Effects of Perceptually Rich Manipulatives on Preschoolers' Counting Performance: Established Knowledge Counts

Child Development

Volumn 84, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 1020-1033

  Petersen, Lori A ^a   Mcneil, Nicole M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICS; MULTICENTER STUDY; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED STATES;

CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MATHEMATICS; MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES; PERCEPTION;

EID: 84877345360     PISSN: 00093920     EISSN: 14678624     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12028     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Amaya, M. M., Uttal, D. H., O'Doherty, K. D., Liu, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (2008). Two-digit subtraction: Examining the link between concrete and abstract representations of knowledge. Manuscript submitted for publication.
2. Briars, D., & Siegler, R. S. (1984). A featural analysis of preschoolers' counting knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 20, 607-618. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.607
3. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
4. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1304
5. Defeyter, M. A., & German, T. P. (2003). Acquiring an understanding of design: Evidence from children's insight problem solving. Cognition, 89, 133-155. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00098-2
6. DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development, 71, 329-338. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00148
7. DeLoache, J. S., Bloom-Pickard, M., & LoBue, V. (2010). Babies and bears: Human infants' interest in non-human animals. In P. McCardle, S. McCune, J. A. Griffen, & V. Malhomes (Eds.), How animals affect us: Examining the influence of human-animal interaction on child development and human health (pp. 85-95). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
8. Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2003). How specific is the shape bias? Child Development, 74, 168-178. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00528
9. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(Whole No. 270).
10. Friedman, M. (1978). The manipulative materials strategy: The latest pied piper? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 78-80. doi:10.2307/748965
11. Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children's counting and concepts of number. New York: Springer-Verlag.
12. Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40, 177-190. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177
13. Gelman, S. A., Chesnick, R. J., & Waxman, S. R. (2005). Mother-child conversations about pictures and objects: Referring to categories and individuals. Child Development, 76, 1129-1143. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00876.x-i1
14. Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child's understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1987). Young children's inductions from natural kinds: The role of categories and appearances. Child Development, 58, 1532-1541. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb03864.x
16. Gelman, R., & Meck, E. (1983). Preschoolers' counting: Principles before skill. Cognition, 13, 343-359. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90014-8
17. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414-466. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00519-4
18. Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37, 620-629. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.37.5.620
19. Jones, S. S., & Smith, L. B. (2002). How children know the relevant properties for generalizing object names. Developmental Science, 5, 219-232. doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00224
20. Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2009). The effect of concreteness on children's ability to detect common proportion. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 335-340). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
21. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2006). Do children need concrete instantiations to learn an abstract concept? In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 411-416). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320, 454-455. doi:10.1126/science.1154659
23. Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Child Development, 3, 299-321. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(88)90014-7
24. Maier, N. (1931). Reasoning in humans II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181-194. doi:10.1037/h0071361
25. Markson, L., & Bloom, P. (1997). Evidence against a dedicated system for word learning in children. Nature, 385, 813-815. doi:10.1038/385813a0
26. McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won't you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883-889. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00884.x
27. McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don't add up: Disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46, 309-316. doi:10.1080/00405840701593899
28. McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19, 171-184. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.005
29. Mix, K. S., Huttenlocher, J., & Levine, S. C. (2002). Quantitative development in infancy and early childhood. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
30. Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori method. New York: Schocken.
31. Piaget, J. (1953). The origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
32. Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (2000). Children's attention to rigid and deformable shape in naming and non-naming tasks. Child Development, 71, 1555-1570. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00248
33. Siegler, R. S., & Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 377-397. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.377
34. Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2008). Simplicity and generalization: Short-cutting abstraction in children's object categorizations. Cognition, 108, 626-638. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.002
35. Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2011). Connecting instances to promote children's relational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 260-277. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.011
36. Sophian, C. (1997). Beyond competence: The significance of performance for conceptual development. Cognitive Development, 12, 281-303. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(97)90001-0
37. Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
38. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205
39. Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 37-54. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90013-7
40. Wynn, K. (1990). Children's understanding of counting. Cognition, 36, 155-193. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(90)90003-3