vmt-award-2024_48-1-_red

reading as text comprehension to the problem solving process.

object sequence is reversed in sentence two, the relational sentence, the ability to create an overall coherent structure is difficult, which they call in consistent language (p. 366). This is shown in Lewis and Mayer ’ s (1987, p. 366) example below:

Three - Sentence Word Problem Template

As stated earlier, problem comprehension is, “ each sentence is translated into an internal representa tion and integration of the information into a co herent structure ” (Lewis & Mayer,1987, p.363). We contend that this translation and integration are supported when students solve word problems that are designed into a three - sentence structure. In formed by the work of Lewis & Mayer (1987) ex ploring compare problems, more than, less than, we believe their structure can facilitate problem comprehension for one step word problems for the four operations. The three - sentence word problem structure is described below: Sentence 1: Introduces the first object using a subject - object sequence. Sentence 2: Introduces the second object and its relationship to object one, using a subject object sequence.

Joe has 3 marbles.

He has 5 marbles less than Tom.

How many marbles does Tom have?

They identify such problems as using inconsistent langue because the operation required to solve the problem does not align with the English words used in the problem, in this case, less than that sug gests the subtraction operation. This example shows that identifying keywords is unreliable. The three - sentence word problem template, using the consistent language format, is helpful when addressing operations with fractions with a slight variation. The second sentence does not introduce a new object. The object of the first sentence can be the same object in the second sentence. The in formation in the second sentence shows the change in the object from the first sentence. This is an ex ample from our work, Sentence 1: Maria found 2/3 of a pizza on the table. Sentence 2: She sat down and ate ¾ of it while watching TV. Sentence 3: What fractional part of the pizza did she eat? We interpret the problem sentence by sentence in the following way. Sentence 1: Introduces the first object, pizza. Specifically, 2/3 of a whole pizza. Sentence 2: Pizza is the object, the same as above. The change is the amount of the pizza after Maria ate some, specifically she ate ¾ of the pizza that she found on the table

Sentence 3: Asks the question

The following example is the compare problem used by Lewis & Mayer (1987, p. 366):

Joe has 3 marbles.

Tom has 5 more marbles than Joe.

How many marbles does Tom have?

We can scaffold students ’ ability to unpack word problems using this structure. That is, sentence 1 introduces the first object with specificity. In this example, the object is marbles, specifically 3 mar bles owned by the subject, Joe. Sentence 2 is the relational sentence. It introduces the second object, in this case marbles, specifically owned by Tom. The sentence states the relationship between the two objects owned by the subject in each sentence. The relationship identifies Tom as having more marbles than Joe, specifically 5 more marbles. Sentence 3 asks the question for the student to an swer. Notice that these sentences contain the sub ject - direct object sequence which aligns with the operation required to solve the problem. Lewis and Mayer (1987) call this language structure con sistent language (p. 366). When the subject - direct

Sentence 3: Asks the question.

The three - sentence word problem template was introduced to preservice teachers in my math clas ses. Many found the template helpful because it was easier to make sense of the word problem.

Virginia Mathematics Teacher vol. 48, no. 1

45