CE  Vol.6 No.16 , September 2015
Using Manipulatives in Solving and Posing Mathematical Problems
Abstract: In mathematics classrooms, teachers use multiple representations to help students explore and develop abstract concepts. Students are engaged in problem solving as they manipulate objects as they search for a solution. They also can enhance their profound knowledge when posing a scenario problem that matches to the appropriate manipulatives. The integration of manipulatives during teaching and learning can conceptually support students’ acquisition of symbols and mathematical language.
Cite this paper: Rosli, R. , Goldsby, D. and Capraro, M. (2015) Using Manipulatives in Solving and Posing Mathematical Problems. Creative Education, 6, 1718-1725. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.616173.

[1]   Barnett-Clarke, C., Fisher, W., Marks, R., & Ross, S. (2010). Developing Essential Understanding of Rational Number: Grades 3-5. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

[2]   Behr, M. J., Lesh, R., Post, T. R., & Silver, E. A. (1983). Rational-Number Concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of Mathematics Concepts and Processes (pp. 91-126). New York, NY: Academic Press.

[3]   Bruner, J. S. (1973). Organization of Early Skilled Action. Child Development, 44, 1-11.

[4]   Burns, M. (2007). About Teaching Mathematics: A K-8 Resource (3rd ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions.

[5]   Cass, M., Cates, D., Smith, M., & Jackson, C. (2003). Effects of Manipulative Instruction on Solving Area and Perimeter Problems by Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 112-120.

[6]   Clements, D. H. (1999). “Concrete” Manipulatives, Concrete Ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1, 45.

[7]   Cramer, K. A., Post, T. R., & del Mas, R. C. (2002). Initial Fraction Learning by Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Students: A Comparison of the Effects of Using Commercial Curricula with the Effects of Using the Rational Number Project Curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 111-144.

[8]   Cramer, K., & Henry, A. (2002). Using Manipulative Models to Build Number Sense for Addition of Fractions. In B. Litwiller & G. Bright (Eds.), Making Sense of Fractions, Ratios, and Proportions: 2002 Yearbook (pp. 41-48). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

[9]   De George, B., & Santoro, M. A. (2004). Manipulatives: A Hands-On Approach to Math. Principal, 84, 2.

[10]   Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster (Original Work Published in 1938).

[11]   Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D., & Agard, P. (1993). Conceptual Knowledge Falls through the Cracks: Complexities of Learning to Teach Mathematics for Understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 8-40.

[12]   Empson, S. B. (2002). Organizing Diversity in Early Fraction Thinking. In B. Litwiller, & G. Bright (Eds.), Making Sense of Fractions, Ratios and Proportions: 2002 Yearbook (pp. 29-40). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

[13]   Even, R., & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teacher Knowledge and Understanding of Students’ Mathematical Learning. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 219-240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

[14]   Fuson, K. C., Kalchman, M., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Mathematical Understanding: An Introduction. In M. S. Donovan, & J. Bransford (Eds.), How Students Learn Mathematics in the Classroom (pp. 217-256). Washington DC: National Research Council.

[15]   Hatfield, M. M., Edwards, N. T., Bitter, G. G., & Morrow, J. (2003). Mathematics Methods for Elementary and Middle School Teachers (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

[16]   Hunt, A. W., Nipper, K. L., & Nash, L. E. (2011). Virtual vs. Concrete Manipulatives in Mathematics Teacher Education: Is One Type More Effective than the Other? Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 16, 1-6.

[17]   Karshmer, A. I., & Farsi, D. (2008). Manipulatives in the History of Teaching: Fast Forward to Auto Mathic Blocks for the Blind. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler, & A. Karshmer (Eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs (vol. 5105, pp. 915-918). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin: Springer.

[18]   Kelly, C. A. (2006). Using Manipulatives in Mathematical Problem Solving: A Performance Based Analysis. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 3, 184-193.

[19]   Marsh, L. G., & Cooke, N. L. (1996). The Effects of Using Manipulatives in Teaching Math Problem Solving to Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 58-65.

[20]   Mathematics Science and Technology Education University of Illinois (2011). MSTE Online Resource Catalog.

[21]   McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When Theories Don’t Add up: Disentangling the Manipulatives Debate. Theory into Practice, 46, 309-316.

[22]   Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori Method (A. E. George, Trans.). New York: Schocken. (Original Work Published in 1912)

[23]   Moss, J., & Case, R. (1999). Developing Children’s Understanding of the Rational Numbers: A New Model and an Experimental Curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 122-147.

[24]   Moyer, P. (2001). Are We Having Fun Yet? How Teachers Use Manipulatives to Teach Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175-197.

[25]   Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What Are Virtual Manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 372-377.

[26]   Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Westenskow, A. (2011). An Initial Examination of Effect Sizes for Virtual Manipulatives and Other Instructional Treatments. In L. Paditz, & A. Rogerson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project—MEC 21: On Turning Dreams into Reality. Transformations and Paradigm Shifts in Mathematics Education, (Vol. 1, pp. 236-241). Rhodes University, Grahamstown: Oxford University Press.

[27]   Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Westenskow, A. (2013). Effects of Virtual Manipulatives on Student Achievement and Mathematics Learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 4, 35-50.

[28]   Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Salkind, G., & Bolyard, J. J. (2008). Virtual Manipulatives Used by K-8 Teachers for Mathematics Instruction: Considering Mathematical, Cognitive, and Pedagogical Fidelity. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 202-218.

[29]   National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

[30]   National Library of Virtual Manipulatives (2010). Interactive Online Math Lessons.

[31]   Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive Development in Children: Piaget Development and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186.

[32]   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.

[33]   Rosli, R., Capraro, M. M., Goldsby, D., Gonzalez y Gonzalez, E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Capraro, R. M. (2015). Middle Grade Preservice Teachers’ Mathematical Problem Solving and Problem Posing. In F. M. Singer, N. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Mathematical Problem Posing: From Research to Effective Practice (pp. 333-354). New York: Springer.

[34]   Shodor Education Foundation (2011). Interactivate.

[35]   Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.

[36]   Sowder, J. T., Philipp, R. A., Armstrong, B. E., & Schappelle, B. P. (1998). Middle-Grade Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge and Its Relations to Instruction: A Research Monograph. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

[37]   Steen, K., Brooks, D., & Lyon, T. (2006). The Impact of Virtual Manipulatives on First Grade Geometry Instruction and Learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25, 373-391.

[38]   Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., & Heo, H. J. (2005). Examining Technology Uses in the Classroom: Developing Fraction Sense Using Virtual Manipulative Concept Tutorials. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3, 1-20.

[39]   Suzuka, K., Sleep, L., Ball, D. L., Bass, H., Lewis, J. M., & Thames, M. K. (2009). Designing and Using Tasks to Teach Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching. Scholarly Practices and Inquiry in the Preparation of Mathematics Teachers ATME Monograph, 6, 7-23.

[40]   Swan, P., & Marshall, L. (2010). Revisiting Mathematics Manipulative Materials. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15, 13-19.

[41]   Uttal, D. H., O’Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L. L., & DeLoache, J. (2009). Dual Representation and the Linking of Concrete and Symbolic Representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 156-159.

[42]   Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2009). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon/Merill.

[43]   von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in Education. In T. Husen, & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (supplementary vol., pp. 162-163). Oxford: Pergamon.

[44]   Vygotsky, L. (2009). Interaction between Learning and Development. In M. Gauvain, & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the Development of Children (5th ed., pp. 42-48). New York: Worth. (Reprinted from M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds., Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (pp. 71-91). 1978, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.)

[45]   Zuckman, O., Arida, S., & Resnick, M. (2005). Extending Tangible Interfaces for Education: Digital Montessori-Inspired Manipulatives.