Concreteness Fading in Mathematics and Science Instruction: a Systematic Review
- 1.6k Downloads
A longstanding debate concerns the use of concrete versus abstract instructional materials, particularly in domains such as mathematics and science. Although decades of research have focused on the advantages and disadvantages of concrete and abstract materials considered independently, we argue for an approach that moves beyond this dichotomy and combines their advantages. Specifically, we recommend beginning with concrete materials and then explicitly and gradually fading to the more abstract. Theoretical benefits of this “concreteness fading” technique for mathematics and science instruction include (1) helping learners interpret ambiguous or opaque abstract symbols in terms of well-understood concrete objects, (2) providing embodied perceptual and physical experiences that can ground abstract thinking, (3) enabling learners to build up a store of memorable images that can be used when abstract symbols lose meaning, and (4) guiding learners to strip away extraneous concrete properties and distill the generic, generalizable properties. In these ways, concreteness fading provides advantages that go beyond the sum of the benefits of concrete and abstract materials.
KeywordsConcrete manipulatives Abstract symbols Learning and instruction
- Allsopp, D. H., Kyger, M., Ingram, R., & Lovin, L. (2006). MathVIDS2. Virginia Department of Education. http://www.coedu.usf.edu/main/departments/sped/mathvids/index.html.
- Belenky, D., & 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, in press.Google Scholar
- Berkas, N., & Pattison, C. (2007). Manipulatives: more than a special education intervention. NCTM News Bulletin. Retrieved May 27, 2013, from NCTM Web site: http://www.nctm.org/news/release_list.aspx?id=12698.
- Bruner, J. S. (1961). The art of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.Google Scholar
- Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
- Carroll, W. M., & Issacs, A. C. (2003). Achievement of students using the university of Chicago school mathematics project’s everyday mathematics. In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula (pp. 9–22). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: summative research on the building blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163.Google Scholar
- Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: a handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
- Devlin, K. (2011). What exactly is multiplication? [Web post for Mathematical Association of America]. Retrieved from http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_01_11.html.
- Evans-Martin, F. F. (2005). The nervous system. New York: Chelsea House.Google Scholar
- Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Fyfe, E. R., & McNeil, N. M. (2009). Benefits of “concreteness fading” for children with low knowledge of mathematical equivalence. Poster presented at the Cognitive Development Society, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
- Fyfe, E. R., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). The benefits of “concreteness fading” generalize across task, age, and prior knowledge. In K. Mix (chair), Learning from concrete models. Symposium presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
- Hofstadter, D., & Sander, E. (2013). Surfaces and essences: analogies as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2009). Comparing the effectiveness of semi-concrete and concreteness fading computer-simulations to support inquiry learning. Paper presented at the EARLI conference.Google Scholar
- Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2009). The effect of concreteness on children’s ability to detect common proportion. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 335–340). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: co-constituting inscription and thought. In E. D. Amsel & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development. The development and consequences of symbolic communication (p. 167e192). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Lesh, R. (1979). Mathematical learning disabilities: considerations for identification, diagnosis, remediation. In R. Lesh, D. Mierkiewicz, & M. G. Kantowski (Eds.), Applied mathematical problem solving (p. 111e180). Columbus: ERIC.Google Scholar
- Mann, R. L. (2004). Balancing act: the truth behind the equals sign. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(2), 65–69.Google Scholar
- Peterson, S. K., Mercer, C. D., & O’Shea, L. (1988). Teaching learning disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 52–56.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York: Grossman.Google Scholar
- Quine, W. V. (1977). Natural kinds. In S. P. Schwartz (Ed.), Naming, necessity, and natural kinds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Romberg, T. A., & Shafer, M. C. (2004). Purpose, plans, goals, and conduct of the study (Monograph 1). Madison: University of Wisconsin—Madison.Google Scholar
- Romberg, T. A., Shafer, M. C., Webb, D. C., & Folgert, L. (2005). The impact of MiC on student achievement (Monograph 5). Madison: University of Wisconsin—Madison.Google Scholar
- Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psych: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 629–639.Google Scholar
- Rutherford, T., Kibrick, M., Burchinal, M., Richland, L., Conley, A., Osborne, K., et al., (2010). Spatial temporal mathematics at scale: an innovative and fully developed paradigm to boost math achievement among all learners. Paper presented at AERA, Denver CO.Google Scholar
- Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., Goldstone, R. G., & Leslie, M. (2012). The importance of being interpreted: grounded words and children’s relational reasoning. Frontiers in Developmental Psychology, 3, 45.Google Scholar
- Stigler, J. W., Givvin, K. B., & Thompson, B. (2010). What community college developmental mathematics students understand about mathematics. The MathAMATYC Educator, 10(3), 4–16.Google Scholar
- Wang-Iverson, P., Myers, P., & Lim, E. (2010). Beyond Singapore’s mathematics textbooks: focused and flexible supports for teaching and learning. American Educator, 28–38.Google Scholar
- What Works Clearinghouse (2007). Real math building blocks [intervention report]. Retrieved http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/WWC_Building_Blocks_072307.pdf.
- What Works Clearinghouse (2008). Mathematics in context [intervention report]. Retrieved: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_mathinc_082608.pdf.
- What Works Clearinghouse (2009). Singapore math [intervention report]. Retrieved: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_singaporemath_042809.pdf.
- What Works Clearinghouse (2010). Everyday mathematics [intervention report]. Retrieved: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_everyday_math_091410.pdf.