Transformations

Volume 3
Article 2
Issue 1 Winter 2017

June 2017

The Importance of Using Manipulatives in

Teaching Math Today
Joseph M. Furner
Florida Atlantic University, [email protected]

Nancy L. Worrell
School District of Palm Beach County, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/transformations

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Science and Mathematics Education
Commons, and the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons

Recommended Citation
Furner, Joseph M. and Worrell, Nancy L. (2017) "The Importance of Using Manipulatives in Teaching Math Today," Transformations:
Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 , Article 2.
Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/transformations/vol3/iss1/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Abraham S. Fischler College of Education at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Transformations by an authorized editor of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 The Importance of Using Manipulatives in Teaching Math Today

By

Joseph M. Furner, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, FL

Nancy L. Worrell, Palm Beach District Schools, West Palm Beach, FL

Abstract

This paper explores the research and use of mathematics manipulatives in the teaching of

mathematics today during an age of technology and standardized testing. It looks at the drawbacks

and cautions educators as they use math manipulatives in their instruction. It also explores some

cognitive concerns as a teacher goes about teaching with math manipulatives. The paper shares

many commonly used math manipulatives used in today’s classrooms and matches them up to

some of the Common Core Math Standards that are taught today in classrooms in the USA and

around the world.

Keywords: Mathematics, Teaching, Manipulatives, Concrete, Standards, Research

 2

Introduction

This article explores the factors that contribute to teacher use of manipulatives in their

instructional math lessons. Math manipulatives are physical objects that are designed to represent

explicitly and concretely mathematical ideas that are abstract (Moyer, 2001). Math manipulatives

have been around for years. The Montessori Schools have long advocated teaching using concrete

objects along with Piaget’s emphasis on teaching from the concrete, to the representational, to

lastly the abstract, in order to help young learners make sense of their mathematics understanding.

George Cuisenaire (1891–1975), a Belgian educator, is famed for his development of the

Cuisenaire Rods used today to help teach fraction concepts along with other math ideas; these were

developed in the 1950’s. Later on, many other math didactics came out of these ideas and lead to

the Cuisenaire Math Manipulative Company. Today, there are many commercially made math

manipulatives that fill the shelves in most school classrooms.

This paper will build upon previous research that investigates how teachers use math

manipulatives in their instructional lessons. Moyer (2004) states that some teachers use

manipulatives in an effort to reform their teaching of mathematics without reflecting on how the

use of representations may change their own mathematics instruction. Baroody (1989) asserts that

Piagetian theory does not state that students must operate on something concrete to construct

meaning, although it does suggest that they should manipulate something familiar and reflect on

these physical or mental actions. The actively engaged thinking is the component imperative to

student learning. Ball (1992) posits that manipulative usage is widely accepted as an effective way

to teach mathematics, although there is little effort given toward helping teachers ensure their

students make the correct connections between the materials and the underlying mathematical

concepts.
 3

Guiding Questions about Using Math Manipulatives

These questions give rise to others, such as: Do grade level curricular differences influence

the use of manipulatives when teaching mathematics? What are the cognitive consequences of

instructional guidance accompanying manipulatives? Is the manipulative used in such a way that

it requires reflection or thought on the part of the student? Is the student making correct

connections between the manipulative and the knowledge it is meant to convey? And, as raised

by Marley and Carbonneau (2014), what is the value added by various instructional factors that

may accompany math manipulatives?

Mathematics Standards

Many new state standards, such as the Florida Math Standards, the Common Core Math

Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), 2010), along with the National Council for

Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2010) call for the usage of representational models as a

significant area of practice in mathematics instruction. Representations can be interpreted in many

ways, such as illustrations, virtual manipulatives, and physical hands-on manipulatives or didactics.

Virtual manipulatives are a computer-based rendition of common mathematics

manipulatives and tools (Dorward, 2002). They have become quite popular, convenient, and

efficient over the past few years and are deserving of a thorough literature review and study on

their own, although they are beyond the scope of this study.

