Jar Model to Improve Understanding of Integers 1

Using the Jar Model to Improve Students’

Understanding of Operations on Integers
Bny Rosmah Hj. Badarudin
Sufri Bolkiah Secondary School,
Email: [email protected]

Madihah Khalid
Department of Science and Mathematics Education,
Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education,
Univerfiti Brunei Darussalam
Email: [email protected]

The focus of this paper is to report on a study that assess students’ knowledge and
understanding of integers before and after the intervention teaching using the ‘jar
model’. The paper will concentrate on the kind of errors students make in
learning integers and how the ‘jar model’ was supposed to enhance students’
understanding instead of memorising rules like ‘negative times negative gives
positive’ etc. Analyses from interviews and performance data of the pre and post-
intervention stage revealed that most of the students can understand the jar model
and thus improvement can be seen from the result of the post-test.

Keywords: Integers, Integers Operations, Jar model, Positive and Negative

Numbers.

1 Introduction
Students’ conceptions of the nature of mathematics and their approaches to studying
mathematics have long been matters of interest to mathematics education researchers, largely
because both are believed to have an impact on the quality of students’ mathematics learning.
As is the case in many other parts of the world, educators in Brunei Darussalam are concerned
that too many secondary school students pass mathematics examinations without really
understanding the subject. Often, students appear to believe that mathematics is a mechanical,
rule-bound discipline (Noridah, 1999).
Studies done by Zurina (2003), Khoo (2001), Lim (2000) and Noridah (1999) indicated that
the secondary school students in Brunei Darussalam had been taught by methods which
emphasize drill and practice with the focus on preparation for the test or examination. Most
teachers felt the pressure to move through the mathematics syllabuses as quickly as possible,
in order to have the extra time to prepare students for tests and examinations. From the
teachers’ perspective, this meant that little time is available to attempt to teach for conceptual
understanding. For them, teaching for understanding was fine and ideal, but examinations are
more crucial. The reason for this is because teachers are usually judged by the examination
results and good teachers are usually those who produced good results. On this view, many

Similar paper can be found at http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/879

2 Bny Rosmah Badarudin&Khalid, M

teachers teach the students for the sake of passing examinations instead of emphasizing
understanding of concepts.
Based on one of the researcher’s experience of teaching integers in lower secondary
government school, it was found that many students were facing difficulties in understanding
the topic of integers. Through informal observations and conversations, many secondary
mathematics teachers in Brunei Darussalam have expressed their concern over students’ poor
performances on integers. The teachers indicated that although they recognise that many of
their students do not like integers and struggle with integers’ questions, they do not know
what to do to improve the situation. They tend to say that their students get confused with the
signs and operations on integers although they had attempted to explain about it several times.
The current number line model that is popular among the teachers is also confusing to the
students. The main problems in teaching for understanding of negative numbers and
operations are in developing effective strategies for adding, subtracting, multiplying and
dividing integers. Some students do not even know how to determine whether one integer is
greater than, less than or equal to another integer.
This paper will further describe other studies done to enhance better understanding of integers
in other countries, the methodology employed in the research, the findings from the pre-test
(the kinds of errors common among the students) and the result of teaching using the jar
model on students’ understanding of the topic.
2 Literature review
2.1 Research on Teaching and Learning of Intergers
Many articles and research papers were found to describe studies in which teachers and
students used different strategies in the teaching and learning of integers. Developing
effective teaching strategies of integers has been ongoing in many parts of the world. In order
to make students understand integers we have to extend their knowledge, help them make
logical connections with what they know and use appropriate strategies in learning. Papers
have been written on the teaching and learning of integers by Jenny (2002), Dehaene (1997),
Hayes (1999), Hart et al (1981), Freudenthal (1973) etc.
Hayes (1996) conducted research on the effectiveness of the most common strategies for
negative number concepts and operations at three secondary schools involving students in
years seven, eight and nine. The experimental teaching groups used reversible two centimeter
square tiles labeled [+1], [–1] and [0]. The major difference in strategy between the
experimental and control groups was that the experimental groups started with the tiles. By
the end of the topic the experimental group students had also used the number line in context
of ordering and 2D point plotting. The outcomes of the study, in terms of student short and
long term performance have been compared with those in classes taught by more commonly
used strategies. The experimental approach seems to have facilitated better performances for
average ability level students. For more able mathematics students, the topic does not appear
to be difficult and such students, in both experimental and control groups indicated good
levels of general topic mastery. Hayes (1996) found that the use of these tiles led to a
significant improvement on a range of test items, including examples requiring the use of
brackets, mixed operations and order of operations. It also developed a more confident and
secure knowledge of the rules and showed fewer tendencies to confuse sign rules across
operations. This study coincides with that of Linchenvski and Williams (1988) which involves
teaching negative numbers using teaching aids, that is, by using dice with +3, +2, +1, –3, –2
and –1 painted on them. They found that the students soon started to use cancellation and
compensation strategies.
Jar Model to Improve Understanding of Integers 3

