Downloading... If your download does not start automatically, click here to download the full text article.
You are here:

Virtual Manipulatives Used by K-8 Teachers for Mathematics Instruction: The Influence of Mathematical, Cognitive, and Pedagogical Fidelity
Article

, Utah State University, United States ; , George Mason University, United States ; , West Virginia University, United States

  • Full Text
  • Citation
  • Save to Collections
  • E-mail
  • Share
  • OpenURL

    • CITE Journal Volume 8, Number 3, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

    Abstract

    This study examined teachers' uses of virtual manipulatives across grades K-8 after participating in a professional development institute in which manipulatives and technology were the major resources used throughout all of the activities. Researchers analyzed 95 lesson summaries in which classroom teachers described their uses of virtual manipulatives during school mathematics instruction. The findings indicated that the content in a majority of the lessons focused on two National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000a) standards: Number & Operations and Geometry. Virtual geoboards, pattern blocks, base-10 blocks, and tangrams were the applets used most often by teachers. The ways teachers used the virtual manipulatives most frequently focused on investigation and skill solidification. It was common for teachers to use the virtual manipulatives alone or to use physical manipulatives first, followed by virtual manipulatives. One important finding of this study was that teachers used the virtual manipulatives during the main portion of their lessons when students were learning mathematics content. These results represent an initial exploration of teachers' current use of virtual manipulatives in K-8 classrooms.

    Citation

    Moyer, P.S., Salkind, G. & Bolyard, J.J. (2008). Virtual Manipulatives Used by K-8 Teachers for Mathematics Instruction: The Influence of Mathematical, Cognitive, and Pedagogical Fidelity. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 202-218. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 19, 2019 from .

    © 2008 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

    Keywords

    View References & Citations Map

    References

    1. Bolyard, J.J. (2006). A comparison of the impact of two virtual manipulatives on student achievement and conceptual understanding of integer addition and subtraction. (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(11), 3960A.
    2. Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-210.
    3. Dorward, J. (2002). Intuition and research: Are they compatible? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 329-332.
    4. Drickey, N.A. (2000). A comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives in teaching visualization and spatial reasoning to middle school mathematics students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(02), 499A.
    5. Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3)
    6. Goldin, G.A. (2003). Representation in school mathematics: A unifying research perspective. In J. Kilpatrick, W.G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 275-285). Reston, VA: National
    7. Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121142.
    8. Moyer, P.S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175-197.
    9. Moyer, P.S., Bolyard, J., & Spikell, M.A. (2001). Virtual manipulatives in the K-12 classroom. In A. Rogerson (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on New Ideas in Mathematics Education (pp. 184-187). Palm Cove, Australia:
    10. Moyer, P.S., Bolyard, J.J., & Spikell, M.A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372-377.
    11. Moyer, P.S., & Niezgoda, D. (2003). Young children’s use of virtual manipulatives to explore patterns. In T. Triandafillidis & K. Hatzikiriakou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (pp. 158-163). Volos,
    12. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P.S. (2005). Third graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25.
    13. Rieber, L.P. (1994) Computers, graphics and learning. Madison, WI: WCB Brown& Benchmark.
    14. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
    15. Suh, J.M. (2005). Third graders' mathematics achievement and representation
    16. Suh, J.M., Moyer, P.S., & Heo, H.-J. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1-22.
    17. Takahashi, A. (2002). Affordances of computer-based and physical geoboards in problem-solving activities in the middle grades. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(11), 3888A.
    18. Terry, M.K. (1995). An investigation of differences in cognition when utilizing math manipulatives and math manipulative software. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(07), 2650A.
    19. Zbiek, R.M., Heid, M.K., Blume, G.W., & Dick, T.P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: The perspective of constructs. In F. Lester (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 1169-1207). Charlotte, NC:

    These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

    View References & Citations Map

    Cited By

    1. Creating an Evidence-Based Framework for Selecting and Evaluating Mathematics Apps

      Robin Kay & Jae Kwak, UOIT, Canada

      Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2018 (Mar 26, 2018) pp. 755–760

    2. A Framework For Examining Teachers’ Noticing Of Mathematical Cognitive Technologies

      Ryan Smith, Dongjo Shin & Somin Kim, University of Georgia, United States

      Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching Vol. 36, No. 1 (January 2017) pp. 41–63

    3. Prospective Teachers’ Use of Technology in Mathematics Instruction

      Mustafa Demir, University of Detroit Mercy, United States

      EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2016 (Jun 28, 2016) pp. 823–828

    4. Using Virtual Manipulatives to Solve Cognitively Demanding Mathematical Problems

      Mustafa Demir, University of Detroit Mercy, United States

      EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2013 (Jun 24, 2013) pp. 2421–2426

    These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

    Links

    Also Read

    Related Collections