Physical manipulation: Evaluating the potential for tangible designs

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, TEI'09

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 77-84

  Manches, Andrew ^a   O'Malley, Claire ^a   Benford, Steve ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Physical manipulation; Problem solving; Tangibles

Indexed keywords

LEARNING OPPORTUNITY; NUMERICAL PROBLEMS; PHYSICAL MANIPULATION; PROBLEM SPACE; SUPPORT LEARNING; TANGIBLES; VIRTUAL MATERIALS;

EDUCATION;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 70349117979     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1517664.1517688     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Alibali, M.W. and DiRusso, A.A. The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14 (1). 37-56.
2. Anderson, J.R. Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48 (1). 35-44.
3. Antle, A.N. The CTI framework: informing the design of tangible systems for children Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, ACM Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2007.
4. Edwards, L. Metaphors and Gestures in Fraction Talk 4th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain, 2005.
5. Ellis, S. and Siegler, R.S. Planning as Strategy Choice: Why Don't Children Plan When They Should? in Friedman, S. and Scholnick, E.K. eds. The Developmental Psychology of Planning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, 183-208.
6. Fuson, K.C. Research on whole number addition and subtraction, in Grouws, D. ed. Handbook of research teaching and learning, Macmillan, New York, 1992b, 243-275.
7. Gagné, R.M. The conditions of Learning. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, 1980.
8. Golightly, D. and Gilmore, D. Breaking the Rules of Direct Manipulation Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Chapman \& Hall, Ltd., 1997.
9. Iverson, J.M. and Gold in Meadow, S. What's communication got to do with it? Gesture in children blind from birth. Developmental Psychology, 33 (3). 453-467.
10. Kaput, J. Overcoming Physicality and the Eternal Present: Cybernetic Manipulatives. in Sutherland, R. ed. Exploiting Mental Imagery with Computers in Education, Springer, Oxford, 1993.
11. Kelly, S.D., Singer, M., Hicks, J. and Goldin-Meadow, S. A helping hand in assessing children's knowledge: Instructing adults to attend to gesture. Cognition and Instruction, 20 (1). 1-26.
12. Khandelwal, M. and Mazalek, A., Teaching Table: a tangible mentor for pre-K math education. in Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI '07), (New York, 2007), ACM Press, 191-194.
13. Kirsh, D. and Maglio, P. On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action. Cognitive Science, 18 (4). 513-549.
14. Klahr, D. and Robinson, M. Formal assessment of problem-solving and planning processes in preschool children. Cognitive Psychology, 13 (1). 113-148.
15. Larkin, J.H. Display-based problem-solving, in Klahr, D. and Kotovsky, K. eds. Complex information processing; The impact of Herbert A. Simon, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989.
16. Larkin, J.H. and Simon, H.A. Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth 10000 Words. Cognitive Science, 11 (1). 65-99.
17. Lesh, R., Post, T. and Behr, M. Representations and Translations among Representations in Mathematics Learning and Problem Solving, in Janvier, C. ed. Problems of representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1987, 33-40.
18. Mandler, G. and Shebo, B.J. Subitizing - an Analysis of Its Component Processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 111 (1). 1-22.
19. Marshall, P. Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, ACM Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2007.
20. Martin, T. and Schwartz, D. Physically Distributed Learning: Adapting and Reinterpreting Physical Environments in the Development of Fraction Concepts. Cognitive Science, 29. 587-625.
21. McNeil, N.M. and Jarvin, L. When theories don't add up: Disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46 (4). 309-316.
22. Norman, D.A. Things that make us smart. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA:, 1993.
23. O'Hara, K.P. and Payne, S. Planning and the user interface: the effects of lockout time and error recovery cost, Academic Press, Inc., 1999, 41-59.
24. O'Hara, K.P. and Payne, S.J. The effects of operator implementation cost on planfulness of problem solving and learning. Cognitive Psychology, 35 (1). 34-70.
25. O'Malley, C. and Stanton Fraser, D. Report 12: Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies. Futurelab ed. Futurelab Series, Bristol, 2004.
26. Pape, S.J. and Tchoshanov, M.A. The role of representation(s) in developing mathematical understanding. Theory into Practice, 40 (2). 118-127.
27. Patten, J. and Ishii, H. A comparison of spatial organization strategies in graphical and tangible user interfaces Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing augmented reality environments, ACM Press, Elsinore, Denmark, 2000.
28. Price, S. A representation approach to conceptualizing tangible learning environments Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, ACM, Bonn, Germany, 2008.
29. Price, S., Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Stanton, D. and Neale, H. Using 'tangibles' to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interacting with Computers, 15 (2). 169-185.
30. Rogers, Y. and Scaife, M. How can interactive multimedia facilitate learning? in Lee, J. ed. Intelligence and multimodality in multimedia Interfaces: Research and applications, AAAI. Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1998.
31. Schwartz, D., Bransford, J.D. and Sears, D. Efficiency and Innovation in Transfer. in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, Information Age Publishing, 2005, 1-51.
32. Spelke, E.S. Principles of Object Perception. Cognitive Science, 14 (1). 29-56.
33. Uttal, D.H., Scudder, K.V. and DeLoache, J.S. Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18 (1). 37-54.
34. Valenzeno, L., Alibali, M.W. and Klatzky, R. Teachers' gestures facilitate students' learning: A lesson in symmetry. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28 (2). 187-204.
35. Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., Burgos, D. and Köper, R. Does an interface with less assistance provoke more thoughtful behavior? Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences, International Society of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana, 2006.
36. Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H. and Schijf, H. Externalization vs. Internalization: The Influence on Problem Solving Performance Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, IEEE Computer Society, 2004.
37. Wilson, M. The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8 (1). 44-57.
38. Zhang, J. External representations in complex information processing tasks. in Kent, A. ed. Encyclopedia of library and information science, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000.
39. Zhang, J.J. The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21 (2). 179-217.
40. Zhang, J.J. and Norman, D.A. Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks. Cognitive Science, 18 (1). 87-122.