Chinese Yin/Yan was one of the examples used by Egan (1997) for teaching and learning of
directed number which is quite common in Chinese society. A similar approach has also been
observed in a Taiwan book for mathematics educators. Teachers are usually advised to ask
students to produce several +1 and –1 figures, so that they can play with the figures to explore
the principle of addition and subtraction, then multiplication and division (for the purpose of
demonstrating division, some teachers may prefer the use of +4 and –4 instead). This design
of teaching and learning activities for directed number is not only effective, but it has its
implication on the use of metaphor and students’ development of Mythic Understanding
(Tang, 2003). The Chinese “Tai ji” (or Yin-yan) symbol consists of two parts: light (yin) and
shadow (yan). The light part represents warm and bright sides of nature while the shadow part
represents the cold and dark sides. Thus, the light part can be treated as ‘positive’ and the
shadow part ‘negative’. These two parts, when grouped together, have a meaning of balance
and harmony. If we use +1 to replace light and –1 to replace shadow (see Fig. 1), the whole
diagram now represents the number zero. Teachers can produce several +1 and –1 figures
using thick stiff cardboard and use them to explain the principle of addition and subtraction of
directed numbers.

Figure 1: The representation of +1 and -1 using Yin-yan symbol

Angela (2003) did a study on teaching negative numbers using multi-link cubes with a Year 7
mixed ability group. In her study she found that the students had a physical representation of a
negative number but this did not help them to understand what a negative number is. It did not
help them when it came to understanding why subtracting a negative number would make the
answer bigger. However, the cubes could help students to calculate a correct answer although
they had no reasoning to help them know that the answer was correct. The multi-link cubes
only helped students as a counting aid, and once the aid was removed they struggled to
answer the questions posed. She then extended her study on a Year 8, top ability group.
Though these students had been taught the ‘rules of negative numbers’ the previous year, they
still made common errors by exchanging two negative signs for one negative sign rather than
a positive sign. In her study, she chosed the context of hot and cold water as she felt that the
context of temperature would be something ‘real’ to all students. Though some students were
still confused by the context, it seemed that they were all confident with the temperature idea.
Most of the students could answer the questions correctly. This indicated that they had a much
more thorough understanding through the use of the temperature context.
It is important for teachers to assess the appropriate ways to teach negative numbers and
evaluate the student’s understandings. Apart from using mathematical resources to teach, it is
also important to teach mathematics with a focus on number sense. These will encourage
Similar paper can be found at http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/879
4 Bny Rosmah Badarudin&Khalid, M

students to become problem solvers in a wide variety of situations and view mathematics as a
discipline in which thinking is important.
2.2 The ’Jar Model’
The method resembling the jar model has been used by Battista (1983) and Paul Griffifth
(2002) for teaching integers. In fact, similar models were advocated and can be found at
websites such as Homeschool Math (2003) and Learning Math (2002). Basically, this method
is not very different from other methods that had been used by some of the researchers
mentioned in the literature review (Jenny, 2002; Tang, 2003; Hayes, 1996; Egan, 1997).
However, effort was taken to consider students’ cultural situation and social context. Please
refer to Appendix 1 for the some explanation about the jar model.
3 The Study
The main purpose of this study being undertaken was to investigate the knowledge and
understanding of students in Form 1 (Year 7) classes in one government school in Brunei
Darussalam on the topic of integers and to investigate if the ’jar model’ enhance students’
understanding in the topic of integers.
3.1 The Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. What pre-existing knowledge do the students generally have about integers?
2. To what extent does the strategy used in the intervention enhance the students’
performances on operations with integers?
The first research question examined students’ prior knowledge including the errors and
misconceptions that they hold. These include confusion of rules and instrumental
understanding of integers itself.
The second research question examined students’ understanding of integers after the teaching
of integers (including operations on integers) using the ’jar model’.
3.2 Methodology
The present study is an exploratory study which used a multiple perspectives research design.
A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods were used to gather data. The sample
of the study consisted of Form 1 (Year 7) students in one government secondary school in
Brunei. The results of this study presented in this paper were obtained from the analysis of the
following data:

