Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Watch Those Studs! How Prior Domain Knowledge and Extraneous Details on LEGOâ Bricks Influence Children’s Fraction Division

Alison Tellos 1 * ,
Helena P. Osana 1
1 Concordia University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 8, Issue SI, June 2025, pp. 241-262
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 58 DOWNLOADS: 35 Publication date: 15 Jun 2025
ABSTRACT
The primary aim of the present study was to examine whether extraneous details on LEGOâ bricks prompted inappropriate counting strategies and impacted performance accuracy when solving fraction division problems. The secondary aim was to investigate whether prior domain knowledge of fractions concepts influenced the extent to which the extraneous details on the bricks affected children’s problem-solving performance. Thirty-eight fifth- and sixth-grade students (N = 38) participated in the study. A fractions test was used to classify students into low (n = 19) and high prior knowledge (n = 19) groups. Then, all participants watched an instructional lesson that showed them how to represent fractions with LEGO bricks and how to solve fraction division problems using measurement division with the bricks. The participants then completed a learning task and a second task designed to assess whether extraneous details on LEGO bricks influenced their problem-solving performance. The results revealed that the extraneous details on LEGO bricks prompted some students to use inappropriate counting strategies, but prior knowledge did not explain the attention to extraneous details. In contrast, prior knowledge accounted for the variance in performance accuracy and the types of errors committed. Specifically, children with low prior knowledge made more errors choosing the correct bricks to represent the dividend fractions, which resulted in a larger number of inaccurate solutions compared to children with high prior knowledge.
KEYWORDS
Extraneous details, Fraction division, Prior domain knowledge, Visual representations
CITATION (APA)
Tellos, A., & Osana, H. P. (2025). Watch Those Studs! How Prior Domain Knowledge and Extraneous Details on LEGOâ Bricks Influence Children’s Fraction Division. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(SI), 241-262. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.4110SI
REFERENCES
  1. Abrahamson, D., Nathan, M. J., Williams-Pierce, C., Walkington, C., Ottmar, E. R., Soto, H., & Alibali, M. W. (2020). The future of embodied design for mathematics teaching and learning. Frontiers in Education, 5(147), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00147
  2. Barnett-Clarke, C., Fisher, W., Marks, R., & Ross, S. (2011). Developing essential understanding of rational numbers for teaching mathematics in grade 3-5. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  3. Bolden, D., Barmby, P., Raine, S., & Gardner, M. (2015). How young children view mathematical representations: A study using eye-tracking technology. Educational Research, 57(1), 59-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2014.983718
  4. Boyer, T. W., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Development of proportional reasoning: Where young children go wrong. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1478-1490. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013110
  5. Brick Math Series. (2024). Brick math curriculum. Brick Math Series. Retrieved February 20, 2025, from https://www.brickmathseries.com/?srsltid=AfmBOooVxOaxQPQ0RzCtfmC7H3vxgqm3hXrAxbyQj8u_VlXwi3ISlnti
  6. Brod, G. (2021). Toward an understanding of when prior knowledge helps or hinders learning. Npj Science of Learning, 6(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00103-w
  7. Brod, G., Werkle-Bergner, M., & Shing, Y. L. (2013). The influence of prior knowledge on memory: A developmental cognitive neuroscience perspective. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(139), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00139
  8. Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005
  9. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2
  10. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164
  11. Cooper, J. L., Sidney, P. G., & Alibali, M. W. (2018). Who benefits from diagrams and illustrations in math problems? Ability and attitudes matter: Diagrams and illustrations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3371
  12. Fitzpatrick, C. L., & Hallett, D. (2019). Early understanding of fractions via early understanding of proportion and division. In K. M. Robinson, H. P. Osana, & D. Kotsopoulos (Eds.), Mathematical learning and cognition in early childhood (pp. 249-271). Springer.
  13. Fuhs, M. W., & McNeil, N. M. (2013). ANS acuity and mathematics ability in preschoolers from low-income homes: Contributions of inhibitory control. Developmental Science, 16(1), 136-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12013
  14. Gilmore, C., & Cragg, L. (2018). The role of executive function skills in the development of children’s mathematical competencies. In A. Henik & W. Fias (Eds.), Heterogeneity of function in numerical cognition (pp. 263-286). Elsevier Science & Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811529-9.00014-5
  15. Gobet, F., Lane, P. C. R., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C.-H., Jones, G., Oliver, I., & Pine, J. M. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 236-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01662-4
  16. Gregg, J., & Gregg, D. U. (2007). Measurement and fair-sharing models for dividing fractions. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 12(9), 490-496.
  17. Jeong, Y., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2007). The development of proportional reasoning: Effect of continuous versus discrete quantities. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8(2), 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248370701202471
  18. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031040
  19. Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2020). The use and effectiveness of colorful, contextualized, student-made material for elementary mathematics instruction. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(6), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0199-7
  20. Kidspot. (2016, January 16). Maths activity: How to teach fractions using lego [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JONriZyiYpM
  21. Larkin, J. H. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 75-98). Erlbaum.
  22. Leonard, J., Buss, A., Gamboa, R., Mitchell, M., Fashola, O. S., Hubert, T., & Almughyirah, S. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking Skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 860-876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2
  23. Magner, U. I. E., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A. (2014). Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 29, 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.002
  24. Manches, A., & O’Malley, C. (2016). The effects of physical manipulatives on children’s numerical strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 34(1), 27-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2015.1124882
  25. 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, 622-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.023
  26. Martin, T. (2009). A theory of physically distributed learning: How external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 140-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00094.x
  27. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587-625. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15
  28. McDougal, E., Silverstein, P., Treleaven, O., Jerrom, L., Gilligan-Lee, K., Gilmore, C., & Farran, E. K. (2023). Associations and indirect effects between LEGOⓇ construction and mathematics performance. Child Development, 94(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13933
  29. McDougal, E., Silverstein, P., Treleaven, O., Jerrom, L., Gilligan-Lee, K., Gilmore, C., & Farran, E. K. (2024). Assessing the impact of LEGOⓇ construction training on spatial and mathematical skills. Developmental Science, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13432
  30. Menendez, D., Rosengren, K. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2020). Do details bug you? Effects of perceptual richness in learning about biological change. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 1101-1117. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3698
  31. Mix, K. S. (2008). Surface similarity and label knowledge impact early comparisons. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26, 13-32. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151007X189109
  32. Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (1999). Early fraction calculation ability. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 164-174. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.164
  33. Olanoff, D., Lo, J. J., & Tobias, J. (2014). Mathematical content knowledge for teaching elementary mathematics: A focus on fractions. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(2), 267-310. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1304
  34. Pouw, W. T. J. L., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 51-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9255-5
  35. Rau, M. A. (2017). Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 717-761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9365-3
  36. Reys, R., Lindquist, M., Lambdin, D. V., & Smith, N. L. (2015). Helping children learn mathematics (11th ed.). Wiley.
  37. Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 55-79.
  38. Schoenherr, J., & Schukajlow, S. (2024). Characterizing external visualization in mathematics education research: A scoping review. Mathematics Education, 56, 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01494-3
  39. Simoncini, K., Forndran, A., Manson, E., Sawi, J., Philip, M., & Kokinai, C. (2020). The impact of block play on children’s early mathematics skills in rural Papua New Guinea. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52(1), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-020-00261-9
  40. Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Deiglmayr, A., Schalk, L., & Schneider, M. (2022). Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 57(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700
  41. TheDadLab. (2019, October 29). How to teach fractions with LEGO bricks [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCkS0afSjm0&t=1s
  42. TheDadLab. (2020, January 29). How to teach multiplication with LEGO bricks [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW4DDBdh3MA
  43. van Kesteren, M. T. R., Rijpkema, M., Ruiter, D. J., Morris, R. G. M., & Fernández, G. (2014). Building on prior knowledge: Schema-dependent encoding processes relate to academic performance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(10), 2250-2261. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00630
  44. We Are Teachers. (2018, November 12). Teaching fractions with LEGO bricks [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pbmLnP7Qh_4
  45. Wege, E. T., Smedt, B. D., Gilmore, C., & Inglis, M. (2023). Counting many as one: Young children can understand sets as units except when counting. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 225, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105533
  46. Yu, C., Zhong, Y., & Fricker, D. (2012). Selective attention in cross-situational statistical learning: Evidence from eye tracking. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(148), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00148
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.