2008
DOI: 10.1126/science.1154659
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Advantage of Abstract Examples in Learning Math

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

15
270
8
7

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 233 publications
(300 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
15
270
8
7
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, consider the relation between abstract and concrete elements of instruction. Some scholars favor abstract presentations to avoid obscuring problem structure (e.g., Bassok & Holyoak, 1989;Harp & Mayer, 1998;Kaminski, Sloutsky, & Heckler, 2008), whereas others favor concrete instances to connect to prior knowledge (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003;McNeil, Uttal, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2009). Many of the relevant studies, however, have used T&P instruction for both conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, consider the relation between abstract and concrete elements of instruction. Some scholars favor abstract presentations to avoid obscuring problem structure (e.g., Bassok & Holyoak, 1989;Harp & Mayer, 1998;Kaminski, Sloutsky, & Heckler, 2008), whereas others favor concrete instances to connect to prior knowledge (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003;McNeil, Uttal, Jarvin, & Sternberg, 2009). Many of the relevant studies, however, have used T&P instruction for both conditions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It may have been difficult to reconceptualize a familiar situation as an example of SDT rather than a more novel medical example. Research in other domains has found that learning with concrete, familiar situations can hinder transfer (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003;Kaminski, Sloutsky, & Heckler, 2008). We have explored the impact of different levels of contextualization, personalization, and familiarity in learning SDT in another line of experiments (Son & Goldstone, 2009).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…En annan svårighet framkommer då resultatet även visar att elevernas uppmärksamhet riktas mot materialet i sig självt när de frågar om de får äta upp äpplet efter lektionen. Denna typ av laborativt material är således av karaktären perceptuellt rikt laborativt material (se McNeil et al, 2009) och exemplet visar att den problematik som lyfts fram av bland annat Belenky och Schalk (2014), DeLoache (2000), Uttal et al (1997) och Kaminski et al (2008) beträffande användandet av perceptuellt rika laborativa material i matematikundervisningen även till viss del stämmer med resultatet i denna studie. Däremot visar resultatet att eleverna i denna studie inte tycks påverkas av att det laborativa materialet ibland kan ha olika färger vilket tidigare studier påvisat (se Uttal et al, 1997;De Loache 2000).…”
Section: Laborativt Material-för Att Uppmärksamma Elevers Missuppfattunclassified