1. Document analysis;
2. Analysis of performance data from pencil-and paper pre-test;
3. Interview data analysis – both teachers and students;
4. Analysis of performance data from pencil-and paper post-test;

3.2.1 Pencil and paper test

The pencil–and–paper test was used to generate pre-test and post-test performance data. The
test was administered to all students in July 2006 and September 2006. The Integers test was
piloted earlier to test for face validity and reliability, and Cronbach alpha of 0.78 indicated
that the reliability of the test was acceptable for internal consistency. There were thirty
questions in the Integers Test and they involved questions on each of the four operations of
integers (categorised accordingly – positive plus positive, positive minus negative ect.)
Jar Model to Improve Understanding of Integers 5

including the combined operations of integers. Students were categorised into three categories
of achievers: high achievers, medium achievers and low achievers.
3.2.2 Interview data Analysis
Class teachers of the classes involved in the study were individually interviewed after the pre-
test. The interviews with teachers were audio-taped and analysed. During these interviews, the
researcher asked the teachers about the teaching strategies used in their classes, their
preferences on which teaching strategies they feel are effective in teaching integers and how
they handle students who are still struggling with integers. Each teacher was asked to indicate
to what extent most of their students understood the topic integers and on which operations
their students had the most problems with.
Twelve students (four high, four medium and four low achievers based on pre-test result),
were individually interviewed in July 2006, immediately after the administration of the pre-
test. The same twelve students were interviewed again in September 2006 immediately after
the post-test. The interviews were tape-recorded. These interviews were conducted to
determine the difficulties and the types of errors made by the students. The procedures for
interview follows closely the suggestions given by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000), to
achieve greater validity and to minimise the amount of bias as much as possible.
4 Difficulties in learning integers
The difficulties faced by the students in learning integers are due to the confusion between
binary operations of plus and minus and the unary operators which are positive and negative.
This confusion was due also to many texts using the same symbols for both plus and positive,
and minus and negative. Students always ask ‘Why do they have to learn negative numbers
and what’s the use of negative numbers in our everyday life?’ Students often have nothing to
relate to, apart from a set of rules governing the combination of negative and positive
numbers for the operations. They cannot make sense of the multiplication of a negative
number with a negative number and why the product of negative numbers becomes positive.
Interviews with teachers revealed that they find it easier to teach the rules than to teach for
meaning and hope the students’ understanding will develop as they operate successfully with
the relatively ‘simple rules’. They felt that some students find it difficult to establish the rules
for themselves; therefore they just rely on remembering instead of understanding them. This
could lead to rote learning where students only know how to solve the problems of integers
but do not understand why it happens in such a way. Baroody and Ginsburg (1990) described
that understanding in mathematics learning involves knowing the concepts and principles
related to the procedures being used and making meaningful connections between prior
knowledge and the knowledge units being learnt. According to Hart et al (1981) this difficulty
stems from the need to work consistently with such rules without recourse to an external,
concrete referent and it is this that most secondary school students seemed to experience.
4.1 Some common misunderstandings of integers
Students find integers and operations on integers difficult. The fact that –27 is less than –12 is
contrary to the students’ experience with (positive) whole numbers. Understanding this
requires the students to build mental images and models that allow them to visualize these
new comparisons and relationships.
The operation of subtraction, especially subtracting a negative, is difficult for students to
make sense of. The idea of subtracting a negative number which gives the same result as
adding the opposite of the negative number, is difficult for many students to comprehend.

Similar paper can be found at http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/879

6 Bny Rosmah Badarudin&Khalid, M

When students have little understanding of subtraction of negative numbers, they may end up
just blindly following the rules. Study by Hart et al (1981) found that when students are faced
with an expression like +8 – –6 many of them use the rule to work out the appropriate sign
and then operate with it (in this case adding 8 and 6) ignoring the starting point. This works in
some cases but not in others (such as –2 – –5, where students would give 7 as the answer).
This is exactly the kind of error made by the students investigated in this study. Hayes (1999)
found that slight misapplication of the rules, such as applying ‘two negatives make a positive’
to –4 + –2 to get +6, were common and were also common among students in this study.
The pre-teaching interview data suggested that students responded to integers tasks in a totally
mechanical way, with little or no understanding of why they did what they did. Often,
students did not know which algorithms they needed to use. Some of the students who did
know the algorithms could not identify which algorithm should be associated with which type
of problem. It seems that students had not learnt the required concepts and skills properly
when they were in primary school and in Form 1 (February 2006).
Thirty-five percent (35%) of the students made errors when adding two negative numbers
together to get a positive. An example would be –2 + (–6) = +8 as identified by Hayes (1999)
earlier. A positive 8 (+8) was given as the answer because students saw two negative signs,
and hence apply the rule that two negatives make positive. About 40 percent of the students
made the error when adding a negative number with a positive number. For example,–2 + 6 =
–8 was a common answer, where the students multiplied the negative sign of 2 and the
addition operation to get negative and added the numbers. Forty-one point six per cent
(41.6%) of the students in the study made a similar error in evaluating –6 + 2 by giving the
answer as –8 and 47.7% of the students made an error of –6 + 6 giving the answer as –12. All
the errors still persisted in some students despite reteaching using the jar model.
For the subtraction of integers, the students in the study also made the same type of error, as
the students in the study done by Hart et al (1981) with an expression like 2 – (–6). Many
students used the rule to work with the sign, that is, minus and negative become plus and then
added the numbers. Most of the students ignored the starting sign. It was correct for this
question but not in other questions such as –2 – (–6), where the students would give 8 as the
answer. In particular, 22.1% of the students in the study commited the mistake. 40.3% of the
students committed an error of mixing up the rules of addition and subtraction such as in
evaluating –6 – 2 = –4, where students took the sign of 6 since it is larger than 2 and placed it
in front of the subtraction of 6 and 2. Another 41.6% of the students made the error when
subtracting two negative integers together to get a negative result. An example would be –6 –
(–6) = –12. Students knew that when there were two negatives it will become a positive, that
is, –6 + 6. Since there is one minus sign they thought that the answer would be negative. The
students were confused with the rule of multiplication, that is positive and negative become
negative and added the numbers to get –12, instead of merely adding negative six and positive
6. 34.2% of the students made an error in question 2 – (–6) = –4. Some students thought that
the final answer should carry the sign of a bigger number.
For the multiplication of integers, 36.9% of the students made the error to multiply two
negative numbers together to get a negative such as question –2  –2 = –4. The students had
misunderstood some part of the rule, that is, the negative sign after multiplication operation
was ignored, so –2  2 = –4. The same error was made on the division of integers where
28.8% of the students made the error of dividing two negative numbers to become a negative
such as in question –6  –2 = –3. The students misunderstood the rule as the same in
multiplication, that is, a negative sign after a division operation was ignored.
Jar Model to Improve Understanding of Integers 7

About 35.6 per cent of the students made the error on question 4 – (–2) + 6, where students
just take one of the negative signs to make 4 –2 + 6 = 8. This misconception was made by the
students in the subtraction of integers. For question (–4 + 6)  –2, 39.6% of the students
made the error of giving the answer as 5. Some students wrongly evaluated –4 + 6 as –10, and
then divided it by –2. Students seemed to mix up the rules of addition and multiplication.
38.9% of the students made the error on question 4  (–2) – (–6) by giving the answer as 2.
The error was in the evaluation of 4  (–2) = 8. Then 8 – (–6) = 2 where the students only
took one of the negative signs thinking that they were just be the same. The same error was
made by some students on the multiplication and subtraction of integers. For question –4 
(2 – 6)  8, 45.6% of the students made the error by working out –4  –4  8 = –2.
Students made the same error in the multiplication of integers where multiplying two
negatives gave a negative result.
5 Results
Performances of the Form 1 students on the pre- and post-teaching test were compared using
quantitative procedures. The “test performance” vantage point of Form 1 indicated that the
pre-test mean score was 16.50 (out of a maximum score of 30) on the integers test. Analyses
of the post-teaching data revealed that the mean score of Form 1 students on the integers test
was higher than at the pre-teaching stage. The post-test mean score of 21.26 revealed that the
students’ performances were significantly enhanced. Using the paired t-test, the researcher
confirmed that the students’ achievements in the five classes are all significantly diferent.
Teaching effects and history was confounded here as well. The post test was given one month
after the pre-test. The students were possibly encouraged and motivated to study harder for
the test which could have reflected in the improved performances.
Table 1 also shows that all classes scored significantly higher after the intervention using the
jar mode.

Table 1: Pre and Post-Test Mean Total Score, Standard Deviation, and t-test Results for Students
from each of the five classes invloved in the study

Class Post- Test Pre-Test Number of t-test Sig.

Mean SD Mean SD Students

1A 24.92 4.09 20.16 4.60 25 5.170 .000

1B 24.00 4.20 17.58 4.12 36 9.262 .000
1C 21.00 4.44 16.26 4.21 23 4.519 .000
1D 18.25 5.24 15.72 4.79 32 3.009 .005
1E 18.58 4.23 13.48 3.19 33 6.901 .000
Overall 21.26 5.21 16.50 4.67 149 12.46 .000
*p < .05

As for the qualitative data, most of the 12 students that was interviewd seemed to have a
slightly better grasp at the post-teaching stage than at the pre-teaching stage after using the
‘jar method‘ to answer the questions. The interviewee also tended to make fewer skills
manipulation errors than at the pre-teaching stage. However, at the post-teaching stage some
interviewees did not have a firm grasp of the jar model concept especially on multiplication
and division of integers using the jar model. Post-teaching interviews revealed that the high
achiever students managed to answer almost all the 11 questions asked during the interview
compared with the pre-teaching interview. Some interviewees were still confused when to

Similar paper can be found at http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/879

 8 Bny Rosmah Badarudin&Khalid, M

remove or add the positive/negative chips from the jar. Some examples on change in students
thinking can be seen in Figure 2.

Before Before

Student-explanation: Minus and minus is plus

Student-explanation: Minus and minus
(pointing to the negative signs of 2 and 6). Using
become plus (pointing the negative
number line, starts at minus 2. Then move forward
sign in front of 2 and the subtraction
6 times. Answer is 4. Move forward because it is
operations) become 2 + (– 6). Minus
plus (pointing at the addition operation). and plus becomes minus. Using
After number line starts at minus 2, turn
back 6 steps become minus 8.

After

Student-explanation: Negative 2 and

negative 6 combine in the jar become Student-explanation: Put negative in the
negative 8. No cancel because all jar. Add 4 pairs of positive and negative.
negative Then remove the entire negative.

Before Before

Student-explanation: Minus and minus

Student-explanation: Take the minus sign in become plus (pointing the negative sign
front. 2 plus 6 is 8. Answer, minus 8. of 2 and 6). 2 minus 6 is minus 4
Negative because minus and plus becomes
minus After
After

Student-explanation: Draw 2 negatives; add

Student-explanation: Draw 2 negatives 4 pairs of positive and negative coz not
and 6 positives. 2 pairs of positives and enough negative in the jar. Remove 6
negatives become 0. negative because minus
Jar Model to Improve Understanding of Integers 9

Figure 2: Changes in students thinking before and after intervention

Post-teaching interviews had also shown that most of the medium and low achieving students
struggled to remember steps on the jar model that had been taught to them. They could not
remember when to remove or add the positive and negative chips from the jar especially the
subtraction, multiplication and division of integers using the jar model. That was probably
because the students may have had to try to learn too many separate skills by rote. This is
similar to data reported in Noridah’s (1999), Lim’s (2000), Khoo’s (2001), Zurina’s (2003)
and Sarina’s (2004) dissertations, which reported that under examination pressure, most
Bruneian students in secondary schools could not remember which skills should be associated
with which problems.
6 Discussion and Conclusion
The jar method seemed to generate a better understanding of operations on integers. However,
this model can still be improved because students seemed to be confused with some aspects of
the model. The model fails to explain situations when a negative number is multiplied by a
negative number and when a positive number is divided by a negative number. In cases like
this some other explaination need to be given, or other model need to be combined with the
jar model. However, from the study carried out, we can confidently say that the jar model is
less confusing than the number line model and created better understanding in the students
compared to the rules and analogies that teachers are fond of using before.
7 References
Angela, H. (2003). Using a Context to Teach Negative Numbers [Online WWW]. Retrieved
on March 1, 2006. Available:
http://s13a.math.aca.mmu.ac.uk/Student_Writings/Masters/AngelaHeiron/angela
heiron.html
Baroody, A., & Ginsburg, H. (1990). Children’s mathematical learning: A cognitive view, in
R. B. Davies, C. A. Maher & N. Nodding (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching
and learning of mathematics. JRME Monograph Number 4 (pp. 51–64). Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).
Cohen, L., Manion L., & Morrison K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th edition
ed.). London & New York. Routledge Falmer.
Dehaene, S. (1997). The Number Sense: How the mind Creates Mathematics. NY: Oxford
University Press.
Egan, K. (1997). The Educated Mind: How Cognitive Tools Shape Our Understanding.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordretcht: Reidel.
Hart, K. M., Brown, M. L., Kuchemann, D. E., Kerslake, D., Ruddock, G., & McCartney, M.
(1981). Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11-16. London: John Murray.
Hayes B. (1996). Teaching for understanding of negative number concepts and operations.
[On-line WWW]. Retrieved on February 28, 2006. Available:
http://www.aare.edu.au/96pap/hayeb96054.txt.
Hayes, R. (1999). Teaching negative number using integer tiles. Paper presented to the 22 nd
annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia
(MERGA), University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA.
Jenny, H. (2002). Case Study [On-line WWW]. Retrieved on March 1, 2006. Available:
http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/courses/ci430fa02/folders/jhaug/midterm.htm

Similar paper can be found at http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/879

10 Bny Rosmah Badarudin&Khalid, M

Khoo, S.C. (2001). The teaching and learning of geometry. Unpublished M.Ed dissertation,
Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Kuchemann, D. (1981). “Positive and Negative Numbers”, In children’s Understanding of
Mathematics: 11-16 London John Murray
Learning Maths (2002). Meanings and Models for Operations. [On-line WWW]. Retrieved on
December 26, 2006. Available:
http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/learningmath/number/support/lmg4.pdf
Lim, T.H. (2000). The teaching and learning of algebraic equations and factorization in O-
level mathematics: A case study. Unpublished M.Ed dissertation, Universiti Brunei
Darussalam.
Noridah bte Abdullah, Hjh (1999). The teaching and learning of inverse functions.
Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Sainah Hj Nayan (1998). Problem-solving errors by primary six children in specialist
teachers’ project schools. Unpublished M. Ed. Dissertation, Universiti Brunei
Darussalam.
Sarina Hj Yahya (2004). Understanding of trigonometric ratios in the enhancement of
students’ performance in mathematics (Syllabus D). Unpublished M. Ed. Dissertation,
Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Tang, K.C. (2003). Imagination in Teaching and Learning of Directed Numbers: Two Chinese
Examples. [On-line WWW]. Retrieved on May 20, 2006. Available:
http://www.ierg.net/confs/2003/conf2003.html
Zurina bte Hj Harun, Hjh (2003). The development of fraction and decimal concepts among
Form 4 N–level students at a girls’ secondary school in Brunei Darussalam.
Unpublished M.Ed dissertation, Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Jar Model to Improve Understanding of Integers 11

Appendix 1

The Jar Model

The jar model is the model used to teach the students in this study when intervention was
+ –
implemented. The jar model used positive and negative counters, and , for students to work
with. The same idea had been used by Battista (1983) for teaching integers. Paul Griffith (2002) also
advocated a model resembling the jar model. In fact similar models can be found mentioned at many
websites (for example, Homeschool Math and Learning Math).

Example: +4 – (–2).

You want to remove 2 negative chips from the jar. But there are only 4 positive chips in the jar. To
remove 2 negative chips from the jar, we have to add 2 positive/negative pairs into the jar. It is
illustrated below:

Now you can take away 2 negative chips and you are left with +6 chips.

 +4 – (–2) = +6

Similar paper can be found at http://tsg.icme11.org/document/get/879