Editing Instructional Manipulatives (section)

=='''References'''==

*<p style = "font-size:14px">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.
</p>

*<p style = "font-size:14px">Hatano, G., Miyake, Y., & Binks, M. G. (1977). Performance of expert abacus operators. Cognition, 5(1), 47–55.Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41,301–307
</p>

*<p style = "font-size:14px">Hatano, G., & Osawa, K. (1983). Digit memory of grand experts in abacus-derived mental calculation. Cognition, 15(1), 95–110</p>

*<p style = "font-size:14px">Pouw, W., Gog, T.,Paas, F. (2014). An Embedded and Embodied Cognition Review of Instructional Manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51-72
</p>

*<p style = "font-size:14px">Dienes, Z. P. (1973).The six stages in the process of learning mathematics. Slough: National Foundation for Education Research/Nelson</p>

*<p style = "font-size:14px">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
</p>

*<p style = "font-size:14px">McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don’t add up: disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 309–316
</p>

*<p style = "font-size:14px">Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009).‘Concrete Computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 145–150.</p>

*<p style = "font-size:14px">Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2009a). Transfer of mathematical knowledge: the portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), </p>

*<p style = "font-size:14px">151–155.Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2009b). The devil is in the superficial details: why generic instantiations promote portable mathematical knowledge. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 151–155.</p>