Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Idealized and Grounded Materials on Learning, Transfer, and Interest: An Organizing Framework for Categorizing External Knowledge Representations

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research in both cognitive and educational psychology has explored the effect of different types of external knowledge representations (e.g., manipulatives, graphical/pictorial representations, texts) on a variety of important outcome measures. We place this large and multifaceted research literature into an organizing framework, classifying three categories of external knowledge representations along a dimension of groundedness: (1) idealized, (2) grounded and including only relevant features, and (3) grounded and including irrelevant features. This organizing framework allows us to focus on the implications of these characteristics of external knowledge representations on three important educational outcomes: learning and immediate performance using the target knowledge, the degree to which that knowledge can transfer flexibly, and the interest engendered by the learning materials. We illustrate the framework by mapping a wide body of research from educational and cognitive psychology onto its dimensions. This framework can aid educators by clearly stating what the research literature says about these characteristics of external knowledge representations and how they activate and support the construction of internal knowledge representations. In particular, it will speak to how to best structure instruction using external knowledge representations with different characteristics, depending on the learning objective. Researchers will benefit from the analysis of the current state of knowledge and by the description of what open questions still remain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout this paper, we refer to types of representations when discussing different forms, like figures, manipulatives, etc. In contrast, we use kinds of representations when referring to the characteristic categories defined by our framework.

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning & Instruction, 16, 183–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 471–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassok, M. (1996). Using content to interpret structure: effects on analogical transfer. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(2), 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Interdomain transfer between isomorphic topics in algebra and physics. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 153–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenky, D. M., & Nokes, T. J. (2009). Examining the role of manipulatives and metacognition on engagement, learning, and transfer. The Journal of Problem Solving, 2(2), 102–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: the role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3), 399–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2013). Mastery-approach goals and knowledge transfer: an investigation into the effects of task structure and framing instructions. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2013). Integrating formal and grounded representations in combinatorics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 666–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone, R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1147–1156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense misconceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bock, D., Deprez, J., Van Dooren, W., Roelens, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2011). Abstract or concrete examples in learning mathematics? A replication and elaboration of Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler’s study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 109–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Corte, E. (2003). Transfer as the productive use of acquired knowledge, skills, and motivations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 142–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLoache, J. S. (2004). Becoming symbol-minded. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: how individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014/this issue). Concreteness fading offers the best of both concrete and abstract instruction. Educational Psychology Review.

  • Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, S. (1989). Effects of ‘seductive details’ on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34, 752–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 414–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D. H., & Son, J. Y. (2010). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 265–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A. (1996). The post-Piaget era. Psychological Science, 7(4), 221–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griggs, R. A., & Cox, J. R. (1982). The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason’s selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 73(3), 407–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 316–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., Tauer, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: a longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harp, S. F., & Maslich, A. A. (2005). The consequences of including seductive details during lecture. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 100–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: a critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Analogy. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), 332–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N., Legrenzi, P., & Legrenzi, M. S. (1972). Reasoning and a sense of reality. British Journal of Psychology, 63(3), 395–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2012). Representation and transfer of abstract mathematical concepts in adolescence and young adulthood. In V. F. Reyna, S. B. Chapman, M. R. Dougherty, & J. Confrey (Eds.), The adolescent brain: learning, reasoning, and decision making (pp. 67–93). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2013). Extraneous perceptual information interferes with children’s acquisition of mathematical knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 351–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320, 454–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2013). The cost of concreteness: the effect of nonessential information on analogical transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 19(1), 14–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. (1981). Children’s thinking: what never develops? Cognition, 10, 159–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, C. (2012). Exploring the conceptual universe. Psychological Review, 119(4), 685–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32, 366–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: bridging the science–practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36, 757–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, P., Laird, J. E., & Rogers, S. (2009). Cognitive architectures: research issues and challenges. Cognitive Systems Research, 10, 141–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 569–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magner, U. I. E., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., & Popescu, O. (2014). Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learning & Instruction, 29, 141–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., & Dietrich, E. (2000). In defense of representation. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 138–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. B. (2010). What cognitive benefits does an activity-based reading strategy afford young Native American readers? The Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 395–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 587–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Griffiths, E., Jurkowitz, I. T. N., & Rothman, D. (2008). Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 14(4), 329–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Finstad, K., Waddill, P. J., & Bourg, T. (2000). The effects of text-based interest on attention and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 492–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, I. P. L., Wood, K., & McLaren, R. P. (2013). Naïve physics—the wrong theory? Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Berlin, Germany.

  • McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). “Concreteness fading” promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22, 440–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don’t add up: disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory Into Practice, 46, 309–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, N. M., & Uttal, D. H. (2009). Rethinking the use of concrete materials in learning: perspectives from development and education. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 137–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19, 171–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevarech, Z., & Stern, E. (1997). Interaction between knowledge and contexts on understanding abstract mathematical concepts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 68–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2006). Learning in high-tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 63–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 165–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: effects on students’ problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 32–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nokes, T. J. (2009). Mechanisms of knowledge transfer. Thinking & Reasoning, 15(1), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nokes, T. J., & Belenky, D. M. (2011). Incorporating motivation into a theoretical framework for knowledge transfer. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: vol. 55. Cognition in education (pp. 109–135). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. H., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A., Clark, J. M., & Khan, M. (1988). Effects of concreteness and semantic relatedness on composite imagery ratings and cued recall. Memory & Cognition, 16(5), 422–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, L. A., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). Effects of perceptually rich manipulatives on preschoolers’ counting performance: established knowledge counts. Child Development, 84(3), 1020–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, K. J., & Bergin, D. A. (2006). Motivational influences on transfer. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richland, L. E., Stigler, J. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Teaching the conceptual structure of mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: an iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B. H. (1987). This is like that: the use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 629–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, B. H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 456–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schalk, L., Saalbach, H., & Stern, E. (2011). Designing learning materials to foster transfer of principles. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.

  • Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 3 & 4, 299–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Relations among conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1525–1538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2014). Attention, working memory, and long-term memory in multimedia learning: An integrated perspective based on process models of working memory. Educational Psychology Review, in press.

  • Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 508–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2009). Contextualization in perspective. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 51–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (1997). Abstract reasoning with mathematical constructs. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(1), 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenning, K. (2002). Seeing reason: image and language in learning to think. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 120(3), 439–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning & Instruction, 14(5), 445–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walkington, C. (2013). Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: the impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 932–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walkington, C., Petrosino, A., & Sherman, M. (2013). Supporting algebraic reasoning through personalized story scenarios: how situational understanding mediates performance. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 15(2), 89–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C., & Shapiro, D. (1971). Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarlas, A. S., & Gelman, R. (1998). Learning as a predictor of situational interest. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, USA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human–Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave, Newell-Simon Hall 2602H, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Daniel M. Belenky

  2. ETH Zurich, UNO C13, Universitätsstrasse 41, Zurich, 8092, Switzerland

    Lennart Schalk

Authors
  1. Daniel M. Belenky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lennart Schalk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel M. Belenky.

Additional information

Both authors contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Belenky, D.M., Schalk, L. The Effects of Idealized and Grounded Materials on Learning, Transfer, and Interest: An Organizing Framework for Categorizing External Knowledge Representations. Educ Psychol Rev 26, 27–50 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9251-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9251-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation