MATH STRATEGIS IN SOLVING

Strategies for Successful Word Problem Solving by Students with Learning Disabi
“Strategy instruction” is a promising intervention for helping students with learning
disabilities (LD) improve their ability to solve mathematical problems. Strategies for problem
solving strategies may range from specific heuristics (methods used by solvers to present
word problems in new ways that facilitate understanding) to broad guidelines:
 Specific heuristics aim directly at helping students understand and solve a problem. Two
heuristics are paraphrasing the problem and drawing a picture depicting the situation.
 Broad guidelines help students activate and monitor domain specific heuristics (e.g. self-
monitoring, self-evaluation). An example is asking students involved in solving a problem to
first to predict the answer, then to carry out the calculations, and finally to compare their
prediction and the result of their calculation (Butler, Beckingham, & Lauscher, 2005).
The FAST DRAW Strategy: A Domain Specific Heuristic
FAST DRAW is a domain specific heuristic that Mercer and Miller (1992) used to teach
mathematics to elementary students with learning problems. Specifically, FAST DRAW was
used to teach these students to remember multiplication facts and solve word problems.
The initials FAST DRAW stand for:
 Find what you’re solving for.
 Ask yourself, what are the parts of the problem.
 Set up the numbers.
 Tie down the sign.
 Discover the (calculation) sign.
 Read the problem (recognize the numbers involved).
 Answer or draw and check (if the answer does not come automatically make a drawing that
helps you find it).
 Write the answer.
FAST DRAW uses a concrete-to semiconcrete-to abstract sequence of activities. In concert
with this sequence, it successively uses tally marks, drawings, simple words, and traditional
paragraphs to present problems. Importantly, difficulty is controlled. The difficulty of
problems is increased gradually, following this sequence: Problems are presented as simple
computations, then presented in complete sentences, then presented with extraneous
information, then presented as traditional word problems. In the final phase, students are
asked to create their own problems and to apply multiplication to real–life word problems.
Conceptually, this strategy is sound. Thus, it’s not surprising that Mercer and Miller’s (1992)
field-tests found that the students—despite their learning problems—improved their problem
solving skills.
Two Broad Guidelines Strategies
Case, Harris, and Graham (1992) used a Broad Guideline Strategy to successfully teach
fifth and sixth graders with LD to solve one-step addition (joining, combining) and
subtraction (separate, comparison, missing addend, combining) word problems. Their
strategy asked students to:
  read the problem.
 look for important words and circle them.
 draw a picture to represent the problem’s information.
 write the equation.
 write the answer.
But this was not all. They also implemented a self-instructional strategy (defining the
problem, devising a plan, applying the strategy, self-evaluating and self-reinforcing) to
regulate strategy use. Their instructional procedures included:
 teaching students to identify important cue words commonly found in word problems.
 having teachers meet with individual students to discuss their performance on baseline
probes, the importance of learning the strategy, and the student’s commitment to the task.
 modeling the strategy and self-instructions.
 having students master the strategy steps.
 engaging students in guided practice.
 asking students to show how they independently perform the strategy and use the self-
instructions.
 giving students ample opportunities to apply the strategy so they become proficient and can
generalize it.
Like FAST DRAW, a domain specific heuristic, Case, Harris, and Graham’s Broad Guideline
Strategy helped students improve their ability to solve word problems. Moreover, the
researchers found that the students generalized the strategy across settings and that they
and their teachers developed a positive view of the strategy and self-instructions.
Similarly, Montague and her colleagues found that a combination of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies (Broad Guideline Strategies) helped middle- and high-school
students with LD improve their ability to solve mathematical problems. On the basis of
several studies, Montague concluded that teaching students both cognitive and
metacognitive strategies is superior to teaching them only a cognitive or metacognitive
strategy. (See Montague, 1992; Montague, Applegate, & Marquard, 1993; Montague & Bos,
1986). Below is an overview of Montague’s cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
Montague’s cognitive strategy teaches students to:
 read the problem to understand it.
 paraphrase the problem by translating the information into their own words.
 visualize it by drawing a picture or diagram).
 hypothesize how to solve it by making a plan to solve it.
 predict the answer.
 carry out the calculations.
 evaluate the results.
Montague’s metacognitive strategy teaches students to:
  self-instruct (say—e.g. “I must read the problem carefully. If I don’t understand I have to
read it again”).
 self-question (ask—“Have I read and understood the problem?”).
 self-monitor (check—e.g. “As I solve the problem I check if I have understood what it says”).
References
Butler, D., Beckingham, B., & Lauscher, H. (2005). Promoting strategic learning by eighth-
grade students struggling in mathematics: A report of three case studies. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 156-174.