Taking a Hard Look at Concreteness: Do Concrete Objects Help Young Chi - PDF document

Taking a Hard Look at Concreteness: Do Concrete Objects Help Young Children Learn Symbolic Relations? understand and development. Symbols contemplate ideas concepts after they cease Symbol systems such as language provide the means for conveying this information direct perception such as numbers also a notational role, obviating the need possible to perabstract representations of the surprising that considerable research been devoted symbolic development shares a with other research children's thinkingthe idea that the thinking is very concrete. Developmental psychologists typically have characterized younger children as older children as being capable beyond their direct 1966; Piaget, 1951; Vygotsky, Kaplan, 1963). information while older children possess general concepts these concrete experiences. thought lies at the heart young children's led to about children's symbols. Specifically, at a first, it has been that the appropriate means make the symbols palpable perceptually salient concrete objects to train children to think about their physical the foundation ability to use abstract symBruner (1966) described this training process as the concept concept order to] grasp its abstract propertiesdifferent perspective development to abstract shift children's early which objects are appropriate concrete materials necessarily improve children's abstract concepts. Furthermore, we suggest edged sword: It also can make it more difficult for concepts represented symbolic objects. In this claim, to taxonomic categorization child reject the perceptually salient features in favor a second proposed that children learn consider the deeper between objects He noted that, when children play makesubstitute concrete He theorized concrete objects essentially serve symbols because the game strips them identity. Consequently, children become capable physical object or identity. abstract idea also has been applied to Kaplan (1963) conceptualized development as a analytic shift physicochemical stimulilater converted signs or signalsdeveloping child (p. 9). example, young children presented to the concrete older children more analyzing or focusing of the proposing a abstract shift not necessarily advocated inflexible, dichotoearly versus later development. Unfortunately, assumption often younger children benefit from, (1992) charthis assumption inherently good; abstract not appropriateat least at the has come be regarded young children's learning assumed that abstract or symbolic information become wary inflexible concreteabstract shift increasingly been challenged younger children on or benefit from abstract theories precedes abstract precludes it. to suggest argued that children first learn because they lack specific knowledge about child explaining the camera might its ability to but might not provide mechanistic account detailing In other words, children's est causal concrete because they knowledge required summarized their viewpoint stating that, concrete explanation system's behavior, quite possible a prinabstract explanation any knowledge 131). Thus, they although young children's explanations abstract, they are not ignorant. young children's ability to think in suggested that distinct from they claimed exist in detailed scientific tested children's distinction using a with triads objects from which orange balloon) or same inside Counter to the idea object concreteness exerts the primary influence categorization, they as young age could correctly report both and orange same insides.objects is and Symbolic Development test trials immediately after test trials, the experimenter first hid the hiding but not hiding location, Look, Little The child going to in the then entered was asked each trial, the experimenter attempted relation between the model Remember, Little hiding in child could not find to continue searching at the experimenter child again that the same placethe other Increasingly explicit provided until but a as correct only first location she searched. found the each trial, he or she was was asked the miniature This search provided a memory critical to any difficulties that children had in finding in the children were able to locate the miniature that they encountered finding the toy in room could not be uted to simply forgetting where the model. Instead, poor performance would reflect failure to the miniature symbol) could to find larger toy (the referent). this task are important children's insight referent relations.. concrete object in the task are concrete. and the furniture in replicas of larger real objects. Thus, both a something other Second, successful performance requires the child comprehend model dnd the task, child must that the location model specifies room. The concreteness understand the for relation between the model required to seemingly familiar task (searching children search objects, they direct experience: like they often search where they task, children put aside this wellhoned strategy model task us to children's first use models has revealed that, despite the apparent very young children difficulty using it. These results are summarized in age usually perform very poorly (only correct retrievals). that children encounter cannot to forgetting Almost all remember the tend not to use this knowledge toy in room. Figure that most typically succeed the standard 80% correct developmental story. The difficulty olds have experienced in some tasks for our that the edged sword in terms of children's perforfirst, seemed to be trivial manipulations dramatic drops of understanding room are similar, more to that the their performance. section, we discuss will be used as a shown how With age, become increasingly less experimenter about the nature (DeLoache et instructions described children are able to detect shown the hiding event were asked to find the hiding events). older children this very research has shown that, even when children room, they can easily lose finding the studies, Uttal, Schreiber, to wait before using room caused the standard and then asked to find hidden in and when in the room. The children experienced each delays twice. in one different orders. labeled in they experienced first: a 20-second delay first, a 2-minute delay first, group had minute delay first. After the children in with delay length counterbalanced children experienced. initial 5-minute trial, but to stress that the group encountered during the this were the children on the initial long The effect subsequent shorter task, the mental representation model as a miniature same time, child must as a term in and he must use the dual representation hypothesis (DeLoache, 1989, concrete object, more difficult it is something other itself. Thus, more young children are attracted more difficult to detect hypothesis leads to interesting predictions. decrease children's to the model object should increase children's access to placing it behind a window (DeLoache, model, but they could direct contact with better perforsuggests that factors increase children's object should lead in their prediction also Allowing 3to 10 before they were asked symbol led children were asked to use model