Methods of Research

Topic: The Engagement and Achievement of Grade 7 Students in Algebra Using

Manipulative Materials

Focus: The effectiveness of Using Manipulative Materials in Algebra

Concepts/Variables: The engagement and achievement of Grade 7 students in

Algebra – Dependent Variable

Using Manipulative Materials – Independent Variable

General Problem: How Manipulative materials affect the engagement and

achievement of Students in Algebra?

Specific Problem

1. How may the Pre-Test of Grade 7 Students in Algebra be described?

How may the Post-Test of Grade 7 in Algebra using manipulative materials be

described?

2. What is the level of performance of Grade 7 students in learning Algebra?

3. Is there a significant difference between the Pre –Test and Post-test mean score of

Grade 7 students using manipulative materials?

4. Do manipulative materials significantly affect the behavior of students in

Algebra?
 CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

San Martin National High School is a home of relocated learners from different

areas of Metro Manila and nearby provinces. One and a half -percent of the total

population of learners in Grade 7 are enrolled under the program of “Aral sa Bahay, Wala

ng Tambay”. This program aims to lessen the drop-out rate in school. The learners under

this program are in a condition such as inappropriate age to its grade level, lack of

financial assistance, early-age pregnancy and low self-esteem to enroll in a regular class

basis.

Most of the drop-out rate rooted from the low-level transfer of learning and skill

acquisition. Based on the school-based assessment, subjects that have the least number of

quarterly passers are bounded in the major subjects like Mathematics and Science.

Math disabilities, like other learning disorders, have the power to keep children

from performing up to their potential in school and beyond. At no time in our history has

this notion been truer. As the world's reliance on technology has grown, so too has the

demand for people who can think in the abstract terms of math and science. The disparity

between those who learn math with relative ease and those who struggle with math

disabilities is widening at an alarming rate (WGBH Educational Foundation, 2002).

 The role played by mathematics in almost all areas of development in life cannot

be underestimated. Mathematics serves as backbone to all technological advancement in

the world. There can be no meaningful development in this modern world of

technological era without adequate and sufficient knowledge of mathematics. The study

of mathematics enhances one’s understanding of the world through the language of

symbols and abstract representation of phenomena. It is a subject that is very important

for the academic excellence of people irrespective of programme of study. Knowledge in

mathematics is applied in almost every school subject (Larvi & Mavis, 2016).

Algebra has been often quoted as one of the most important pillars in the

domain of mathematics. It is widely accepted that to ensure a solid grounding in

algebra and higher mathematics, students in lower classes should get some

exposure to concepts and principles that prepares them for a more formal study of

algebraic concepts in later classes. Algebra is much more than just solving for x

and y, it’s a way of thinking and approaching conceptual problems with variable

entities and logically reasoning them out successfully.

Many of the research shows that the usage of manipulative will great improve the

students attitude toward learning, their academic achievement in mathematics, and allow

students to have a more entertaining way to learn mathematical concepts. The usage of a

manipulative not only benefits students learning in mathematics, but it teaches them to

build on comprehension while they are exploring, and observing math in a context that

prepares them for real world applications (Allen, 2007).

 The research will be used in a seventh grade classroom setting consisting of 150

students. The research will investigate if there is a difference between the academic

achievement scores on the pre and post-test of the controlled experimental group, based

on the usage and non-usage of a manipulative during instruction in algebra lesson.

Statement of the Problem

The study aims to determine the effects of Using Manipulative Materials to Grade 7

Students in Algebra. Specific questions that the researcher aims to answer are the

following:

1. How do manipulative materials help to engage grade 7 students in achieving

learning in Algebra?

2. Do grade level curricular differences influence the use of manipulatives when

teaching mathematics?

3. Is the manipulative used in such a way that it requires reflection or thought on the

part of the student?

4. What effect do mathematical manipulatives have on my grade 7 students’

engagement and participation?

5. Do manipulative materials significantly affect the behavior of students in

Algebra?
Significance of the Study

The challenge of teaching any subject is to find activities that are accessible to all

learners and have the richness to challenge more interested or capable students.

Manipulatives are a wonderful resource for this. Students need to understand the

mathematical concepts presented to them in order to have the ability to build on those

concepts. Teaching through isolated skills may not be t he best method for students to

conceptually understand mathematics (Ross, 2008). A study conducted by Moch (2001)

utilized manipulatives with elementary students. She found that the manipulatives

allowed students an opportunity to touch and feel mathematics—not just to see it or hear

it. Allowing students to be exposed to touching and feeling mathematics creates a

significant change in the traditional mathematics environment. Students need to be given

the opportunity to touch, manipulate, and construct their own meaning and

understanding. This can be achieved through the use of manipulative materials (Ross,

2008). This study made use of manipulative materials, specifically within a mathematics

unit on Algebra.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

This study focused on the Effects of Manipulative Materials on Grade 7 Students

in Algebra of San Martin National High School for the Academic Year 2020-2021. The

respondents of the study were composed of 150 randomly selected Grade 7 students

which comprise 10 % of the total population. The results of this study are applicable only

to the respondents of this study. The researcher considered working on this study to find
out if there’s an effect on the achievement and engagement of selected Grade 7 students

of San Martin National High School after taking the intervention

For the purposes of this study, a sample of convenience was used to select the

sample of participants. Therefore, the sampling method chosen and the small sample size

restricted the results from being generalized to a larger group of students. The research

questions and instruments ignore various other influencing factors that may impact math

anxiety, attitudes, and achievement. They do not take into account parental and teacher

influences, socioeconomic factors, ethnic/racial considerations, and previous experiences

with mathematics in elementary school. Ignoring such factors can prove to limit the scope

of the results and create gaps in the research.

Definition of Terms

Terminology pertinent to this research study was defined as follows:

Achievement :is defined as measurable behaviour in a standardised series of tests

(Simpson and Weiner. 1989). Achievement test is usually constructed and standardised to

measure proficiency in school subjects. In most cases, according to them.

"accomplishment" is sometimes used in place of "achievement".

Academic Performance: determines whether learning is occurring. Indicators of growth

in academic performance include but are not limited to: changes in students’ pre-test and

post-test scores and records of work used to solve problems.

Conceptual Understanding: students’ comprehension of the meaning of mathematical

concepts and procedures.

Engagement: refers to active, goal-directed, flexible, constructive, persistent, focused

interactions with the social and physical environment (Furrer and Skinner, 2003).

Manipulatives are physical objects that are used as teaching tools to engage students in

the hands-on learning of mathematics. They can be used to introduce, practice, or

remediate a concept.
 CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents the relevant theories, the related literature and studies, the

conceptual framework, the hypothesis and the definition of variables.

Relevant Theories

Children understand when using concrete materials if the materials are presented

in a way that helps them connect with existing networks or construct relationships that

prompt a reorganization of networks. It is important to consider then, the internal

networks that students already carry with them and the classroom activities that promote

construction of relationships between internal representations (Hiebert et al, 1991).

Manipulatives then can play a role in students' construction of meaningful ideas.

Clements and McMillan (1996) and others suggest they should be used before formal

instruction, such as teaching algorithms. Clements and McMillan propose that concrete

knowledge can be of two type: "sensory-concrete" which is demonstrated when students

use sensory materials to make sense of an idea; and "integrated concrete" which is built

through learning. Integrated concrete thinking derives its strength from the combination

of many separate ideas in an interconnected structure of knowledge. When children have

this type of interconnected knowledge, the physical objects, the actions they perform on
the objects, and the abstractions they make are all interrelated in a strong mental

structure.

Ross and Kurtz (1993) offers the following suggestions when planning a lesson involving

the use of manipulatives. He suggests that the mathematics teacher should be certain that:

1. manipulatives have been chosen to support the lesson's objectives;

2. significant plans have been made to orient students to the manipulatives and

corresponding classroom procedures;

3. the lesson involves the active participation of each student;

4. the lesson plan includes procedures for evaluation that reflect an emphasis on

the development of reasoning skills.

Related Literature

According to Fletcher (2009), various teaching methods are used in teaching

mathematical concepts to varying degrees of success. These methods are ‘transmission’

and ‘interactive’ approaches, and research has shown ‘interactive’ to be more effective

than the ‘transmission’ approach. In the transmission approach which is also known as

traditional teaching method or teacher centered instruction, the teacher acts as a reserve

of knowledge. The teacher who sees himself as the sole supplier of knowledge takes

control over almost every activity in the teaching and learning process. His or her duty is

to transmit or explain facts and procedures to learners. Learners are only asked to check if

they are following the taught procedures. Such approach creates boredom in class,

encourages passive attitude among learners and make them feel they have nothing to
contribute (Fletcher, 2009). This method of teaching is also called non-participatory

teaching method because students do not participate in the lesson. Lesson is however

conducted through explicit teacher explanation through lectures and teacher-led

demonstrations.

Related Studies

The interactive approach is the situation where the learner is placed at the centre

of the learning process and seeks knowledge or information to solve a problem. A teacher

using this approach believes that knowledge is constructed by the learner. The teacher’s

duty therefore is to choose appropriate learning tasks for learners, make the purpose of

activities clear and encourage them to explore and verbalise their mathematics

thinking. This approach helps learners to gather, discover or create knowledge in the

course of an activity having a purpose. This active process is different from simply

mastering facts and procedures. Regarding the general improvement in the teaching

and learning of mathematics, Talmadge & Eash(as cited in Blosser, 1985) asserted

that instructional techniques are important, but the use of instructional materials or

manipulatives also influences learners’ achievement, and helps them to both use

process skills and transfer of learning to many situations. Instructional materials or

manipulatives provide the physical media through which the intents of the curriculum are

experienced. These physical media appeal to the senses of the learners which bring things
that are far beyond their environment near. In other words, they make imaginations more

vivid and accurate.

Conceptual Framework

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

The use of manipulative materials Engagement and Achievement of

in Algebra Grade 7 Students

The motive behind the use of manipulatives is that individual students learn

in different ways, when manipulatives are used, the senses are brought into

learning and they also act as visual representation of mathematical concepts. In

addition to meeting the needs of students who learn best in this way,

manipulatives afford the teacher new ways of presenting a topic. A sound lesson

on any mathematical topic should involve multiple instructional methods.

Incorporating several different instructional techniques increases the possibility that all

students will develop mathematical understanding through at least one method. When

manipulatives are used and children placed at the centre of the learning process, the

role of the teacher changes from transmitter of knowledge to being a facilitator of

learners’ discovery (Fletcher, 2009).

Hypothesis

Lessons associated with the use of manipulative materials also enable

students with different learning styles to benefit equally, as concepts are explained

(auditory leaners), demonstrated for learners to see (visual learners) and allowing
learners to manipulative or model concepts themselves (kinesthetic learners). It also

provides freedom students may require for learning. Time and experiences in the class

enrich students learning. Students can learn from their experiences and connect the

mathematics ideas to these experiences. When students are actively involved in the

manipulation of the algebra tiles, their interest in learning mathematics is aroused.

Such foundations help students to understand and appreciate mathematics. Thus effective

use of algebra tiles contributes to conceptualisation and understanding of algebra in the

learning of mathematics.
 CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

According to Johnson (2008) action research is a planned, methodical observation

related to one’s teaching. Both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were

used in this study. This action research study collected data on student engagement,

participation, and academic performance through the use student work samples, video

recordings, teacher field notes, and a pre-test and post-test.

Methods and Techniques of the study

The study was designed to investigate the efficacy of manipulative materials in

junior high school students' performance. The study sample comprised 150 Grade 7

students of San Martin National High School. The students were made up of two groups;

the experimental and the control group. Each group was taught the same algebra units

over a period of four weeks.. The instruments used for data collection were mathematics

achievement pretest and posttest. Students' achievements on the posttest were analysed

using percentages, mean, standard deviation and the independent t-test.

Research Instruments

Data were collected through a variety of different instruments. Johnson (2008)

suggested the use of two to four types of data in order to keep research focused. These

data sources included: teacher field notes based on classroom observations, a teacher

made identical pre-test and post-test, selected video recordings of math lessons, and

student work samples. These sources allowed observance of any possible changes or

progress in the students understanding of the mathematical content. In addition, the

sources afforded the opportunity to observe and note the interactions and behaviors

among the students, specifically when manipulative materials were involved in the

lessons. All of the data collected were kept confidential and locked in a secure location

when not in use. Detailed instrument description will follow in the data analysis section.

Data Processing and Statistical Treatment

A pre-test (Appendix E) and post-test (Appendix F) were administered to the students to

determine a basis for student understanding of the concepts prior to the start of the

research and to identify potential changes in academic performance .

Students were instructed that they could solve the given problems using any strategy and

materials they chose, except the use of a calculator. Manipulative materials were

permitted and available during both tests. The pre-test scores were compared to the post-

test scores to identify the amount of, if any, improvement the students made. In addition,

student work on test questions were analyzed to identify any potential written changes

made in the way the students solved the different types of problems.
Going Beyond Memorizing Numbers

Learn More About the Power of Hands-On

This glossary of hands-on manipulatives was created to help teachers learn about

and use manipulatives in their regular classroom settings.

Though there are dozens of different manipulatives that can be used to educate

students, the pedagogical basis for using one is the same: firsthand interaction with

manipulatives helps students understand mathematics. Manipulatives provide

concrete ways for students to bring meaning to abstract mathematical ideas. They

help students learn new concepts and relate new concepts to what they have already

learned. They assist students with solving problems.

When students explore with manipulatives, they have the opportunity to see

mathematical relationships. They have tactile and visual models that help develop

their understanding. Without these concrete references, students are too often lost in
a morass of abstract symbols for which they have no concrete connection or

comprehension.

Teachers need to learn how to make use of concrete manipulatives so that students

learn the how and why of mathematics concepts. Students’ thinking and reasoning

must be the top priorities when they are engaged in learning with manipulatives.

The concrete manipulatives and the activities for which they are used are only as

valuable as the students’ reflection on the mathematical concepts.

Abstract

Manipulatives are ubiquitous in early childhood classrooms; yet, findings

regarding their efficacy for learning mathematics concepts are inconsistent. In

this article, we present four general principles that have emerged from

cognitive science about ways to ensure that manipulatives promote learning

when used with young children. We also describe how Montessori instruction

offers a concrete example of the application of these principles in practice,

which may, in turn, explain the high levels of mathematics achievement

among children who attend Montessori programs during early childhood. The

general principles and concrete examples presented in this article should help

early childhood programs maximize the benefits of using manipulatives for

developmentally appropriate mathematics instruction.

Keywords manipulatives, Montessori, mathematics, materials, cognitive science

Walk into any early childhood classroom and you are sure to see mathematics

manipulatives. Manipulatives are concrete materials (e.g., blocks, tiles) used

to demonstrate a mathematics concept or to support the execution of a

mathematical procedure. They have become a mainstay of mathematical

instruction in America as well as internationally (e.g., Correa, Perry, Sims,

Miller, & Fang, 2008; Puchner, Taylor, O’Donnell, & Fick, 2008). In a study of

two school districts, the average elementary teacher reported using

manipulatives nearly every day (Uribe-Flórez & Wilkins, 2010).

Research examining the advantages of instruction using manipulatives,

however, is inconsistent: Some studies find that manipulatives promote

learning, whereas others find that they hinder it. A recent meta-analysis of 55

studies that compared instruction with or without manipulatives suggests that

manipulatives can benefit learning, but only under certain conditions

(Carbonneau, Marley, & Selig, 2013). For instance, differences in the benefits

of manipulatives were associated with the content being taught; manipulatives

were more advantageous for learning about fractions than for learning

arithmetic. The results also indicated that instruction with manipulatives was

least effective for children between the ages of 3 and 6 years, with very small

and sometimes negative effects. These findings suggest that the efficacy of

manipulatives for promoting learning may depend on the conditions under

which they are used.

Given the lack of clear evidence supporting the use of manipulatives, should

they be used to teach mathematics in early childhood? We believe the answer

is yes—if careful consideration is given to what research has identified about

the conditions under which when manipulatives are likely to promote, rather

than hinder, learning. Cognitive science research, in particular, has generated

a considerable amount of knowledge that could be useful for improving

instruction so that all young children can acquire the mathematics knowledge

necessary for success, as described in National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics (NCTM) standards and Common Core standards (Laski,

Reeves, Ganley, & Mitchell, 2013; NCTM, 2006; National Governors

Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers,

2010; Newcombe et al., 2009; Siegler, 2003). In this article, we discuss the

findings from cognitive science relevant to the use of manipulatives in early

childhood math instruction, and synthesize them into four principles for

maximizing the effective use of mathematics manipulatives.

To demonstrate how early childhood instruction can reflect these principles,

we offer examples from Montessori instruction. Maria Montessori (Montessori

& Simmonds, 1917) was among the first educators to develop materials

specifically designed to instantiate mathematics concepts. She developed a

wide array of materials designed to help children understand concepts, such

as place value (Lillard, 2005). Children who attend Montessori programs in

early childhood demonstrate high levels of mathematics achievement.

Children who were randomly selected to attend a Montessori program scored

 higher on a standardized math test than children who had not been selected

and attended a non-Montessori program (Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006). In fact,

close adherence to the Montessori approach seems to promote better math

learning: Children who attend high-fidelity Montessori programs are more

likely to have higher standardized math scores than those who attend lower

fidelity Montessori or traditional early childhood programs (Lillard, 2012). The

benefits of the Montessori approach to mathematics learning in early

childhood may, at least in part, be due to its effective use of manipulatives.

Four Principles for Maximizing the Effectiveness of Manipulatives

The widespread use of manipulatives is rooted in the idea that young children

reason concretely before they do so abstractly. It is important to remember,

however, that even though manipulatives are concrete objects, understanding

how they represent concepts requires abstract thinking—a manipulative is still

just a physical representation of a concept, not the concept itself. Thus,

cognitive research about young children’s symbolic reasoning and the

conditions that facilitate their ability to abstract information from symbols can

inform classroom practice that is developmentally appropriate. From our

review of the literature, four general principles emerged: (a) use a

manipulative consistently, over a long period of time; (b) begin with highly

transparent concrete representations and move to more abstract

representations over time; (c) avoid manipulatives that resemble everyday

objects or have distracting irrelevant features; and (d) explicitly explain the
 relation between the manipulatives and the math concept. What follows is a

description of the research in support of each principle and examples of how

Montessori instruction serves as a model of these principles.

Use a Manipulative Consistently, Over a Long Period of Time

What the research says

For manipulatives to be effective, children, particularly young children, need

time to make the relation between the concrete materials and the abstract

concepts they represent. More than two decades ago, Sowell

(1989) conducted one of the first meta-analyses of studies comparing

instruction with manipulatives with instruction without it. The strongest

conclusion from the data was that the benefit of manipulatives depends on

how long children are exposed to them: Exposure to the same manipulative

for a school year or more led to moderate effect sizes, whereas instruction

with manipulatives over a shorter period of time led to learning levels

comparable with those of instruction without manipulatives.

Recent research from cognitive science helps to explain this phenomenon.

Young children do not easily interpret the meaning of symbols to use them for

problem solving (DeLoache, 2004). For example, children under the age of 5

are unable to make the connection between a scale model of a room and a

regular-sized room to locate a hidden toy without receiving explicit guidance

from an experimenter (DeLoache, Peralta de Mendoza, & Anderson, 1999).

Children become better able to interpret the relation between a symbol and its
 referent with age, but even older children need cumulative experience with a

symbol to use it for sophisticated reasoning (Liben & Myers, 2007). Children

are better able to identify the relation between two constructs (or in this case,

a concept and a manipulative) when they have multiple opportunities to

compare them (Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Son, Smith, & Goldstone, 2011).

Theories of physically distributed learning suggest that using the same or

similar manipulatives to repeatedly solve problems leads to a deeper

understanding of the relation between the physical material and the abstract

concept because it allows for an understanding of the two to co-evolve

(Martin, 2009). In other words, using the manipulative helps establish a basic

understanding of the math concept that in turn promotes deeper insights into

how the material relates to the concept that in turn leads to better

understanding of the concept and so on. This iterative cycle, however, is

theorized as only being possible when there is consistent prolonged use of the

same or similar manipulatives (Martin, 2009).

The Montessori approach

The Montessori approach allows for long-term use of the same or similar

manipulatives through both the structure of its programs and the design of the

manipulatives. Traditionally, each level of Montessori education encompasses

a 3-year mixed age group, so an early childhood classroom includes children

aged 3 through 6. This multi-year time frame and the consistency between the

early childhood and elementary programs provide extensive opportunities for

 children to abstract the mathematical concepts represented by the Montessori

math manipulatives and to gradually develop more sophisticated knowledge

over an extended period of time (Lillard, 2005). Furthermore, materials

introduced and used throughout the early childhood level, or slight variations

of them, are also used in the elementary grades to explain more advanced

concepts.

A second way Montessori instruction allows for children to have extended time

with manipulatives is that it uses a limited, but a central, set of math materials

to represent number concepts and operations. One example is the golden

bead material (see Figure 1) in which the base-10 number system is

represented using identical individual gold colored beads to denote units that

are also assembled into bars comprising 10 connected beads, squares that

connect beads to form a 10 by 10 square of 100 gold beads, and a cube of

1,000 interconnected beads.

Figure 1. Montessori golden bead materials used for representing number.

Source. Photograph courtesy of Nienhuis Montessori USA, the largest authorized

manufacturer of Montessori materials.

Note. From left to right: the unit bead, 10 bar, 100 square, and 1,000 cube.
 As illustrated in Table 1, the golden beads are used for activities at the early

childhood level beginning with the introduction to quantity and numerals and

are then used throughout the early elementary years as a basis for explaining

the base-10 system and operations, and later to introduce square roots.

Table 1. Extended Use of Montessori Golden Bead

Manipulative Over Several Years.

Table 1. Extended Use of Montessori Golden Bead Manipulative Over Several

Years.

View larger version

Finally, the Montessori approach provides children with multiple opportunities

to make connections between a physical representation and the underlying

mathematical concept through incorporating the same physical representation

in multiple materials (Lillard, 2005). This point can be illustrated through the

color coding used to represent place value—for example, green for units, blue

for 10s, red for 100s—across various materials. In one instance, this color

coding is used for numerals that represent the place value within multi-digit

numbers—for example, a child would combine a blue numeral 20 and a green

numeral 6 to make the numeral 26 and match it to a set of two 10-bead bars
 and six unit beads. In another case, small tiles used for counting and

arithmetic also follow the same color scheme: 1 tiles are green, 10s are blue,

and 100s are red. In another material, a kind of abacus used for representing

larger numbers and arithmetic, there is a row of green beads that represent

units, a row of blue beads that represent the 10s, and a row of red beads that

represent the 100s. Furthermore, as children progress to working with larger

numbers, the same color scheme is used to represent the recursive nature of

the number system—for example, green is used to represent units of 1,000,

blue 10,000s, and red for 100,000s.

Begin With Highly Transparent Concrete Representations and Move to More

Abstract Representations Over Time

What the research says

The greater the physical similarity between the manipulative and the concept it

represents, the more likely children will be able to understand the relation

between the two. Research on the development of symbolic and analogical

reasoning provides support for this claim (Chen, 1996; DeLoache, Kolstad, &

Anderson, 1991; Gentner & Markman, 1997; Goswami, 1996). For instance,

preschoolers are better able to find a hidden toy in a regular-sized room when

they are shown its location in a scale model with identical furniture than when

they are shown the location in a scale model with generic furniture (DeLoache

et al., 1991). Support also comes from research about how board games

support learning (Laski & Siegler, 2014; Siegler & Ramani, 2009). A number
board game with the numbers 1 to 10 in squares arranged in a line leads to

better improvements in preschoolers’ understanding of the magnitude of

numbers (also known as their mental number line) than a game board with the

numbers arranged in a circle (Siegler & Ramani, 2009). It is believed that the

linear game board is better because it is a more transparent reflection of

increasing numerical magnitude.

Although concrete representations of mathematics concepts are initially

important for helping children make the mapping between materials and the

concepts they represent, research suggests that instruction should progress to

the use of more abstract representations over time. This idea is known as

“concreteness fading” (Fyfe, McNeil, Son, & Goldstone, 2014). Carbonneau

and colleagues’ (2013) meta-analysis of studies testing the effectiveness of

manipulatives found that they were more effective for outcomes related to

reproducing basic procedures than for outcomes related to transfer (i.e.,

extending knowledge to new problem types). Recent studies indicate that a

systematic fading of concreteness can increase children’s ability to transfer

knowledge acquired through manipulatives to novel, unfamiliar problems (Fyfe

et al., 2014). For instance, children who received instruction about math

equivalence problems (e.g., 3 + 4 = 3 + __) solved more transfer problems

correctly when instruction progressed from physical objects (i.e., bears on a

pan balance) to a worksheet (i.e., illustration of a pan balance) to symbolic

equations, compared with children who received instruction in the reverse

 order or instruction with either only concrete objects or symbolic equations

(Fyfe & McNeil, 2009).

The Montessori approach

Montessori materials and instruction exemplify the progression from concrete

materials with a high degree of transparency to more abstract materials with

less transparency over the 3-year early childhood period (ages 3-6 years).

Consider the materials used to support children’s understanding of the

magnitude of numbers: Instruction on the concept progresses from use of

materials that physically represent the composition of numbers through

concrete combinations of individual units to tiles with only Arabic numerals

that are combined for multi-digit numbers (see Figure 2). Initially the

magnitude of numbers is represented using the “golden beads” (mentioned

previously)—a collection of beads that contains individual beads, or groups of

individual beads organized as 10 bars, 100 squares, or 1,000 cubes. The

quantity of individual beads associated with each magnitude (e.g., 10 bar vs.

100 square) directly reflects the magnitude of each number. With time,

instruction shifts to increased use of wooden base-10 squares and cubes

marked only with circles to signify the collections of beads. The last step in the

progression is the use of number tiles of identical size and marked with a 1,

10, 100, or 1,000, which are used without any other physical representation of

quantities. Thus, the sequence in which the Montessori materials are

 introduced is structured to move children to increasingly abstract

representations over time.

Figure 2. Concreteness fading in the Montessori approach: materials progress

from (a) instantiating the individual units in number to (b) wooden squares

marked with circles to signify units to (c) wooden tiles with quantity indicated only

by numerals.

Source. Photograph courtesy of Nienhuis Montessori USA.

Avoid Manipulatives That Resemble Everyday Objects or Have Distracting

Irrelevant Features

What the research says

Early advocates of manipulatives posited that concrete objects that resemble

everyday objects (e.g., teddy bear counters) help children draw on their

practical knowledge for understanding concepts (Burns, 1996). Recent

research, however, suggests that manipulatives that represent real objects

may actually impede learning. In fact, it may be the prevalence of these kinds

of manipulatives in early childhood classrooms that explains Carbonneau and

colleagues’ (2013) finding that instruction with manipulatives was least

effective for children between the ages of 3 and 6 years, with very small and

sometimes negative effects. More generally, it may be teachers’ tendency to

allow students to “play” with mathematics manipulatives (Moyer, 2001) that

undermines the effectiveness of manipulatives for mathematics learning.

Current research suggests that manipulatives that are as basic as possible

(e.g., same colored cubes vs. teddy bear counters) without irrelevant

perceptual features or references to real-world objects seem to promote the

greatest learning. For example, McNeil, Uttal, Jarvin, and Sternberg

(2009) found that children who solved word problems involving money using

highly realistic dollar bills and coins made a greater number of errors than

those who solved the same problems using more basic representations of

money, specifically white pieces of paper with only numbers on them.

Research about young children’s symbolic reasoning, specifically evidenced in

the dual representation theory, provides an explanation for why manipulatives

without irrelevant features are more effective for learning (see McNeil & Uttal,

2009; Uttal, O’Doherty, Newland, Hand, & DeLoache, 2009, for reviews).

From the perspective of the dual representation theory, manipulatives can be

thought of in two different ways: (a) as objects in their own right and (b) as

symbols for mathematics concepts. When the manipulative itself is interesting

to play with (e.g., acting out a story with the teddy bear counters or pretending

to eat plastic fruit) or elicits ideas irrelevant to the mathematics (e.g., playing

with stuffed animals), it distracts and prevents the child from making the

relation between the manipulative and the mathematics concept it is meant to

represent. However, when the manipulative is basic—stripped of irrelevant

 perceptual features or attributes—then it helps children direct all of their

attention to thinking about its relation with the mathematics concept it

represents.

The Montessori approach

Montessori math manipulatives are basic representations of mathematical

entities that do not resemble real objects or possess irrelevant perceptual

features. For example, the materials described above (and illustrated

in Figures 1 and 2) used for representing number quantity and counting

activities have no connection with everyday objects. The beads are all the

same color and the only differences between them are the quantity they

represent (e.g., 10 bar vs. 100 square). Another example is a set of 10

wooden rods illustrated in Figure 3 that range in length from 1 to 10 segments

(each 1 dm) with segments alternately painted red and blue that are used to

teach the magnitude and order of numbers between 1 and 10. The rods

instantiate the quantity of units associated with each number (i.e., the number

of individual segments in a given rod), the overall magnitude of a number (i.e.,

the length of a rod), and the relative magnitude of numbers (i.e., the “two” rod

has fewer units and is shorter than the “eight” rod). Also, when children order

the rods, they see a concrete representation of the successor rule—each

subsequent number is exactly one more unit than the previous number.

Because the rods are all perceptually identical (i.e., same color, texture,

thickness), except for the relevant attributes (i.e., number of segments and
 length) children’s attention is drawn to the relevant features of the rods and

there are no irrelevant features to distract them. Thus, the simplicity of

Montessori materials is that though they are superficially less interesting or

appealing than more broadly used manipulatives, they are designed in ways

that are more likely to focus children’s attention on the attributes that

represent the mathematical concept and increase learning.

Figure 3. Set of Montessori rods used to represent increasing number size.

Source. Photograph courtesy of Nienhuis Montessori USA.

Explicitly Explain the Relation Between the Manipulatives and the Math Concept

What the research says

Finally, with even the best designed manipulatives, it is unreasonable to

expect young children to make the relation between the concrete material and

the mathematics concept it represents without explicit guidance (Ball,

1992; McNeil & Jarvin, 2007). Studies of children’s symbolic reasoning

consistently find that children under the age of 5 have trouble abstracting the

meaning of a symbol without instruction (e.g., DeLoache et al., 1999). This

research suggests that explicit statements about how the material represents

the mathematical procedure or concept helps direct children’s attention to the

relevant features of the materials. Directing attention may, in turn, promote

learning because it allows children’s limited cognitive resources to focus on

the mathematics rather than on trying to abstract the relation between the

material and the mathematics concept (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006).

Consistent with these findings from cognitive research, Deborah Ball (1992),

an expert in mathematics education, argued strongly against a constructivist

view of manipulatives and the idea that children can independently develop an

understanding of mathematics concepts by interacting with concrete materials:

“Although kinesthetic experiences can enhance perception and thinking,

understanding does not travel through the fingertips and up the arm” (p. 47).

Indeed, differences in the extent to which teachers provide guidance when

using manipulatives or other models are attributed to differences in student

learning and mathematics achievement (e.g., Boulton-Lewis & Tait,

1994; Fuson & Briars, 1990; Hiebert & Wearne, 1992). For example, Richland,

Zur, and Holyoak (2007)found that teachers in Hong Kong and Japan were

more likely than U.S. teachers to provide guidance when presenting analogies

in mathematics and that this may contribute to the higher performance of

students from these nations on cross-national assessments of mathematics

achievement. Carbonneau and colleagues’ (2013) meta-analysis of studies

testing the effectiveness of manipulatives similarly found that studies in which

the use of manipulatives was accompanied by high levels of instructional

guidance led to greater effect sizes than studies in which low levels of

guidance were used.

 The guidance provided can be either verbal or non-verbal. In fact, gestures

have been found to be a particularly effective instructional tool even when they

provide information different from the strategy explained verbally (Singer &

Goldin-Meadow, 2005). More specifically, “linking gestures” are believed to

play an important role in directing children’s attention to the connection

between two representations (Alibali & Nathan, 2007; Richland, 2008). A

teacher, for instance, who points to a fulcrum of a pan balance and then to an

equal sign is using gesture to help children understand the connection

between the concrete and symbolic representation of equality (Alibali &

Nathan, 2007).

The Montessori approach

In Montessori instruction, early childhood teachers use both gesture and

language to help children see the relation between mathematics materials and

the concepts they are meant to represent by drawing children’s attention to

the relevant features of the materials. For example, when children are first

introduced to the golden bead materials (see Figure 1), the teacher explicitly

points out to the child the value of the beads; the teacher places a single unit

bead in front of the child and says, “This is a unit.” Later, when the golden

bead materials are used to teach children about number and counting, the

teacher points as she counts each bead, helping them to make the connection

between the quantity and the number words. Similarly as the materials begin

to be used to explain place-value concepts and the carry-over procedure,

 language is used in conjunction with gesture to facilitate children’s

understanding of the mathematics concept being demonstrated. For example,

a teacher would count out 9 unit beads, then, before a 10th bead is added,

would ask the child, “Nine units and one more unit would be how many?” As

the child says, “10,” the teacher replaces the nine unit beads with a single 10

bar, points to the 10 bar, and says, “One more would be ten or one ten.”

Montessori instruction also provides guidance to help children see the

connection between increasingly abstract sets of materials. For example,

when the colored number tiles are first introduced to children, they are

explicitly connected to the more concrete representation of numerical quantity

used earlier, the golden beads. First, the teacher reminds children of the value

of the bead materials (unit bead, 10 bar, etc.). Then, as illustrated in Figure 4,

the number tiles are placed directly in front of the bead materials with the

same magnitude as the teacher names the numeral on the tile. This kind of

physical alignment, accompanied by verbal explanation, is consistent with the

kind of instruction that has been found to help children notice how two

representations are connected (Richland et al., 2007).

Figure 4. Physical alignment of materials used to help children connect a more

abstract representation (i.e., numeral tiles) to earlier used and practiced concrete

representations (i.e., bead materials).

Conclusion

Despite the widespread use of manipulatives in early childhood mathematics

instruction, research examining the efficacy of manipulatives for mathematics

instruction is inconsistent. In fact, a recent large meta-analysis of studies that

compared instruction with or without manipulatives indicated that instruction

with manipulatives was least effective for children between the ages of 3 and

6 years, with very small and sometimes negative effects (Carbonneau et al.,

2013). Thus, it is imperative that early childhood educators think carefully

about ways to effectively use mathematics manipulatives for learning and use

research to guide them.

Over the past two decades, there has been increased recognition that

cognitive science research can and should inform education (e.g., Bransford,

Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Newcombe et al., 2009; Siegler, 2003). Indeed, the

field has generated a considerable amount of knowledge that could be useful

for improving instruction so that all young children acquire foundational

mathematics knowledge (Laski et al., 2013; Siegler, 2003). In this article, we

reviewed the findings most relevant to the use of manipulatives in early

childhood math instruction, identifying four general principles: (a) use a

manipulative consistently, over a long period of time; (b) begin with highly

transparent concrete representations and move to more abstract

representations over time; (c) avoid manipulatives that resemble everyday

objects or have distracting irrelevant features; and (d) explicitly explain the

relation between the manipulatives and the math concept.

Cognitive science research suggests that instruction that follows these

principles when using manipulatives is likely to lead to greater mathematics

learning than instruction that does not. Indeed, the Montessori approach to

mathematics instruction in early childhood uses manipulatives in a manner

consistent with these principles, and children who attend Montessori programs

in early childhood demonstrate high levels of mathematics achievement

(Lillard, 2012; Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006). The Montessori examples provided

in this article, however, illustrate just one approach to how these principles

can be translated to practice.

Any early childhood program can apply the principles and, in most cases,

through fairly minor changes in practice. For example, to ensure that the same

or similar manipulatives are used over a long period of time and that

instruction progresses from concrete to abstract representations, programs

could allow for administrators and teachers across various age groups and

grade levels to collaboratively select and sequence which manipulatives will

be used at each level. To ensure that the manipulatives used in instruction

have few distracting features, teachers could minimize or eliminate the use of

theme-based manipulatives (e.g., bug or teddy bear counters) and move

instead toward using one or two general manipulatives (e.g., Cuisenaire rods,

counting chips) for mathematics activities. Simple modifications to instruction

 based on the principles presented here are likely to increase the effective use

of manipulatives in mathematics instruction and strengthen children’s problem

solving, critical thinking, and learning outcomes in mathematics.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the

research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship

of this article.

References

Alibali, M. W., Nathan, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding

students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. In Goldman, R.,

Pea, R., Barron, B., Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences

(pp. 349-366). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Google Scholar

Ball, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education.

American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of

Teachers, 16(2), 14-18.

Google Scholar
Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Tait, K. (1994). Young children’s representations and strategies

for addition. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 231-242.

Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience, and school. Retrieved

from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309070368

Google Scholar

Burns, M. (1996). How to make the most of math manipulatives. Instructor, 105, 45-

51.

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, 380-400.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Chen, Z. (1996). Children’s analogical problem solving: Effects of superficial,

structural, and procedural similarity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,

62, 410-431.

Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Correa, C. A., Perry, M., Sims, L. M., Miller, K. F., Fang, G. (2008). Connected and

culturally embedded beliefs: Chinese and US teachers talk about how their students

best learn mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 140-153.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

DeLoache, J. S. (2004). Becoming symbol-minded. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,

8, 66-70.

Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

DeLoache, J. S., Kolstad, V., Anderson, K. (1991). Physical similarity and young

children’s understanding of scale models. Child Development, 62, 111-126.

Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

DeLoache, J. S., Peralta de Mendoza, O. A., Anderson, K. N. (1999). Multiple factors

in early symbol use: Instructions, similarity, and age in understanding a symbol-

referent relation. Cognitive Development, 14, 299-312.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Fuson, K. C., Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach

for first- and second-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction.

Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 180-206.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M. (2009, October). Benefits of “concreteness fading” for

children with low knowledge of mathematical equivalence. Poster presented at the

Cognitive Development Society, San Antonio, TX.

Google Scholar

Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Concreteness fading in

mathematics and science instruction: A systematic review. Educational Psychology

Review, 26, 9-25.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Gentner, D., Markman, A. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity.

American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Gick, M., Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive

Psychology, 15, 1-38.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Goswami, U. (1996). Analogical reasoning and cognitive development. In Reese, H.

(Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 26, pp. 91-138). New York,

NY: Academic Press.

Google Scholar | Crossref

Hiebert, J., Wearne, D. (1992). Links between teaching and learning place value with

understanding in first grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 98-

122.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction

does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,

experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Laski, E. V., Reeves, T., Ganley, C., Mitchell, R. (2013). Mathematics teacher

educators’ perceptions and use of cognitive psychology research. Mind, Brain, and

Education, 7, 63-74.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Laski, E. V., Siegler, R. S. (2014). Learning from number board games: You learn what

you encode. Developmental Psychology, 50, 853-864. doi:10.1037/a0034321

Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Liben, L. S., Myers, L. J. (2007). Children’s understanding of maps: What develops? In

Plumert, J., Spencer, J. (Eds.), The emerging spatial mind (pp. 193-218). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar | Crossref

Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool children’s development in classic Montessori,

supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School

Psychology, 50, 379-401.

Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Lillard, A. S., Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science,

313, 1893-1894.

Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Martin, T. (2009). A theory of physically distributed learning: How external

environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child

Development Perspectives, 3, 140-144.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

McNeil, N. M., Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don’t add up: Disentangling the

manipulatives debate. Theory Into Practice, 46, 309-316.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H. (2009). Rethinking the use of concrete materials in

learning: Perspectives from development and education. Child Development

Perspectives, 3, 137-139.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

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 | Crossref | ISI

Montessori, M., Simmonds, F. (1917). The advanced Montessori method: Scientific

pedagogy as applied to the education of children from seven to eleven

years. London, England: W. Heinemann.

Google Scholar

Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to

teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175-197.

Google Scholar | Crossref

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics . (2006). Curriculum focal points for

PreK- Grade 8 Mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics.

Google Scholar

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State

School Officers . (2010). Common Core State Standards for

Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.

Google Scholar
Newcombe, N. S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J., Gomez, L., Klahr, D., Linn, M., . . . Mix, K.

(2009). Psychology’s role in mathematics and science education. American

Psychologist, 64, 538-550.

Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Puchner, L., Taylor, A., O’Donnell, B., Fick, K. (2008). Teacher learning and

mathematics manipulatives: A collective case study about teacher use of

manipulatives in elementary and middle school mathematics lessons. School Science

and Mathematics, 108, 313-325.

Google Scholar | Crossref

Richland, L. E. (2008). Gesturing to promote higher-order thinking: Cross-cultural

differences. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive

Science Society (pp. 893-898). Austin, TX.

Google Scholar

Richland, L. E., Zur, O., Holyoak, K. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogies in the

mathematics classroom. Science, 316, 1128-1129.

Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Siegler, R. S. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics

education. In Kilpatrick, J., Martin, W. B., Schifter, D. E. (Eds.), A research companion

to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 219-233). Reston,

VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Google Scholar

Siegler, R. S., Ramani, G. B. (2009). Playing linear number board games—But not

circular ones—Improves low-income preschoolers’ numerical understanding.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 545-560.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Singer, M. A., Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Children learn when their teacher’s

gestures and speech differ. Psychological Science, 16, 85-89.

Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B., Goldstone, R. L. (2011). Connecting instances to promote

children’s relational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 260-

277.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI

Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 498-505.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Uribe-Flórez, L., Wilkins, J. (2010). Elementary school teachers’ manipulative use.

School Science and Mathematics, 110, 363-371.

Google Scholar | Crossref

Uttal, D., O’Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L., DeLoache, J. (2009). Dual

representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations: I link

therefore I am good at mathematics. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 156-159.

Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI