Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 175–197 | Cite as

Are We Having Fun Yet? How Teachers Use Manipulatives to Teach Mathematics

  • Patricia S. Moyer


Teachers often comment that using manipulatives to teach mathematics is ‘fun!’ Embedded in the word ‘fun’ are important notions about how and why teachers use manipulatives in the teaching of mathematics. Over the course of one academic year, this study examined 10 middle grades teachers’ uses of manipulatives for teaching mathematics using interviews and observations to explore how and why the teachers used the manipulatives as they did. An examination of the participants’ statements and behaviors indicated that using manipulatives was little more than a diversion in classrooms where teachers were not able to represent mathematics concepts themselves. The teachers communicated that the manipulatives were fun, but not necessary, for teaching and learning mathematics.


Mathematics Instruction Mathematical Idea Classroom Observation Mathematics Lesson Middle Grade 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ball, D.L.: 1990, ‘The mathematical understandings that preservice teachers bring to teacher education’, Elementary School Journal 90, 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D.L.: 1992, ‘Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education’, American Educator 16(2), 14–18, 46- 47.Google Scholar
  3. Baroody, A.J.: 1989, ‘Manipulatives don't come with guarantees’, Arithmetic Teacher 37(2), 4–5.Google Scholar
  4. Boulton-Lewis: 1998, ‘Children's strategy use and interpretations of mathematical representations’, Journal of Mathematical Behavior 17(2), 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruner, J.S.: 1960, The Process of Education, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J.S.: 1986, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  7. Clements, D.H.: 1999, ‘“Concrete” manipulatives, concrete ideas’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 1(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cobb, P.: 1995, ‘Cultural tools and mathematical learning: A case study’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 26(4), 362–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dienes, Z.P.: 1969, Building Up Mathematics, Hutchison Education, London.Google Scholar
  10. Driscoll, M.J.: 1983, Research Within Reach: Elementary School Mathematics and Reading, CEMREL,Inc., St. Louis.Google Scholar
  11. Elbow, P.: 1986, Embracing Contraries: Explorations in Learning and Teaching, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, R.K. and Bush, W.S.: 1988, ‘Familiarity, availability and use of manipulative devices in mathematics at the primary level’, School Science and Mathematics 88(6), 459–469.Google Scholar
  13. Glover, J.A., Ronning, R.R. and Bruning, R.H.: 1990, Cognitive Psychology for Teachers, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Goldin, G. and Shteingold, N.: 2001, ‘Systems of representations and the development of mathematical concepts’, in A.A. Cuoco and F.R. Curcio (eds.), The roles of Representation in School Mathematics, NCTM, Reston, VA, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  15. Grant, S.G., Peterson, P.L. and Shogreen-Downer, A.: 1996, ‘Learning to teach mathematics in the context of system reform’, American Educational Research Journal 33(2), 509–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greabell, L.C.: 1978, ‘The effect of stimuli input on the acquisition of introductory geometry concepts by elementary school children’, School Science and Mathematics 78, 320–326.Google Scholar
  17. Hiebert, J. and Wearne, D.: 1992, ‘Links between teaching and learning place value with understanding in first grade’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 23, 98–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kamii, C., Kirkland, L. and Lewis, B.A.: 2001, ‘Representation and abstraction in young children's numerical reasoning’, in A.A. Cuoco and F.R. Curcio (eds.), The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics, NCTM, Reston, VA, pp. 24–34.Google Scholar
  19. Kamii, C. and Warrington, M.A.: 1999, ‘Teaching fractions: Fostering children's own reasoning’, in L.V. Stiff and F.R. Curcio (eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning grades K-12: 1999 Yearbook, NCTM, Reston, VA, pp. 82–92.Google Scholar
  20. Khoury, H.A. and Zazkis, R.: 1994, ‘On fractions and non-standard representations: Preservice teachers' conceptions’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 27(2), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. LeCompte, M.D., Preissle, J. and Tesch, R.: 1993, Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research, 2nd ed., Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  22. Ma, L.: 1999, Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers' Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. Meira, L.: 1998, ‘Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 29(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moyer, P.S.: 1998, Using mathematics manipulatives: Control-versus autonomy-oriented middle grades teachers (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1998), Dissertation Abstracts International, 59-07A, 2406.Google Scholar
  25. Orton, R.E.: 1988, Using Representations to Conceptualize Teachers' Knowledge, Paper presented at the Psychology of Mathematics Education-North America, DeKalb, IL.Google Scholar
  26. Parham, J.L.: 1983, ‘A meta-analysis of the use of manipulative materials and student achievement in elementary school mathematics’, Dissertation Abstracts International 44A, 96.Google Scholar
  27. Patton, M.Q.: 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, SAGE, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Piaget, J.: 1951, Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood, Reprint, W.W. Norton and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  29. Piaget, J.: 1952, The Child's Conception of Number, Humanities Press, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. and Szeminska, A.: 1960, The Child's Conception of Geometry, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. (Original work published 1948). 1948/1960.Google Scholar
  31. Prigge, G.R.: 1978, ‘The differential effects of the use of manipulative aids on the learning of geometric concepts by elementary school children’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 9(5), 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raphael, D. and Wahlstrom, M.: 1989, ‘The influence of instructional aids on mathematics achievement’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20(2), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Resnick, L.B.: 1983, ‘Mathematics and science learning: A new conception’, Science 220, 477–478.Google Scholar
  34. Scott, P.B.: 1983, ‘A survey of perceived use of mathematics materials by elementary teachers in a large urban school district’, School Science and Mathematics 83(1), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon, M.A.: 1995, ‘Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy froma constructivist perspective’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 26(2), 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skemp, R.R.: 1987, The Psychology of Learning Mathematics, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, J.P.: 1996, ‘Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for reform’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 27(4), 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sowell, E.J.: 1989, ‘Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20(5), 498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stigler, J.W. and Baranes, R.: 1988, ‘Culture and mathematics learning’, in E.Z. Rothkopf (ed.), Review of Research in Education, American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 253–306.Google Scholar
  40. Stigler, J.W. and Hiebert, J.: 1999, The Teaching Gap, The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Strauss, A.: 1987, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Suydam, M.N.: 1985, Research on Instructional Materials for Mathematics, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, Columbus, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 276 569).Google Scholar
  43. Suydam, M.N.: 1986, ‘Manipulative materials and achievement’, Arithmetic Teacher 33(6), 10, 32.Google Scholar
  44. Suydam, M.N. and Higgins, J.L.: 1977, Activity-Based Learning in Elementary School Mathematics: Recommendations from Research, ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education, College of Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  45. Thompson, A.G.: 1985, ‘Teachers' conceptions of mathematics and the teaching of problem solving’, in E.A. Silver (ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: Multiple Research Perspectives, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  46. Thompson, P.W.: 1992, ‘Notations, conventions and constraints: Contributions to effective uses of concrete materials in elementary mathematics’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 23(2), 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson, P.W. and Thompson, A.G.: 1990, Salient Aspects of Experience with Concrete Manipulatives, International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Mexico City.Google Scholar
  48. Threadgill-Sowder, J.A. and Juilfs, P.A.: 1980, ‘Manipulatives versus symbolic approaches to teaching logical connectives in junior high school: An aptitude x treatment interaction study’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 11(5), 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tirosh, D.: 2000, ‘Enhancing prospective teachers' knowledge of children's conceptions: The case of division of fractions’, Journal for Research inMathematics Education 31(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von Glasersfeld, E.: 1990, ‘An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical’, in R.B. Davis, C.A. Maher and N. Noddings (eds.), Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, pp. 19–29.Google Scholar
  51. von Glasersfeld, E.: 1995, ‘A constructivist approach to teaching’, in L.P. Steffe and J. Gale (eds.), Constructivism in Education, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  52. Vygotsky, L.S.: 1978, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  53. Weiss, I.R.: 1994, A Profile of Science and Mathematics Education in the United States: 1993, Horizon Research, Inc., Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  54. Winograd, T. and Flores, F.: 1986, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia S. Moyer
    • 1
  1. 1.George Mason UniversityCentrevilleU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations