Concreteness Fading in Mathematics and Science Instruction: A Systematic Review

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 9-25

  Fyfe, Emily R ^a   McNeil, Nicole M ^b   Son, Ji Y ^c   Goldstone, Robert L ^d  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Abstract symbols; Concrete manipulatives; Learning and instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894322386     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3     Document Type: Review

References (94)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
3. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25-61.
4. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.
5. Allsopp, D. H., Kyger, M., Ingram, R., & Lovin, L. (2006). MathVIDS2. Virginia Department of Education. http://www. coedu. usf. edu/main/departments/sped/mathvids/index. html.
6. Baranes, R., Perry, M., & Stigler, J. W. (1989). Activation of real-world knowledge in the solution of word problems. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 287-318.
7. Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 513-562.
8. Belenky, D., & Schalk, L. (2014). The effects of idealized and grounded materials on learning, transfer, and interest: an organizing framework for categorizing external knowledge representations. Educational Psychology Review, in press.
9. Berkas, N., & Pattison, C. (2007). Manipulatives: more than a special education intervention. NCTM News Bulletin. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from NCTM Web site: http://www. nctm. org/news/release_list. aspx?id=12698.
10. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70-87.
11. Braithwaite, D. W., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). Integrating formal and grounded representations in combinatorics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi: 10. 1037/a0032095.
12. Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., & Glenberg, A. M. (2009). Using concreteness in education: real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 160-164.
13. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The art of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
14. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Belknap.
15. Bryan, C. A., Wang, T., Perry, B., Wong, N. Y., & Cai, J. (2007). Comparison and contrast: similarities and differences of teachers' views of effective mathematics teaching and learning from four regions. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 329-340.
16. Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 99-111.
17. Carraher, T. N., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Computation routines prescribed by schools: help or hindrance? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 37-44.
18. Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in the schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 21-29.
19. Carroll, W. M., & Issacs, A. C. (2003). Achievement of students using the university of Chicago school mathematics project's everyday mathematics. In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula (pp. 9-22). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
20. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233-246.
21. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
22. Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (2010). Where hypotheses come from: learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 356-373.
23. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: summative research on the building blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136-163.
24. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: a handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.
25. de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340, 305-308.
26. Devlin, K. (2011). What exactly is multiplication? [Web post for Mathematical Association of America]. Retrieved from http://www. maa. org/devlin/devlin_01_11. html.
27. Evans-Martin, F. F. (2005). The nervous system. New York: Chelsea House.
28. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
29. Fyfe, E. R., & McNeil, N. M. (2009). Benefits of "concreteness fading" for children with low knowledge of mathematical equivalence. Poster presented at the Cognitive Development Society, San Antonio, TX.
30. Fyfe, E. R., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). The benefits of "concreteness fading" generalize across task, age, and prior knowledge. In K. Mix (chair), Learning from concrete models. Symposium presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
31. Gentner, D., & Medina, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65, 263-297.
32. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38. doi: 10. 1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6.
33. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424-436. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 96. 3. 424.
34. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414-466.
35. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69-110.
36. Graham, S. A., Namy, L. L., Gentner, D., & Meagher, K. (2010). The role of comparison in preschoolers' novel object categorization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(3), 280-290.
37. Gravemeijer, K. (2002). Preamble: from models to modeling. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 7-22). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
38. Hofstadter, D., & Sander, E. (2013). Surfaces and essences: analogies as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.
39. Homer, B. D., & Plass, J. L. (2009). Expertise reversal for iconic representations in science visualizations. Instructional Science, 38(3), 259-276. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-009-9108-7.
40. Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2009). Comparing the effectiveness of semi-concrete and concreteness fading computer-simulations to support inquiry learning. Paper presented at the EARLI conference.
41. Johnson, A. M., Reisslein, J., & Reisslein, M. (2014). Representation sequencing in computer-based engineering education. Computers & Education, 72, 249-261. doi: 10. 1016/j. compedu. 2013. 11. 010.
42. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-entailed instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509-539.
43. Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2009). The effect of concreteness on children's ability to detect common proportion. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 335-340). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
44. 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.
45. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2009). Transfer of mathematical knowledge: the portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 151-155.
46. Koedinger, K., & Anderson, J. (1998). Illustrating principled design: the early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 161-179.
47. 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, 129-164.
48. Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67(6), 2797-2822.
49. Kurtz, K. J., Boukrina, O., & Gentner, D. (2013). Comparison promotes learning and transfer of relational categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1303-1310. doi: 10. 1037/a0031847.
50. Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
51. Leeper, R. (1935). A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning-the development of sensory organization. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 46, 41-75.
52. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: co-constituting inscription and thought. In E. D. Amsel & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development. The development and consequences of symbolic communication (p. 167e192). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. Lesh, R. (1979). Mathematical learning disabilities: considerations for identification, diagnosis, remediation. In R. Lesh, D. Mierkiewicz, & M. G. Kantowski (Eds.), Applied mathematical problem solving (p. 111e180). Columbus: ERIC.
54. Mann, R. L. (2004). Balancing act: the truth behind the equals sign. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(2), 65-69.
55. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431-467.
56. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
57. McClelland, J. L., Fiez, J. A., & McCandliss, B. D. (2002). Teaching the /r/-/l/ discrimination to Japanese adults: behavioral and neural aspects. Physiology & Behavior, 77, 657-662.
58. 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(4), 883-899. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-8624. 2005. 00884. x.
59. McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). "Concreteness fading" promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22, 440-448.
60. Medin, D. L., Goldstone, R. L., & Gentner, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100, 254-278. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 100. 2. 254.
61. Nathan, M. J. (2012). Rethinking formalisms in formal education. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 125-148.
62. Petersen, L. A., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). Effects of perceptually rich manipulatives on preschoolers' counting performance: established knowledge counts. Child Development, 84(3), 1020-1033. doi: 10. 1111/cdev. 12028.
63. Peterson, S. K., Mercer, C. D., & O'Shea, L. (1988). Teaching learning disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 52-56.
64. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion.
65. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York: Grossman.
66. Quine, W. V. (1977). Natural kinds. In S. P. Schwartz (Ed.), Naming, necessity, and natural kinds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
67. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R., Maier, U., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 293-315.
68. Romberg, T. A., & Shafer, M. C. (2004). Purpose, plans, goals, and conduct of the study (Monograph 1). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
69. Romberg, T. A., Shafer, M. C., Webb, D. C., & Folgert, L. (2005). The impact of MiC on student achievement (Monograph 5). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
70. Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psych: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 629-639.
71. Rutherford, T., Kibrick, M., Burchinal, M., Richland, L., Conley, A., Osborne, K., et al., (2010). Spatial temporal mathematics at scale: an innovative and fully developed paradigm to boost math achievement among all learners. Paper presented at AERA, Denver CO.
72. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Schuh, J. (2010). The acquisition of problem-solving skills in mathematics: how animations can aid understanding of structural problem features and solution procedures. Instructional Science, 38, 487-502. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-009-9114-9.
73. Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (2002). The evolution of mathematical reasoning: everyday versus idealized understandings. Developmental Review, 22, 242-266.
74. 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 an transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759-775. doi: 10. 1037/a0025140.
75. Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1227-1243.
76. Sherman, J., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Equivalence in symbolic and non-symbolic contexts: benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 88-100.
77. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 12, 508-513.
78. Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2009). Contextualization in perspective. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 51-89.
79. Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2008). Simplicity and generalization: short-cutting abstraction in children's object categorizations. Cognition, 108(3), 626-638.
80. Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2011). Connecting instances to promote children's relational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(2), 260-277.
81. Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., Goldstone, R. G., & Leslie, M. (2012). The importance of being interpreted: grounded words and children's relational reasoning. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, 3, 45.
82. Stigler, J. W., Givvin, K. B., & Thompson, B. (2010). What community college developmental mathematics students understand about mathematics. The MathAMATYC Educator, 10(3), 4-16.
83. Tapola, A., Veermans, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2013). Predictors and outcomes of situational interest during a science learning task. Instructional Science, 41, 1047-1064. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-013-9273-6.
84. Terrace, H. S. (1963). Errorless transfer of a discrimination across two continua. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 223-232.
85. Thomas, J., & Thomas, D. (2011). Singapore math: about us. Tualatin: Singapore Math. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from: http://www. singaporemath. com/aboutus. asp.
86. Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: a new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 37-54. doi: 10. 1016/S0193-3973(97)90013-7.
87. Uttal, D. H., O'Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (2009). Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 156-159. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1750-8606. 2009. 00097. x.
88. Wang-Iverson, P., Myers, P., & Lim, E. (2010). Beyond Singapore's mathematics textbooks: focused and flexible supports for teaching and learning. American Educator, 28-38.
89. Wecker, C., & Fischer, F. (2011). From guided to self-regulated performance of domain-general skills: the role of peer monitoring during the fading of instructional scripts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 746-756. doi: 10. 1016/j. learninstruc. 2011. 05. 001.
90. What Works Clearinghouse (2007). Real math building blocks [intervention report]. Retrieved http://ies. ed. gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/WWC_Building_Blocks_072307. pdf.
91. What Works Clearinghouse (2008). Mathematics in context [intervention report]. Retrieved: http://ies. ed. gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_mathinc_082608. pdf.
92. What Works Clearinghouse (2009). Singapore math [intervention report]. Retrieved: http://ies. ed. gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_singaporemath_042809. pdf.
93. What Works Clearinghouse (2010). Everyday mathematics [intervention report]. Retrieved: http://ies. ed. gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_everyday_math_091410. pdf.
94. Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 120-132. doi: 10. 111/j. 1365-2729. 2006. 00215. x.