Do Manipulatives Help Students Learn (DSF Bulletin Vol. 53 – Spring 2017)

References for Article: Do Manipulatives Help Students Learn

Publication: DSF Bulletin – Volume 53 – Spring 2017

Published: November 2017

  1. 2007 & Cedar Riener and Daniel Willingham, “The Myth of Learning Styles,” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 42, no. 5 (2010): 32–35.
  2. Scott C. Marley and Kira J. Carbonneau, “How Psychological Research with Instructional Manipulatives Can Inform Classroom Teaching,” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology1 (2015): 412–424.
  3. National Association for the Education of Young Children and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, “Early Childhood Mathematics: Promoting Good Beginnings” (Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2010). Originally adopted in 2002.
  4. Carole A. Bryan, Tao Wang, Bob Perry, Ngai Ying Wong, and Jinfa Cai, “Comparison and Contrast: Similarities and Differences of Teachers’ Views of Effective Mathematics Teaching and Learning from Four Regions,” ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education39 (2007): 329–340; and Lida J. Uribe-Flórez and Jesse L. M. Wilkins, “Elementary School Teachers’ Manipulative Use,” Social Science and Mathematics110 (2010): 363–371.
  5. Kira J. Carbonneau, Scott C. Marley, and James P. Selig, “A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Teaching Mathematics with Concrete Manipulatives,” Journal of Educational Psychology105 (2013): 380–400.
  6. Jerome S. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction(Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1966); and Jean Piaget, Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child(London: Penguin, 1970).
  7. Jean Piaget, The Child’s Conception of Number(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952).
  8. Rochel Gelman and C. R. Gallistel, The Child’s Understanding of Number(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978).
  9. Susan A. Gelman, The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
  10. Stevan Harnad, “The Symbol Grounding Problem,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena42 (1990): 335–346; and Lawrence W. Barsalou, “On Staying Grounded and Avoiding Quixotic Dead Ends,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review23 (2016): 1122–1142.
  11. Andrew Manches, Claire O’Malley, and Steve Benford, “The Role of Physical Representations in Solving Number Problems: A Comparison of Young Children’s Use of Physical and Virtual Materials,” Computers & Education54 (2010): 622–640.
  12. Jacquelyn J. Chini, Adrian Madsen, Elizabeth Gire, N. Sanjay Rebello, and Sadhana Puntambekar, “Exploration of Factors That Affect the Comparative Effectiveness of Physical and Virtual Manipulatives in an Undergraduate Laboratory,” Physical Review Physics Education Research8, no. 1 (2012): 010113; N. D. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, et al., “When Learning about the Real World Is Better Done Virtually: A Study of Substituting Computer Simulations for Laboratory Equipment,” Physical Review Physics Education Research1, no. 1 (2005): 010103; David Klahr, Lara M. Triona, and Cameron Williams, “Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44 (2007): 183–203; Chun-Yi Lee and Ming-Jang Chen, “The Impacts of Virtual Manipulatives and Prior Knowledge on Geometry Learning Performance in Junior High School,” Journal of Educational Computing Research 50 (2014): 179–201; Patricia Moyer-Packenham, Joseph Baker, Arla Westenskow, et al., “A Study Comparing Virtual Manipulatives with Other Instructional Treatments in Third- and Fourth-Grade Classrooms,” Journal of Education 193, no. 2 (2013): 25–39; and Andrew T. Stull and Mary Hegarty, “Model Manipulation and Learning: Fostering Representational Competence with Virtual and Concrete Models,” Journal of Educational Psychology 108 (2016): 509–527.
  13. Carbonneau, Marley, and Selig, “A Meta-Analysis”; Katherine H. Canobi, Robert A. Reeve, and Philippa E. Pattison, “Patterns of Knowledge in Children’s Addition,” Developmental Psychology39 (2003): 521–534; and Karen C. Fuson and Diane J. Briars, “Using a Base-Ten Blocks Learning/Teaching Approach for First- and Second-Grade Place-Value and Multidigit Addition,” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education21 (1990): 180–206.
  14. David H. Uttal, Kathyrn V. Scudder, and Judy S. DeLoache, “Manipulatives as Symbols: A New Perspective on the Use of Concrete Objects to Teach Mathematics,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology18 (1997): 37–54.
  15. Rita Astuti, Gregg E. A. Solomon, and Susan Carey, introduction to “Constraints on Conceptual Development: A Case Study of the Acquisition of Folkbiological and Folksociological Knowledge in Madagascar,” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development69, no. 3 (2004): 1–24.
  16. Daniel M. Belenky and Lennart Schalk, “The Effects of Idealized and Grounded Materials on Learning, Transfer, and Interest: An Organizing Framework for Categorizing External Knowledge Representations,” Educational Psychology Review26 (2014): 27–50; and Taylor Martin and Daniel L. Schwartz, “Physically Distributed Learning: Adapting and Reinterpreting Physical Environments in the Development of Fraction Concepts,” Cognitive Science29 (2005): 587–625.
  17. Kenneth R. Koedinger and Mitchell J. Nathan, “The Real Story behind Story Problems: Effects of Representations on Quantitative Reasoning,” Journal of the Learning Sciences13 (2004): 129–164.
  18. Nicole M. McNeil, David H. Uttal, Linda Jarvin, and Robert J. Sternberg, “Should You Show Me the Money? Concrete Objects Both Hurt and Help Performance on Mathematics Problems,” Learning and Instruction19 (2009): 171–184.
  19. Marley and Carbonneau, “How Psychological Research with instructional manipulatives can inform classroom learning.” Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(4), 412-424. (2015)
  20. Julie Sarama and Douglas H. Clements, “ ‘Concrete’ Computer Manipulatives in Mathematics Education,” Child Development Perspectives3 (2009): 145–150.
  21. Elida V. Laski and Robert S. Siegler, “Learning from Number Board Games: You Learn What You Encode,” Developmental Psychology50 (2014): 853–864.
  22. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction.
  23. Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller, and Richard E. Clark, “Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching,” Educational Psychologist41 (2006): 75–86; and Richard E. Mayer, “Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule against Pure Discovery Learning?,” American Psychologist59 (2004): 14–19.
  24. Sarama and Clements, “ ‘Concrete’ Computer Manipulatives”; and Megan C. Brown, Nicole M. McNeil, and Arthur M. Glenberg, “Using Concreteness in Education: Real Problems, Potential Solutions,” Child Development Perspectives3 (2009): 160–164.
  25. Geetha B. Ramani and Robert S. Siegler, “Promoting Broad and Stable Improvements in Low-Income Children’s Numerical Knowledge through Playing Number Board Games,” Child Development79 (2008): 375–394.
  26. Robert S. Siegler and Geetha B. Ramani, “Playing Linear Number Board Games—But Not Circular Ones—Improves Low-Income Preschoolers’ Numerical Understanding,” Journal of Educational Psychology101 (2009): 545–560.
  27. Jennifer A. Kaminski, Vladimir M. Sloutsky, and Andrew Heckler, “Transfer of Mathematical Knowledge: The Portability of Generic Instantiations,” Child Development Perspectives3 (2009): 151–155.
  28. Lori A. Petersen and Nicole M. McNeil, “Effects of Perceptually Rich Manipulatives on Preschoolers’ Counting Performance: Established Knowledge Counts,” Child Development84 (2013): 1020–1033.
  29. Judy S. DeLoache, “Young Children’s Understanding of the Correspondence between a Scale Model and a Larger Space,” Cognitive Development4 (1989): 121–139; and David Uttal, Jill C. Schreiber, and Judy S. DeLoache, “Waiting to Use a Symbol: The Effects of Delay on Children’s Use of Models,” Child Development66 (1995): 1875–1889.
  30. Judy S. DeLoache, “Dual Representation and Young Children’s Use of Scale Models,” Child Development71 (2000): 329–338.
  31. Robert L. Goldstone and Yasuaki Sakamoto, “The Transfer of Abstract Principles Governing Complex Adaptive Systems,” Cognitive Psychology46 (2003): 414–466.
  32. Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler, “Transfer of Mathematical Knowledge.”
  33. Lauren B. Resnick and Susan F. Omanson, “Learning to Understand Arithmetic,” in Advances in Instructional Psychology, vol. 3, ed. Robert Glaser (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987), 41–95.
  34. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction.
  35. Emily R. Fyfe, Nicole M. McNeil, Ji Y. Son, and Robert L. Goldstone, “Concreteness Fading in Mathematics and Science Instruction: A Systematic Review,” Educational Psychology Review26 (2014): 9–25.
  36. Teck Hong Kho, Shu Mei Yeo, and James Lim, The Singapore Model Method for Learning Mathematics(Singapore: EPB Pan Pacific, 2009).
This entry was posted in References. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.