Define Manipulative: Hynes’ (1986) defines manipulatives as “concrete models that incorporate mathematical concepts, appeal to several senses and can be touched and moved around by students” (Hynes, 1986, p. 11). White, Swan and Marshall (2009) echo these ideas in their definition, “a manipulative material is an object(s) that can be handled by an individual in a sensory manner during which process, and conscious and unconscious thinking will be fostered” (p. 2).provide scaffold instruction of the curriculum through a progression from physical objects to representational forms and abstract thought”
The participants for the study were identified by analyzing the students with the most need to mathematics intervention. It was decided that the participants would be chosen within the 11% of the population who received special education services.Questionnaire subsections A) feelings associated with math B) usefulness of methods/tools in learning mathC) application/ comparison to other subjects D) self-assessment of abilitiesAssessment topics Pre and Post assessment covering “Rational Reasoning” curriculum Pre and Post assessment covering “Equations & Expressions” curriculum
Based on these results the students did not show any significant influence of the use of manipulatives during instruction as measured by Unit 1 and Unit 2 pre and post assessments.
Transcript
1.
Kathleen Burns
2.
Use of Manipulatives and Performance
Task in Mathematics
Why this topic was chosen…
MCMS’ consistent students with
disabilities poor scores on standardized
testing in mathematics subsections.
Increasing focuses placed STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering,
Mathematics) instruction
Preparing
students for a
21st century world
3.
What impact does the inclusion of the use of
manipulatives have on math achievement for students
with disabilities?
Benefits of Manipulatives
(According to the Literature)
• Provides scaffolding between concrete
and abstract
• Applies to multiple learning styles
• Visual represent/model problem
solving
• Encourages students to make
mathematical relationships
4.
Within the
MCMS
student
population
20%
received
gifted
services, 11
% receive
special
education
services, an
d 0.1%
received
English
Language
Learners
(ELL)
services.
Participants
of study
were
identified as
7th grade
special
education
students
receiving
math
services
1st
instrument
:
Teacher
made
surveycompiled
of 15
scaled
response
questions
to
measure
students
2nd
instrument
:
Teacher
made
diagnostic
and
summative
assessme
nts
Limitations
of study
5.
• Questionnaire Results
• How were data values formulated?
Subsection A = feelings associated with math
results?
What were the
Subsection B= usefulness of tools/methods in math
Subsection C= comparison to other subjects
Subsection D= Self-assessment of abilities
Questionnaire
Subsection values
1. I like learning new math concepts
2. I see a purpose in studying math
4. Using different tools (manipulatives) help me learn math
5. Using paper and pencil methods (handouts) help me learn math
6. Learning a math concept in more than one way helps me understand
it better
7. It is hard to remember how to solve a math problem outside of class
8. I worry more about math than other subjects
9. I have confidence when it comes to mathematics
10. The methods my teacher uses effects my learning in math
11. I have a good attitude about math
12. I try my best in math
13. I can work out math problems quickly
14. Applying what we learned to real life helps me understand the
concept
15. Using different activities in class helps me learn math
Questionnaire Results
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
Subection A Subsection B Subsection
C
Subsection
D
Unit 1 Reults- Instruction without Manipulatives
Unit 2 Results- Instruction with Manipulatives
6.
• Assessment results
Participant Assesment Gains of Each Unit
Unit 1 gains
Unit 2 gains
Points gained between Diagnostic to
Summative Assessment
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Participant Number
9
10
11
12
13
14
• A Student’s t-test
was conduct
using the
student’s gains
between Unit 1
and Unit 2.
• Results of this
analysis indicate
that the difference
between Unit 1
results and Unit 2
results is not
statistically
significant
(p=0.45).
Be the first to comment