Journal of Educational Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association

2009, Vol. 101, No. 1, 88 –100 0022-0663/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013156

Equivalence in Symbolic and Nonsymbolic Contexts: Benefits of Solving

Problems With Manipulatives
Jody Sherman and Jeffrey Bisanz
University of Alberta

Children’s failure on equivalence problems (e.g., 5 ⫹ 4 ⫽ 7 ⫹ __) is believed to be the result of

misunderstanding the equal sign and has been tested using symbolic problems (including “⫽”). For Study
1 (N ⫽ 48), we designed a nonsymbolic method for presenting equivalence problems to determine
whether Grade 2 children’s difficulty is due to the presence of symbols or to a more fundamental
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

misunderstanding of equivalence. Children’s superior performance on nonsymbolic versus symbolic

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

problems suggests that children fail to map their understanding of equivalence onto problems presented
with the symbols of arithmetic. For Study 2 (N ⫽ 32), we implemented a within-subject design to assess
whether experience with nonsymbolic problems would facilitate performance on symbolic problems.
This hypothesis was confirmed. Exposure to nonsymbolic problems may have enabled children to map
their successful concepts and strategies to symbolic equivalence problems.

Keywords: equivalence, mathematical symbols, mapping, equal sign

Equivalence, in its broadest sense, implies a relation in which
one item can be replaced by another (Kieran, 1981). In formal
arithmetic, equivalence involves recognizing that two sides of an
equation must have the same quantity (Alibali, 1999). Children’s
understanding of equivalence in arithmetic is generally tested
using worksheets with problems such as a ⫹ b ⫹ c ⫽ __ ⫹ c,
whereby children have to make both sides of the equal sign
quantitatively identical. Despite success on canonical arithmetic
problems (e.g., a ⫹ b ⫹ c ⫽ __) of similar magnitude, perfor-
mance on equivalence problems is generally low. For example,
Perry (1985, as cited in Perry, Church, & Goldin-Meadow, 1988)
found that approximately 88% of fourth- and fifth-grade students
failed problems of this form. Both error patterns and children’s
verbal explanations indicate a misunderstanding of the symbol for
equivalence (the equal sign). This misunderstanding could hinder
success in higher mathematics, yet it often goes undetected (Ki-
eran, 1981; Knuth, Alibali, McNeil, Weinberg, & Stephens, 2005;
McNeil & Alibali, 2005a).
Jody Sherman and Jeffrey Bisanz, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Jody Sherman is now at the
Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley.
Support for this research was provided in part by a scholarship from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Jody
Sherman and a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada to Jeffrey Bisanz. We are grateful to Elena Nicoladis,
Connie Varnhagen, Nancy Galambos, Jacqueline Leighton, and Martha
Alibali for their helpful comments and to Elizabeth Jacob and Ozlem
Cankaya for their assistance in data collection and entry. Finally, we
especially appreciate the helpful cooperation of students, teachers, and staff
at both the Black Gold and St. Thomas Aquinas Roman Catholic school
districts.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jody
Sherman, 4511 Tolman Hall, Graduate School of Education, University of
California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1670. E-mail: jodysherman@berkeley.edu
88
Not only is misunderstanding the equal sign prevalent, it may be
difficult to correct (Alibali, 1999; McNeil & Alibali, 2000; Seo &
Ginsburg, 2003). Frequent and intense exposure to canonical prob-
lems (e.g., a ⫹ b ⫽ c) in both textbooks and classroom instruction
appear to enforce the operator notion that the equal sign means “the
answer comes next” or “do something,” rather than the relational
view that both sides are equivalent (Alibali, 1999; Baroody &
Ginsburg, 1983; Behr, Erlwanger, & Nichols, 1980; Carpenter,
Franke, & Levi, 2003; Kieran, 1981; McNeil & Alibali, 2004,
2005b; Perry, 1991; Perry et al., 1988; Renwick, 1932; Sáenz-
Ludlow & Walgamuth, 1998; Seo & Ginsburg, 2003). An operator
view of the equal sign makes solving for an unknown difficult, can
make noncanonical equations (e.g., __ ⫽ 2 ⫹ 3) look incorrect, and
may impede comprehension of more advanced mathematics, such as
algebra (Carpenter et al., 2003; Kieran, 1981; Knuth et al., 2005;
Renwick, 1932; Seo & Ginsburg, 2003). Children’s exposure to
canonical examples may also lead to the formation of addition
schemas that include the belief that (a) addends are always to the
left of the equal sign and the solutions are on the right, (b)
equations always involve operating on all terms, and (c) the equal
sign means “the answer comes next” (McNeil & Alibali, 2002,
2004). Although applying addition schemas to canonical problems
may yield correct solutions, these schemas limit children’s ability
to solve equations that require relational reasoning, such as equiv-
alence problems and algebra.
Several researchers have attempted to improve children’s suc-
cess on equivalence problems and promote a relational, rather than
operator, view of the equal sign. For example, Rittle-Johnson
(2006) assigned third- and fourth-grade students to one of four
conditions on the basis of crossing (a) instruction of the add–
subtract procedure for equivalence problems versus children hav-
ing to invent the procedure, and (b) self-explanation versus no
explanation. Children in the self-explanation condition saw fic-
tional students’ responses (both correct and incorrect) to equiva-
lence problems and were asked to explain orally both how the
 EQUIVALENCE PROBLEMS WITHOUT SYMBOLS
students solved the problem and why they were right or wrong.
Both self-explanation and instruction helped children learn and
maintain a correct procedure for solving equivalence problems
(e.g., a ⫹ b ⫹ c ⫽ __ ⫹ d), as accuracy on equivalence problems
improved significantly, but self-explanation had the additional
benefit of promoting transfer to novel equivalence problems (e.g.,
a ⫹ b ⫹ __ ⫽ c ⫹ d). Further research is needed to determine
whether improvements are long lasting and generalize to other
algebra-type problems. Some researchers have found limited suc-
cess on equivalence problems even after various interventions or
instruction (e.g., Alibali, 1999).
Although research to date has shown that children do poorly on
equivalence problems, the fact that tests of equivalence typically
require children to solve a limited range of equivalence problems
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
in the context of conventional symbols, including the equal sign,
has precluded answers to three questions that are important for
understanding the developmental course of this difficulty. The first
question is whether young children understand equivalence inde-
pendently of the symbols of arithmetic. Their failure may be due
to limited cognitive or operating capacities that are surpassed by
the demands of equivalence problems, which may in turn constrain
their attempts to understand the equal sign. That is, misunderstand-
ing the equal sign might be a secondary manifestation of a more
fundamental difficulty linked to the conceptual or information-
processing capacities of young children. Testing this question
would necessitate a presentational format that retains the problem
structure of equivalence problems (e.g., a ⫹ b ⫽ c ⫹ __) but does
not include the typical symbols of arithmetic, particularly the equal
sign. High accuracy on equivalence problems in such a nonsym-
bolic context would support the notion that children are able to
reason about equivalence in the context of arithmetic, and do so
successfully in the absence of conventional symbols, yet fail to
map their successful approaches to the same problems presented
symbolically.
Children may indeed realize that the equal sign represents
equivalence, but this recognition appears to depend on the context
in which the equal sign is presented (McNeil & Alibali, 2005b; Seo
& Ginsburg, 2003). For example, Seo and Ginsburg examined
Grade 2 children’s understanding of the equal sign across a variety
of contexts such as canonical (e.g., a ⫹ b ⫽ __) and noncanonical
(e.g., __ ⫽ a ⫹ b, or 3 ⫽ 3) arithmetic expressions, coins and
Cuisenaire rods (e.g., 1 dime ⫽ 10 pennies, or one red rod ⫽ 2
white rods), and in no context (e.g., “What does the equal sign
mean?”). Children were more likely to give a relational response to
questions about the role of the equal sign when the symbol was
presented in the context of coins or rods than when the sign occurred
in context of conventional arithmetic symbols. The authors con-
cluded that children hold both relational and operator views of the
equal sign, but that understanding is contextually bound such that
children rely on operator interpretations when presented with
symbolic expressions. If Seo and Ginsburg’s conclusions about a
context effect on understanding the equal sign extend to situations
in which children must solve problems, then accuracy should be
higher on nonsymbolic than on symbolic problems. We examined
this possibility in Study 1.
The second question is whether some types of equivalence
problems are more amenable to solution by children than others. In
most studies, either a single type of problem is presented, so the
effects of different problem structures and processing demands on
89
performance cannot be assessed, or several types of problems are
used but performance across all types is collapsed. For example,
problems such as a ⫹ b ⫹ c ⫽ d ⫹ __ and a ⫹ b ⫹ c ⫽ ___ ⫹
c have been included in several studies (Alibali, 1999; McNeil &
Alibali, 2000, 2005a; Perry, 1991; Perry et al., 1988; Rittle-
Johnson & Alibali, 1999), but performance across these different
problem types is often collapsed and presented as a composite
score. In a notable exception, McNeil and Alibali (2004) deliber-
ately examined performance on two different problem types and
found that Grade 4 children have fewer difficulties encoding
problems in the form a ⫹ b ⫹ c ⫽ __ ⫹ c than in the form a ⫹
b ⫹ c ⫽ a ⫹ __. The performance discrepancy was likely due to
the similarity between the structure of the latter problem type and
canonical arithmetic problems. Children would often reconstruct
this type of equivalence to fit the form a ⫹ b ⫹ c ⫹ a ⫽ __.
Thus, equivalence problems may differ in the nature of the
solution processes they afford. For example, identity problems
(a ⫹ b ⫽ a ⫹ __) could be solved without computation by making
both sides of the equation look the same (by inserting “b” on the
blank line). That is, children could detect an a– b–a pattern and
respond by completing the pattern without computation. Similarly,
commutativity problems (a ⫹ b ⫽ b ⫹ __) could be solved by
reversing the order of the terms in the first half of the equation. In
contrast, part–whole problems (a ⫹ b ⫽ c ⫹ __) would be difficult
to solve correctly without using at least some sort of arithmetic
procedure. Specifically, the c term must be subtracted from the
sum of a and b to identify the missing value. It is impossible to use
identity cues to solve problems of this problem type successfully,
at least in the symbolic format. Combination problems (a ⫹ b ⫹
c ⫽ a ⫹ __) could be solved by recognizing that the two a terms
are the same and that the b and c terms must be combined. Thus,
although all four types of problems have the structure of an
equivalence problem, they differ considerably in their demands on
the problem solver. Part–whole and combination problems require
quantitative solutions involving arithmetic operations. Although
identity and commutativity problems could be solved quantita-
tively, they also afford qualitative solutions that reflect a sensitiv-
ity to the constraint that the numbers on either side of the equation
must be the same. If the concept of equivalence is operationalized
in terms of making sets of numbers equal using arithmetic oper-
ations, then performance on identity and commutativity problems
may not necessarily reflect equivalence, but it may be a precursor.
Potential differences in accuracy and strategy use across the prob-
lem types were tested in Study 1.
The third question, explored in Study 2, is whether children
might benefit from experience in a nonsymbolic context. Should
Grade 2 children demonstrate success on nonsymbolic equivalence
problems, then the potential exists that exposure to such problems
may help children map successful strategies onto the same prob-
lems presented with conventional symbols. Such a result would be
important for at least three reasons. First, it would demonstrate a
situation, or context, in which children could either invent or
access a relational strategy for solving equivalence problems suc-
cessfully in the absence of potentially distracting or misleading
symbols and associated schemas. Second, success in this condition
would highlight children’s ability to reason about complex equa-
tions, using arithmetic on both sides of an expression, long before
algebra is formally instructed in the classroom. Third, the nonsym-
bolic condition might represent a relatively simple, inexpensive
 90 SHERMAN AND BISANZ
intervention that teachers could implement in the classroom to help
students learn to solve mathematical equivalence problems.
Study 1
In Study 1, we presented nonsymbolic equivalence problems—
equivalence problems without conventional symbols—to Grade 2
children. The nonsymbolic context, in this case, refers to the use of
manipulatives to iconically represent the quantities of the addends
in the equation. If children can solve these problems, then their
poor performance is likely not due to a fundamental deficit in
understanding the concept of equivalence in arithmetic. Rather, the
well-documented poor performance by school children on equiv-
alence problems is likely due to a limited understanding of the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
conventional symbols involved, namely the equal sign. In contrast,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
if children lack some important domain-general logical structures
necessary for reasoning about equivalent relations across sides of
an equation (Kieran, 1981), then we would expect that children
would demonstrate little success even on the nonsymbolic prob-
lems. In this case, additional conceptual support may be necessary
to provide children with the requisite skills and understanding for
approaching pre-algebra problems such as equivalence equations.
To examine potential differences in accuracy and strategy use
related to the context of equivalence problems, we assigned non-
symbolic problems to some children and quantitatively identical
symbolic problems to others. If children can solve nonsymbolic
problems but fail to solve symbolic problems, this result would be
the strongest possible evidence that failure is due to the symbols
used to present problems and to the misinterpretation of the equal
sign that has developed in the course of formal instruction, rather
than to a deficiency in children’s understanding of equivalence.
Success on nonsymbolic problems but not on symbolic problems
would also support the idea that children typically fail symbolic
equivalence problems not because they lack the requisite addition
and subtraction skills to solve problems, but because their expe-
rience with canonical problems, and the subsequent addition sche-
mas, prompts them to solve the problems in an operator fashion.
In Study 1 we included all four types of problems, as well as
simple three-term addition problems, so that comparisons could be
made between problems requiring some form of equivalence and
problems that simply required addition of terms. If children per-
formed poorly on addition problems, then poor performance on
other problem types, especially part–whole and combination prob-
lems, might be due to a deficit in arithmetic skills rather than to a
failure to understand equivalence. In addition to accuracy, we were
also interested in how children reported solving the problems.
Verbal justifications were obtained to help us better understand the
approaches children were using to solve the problems. We also
examined children’s accuracy in relation to gender, as gender
sometimes has been found to be related to mathematical perfor-
mance (Felson & Trudeau, 1991; Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon,
1990) and attitudes toward mathematics (Hyde, Fennema, Ryan,
Frost, & Hopp, 1990).
Method
Participants and Design
Participants included 48 second-grade students (mean age ⫽ 8
years 0 months, range ⫽ from 7 years 3 months to 9 years 1
month), 22 of whom were male and 26 were female. Four addi-
tional children were tested but not included because of experi-
menter error (three children) or inadequate comprehension of
English (one child). All children were from schools in a small,
largely middle-class town in the Canadian province of Alberta.
Self-reported levels of education, economic vitality, and living
standards by town residents were mostly at or above comparison
data (see Leduc Genuine Wealth Accounting Project, 2005, for
details).
Problem sets were manipulated in terms of presentation format
(Figure 1). Children were assigned unsystematically to either the
nonsymbolic or symbolic condition (11 boys and 13 girls in each
condition) with the constraint that children within each of the six
classrooms were distributed across conditions as evenly as possible.
Materials and Procedures
All participants were tested individually in two 20-min sessions
separated by approximately 1 week. In both sessions, children
began by completing practice problems that included some basic
arithmetic problems (up to five problems, depending on perfor-
mance) and one example of a problem used to test equivalence
(1 ⫹ 1 ⫽ 1⫹ __). Practice problems, presented in the same format
as assigned equivalence problems, were used to familiarize the
children with the task and materials, as well as the instructions.
Children then solved half of the arithmetic problems. In the second
session, children began with the same practice problems as in the
first session and then completed the remaining half of the prob-
lems. Children’s ability to count, compare numerical sets, and
solve basic arithmetic problems, as well as their working memory
capacities, were assessed to determine whether poor performance
on the five types of problems was related to deficits in skills
necessary for solving accurately, as opposed to a misunderstanding
of the equal sign. Correlations between equivalence problems and
the additional measures did not provide any noteworthy patterns or
conclusions, however, perhaps because of small sample sizes.
These results are not described here but are available elsewhere
(Sherman, 2004).
Practice arithmetic problems and instructions. Children as-
signed to the symbolic condition were presented with arithmetic
problems typed on laminated flash cards. Immediately after pre-
senting the child with the first card, the experimenter isolated the
equal sign (by covering both sides of the arithmetic equation with
her hands) and asked, “What does this symbol mean?” Answers
were recorded, and no feedback was provided. Justifications were
coded according to the criteria listed in Appendix A.
Next, the experimenter asked the child to write the answer to 2 ⫹
2 ⫽ ___ on the line with a dry-erase pen. Children were told to “put
a number on the line so that when you put together the numbers on
this (experimenter pointed to left) side of the equal sign, you’ll have
the same number as on this (experimenter pointed to right) side of the
equal sign.” Instructions were given in this way to make them appli-
cable to the five types of problems used in the problem sets. Feedback
was provided, phrased to match the instructions.
Following confirmation that the child understood the task, the
next problem was administered with similar instructions and feed-
back. If the child was successful on both problems, then the
equivalence problem 1 ⫹ 1 ⫽ 1 ⫹ __ was administered. If the
child was unsuccessful on either of the arithmetic problems, then
 EQUIVALENCE PROBLEMS WITHOUT SYMBOLS
Nonsymbolic
Symbolic (Study 1)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Symbolic (Study 2)
Figure 1. Stimuli used for the symbolic and nonsymbolic formats.
up to two additional problems were administered, until the child
answered correctly, prior to the equivalence problem.
Children assigned to the nonsymbolic condition were presented
with the same problems but with different materials (Figure 1). A
6-cm-high piece of blue cardboard, folded to look like a tent,
served to separate the two sides of the equations. On the child’s left
side of the tent was a piece of orange construction paper and on the
right was purple construction paper, to make the two sides distinct.
Wooden cylinder blocks were placed in opaque plastic bins ap-
proximately 3 cm high to represent each term of the arithmetic
expressions. A screen was erected so the child could not see the
materials, and the experimenter arranged the bins and blocks to
represent 1 ⫹ 1 ⫽ __. The experimenter solved the first problem
by placing two blocks in the bin, and children were asked if the
answer was correct. Children’s responses were recorded, and feed-
back was provided. Following confirmation that children under-
stood the task, the remaining problems were presented. Feedback
was provided, and the screen was replaced between trials.
For the sample equivalence problem (1 ⫹ 1 ⫽ 1 ⫹ __),
children in the symbolic condition were instructed to “put a
number on the line so that when you put together these on this
side of the equal sign (experimenter pointed to numbers on left),
you’ll have the same number as when you put together these on
this side of the equal sign (experimenter pointed to number and
blank line on right)”. Children in the nonsymbolic condition
were instructed to “put blocks in the empty bin so that when you
put together these (experimenter pointed to blocks on left) on
this side of the blue tent, you’ll have the same number as when
you put together these (experimenter pointed to blocks and
empty bin) on this side of the blue tent.” The experimenter then
prompted the children to justify their responses by asking,
“Why is your answer right?” Feedback was given.
Arithmetic problems. Each child solved 20 problems, includ-
ing four addition (a ⫹ b ⫽ __), four identity (a ⫹ b ⫽ a ⫹ __), four
91
5 + 2 = 4 + ____
commutativity (a ⫹ b ⫽ b ⫹ __), four part–whole (a ⫹ b ⫽
c ⫹ __), and four combination (a ⫹ b ⫹ c ⫽ a ⫹ __) problems.
Ten problems, two of each type, were presented in each session.
Within each set of 10, a, b, c, and correct solutions never appeared
more than twice in a sequence; in half the problems, a ⫽ b ⫽ c and
a ⬍ b. Two such problem sets were created and presented in
forward and reverse orders, resulting in four problem orders.
Problem order was counterbalanced as evenly as possible within
condition and gender. Problems were constructed so that magni-
tude, as indexed by a ⫹ b, was balanced across the five types of
problems. Addends ranged from 1 to 6. Instructions identical to
those used for practice problems were provided for the first ex-
ample of each of the five problem types for both sessions. In this
way, children heard the same instructions for each new type of
problem. Feedback was not provided, performance was scored as
correct or incorrect, and children’s justifications were recorded on
all problems.
For the symbolic format, problems were presented using a
worksheet on which all problems were covered except for the one
being solved. For the nonsymbolic format, problems were pre-
sented as described for the practice arithmetic problems and the
screen was placed so that children could not watch the next
problem being arranged.
Children’s justifications were coded first according to criteria
described in Appendix B and then reclassified as either equiva-
lence or nonequivalence for parsimony and consistency with pre-
vious research (see Alibali, 1999; Perry et al., 1988). This dichot-
omy is used throughout with one exception: Identical numerosity
justifications are discussed separately in some comparisons to
highlight instances in which children made explicit reference to
making both sides of the expression quantitatively equivalent. It is
important to note that justifications do not necessarily denote
success or failure on a problem. That is, children may answer a
problem correctly but say that they have solved the problem by
 92
making both sides look the same (identity justification) or that they
solved it by adding the terms together (arithmetic justification),
which would yield a correct solution on addition problems. A
stringent criterion for judgments of identical numerosity (Appen-
dix B) was useful for identifying situations in which children
specifically stated that they made both sides have the same
amount. Justifications on all problems for 10 children were coded
by two researchers as equivalence, nonequivalence, and other with
an interrater reliability of 89.4%. Discrepancies were resolved
through discussion.
Results
Performance in Symbolic Versus Nonsymbolic Conditions
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
To determine whether performance relates to the presence of
symbols, we compared accuracy of Grade 2 children in the non-
symbolic condition to that of Grade 2 children in the symbolic
condition. A 2 (condition) ⫻ 2 (gender) ⫻ 5 (problem type)
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the last
variable was conducted. Tests of simple effects were used to explore
main effects and interactions. Data are presented in Figure 2. Children
in the nonsymbolic condition solved twice as many problems
correctly (M ⫽ 16.92, SD ⫽ 4.56, summed across all five condi-
tions) as children in the symbolic condition (M ⫽ 8.33, SD ⫽
4.05), F(1, 44) ⫽ 48.05, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .52. This difference
cannot be attributed to a general discrepancy in arithmetic skill
because children in the two conditions did not differ in perfor-
mance on practice arithmetic problems, F(1, 44) ⬍ 1.
Furthermore, performance differed according to problem type,
F(4, 176) ⫽ 29.09, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .40, with the highest scores for
addition problems (M ⫽ 3.67, SD ⫽ .72) and the lowest scores for
part–whole problems (M ⫽ 1.73, SD ⫽ 1.72). Differences in
accuracy were negligible between identity and commutativity
problems and also between part–whole and combination problems,
but the first pair differed from the second, F(1, 176) ⫽ 29.53, p ⬍
.001. Performance on addition problems exceeded that of all other
problem types, Fs(1, 176) ⬎ 26.98, ps ⬍ .001. This high level of
success on the addition problems, compared with the other prob-
lem types, is not surprising considering the amount of experience
children normally have with symbolic, canonical addition prob-
3.5
3
Mean Performance
2.5
2
1.5
0.5
0
identity commutativity
Figure 2. Mean performance (with standard error bars) across all five problem types by Grade 2 children in
the nonsymbolic and symbolic conditions (Study 1).
SHERMAN AND BISANZ
lems in school. Problem type interacted with presentation format,
F(4, 176) ⫽ 14.76, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .25, such that children in the
nonsymbolic group had higher accuracy than children in the sym-
bolic group for every problem type, Fs(1, 220) ⬎ 26.20, ps ⬍ .001,
except addition.
Children differed widely not only in accuracy but also in the
frequency with which they gave equivalence justifications. A 2
(condition) ⫻ 2 (gender) ⫻ 5 (problem type) ANOVA, with
repeated measures on the last variable, revealed main effects of
condition, F(1, 44) ⫽ 39.50, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .47, and problem type,
F(4, 176) ⫽ 17.53, p ⬍ .001, ␩2p ⫽ .29, but no interactions. Data
are presented in Figure 3. Children in the nonsymbolic condition
gave equivalence justifications on nearly three quarters of all
problems and three times more often than children in the symbolic
condition. Tests of simple effects revealed that the means for
identity and commutativity problems were indistinguishable from
each other but higher than the means for part–whole and combi-
nation problems combined, F(1, 176) ⫽ 21.42, p ⬍ .001), and that
the latter two means also were similar to each other but higher than
the mean for addition problems, F(1, 176) ⫽ 74.16, p ⬍ .001).
Possibly the most interesting approach used by children in the
symbolic condition was the carry-after-equal strategy, as indicated
by their justifications. Children who used this approach stated that
their answer was correct because the number after the equal sign in
problems such as 1 ⫹ 3 ⫹ 2 ⫽ 1 ⫹ __ “had” to be the correct
solution; therefore, all they had to do was copy the number, in this
case 1, to the line. Their understanding that the equal sign means
that the solution comes next apparently hindered their ability to
think of the expression in terms of relational equivalence. Thus,
children in the nonsymbolic condition appeared to solve by delib-
erately making both sides equal, whereas children in the symbolic
condition responded with a variety of justifications including
carry, arithmetic, and carry-after-equal. Clearly, children in the
two conditions differed not only in accuracy but also in how they
reportedly solved the problems.
To identify individual children who used relational equivalence
consistently, we used accuracy and justifications together for part–
whole problems. A joint criterion for this purpose was essential
because interpretations based on accuracy or justifications alone
could be misleading. For example, accuracy may have been de-
nonsymbolic
symbolic
part-whole combination addition
Problem Type
 EQUIVALENCE PROBLEMS WITHOUT SYMBOLS 93

Mean Number of Equivalence

3.5

Justifications
2.5
nonsymbolic
2
symbolic
1.5
1

0.5
0
identity commutativity part-whole combination addition
Problem Type
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 3. Mean number of equivalence justifications (with standard error bars) for each problem type by Grade
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

2 children in the nonsymbolic and symbolic conditions (Study 1).

pressed due to arithmetic demands or faulty counting, or inflated Relations Among Problem Types
due to chance guessing. Similarly, justifications may not have
consistently reflected children’s procedures because of constraints Among children in the nonsymbolic condition, performance
on expressive language. Using both types of evidence in conjunc- across the four equivalence problem types was correlated strongly
tion and only using instances in which there was a clear match (Table 1). Children in the symbolic condition did not fit this
between accuracy and equivalence justifications increased our pattern, however. Instead, performance on the two qualitative
confidence in identifying children who understood and used equiv- problem types (identity and commutativity) was related, as was
alence. Performance on part–whole problems was used because performance on the two quantitative problem types (part–whole
and combination), but correlations between quantitative and non-
children could not solve these problems correctly by using identity
quantitative types were small ( ps ⬎ .25). Conceivably, there could
cues or by carrying terms from one part of the equation to another.
be a developmental progression in understanding equivalence such
To meet the joint criteria for consistent understanding and use of
that children first appreciate similarity across two sides of an
relational equivalence, children had to (a) solve all four part–whole
expression in a more qualitative manner by detecting patterns and
problems correctly (an answer within one of the correct answer
later in a fully quantitative manner, whereby using arithmetic to
was considered correct) and (b) provide justifications consistent
ensure equivalence becomes a dominant strategy. If this hypothesis
with relational equivalence. Children who were correct but who
is correct, then we would expect some children to have poor
gave nonequivalence justifications, such as guessing, were not
performance on all problem types, some children to solve just the
included. This stringent criterion provided a conservative estimate
two qualitative problem types accurately, and some children to be
of the number of children who consistently solved the most diffi-
successful on all problem types. Other patterns, such as children
cult problems in a relational manner.
solving only the quantitative problems successfully, would not fit
Thirteen of 24 children in the nonsymbolic group solved all four
the progression.
part–whole problems correctly by making both sides numerically
We examined individual performance to determine whether
identical and gave equivalence justifications, whereas only 1 of 24
children in the symbolic condition fit one of the expected patterns
children in the symbolic group met this criterion ␹2(1, N ⫽ 48) ⫽
of performance. We used at least three correct of four problems on
11.12, p ⬍ .001. Thus, accuracy levels, justifications, and exam-
both qualitative problem types and at least three correct of four on
ination of performance on part–whole problems all suggest that
both of the quantitative problem types as criteria. Seventeen (71%)
children who solved the problems in the nonsymbolic format were
of the 24 children did poorly on both the qualitative and quantitative
far more likely to approach and solve the problems using relational
equivalence. Children in the symbolic group, in contrast, had low
levels of accuracy and appeared to try a variety of strategies when Table 1
solving the problems. Correlations for Performance Across the Five Problem Types by
When Grade 2 children in the symbolic condition also were Grade 2 Children in the Nonsymbolic (Above the Diagonal) and
asked to tell the experimenter what the equal sign meant during Symbolic (Below the Diagonal) Groups in Study 1
both sessions, 94% of their responses were consistent with an
operator interpretation. Only 1 child during one of the two sessions Problem types children
solved correctly 1 2 3 4 5
gave a response consistent with a relational view of the equal sign.
ⴱ ⴱ ⴱ
He also gave exclusively equivalence justifications during both 1. Identity — .843 .696 .865 .554ⴱ
sessions, yet his solutions on all problems except the addition 2. Commutativity .697ⴱ — .667ⴱ .677ⴱ .286
problems were consistent with an add-to-equal procedure. His 3. Part–whole .231 .186 — .757ⴱ .356
4. Combination .107 .234 .700ⴱ — .710ⴱ
equivalence justifications may have reflected his attempt to repeat 5. Addition ⫺.129 ⫺.126 ⫺.244 .162 —
the experimenter’s instructions rather than an effort to make both
ⴱ
sides of the expressions the same. p ⬍ .01.
 94 SHERMAN AND BISANZ
problems, thus showing little evidence of understanding equivalence
in any form. Six children (25%) solved at least three of four problems
on both of the qualitative problem types yet did poorly on the
quantitative problems. One child had perfect performance on the
quantitative problems and, as predicted, had perfect performance on
the qualitative problems as well. None of the children fit other
patterns, such as doing well on the quantitative problems only. Taken
together, children’s performance appears to fit one of three patterns:
they understand equivalence and can demonstrate understanding
across a variety of problems; they have a less sophisticated under-
standing and can only solve problems that look similar on both sides
of the equal sign; or they do not understand at all.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Discussion
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Grade 2 children solved equivalence problems very differently,
depending on the context in which the problems were presented.
Specifically, children who solved nonsymbolic equivalence prob-
lems had overall accuracy rates that were much higher than chil-
dren who solved the same problems in the symbolic context.
Similarly, children in the nonsymbolic group were far more likely
to give relational responses than children in the symbolic group.
Using a stringent criterion, in which accuracy and justifications on
part–whole problems were considered jointly, we found that more
children from the nonsymbolic group, compared with those in the
symbolic group, approached the problems relationally. No effects
of gender were discovered.
In addition to manipulating the symbolic context, we also varied
problem structure to determine whether some problem types were
more or less difficult for children to solve. Not surprisingly,
children from both nonsymbolic and symbolic groups were very
successful on the canonical addition problems. These problems
match the structural form typical in classroom and textbook expe-
riences. In contrast, performance was significantly worse for com-
bination and part-whole problems compared with the other prob-
lem types. The part–whole problems could not be solved correctly
simply by matching terms on the right side to the left. Rather,
children needed to calculate or regroup in order to make both sides
of the expression equivalent. Children who were successful on this
particular type of equivalence problem often gave relational justi-
fications, indicating that they were intentionally making both sides
of the equal sign the same. Furthermore, examining accuracy
across the various problem types allowed us to determine whether
children approached some problems, such as those that could be
solved without calculation, differently than problems requiring
arithmetic. The patterns of children’s performance support the idea
that, at least in the presence of symbols, children’s ability to invent
successful solutions for qualitative equivalence problems may
emerge prior to their ability to invent procedures for solving
quantitative equivalence problems.
Taken together, these findings indicate that many Grade 2
children are able to reason relationally with various arithmetic
expressions, including part–whole equivalence problems, but that
performance is significantly impacted by the presence or absence
of conventional symbols. When solving problems with manipula-
tives rather than symbols, children showed impressive accuracy
rates and gave relational justifications for their solutions. In the
presence of symbols, however, children displayed poor accuracy
and operator approaches consistent with results from prior re-
search. Children’s context-dependent performance fits with what
Lawler (1981) referred to as having distinct microworlds of un-
derstanding, in which children reason very differently about the
same task in one condition or context compared with another. In
his case study, Lawler noted that his young daughter’s accuracy on
addition problems was significantly lower than when the same
problems were presented with coins. That is, the child’s experience
with money made this “money world” of addition more available
for solving arithmetic problems than experience with standard,
paper-and-pencil addition problems. Whether children can actually
benefit from experiencing problems in the nonsymbolic condition
and transfer their successful strategies to the symbolic context
remains to be tested. In Study 2, we attempted to address this
question using similar methodology but a within-subjects design.
Study 2
In Study 1, we found that Grade 2 children are capable of
reasoning relationally in complex arithmetic problems, yet they
may not map their knowledge of equivalence onto problems pre-
sented with conventional symbols, perhaps due to their limited,
operator view of the equal sign. Three additional questions could
not be addressed in the first study, however. First, can children link
their microworlds of understanding across the symbolic and non-
symbolic contexts, such that solving nonsymbolic equivalence
problems first facilitates the use of relational approaches on sym-
bolic problems? Second, how does performance in both conditions
compare with accuracy expected by chance? In Study 1, children’s
answers came from an unrestricted range and so comparisons with
likely rates of guessing were not possible. Third, do children’s
responses indicate particular patterns of strategy use that might be
useful for informing instruction and intervention?
To address the first question, we examined whether presenting
problems in both formats (nonsymbolic and symbolic) may help
the mapping process and thus improve performance on symbolic
problems. By solving the same problems in both formats, children
could recognize the similarity between the problems or the task
and instructions and realize that thinking relationally in both
contexts will lead to success. Specifically, we hypothesized that
children who solved nonsymbolic problems first would have high
accuracy in the nonsymbolic problems and would continue to
perform with high accuracy on subsequent symbolic problems,
mapping their understanding of equivalence onto the equal sign in
the symbolic context. We assessed this point by examining accu-
racy on symbolic equivalence problems and by specifically asking
students to define the equal sign.
To address the second and third questions regarding chance
levels and patterns of performance, we altered the method so that
children in Study 2 chose their responses from several multiple-
choice options. Consequently, children’s accuracy could be com-
pared with levels expected with random guessing. Furthermore,
the multiple-choice options for each equivalence problem corre-
sponded to particular strategies of solving, such as add-all or
add-to-equal approaches. In this way, patterns of solution
choices were also examined to determine whether children’s
strategies for solving equivalence problems, not just their ac-
curacy, differed in relation to the order in which they received
the sessions. We hypothesized that children who solved non-
symbolic problems first would use a relational strategy more
 EQUIVALENCE PROBLEMS WITHOUT SYMBOLS
than other strategies in both sessions, whereas children who
began with symbolic problems would tend to use operator
strategies in the symbolic session and the relational strategy in
the nonsymbolic session. In another modification, we chose
problems that were most challenging for Grade 2 children
(part–whole and combination) rather than comparing across all
types. These two problem types are frequently used to assess
children’s performance on equivalence problems.
Method
Participants and Design
Participants consisted of 32 second-grade students, including 16
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
males and 16 females, from schools in the same town as in Study
1. Ages ranged from 7 years 2 months to 8 years 9 months, with
a mean of 7 years 9 months. One additional girl was tested but not
included because she did not solve any of the arithmetic problems
correctly in the nonsymbolic condition. Because low accuracy on
equivalence problems could be attributed to poor arithmetic skill,
and because solving the equivalence problems may have been
stressful for her if she did indeed have difficulty with simple
arithmetic, this student was excused. All children participated in
two 20-min sessions, with approximately 1 week between ses-
sions. Both sessions began with a variety of practice problems used
to familiarize them with the materials and instructions. Each child
was tested by the same experimenter for both sessions, except for
1 second-grade child who was tested by a different experimenter
for each session.
Children received 16 symbolic problems in one session and the
same problems in nonsymbolic format in the other session. To
determine whether children’s performance was affected by order
in which the two formats were presented, we assigned children
within each sex unsystematically to one of two session orders—
symbolic, then nonsymbolic (symbolic/nonsymbolic) or nonsym-
bolic, then symbolic (nonsymbolic/symbolic)—with the constraint
that children within each of the five classrooms be distributed
across orders as evenly as possible.
Materials and Procedures
Nonsymbolic format. We presented all problems using the
same materials as in Study 1, and the instructions were identical
except that children selected answers from prepared options. Prac-
tice problems included a counting string (1, 2, 3, 4, __, 6), one
basic arithmetic problem (2 ⫹ 1 ⫽ __, with 2 ⫹ 2 ⫽ __ as a
back-up problem), and a practice equivalence problem (1 ⫹ 1 ⫽
1 ⫹ __). Feedback was given for all practice problems, and
children were asked to justify their responses.
Following the practice problems, the 16 equivalence problems
were administered. Instructions were given for the first 2 prob-
lems, and students were asked to justify their responses on all
problems. Solutions, any observable solving behaviors, and verbal
justifications were recorded. No feedback was given. Children
solved the problems by choosing among four photographs of
blocks that corresponded to four methods of solving equivalence
problems, with the fifth choice being the question mark. Children
were instructed to use this card if they believed none of the choice
cards were correct. The question mark was the correct choice for
95
one of the practice problems but for none of the equivalence
problems in the problem set. In the problem set, we determined the
order in which the choice cards were presented from left to right
using a Latin square for the first and second half (8 problems each)
of the problem set. Order of choice cards was never the same for
two questions in a row. Half the problems were part–whole types
and half were combination types, and no more than 2 problems of
a single type were ever presented in a row.
If children chose the same type of solution option (e.g., add-all)
on at least 13 of the 16 equivalence problems (approximately
80%), they were classified as consistently solving in that manner.
The binomial probability of randomly selecting the same type of
solution option on 13 of 16 problems—with an alpha of .05 and the
probability of choosing any one type of solution option being .20
(one of five options)—is less than .0001. We also examined the
extent to which children’s verbal justifications matched their so-
lution choices. For example, when children chose the add-all
solution and gave an add-all justification, they were considered to
“match” for this approach. Both the consistency and the matching
criteria were used to analyze children’s responses.
Symbolic format. All symbolic problems were presented using
a black stand placed on top of a table or desk, rather than work-
sheets. White laminated cards containing the problems were
flipped over one at a time. Prior to the presentation of each
problem, solution choice cards were arranged along a horizontal
line beside the problem card, fixed with Velcro (Figure 1). Each
problem contained a blank line and Velcro strip to indicate where
the solutions needed to be placed. Children solved by removing the
solution card of their choice from the line and fixing it to the blank
line on the problem card. As in the nonsymbolic condition, choice
cards corresponded to add-all, add-to-equal, relational, and small-
number approaches. An additional choice card, depicting a ques-
tion mark, remained available for all problems. In all other re-
spects, the symbolic condition was identical to the nonsymbolic
condition. In all analyses, percentages were used because 12
children received only 15 equivalence problems due to a design
error.
Arithmetic problems. Each session ended with children solv-
ing six arithmetic problems (4 ⫹ 3 ⫽ __, 6 ⫹ 4 ⫽ __, 1 ⫹ 3 ⫽
__, 2 ⫹ 7 ⫽ __, 3 ⫹ 5 ⫽ __, and 2 ⫹ 3 ⫽ __), presented in the
same format as the problem set. Children solved nonsymbolic
problems using blocks, whereas they solved symbolic problems by
writing their solutions on the problem cards with a dry-erase pen.
The problems were within the same magnitude range as the equiv-
alence problems and were designed to assess additional skill level
so that, should children perform poorly on equivalence problems,
failure could not be attributed to poor general arithmetic skills. No
feedback was given.
Verbal interpretation of the equal sign. Following completion
of the arithmetic problems in the symbolic format, children were
asked what the equal sign meant. Specifically, the experimenter
would cover both sides of the last symbolic arithmetic problem
(2 ⫹ 3 ⫽ __), leaving just the equal sign exposed, and ask “What
is this?” followed by “What does it mean?” Children’s justifica-
tions were coded (Appendix A), and no feedback was given.
Children were prompted to respond again and “tell me more” if
they stated that the equal sign means “equals.”
 96
Results
Accuracy
Accuracy was analyzed using a 2 (session order: symbolic/
nonsymbolic, nonsymbolic/symbolic) ⫻ 2 (gender) ⫻ 2 (condition:
symbolic, nonsymbolic) ⫻ 2 (problem type: part–whole, combina-
tion) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two variables.
Children had much higher accuracy on nonsymbolic problems (M ⫽
76.9%, SD ⫽ 34.8%) than on symbolic problems (M ⫽ 51.3%, SD ⫽
46.1%), F(1, 28) ⫽ 12.08, p ⬍ .01, ␩2p ⫽ .30, and condition interacted
with session order, F(1, 28) ⫽ 5.52, p ⬍ .05, ␩2p ⫽ .17 (Figure 4).
Tests of simple effects revealed that although accuracy on nonsym-
bolic problems was high and did not differ for children in the two
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
session orders, children who solved nonsymbolic problems first had
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
much higher accuracy on symbolic problems than children who
solved symbolic problems first, F(1, 56) ⫽ 16.96, p ⬍ .01. Thus
solving problems in the nonsymbolic condition facilitated perfor-
mance on subsequent symbolic problems even though the sessions
were approximately a week apart and experimenters did not deliber-
ately or explicitly draw children’s attention to the similarity between
the two “tasks” across sessions. Accuracy did not differ between
part–whole and combination problems, and there were no other sig-
nificant main effects or interactions. Scores on the six arithmetic
problems were quite high (M ⫽ 94.8%, SD ⫽ 18.7% in the symbolic
condition; M ⫽ 95.8%, SD ⫽ 10.3% in the nonsymbolic condition)
and are not discussed further.
The probability of guessing correctly was considered to be 20%
because five solution options were available on every trial (add-all,
add-to-equal, relational, small-number, and other). For children in the
symbolic/nonsymbolic group, performance on symbolic problems (M ⫽
36.5%, SD ⫽ 42.3%) was particularly low. A 95% confidence interval
indicated that the true mean was between 15.9% and 57.9%, a range that
includes the observed accuracy level that could be expected with random
guessing. The other three means (children in symbolic/nonsymbolic
group on nonsymbolic problems, and children in nonsymbolic/symbolic
group on both symbolic and nonsymbolic problems) were higher than
would be expected by chance (Figure 4), with confidence intervals
ranging from a low of 43.3% to a high of 97.1%.
Strategy Use
Having solution options that corresponded to specific ways of thinking
about and solving equivalence problems allowed us to examine whether
100
90
80
Percent Correct
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
symbolic/nonsymbolic
Figure 4. Mean accuracy by Grade 2 children (symbolic/nonsymbolic and nonsymbolic/symbolic groups) on
equivalence problems presented in both symbolic and nonsymbolic conditions, with standard error bars (Study 2).
SHERMAN AND BISANZ
children could be categorized as consistently solving using a particular
strategy. Overall, children’s matches between solutions and justifications
across the 32 problems was quite high (M ⫽ 79.7%, SD ⫽ 28.8%).
Because children so often supported their solution choices with their
justifications, solution options alone were used to examine strategy use by
children in the two session order groups. If children responded in the
same fashion on at least 13 of the 16 problems (approximately 80%), they
were classified as solving in that manner.
Because children’s accuracy on symbolic and nonsymbolic
problems was affected by the order in which they received the
problems, we examined classifications of strategy use for the two
conditions separately for children in the session order groups.
Children in the symbolic/nonsymbolic group displayed a variety of
strategy classifications when solving symbolic problems (Figure 5,
left bar). Of the 16 children in this group, 5 consistently used a
relational strategy, 3 used an operator strategy, 3 tried to solve by
making patterns or matching terms on both sides of the equations,
and 5 used a variety of approaches or solved part–whole versus
combination problems differently (i.e., part–whole problems
solved with an add-to-equal strategy, combination problems solved
relationally). These same children presented a very different pat-
tern of strategy use when solving the nonsymbolic problems a
week later (Figure 5, right bar), with 12 of the children using a
relational strategy consistently.
Children in the nonsymbolic/symbolic group could be character-
ized as using one of three strategies to solve the nonsymbolic prob-
lems (Figure 6, right bar), with the majority solving the problems
relationally. When solving symbolic problems a week later, children
could be classified as using one of five strategies (Figure 6, left bar),
but the majority of children (11 of 16) still solved the problems
relationally. Relational justifications almost never occurred in the
absence of relational solution choices (⬍2% of problems).
Verbal Interpretations of the Equal Sign
None of the children in either group gave a relational verbal
interpretation of the equal sign in the symbolic condition. Contrary
to our prediction that children’s verbal interpretations of the equal
sign might differ, children who solved nonsymbolic problems first
proceeded to describe the equal sign nonrelationally in the arith-
metic context a week later. In the symbolic/nonsymbolic group, 15
of the children gave operator interpretations, and 1 gave an ambiguous
interpretation. In the nonsymbolic/symbolic group, 13 children gave
Symbolic
Nonsymbolic
nonsymbolic/symbolic
Session Order
 EQUIVALENCE PROBLEMS WITHOUT SYMBOLS 97

16
14
Variety

Number of Children
12
Amiguous
10
Part-whole vs. Combination
8 Pattern/Matching
6 Add-to-equal
Add-all
4
Relational
2
0
Symbolic Nonsymbolic
Session
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 5. Number of the 16 second-grade children in the symbolic/nonsymbolic group who used specific
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

strategies in both symbolic and nonsymbolic sessions (Study 2).

operator interpretations, 2 gave ambiguous interpretations, and 1 child
said that she did not know what the symbol meant. This particular
child, not surprisingly, did not solve any of the equivalence problems
correctly in either condition, despite solving 92% of the arithmetic
problems correctly. Thus, children’s performance on equivalence
problems can be high even though they verbally describe the equal
sign in operator terms in the context of an arithmetic equation.
Perhaps a procedural improvement (i.e., using arithmetic to make both
sides of an expression equivalent) precedes an ability to verbally
define the symbol, or the procedure of solving relationally is more
directly modified by exposure to nonsymbolic problems than verbal
interpretations of the equal sign.
Discussion
In this study, we confirmed what was only suspicion based on
previous research (Study 1): Experience with nonsymbolic equiv-
alence problems can actually lead to improvements on subsequent
symbolic problems. This result is particularly surprising consider-
ing that sessions were approximately 1 week apart, and the exper-
imenters made no direct references linking the two sessions to-
gether. The potential for application to classroom instruction
seems considerable. Specifically, experience with the complex
equivalence problems without the potentially misleading cues
from conventional symbols (due to a misunderstanding of the
equal sign) can help children map their successful approaches to
symbolic problems. Having children learn to reason about equiv-
alence problems in a nonsymbolic format would be a relatively
easy, inexpensive intervention that could have a positive impact on
children’s ability to solve similar problems presented symboli-
cally. Examining potential boundary conditions surrounding the
effectiveness of this intervention would be an important step
before suggesting the widespread use of manipulatives for teach-
ing children to think about equations relationally, however. There
may have been other unique factors, in addition to the nonsymbolic
presentation format, that helped children map their relational strategy
to symbolic problems, such as the presence of multiple-choice op-
tions. Directly examining the potential benefits of using multiple-
choice options rather than having children respond from an unre-
stricted range should be examined in future research.
The within-subject design was instrumental for examining order
effects and detecting the benefit of having children solve nonsym-
bolic problems prior to symbolic problems. Children in the non-
symbolic/symbolic group may have remembered the approach
they used to solve the nonsymbolic problems and transferred the
procedures to the same symbolic problems presented a week later.
Perhaps children had no idea how to solve the symbolic equiva-
lence problems (an explanation that is supported by the literature),
so they used whatever they could construct from their strategy

16
14
Number of Children

12 Variety
10 Amiguous
Pattern/Matching
8
Add-to-equal
6 Add-all
4 Relational
2
0
Symboli c Nonsymbolic
Session

Figure 6. Number of the 16 second-grade children in the nonsymbolic/symbolic group who used specific
strategies on both symbolic and nonsymbolic sessions (Study 2).
 98 SHERMAN AND BISANZ
arsenal. For children in the nonsymbolic/symbolic group, their arse-
nal would consist of the strategies used for problems they had seen a
week before that seemed similar in some important and salient as-
pects, such as having quantities on both sides that needed to be
considered when solving. Rittle-Johnson (2006) also found that after
a brief intervention, some children showed a significant improvement
on equivalence problems, yet did not show similar improvements on
tests of conceptual understanding of the equal sign. She too hypoth-
esized that children’s procedural approaches, and their self-
explanations of those procedures, may have served as mechanisms of
change even though children did not explicitly think about the con-
ceptual rationale underlying the problems.
Although children in the nonsymbolic/symbolic group showed
marked improvement on symbolic problems in their second session,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
children who began with symbolic problems had extremely low
accuracy. The low performance of children in this group is consistent
with previous research findings and helps to support the argument that
elementary school children are in need of specific instruction, inter-
vention, or experience to help them not only solve equivalence prob-
lems successfully but, more important, understand the equal sign in
all, but especially in arithmetic, contexts. Use of the multiple-choice
format was helpful in making judgments about the relative success, or
in this case failure, on the equivalence problems. We recommend the
use of such procedures for assessing children’s performance on equiv-
alence problems for this very reason.
Contrary to our initial hypothesis, children who solved nonsym-
bolic problems first did not give more relational verbal interpretations
of the equal sign than children who solved symbolic problems first. In
fact, no children from either group described the equal sign relation-
ally. This outcome is surprising considering that children in the
nonsymbolic/symbolic group performed significantly higher on sym-
bolic problems than children from the symbolic/nonsymbolic group.
Thus, children’s performance on equivalence problems can be high
even though they use operator terms to describe the equal sign in the
context of an arithmetic equation. If the ability to give a verbal
definition constitutes conceptual understanding, then perhaps the fact
that children were able to use the equal sign in a relational manner yet
not be able to explicitly define the symbol relationally is another
example of children changing procedurally before they change con-
ceptually (Baroody, 2003; Rittle-Johnson, 2006; Rittle-Johnson &
Siegler, 1998). However, with the present data, we cannot speak to the
order or type of understanding. Rather, children’s disconnect between
solving equivalence problems and verbally defining the equal sign
may be another example of Lawler’s (1981) microworlds of under-
standing. In the present study, children’s solving, or procedural, world
might be disconnected from the defining world, such that children
were able to construct strategies for solving equivalence problems yet
did not transfer their knowledge of equivalence to the task of defining
the equal sign.
General Discussion
Various equivalence problems and procedures were used to
determine the extent to which Grade 2 children can reason rela-
tionally about arithmetic problems in both symbolic (i.e., conven-
tional) and nonsymbolic (i.e., manipulatives) contexts. In prior
studies, researchers have found fairly consistent, and dismal, per-
formance on symbolic equivalence problems by elementary school
children. We found that children who fail when equivalence prob-
lems are conventionally presented can excel when numerically
identical problems are presented in the absence of arithmetic
symbols. That is, Grade 2 children are quite capable of using
reasoning relationally about complex, algebra-like problems when
the problems are presented in a nonsymbolic context. This result
has important psychological and academic implications.
Psychologically, children’s differential performance across the
two contexts suggests that children may encode the equivalence
problems in distinct ways, depending directly on the presence or
absence of conventional symbols. McNeil and Alibali (2002, 2004,
2005b) have described the formation of addition schemas, based
on operational patterns common within early arithmetic, including
the need to operate on all numbers and the belief that the solution
must come immediately after the equal sign. Symbolic equivalence
problems look very much like the canonical problems that children
solve regularly, causing children’s representations of the opera-
tional patterns to become activated. These representations control
attention, determine what is encoded, and influence how informa-
tion is interpreted (McNeil & Alibali, 2005b). Unfortunately, the
result of this process in the context of familiar symbols is that
children use an operator approach for solving equivalence prob-
lems. In contrast, nonsymbolic equivalence problems lack conven-
tional symbols, and therefore children’s addition schemas may not
have been activated for problems in this context. Thus children
could override, or avoid altogether, their addition schemas, en-
abling relational approaches to be used.
Academically, children’s accuracy on nonsymbolic equivalence
problems suggests that children can reason about arithmetic, even
complex problems such as equivalence problems, in a relational
manner, long before formal algebra is introduced in the classroom.
Manipulatives may be an important tool for not only assessing chil-
dren’s relational reasoning but perhaps for instructing students about
equivalence and relational thought (Taylor-Cox, 2003). The blocks
and bins used in this nonsymbolic context offered the benefit of not
being associated with misconceptions, as are conventional symbols
such as the equal sign, perhaps allowing children to focus on the
relationships between quantities and sides of the equations, rather than
on applying addition schemas. Despite the success by children who
solved nonsymbolic problems, however, it is important to note that
manipulatives are not always recommended for teaching new con-
cepts. In fact, some have argued that manipulatives themselves are
simply new symbols systems and, as such, are open to being misun-
derstood, misapplied, and nontransparent (Uttal, Liu, & DeLoache,
2006; Uttal, Scudder, & DeLoache, 1997).
The fact that Grade 2 children can solve equivalence problems with
manipulatives may not seem surprising to some, given that even
preschool children can solve simple arithmetic problems presented
with objects or events (Mix, 1999a, 1999b). However, given the
increased attention to children’s poor performance on algebra in
higher mathematics (Knuth et al., 2005), and the recent movement
towards introducing algebra earlier in the curriculum (Carpenter et al.,
2003; Carraher & Schliemann, 2007; Taylor-Cox, 2003), document-
ing children’s specific abilities and limitations becomes critical. These
studies are the first to conclusively show that young children are
capable, with very little instruction or feedback, of solving complex
equivalence problems when presented in a nonsymbolic context.
Building upon such competencies may serve as an important educa-
tional tool for helping to remediate children’s failure on equivalence
problems and misunderstanding of the equal sign.
 EQUIVALENCE PROBLEMS WITHOUT SYMBOLS
In Study 2, we found that children who solved nonsymbolic equiv-
alence problems in the first session went on to have impression
accuracy on the same problems presented symbolically a week later.
This result supports the idea that early success, specifically success on
nonsymbolic equivalence problems, can be useful for improving
performance on subsequent symbolic problems. Having children
solve nonsymbolic problems first may have allowed them to map
their experiences onto the symbolic equivalence problems presented a
week later. Future research is needed to assess how well children can
maintain and transfer their success on symbolic equivalence problems
after the nonsymbolic intervention.
Although the main result of Study 2 appears to be the impressive
success of children in the nonsymbolic/symbolic group on sym-
bolic equivalence problems, children from the opposite order
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
group also showed notable behavior. Specifically, children who
began with symbolic problems had low accuracy and used operator
strategies on their first session, yet approached the same problems
very differently when the problems were presented with manipu-
latives a week later. The effect of context is particularly striking
among children in this group. It is not the case that solving
symbolic problems first affects performance on subsequent non-
symbolic problems. Rather, children switch from viewing the
problems in an operator fashion to viewing the problems relation-
ally. The influence of conventional symbols is particularly evident
among children in this group.
These studies mark the first step in identifying (a) children’s
significant success on equivalence problems in the absence of
symbols, (b) their ability to benefit from prior experience with
manipulatives on subsequent symbolic problems, and (c) how
differently children approach equivalence problems depending
on the context, as evident in both accuracy and oral justifica-
tions. Children have competencies hidden by their misconcep-
tions of mathematical symbols, particularly the equal sign, and
both discovering and building upon these competencies are
important for remediating children’s difficulty with equivalence
and for preparing the way to higher algebraic and symbolic
thought.
References
Alibali, M. W. (1999). How children change their minds: Strategy change
can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology, 35, 127–145.
Baroody, A. J. (2003). The developmental of adaptive expertise and
flexibility: The integration of conceptual and procedural knowledge. In
A. J. Baroody and A. Dowker (Eds.), The developmental of arithmetic
concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise (pp. 1–33). Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baroody, A. J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1983). The effects of instruction on
children’s understanding of the “equals” sign. Elementary School Jour-
nal, 84, 199 –212.
Behr, M., Erlwanger, S., & Nichols, E. (1980). How children view the
equals sign. Mathematics Teaching, 92, 13–15.
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathemati-
cally: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Ports-
mouth, NH: Heineman.
Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra and algebraic
reasoning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. (Vol. 2, pp. 669 –705). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Felson, R. B., & Trudeau, L. (1991). Gender differences in mathematics
performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 113–126.
99
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in
mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 139 –155.
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., Ryan, M., Frost, L., & Hopp, C. (1990). Gender
comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 14, 299 –324.
Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educa-
tional Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317–326.
Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., McNeil, N. M., Weinberg, A., & Stephens,
A. C. (2005). Middle school students’ understanding of core algebraic
concepts: Equality and variable. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathema-
tik [International Reviews on Mathematical Education], 37, 1–9.
Lawler, R. W. (1981). The progressive construction of mind. Cognitive
Science, 5, 1–30.
Leduc Genuine Wealth Accounting Project (2005). City of Leduc 2005
genuine well-being report. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://
www.leduc.ca/Leduc/1024/News_and_Events/initiatives/gwa.asp
McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2000). Learning mathematics from
procedural instruction: Externally imposed goals influence what is
learned. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 734 –744.
McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2002). A well-established schema can
interfere with learning: The case of children’s typical addition schema.
In C. D. Schunn & W. Gray (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual
conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 661– 666). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2004). You’ll see what you mean:
Students encode equations based on their knowledge of arithmetic.
Cognitive Science, 28, 451– 466.
McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005a). Knowledge change as a function
of mathematics experience: All contexts are not created equal. Journal
of Cognition and Development, 6, 285–306.
McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005b). Why won’t you change your
mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and perfor-
mance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883– 899.
Mix, K. S. (1999a). Preschoolers’ recognition of numerical equivalence: Se-
quential sets. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 309 –332.
Mix, K. S. (1999b). Similarity and numerical equivalence: Appearances
count. Cognitive Development, 14, 269 –297.
Perry, M. (1991). Learning and transfer: Instructional conditions and
conceptual change. Cognitive Development, 6, 449 – 468.
Perry, M., Church, R. B., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1988). Transitional
knowledge in the acquisition of concepts. Cognitive Development, 3,
359 – 400.
Renwick, E. M. (1932). Children’s misconceptions concerning the symbols
for mathematical equality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2,
173–183.
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation
and direct instruction. Child Development, 77, 1–15.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural
knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 175–189.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). The relation between concep-
tual and procedural knowledge in learning mathematics: A review. In C.
Donlan (Ed.), The development of mathematical skills: Studies in devel-
opmental psychology (pp. 75–110). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Sáenz-Ludlow, A., & Walgamuth, C. (1998). Third graders’ interpretations
of equality and the equal symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
35, 153–187.
Seo, K., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2003). “You’ve got to carefully read the math
sentence . . . .”: Classroom context and children’s interpretations of the
equals sign. In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of
arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 100 SHERMAN AND BISANZ

Sherman, J. (2004). Constraints on understanding arithmetic equivalence:
Effects of misunderstanding the equal sign. Unpublished manuscript.
Taylor-Cox, J. (2003). Algebra in the early years? Young Children, 58,
14 –21.
Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (2006). Concreteness and
symbolic development. In L. Balter and C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.),
Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (2nd ed., pp.
167–184). New York: Psychology Press.
Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives
as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach
mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18,
37–54.

Appendix A

Coding Scheme for Justifications of the Equal Sign

Category Justification Examples
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Relational view Child’s response includes the notion of both “The numbers on this side are the same as on this side.”
sides of an equation being the same in
value, or equal.
Operator view Child’s response indicates that the equal “It means you put it together and get the answer.” “It
sign signals what you’re supposed to do, means what the answer is.” “It means where the
where the answer should go, the end of answer is going to go.”
the expression, or what the answer is.
Ambiguous Child’s response was not interpretable. “It’s the number that’s going to come up.” “It’s like
saying, ‘What’s the question’?”

Appendix B

Coding Scheme for Children’s Justifications for Solutions on Equivalence Problems

Type/category Description

Equivalence
Identical numerosity Child refers to the same number on both “sides,” counts to ensure that both sides have the
same number, or comments on both sides being “even.” In a few cases, the “sides” that
the child refers to do not correspond to the blue tent or the equal sign. For example, in
the block condition, some children match their blocks with all the blocks already
present (e.g., you have 10 blocks, and so do I).
Identity Child refers to a pattern (e.g., 3 ⫹ 4 and 3 ⫹ 4), matching both sides to “look” the same,
or copying the sides. Occurs mainly with identity and commutativity problems.
Grouping Used for combination problems only. Child refers to adding only the b and c terms, and
may or may not explicitly state that the first term and the term after the equal sign (d
term) are the same. Example (2 ⫹ 5 ⫹ 3 ⫽ 2⫹__): “Because there’s 2 here [a term],
and 2 here [d term], so I don’t count these, then the rest (b ⫹ c) is 8, which I put.”
Nonequivalence
Add-all The child mentions adding all terms or overtly counts all terms.
Add-to-equal Child mentions adding or counts the terms on the left side of the blue tent or equal sign.
This justification does not apply to addition problems, where there are no terms on the
right side.
Carry Child mentions copying one of the terms in the expression. He or she may state that the
other numbers don’t count, or that they should be excluded for some reason.
Carry-after-equal Occurs mainly in the symbolic condition. Child states that he or she is taking the term
after the equal sign as being the answer, and writing it on the line. This justification is
typically accompanied by an justification that the term immediately following the equal
sign must be the answer; therefore, all they have to do is copy that term on to the line.
Other
Arithmetic Used for addition problems only. Child states that he or she added the terms together
without commenting on equality.
“I don’t know” Child states that he or she does not know how he or she solved the problem.
Guessing Child indicates that he or she guessed in order to solve.
Ambiguous Child’s justification can not be interpreted.

Received October 16, 2007

Revision received April 30, 2008
Accepted May 6, 2008 䡲