Features of a pan balance that may support students’ developing understanding of mathematical equivalence

References

• Alibali, M. W. (1999). How children change their minds: Strategy change can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology, 35, 127–145. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E. J., Hattikudur, S., McNeil, N. M., & Stephens, A. C. (2007). A longitudinal examination of middle school students’ understanding of the equal sign and performance solving equivalent equations. Mathematics Thinking and Learning, 9, 221–247. doi:10.1080/10986060701360902.
   Google Scholar
• Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 349–365). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reform: What we think we know and what we need to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 500–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0604_1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow, A. T., & Harmon, S. E. (2012). Problem contexts for thinking about equality: An additional resource. Childhood Education, 88, 96–101. doi:10.1080/00094056.2012.662121.
   Google Scholar
• Baroody, A. J., & Coslick, R. T. (1998). Fostering children’s mathematical power: An investigative approach to K-8 mathematics instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Baroody, A. J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1983). The effects of instruction on children’s understanding of the “equals” sign. Elementary School Journal, 84, 199–212. doi:10.1086/461356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behr, M., Erlwanger, S., & Nichols, E. (1980). How children view the equal sign. Mathematics Teaching, 92, 13–15.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 26, 27–50. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9251-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanton, M., Otálora, Y., Brizuela, B. M., Gardiner, A. M., Sawrey, K. B., Gibbins, A., & Kim, Y. (2018). Exploring kindergarten students’ early understandings of the equal sign. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20, 167–201. doi:10.1080/10986065.2018.1474534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Byrd, C. E., McNeil, N. M., Chesney, D. L., & Matthews, P. G. (2015). A specific misconception of the equal sign acts as a barrier to children’s learning of early algebra. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 61–67. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caglayan, G., & Olive, J. (2010). Eighth grade students’ representations of linear equations on a cups and tiles model. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74, 143–162. doi:10.1007/s10649-010-9231-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic & algebra in elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1987). Written and oral mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 83–97. doi:10.2307/749244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesney, D. L., McNeil, N. M., Matthews, P. G., Byrd, C. E., Petersen, L. A., Wheeler, M. C., Fyfe, E. R., & Dunwiddie, A. E. (2014). Organization matters: Mental organization of addition knowledge relates to understanding math equivalence in symbolic form. Cognitive Development, 30, 30–46. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 10, i–177. doi:10.2307/749924.
   Google Scholar
• Crooks, N. M., Alibali, M. W., & McNeil, N. M. (2011, March). Highlighting relevant problem features improves encoding of equivalence problems and leads to the generation of correct strategies. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Cui, J., Popescu, V., Adamo-Villani, N., Cook, S. W., Duggan, K. A., & Friedman, H. S. (2017). Animation stimuli system for research on instructor gestures in education. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 37(4), 72–83. doi:10.1109/MCG.2017.3271471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/publications/pubs/1241
   Google Scholar
• Dorward, J. (2002). Intuition and research: Are they compatible? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 329–332.
   Google Scholar
• Falkner, K. P., Levi, L., & Carpenter, T. P. (1999). Children’s understanding of equality: A foundation for algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6, 232–236.
   Google Scholar
• Filloy, E., & Rojano, T. (1989). Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2), 19–25.
   Google Scholar
• Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., & Borjas, S. (2015). Benefits of “concreteness fading” for children’s mathematics understanding. Learning and Instruction, 35, 104–120. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 26, 9–25. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York, NY: MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Howden, H. (1994). Algebra tiles for the overhead projector. Vernon Hills, IL: ETA/Cuisenaire.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Battey, D. (2007). Professional development focused on children’s algebraic reasoning in elementary school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 258–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, V. M. (2000, April). An investigation of effects of instructional strategies on conceptual understanding of young children in mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2013). Extraneous perceptual information interferes with children’s acquisition of mathematical knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 351–363. doi:10.1037/a0031040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2009). Concrete instantiations of mathematics: A double-edged sword. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 90–93.
   Web of Science ®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, 14–29. doi:10.1037/a0031931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Jungjohann, K., Chard, D. J., & Baker, S. (2007). From arithmetic to algebra. Educational Leadership, 65, 66–71.
   Google Scholar
• Kieran, C. (1980). The interpretation of the equal sign: Symbol for an equivalence relation vs. an operator symbol. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (163–169). Berkeley, CA. . doi:10.1152/jappl.1980.48.1.163.
   Google Scholar
• Kieran, C. (1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317–326. doi:10.1007/BF00311062.
   Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.) (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knuth, E., Stephens, A., McNeil, N., & Alibali, M. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 297–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leavy, A., Hourigan, M., & McMahon, Á. (2013). Early understanding of equality. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20, 246–252. doi:10.5951/teacchilmath.20.4.0246.
   Google Scholar
• Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In E. Amsel & J. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Li, X., Ding, M., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Sources of differences in children’s understandings of mathematical equality: Comparative analysis of teacher guides and student texts in China and the United States. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 195–217. doi:10.1080/07370000801980845.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linchevski, L., & Herscovics, N. (1996). Crossing the cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra: Operating on the unknown in the context of equations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 39–65. doi:10.1007/BF00163752.
   Google Scholar
• Lindvall, C. M., & Ibarra, C. G. (1980). Incorrect procedures used by primary grade pupils in solving open addition and subtraction sentences. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 50–62. doi:10.2307/748732.
   Google Scholar
• Magruder, R., & Mohr-Schroeder, M. (2013). Solving equations is all about balance: Using virtual manipulatives in the middle school classroom. In D. Polly (Ed.), Common core mathematics standards and implementing digital technologies (pp. 201–214). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Manches, A., & O’Malley, C. (2012). Tangibles for learning: A representational analysis of physical manipulation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16, 405–419. doi:10.1007/s00779-011-0406-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, R. L. (2004). Balancing act: The truth behind the equals sign. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11, 65–69.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, P., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). In pursuit of knowledge: Comparing self-explanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2008.08.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews, P., Rittle-Johnson, B., McEldoon, K., & Taylor, R. (2012). Measure for measure: What combining diverse measures reveals about children’s understanding of the equal sign as an indicator of mathematical equality. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 316–350. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.43.3.0316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 183–200). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107–119. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00018-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil, N. (2007). U-shaped development in math: 7-year-olds outperform 9-year-olds on equivalence problems. Developmental Psychology, 43, 687–695. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil, N., & Alibali, M. (2005a). Knowledge change as a function of mathematics experiences: All contexts are not created equal. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6, 285–306. doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0602_6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil, N., & Alibali, M. (2005b). Why won’t you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883–899. doi:10.1111/cdev.2005.76.issue-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil, N., Fyfe, E., Petersen, L., Dunwiddie, A., & Brletic-Shipley, H. (2011). Benefits of practicing 4 = 2 + 2; Nontraditional problem formats facilitate children’s understanding of mathematical equivalence. Child Development, 82, 1620–1633. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01622.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). “Concreteness fading” promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22, 440–448. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeil, N. M., Rittle-Johnson, B., Hattikudur, S., & Petersen, L. A. (2010). Continuity in representation between children and adults: Arithmetic knowledge hinders undergraduates’ algebraic problem solving. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 437–457. doi:10.1080/15248372.2010.516421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina, M., & Ambrose, R. (2008). From an operational to a relational conception of the equal sign. Thirds graders’ developing algebraic thinking. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 30, 61–80.
   Google Scholar
• Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 372–377.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Authors.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
   Google Scholar
• Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423–451. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, M. (1991). Learning and transfer: Instructional conditions and conceptual change. Cognitive Development, 6, 449–468. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(91)90049-J.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, M., Berch, D., & Singleton, J. L. (1995). Constructing shared understanding: The role of nonverbal input in learning contexts. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 6, 213–235.
   Google Scholar
• Perry, M., Church, R. B., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1988). Transitional knowledge in the acquisition of concepts. Cognitive Development, 3, 359–400. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(88)90021-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. H. Weaver, Trans. New York, NY: Basic (Original work published 1966).
   Google Scholar
• Powell, S. (2012). Equations and the equal sign in elementary mathematics textbooks. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 627–648. doi:10.1086/665009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Presmeg, N. C. (1997). Reasoning with metaphors and metonymies in mathematics learning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images (pp. 267–279). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, S. (1977). Algebra tiles. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Renwick, E. M. (1932). Children’s misconceptions concerning the symbols for mathematical equality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 173–183. doi:10.1111/bjep.1932.2.issue-2.
   Google Scholar
• Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 175–189. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rittle-Johnson, B., Matthews, P. G., Taylor, R. S., & McEldoon, K. L. (2011). Assessing knowledge of mathematical equivalence: A construct-modeling approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 85–104. doi:10.1037/a0021334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojano, T., & Martinez, M. (2009). From concrete modeling to algebraic syntax: Learning to solve linear equations with a virtual balance. In S. L. Swars, D. W. Stinson, & S. Lemons-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 5, pp. 235–243). Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.
   Google Scholar
• Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). “Concrete” computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 145–150. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00095.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2016). Physical and virtual manipulatives: What is “concrete”? In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 71–93). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Seo, K. H., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2003). You’ve got to carefully read the math sentence … : Classroom context and children’s interpretations of the equals sign. In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Recent research and theory (pp. 161–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   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. doi:10.1037/a0013156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skemp, R. R. (1986). The psychology of learning mathematics (2nd ed.). London, England: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 498–505. doi:10.2307/749423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1997). Multiple referents and shifting meanings of unknowns in students’ use of algebra. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, pp. 190–197), Lahti, Finland. doi:10.1038/nsb0397-190.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens, A. C., Ellis, A. B., Blanton, M., & Brizuela, B. M. (2017). Algebraic thinking in the elementary and middle grades. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 386-420). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens, A. C., Knuth, E. J., Blanton, M. L., Isler, I., Gardiner, A. M., & Marum, T. (2013). Equation structure and the meaning of the equal sign: The impact of task selection in eliciting elementary students’ understandings. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32, 173–182. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.02.001.
   Google Scholar
• Suh, J., & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2007). Developing students’ representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26, 155–173.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. W. (1992). Notations, conventions, and constraints: Contributions to effective uses of concrete materials in elementary mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 123–147. doi:10.2307/749497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1990). Salient aspects of experience with concrete manipulatives. In F. Hitt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics (Vol. 3, pp. 337–343). Mexico City: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
   Google Scholar
• Uttal, D., O’Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L., & DeLoache, J. (2009). Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 156–159. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00097.x.
   Web of Science ®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, 37–54. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90013-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Walle, J. (2013). Elementary and middle school mathematics (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Vlassis, J. (2002). The balance model: Hindrance or support for the solving of linear equations with one unknown. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 341–359. doi:10.1023/A:1020229023965.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, E., & Cooper, T. J. (2005). Young children’s ability to use the balance strategy to solve for unknowns. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17, 58–72. doi:10.1007/BF03217409.
   Google Scholar