Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation

Manipulatives—physical learning materials such as cubes or tiles—are prevalent in educational settings across cultures and have generated substantial research into how actions with physical objects may support children’s learning. The ability to integrate digital technology into physical objects—so-called ‘digital manipulatives’—has generated excitement over the potential to create new educational materials. However, without a clear understanding of how actions with physical materials lead to learning, it is difficult to evaluate or inform designs in this area. This paper is intended to contribute to the development of effective tangible technologies for children’s learning by summarising key debates about the representational advantages of manipulatives under two key headings: offloading cognition—where manipulatives may help children by freeing up valuable cognitive resources during problem solving, and conceptual metaphors—where perceptual information or actions with objects have a structural correspondence with more symbolic concepts. The review also indicates possible limitations of physical objects—most importantly that their symbolic significance is only granted by the context in which they are used. These arguments are then discussed in light of tangible designs drawing upon the authors’ current research into tangibles and young children’s understanding of number.

[1]  Kelly S. Mix,et al.  Spatial Tools for Mathematical Thought , 2009, The Spatial Foundations of Language and Cognition.

[2]  Robert A. Reeve,et al.  Young Children's Understanding of Addition Concepts , 2002 .

[3]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Technologies for lifelong kindergarten , 1998 .

[4]  Giyoo Hatano,et al.  Digit memory of grand experts in abacus-derived mental calculation , 1983, Cognition.

[5]  D. Clements ‘Concrete’ Manipulatives, Concrete Ideas , 2000 .

[6]  Robert S. Siegler,et al.  Planning as a strategy choice, or why don't children plan when they should? , 1997 .

[7]  Lara M. Triona,et al.  Point and Click or Grab and Heft: Comparing the Influence of Physical and Virtual Instructional Materials on Elementary School Students' Ability to Design Experiments , 2003 .

[8]  Margaret Wilson The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987 .

[10]  Paul P. Maglio,et al.  On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  G. Mandler,et al.  Subitizing: an analysis of its component processes. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  Kelly Dobson,et al.  Sensory puzzles , 1999, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[13]  Alissa Nicole Antle,et al.  The CTI framework: informing the design of tangible systems for children , 2007, TEI.

[14]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10, 000 word , 1987 .

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

[16]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Teachers’ gestures facilitate students’ learning: A lesson in symmetry , 2003 .

[17]  Peta Wyeth,et al.  Electronic Blocks: Tangible Programming Elements for Preschoolers , 2001, INTERACT.

[18]  Thomas R. Tretter,et al.  Haptic Augmentation of Science Instruction: Does Touch Matter? , 2006 .

[19]  S. Ainsworth DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with Multiple Representations. , 2006 .

[20]  Greg Corness,et al.  Playing with the sound maker: do embodied metaphors help children learn? , 2008, IDC.

[21]  Linda Jarvin,et al.  When Theories Don't Add Up: Disentangling he Manipulatives Debate , 2007 .

[22]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  From action to discourse: The bridging function of gestures , 2002, Cognitive Systems Research.

[23]  Graeme S. Halford,et al.  Value and Limitations of Analogs in Teaching Mathematics. , 1989 .

[24]  Gavriel Salomon,et al.  Cognitive Effects With and Of Computer Technology , 1990 .

[25]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[26]  Friedrich Fröbel Friedrich Froebel's Pedagogics of the Kindergarten: Or, His Ideas Concerning the Play and Playthings of the Child , 2010 .

[27]  Kenton O'Hara,et al.  Planning and the user interface: the effects of lockout time and error recovery cost , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[28]  Steve Benford,et al.  Physical manipulation: evaluating the potential for tangible designs , 2009, TEI.

[29]  Jim Dorward,et al.  190 Ready-to-Use Activities That Make Math Fun! (Book) , 2004 .

[30]  S. Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Beyond words: the importance of gesture to researchers and learners. , 2000, Child development.

[31]  R. Cox Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences , 1999 .

[32]  Giovanna Moretto,et al.  Grasping numbers , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[33]  Susan M. Wagner,et al.  Explaining Math: Gesturing Lightens the Load , 2001, Psychological science.

[34]  Steve Benford,et al.  The role of physical representations in solving number problems: A comparison of young children's use of physical and virtual materials , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[35]  Paul Marshall,et al.  Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? , 2007, TEI.

[36]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory , 2004, CHI.

[37]  Z. Diénès Building Up Mathematics , 1960 .

[38]  Kenneth P. Fishkin,et al.  A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces , 2004, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[39]  Orit Shaer,et al.  The TAC paradigm: specifying tangible user interfaces , 2004, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[40]  Paul Mulholland,et al.  Evaluating musical software using conceptual metaphors , 2009 .

[41]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  A comparison of spatial organization strategies in graphical and tangible user interfaces , 2000, DARE '00.

[42]  R. Lehrer,et al.  Technology and mathematics education , 2008 .

[43]  E. Hutchins Material anchors for conceptual blends , 2005 .

[44]  Orit Shaer,et al.  Smart Blocks: a tangible mathematical manipulative , 2007, TEI.

[45]  D. Gentner Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[46]  Luciano Meira,et al.  Making Sense of Instructional Devices: The Emergence of Transparency in Mathematical Activity. , 1998 .

[47]  Brygg Ullmer,et al.  Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction , 2007 .

[48]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction , 2005, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[49]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  Principles of Object Perception , 1990, Cogn. Sci..

[50]  Danae Stanton Fraser,et al.  Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies , 2004 .

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

[52]  Douglas A. Grouws,et al.  Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning , 1992 .

[53]  Jiajie Zhang,et al.  The Nature of External Representations in Problem Solving , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[54]  Maria Montessori,et al.  The Montessori Method - Maria Montessori , 2007 .

[55]  Michael L. Anderson Embodied Cognition: A field guide , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[56]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  Cognitive Dimensions of Tangible Programming Languages , 2003 .

[57]  Ali Mazalek,et al.  Teaching table: a tangible mentor for pre-k math education , 2007, TEI.

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

[59]  M. Alibali,et al.  The function of gesture in learning to count: more than keeping track * , 1999 .

[60]  Andrew Simpson,et al.  Subitizing in Tactile Perception , 2006, Psychological science.

[61]  Jörn Hurtienne,et al.  Sad is heavy and happy is light: population stereotypes of tangible object attributes , 2009, TEI.

[62]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[63]  Sara Price,et al.  The effect of representation location on interaction in a tangible learning environment , 2009, TEI.