When Theories Don't Add up: Disentangling the Manipulatives Debate

Author(s): Nicole M. McNeil and Linda Jarvin

Source: Theory Into Practice , Fall, 2007, Vol. 46, No. 4, Research in the Service of
Practice (Fall, 2007), pp. 309-316
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40071507

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Theory Into Practice

This content downloaded from

149.12.7.73 on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:29:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 46(4), 309-316

Nicole M. McNeil
Linda Jarvin

When Theories Don't

Add Up: Disentangling
the Manipulatives Debate

The use of manipulatives in the classroom lying

has rationale, both converge on the idea that
been advocated for decades. However, the the-teachers should reduce their use of manipulatives
oretical and empirical support for this practice
that are highly familiar and/or perceptually inter-
is mixed. Some researchers suggest that manip-
esting. More generally, the manipulatives debate
ulatives facilitate learning by (a) providinghighlights
an the need for teachers and researchers
additional channel for conveying information,to(b)
work together to evaluate the costs and benefits
activating real-world knowledge, and/or (c) im-
of various classroom practices.
proving memory through physical action. How-
ever, there are at least two reasons to question the
efficacy of manipulative use. First, manipulatives
might lead students to focus on having fun at the THE following scenario. Sev-
expense of deep learning. Second, manipulatives eral second-grade students observe
might make learning more difficult because they
as a teacher places two identical toy car
require dual representation. Although these two
balance: one on the left side and one on
criticisms are disparate in terms of their under-
side. The teacher questions, "Is it b
The students respond with a chorus of
Then, the teacher holds up a small p
Nicole M. McNeil is an Assistant Professor in Psy-
and asks, "How about if I put this doll
chology at the University of Notre Dame; Linda Jarvin
is an Associate Professor at the PACE Center, Tufts side? Is it still going to be balanced?" T
University.
bellows "Noooo!" Pleased with the resp
Correspondence should be sent to Nicole McNeil, teacher continues, "What would you h
Department of Psychology, 102 Haggar Hall, Univer- to make it balance?" A student raises her hand
sity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail: and replies, "Put one of those same dolls on
nmcneil@nd.edu the right side!" And so the lesson goes: The

309

This content downloaded from

149.12.7.73 on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:29:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Research in the Service of Practice

teacher places various configurations of toys on teachers sift through the data and decide whether
the pan balance, and the students predict what or not to adopt this theory into their practice. It
they need to add or subtract to make it balance. almost goes without saying that we are far from
The goal of such a lesson is to help students resolving many of these key questions. However,
understand the concept of equality, a fundamental researchers have begun to uncover clues about
concept in mathematics. However, it is unclear the costs and benefits of using manipulatives.
whether or not the activity achieves the goal. In this article, we briefly examine the
Does it effectively build students' conceptual widespread practice of using manipulatives in
understanding of mathematical equivalence and the classroom. Our goal is to highlight both
help students prepare for writing and solving the pros and the cons of using manipulatives,
equations, or does it divert students' attention so teachers can be better-informed consumers
away from the symbolic notation of mathematics of research. First, we summarize the theoret-
to something else? ical basis for using manipulatives and review
When objects such as toy cars, dolls, and pan findings in support of this practice. Then, we
balances are used in the context of a mathematics present counterevidence suggesting that the use
lesson, they are known as manipulatives. Manip-of manipulatives can hinder student outcomes,
ulatives are concrete objects used to help studentsand we describe recent theoretical advances that
understand abstract concepts, such as those of- explain why manipulatives might be detrimental
ten encountered in the domain of mathematics. in some cases. Finally, we provide some specific
Manipulatives offer students the opportunitysuggestions
to for theory and practice and close by
explore concepts both visually and tactilely, oftendiscussing implications both for researchers dis-
through hands-on experiences. Teachers gener- seminating their findings and for teachers seeking
to understand the nuances of the manipulatives
ally use manipulatives to introduce new concepts
debate.
or to extend previously learned concepts. This
practice is in line with several theories. Indeed,
theorists have been touting the advantages of
manipulatives for several decades, and research Theoretical Basis for Using
has supported this view (Sowell, 1989). Besides, Manipulatives
it makes sense intuitively - students should gain
a deeper understanding of abstract concepts whenResearchers have been endorsing the use of
those concepts are linked to the real world. manipulatives for decades, dating back to Pi-
Although it is true that some manipulativesaget and Szeminska (1941/1995), Bruner (1966),
help some students under some conditions, sev- and Montessori (1964). According to these early
eral studies have shown no benefits of using theorists, children do not come into the world
with the capacity for abstract thought. Instead,
manipulatives, and a few studies have even sug-
gested that manipulatives (and other concrete
children must construct abstract concepts through
their interactions with concrete objects in the
learning aids) can hinder learning in some cases.
Because research findings have been mixed, environment. For example, a child might con-
teachers who wish to adopt theory into prac- struct an understanding of the numbers 1 through
tice are left with the significant challenge 10
of through his or her interactions with a set
deciphering the nuances of the debate. Under of 10 colored rods of equal lengths (as in the
Montessori math curriculum). Through the pro-
which conditions do manipulatives help learning
cess of laying out the rods one by one, the
and performance? Can such conditions be recre-
child might be able to see the relative differences
ated in classrooms? Assuming that manipulatives
help, how much class time should be devoted between the numbers, and thus, learn how the
to working with them versus working with thenumbers relate to one another (instead of simply
formal symbolic notation of mathematics? These
understanding the numbers as a rote counting
questions, among others, need to be addressedsequence).
as Activities like this were inspired by

310

This content downloaded from

149.12.7.73 on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:29:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
McNeil & Jarvin When Theories Don yt Add Up

early theorists' focus on the concrete nature ofmatics classroom setting. Since the publication
children's thought. Back then, the adoption of of that seminal study, researchers have begun
theory into practice seemed to be straightforward:to look closely at how the context influences
If interactions with concrete objects provide thechildren's understanding of mathematics. The
basis for abstract thought, then the more experi-emerging consensus is that children (and adults)
ence children have with manipulatives early on, benefit from contexts that allow them to draw on
the greater their understanding of abstract math their practical, real-world knowledge (Baranes,
concepts will be later in development. Perry, & Stigler, 1989; Kotovsky, Hayes, & Si-
The ideas of Piaget, Bruner, and Montessori mon, 1985; Rittle- Johnson & Koedinger, 2005).
continue to inspire teachers to use manipulativesManipulatives are often designed to cue chil-
dren's real-world knowledge.
in classrooms today. In addition, several contem-
porary researchers have devised new theories that Third, manipulatives tend to induce physi-
provide compelling justifications for the use ofcal action, which has been shown to enhance
manipulatives. Following is a brief overview ofmemory and understanding (Glenberg, Gutierrez,
three of these theories. Levin, Japuntich, & Kaschak, 2004; Martin &
First, at the most general level, manipulatives Schwartz, 2005). For example, Glenberg and col-
provide students with an additional resource to leagues (2004) developed a reading intervention
use in learning mathematics. When students are for beginning readers that involved manipula-
provided with multiple resources, they are more tives. In the intervention, children were asked to
likely to perform at optimal levels (Sternberg read text and then manipulate objects to simulate
& Grigorenko, 2004). For example, consider a the actions described in the text. Children who
teacher who wants students to derive the formula participated in this intervention demonstrated
for the area of a triangle from their knowledge better memory and reading comprehension than
of the formula for the area of a rectangle. This did children who simply read the text twice.
teacher could use a traditional teaching method, Along these same lines, Martin and Schwartz
such as drawing rectangles, parallelograms, and (2005) demonstrated the benefits of physically
triangles on the chalkboard while explaining the manipulating pie wedges and tiles on 9- and 10-
connections between the shapes in words. In year-old children's interpretations of fractions.
addition, the teacher could incorporate manip- Taken together, these findings lend support to the
ulatives into the lesson by requiring students notion that physical action can benefit memory
to spend some time exploring transformations and understanding.
between rectangles, parallelograms, and triangles The aforementioned theories (and empirical
on a geoboard. By using both traditional and data supporting them) help to illustrate the strong
hands-on teaching methods, the teacher is likely theoretical basis for the use of manipulatives in
to reach a larger range of students. the classroom. With this information in hand, it
Second, manipulatives can help children draw would appear foolish if teachers chose not to
on their practical, real-world knowledge. Math adopt manipulatives into their practice. Besides,
problems tend to be easier when the problems teachers are often looking for new and exciting
draw on children's practical understandings. The ways to facilitate students' understandings, and
classic example of this phenomenon is Carraher, manipulatives seem to offer an attractive alterna-
Carraher, and Schliemann's (1985) "Mathematics tive to traditional drill and practice procedures
in the Streets and in the Schools." The study (Moch, 2001). Thus, it is not surprising that
was conducted with children selling goods at many teachers incorporate manipulatives into
street markets in Brazil. These children per- their lessons and assume that they help stu-
formed well on math problems presented in the dents "think, reason, and solve problems" (Burns,
familiar buying-and-selling street context, but 1996, p. 48).
surprisingly, they were not able to solve the same The main drawback to this practice is that
exact problems presented in a typical mathe- research findings are more complicated and more

311

This content downloaded from

149.12.7.73 on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:29:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Research in the Service of Practice

nuanced than they might at first appear. If the Consider a study by Amaya and colleagues, in
results of a particular study suggest that manip- which students (ages 7 and 8) were taught a
ulative X helped child Y in context Z, it does procedure for solving double-digit subtraction
not mean that all manipulatives help all children problems. In one condition, students were taught
in all contexts. In other words, most findings do using manipulatives. In another condition, stu-
not generalize broadly. Regrettably, researchers dents were taught the same procedure using a
often make sweeping statements when discussing written method. Although students in both con-
their findings. As a result, teachers often end up ditions demonstrated competence with the proce-
with a "bottom line" that seems clear-cut and dure during the instruction phase, students who
far-reaching. What is more, busy teachers do were
not taught with manipulatives performed signif-
always have the time to stay up-to-date on all icantly
the worse than other students on a posttest,
latest findings. They may read about one study despite being encouraged to think about the
that provides support for using manipulatives manipulatives
and to help them solve the problems.
There are several theories for why manipu-
then stop there, especially if the findings support
their own personal philosophies. However, latives
the do not help (and may even hinder) stu-
research literature contains several conflicting
dents' learning and performance. In the following
studies that need to be sorted through beforeparagraphs,
an we provide a brief overview of two
informed decision can be made. Indeed, despiteof these theories. Although these two theories
differ greatly in terms of what they hypothesize
the theory and evidence concerning the benefits
of manipulatives, several studies have shown tonobe the source of the problem, both lead to
some of the same conclusions about the types
benefit of manipulatives, and some have even
shown negative effects. of manipulatives that should not be used in the
classroom.
First, teachers could - unknowingly and
Manipulatives Do Not unintentionally - be the source of the problem.
Guarantee Success Specifically, it is possible that manipulatives
themselves are beneficial to student learning, but
Evidence suggesting that manipulatives do notthat teachers fail to use manipulatives effectively
guarantee success is not new. Indeed, some of (Moyer,
the 2001; Smith, 1996). Teachers may use
manipulatives for fun or just to add variety to
earliest studies suggested that manipulatives start
their math classes, instead of using manipulatives
to lose their usefulness after the first grade (Fen-
nema, 1972; Friedman, 1978). Since that time, to engage students in mathematics. They may
several studies have shown that manipulatives think manipulatives should be used to help pique
have little impact on students' understanding students' interest, but not to teach students math
of mathematical concepts (Resnick & Omanson, concepts and procedures. Moyer investigated
1987; Thompson, 1992). Even when students how and why 10 middle school mathematics
are able to use manipulatives to demonstrate teachers used manipulatives in their classrooms.
knowledge of mathematical concepts, they some- Findings suggested that teachers consider
times fail to use that knowledge to solve writtenmanipulatives to be fun and rewarding, but
problems unless they are explicitly remindedfail to to recognize the value of manipulatives as
think about the manipulatives (Fuson & Briars, tools for learning math. For example, when one
1990). teacher was discussing what her students got out
More recent studies have suggested that ma- of using manipulatives, she said: "Sometimes
nipulatives may not only be ineffective, but I think that they are just having fun, but I
also detrimental to learning and performance in don't mind because eventually we'll get to
some cases (Amaya, Uttal, O'Doherty, Liu, & the real math part" (p. 187, italic added by
DeLoache, 2007; Jarvin, McNeil, & Sternberg, Moyer). Findings further suggested that teachers'
2006; McNeil, Uttal, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2007). attitudes rubbed off on students, who tended

312

This content downloaded from

149.12.7.73 on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:29:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
McNeil & Jarvin When Theories Don 7 Add Up

to view manipulative activities as play time.

