" Concreteness fading" promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 440-448

  McNeil, Nicole M ^a   Fyfe, Emily R ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Concreteness fading; Mathematics learning; Symbols; Transfer

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865597372     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis 1996, Wiley, New York.
2. Ainsworth S. The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education 1999, 33:131-152.
3. Ball D.L. Magical hopes: manipulatives and the reform of mathematics education. American Educator 1992, 16(14-18):46-47.
4. Baranes R., Perry M., Stigler J.W. Activation of real-world knowledge in the solution of word problems. Cognition and Instruction 1989, 6:287-318. 10.1207/s1532690xci0604_1.
5. Barnett S.M., Ceci S.J. When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin 2002, 128:612-637. 10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612.
6. Bjork E.L., Bjork R.A. Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society 2011, 56-64. Worth Publishers, New York. M.A. Gernsbacher, R.W. Pew, L.M. Hough, J.R. Pomerantz (Eds.).
7. Bransford J.D., Franks J.J., Vye N.J., Sherwood R.D. New approaches to instruction: because wisdom can't be told. Similarity and analogical reasoning 1989, 470-497. Cambridge University Press, New York: NY. 10.1017/CBO9780511529863.022. S. Vosniadou, A. Ortony (Eds.).
8. Brown M.C., McNeil N.M., Glenberg A.M. Using concreteness in education: real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3(3):160-164. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00098.x.
9. Bruner J.S. Towards a theory of instruction 1966, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
10. Burns M. How to make the most of math manipulatives. Instructor 1996, 105:45-51.
11. Chang K. Study suggests teachers scrap balls and slices. The New York Times 2008, April 25, Retrieved from. http://www.nytimes.com.
12. Dean D., Kuhn D. Direct instruction vs. discovery: the long view. Science Education 2006, 91:384-397.
13. De Bock D., Deprez J., Van Dooren W., Roelens M., Verschaffel L. Abstract or concrete examples in learning mathematics? A replication and elaboration of Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler's study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2011, 42(2):109-126. Retrieved from. http://hdl.handle.net/10067/876830151162165141.
14. DeLoache J.S. Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development 2000, 71(2):329-338. 10.1111/1467-8624.00148.
15. Garner R., Gillingham M.G., White C.S. Effects of " seductive details" on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction 1989, 6:41-57. 10.1207/s1532690xci0601_2.
16. Gick M.L., Holyoak K.J. Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 1983, 15:1-38. 10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6.
17. Glenberg A.M., Gutierrez T., Levin J.R., Japuntich S., Kaschak M.P. Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 2004, 96:424-436. 10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424.
18. Goldstone R.L., Sakamoto Y. The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 46:414-466. 10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00519-4.
19. Goldstone R.L., Son J.Y. The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences 2005, 14:69-110. 10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4.
20. Gomez R.L., Bootzin R.R., Nadel L. Naps promote abstraction in language-learning infants. Psychological Science 2006, 17:670-674. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01764.x.
21. Gravemeijer K. Preamble: from models to modeling. Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education 2002, 7-22. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Oers, L. Verschaffel (Eds.).
22. Greer B. Modelling reality in mathematics classrooms: the case of word problems. Learning and Instruction 1997, 7(4):293-307. 10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00006-6.
23. Harp S.F., Mayer R.E. How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 1998, 3:414-434. 10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414.
24. Hiebert J., Thomas C.P., Fennema E., Fuson K.C., Human P., Murray H., et al. Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: the case of mathematics. Educational Researcher 1996, 25:12-21. 10.3102/0013189X025004012.
25. Jitendra A.K., Star J.R., Rodriguez M., Lindell M., Someki F. Improving students' proportional thinking using schema-based instruction. Learning and Instruction 2011, 21:731-745. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.04.002.
26. Jones M.G. Transfer, abstraction, and context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2009, 40:80-89.
27. Kaminski J.A., Sloutsky V.M., Heckler A.F. Do children need concrete instantiations to learn an abstract concept?. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2006, 411-416. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. R. Sun, N. Miyake (Eds.).
28. Kaminski J.A., Sloutsky V.M., Heckler A.F. The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science 2008, 320:454-455. 10.1126/science.1154659.
29. Karpicke J.D., Roediger H.L. Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 57:151-162. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.004.
30. Karpicke J.D., Roediger H.L. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science 2008, 319:966-968. 10.1126/science.1152408.
31. Koedinger K.R., Anderson J.R. Illustrating principled design: the early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments 1998, 5:161-179. 10.1080/1049482980050111.
32. Kotovsky K., Hayes J.R., Simon H.A. Why are some problem hard? Evidence from the tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology 1985, 17:248-294. 10.1016/0010-0285(85)90009-X.
33. Lehrer R., Schauble L. Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: co-constituting inscription and thought. Language, literacy, and cognitive development. The development and consequences of symbolic communication 2002, 167-192. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. E.D. Amsel, J.P. Byrnes (Eds.).
34. Lesh R. Mathematical learning disabilities: considerations for identification, diagnosis, remediation. Applied mathematical problem solving 1979, 111-180. ERIC, Columbus, OH. R. Lesh, D. Mierkiewicz, M.G. Kantowski (Eds.).
35. Martin T. A theory of physically distributed learning: how external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child Development Perspectives 2009, 3(3):140-144. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00094.x.
36. 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. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15.
37. Mayer R. The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:125-139.
38. McGaugh J.L. Memory: a century of consolidation. Science 2000, 287:248-251. 10.1126/science.287.5451.248.
39. McNeil N.M., Uttal D.H., Jarvin L., Sternberg R.J. Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction 2009, 19:171-184. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.005.
40. Montessori M. The advanced Montessori method 1917, Frederick A. Stokes, New York, NY.
41. Piaget J. Science of education and the psychology of the child 1970, Orion Press, New York, NY.
42. Resnick L.B., Omanson S.F. Learning to understand arithmetic. Advances in instructional psychology 1987, Vol. 3:41-96. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
43. Robertson E.M., Pascual-Leone A., Miall R.C. Current concepts in procedural consolidation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2004, 5:1-7. 10.1038/nrn1426.
44. Sanchez C.A., Wiley J. An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition 2006, 34:344-355. 10.3758/BF03193412.
45. Scheiter K., Gerjets P., Schuh J. The acquisition of problem-solving skills in mathematics: how animations can aid understanding of structural problem features and solution procedures. Instruction Science 2010, 38:487-502. 10.1007/s11251-009-9114-9.
46. Schliemann A.D., Carraher D.W. The evolution of mathematical reasoning: everyday versus idealized understandings. Developmental Review 2002, 22:242-266. 10.1006/drev.2002.0547.
47. Schwartz D.L., Martin T. Inventing to prepare for future learning: the hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction 2004, 22:129-184. 10.1297/s1532690xci2202_1.
48. Sloutsky V.M., Kaminski J.A., Heckler A.F. The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2005, 12:508-513. 10.3758/BF03193796.
49. Smith J.P. Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: a challenge for reform. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1996, 27:387-402. Retrieved from. http://www.jstor.org/stable/749874.
50. Son J.Y., Smith L.B., Goldstone R.L. Simplicity and generalization: short-cutting abstraction in children's object categorizations. Cognition 2008, 108:626-638. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.002.
51. Sternberg R.J., Toroff B., Grigoreko E.L. Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 1998, 90:374-384.
52. Stickgold R., Walker M. To sleep, perchance to gain creative insight?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8:191-192. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.003.
53. Thompson P.W. Notations, conventions, and constraints: contributions to effective uses of concrete materials in elementary mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1992, 23:123-147. Retrieved from. http://www.jstor.org/stable/749497.
54. 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. 10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90013-7.
55. Wagner U., Gals S., Halder H., Verleger R., Born J. Sleep inspires insight. Nature 2004, 427:352-355. 10.1038/nature02223.
56. Wecker C., Fischer F. From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: the role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction 2011, 21:746-756. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.001.