Examining the Role of Manipulatives and Metacognition on Engagement, Learning, and Transfer

How does the type of learning material impact what is learned? The current research in- vestigates the nature of students' learning of math concepts when using manipulatives (Uttal, Scudder, & DeLoache, 1997). We examined how the type of manipulative (concrete, abstract, none) and problem-solving prompt (metacognitive or problem-focused) affect student learning, engagement, and knowledge transfer. Students who were given concrete manipulatives with metacognitive prompts showed better transfer of a procedural skill than students given abstract manipulatives or those given concrete manipulatives with problem-focused prompts. Overall, students who reported low levels of engagement showed better learning and transfer when getting metacognitive prompts, whereas students who reported high levels of engagement showed better learning and transfer when getting the problem-focused prompts. The results are discussed in regards to their implications for education and instruction.

[1]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Trade-Offs Between Grounded and Abstract Representations: Evidence From Algebra Problem Solving , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  K. Hakuta,et al.  Child development and education in Japan. , 1986 .

[3]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  The Psychology of Problem Solving: Motivating Self-Regulated Problem Solvers , 2003 .

[4]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Activity and Imagined Activity Can Enhance Young Children's Reading Comprehension. , 2004 .

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

[6]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  The effects of text-based interest on attention and recall. , 2000 .

[7]  H A Simon,et al.  The theory of learning by doing. , 1979, Psychological review.

[8]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[9]  Kenneth Kotovsky,et al.  Representation and Transfer in Problem Solving , 1988 .

[10]  S. Stein.  What's All the Fuss About? , 1996 .

[11]  Rainer H. Kluwe,et al.  Cognitive Knowledge and Executive Control: Metacognition , 1982 .

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

[13]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

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

[15]  Brian H. Ross,et al.  Effects of principle explanation and superficial similarity on analogical mapping in problem solving. , 1997 .

[16]  R. Mayer.  Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. , 2004, The American psychologist.

[17]  M. Lepper,et al.  Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. , 1996 .

[18]  Timothy J. Nokes,et al.  Mechanisms of knowledge transfer , 2009 .

[19]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Increasing Situational Interest in the Classroom , 2001 .

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

[21]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  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 .

[23]  K. Scherer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage : A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 2004 .

[24]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Liping Ma,et al.  Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States , 2010 .

[26]  J. Sweller.  The worked example effect and human cognition , 2006 .

[27]  Stellan Ohlsson,et al.  Comparing Multiple Paths to Mastery: What is Learned? , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[28]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  The Dynamics of Affective Transitions in Simulation Problem-Solving Environments , 2007, ACII.

[29]  Daniel M. Belenky,et al.  Motivation and transfer: The role of achievement goals in preparation for future learning , 2009 .

[30]  J. Harackiewicz,et al.  Different Strokes for Different Folks: How Individual Interest Moderates the Effects of Situational Factors on Task Interest. , 2007 .

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

[32]  Jennifer A. Kaminski,et al.  The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[33]  A. Graesser,et al.  The Psychology of Questions , 1985 .

[34]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Contextualization in Perspective , 2009 .

[35]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[36]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Fostering general transfer with specific simulations , 2009 .

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

[38]  R. Glaser.  Advances in Instructional Psychology , 1978 .

[39]  G. Hatano,et al.  TWO COURSES OF EXPERTISE , 1984 .

[40]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Studying as self-regulated learning. , 1998 .

[43]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  EFFICIENCY AND INNOVATION IN TRANSFER , 2005 .

[44]  J. Mestre.  Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective , 2005 .

[45]  R. L. Dominowski,et al.  Metacognition and problem solving : A process-oriented approach. , 1995 .

[46]  Ann L. Brown.  Knowing When, Where, and How to Remember: A Problem of Metacognition. Technical Report No. 47. , 1977 .