10th International Conference on Psychology and

Language Research (Thailand)

Avani Resort & Spa, Pattaya, Thailand
June 28 – 29, 2018

The Effectiveness of Using Manipulatives in

Teaching Linear Equation

Maria Heizel S. Agujar

University of the Philippines
New Era University, Quezon City, Philippines
GICICPLR1807063

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to find out if meaningful educational activities and the use of
manipulatives in those activities might have an impact on student achievement. Using manipulative as
cognitive tools should improve the teaching and learning process and encourage student reflection on
retaining information. It has been claimed that the usage of a manipulative not only increases student’s
achievement but also allows them to improve their conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills.

The use of manipulatives can also promote a student to have a positive attitude towards
mathematics. These manipulatives provide a concrete, hands-on experience, which focus attention and
overall increase motivation (Durmas and Karakirik, 2006). The research completed was an experimental
research in Grade 8 Math class. Two classes in lower section were picked to be the samples of this research.
They were required to take the pretest before the lessons were taught. After the lesson, they were also
required to take a posttest.

The research was based on the result of the pretest and posttest given. One of the classes were
taught using a hands-on manipulative tools for teaching linear equations and the other class were taught
using nonmanipulatives method. The use of Manipulatives in teaching linear equations is more effective
than the nonmanipulatives method of teaching. The researcher found out that if students were given the
opportunity to use manipulatives in instruction they will learn and understand basic math skills. In addition,
the use of manipulatives gives the students a better understanding of the mathematical concepts that allows
them to understand the mathematical operations.
1. Introduction
This study on manipulatives use in the eighth-grade classroom attempts to investigate the
questions, “do manipulatives really work?”, “Is there a greater understanding of mathematical
concepts when using manipulatives?”, and “How does the use of manipulatives affect the
process?”

The use of manipulatives in teaching mathematics has a long tradition and solid
research history. Manipulatives not only allow students to construct their own cognitive
models for abstract mathematical ideas and processes, they also provide a common language
with which to communicate these models to the teacher and other students (Delano Moore,
2014 ETA hand2mind). Manipulatives have the additional advantage of engaging students
and increasing both interest in and enjoyment of mathematics. Students who were presented
with the opportunity to use manipulatives report that they are more interested in mathematics.
Long-term interest in mathematics translates to increased mathematical ability (Sutton &
Krueger, 2002).

Manipulatives are defined as "objects that appeal to several senses and that can be touched,
moved about, rearranged, and otherwise handled by children" (Kennedy, 1986, p. 6). These are
one way of making mathematics learning more meaningful to students (Stein & Bovalino, 2001),
as "they are materials designed to represent explicitly and concretely mathematical ideas that are
abstract" (Moyer, 2001, p. 176). The meaning of concrete needs to be further defined to understand
the role of concrete manipulatives and any concrete-to-abstract pedagogical sequence.

The theory of experiential education revolves around the idea that learning is enhanced
when students acquire knowledge through active processes that engage them ( Hartshorn and
Boren, 1990). Manipulatives can be key in providing effective, active, engaging lessons in the
teaching of mathematics. Manipulatives help students learn by allowing them to move from
concrete experiences to abstract reasoning (Heddens, 1986; Reisman,1982; Ross and Kurtz, 1993).
Experts in education post it that this learning takes place in three stages. The use of manipulatives
helps students hone their mathematical thinking skills. According to Stein and Bovalino (2001),
“Manipulatives can be important tools in helping students to think and reason in more meaningful
ways. By giving students concrete ways to compare and operate on quantities, such manipulatives
as pattern blocks, tiles, and cubes can contribute to the development of well-grounded,
interconnected understandings of mathematical ideas.”

Research also indicates that using manipulatives helps improve the environment in math
classrooms. When students work with manipulatives and then are given a chance to reflect on their
experiences, not only is mathematical learning enhanced, math anxiety is greatly reduced (Cain-
Caston, 1996; Heuser, 2000). Exploring manipulatives, especially self-directed exploration,
provides an exciting classroom environment and promotes in students a positive attitude toward
learning (Heuser, 1999; Moch, 2001). Among the benefits several researchers found for using
manipulatives was that they helped make learning fun (Moch, 2001; Smith et. al, 1999).

The use of these materials does not only develop students’ mathematical skills but also
their learning strategies and styles. Also, it can actively involve students in developing and
explaining mathematical concepts by using carefully organized interactive lessons and activities
that may gradually lead the students to deeper understanding of mathematical ideas.

Apparently, several types of research and studies proved that the use of instructional
materials such as modules, workbooks, textbooks, worktexts and learning guides are more
successful in developing the skills and improving the teaching-learning process.

Lastly, as observed personally by the researcher in her 18 years of teaching mathematics

in New Era University both in the high school and in the college levels, she came up with the
solution or remedy that a teaching guide or a prescribed instructional material such as a lesson plan
for grade 8 students using manipulatives is necessary to improve the skills and performance of
these students.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

This is a research study about the effectiveness of using manipulatives in teaching Linear
Equation in Grade 8. This has made it possible to ask the following questions:

1. What are the profile of the respondents in terms of:

a. age
b. gender and
c. grades in math 7
 2. Is there a significant relationship in the demographic profile of the respondents in using
manipulatives?
3. Is there a significant difference in the performance of students in controlled and
experimental group in terms of:
a. pretest
b. posttest
c. pretest and posttest
4. Is the use of manipulatives in teaching linear equations more effective than the non-
manipulatives method of teaching?
5. How can the use of Manipulatives bring about effective learning outcome in teaching
Linear Equation?

2. Methodology

The major aim of this research was to determine the effectiveness of manipulatives in
teaching linear equation in grade 8.

2.1 Research Design

The development of lesson plan using manipulatives in teaching linear equations in grade
8 and test its effectiveness was the main focus of this study.

The study utilized the Descriptive Research and Developmental R&D Cycle methods of
research to establish the development of a proposed lesson plan in grade 8 using manipulatives
teaching approach. The researcher also utilized quasi-experimental method to test the
effectiveness of the evaluated lesson plan. The researcher used the pretest-posttest design, where
the dependent variable is measured once before the treatment is implemented and once after it is
implemented. Experimental research is generally recognized as the most appropriate method for
drawing causal conclusions about instructional interventions, for example, which instructional
method is most effective for which type of student under which conditions.

2.2 Participants
 The respondents of the study who were considered experts in the field consisted of nine (9)
teachers, three (3) from the public school system, three (3) from New Era University Integrated
School and three (3) college professors from New Era University. They served as the evaluators
of the lesson plan used in the teaching of linear equations in grade 8 using manipulatives in the
experimental group.

The samples in this study were from two different sections in Grade 8 of New Era
University Integrated School (NEUIS) during the academic year 2016 – 2017. The samples were
chosen by using the lottery sampling technique. The researcher picked 2 out of 10 hetero sections
in NEUIS. They were thirty-three (33) students in each group and overall there are sixty-six (66)
students. Majority is 14 years of age for both groups and the majority gender is female.

A measure of central tendency was used in the study. With the help of mean, the researcher
determine the gender and age of the respondents. Using this, the data that would be gathered are
efficient for the whole study.

2.3 Instrument

The instruments used were the pretest, posttest, lesson plan on non-manipulative teaching
and evaluated lesson using manipulative teaching approach.

Pretest and Posttest were used as an instrument for measuring the extent of students’
knowledge before and after the treatment. It is composed of 15 items that is focused on linear
equations.

The rating instrument or checklist for the evaluation of the lesson plan were developed on
the writing stage. The following research instruments were used to gather the data needed in this
study.

2.3.1 The Personal Data of the Expert Form. This questionnaire was used to determine the
personal profile of the respondents such as name, gender, years of teaching experience,
years of teaching mathematics, school affiliation, present position, and educational
attainment.
2.3.2 The Rating Instrument of the Lesson Plan. The evaluation checklist was developed
based on the guidance of the experts who validated the rating instrument. This
 instrument is a Likert-type scale divided into four categories consisting of 20 items in
which the scoring ranges from 1 to 5 with 5 as the highest. It aimed to measure the
validity and quality of lesson plan based on Content, Usability, Clarity, and Objectivity.
The lesson plan was designed based primarily on the K to 12 Learning Competencies using
manipulatives teaching approach.

2.4 Stages of Development

Stage I: Planning

 Survey of related literature and existing materials

 Identify the contents of the lesson plan
 Decide on the format and approach

Stage II: Writing

 Formulate directions in using manipulatives teaching

approach
 Prepare a draft of lesson plan

Stage III: Validation

 The lesson plan was based on K to 12 Learning

Competencies
 Revise the materials according to comments and
suggestions

Stage IV: Evaluation

 Evaluate the lesson plan by experts on the field.

 Analyze those evaluative data for possible improvement
 Finalize the lesson plan based on comments.

Stage V: Testing

 Use the evaluated lesson plan using manipulatives in

teaching linear equation in grade 8 and test its
effectiveness.

2.4.1 Stage I: PLANNING Figure 1: Stages of Development

 The researcher gathered information on related literature and studies that served as a guide
in identifying the contents based on the K to 12 Learning Competencies of the lesson plan in grade
8. It was during this stage that the specific format and approach of the lesson plan was decided.

The researcher employed her knowledge in teaching Mathematics and did comprehensive
readings and research with regards to the preparation of the lesson plan that was developed.
Consultations with several experts in the field were also considered.

2.4.2 Stage II: WRITING

Based on the chosen format and approach, the lesson plan was formulated. Drafts of
materials were reviewed the contents to assess the suitability of the language used, clarity of the
directions, and the length of the lessons. The lesson plan is composed of lessons in linear equations
which were based on the K to 12 Learning Competencies in grade 8. The lesson plan was intended
as a supplementary material for grade 8 teachers to aid in their instruction thus, the target users of
the proposed lesson plan were the teachers.

2.4.3 Stage IV: EVALUATION

A rating instrument to evaluate the lesson plan was developed in the Writing stage. The
prepared lesson plan was first presented to three teachers considered as experts from the public
school system, then to three teachers from New Era University Integrated School. The remaining
three are the mathematics professors from New Era University who served as expert evaluators in
the field. Their comments and suggestions were analyzed and were used as basis for revision and
improvement of the prepared lesson plan in grade 8 using manipulatives teaching approach.

The following tables present the data gathered from the evaluation sheets completed by
experts. These represent the experts’ assessment of the quality elements of the lesson plan.

The figures on Table 1 shows the mean ratings given by the experts who content validated
the lesson plan. The respondents rated the content of the lesson plan as highly appropriate because
the overall mean score is 4.47 which is in the Outstanding category. The statement “The lesson
plan is a valuable instructional material.” got the highest with the mean score of 4.75 (Strongly
Agree) and interpreted as Outstanding. It clearly shows that the Usability of the lesson plan is
highly accepted for it is in the Outstanding category with a mean score of 4.45.
 Table 1: Experts Overall Evaluation of the Lesson Plan Using Manipulatives

Category Mean Interpretation

Content 4.47 Outstanding
Usability 4.45 Outstanding
Clarity 4.43 Outstanding
Objectivity 4.52 Outstanding
Overall Mean 4.47 Outstanding

The figures on Table 1 shows the mean ratings given by the experts who content validated
the lesson plan. The respondents rated the content of the lesson plan as highly appropriate because
the overall mean score is 4.47 which is in the Outstanding category. The statement “The lesson
plan is a valuable instructional material.” got the highest with the mean score of 4.75 (Strongly
Agree) and interpreted as Outstanding. It clearly shows that the Usability of the lesson plan is
highly accepted for it is in the Outstanding category with a mean score of 4.45.

Table also shows the summary of means for Clarity as perceived by the experts. Students
develop flexible understanding of when, where, why, and how to use their knowledge and skill to
solve linear equations using manipulatives.

In general, the experts perceived the lesson plan to be properly organized and presented as
evidenced by their overall rating of 4.43 which is interpreted as Outstanding.

Table 1 also summarized the experts rating in terms of the Objectivity of the lesson plan.
However, there were some suggestions given to the content proper of the lesson plan. One of the
evaluators made the following statement “Check the inaccuracies. Cite simpler real life
application of the concepts.” The statements were accepted and highly appreciated. These
comments were used as the basis for revisions and improvements of the objectivity of the lesson
plan.

Generally the overall mean score in terms of objectivity is 4.52 with an interpretation of
Outstanding.

Moreover, the overall mean score of 4.47, interpreted as Outstanding, clearly shows that
the lesson plan using manipulatives is highly commendable and acceptable.
 Table 2: Results of Validation of the Lesson Plan Using Manipulatives
Content Usability Clarity Objectivity Mean
Expert 1 3.75 3.70 3.64 3.61 3.67
Expert 2 4.67 4.93 4.89 4.71 4.80
Expert 3 4.67 4.21 4.33 4.43 4.41
Expert 4 4.81 4.98 4.97 4.86 4.90
Expert 5 4.94 5.00 4.89 4.89 4.93
Expert 6 3.89 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.97
Expert 7 5.00 4.84 4.81 5.00 4.91
Expert 8 4.19 4.34 4.06 4.50 4.27
Expert 9 4.31 4.04 4.28 4.68 4.32
Totals 4.47 4.45 4.43 4.52 4.47
Verbal Interpretation: Outstanding

After the evaluation of the experts, revisions were made for the improvement of the
instructional material, the revisions considered the comments and suggestions made by the
evaluators of the lesson plan using manipulatives for teaching linear equation in grade 8 students.

Finally, lesson plan using manipulatives was revised and improved.

2.4.4 Stage V: TESTING

The researcher chose two groups from grade 8 classes through random selection. One
section with 33 students were assigned as the controlled group and were taught using
nonmanipulatives approach. The other section were assigned as the experimental group consisting
of 33 students and were taught using the manipulative teaching approach. The evaluated lesson
plan were used as a main tool of the research. Before the lesson presentation each group were
given a pretest consisted of 15 items which focused on linear equation. The teaching and learning
process lasted for 5 days with the duration of 60 minutes per day until the students were able to
master the new approach in solving linear equation. At the end of the lesson presentation they were
given a posttest consisted of 15 items to measure their understanding about linear equation and to
test whether there are differences in the performance of the students in pretest and posttest of the
two groups. All the data were gathered and used to determine the effectiveness of using
manipulatives in teaching linear equation in grade 8.

2.5 Research Paradigm

PRETEST

Controlled Group Experimental Group

 Figure 2 shows the flow of presentation in classroom. Before the day of the lesson
presentation, the pretest was given to both groups to see their level of understanding. The lesson
presentation lasted for about 60 minutes which is the usual length of time in a regular class in grade
8 in the NEUIS. After the lesson presentation of both groups, a posttest was given. Hypothesis
testing were conducted to see if there is a significant difference between both tests. Using the test
statistics it would perceive the effectiveness of using manipulatives as a tool in teaching linear
equation in grade 8.
2.6 Statistical Analysis

The study used descriptive and inferential statistics. The results gathered from the
evaluation checklist were tabulated, analyzed and interpreted. Computation of the means of
responses was used to analyze and interpret the data and to evaluate the prepared lesson plan.

The following five-point Likert Scale with boundaries was adapted from the study
conducted by Innosanto (2005), and used as a guide for data interpretation.

Scale value 1 – 5 refers to the score given by the evaluators for how favorable each item in
the evaluation checklist is, while the weighted mean refers to the range of mean scores obtained
from the given scores. The verbal interpretation on the weighted means interval is also included.

The weighted mean of each category in the experts’ evaluation sheet was computed. The
resultant weighted means were given corresponding verbal interpretations to determine the quality
of the lesson plan in each of the categories. The overall weighted mean score was also computed
to determine the overall quality of the proposed lesson plan.

Table 3: The Likert Scale

Scale Value Verbal Reasoning Weighted Mean Verbal Reasoning

5 Strongly Agree 4.20 – 5.00 Outstanding
4 Agree 3.40 – 4.19 Very Satisfactory
3 Barely Agree 2.60 – 3.39 Satisfactory
2 Disagree 1.80 – 2.59 Fair
Needs
1 Strongly Disagree 1.00 – 1.79
Improvement

2.7 Treatment of Data

The researchers used both descriptive and inferential statistics to analyze the result of
respondents’ answer in pretest and posttest.

2.7.1 Ranking

This was used in describing the profile of the respondents. It was also used in the
identification of the students' performance in pretest and posttest.
2.7.2 Percentage

This was employed to analyze answers in pretest and posttest in both non-manipulatives
and using manipulatives teaching.

2.7.3 Mean
It was used to determine the respondents' average score in the pretest and posttest given to
them.

2.7.4 Z-test
It was used in computing the significant difference of the pretest and posttest of the two
groups.

2.7.5 Chi- square Test (𝑿𝟐 )

It was used to test the significant relationship of demographic profile of the respondents
in using manipulatives.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1 What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of gender, age and grade?

Table 4: Gender Of The Students

SCORE PERCENTAGE
MALE 30 45%
FEMALE 36 55%

In table 4, the table of gender classification of each respondent is shown. Out of 66

samples, 55% (36) are female while 45% (30) of the populations are male.

The table 5 shows the distribution of age of the students and its percentage. The range of
their ages is 13 to 15 since they are grade 8 students. Out of 33 samples per group, the
nonmanipulatives (controlled) group has 9% (3) at the age of 13, 64% (21) at the age of 14 and
27% (9) at the age of 15. While in the manipulatives (experimental) group has 3% (1) at the age
of 13, 76% (25) at the age of 14 and 21% (7) at the age of 15.
 Table 5: Age of the Students
Age Non Manipulatives Nonmanipulatives in Manipulative Manipulatives in
Percentage Percentage
13 3 9% 1 3%
14 21 64% 25 76%
15 9 27% 7 21%
Total 33 100% 33 100%

The table 6 shows the distribution of grades of the students and its percentage. The range
of their grade is 82 to 91. Out of 33 samples per group, the nonmanipulatives (controlled) group
has 61% (20) with grades of 82 to 86 and 39% (13) with grades of 87 to 91. While in the
manipulatives (experimental) group has 67% (22) with grades of 82 to 86 and 33% (11) with grades
of 87 to 91.

Table 6: Grade of the Students

Grade Nonmanipulatives Nonmanipulatives Manipulatives Manipulatives in
in Percentage Percentage
82-86 20 61% 22 67%
87-91 13 39% 11 33%
Total 33 100% 33 100%

3.2 Is there a significant relationship in the demographic profile of the respondents in using
manipulatives?

Table 7 illustrates the relationship of demographic profile of the respondents in using

manipulatives. It was shown in the table that the chi-square computed value is 8.3414. The alpha
used is 0.05 and its critical value is 9.49. Since the chi-square computed value is less than the
critical value, therefore, we do not reject the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship
in age, gender, grades of the respondents in using manipulatives. It means that the demographic
profile does not affect in the result of the scores of the respondents.

Table 7: Relationship of Demographic Profile of the

Respondents in Using Manipulatives
Age Gender Grade
 Posttest 13 14 15 Male Female 82-86 87-91 Total
Scores
2-4 0 5 0 3 2 5 0 15
5-7 1 8 2 5 6 9 2 33
8-10 0 12 5 6 11 8 9 51
Total 1 25 7 14 19 22 11 99
𝜶 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟓
𝑪𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 = 𝟗. 𝟒𝟗
𝒙𝟐 = 𝟖. 𝟑𝟒𝟏𝟒

3.3 Is there a significant difference in the performance of the controlled and experimental
group in terms of pretest and posttest?

