The Effects of Physical Manipulatives on Children's Numerical Strategies

References

• Alibali, M. W., & DiRusso, A. A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14(1), 37–56.
   Google Scholar
• Baroody, A. J. (1989). Manipulatives don't come with guarantees. Arithmetic Teacher, 32(3), 4–5.
   Google Scholar
• Baroody, A. J. (2004). The developmental bases for early childhood number and operations standards. In D. H. Clements & J. Sarama (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics ( pp. 173–219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Baroody, A. J. (2006). Why children have difficulties mastering the basic number combinations and how to help them. Teaching Children Mathematic, 13(2), 22–31.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Canobi, K. H., Reeve, R. A., & Pattison, P. E. (2003). Patterns of knowledge in children's addition. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 521–534.
   Google Scholar
• Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, B., Cheeseman, J., & Clarke, D. (2006). The mathematical knowledge and understanding young children bring to school. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(1), 78–102.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan. (2003). Does it all add up? Changes in children's knowledge of addition combinations strategies and principles. In A. Baroody (Ed.), Development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise (pp. 35–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, S., & Siegler, R. S. (1997). Planning as strategy choice: Why don't children plan when they should? In S. Friedman & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), The developmental psychology of planning (pp. 183–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Fennema, E. (1972). The relative effectiveness of a symbolic and a concrete model in learning a selected mathematics principle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3, 233–238.
   Google Scholar
• Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York, NY: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a Base-10 blocks learning teaching approach for 1st-grade and 2nd-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 180–206.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gire, E., Carmichael, A., Chini, J. J., Rouinfar, A., Rebello, S., Smith, G., & Puntambekar, S. (2010). The effects of physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual learning about pulleys. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, and J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010)—Volume 1, Full Papers (pp. 937–943). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Gravemeijer, K. (1991). An instruction-theoretical reflection on the use of manipulatives. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Realistic mathematics education in primary school (pp. 21–56). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Technipress.
   Google Scholar
• Halford, G. S., & Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (1992). Value and limitations of analogs in teaching mathematics. In A. Demetriou, A. Efkliades, & M. Shayer (Eds.), Modern theories of cognitive development go to school (pp. 183–209). London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Hartson, R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 315–338.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, G. A., Thornton, C. A., Putt, I. J., Hill, K. M., Mogill, A. T., Rich, B. S., & VanZoest, L. R. (1996). Multidigit number sense: A framework for instruction and assessment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3), 310–336.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Kaput, J. (1993). Overcoming physicality and the eternal present: Cybernetic manipulatives. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in education (Vol. 138, pp. 161–177). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Klahr, D., Triona, L., Strand-Cary, M., & Siler, S. (2008). Virtual vs. physical materials in early science instruction: Transitioning to an autonomous tutor for experimental design. In J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert, & L. Kester (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: The legacy of competence (pp. 163–172). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10000 words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–99.
   Google Scholar
• Manches, A. (2010). The effect of physical manipulation on children's numerical strategies: Evaluating the potential for tangible technology. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Retrieved from http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/1372/1/AndrewManchesFinalThesis2010.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Manches, A., O'Malley, C., & Benford, S. (2009). Physical manipulation: Evaluating the potential for tangible designs. In N. Villar (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI '09) ( pp. 77–84). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Manches, A., O'Malley, C., & Benford, S. (2010). The role of physical representations in solving number problems: A comparison of young children's use of physical and virtual materials. Computers & Education, 54(3), 622–640.
   Google Scholar
• Mandler, G., & Shebo, B. J. (1982). Subitizing: An analysis of its component processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 111(1), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, T., Lukong, A., & Reaves, R. (2007). The role of manipulatives in arithmetic and geometry. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1(1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 587–625.
   Google Scholar
• Martins-Mourao, A., & Cowan, R. (1998). The emergence of additive composition of number. Educational Psychology, 18(4), 377–389.
   Google Scholar
• McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don't add up: Disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 309–316.
   Google Scholar
• Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1996). Children doing mathematics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• O'Malley, C., & Stanton Fraser, D. (2004). Report 12: Literature review in learning with tangible technologies. Bristol, UK: Futurelab.
   Google Scholar
• Pitchford, N. J. (2015). Development of early mathematical skills with a tablet intervention: A randomized control trial in Malawi. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 485.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B. (1983). A developmental theory of number understanding. In H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 109–151). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 41–95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
   Google Scholar
• Riggs, K., Ferrand, L., Lancelin, D., Fryziel, L., Dumur, G., & Simpson, A. (2006). Subitizing in tactile perception. Psychological Science, 17(4), 271–272.
   Google Scholar
• Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175–189.
   Google Scholar
• Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). “Concrete” computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 145–150.
   Google Scholar
• Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185–213.
   Google Scholar
• Stacey, K., Helme, S., Archer, S., & Condon, C. (2001). The effect of epistemic fidelity and accessibility on teaching with physical materials: A comparison of two models for teaching decimal numeration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 199–221.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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(1), 37–54.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.
   Google Scholar