procedures they symbolize, (b) children's limited
Although Moyer did not directly investigatecognitive resources, and (c) children's tendency
to resist change.
how these attitudes influence learning outcomes,
she suggests that the association between
manipulative materials and fun may hinder
Nontransparency
learning because it "devalue(s) the potential of
these materials as representations for learning Dual representation is not automatic because
mathematics concepts" (p. 191). manipulatives are not transparent. Instead, trans-
Mover's findings validate Smith's (1996) con- parency must emerge gradually over time (Meira,
cerns about the divide between teachers' efficacy 1998). For example, consider a winch, which
beliefs and current reform efforts. According to is a physical device whose workings can be
Smith, most teachers believe that mathematics predicted by a linear function. The device is
is best taught by telling. That is, math is best seemingly transparent because all of the parts can
taught by introducing the step-by-step procedures be directly manipulated, observed, and measured.
necessary for solving problems, repeating those However, students who manipulate a winch and
procedures in clear language, providing students then observe and record the outcomes do not au-

with an opportunity to practice those procedures, tomatically infer linearity. Instead, their attention
and providing feedback when necessary. In con- is drawn to the winch as a device in its own

trast, to use manipulatives effectively, teachers
need to embrace reform efforts that emphasize
hands-on learning. They need to recognize that
students can construct their own knowledge of
mathematics. Otherwise, they will not be able to
create conditions that allow their students to learn
mathematics from interacting with manipulatives.
In short, the basic idea here is that manipulatives
are beneficial, but only if teachers embrace them
and use them properly - as tools for constructing
knowledge, not as toys.
Second, the manipulatives themselves could
be the source of the problem because they require
dual representation (Uttal, Scudder, & DeLoache,
1997). That is, a given manipulative needs to be
represented not only as an object in its own right,
but also as a symbol of a mathematical concept
or procedure. For example, think back to the
opening paragraph and imagine the two toy cars
positioned on opposite sides of the balance scale.
To build a better conceptual understanding of
mathematical equivalence, children cannot focus
on their representations of the cars as toys;
instead, they need to represent the cars as given
quantities that are equivalent to one another. They
need to draw analogies between the cars and the
Arabic numerals used in equations, as well as
between the balance scale and the equal sign.
Unfortunately, there are at least three obstacles to
dual representation: (a) the nontransparent map-
pings between manipulatives and the concepts or
right, rather than to the mathematical relationship
it is intended to illuminate. Thus, we cannot
assume that children can immediately see the
mathematical concepts just by interacting with
manipulatives.
Limited Cognitive Resources
Dual representation is resource intensive, and
children have limited cognitive resources. When
children interact with manipulatives, their cog-
nitive resources may be committed to repre-
senting and manipulating the objects and may
be largely unavailable for other processes, such
as accessing relevant concepts or implementing
appropriate procedures (Boulton-Lewis, 1998).
Manipulatives that are highly concrete and rich
in perceptual detail may be especially demanding
because students' representations of perceptual
details can compete with their representations of
more abstract mathematics concepts and proce-
dures (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003; Sloutsky,
Kaminski, & Heckler, 2005). For example, Gold-
stone and Sakamoto (2003) found that students
who learned an abstract scientific principle from
a computer display that was concrete and rich
in perceptual details had more difficulty transfer-
ring their knowledge to a perceptually dissimilar
problem that was governed by the same abstract
principle than did students who learned from a
display that had fewer perceptual details.

313

This content downloaded from

149.12.7.73 on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:29:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Research in the Service of Practice

Resistance to Change (Mix, 2003). Unfortunately, it may not be realis-

tic to expect teachers to wait. If the manipulatives
Dual representation may require children to
debate progresses at the same pace as other de-
see familiar objects in a new light. This pro-
bates in education and psychology, then teachers
cess may be difficult for children, especially if
may have to wait several decades for a resolution
their old way of representing the objects is well
(Meehl, 1978).
established. If children are very familiar with Teachers need to make informed decisions
a particular object as a toy, it may be difficult
now. Thus, based on the available evidence and
for them to view the object as a mathematics
current theories, our primary recommendation
symbol (DeLoache, 1995). Think back again to
for today's teachers is to minimize their use of
the manipulatives described at the beginning of
manipulatives that are (a) highly concrete and
this article. In that example, the teacher used toy
rich in perceptual detail and/or (b) highly familiar
cars and dolls to illustrate the concept of equality.
to children in nonschool contexts (e.g., toys).
However, children often play with toy cars and
Manipulatives like these may lead students to
dolls, so they already have a representation of
focus on having fun at the expense of deep
those objects as toys. Research suggests that once
learning and may also make dual representation
children (and adults) represent an object or a
more challenging (as discussed). Fortunately, as
concept one way, it is difficult for them to let
pointed out by McNeil et al. (2007), many of
go of that representation so they can represent it
the formal manipulative systems (e.g., base 10
in a new way (Mack, 1995; McNeil & Alibali,
blocks) are not rich in perceptual detail or inter-
2005).
esting as objects in their own right. When these
Regardless of the cause (teachers or manipu-
simpler manipulatives are used, it may be easier
latives themselves), empirical evidence suggests
for students to view the manipulatives as math-
that manipulatives are not a sure-fire strategy
ematical tools and to focus on the underlying
for helping children learn math. These findings
concepts.
create a significant dilemma for teachers. On one
We additionally recommend that teachers take
hand, there is research showing that manipula-
the time to build explicit bridges between the
tives can facilitate learning. On the other hand,
informal understandings that children construct
there is some evidence that manipulatives may
when they use manipulatives and the formal sym-
actually hinder learning. How can teachers sort
bolic instantiations of the concepts. Bridging the
through the theoretical models and the empirical
gap between students' intuitive, everyday under-
data to make an informed decision? Here we pro-
standing of mathematics and their understandings
vide recommendations for teachers, as well as for
of the corresponding formal symbolic represen-
the researchers whose theories have implications
for teachers.
tations is one of the most significant challenges
faced by math teachers today (Greeno, 1989;
Schoenfeld, 1988; Uttal, 2003). Several studies
show that children's knowledge of formal sym-
Recommendations for Teachers bols lags behind their intuitive, everyday under-
and Researchers standings of mathematics. For example, fourth-
grade children who can identify two numbers
Obviously, the decision of whether or not that
to are equal (e.g., 7 is equal to 7) are unable
use manipulatives is not clear-cut. One possibility
to apply that knowledge to generate a procedure
for solving mathematical equivalence problems
is for teachers to postpone a decision until more
(e.g., 3 + 4 + 5 = 3+J correctly (Rittle-
data are available. More data may help clarify
when and how manipulatives can be used and Johnson & Alibali, 1999). Similarly, children un-
with what degree of success. Before teachers
derstand the concept of sharing and have intuitive
can truly assess the value of manipulatives,
knowledge of fractions as early as first grade
researchers need to uncover the mechanisms (Empson, 1999), but throughout the elemen-
by which manipulatives influence performance
tary school years they have trouble linking that

314

This content downloaded from

149.12.7.73 on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:29:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
McNeil & Jarvin When Theories Don't Add Up

knowledge to the symbol used to represent frac-official endorsement should be inferred. Thanks to
tions (Mack, 1995). Assuming manipulatives do,Robyn Rissman for comments on a previous version
of this manuscript.
indeed, foster children's understanding, the use
of manipulatives may simply result in a greater
divide between intuitive and formal knowledge.
References
This outcome may be undesirable because much
of mathematics involves written mathematical
Amaya, M. M, Uttal, D. H., O'Doherty, K. D., Liu,
symbols. Children need to understand what these
L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (2007). Two-digit sub-
symbols mean and how they can be manipulated traction: Examining the link between concrete and
to succeed in math and science. Thus, one of the abstract representations of knowledge. Manuscript
primary goals of teachers should be to develop under revision.
lessons that help students make connections be-
Baranes, R., Perry, M., & Stigler, J. W. (1989). Acti-
tween intuitive and formal knowledge. To date, vation of real-world knowledge in the solution of
there is no evidence that manipulatives help word problems. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 287-
students make such connections. 318.

