The study reported here examined virtual manipulatives as an instructional treatment in 17 third- and fourth-grade classrooms. Students were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: texts and physical manipulatives (PM), and virtual manipulatives (VM). Results revealed no significant differences in achievement between the treatments. Additional results showed that objective ability predicted fraction achievement; virtual manipulative use can be modulated by test question type (e.g., symbolic vs. pictorial); percentage of class time using representations differed between VM and PM classrooms; and percentage of class time spent using representation types differed, potentially providing differential opportunities to learn.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcaviA., & HadasN. (2000). Computer mediated learning: An example of an approach.International Journal for Computers for Mathematics Learning, 5, 25–45.
2.
BallS. (1988). Computers, concrete materials and teaching fractions.School Science and Mathematics, 88, 470–475.
3.
BallD. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education.American Educator, 16(2), 14–18, 46-47.
4.
BerlinD., & WhiteA. (1986). Computer simulations and the transition from concrete manipulative of objects to abstract thinking in elementary school mathematics.School Science and Mathematics, 86, 468–479.
5.
BrunerJ. S. (1960). The process of education.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BrunerJ. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BurnsB. A., & HammE. M. (2011). A comparison of concrete and virtual manipulative use in third and fourth grade mathematics.School Science and Mathematics, 111(6), 256–261.
8.
CarbonneauK. J., MarleyS. C., & SeligJ. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives.Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.
9.
ClementsD. H., & BattistaM. T. (1989). Learning of geometric concepts in a logo environment.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 450–467.
10.
ClementsD. H., BattistaM. T., & SaramaJ. (2001). Logo and geometry [Monograph].Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10, 1–177.
11.
ClementsD. H., & SaramaJ. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163.
12.
CobbP. (1995). Cultural tools and mathematical learning: A case study.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(4), 362–385.
13.
DienesZ. P. (1969). Building up mathematics.London, UK: Hutchison Education.
14.
Dinardi-BestermanD. (1992). A comparison of two computer-assisted methods for teaching first grade students multidigit addition and subtraction (Master's thesis). San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/452.
15.
DuffyT. M., & CunninghamD. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In JonassenD. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
16.
EricssonK., & SimonH. (1981). Sources of evidence on cognition: A historical overview. In MerluzziT., GlassC., & GenestM. (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 16–51). New York, NY: Guilford.
17.
FusonK. C., & BriarsD. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach for first- and second-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 180–206.
18.
GoldinG. A. (2003). Representation in school mathematics: A unifying research perspective. In KilpatrickJ., MartinW. G., & SchifterD. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 275–285). Reston, VA: NCTM.
19.
HauptmanH. (2010). Enhancement of spatial thinking with Virtual Spaces 1.0.Computers and Education, 54(1), 123–135.
20.
HiebertJ., CarpenterT. P., FennemaE., FusonK. C., WearneD., MurrayH., OlivierA., & HumanP. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
21.
LeshR., & DoerrH. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning and problem solving. In LeshR., & DoerrH. M. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 3–33). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
LinC. (2010). Web-based instruction on pre-service teachers' knowledge of fraction operations.School Science and Mathematics, 110(2), 59–71.
23.
MartinT., & LukongA. (2005, April). Virtual manipulatives: How effective are they and why? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
24.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System. (2011). Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System website. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/.
25.
MacNultyD.R., MechD.L., & SmithD.W. (2007). A proposed ethogram of large-carnivore predatory behavior, exemplified by the wolf.Journal of Mammalogy, 88, 595–605.
26.
MeiraL. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121–142.
27.
MelideoS., & DodsonF. (2009). Directly from pedagogy to practice: Incorporating virtual manipulatives in the elementary mathematics classroom.The Teacher Educator's Journal, 16, 28–35.
28.
MendiburoM., & HasselbringT. (2011, March). Technology's impact on fraction learning: An experimental comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
29.
MorenoR., & MayerR. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics.Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 215–248.
30.
MoyerP. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197.
31.
MoyerP. S., BolyardJ. J., & SpikellM. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives?Teaching Children Mathematics,, 8(6), 372–377.
32.
MoyerP. S., & JonesM. G. (2004). Controlling choice: Teachers, students, and manipulatives in mathematics classrooms.School Science and Mathematics, 104(1), 16–31.
33.
Moyer-PackenhamP. S., JordanK, BakerJ., WestenskowA., RodzonK., AndersonK., & ShumwayJ. (2013, April). Hidden predictors of achievement: The equalizing effect of virtual manipulatives for mathematics instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.
34.
Moyer-PackenhamP. S., SalkindG.W., BolyardJ., & SuhJ. M. (2013). Effective choices and practices: Knowledgeable and experienced teachers' uses of manipulatives to teach mathematics.Online Journal of Education Research, 2(2), 18–33.
35.
Moyer-PackenhamP. S., & SuhJ. M. (2012). Learning mathematics with technology: The influence of virtual manipulatives on different achievement groups.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(1), 39–59.
36.
Moyer-PackenhamP. S., & WestenskowA. (2012, April). Effects of virtual manipulatives on student achievement and mathematics learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards.Washington, DC: Author.
39.
NuteN. E. (1997). The impact of engagement activity and manipulatives presentation on intermediate mathematics achievement, time-on-task, learning efficiency, and attitude. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9807175)
40.
ParhamJ. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of the use of manipulative materials and student achievement in elementary school mathematics.Dissertation Abstracts International, 44A, 96.
41.
PiagetJ. (1952). The child's conception of number.New York, NY: Humanities Press.
42.
PleetL. J. (1991). The effects of computer graphics and Mira on acquisition of transformation geometry concepts and development of mental rotation skills in grade eight. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
43.
PriggeG. R. (1978). The differential effects of the use of manipulative aids on the learning of geometric concepts by elementary school children.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9(5), 361–367.
44.
RaphaelD., & WahlstromM. (1989). The influence of instructional aids on mathematics achievement.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(2), 173–190.
45.
ReimerK., & MoyerP. 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.
46.
SchoenfeldA. H. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance.Cognitive Science, 7, 329–363.
47.
SchoenfeldA., SmithJ., & ArcaviA. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. IV, pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
SmithL. (2006). The impact of virtual and concrete manipulatives on algebraic understanding. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.
49.
SowellE. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498–505.
50.
SteenK., BrooksD., & LyonT. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and learning.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 373–391.
51.
SuhJ. M., & Moyer-PackenhamP. S. (2007). The application of dual coding theory in multi-representational virtual mathematics environments. In WooJ. H., LewH. C., ParkK. S., & SeoD. Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 209–216). Seoul, KR: PME.
52.
SuydamM. N. (1985). Research on instructional materials for mathematics.Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
53.
SuydamM. N., & HigginsJ. L. (1977). Activity-based learning in elementary school mathematics: Recommendations from research.Columbus, OH: ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics & Environmental Education, College of Education, Ohio State University.
54.
TerryM. K. (1995). An investigation of differences in cognition when utilizing math manipulatives and math manipulative software. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9536433).
55.
ThompsonP. W. (1985). A Piagetian approach to transformation geometry via microworlds. Mathematics Teacher, 78, 465-471. Thompson, P. W. (1992). Notations, conventions, and constraints: Contributions to effective uses of concrete materials in elementary mathematics.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 123–147.
56.
Uribe-FlorezL. J., & WilkinsJ. L. M. (2010). Elementary school teachers' manipulative use.School Science and Mathematics, 110(7), 363–371.
57.
Utah Test Item Pool Service. (2011). Utah Test Item Pool Service website. Retrieved from https://www.utips.org/#.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
ZbiekR. M., HeidM. K., BlumeG. W., & DickT. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: The perspective of constructs. In LesterF. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
61.
ZimowskiM.F., MurakiE., MislevyR.J., & BockR.D. (1996). BILOG-MG: Multiple-group IRT analysis and test maintenance for binary items.Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
