Highlight Math Vocabulary¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 3 studies (2 review, 1 causal), q2–q3 · 0 of 3 report an effect size

Description¶

The instructor models how to highlight or circle the words in a word problem that signal a mathematical operation — e.g., "each," "per," "times," "shared equally" for multiplication and division — while thinking aloud about why each word was selected. Learners then co-construct a class list of signal words, displayed on a word wall or graphic organizer, and apply the highlighting routine to their own problem solving.

Design Implications¶

Highlighting operational vocabulary directs attention to the linguistic cues that determine which operation a word problem requires — a known bottleneck for struggling problem solvers, who often grab numbers and compute without interpreting the text [~M]. The strategy works as an attention-directing and chunking device: it reduces the amount of text learners must hold in mind while selecting an operation Chunking reduces working memory load. [+S]. However, keyword highlighting alone can mislead — "more" sometimes signals subtraction, "shared" sometimes multiplication — so it must be paired with conceptual discussion of what the problem describes, not rote keyword-to-operation matching [~M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A worked demonstration in which the instructor highlights and explains word choices (Think-Aloud or Annotating routine)
• A co-constructed word wall or graphic organizer that learners help generate (Advance Organizers can serve as the organizer frame)
• Repeated Practice applying the routine to new problems, including problems where keywords are absent or misleading
• Discussion connecting highlighted words back to the underlying situation (equal groups? partitioning?) rather than to the operation alone

Constraints¶

• Keyword-to-operation mapping breaks down on non-routine problems; learners taught to rely on keywords alone perform worse on problems where the cue is absent or inverted [-M]
• Highlighting as a passive marking activity adds little; undirected highlighting is among the weaker study techniques in the learning-strategies literature [-M]
• Ineffective if learners lack conceptual understanding of the operations themselves — vocabulary labels cannot substitute for the underlying schema [~M]
• Overloaded word walls (dozens of terms) dilute attention; keep the displayed set small and current [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Learner-generated word walls (students nominate and define terms) versus teacher-curated displays
• Color-coding by operation (one color per operation) versus single-color highlighting
• Extending the routine to other operations (addition, subtraction) or to data and geometry vocabulary
• Digital annotation tools (e.g., highlighting in a shared document) instead of paper

Target Learners¶

• Learners who struggle to translate word problems into operations, including students with reading difficulties or limited academic English [~M]
• Developing problem solvers who benefit from an explicit attention-directing routine before independent work
• Less beneficial for learners who already read problems strategically; for them the routine is redundant and can slow solution [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Mathematical communication: reading and interpreting problem language
• Problem representation: building an internal model of the problem situation before computing
• Vocabulary acquisition in a disciplinary context

Instructions¶

1. Select 3–5 word problems containing clear operational language; plan which words to highlight and why.
2. Model the routine: read the problem aloud, highlight signal words, and think aloud about what each word implies about the situation (Explicit Teaching).
3. Brainstorm additional signal words with learners; add them to a class word wall or graphic organizer.
4. Have learners apply the routine to a new problem, then solve it (Practice).
5. Debrief with counterexamples: problems where a highlighted word does not mean what it usually means, to prevent overreliance on keywords.

Related Strategies¶

• Schema-based problem-solving instruction — pairs vocabulary highlighting with problem-type schemas so cues connect to situation models, not just operations
• Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI for Math) — grounds operation choice in learners' reasoning about problem situations rather than keywords

Related Elements¶

• Annotating — the general marking routine this strategy specializes for math text
• Advance Organizers — the word wall or organizer functions as a reference frame during problem solving
• Practice — the routine only transfers if applied repeatedly to fresh problems
• Analogies — linking signal words to familiar situations ("each" → equal groups)

Examples¶

• A Grade 3 class co-constructs a multiplication/division word wall ("each," "per," "twice as many," "split," "shared equally") and highlights these words before solving, then discusses a problem where "more" signals multiplication ("3 times more").
• Illustrative Mathematics problem-based lessons provide natural contexts for teachers to add a vocabulary-highlighting routine during the "notice and wonder" launch.

Key Sources¶

• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
• Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., Haria, P., Leh, J., Adams, A., & Kaduvettoor, A. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students' mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 115–127. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.115
• Capraro, R. M., & Joffrion, H. (2006). Algebraic equations: Can middle-school students meaningfully translate from words to mathematical symbols? Reading Psychology, 27(2), 147–164.
• Riccomini, P. J., Smith, G. W., Hughes, E. M., & Fries, K. M. (2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235–252. doi:10.1080/10573569.2015.1030995