Manipulatives in the classroom

Abstract

Statements concerning the efficacy of manipulative materials in facilitating the learning of mathematical ideas abound in current mathematics education literature. Partly in response to such statements, mathematics laboratories, or activity-based curricula that include a heavy reliance on the use of such materials, are becoming more and more prevalent. This belief that manipulative materials do indeed enhance the learning of mathematics has gained much validity from learning theories such as those suggested by Bruner, Dienes, and Piaget. These theories strongly support the idea that children need physical involvement, such as might be provided by hands-on experiences with manipulative materials, in order to add new ideas to their cognitive structure. However, attempts to translate such theories into classroom practice and to empirically measure the results have not provided evidence that the use of such materials by teachers does indeed result in better learning than the use of symbols alone (Suydam and Weaver 1970; Kieren 1971; Fennema 1972). This difference between theory and research findings indicates that manipulative materials are no panacea; the use of materials does not automatically ensure that mathematics learning will follow. However, even without strong empirical support, a strong case can be built for the inclusion of manipulative materials in an elementary school mathematics program.</jats:p