Using concreteness in education: Real problems, potential solutions

Child Development Perspectives

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 160-164

  Brown, Megan C ^a   McNeil, Nicole M ^b   Glenberg, Arthur M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Manipulatives; Mathematics; Representation; Symbols; Transfer

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749097472     PISSN: 17508592     EISSN: 17508606     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00098.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alibali M W. How children change their minds: Strategy change can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology 1999, 35:127-145.
2. Alibali M W, Nathan M J, Goldman R, Pea R, Barron B, Derry S J. Teachers' gestures as a means of scaffolding students' understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. Video research in the learning sciences 2007, 349-366. In, Eds, pp, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum
3. Brown M, Glenberg A M, Levin J R. Physical manipulation leads to better memory for new words 2007, March, Paper presented at the meeting of the, Society for Research in Child Development, Boston
4. Burns M. How to make the most of math manipulatives. Instructor 1996, 45-51. April
5. Cook W S, Mitchell Z, Goldin-Meadow S. Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition 2008, 106:1047-1058.
6. Evans J L, Alibali M W, McNeil N M. Divergence of verbal expression and embodied knowledge: Evidence from speech and gesture in children with specific language impairment. Language and Cognitive Processes 2001, 16:309-331.
7. Fuchs L S. Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children 2008, 74:155-173.
8. Glenberg A M, Brown M, Levin J R. Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2007, 32:389-399.
9. Glenberg A M, Jaworski B, Rischal M, Levin J R, McNamara D. What brains are for: Action, meaning, and reading comprehension. Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies 2007, 221-240. In, Ed, pp, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum
10. Goldstone R, Landy D, Son J Y, DeVega M, Glenberg A M, Graesser A C. A well-grounded education: The role of perception in science and mathematics. Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition 2008, 327-355. In, Eds, pp, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press
11. Goswami U. Analogical reasoning: What develops? A review of research and theory. Child Development 1991, 62:1-22.
12. Greeno J G, Klahr D, Kotosky K. Situations, mental models, and generative knowledge. Complex information processing: The impact of Herbert Simon 1989, 285-318. In, Eds, pp, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
13. 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
14. Kaminski J, Sloutsky V M, Heckler A. Transfer of mathematical knowledge: The portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:151-155.
15. 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.
16. Martin T, Schwartz D L. Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:587-625.
17. McNeil N M, Alibali M W. Why won't you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development 2005, 76:1-17.
18. McNeil N M, Alibali M W, Evans J L. The role of gesture in children's language comprehension: Now they need it, now they don't. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 2000, 24:131-150.
19. Nathan M J, DeVega M, Glenberg A M, Graesser A C. An embodied cognition perspective on symbols, gesture and grounding instruction. Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition 2008, 375-396. In, Eds, pp, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press
20. Novick L R. Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1988, 14:510-520.
21. Piaget J, Szeminska A, Gruber H E, Voneche J J. The child's conception of number. The essential Piaget 1995, 298-341. C. Gattegno & F. M. Hodgson, Trans, In, Eds, pp, Northvale, NJ, Jason Aronson, Original work published 1941
22. Raphael D, Wahlstrom M. The influence of instructional aids on mathematical achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1989, 20:173-190.
23. Resnick L B, Omanson S F, Glaser R. Learning to understand arithmetic. Advances in instructional psychology 1987, 41-96. In, Ed, Vol. 3, pp, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
24. Sarama J, Clements D H. " Concrete" computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:145-150.
25. Schoenfeld A H. When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of " well taught" mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist 1988, 23:145-166.
26. Sowell E J. Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1989, 20:498-505.
27. 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
28. Uttal D H, Saracho O, Spodek B. On the relation between play and symbolic thought: The case of mathematics manipulatives. Contemporary perspectives in early childhood 2003, 97-114. In, Eds, pp, Greenwich, CT, Information Age Press
29. 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.