"Concrete" computer manipulatives in mathematics education

Child Development Perspectives

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 145-150

  Sarama, Julie ^a   Clements, Douglas H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Abstract; Child development; Cognition; Computers; Concrete models; Manipulatives; Mathematic education; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749095741     PISSN: 17508592     EISSN: 17508606     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00095.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Anderson J R. Rules of the mind 1993, Ed, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
2. Baroody A J, Eiland M, Su Y, Thompson B. Fostering at-risk preschoolers' number sense 2007, Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
3. Brown M, McNeil N, Glenberg A. Using concreteness in education: Real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:160-164.
4. Char C A. Computer graphic feltboards: New software approaches for young children's mathematical exploration 1989, San Francisco, American Educational Research Association
5. Clements D H. " Concrete" manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 1999, 1:45-60.
6. Clements D H, Battista M T, Sarama J. Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series 2001, 10.
7. Clements D H, McMillen S. Rethinking " concrete" manipulatives. Teaching Children Mathematics 1996, 2:270-279.
8. Clements D H, Sarama J, Lester F K. Early childhood mathematics learning. Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning 2007a, 461-555. In, Ed, pp, New York, Information Age Publishing
9. Clements D H, Sarama J. Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2007b, 38:136-163.
10. Cobb P, Perlwitz M, Underwood D, Mansfield H, Pateman N A, Bednarz N. Constructivism and activity theory: A consideration of their similarities and differences as they relate to mathematics education. Mathematics for tomorrow's young children 1996, 10-58. In, Eds, pp, Dordrecht, Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Pub
11. Correa J, Nunes T, Bryant P. Young children's understanding of division: The relationship between division terms in a noncomputational task. Journal of Educational Psychology 1998, 90:321-329.
12. Driscoll M J. Research within reach: Elementary school mathematics and reading 1983, St. Louis, CEMREL
13. English L D, English L D. Promoting the development of young children's mathematical and analogical reasoning. Mathematical and analogical reasoning of young learners 2004, 201-213. In, Ed, pp, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum
14. Fennema E H. The relative effectiveness of a symbolic and a concrete model in learning a selected mathematics principle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1972, 3:233-238.
15. Gagatsis A. Young children's understanding of geometric shapes: The role of geometric models. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 2003, 11:43-62.
16. Gallou-Dumiel E, Maher C A, Goldin G A, Davis R B. Reflections, point symmetry and Logo. Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting, North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 1989, 149-157. In, Eds, pp, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University
17. Gravemeijer K P E, Streefland L. An instruction-theoretical reflection on the use of manipulatives. Realistic mathematics education in primary school 1991, 57-76. In, Ed, pp, Utrecht, Netherlands, Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University
18. Greabell L C. The effect of stimuli input on the acquisition of introductory geometric concepts by elementary school children. School Science and Mathematics 1978, 78:320-326.
19. Johnson V M. An investigation of the effects of instructional strategies on conceptual understanding of young children in mathematics 2000, New Orleans, LA, American Educational Research Association
20. Johnson-Gentile K, Clements D H, Battista M T. The effects of computer and noncomputer environments on students' conceptualizations of geometric motions. Journal of Educational Computing Research 1994, 11:121-140.
21. Kaminski J A, Sloutsky V M, Heckler A. Transfer of mathematical knowledge: The portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:151-155.
22. Lamon W E, Huber L E. The learning of the vector space structure by sixth grade students. Educational Studies in Mathematics 1971, 4:166-181.
23. Lehtinen E, Hannula M M, Verschaffel L, Dochy F, Boekaerts M, Vosniadou S. Attentional processes, abstraction and transfer in early mathematical development. Instructional psychology: Past, present and future trends. Fifteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte 2006, 39-55. In, Eds, Vol. 49, pp, Amsterdam, Elsevier
24. Levine S C, Jordan N C, Huttenlocher J. Development of calculation abilities in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1992, 53:72-103.
25. Martin T. A theory of physically distributed learning: How external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:140-144.
26. Martin T, Lukong A, Reaves R. The role of manipulatives in arithmetic and geometry tasks [Electronic version]. Journal of Education and Human Development 2007, 1.
27. McNeil N M, Uttal D H. Rethinking the use of concrete materials in learning: Perspectives from development and education. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:137-139.
28. Metz K E. Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research 1995, 65:93-127.
29. Moyer P S, Niezgoda D, Stanley J, Masalski W, Elliott P C. Young children's use of virtual manipulatives and other forms of mathematical representations. Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: 67th yearbook 2005, 17-34. In, Eds, pp, Reston, VA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
30. Olson J K. Microcomputers make manipulatives meaningful 1988, Budapest, Hungary, International Congress of Mathematics Education
31. Raphael D, Wahlstrom M. The influence of instructional aids on mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1989, 20:173-190.
32. Reimer K, Moyer P S. A classroom study of third-graders' use of virtual manipulatives to learn about fractions 2004, Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
33. Resnick L B, Omanson S, Glaser R. Learning to understand arithmetic. Advances in instructional psychology 1987, 41-95. In, Ed, pp, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
34. Sarama J, Clements D H. Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children 2009, New York, Routledge
35. Sarama J, Clements D H, Vukelic E B, Jakubowski E, Watkins D, Biske H. The role of a computer manipulative in fostering specific psychological/mathematical processes. Proceedings of the 18th annual meeting of the North America Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 1996, 567-572. In, Eds, Vol. 2, pp, Columbus, OH, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education
36. Schliemann A C D, Carraher D W, Brizuela B M. Bringing out the algebraic character of arithmetic 2007, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum
37. Sedig K. From play to thoughtful learning: A design strategy to engage children with mathematical representations. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 2008, 27:65-101.
38. Sedighian K, Sedighian A, Jakubowski E, Watkins D, Biske H. Can educational computer games help educators learn about the psychology of learning mathematics in children?. Proceedings of the 18th annual meeting of the North America Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 1996, 573-578. In, Eds, Vol. 2, pp, Columbus, OH, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education
39. Sherman J. Equivalence in symbolic and non-symbolic contexts: Benefits of solving problems with manipulatives 2008, Manuscript submitted for publication
40. Sherman J, Bisanz J. Equivalence in symbolic and non-symbolic contexts: Benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology 2009, 101:88-100.
41. Sowell E J. Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1989, 20:498-505. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
42. Spitler M E. Spatial decomposition in a virtual environment: Understanding young children's understanding 2009, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY
43. Suydam M N. Manipulative materials and achievement. Arithmetic Teacher 1986, 33(6):10, 32.
44. Thompson P W. Notations, conventions, and constraints: Contributions to effective use of concrete materials in elementary mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1992, 23:123-147.
45. Thompson P W, Thompson A G, Hitt F. Salient aspects of experience with concrete manipulatives. Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics 1990, 337-343. In, Ed, Vol. 3, pp, Mexico City, International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
46. Uttal D, O'Doherty K, Newland R, Hand L L, DeLoache J. Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:156-159.
47. Varela F J. Ethical know-how: Action, wisdom, and cognition 1999, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press
48. Wilensky U, Harel I, Papert S. Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. Constructionism 1991, 193-199. In, Eds, pp, Norwood, NJ, Ablex
49. Yerushalmy M. Functions of interactive visual representations in interactive mathematical textbooks. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 2005, 10:217-249.