to room (DeLoache, dual representation perform very poorly in model task, perform much better when a photograph (DeLoache, 1991; DeLoache 1994). In some a photograph a model. only twodimensional. Nevertheless, performed much a photograph than their agemates did with the results indicate that concrete object, a model, more difficult (1997) have strong support the dual representation hypothesis. were led shrink (and, enlarge) a room. The idea that has been the model room. Hence, dual representation required, so they should a demonstration in oscilloscope accompasounds the machine makes apparently caused size. Next, the machine seemed many previous identical to watched as the experimenter the larger troll somewhere portable room. After waiting while to find the hidden hidden in the model as was in room.) Thus, as in model task, to use figure out where to other. Unlike the basis hypothesis, performance was better in this than in model task. the dual nature of symbolic directly to other kinds including those American classrooms. foster young children's very popular early childhood domain to which our perspective directly applicable early mathematics mathematics requires mastering complex concepts such as addition are used represent these concepts. Teachers many years, the use has documented expectations and when young perform mathematical operations using manipulatives, their two ways encapsulated; that children often fail to relation between solving same or al., 1997, for a review). draw connections between traditional forms symbols comes mathematical concepts. a systematic understood and appeared enjoy working blocks was to their problems expressed in more mathematical terms. not relate problems involving example, children were successful subtraction problems involving two or three written problems. performed best with Dienes blocks a manipulative did not guarantee with written success with with the other. Other researchers stract forms mathematical expressions. investigated young ability to use simple blocks to solve subtractiori problems What interesting about the current that the connections between concrete objects abstract, writ- The children use the represent the underlying concepts expressed in example, the were asked use bricks to solve such as poorly. Regardless could solve had difficulty failed to appreciate that were two alternate forms children took the written example, they might a line bricks to represent represent the These results again solutions involving manipulatives mathematical sychildren's understanding likely to be effective. Specifically, they are used augment, rather to substitute written symbols. In these connections between underlying concept written form. and Hiebert's but the results are relevant to other mathand written symbolic a bridge the written substitute or the learning written symbols leading children the more foreign properties the written symbols. Thus, similar successful mathematics expression. this chapter regarding also are relevant to the early development of reading. learning to read, children must master referents. The assumption the further young children abstract system transformed into they could nonnumbers, demonstrating that letlers were separate domains of symbols but to generate understood that symbols serve a referential using strings serve no concrete were would quickly identify symbols are embedded Smith (1992) that learning in its own right separate from that, although more concrete children's early symbols as a notational system. in learning turn to other means concrete. Concrete manipulatives such blocks potentially provide a reading in phonemes into objects. Although reading instruction has not math edu- has been, colorful blocks spelling rather According to make alphabet ing as objects might detract from seeing the as symbols. symbol-referent relation. blocks, for are constructed in different colors, which are learning per episode episode brought in different skits used their letters beauty pageant). Such distract from svstem as a whole. Emphasizing letters as perceptually objects in their own more difficult to see each letter as a word in the that alphabetic manipulatives may not share problems associated mathematics manipulatives. Aithough individual critical fea- tures such as thus, equate the some extent. might be argued that the steps understanding that individual letters when they children can without being distracted by differences Dienes blocks mathematics equations this regard, alphabet blocks mathematical equations, because collections are assembled Our review concrete symbols the use objects in educational contexts. can help young children symbol-referent relations, but that The most that concreteness to help children relations. Under right circumstances, to young ultimate goal to concepts. to consider both the help children tions. Concrete they assist the learning MA: MIT Bialystok, E. (1987). Rapid change in the young children. a scale functioning in young children: Understanding In D. (Vol. 33, Academic Press. large scale the representational function M. (in young children's Cliild Deil~lop~~zeirt, 62, 111-126. DcLoache, J. S., Miller, K. F., & Kosengrcn, K. 5. children's perfor noi~symbolic relations. I's!ychological Sciei:ce, 8, 308-313. l)iLis, M. G., & Harris, P. (1988). The effect believe play Brit~slr [o~rrrrai c!f L)riic.lo/~- mental Ps!jcl~olo~yy, 6, 207-221. Dins, M. G., & (1990). The childrrn. Priiisil lourrrnl i!f Deoclopmerztal Psychology, 8, 305-318. Celman, S. A., Fu Wellman, H. (1991). Insides Cogilition, 38, 213-244. ! liebert, J., & Carpenter, T. 1'. (1992). Learning and teaching with D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Harldbook of resenrcll on rnnthe~ntztics teachirzg nnd learning, (pp. 65-97) . New York: Macmillan. t lughes, M. Cllildrc11 and number: Difficulties in leariling r~~atlieii~ntics. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, 1. (1958). T/zr grozotk oflogical thinking froin rkilill~ood to adole~scci~ie: Ail cJssay or1 tlr~ i.orlstr~rctinrz of forinal operational structlcres. New York: ~asic work published & Tipps, S. (1994). Guiding cl~ildrcn's leariling Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. L.andsmann, L. T., & (1992). Children's as domains 1.1f knowledge versus referential-comniunicative tools. Cognitioe Deuelopnlent, 7, 287-300. M. (1917). TIie ndz~anced Moiztesorri method. Xloshman, D., & Franks, 8. A. (1986). Dcvelopment of the concept of inferential validity. Clzild Dez'elopnreizt, 57, 153- 165. Satlonal Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculurlz and t.vall!ation standardsfor school iizatheiruztiis. Reston, VA: Author. ['laget, J. (1951). Play, riret~iils, and inlitation in childhood. New York: Norton. Iiesnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. to understand Claser (Ed.), Advarrces in iizstructional j~sychology (Vol. 3, 96). Hillsdale, Sigel, 1. distancing model representational competence. In & K. A. Rennigner (Eds.), The deuelopment and n~enning of psychological distnizce (pp. 141-158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Slmons, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (1995). An concrete shift in iirsid~s jtorv. Cogizition, 56, 129-163.