Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1988, Vol. 80, No. 2, 192-201 0022-066 3/88/SOO.75

Teaching Children to Use Schematic Drawings to Solve Addition and

Subtraction Word Problems
Gordon B. Willis and Karen C. Fuson
School of Education and Social Policy
Northwestern University

Two classes of second graders of average and above-average mathematics ability were taught to
use differing schematic drawings to represent differing categories of addition and subtraction
word problems. Children entered the three-digit numbers used in the problems into the schematic
drawings and then were to use the drawings to facilitate the choice of the solution procedure.
The children were able to make the correct drawing for a given category, usually inserted the
numbers from the problem into a schematic drawing correctly, and usually selected the correct
solution strategy for the problem. There was little support for the hypotheses that children use a
single part-part-whole schema to solve either all categories of problems or the more difficult
"Change" problems. The most difficult problems were those in which the underlying semantic
subtractive problem category ("Change-Get-Less" and "Compare") conflicted with the addition
solution strategy required to solve the problem. The good-to-excellent posttest performance on
most of the possible kinds of addition and subtraction word problems indicates that most of
these problems are within the zone of proximal development of second graders of average and
above-average mathematics ability. Thus American textbooks can include many of the more
difficult word problems, as do textbooks in the Soviet Union.

Solving addition and subtraction word problems involves
at least three aspects: representing the word problem situation,
selecting a solution strategy, and using the solution strategy
to find the answer. Initially, children solve word problems by
representing the problem with concrete objects and then using
these objects to carry out the solution strategy (Briars &
Larkin, 1984; Carpenter & Moser, 1984; Fuson, 1988; Riley,
Greeno, & Heller, 1983). Later, children solve problems by
using more sophisticated counting strategies that also are
directly derived from the representation of the problem situ-
ation (Carpenter & Moser, 1984; Fuson, 1988). Finally, chil-
dren solve problems by choosing an arithmetic operation
(addition or subtraction) and then using some particular
method of adding or subtracting such as thinking strategies,
known facts, or the multidigit addition or subtraction algo-
rithms (Carpenter & Moser, 1984; Fuson, 1988). Thus the
first two aspects of problem solving may be merged for small
numbers or simple types of problems, but they are separate
for large numbers because these require the choice of an
algorithm.
The most common method of teaching addition and sub-
traction word problems ignores children's need to represent
the problem situation and instead focuses only on the solution
strategy: Children are taught to write a solution addition or
subtraction sentence (e.g., 8 + 5 = ? or 8 - 5 = ?) for a
problem and then are to write the answer for the sentence.
The disadvantage of this approach is particularly strong for
the more complex kinds of word problems, for these require
not only that children represent a problem but also that they
This research was supported by a grant from the Amoco Founda-
tion to the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Karen C. Fuson, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern
University, Evanston, Illinois 60208.
reflect on that problem representation and modify it in some
way in order to select a solution strategy (Briars & Larkin,
1984; Riley et al, 1983). A teaching method that helps
children to represent the problem situation would be more
helpful than the prevalent solution sentence method.
In developing and testing such a method, we decided to
focus initially on the upper end of problem solving—that
involving more difficult types of problems and multidigit
numbers—because the need for representational support
seems to be most crucial here: The more difficult problems
require reflection on the representation, and the large num-
bers require a separate selection of the solution strategy. The
teaching approach that we chose was to teach children to
represent word problems by making a schematic drawing that
models the semantic features of the problem situation; the
numbers in the problem can then be written in this schematic
drawing and the drawing used to decide whether to add or
subtract to find the missing problem element.
Understanding the schematic drawings used requires un-
derstanding the different types of addition and subtraction
word problem situations. These are commonly divided into
four major categories (see Table 1). Two of these are basically
additive. In the Change-Get-More category, some initial
quantity gets some more added to it; in the Put-Together
category, two separate quantities are put together to form one
combined quantity. The other two categories are basically
subtractive. In the Change-Get-Less category, there is a quan-
tity from which some quantity is taken; in the Compare
category, two quantities are compared in order to find out
how much greater one quantity is than another. A fifth
category, Equalize, is identified by some researchers; these
problems are Compare problems that explicitly mention a
change needed to make the two original quantities equivalent.
Very little research has been done on this category, so we did
not use it in this study. The names of the problem types in

192
 TEACHING SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS
Table 1
Classification of Word Problems
Addition situations
Change-Get-More
Missing end
Joe had 3 marbles.
Then Tom gave him 5 more marbles.
How many marbles does Joe have now?
Missing change0
Joe had 3 marbles.
Then Tom gave him some more marbles.
Now Joe has 8 marbles.
How many marbles did Tom give him?
Missing start3
Joe had some marbles.
Then Tom gave him 5 more marbles.
How many marbles did Joe have in the beginning?
Put-Together
Missing all
Joe has 3 marbles.
Tom has 5 marbles.
How many marbles do they have altogether?
a
Missing first part
Joe and Tom have 8 marbles altogether.
Tom has 3 marbles.
How many marbles does Joe have?
a
Missing second part
Joe and Tom have 8 marbles altogether.
Joe has 3 marbles.
How many marbles does Tom have?
Note. These examples are adopted from Riley, Greeno, and Heller's (1983) example problems. Compare problems can also be asked with the
words "less" and "fewer" rather than "more," and with Equalize questions containing either "less"/"fewer" or "more" (e.g., "How many more
marbles does Tom have to get to have as many as Joe?").
a
In these problems, there exists a conflict between the overall category situation as additive or subtractive and the operation required to solve
a particular problem subtype.
Table 1 were chosen to be comprehensible to the second-
grade children participating in this study.
Because all problems involve three quantities and any of
these quantities can be unknown, there are three possible
problem subtypes within each main problem type (see Table
1). Two of these require subtraction of the two given numbers
in the problem and one requires addition of the two givens.
Some of the problems created by particular unknowns may
be especially difficult because of the internal conflict between
the basic semantic structure of the underlying situation as
additive or subtractive and the solution strategy (addition or
subtraction) required to solve a given problem with a partic-
ular kind of unknown (DeCorte & Verschaffel, 1985a; Greer,
in press; Vergnaud, 1982; Willis & Fuson, 1985). For example,
in a Change-Get-More situation, a missing Start problem has
the additive Change-Get-More underlying structure, but one
can solve it by subtracting the change number from the end
number. The conflict problems are footnoted in Table 1.
Conflict problems have been found to be particularly difficult
for children (see Carpenter & Moser, 1983, and Riley et al.,
1983, for reviews). Therefore, of particular interest was
whether the schematic drawings would improve performance
on conflict problems.
Three different kinds of schematic drawings were used in
the word problem instruction (see Figure 1). The Change-
Get-More and Change-Get-Less problem structures are simi-
lar; both problem types involve an initial state, a change, and
193
Subtraction situations
Change-Get-Less
Missing end
Joe had 8 marbles.
Then he gave 5 marbles to Tom.
How many marbles does Joe have now?
Missing change
Joe had 8 marbles.
Then he gave some marbles to Tom.
Now Joe has 3 marbles.
How many marbles did he give to Tom?
Missing start*
Joe had some marbles.
Then he gave 5 marbles to Tom.
Now Joe has 3 marbles.
How many marbles did Joe have in the beginning?
Compare
Missing difference
Joe has 8 marbles.
Tom has 5 marbles.
How many more marbles does Joe have than Tom?
Missing big3
Joe has 3 marbles.
Tom has 5 more marbles than Joe.
How many marbles does Tom have?
Missing small
Joe has 8 marbles.
He has 5 more marbles than Tom.
How many marbles does Tom have?
a final state. Therefore the same basic drawing was used for
these two types, and the different nature of the change was
represented by a plus or minus symbol inserted by the child
(see Figure 1). The Put-Together drawing was the part-part-
whole drawing used in the Developing Mathematical Proc-
esses series (Romberg, Harvey, Moser, & Montgomery, 1974).
However, the quantities were labeled part, part, and all (rather
than whole) because often there is no actual "whole" that
comprises the two given sets in a Put-Together problem. The
Compare drawing contained big and small quantities placed
adjacent to one another to facilitate their comparison; the
difference was enclosed by a broken line because that differ-
ence is not actually a physically separate entity in a Compare
structure. The three quantities in each problem were given
mnemonic labels (see Figure 1). Children were to write the
letter for each label on the known or unknown quantity in
the problem and then enter the known quantities into their
correct place in the drawing. The drawing could then be used
to determine the correct solution strategy. The choice of
solution procedure was aided by the presence of the drawing
either through the relations among the physical sizes of the
different parts or by the temporal ordering implied by the
drawing.
The ultimate question, of course, is whether teaching sche-
matic drawings improves children's ability to solve word
problems. The prior question is whether children can even
learn this method. Because of the complexity of this method,
194 GORDON B. WILLIS AND KAREN C. FUSON

PUT-TOGETHER (COMBINE): missing SECOND PART problem types stem from difficulty in representing these prob-
(All) (Part) (Part) lems at a global level (indicated by children's making an
Jon and Bill have 814 toys altogether. Jon has 342 toys. How many toys inappropriate drawing), in understanding the specific relations
does Bill have? p p
among the three problem quantities (indicated by children's
342 inserting the three numbers into the drawing incorrectly), in
choosing a correct solution strategy (indicated by children's
adding instead of subtracting or vice versa), or in carrying out
814 the solution strategy correctly (indicated by children's making
A an addition or subtraction error).
Schematic drawings also provide an opportunity to obtain
CHANGE-GET-MORE; missing START information about how children represent problems, infor-
(Start) (Change) (End) mation that is not available when children solve problems by
Jon had some toys. Then Bill gave him J42 more toys. Now Jon has 814 toys. usual methods. This information is particularly pertinent to
How many toys did Jon have to start with? two hypotheses concerning such representations. Resnick
C (1983) proposed that children use a single part-part-whole
s £342 ) E schema, such as the Put-Together drawing, for the represen-
tation of all four kinds of addition and subtraction word
^ -^ 814 problems. Riley et al. (1983) and Kintsch and Greeno (1985)
hypothesized that children use a part-part-whole schema to
solve the more difficult kinds of Change problems. The former
proposal would be supported by a tendency for children to
HANG E-GET-LESS: missing CHANGE
make the Put-Together drawing for all types of problems and
(Start) (Change) (End)
Jon had 814 toys. Then he gave some toys to Bill. Now Jon has 342 toys. for this drawing to facilitate their solution. The latter proposal
How many toys did Jon give to Bill? would be supported by such a tendency for the more difficult
Change problems.