Among the many theorists who provide the foundational basis for using math

manipulatives in instructional lessons are Piaget (1952), who believed children cannot comprehend

abstract math through explanations and lectures only, and that they need experiences with models
 4

and instruments in order to grasp the mathematical concepts being taught. Brunner (1960) believed

that students’ early experiences and interactions with physical objects formed the basis for later

learning at the abstract level. This type of hands-on learning is often referred to as constructivism,

and is the basis for integrating math manipulatives into instructional math lessons. These

foundation researchers provided guidance for the common use of math manipulatives in many

math classrooms today.

Research on Math Manipulatives

Deborah Ball (1992) references a story from her own teaching of a third-grade mathematics

lesson. She explains that she was showing a group of educators a segment from her lesson on odd

and even numbers for her third-grade class. The video segment began with a student, Sean,

proclaiming that he had been thinking about how the number six could be both odd and even

because it was made of “three two’s” and “two three’s.” Sean illustrated both scenarios on the

board for his classmates and teacher to inspect. The other students challenged his conjecture of

six being both an odd and even number and much talk was generated about it. In showing this

video to educators, Ball hoped to generate a lively discussion on various ways this situation could

have been handled, such as clarifying the definition of even and odd numbers or asking for other

student’s opinions. The educators watching the video immediately wanted to know if Ball used

manipulatives or any concrete materials to clarify the meaning of odd and even numbers to Sean.

When she explained that drawings and illustrations were used, the teachers became fiercely

adamant that had Ball used physical counters, she could have more firmly guided her students

toward the correct conclusion. Ball points out that, as a teacher, she does not want to prevent this

sort of “discovery learning” that her students made in allowing them grapple with the ideas behind

the math concepts of odd and even numbers. Ball also states that she is not convinced that allowing
 5

students to use manipulatives would automatically guide them to the correct mathematical

conclusions. She claims that there is a common misconception among educators of a tremendous

faith in the almost magical power of manipulatives to automatically convey the underlying

mathematical knowledge with their mere presence. Ball asserts that it is the context with which

the manipulatives are used that creates meaning, such as talk and interaction between teacher and

students that evolves during the course of instruction. Ball claims that current education reform

implies, in many ways, that manipulatives or physical materials are crucial in improving

mathematics learning. This sentiment is reinforced in a number of ways such as the inclusion of

manipulatives in mathematics curricula from school districts and publishers and the inclusion of

“manipulative kits” to districts and schools that purchase their curriculum materials. The offering

of in-service workshops and professional developments on manipulatives are also popular and

sometimes required by school administration or districts. Ball asserts that there is not enough

examination as to the validation of the appropriate role in helping students learn mathematics using

manipulatives. Little discussion occurs as to possible uses of different types of concrete materials

or possibly illustrations. It is assumed that students will “magically” learn the math concept and

draw the correct conclusion that the teacher intended her students to derive from the activity. Ball

claims that one of the reasons adults over emphasize the power of concrete representations to

convey accurate mathematical skills is because adults are seeing concepts they already understand.

Students who do not already possess this knowledge may not come to the same, correct conclusions

about the underlying mathematical knowledge the manipulative is alleged to convey. Ball suggests

that there is a need to examine the difficult problem of helping students make correct connections

between the manipulative and the knowledge it is meant to convey. She discusses the need for

teachers to develop rules for students as to how to operate with the manipulatives so that they are
 6

more likely to arrive at the correct mathematical conclusions. One such rule is when students are

using base-ten blocks to subtract two-digit numbers with regrouping, they would have to trade in

a ten bar for ten ones, in order to complete the correct regrouping procedure. A teacher could take

that a step further and have the student relate this activity to the subtraction algorithm of regrouping

and structure student talk and interaction that requires reflection, around the subtraction activity.

In Baroody’s (1989) paper titled “Manipulatives Don’t Come with Guarantees,” the author

contends that manipulatives are neither sufficient nor necessary for meaningful learning in

mathematics. He acknowledges that they can be useful tools to students, however he discourages

their “uncritical” use. Unless they are used thoughtfully there is no guarantee for meaningful

learning; thoughtful use is essential in their effectiveness. Thoughtful use can be determined with

questions such as: “Can the knowledge students gain from the use of this manipulative connect to

their existing knowledge or be meaningful to them?” or, “Is the manipulative being used in a way

that requires reflection or thought on the student’s part?” Many times the answer to these questions

is “no”. In examining why manipulatives alone are not enough to guarantee meaningful learning,

we need to discover what would make them enough. In other words, what do teachers need to do

to make the manipulatives effective in conveying the underlying mathematical concept?

A 21-week qualitative pilot study conducted by Golafshani (2013) examined the practices

of four 9th grade applied mathematics teachers concerning their beliefs about the use of

manipulatives in teaching mathematics, its effects on learning and enabling and disabling factors.

The teachers taught various topics to 9th grade students with diverse learning abilities. The teachers

were given support, such as manipulatives, a math literacy tool kit, the opportunity for professional

learning, training and dialogue, and resources to plan for five math lessons with manipulatives.
 7

After each lesson, pre- and post-lesson discussions were provided. In the pre-lesson

discussions, the teachers would describe the lessons, referencing the goals and manipulatives used.

In the post-test discussion, the teacher would reflect on the lesson and discusses any modifications

to the lesson that were needed to achieve greater student learning. A teacher questionnaire and an

observation sheet were developed to collect data pre- and post-lesson data. Data were also

collected through observations of the teacher’s use, availability, and comfort level in utilizing

manipulatives in the classroom. Teachers’ beliefs about the use of manipulatives are important

factors that could contribute to their effective use of manipulatives during instructional lessons.

When comparing pre- and post-test findings of teachers’ views about teaching with

manipulatives, teachers showed more interest in the use of manipulatives in the post-test. This

could have been attributed to the fact that the teachers now had more confidence in their use of

manipulatives during their instructional lessons. Teachers also showed strong agreement

concerning student learning with manipulatives pre- and post-lessons. Some of the disabling

factors teachers identified in the pre-test in the implementation of manipulatives were lack of

confidence and lack of time to practice. These factors were not identified as disabling in the post-

test, which was possibly due to the confidence they gained in the use of manipulatives during the

pilot study. Factors identified as disabling in teaching with manipulatives during the post-test were

lack of time to prepare and lack of knowledge of multiple uses of certain manipulatives. The

identification of these disabling factors by teachers in the post-test might be due to the training

which made them knowledgeable enough on the topic to realize the time it takes to prepare for a

lesson with manipulatives, and that there may be other uses with the same manipulative. Teachers

identified “difficulty with classroom management” both pre- and post-test, which could show a

need for training or support in this area.

 8

The diagram below shows that at the core of all disabling and enabling factors within the

Golafshani study, existed the need for teacher training. The most significant relationship to teacher

training is administrative support. Without administrative support, the training of teachers would

which made them knowledgeable enough on the topic to realize the time it takes to prepare for a

lesson with manipulatives, and that there may be other uses with the same manipulative. Teachers

identified “difficulty with classroom management” both pre- and post-test, which could show a

need for training or support in this area.

The diagram below shows that at the core of all disabling and enabling factors within the

Golafshani study, existed the need for teacher training. The most significant relationship to teacher

training is administrative support. Without administrative support, the training of teachers would

which made them knowledgeable enough on the topic to realize the time it takes to prepare for a

lesson with manipulatives, and that there may be other uses with the same manipulative. Teachers

identified “difficulty with classroom management” both pre- and post-test, which could show a

need for training or support in this area.

The diagram below shows that at the core of all disabling and enabling factors within the

Golafshani study, existed the need for teacher training. The most significant relationship to teacher

training is administrative support. Without administrative support, the training of teachers would

which made them knowledgeable enough on the topic to realize the time it takes to prepare for a

lesson with manipulatives, and that there may be other uses with the same manipulative. Teachers

identified “difficulty with classroom management” both pre- and post-test, which could show a

need for training or support in this area.

The diagram below (See Figure 1) shows that at the core of all disabling and enabling

factors within the Golafshani study, existed the need for teacher training. The most significant
 9

relationship to teacher training is administrative support. Without administrative support, the

training of teachers would be hindered (Golafshani, 2013). Enabling factors were classroom, time

and space management

factors teachers identified in both the pre-and post-test along with the availability of manipulatives,

support from administration, and training on how and when to use manipulatives. Studies show

that there is a strong association between teachers’ knowledge and teachers’ confidence, especially

for those who are committed to constructivist teaching (Ross-Hogaaboam-Gray & Hannay, 1999),
 10

which proved to be true in this particular study. It can be concluded from this study that teachers’

beliefs can be influenced by a number of variables including training and administrative support.

A year-long study conducted by Moyer and Jones (2004) looked at how teachers used

manipulatives in their classroom and students’ usage of manipulatives in relationship to their

teacher’s instruction. It specifically examined how students reacted to “free access,” or choice of

how and when to use manipulatives. It included 10 middle grades math teachers who had

participated in a 2-week summer institute, examining various methods of representations for

teaching mathematics with conceptual understanding. The teachers were grouped into control or

autonomy oriented groups, according to their classroom management styles. The study was

implemented in three phases: pre-assessment, phase one, and phase two. In the pre-assessment

phase, teachers were interviewed to identify background information, uses of math manipulatives,

and instructional practices. In phase one, the teachers used manipulatives for their mathematics

instructional lessons. In phase two, the teachers provided students with “free access” to

manipulatives, located in containers on students’ desks.

There was a significant difference between control-oriented and autonomy-oriented

teachers following their summer training institute. Control-oriented teachers initially exerted more

control over their students in phase one and then less control over their students in phase two. In

comparison, the autonomy-oriented teachers exerted less control over their students in phase one

as well as less control over their students in phase two. When allowed, students were found to use

manipulatives appropriately and selectively for mathematics tasks and as a way to self-review

previously taught material during the “free access” phase.

Some teachers in this study used control strategies to undermine student choice and

discourage students “free access” to manipulatives. This inhibits the alignment of student and
 11

teacher thinking. This may be more comfortable to teachers who are not confident in their teaching

abilities or usage of manipulatives and who do not want students challenging their ways of problem

solving. This limits students’ thinking to the teacher’s line of thinking and discourages students

from challenging the teacher’s methods.

Teachers’ beliefs about manipulative usage and comfort level with them play an important

role in student access and manipulative usage in instructional lessons. Teachers limited student

access by displaying lists on containers, assigning manipulative monitors, and using them as a

reward/punishment tool. A limitation of this study was the teachers in the study were selected

from a group of teachers attending a math summer institute workshop. They were not selected

from a general pool of math educators, so it could be concluded that these teachers were more

interested in student learning than the average teacher.

Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2010) examined 503 in-service elementary teachers’

background characteristics, beliefs about manipulatives, and the frequency with which they used

manipulatives as part of their instruction. The teachers were part of a professional development

experience in which they were asked to complete a survey related to their beliefs, attitudes, and

instructional practices associated with mathematics teaching.

Results showed that teachers thought manipulative usage was more important at the lower

elementary grade levels than the higher elementary grade levels. This demonstrates the belief of

teachers in this study, which is that a grade 3-5 teacher tends not to believe in the importance of

having children participate in hand-on activities, contrasted with a Kindergarten teacher’s belief

that it is important for children to participate in hands-on activities.

Using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to investigate possible differences in

teacher’s manipulative use by grade level, researchers uncovered a significant difference in

 12

teachers’ use of manipulative use by grade-level groupings. Kindergarten teachers were found to

use manipulatives most often. The next most frequent manipulative usage came from first and

second grade teachers. Third through fifth grade teachers used manipulatives least often. The

teachers’ age and experience teaching were related to manipulative usage when they were

considered alone, although after controlling for teacher grade and beliefs, they were no longer

statistically significant predictors of manipulative usage. This manipulative usage showed that

teachers’ beliefs play an important role in manipulative usage and is consistent with previous

findings by Gilbert and Bush (1988) showing less use of manipulatives by teachers in higher grades

than lower grades levels, at the elementary level.

Another study by Moyer (2001) was conducted over the course of one academic year in

2001, which looked at how teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. The 10 teachers

involved in this study were selected from a group of 18 middle grades teachers enrolled in a

summer math institute, where they received instruction in the use of manipulatives. The

researchers used interviews and observations over the year to discover how and why teachers used

manipulatives the way they do. During the interview portion of the study, teachers conveyed

different beliefs for using manipulatives in their classrooms such as: change of pace, a reward or

privilege, a visual model for introducing concepts, providing reinforcement or enrichment, and “a

way to make it more fun.” Teachers seemed to distinguish between “real math” and “fun math.”

“Real math” referred to lessons where they taught rules, procedures, and algorithms to their

students through textbooks and “fun math” was used when teachers described parts of their lesson

where students were utilizing manipulatives.

Teachers seemed to be conveying that manipulatives were fun, but not necessary for

teaching and learning mathematics. They seemed to distinguish manipulative use from their
 13

“regular mathematics teaching.” During classroom observations one teacher was observed telling

a student, who had requested to use manipulatives to solve a problem, to solve it first

mathematically, without the use of manipulatives. Numerous other comments were made by

teachers indicating their dissatisfaction with the use of math manipulatives. Looking at the amount

of time spent with manipulatives during daily math lessons that were observed provided a range

from no use of manipulatives to 31 minutes of use. In the 40 lessons observed, students used

manipulatives 7.38 minutes for every 57.5 minutes of math class time. Math manipulative usage

accounted for approximately 13% of the math time.

Themes about Manipulative Usage

The overwhelmingly common theme in the research on Teacher’s Usage of Math

Manipulatives is the impact of teacher’s beliefs on their teaching practices. This is the deciding

factor in many instructional decisions made by teachers on a daily basis. Teachers’ beliefs were

evident when they showed a more positive attitude toward using manipulatives in their

instructional lessons after training. Teacher training and support tends to foster a more positive

attitude toward the use of manipulatives. This is an encouraging sign because it shows that

teachers’ beliefs are not so rigid and can be influenced.

Teachers who believe manipulatives are just used for change of pace, reward or privilege,

or fun are not going to genuinely incorporate manipulatives and the concepts they were meant to

convey into their instructional lessons. They are also sending a message to their students that

manipulatives are similar to toys and are just meant for fun. The entire mathematical concept that

the manipulative was meant to convey would be lost on these students.

Teachers’ beliefs were evident when they restricted students from “free access” to the

manipulatives by way of displaying lists on containers, assigning manipulative monitors, and using
 14

them as a reward/punishment tools. Teachers may feel threatened by this new learning

environment. They would no longer be the “all-knowledgeable” person that students look to for

the correct answer. Students may even discover new ways of solving math problems that challenge

the teacher’s way of thinking. Teachers may not be comfortable with this new role and type of

flexible thinking.

According Uribe-Flórez and Wilkins (2010), understanding the relationship between

teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and teaching practices has been the focus of many studies. A

study by Wilkins (2008) of 481 elementary teachers found that teachers’ beliefs were the most

significant forecaster of teaching practices among other factors considered, such as content

knowledge and attitudes. Research that distinctly looks at teachers’ beliefs in conjunction with

manipulative use has proved to be inconclusive according to Moyer (2001), and others.

Many of these studies charge that teachers’ beliefs are paramount to the effective use of

manipulatives in the classroom, and that administrative support, trainings, and other factors can

influence their beliefs. Even though these factors are imperative to effective manipulative use by

teachers, I believe there is another, even more powerful factor that influences teachers’ effective

use of manipulatives in instructional lessons. That factor is cognitive guidance.

Cognitive guidance occurs when teachers elicit and guide students’ mathematical thinking

to help them make connections to existing knowledge, in order to encourage deep conceptual

understanding. This is similar to instructional guidance, which is one of the most commonly

examined factors in educational research. However, instructional guidance pertaining specifically

to manipulatives has limited available research.

The effectiveness of instructional guidance is contradictory (Kuhn, 2007). However, a

recent meta-analysis by Alfieri et al. (2011) found that unassisted discovery does not benefit
 15

learners, whereas high guidance and elicited explanations do. Marley and Carbonneau (2014)

assert that rather than determining if instruction with manipulatives is more effective than

conventional instruction, more effort should be made to examine the value added by various

instructional factors that may accompany instruction with manipulatives.

All of this aligns with Ball (1992), who stated that there is not enough examination as to

the validation of the appropriate role in helping students learn mathematics using manipulatives.

It would likely be more helpful to teachers if more professional development opportunities were

made available that specifically focused on teachers learning to help students make the important

connections between the mathematics manipulatives and the underlying mathematics concepts

they are investigating and how they can be used within instruction. Marilyn Burns (n.d.) has been

an advocate for math manipulatives now for over 30 years. This lead to her company Math

Solutions which provides resources and training on using math manipulatives to educators around

the world. Her role today in the math manipulative movement has been far reaching and she

provides videos and demos of the most common manipulatives used today through demonstration

of using the manipulative to teach most math concepts teachers need to cover in today’s math

classrooms.

Common Mathematics Manipulatives and Their Uses

It is important that today’s math teachers use math manipulatives to make math concepts

concrete rather than abstract. Teachers can obtain commercial-made manipulatives, make their

own, or help the students make their own. Examples of manipulatives are paper money, buttons,

blocks, Cuisenaire rods, tangrams, geoboards, pattern blocks, algebra tiles, and base-ten blocks.

The use of manipulatives (See Figure 2 and Table 1 for examples) provides teachers with a great

potential to use their creativity to do further work on the math concepts instead of merely relying
 16

on worksheets. Consequently, students learn math in an enjoyable way, making connections

between the concrete and the abstract. Piaget and Montessori philosophies are still alive and well

received in today’s math classroom. The CRA (Concrete-Representational-Abstract) Model for

teaching mathematics is the main approach for teaching most math concepts for K-8 learners.

When teaching mathematics, teachers always need to start with concrete manipulative materials to

first teach for understanding, then transfer to representational models like pictures or diagrams,

leading and bridging learning to the abstract level of understanding of symbols and operation signs

so that students eventually do not need the manipulatives to do the mathematics.

Figure 2: Common Math Manipulatives in US Schools

To understand the concept of money, teachers can have students “buy” items tagged for sale

in the classroom. Students are given an opportunity to describe purchases they or an adult have
 17

made. Students select the proper combinations of coins to purchase the item. As each student

participates, the class helps by showing the coins on the overhead. By handling the coins, students

can correct mistakes and verify counting amounts of money.

Many studies over the years have demonstrated the benefits of using multiple modalities.

English Language Learners (ELL) students, however, are disadvantaged in the one modality

teachers seem to use the most: auditory. Claire and Haynes (1994) stated,

Of the three learning modes—auditory, visual, and kinesthetic—ESOL students will be

weakest in auditory learning. It is unrealistic to expect them to listen to incomprehensible

language for more than a few minutes before tuning out. But if you provide illustrations,

dramatic gestures, actions, emotions, voice variety, blackboard sketches, photos,

demonstrations, or hands-on materials, that same newcomer can direct his or her attention

continuously. (p. 22)

Manipulatives are powerful tools and can be used to teach many of the new Common Core

State Standards (CCSS) in Mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices

(NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), 2010), as the following

chart shows:

Manipulative Common Core Math Image of Manipulative

Standard Covered

CCSS.Math.Content.3.MD.C.5
Geoboards
Recognize area as an attribute of plane
figures and understand concepts of area
measurement.
 18

CCSS.Math.Content.K.G.A.3
Pattern
Blocks Identify shapes as two-dimensional (lying in
a plane, “flat”) or three-dimensional
(“solid”).

CCSS.Math.Content.1.G.A.1
Tangrams
Distinguish between defining attributes (e.g.,
triangles are closed and three-sided) versus
non-defining attributes (e.g., color,
orientation, overall size); build and draw
shapes to possess defining attributes.

CCSS.Math.Content.2.G.A.2
Color
Tiles Partition a rectangle into rows and columns
of same-size squares and count to find the
total number of them.

CCSS.Math.Content.5.MD.C.3
Unifix/Snap
Cubes Recognize volume as an attribute of solid
figures and understand concepts of volume
measurement.

CCSS.Math.Content.5.MD.C.3a

A cube with side length 1 unit, called a “unit

cube,” is said to have “one cubic unit” of
volume, and can be used to measure volume.

CCSS.Math.Content.5.MD.C.3b

A solid figure which can be packed without

gaps or overlaps using n unit cubes is said to
have a volume of n cubic units.
CCSS.Math.Content.4.G.A.1
Triman
Compass Draw points, lines, line segments, rays,
angles (right, acute, obtuse), and
perpendicular and parallel lines. Identify
these in two-dimensional figures.
 19

CCSS.Math.Content.7.RP.A.1
Cuisenaire
Rods Compute unit rates associated with ratios of
fractions, including ratios of lengths, areas
and other quantities measured in like or
different units. For example, if a person
walks ½ mile in each ¼ hour, compute the
unit rate as the complex fraction ½/1/4 miles
per hour, equivalently 2 miles per hour.
CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.B.2
Base-10 Understand that the two digits of a two-digit
Blocks number represent amounts of tens and ones.
Understand the following as special cases:

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.B.2a

10 can be thought of as a bundle of ten ones

— called a “ten.”

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.B.2b

The numbers from 11 to 19 are composed of

a ten and one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight, or nine ones.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.B.2c

The numbers 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80,
90 refer to one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, eight, or nine tens (and 0 ones).
CCSS.Math.Content.K.CC.A.3
Number
Tiles Write numbers from 0 to 20. Represent a
number of objects with a written numeral 0-
20 (with 0 representing a count of no
objects).
 20

CCSS.Math.Content.8.EE.A.4
TI Explorer
Plus Calc. Perform operations with numbers expressed
in scientific notation, including problems
where both decimal and scientific notation
are used. Use scientific notation and choose
units of appropriate size for measurements of
very large or very small quantities (e.g., use
millimeters per year for seafloor spreading).
Interpret scientific notation that has been
generated by technology.
CCSS.Math.Content.6.NS.C.5
Two-sided
Counters Understand that positive and negative
numbers are used together to describe
quantities having opposite directions or
values (e.g., temperature above/below zero,
elevation above/below sea level,
credits/debits, positive/negative electric
charge); use positive and negative numbers
to represent quantities in real-world contexts,
explaining the meaning of 0 in each
situation.
CCSS.Math.Content.1.MD.B.3
Judy Clock
Tell and write time in hours and half-hours
using analog and digital clocks.

CCSS.Math.Content.1.NBT.C.4
Abacus
Add within 100, including adding a two-digit
number and a one-digit number, and adding a
two-digit number and a multiple of 10, using
concrete models or drawings and strategies
based on place value, properties of
operations, and/or the relationship between
addition and subtraction; relate the strategy
to a written method and explain the
reasoning used. Understand that in adding
two-digit numbers, one adds tens and tens,
ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary
to compose a ten.
CCSS.Math.Content.6.EE.A.4
 21

Scale/
Balance Identify when two expressions are equivalent
(i.e., when the two expressions name the
same number regardless of which value is
substituted into them). For example, the
expressions y + y + y and 3y are equivalent
because they name the same number
regardless of which number y stands for.

Table 1: Chart of Math Manipulatives with CCSS in Math and Image

Summary

Teachers need to learn how to encourage student exploration, related discussion, and

reflection about the prospective math concept they teach. They need to be comfortable with

students’ exploration of the math concepts and possibly wandering off the “correct” track or even

challenging the teachers’ own mathematical viewpoint. Teachers cannot assume that when

students use manipulatives they will automatically draw the correct conclusions from them. Adults

may overestimate the power of manipulatives because they already understand the underlying

math concepts that are being conveyed by the math manipulatives. Teachers need to keep in mind

that the student does not already possess this knowledge and still needs to make the correct

connections between the manipulative and the underlying math concept. While math

manipulatives are a valuable tool in the instruction of mathematics, teachers need to bridge the

manipulatives to the representational and then abstract understanding in mathematics so that

students internalize their understanding. Just using manipulatives by themselves without this may

not have great value. Today, in an age of technology and high-stakes testing, teachers need to use

and bridge the gap for students in using math manipulatives. This then can be connected to

representational and abstract ideas in mathematics to help students deeply understand the math

they are learning and needing to apply to our everyday life.

 22

References

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based

instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.

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), p14-

18,46-47.

Baroody, A. J. (1989). Manipulatives Don't Come with Guarantees. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(2), 4-

5.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). On learning mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 53(8), 610-619.

Burns, M. (n.d.). How to make the most of manipulatives. Found August 28, 2016 at:

http://teacher.scholastic.com/lessonrepro/lessonplans/instructor/burns.htm?nt_id=4&url=

http://store.scholastic.com/Books/Hardcovers/Harry-Potter-and-the-Chamber-of-Secrets-

The-Illustrated-Edition-Book-2?eml=SSO/aff/20160429/21181/banner/EE/affiliate/////2-

247765/&affiliate_id=21181&click_id=1707726852.

Claire, E. & Haynes J. (1994). Classroom teacher’s ESL survival kit #1. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Alemany Press.

Dorward, J. (2002). Intuition and research: Are they compatible? Teaching Children

Mathematics, 8(6), 329-332.

Downey United School District: http://www.dusd.net/cgi/

Gilbert, R., & Bush, W. (1988). Familiarity, availability, and the use of manipulative devices in

mathematics at the primary level. School Science and Mathematics, 94(6), 459 – 469.
 23

Golafshani, N. (2013). Teachers’ beliefs and teaching mathematics with manipulatives. Canadian

Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 36(3), 137-159.

Kamii, C., Kirkland, L., & Lewis, B. A. (2001). Representation and abstraction in young

children’s numerical reasoning. The roles of representation in school mathematics, 2001,

24-34.

Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational psychologist,

42(2), 109-113.

Marley, S. C., & Carbonneau, K. J. (2014). Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence

relevant to classroom instruction with manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review,

26(1), 1-7.

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

mathematics. Educational Studies in mathematics, 47(2), 175-197.

Moyer, P. S., & Jones, M. G. (2004). Controlling choice: Teachers, students, and manipulatives

in mathematics classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 104(1), 16-31.

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(3),

202-218.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2010). Principles and Standards of School

Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-

and-Standards/Principles,-Standards,-and-Expectations/

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of

Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2010). Common core state standards initiative.
 24

Washington, DC. Authors. The Common Core State Standards may be accessed and/or

retrieved on November 14, 2010 from http://www.corestandards.org.

Ojose, B. (2008). Applying Piaget's theory of cognitive development to mathematics instruction.

The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 26-30.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities

Press.

Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (1999). Predictors of teachers' confidence in their

ability to implement computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 21(1), 75-97. doi:10.2190/CGXF-YYJE-47KQ-MFA1

Uribe‐Flórez, L. J., & Wilkins, J. L. (2010). Elementary school teachers' manipulative use.

School Science and Mathematics, 110(7), 363-371.

Wilkins, J. L. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes,

beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(2), 139-164.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Joseph M. Furner, Ph.D., is Professor of Mathematics Education in the

Department of Teaching and Learning in the College of Education at
Florida Atlantic University in Jupiter, Florida. His research interests are
related to math anxiety, the implementation of the NCTM and the Common
Core State Mathematics Standards, TESOL issues as they relate to math
instruction, the use of technology in mathematics instruction, the use of
math manipulatives, and children's literature in the teaching of mathematics.
Dr. Furner is the author of 70+ publications and the author of the book,
Living Well: Caring Enough to Do What’s Right. He has worked as an
educator in New York, Florida, Mexico, and Colombia. He can be reached
by e-mail at: [email protected]
 25

Nancy L. Worrell, has had a long tenure of experience in mathematics

instruction at many levels including 9 years as a middle school mathematics
teacher, 8 years as an elementary mathematics coach, and 2 years as an
instructor in higher education teaching elementary math methods courses.
Nancy holds a MA degree in Curriculum and Instruction with a
specialization in mathematics from Florida Atlantic University (FAU). She
is currently employed by the School District of Palm Beach County as a
Math Coach on leave where she is pursuing her dreams of getting her
doctorate in Mathematics Education. Her research interests are related to
mathematics education and instruction, teacher education, and the use of
mathematics manipulatives. She can be reached by email at:
[email protected]