Encoding Effects on First-Graders' Use of Manipulatives

References

• Ball, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education. American Educator, 16(14–18), 46–47.
   Google Scholar
• Beishuizen, M. (1993). Mental strategies and materials or models for addition and subtraction up to 100 in Dutch second grades. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24(4), 294–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blondin, A., Tomaszewski, A., & Osana, H. P. (2017). Teachers' use of instructional analogies with manipulatives in the second-grade classroom. Roundtable session presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
   Google Scholar
• 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 and Practice, 18(2), 99–111.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 380–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chao, S.-J., Stigler, J. W., & Woodward, J. A. (2000). The effects of physical materials on kindergartners' learning of number concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 285–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clements, D. H. (1999). “Concrete” manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45–60.
   Google Scholar
• Clements, D. H., & McMillen, S. (1996). Rethinking “concrete” manipulatives. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(5), 270–279.
   Google Scholar
• Cooperman, A. (2012). The impact of direct instruction on quantitative representations of manipulatives in the context of first graders' learning of place value concepts (Master's thesis). Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/974748/.
   Google Scholar
• Cramer, K. A., Post, T. R., & delMas, R. C. (2002). Initial fraction learning by fourth- and fifth-grade students: A comparison of the effects of using commercial curricula with the effects of using the Rational Number Project Curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 111–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLoache, J. S. (1987). Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children. Science, 238, 1556–1557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLoache, J. S. (1995). Early understanding and use of symbols: The model model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(4), 109–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development, 71, 329–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLoache, J. S., & Marzolf, D. P. (1992). When a picture is not worth a thousand words: Young children's understanding of pictures and models. Cognitive Development, 7(3), 317–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLoache, J. S., Miller, K. F., & Rosengren, K. S. (1997). The credible shrinking room: Very young children's performance with symbolic and nonsymbolic relations. Psychological Science, 8(4), 308–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLoache, J. S., Peralta de Mendoza, O. A., & Anderson, K. N. (1999). Multiple factors in early symbol use: Instructions, similarity, and age in understanding a symbol-referent relation. Cognitive Development, 14, 299–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the “cognitive conflict” strategy for conceptual change—some implications and problems. Science Education, 74, 555–569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 1–113.
   Google Scholar
• English, L. D., & Halford, G. S. (1995). Mathematics education: Models and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach for first- and second-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 180–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fyfe, E. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., & DeCaro, M. S. (2012). The effects of feedback during exploratory mathematics problem solving: Prior knowledge matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1094–1108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelman, S. A. (2009). Learning from others: Children's construction of concepts. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 115–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., & Colhoun, J. (2010). Analogical processes in human thinking and learning. In B. M. Glatzeder, V. Goel & A. von Müller (Eds.), Toward a theory of thinking: Building blocks for a conceptual framework (pp. 35–48). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gopnik, A., & Rosati, A. (2001). Duck or rabbit? Reversing ambiguous figures and understanding ambiguous representations. Developmental Science, 4, 175–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gravemeijer, K., Doorman, M., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Symbolising and the development of meaning in computer-supported algebra education. In L. Verschaffel, E. De Corte, T. de Jong & J. Elen (Eds.), Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and improvement (pp. 191–208). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2013). The cost of concreteness: The effect of nonessential information on analogical transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(1), 14–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick, J., Martin, W. G., & Schifter, D. (Eds). (2003). A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
   Google Scholar
• Laski, E. V., Jor'dan, J. R., Daoust, C., & Murray, A. K. (2015). What makes mathematics manipulatives effective? Lessons from cognitive science and Montessori education. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J.-E. (2007). Making sense of the traditional long division algorithm. Journal of Mathematics Behavior, 26, 48–59.
   Google Scholar
• Lobato, J., Clarke, D., & Ellis, A. B. (2005). Initiating and eliciting in teaching: A reformulation of telling. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 101–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martí, E., Scheuer, N., & de la Cruz, M. (2013). Symbolic use of quantitative representations in young children. In B. M. Brizuela & B. E. Gravel (Eds.), “Show me what you know”: Exploring student representations across STEM disciplines (pp. 7–21). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2004). You'll see what you mean: Students encode equations based on their knowledge of arithmetic. Cognitive Science, 28, 451–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministère d’éducation, du loisirs et du sports. (2012). Indice de défavorisation par école: 2011–2012. Quebec, Canada: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175–197.
   Google Scholar
• O'Connor, J. (2008). Fancy Nancy. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• Olkun, S. (2003). Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(1), 43–56.
   Google Scholar
• Osana, H. P., & Pitsolantis, N. (2013). Addressing the struggle to link form and understanding in fractions instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 29–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen, L. A., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). Effects of perceptually rich manipulatives on preschoolers' counting performance: Established knowledge counts. Child Development, 84, 1020–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pouw, W. T. J. L., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 51–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puchner, L., Taylor, A., O'Donnell, B., & Fick, K. (2008). Teacher learning and mathematics manipulatives: A collective case study about teacher use of manipulatives in elementary and middle school mathematics lessons. School Science and Mathematics, 108(7), 313–325.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. F. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 3.) (pp. 41–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Reys, R. E., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., & Smith, N. L. (2014). Helping children learn mathematics (11th edition). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Richland, L. E., Stigler, J. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Teaching the conceptual structure of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 47, 189–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Building blocks and cognitive building blocks: Playing to know the world mathematically. American Journal of Play, 1, 313–337.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz, L. E., Bonawitz, E. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2007). Can being scared cause tummy aches? Naïve theories, ambiguous evidence, and preschoolers' causal inferences. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1124–1139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman, H., & Richardson, L. (1995). Elementary school teachers' beliefs and practices related to teaching mathematics with manipulatives. Educational Research Quarterly, 18, 27–36.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegler, R. S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 481–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, K., Brooks, D., & Lyon, T. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 373–391.
   Google Scholar
• Striano, T., Tomasello, M., & Rochat, P. (2001). Social and object support for early symbolic play. Developmental Sciences, 4, 442–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M., Striano, T., & Rochat, P. (1999). Do young children use objects as symbols? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 563–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uttal, D. H. (2003). On the relation between play and symbolic thought: The case of mathematics manipulatives. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in early childhood. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (2006). Concreteness and symbolic development. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (2nd ed.). (pp. 167–184). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verschaffel, L., De Corte, E., de Jong, T., & Elen, J. (Eds). (2010). Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving: Analysis and improvement. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wallach, T., & Even, R. (2005). Hearing students: The complexity of understanding what they are saying, showing, and doing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 393–417.
   Google Scholar
• Wearne, D., & Hiebert, J. (1988). A cognitive approach to meaningful mathematics instruction: Testing a local theory using decimal numbers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(5), 371–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar