Tangibles for learning: A representational analysis of physical manipulation

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 405-419

  Manches, Andrew ^a   Claire, O'Malley ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Educational technology; Mathematics learning; Physical manipulatives; Tangible technologies; Virtual manipulatives

Indexed keywords

DIGITAL MANIPULATIVES; DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES; EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS; EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; LEARNING MATERIALS; MATHEMATICS LEARNING; PERCEPTUAL INFORMATION; PHYSICAL MANIPULATIVES; PHYSICAL OBJECTS; VIRTUAL MANIPULATIVES; YOUNG CHILDREN;

COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; HARDWARE;

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

EID: 84860886413     PISSN: 16174909     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00779-011-0406-0     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Blackwell A (2003) Cognitive dimensions of tangible programming languages. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the first joint conference of the empirical assessment in software engineering and psychology of programming interest groups
2. Salomon G (1990) Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Commun Res 17(1):26-44
3. Cox R (1999) Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learn Instr 9(4):343-363
4. Ainsworth S (2006) Deft: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learn Instr 16(3):183-198 (Pubitemid 43717601)
5. Marshall P (2007) Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 2007. ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1226969. 1227004 (Pubitemid 47482765)
6. O'Malley C, Stanton Fraser D (2004) Report 12: literature review in learning with tangible technologies. Futurelab series. Futurelab, Bristol
7. Montessori M (1912) The montessori method. Frederick Stokes Co, New York
8. Froebel F (1909) Pedagogics of the kindergarten. D.Appleton and Company, New York
9. McNeil NM, Jarvin L (2007) When theories don't add up: disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory Pract 46(4):309-316
10. Dienes Z (1964) Building up mathematics, 2nd edn. Hutchinson Educational, London
11. Clements DH (1999) 'Concrete' manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemp Issues Early Child 1(1):45-60
12. Triona LM, Klahr D (2003) Point and click or grab and heft: comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cogn Instr 21(2):149-173 (Pubitemid 36844276)
13. Zhang JJ (1997) The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cogn Sci 21(2):179-217
14. Scaife M, Rogers Y (1996) External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int J Hum-Comput Stud 45(2):185-213 (Pubitemid 126360243)
15. Rogers Y (2004) New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol 38:87-143
16. Anderson ML (2003) Embodied cognition: a field guide. Artif Intell 149(1):91-130
17. Mix KS (2009) Spatial tools for mathematical thought. In: Mix KS, Smith LB, Gasser M (eds) The spatial foundations of cognition and language. Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs, New York, p 40-66
18. Hutchins E (2005) Material anchors for conceptual blends. J Pragmat 37(10):1555-1577 (Pubitemid 41070307)
19. Hurtienne J (2009) Sad is heavy and happy is light. Population stereotypes of tangible object attributes. In: Third international conference on tangibles and embedded interaction, Cambridge, p 61-68
20. Antle AN (2007) The cti framework: Informing the design of tangible systems for children. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
21. Antle AN, Droumeva M, Corness G (2008) Playing with the sound maker: do embodied metaphors help children learn? In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on interaction design and children, ACM, p 178-185
22. Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10000 words. Cogn Sci 11(1):65-99
23. Manches A, O'Malley C, Benford S (2010) The role of physical representations in solving number problems: a comparison of young children's use of physical and virtual materials. Comput Educ 54(3):622-640
24. Mandler G, Shebo BJ (1982) Subitizing: an analysis of its component processes. J Exp Psychol-Gen 111(1):1-22
25. Riggs K, Ferrand L, Lancelin D, Fryziel L, Dumur G, Simpson A (2006) Subitizing in tactile perception. Psychol Sci 17(4):271-272 (Pubitemid 43430212)
26. Patten J, Ishii H (2000) A comparison of spatial organization strategies in graphical and tangible user interfaces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of DARE 2000 on designing augmented reality environments, Elsinore, Denmark
27. Manches A, O'Malley C, Benford S (2009) Physical manipulation: evaluating the potential for tangible designs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on tangible and embedded interaction. ACM, Cambridge, UK, p 77-84. doi:10.1145/1517664.1517688
28. Spelke ES (1990) Principles of object perception. Cogn Sci 14(1):29-56
29. Wilson M (2001) The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory. Psychon Bull Rev 8(1):44-57 (Pubitemid 33604153)
