JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
An Analysis on the Meaning and Use of Manipulatives in the Elementary Mathematics Lessons
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
An Analysis on the Meaning and Use of Manipulatives in the Elementary Mathematics Lessons
Park, Mangoo;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions and perspectives on meanings and use of manipulatives in mathematics lessons. For the investigation, the researcher reviewed related literature and analyzed the perceptions of preservice teachers on the meanings and use of manipulatives in mathematics lessons. The participants were 75 preservice elementary school teachers who took a teaching practice course at the 1st or the 2nd semester in 2015. These preservice teachers observed mathematics lessons for two weeks during the student teaching periods. They were requested to observed the use of manipulatives in mathematics lessons and wrote about their ideas on the meanings and use of manipulatives. Result of the research was that the perceptions on the meanings and use of manipulatives from the preservice teachers` perspectives are as follows. Manipulatives in mathematics lessons were self-made or pre-made manufactures. The using time of manipulatives during lessons varies, and the teachers provide the manipulatives with contexts. Providing in-depth observation during a teaching practice course is allowed opportunities for preservice teachers to reflect their mathematics teaching and learning methods in the classroom.
 Keywords
manipulatives;mathematics lesson;elementary preservice teachers;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
고상숙.박만구.한혜숙 (2013). 교구 및 공학도구를 활용한 수학적 과정중심 평가에 관한 교사들의 인식. 한국학교수학회논문집 16(4), 675-694.(Choi-Koh, S. S. Park, M., & Han, H. (2013). Teachers' perceptions on process-focused mathematics assessment using manipulatives and technological devices. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society 16(4), 675-694.)

2.
교육부 (2015). 2015 수학과 교육과정. 교육부.(Ministry of Education (2015). 2015 mathematics curriculum. Ministry of Education.)

3.
김성준 (2010). 'Maths With Attitude' 교구 프로그램 활용에 관한 소고. 한국초등수학교육학회지 14(1), 153-176.(Kim, S. J. (2010). A study on the using 'Maths With Attitude' programs in elementary mathematics lessons. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea 14(1), 153-176.)

4.
김주숙.김준철.김해은.김현숙.박만구 (2014). 수학 교구 및 공학 도구의 활용 측면에서 바라 본 5, 6학년 대상의 한국 초등 수학 교과서와 외국 교과서(미국, 핀란드, 싱가포르, 일본) 비교 연구. 미출판 프로젝트 보고서.(Kim, J. S., Kim, J. C., Kim, H. E., Kim, H. S., & Park, M. (2014). A comparative study on 5th and 6th Korean elementary mathematics textbooks and foreign textbooks(U.S., Finland, Singapore, and Japan) from the mathematics manipulatives and technology. Unpublished project report.)

5.
남승인.권민성 (2007). 수학 이해력 증진을 위한 교구활용 방안에 관한 연구. 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 C <초등수학교육> 10(2), 125-139.(Nam, S. I. & Kwon, M. S. (2007). A study on the method of using educational aids for improving mathematical understanding. Education of Primary Mathematics Education 10(2), 125-139.)

6.
노선숙.김민경 (2001). 수학교육에서 교수매체에 대한 교사, 학생, 학부모의 인식 조사 연구. 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 A <수학교육> 40(2), 265-289.(Noh, S. & Kim, M. K. (2001). A survey on the cognition of teachers, students, parents towards instructional media in mathematics education. Mathematics Education 40(2), 265-289.)

7.
류선미.박영희 (2007). 초등학교 수학과 조작교구 활용실태 및 활성화 방안에 대한 조사 연구. 교과교육학연구 11(1), 15-38.(Ryu, S. M. & Park, Y. H. (2007). A study on the uses and the activation plan for the manipulative material in elementary mathematics. Research on Subject Education 11(1), 15-38.)

8.
박경자.이혜령 (2010). 수학 학습 불안에 영향을 주는 스트레스에 관한 연구. East Asian Mathematical Journal 28(2), 251-266.(Park, K. J. & Lee, H. R. (2010). A study on the correlations between students's stress and mathematics anxiety. East Asian Mathematical Journal 28(2), 251-266.)

9.
박만구.고상숙.정인철.김은영 (2010). 기하 교구의 활용이 공간 지각 능력에 미치는 영향. 한국학교수학회논문집 13(2), 303-322.(Park, M. Choi-Koh, S. S., Jung, I. C., & Kim, E. Y. (2010). The effects of using the geometric manipulative for the development of spatial sense. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society 13(2), 303-322.)

10.
박만구.문진희.류점희 (2015). 게임형 플레이팩토의 활용 수업이 학생의 수학 학업성취도 및 수학에 대한 태도에 미치는 효과 분석. 한국초등교육 26(1), 225-241.(Park, M., Moon, J., & Ryu, J. (2015). The effects of using the game-based PlayFACTO on mathematics achievements and attitude toward mathematics. The Journal of Korean Elementary Education 26(1), 225-241.)

11.
박현진 (2008). 프뢰벨과 몬테소리 교구의 유아 수학교육적 함의. 한국교원대학교 석사학위논문.(Park, H. J. (2008). Implications of Froebel's and Montessori's educational materials in the early childhood mathematics education. Unpublished master's thesis at Korean National University of Education.)

12.
이주용.최재호 (2013). 4D 프레임 활용 학습이 초등수학영재학생의 공간감각 및 수학적 창의성에 미치는 영향. 한국수학교육학회지 시리즈 C <초등수학교육> 16(1), 1-20.(Lee, J. Y. & Choi, J. H. (2013). The effects of 4D-Frame teaching upon mathematically gifted elementary students' mathematical creativity and spatial sense. Education of Primary School Mathematics 16(1), 1-20.)

13.
최승현.박상욱.황혜정 (2014). PISA와 TIMSS 결과에 나타난 우리나라 학생의 정의적 성취 실태 분석 -수학 교과를 중심으로-. 한국학교수학회논문집 17(1), 23-43.(Choe, S-H, Park, S. W., & Hwang, H. J. (2014). Analysis of the current situation of affective characteristics of Korean students based on the results of PISA and TIMSS. Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society 17(1), 23-43.)

14.
최은주.최창우 (2009). 초등수학 수업에서 교구의 활용에 대한 사례연구. 한국초등수학교육학회지 13(1), 31-49.(Choi, E. J. & Choi, C, W. (2009). A case study on the use of mathematical materials in elementary school mathematics. Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea 13(1), 31-49.)

15.
Aburime, F. E. (2007). How manipulatives affect the mathematics achievement of students in Nigerian schools. Educational Research Quarterly 31(1), 3-15.

16.
Akkan, Y. (2012). Virtual or physical: In-service and pre-service teachers's beliefs and preferences on manipulatives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 13(4), 167-192.

17.
Baroody, A. J. & Coslick, R. T. (1998). Fostering children's mathematical power: An investigative approach tp K-8 mathematics instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

18.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belkapp Press.

19.
Cockett, A. & Kilgour, P. W. (2015). Mathematical manipulatives: Creating an environment for understanding, efficiency, engagement, and enjoyment. Teach Collection of Christian Education 1(1), 47-54.

20.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Preparing America's students for success. Retrieved on December 20, 2014 at http://www.corestandards.org/

21.
Dienes, Z. P. (1971). Building up mathematics (4th ed.). London: Hutchinson.

22.
Fennema, E. & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.) (1999). Classrooms that promote mathematical understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

23.
Froebel, F. (1887). The education of man. New York: Appleton.

24.
Golafshani, N. (2013). Teachers' beliefs and teaching mathematics with manipulatives. Canadian Journal of Education 36(3), 137-159.

25.
Hildebrandt, C. (1998). Mathematical understanding through invented games. Teaching Children Mathematics 5(3), 191-195.

26.
Hunt, A. W., Nipper, K. L., & Nash, L. E. (2011). Virtual vs. concrete manipulatives in mathematics teacher education: Is one type more effective than the other? Current Issues in Middle Level Education 16(2), 1-6.

27.
Kamii, C. (1984). The aim of education envisioned by Piaget. The Phi Delta Kappan 65(6), 410-415.

28.
Kamii, C. & Lewis, B. A. (1990). Constructivism and first-grade arithmetic. The Arithmetic Teacher 38(1), 36-37.

29.
Kamii, C. & Rummelsburg, J. (2008). Arithmetic for first graders lacking number concepts. Teaching Children Mathematics 14(7), 389-394.

30.
Kato, Y., Honda, M., & Kamii, C. (2006). Kindergarteners play linging up the 5s: game to encourage logico-mathematical thinking. Young Children 61(4), 1-6.

31.
Kennedy, L. M. (1986). A rationale. Arithmetic Teacher 33, 6-32.

32.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

33.
Loong, E. Y. K. (2014). Fostering mathematical understanding through physical and virtual manipulatives. AMT 70(4), 3-10.

34.
McGrath, C. (2014). Teaching mathematics through story: A creative approach for the early years. Abingdon: Routledge.

35.
Montessori, M. M. Jr. (1976). Education for human development: Understanding Montessori. New York: Schocken Books.

36.
Moyer, P. A. (2001). Are we have fun? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 47, 175-197. crossref(new window)

37.
Moyer-Packenham, P., Baker, J., Westenskow, A., Anderson, K., Shumway, J., Rodzon, K., & Jordan, K. (2013). A study comparing virtual manipulatives with other instructional treatments in third- and fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Education 193(2), 25-39. crossref(new window)

38.
Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics 8(6), 372-377.

39.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

40.
Norton, A. & Deater-Deckard, K. (2014). Mathematics in mind, brain, and education: A neo-Piagetian approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 12(3), 647-667. crossref(new window)

41.
Ojose, B. & Sexton, L. (2009). The effect of manipulative materials on mathematics achievement of first grade students. The Mathematics Educator 12(1), 3-14.

42.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

43.
Piaget, J. (1971). The psychology of intelligence. Boston: Routledge and Kegan.

44.
Post, T. (1981). The role of manipulative materials in the learning of mathematical concepts. In M. Lindquist (Ed.), Selected issues in mathematics education (pp. 109-131). Berkeley, CA: National Society for the Study of Education and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

45.
Quinn, R. J. (1998). The influence of mathematics methods courses on preservice teachers' pedagogical beliefs concerning manipulatives. The Clearing House 71(4), 236-238. crossref(new window)

46.
Sarama, J. & Clements, D. H. (2009). "Concrete" computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives 3(3), 145-150. crossref(new window)

47.
Schiro, M. S. (2004). Oral storytelling and teaching mathematics: Pedagogical and multicultural perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

48.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

49.
Sowell, E. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal or Research in Mathematics Education 20(5), 498-505. crossref(new window)

50.
Spikell, M. A. (1993). Teaching mathematics with manipulatives: A resource of activities for the K-12 teacher. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

51.
Steffe, L. & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York: Spriner-Verlag.

52.
TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center. (2014). TIMSS 2011 International results in mathematics. Retrieved on September 5, 2014 at http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/international-results-mathematics.html

53.
Vico, G. (1744). Principi di Scienza nuava d'intorno alla communi natura delle nazioni. Naples: Stamperia Muziana. Trans. Bergin, T. and Fisch, M. (1968), The new science of Giambattista Vico. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

54.
Von Glasersfeld (1995). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer Press.

55.
Yuan, Y. & Lee, C-Y. (2012). Elementary school teachers' perceptions toward ICT: The case of using magic board for teaching mathematics. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 11(4), 108-118.

56.
Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.). Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169-1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.