A theory of physically distributed learning: How external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning

Child Development Perspectives

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 140-144

  Martin, Taylor ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Learning theory; Manipulatives; Mathematics learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749109099     PISSN: 17508592     EISSN: 17508606     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00094.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ainsworth S, VanLabeke N. Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning & Instruction 2004, 14:241-255.
2. Barsalou L W. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language & Cognitive Processes 2003, 18:513-562.
3. Case R, Okamoto Y. The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 1996, 6(1-2). Serial No. 246
4. diSessa A A. Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction 1993, 10(2 & 3):105-225.
5. Gibbs R W, Berg E A. Mental imagery and embodied activity. Journal of Mental Imagery 2002, 26:1-30.
6. Glenberg A M, Jaworski B K, Rischal M, Levin J R, McNamara D. What brains are for: Action, meaning, and reading comprehension. Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies 2006, 221-238. In, Ed, pp, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum
7. Glenberg A M, Robertson D A. Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 2000, 43:379-401.
8. Gravemeijer K P. How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 1999, 1:155-177.
9. Hutchins E. Cognition in the wild 1995, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
10. Jaworski B K. Making the connection between math and reading: The effects of a manipulation technique on story problem performance 2003, Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison
11. Kaminski J, Sloutsky V M, Heckler A. Transfer of mathematical knowledge: The portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:151-155.
12. Kirsh D. Distributed cognition: A methodological note. Pragmatics and Cognition 2006, 14:249-262.
13. Kirsh D, Maglio P. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science 1994, 18:513-549.
14. Lakoff G, Núñez R E. Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being 2000, New York, Basic Books
15. Martin T, Lukong A, Campbell R N. Physically distributed learning: A co-evolutionary process 2006, April, Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, San Francisco
16. Martin T, Schwartz D L. The effects of diverse manipulatives on children's ability to solve physical problems with fractions 2002, April, Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA
17. Martin T, Schwartz D L. Physically distributed learning: Restructuring and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:587-625.
18. 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.
19. Moyer P S, Bolyard J J, Spikell M A. What are virtual manipulatives?. Teaching Children Mathematics 2002, 8:372-377.
20. Principles and standards for school mathematics 2000, Reston, VA, Author
21. Nemirovsky R, Tierney C, Wright T. Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction 1998, 16:119-172.
22. Olkun S. Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 2003, 22:43-57.
23. Pea R D, Salomon G. Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations 1993, 47-87. In, Ed, pp, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press
24. Reimer K, Moyer P. Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 2005, 24:5-25.
25. Reys R E, Lindquist M M, Lambdin D V, Smith N L, Suydam M N. Helping children learn mathematics 2004, 7th ed., Hoboken, NJ, Wiley
26. Rittle-Johnson B, Siegler R S, Alibali M W. Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology 2001, 93:346-362.
27. Robertson S S, Bacher L F, Huntington N L. The integration of body movements and attention in young infants. Psychological Science 2001, 12:523-526.
28. Sarama J, Clements D H. Building blocks for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2004, 19:181-189.
29. Siegler R S, Jenkins E. How children discover new strategies 1989, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum
30. Smith L B. Action alters shape categories. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:665-679.
31. Steffe L P, Olive J. Design and use of computer tools for interactive mathematical activity (TIMA). Journal of Educational Computing Research 2002, 27(1 & 2):55-76.
32. Suchman L A. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machine communication 1987, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press
33. 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.
34. Van de Walle J A. Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally 2007, 6th ed., Boston, Pearson Education
35. Zhang J, Patel V L. Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Pragmatics and Cognition 2006, 14:333-341.