JEdPsych2018_final.pdf (687.31 kB)
The cost of multiple representations: learning number symbols with abstract and concrete representations
journal contribution
posted on 2018-09-17, 08:06 authored by Amy Bennett, Matthew InglisMatthew Inglis, Camilla GilmoreCamilla GilmoreParents are frequently advised to use number books to help their children learn the
meaning of number words and symbols. How should these resources be designed to best
support learning? Previous research has shown that number books typically include multiple
concrete representations of number. However, a large body of mathematics education
research has demonstrated that there may be costs, as well as benefits, to using both
multiple representations and concrete representations when learning mathematical
concepts. Here we used an artificial symbol learning paradigm to explore whether the use of abstract (arrays of dots) or multiple concrete (changing arrays of pictures) numerical representations resulted in better learning of novel numerical symbols by children. Across three experiments we found that children who learned the meaning of novel symbols by pairing them with numerosities represented by arrays of dots performed better on a subsequent symbolic comparison task than those who paired them with multiple concrete representations, or a mixture of abstract and multiple concrete representations. This advantage was not due to abstract representations being inherently superior to concrete representations, but instead to the use of multiple concrete representations. We conclude that the very common practice of using multiple concrete representations in children’s number books may not be the most effective to support children’s early number learning.
Funding
CG is funded by a Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship.
History
School
- Science
Department
- Mathematics Education Centre
Published in
Journal of Educational PsychologyCitation
BENNETT, A., INGLIS, M. and GILMORE, C.K., 2018. The cost of multiple representations: learning number symbols with abstract and concrete representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (5), pp.847-860.Publisher
© American Psychological AssociationVersion
- AM (Accepted Manuscript)
Publisher statement
This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Acceptance date
2018-09-06Publication date
2018Notes
© American Psychological Association, 2018. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000318.ISSN
0022-0663eISSN
1939-2176Publisher version
Language
- en
Administrator link
Usage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC