Benguet State University High School Students’ Curiosity, Interest, and Perceptions on Interactive Manipulatives in Mathematics

Main Article Content

Julie A. Buasen Joel V. Lubrica Serano L. Oryan Monica S. Alimondo Bretel B. Dolipas Phil S. Ocampo

Abstract

The Benguet State University high school students perceive that their exposure to interactive manipulatives in mathematics can influence their interest to pursue a career path in Mathematics. They claimed that their interest and curiosity in the interactive manipulatives were increased after handling the different manipulatives. Further, the students also claimed that their academic performance in Mathematics could be enhanced, should these interactive manipulatives be used in their classes. Results are true to all students whether they intend to pursue a mathematics-related course or not. These results stemmed from 71 high school students who were asked, through a questionnaire, to give their views after their exposure to the different manipulatives. They were first asked to watch a demonstration of the mathematics manipulatives and were given time to manipulate the devices given some procedures and mathematical concepts as guides. The study suggests that students be exposed to interactive devices to enhance their academic performance in Mathematics and stimulate their interests in pursuing Mathematics related degrees. Likewise, in a setting where the availability of manipulatives is limited, educators should devise practical materials that students can use. Lastly, a quasi-experimental study may be done to verify the respondents' claim that their Mathematics performance can be enhanced when manipulatives are utilized in their class

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

Adentunde, I. A. (2007). Improving the teaching
and learning of mathematics in second cycle
institutions in Ghana, Pakistan. Journal of Social
Sciences, 4(3): 340-344. https://medwelljournals.
com/abstract/?doi=pjssci.2007.340.344

Azar, B. (2010). Math + Culture = Gender Gap.
American Psychological Association, 41(7), 40.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/07-08/
gender-gap.aspx

Brown, M.C., McNeil, N.M., & Glenberg, A.M.
(2009). Using concreteness in education: Real
problems, potential solutions. Child Development
Perspectives, 3(3): 160 –164. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00098.x

Cain-Caston, M. (1996). Manipulative queen. Journal
of Instructional Psychology, 23(4): 270-274.

Carbonneau, K.J., & Marley, S.C. (2012). Activity-
based learning strategies and academic achievement.
In J. A. C. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), The
international handbook of student achievement.
New York, NY: Routledge.

Carbonneau, K.J., Marley, S.C., & Selig, J.P. (2013).
A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching
mathematics with concrete manipulatives.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2): 380–
400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084

Chang, K. (2008). Study suggests math teachers
scrap balls and slices. The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/science
/25math.html

Dabney, K., Tai, R., Almarode, J., Miller-Friedmann,
J., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P., & Hazari, Z. (2012).
Out-of-School Time Science Activities and
Their Association with Career Interest in STEM.
International Journal of Science Education. Part B.
63-79. 10.1080/21548455.2011.629455.

Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of learning for
instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc.

Falk, J., & Needham, M. (2011). Measuring the
Impact of a Science Center on Its Community.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1):
1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20394

Farmer, L.S.J. (2005). Librarians, literacy, and the
promotion of gender equity. McFarland & Company.

Golafshani, N. (2013). Teachers’ beliefs and teaching
mathematics with manipulatives. Canadian
Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de
l’éducation, 36(3): 137-159.

Kablan, Z. (2016). The effect of manipulatives on
mathematics achievement across different
learning styles. Educational Psychology, 36(2):
277-296. https://www.researchgate.net/publica
tion/292977001_The_effect_of_manipulatives_
on_mathematics_achievement_across_different_
learning_styles

Lauder, H., Brown, P., Dillabough, J., & Halsey, A.
(2006). Education, Globalization and Social Change.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lazonder, A., & Ehrenhard, S. (2014). Physical vs.
virtual manipulatives. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 30(2): 110-120. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jcal.12024

Lee, C.Y., & Chen, M.J. (2015). Effects of worked
examples using manipulatives on fifth graders’
learning performance and attitude toward
mathematics. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 18(1): 264-275. http://www.ifets.info/
journals/18_1/22.pdf

Lubrica, J. (2010). Benefits from the use of
demonstration strategy. Philippine Physics
Journal, 32: 24-29.

Lyons, T., Quinn, F., Rizk, N., Anderson, N., Hubber,
P., Kenny, J., Sparrow, L., West, J., & Wilson, S.
(2012). Starting out in STEM : a study of young
men and women in first year science, technology,
engineering and mathematics courses. SiMERR
National Research Centre, University of New
England, Australia.

McFarland, E. (2005). Using Demonstration in
Teaching Physics. La Physique Au Canada, 87-89.

Moran-Zerda, L. (2001). Science and Mathematics
Education Beyond the Classroom. In Science,
Mathematics and Technology Literacy: Strategies
for the 21st Talisayon, et al. (eds). Quezon City:
National Institute for Science and Mathematics
Education Development. pp. 373 – 379.

Morgan, L.G. (2008). Improving Student
Engagement: Use of the Interactive Whiteboard
as an Instructional Tool to Improve Engagement
and Behavior in the Junior High School
Classroom. Online Dissertation. Faculty of the
School of Education, Liberty University. http://
digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1140&context=doctoral

Moyer, P.S. (2001). Are We having Fun? How
Teachers Use Manipulatives to Teach
Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics,
47: 175–197. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=teal_
facpub

Ogena, E., & Tan, M. (2006). Formulation of
National Learning Strategies in Science and
Mathematics Education. First Draft. Basic
Education Reform Agenda, Department of
Education.

Pascua, L. (1993). Secondary Mathematics Education
in the Philippines Today. Bell, G (Ed). Asian
Perspectives on Mathematics Education. Te
University of New England, Australia.

Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the
psychology of the child. New York: Grossman.

Science Education Institute, Department of Science
and Technology and the Philippine
Council of Mathematics Teacher Education.
(2011). Mathematics framework for Philippine
basic education. Manila: SEI-DOST & MATHTED.
http://www.sei.dost.gov.ph/images/downloads
/publ/sei_mathbasic.pdf

Shepardson D.P., Niyogi, D., Roychoudhury, A.,
Hirsch, A. (2012). Conceptualizing climate
change in the context of a climate system:
implications for climate and environmental
education. Environ Educ Res., 18(3): 323–352.

Smith, S.S. (2009). Education Using manipulatives.
Early Childhood Mathematics (4th ed.) Boston:
Pearson. http://www.teachervision.fen.com/pro-
dev/teaching-methods/48934.html

Study.com. (2015). Manipulatives in Education:
Definition, Examples & Classroom Applications.
Study.com. https://study.com/academy/lesson/
manipulatives-in-education-definition-examples-
classroom-applications.html

Taraban, R., Box, C., Myers, R., Pollard, R., & Bowen,
C. (2007). Effects of active‐learning experiences
on achievement, attitudes, and behaviors in
high school biology. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44(7): 960-979. https://doi.org/10.10
02/tea.20183

Tindall-Ford, S., & Sweller, J. (2006). Altering the
modality of instructions to facilitate imagination:
Interactions between the modality and
imagination effects. Instructional Science, 34(4),
343–365. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/
s11251-005-6075-5

UP National Institute for Science and Mathematics
Education Development. (2001). One Hundred
Years of Science and Mathematics Education
in the Philippines. UP Diliman, Q.C.

Wilke, R., & Straits, W. (2002). The effects of
discovery, learning in a lower division biology
course. Advances in physiology education, 25(2):
134-41. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.
25.2.62

Most read articles by the same author(s)