Visit ebookball.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebook or textbook

(Ebook PDF) Conceptual Model-Based Problem Solving

Teach Students and Learning Difficulties to Solve
Math Problems 1st edition by Yan Ping Xin
9462091048 9789462091047 full chapters
_____ Click the link below to download _____
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-conceptual-model-
based-problem-solving-teach-students-and-learning-
difficulties-to-solve-math-problems-1st-edition-by-yan-ping-
xin-9462091048-9789462091047-full-chapters-22950/

Explore and download more ebook or textbook at ebookball.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

(Ebook PDF) Conceptual Model-Based Problem Solving Teach

Students and Learning Difficulties to Solve Math Problems
1st edition by Yan Ping Xin 9462091048 9789462091047 full
chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-conceptual-model-based-
problem-solving-teach-students-and-learning-difficulties-to-solve-
math-problems-1st-edition-by-yan-ping-
xin-9462091048-9789462091047-full-chapters-22950/

(Ebook PDF) Strategies for teaching students and learning

and behavior problems 1st edition by Sharon Vaughn,
Candace Bos 0205276873 978-0205276875 full chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-strategies-for-teaching-
students-and-learning-and-behavior-problems-1st-edition-by-sharon-
vaughn-candace-bos-0205276873-978-0205276875-full-chapters-23246/

(EBook PDF) Teaching to Learn Learning to Teach 2nd

edition by Alan Singer 1136286063 9781136286063 full
chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-teaching-to-learn-learning-to-
teach-2nd-edition-by-alan-singer-1136286063-9781136286063-full-
chapters-23254/

(Ebook PDF) Foundations of Problem based Learning 1st

edition by Maggi Savin Baden, Claire Howell Major
033523271X 9780335232710 full chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-foundations-of-problem-based-
learning-1st-edition-by-maggi-savin-baden-claire-howell-
major-033523271x-9780335232710-full-chapters-23096/
(EBOOK PDF) Excel 2019 For Marketing Statistics A Guide To
Solving Practical Problems 2nd Edition by Thomas Quirk
3030392600 9783030392604 full chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-excel-2019-for-marketing-
statistics-a-guide-to-solving-practical-problems-2nd-edition-by-
thomas-quirk-3030392600-9783030392604-full-chapters-21638/

(Ebook PDF) Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn

Mathematics 1st edition by Matt Delong, Dale Winter isbn
0883851687 978-0883851685 full chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-learning-to-teach-and-
teaching-to-learn-mathematics-1st-edition-by-matt-delong-dale-winter-
isbn-0883851687-978-0883851685-full-chapters-23314/

(Ebook PDF) Learning to Listen Learning to Teach The Power

of Dialogue in Educating Adults 2nd Edition by Jane Vella
078796607X 9780787966072 full chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-learning-to-listen-learning-
to-teach-the-power-of-dialogue-in-educating-adults-2nd-edition-by-
jane-vella-078796607x-9780787966072-full-chapters-23142/

(Ebook PDF) Learning to Teach 10th edition by Richard

Arends 0078110300‎ 978-0078110306 full chapters

https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-learning-to-teach-10th-
edition-by-richard-arends-0078110300aeurz-978-0078110306-full-
chapters-23248/

(Ebook PDF) Learning to Teach Adults 1st edition by

Nicholas Corder 1118841360‎ 978-1118841365 full
chapters
https://ebookball.com/product/ebook-pdf-learning-to-teach-adults-1st-
edition-by-nicholas-corder-1118841360aeurz-978-1118841365-full-
chapters-23068/
Conceptual Model-Based Problem Solving
Conceptual Model-Based Problem Solving

Teach Students with Learning Difficulties to

Solve Math Problems

Yan Ping Xin

Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6209-102-3 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6209-103-0 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6209-104-7 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2012 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements vii
About the Author ix
1. Conceptual Model-based Problem Solving:
Teach Students with Learning Difficulties to Solve Math Problems
Introduction 1
Algebra Thinking in Problem Solving 1
Mathematical Modeling 2
Theoretical Framework: Conceptual Model-based
Problem Solving 3
SBI that Emphasizes Semantic Analyses and
Representation of the Problem 4
COMPS that Emphasizes Algebraic Expression of
Mathematical Relations 4
Summary 6
Program Components 7
The scope and sequence of the program 7
Target Audience and Users of the Program 8
2. COMPS Program
Introduction 11
Singapore Bar Models (SBM) to Facilitate the
Transition to Mathematical Models 11
Word Problem [WP] Story Grammar (Xin et al., 2008) 12
A Cognitive Heuristic DOTS Checklist (Xin et al., 2008) 13
Additive and Multiplicative Word Problem Structure
and its Variations 13
Instructional Phases 16
Part 1: Additive Problem Solving 19
Unit 1: Representing Part-Part-Whole (PPW) Problems 21
Lesson 1: Introduction 21
Lesson 2: Part-Part-Whole Problem Representation 26
Unit 2: Solving Part-Part Whole (PPW) Problems 35
Lesson 3: Solving PPW Problems 35
Unit 3: Representing Additive Compare (AC) Problems 49
Lesson 4: Representing AC-More Problems 49
Lesson 5: Representing AC-Less Problems 60
Unit 4: Solving Additive Compare (AC) Problems 69
Lesson 6: Solving Mixed AC Problems 69

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Unit 5: Solving Mixed PPW and AC Problems 83

Lesson 7: Solving mixed PPW and AC Problems 83
Part 2: Multiplicative Problem Representation and Solving 97
Unit 6: Representing Equal Groups (EG) Problems 99
Unit 7: Solving Equal Groups (EG) Problems 107
Unit 8: Representing Multiplicative Compare (MC) Problems 115
Unit 9: Solving Multiplicative Compare (MC) Problems 127
Unit 10: Solving Mixed Equal Groups and Multiplicative
Compare Problems 141
Part 3: Solving Complex Problems 159
Unit 11: Solving Complex Word Problems 161
Unit 12: Solving Mixed Multi-Step Problems 173
3 Connection between Mathematical Ideas: Extend Multiplicative
Reasoning to Geometry Learning 183
Appendix A: Student Worksheets 191
Appendix B: Reference Guide 227
References 267

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank Nicole Spurlock, a pre-service elementary teacher

at Purdue University, for her great effort and contributions to the editing and
proofreading of this book. Her thoroughness and detailed comments helped me
tremendously in making my writing flow better and easier for readers to understand.
Second, I would like to thank Miss You Luo, a former elementary school
teacher, for her great contributions in field testing the Conceptual Model-Based
Problem Solving (COMPS) approach that integrates the bar model to facilitate
students’ transition from concrete or semi-concrete modeling to the use of abstract
mathematical models. In addition, Miss Luo contributed to the preparation of the
Student Worksheets and Reference Guide included in the Appendixes of the book.
Lastly, I would like to thank all of my Ph.D. students who have worked with me in
carrying out many research studies that examine the effects of the COMPS program
that I have been developing. Special thanks to Casey Hord, Ph.D., for his strong
interests in Geometry, which led me to expand my work to the area of geometry (see
Chapter III of the book).

vii
 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Yan Ping Xin, Ph.D., is an associate professor of special education at Purdue

University. She earned her Ph.D. in 2003 at Lehigh University. The focus of Xin’s
program of research is on improving mathematics performance of students with
learning disabilities/difficulties (LD). Her empirical work in (1) literature synthesis/
meta-analyses, (2) curriculum evaluations, and (3) intervention development has
led to theoretical contributions in conceptual model-based problem solving in
mathematics problem-solving instruction. Xin’s conceptual model-based problem
solving was recognized by the National Science Foundation [NSF] through a 5-year
research project (Xin, Tzur, and Si, 2008-2013) to support a multi-disciplinary
research project, directed by PI Xin, to develop an intelligent tutor to nurture
multiplicative reasoning of students with LD. In fact, Xin’s work in COMPS
(Xin, 2008) will be included in a new book, authorized by the National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), that summarizes selected research with the
potential to “inform teaching practice in K-12 mathematics classrooms and beyond”
in responding to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
Xin has authored or co-authored about 50 publications including journal articles,
book chapters, refereed conference proceedings, and other publications. Xin
publishes in top-tiered journals in the fields of special education (e.g., The Journal of
Special Education [JSP], Exceptional Children [EC]), math education (e.g., Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education), and education (e.g., The Journal of
Educational Research). She has presented nationally and internationally on effective
intervention strategies in math problem solving with students with LD. Xin has
served on the editorial board of two flagship journals in the field of Special education
(EC and JSP) and served on NSF reviewing panel. Xin’s work in mathematics
problem solving has been referenced in prestigious sources including the National
Mathematics Panel Final Report (2008), the What Works Clearinghouse and the
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Practitioner’s Guide, and many textbooks as
evidence-based or validated practices in teaching math problem solving to students
with diverse needs.

ix
 CHAPTER 1

CONCEPTUAL MODEL-BASED PROBLEM SOLVING

Teach Students with Learning Difficulties to Solve Math Problems

INTRODUCTION

Although American students are struggling with many aspects of mathematics, the
National Mathematics Advisory Panel has identified “algebra as a central concern”
(National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008, p. xiii). Interestingly, American
students tend to enjoy school mathematics during the early elementary grades.
However, they begin to experience difficulty in and come to dislike mathematics after
fourth grade when learning becomes more abstract or symbolic and involves more
algebraic thinking (Cai, Lew, Morris, Moyer, Ng, & Schmittau, 2004). In particular,
students with learning disabilities or difficulties in mathematics (LDM) are falling
further behind their normal achieving peers as they move from elementary to
secondary schools. A majority are essentially failing the secondary math curriculum.
According to the Panel, mathematics achievement in the U.S. decreases significantly
in the late middle grades when students are expected to learn algebra, which raises
the essential question: How can students, including those with LP, “be best prepared
for entry into algebra?”(Panel, p. xiii). No doubt, the Panel’s report underscores the
importance of algebra-readiness instruction.
The purpose of this curriculum book is to present a Conceptual Model-Based
Problem Solving (COMPS) approach to the teaching of elementary mathematics
problem solving. It emphasizes the teaching of big ideas in mathematics problem
solving and making connections between mathematical ideas including the
connection between arithmetic and algebra learning.
In this chapter, I will first briefly characterize algebraic thinking in problem
solving. Next, I will present a framework for mathematical modeling. Then, I will
introduce the COMPS approach that emphasizes mathematical modeling involving
algebraic thinking and readiness. Finally, I will provide a brief review of relevant
research in word problem solving with students with LDM, and illustrate the
distinctive features of COMPS and its advantages with the support of scientific-
based research.

Algebra Thinking in Problem Solving

Problem solving is a relevant and significant perspective and context through which
to introduce students to algebra (Bednarz & Janvier, 1996). With respect to the

1
CHAPTER 1

elementary school curriculum, algebra is essentially “a systematic way of expressing

generality and abstraction” (National Research Council [NRC], 2001, p. 256). In
algebra, the focus is on expression or representation of relations (Carpenter, Levi,
Franke, & Zeringue, 2005). Through translating information from real world situated
word problems into symbolic expressions and equations that may involve one or
more unknown quantity, such representation is considered one type of activity that
involves algebraic thinking (NRC, 2001). Within the context of arithmetic problem
solving, algebraic thinking “involves the use of symbols to generalize certain
kinds of arithmetic operations” (Curcio & Schwartz, 1997, p. 296) and to represent
relations (Charbonneau, 1996). Algebra is “a cluster of modeling” that serves as
“a domain for making, expressing and arguing generalizations” (Kaput & Blanton,
2001, p. 4).

Mathematical Modeling
Recently, Blum and Leiss (2005) provided a framework for modeling (see Figure
C1-1). In this modeling cycle, one must (1) read and understand the task, (2) structure
the task and develop a real situational model, (3) connect it to and/or represent it
with a relevant mathematical model; (4) solve and obtain the mathematical results,
(5) interpret the math results in real problem context; and (6) validate the results
(either end the task or re-modify the math model if it does not fit the situation). In
light of research in mathematics education, many students have difficulties in making
the transition from a real situational model to a mathematical model; and it is a weak
area in students’ mathematical understanding (Blomhøj, 2004).

real mathematical
model model
2
real 1 situation
4
situation model

6
real mathematical
results results
rest of the
5
world mathematics

Figure C1-1. Blum and Leiss (2005) Framework for Modeling.

In short, modeling involves translation or representation of a real problem situation

into a mathematical expression or model. Mathematical models are an essential

2
 CONCEPTUAL MODEL-BASED PROBLEM SOLVING

part of all areas of mathematics including arithmetic and should be introduced to

all age groups including elementary students (Mevarech & Kramarski, 2008). It
should be noted that engaging students in the modeling process does not necessarily
mean engaging students in the discovery or invention of mathematical models or
complex notational systems; however, according to Lesh, Doerr, Carmona, and
Hjalmarson (2003), it does mean that when such models or systems are given to the
students, “the central activities that students need to engage in is the unpacking of
the meaning of the system” (p. 216), representation of the real problem situation in a
mathematical expression or model, and the flexible use of the model to solve real
world problems.

Theoretical Framework: Conceptual Model-based Problem Solving

Contemporary approaches to story problem solving have emphasized the conceptual

understanding of a story problem before attempting any solution that involves
selecting and applying an arithmetic operation for solution (Jonassen, 2003).
Because problems with the same problem schema share a common underlying
structure and hence require similar solutions (Chen, 1999; Gick & Holyoak, 1983),
students need to learn to understand the structure of the mathematical relationships
in word problems and should develop this understanding through creating and
working with a meaningful representation of the problem (Brenner et al., 1997) as
well as mathematical modeling (Hamson, 2003).
The representation that models the underlying mathematical relations in the
problem, that is, the conceptual model, facilitates solution planning and accurate
problem solving. The conceptual model should drive the development of a solution
plan that involves selecting and applying appropriate arithmetic operations.
According to Lesh, Landau, & Hamilton (1983), a conceptual model is defined
as an adaptive structure consisting of the following primary components: (a) a
within concept network of relations; (b) a between-concept system that links and
combines within-concept networks; (c) a system of representations (e.g., written
symbols, pictures, and concrete materials); and (d) systems of modeling processes.
The first two components address students’ understanding of the idea or underlying
structure of the concept. The third component concerns different representation
systems, and the fourth component deals with modifying the situation to fit
the existing model or changing existing model to make it applicable to a given
situation. Based on Lesh et al. (1983), in applied problem solving, important
translation and /or modeling processes include (a) simplifying the original problem
situation by ignoring irrelevant information in the problem, and (b) “establishing a
mapping between the problem situation and the conceptual models used to solve the
problem” (p. 9).
Building on metaanalysis (e.g., Xin & Jitendra, 2009) and cross-cultural
curriculum evaluation (e.g., Xin, 2007), as well as empirical studies of intervention
strategies (Xin, 2008; Xin et al., 2011; Xin, Wiles, & Lin, 2008; Xin & Zhang,

3
CHAPTER 1

2009), I have developed the Conceptual Model-based Problem Solving (COMPS)

program that is consistent with the theoretical framework of mathematical
modeling and conceptual models (e.g., Blomhøj, 2004; Lesh et al., 1983). One
distinguishable difference between the COMPS approach and prior research
in word problem solving by students with LD (e.g., schema-based instruction
[SBI]) is that the former focuses on representing the word problem in a defined
mathematical model (the stage of “mathematical model” as it is presented in Blum
and Leiss’s mathematical modeling cycle, see Figure C1-1), which is expressed
in an algebraic equation that directly drives the solution plan. In the next section,
I will provide a brief review of intervention research with students with LDM
using SBI and more recently Conceptual Model-based Problem Solving
(COMPS) in facilitating elementary students’ ability to solve mathematics word
problems.