E A final focus of the study was to ascertain which of the 12
problem types are within the zone of proximal development
814 342 of second graders when multidigit numbers are used in the
problems (i.e., which types second graders can learn with
instructional support). There are at present no data on this
point. Children in the United States typically are infrequently
COMPARE: missing BIG exposed to the more difficult problem types with either small
(Small) (Difference) or large numbers (Stigler, Fuson, Ham, & Kim, 1986), and
Jon has 342 toys. Bill has 472 more toys than Jon has.
How many toys does Bill have? research on children's ability to solve the more difficult types
(Big)
S D has been limited to sums and differences to 18 (Carpenter &
Moser, 1983; Riley et al., 1983). However, a comparative
342 472 i analysis of mathematics textbooks suggests that second grad-
ers might be able to solve the easier types with large numbers
and could perhaps improve in solving some of the more
difficult types. The mathematics series used nationwide in the
Soviet Union includes for both first and second grades all 12
kinds of problems with a distribution that is almost equal
Figure 1. Examples of word problems with verbal labels applied across the 12 types (Stigler et al., 1986). The second-grade
and drawings as they would be filled before selection of a solution
procedure. text includes problems with two-digit numbers, and texts for
both grades include many two-step problems that involve two
different categories of problems (Stigler et al., 1986, and
this question breaks into several questions, each of which was unpublished data from this study). Because Soviet children
focused on in the data collection and analysis. Can children begin school 1 year later than children in the United States,1
make the schematic drawings? Do they choose the correct it seemed possible that the difficult problems with large num-
category of drawing for a problem (e.g., make Put-Together bers would be too difficult for low-ability second graders.
drawings for Put-Together problems)? If not, what are the Therefore this study was restricted to United States second
major kinds of substitutions of one category for another? Do graders who were of average and above-average ability in
they enter the numbers into a drawing so that it represents mathematics.
the particular problem correctly? Do children choose the It was possible to use multidigit numbers in this study
correct solution strategy? How are the problem representa- because the children in our sample had previously been taught
tions related to the choices of solution strategy? Is the solution
strategy carried out correctly—that is, does it lead to the 1
The Soviet Union has now started to admit first graders at age 6.
correct answer to the problem? The schematic drawings thus However, the text series containing all types of word problems was
enable us to pinpoint whether low rates of solving certain designed for 7-year-old first graders.
 TEACHING SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS
algorithms for solving multidigit addition and subtraction
problems (Fuson, 1986a). The children used finger-pattern
counting procedures for performing single-digit computations
when an addition or subtraction fact was unknown (Fuson,
1986b; Fuson & Secada, 1986; Fuson & Willis, in press); they
were taught to count up rather than down for subtraction
problems (e.g., 1 4 - 8 was solved by counting up from 8 to
14). These children were in general quite competent at single-
digit and multidigit computation.
Method
Subjects
Subjects were second-grade children from two public schools in a
small city near Chicago. The schools in this city enroll children of
widely varying socioeconomic status. One of the classes contained 24
students and was categorized by the teachers as containing children
with high math ability (Class HA). The other class contained 19
children categorized by teachers as children of average math ability
(Class AA).
Procedure
Use of the schematic drawings. The categories of word problems
used in the study appear in Table 1 and the schematic drawings used
for each category of word problems appear in Figure 1; both were
discussed in the introduction. Children were first introduced to a
general category of word problems and shown the drawing for that
category. For any given problem, they were taught first to write on
the problem the letter for the verbal labels naming the three elements
in the story (the two givens and the unknown). The particular labels
in Figure 1 were substituted for Riley et al.'s (1983) labels because
they were more appropriate for second graders.
After applying the labels, the children were taught to make the
schematic drawing that is appropriate for that general story category.
The drawing contained three parts, one corresponding to each of the
labeled story elements. The two given numbers were then written in
the appropriate parts of the drawing; these locations were determined
by the labels attached to the numbers. Last, the children chose the
correct arithmetic solution procedure by determining how to obtain
the unknown (either by adding or subtracting), given the two filled
parts. The drawing facilitates this choice either by the relative sizes of
the sections of the drawing (for Put-Together and Compare problems,
"small + small = big" and "big — small = small") or by the temporal
ordering of events (for Change-Get-More and Change-Get-Less prob-
lems, "some + some more = a larger result" and "some — some of
them = a smaller result").
An exampleof how this series of steps is applied to a Put-Together
problem is provided in the first part of Figure 1. The child identifies
the problem as a type from the Put-Together category and applies the
appropriate verbal labels (part, part, and all) to the word problem,
writing P, P, and A by the appropriate words. The first part (P) is
represented by Jon, the second and unknown (P) by Bill, and the all
(A) by the given altogether. The next step is to produce the drawing,
and the following step is to fill in the given elements. The child then
analyzes the relations between the two known numbers in the drawing
and arrives at the subtraction solution to obtain the unknown (the
number that is to fill the empty box). Thus the physically represented
"part + part = all" structure is potentially capable of inducing the
proper solution strategy as long as the child has filled in the sections
of the drawing correctly. Examples of the use of the labels and
195
drawings for typical Change and Compare stories are also provided
in Figure 1.
Worksheets and tests, Practice worksheets were constructed both
for student practice and to provide data on problem difficulty. Pure
worksheets were those containing problems from a single semantic
category. The Put-Together, Change-Get-More, and Change-Get-Less
worksheets each contained 18 problems equally distributed across
each of the three missing positions. The Compare worksheets con-
tained 27 problems distributed equally across the three missing posi-
tions and across problems in which the words more and fewer
appeared (e.g., "How many fewer problems does Joe have than
Tom?"). The mixed worksheets contained 24 intermixed problems
equally distributed across the four semantic categories and across the
three missing positions for each type. The equal distribution across
problem variables permitted analyses in which we compared the
relative difficulty of different problem types and different missing
positions. However, it was not an instructionally maximal treatment,
which would have concentrated on problems with which children
were having the most difficulty.
The 10 most difficult problem subtypes were selected for inclusion
in 10-problem pretests and posttests given to children before and after
the teaching. These tests omitted the simple "Put-Together: missing
all" and the "Change-Get-More: missing end" problems because we
were concerned about fatigue and time limitations that would have
occurred with a longer test. The easiest problems were omitted
because we were concerned about ceiling effects on these problems.
In all of the Compare problems, the word more, rather than fewer,
was used. Problems were ordered so that no two problems from the
identical semantic category (Put-Together, Change, Compare) were
placed sequentially. To control for problem ordering effects, we
constructed two forms in which problems were listed in the reverse
order. All numbers in problems were of three digits, and one trade
(carrying or borrowing) was required to obtain the sum or difference.
Children were given the test initially as a pretest and allowed to solve
problems in any way. When the test was given as a posttest, children
were told to make a schematic drawing for each problem. Each
problem was then evaluated with respect to whether the drawing
made was of the correct problem category, the numbers were filled
into the drawing correctly, the correct solution strategy was chosen,
and the solution strategy was carried out correctly.
Organization of the instruction. Teaching was divided into units;
one major problem category was taught within a unit. The order of
teaching was Put-Together, Change-Get-More, Change-Get-Less,
Compare, and mixed problem categories. The first unit taught to
Class HA focused first on small-number problems (sums and differ-
ences to 18), and small-number worksheets were completed before
large-number problems were introduced. This was done because we
were afraid that beginning with the large numbers would be too
difficult. For the first unit, children were also instructed to write a
number sentence that reflected the semantic structure of the problem
(e.g., 6 + = 14 or + 342 = 629) before solution. It
became evident, however, that the writing of the number sentence
problem equation was a burdensome and much-resisted extra step at
both number sizes and that children tended to write the equation
after solution or else omitted it entirely. Therefore, this step was
bypassed in further units.
All teaching was done by one of the investigators. In one math
period, story problems of a particular category were presented, the
classification and labeling were described, and the complete solution
for different variants of the problem was illustrated by the instructor.
Then the children spent between 2 and 4 days completing the practice
worksheets for that category. Children received little systematic indi-
vidualized feedback on the worksheets because these were kept for
purposes of analysis. As much as possible, particular difficulties that
children had were addressed initially as the instructor aided them
196 GORDON B. WILLIS AND KAREN C. FUSON

individually on worksheets and later when additional brief classroom
instruction was used to rectify general problems that became apparent
through scrutiny of childrens' behavior in solving worksheet prob-
lems. The initial teaching of each problem type was restricted to the
story-problem category under current consideration. When a new
category was introduced, the differences rather than similarities be-
tween it and previous categories were emphasized.
After all four categories of problems had been introduced and
practiced, a short unit was given on problems of mixed categories.
For these problems, children had to decide which major category of
problem a particular story represented and then make that drawing.
Again, the particular defining features of each of the main categories
were stressed.
For the AA class, the Change-Get-More and Change-Get-Less units
were aggregated because transfer from a Get-More to a Get-Less
structure was very rapid. No instruction on small numbers was given
because the HA children had coped quite well with the larger num-
bers. Unfortunately, the second class had to be taught near the end
of the school year when unexpected activities intruded. Consequently,
insufficient time was available for practicing the separate units and
especially for completing the worksheets of mixed problem categories.
These children completed on the average only half of the mixed
problems and had no time to receive a review that stressed distinctions
among the problem types.
Results
Selection of the Appropriate Drawing
Children were able to make all of the schematic drawings
used in the study. They also were fairly good at selecting the
appropriate drawing (i.e., at making the drawing that matched
the word problem category). The percentages of correct draw-
ing selection are given in Table 2 for the posttests and for the
Class HA mixed worksheets (the Class AA mixed worksheets
were not analyzed because so few children had time to com-
plete them). When the HA children werefirstpracticing mixed
problems (i.e., on the Class HA mixed worksheets), the per-
centages of correct drawing selection were fairly similar across
the four problem categories: The correct drawing was made
roughly three fourths of the time. The most frequent mistake
was making the Compare drawing for Put-Together problems.
All of these were made for the "Put-Together: missing-part"
problems; none were for the "missing all" problems. Thus
some HA children seem to interpret a Put-Together problem
with a known whole and known part as a comparison between
the whole and the part. Also somewhat frequent were Put-
Together drawings made for Change-Get-More problems.
These indicate that the Compare drawings made for Put-
Together problems were not simply a result of an overall
preference for making the Compare drawing.
The HA class posttest drawing selections showed improve-
ment over those made for the worksheets in every category
except Put-Together. The percentages of correct selections of
Change and Compare drawings were very high. Because the
Put-Together and Compare drawings are so similar, an alter-
native scoring gave credit for Compare drawings made for
Put-Together problems and vice versa. When this was done
(see the PT/Cm percentages in Table 2), the score for Put-
Together problems increased to the high level of the other
problem categories. As on the worksheets, this tendency to-
ward mislabeling was asymmetric: Compare drawings were
made for Put-Together problems much more than the reverse
(24% vs. 6%). All of the Put-Together problems on the posttest
were of the "missing part" type, and the percentage of Com-
pare substitutions for Put-Together problems almost doubled
from the worksheets to the posttest, from 13% to 24%. Thus
the tendency for these children to view "Put-Together: missing
part" problems as "Compare: missing difference" problems
certainly did not decrease with practice.
The overall level of posttest correct drawing selection was
considerably lower for Class AA than for Class HA. When

Table 2
Percentage of Correct Performance by Problem Category on Measures of Problem Representation
Drawing selection
Drawing Overall Solution
Measure Correct PT/Cm Fill-in representation strategy
Put-Together
Class HA mixed worksheets 75 88 72 84 92
Class HA posttest 69 93 88 93 95
Class AA posttest 71 93 79 84 92
Change-Get-More
Class HA mixed worksheets 72 65 81 84
Class HA posttest 90 83 93 95
Class AA posttest 79 67 79 83
Change-Get-Less
Class HA mixed worksheets 83 72 79 81
Class HA posttest 92 84 87 83
Class AA posttest 61 61 81 69
Compare
Class HA mixed worksheets 83 89 56 71 73
Class HA posttest 89 95 74 78 87
Class AA posttest 72 94 61 69 69
Note. Drawing fill-in is the percentage of correct drawings filled in correctly; it includes Put-Together and Compare substitutions for each other.
Overall representation includes any drawing in which the placement of numbers would lead to the correct solution strategy. HA = high ability;
AA = average ability; PT = Put-Together; Cm = Compare.
a
These percentages include those cases in which Compare drawings were selected for Put-Together problems and vice versa.
 TEACHING SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS
Put-Together drawings made for Compare problems and vice
versa were scored as correct, selection of a correct drawing
rose above 90% for these two categories. The substitutions of
these two types for each other were symmetric for this class,
suggesting a more general confusion between these similar
drawings. Correct drawings were made for Change-Get-Less
problems markedly less often than for the other three problem
categories; Put-Together drawings were often made for these
problems.
Filling in the Drawing
Drawings were scored as correctly filled in if the correct
semantic type was drawn and the numbers were placed cor-
rectly within the drawings, with the exception that substitu-
tions of Compare and Put-Together drawings were allowed
because of their considerable similarity. Percentages of correct
drawing fill-in are given in Table 2. For Class HA, the overall
average correct fill-in was 66% on the worksheets. This rose
to 82% correct on the posttest, indicating considerable learn-
ing from the worksheet practice and the review. On both
worksheets and the posttest, performance on the Compare
problems was somewhat lower than for the other three prob-
lem categories. The results for Class AA posttests generally
paralleled those of Class HA, but were overall about 15%
lower. It is not clear (a) how much of the decrement in this
class in comparison with the first is due to difference in ability
and (b) how much was produced by the less-than-adequate
learning and review time.
Overall Adequate Problem Representation
A second analysis of problem representation considered
only whether the drawing produced by the child adequately
represented the relationship among the problem elements,
independently of the drawing initially made by the child.
Thus if one would select the correct solution strategy from a
filled-in drawing, the drawing was credited as a correct overall
representation (see Table 2). This analysis was done because
one can assimilate a given problem into a different problem
structure while still remaining faithful to the relationships in
the story; for example, one can think of a Change-Get-More
problem as a Put-Together problem in which the starting
quantity and the change are the "parts" and the end quantity
is the "all." We wished to ensure that children could have this
freedom of individual interpretation; the use of drawings was
intended to be facilitative, not prescriptive. On the posttest,
only one problem category had more than three instances of
a correct overall representation that differed from the problem
category.2 For Class AA there were six instances of a Put-
Together drawing filled in correctly for a Change-Get-Less
problem; these instances were distributed across all three
missing positions. Though the number of correctly filled-in
noncanonical drawings was fairly small, such drawings did
raise the percentages of correct overall representation to 79,
87, and 78 for the HA mixed worksheets, the HA posttest,
and the AA posttest, respectively.
197
Analysis of the Class HA worksheets by missing position
indicated that four problem subtypes were particularly diffi-
cult for children to represent in this initial learning period.
The "Change-Get-More: missing end," "Change-Get-Less:
missing start," "Compare: missing big," and "Compare: miss-
ing small" problems had more than twice as many incorrect
overall representations as did the other subtypes within these
main types. On the HA posttest, "Compare: missing big" and
"Compare: missing small" were the most difficult to represent;
"Compare: missing difference," "Change-Get-More: missing
start," and "Change-Get-Less: missing start" were somewhat
more difficult than the remainder of the problem subtypes.
On the AA posttest, differences in representation were spread
fairly equally across missing positions and main categories,
though "Compare: missing big" and "Compare: missing dif-
ference" were the problem subtypes represented least well.
Thus there was some difficulty in representing all of the
Compare missing positions, but the "missing big" problem
was particularly difficult to represent.
Use of Correct Solution Strategy
A solution strategy was scored as addition if the answer was
greater than the two numbers given in the problem; it was
scored as subtraction if the answer was less than the larger
number. The percentages of problems on which children
chose the correct solution strategy are given in Table 2. On
the posttests both classes used correct solution strategies more
frequently on the additive Put-Together and Change-Get-
More situations than on the subtractive Change-Get-Less and
Compare situations, even though the easiest problems in each
of the additive categories were omitted from the posttest. This
difference between overall additive and subtractive categories
was greater in Class AA than in Class HA. Overall, Class HA
had an impressively high correct choice of solution strategy
(89%), and Class AA had a respectable 77%.
The pure worksheets completed by Class HA permitted an
analysis by missing position within each main category with-
out the distractions of other problem types. Put-Together and
Change-Get-More problems showed no effect of missing po-
sition on correct strategy. Analysis of two pure Change-Get-
Less worksheets revealed significant effects of missing position
on performance for both, Fs(2, 46) = 15.17 (MSE = 0.15) and
4.50 {MSE - 0.24), ps < .02, respectively; strategy scores were
much lower when the missing element was the first one (the
start quantity). Averaged across the two worksheets, the mean
performance levels were 63%, 94%, and 90% correct for the
start, change, and end quantities, respectively. Compare work-
sheets also showed a significant effect of missing position,
Fs(2, 42) = 8.30 (MSB = 0.21) and 5.77 (MSB = 0.19), ps <
.03, respectively; the missing big form (68% correct across
worksheets) was much more difficult than the others (96%
and 91 %, respectively, for missing difference and small). Thus
2
Because the drawing fill-in percentages already include Put-To-
gether and Compare substitutions for each other, the correct overall
representation percentages of course also include a substantial num-
ber of Compare drawings correctly representing "Put-Together: miss-
ing part" problems.
198 GORDON B. WILLIS AND KAREN C. FUSON

for both Change and Compare problems, it appears that
children have difficulty interpreting these "subtractive" types
as ones that require an addition, even with the help of the
schematic drawing.
Relationship Between Overall Representation and
Correct Solution Strategy
On the posttest, the fit between a correct overall represen-
tation and a correct solution strategy was quite good. Most of
the time a correct overall representation led to the choice of
a correct solution strategy: on only 5% and 1% of the prob-
lems for Class HA and Class AA, respectively, was there a
correct overall representation but an incorrect solution strat-
egy. Of these, 84% were on conflict problems, those in which
the underlying semantic problem category conflicts with the
solution strategy. Thus the semantic elements in a conflict
problem may stimulate an incorrect solution strategy even if
a proper drawing has been made. Furthermore, an incorrect
overall representation only rarely, on 8% and 6% of the
posttest problems for Class HA and Class AA, respectively,
led to a correct strategy. For Class AA these cases were
distributed across all problem categories. For Class HA, over
half of such cases were Compare problems, distributed across
all three missing positions.
Use of the Put-Together Drawings for Other
Problem Categories
There was little evidence to support Resnick's (1983) pro-
posal that children use a part-whole schema like the Put-
Together drawing to solve all of the word problem types. On
the posttest, Class HA showed considerably more use of the
Compare drawing for Put-Together problems than of Put-
Together drawings for any non-Put-Together type. When a
child did choose a Put-Together drawing for a non-Put-
Together problem, these drawings led to a correct solution
strategy much less frequently than did the drawings for the
particular problem category: 50% versus 91% for the Class
HA posttest, 50% versus 80% for the Class AA posttest, and
65% versus 87% for the Class HA mixed worksheets. The
more specific proposal of Riley et al. (1983) and of Kintsch
and Greeno (1985) that children solve the more difficult
Change problems by using a Combine (Put-Together) schema
also received little support. Class HA used Put-Together draw-
ings on only 3% of the Change posttest problems. Class AA
used them more frequently, on 17% of the Change-Get-More
problems and on 33% of the Change-Get-Less problems.
However, the Put-Together drawing was much less effective
than the Change drawing for Change problems. The Change
drawing was filled in correctly 93% of the time and led to a
correct solution procedure 85% of the time, whereas the Put-
Together drawings used for Change problems were filled in
correctly only 50% of the time and led to a correct solution
only 54% of the time.
Pre-Post Improvement
Mean performance scores on the 10-problem pretests and
posttests for correct strategy and correct answer measures are
given by missing position in Table 3. For Class HA, there was
a significant overall pre-post strategy improvement from 79%
to 89%, tilff) = 3.09, p < .01. The percentage of correct
answers also improved significantly, from 56% to 72%, t{2§)
= 2.99,/»<.01. The fairly sizable discrepancy between correct
strategy and answer measures for this class on the posttest was
mainly due to the tendency of many children to attempt to
perform the three-digit addition or subtraction straight from
the drawing or from the story without first copying the
numbers in a vertical form necessary for appropriate use of
the computation algorithms. Large variations in individual
problem difficulty were observed for this class. Increases in
performance for individual problem subtypes were tested with
McNemar's (1954) test of correlated proportions; results are
shown in Table 3. The strategy scores generally improved
significantly on all problems for which there was sufficient

Table 3
Percentage of Correct Strategy Use and Correct Answers on the Pretest ("Pre") and Posttest ("Post")
Strategy Answer
Class HA Class AA Class HA Class AA
Problem Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Put-Together
Missing first part 86 95 67 83 43 86* iS 67*
Missing second part 95 95 58 100* 71 67 58 92
Change-Get-More
Missing start 81 90 67 83 48 81* 58 83
Missing change 57 100* 58 83 33 86* 42 83*
Change-Get-Less
Missing start 52 62 58 42 52 57 42 42
Missing change 95 100 67 83 76 81 6/ 83
Missing end 86 86 67 83 62 71 58 67
Compare
Missing difference 100 100 75 75 67 67 6/ 58
Missing small 86 86 67 92 62 67 58 75
Missing big 52 76* 50 42 43 57 42 42
 TEACHING SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS
room for improvement except on the "Change-Get-Less:
missing start" problem.
Class AA also made significant overall improvements in
strategy and answer variables: from 63% to 77% for correct
strategy and from 53% to 70% for correct answer (both ps <
.05). The two problem subtypes that required addition showed
a small decrease in strategy scores, raising the possibility that
some children within this class simply tended to subtract on
all problems at the posttest and therefore improved overall
on posttest score only because 8 of the 10 problems required
subtraction. This possibility was partly supported by the find-
ing that 4 of the 12 children for whom complete posttest and
worksheet data were available did in fact subtract all problems
at the posttest, although they did not do so on the worksheets.
An examination of the pretest-posttest strategy scores of the
remaining children indicated that there was considerable im-
provement on the three problems that showed the Largest
increases in Table 3: "Put-Together: missing second part,"
"Change-Get-More: missing change," and "Compare: missing
small." Thus the improvement in Class AA would best be
considered as being limited to these three types of problems.
No child in Class HA used the same operation on all problems
on any worksheet or test.
The two problem types that showed the lowest posttest
performance for both classes were the conflict problems for
the subtractive problem categories: the Change-Get-Less and
the Compare problems that require addition. All four prob-
lems in the additive problem categories (Put-Together and
Change-Get-More) showed fairly high posttest performance,
and they are conflict problems: They require subtraction for
solution. Therefore, the subtractive conflict problems seem to
be particularly difficult to learn to solve.
Discussion
Second graders of average and above-average mathematics
ability can make the schematic drawings used in this study,
can reliably distinguish among the different semantic word
problem categories and make the correct drawing for a prob-
lem from the category, can usually insert the numbers from
the problem into the drawing correctly, and can select the
correct solution strategy for most problems. There was a
strong relation between a correctly filled-in drawing and a
correct solution strategy; few correctly filled-in drawings led
to an incorrect solution strategy, and few incorrectly filled-in
drawings led to a correct strategy. On about a fourth of the
posttest Put-Together problems with a missing part, the
above-average children made a Compare drawing; these draw-
ings led to correct solution strategies and may reflect some
children's view that these problems primarily involve a com-
parison between the small "part" and the big "all." The
average children substituted Put-Together and Compare
drawings for each other on about a fifth of each kind of
problem, seemingly indicating a general confusion between
these similar drawings. There was little evidence that children
successfully used Put-Together drawings for all problems types
(cf. Resnick, 1983) or for the more difficult Change problems
(cf. Riley et al., 1983, and Kintsch & Greeno, 1985). Such
use was infrequent or was considerably less accurate in overall
199
representation and in correct solution strategy than was use
of the drawings matching the problem category. Thus using
three different kinds of drawings seems to be more effective
than using just one kind, a result consistent with that of
Zwerts (cited in DeCorte & Verschaffel, 1985b, and available
only after our study was completed).
Both classes showed improvement from the pretest to the
posttest in selecting the correct solution strategy and in finding
the correct answer. Particular improvement was shown for
those conflict problems with an additive semantic structure
(i.e., the Put-Together and Change-Get-More problems re-
quiring subtraction). However, on worksheets and on the
posttest, children showed particular difficulty with those con-
flict problem types that had an underlying subtractive struc-
ture (Change-Get-Less and Compare problems) but required
addition as the solution strategy. Attempts to target specific
teaching toward such problems therefore seem justified. Over-
all, however, the posttest scores indicate that all 12 of these
problem types are well within the "zone of proximal devel-
opment" of American second graders of average and above-
average ability; that is, these children can profit from instruc-
tion on and practice with these problems. Because these
problems all contained three-digit numbers that involved
trading (borrowing and carrying), problems with smaller num-
bers might well be within the range of below-average second
graders or above-average first graders. The almost total omis-
sion of the more difficult subtypes of addition and subtraction
word problems from United States textbooks thus does not
seem warranted.
There are several ways in which the teaching unit presented
here might be improved in an attempt to achieve more sizable
increases in performance: (a) spacing the learning of word
problem solutions throughout the school year for children to
benefit from distributed practice on mixed types of problems;
(b) relating the word problem instruction to instruction on
symbolic addition and subtraction so that children do not
learn only a single interpretation of addition or subtraction
that later must be unlearned; (c) always giving a mix of
problems that will require some addition and some subtrac-
tion so that children never work word problems mindlessly
by simply combining the numbers in all problems in the same
way; (d) giving feedback to individual students about their
performance; and (e) targeting more teaching and practice
effort toward the most difficult semantic subtypes. The order
of teaching of Put-Together, Change, and Compare that was
used does seem to have been appropriate. Put-Together prob-
lems are easy to represent and are also generally easy to solve,
and therefore serve as a good introduction, whereas Compare
stories and their representations are difficult and should be
presented later.
Our work suggested two improvements in the schematic
drawings. First, the drawings for the Put-Together and Com-
pare problems should be inverted so that the large box is
placed above the small ones. This enables the child, in moving
from the drawing to a vertical subtraction problem, to retain
the two given numbers in the same spatial relationship. Be-
cause problems requiring addition have drawings with the
numbers to be added beside each other, this change makes
no difference for such problems. Second, the Compare draw-
200 GORDON B. WILLIS AND KAREN C. FUSON

PUT-TOGETHER ing might be altered so that the two smaller boxes correspond-
ing to the small and difference elements are physically sepa-
A rated from the box containing the big element, thus percep-
tually differentiating the Compare drawing from the similar
Put-Together drawing. Examples of the updated drawings for
use in later studies are illustrated in Figure 2.
The use of equations that semantically model a problem as
intermediate representations during problem solution seems
to be superfluous in conjunction with the schematic drawings.
Furthermore, because many young children consider the
equal sign in equations to mean "results in" or "gives" (Bar-
oody & Ginsburg, 1983; Behr, Erlwanger, & Nichols, 1980;
Kieran, 1980; Labinowicz, 1982), equations seem to be more
appropriate for young children to use for Change problems
than for the other types of problems. Thus equations may not
be an effective substitute for the drawings for Put-Together
and Compare problems. Interestingly, DeCorte and Verschaf-
CHANGE-GET-MORE fel (1985a) reported that children often have trouble writing
equations, especially for problems in which there is a conflict
C between the semantic structure of a problem and the solution
procedure. However, this problem may be acute only for the
Put-Together and Compare problems, insofar as Bebout
E (1986) showed that children can readily learn to write number
sentences that directly model Change problems with various
missing positions.
The results also suggest that the use of labels such as Put-
Together, Change, and Compare may be useful in helping
children distinguish among the different semantic types of
word problems and, ultimately, in solving the difficult conflict
problems. At the beginning of instruction, when asked "What
kind of problem is this?", children called problems simply
CHANGE-GET-LESS "addition" or "subtraction" problems. This classification per-
mits confusion between the semantic structure of a problem
C as additive or subtractive and the required arithmetic solution
procedure (addition or subtraction). The problem category

O E
labels and schematic drawings allow distinctions to be made
between these two different aspects and provide an organiza-
tion of the problem elements that may facilitate the decision
concerning the arithmetic solution procedure. Thus the draw-
ings may provide a more general and more flexible basis for
the learning of the relationships between concrete situations
and the numerical problems that describe and enable one to
solve those situations.

COMPARE References
Baroody, A. J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1983). The effects of instruction
B on children's understanding of the "equals" sign. Elementary
School Journal, 84, 199-212.
Bebout, H. C. (1986). Teaching children to symbolically represent
addition and subtraction verbal problems with number sentences
that represent problem structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, Department of Curriculum and Instruc-
tion.
Behr, M., Erlwanger, S., & Nichols, E. (1980). How children view the
equals sign. Mathematics Teaching, 92, 13-15.
Briars, D. J., & Larkin, J. H. (1984). An integrated model of skills in
solving elementary word problems. Cognition and Instruction, I,
D 245-296.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1983). The acquisition of addition
Figure 2. Modified versions of schematic drawings. and subtraction concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acqui-
 TEACHING SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS
sition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 7-44). New
York: Academic Press.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition
and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179-202.
DeCorte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1985a). Writing number sentences to
represent addition and subtraction verbal problems. In S. K. Da-
marin & M. Shelton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 50-56). Colum-
bus, OH: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education.
DeCorte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1985b). Working with simple word
problems in early mathematics instruction. In L. Streefland (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference for the Psychol-
ogy of Mathematics Education (pp. 304-309). Utrecht, The Neth-
erlands: State University of Utrecht.
Fuson, K. G (1986a). Roles of representation and verbalization in
the teaching of multi-digit addition and subtraction. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, I, 35-56.
Fuson, K. C. (1986b). Teaching children to subtract by counting up.
Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 172-189.
Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children's counting and concepts of number.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Fuson, K. C, & Secada, W. G. (1986). Teaching children to add by
counting on with finger patterns. Cognition and Instruction, 3,
229-260.
Fuson, K. C, & Willis, G. B. (in press). Subtracting by counting up:
More evidence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
Greer, B. (in press). Understanding of arithmetical operations as
models of situations. In J. Sloboda & D, Rogers (Eds.), Cognitive
processes in mathematics. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Kieran, C. (1980). The interpretation of the equals sign: Symbol for
equivalence relations versus an operator symbol. In R. Karplus
(Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Interna-
tional Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.
163-169). Berkeley, CA: International Group for the Psychology
201
of Mathematics Education.
Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. (1985). Understanding and solving word
arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109-129.
Labinowicz, E. (1982, March). Children's intellectual autonomy and
the construction of bi-directional equality. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, New York City.
McNemar, Q. (1954). Psychological statistics (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). A developmental theory of number under-
standing. In H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathemat-
ical thinking (pp. 109-151). New York: Academic Press,
Riley, M. S., Greeno, J. G., & Heller, J. I. (1983). Development of
children's problem-solving ability in arithmetic. In H. P. Ginsburg
(Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153-196).
New York: Academic Press.
Romberg, T. A., Harvey, J. G., Moser, J., & Montgomery, M. (1974).
Developing mathematical processes. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Stigler, J. W., Fuson, K. C, Ham, M., & Kim, M. S. (1986). An
analysis of addition and subtraction word problems in American
and Soviet elementary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and In-
struction, 3, 153-171.
Vergnaud, G. (1982). A classification of cognitive tasks and operations
of thought involved in addition and subtraction problems. In T. P.
Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and
subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 39-59). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Willis, G. B., & Fuson, K. F. (1985). Teaching representational
schemes for the more difficult addition and subtraction verbal
problems. In S. K. Damarin & M. Shelton (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(pp. 288-293). Columbus, OH: International Group for the Psy-
chology of Mathematics Education.
Received February 3, 1986
Revision received November 25, 1987
Accepted December 13, 1987 •