30. Goldin-Meadow S, Nusbaum H, Kelly SD, Wagner S (2001) Explaining math: gesturing lightens the load. Psychol Sci 12(6):516-522 (Pubitemid 33653571)
31. Roth W-M (2002) From action to discourse: the bridging function of gestures. Cogn Syst Res 3(3):535-554 (Pubitemid 38647214)
32. Kirsh D, Maglio P (1994) On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cogn Sci 18(4):513-549
33. Kaput J (1992) Technology and mathematics education. In: Grouws D (ed) Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Macmillan, New York
34. O'Hara KP, Payne S (1999) Planning and the user interface: The effects of lockout time and error recovery cost, vol 50. Academic Press, New York. First published. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1998.0234
35. Ellis S, Siegler RS (1997) Planning as strategy choice: why don't children plan when they should? In: Friedman S, Scholnick EK (eds) The developmental psychology of planning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, p 183-208
36. Martin T, Schwartz D (2005) Physically distributed learning: adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cogn Sci 29:587-625 (Pubitemid 41223556)
37. Martin T (2007) Physically distributed learning with virtual manipulatives for elementary mathematics. In: Robinson D, Schraw G (eds) Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte
38. Alibali MW, DiRusso AA (1999) The function of gesture in learning to count: more than keeping track. Cogn Dev 14(1):37-56
39. Gentner D (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn Sci 7(2):155-170
40. Canobi KH, Reeve RA, Pattison PE (2002) Young children's understanding of addition concepts. Educ Psychol 22(5):513-532
41. Lakoff G, Núñez R (2000) Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books, New York
42. Hatano G, Osawa K (1983) Digit memory of grand experts in abacus-derived mental calculation. Cognition 15(1-3):95-110
43. Moretto G, di Pellegrino G (2008) Grasping numbers. Exp Brain Res 188(4):505-515
44. Edwards L (2005) Metaphors and gestures in fraction talk. Paper presented at the 4th congress of the european society for research in mathematics education, Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain
45. Goldin-Meadow S (2000) Beyond words: The importance of gesture to researchers and learners. Child Dev 71(1):231-239
46. Valenzeno L, Alibali MW, Klatzky R (2003) Teachers' gestures facilitate students' learning: a lesson in symmetry. Contemp Educ Psychol 28(2):187-204 (Pubitemid 36445964)
47. Halford GS, Boulton-Lewis GM (1992) Value and limitations of analogs in teaching mathematics. In: Demetriou A, Efkliades A, Shayer M (eds) Modern theories of cognitive development go to school. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
48. Uttal DH, Scudder KV, DeLoache JS (1997) Manipulatives as symbols: a new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. J Appl Dev Psychol 18(1):37-54 (Pubitemid 127172292)
49. Meira L (1998) Making sense of instructional devices: the emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. J Res Math Educ 29(2):121-142
50. Fishkin KP (2004) A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal Ubiquitous Comput 8(5): 347-358. doi: 10.1007/s00779-004-0297-4
51. Girouard A, Solovey ET, Hirshfield LM, Ecott S, Shaer O, Jacob RJK (2007) Smart blocks: a tangible mathematical manipulative. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
52. Wyeth P, Wyeth G (2001) Electronic blocks: tangible programming elements for preschoolers. In: Hirose M (ed) Proceedings of the Eighth IFIP TC13 conference on human-computer interaction. IOS Press, Amsterdam, p 496-503
53. Lackner TM, Dobson K, Rodenstein R, Weisman L (1999) Sensory puzzles. Paper presented at the CHI '99 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
54. Jones MG, Minogue J, Tretter TR, Negishi A, Taylor R (2006) Haptic augmentation of science instruction: does touch matter? Sci Educ 90(1):111-123 (Pubitemid 43531437)
55. Resnick M (1998) Technologies for lifelong kindergarten. Educ Tech Res Dev 46(4):43-55 (Pubitemid 128373076)
56. NLVM (2007) National library of virtual manipulatives. http://nlvm.usu.edu/
57. Raffle HS, Parkes AJ, Ishii H (2004) Topobo: A constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria
58. Shaer O, Leland N, Calvillo-Gamez EH, Jacob RJK (2004) The tac paradigm: Specifying tangible user interfaces, vol 8. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. First published. doi:10.1007/s00779-004-0298-3
59. Price.S, Pontual T, Sheridan J, Roussos G (2009) The effect of representation location on interaction in a tangible learning environment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Cambridge, United Kingdom
60. Wilkie K, Holland S, Mulholland P (2009) Evaluating musical software using conceptual metaphors. Br Comput Soc, p 232-237
61. Khandelwal M, Mazalek A (2007) Teaching table: a tangible mentor for pre-k math education. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction (TEI '07). ACM Press, New York, p 191-194. doi:10.1145/1226969.1227009 (Pubitemid 47482769)
62. Scarlatos T, Scarlatos L (2009) Tangible maths application. http://xsrv.mm.cs.sunysb.edu/TS/research/Math.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2009