Abstracts - Earli

252. Ashcraft, M. H. (1996). Cognitive psychology and simple arithmetic: A review and summaryof new directions. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Mathematical cognition 1 (pp. 3-34). Hove, UK:Psychology Press. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University PressBaddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice (Rev. ed.). Hove, UK: PsychologyPress. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends inCognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423. Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: Themultiple component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 28-61). New York: Cambridge University Press. Barry, T. D., Lyman, R. D., & Klinger, L. G. (2002).Academic underachievement and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: The negative impact ofsymptom severity on school performance. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 259-283. Bryant, P.,MacLean, M., & Bradley, L. (1990). Rhyme, language and children’s reading. AppliedPsycholinguistics, 11, 237-252. Bull, R., & Scerif, G. (2001). Executive functioning as a predictorof children’s mathematics ability. Inhibition, switching, and working memory. DevelopmentalNeuropsychology, 19, 273-293. Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences ininhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child Development, 72, 1032 – 1053. CITO(2004). Taal voor kleuters [Language for kindergartners]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: CITO.DiSimoni, F. (1978). The Token test for children. Austin: Pro-Ed.G 730 August 2007 08:30 - 10:30Room: 7.14SymposiumThe use of support devices in learning environmentsChair: Geraldine Clarebout, K.U.Leuven, BelgiumOrganiser: Geraldine Clarebout, K.U.Leuven, BelgiumOrganiser: Jan Elen, K.U.Leuven, BelgiumDiscussant: Scott Grabinger, University of Colorado at Denver, USALearning environments typically contain devices that are included to support learners (Hannafin,Hall, Land & Hill, 1994). These support devices become especially important when learners haveto deal with. However, research indicates that students tend to not use the support offered. Or,when they do use it, they often do so inadequately (see Stahl, Schworm, Fischer, & Wallace, 2003;Clarebout & Elen, 2006). Different reasons can underlie this non- or inadequate use (Perkins,1985). First, the support itself may be poorly designed and hence not be beneficial for students.Second, students’ may be unfamiliar with the support, they may not know why and how to use thesupport devices. Third, the use of the support assumes learners to comply to a learningenvironment. For a variety of reasons learners may be inclined to be non-compliant. The differentpapers in this symposium will address factors that may influence the use of support devices. Thedifferent papers stress different aspects with respect to this issue: external variables such astraining are addressed as well as specific learner characteristics that may influence tool use.– 379 –