Table 8: Analysis of Students’ Scores (Pretest and Posttest of Controlled Group)

Population Variance
Pre-test (C) 2.789715335
Post-test (C) 4.628099174
Mean
Pre-test (C) 4.242424242
Post-test (C) 5.090909091
z-Test: Two Sample for Means
Pretest Score Posttest Score
Mean 4.242424242 5.090909091
Known Variance 2.79 4.63
Observations 33 33
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Z -1.789365702
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.03677797
z Critical one-tail 1.644853627
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.073555939
z Critical two-tail 1.959963985

Table 8 illustrates the analysis of students’ scores (pretest and posttest of the controlled
group). It was shown in the table that the z-test result is approximately -1.79. The alpha used is
0.05 and its critical value in two tailed test is approximately positive or negative 1.96. Since the z-
test result is less than the critical value then we accept the null hypothesis that there is no significant
difference between the pretest and posttest of the controlled group and reject the alternative
hypothesis that there is a significant difference between pretest and posttest of the controlled group.
It means that in the controlled group there is no difference between their pretest and posttest
therefore the lesson that has been conducted using nonmanipulatives method in teaching is not
effective.

Table 9: Analysis of Students’ Scores (Pretest and Posttest of Experimental Group)

Population Variance
Pretest (M) 2.870523416
Posttest (M) 3.217630854
Mean
Pretest (M) 4.090909091
Posttest (M) 7.545454545
z-Test: Two Sample for Means
Pretest Score Posttest score
Mean 4.090909091 7.545454545
Known Variance 2.87 3.22
Observations 33 33
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Z -8.041540158
P(Z<=z) one-tail 4.44089E-16
z Critical one-tail 1.644853627
P(Z<=z) two-tail 8.88178E-16
z Critical two-tail 1.959963985

Table 9 illustrates the analysis of students’ scores (pretest and posttest of the
experimental group). It was shown in the table that the z-test result is approximately -8.04. The
alpha used is 0.05 and its critical value in two tailed test is approximately positive or negative 1.96.
Since the z-test result is greater than the critical value, we reject the null hypothesis that there is
no significant difference between the pretest and posttest of the experimental group and accept the
alternative hypothesis that there is a significant difference between pretest and posttest of the
experimental group. It means that in the experimental group there is a difference between their
pretest and posttest therefore the lesson that has been conducted using the manipulative method in
teaching is effective.

Table 10: Analysis of Students’ Scores (Posttest Between the Two Groups)
 Population Variance
Posttest (T) 4.628099174
Posttest (M) 3.217630854
Mean
Posttest (T) 5.090909091
Posttest (M) 7.545454545

z-Test: Two Sample for Means

Posttest Score Posttest score
Mean 5.090909091 7.545454545
Known Variance 4.63 3.22
Observations 33 33
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Z -5.032609355
P(Z<=z) one-tail 2.41924E-07
z Critical one-tail 1.644853627
P(Z<=z) two-tail 4.83848E-07
z Critical two-tail 1.959963985

Table 10 illustrates the analysis of students’ scores (posttest between the two groups). It
was shown in the table that the z-test result is approximately -5.03. The alpha used is 0.05 and its
critical value in two-tailed test is approximately positive or negative 1.96. Since the z-test result is
greater than the critical value, we reject the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference
between the posttest of the two groups and accept the alternative hypothesis that there is a
significant difference between the posttest of the two groups. It means that between the two groups
there is a difference between their posttest therefore the lesson that has been conducted using the
manipulative method in teaching linear equation is more effective rather than the nonmanipulatives
method.
Table 11 illustrates the analysis of students’ scores (pretest and posttest within the
experimental group). It was shown in the table that the z-test result is approximately -8.04. The
alpha used is 0.05 and its critical value in two-tailed test is approximately positive or negative
1.96. Since the z-test result is greater than the critical value, we reject the null hypothesis that there
is no significant difference between the pretest and posttest of the experimental group and accept
the alternative hypothesis that there is a significant difference between pretest and posttest of the
experimental group. It means that the lesson conducted in the experimental group using
manipulatives in teaching is effective due to the difference between the scores from the pretest and
posttest.
Table 11: Analysis of Students’ Scores (Pretest And Posttest Within The Experimental
Group)
Population Variance
Pretest (M) 2.870523416
Posttest (M) 3.217630854
Mean
Pretest (M) 4.090909091
Posttest (M) 7.545454545
z-Test: Two Sample for Means
Pretest Score Posttest score
Mean 4.090909091 7.545454545
Known Variance 2.87 3.22
Observations 33 33
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Z -8.041540158
P(Z<=z) one-tail 4.44089E-16
z Critical one-tail 1.644853627
P(Z<=z) two-tail 8.88178E-16
z Critical two-tail 1.959963985

Table 12 illustrates the analysis of students’ scores (score’s in percentage). The result of
the controlled group in the pretest is 42.42% while in the posttest is 32.73% but in the experimental
group there is an improvement in scores from the pretest is 40.91% has increased to 50.30% in the
post-test.
Table 12: Analysis of Students’ Scores (Scores in Percentage)
Controlled Experimental
Pretest 42.42% 40.91%
Posttest 32.73% 50.30%

In their pretest the percentage of the scores where almost the same while in their posttest
there are a big difference of the scores in which we can conclude that the use of manipulatives
teaching approach is more effective than the nonmanipulatives approach in teaching linear
equations in grade 8.
3.4 Is the use of manipulatives in teaching linear equations more effective than the non-
manipulatives method of teaching?

Table 13: Analysis of Students’ Scores (Posttest Between The Two Groups)
Population Variance
Posttest (T) 4.628099174
Posttest (M) 3.217630854
Mean
Posttest (T) 5.090909091
Posttest (M) 7.545454545
z-Test: Two Sample for Means
Posttest Score Posttest score
Mean 5.090909091 7.545454545
Known Variance 4.63 3.22
Observations 33 33
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Z -5.032609355
P(Z<=z) one-tail 2.41924E-07
z Critical one-tail 1.644853627
P(Z<=z) two-tail 4.83848E-07
z Critical two-tail 1.959963985
Table 13 illustrates the analysis of students’ scores (posttest between the two groups). The
table shows that the p-value of one-tailed test in the table is 2.41924E-07 which is less than 0.05
therefore we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that the use of
manipulatives in teaching linear equations in grade 8 is more effective than the nonmanipulatives.

3.5 How can the use of manipulatives bring about effective learning outcome in teaching
linear equation?

Table 14 shows the teacher’s summarized response on interview about the effectiveness of
using manipulatives in teaching linear equation. It was clearly stated that there are several reasons
on how effective the use of manipulatives in teaching linear equation in grade 8.
Table 14: Teachers’ Summarized Response on Interview About the Effectiveness
of Using Manipulatives in Teaching Linear Equation
“What do you think is the effect of using Manipulatives in
Teacher teaching Linear Equation?”
1 Manipulatives can be a key in providing effective, active, engaging
lessons in the teaching of mathematics especially in Linear
Equation.
2 The effective use of manipulatives is that it can help students to
connect ideas and integrate their knowledge so that they gain a
deep understanding of mathematical concepts.
3 Using manipulatives is the first step to using mental images and
models. When students demonstrate understanding with the concept
at this physical, or concrete level then they is ready to move to the
next level, where they can apply their knowledge using
representations of the objects in place of the variables themselves.
Until they understand the process of solving Linear Equation.
4 The process of teaching with manipulatives brings students through
this process by giving them the opportunity and means to explore
the concepts on a concrete level and progressively to an abstract
level. They also provide students the experiences to connect their
previous knowledge to the new knowledge.
5 With respect to the manipulatives, these tools have the potential to
develop students’ visualization skills by connecting words, pictures,
and symbols simultaneously. This may help students develop a solid
understanding of math concepts.
6 Using manipulatives, students just did not learn but also they had
fun, which has also proven to increase engagement, motivation and
self-confidence.
7 The use of manipulatives helped students to realize and learn by
themselves. They can develop their self-skills, critical thinking
skills, physical skills even social skills.
 8 By using manipulative devices, they discover many ways of solving
problems in Linear Equation, not only by thinking but also by
solving it literally.
9 The understanding of lesson in Linear Equation will retain more
information because the role of the manipulatives is not just to make
Linear Equation easier but also to make it more understandable in a
way they will enjoy and have fun.
10 They will appreciate more topics like Linear Equation by realizing
its value by using manipulatives.

4. Conclusions
The use of Manipulatives in teaching linear equations is more effective than the
nonmanipulatives method of teaching. The researcher found out that if students were given the
opportunity to use manipulatives in instruction they will learn and understand basic math skills. In
addition, the use of manipulatives gives the students a better understanding of the mathematical
concepts that allows them to understand the reversibility of the mathematical operations.

5. Recommendations

In view of the results of the study and conclusions made, the researcher have forwarded,
the following recommendations are drawn:

Students may intensify their skills such as their cohesiveness, personalization,

involvement, individualization, task orientation, competitiveness, and satisfaction through the
suggested solutions to learn better in solving linear equation. The students must interact with the
manipulatives in order to develop an understanding of the math process or concept.

Parents should have a deeper understanding, knowledge and skills of giving due
recognitions to their children’s work well done as to inspire them in improving their skills in using
manipulatives in solving linear equation.

Teachers should give each learner the opportunity for individual exploration with and give
emphasis with the manipulatives. Provide explicit instruction on how to use manipulatives. It is
important for the teacher to work with the manipulatives before instruction to ensure that the
manipulative is appropriate for the concepts being taught. Teaching linear equation should involve
cooperative and with the use of manipulative to make it more interesting and fun.

School administrators should lead the formulation of principles and positive values in
teaching and learning through seminars, conference, and extensive training to enhance students’
skill-comprehension, behavior, and application of a proper way of teaching math using
manipulatives.

Future Researchers should continue to explore the academic benefits of using

manipulatives in mathematics teaching and learning.

Manipulatives are appropriate to use whenever there is a manipulative that represents the
mathematical concept well. The math process or concept portrayed by the manipulative must be
associated with the pencil and paper representation of the math process or concept.

This research also recommends that using manipulatives gives students a better
understanding of basic math skills and seems to hold their interest, boost their memory retention
and help them to enjoy learning. Finally, appropriate courses need to be introduced in the College
of Education for the training of teachers in skills of designing, developing, applying, and giving
emphasis if using manipulatives in teaching linear equations at the basic level of education.
 REFERENCES

Bovalino, J. W., & Stein, M.K. (2001). Manipulatives: One piece of the puzzle.

Burns, (2007). Improving student achievement in mathematics by using manipulatives with

classroom instruction., Research-Informed Answers for Mathematics Education Leaders
The National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics Improving Student Achievement
Series The National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics Improving Student
Achievement Series No. 11/Spring 2013 No. 11/Spring 2013.

Kurtz, R. & Ross R. (1993). Making manipulatives work: a strategy for success.

Maulidia, N., & Surya, E. (2017). The integration of realistic mathematical approach and virtual
manipulative as an enhancement of students’ mathematical representation ability. Vol-3
Issue-2 2017 IJARIIE-ISSN(O)-2395-4396.

Moch, P. L. (2008). Manipulatives Work!. The Educational Forum Publication.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20 Published online: 30 Jan 2008.

Moore, S. D. (2014). Why teach mathematics with manipulatives?. . ETA hand2mind® Research
Summary

Sulistyaningsih, D., & Mawarsari, V. D., et. Al. Manipulatives implementation for supporting
learning of mathematics for prospective teachers. Journal of Physics: Conference
Series, Volume 824, Number 1.

Sutton, J. E. & Krueger, A. (2002). What we know about mathematics teaching and learning.,
washington, DC. ISBN ISBN-1-893476-02-2. Contract R168R950025-00.