Instructional Manipulatives for Learning Concrete and Abstract Content: An Embodied Interaction (Re)View

• In Event: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Evidence Relevant to Classroom Instruction With Manipulatives

Abstract

In the seminal but critical paper on instructional physical manipulatives (IPM) and their applications for the classroom, Ball (1992) states “Understanding does not travel through the fingertips and up the arm” (p.3). This statement was meant against an uncritical view (or “magical hope”; Ball, 1992) prevalent in the literature concerning the effectiveness of learning with IPM. Many scholars today have followed suit (Brown, McNeil, & Glenberg, 2009; Kaminski, Sloutsky, & Heckler, 2009; McNeil & Jarvin, 2007; Sarama & Clements, 2009; Sherman & Bisanz, 2009; Uttal, Scudder, & DeLoache, 1997), suggesting that “physicality is not important” and rather “their manipulability and meaningfulness make them [IPM] educationally effective” (Sarama & Clements, 2009, p. 148). Indeed, there is evidence that suggests that previously identified virtues of IPM – learning through concrete and perceptually rich physical practices – are not the drivers of learning (Zacharia & Olympiou, 2011), and can even be detrimental to learning (DeLoache, 2000, 2004; Finkelstein et al., 2005; Sloutsky, Kaminski, & Heckler, 2005). As a consequence, facilitated by technological development, it can be argued that there is a trend towards the “disembodiment” of IPM signified by the upsurge of mouse-based instructional virtual manipulatives (IVM). In this contribution we assess the empirical justification of what we have come to identify as the current trend towards disembodiment of instructional manipulatives.
Why is the reassessment of the role of embodiment in learning with manipulatives necessary at all? Firstly, controlled experimental research on instructional manipulatives is still in its infancy yet rapidly growing, deeming any fundamental claims about the role of embodiment in IPM in need of constant reassessment. Secondly, if we accept the trend towards disembodiment, there seems to be a sharp contrast with the increase in research on embedded/embodied cognition seen in cognitive science (Clark, 1997; Shapiro, 2011; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991) and educational psychology (e.g., Black et al., 2011; Nathan, 2008; Schwartz & Martin, 2006; Winn, 2003) According to embedded/embodied approaches to cognition, learning is afforded and constrained by ongoing interactions between body and environment (Clark, 2008; Pfeifer et al., 2007). At its most extreme, this perspective rejects symbolic representations and suggests that all knowledge (i.e., both concrete and abstract) is grounded in sensori-motor codes (Barsalou, 1999). We believe that these (seemingly) opposing trends can and should be resolved. We assessed the existing literature on IPM and IVM in terms of embedded/embodied cognition, showing that learning abstract content does not necessarily benefit from reducing physical interaction. Rather, we suggest that embodied interaction retains biologically primary affordances (e.g., bimanual manipulation; Manches, O’Malley, & Benford, 2010) that can assist in the understanding of more abstract biologically secondary knowledge (i.e., mathematics, language etc.; see also Bujak et al., 2013; Clark, 2005; Paas & Sweller, 2012). We will show that recent developments in tangible-user-interfaces (e.g., haptic devices, mixed reality, multi-touch tabletops) may offer opportunities to mix IPM and mouse-based IVM, thereby retaining particular embodied principles for learning in abstract domains (Antle, 2009; Black et al., 2011; Dourish, 2004).

Authors

• Wim Pouw, Erasmus University

• Tamara Van Gog, Erasmus University

• Rolf Zwaan, Erasmus University

• Fred Paas, Erasmus University