Transfer of mathematical knowledge: The portability of generic instantiations

Child Development Perspectives

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 151-155

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

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Child development; Communication; Mathematics

Indexed keywords

EID: 70749161699     PISSN: 17508592     EISSN: 17508606     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00096.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bassok M, Olseth K L. Object-based representations: Transfer between cases of continuous and discrete models of change. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1995, 21:1522-1538.
2. Bassok M, Wu L, Olseth K L. Judging a book by its cover: Interpretative effects of context on problem-solving transfer. Memory & Cognition 1995, 23:354-367.
3. DeLoache J S. Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development 2000, 71:329-338.
4. Dempster F N, Corkill A J. Inference and inhibition in cognition and behavior: Unifying themes for educational psychology. Educational Psychology Review 1999, 11:1-88.
5. Gentner D. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 1983, 7:155-170.
6. Gentner D, Vosniadou S, Ortony A. The mechanisms of analogical learning. Similarity and analogical reasoning 1989, 199-241. In, Eds, pp, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press
7. Gentner D, Medina J. Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition 1998, 65:263-297.
8. Gick M L, Holyoak K J. Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology 1980, 12:306-355.
9. Gick M L, Holyoak K J. Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 1983, 15:1-38.
10. Goldstone R L, Sakamoto Y. The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 46:414-466.
11. Goswami U. Analogical reasoning: What develops? A review of research and theory. Child Development 1991, 62:1-22.
12. Holyoak K J, Koh K. Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition 1987, 15:332-340.
13. Holyoak K J, Thagard P. Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science 1989, 13:295-355.
14. Holyoak K J, Thagard P. The analogical mind. American Psychologist 1997, 52:35-44.
15. Kaminski J A, Sloutsky V M, Heckler A F, Bara B, Barsalou L, Bucciarelli M. Relevant concreteness and its effects on learning and transfer. Proceedings of the XXVII annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2005, 1090-1095. In, Eds, (pp, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum
16. Kloos H, Sloutsky V M. What's behind different kinds of kinds: Effects of statistical density on learning and representation of categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2008, 137:52-72.
17. Markman A B, Gentner D. Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 1993, 25:431-467.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Napolitano A C, Sloutsky V M. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Part II: The flexible nature of modality dominance in young children. Child Development 2004, 75:1850-1870.
21. Novick L R. Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1988, 14:510-520.
22. Reed S K, Dempster A, Ettinger M. Usefulness of analogous solutions for solving algebra word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1985, 11:106-125.
23. Reed S K, Ernst G W, Banerji R. The role of analogy in transfer between similar problem states. Cognitive Psychology 1974, 6:436-450.
24. Ross B H. This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 1987, 13:629-639.
25. Ross B H. Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1989, 15:456-468.
26. Sarama J, Clements D H. Building blocks for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2004, 19:181-189.
27. Sarama J, Clements D H. " Concrete" computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:145-150.
28. Schwartz D L. Reasoning about the referent of a picture versus reasoning about the picture as the referent: An effect of visual realism. Memory & Cognition 1995, 23:709-722.
29. Simon H A, Reed S K. Modeling strategy shifts in a problem solving task. Cognitive Psychology 1976, 8:86-97.
30. Sloutsky V M, Kaminski J A, Heckler A F. The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12:508-513.
31. Sowell E. Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1989, 20:498-505.
32. Uttal D H, Liu L L, DeLoache J S, Balter L, Tamis-LeMonda C S. Taking a hard look at concreteness: Do concrete objects help young children learn symbolic relations?. Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues 1999, 177-192. In, Eds, pp, New York, Psychology Press
33. Uttal D, O'Doherty K, Newland R, Hand L, DeLoache J. Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3:156-159.
34. Uttal D H, Scudder K V, DeLoache J S. Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 1997, 18:37-54.
35. Wearne D, Hiebert J. A cognitive approach to meaningful mathematics instruction: Testing a local theory using decimal numbers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1988, 19:371-384.