Concrete examples don't help students learn math, study finds

April 24, 2008

A new study challenges the common practice in many classrooms of teaching mathematical concepts by using “real-world,” concrete examples. Researchers led by Jennifer Kaminski, researcher scientist at Ohio State University’s Center for Cognitive Science, found that college students who learned a mathematical concept with concrete examples couldn’t apply that knowledge to new situations.

But when students first learned the concept with abstract symbols, they were much more likely to transfer that knowledge, according to the study published in the April 25 issue of the journal Science.

“These findings cast doubt on a long-standing belief in education,” said Vladimir Sloutsky, co-author of the study and professor of psychology and human development and the director of the Center for Cognitive Science at Ohio State.

“The belief in using concrete examples is very deeply ingrained, and hasn’t been questioned or tested.”

Kaminski and Sloutsky conducted the study with Andrew Heckler, assistant professor of physics at Ohio State.

Teachers often use real-world examples in math class, the researchers said. In some classrooms, for example, teachers may explain probability by pulling a marble out of a bag of red and blue marbles and determining how likely it will be one color or the other.

But students may learn better if teachers explain the concept as the probability of choosing one of n things from a larger set of m things, Kaminski said.

The issue can also be seen in the story problems that math students are often given, she explained. For example, there is the classic problem of two trains that leave different cities heading toward each other at different speeds. Students are asked to figure out when the two trains will meet.

“The danger with teaching using this example is that many students only learn how to solve the problem with the trains,” Kaminski said.

“If students are later given a problem using the same mathematical principles, but about rising water levels instead of trains, that knowledge just doesn’t seem to transfer,” she said.

“It is very difficult to extract mathematical principles from story problems,” Sloutsky added. “Story problems could be an incredible instrument for testing what was learned. But they are bad instruments for teaching.”

In the research presented in Science, the researchers did several separate experiments that examined how well undergraduate students learned a simple mathematical concept under different conditions. The concept involved basic mathematical properties such as commutativity and associativity – the fact that you can change the order of elements without changing the results. For instance, 3+2 and 2+3 both equal 5.

In the various experiments, some students learned these principles using generic symbols, in which combinations of two or more symbols resulted in a predictable resulting symbol.

Others were presented with one or more concrete examples that involved this same concept. In one concrete example, students viewed three images of measuring cups with varying levels of liquid. Participants were told they needed to determine the remaining amount when different cups of liquid were combined.

Two other concrete examples were used in various experiments – one involving how many slices of pizza in a pizza pie were overcooked, and one involving how many tennis balls were in a container.

After learning this math concept using the concrete examples or abstract, generic symbols, the students took a multiple-choice quiz demonstrating that they learned the principles involved. And in all cases, the study showed that most undergraduate students picked up the knowledge easily.

However, the true test came later when the researchers asked these students to apply the same principles in a totally different setting, which was described to them as a children’s game from another country. The rules of this game followed the principles which they had just learned. The researchers calculated how well the participants did on a multiple choice test involving the rules of that children’s game.

In the first experiment, involving 80 students, some participants were given one concrete example before testing on the children’s game, while some were given two or three examples. One group only learned the generic symbols.

When tested on the children’s game, the group that learned the generic symbols got nearly 80 percent of the questions right. Those who learned one, two or even three concrete examples did no better than chance in selecting the right answers.

“They were just guessing,” Kaminski said.

In a second experiment, the researchers gave 20 participants two concrete examples and explained how they were alike. Surprisingly, this still did not help students apply the concept any better and they still did no better than chance when tested later about the game.

In a third experiment, the researchers presented 20 students with two concrete examples and then asked them to compare the two examples and write down any similarities they saw. After this experiment, about 44 percent of the students performed well on the test concerning the children’s game, while the remainder still did not perform better than chance.

This suggests that only some students, not all, benefit from direct comparison of learned concrete examples.

Finally, in a fourth experiment involving 40 students, some learned the concrete example first followed by the generic symbols, while others learned only the generic symbols. The thought here was that the concrete example would engage the students in the learning process while the generic symbols would promote transfer of that knowledge.

But even in this experiment, students who learned only the generic symbols performed better on subsequent testing than those who learned the concept using the concrete example and then the generic symbols.

The authors said that students seem to learn concepts quickly when they are presented with familiar real objects such as marbles or containers of liquid, and so it is easy to see why many advocate this approach. “But it turns out there is no true insight there. They can’t move beyond these real objects to apply that knowledge,” said Sloutsky.

The problem may be that extraneous information about marbles or containers might divert attention from the real mathematics behind it all, according to Kaminski.

“We really need to strip these concepts down to very symbolic representations such as variables and numbers,” she said. “Then students are better prepared to apply those concepts in a variety of situations.

The authors said they doubt this paper will end the debate over approaches to teaching mathematics, but they hope it will generate interest into systematic examination of which ways of teaching mathematics are most effective.

Source: Ohio State University

Explore further: Living on the edge—succeeding in the slums

Related Stories

Living on the edge—succeeding in the slums

July 1, 2016

Cities exist in a state of constant flux: not always 'smart' and successful, they can be vulnerable, chaotic and seem on the edge of failure. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the shanty towns and slums. How can these ...

Can we learn to live with flooding?

June 6, 2016

Flash floods, burst riverbanks, overflowing drains, contaminants leaching into waterways: some of the disruptive, damaging and hazardous consequences of having too much rain. But can cities be designed and adapted to live ...

Students Learn Better When The Numbers Don't Talk And Dance

October 10, 2005

Most teachers believe that students learn better when abstract concepts are taught using concrete materials or examples -- but a new study suggests they may be wrong. Researchers found that when college students were taught ...

Classroom computers boost face-to-face learning

May 22, 2009

Computers have been used for years to facilitate learning at a distance. A new European research programme shows that computers can also enhance collaborative, face-to-face learning and problem solving.

Recommended for you

Sudden extinction of Neanderthals followed population peak

July 26, 2016

Neanderthals once populated the entire European continent. Around 45,000 years ago, Homo neanderthalensis was the predominant human species in Europe. Archaeological findings show that there were also several settlements ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

5 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2008
I am delighted to see these results. All too often, when I am interviewing people, I see people who can solve a problem if it is phrased one way, but not if it wasn't phrased eaxctly the way the text book said. I have tw examples here. One rather sad, and the other will perhaps stimulate some discussion. First the sad one.

I had hired an assistant in 1981. She was essentially my "admin" in the days when this function was more common. One day, I gave her a column of figures to total. Her question back was, "Is this dollars and cents?" I asked why she wanted to know (I was curious you see). I got the answer back, "Because if it is dollars and cents I can add it, but if it is anything else I can't." Even if iy hadn't been dollars and cents, I would have said it was!

The second case involves commercials for the use of software as advertised by "The Video Professor". I have worked with people who have taken these classes (in Excel for example) and yet have been unable to develop a spreadsheet fit for a purpose. So they have become mechanically excellent, but conceptually are still where they always were. I am very wary of those kinds of certifications. You would think that once you see copy/paste in one application, you might intuit that copy/paste would be the same in another, or that you might be able to copy from one application to another. But no, the rote user doesn't have that level of abstraction available.

Rote is handy, but knowing when to use it is handier.

3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2008
I suspect this finding should not be generalized to students of all ages. I also rather suspect this is more a measure of the extreme intellectual laziness found in some students, whose mantra is "Will this be on the test?". It may also be a measure of the lack of teaching ability of the teachers, who are not managing to help the students understand that the concrete examples are not the end point of the lesson, but rather a demonstration of the principle in question. And I'm curious, how do students learn when to use the principle if not presented with some concrete examples?
4 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2008
College students learning *basic* math skills taught in public school - the scenario suggests that they didn't grasp it at first exposure earlier in life - for a reason. Perhaps these students don't extrapolate graphic examples well because they also learn and process symbolic language (developing competency at about the same time as exposure to basic mathematical symbolic logic, age 10-12). Thus, these students are being 'reminded' of learning material to which they were exposed years before by use of a lower learning process. Graphic and vocal learning are mastered before symbolic logic during brain development. Mathematics (and chemistry) are *symbolic* logic languages. You can't teach symbolic logic by physical example, as it's specific application of general logic elements. You can, however, reinforce symbolic logic skills by forcing students to apply them to everyday use. That is, after all, the point of learning these skills.

It's the learning sequence, stupid. If you teach conceptual abstraction first to adults who have mastered this advanced skill long ago, and reinforce the concept for everyday use through many graphic examples, students learn by extrapolating abstract logic to myriad specific cases. This avoids the problem of competing sets of neural networks processing the same sensory inputs. The reason that we humans use abstract logic is that it's an important 'shorthand' process of learning - it's higher brain function in humans. Abstract learning affords us humans plasticity in problem recognition and solving, while minimizing the brain matter that must be maintained over a lifetime.

1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2008
I've never seen a teacher start a concept with word problems. I don't really understand how that would even work. The word problems are usually there to teach you *how* to apply a concept, not to teach the concept. They are also there (especially in elementary/basic algebra) to teach people what to look for in real life examples so they know what the question is asking for in mathematical terms. I would be highly skeptical of any teacher who tried to teach a kid I know to do word problems *before* the algebra. Even in advanced work, I've always had to derive problems and develop the foundations before applying them. It's increadibly difficult to derive concepts on your own, that's the biggest reason IMO that we teach concepts that took humanity thousands of years to develop and that we can do most of it within 20 years or less.

tl;dr I agree with the article, but seriously, who teaches word problems before the concepts?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.