Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 51–72 | Cite as

An Embedded and Embodied Cognition Review of Instructional Manipulatives

  • Wim T. J. L. Pouw
  • Tamara van Gog
  • Fred Paas
Review Article

Abstract

Recent literature on learning with instructional manipulatives seems to call for a moderate view on the effects of perceptual and interactive richness of instructional manipulatives on learning. This “moderate view” holds that manipulatives’ perceptual and interactive richness may compromise learning in two ways: (1) by imposing a very high cognitive load on the learner, and (2) by hindering drawing of symbolic inferences that are supposed to play a key role in transfer (i.e., application of knowledge to new situations in the absence of instructional manipulatives). This paper presents a contrasting view. Drawing on recent insights from Embedded Embodied perspectives on cognition, it is argued that (1) perceptual and interactive richness may provide opportunities for alleviating cognitive load (Embedded Cognition), and (2) transfer of learning is not reliant on decontextualized knowledge but may draw on previous sensorimotor experiences of the kind afforded by perceptual and interactive richness of manipulatives (Embodied Cognition). By negotiating the Embedded Embodied Cognition view with the moderate view, implications for research are derived.

Keywords

Instructional manipulatives Embedded cognition Embodied cognition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO; project number 411-10-908).

References

  1. Anderson, M. L. (2008). On the grounds of (X)-grounded cognition. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach (pp. 423–435). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Andres, M., Seron, X., & Oliver, E. (2007). Contribution of hand motor circuits to counting. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 563–576.Google Scholar
  3. Antle, A. N. (2012). Exploring how children use their hands to think: an embodied interactional analysis. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32, 938–954.Google Scholar
  4. Antle, A. N., Droumeva, M., & Ha, D. (2009). Hands on what?: Comparing children’s mouse-based and tangible-based interaction. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 80–88).Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: manipulatives and the reform of math education. American Educator, 16(2), 14–18.Google Scholar
  6. Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Pelz, J. B. (1995). Memory representations in natural tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1), 66–80.Google Scholar
  7. Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. N. (1997). Deiectic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 723-767.Google Scholar
  8. Barrós-Loscertales, A., González, J., Pulvermüller, F., VenturaCampos, N., Bustamante, J. C., Costumero, V., et al. (2011). Reading “salt” activates gustatory brain regions: fMRI evidence for semantic grounding in a novel sensory modality. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 2554–2563.Google Scholar
  9. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.Google Scholar
  10. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.Google Scholar
  11. Black, J. B. (2011). Embodied cognition and learning environment design. Theoretical foundations of student-centered learning environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Borst, J. P., Buwalda, T. A., van Rijn, H., & Taatgen, N. A. (2013). Avoiding the problem state bottleneck by strategic use of the environment. Acta Psychologica, 144(2), 373–379.Google Scholar
  13. Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing educational psychology: situated cognition and Deweyian pragmatism. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 23–35.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., & Glenberg, A. M. (2009). Using concreteness in education: real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 160–164.Google Scholar
  15. Calvo, P., & Gomila, T. (2008). Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach. San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.Google Scholar
  17. Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2011). The nature of gestures’ beneficial role in spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 102–116.Google Scholar
  18. Chu, M., Meyer, A., Foulkes, L., & Kita, S. (2013). Individual differences in frequency and salience of speech-accompanying gestures: the role of cognitive abilities and empathy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. doi: 10.1037/a0033861.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, A. (2005). Beyond the flesh: some lessons from a mole cricket. Artificial Life, 11(1–2), 233–244.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
  22. Clements, D. H. (2000). ‘Concrete’ manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45–60.Google Scholar
  23. De Bock, D., Deprez, J., Van Dooren, W., Roelens, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2011). Abstract or concrete examples in learning mathematics? A replication and elaboration of Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler’s study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 109–126.Google Scholar
  24. De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.Google Scholar
  25. De Koning, B. B., & Van der Schoot, M. (2013). Becoming part of the story! Refueling the interest in visualization strategies for reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 261–287.Google Scholar
  26. de Vega, M., Glenberg, A. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2008). Symbols, embodiment and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. DeLoache, J. S. (1987). Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children. Science, 238(4833), 1556–1557.Google Scholar
  28. DeLoache, J. S. (1991). Symbolic functioning in very young children: understanding of pictures and models. Child Development, 62(4), 736–752.Google Scholar
  29. DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children’s use of scale models. Child Development, 71(2), 329–338.Google Scholar
  30. DeLoache, J. S. (2004). Becoming symbol-minded. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 66–70.Google Scholar
  31. Dienes, Z. P. (1973). The six stages in the process of learning mathematics. Slough: National Foundation for Education Research/Nelson.Google Scholar
  32. Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Droll, J. A., & Hayhoe, M. M. (2007). Trade-offs between gaze and working memory use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1352.Google Scholar
  34. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., et al. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  35. Flanagan, R. (2013). Effects of learning from interaction with physical or mediated devices. Cognitive Processing, 14, 213–215.Google Scholar
  36. Flusberg, S. J., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Are things that are hard to physically move also hard to imagine moving? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 158–164.Google Scholar
  37. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Frank, M. C., & Barner, D. (2012). Representing exact number visually using mental abacus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 134–149.Google Scholar
  39. Fu, W. T. (2011). A dynamic context model of interactive behavior. Cognitive Science, 35(5), 874–904.Google Scholar
  40. Fyfe, E. McNeil, N., Son, J. & Goldstone, R. (2014/this issue). Concreteness fading offers the best of both concrete and abstract instruction. Educational Psychology Review.Google Scholar
  41. Gaschler, R., Vaterrodt, B., Frensch, P. A., Eichler, A., & Haider, H. (2013). Spontaneous usage of different shortcuts based on the commutativity principle. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e74972.Google Scholar
  42. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  43. Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach (pp. 355–372). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  44. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558–565.Google Scholar
  45. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 424–436.Google Scholar
  46. Glenberg, A., Willford, J., Gibson, B., Goldberg, A., & Zhu, X. (2011a). Improving reading to improve math. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 316–340.Google Scholar
  47. Glenberg, A. M., Goldberg, A. B., & Zhu, X. (2011b). Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39(1), 27–39.Google Scholar
  48. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 414–466.Google Scholar
  49. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69–110.Google Scholar
  50. Gonzalez, J., Barros-Loscertales, A., Pulvermuller, F., Meseguer, V., & Sanjuán, A. (2006). Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. NeuroImage, 32, 906–912.Google Scholar
  51. Gray, W. D., & Fu, W. (2004). Soft constraints in interactive behavior: the case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head. Cognitive Science, 28(3), 359–382.Google Scholar
  52. Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W.-T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: a rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113, 461–482.Google Scholar
  53. Han, I., & Black, J. B. (2011). Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2281–2290.Google Scholar
  54. Haselen, G. L. V., van der Steen, J., & Frens, M. A. (2000). Copying strategies for patterns by children and adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91(2), 603–615.Google Scholar
  55. Hatano, G., & Osawa, K. (1983). Digit memory of grand experts in abacus-derived mental calculation. Cognition, 15(1), 95–110.Google Scholar
  56. Hatano, G., Miyake, Y., & Binks, M. G. (1977). Performance of expert abacus operators. Cognition, 5(1), 47–55.Google Scholar
  57. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307.Google Scholar
  58. Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. N. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 723–767.Google Scholar
  59. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577.Google Scholar
  61. Johnson, A. M., Reisslein, J., & Reisslein, M. (2014). Representation sequencing in computer-based engineering education. Computers & Education, 72, 249-261.Google Scholar
  62. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008). Learning theory: the advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320(5875), 454–455.Google Scholar
  63. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2009a). Transfer of mathematical knowledge: the portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 151–155.Google Scholar
  64. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2009a). The devil is in the superficial details: why generic instantiations promote portable mathematical knowledge. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 151–155.Google Scholar
  65. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2013). The cost of concreteness: the effect of nonessential information on analogical transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(1), 14–29.Google Scholar
  66. Kastens, K. A., Liben, L. S., & Agrawal, S. (2008). Epistemic actions in science education. In C. Freksa, N. S. Newcombe, P. Gardenfors, & S. W. Wölfl (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Cognition VI: learning, reasoning, and talking about space (pp. 205–215). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Kiefer, M., & Trumpp, N. M. (2012). Embodiment theory and education: the foundations of cognition in perception and action. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1, 15–20.Google Scholar
  68. Kirsh, D. (1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73(1), 31–68.Google Scholar
  69. Kirsh, D. (2009). Projection, problem space and anchoring. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2310–2315). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  70. Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI & Society, 25(4), 441–454.Google Scholar
  71. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18, 513–549.Google Scholar
  72. Klahr, D., Triona, L., Lara, M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183–203.Google Scholar
  73. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  74. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  75. Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007). How abstract is symbolic thought? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 720–733.Google Scholar
  76. Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445–452.Google Scholar
  77. Manches, A. D., & O’Malley, C. (2012). Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 405–419.Google Scholar
  78. Manches, A., O’Malley, C., & Benford, S. (2010). The role of physical representations in solving number problems: a comparison of young children’s use of physical and virtual materials. Computers & Education, 54(3), 622–640.Google Scholar
  79. Markman, A., & Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431–467.Google Scholar
  80. Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2007). Improving Native American children’s listening comprehension through concrete representations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 537–550.Google Scholar
  81. Marley, S. C., Szabo, Z., Leven, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2011). Investigation of an activity-based text-processing strategy in mixed-age child dyads. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(3), 340–360.Google Scholar
  82. Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.Google Scholar
  83. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587–625.Google Scholar
  84. Martin, T., Lukong, A., & Reaves, R. (2007). The role of manipulatives in arithmetic and geometry tasks [Electronic version]. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1, 1–10.Google Scholar
  85. McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). “Concreteness Fading” promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22, 440–448.Google Scholar
  86. McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don’t add up: disentangling he manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 309–316.Google Scholar
  87. Morris, D., Tan, H., Barbagli, F., Chang, T., & Salisbury, K. (2007). Haptic feedback enhances force skill learning. In EuroHaptics Conference, 2007 and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. World Haptics 2007. Second Joint (pp. 21–26).Google Scholar
  88. Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 372–377.Google Scholar
  89. Nathan, M. J. (2008). An Embodied Cognition perspective on symbols, gesture, and grounding instruction. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 375–396). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Nathan, M. J. (2012). Rethinking formalisms in formal education. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 125–148.Google Scholar
  91. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  92. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  93. O’Malley, C., & Stanton-Fraser, D. (2004). Literature review in learning with tangible technologies (Report 12). Bristol: Nesta FutureLab Series.Google Scholar
  94. Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: an effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47.Google Scholar
  95. Olympiou, G., Zacharia, Z. C., de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41, 575-587.Google Scholar
  96. Osman, M. (2010). Observation can be as effective as action in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32(1), 162–183.Google Scholar
  97. Page, M. (1990). Active learning: historical and contemporary perspectives. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts. Amherst: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 338389.Google Scholar
  98. Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Radman, Z. (2013). The hand, an organ of the mind. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  100. Resnick, L., & Omanson, S. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. Hillsdale: Advances in instructional psychology.Google Scholar
  101. Risko, E.F., Medimorec, S., Chisholm, J.D., & Kingstone, A. (2013). Cognitive offloading in the identification of rotated objects: A natural behavior approach. Cognitive Science. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12087.
  102. Roux, F.-E., Boetto, S., Sacko, O., Chollet, F., & Tremoulet, M. (2003). Writing, calculating, and finger recognition in the region of the angular gyrus: a cortical stimulation study of Gerstmann syndrome. Journal of Neurosurgery, 99, 716–727.Google Scholar
  103. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). ‘Concrete’ computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 145–150.Google Scholar
  104. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Schuh, J. (2010). The acquisition of problem-solving skills in mathematics: how animations can aid understanding of structural problem features and solution procedures. Instructional Science, 38(5), 487–502.Google Scholar
  105. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2006). Distributed learning and mutual adaptation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 313–332.Google Scholar
  106. Shaer, O., & Hornecker, E. (2010). Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1–2), 1–137.Google Scholar
  107. Shapiro, L. A. (2011). Embodied cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  108. Sherman, J., & Bisanz, M. (2009). Equivalence in symbolic and nonsymbolic contexts: benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 88–100.Google Scholar
  109. Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2013). Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 21–53.Google Scholar
  110. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 508–513.Google Scholar
  111. Snow, J. C., Pettypiece, C. E., McAdam, T. D., Mclean, A. D., Stroman, P. W., Goodale, M. A., et al. (2011). Bringing the real world into the fMRI scanner: repetition effects for pictures versus real objects. Scientific Reports, 1(130), 1–10.Google Scholar
  112. Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., Goldstone, R. L., & Leslie, M. (2012). The importance of being interpreted: grounded words and children’s relational reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(45), 1–12.Google Scholar
  113. Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., & Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cognition & Instruction, 30(4), 404–434.Google Scholar
  114. Stull, A. T., Barrett, T., & Hegarty, M. (2013). Usability of concrete and virtual models in chemistry instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2546–2556.Google Scholar
  115. Svensson, H. (2007). Embodied simulation as off-line representation. Licentiate thesis, University of Linköping/University of Skövde, Sweden.Google Scholar
  116. Symes, E., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2007). Visual object affordances: object orientation. Acta Psychologica, 124(2), 238–255.Google Scholar
  117. Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149–173.Google Scholar
  118. Triona, L. M., Klahr, D., & Williams, C. (2005). Point and click or build by hand: comparing the effects of physical vs. virtual materials on middle school students’ ability to optimize an engineering Design. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2202–2205).Google Scholar
  119. Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: a new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 37–54.Google Scholar
  120. Uttal, D. H., O’Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L. L., & Deloache, J. S. (2009). Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 156–159.Google Scholar
  121. van Elk, M., van Schie, H., & Bekkering, H. (2014). Action semantics: a unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality-specific object knowledge. Physics of Life Reviews. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.005.Google Scholar
  122. Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: integrating cognitive and social–cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 155–174.Google Scholar
  123. Wheeler, M. (2007). Reconstructing the cognitive world: the next step. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  124. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of Embodied Cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.Google Scholar
  125. Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
  126. Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2008). Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum: the case of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. American Journal of Physics, 76, 425–430.Google Scholar
  127. Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.Google Scholar
  128. Zacharia, Z. C., Loizou, E., & Papaevripidou, M. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 447–457.Google Scholar
  129. Zago, L., Pesenti, M., Mellet, E., Crivello, F., Mazoyer, B., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2001). Neural correlates of simple and complex mental calculation. NeuroImage, 13, 314–327.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wim T. J. L. Pouw
    • 1
  • Tamara van Gog
    • 1
  • Fred Paas
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Social SciencesErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Interdisciplinary Educational Research InstituteUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations