Future Directions for Theory and Research with Instructional Manipulatives:Commentary on the Special Issue Papers

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 91-100

  Marley, Scott C ^a   Carbonneau, Kira J ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84894345052     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-014-9259-1     Document Type: Editorial

References (71)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2), 131-152.
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
3. 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.
4. Ball, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: manipulatives and the reform of math education. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 16(2), 14-18.
5. 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.
6. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 637-660.
7. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psycholology, 59, 617-645.
8. Belenky, D. M., & 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, 17-24.
9. Biazak, J. E., Marley, S. C., & Levin, J. R. (2010). Does an activity-based learning strategy improve preschool children's memory for narrative passages? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(4), 515-526.
10. Braithwaite, D. W., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). Integrating formal and grounded representations in combinatorics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 666-682.
11. Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1-15.
12. Burns, M. (1996). How to make the most of math manipulatives. Instructor, 105(7), 45-51.
13. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380-400.
14. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
15. Chi, M. T. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105.
16. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
17. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
18. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12(11), 671-684.
19. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Irvington New York.
20. Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: the long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384-397.
21. DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development, 71(2), 329-338.
22. Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: a systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 1-17.
23. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306-355.
24. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1-38.
25. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586-596.
26. Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: a comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 379-401.
27. 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(3), 424-436.
28. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69-110.
29. Harp, S. F., & Maslich, A. A. (2005). The consequences of including seductive details during lecture. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 100-103.
30. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414-434.
31. Hsieh, P., Acee, T., Chung, W.-H., Hsieh, Y.-P., Kim, H., Thomas, G. D., Levin, J. R., & Robinson, D. H. (2005). Is educational intervention research on the decline? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 523-529.
32. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509-539.
33. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.
34. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. (2009). Transfer of mathematical knowledge: the portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 151-155.
35. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
36. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.
37. Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109-113.
38. Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(4), 569-587.
39. 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 (pp. 167-192). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
40. Levin, J. R. (1989). A transfer-appropriate-processing perspective of pictures in prose. In H. Mandl & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 83-108). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
41. Marley, S. C., & Levin, J. R. (2011). When are prescriptive statements in educational research justified? Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 197-206.
42. Marley, S. C., & Szabo, Z. (2010). Improving children's listening comprehension with a manipulation strategy. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 227-238.
43. Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2010). What cognitive benefits does an activity-based reading strategy afford young Native American readers? The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(3), 395-417.
44. Marley, S. C., Szabo, Z., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2011). Investigation of an activity-based text-processing strategy in mixed-age child dyads. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(3), 340-360.
45. Martin, T. (2009). A theory of physically distributed learning: how external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 140-144.
46. 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.
47. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: the SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357-371.
48. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14.
49. McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). "Concreteness fading" promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 440-448.
50. McNeil, N., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don't add up: disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 309-316.
51. 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.
52. Moch, P. L. (2001). Manipulatives work! Educational Forum, 66, 81-87.
53. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519-533.
54. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Position statements. Retrieved from http://www. naeyc. org/positionstatements.
55. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2008). Standards and focal points. Retrieved from http://www. nctm. org/standards/default. aspx?id=58.
56. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
57. 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.
58. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
59. Pouw, W., van Gog, T. & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review.
60. Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., Lysynchuk, L. M., Martin, V., Wood, E., & Willoughby, T. (1990). A primer of research on cognitive strategy instruction: the important issues and how to address them. Educational Psychology Review, 2(1), 1-58.
61. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: a classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25.
62. Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. F. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
63. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249.
64. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). "Concrete" computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 145-150.
65. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185-213.
66. Schwartz, D. L., & Moore, J. L. (1998). On the role of mathematics in explaining the material world: mental models for proportional reasoning. Cognitive Science, 22(4), 471-516.
67. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
68. 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.
69. Uttal, D. H., O'Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L. L., & DeLoache, J. (2009). Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 156-159.
70. Vig, R., Murray, E., & Star, J (2014). Model breaking points conceptualized. Educational Psychology Review.
71. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625-636.