NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED436395
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1999-Jul-19
Pages: 46
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
A Study of the Benefits of Math Manipulatives versus Standard Curriculum in the Comprehension of Mathematical Concepts.
Rust, Amanda L.
This study attempted to determine which teaching method, mainly manipulatives or the standard curriculum, best allowed the students to learn first grade math concepts. The manipulatives consisted of objects such as unifix cubes, personal chalkboards, work mats, and various other articles, which allowed the students to see the math that they were calculating. These students did not use any of the standard workbook pages. The standard curriculum used was the Mathematics Plus workbook by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. This book does use manipulative concepts, but it was not supplemented with anything extra. Both methods of instruction were used with one first grade class. The methods were both used simultaneously but with different concepts; for example, the students were taught one concept using manipulatives and the second concept using the math workbook. Two methods of assessment were used during the study. The Knox County Math Skills Test was the first test given, and the second test was a Teacher Checklist Manipulative Evaluation that one of the teachers performed orally with each student. The Knox County test was a pencil and paper test that did not use any hands-on manipulatives. The Teacher Checklist was a test that was developed using solely the manipulatives that the students used during their manipulative concept. The students were asked to "show the teacher" each skill using the manipulatives. The concepts tested by the Teacher Checklist followed those tested by the Knox County Skills Test, but the student demonstrated them physically with the manipulatives used for learning. (Contains 16 references.) (CCM)
Publication Type: Dissertations/Theses
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
What Works Clearinghouse Reviewed: Does Not Meet Evidence Standards
IES Cited: ED497719