Integrating formal and grounded representations in combinatorics learning

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 105, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 666-682

  Braithwaite, David W ^a   Goldstone, Robert L ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Concreteness fading; Grounded and formal representations; Mathematics instruction; Progressive formalization; Transfer

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881618023     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0032095     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3),131-152. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(99) 00029-9
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
3. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612-637. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612
4. Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between iso-morphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 153-166. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.15.1.153
5. Belenky, D. M., & Nokes, T. J. (2009). Examining the role of manipula-tives and metacognition on engagement, learning, and transfer. Journal of Problem Solving, 2(2), 102-129.
6. Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: The role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3), 399-432. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.651232
7. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70-87. doi:10.1037/a0013247
8. Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Durán, R., Reed, B. S., & Webb, D. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663-689. doi:10.3102/00028312034004663
9. Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., & Glenberg, A. M. (2009). Using concrete-ness in education: Real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 160-164. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00098.x
10. Corter, J. E., & Zahner, D. C. (2007). Use of external visual representations in probability problem solving. Statistics Education Research Journal, 6(1), 22-50.
11. Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2011). Analogical transfer from a simulated physical system. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(3), 551-567. doi:10.1037/a0022333
12. Engle, R. A., Lam, D. P., Meyer, X. S., & Nix, S. E. (2012). How does expansive framing promote transfer? Several proposed explanations and a research agenda for investigating them. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 215-231. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.695678
13. Figueiras, L., & Cañadas, M. C. (2010). Reasoning on transition from manipulative strategies to general procedures in solving counting problems. In M. Jouvert & P. Andrews (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th British Congress of Mathematics Education (Vol. 30, pp. 89-96). Retrieved from http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip30-1/BSRLM-IP-30-1-Full.pdf
14. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
15. Glenberg, A. M., Willford, J., Gibson, B., Goldberg, A., & Zhu, X. (2012). Improving reading to improve math. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(4), 316-340. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.564245
16. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 414-466. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00519-4
17. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69-110. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4
18. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. W. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York, NY: Freeman.
19. Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684-689. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684
20. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence (A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books. doi:10.1037/10034-000
21. Kaminski, J. A. (2006). The effects of concreteness on learning, transfer, and representation of mathematical concepts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus.
22. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320(5875), 454-455. doi:10.1126/science.1154659
23. Kellman, P. J., Massey, C. M., & Son, J. Y. (2010). Perceptual learning modules in mathematics: Enhancing students' pattern recognition, structure extraction, and fluency. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 285-305. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01053.x
24. Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 366-397. doi:10.1080/03640210701863933
25. Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129-164. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1302_1
26. Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., & Wilhelm, P. (2009). The effects of representational format on learning combinatorics from an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 37(6), 503-517. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9056-7
27. Landy, D. H., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007). How space guides interpretation of a novel mathematical system. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 431-436). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
28. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587-625. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15
30. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85-139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6
31. Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 256-65. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.256
32. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
33. McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). "Concreteness fading" promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 440-448. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.001
34. 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(2), 171-184. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.005
35. Nathan, M. J. (2012). Rethinking formalisms in formal education. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 125-148. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.667063
36. Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). An investigation of teachers' beliefs of students' algebra development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 209-237. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1802_03
37. Nathan, M. J., Long, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2002). The symbol precedence view of mathematical development: A corpus analysis of the rhetorical structure of textbooks. Discourse Processes, 33(1), 1-21. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3301_01
38. Nuñes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
39. Pape, S. J., & Tchoshanov, M. A. (2001). The role of representation(s) in developing mathematical understanding. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 118-127. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4002_6
40. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (2012). Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 248-258. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.693354
41. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175-189. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.175
42. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346-362. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346
43. Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(4), 629-639. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.629
44. Ross, B. H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: Different Effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 456-468. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.3.456
45. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 9-25. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.009
46. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-60). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
47. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141-156. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8
48. Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. B. (1996). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cognitive Science, 20(4), 457-497. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2004_1
49. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., & Bransford, J. D. (2012). Resisting overzealous transfer: Coordinating previously successful routines with needs for new learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 204-214. doi:10.1080/00461520.2012.696317
50. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759-775. doi:10.1037/a0025140
51. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129-184. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1
52. Shneiderman, B., Mayer, R. E., McKay, D., & Heller, P. (1977). Experimental investigations of the utility of detailed flowcharts in programming. Communications of the ACM, 20(6), 373-381. doi:10.1145/359605.359610
53. Silva, A. B., & Kellman, P. J. (1999). Perceptual learning in mathematics: The algebra-geometry connection. In M. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 683-688). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 508-513. doi:10.3758/BF03193796
55. Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2009). Fostering general transfer with specific simulations. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(1), 1-42. doi: 10.1075/pc.17.1.01son
56. Stenning, K. (2002). Seeing reason: Image and language in learning to think. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof: oso/9780198507741. 001. 0001
57. van Reeuwijk, M. (2001). From informal to formal, progressive formal-ization: An example on "solving systems of equations." In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent, & J. Vincent (Eds.), The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: Proceedings of the 12th ICMI Study Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 613-620). Retrieved from http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/2812
58. Zahner, D. C, & Corter, J. E. (2010). The process of probability problem solving: Use of external visual representations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 177-204. doi:10.1080/10986061003654240