Our recommendations for researchers are Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (1998). Children's strategy use
and interpretations of mathematical representations.
twofold. First, we encourage researchers to high-
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 219-237.
light potential alternative interpretations of their
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction.
findings. Part of writing a persuasive scientificCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
argument is building a case for the significanceBurns,
of M. (1996, April). How to make the most of
a particular set of findings. However, researchersmath manipulatives. Instructor, 105, 45-51.
may have mastered this strategy too well. ItCarraher,
is T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D.
very important to not overstate conclusions when (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools.
results may have implications for teaching or British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3,
21-29.
learning. One strategy for tempering conclusions
is to remind readers of the basics. Make it clear DeLoache, J. S. (1995). Early symbol understanding
and use. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of
that: (a) results need to be replicated, (b) results
learning and motivation (Vol. 33, pp. 65-1 14). New
may not generalize to different populations, and York: Academic Press.
(c) laboratory tasks may lead to different out- Empson, S. B. (1999). Equal sharing and shared
comes than classroom tasks.
meaning: The development of fraction concepts in
In addition, researchers should make a special a first-grade classroom. Cognition and Instruction,
effort to publish their work in outlets (such as 77,283-342.
Theory Into Practice) that are likely to be read Fennema, E. (1972). Models and mathematics. Arith-
by those putting theory into practice - teachers. metic Teacher, 18, 635-640.
By taking steps to ensure that their work reachesFriedman, M. (1978). The manipulatives materials
a broader audience, researchers can make it strategy: The latest pied piper? Journal for Re-
search in Mathematics Education, 9, 78-80.
easier for busy teachers to stay up-to-date on the
Fuson, K. C, & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-
latest findings, so they can become well-informed
ten blocks learning/teaching approach for first-and
consumers of research.
second-grade place-value and multidigit addition
and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathe-
matics Education, 21, 180-206.
Note Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T, Levin, J. R., Japuntich,
S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined
Preparation of this article was supported by Grant activity can enhance young children's reading com-
R305H030282 from the Institute of Education Sci- prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,
ences (IES). Grantees undertaking such projects are 424-436.
Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer
encouraged to express freely their professional judg-
ment. This article, therefore, does not necessarily of abstract principles governing complex adaptive
represent the position or policies of the IES, and no systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414-466.

315

This content downloaded from

149.12.7.73 on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:29:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Research in the Service of Practice

Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations, mental models, and
generative knowledge. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky
(Eds.), Complex information processing: The im-
pact of Herbert Simon (pp. 285-318). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Jarvin, L., McNeil, N. M., & Steinberg, R. J. (2006,
June). Understanding students ' mathematical com-
petencies: An exploration of the impact of contex-
tualizing math problems. Paper presented at the In-
stitute of Education Sciences Research Conference,
Washington, DC.
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985).
Why are some problems hard? Evidence from the
tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248-
294. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger,K. R. (2005). Design-
Mack, N. K. (1995). Confounding whole-number
and fraction concepts when building on informal
knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 26, 422-441. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads
Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically
distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting
physical environments in the development of frac-
Piaget, J., & Szeminska, A. (1995). The child's con-
ception of number (C. Gattegno & F. M. Hodg-
son, Trans.). In H. E. Gruber & J. J. Voneche
(Eds.), The essential Piaget (pp. 298-341). North-
vale, NJ: Jason Aronson. (Original work published
1941).
Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. F. (1987). Learning to
understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances
in instructional psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 41-96).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Con-
ceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics:
Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 175-189.
ing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical
problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23,
313-349.
to bad results: The disasters of "well taught" mathe-
matics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145-
166.

tion concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 587-625. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A.
McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Why won't F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for
you change your mind? Knowledge of operational learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin and
patterns hinders learning and performance on equa- Review, 72,508-513.
tions. Child Development, 76, 1-17. Smith, J. P. (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics
McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, by telling: A challenge for reform. Journal for
R. J. (2007). Should you show me the play money? Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 387-402.
Concrete objects both hurt and help performance Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials
on math problems. in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular aster- Mathematics Education, 20, 498-505.
isks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Suc-
soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical cessful intelligence in the classroom. Theory Into
Psychology, 4, 806-834. Practice, 43, 274-280.
Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional de- Thompson, P. W. (1992). Notations, conventions, and
vices: The emergence of transparency in mathemat- constraints: Contributions to effective uses of con-
ical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics crete materials in elementary mathematics. Journal
Education, 29, 121-142. for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 123-
Mix, K. S. (2003). Spatial tools for mathematical 147.
thought. In L. B. Smith, M. Gasser, & K. S. Mix Uttal, D. H. (2003). On the relation between play and
(Eds.), The spatial foundations of cognition and symbolic thought: The case of mathematics manip-
language. Manuscript submitted for publication. ulatives. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Con-
Moch, P. L. (2001). Manipulatives work. The Educa- temporary perspectives in early childhood (pp. 97-
tional Forum, 66, 81-87. 1 14). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori method. NewUttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997).
York: Schocken. Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on
Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics.
teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18,
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175-197. 37-54.

316

This content downloaded from

149.12.7.73 on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 06:29:14 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms