Jane Sparrow 20144178

Introduction to Research and Scholarship – Mathematics EDUC4321

Research Paper

2019

‘The issue with concrete materials being restricted to early childhood years and not

being utilised throughout upper primary and into lower high school years’

According to Carbonneau, Zhang and Ardasheva (2018), concrete materials

help create connections between abstract mathematical concepts, allowing students

to make conceptual understanding of linking mathematical ideas. Conceptual

knowledge is the development of understanding mathematical concepts by linking

prior knowledge to new ideas and relationships between different concepts (Agrawal

& Morin, 2016). The concrete representational abstract (CRA) framework is a method

in which students are guided through a mathematical concept using manipulatives and

visual representations to demonstrate the abstract concept (Agrawal & Morin, 2016).

According to Hurrell (2018), concrete materials are objects that can be manipulated

by students in a sense of touch, sight or sound to support their conceptual

understanding of a mathematical concept. Concrete materials can support students’

focus on key ideas and elicit appropriate language and reflective thinking

(McDonough, 2016) however, there is a crucial role for teachers to play in providing

appropriate learning opportunities. Central to this role is for teachers to have clear,

explicit instruction (McDonough, 2016). According to Bouck and Satsangi (2018),

explicit instruction involves teacher modelling, guiding and transitioning students

through the key ideas of the mathematical concept to develop their conceptual

understanding and in turn enable them to develop the skills to solve mathematical

1
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

problems independently. Whilst teacher use of manipulatives must be appropriate to

the learning idea, all students should have access to a range of manipulatives,

structured or unstructured, to support their learning and understanding of key concepts

and ideas, and to make meanings and develop their conceptual understanding of

mathematic processes (Swan and Marshall, 2010). This essay will focus solely on the

concrete phase of the CRA framework, discussing the purpose, benefits and

strategies of concrete materials across the spectrum of schooling in teaching key

mathematic concepts.

Description of the issue

It was clearly evident at the school I attended that concrete materials were

being used consistently to teach key mathematical concepts to students in lower

primary years. However, this was inconsistent when it came to year four onwards.

Whether this was due to lack of time, pressure from the school or fear of student

failure, students were being lumped with workbook after workbook during the course

of term I was there. The problem was not the shortage of concrete materials, but the

philosophy in which students were being taught on; that concrete materials were for

younger years only. At some stage, it could be assumed that, teachers had decided

that from around year four onwards, students were able to perceive abstract thoughts

and ideas and therefore did not need concrete materials to supplement their learning

of key topics; whilst this might be true it was not necessarily correct. In the year four

class I had students ranging from a mental capacity of year 1 to year 5 in mathematical

computations, and whilst I was aware that the use of manipulatives was not going to

be an automatic success, I believed that if the method of the concrete representation

2
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

abstract model was effective in younger years it would still hold value in upper primary;

given that it was properly implemented and exercised.

Review of the literature

Swan and Marshall (2010), noted that students are usually more engaged in

‘hands-on’ learning rather than representational or abstract learning tasks. They

explained that, “young students experience difficulty understanding two-dimensional

representations of three-dimensional objects” (p. 14) limiting student access and

conceptual understanding. Therefore, effectively using concrete materials in

mathematical learning tasks across all year levels is purposeful to; supporting student

conceptual understanding; to alleviating misconceptions and; with explicit instruction

can consolidate learning that is transferrable across key concepts.

According to Hurrell (2018) the use of manipulatives should not be limited to lower

primary or students with learning disabilities as using concrete materials enables

students to form an understanding of key mathematical concepts and skills that can

be transferred across their schooling. Swan and Marshall (2008) suggest that teachers

who may be time poor or under pressure may look at manipulatives as another issue

rather than a solution and turn to textbooks for help. However, Strom (2009) argues

that a “well-chosen manipulative mirrors the concepts being taught and gives the

students objects on which to act” (p. 6). Therefore, used appropriately, manipulatives

3
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

can heighten interest and engage students, support student understanding of key

concepts, reinforce ideas and encourage discussion (Swan and Marshall, 2010). For

manipulatives to be a successful learning tool, opportunities for students to reflect on

their actions and ideas of the concept at hand are imperative (Strom, 2009). The use

of appropriate concrete materials, in conjunction with teacher involvement and explicit

instruction, can help bridge the gap for students between the conceptual and

procedural knowledge of different mathematical concepts and key ideas (Agrawal &

Morin, 2016; Doabler & Fien, 2013). This allows students to transfer key ideas they

have learnt across concepts and year levels, accumulating their understanding of

mathematical topics. Bouck and Satsangi (2018) discuss the necessity of explicit

instruction to ensure the exploration of topics is appropriate and successful when

incorporating concrete materials into lessons. In conjunction with explicit instruction,

concrete materials elicit appropriate language from students and provide engaging

experiences physically and mentally (McDonough, 2016). Hurrell (2018) suggests that

with the use of manipulatives, students are encouraged to identify and discuss

essential concepts of learning, allowing teachers to guide students through key

concepts; ensuring their learning is supported. Discussing the choice of appropriate

materials, McDonough (2016) suggests that manipulatives ought to be paired with

open ended tasks and key questioning to ensure students’ higher order thinking is

challenged, including time for reflection and self/peer-evaluation of mathematical

ideas (Strom, 2009). Therefore, it is imperative for teachers to create contextual and

relevant learning opportunities that include key questioning to encourage students to

discuss their ideas and thinking process (McDonough, 2016). This brief overview of

the literature indicates why teachers should incorporate concrete materials in teaching

key math concepts in lower and upper primary.

4
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

When incorporating concrete materials, it is essential to question how the materials

will help students to learn (Strom, 2009). Strom (2009) suggests that as mathematics

is an abstract concept, it is essential to student success that students are able to

represent these concepts in a physical manner in order for them to make the

connection between the physical and abstract idea. Kalbitzer and Loong (2013)

suggest that in upper primary, many students may have difficulty with the concept of

geometric and spatial understanding, therefore, deeming it crucial to provide a variety

of opportunities to explore the topics language with the use of visual and manipulative

constructs. Flores (2010) proposes that with the use of concrete materials conceptual

understanding is fostered, bridging the gap between the physical and abstract notion

of the mathematical idea (Day & Hurrell, 2017).

Strom (2009) further supports this idea, stating that the use of manipulative materials,

when appropriate to the task, allows students to recognise and make connections to

the “reversibility” of the operation (p. 10). Whilst the use of the concrete materials can

be justified by student involvement, it is vital that students are engaged with the

thinking of the mathematical concept too (Swan & Marshall, 2010). For example, Swan

and Marshall (2010) distinguish the difference between a toy and a mathematical

manipulative material; the latter being it elicits “conscious and unconscious

mathematical thinking” (p. 14). Strom (2009) supports this in arguing that the object

itself is not the important part but the ‘interaction’ that students have with it and the

discussion of key concepts that is stimulated from it is essential to the learning.

Therefore, teachers need to be aware and precise in choosing the concrete material

to support their activity, including the choice of structured materials, for example, MAB

blocks; or unstructured materials like counters (Furner & Worrell, 2017).

5
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

According to McDonough (2016) teachers need to be vigilant when using

manipulatives and may need to intervene when appropriate to alleviate students

forming mathematical misconceptions. For example, they may encourage students to

find a different way when their initial attempt was incorrect or not appropriate i.e.

counting one by one rather than skip counting. Teachers should use questions to

prompt students to explain their thinking and also support this explanation with further

questioning (Agrawal, 2016). Swan and Marshall (2010) argue “to be

effective…simply placing one’s hands on the manipulative materials will not magically

impart mathematical understanding” (p. 19). Therefore, it is essential when using

manipulative materials that teachers are aware of misconceptions that could be

formed if the instruction and material are not appropriate to the task. This is relevant

to all year levels, as concepts are introduced, teachers must be aware that the

mathematical concept being taught may not necessarily be comprehended by

students just because they are using manipulatives (Strom, 2009). Consequently,

Swan and Marshall (2010) recommend teachers become acquainted with the

materials they choose to support their lesson. Day and Hurrell (2017) also propose

that with the use of concrete materials, teachers can use them in an effective way that

demonstrates student thinking and therefore makes apparent any misconceptions

students may have of the topic.

Application to practice

Using manipulatives allow teachers to engage students on a concrete level,

ensuring student participation in learning, and opening the channels in which

communication can flow without fear of failure (Strom, 2009). When introducing

6
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

concrete materials, it is imperative to allow students to have time to free play with the

object and become familiar with it prior to placing any parameters on the material

(Strom, 2009). This allows for students to be comfortable with the construct and also

reduces negative response during learning time (Carbonneau, Zhang & Ardasheva,

2018; Strom, 2009). When incorporating concrete materials, teachers need to be

present and focused on the key ideas of the learning, to do this they need to ensure

they provide students with explicit instruction. According to Doabler and Fien (2013)

“explicit instruction is an evidence-based practice that provides teachers with a

practical and feasible framework for delivering effective and systematic instruction” (p.

277). Agrawal and Morin (2016) discuss how explicit instruction is imperative to the

incorporation of concrete materials in teaching mathematical concepts because it

supports students’ ability to solve mathematical concepts such as word problems and

calculation problems. Bouck and Satsangi (2018) argue that explicit instruction allows

teachers to maintain a focus on the conceptual understanding ensuring students are

guided through the various steps of the problem with the intention of students’ being

able to independently solve mathematical problems. Explicit instruction involves

teachers ensuring their lesson is organised, they have sufficiently modelled and

guided students through the concept and that there are opportunities for independent

practice, including self-reflection and teacher feedback (Agrawal & Morin, 2016).

Examples of explicit instruction may include teacher think-alouds and clear

demonstrations (Doabler & Fien, 2013). Strom (2009) suggests, that in conjunction

with explicit instruction, it is essential to the learning of key mathematical concepts that

teachers choose concrete materials appropriately. Strom (2009) discusses the

importance of focusing on what key concepts the students are to learn when choosing

the concrete material to support that learning. This relates to when choosing structured

7
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

or unstructured materials; structured being tools that have been designed for a specific

purpose and unstructured being everyday objects (Kalbitzer & Loong, 2013). For

example, when discussing length using non-standard measurements, an unstructured

concrete material may include pop-sticks as it is easy to source large quantities of and

can clearly reinforce the concept of measuring objects in a non-standard practice.

However, this does not propose that whenever students are measuring a teacher

provides pop-sticks as they would not always be appropriate to the task (Agrawal &

Morin, 2016). Swan and Marshall (2010) suggest that concrete materials must elicit

engagement and enjoyment from students while providing support for student to grasp

mathematical concepts. According to Furner and Worrell (2017) it is essential to be

considerate of the choice of concrete material to ensure student success in

understanding the concept. Furner and Worrell (2017) suggest that some

mathematical concepts such as money require structured materials such as paper

money rather than using an unstructured manipulative. However, Strom (2009) offers

varying unstructured concrete materials that can be used for different concepts. For

example, Strom (2009) suggests using base-ten blocks or MAB blocks to teach

number and algebra concepts such as place value, addition and subtraction. Vitale,

Black and Swart (2014) questions the appropriateness of manipulative materials,

suggesting whilst they might make the learning accessible in that moment, they do not

necessarily encourage the desired results of learning outcomes. Vitale, Black and

Swart (2014) further argues that with the use of more challenging activities, students’

retention and conceptual understanding of the topic is more likely able to be

transferred to tasks requiring higher order thinking.

Summary

8
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

In conclusion, teachers need to figure out how to support student investigation,

conversation relating to the topic, and reflection about the planned math ideas they

teach. Teachers should welcome student inquiry of concepts and ideas and

encourage students’ self-challenging and challenging others’ mathematical

perspectives. Whilst concrete materials can be an important tool in the classroom,

teachers cannot assume that all students will understand the use and idea of the

manipulative and automatically discover the correct solution. Although manipulatives

may seem challenging and ‘puzzling’, teachers must not overestimate the ability for

students to better understand and solve a concept through the use of physical

manipulation of a problem. Teachers must be present and supportive of student

learning, discussion and reflection during lessons involving concrete materials to

enable students to grasp the concepts between physical and abstract. Simply utilizing

manipulatives independent from anything else without explicit instruction and clear

guidance may not have the desired effect on student outcomes. Today, during a time

of innovation and high-stakes testing, teachers need to utilize the physical tools they

are provided in order to enable students to reach higher order thinking and make deep

connections of mathematic concepts. Once students have a clear understanding of

the concrete phase they may be ready to move onto the representational phase so

that they can make concise connections between abstract mathematical concepts

(Agrawal & Morin, 2016).

9
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

References

Agrawal, J., & Morin, L. L. (2016). Evidence-based practices: Application of concrete

representational abstract framework across math concepts for students with
mathematics disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(1), 34-
44. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12093

Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., & Park, J. (2018). The Concrete–Representational–

Abstract approach for students with learning disabilities: An evidence-based
practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39(4), 211-228.
doi:10.1177/0741932517721712

Carbonneau, K. J., Zhang, X., & Ardasheva, Y. (2018). Preservice educators’

perceptions of manipulatives: The moderating role of mathematics teaching
self‐efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 118(7), 300-309.
doi:10.1111/ssm.12298

Day, L., & Hurrell, D. (2017). The role of manipulatives in the teaching of
fractions.(food for thought: A conversation starter for staff meetings or
PLCs). Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 22(4), 39.

Doabler, C. T., Fien, H. (2013). Explicit mathematics instruction: What teachers can
do for teaching students with mathematics difficulties? Intervention for School
and Clinic, 48, 276–285. doi:10.1177/1053451212473141

Flores, M. M. (2010). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to

teach subtraction with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and
Special Education, 31, 195–207. doi:10.1177/0741932508327467

Furner, J. M., & Worrell, N. L. (2017) The importance of using manipulatives in

teaching math today. Transformations: 3(1), 1-25. Retrieved from
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=transfor
mations/

10
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

Hurrell, D. (2018). I'm proud to be a toy teacher : Using CRA to become an even
more effective teacher. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 23(2), 32-
36.

Kalbitzer, S., & Loong, E. (2013). Teaching 3-D geometry : The multi
representational way.Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 18(3), 23-
28.

McDonough, A. (2016). Good concrete activity is good mental activity. Australian

Primary Mathematics Classroom, 21(1), 3-7.

Strom, J. (2009). Manipulatives in mathematics instruction. Bemidji, Minnesota, USA:

Bemidji State University

Swan, P., & Marshall, L. (2008). Exploring the use of mathematics manipulative
materials: It is what we think it is? (Proceedings of the EDU-COM 2008
International Conference), 338-348. Western Australia. Edit Cowan University.
Retrieved from:
https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=ceducom

Swan, P., & Marshall, L. (2010). Revisiting mathematics manipulative

materials. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 13-19.

Vitale, J. M., Black, J. B., & Swart, M. I. (2014). Applying grounded coordination
challenges to concrete learning materials: A study of number line
estimation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 403-418.
doi:10.1037/a0034098

11