INQUIRY WRITTEN REPORT

THE USE OF MANIPULATIVE MATERIALS IN MATHEMATICS

VYANAH LETHBRIDGE
BACHELOR OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY & MIDDLE)

School of Education

Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences

University of South Australia

OCTOBER 2019
1 Introduction

St Mary Mackillop School is located in Wallaroo which is a low socio-economic area located about 200 kilometres from
Adelaide, on the western side of the Yorke Peninsula, South Australia. This small, rural school has approximately 130
students and currently 6 composite classes. Within the school there are mixed religious denominations but
predominantly Christian with about 20% of students practicing the Catholic faith. Some families are from farming
backgrounds.

This school is inspired by the Catholic faith and work in partnership with families and the wider community to provide
an innovative and contemporary educational environment that leads to lifelong learning. They teach the Catholic
tradition and provide an invitation to encounter the love of God. The Catholic tradition is evident as the school values
are founded by the Joshephite tradition, these values include; relationships grounded in trust and respect; a
commitment to learning; collaboration and team work; the courage to work beyond our comfort zones; and
opportunities to celebrate success. These values are seen taught and developed throughout the whole school
experience. St Mary Mackillop School is very community orientated and work in close partnerships with families, the
local council and the local Parish, this is seen though their commitment to regularly attend mass at the local church
and their willingness to attend local sites to care for the environment. The school has countless policy and procedures
(eg. anti-bullying, harassment and violence policy and procedures) in place to ensure a safe and supportive
environment that promotes their high attendance rate.

The year 3/ 4 class has an even mix of boys and girls and year 4’s and 3’s. The room is very welcoming and inclusive to
all students, staff and visitors. From what I have observed, all students have developed supportive relationships with
their peers throughout the school year, this is seen as everyone has a friendly nature, is willing to help out one
another and supports each other’s learning. Within the classroom learner diversity is evident, there are students of
high intellectual potential and students with identified learning needs working at Reception and Year 1 level. There
are students with dyslexia and ADD. To cater for all the needs in the classroom, strategies have been put into place to
allow all students to obtain success in their learning, this is evident through additional support, differentiated learning
tasks, group work and peer tutoring. Within the classroom, the teacher has also shown me the ‘inclusive/adaptive
education folder’ that is located in each room. This folder has a significant amount of information about the school
Policies and Procedures regarding inclusive and adaptive education as well as providing strategies to support an
Inclusive Education for all students at St Mary Mackillop School.

Over the course of my University degree, I have been presented with the idea of teaching mathematics through the
use of manipulative materials. I am yet to witness and trial this pedagogical approach to teaching mathematics in the
educational setting. Throughout this inquiry project, I aspire to conduct research and develop a case study into the
mathematical approach to deepen my understanding of the positive effects that manipulative materials can have on
students’ cognitive learning within mathematics and identify practical implications for me as an aspiring educator.
2 Literature Review

Through conducting in-depth research, it has become apparent that countless literature sources, including; the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1989; NCTM, 2000), the Australian Primary Mathematics
Classroom (APMC, 2010) and the Australian Senior Mathematics Journal (ASMJ, 2014) have all advocated for the
implementation of manipulative materials, diagrams and real-life experiences to promote successful intellectual
learning of mathematical concepts.

The definition for manipulative materials continues to be refined within literature. Kennedy once emphasised that
manipulative materials are “objects that appeal to several senses and that can be touched, moved about, rearranged,
and otherwise handled by children” (1986, p.6). In more recent literature, manipulative materials are seen as,
“materials that help students make sense of abstract ideas, provide students ways to test and verify ideas, are useful
tools for solving problems, and make mathematics learning more engaging and interesting by lifting mathematics off
textbook and workbook pages” (Anon, 2014, p.34) (Burns, 2007, p.33-34).

Jadwiga explains that there are four types of manipulatives that can be used to teach mathematics (2010, p.3). Firstly,
objects that are familiar in everyday life, such as coins, buttons and popsicle sticks. Secondly, objects that have been
manufactured for a specific purpose but also can be applied into educational opportunities, such as building blocks,
jigsaw puzzles and Legos. Thirdly, objects that are specifically designed to be used in teaching mathematics, including
attribute blocks, base-ten blocks and colour tiles (Jadwiga, 2010, p.3). Lastly, virtual manipulatives are objects that can
be moved around and manipulated on a digital device.

The implementation of manipulative materials has been highly recognised by literature for its ability to assist students’
learning of mathematics when successfully implemented into the classroom. Jadwiga claims that use of manipulatives
allows students to work collaboratively and cooperatively in solving problems, discuss mathematical ideas and
concepts and understand that there are many different ways to solve mathematical problems without following direct
instructions (2010, p.4). Stein and Bovalino second these ideas, stating that manipulatives “can contribute to the
development of well-rounded, interconnected understandings of mathematical ideas” (2001, p.1) as they support
students understanding of abstract mathematical concepts. Through this deepened understanding, promotes
students’ ability and wiliness to talk about their discoveries. Lastly, the use of manipulative materials has the potential
to address and develop many of the mathematical proficiencies within each lesson. These proficiencies are outlined
by Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA, 2016) and are: understanding, fluency,
problem solving and reasoning.

To ensure that all students obtain these benefits through the use of manipulative materials they have to be
successfully implemented into the mathematics lessons. For this to happen, teachers must systematically integrate
the use of concrete materials into classroom instruction and activities across all year levels and mathematics topics.
Therefore, teachers must prepare the classroom for activities by organising groups, preparing materials and thinking
about the logistics of the lesson and/or overall unit (Anon, 2014, p.34). The Concrete-Representational-Abstract (CRA)
this instructional framework encourages teachers to begin the mathematical learning with concrete manipulative
experiences, transition students towards using visual representations (drawings), until they are ready to use abstract
mathematical notation (Peltier & Vannest, 2018, p.74). Teachers need to ensure that students are engaged in
meaningful activities that provide students with multiple opportunities and alternatives for developing their own
learning strategies.
A range of literature has shown the importance of students using manipulative materials whilst participating in
collaborative learning experiences (Jadwiga, 2010, p.4; Anon, 2014, p.34). Collaborative learning is an educational
approach that involves groups of learners working together towards a common goal (solving a problem, completing a
task, ect). This educational approach allows students to promote each other's success by sharing resources and
helping, supporting and encouraging each other's efforts to achieve which in turn promotes individual learning (Laal,
2013, p.817). Through this, students develop the skills required to orally explain how to solve problems, teach others,
check own understanding and discuss mathematical concepts being learned (Laal, 2013, p.817). Throughout
collaborative learning groups that incorporate the use of manipulative materials, students can create their own
unique conceptual understanding (Laal, 2013, p.815) of the mathematical concept and develop strategies to
effectively support their thinking (Jadwiga, 2010, p.24).
3 Methodology

3.1 Action research

An action research approach was employed to explore the use of manipulative materials throughout collaborative
learning experiences within a classroom setting. McNiff & Whitehead describe action research as a form of enquiry
that enables practitioners everywhere to investigate and evaluate their work (2005, p.7) in order to gain greater
clarity and understanding of a question, problem, or issue (Stringer, 2017, p.19). Action research is known to be a
powerful and beneficial form of professional enquiry for educators as they are able to investigate their own practice
and identify ways of improving their own learning and the learning of others (McNiff & Whitehead, 2005, p.8).
McIntyre explains that there is no fix formula for designing, practicing and implementing the action research (2014,
p.3) therefore, to be successful, I utilised a case study approach that would allow me to tailor my inquiry question to
cater for my research participants and my desired mathematical teaching pedagogies.

For my action research to be successful, I implement the recursive process of Participatory Action Research (PAR)
(Figure 1) to ensure that the process of questioning, reflecting, investigating and action was implemented sequentially
throughout each specific learning experience and the unit as a whole (McIntyre, 2014, p.6). Through conducting
action research, I was able to gain an insight into my case study participants needs, inform my teaching practices
through processes of investigating and reflecting and make relevant changes to my teaching pedagogy to support all
learners.

3.2 Case study

The use of manipulative materials in mathematics.

3.3 Research questions

In what ways can the implementation of manipulative materials during small group learning experiences support
students’ cognitive understanding of mathematical ideas and assist students in their comprehension of measurement
concepts?
 3.4 Participants

Through getting to know all the students individually, engaging in conversations with my mentor teacher, observing all
students and looking at students’ previous work in mathematics, I have decided on two participants to focus on for
this investigation. To ensure confidentiality of the students, I will name them Student 1 and Student 2 throughout the
inquiry process.

3.4.1 Case 1

Name: Student 1

Age: 9

Significant relationships:

Student 1 has developed good relationships with her peers in her class and is willing to interact with anyone. She is
always happy to help out her friends and the teacher as best that she can. Student 1 has a very supportive family that
encourages her to do her best. Her dad is high up in the school leadership and her mum is a teacher at the school. She
has two best friends who exceed beyond her level of understanding but they sometimes act as peer tutors to support
higher order thinking.

Significant learning information:

Student 1 respects the learning environment and will always sit and listen to instructions. She will wait her turn and
never interrupt the learning. Student 1 is always willing to give everything a go and will put her hand up to answer
questions if she fills confident. She is working at the recommended level for her age in all subjects, other than
mathematics. In mathematics, she is working just below her peers and requires differentiated tasks and additional
support at times.

Significant information gained from analysis of observation and/or work samples:

Through holding conversations with Student 1 throughout a number of math experiences, I have discovered that she
struggles to comprehend what she is being taught when it is verbally explained. When visually explained she seems to
comprehend the concept easier. I also observed that Student 1 struggled to explain her thinking processes after the
completion of a mathematical task even if the final answer is correct.

Potential focus for learning/teaching:

o Comprehension activities that allow Lily to verbally explain her thinking process.

Related teaching strategies:

o Use of Manipulative materials

o Visual explanations
o Collaboration
o Peer conversations
 3.4.2 Case 2

Name: Student 2

Age: 9

Significant relationships:

Student 2 is a well-liked member of his classroom, very outgoing and has many friends in varying year levels
throughout the school.

Significant learning information:

Student 2 is working at his specified year level when he chooses to participate in the learning activities. He usually will
sit quietly at his desk and requires constant encouraging to complete each task within the time provided.

Significant information gained from analysis of observation and/or work samples:

Through looking through Student 2’s workbooks, I can see that he hardly gets his work completed on time, what he
does get done is at year 4 level.

Potential focus for learning/teaching:

o Activities that engage him in his learning and encourage him to take initiative.

Related teaching strategies:

o Collaboration – shared learning experience

o Activities that promote engagement
 3.5 Data Collection

3.5.1 Methods

Below is a basic overview of the types of data that will be collected throughout different stages of the mathematical
learning.

Beginning:

• Pre-test (Appendix E.1)

• Questioning/Introduction of the topic
• Observation and note taking of prior knowledge strategies
• Learning Journal (Appendix E.2)

Middle:

• Record sheet: Frequency of engagement during mathematics (Appendix E.4)

• Observations and note taking of student engagement and participation (Appendix E.3)
• Photos of student use of manipulative materials (Appendix E.3)
• Work samples – including assessment on perimeter
• Learning Journal

End:

• Reflective journal on the unit

• Documented conversations/observations
• Work samples – including assessment on area and perimeter
• Post-test (same as the pre-test)

Example of a learning journal that all student will complete at the end of each mathematics lesson.

Learning Journal
Reflect upon what you have learnt and the strategies that you used throughout the lesson.

_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________
___
_
 3.5.2 Data sources

For my action research approach to be successful and to gain an insight into the learning needs of my students and
how I can best support their learning within mathematics, I needed to plan for and collect varying methods of data
throughout the learning experiences. Through using mixed methods of data collection, I implemented both
measurement strategies and more descriptive procedures (Bettridge, 2014, p.234) throughout different stages of my
unit. I began the measurement unit with a pre ‘test’ (Appendix E.1) to gather data on what the students knew and any
misconceptions that held, this informed the planning and allowed me to further refine my inquiry question. This same
test was held at the end of the unit and data was gathered and student’s progress achievement was recorded.
Although this strategy informed my practice and allowed me to reflect on the student’s achievement, it does not a
line itself with my own teaching philosophy as I want my mathematical classroom to be centred around the use of
manipulative materials and peer collaboration to develop knowledge and understanding.

To support my teaching philosophy and gather suitable data for my inquiry question, I also used descriptive
procedures. Firstly, student observations throughout a number of learning experiences informed me if the students
were engaged with their learning and on task. Student engagement was recorded through note taking and through
the daily frequency recording sheet; ‘engagement during mathematics’ (Appendix E.4) (McNiff & Whitehead, 2005,
p.140).

Student work samples and photos of effective use of manipulative materials were taken and used as evidence to
support learning through the use of concrete materials. Learning journal cards (Appendix E.2) were given at the end of
each lesson (McAtter, 2014, p.7). This short, 5-minute activity allowed students to reflect upon what they had learnt
and the strategies that they used throughout the day (McNiff & Whitehead, 2005, p.147). During this time, I
encouraged students to think about the conversations held with peers and educators and identify if they helped assist
their learning.

Lastly, conversations were recorded between teacher-student, student-student and student-group, this informed me
that the participants are comprehending the mathematical concepts they are developing, these were recorded both
electronically and through documented notes.

The evidence gathered throughout the mathematical unit helped support my claim as an early career teacher and has
supported me towards meeting the National Standards for Graduate Teachers, especially Standard 3 (Plan for and
implement effective teaching and learning), Standard 5 (Assess, provide feedback and report on student learning) and
Standard 6 (engage in professional learning) (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL] 2017).
 3.5.3 Ethical considerations

When gathering data sources for this inquiry project, it was essential that the evidence was relevant and gathered in
ethical and appropriate ways (Bettridge, 2015, p.361). I put ethical considerations into place to ensure informed
consent and confidentiality of the students and school. Informed consent was gathered by sending home a written
information letter to parents/careers to gain consent to take photographs of their children to be used as evidence
(Appendix I – template of letter signed by parents). Confidentiality was show through my respect for privacy of the
students and school through not including the names of the participants or the primary school or any evidence that
would give away the school identity (eg. school logos).

3.5.4 Analysis

The analysis of the collected data was critical to my inquiry project as it gave me a chance to evaluate and reflect on
the data gathered and draw relevant conclusions around how to best support students mathematical learning. For
this process of the inquiry to be successful, I immersed myself in the data, looking for patterns, themes and
categories, places where there are conflicts, contradictions and tensions (Groundwater-Smith, Ewing & Le Cornu,
2014, p.387). The data of each case study was laid out in front of me and then analysed and interpreted separately.
Written components were collated first, this included the observations, conversation notes, frequency recording
sheets and the learning journals. Thematic analysis was conducted on this data as I searched for patterns of meaning
in the information gathered (McAtter, 2014, p.20).

Data produced from non-text sources such as images and drawings also was analysed (McAtter, 2014, p.20). These
data sources include, student work samples and photos of students use of manipulative materials. This was looked at
from different stages of the mathematical learning, (beginning, middle and end) to identify the physical learning
process. Before any finding could be discovered, the visual forms of data were looked at in conjunction with the
written components. This deepen my understanding of the data and allowed relevant connections to be made
between the case studies and the use of manipulative materials.

Analysis of the information continued as I gathered data to present to my fellow colleagues. When this data was
presented, I was able to link the data gathered with relevant literature. Peers provided their insights and feedback on
the data collected and from their I could begin to identify patterns and draw conclusions on my inquiry.
4 Findings

After designing and delivering an effective unit that incorporated the use of manipulative materials and small group
learning through mathematics I have been able to analyse the data collected on both Student 1 and Student 2
individually, I have drawn together my findings. In the below sections, I seek to critically discuss the findings that I
have uncovered throughout the action research process and make relevant links to the literature to support my
findings. This information will be used as a basis for my discussion where I will inform colleagues of my inquiry project
and possible teaching approaches to teaching mathematics.

4.1 Case 1

Throughout the measurement unit, students were able to engage in a range of length activities inside and outside the
classroom. Student 1 was able to demonstrate that she had good foundational knowledge of length. She understood
that length is the measure of distance which shows how long something is from end to end. This knowledge was made
evident through this exploratory activity, ‘tower building’ where students were required to work in partners to build
the highest tower. The frequency table (Appendix G.5.1) and observations (Appendix G.5.2) make it evident that
Student 1 was fully engaged with exploring length as she participated in mathematical conversations with peers and
interacted with manipulative materials (Lego blocks) throughout the whole lesson. Through exploring measurement
outside, Student 1 required explicit instruction from her partner regarding how to use a ruler (Appendix G.5.2). With
this gained knowledge, she was seen to be engaged with the task (Appendix G.5.1 & G.5.2). I couldn’t simply assume
that she understood how to use a ruler after her discussion with her partner so I engaged in a conversation with her
whilst she was measuring (Appendix G.5.4). The dialogue (Appendix G.5.3) provided evidence that Student 1 was able
to visually and verbally show that she understood the mathematical concept, could use formal modes to measure
length and apply the correct units of measurements when recording. It was clear the Student 1 was confident in her
ability and knowledge as she could communicate her thinking and working processes to explain her findings.

As we moved through to the perimeter in week 2, A pre-test (Appendix G.2.1) was taken to find out what all the
students already knew about the topic. Student 1 made clear that she could identify that the perimeter is the outside
of the shape but didn’t attempt any perimeter calculations this indicates that she requires explicit teaching of how to
work out the perimeter of different shapes (Appendix G.2.1). The pre-test allowed me to group students into groups
to best support their learning (Appendix G.4.2). Knowing that Student 1 required explicit teaching, I began her on the
perimeter of regular shapes for her to gain an understanding, knowledge and confidence (Planning - Appendix G.4.2).
The dialogue from the lesson (Appendix G.5.3) shows that through the use of prompting questions and discussion,
Student 1 was able to use the manipulative materials to show her current understanding of perimeter to the teacher.
During further exploration students were asked to explore the perimeter of irregular shapes (Planning - Appendix
G.4.2). Through analysing all the data gathered (especially the frequency table – Appendix G.5.1) during the perimeter
activities a pattern had become evident. Student 1 was not engaged with her learning at the start of the lesson,
instead would watch and listen to the people around her before joining in. The time that she was not engaged in her
learning decreased as she gained deeper understanding of the topic (Appendix G.5.1). This understanding was evident
during the exploration of the perimeter of letters where Student 1 verbally explained to a peer how to calculate the
perimeter of the letter E (Appendix G.5.3, G.5.1, G.5.2). Knowing that Student 1 knew what the perimeter of an object
was and how to calculate it, when introducing the assessment task, I called on her to explain to the class what
perimeter is and how it can be calculate it. Her response shows an accurate understanding of the concept (Appendix
G.5.3). This understanding is then shown in her assessment piece where she demonstrated she was able to use scaled
instruments mostly accurately to measure the lengths and perimeters of objects (Appendix G.2.2). Throughout this
assessment, Student 1 engaged in conversations with peers to discuss possible ideas before engaging in independent
learning to complete the task (G.5.3). Student 1’s learning journal informs me that she enjoyed the learning task as
she got to design whatever she wanted which indicts why she was engaged with the task (Appendix G.1.1)
Through assessing the perimeter tasks, I could see that all students understood the concept of perimeter which
allowed for a direct pathway into area (Appendix G.5.3 – Evaluation of perimeter task). The pre-test shows that
Student 1 understands what area is, ‘the inside of the shape’ and can successfully locate it on different 2D shapes
(Appendix G.2.1). Group rotations commenced after explicit teaching (Appendix G.4.3 – planning), I strategically put
Student 1 with a peer that could act as additional support throughout the process (Appendix G.2.3 – evaluation). In
the first rotation, Student 1 was observed engaging in conversations with her small group around the difference
between perimeter and area where she became slightly confused between the two (Appendix- G.5.1). Moving
through the rotations, Student 1 explored area through the use of 1cm 2 grid paper and manipulative square tiles. She
was seen to engage in rich conversations between teachers and students (Appendix- G.5.1). At one point, she
explained to a peer the correct units to use when measuring area (cm 2) stating that “its squared because we look at
the squares” whilst pointing to the 1cm2 squares that made up her irregular shape (Appendix G.5.1). During the final
rotation, students used manipulatives to create shapes with different areas (Appendix G.4.3). Student 1 was engaged
from the very start of the lesson and used the manipulative materials to guide her thinking and working out (Appendix
G.5.1 – frequency table). After looking at the data, student 1 was not seen to be disengaged throughout any of the
area stations and displayed a sound understanding of area. The final assessment (Appendix G.2.4) showed Student 1
was able to use scaled instruments accurately to measure lengths, perimeter and areas of objects and was able to
consistently uses correct terminology (length and width) and units of measurement (cm and cm 2) to complete the
task. The frequency table shows that Student 1 concentrated in independent learning throughout the whole lesson
which is an indication that she had knowledge and understanding of the topic (Appendix G.5.1). The post-test makes
evident that her knowledge on area has developed and she is now able to calculate the area of shapes with some
accuracy (Appendix G.2.2).
 4.2 Case 2

Student 2 engaged well with length tasks. During the tower building activity, he was engaged the whole lesson
(Appendix H.5.1 – frequency table) demonstrating that he could use formal (ruler) and informal (string and pop sticks)
measuring tools to identify and compare the lengths (Appendix H.5.2-Photographic observations). Observations
showed that Student 2 became a leader during this activity (Appendix H.5.2) this made clear that he had knowledge of
the topic and ways to measure length. Through exploring length in nature, Student 2 was motivated to see how many
items he could measure with his partner (Appendix H.5.2) which resulted in high engagement.
Through completing the perimeter and area pre-test (Appendix E.1) it was evident that Student 2 had no prior
knowledge on either topic as his response to each question was “not sure or I don’t know” (Appendix H.2.1). I decided
to use this data and put him in the same group as student 1 for perimeter rotations (Appendix G.4.2 – evaluation).
After explicit teaching, we got into group rotations (Appendix G.4.2-planning). Student 2 got straight into the
perimeter of regular shapes activity. The frequency table shows that Student 2 was engaged in the use of
manipulative materials for the whole lesson to assist in his learning (Appendix H.5.1 – frequency table). Observations
show that Student 2 was able to talk to peers in his group about the topic although would frequently get distracted
and conversations would go off topic (Appendix H.5.1). This pattern developed throughout the perimeter activities as
Student 2 was continuously distracted by his peers within his group (Appendix H.5.1), this correlated to his
disengagement during lessons. Observations make clear that Student 2 was engaged when motivated or challenged to
complete a task (Appendix H.5.2 – perimeter of irregular shape observations). Throughout finding the perimeter of
irregular shapes, Student 2 challenged himself by picking the largest shapes to find the perimeter of (Appendix H.5.2).
When finding the perimeter of letter, Student 2 implemented formal and informal modes of measurement to
successfully complete the task (Appendix H.5.2 – observations). Through this lesson, he demonstrated that he knew
what perimeter was and how to calculate it. This gained knowledge was made evident throughout the perimeter
assessment task as he was able to use scaled instruments accurately to measure the lengths and perimeters of objects
(Appendix H.2.3 – perimeter assessment). During this assessment, Student 2 was engaged in rich conversations with a
fellow peer where they both shared ideas and motivated each other with the task (Appendix H.5.1 – frequency table
observation & G.3.4 –evaluation). The learning journal that Student 2 completed after the assignment stated that he
was happy with his design of a zoo and that he was able to come up with the design through his conversations
(Appendix H.1).

Before commencing area, it was evident that Student 2 had no knowledge of the topic (Appendix H.2.1) and was easily
distracted by peers in his last small group (Appendix H.5.1). With this knowledge, I was able to re-select groups and
put student 2 with students that are able to extend his learning and not distract him (Appendix G.5.4 – evaluation). I
placed him a group with higher ability students where they were able to keep him on task (Appendix H.5.1 –
frequency table). With this change in group structure, Student 2 was shown to have higher level of engagement with
his mathematics during group activities which resulted in increased engagement with manipulative materials and
interactions with peers (Appendix H.5.1 – frequency table). Collaborative learning experiences between Student 2 and
his peers promoted deeper thinking this was evident during the activity, area of irregular shapes, as two boys had a
competition ‘who could make a shape with the largest perimeter but smallest area’ (Appendix H.5.1). These same
boys then worked collaboratively during the next rotation and overcome challenges together (Appendix H.5.1 &
H.5.2). Student 2’s learning of area was evident within his area assessment and post-test (Appendix H.2.4 & H.2.2).
The area assessment shows that he is able to use scaled instruments accurately to measure lengths, perimeter and
areas of objects and was able to consistently uses correct terminology (length and width) and units of measurement
(cm and cm2) to complete the task (Appendix H.2.4). The frequency table results show that although he understood
the task he was constantly reminded to stay on task and wasn’t engaged at all (Appendix H.5.1). His response during
the learning journal was simply, “boring” which essentially makes connections between student engagement and
collaborative use of manipulative materials (Appendix H.1). His understanding of area was tracked by the post-test
which shows that he is now able to successfully explain the area of a shape, calculate the area using different modes
(Appendix H.2.2). A slight concern that he was unable to use the correct units of measurement although knowing he
successfully did it in his final assessment it wasn’t a huge concern, I simply did a one on one conference where he was
able to pick up on his mistake and verbally tell me what the answer is (Appendix G.4 – Evaluation: post assessment).
5. Discussion

Through careful planning and systematic integration of concrete materials and small group learning into the
measurement unit, I have been able to collect, analyse, evaluate and reflect on the data gathered and consider and
reflect on my own teaching pedagogies.

In the literature review, it was identified that manipulative materials are, “materials that help students make sense of
abstract ideas, provide students ways to test and verify ideas, are useful tools for solving problems, and make
mathematics learning more engaging and interesting by lifting mathematics off textbook and workbook pages” (Burns,
2007, p.33-34). Through purposeful preparation (Appendix – G.4) including planning engaging activities, organising
small groups, preparing materials and thinking about the logistics of the lesson, all played a part in student
participation in solving mathematical problems and their overall learning of measurement concepts. The findings
make clear that students engagement during mathematics can be enhanced through the use of a range of
manipulative materials (Appendix G & H). Through implementing the four types of manipulatives outlined by Jadwiga
it was evident that they contributed to the engagement and understanding of the participants, these manipulatives
included; objects that are familiar in everyday life (outside objects: Appendix G.4 - Exploring length in nature), objects
that have been manufactured for a specific purpose but also can be applied into educational opportunities (Lego
blocks: Appendix G.4- tower building), objects that are specifically designed to be used in teaching mathematics
(rulers, manipulative square tiles) and virtual manipulatives (IPad games: Appendix G.4) (2010, p.3).

These materials were shown to support student’s engagement and understanding of the measurement concepts as
well as promote deeper understanding through encouraging rich discussions to be held within the small rotation
groups. Constant discussions whilst using manipulative materials promoted the opportunity for students to act as peer
facilitators to enhance each other’s learning (Appendix G.5.1). Jadwiga enforces this idea, stating that use of
manipulatives allows students to work collaboratively and cooperatively in solving problems, discuss mathematical
ideas and concepts and understand that there are many different ways to solve mathematical problems without
following direct instructions (2010, p.4). It was made clear that through engaging in student-led, mathematical based
conversations, students were able to deepen their understanding and use the manipulative materials as tools to
support the explaining of their thinking and working processes and assist them to discuss their discoveries (Appendix
G & H: evidence). Laal enforced this stating that through collaborative learning, students develop the skills required to
orally explain how to solve problems, teach other, check own understanding and discuss mathematical concepts being
learned (2013, p.817). Through engaging in these small group conversations during learning experiences it was shown
to promote oral skills that allowed all students to have input into discussions as well as promote confidence in
explaining themselves (Appendix G & H: evidence). This in turn developed students’ ability and willingness to
communicate their mathematical knowledge. Laal explains that through collaborative learning that incorporates the
use of manipulative materials, students can create their own unique conceptual understanding (Laal, 2013, p.815) of
the mathematical concept and develop strategies to effectively support their thinking (Jadwiga, 2010, p.24).

Lastly, the use of manipulative materials during small group learning experiences were found to have a positive impact
on the engagement and motivation of students (Appendix H). It was made evident that by strategically placing
students together will allow them to motivate, support and challenge each other which in turn deepens engagement
and understanding of the topic.
6. Conclusion

As a beginning educator, I believe that the implementation of manipulative materials during small group rotations can
have a positive impact on the students cognitive understanding of mathematical ideas. Throughout this inquiry
project, I have been able to analysis relevant evidence throughout different stages of the measurement unit that have
made clear that these teaching approaches when implemented together can have a positive influence on student
cognitive understanding of mathematical ideas and assist students in their comprehension of measurement concepts.

More specifically, this report has successfully uncovered that; manipulative materials can enhance student
engagement; through exploring manipulative materials in group learning experiences develops students’ ability and
willingness communicate their mathematical knowledge; constant discussions allow students the opportunity to act
as peer facilitators and enhance each other’s learning; and that this approach allows students to motivate, support
and challenge each other which in turn deepens engagement and understanding of the topic.

I aspire to incorporate the pedagogical approaches discussed throughout this report into my future teaching of all
mathematics concepts. I seek to incorporate manipulative materials and collaborative learning into all subject areas
and endeavour to conduct active research to identify if these approaches support students cognitive understanding in
all areas of the curriculum.
Reference list

• Anon 2014, "IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN MATHEMATICS BY USING MANIPULATIVES WITH

CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION", Ontario Mathematics Gazette, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 34. Retrieved from https://search-
proquest-com.access.library.unisa.edu.au/docview/1660045120?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo
• Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2016, Mathematics, Available at:
https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/mathematics/
• Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL] 2017, Australian Professional Standards for
Teachers, Melbourne, Australia.
• Bettridge, C, 2014, Working more broadly: Practitioner inquiry for knowledge-building schools in Ewing, R, et
al. Teaching Challenges and Dilemmas, Cengage Learning Australia:
• Burns M, 2007, About teaching mathematics a K-8 resource, 3rd ed., Math Solutions Publications, Sausalito,
Calif. Retrieved from:
http://viewer.igroupnet.com/viewer/service/iglib3/default/MSB0000017/default/default/desktop/vertical/0/1/
viewer.html?bb24864ab7ee53fddca4df4f5c5c0046
• Kennedy L, 1986, A Rationale. The Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 6-32. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41192831
• Jadwiga, D 2010, The effects of physical manipulatives on achievement in mathematics in grades K–6: A meta-
analysis’, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
• Laal, M 2013, ‘Collaborative Learning; Elements’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 83, pp. 814–818.
• McAtter, M 2014, 'Collecting, collating and conversing with data', in Action research in education,
BERA/SAGE Research Methods in Education, SAGE Publications Ltd, London, pp. 62-88
• McIntyre, A 2008, Participatory action research, SAGE, Los Angeles, California.
• McNiff J, & Whitehead J, 2005, All You Need To Know About Action Research – An Introduction, SAGE
Publications Ltd, Available at; ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unisa/detail.action?docID=326402.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 1989, Curriculum and evaluation standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 2000, Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Peltier C & Vannest K, 2018, Using the concrete representational abstract (CRA) instructional framework for
mathematics with students with emotional and behavioral disorders, Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 62:2, 73-82. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2017.1354809
• Stein M, & Bovalino, J, 2001. Manipulatives: One piece of the puzzle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle
School, 6, 356-359,
• Stringer E, 2007, Action Research, 3rd ed., SAGE Publications Inc. (US), Thousand Oaks. Available from: ProQuest
Ebook Central.
• Youdale L, 2010. New Voices: Planning, Teaching and Assessing Mathematics Learning for Real! Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom (APMC), Vol. 15, No. 4, pp 29-32.
• Wares A, 2014, Problem solving through paper folding, Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2,
2014: 60-63.