SBI that Emphasizes Semantic Analyses and Representation of the Problem

During the past decade or so, schema-based instruction (SBI) has shown potential
benefits for teaching mathematics problem solving to students with and without
disabilities. Jitendra and Hoff (1996) examined SBI that emphasized semantic
analysis of various additive word problems and the mapping of these problems into
schematic diagrams (adapted from Marshall, 1995) that are specific to different
problem types (i.e., change, group, and compare. See Table C2-1 in Chapter 2 for
examples of these problem types). The semantic analysis of word problems and
categorization of problem types are originated from the framework of Cognitively
Guided Instruction (CGI) (Carpenter, Fennema, Franke, Levi, & Empson, 1999).
The study was conducted with three third and fourth grade students with learning
disabilities using a single subject design. Later, Jitendra and colleagues extended
this single subject design study to a group comparison study (Jitendra et al. 1998)
and implemented SBI in regular classroom settings that involved students with
and without disabilities (Jitendra et al., 2007). The SBI strategy used in the studies
was similar in that they all emphasized semantic analysis of the problems by
which students make distinctions among Change, Group, and Compare problem
types and then map the problem into respective schematic diagrams. Afterwards,
students are expected to create a math sentence for the solution with the help of
solution rules such as “Total is not known, so add” or “Total is known, so subtract”
(Jitendra, 2002, p. 36).

COMPS that Emphasizes Algebraic Expression of Mathematical Relations

Emerging from SBI, COMPS has transformed semantic representation of additive

problems in various diagrams (as in SBI) to a single mathematical model to
facilitate solution planning and accurate problem solving. With the COMPS
approach, the focus is not on semantic analysis of the word problems, rather, it

4
 CONCEPTUAL MODEL-BASED PROBLEM SOLVING

emphasizes an algebraic representation of mathematical relations in equation models

(e.g., “Part + Part = Whole” for additive word problems; “Unit Rate × Number of
Units = Product” for equal group structured multiplicative word problems).
Borrowing the concept of story grammar from reading comprehension
literature, I have created the term Word Problem [WP] Story Grammar to
denote the symbolic representation of mathematical relations in problem
solving. Although story grammar has been substantially researched in reading
comprehension (e.g., Boulineau et al., 2004), WP story grammar has never been
explored in math word-problem understanding and solving. Rather than focusing
on the textual analysis of story content as emphasized by the story grammar
in reading comprehension, the WP story grammar emphasizes the analysis of
mathematics problem structures. Subsequently, I developed WP story grammar
questions for prompting learners to identify elements of problem structures to be
represented in model-based diagrams, thereby linking problem representation to
solution.
To investigate the effects of COMPS, I, along with my colleagues, have
conducted a series of research studies. For instance, Xin, Wiles, and Lin (2008)
examined the effects of teaching word problem (WP) story grammar (see
Figure C1-2 for an example) to five 4th- and 5th-graders with LDM, with a purpose
to help their representation of problems in mathematical model equations (e.g.,
“Part + Part = Whole” for additive problems, and “Factor × Factor = Product” or
“unit rate × # of units = product” for multiplicative problems). The results indicated

Equal Group (EG)

An E G problem describes number of equal sets or units

Unit Rate # of Units Product

X =

EG WP Story Grammar Questions

Which sentence or question tells about the Unit Rate (# of items

in each unit)? Find the unit rate and write it in the Unit Rate box.
Which sentence or question tells about the # of Units or sets
(i.e., quantity)? Write that quantity in the circle next to the unit rate.
Which sentence or question tells about the Total (# of items)
or ending product ? Write that number in the triangle on the other side
of the equation.

Figure C1-2. Conceptual Model of Equal Groups (EG) Word Problems

(adapted from Xin et al., 2008).

5
CHAPTER 1

that conceptual model–based representations prompted by WP story grammar

improved students’ performance on arithmetic word problem solving and promoted
prealgebraic concept and skill acquisition.
To extend COMPS to more complex real world problem solving, Xin & Zhang
(2009) explored the effectiveness of COMPS in solving problems that require
sense-making of a decimal solution (e.g., “Marilyn is putting her CD collection of
152 CDs into cabinets. Each cabinet can hold 36 CDs. How many cabinets does
she need?”), as well as problems that require background information, pictograph
problems, and multi-step problems. A multiple probe, single subject design was used
to examine the intervention effects across three 4th- and 5th-graders with LDM. The
results indicated that the intervention improved student performance on researcher-
designed criterion tests and a norm-referenced standardized test.
Recently, Xin et al. (2011) employed a pretest-posttest, randomized group
comparison design to compare the effect of COMPS to general heuristic instruction
(GHI) taken from the participating schools’ enacted curriculum and teaching
practice. The results indicate that only the COMPS group significantly improved
(with an effect size of 3.12 over the comparison group, Xin et al., 2011, p. 390)
elementary students’ performance on the criterion test that involved multiplicative
word problems as well as the pre-algebra model expression test (taken from the
school-adopted math curriculum). In summary, preliminary findings indicate that
the COMPS program, with a focus on representing the problem in its mathematical
model (Blum and Leiss, 2005), seems to enhance elementary students’ problem
solving skills.

SUMMARY

Most of the existing research in SBI, including Fuchs and colleagues’ recent work
(e.g., Fuchs et al., 2008; Powell & Fuchs, 2010), in elementary math word problem
solving in particular, has a focus on semantic analysis and classification of word
problem types on the basis of CGI’s framework (e.g., Carpenter et al., 1999), and
representing the problem in a diagram or equation that is associated with each of
the problem types. Students then rely on solution rules, taught through explicit
instruction, to create a math sentence or set up an equation for solving problems. In
contrast, with the COMPS approach students are not required to make fine-grained
distinctions between sub-problem types on the basis of semantic analysis of story
feature (e.g., whether there is a change in time, for instance, “past to present,” to
differentiate the “Change” problem type from the “Group” as well as the “Compare”
problem types). Further, COMPS makes the connection between mathematical ideas
through representing variously situated problems (either additive or multiplicative)
in one cohesive mathematical model equation. By representing problems in
mathematical model equations (e.g., part + part = whole, or unit rate x number of
units = product), students do not have to memorize numerous rules to make decisions
on the choice of operation for finding the solution; rather, the mathematical models,

6
 CONCEPTUAL MODEL-BASED PROBLEM SOLVING

which depict mathematical relations involved in the problem, provide students with
a defined algebraic equation for solution.

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

The Scope and Sequence of the Program

This program addresses elementary word problem solving including four basic
operations. It may serve as a supplemental program with an aim to help students
with LDM learn big ideas in elementary math problem solving that involve four
basic operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. This program
will cover additive problem solving (e.g., part-part-whole and additive compare
problems), and multiplicative problem solving (e.g., equal groups and multiplicative
compare problems). The tasks involved in this book are those typically found in
elementary math textbooks, which roughly represent about 67% of the elementary
math content.
The COMPS program involves three parts: (1) five units on additive word problem
solving that involves addition and subtraction; (2) five units on multiplicative word
problem solving that involves multiplication and division; and, (3) two units on
solving complex word problems such as those involving pictographs, irrelevant
information, and mixed additive and multiplicative multi-steps.
In both Part I and Part II, the first Unit (i.e., Unit 1 or Unit 5) engages students
in learning mathematical models through representing the problem in the model
equation (see Figure C1-2 in page 5 for an example: unit rate × # of units =
product). During the model equation representation stage, word problem stories
with no unknowns will be used. The purpose of presenting story situations with
no unknowns is to provide students with a complete representation of the problem
structure so that mathematical relations in the problem are clear to the students.
In addition, self-regulation questions pertinent to Word Problem Story Grammar
(Xin, Wiles, & Lin, 2008) (see Figure C1-2, lower panel) will be used as a heuristic
to help students analyze various situated word problems/stories and represent the
information from the problem in either the Part-Part-Whole (PPW) model equation
or the Equal Groups (EG) model equation.
The second Unit in Parts 1 and 2 (i.e., Unit 2 and Unit 7) engage students in
solving either PPW problems (Part 1) or EG problems (Part 2) with an unknown,
after they learn the problem structure representation in Unit 1. The third and fourth
Units in Parts 1 and 2 (i.e., Unit 3 & 4; and Unit 8 & 9) introduces a variation of
either the PPW or the EG problem structure. In particular, students will learn to
represent (Unit 3) and solve (Unit 4) additive compare problems using a variation
of the PPW model equation, or represent (Unit 8) and solve (Unit 9) multiplicative
compare problems using a variation of the EG model equation. The fifth unit in Parts
1 and 2 (i.e., Unit 5 and Unit 10) will engage students in solving mixed additive
(Unit 5) or mixed multiplicative problems (Unit 10).

7
CHAPTER 1

Part 3 will engage students in analyzing and solving more complex problems
(e.g., problems involving irrelevant information, pictographs, comprehension of
decimal answers, and multi-steps). Following an introduction in Chapter I and
the COMPS program in Chapter II, lastly, Chapter III will extend the big idea of
multiplicative reasoning to the learning of elementary geometry with the intention
of teaching students the connection between mathematical ideas that both strengthen
their knowledge base and promote generalizable problem solving skills.
Overall, the program involves the features below:
1. The COMPS program teaches model-based rather than solution-rule-based
problem solving. It emphasizes the representation of mathematical relations in
algebraic model equations. COMPS aims to promote conceptual understanding
of big ideas in additive and multiplicative problem solving, as well as the
connection between mathematical ideas. As such, it is in line with the Common
Core Standards.
2. The program addresses the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s concerns
about algebra readiness and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM)’s call for algebra as a K-12 enterprise (Mathematics Advisory Panel,
2008; NCTM, 2000).
3. The program addresses the connection between concrete/semi-concrete
representation and abstract mathematical model expression. Singapore Bar
Model will be used to facilitate the transition from the concrete/semi-concrete
model to the symbolic/abstract COMPS model equation in solving additive and
multiplicative word problems.
4. Borrowing the concept of story grammar from reading comprehension literature
(e.g., Dimino, Gersten, Carnine, & Blake, 1990), the program focuses on word
problem story grammar (Xin, Wiles, & Lin, 2008) in facilitating students’
understanding of the mathematical structure of the problem and transformation
from real situation model representation to mathematical model expression.
5. The scope-and-sequence of the program is in line with the NCTM mathematics
curriculum standards.
6. The Program incorporates the best practice in mathematics problem solving
intervention with students with LD.
7. To show the connection between mathematical ideas, the program extends the big
idea of multiplicative reasoning to the learning of basic concepts in elementary
geometry.

Target Audience and Users of the Program

Addition and subtraction problem solving covered in Part 1 are consistent with the
math content typically presented in second or third grade math curricula. Therefore,
it can be used for third or fourth grade students with LDM (or even older students
with LDM) who have not mastered additive problem solving. Multiplication and

8
 CONCEPTUAL MODEL-BASED PROBLEM SOLVING

division in Part 2 are consistent with the math content typically presented in third
and fourth grade math curricula and can be used by 4th or 5th grade student with LD
(or even older students with LDM) who have not mastered multiplicative problem
solving. This program can serve as a supplement to regular school math instruction.
As this program teaches big ideas in additive and multiplicative problem solving,
students will be equipped with a tool to learn math problem solving systematically
and hopefully catch up with their normal-achieving peers within a short period of
time as supported by previous research (Xin & Zhang, 2009; Xin et al., 2011).
The COMPS program can be used as Tier II or Tier III intervention models within
the context of Response to Intervention (RtI) model. It can be easily integrated into
regular inclusion classrooms as part of Tier I instruction. The COMPS program can
be used by regular classroom math teachers (special education or regular education
teachers), Instructional Supporting Team interventionists, school psychologist,
tutors who work with students with LDM in after-school programs, and anyone who
works with students with LD in math problem solving.
The COMPS program is also useful for professional development and for the pre-
service training of prospective elementary teachers, special education in particular,
to enhance their content knowledge in elementary mathematics problem solving.

9
 CHAPTER 2

COMPS PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

Before introducing the sample teaching script as a guide to facilitate the implementation
of the COMPS program, I would like to introduce few salient components in the
COMPS program, which include: (1) Singapore bar models (Singapore Ministry
of Education, 1981) to facilitate the transition from the semi-concrete model to the
abstract mathematical model; (2) word problem [WP] story grammar (Xin et al.,
2008) self-prompting questions to facilitate problem representation using COMPS
model diagrams; and (3) a cognitive heuristic DOTS checklist (Xin et al., 2008)
to facilitate the entire problem solving process. Then, I will present a general
description of the instructional phases when implementing COMPS, followed by a
summary of various additive and multiplicative word problem situations.

Singapore Bar Models (SBM) to Facilitate the Transition to Mathematical Models

SBM refers to a visual representation of relations among quantities (including

known and unknown quantities) in the problem using a rectangular bar. In particular,
each quantity in the problem will be represented by a segment of bar, the size of
which corresponds to the numerical value of that quantity in comparison to the other
quantity involved. Students will then solve the problem through directly analyzing
the relations depicted by the bar models. Similar line models, rather than bar models,
appear in the Chinese math textbooks (Shanghai Elementary and Secondary School
Curriculum Reform Committee, 1995) in teaching word problem solving.
Regardless of whether bar models or line models are used, they are good tools for
representing the concept of composite units, or units made of ones. The bar model
can be used as a tool for nurturing and reinforcing the concept of composite unit and
to facilitate students’ transition from counting by ones to operating by composite
units. The bar model also bridges the conceptual gap between concrete modeling
(operating on the ones) and abstract representation of mathematical models as
presented in the COMPS diagram equations. As such, I will use the SBM in the
beginning stage of the modeling and practice sessions to help students understand
the relations among the quantities, and then map the information from the problem
to the COMPS diagram expressed in an algebraic equation. In summary, the SBM
makes the connection and transition between the concrete model (operating at the
unit of Ones; see Slide1-1-2 in Unit 1 Lesson 1) and the symbolic equation model
(see Slide 1-1-3 in Unit 1 Lesson 1).

11
CHAPTER 2

Later, the bar model will be faded out and students will no longer rely on Bar
models. That is, they will directly represent the problem in the COMPS diagram,
with prompts from WP story grammar questions.

Word Problem [WP] Story Grammar (Xin et al., 2008)

In the early 1900s, anthropologists found that people follow a pattern when retelling
stories they have read or heard regardless of age or culture. This pattern is referred
to as “story grammar” (Dimino, Gersten, Carnine, & Blake, 1990; Mandler &
Johnson, 1977; Stein & Glenn, 1979). In “story grammar,” “grammar” means
“elements.” Therefore, “story grammar” addresses the elements of a story. Story
grammar involves a set of expectations or knowledge about the internal structure of
stories (which can be conceptualized as story schema; Rand, 1984) that makes both
comprehension and recall more efficient. Story grammar instruction directs attention
to key elements of stories and provides students with a specific structure for the
organization of text information. Story grammar aims to improve students’ reading
comprehension by giving them a framework they can use when reading stories (e.g.,
by asking a series of story grammar questions regarding who, what, where, when,
and why). Consistent use of the same questions about the stories (e.g., Who? What?
Where? When? Why?) equips students with the framework that they can apply on
their own (Gurney, Gersten, Dimino, & Carnine, 2001). Story grammar can serve
as tools assisting students with organizing and representing the internal structure of
stories and therefore improve comprehension (Sorrell, 1990).
Just as there is a common structure in narrative stories which is called “story
grammar,” a word problem story structure that is common across a group of word
problem situations can be defined as WP story grammar for the particular problem
type. Corresponding to the COMPS model diagram equations, I designed a set of
WP story grammar self-prompting questions to facilitate a meaningful and accurate
representation of information from a real world problem into the COMPS diagram
equation.
For instance, in the part-part-whole problem types, basic WP story grammar
questions such as “Which sentence tells about the whole or combined quantity?” and
“Which sentence tells about one of the small parts that makes up the whole?” can aid
in comprehension and representation of the underlying structure of a word problem
in the conceptual model (i.e., part + part = whole), therefore facilitating solution
planning. Emphasis on the meaningful representation of mathematical relations in
problem solving is consistent with contemporary approaches to story problem solving
that promote the conceptual understanding of story problems before considering the
choice of operations. In addition, emphasis on representing mathematical relations
in equations facilitates algebraic reasoning and thinking (Moses, 1997; NRC, 2001).
This is consistent with NRC’s (2001) call that “the basic ideas of algebra as generalized
arithmetic” (p. 419) and “algebraic ways of thinking” should be introduced “well
before” students get to “the formal study of algebra” (p. 13).

12
 COMPS PROGRAM

A Cognitive Heuristic DOTS Checklist (Xin et al., 2008)

A cognitive heuristic DOTS checklist was developed to help students’ self- regulation
of the problem solving process (please refer to the DOTS checklist in Unit 7).
According to Polya (1957), such general heuristic procedures prepare students to
develop good mental habits in the problem solving process. In the context of solving
basic arithmetic word problems, it is important that students will first read and
understand the problem as a whole. Based on their understanding of the problem,
the learner needs to first detect whether the story or word problem is an additive
structure (part-part-whole structure) or multiplicative problem structure (multiple
equal groups) to which different mathematical models would apply. Although it is
important to know the strategies, it is more important to know when to use what
strategies and how to apply the strategy correctly.
After students Detect the problem structure and apply an appropriate mathematical
model, the rest of the problem solving process is about mapping information from
the problem to the diagram. As only two basic models are necessary for most
of the elementary arithmetic word problems that involve four operations (add,
subtract, multiply, and divide), the WP story grammar described above will help
students Organize or represent the information (from various structured additive or
multiplicative problems) in either the additive or multiplicative model diagrams.
It is important that students represent the problem in the diagram equation on
the basis of a thorough understanding of the problem; this is where the WP story
grammar plays a critical role in facilitating the conceptual understanding. After that,
all a learner needs to do is Transform the diagram equation into a real algebraic
equation (by “peeling off” the boxes and labels in the COMPS diagrams). The last
step in the DOTS strategy is to Solve for the unknown quantity in the algebraic
equation, provide a complete answer to the question, and check the accuracy (and
meaningfulness) of the answer.

Additive and Multiplicative Word Problem Structure and its Variations

The additive problem structure includes a range of Part-Part-Whole and Additive

Compare problem structures. A Part-Part-Whole (PPW) problem describes an
additive relation between multiple parts and the whole (i.e., parts make up the
whole). It includes problems such as combine (e.g., Christine has 5 apples. John has
4 apples. How many apples do they have together?), change-join (e.g., Christine had
5 apples. John gave her 4 more apples. How many apples does Christine have now?),
and change-separate (e.g., Christine had 9 apples. Then she gave away 4 apples.
How many apples does she have now?) (Van de Walle, 2004). Placement of the
unknown can be on the part or on the whole (see eight variations of PPW problems
in Table C2-1). An Additive Compare (AC) problem compares two quantities and
it involves a compare sentence that describes one quantity as “more” (AC-more)
or “less” (AC-less) than the other quantity (e.g., “Christine has 9 apples. She has

13
CHAPTER 2

5 more apples than John. How many apples does John have?” or “Christine has 9
apples. John has 4 less apples than Christine. How many apples does John have?”).
Placement of the unknown can be on the big, small, or difference quantity (see six
variations of AC problems in Table C2-1).
The most basic multiplicative problem structure includes various Equal Groups
problem structures and various Multiplicative Compare (MC) problem structures.
An Equal Groups (EG) problem describes a number of equal sets or units. The
placement of the unknown can be on the unit rate (# of items in each unit or unit price),
number of units or sets, or on the product (see three variations of EG problems in
Table C2-2). A Multiplicative Compare (MC) problem compares two quantities and
it involves a compare sentence that describes one quantity as a multiple or part of the
other quantity. Placement of the unknown can be on the compared set, the referent
set, or the multiplier (i.e., multiple or part) (see three variations of MC problems in
Table C2-2). It should be noted that the MC problems in Table 2b only include those
with multiple NOT part relations such as “2/3.”

Table C2-1. Variations in Addition Word Problems (from Xin et al., 2008)

Problem Type Sample Problem Situations

Part-Part-Whole
Combine
Part (or smaller 1. Jamie and Daniella have found out that together they have 92
group) unknown books. Jamie says that he has 57 books. How many books does
Daniella have?
OR
Jamie and Daniella have found out that together they have 92
books. Daniella says that she has 35 books. How many books does
Jamie have?
Whole (or larger 2. Victor has 51 rocks in his rock collection. His friend, Maria, has
group) unknown 63 rocks in her collection. How many rocks do the two have
altogether?
Change-Join
Part (or smaller 1. Luis had 73 candy bars. Then, another student, Lucas, gave him
group) unknown some more candy bars. Now he has 122 candy bars. How many
candy bars did Lucas give Luis?
2. A girl named Selina had several comic books. Then, her brother
Andy gave her 40 more comic books. Now Selina has 67
comic books. How many comic books did Selina have in the
beginning?
Whole (or larger 3. A basketball player ran 17 laps around the court before practice.
group) unknown The coach told her to run 24 more at the end of practice. How
many laps did the basketball player run in total that day?

(Continued )

14
 COMPS PROGRAM

Table C2-1. Continued

Problem Type Sample Problem Situations

Change-Separate
Part (or smaller 1. Davis had 62 toy army men. Then, one day he lost 29 of them.
group) unknown How many toy army men does Davis have now?
2. Ariel had 141 worms in a bucket for her big fishing trip. She used
many of them on the first day of her trip. The second day she had
only 68 worms left. How many worms did Ariel use on the first
day?
Whole (or larger 3. Alexandra had many dolls. Then, she gave away 66 of her dolls to
group) unknown her little sister. Now, Alexandra has 63 dolls. How many dolls did
Alexandra have in the beginning?
Additive Compare
Compare-more
Larger quantity 1. Denzel went out one day and bought 54 toy cars. Later, Denzel
unknown found out that his friend Gabrielle has 56 more cars than what he
bought. How many cars does Gabrielle have?
Smaller quantity 2. Tiffany collects bouncy balls. As of today she has 93 of them.
unknown Tiffany has 53 more bouncy balls than her friend, Elise. How
many bouncy balls does Elise have?
Difference unknown 3. Logan has 117 rocks in his rock collection. Another student,
Emanuel, has 74 rocks in his collection. How many more rocks
does Logan have than Emanuel?
Compare-less
Larger quantity 1. Ellen ran 62 miles in one month. Ellen ran 29 fewer miles than her
unknown friend Cooper. How many miles did Cooper run?
Smaller quantity 2. Kelsie said she had 82 apples. If Lee had 32 fewer apples than
unknown Kelsie, how many apples did Lee have?
Difference unknown 3. Deanna has 66 tiny fish in her aquarium. Her dad Gerald has 104
tiny fish in his aquarium. How many fewer fish does Deanna have
than Gerald?

Table C2-2. Variations in multiplicative word problems (from Xin et al., 2008)

Problem Type Sample Problem Situations

Equal Groups
Unit Rate A school arranged a visit to the museum in Lafayette. It spent a total of
unknown $667 buying 23 tickets. How much does each ticket cost?
Number of units There are a total of 575 students in Centennial Elementary School. If one
(sets) unknown classroom can hold 25 students, how many classrooms does the school
need?
(Continued )

15
CHAPTER 2

Table C2-2. Continued

Problem Type Sample Problem Situations
Product unknown Emily has a stamp collection book with a total of 27 pages, and each page
can hold 13 stamps. If Emily filled up this collection book, how many
stamps would she have?
Multiplicative Compare
Compared set Isaac has 11 marbles. Cameron has 22 times as many marbles as Isaac.
unknown How many marbles does Cameron have?
Referent set Gina has sent out 462 packages in the last week for the post office. Gina
unknown has sent out 21 times as many packages as her friend Dane. How many
packages has Dane sent out?
Multiplier It rained 147 inches in New York one year. In Washington D.C., it only
unknown rained 21 inches during the same year. The amount of rain in New York is
how many times the amount of rain in Washington D.C. that year?

Generally speaking, part-part-whole (or part + part = whole) is a generalizable

conceptual model in addition and subtraction word problems where part, part, and
whole are the three basic elements. In contrast, factor-factor-product (or factor ×
factor = product) is a generalizable conceptual model in multiplication and division
arithmetic word problems where factor, factor, and product are the three basic
elements. It should be noted that the three basic elements (in either the part-part-
whole or factor-factor-product model) will have unique denotations when a specific
problem subtype applies. For example, in a combine problem type (e.g., Emily has
4 pencils and Pat has 8 pencils. How many pencils do they have all together?), the
number of pencils Emily has and the number of pencils Pat has are the two parts;
these two parts make up the combined amount (i.e., “all together”) or the whole. In
contrast, in an additive compare problem type (e.g., Emily has 9 stickers, Pat has
4 fewer stickers than Emily. How many stickers does Pat have?), the number of
stickers Emily has is the bigger quantity (or the whole amount), whereas the number
of stickers Pat has is the smaller quantity (or one of the parts) and the difference
between Emily and Pat is the other smaller quantity (the other part); combining these
two parts is the bigger quantity (or the whole).

Instructional Phases

Instructions to carry out COMPS will be delivered in two parts: problem structure
representation and problem solving. During the instruction of problem structure
representation, word stories with no unknowns will be used to help students
understand the problem structure and the mathematical relations among the
quantities. Specifically, students will learn to identify the problem structure and map
the information from the problem to its corresponding COMPS diagram equation
(see Figure C1-2 for an example: unit rate x # of units = product). During that stage,

16
 COMPS PROGRAM

as all quantities are given in the story (no unknowns) students will be able to check
the “balance” of the equation to shape and reinforce the concept of “equality” and
the meaning of an equal sign.
Problem representation instruction will be followed by problem solving
instruction. During problem solving instruction, word problems with an unknown
quantity will be presented. When representing a problem with an unknown quantity
in the COMPS diagram, students can choose to use a letter (can be any letter they
prefer) to represent the unknown quantity. Students are encouraged to use the DOTS
checklist (see Unit 7) to guide the problem solving process.
Overall, the instruction requires explicit strategy explanation and modeling (see
the Appendix for modeling worksheets for students to follow along during the
instruction), dynamic teacher-student interaction, guided practice, performance
monitoring with corrective feedback, and independent practice. During independent
practice, students will be provided with an independent worksheet to solve either
additive or multiplicative word problems (see the Appendix for independent
worksheets) they have just learned. It is suggested that the COMPS model equations
be provided on all modeling and guided practice worksheets, or even on independent
practice worksheets in the beginning stage of the instructional program. However,
they should be gradually faded out on the worksheet once students have internalized
the models.

17
 PART 1

ADDITIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

 UNIT 1

REPRESENTING PART-PART-WHOLE (PPW)

PROBLEMS

LESSON 1: INTRODUCTION

Learning Outcome: Introduction to the concept of “sum,” Singapore Bar

Model, and the Part-Part-Whole diagram equation
Materials Needed:
Diagram Part-Part-Whole (PPW) Diagram Equation Model
_______________________________________________________

Teacher: For the coming weeks, we will be working together to learn how to solve
word problems by using Singapore Bar Models and diagram equations.

Slide 1-1-1. Introduction to the concept of sum

4 +7 = 11

Teacher: (Display Slide 1-1-1) How many circles are there in the first row? (Point
to the first row and ask one student to answer.)
Students: 4 circles.
(If the student cannot answer, let him/her count);
Teacher: How many circles are there in the second row?
Students: Seven.
Teacher: How many circles are there in all?
Students: Eleven.
Teacher: Good. There are eleven circles altogether. If we want to express it in math
language, we say: Four plus seven is eleven (“4 + 7 =11”), where 11 is the sum of
4 and 7.

21
CHAPTER 2

Teacher: (Give out cubes in two different colors ) First, please pick out 8 white color
cubes and form a bar; Next, please pick out 5 gray color cubes and form another bar.
(Monitor students’ actions; Display Slide 1-1-2.)

Slide 1-1-2. Introduce the Concept of a Bar

How many cubes are there in all? We can stack the two bars together (see Slide
1-1-2-a) and find out the answer by counting them all or by using the strategy of
“counting on” (8, then 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).

Slide 1-1-2-a

Or we can find out the answer by using the Part-Part-Whole (PPW) Diagram
Equation that we are going to learn today.

Slide 1-1-3. PPW Diagram Equation: Part + Part = Whole

Whole
Part Part

+ =

Teacher: (Display Slide 1-1-3) Let’s read it together three times: “part and part
make up the whole.”
Let’s map information from the bar model to the PPW diagram equation and see how
the bar model is represented by the PPW diagram equation.

22
 COMPS PROGRAM

Slide 1-1-4. Bar Model and the PPW Diagram Equation

8(part) 5 (part)

13 (whole)

Whole
Part Part

8 + 5 = 13

(Teacher points to the bar model in Slide 1-1-4)

As 8 is one part (the white bar made of 8 cubes) and 5 is the other part (the gray bar
made of 5 cubes), putting the two bars together makes up the “whole” (the long bar).
The “whole” equals the sum of 5 and 8.
(Teacher now points to the PPW diagram, the lower panel of Slide 1-1-4)
Let’s fill the first box with 8 and the second box with 5 for the two parts (or two short
bars), and 13 in the bigger box on the other side of the equal sign to represent the
long bar, which is the whole, or sum of the two parts.

In summary, the bar model tells us that the white bar and the gray bar (two short
bars) make up the long bar. The PPW diagram equation tells the same story: One
part (8) and the other part (5), which represent the two short bars, make up the whole
(13), which represents the long bar. In other words, 8 + 5 = 13.

Now lets’ check to see whether the sum of the two quantities on the left side of the
equal sign is the same as (or equals to) the quantity at the right side (of the equal sign).
Left side of the equation (LS): 8+5=13,
Right side of the equation (RS): 13.
Teacher: Does 13 “equal” or “the same as” 13?
Students: Yes, 13 =13.
Teacher: That means the PPW diagram equation or the statement “Part and Part
make up the Whole” makes sense, and the PPW diagram equation is consistent with
the bar model.
Teacher: Let’s look at Slide 1-1-5.
(Display Slide 1-1-5) There is one white bar, and one gray bar. Each represents
a number. If the two numbers are 7 and 4, which bar represents 7? Which bar
represents 4?

23
CHAPTER 2

Slide 1-1-5

Students: The white bar is 7, and the gray bar is 4.

Teacher: Why?
Students: Because the white bar is longer than the gray bar.
Teacher: Good thinking! If we put together the two bars as shown in Slide 1-1-5-a,
what would be the total length of the long bar?

Slide 1-1-5-a. Correspondence between the number and bar model

7(part) 4 (part)

? (whole)

Student: Adding the two small bars together?

Teacher: Very good, it will be the sum of the two parts (7 for one short bar and 4 for
the other short bar), or the total of the two small numbers (7 and 4). What is the sum
of 7 and 4?
Student: 7–8, 9, 10, …11!
Teacher: Yes, the sum of 4 and 7 is 11.

Now let’s map the information from the bar model to the diagram equation (teacher
presents the PPW diagram equation). We write “7” in one box and “4” in another
box for the two “parts.” Then we write “11” in the big box on the other side of the
equation, to represent the total length of the long bar.

Now lets’ check to see whether the sum of the two quantities on the left side of the
equal sign is the same as (or equal to) the quantity on the right side of the equal sign.

LS = 7 + 4,
or LS = 11;
and RS = 11

Does 11 equal 11? In other words, is 11 the same as 11?

Students: Yes 11 is the same as 11.

24
 COMPS PROGRAM

Teacher: That means, LS = RS. Or, the PPW diagram equation correctly represent
the bar model.

Slide 1-1-5-b. Correspondence between the bar model and the PPW diagram equation

7(part) 4 (part)

11 (whole)
Whole
Part Part

7 + 4 = 11

Let’s read Slide 1-1-5-b again. Both the bar model and the diagram model tell us that
one part (7) and the other part (4) make up the whole (11). In other words, two shorts
bars (7 and 4) make up the long bar (11). In summary, the bar model and the diagram
model tell the same story: Part and Part make up the Whole.

25
CHAPTER 2

LESSON 2: PART-PART-WHOLE PROBLEM REPRESENTATION

Learning Outcome: Be able to represent PPW word problem stories with the
bar model and the PPW diagram equation
Materials Needed:
Diagram Part-Part-Whole (PPW) Diagram Equation
Overhead Modeling Modeling PPW story representation 1, 2, and 3
Student Worksheets Modeling PPW story representation 1, 2, and 3
Try It Out–PPW story representation 4, 5, and 6
Independent Worksheet–PPW story representation 7, 8,
and 9
Reference Guide Reference Guide (PPW story representation 1–9)
__________________________________________________________________

Teacher: In the last lesson, we learned that the bar model and the PPW diagram
equation are telling the same story: Part and Part make up the Whole. Today we
will use the bar model, and the PPW diagram equation, to represent word problems.
This will help us understand more about the mathematical relation presented in word
problems.

Story #1-2-1

Heather had 54 crayons. Her sister, Tara, gave her 32 more crayons. Now
Heather has 86 crayons.

(Students read the story together.)

Teacher: What is this story all about?

Students: The story is about Heather’s crayons.
Teacher: That is right! It is about Heather’s crayons. How many crayons does she
have in the beginning?
Student: 54.
Teacher: 54 what?
Students: 54 crayons.
Teachers: Then how many crayons does she get from her sister, Tara?
Students: 32 crayons.
Teacher: After she received 32 crayons from her sister, she ended up with how many
crayons in total?
Students: 86 crayons.
Teacher: Let’s see if we can use bar models to represent the story. I will draw a clear
bar to represent the crayons Heather had in the beginning (54). I will then make a
shaded bar to represent the crayons Tara gave to her (32).
Adding the two bars together should represent the total number of crayons Heather
has at the end (See Slide 1-2-1-a below).

26
 COMPS PROGRAM

Slide 1-2-1-a

54 32

86

Teacher: Above is a pictorial representation of the story (i.e., “Heather had 54 crayons.
Then, her sister, Tara, gave her 32 more crayons. Now Heather has 86 crayons.”)
Now, let’s see if you can map the information onto the PPW diagram equation we
have learned (display Slide 1-2-1-b)

Let’s look at the diagram equation together: “Part and Part make up or equal the Whole.”
Now, who can tell me what number goes into the first box in the PPW diagram
equation?
Students: ????
Teacher: We have learned that the two boxes on one side of the equation represent
parts, and the big box on the other side of the equation represents the whole or Total.
So what numbers would I write in the first and second boxes that are labelled as “Part”?
Students: “54” and “32.”
Teacher: Very good! We can write 54 in the first box and 32 in the 2nd box; or we
can write 32 in the first box and 54 in the 2nd box. Either way is the same.

What number do we write in the big box for the whole, or total?
Students: “86.”
Teacher: Super! It is, in fact, the total of the two short bars, or two parts. Let’s now
look at the completed diagram as shown in Slide 1-2-1-b.

Slide 1-2-1- b

54 32

86
Whole
Part Part

54 + 32 = 86

27
CHAPTER 2

Lets’ check to see whether the sum of the two quantities on the left side of the equal
sign is the same as (or equal to) the quantity on the right side of the equal sign.
LS: 54 + 32 = 86
RS: 86
Does 86 equal, or is it the same as, 86?
Students: Yes, 86 is the same as 86.
Teacher: That means, LS = RS. Or, “part and part did make up the whole!” Adding
the two parts together EQUALS the whole. The bar model, and the diagram equation,
tells the same story: “Heather had 54 crayons. Then her sister, Tara, gave her 32
more crayons. Now Heather has 86 crayons.”

In summary, as presented in Slide 1-2-1-b, both the bar model and the diagram
model tell us: Part (54) and Part (32) make up the Whole (86); or, two short bars (54
and 32) make up the long bar (86). The bar model and the diagram equation tell the
same story: “Part and Part make up the Whole.”

Let’s try mapping the story to the bar model, or diagram equation, with another story.

Story #1-2-2

Rachel had 48 flowers in a big vase. Then, 19 of the flowers wilted, so she took
those ones out. Then there were 29 flowers left in the vase.

(Students read the story together)

Teacher: What is this story all about?
Students: The story is about Rachel’s flowers.
Teacher: That is right! How many flowers does she have in a big vase at the beginning?
Student: 48 flowers.
Teachers: Then what happened to the flowers?
Students: 19 of the flowers wilted.
Teachers: So Rachel took them out of the vase, and was left with how many flowers
in the vase?
Students: 29 flowers.
Teacher: Let’s draw a bar to present the 48 flowers she had in the beginning. Then
we take away the 19, and to show that she is left with 29 flowers.
(Teacher demonstrates the drawing, one part at a time.)
(Display slides 1-2-1-a)
Teacher: Let’s look at Slide 1-2-2-a:

We start with the long bar that represent the total number of flowers (48) in the vase
in the beginning of the problem. Then, part of the flowers wilted, so we mark off
part of the bar to represent the flowers that were taken out of the vase (19). Finally,

28
 COMPS PROGRAM

Slide 1-2-2-a

19 29

48

the leftover segment of the bar represents the flowers that were left in the vase (29).
Again, adding the flowers that were wilted and the flowers that were left in the vase
should be the total number of flowers that were in the vase in the beginning (48).

Now, let’s see if you can map the information onto the PPW diagram equation we
have learned (display Slide 1-2-1-b).
Let’s look at the diagram equation together: “Part and Part make up the Whole.”

Teacher: Who can tell me what numbers should go into the first two boxes that are
labelled as Part in the PPW diagram equation?
Students: 19 and 29.
Teacher: That’s right. The two boxes on the left side of the equation represent the
parts, and the big box on the other side of the equation represents the whole or Total.
So, 19 and 29, the two parts (which are the flowers that were wilted, and the flowers
that were left over in the vase), will go into the two boxes that are labelled as “Part.”

What number do we write in the big box for the whole, or total?
Students: 48, the total number of flowers.
Teacher: Super. Let’s now look at the completed Slide 1-2-2- b.

Slide 1-2-2- b

19 29

48
Whole
Part Part

19 + 29 = 48

29
CHAPTER 2

Teacher: If we peel off the boxes in above diagram equation, we get:

19 + 29 = 48
Lets’ check to see whether the sum of the two quantities on the left side (LS) of the
equal sign is the same as (or equals to) the quantity on the right side (RS) of the
equal sign.
LS: 19 + 29
Teacher: Who can tell me the sum of 19 and 29?
Students: 48.
Teacher: Good. 19 plus 29 equals 48; that is,
LS: 19 + 29 = 48
The quantity on the RS of the equation is: RS= 48.
Does 48 equal, or is it the same as, 48?
Students: Yes. 48 is the same as 48.
Teacher: That means, LS = RS. In other words, part and part did make up the whole.
Adding the two parts together EQUALS the whole.

As presented in Slide 1-2-1-b, the PPW diagram equation tells: 19 wilted flowers
(one part), and 29 flowers left in the vase (the other part), make up the total flowers
(48) in the vase in the beginning (the whole). Similarly, the bar model tells: two
short bars (19 wilted flowers and 29 left in the vase) make up the long bar (48 total
flowers).

In summary, the bar model and the diagram equation tell the same story: “part and
part make up the whole.” In other words, the number of flowers in the vase in the
beginning (48) is the sum of the number of flowers that were wilted and taken away
AND the number of flowers that were left in the vase.

Let’s try mapping the story to the bar model and diagram equation with another
problem.

Story #1-2-3

It rained 45 inches in 2006, and it rained 57 inches in 2005. It rained a total of

102 inches in the two years combined.

After students read the story together:

Teacher: What is this story all about?
Students: The story is about the rainfall in 2006 and in 2005.
Teacher: Yes. What is the rainfall in 2006?
Students: 45 inches.

30
 COMPS PROGRAM

Teacher: What is the rainfall in 2005?

Students: 57 inches.
Teacher: I will ask you to come to the board and draw the bar model for the rainfall
in year 2006 and year 2005.
(Teacher calls on volunteers to draw the bar models for the rainfall in year 2006 and
year 2005.)
Teacher: Good job in making the bar for the rainfall for 2006 and another bar for
2005. I will use braces to indicate on the bar model that, the first short bar represents
the rainfall (45 inches) in 2006, the 2nd short bar represents the rainfall (57 inches)
in 2005. See Slide 1-2-3-a.

Slide 1-2-3-a

45 57

45 57

102

Teachers: So the total rainfall during these two years will be?
Students: 102 inches.
Teacher: Who can help me indicate, using the braces as I have just demonstrated,
the total rainfall of both year 2006 and year 2005?

(Students are expected to make the brace for the entire bar and indicate the number
of inches, 102, for the entire bar as follows)
Teacher: Let’s look at the above bar model.
The shaded bar represents the rainfall for the year 2006. The dark bar represents
the rainfall for the year 2005. Adding these two bars together should represent the
total rainfall for both 2006 and 2005. What is the total rainfall for the two years
combined?
Students: 102
Teacher: 102 what?
Students: 102 inches.
Teacher: Good! Now, I need a volunteer to represent the story in the PPW diagram
equation.

31
CHAPTER 2

(Teacher presents the PPW Diagram Equation. Teacher then calls on student
volunteers. Student volunteers complete the mapping of the information to the PPW
diagram equation on the board. The rest of the students will work on the student
worksheets).
Teacher: Let’s look at the diagram equation together: “Part and Part make
up the whole.” What do the two small boxes on the left side of the equation
stand for?
Students: The first box stands for the rainfall during the year 2006. The second box
stands for the rainfall during the year 2005.
Teacher: What does the big box on the other side of the equation stand for?
Students: It stands for the total rainfall during both years: 2006 and 2005.
Teacher: Super. Let’s now look at the completed bar model and the diagram equation
together (Slide 1-2-3-b).

Slide 1-2-3-b

45 57

102
Whole
Part Part

45 + 57 = 102

Teacher: Are the bar model and the diagram equation telling the same story?
Students: Yes. The two boxes are representing the two short bars, and the big box
represents the combination of both short bars.

Lets’ check whether the sum of the two quantities on the left side of the equal
sign (LS) is the same as (or equal to) the quantity on the right side of the equal
sign (RS).
I need a volunteer to do this on the board.
(Teacher calls on a volunteer)
Student Volunteer:
LS: 45 + 57 = 102
Teacher: Good job!! Who can express the quantity for the other side of the equation?
(Teacher calls on another volunteer.)

32
 COMPS PROGRAM

Student Volunteer:

RS: 102

Teacher: Is the quantity on the LS of the equation the same as the quantity on the
RS of the equation?

Students: Yes. 102 is the same as, or equal to, 102!

Teacher: That means you have correctly mapped the information onto the diagram,
and part and part did make up the whole. In other words, adding the rainfall from
2006 and 2005 (45 inches and 57 inches) equals the total rainfall for both years,
which is 102 inches.

In summary, the bar model and the PPW diagram equation tell the same story: Part
and Part make up the Whole.

Now you will try to represent the story onto the bar model and diagram equation on
your own.

DIRECTIONS FOR TRY-IT-OUT AND INDEPENDENT WORKSHEET

In the below worksheets, first, you will use the bar model to represent the story.
Then you will map the information into the PPW diagram equation. After you
map the information into the diagram, you will check whether the sum of the
two quantities from the left side of the equation IS THE SAME AS, or EQUAL
to, the quantity from the right side of the equation. If NOT, you need to check
the accuracy of your mapping against the story provided. Make sure you have,
both, correctly entered the two parts into the two smaller boxes labelled part,
and that you have correctly entered the total in the bigger box labelled whole
on the other side of the equation. After correcting the mapping in the diagram,
you will check again whether the sum of the two parts from the left side of the
equation IS THE SAME AS, or EQUAL to, the quantity from the right side of the
equation.

Try it Out–PPW Story Representation 4, 5, and 6

4. The pound had 67 dogs in cages waiting to be adopted. One week, 24 of the dogs
were adopted. There were still 43 left at the pound.
5. A basketball player named Sarah scored 43 points in the first half of a game. Then
she scored 12 more points in the second half. By the end of the game, she had
scored 55 points.
6. Alex had 164 colored pencils. 57 of them were different shades of blue. There
were 107 colored pencils which were not blue.

33
CHAPTER 2

Independent Worksheet–PPW Story Representation 7, 8 and 9

7. One teacher had 23 flashcards for his students. Another teacher had 89 flashcards.
In total, the two teachers had 112 flashcards.
8. One student’s mom baked 56 cookies for the class party. Her son and his friends
ate 32 of the cookies before she woke up. There were only 24 cookies left for the
party.
9. A cat caught 23 mice in the spring and summer. In the fall and winter, the same
cat caught 53 mice. The cat caught a total of 76 mice that year.

34
 UNIT 2

SOLVING PART-PART WHOLE (PPW) PROBLEMS

LESSON 3: SOLVING PPW PROBLEMS

Learning Outcome: Be able to Solve PPW word problems with the bar model
and the PPW diagram equation.
Materials Needed:
Diagram Part-Part-Whole (PPW) Diagram Equation Model
Poster PPW Word Problem (WP) Story Grammar Poster
Overhead Modeling Modeling PPW problem solving 1, 2, and 3
Student Worksheets Modeling PPW problem solving 1, 2, and 3
Try It Out–PPW problem solving 4, 5, and 6
Independent Worksheet–PPW problem solving 7, 8
and 9
Reference Guide Unit 1: Reference Guide–PPW problem solving 1–9.
__________________________________________________________________

Teacher: In the last Unit, we learned how to use the bar model and diagram equation
to represent PPW problems. In this unit, we will use the bar model and the diagram
equation to help us solve real world problems.

Problem #2-3-1

Christie read two books over the summer. One book was 193 pages and the
other book was 267 pages. How many pages did Christie read over the summer?

(Students read the story together.)

Teacher: what is this problem all about?

Students: The problem is about the two books Christie read over the summer.
Teacher: That’s right. What else does it tell us?
Students: One book is 193 pages, and the other book is 267 pages.
Teacher: Good. What are we asked to solve for?
Students: How many pages did Christie read over the summer?
Teacher: Great. Let’s underline the question in your worksheet. (Students underline
the question in their worksheet; teacher does so on the board.)

35
CHAPTER 2

Let’s now use the bar models to represent the problem. I will draw a bar to represent
the number of pages in the first book that Christie read (193) (See Slide 2-1-a).

Who can help with drawing a bar to represent the number of pages in the 2nd book
that Christie read?
(Teacher call on a student volunteer)
(Student volunteer draws a 2nd bar next to the first bar to represent the number of
pages [267] in the 2nd book that Christie read.)

Teacher: And the question asks about the total number of pages Christie read over
the summer. I will make a brace to indicate the total number of pages over the two
short bars, which represent the number of pages in both the first and second book
that Christie read. See slide 2-3-1-a.

Slide 2-3-1-a

193 267

Teacher: Above is a pictorial representation of the problem using the bar model.
The first short bar represents the number of pages Christie read in the first book; the
2nd short bar represents the number of pages in the 2nd book that she read. Adding
the two bars together would show the total number of pages in both books. Before
we solve the problem, I would like to represent this problem in the PPW diagram
equation as well.

Who can help with the representation with the diagram equation?
(Teacher calls on a volunteer)
(Student volunteer makes the representation using the diagram equation (see Slide
2-3-1-b)

Slide 2-3-1-b

Whole
Part Part

193 + 267 = ?

36
 COMPS PROGRAM

Teacher: Slide 2-3-1-a represents the story of problem 1. Slide 2-3-1-b represents
the mathematical relation in the problem. To find out the answer to “How many
pages did Christie read over the summer,” we can generate a math sentence based
on the bar model. That is,
Total # of pages = the first short bar + the 2nd short bar, or
Total # of pages = 193+267 = 460.

However, if we use the PPW diagram equation, the math sentence (or equation) for
solving the problem is given by the diagram equation. That is, if we peel off the
boxes from the diagram equation, we get

193 + 267 = ?
Or ? = 193 + 267 = 460.

What is a complete answer to this problem?

Students: The answer is: Christie read a total of 460 pages over the summer.

Teacher: Super!
The reason we use both the bar model and the diagram equation is that the bar model
helps us to understand the meaning of the problem, as well as the meaning of the
diagram. Later in the program, we will not have to draw the bar models. Instead,
we can directly use the PPW diagram equation to represent and solve problems, as
the diagram equation provides us with a defined math sentence, or equation, for our
solution.

Let’s look at one more problem and represent it with both a bar model and the diagram
equation. After that, we will only use the PPW diagram equation to represent and
solve the problem.

Problem #2-3-2

The Girl Scouts were selling cookies at the mall. They brought 93 boxes of
cookies with them, and they sold 47 boxes that day. How many boxes of cookies
will the Girl Scouts have to take back home?

(Students read the story together.)

Teacher: What is this problem all about?

Students: The problem is about the Girl Scouts selling cookies. They have a total of
93 boxes of cookies, they sold 47 boxes.

37
CHAPTER 2

Teacher: What are we asked to solve for?

Students: How many boxes of cookies will the Girl Scouts have to take back home?

Teacher: Great. I will underline the question on the board, and you will do it in your
worksheet.

Now Let’s use the bar model to represent the problem. I will ask volunteers to draw
the bar model on the board to represent the problem.

Who will draw a bar to represent the total number of boxes of cookies the girl scouts
brought to the mall to sell (93)?

(Teacher calls on a volunteer. The volunteer makes a bar to represent the total number
of boxes of cookies. Other students will do the same in their worksheet)
See Slide 2-3-2-a below.

Slide 2-3-2-a

93

Teacher: The above bar represents the total number of boxes of cookies they brought
to sell. How many boxes of cookies did they sell that day?
Students: They sold 47 boxes.
Teacher: Instead of making another bar, I will mark off portion of the long bar to
indicate the number of boxes that were sold (see Slide 2-3-2-b). You will do the same
in your worksheet.

Slide 2-3-2-b

47

93

Teacher: So if the entire bar represents the total number of boxes of cookies they
brought (i.e., 93), and the shaded bar represents the boxes of cookies sold, what does
the clear bar represent?
Students: The boxes of cookies that were not sold.

38
 COMPS PROGRAM

Teacher: That is right. It is the boxes of cookies that were not sold, or, the number
of boxes of cookies that the Girl Scouts have to take back home, which is what we
are asked to find out. I will use a question mark to indicate the unknown quantity on
the bar (Slide 2-3-2-c)

Slide 2-3-2-c

47 ?

93

Who can help with the representation of the problem in the PPW diagram equation
below the bar model? (Teacher makes the PPW diagram equation model below the
bar model, and then calls on students to fill in the numbers in the diagram.)

(Teacher calls on a volunteer)

(Student volunteer makes the representation in the diagram equation) (See Slide
2-3-2-d, the lower panel)

Slide 2-3-2-d

47 ?

93

Whole
Part Part

47 + ? = 93

Teacher: Let’s look at the above Slide 2-3-2-d. The top part is the bar model.
In the bar model, the first short bar represents the number of boxes of cookies sold
(47). The 2nd short bar represents the number of boxes left unsold. The entire bar
represents the total number of boxes of cookies they brought to sell.

39
CHAPTER 2

Let’s look at the lower panel, or the diagram equation:

The first box in the diagram equation represents the boxes of cookies sold, the
second box represents the leftover unsold boxes of cookies, and the big box on the
other side of the equation represents the total number of boxes of cookies for sale.
Adding the two parts (boxes sold and the boxes unsold) together should make up, or
equal, the whole.
In summary, the bar model and the diagram equation representations tell the same
story in the problem.

To find out the answer to “How many boxes of cookies will the Girl Scouts have to
take back home?” we can generate a math sentence based on the bar model. That is,
in order to find the difference between the long bar and the short bar we subtract. The
math sentence would read:
? = 93–47
Therefore, ? = 46.
Now we know that the 2nd short, clear bar is 46, meaning there are 46 boxes of
cookies that were not sold, or 46 boxes that the girl scouts have to take back home.

However, if we use the PPW diagram equation, the math sentence for solving the
problem is given by the diagram equation. That is, if we “peel off” the boxes from
the diagram equation, we get

47 + ? = 93

Because the number we are adding is unknown, we have to “undo” the addition to
find out the unknown addend. That is, we subtract the given part from the whole (or
total) for solving for the unknown part. The math sentence would read:

? = 93–47
? = 46

[Note: For higher level students, the teacher can simply use basic algebra properties
for the instruction on how to find out the unknown in the equation. That is–
Given: 47 + ? = 93,
To solve for the unknown (i.e., the question mark, ?), we need to isolate the unknown
? by subtracting 47 from both sides of the equation:

47–47 + ? = 93–47
We get: ? = 93–47, or ? = 46

In fact, we can verify the algebraic way of solving for the unknown from the bar
model presented in the upper panel of slide 2-3-2-d. That is, to find out the difference
between the whole and one part, we subtract. In other words, ? = 93–47 = 46.]

40
 COMPS PROGRAM

What is a complete answer to this problem?

Students: The answer is: The Girl Scouts will have to take 46 boxes of cookies back
home.
Teacher: Very good!

We have gone through several problems using both the bar model and the PPW
diagram equation, and learned that the PPW diagram equation tells the same story
(that is, “Part and Part make up the Whole”) as the bar model. Because the PPW
diagram equation directly provides us with the math sentence, or equation for solving
the problem, we may not need to draw the bar model for future PPW problems.
Instead we can directly use the PPW diagram equation to set up the math equation
for accurate problem solving. Let’s try it out with the next problem. That is, we will
only use the PPW diagram equation to solve the PPW problems.

Problem #2-3-3

Travis ordered 68 baseball cards from a magazine. Then he ordered some more
for his brother. In all, he ordered 129 baseball cards. How many did he order
for his brother?

(Students read the story together.)

Teacher: What is this problem all about?

Students: The problem is about Travis and buying baseball cards.
Teacher: How many baseball cards did he order the first time?
Students: 68 baseball cards.
Teacher: How many more did he order for his brother?
Students: He ordered some more… we do not know how many he ordered for his
brother.
Teacher: Correct. That is, in fact, the question we are asked to solve for. Let’s
underline the question in the problem. (Teacher does so on the board; students do so
in their worksheet).

Teacher: What else do we know?

Students: He ordered a total of 129 baseball cards.

Teacher: Great! So Travis ordered 68 baseball cards. Then he ordered some

more, but we do not know that number. We do know that, at the end, he ordered
a total of 129 baseball cards in all. Is this still the part-part-whole (PPW) type of
problem?

Students: Yes.

41
CHAPTER 2

Teacher: You are right. It is still the PPW problem structure. So let’s use the PPW
diagram to represent the information from the problem.

Teacher: I will make the PPW diagram on the board. I will ask for your help to fill
the numbers into the PPW model equation.

(Teacher presents the PPW diagram equation without filling any numbers in the boxes)

Teacher: What is the total number of baseball cards Travis ended up with after
ordering some for himself and for his brother?
Students: 129 baseball cards.
Teachers: So 129 is the total, or the whole amount.
Where do I write “129”, the total number of baseball cards in the diagram equation?
Students: In the big box.
Teacher: That is right. We always input the total, or the whole, into the big box on
one side of the equation by itself. (Teacher enters “129” in the big box. Students do
the same in their worksheets.)

Teacher: do we know any information about the two parts, or the two orders Travis
made that makes up the total?

Students: We know he ordered 68 baseball cards for himself the first time.
Teacher: OK. That is one part. Let’s write “68 in the first box in the diagram.
Do we know the other part?

Students: We do not know.

Teacher: You are right. We do not know how many he ordered for his brother. We
are asked to solve for this part.
I will write a “?” in the second small box in the PPW diagram. Instead of using a
question mark, we can also use a letter to represent the unknown quantity. (Teacher
writes a letter “a” in the 2nd box that is labeled “Part”). In your worksheet, please
write the letter “a” in the 2nd box for the part that is not known.
Now let’s look at the completed diagram (Slide 2-3-3)

Slide 2-3-3

Whole
Part Part

68 + a = 129

42
Other documents randomly have
different content
sought it by means of sacrifice.388 Such sacrifice was a debt to the
God: and if it remained unpaid, his displeasure was incurred.389 The
motive for sacrificing to the Gods was thus, not simply to ensure the
granting of prayers, but to pay a debt: and thus either to prevent or
to appease the wrath of the Gods. The religious practice of Greece
rested upon the received belief that the Gods were not merely
pleased with presents, but exacted them as a mark of respect, and
were angry if they were not offered: yet that being angry, their
wrath might be appeased by acceptable presents and
supplications.390 To learn what proceedings of this kind were
suitable, a man went to consult the oracle, the priests, or the
Exêgêtæ: in cases wherein he believed that he had incurred the
displeasure of the Gods by any wrong or omission.391

387 Plato, Politikus, p. 290 D. καὶ μὴν καὶ τὸ τῶν

ἱερέων αὖ γένος, ὡς τὸ νόμιμόν φησι, παρὰ μὲν ἡμῶν
δωρεὰς θεοῖς διὰ θυσιῶν ἐπιστῆμόν ἐστι κατὰ νοῦν
ἐκείνοις δωρεῖσθαι, παρὰ δὲ ἐκείνων ἡμῖν εὐχαῖς κτῆσιν
ἀγαθῶν αἰτήσασθαι. Compare Euthyphron, p. 14.

388 Xenophon, Anab. vii. 6, 44; Euripid. Ion. 234.

389 Plato, Republic, i. p. 331 B. Compare also

Phædon, p. 118, the last words spoken by Sokrates
before his decease — ὀφείλομεν Ἀσκληπιῷ
ἀλεκτρύονα· ἀλλ’ ἀπόδοτε καὶ μὴ ἀμελήσητε.

390 See Nägelsbach, Nach-Homerische Theologie, pp.

211-213.

391 See, as one example among a thousand, the

proceeding of the Spartan government, Thucyd. i. 134;
 also ii. 48-54.

Now it is against this latter sentiment

Incongruities of Plato’s
— that which recognised the Gods as
own doctrine.
placable or forgiving392 — that Plato
declares war as the worst of all heresies. He admits indeed,
implicitly, that the Gods are influenced by prayer and sacrifice; since
he directs both the one and the other to be constantly offered up, by
the citizens of his Magnêtic city, in this very Treatise. He even implies
that the Gods are too facile and compliant: for in his second
Alkibiadês, Sokrates is made to remark that it was dangerous for an
ignorant man to pray for specific advantages, because he might very
probably bring ruin upon himself by having his prayers granted —

“Evertêre domos totas, optantibus ipsis,

Di faciles.”

Farthermore Plato does not scruple to notice393 it as a real

proceeding of the Gods, that they executed the prayer or curse of
Theseus, by bringing a cruel death upon the blameless youth
Hippolytus; which Theseus himself is the first to deplore when he
becomes acquainted with the true facts. That the Gods should inflict
punishment on a person who did not deserve it, Plato accounts not
unworthy of their dignity: but that they should remit punishment in
any case where he conceives it to have been deserved, he
repudiates with indignation. Though accessible and easily influenced
by prayer and sacrifice from other persons, they are deaf and
inexorable to those who have incurred their displeasure by wrong-
doing.394 The prayer so offered is called by Plato a treacherous
cajolery, the sacrifice a guilty bribe, to purchase their indulgence.395
Since, in human affairs, no good magistrate, general, physician,
pilot, &c., will allow himself to be persuaded by prayers or presents
to betray his trust: much less can we suppose (he argues) the Gods
to be capable of such betrayal.396

392 The common sentiment is expressed in a verse of

Euripides — Τίνα δεῖ μακάρων ἐκθυσαμένους Εὑρεῖν
μόχθων ἀνάπαυλαν — (Fragm. Ino 155); compare
Eurip. Hippol. 1323.

393 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 931 C. ἀραῖος γὰρ γονεὺς

ἐκγόνοις ὡς οὐδεὶς ἕτερος ἄλλοις, δ ι κ α ι ό τ α τ α . Also
iii. p. 687 D.

394 Plato, Legg. iv. pp. 716-717.

395 Plato, Legg. x. p. 906 B. θωπείαις λόγων.

396 Plato, Legg. x. pp. 906-907.

The general doctrine, upon which

Both Herodotus and
Plato here lays so much stress, and the
Sokrates dissented from
dissent from which he pronounces to
Plato’s doctrine.
be a capital offence — that the Gods,
though persuadeable by every one else, were thoroughly
unforgiving, deaf to any prayer or sacrifice from one who had done
wrong — is a doctrine from which Sokrates397 himself dissented; and
to which few of Plato’s contemporaries, perhaps hardly even himself,
consistently adhered. The argument, upon which Plato rests for
convincing all these numerous dissentients, is derived from his
conception of the character and functions of the Gods. But this,
though satisfactory to himself, would not have been granted by his
opponents. The Gods were conceived by Herodotus as jealous,
meddlesome, intolerant of human happiness beyond a narrow limit,
and keeping all human calculations in a state of uncertainty:398 in
this latter attribute Sokrates also agreed. He affirmed that the Gods
kept all the important results essentially unpredictable by human
study, reserving them for special revelations by way of prophecy to
those whom they preferred. These were privileged and exclusive
communications to favoured individuals, among whom Sokrates was
one:399 and Plato, though not made a recipient of the same favour
as Sokrates, declares his own full belief in the reality of such special
revelations from the Gods, to particular persons and at particular
places.400 Aristotle, on the other hand, pronounces action and
construction, especially action in details, to be petty and unworthy of
the Gods; whom he regards as employed in perpetual contemplation
and theorising, as the only occupation worthy to characterise their
blessed immortality.401 Epikurus and his numerous followers, though
not agreeing with Aristotle in regarding the Gods as occupied in
intellectual contemplation, agreed with him fully in considering the
existence of the Gods as too dignified and enviable to be disturbed
by the vexation of meddling with human affairs, or to take on the
anxieties of regard for one man, displeasure towards another.

397 Xenophon, Memorab. ii. 2, 14. Σὺ οὖν, ὦ παῖ, ἂν

σωφρονῇς, τοὺς μὲν θεοὺς παραιτήσῃ συγγνώμονάς
σοι εἶναι, εἴ τι παρημέληκας τῆς μητρός, μή σε καὶ
οὗτοι νομίσαντες ἀχάριστον εἶναι οὐκ ἐθέλωσιν εὖ
ποιεῖν.

At the same time, Sokrates maintains that the Gods

accepted sacrifices from good men with greater favour
than sacrifices from bad men. Xenoph. Mem. i. 3, 3.

398 Herodotus, i. 32, iii. 40.

 399 Xenoph. Mem. i. 1, 8-9. τοὺς θεοὺς γάρ, οἷς ἂν
ὦσιν ἵλεῳ, σημαίνειν. Also i. 3, 4, iv. 3, 12; Cyropæd. i.
6, 5-23-46. θεοὶ ἀεὶ ὄντες πάντα ἴσασι … καὶ τῶν
συμβουλευομένων ἀνθρώπων οἷς ἂν ἵλεῳ ὦσι,
προσημαίνουσιν ἅ τε χρὴ ποιεῖν καὶ ἃ οὐ χρή. Εἰ δὲ μὴ
πᾶσιν ἐθέλουσι συμβουλεύειν, οὐδὲν θαυμαστόν· οὐ
γὰρ ἀνάγκη αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, ὧν ἂν μὴ θέλωσιν,
ἐπιμελεῖσθαι (Cyrop. i. 6, 46).

Solon. Frag. v. 53, ed. Gaisf.:—

Ἄλλον μάντεν ἔθηκιν ἄναξ ἑκάεργος Ἀπόλλων·

Ἔγνω δ’ ἀνδρὶ κακὸν τήλοθεν ἐρχόμενον.

See the curious narrative in Herodotus ix. 94 seq.

about the prophetic gifts bestowed on Euenius. The
same narrative attests the full belief prevalent
respecting both the displeasure of the Gods and their
placability on the proper expiation being made. It
conflicts signally in every respect with the canon of
orthodoxy set up by Plato.

400 Plato, Legg. v. pp. 738 C, 747 E, vii. p. 811 D;

Republic, vi. pp. 496 C, 499 C.

401 Aristotle, Ethic. Nikom. x. 8, p. 1178 b. 21. ὥστε

ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνέργεια, μακαριότητι διαφέρουσα,
θεωρητικὴ ἂν εἴη.

The orthodox religious belief, which

Great opposition which
Plato imposes upon his 5040 Magnêtic
Plato’s doctrine would have
citizens under the severest penalties,
encountered in Greece.
would thus be found inconsistent with the general belief, not merely
of ordinary Greeks, but also of the various lettered and philosophical
individuals who thought for themselves. Most of these latter would
have passed, under one of the three heads of Platonic heresy, into
the Platonic prison for five years, and from thence either to
recantation or death. The arguments which Plato considered so
irresistible, that none but silly youths could be deaf to them — did
not appear conclusive to Aristotle and other intelligent
contemporaries. Plato makes up his own mind, what proceedings he
thinks worthy and unworthy of the Gods, and then proclaims with
confidence as a matter of indisputable fact, that they act
conformably. But neither Herodotus, nor Aristotle, would have
granted his premisses: they conceived the attributes and character
of the Gods differently from him, and differently from each other.
And if we turn to the Kratylus of Plato, we find Sokrates there
declaring, that men knew nothing about the Gods: that speculations
about the Gods were in reality speculations about the opinions of
men respecting the Gods.402

402 Plato, Kratylus, pp. 400-401. Περὶ θεῶν οὐδὲν

ἴσμεν, οὔτε περὶ αὐτῶν, οὔτε περὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἅττα
ποτὲ αὐτοὶ ἑαυτοὺς καλοῦσι (400 D) … σκοπῶμεν
ὥσπερ προειπόντες τοῖς θεοῖς ὅτι περὶ αὐτῶν οὐδὲν
ἡμεῖς σκεψόμεθα, οὐ γὰρ ἀξιοῦμεν οἷοί τ’ ἂν εἶναι
σκοπεῖν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἥντινά ποτε δόξαν
ἔχοντες ἐτίθεντο αὐτοῖς τὰ ὀνόματα· τοῦτο γὰρ
ἀνεμέσητον (401 A). Compare also Kratyl. p. 425 B.

Such opinions were local, traditional,

Local infallibility was
and dissentient, among the numerous
claimed as a rule in each
distinct cities and tribes which divided
community, though rarely
enforced with severity: the inhabited earth between them in
Plato both claims it more Plato’s time.403 Each of these claimed a
emphatically, and enforces local infallibility, principally as to
it more rigorously. religious rites and customs, indirectly
also as to dogmas and creed: and
Plato’s Magnêtic community, if it had come into existence, would
have added one to the number of distinct varieties. To this general
sentiment, deeply rooted in the emotions and unused to the scrutiny
of reason, the philosophers were always more or less odious, as
dissenters, enquirers, and critics, each on his own ground.404 At
Athens the sentiment manifested itself occasionally in severe decrees
and judicial sentences against obnoxious freethinkers, especially in
the case of Sokrates. If the Athenians had carried out consistently
and systematically the principle involved in their sentence against
Sokrates, philosophy must have been banished from Athens.405 The
school of Plato could never have been maintained. But the principle
of intolerance was usually left dormant at Athens: philosophical
debate continued active and unshackled, so that the school of Plato
subsisted in the city without interruption for nearly forty years until
his death. We might have expected that the philosophers, to whose
security toleration of free dissent and debate was essential, would
have upheld it as a general principle against the public. But here we
find the most eminent among them, at the close of a long life, not
only disallowing all liberty of philosophising to others, and assuming
to himself the exclusive right of dictating the belief, as well as the
conduct, of his imaginary citizens — but also enforcing this exclusive
principle with an amount of systematic rigour, which I do not believe
to have been equalled in any actual Grecian city. This is a
memorable fact in the history of Grecian philosophy. The Stoic
Kleanthes, in the century after Plato’s death, declared that the
Samian astronomer Aristarchus ought to be indicted for impiety,
because he had publicly advocated the doctrine of the Earth’s
rotation round the Sun. Kleanthês and Plato thus stand out as
known examples, among Grecian philosophers before the Christian
era, of that intolerance which would apply legal penalties against
individual dissenters and competitors.406

403 Plato, Politikus, p. 262 D. γένεσιν ἀπείροις οὖσι

καὶ ἀμίκτοις καὶ ἀσυμφώνοις πρὸς ἄλληλα. Herodot. iii.
39.

404 Plato, Euthyphron, p. 3.

405 See the Apologies both of Plato and Xenophon. In

one of the rhetorical discourses cited by Aristotle, on
the subject of the trial of Sokrates (seemingly that by
the Rhetor Theodektês), the point is put thus:—
Μέλλετε δὲ κρίνειν, οὐ περὶ Σωκράτους, ἀλλὰ περὶ
ἐπιτηδεύματος, εἰ χρὴ φιλοσοφεῖν (Aristot. Rhetor. ii.
1399, a. 8, b. 10).

406 The Platonist and astronomer Derkyllides

afterwards (about 100-120 A.D.) declares those who
affirm the doctrine, that the earth moves and that the
stars are stationary, to be accursed and impious —
τοὺς δὲ τὰ κινητὰ στήσαντας, τὰ δὲ ἀκίνητα φύσει καὶ
ἕδρᾳ κινήσαντας, ὡς παρὰ τὰς τῆς μαντικῆς ὑποθέσεις,
ἀποδιοπομπεῖται. (Theon Smyrnæus, De Astronomiâ,
ch. 41, p. 328, fol. 26, ed. Martin.)

The eleventh Book of the Treatise De

Farther civil and political
Legibus, and the larger portion of the
regulations for the
twelfth, are devoted to a string of civil
Magnêtic community. No and political regulations for the
evidence that Plato had Magnêtic community. Each regulation is
studied the working of ushered in with an expository prologue,
different institutions in often with severe reproof towards
practice. persons committing the various
forbidden acts. There is little of
systematic order in the enumeration of subjects. In general we may
remark that neither here nor elsewhere in the Treatise is there any
proof, that Plato — though doubtless he had visited Italy, Sicily, and
Egypt, perhaps other countries — had taken much pains to acquaint
himself with the practice of human life, or that he had studied and
compared the working of different institutions in different
communities. His experience seems all derived from Athenian law
and practice: the criticisms and modifications which he applies to it
flow from his own sentiment and theory: from his religious or ethical
likings or dislikings. He sets up a type of character which he desires
to enforce among his citizens, and which he guards against
adulteration by very stringent interference. The displeasure of the
Gods is constantly appealed to, as a justification for the penalties
which he proposed: sometimes even the current mythes are invoked
as authority, though in other places Plato so greatly disparages
them.407

407 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 913 D.

Various modes of acquiring property

Modes of acquiring
are first forbidden as illegitimate. The
property — legitimate and
maxim408 — “That which you have not
illegitimate.
put down, do not take up” — is
rigorously enforced: any man who finds a buried treasure is
prohibited from touching it, though he find it by accident and though
the person who buried it be unknown. If a man violates this law,
every one, freeman or slave, is invited and commanded to inform
against him. Should he be found guilty, a special message must be
sent to the Delphian oracle, to ask what is to be done both with the
treasure and with the offender. So again, an article of property left
on the highway is declared to be under protection of the Goddess or
Dæmon of the Highway: whoever finds and takes it, if he be a slave,
shall be severely flogged by any freeman above thirty years of age
who meets him: if he be a freeman, he shall be disgraced and shall
pay, besides, ten times its value to the person who left it.409 These
are average specimens of Plato’s point of view and manner of
handling offences respecting property.

408 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 913 C. Ἃ μὴ κατέθου, μὴ

ἀνελῇ. This does not include, however, what has been
deposited by a man’s father or grandfather.

409 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 914. Seemingly, if any man

found a treasure buried in the ground, or a purse lying
on the road without an owner, he was not considered
by most persons dishonest if he appropriated it; to do
so was looked upon as an admissible piece of good
luck. See Theophrastus, περὶ Μεμψιμοιρίας. From
Plato’s language we gather that the finder sometimes
went to consult the prophets what he should do, p.
913 B — μήτε τοῖς λεγομένοις μάντεσιν ἀνακοινώσαιμι:
his phrase is not very respectful towards the prophets.

The general constitution of Plato’s

Plato’s general regulations
community restricts within
leave little room for
comparatively narrow limits the
disputes about ownership.
occasions of proprietary dispute. His
5040 lots of land are all marked out, unchangeable, and indivisible,
each possessed by one citizen. No man is allowed to acquire or
possess movable property to a greater value than four times the lot
of land: every article of property possessed by every man is
registered by the magistrates. Disputes as to ownership, if they
arise, are settled by reference to this register.410 If the disputed
article be not registered, the possessor is bound to produce the
seller or donor from whom he received it. All purchases and sales
are required to take place in the public market before the
Agoranomi: and all for ready-money, or by immediate interchange
and delivery. If a man chooses to deliver his property, without
receiving the consideration, or in any private place, he does so at his
own risk: he has no legal claim against the receiver.411 So likewise
respecting the Eranoi or Associations for mutual Succour and
Benefit. Plato gives no legal remedy to a contributor or complainant
respecting any matter arising out of these associations. He requires
that every man shall contribute at his own risk: and trust for requital
to the honesty or equity of his fellow-contributors.412

410 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 914 D.

411 The same principle is laid down by Plato,

Republic, viii. p. 556 A, and was also laid down by
Charondas (Theophrast. ap. Stobæum Serm. xliv. 21,
p. 204). Aristotle alludes to some Grecian cities in
which it was the established law. K. F. Hermann,
Privat-Alterthümer der Griechen, s. 71, n. 10.

412 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 915 D-E.

A remark must here be made upon

Plato’s principles of
Plato’s refusal to allow any legal
legislation, not consistent
— comparison of them with redress in such matters as sale on
the Attic law about Eranoi. credit, or payments for the purpose of
mutual succour and relief. Such refusal
appears to contradict his general manner of proceeding: for his usual
practice is, to estimate offences not according to the mischief which
they inflict, but according to the degree of wickedness or impiety
which he supposes them to imply in the doer. Now the contributor to
an association for mutual succour, who, after paying his
contributions for the aid of his associates, finds that they refuse to
contribute to his aid when the hour of his necessity arrives — suffers
not only heavy calamity but grievous disappointment: which implies
very bad dispositions on the part of those who, not being themselves
distressed, nevertheless refuse. Of such dispositions Plato takes no
notice in the present case. He does not expatiate (as he does in
many other cases far more trifling and disputable) upon the
displeasure of the Gods when they see a man who has been
benefited in distress by his neighbour’s contributions, refusing all
requital at the time of that neighbour’s need. Plato indeed treats it
as a private affair between friends. You do a service to your friend,
and you must take your chance whether he will do you a service in
return: you must not ask for legal redress, if he refuses: what you
have contributed was a present voluntarily given, not a loan lent to
be repaid. This is an intelligible point of view, but it excludes those
ethical and sentimental considerations which Plato usually delights in
enforcing.413 His ethics here show themselves by leading him to turn
aside from that which takes the form of a pecuniary contract. It was
in this form that the Eranoi or Mutual Assurance Associations were
regarded by Attic judicature: that is, they seem to have been
considered as a sort of imperfect obligation, which the Dikastery
would enforce against any citizen whose circumstances were
tolerably prosperous, but not against one in bad circumstances. Such
Eranic actions before the Attic Dikastery were among those that
enjoyed the privilege of speedy adjudication (ἔμμηνοι δίκαι).414

413 In Xenophon’s ideal legislation, or rather

education of the Persian youth, in the Cyropædia, he
introduces legal trial and punishment for ingratitude
generally (Cyropæd. i. 2, 7). The Attic judicature took
cognizance of neglect or bad conduct towards parents,
which Xenophon ranks as a sort of ingratitude — but
not of ingratitude towards any one else (Xenoph.
Memor. ii. 2, 13). There is an interesting discussion in
Seneca (De Beneficiis, iii. 6-18) about the propriety of
treating ingratitude as a legal offence.

414 Respecting the ἐρανικαὶ δίκαι at Athens, see

Heraldus, Animadversiones in Salmasium, vi. 1, p. 407
seq.; Meier und Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, p.
540 seq.; K. F. Hermann, Staats Alterth. s. 146, not. 9.

The word ἔρανος meant very different things — a

pic-nic banquet, a club for festive meetings kept up by
subscription with a common purse, a contribution
made to relieve a friend in distress, carrying obligation
on the receiver to requite it if the donor fell into equal
distress. This last sense is the prevalent one in the
Attic orators, and is brought out well in the passage of
Theophrastus — Περὶ Μεμψιμοιρίας. Probably the Attic
ἐρανικαὶ δίκαι took cognizance of complaints arising
out of ἔρανος in all its senses.
 As to property in slaves, Plato allows
Regulations about slaves,
any owner to lay hold of a fugitive
and about freedmen.
slave belonging either to himself or to
any friend. If a third party reclaims the slave as being not rightfully
in servitude, he must provide three competent sureties, and the
slave will then be set free until legal trial can be had. Moreover, Plato
enacts, respecting one who has been a slave, but has been
manumitted, that such freedman (ἀπελεύθρος), if he omits to pay
“proper attention” to his manumitter, may be laid hold of by the
latter and re-enslaved. Proper attention consists in: 1. Going three
times per month to the house of his former master, to tender service
in all lawful ways. 2. Not contracting marriage without consulting his
former master. 3. Not acquiring so much wealth as to become richer
than his former master: if he should do so the latter may appropriate
all that is above the limit. The freed man, when liberated, does not
become a citizen, but is only a non-citizen or metic. He is therefore
subject to the same necessity as all other metics — of departing
from the territory after a residence of twenty years,415 and of never
acquiring more wealth than is possessed by the second class of
citizens enrolled in the Schedule.

415 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 915 A-B.

The duties imposed by Plato on the freedman towards his former

master — involving a formal recognition at least of the prior
dependence, and some positive duties besides — are deserving of
remark, as we know so little of the condition or treatment of this
class of persons in antiquity.

Regulations are made to provide for

Provisions in case a slave is
the case where a slave, sold by his
sold, having a distemper
master, is found to be distempered or
upon him. mad, or to have committed a murder. If
the sale has been made to a physician
or a gymnast, Plato holds that these persons ought to judge for
themselves about the bodily condition of the slave bought: he
therefore grants them no redress. But if the buyer be a non-
professional man, he may within one month restore the distempered
slave (or within one year, if the distemper be the Morbus Sacer), and
may cause a jury of physicians to examine the case. Should they
decide the distemper of the slave to be undoubted, the seller must
take him back: repaying the full price, if he be a private man —
double the price, if he be a professional man, who ought to have
known, and perhaps did know, the real condition of the slave
sold.416

416 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 916 B-C.

In regard to Retail Selling, and to

Retailers. Strict regulations
frauds committed either in sale or in
about them. No citizen can
barter, Plato provides or enjoins strict
be a retailer.
regulations. The profession of the
retailer, and the function of money as auxiliary to it, he pronounces
to be useful and almost indispensable to society, for the purpose of
rendering different articles of value commensurable with each other,
and of ensuring a distribution suitable to the requirements of
individuals. This could not be done without retailers, merchants,
hired agents, &c.417 But though retailing is thus useful, if properly
conducted, it slides easily and almost naturally into cheating, lying,
extortion, &c., from the love of money inherent in most men. Such
abuses must be restrained: at any rate they must not be allowed to
corrupt the best part of the community. Accordingly, none of the
5040 citizens will be allowed either to practise retailing, or to
exercise any hired function, except under his own senior relatives,
and of a dignified character. The discrimination of what is dignified
and not dignified must be made according to the liking or antipathy
of a court of honour, composed of such citizens as have obtained
prizes for virtue.418 None must be permitted to sell by retail except
metics or non-citizens: and these must be kept under strict watch by
the Nomophylakes, who, after enquiring into the details of each
article, will fix its price at such sum as will afford to the dealer a
moderate profit.419

417 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 918 B. The like view of retail

trade is given in the Republic, ii. p. 371. It indicates
just and penetrating social observation, taken in
reference to Plato’s age.

418 Plato, Legg. xi. pp. 918-919. 919 E: τὸ δ’

ἐλευθερικὸν καὶ ἀνελεύθερον ἀκριβῶς μὲν οὐ ῥᾴδιον
νομοθετεῖν, κρινέσθω γε μὴν ὑπὸ τῶν τὰ ἀριστεῖα
εἰληφότων τῷ ἐκείνων μ ί σ ε ι τ ε κ α ὶ ἀ σ π α σ μ ῷ .

419 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 920 B-C.

If there be any fraud committed by

Frauds committed by
the seller (which is nearly akin to
sellers — severe
retailing),420 Plato prescribes severe
punishments on them.
penalty. The seller must never name
two prices for his article during the same day. He must declare his
price: and if no one will give it, he must withdraw the article for the
day.421 He is not allowed to praise his own articles, or to take any
oath respecting them. If he shall take any oath, any citizen above
thirty years of age shall be held bound to thrash him, and may do so
with impunity: such citizen, if he neglect to thrash the swearer, will
himself be amenable to censure for betraying the laws. If the seller
shall sell a spurious or fraudulent article, the magistrates must be
informed of it by any one cognizant. The informer, if a slave or a
metic, shall be rewarded by having the article made over to him. If
he be a citizen, he will receive the article, but is bound to consecrate
it to the Gods who preside over the market: if being cognizant he
omits to inform, he shall be proclaimed a wicked man, for defrauding
the Gods of that to which they are entitled. The magistrates, on
receiving information, will not only deprive the seller of the spurious
article, but will cause him to be flogged by the herald in the market-
place — one stripe for every drachma contained in the price
demanded. The herald will publicly proclaim the reason why the
flogging is given. Besides this, the magistrates will collect and write
up in the market-place both regulations of detail for the sellers, and
information to put buyers on their guard.422

420 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 920 C. τῆς κιβδηλείας πέρι,

ξυγγενοῦς τούτῳ (καπηλείᾳ) πράγματος, &c.

Plato is more rigorous on these matters than the

Attic law. See K. F. Hermann, Griech. Privat-
Alterthümer, s. 62.

421 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 917 B-C. I do not quite see

how this is to be reconciled with Plato’s direction that
the prices of articles sold shall be fixed by the
magistrates; but both of the two are here found.

422 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 917 B-D.

Compare this enactment in Plato

Comparison with the
with the manner in which the Attic law
lighter punishment inflicted
would have dealt with the like offence.
by Attic law. The defrauded buyer would have
brought his action before the Dikastery
against the fraudulent seller, who, if found guilty, would have been
condemned in damages to make good the wrong: perhaps fined
besides. The penalties inflicted by the usual course of law at Athens
were fine, disfranchisement, civil disability of one kind or other,
banishment, confiscation of property: occasionally imprisonment —
sometimes, though rarely, death by the cup of hemlock in prison.423
Except in very rare cases, an accused person might retire into
banishment if he chose, and might thus escape any penalty worse
than banishment and confiscation of property. But corporal
punishment was never inflicted by the law at Athens. The people,
especially the poorer citizens, were very sensitive on this point,424
regarding it as one great line of distinction between the freeman and
the slave. At Sparta, on the contrary, corporal chastisement was
largely employed as a penalty: moreover the use of the fist in private
contentions, by the younger citizens, was encouraged rather than
forbidden.425

423 See Meier und Schömann, Der Attische Prozess,

B. iv. Chap. 13, 740.

424 See Xenophon, Memorab. i. 2, 58.

425 Xenophon, Hellen. iii. 3, 11: De Republ. Laced. ii.

8, iv. 6, ix. 5; Aristophanes, Aves, 1013.

Plato follows the analogy of Sparta in preference to that of Athens.

Here, as elsewhere, he employs corporal punishment abundantly as
a penalty. Here, as elsewhere, he not only prescribes that it shall be
inflicted by a public agent under the supervision of magistrates, but
also directs it to be administered, against certain offenders, by
private unofficial citizens. I believe that this feature of his system
would have been more repugnant than any other, to the feelings of
all classes of Athenian citizens — to all the different types of
character represented by Perikles, Nikias, Kleon, Isokrates,
Demosthenes, and Sokrates. Abstinence from manual violence was
characteristic of Athenian manners. Whatever licence might be
allowed to the tongue, it was at least a substitute for the aggressive
employment of the arm and hand. Athens exhibited marked respect
for the sanctity of the person against blows — much equality of
dealing between man and man — much tolerance, public as well as
private, of individual diversity in taste and character — much
keenness of intellectual and oral competition, liable to degenerate
into unfair stratagem in political, forensic, professional, and
commercial life, as well as in rhetorical, dialectical, and philosophical
exercises. All these elements, not excepting even the first, were
distasteful to Plato. But those who copy the disparaging judgment
which he pronounces against Athenian manners, ought in fairness to
take account of the point of view from which that judgment is
delivered. To a philosopher whose ideal is depicted in the two
treatises De Republicâ and De Legibus, Athenian society would
appear repulsive enough. We learn from these two treatises what it
was that a great speculative politician of the day desired to establish
as a substitute.

Plato next goes on to make

Regulations about Orphans
regulations about orphans and
and Guardians: also about
guardians, and in general for cases
Testamentary powers.
arising out of the death of a citizen.
The first question presenting itself naturally is, How far is the citizen
to be allowed to direct by testament the disposition of his family and
property? What restriction is to be placed upon his power of making
a valid will? Many persons (Plato says) affirmed that it was unjust to
impose any restriction: that the dying man had a right to make such
dispositions as he chose, for his property and family after his death.
Against this view Plato enters his decided protest. Each man — and
still more each man’s property — belongs not to himself, but to his
family and to the city: besides which, an old man’s judgment is
constantly liable to be perverted by decline of faculties, disease, or
the cajoleries of those around him.426 Accordingly Plato grants only a
limited liberty of testation. Here, as elsewhere, he adopts the main
provisions of the Attic law, with such modifications as were required
by the fundamental principles of his Magnêtic city: especially by the
fixed total of 5040 lots or fundi, each untransferable and indivisible.
The lot, together with the plant or stock for cultivating it,427 must
descend entire to one son: but the father, if he has more than one
son, may determine by will to which of them it shall descend. If
there be any one among the sons whom another citizen (being
childless) is disposed to adopt, such adoption can only take place
with the father’s consent. But if the father gives his consent, he
cannot bequeath his own lot to the son so adopted, because two lots
cannot be united in the same possessor. Whatever property the
father possesses over and above his lot and its appurtenances, he
may distribute by will among his other sons, in any proportion he
pleases. If he dies, leaving no sons, but only daughters, he may
select which of them he pleases; and may appoint by will some
suitable husband, of a citizen family, to marry her and inherit his lot.
If a citizen (being childless) has adopted a son out of any other
family, he must bequeath to that son the whole of his property,
except one-tenth part of what he possesses over and above his lot
and its appurtenances: this tenth he may bequeath to any one
whom he chooses.428
 426 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 923 B.

It is to be observed that Plato does not make any

allusion to these misguiding influences operating upon
an aged man, when he talks about the curse of a
father against his son being constantly executed by the
Gods: xi. p. 931 B.

427 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 923 D. πλὴν τοῦ πατρῴου

κλήρου καὶ τῆς περὶ τὸν κλῆρον κατασκεύης πάσης.

428 Plato, Legg. xi. pp. 923-924. The language of

Plato seems to imply that this childless citizen would
not be likely to make any will, but that having adopted
a son, the son so adopted would hardly be satisfied
unless he inherited the whole.

If the father dies intestate, leaving only daughters, the nearest

relative who has no lot of his own shall marry one of the daughters,
and succeed to the lot. The nearest is the brother of the deceased;
next, the brother of the deceased’s wife (paternal and maternal
uncles of the maiden); next, their sons; next, the parental and
maternal uncle of the deceased father, and their sons. If all these
relatives be wanting, the magistrates will provide a suitable husband,
in order that the lot of land may not remain unoccupied.429 If a
citizen die both intestate and childless, two of his nearest unmarried
relatives, male and female, shall intermarry and succeed to his
property: reckoning in the order of kinship above mentioned.430 In
thus imposing marriage as a legal obligation upon persons in a
certain degree of kinship, Plato is aware that there will be individual
cases of great hardship and of repugnance almost insurmountable.
He treats this as unavoidable: providing however that there shall be
a select judicial Board of Appeal, before which persons who feel
aggrieved by the law may bring their complaints, and submit their
grounds for dispensation.431

429 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 924-925.

430 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 925 C-D. These provisions

appear to me not very clear.

431 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 926 B-D. He directs also (p.

925 A) that the Dikasts shall determine the fit season
when these young persons become marriageable by
examining their naked bodies: that is, the males quite
naked, the females half naked. A direction seemingly
copied from Athenian practice, and illustrating
curiously the language of Philokleon in Aristophanes,
Vesp. 598. See K. F. Hermann, Vestig. Juris Domestici
ap. Platonem cum Græciæ Institutis Comparata, p. 27.

These provisions deserve notice as

Plato’s general coincidence
showing how largely Plato coincides
with Attic law and its
with the prevalent Attic sentiment
sentiment.
respecting family and relationship. He
does not award the slightest preference to primogeniture, among
brothers: he grants to agnates a preference over cognates: he
regards it as a public misfortune that any house shall be left empty,
so as to cause interruption of the sacred rites of the family: lastly, he
ensures that the family, in default of lineal male heirs, shall be
continued by inter-marriage with the nearest relatives — and he
especially approves the marriage of an heiress with her paternal or
maternal uncle. On these points Plato is in full harmony with his
countrymen, though he dissents widely from modern sentiment.
 Respecting tutelage of orphans, he
Tutelage of Orphans —
makes careful provision against abuse,
Disagreement of Married
as the Attic law also did: he tries also
Couples — Divorce.
to meet the cases of family discord,
where father and son are in bitter wrath against each other. A father
may formally renounce his son, but not without previously obtaining
the concurrence of a conseil de famille: if the father has become
imbecile with age, and wastes his substance, the son may institute a
suit as for lunacy, but not without the permission of the
Nomophylakes.432 Respecting disagreement between married
couples, ten of the Nomophylakes, together with ten women chosen
as supervisors of marriages, are constituted a Board of reference,433
to obtain a reconciliation, if it be possible: but if this be impossible,
then to divorce the couple, and unite each with some more suitable
partner. The lawgiver must keep in view, as far as he can, to obtain
from each married couple a sufficiency of children — that is, one
male and one female child from each, whereby the total of 5040 lots
may be kept up.434 If a husband loses his wife before he has these
two children, the law requires him to marry another wife: but if he
becomes a widower, having already the sufficiency of children, he is
advised not to marry a second wife (who will become stepmother),
though not prohibited from doing so, if he chooses. So also, if a
woman becomes a widow, not having the sufficient number of
children, she must be compelled to marry again: if she already has
the sufficient number, she is directed to remain in the house, and to
bring them up. In case she is still young, and her health requires a
husband, her relatives will apply to the Female Supervisors of
Marriage, and will make such arrangements as may seem
advisable.435

432 Plato, Legg. xi. pp. 928-929.

 433 Plato, Legg. xi. pp. 929-930.

434 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 930 D. παίδων δὲ ἱκανότης

ἀκριβὴς ἄῤῥην καὶ θήλεια ἔστω τῷ νόμῳ.

435 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 930 C.

Against neglect of aged parents by

Neglect of Parents.
their children, Plato both denounces
the most stringent legal penalties, and delivers the most emphatic
reproofs: commending with full faith the ancient traditional
narratives, that the curse of an offended parent against his sons was
always executed by the Gods, as in the cases of Œdipus, Theseus,
Amyntor, &c.436 In the event of lunacy, he directs that the lunatic
shall be kept in private custody by his relatives, who will be fined if
they neglect the duty.437

436 Plato, Legg, xi. p. 931-932.

437 Plato, Legg, xi. p. 934 D.

Hurt or damage, not deadly, done by one man to another. — Plato

enumerates two different modes of inflicting damage:— 1. By drugs
(applied externally or internally), magic, or sorcery. 2. By theft or
force.438

438 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 932 E-933 E. Both these come

under the general head ὅσα τις ἄλλος ἄλλον
πημαίνει.

As to the first mode, if the drug be

Poison — Magic —
administered by a physician, he must
Incantations — Severe
be put to death: if by one not a
punishment.
physician, the Dikasts will determine
the nature of his punishment. And in the case of magical arts, or
incantations, if the person who resorts to them be a prophet, or an
inspector of prodigies, he must be put to death: another person
doing the same will be punished at the discretion of the Dikasts.
Here we see that the prophet is ranked as a professional person (the
like appears in Homer) along with the physician,439 — who must
know what he is about, while another person perhaps may not
know. But Plato’s own opinion respecting magical incantations is
delivered with singular reserve. He will neither avouch them nor
reject them. He intimates that a man can hardly find out what is true
on the subject; and even if he could, it would be harder still to
convince others. Most men are in serious alarm when they see
waxen statuettes hung at their doors or at their family tombs; and it
is useless to attempt to tranquillise them by reminding them that
they have no certain evidence on the subject.440 Here we see how
Plato discourages the received legends and the current faith, when
he believes them to be hurtful — as contrasted with his vehemence
in upholding them when he thinks them useful: as in the case of the
paternal curse, and the judgments of the Gods. The question of their
truth is made to depend on their usefulness.441 The Gods are made
to act exactly as he thinks they ought to act. They are not merely
invoked, but positively counted on, as executioners of Plato’s ethical
sentences.

439 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 933 C. ὡς πρῶτον μὲν τὸν

ἐπιχειροῦντα φαρμάττειν οὐκ εἰδότα τί δρᾷ, τά τε κατὰ
σώματα, ἐὰν μὴ τυγχάνῃ ἐπιστήμων ὢν ἰατρικῆς, τά τε
αὖ περὶ τὰ μαγγανεύματα, ἐὰν μὴ μάντις ἢ
τερατοσκόπος ὢν τυγχάνῃ.

Homer, Odys. xvii. 383:—

 … τῶν οἳ δημιοεργοὶ ἔασι,
μάντιν, ἢ ἰήτηρα κακῶν, ἢ τέκτονα δούρων,
ἢ καὶ θέσπιν ἀοιδόν, &c.

440 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 933 B. ἄν ποτε ἴδωσί που

κήρινα μιμήματα πεπλασμένα. Compare Theokritus,
Idyll, ii. 28-59.

See the remarkable narrative of the death of

Germanicus in Syria, supposed to have been brought
about by the magical artifices wrought under the
auspices of Piso (Tacitus, Ann. ii. 69).

441 Cicero, Legg, ii. 7, 16. “Utiles autem esse has

opiniones, quis neget, cum intelligat, quam multa
firmentur jurejurando,” &c.

Respecting the second mode of

Punishment is inflicted
damage — by theft or violence —
with a view to future
Plato’s law forms a striking contrast to
prevention or amendment.
that which has been just set forth. The
person who inflicts damage must repay it, or make full compensation
for it, to the sufferer: small, if the damage be small — great, if it be
great. Besides this, the guilty person must undergo some farther
punishment with a view to correction or reformation. This will be
smaller, if he be young and seduced by the persuasion of others; but
it must be graver, if he be self-impelled by his own desires, fears,
wrath, jealousy, &c. Understand, however (adds Plato), that such
ulterior punishment is not imposed on account of the past misdeed
— for the past cannot be recalled or undone — but on account of
the future: to ensure that he shall afterwards hate wrong-doing, and
that those who see him punished shall hate it also. The Dikasts must
follow out in detail the general principle here laid down.442

442 Plato, Legg. xi. pp. 933-934. Compare Plato,

Protagor. p. 324 B.

This passage proclaims distinctly an important principle in regard

to the infliction of legal penalties: which principle, if kept in mind,
might have lead Plato to alter or omit a large portion of the Leges.

Respecting words of abuse, or

Penalty for abusive words
revilement, or insulting derision. —
— for libellous comedy.
These are altogether forbidden. If used
Mendicity forbidden.
in any temple, market, or public and
frequented place, the magistrate presiding must punish the offender
forthwith, as he thinks fit: if elsewhere, any citizen by-stander, being
older than the offender, is authorised thrash him.443 No writer of
comedy is allowed to ridicule or libel any citizen.

443 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 935 C-D. The Attic law

expressly forbade the utterance of abusive words
against any individual in an office or public place upon
any pretence (Lysias, Or. ix. Pro Milite, s. 6-9).
Demosthenes (contra Konon. p. 1263) speaks of
κακηγορία or λοιδορία as in itself trifling, but as
forbidden by the law, lest it should lead to violence
and blows.

Mendicity is strictly prohibited. Every mendicant must be sent

away at once, in order that the territory may be rid of such a
creature.444 Every man, who has passed an honest life, will be sure
to have made friends who will protect him against the extremity of
want.

444 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 936 C. ὅπως ἡ χώρα τοῦ

τοιούτου ζώου καθαρὰ γίγνηται τὸ παράπαν.

The rules provided by Plato about

Regulations about
witnesses in judicial trials and
witnesses on judicial trials.
indictments for perjury, are pretty
much the same as those prevalent at Athens: with some
peculiarities. Thus he permits a free woman to bear witness, and to
address the court in support of a party interested, provided she be
above forty years of age. Moreover, she may institute a suit, if she
have no husband: but not if she be married.445 A slave or a child
may bear witness at a trial for murder; provided security be given
that they will remain in the city to await an indictment for perjury, if
presented against them.

445 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 937 A-B.

It appears that women were not admitted as

witnesses before the Athenian Dikasteries. Meier und
Schömann, Der Attische Prozess, pp. 667-668. The
testimony of slaves was received after they had been
tortured; which was considered as a guarantee for
truth, required in regard to them, but not required in
regard to a free-man. The torture is not mentioned in
this Platonic treatise. Plato treats a male as young up
to the age of thirty (compare Xenoph. Memor. i. 2, 35),
a female as young up to the age of forty (pp. 932 B-C,
961 B).
 Among Plato’s prohibitions, we are
Censure of forensic
not surprised to find one directed
eloquence, and the
emphatically against forensic
teachers of it. Penalties
eloquence, and against those who
against contentious
professed to teach it. Every thing
litigation.
beneficial to man (says he) has its
accompanying poison and corruption. Justice is a noble thing, the
great civilising agent in human affairs: to aid any one in obtaining
justice, is of course a noble thing also. But these benefits are grossly
abused by men, who pretend to possess an art, whereby every one
may be sure of judicial victory, either as principal or as auxiliary,
whether his cause be just or unjust:— and who offer to teach this
art to all who pay a stipulated price. Whether this be (as they
pretend) a real art, or a mere inartificial knack — it would be a
disgrace to our city, and must be severely punished. Whoever gives
show of trying to pervert the force of justice in the minds of the
Dikasts, or indulges in unseasonable and frequent litigation, or even
lends his aid to other litigants — may be indicted by any citizen as
guilty of abuse of justice, either as principal or auxiliary. He shall be
tried before the Court of Select Judges: who, if they find him guilty,
will decide whether he has committed the offence from love of
money, or from love of contention and ambitious objects. If from
love of contention, he shall be interdicted, for such time as the Court
may determine, from instituting any suit at law on his own account
as well as from aiding in any suit instituted by others.446 If from love
of money, the citizen found guilty shall be capitally punished, the
non-citizen shall be banished in perpetuity. Moreover the citizen
convicted of committing this offence even from love of contention, if
it be a second conviction for the offence, shall be put to death
also.447
 446 Plato, Legg. xi. p. 938 B. τιμᾷν αὐτῷ τὸ
δικαστήριου ὅσου χρὴ χρόνου τὸν τοιοῦτον μηδενὶ
λαχεῖν δίκην μηδὲ ξυνδικῆσαι. I cannot understand
why Stallbaum, in his very useful notes on the Leges,
observes upon this passage (p. 330):— “λαγχάνειν
δίκην de caussidicis accipiendum, qui caussam aliquam
pro aliis in foro agendam ac defendendam suscipiunt”.
This is the explanation belonging to ξυνδικῆσαι: λαχεῖν
δίκην is the well known phrase for a plaintiff or a
prosecutor as principal.

447 Plato, Legg. xi. pp. 937 E, 938 C.

The vague and undefined character

Many of Plato’s laws are
of this offence, for which Plato
discharges of ethical
denounces capital punishment, shows
antipathy. The antipathy of
how much his penal laws are
Melêtus against Sokrates
discharges of ethical antipathy and
was of the same character.
hostility against types of character
conceived by himself — rather than measures intended for
application, in which he had weighed beforehand the practical
difficulties of singling out and striking the right individual. On this
matter the Athenian public had the same ethical antipathy as
himself; and Melêtus took full advantage of it, when he brought his
accusation against Sokrates. We know both from the Apologies of
Plato and Xenophon, and from the Nubes of Aristophanes — that
Sokrates was rendered odious to the Athenian people and Dikasts,
partly as heterodox and irreligious, but partly also as one who taught
the art of using speech so as to make the worse appear the better
reason. Both Aristophanes and Melêtus would have sympathised
warmly with the Platonic law. If there had been any Solonian law to
the same effect, which Melêtus could have quoted in his accusatory
speech, his case against Sokrates would have been materially
strengthened. Especially, he would have had the express sanction of
law for his proposition of death as the penalty: a proposition to
which the Athenian Dikasts would not have consented, had they not
been affronted and driven to it by the singular demeanour of
Sokrates himself when before them. It would be irrelevant here to
say that Sokrates was not guilty of what was imputed to him: that
he never came before the Dikastery until the time of his trial — and
that he did not teach “the art of words”. If he did not teach it, he
was at least believed to teach it, not merely by Aristophanes and by
the Athenian Dikasts, but also by intelligent men like Kritias and
Charikles,448 who knew him perfectly well: while the example of
Antiphon shows that a man might be most acute and efficacious as a
forensic adviser, without coming in person before the Dikastery.449
What the defence really makes us feel is, the indefinite nature of the
charge: which is neither provable nor disprovable, and which is
characterised, both by Xenophon and in the Platonic Apology, as one
of the standing calumnies against all philosophising men.450 Here, in
the Platonic Leges, this same unprovable offence is adopted and
made capital: the Select Platonic Dikasts being directed to ascertain,
not only whether a man has really committed it, but whether he has
been impelled to commit it by love of money, or by love of victory
and personal consequence.

448 Xenophon, Memor. i. 2, 31 seq.

449 Thucydid. viii. 68.

450 Plato, Apol. Sokr. p. 23.

 Such was the colloquial power of Sokrates, in the
portrait drawn by Xenophon (Mem. i. 2, 14), “that he
handled all who conversed with him just as he pleased
— τοῖς δὲ διαλεγομένοις αὐτῷ πᾶσι χρώμενον ἐν τοῖς
λόγοις ὅπως βούλοιτο. Kritias and Alkibiades
(Xenophon tells us) sought his society for the purpose
of strengthening their own oratorical powers as
political men, and of becoming κρείττονε τῶν
συγγιγνομένων (i. 2, 16). Looked at from the point of
view of opponents, this would be described as the
proceeding of one who himself both could pervert
justice — and who taught others to pervert it also. This
was the picture of Sokrates which the accusers
presented to the Athenian Dikastery: as we may see
by the language of Sokrates himself at the beginning
of the Platonic Apology.

The twelfth and last Book of the

Penalty for abuse of public
Treatise De Legibus deals with various
trust — wrongful
cases of obligation, not towards
appropriation of public
individuals, but towards the public or
money — evasion of
the city. Abuse of trust in the character
military service.
of a public envoy is declared
punishable. This offence (familiar to us at Athens through the two
harangues of Demosthenes and Æschines) is invested by Plato with
a religious colouring, as desecrating the missions and commands of
Hermês and Zeus.451 Wrongful appropriation of the public money by
a citizen is also made capital. The penalty is to be inflicted equally
whether the sum appropriated be large or small: in either case the
guilt is equal, and the evidence of wicked disposition the same, for
one who has gone through the public education and training.452 This
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookball.com