A re-examination of the role of instructional materials in mathematics education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/nomad.v3i3.146182Abstract
Two current phenomena, the prevalence of computer-based learning environments and renewed interest in "hands on" learning as a popular response to recommendations of national curriculum statements such as the NCTM Standards, occasion a revisitation of issues surrounding the use of physical materials. We discuss the efficacy of several manipulative materials in instructional settings, noting both their strengths and their limitations.
Adopting a modeling perspective on the use of instructional materials in mathematics learning, we draw critical distinctions between internal models and external embodiments, and between teacher-intended meanings and the subjective nature of student interpretation. We explore the consequences of a narrow interpretation of active learning and caution against relying on a single manipulative to capture the richness and connectedness of mathematical ideas. As an alternative to asking students to discover mathematical ideas as perceived by adults, we endorse the perspective that materials should be used within a larger pedagogical framework in which students individually and collectively negotiate mathematical meaning. Remaining unanswered questions are posed as an agenda for future research.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia, July 1993. The authors would like to thank Les Steffe for helpful comments on a draft.
References
Armstrong, B. E. (1989). The use of rational number reasoning in area comparison tasks by elementary and junior high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
Baroody, A. (1989). Manipulatives don't come with guarantees. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(2), 4-5. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.37.2.0004
Bayman, P., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Diagnosis of beginning programmers' misconceptions of BASIC programming statements. Communications of the ACM, 26, 519-521. https://doi.org/10.1145/358172.358408
Behr, M.J., Wachsmuth, I., Post, T.R., & Lesh, R. (1984). Order and equivalence of rational numbers: A clinical teaching experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 323-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/748423
Biddlecomb, B. D. (1994). Theory based development of computer microworlds. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8(2), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568549409594858
Biggs, J. (1965). Towards a psychology of educative learning. International Review of Education, 11, 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01421683
Bishop, A., & Goffree, F. (1986). Classroom organisation and dynamics. In B. Christiansen, A.G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 309- 365). Dordrecht: D. Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4504-3_8
Brown, J. S., & Van Lehn, K. (1982). Towards a generative theory of "bugs." In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cogniti- ve perspective (pp. 117-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003046585-9
Brousseau, G., & Otte, M. (1991). The fragility of knowledge. In A. Bishop, S. Mellin-Olsen, & J. van Dormolen (Eds.), Mathematical knowledge: Its growth through teach- ing (pp. 113-136). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029019
Carpenter, T. P., Moser, J. M., & Romberg T. A. (Eds.) (1982). Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carraher, D. W. (1993). Building rational number concepts upon students' prior understanding. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Group for Research on Rational Number Learning, Athens Georgia, January 29-31.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2-33. https://doi.org/10.2307/749161
Davis, G. (1991). A fraction of epistemology. In R. P. Hunting & G. Davis (Eds.), Early fraction learning (pp. 225-236). New York: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3194-3_14
Davis, G. E., Hunting, R. P., & Pearn, C. (1993). Iterates and relations: Elliot and Shannon's fraction schemes. In I. Hirabayashi, N. Nohda, K. Shigematsu, & F. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 3 (pp. 154-161) Tsukuba: The University of Tsukuba.
Davis, G., Hunting, R. P., & Pearn, C. (1993). What might a fraction mean to a child and how would a teacher know? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12(1),63-76.
Ellerbruch, L. W., & Payne, J. N. (1978). A teaching sequence from initial fraction con- cepts through the addition of unlike fractions. In M. N. Suydam & R. E. Reys (Eds.), Developing computational skills (pp. 129-147. Reston VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Fennema, E. H. (1970). A study of the effectiveness of a meaningful concrete and a meaningful symbolic model in learning a selected mathematical principle. A research report presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Minneapolis, MN.
Fischbein, E. (1987). Intuition in science and mathematics. Dortrecht: D. Reidel Publish- ing Company.
Friedman, M. (1978). The manipulative materials strategy: The latest Pied Piper? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9(2), 78-80. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.9.1.0078
Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1991). An instruction-theoretical reflection on the use of manipula- tives. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Realistic mathematics education in primary school: On the occasion of the opening of the Freudenthal Institute. Utrecht: CD-b Press.
Greer, B. (1992). Multiplication and division as models of situations. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 276-295). New York: Macmillan.
Hatano, G. (1982). Learning to add and subtract: A Japanese perspective. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 211-223). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003046585-15
Hiebert, J., & Behr, M. (Eds.) (1988). Number concepts and operations in the middle grades. Reston VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). NY: Macmillan.
Hiebert, J., and Tonnessen, L.H. (1978). Development of the fraction concept in two physical contexts: An exploratory investigation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 374-378. https://doi.org/10.2307/748774
Hunting, R. P., & Korbosky, R. K. (1990). Context and process in fraction learning. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 22(6), 929- 948. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739900210612
Hunting, R. P., & Davis, G. (1991). Dimensions of young children's conceptions of the fraction one half. In R. P. Hunting & G. Davis (Eds.), Early fraction learning (pp. 27- 53). New York: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3194-3_3
Hunting, R. P., Davis, G., & Bigelow, J. C. (1991). Higher order thinking in young children's engagements with a fraction machine. In R. P. Hunting & G. Davis (Eds.), Early fraction learning (pp. 73-90). New York: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3194-3_5
Hunting, R. P., Davis, G., & Pearn, C. A. (in press). A computer-based teaching experiment as a source of potential learning environments for classroom teaching of fractions. In H. Mansfield, N. Pateman, & N. Bednarz (Eds.), Young children and mathe- matics: Classroom context and curriculum. Sydney: Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.
Hunting, R. P., Davis, G., & Pearn, C. A. (in press). Engaging whole number knowledge for rational number learning using a computer-based tool. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education.
Johnson, M. (1985). The body in the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kieren, T. (1976). On the mathematical, cognitive, and instructional foundations of rational numbers. In R. Lesh (Ed.), Number and measurement: Papers from a research workshop (pp. 101-144). Columbus OH: ERIC / SMEAC.
Kieren, T. E. (1971). Manipulative activity in mathematics learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2(3), 228-233. https://doi.org/10.2307/749048
Kieren, T. P. (1992). Bonuses of understanding mathematical understanding. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alberta.
Kieren, T. P., Mason, R., & Pirie, S. (1992). The growth of mathematical understanding in a constructivist environment. Paper presented at the CSSE Meeting Charlottetown P. E. I. June 1992.
Kitcher, P. (1984). The nature of mathematical knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kurland, D. M., & Pea, R. D. (1985). Children's mental models for recursive Logo programs. Journal of Educational computing Research, 2, 235-244. https://doi.org/10.2190/JV9Y-5PD0-MX22-9J4Y
Labinowicz, E. (1985). Learningfrom children. Menlo Park CA: Addison Wesley.
Leinhardt, G., Putnam, R., & Hattrup, R. A. (Eds.), Analysis of arithmetic f or mathematics teaching. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lesh, R., & Lamon, S. J. (1992). Assessments of authentic performance in school mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Mack, N. K. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 16-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/749454
Mack, N. K., (1993). Learning rational numbers with understanding: The case of informal knowledge. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research (pp. 85-106). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Menchinskaya, N. A., & Moro, M. I. (1975). Questions in the methods and psychology of teaching arithmetic in the elementary grades. In J. R. Hooten (Ed.), Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching mathematics, Volume 14. School Mathematics Study Group, Stanford University, and Survey of Recent East European Mathematical Literature, The University of Chicago.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Nelson, L. D. (1964). Analysis of Canadian research on the effectiveness of Cuisenaire materials. In Canadian Council for Research in Education, Canadian experience with Cuisenaire method. Ottawa, CCRE.
Perry, R., & Howard, P. (1994). Manipulatives - constraints on construction? In G. Bell, R. Wright, N. Leeson, & J. Geake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 487-495). Lismore: Southern Cross University.
Polkinghorne, A. R. (1935). Young children and fractions. Childhood Education, 11, 354-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1935.10725374
Pothier, Y., & Sawada, D. (1983). Partitioning: The emergence of rational number ideas in young children. Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 307-317. https://doi.org/10.2307/748675
Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. F. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 41-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sowder, J. (1992). Estimation and number sense. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-389). New York: Macmillan.
Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulatives in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498-505. https://doi.org/10.2307/749423
Steen, L. A. (1990). On the shoulders of giants: New approaches to numeracy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3844-7
Steffe, L. P. (1993). Learning an iterative fraction scheme. Paper presented at the conference of the International Working Group on Rational Number Learning, University of Georgia, Athens Georgia, January 29-31.
Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (1993). Children's mathematical learning in computer micro-worlds. Paper presented at the conference of the International Working Group on Rational Number Learning, University of Georgia, Athens Georgia, January 29-31.
Steffe, L. P., & Tzur, R. Interaction and children's mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8(2), 99-116 https://doi.org/10.1080/02568549409594859
Steffe, L. P., & Wiegel, H. G. (1994). Cognitive play and mathematical learning in computer microworlds. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8(2), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568549409594860
Suydam, M. N., & Higgins, J. L. (1977). Activity-based learning in elementary school mathematics: Recommendations from research. Columbus, OH: ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Thompson, P. W. (1992). Notations, conventions, and constraints: Contributions to ef- fective uses of concrete materials in elementary mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 123-147. https://doi.org/10.2307/749497
Trueblood, C. R. (1967). A comparison of two techniquesfor using visual tactile devices to teach exponents and non-decimal bases in elementary school mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Vance, J. H., & Kieren, T. E. (1971). Laboratory settings in mathematics: What does research say to the teacher? Arithmetic Teacher, 18, 585-589. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.18.8.0585
Wilkinson, J. (1974). A review of research regarding mathematics laboratories. In W. M. Fitzgerald & J. L. Higgins (Eds.), Mathematics laboratories: Implementation, research, and evaluation (pp. 35-60). Columbus, OH: ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Williams, J. D. (1967). The evaluation of newly introduced teaching methods. In J. D. Williams (Ed.), Mathematics reform in the primary school. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
