It works both ways: Transfer difficulties between manipulatives and written subtraction solutions

Three experiments compared performance and transfer among children aged 83–94 months after written or manipulatives instruction on two-digit subtraction. In Experiment 1a, children learned with manipulatives or with traditional written numerals. All children then completed a written posttest. Experiment 1b investigated whether salient or perceptually attractive manipulatives affected transfer. Experiment 2 investigated whether instruction with writing would transfer to a manipulatives-based posttest. Children demonstrated performance gains when the posttest format was identical to the instructed format but failed to demonstrate transfer from the instructed format to an incongruent posttest. The results indicate that the problem in transferring from manipulatives instruction to written assessments stems from a general difficulty in using knowledge gained in one format (e.g., manipulatives) in another format (e.g., writing). Taken together, the results have important implications for research and teaching in early mathematics. Teachers should consider making specific links and alignments between written and manipulatives-based representations of the same problems.

[1]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[2]  Heinz Werner,et al.  Symbol formation : an organismic-developmental approach to language and the expression of thought , 1964 .

[3]  J. Bruner Toward a Theory of Instruction , 1966 .

[4]  J. Piaget Science of education and the psychology of the child , 1970 .

[5]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. , 1973 .

[6]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Analogical problem solving , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  J. Stigler,et al.  Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. , 1986, Science.

[8]  Martin Hughes,et al.  Children and Number: Difficulties in Learning Mathematics , 1986 .

[9]  J. Deloache Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children. , 1987, Science.

[10]  J. Deloache Young children's understanding of the correspondence between a scale model and a larger space , 1989 .

[11]  Evelyn J. Sowell Effects of Manipulative Materials in Mathematics Instruction , 1989 .

[12]  Karen C. Fuson Issues in place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction learning and teaching. , 1990 .

[13]  Diane J. Briars,et al.  USING A BASE-TEN BLOCKS LEARNING/ TEACHING APPROACH FOR FIRST- AND SECOND-GRADE PLACE-VALUE AND MULTIDIGIT ADDITION AND SUBTRACTION , 1990 .

[14]  Maria Montessori,et al.  The Advanced Montessori Method , 1991 .

[15]  D. Ball Magical Hopes: Manipulatives and the Reform of Math Education. , 1992 .

[16]  John Todman,et al.  Analysis of Pre‐test‐Post‐test Control Group Designs in Educational Research , 1995 .

[17]  J. Deloache Early Symbol Understanding and Use , 1995 .

[18]  Douglas H. Clements,et al.  Rethinking "Concrete" Manipulatives , 1996 .

[19]  J. Deloache,et al.  Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics , 1997 .

[20]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Where Mathematics Comes From , 2000 .

[21]  Shaw-Jing Chao,et al.  The Effects of Physical Materials on Kindergartners' Learning of Number Concepts , 2000 .

[22]  J. Deloache Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. , 2000, Child development.

[23]  최영한,et al.  미국 NCTM의 Principles and Standards for School Mathematics에 나타난 수학과 교수,학습의 이론 , 2002 .

[24]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Where mathematics comes from : how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being , 2002 .

[25]  C R Gallistel,et al.  Language and the Origin of Numerical Concepts , 2004, Science.

[26]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Physically Distributed Learning: Adapting and Reinterpreting Physical Environments in the Development of Fraction Concepts , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  A. Lillard Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius , 2005 .

[28]  Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda,et al.  Child psychology : a handbook of contemporary issues , 2005 .

[29]  W. Overton,et al.  The Development of Symbolic Coordination: Representation of Imagined Objects, Executive Function, and Theory of Mind , 2005 .

[30]  David H. Uttal,et al.  Concreteness and symbolic development , 2006 .

[31]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  How abstract is symbolic thought? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Cognitive Supports for Analogies in the Mathematics Classroom , 2007, Science.

[33]  Vladimir M Sloutsky,et al.  The Advantage of Abstract Examples in Learning Math , 2008, Science.

[34]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Flexibility in Problem Solving: The Case of Equation Solving. , 2008 .

[35]  Nicole M. McNeil,et al.  Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems , 2009 .

[36]  E. Thorndike Animal Intelligence; Experimental Studies , 2009 .

[37]  W. Marsden I and J , 2012 .

[38]  ames Hiebert and Diana Wearne Procedures Over Concepts: The Acquisition of Decimal Number Knowledge , 2013 .

[39]  Jennifer A. Kaminski,et al.  Extraneous perceptual information interferes with children's acquisition of mathematical knowledge , 2013 .