The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 508-513

  Sloutsky, Vladimir M ^a   Kaminski, Jennifer A ^a   Heckler, Andrew F ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25644452766     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193796     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. BALL, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education. American Educator, 16, 14-18.
2. BASSOK, M., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 153-166.
3. BASSOK, M., & OLSETH, K. L. (1995). Object-based representations: Transfer between cases of continuous and discrete models of change. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1522-1538.
4. BASSOK, M., WU, L.-L., & OLSETH, K. L. (1995). Judging a book by its cover: Interpretative effects of context on problem-solving transfer. Memory & Cognition, 23, 354-367.
5. COBB, P., YACKEL, E., & WOOD, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 2-33.
6. DELOACHE, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development, 71, 329-338.
7. DETTERMAN, D. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1-24). West-port, CT: Ablex.
8. DIENES, Z. P. (1960). Building up mathematics. London: Hutchinson.
9. GENTNER, D., & MEDINA, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65, 263-297.
10. GENTNER, D., & RATTERMANN, M. J. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In S. A. Gelman & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Perspectives on thought and language: Interrelations in development (pp. 225-277). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. GOLDSTONE, R. L., & SAKAMOTO, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414-466.
12. HOWARD, P., PERRY, B., & TRACEY, D. (1997). Mathematics and manipulatives: Comparing primary and secondary teachers' views. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane.
13. MARKMAN, A. B., & GENTNER, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431-467.
14. Ross, B. H. (1984). Remindings and their effects in learning a cognitive skill. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 371-416.
15. Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 13, 629-639.
16. Ross, B. H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 456-468.
17. SCHWARTZ, D. L. (1995). Reasoning about the referent of a picture versus reasoning about the picture as the referent: An effect of visual realism. Memory & Cognition, 23, 709-722.
18. UTTAL, D. H., LIU, L. L., & DELOACHE, J. S. (1999). Taking a hard look at concreteness: Do concrete objects help young children learn symbolic relations? In L. Baiter & C. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 177-192). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.