical education: Overview and critical reflection. European Physical Education Review, 30(2), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X231202658
  37. Hellman, T., Molin, F., & Svartengren, M. (2019). A Qualitative Study on Employees' Experiences of a Support Model for Systematic Work Environment Management. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(19), 3551. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193551
  38. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2020). Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Limited.
  39. Henriksen, D., Gretter, S., & Richardson, C. (2020). Design thinking and the practicing teacher: Addressing problems of practice in teacher education. Teaching Education, 31(2), 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1531841
  40. Hsieh, F. J., Wang, T. Y., & Chen, Q. (2020). Ideal mathematics teaching behaviors: A comparison between the perspectives of senior high school students and their teachers in Taiwan and mainland China. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(1), em1808. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/110491
  41. Kim, H. J. (2020). Concreteness fading strategy: A promising and sustainable instructional model in mathematics classrooms. Sustainability, 12(6), 2211. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062211
  42. Kivunja, C. (2018). Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. International journal of higher education, 7(6), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n6p44
  43. Kraft, M. A. (2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational researcher, 49(4), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912798
  44. Lambert, R. (2021). The magic is in the margins: Universal Design for Learning Math (UDL Math). Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching Pre-K–12, 114(9), 660–669. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTLT.2020.0282
  45. Lambert, R. (2020, February). Increasing access to universally designed mathematics classrooms. Policy Analysis for California Education. https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/increasing-access-universally-designed-mathematicsclassrooms
  46. Lawson, A. (2016). The mathematical territory between direct modelling and proficiency (Research Monograph No. 64). Ontario Ministry of Education.
  47. Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2019). You can’t change your basic ability, but you work at things, and that is how we get hard things done: Testing the role of growth mindset on response to setbacks, educational attainment, and cognitive ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(9), 1640–1655. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000669
  48. Liljedah, P., Trigo, M. S., Malaspina, U., & Bruder, R. (2016). Problem-solving in mathematics education. Hamburg: Springer Open Prime Teaching.
  49. Luhrs, C., & McAnally-Salas, L. (2016). Collaboration levels in asynchronous discussion forums: A social network analysis. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 14(1), 29–44.
  50. Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., & de Eyto, A. (2018). Ensuring rigor in qualitative data analysis: A design research approach to coding combining NVivo with traditional material methods. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1609406918786362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918786362
  51. Mahofa, E., Adendorff, S. & Kwenda, C. (2018). Exploring the learning of mathematics word problems by African immigrant early learners. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2017.1390935
  52. Mainali, B. (2022). Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs Towards Mathematics: A Case Study. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), 412--435. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12103
  53. Marks, M. B., Huag, J. C., & Huckabee, W. A. (2016). Understanding the factors that influence student satisfaction with the undergraduate business major. Journal of Education for Business, 91(5), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1188757
  54. Moleko, M. M., & Mosimege, M. D. (2020). Teachers’ and learners’ experiences for guiding effective teaching and learning of mathematics word problems. Issues in Educational Research, 30(4), 1375–1394. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.606279637425764
  55. Moleko, M. M., & Mosimege, M. D. (2021). Flexible teaching of mathematics word problems through multiple means of representation. Pythagoras, 42(1), a575. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v42i1.575
  56. Morin, L. L., Watson, S. M. R., Hester, P., & Raver, S. (2017). The use of a bar model drawing to teach word problem solving to students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717690116
  57. Moriyanti, M., Muna, H., & Ismail, N. M. (2019). Visualization and comprehension: corroborating children’s reading ability. Englisia: Journal of Language, Education, and Humanities 7(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.22373/ej.v7i1.4508
  58. Moss, J., Bruce, C., & Bobis, J. (2016). Young children’s access to powerful mathematics ideas: A review of current challenges and new developments in the early years. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (3rd ed.), (pp. 153–190). New York: Taylor & Francis.
  59. Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaie, F. (2017). Snowball sampling: A purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670
  60. Novak, K. (2016). UDL now!: A teacher’s guide to applying universal design for learning in today’s classroom. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
  61. Ojageer, U. (2019). Developing an inclusive pedagogy approach for full-service schools: An action research approach (Unpublished PhD thesis). Potchefstroom: North-West University, South Africa.
  62. Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D. (2017). Universal design for learning in pre-k to grade 12 classrooms: A systematic review of research. Exceptionality, 25(2), 116-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450
  63. Ontario College of Teachers. (2016). The professional learning framework for the teaching profession. Toronto, ON: Author.
  64. Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. (2016). Settlement services in isolated rural areas: A research report. http://atwork.settlement.org/downloads/Settlement_Services_in_Isolated_Rural_Areas.pdf
  65. Robinson, D. E., & Wizer, D. R. (2016). Universal design for learning and the quality matters guidelines for the design and implementation of online learning events. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 17–32.
  66. Salemeh, Z. & Etchells, M. J. (2016). A case study: Sources of difficulties in solving word problems in an International private school. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science, 2(1), 149–163.
  67. Salihu, L., Aro, M. & Rasanen, P. (2018). Children with learning difficulties in mathematics: Relating mathematics skills and reading comprehension. Issues in Educational Research, 28(4), 1024–1038. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.022495701125234
  68. Scott, L., & Temple, P. (2017). A conceptual framework for building UDL in a special education distance education course. Journal of Educators Online, 14(1), 48–59.
  69. Sitopu, J. W., Khairani, M., Roza, M., Judijanto, L., & Aslan, A. (2024). The importance of integrating mathematical literacy in the primary education curriculum: A literature review. International Journal of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 121-134.
  70. Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2017). Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
  71. Spooner, F., Root, J. R., Saunders, A. F., & Browder, D. M. (2019). An updated evidence-based practice review on teaching mathematics to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 40(3), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751055
  72. Sukhai, M. A. & Mohler, C. E. (2016). Creating a Culture of Accessibility in the Sciences. Toronto: Academic Press.
  73. Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R., Jr. (2017). How to Create a Bad Survey Instrument. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 9(4), 411–415. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-17-00375.1
  74. Surur, A. M. (2021). Thorndike’s theory for improving Madrasah teacher’s creative thinking and publication. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering, Technology, and Social Science. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210421.119
  75. Telem, T. (2020). The language of mindset: How spoken and written patterns shape cognitive frameworks. Academic Press.
  76. Van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., & Poch, A. L. (2019). Special education teachers’ perceptions of students’ with disabilities ability, instructional needs, and difficulties using visual representations to solve mathematics problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418793929
  77. Wang, W., Zhang, X., Shi, Y., Gao, F., & Xu, W. (2021, April). Exploration and analysis of university scientific research data management strategies under big data environment. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1881, No. 3, p. 032059). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 6596/1881/3/032059
  78. Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C.,…, & Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y435