ThirdGraders Learn About Fractions Using Virtual Manipulatives: A Classroom Study
Article
Kelly Reimer, Fairfax County Public Schools, United States ; Patricia S. Moyer, George Mason University, United States
JCMST Volume 24, Number 1, ISSN 07319258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA
Abstract
With recent advances in computer technology, it is no surprise that the manipulation of objects in mathematics classrooms now includes the manipulation of objects on the computer screen. These objects, referred to as virtual manipulatives, are essentially replicas of physical manipulatives placed on the World Wide Web in the form of computer applets with additional advantageous features. The purpose of this project was to explore the effects of using several virtual manipulative computer applets for instruction during a fraction unit in a thirdgrade classroom. The participants in this study were 19 thirdgrade students. During a twoweek unit on fractions, students interacted with several virtual manipulative applets in a computer lab. Data sources in the project included a pre and posttest of students' conceptual knowledge, a pre and posttest of students' procedural computation skills, student interviews, and a student attitudes survey. The results indicated a statistically significant improvement in students' posttest scores on a test of conceptual knowledge, and a significant relationship between students' scores on the posttests of conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge. Student interviews and attitude surveys indicated that the virtual manipulatives (1) helped students in this class learn more about fractions by providing immediate and specific feedback, (2) were easier and faster to use than paperandpencil methods, and (3) enhanced students' enjoyment while learning mathematics.
Citation
Reimer, K. & Moyer, P.S. (2005). ThirdGraders Learn About Fractions Using Virtual Manipulatives: A Classroom Study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 525. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 21, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/18889/.
© 2005 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that preservice teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90, 449466.
 Ball, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education. American Educator, 16(2), 1418, 4647.
 Ball, S. (1988). Computers, concrete materials and teaching fractions. School Science and Mathematics, 88, 470475.
 Baroody, A. J. (1989). Manipulatives don’t come with guarantees. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(2), 45.
 Berlin, D., & White, A. (1986). Computer simulations and the transition from concrete manipulation of objects to abstract thinking in elementary school mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 86, 468479.
 Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
 Cannon, L. O., Heal, R., & Wellman, R. (2000). Serendipity in interactive mathematics: Virtual (electronic) manipulatives for learning elementary mathematics. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Proceedings of the
 Char, C. A. (1989). Computer graphics feltboards: New software approaches for young children’s mathematical exploration. San Francisco: American Educational Research Association.
 Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1989). Learning of geometric concepts in a Logo environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 45067.
 Dorward, J., & Heal, R. (1999). National library of virtual manipulatives for elementary and middle level mathematics. Proceedings of WebNet 99 World
 Drickey, N. A. (2000). A comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives in teaching visualization and spatial reasoning to middle school mathematics students (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(02A), 499.
 Enderson, M. C. (1997). Old problems, new questions. Learning and Leading with Technology. 25(2), 2932.
 Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth: NH.
 Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515556). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
 Kieran, C., & Hillel, J. (1990). “It’s tough when you have to make the triangles angles”: Insights from a computerbased geometry environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9, 99127.
 Kim, S. (1993). The relative effectiveness of handson and computersimulated manipulatives in teaching seriation, classiﬁcation, geometric, and arithmetic concepts to kindergarten children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(09), 3319.
 Meira, L. (1998). Making sense of instructional devices: The emergence of transparency in mathematical activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 121142.
 Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 175197.
 Moyer, P. S., & Bolyard, J. J. (2002). Exploring representation in the middle grades: Investigations in geometry with virtual manipulatives. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 58 (1), 1925.
 Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372377.
 Nute, N. (1997). The impact of engagement activity and manipulatives presentation on intermediate mathematics achievement, timeontask, learning efﬁciency, and attitude. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(08), 2988.
 Orton, R. E. (1988). Using representations to conceptualize teachers’ knowledge. Paper presented at the Psychology of Mathematics EducationNorth America, DeKalb, IL.
 Parham, J. L. (1983). A metaanalysis of the use of manipulative materials and student achievement in elementary school mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44A: 96.
 Piaget, J. (1952). The child’s conception of number. New York: Humanities Press.
 Pleet, L. J. (1990). The effects of computer graphics and mira on acquisition of transformation geometry concepts and development of mental rotation skills in grade eight. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(06), 2058. Raphael, D. & Wahlstrom, M. (1989). The inﬂuence of instructional aids on mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(2), 173196.
 Shank, G. D. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
 Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498505.
 Suydam, M. N. (1985). Research on instructional materials for mathematics. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 276 569)
 Suydam, M. N. (1986). Manipulative materials and achievement. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 10, 32.
 Terry, M. K. (1996). An investigation of differences in cognition when utilizing math manipulatives and math manipulative software. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(07), 2650.
 Thompson, P. W. (1992). Notations, conventions, and constraints: Contributions to effective uses of concrete materials in elementary mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 12347.
 Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1990). Salient Aspects of Experience with Concrete Manipulatives. Mexico City: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
 Weiss, I. R. (2000). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to ReferencesCited By
View References & Citations Map
A multicomponent model for assessing learning objects: The learning object evaluation metric (LOEM)
Robin Kay, Liesel Knaack & Liesel Knaack
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Vol. 24, No. 5 (Jan 01, 2008)

Teaching and Learning with Smart Board Technology in the Elementary Classroom
James Oigara, Canisius College, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (Mar 05, 2017) pp. 896–899

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

Overt Physicality with Virtual Manipulatives
Seungoh Paek, University of Hawaii at Manoa, United States
ELearn: World Conference on ELearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2015 (Oct 19, 2015) pp. 884–890

Investigating the Use of Learning Objects for Secondary School Mathematics
Robin Kay & Liesel Knaack, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada
Interdisciplinary Journal of ELearning and Learning Objects Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2008) pp. 269–289

Exploring the impact of learning objects in middle school mathematics and science classrooms: A formative analysis
Robin Kay & Liesel Knaack, University Of Ontario Institute Of Technology
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie Vol. 34, No. 1 (Dec 31, 2008)

Multiple Representation Perspective and Students’ Acceptance of an Online Manipulative Tool
Serkan Ozel, Bogazici University, Turkey; Zeynep Ebrar Yetkiner, Texas A&M University, United States
ELearn: World Conference on ELearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2010 (Oct 18, 2010) pp. 2671–2680

Evaluating the Use of WebBased Learning Tools in Middle Classrooms
Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada
EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2010 (Jun 29, 2010) pp. 3630–3637

Preparing 8th Grade Mathematics Teachers to Use Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge in the Teaching and Learning of Algebra
Sandra Richardson, Lamar University, United States
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 9, No. 2 (June 2009) pp. 117–130

Virtual Manipulatives Used by K8 Teachers for Mathematics Instruction: The Influence of Mathematical, Cognitive, and Pedagogical Fidelity
Patricia S. Moyer, Utah State University, United States; Gwenanne Salkind, George Mason University, United States; Johnna J. Bolyard, West Virginia University, United States
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 8, No. 3 (September 2008) pp. 202–218
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.