Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Manipulative Use and Elementary School Students’ Mathematics Learning

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) 1998/1999, we examine the relationship between elementary students’ (K–5) manipulative use and mathematics learning. Using a cross-sectional correlational analysis, we found no relationship between manipulative use and student mathematics achievement. However, using a longitudinal analysis, we documented a positive relationship between manipulative use and student mathematics learning during their elementary school years (K–5). From a teaching and learning perspective, these findings provide important evidence of the influence of long-term manipulative use on students’ overall learning. From policy and methodological perspectives, these findings provide evidence for the importance of modeling student learning (as opposed to achievement) when studying the effectiveness of instructional strategies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bolyard, J. J. (2005). A comparison of the impact of two virtual manipulatives on student achievement and conceptual understanding of integer and subtraction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

  • Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, CCSS.

  • Chang, M., Singh, K. & Mo, Y. (2007). Science engagement and science achievement: Longitudinal models using NELS data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(4), 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, L. (2004). A model for understanding, using, and connecting representations. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(2), 97–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, D. & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deliyianni, E., Michael, E., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2006). The effect of different teaching tools in overcoming the impact of the intuitive rules. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 409–416). Prague, Czech Republic: PME.

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

  • Dorward, J. (2002). Intuition and research: Are they compatible? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 329–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

  • Hedeker, D. (2004). An introduction to growth modeling. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The second handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 215–234). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

  • Hiebert, J, Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Fuson K.C., Wearne D., Murray, H., … Human, P., (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  • Hynes, M. C. (1986). Selection criteria. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, L. M. (1986). A rationale. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 6–7.

  • Kifer, E. & Burstein, L. (1992). Concluding thoughts: What we know, what it means. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (pp. 329–341). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

  • Kosko, K. W., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2015). Does time matter in improving mathematical discussions? The influence of mathematical autonomy. Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 368–385.

  • Ma, X. & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2002). The development of science achievement in middle and high school: Individual differences and school effects. Evaluation Review, 26(4), 395–417.

  • Ma, X. & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2007). Mathematics coursework regulates growth in mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(3), 230–257.

  • McClung, L. W. (1998). A study of the use of manipulatives and their effect on student achievement in a high school algebra class (Unpublished master’s thesis). Salem-Teikyo University. Salem, WV.

  • Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J. & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyer-Packenham, P. S. & Westenskow, A. (2013). Effects of virtual manipulatives in student achievement and mathematics learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environment, 4(3), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Educational Statistics (2006). Early childhood longitudinal study, Kindergarten class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K): Combined user’s manual for the ECLS-K Fifth-grade data files and electronic codebooks. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

  • Posadas, E. (2004). Using manipulatives and visual cues with explicit vocabulary enhancement for mathematics instruction with grade three and four low achievers in bilingual classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.

  • Ratner, S. (1992). John Dewey, E. H. Moore and the philosophy of mathematics education in the twentieth century. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 105–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Parks, CA: Sage.

  • Reimer, K. & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, W. H., Wolfe, R. G. & Kifer, E. (1992). The identification and description of student growth in mathematics achievement. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (pp. 59–99). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

  • Sloane, F. C., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2016). Aligning statistical modeling with theories of learning in mathematics education research. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (in press).

  • Snelbecker, G. E. (1985). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

  • Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suh, J. & Moyer, P. (2007). Developing students’ representational fluency using physical and virtual algebra balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trespalacios, J. (2010). The effects of two generative activities on learner comprehension of part-whole meaning of rational numbers using virtual manipulatives. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Sciences Teaching, 29(3), 327–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uribe-Flórez, L. J. (2014). Manipulative use to support ELL’s mathematics learning. In D. Berlin & A. L. White (Eds.), Initiatives in mathematics and science education with global implications (pp. 33-44). Columbus, OH: International Consortium for Research in Science and Mathematics Education (ICRSME).

  • Uribe-Flórez, L. J., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2010). Elementary school teachers' manipulative use. School Science and Mathematics Journal, 110(7), 363–371.

  • Wilkins, J. L. M. (1999). Demographic opportunities and school achievement. Journal of Research in Education, 9(1), 12–19.

  • Wilkins, J. L. M. & Ma, X. (2002). Predicting student growth in mathematical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 288–298.

  • Wilkins, J. L. M. & Ma, X. (2003). Modeling change in student attitude toward and beliefs about mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 52–63.

  • Willett, J. B. (1988). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of educational research in education (Vol. 15, pp. 345–422). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Technology, College of Education, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, MS 1747, Boise, ID, 83725-1747, USA

    Lida J. Uribe-Flórez

  2. Department of Teaching and Learning, School of Education, Virginia Tech, 300C War Memorial Hall, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA

    Jesse L. M. Wilkins

Authors
  1. Lida J. Uribe-Flórez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jesse L. M. Wilkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lida J. Uribe-Flórez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uribe-Flórez, L.J., Wilkins, J.L.M. Manipulative Use and Elementary School Students’ Mathematics Learning. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 15, 1541–1557 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9757-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9757-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation