Research dealing with the impact of activity-based approaches on the teaching and learning of mathematics is relatively extensive.

No less than twenty reviews of research, surveys of the state of the art, or historical overviews have been completed since 1957. Given the sheer number of studies undertaken, it is perplexing to note that more is not known about the precise way in which manipulative materials affect the development of mathematical concepts. Perhaps the largest contributing factor to this has been the lack of coordinated research efforts that have mapped out a priori an area or areas of investigation and have designed individual investigations that would have provided coordinated answers to sets of related questions. Rather, the past pattern of research has been that of large numbers of individually conducted investigations and then posteriori attempts to relate them in some fashion. This has not been particularly fruitful and has left many unanswered questions and huge gaps in our knowledge. The most recent and comprehensive review of research on the use of manipulative materials was compiled at the Mathematics and Science Information Reference Center at Ohio State University (ERIC) by Suydam and Higgins (1976). The report generally concludes that manipulatives are effective in promoting student achievement but emphasizes the need for additional research. The impact of the use of manipulative materials upon achievement in mathematics is summarized in Table 8-1 (Suydam and Higgins 1976, pp. 33-39). The reader will note from Table 8-1 that 60 percent of the research studies examined favored the manipulative treatments, while only 10 percent clearly favored the nonmanipulative treatment. If studies in which no significant differences were found are interpreted as efforts that did not inhibit achievement, then in 90 percent of the studies reviewed the use of manipulative materials produced equivalent or superior student performance when compared with nonmanipulative approaches. This has led Suydam and Higgins to conclude that across a variety of mathematical topics, studies at every grade level support the importance of the use of manipulative materials. Additional studies support the use of both materials and pictures. We can find little conclusive evidence that manipulative materials are effective only at lower grade levels. The use of an activity

approach involving manipulative materials appears to be of importance for all levels of the elementary school (1976, p. 60).
Table 8-1 Summary of grade-related studies dealing with the impact of manipulative materials on students' achievement Grade level 1 3 5 7 and and and and 2 4 6 8 Number of studies Number of studies Number of studies favoring manipulative favoring non-manipulative showing no significant Total materials materials differences 7 2 3 12 9 1 3 13 6 0 3 9 2 1 3 6 24 4 12 40

Sixteen other studies examined in this report did not fall neatly into one of these three categories.

The results summarized in the Suydam and Higgins report are similar in nature to those found in earlier reviews of research dealing with manipulative materials and/or mathematics laboratories (Fennema 1972, Fitzgerald 1972, Kieren 1969, 1971, Vance and Kieren 1971, Wilkinson 1974). It was observed that "In almost all cases there is a similarity between their conclusions and certain of ours" (Suydam and Higgins 1976, p. 85). In conclusion Suydam and Higgins state, "We believe that lessons involving manipulative materials will produce greater mathematical achievement than will lessons in which manipulative materials are not used if the manipulative materials are used well" (p. 92). What does it mean to use materials well? The following suggestions were made by Suydam and Higgins (1976, pp. 9294): 1. Manipulative materials should be used frequently in a total mathematics program in a way consistent with the goals of the program. 2. Manipulative materials should be used in conjunction with other aids, including pictures, diagrams, textbooks, films, and similar materials. 3. Manipulative materials should be used in ways appropriate to mathematics content, and mathematics content should be adjusted to capitalize on manipulative approaches. 4. Manipulative materials should be used in conjunction with exploratory and inductive approaches.

5. The simplest possible materials should be employed. 6. Manipulative materials should be used with programs that encourage results to be recorded symbolically. Other aspects of manipulative materials need to be considered and researched. Bruner's three modes of representational thought suggest a linear sequence for advancing a particular concept from the concrete to the abstract level: first enactive, then iconic, then symbolic. Since manipulative materials are a means to an end and not an end in themselves, the intellectual mechanisms used in the transition from one mode to another are of great interest to the researcher and of equal significance to the classroom teacher. At this time, the general nature of those mechanisms is not known. I t is known, however, that experience and understanding at one level do not necessarily imply the ability to function at a more sophisticated level. For this reason the translation processes both within modes (multiple embodiments) and between modes need conscious attention. Under normal conditions, children are given materials during an instructional sequence wherein concepts are introduced and developed. In general, insufficient attention is paid to the way in which this enactive experience is related to the symbolic representation of that experience; for example, children might manipulate blocks, an abacus, or tongue depressors during initial exposure to the concept of place value. They may, however, never receive instruction as to how these materials reflect, in a concrete manner, the abstract manipulation of symbols that is sure to follow the enactive experience; that is, the existing isomorphism between different modes of representation of an idea is never consciously established. When children are then evaluated to assess their levels of achievement, they are expected to perform not at the enactive level, wherein the concept has been introduced and developed, but at the symbolic level. This inconsistency between mode of instruction and mode of evaluation has no doubt resulted in many spurious (and probably negative) conclusions regarding the nature of the impact of manipulative materials upon conceptual development. One way in which the relationships between enactive and symbolic modes can be highlighted is to juxtapose them, gradually fading out the more concrete mode. That is:

Enactive(E) -> Enactive/Symbolic(ES) -> Symbolic/Enactive(SE) > Symbolic(S) This model suggests that a concept should be introduced enactively, with the initial emphasis solely on physical manipulation (E). Next, although the primary emphasis is still on physical manipulation, the child is asked to simply record the results of his activity (ES). Third, the child is asked to perform the manipulation symbolically and to check or reaffirmsymbolic results by reenacting or modeling the original problem or exercise using the manipulative material, (SE). Last, the materials are faded out altogether, and the child operates exclusively at the symbolic level (S). Success within this last phase would seem to be logically dependent upon previous experiences within the other three. Note that the iconic phase is not represented. It is, at present, unclear how to best utilize this mode in the instructional sequence, and yet it would seem to be a valuable adjunct to concrete experience. At present, however, research is inconclusive on this point (Suydam and Higgins 1976, pp. 24-25). BARRIERS TO THE USE OF MANIPULATIVES Why are manipulative materials not more extensively used, given the persuasiveness of the theoretical arguments for providing enactive experiences in the mathematics classroom? Classroom teachers, when responding to this question, initially suggest that lack of financial resources is the most important factor inhibiting more extensive use of manipulative materials. The actual reasons are undoubtedly more complex than this. It is suggested here that inertia and subtle but powerful inschool political pressures are the two most significant factors retarding movement toward expanded use of enactive experiences in the nation's schools. There is evidence that concrete experiences are used in elementary schools. However, one survey indicated that as of 1978, 9 percent of the nation's mathematics classes (kindergarten through grade six) never use materials, and 37 percent use them less than one time per week (Fey 1979, p. 12). The fact is that systematic use of materials is more difficult for the teacher than administering a program designed around texts and workbooks. School-age children are (or should be) in the process of learning to be responsible for their own actions and

learning to control their own behavior. I t is, therefore, difficult for them to complete large interrupted segments of on-task time, especially when that time appears on the surface to be more loosely structured than the systematic completion of textbook pages. As a result of the inevitable (but temporary) transitional problems related to classroom management and control, many teachers have given up on such laboratory approaches prematurely, that is, before students have had adequate opportunity to develop the necessary degree of self-control. It must be noted that such decisions are made for reasons related to management and control and not necessarily for reasons related to pedagogy or learning. These are separate (although related) issues and should not be confused, which unfortunately they often are. The accountability issue also serves to inhibit widespread departures from the status quo. When accomplishment is viewed in terms of "covering" pages in the textbook, use of extra text activities seems antithetical and counterproductive. Further, when success in the overall program is determined by the extent to which students are able to calculate at the symbolic level on some standardized instrument, widespread use of manipulative materials seems almost counterproductive. Until the public realizes that a test score cannot be interpreted as a valid instrument of true understanding and that the things thus measured may not, in the final analysis, be the most significant outcomes of the mathematics program, this situation is likely to remain unaltered. The nature of basic skills and learning in mathematics is defined quite differently by the lay population, by classroom teachers, and by university-level mathematics educators. As an expanded definition of the basic skills similar to that suggested by the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics (NCSM 1978) becomes more widely accepted by the education and lay communities, the nature of the outcomes that classroom teachers are held accountable for will be likewise expanded. This should have the positive effect of expanding the use of enactive experiences as a learning method. This, in turn, will affect the degree to which manipulatives are considered an important aspect of a mathematics program. The current "back-to-basics"

movement is fundamentally inconsistent with such an expanded view of the nature and scope of the basic skills in mathematics. Jackson (1979, pp. 76-78) identified common mistaken beliefs and subsequent abuses resulting from an overzealous acceptance of manipulative materials as the long-sought-after educational panacea. The following were included in his list of mistaken beliefs. 1. Almost any manipulative aid may be used to teach any given concept. 2. Manipulative aids necessarily simplify the learning of mathematical concepts. 3. Good mathematics teaching always accompanies the use of manipulative materials. 4. The more manipulative aids used for a single concept, the better the concept is learned. 5. A single multipurpose aid should be used to teach all or most mathematical concepts. 6. Manipulative aids are more useful in the primary grades than in the intermediate and secondary grades, more useful with low-ability students than with high-ability students. The matter of whether or not to use manipulative materials in the mathematics classroom is a multifaceted one. It seems clear that in the daily routines of the average classroom, the dilemmas surrounding the use of manipulative aids are complicated and somewhat ambiguous. The factors that most influence decisions are not concerned with issues of conceptual development and mathematics learning but rather with the exigencies of day-to-day survival. The issues are complex, and their resolution will undoubtedly require more open communication between the groups involved and a reformulation of the major goals of mathematics education. MANIPULATIVE MATERIALS AND THE ROLE OF THE TEACHER A recent survey (Weiss 1978) suggests ". . . very common use of an instructional style in which teacher explanation and questioning is followed by student seatwork on paper and pencil assignments. . ," "The NSF case studies (Stake and Easley 1978)

confirm this pedestrian picture of day-to-day activity in mathematics classes at all grade levels," (Fey 1979, p. 12) Systematic use of manipulative materials can have profound effects on the role the teacher assumes in the teaching-learning process. Perhaps most important, teachers must modify their image of being considered the source from which all knowledge emanates. The teacher involved with the active learning of mathematics is no longer primarily concerned with teaching as it has been traditionally defined, that is, meaning lecturing, demonstrating, and other forms of explicit exposition. Instead, the teacher focuses attention on arranging or facilitating appropriate interactions between student(s) and materials. This is not to say that all instances of telling behavior are abolished, but rather they tend to be significantly limited. This redefined role can be traced directly to the nature of learning as previously discussed. Since children learn best through enactive encounters, appropriate experiences with materials are relied upon to assist children with conceptual development. This does not obviate the classroom teacher; it will always be necessary not only to arrange the conditions of learning but also to discuss, debrief, and encourage future explorations by asking the right questions or giving an appropriate direction at the most opportune time. The teacher's role in using manipulatives in a laboratory setting is more complex and in some sense more demanding than the more traditional role of telling and explaining. Individual and smallgroup work will assume a higher instructional priority. This is usually accomplished with a concurrent de-emphasis on lecture/demonstration. Such a format allows the teacher to differentiate student assignments more realistically (a station approach seems ideally suited for this); (b) frees the teacher to interact with individuals and small groups more extensively, addressing questions and concerns as they arise; and (c) requires a new source of direction insofar as the structuring of student activity is concerned. This is required since the teacher cannot provide direction to all groups simultaneously. Task or assignment cards can fulfill a major portion of this need. These cards are used to define student tasks explicitly. The teacher need only select those that are most appropriate for individuals and/or groups. Since there are literally tens of thousands of these individual assignment cards available commercially, the teacher need not

feel solely responsible for creating the activities that children are to undertake.
Penyelidikan berurusan dengan kesan pendekatan berasaskan aktiviti tentang pengajaran dan pembelajaran matematik adalah agak luas. Tidak kurang daripada dua puluh ulasan penyelidikan, penyiasatan keadaan seni, atau gambaran keseluruhan sejarah telah siap sejak tahun 1957. Memandangkan bilangan semata-mata kajian yang dijalankan, ia adalah membingungkan untuk ambil perhatian bahawa lebih banyak tidak diketahui tentang cara yang tepat di mana bahan-bahan manipulatif menjejaskan perkembangan konsep matematik. Mungkin faktor terbesar yang menyumbang kepada ini telah kekurangan daripada usaha penyelidikan diselaraskan yang telah merangka suatu keutamaan sesuatu kawasan atau kawasan-kawasan penyiasatan dan telah direka siasatan individu yang akan diberikan jawapan diselaraskan untuk set soalan yang berkaitan. Sebaliknya, corak yang lalu kajian telah bahawa sejumlah besar penyiasatan yang dijalankan secara individu dan kemudian posteriori cuba untuk mengaitkan mereka dengan cara tertentu. Ini tidak begitu berhasil dan telah meninggalkan banyak soalan yang tidak terjawab dan jurang yang besar dalam pengetahuan kita. Kajian yang paling terkini dan menyeluruh penyelidikan mengenai penggunaan bahan-bahan manipulatif telah disusun di Matematik dan Sains Maklumat Pusat Rujukan di Ohio State University (ERIC) dengan Suydam dan Higgins (1976). Laporan itu menyimpulkan bahawa umumnya manipulatif adalah berkesan dalam mempromosikan pencapaian pelajar tetapi menekankan keperluan untuk penyelidikan tambahan. Kesan penggunaan bahan-bahan manipulatif bergantung kepada pencapaian dalam matematik dirumuskan dalam Jadual 8-1 (Suydam dan Higgins 1976, ms 33-39). Pembaca akan dapati dari Jadual 8-1 bahawa 60 peratus daripada kajian penyelidikan diperiksa digemari rawatan manipulasi, manakala hanya 10 peratus jelas digemari rawatan nonmanipulative. Jika kajian di mana tiada perbezaan yang signifikan didapati ditafsirkan sebagai usaha yang tidak menghalang pencapaian, maka dalam 90 peratus daripada kajian semula penggunaan bahan-bahan manipulatif yang dihasilkan prestasi pelajar yang setara atau lebih tinggi berbanding dengan pendekatan nonmanipulative. Ini telah membawa Suydam dan Higgins untuk membuat kesimpulan bahawa ... Di seluruh pelbagai topik matematik, pengajian di setiap peringkat gred menyokong kepentingan penggunaan bahan-bahan manipulatif. Kajian tambahan menyokong penggunaan kedua-dua bahan dan gambar. Kita boleh mencari sedikit bukti muktamad bahawa bahan-bahan manipulatif adalah efektif hanya pada tahap gred yang lebih rendah. Penggunaan pendekatan aktiviti yang melibatkan bahan-bahan manipulatif muncul untuk menjadi kepentingan untuk semua peringkat sekolah rendah (1976, ms. 60). Jadual 8-1 Ringkasan kajian gred berkaitan berurusan dengan kesan bahan-bahan manipulatif terhadap pencapaian pelajar Bilangan gred kajian memihak bahan manipulatif Bilangan kajian memihak bahan-bahan bukan manipulasi Bilangan kajian menunjukkan tiada perbezaan yang signifikan Jumlah

1 dan 2 7 2 3 12 3 dan 4 9 1 3 13 5 dan 6 6 0 3 9 7 dan 8 2 1 3 6 24 4 12 40 Enam belas kajian lain diperiksa dalam laporan ini tidak jatuh dengan kemas ke salah satu daripada tiga kategori. Keputusan diringkaskan dalam Suydam dan Higgins laporan adalah sama dalam alam semula jadi untuk mereka yang didapati dalam ulasan awal penyelidikan yang berurusan dengan bahan-bahan manipulatif dan / atau makmal matematik (Fennema 1972, Fitzgerald 1972, Kieren tahun 1969, 1971, Vance dan Kieren 1971, Wilkinson 1974) . Ia adalah diperhatikan bahawa "Dalam hampir semua kes-kes yang ada persamaan antara kesimpulan mereka dan sesetengah daripada kita" (Suydam dan Higgins 1976, ms. 85). Kesimpulannya Suydam Higgins dan negeri, "Kami percaya bahawa pengajaran yang melibatkan bahan-bahan manipulatif akan menghasilkan pencapaian matematik yang lebih besar daripada pelajaran akan di mana bahan-bahan manipulatif tidak digunakan jika bahan-bahan manipulatif yang digunakan dengan baik" (ms 92). Apa yang dimaksudkan dengan menggunakan bahan-bahan juga? Cadangan-cadangan yang berikut telah dibuat oleh Suydam dan Higgins (1976, ms 9294): Bahan-bahan manipulatif perlu digunakan dengan kerap dalam program matematik jumlah dalam cara yang konsisten dengan matlamat program ini. Bahan-bahan manipulatif perlu digunakan bersama-sama dengan bantuan lain, termasuk gambar-gambar, gambar rajah, buku teks, filem, dan bahan-bahan yang serupa. Bahan-bahan manipulatif harus digunakan dengan cara yang sesuai ke kandungan matematik, dan kandungan matematik perlu diselaraskan untuk memanfaatkan pendekatan manipulasi. Bahan-bahan manipulatif perlu digunakan bersama dengan pendekatan penerokaan dan induktif. Bahan-bahan yang paling mudah yang mungkin perlu digunakan. Bahan-bahan manipulatif harus digunakan dengan program-program yang menggalakkan keputusan untuk direkodkan simbolik. Aspek-aspek lain bahan-bahan manipulatif perlu dipertimbangkan dan dikaji. Tiga mod Bruner pemikiran perwakilan mencadangkan urutan linear untuk memajukan satu konsep yang tertentu dari konkrit ke peringkat abstrak: enactive pertama, kemudian ikonik, maka simbolik. Sejak bahan-bahan manipulatif adalah satu cara untuk berakhir dan tidak akan berakhir dalam diri mereka sendiri, mekanisme intelektual yang digunakan dalam peralihan dari satu mod yang lain adalah menarik kepada penyelidik dan kepentingan yang sama kepada guru kelas. Pada masa ini, sifat umum yang mekanisme tidak diketahui. Saya t diketahui, bagaimanapun, bahawa pengalaman dan pemahaman pada satu tahap tidak semestinya membayangkan keupayaan untuk berfungsi pada tahap yang lebih canggih. Atas sebab ini, kedua-dua proses terjemahan dalam mod (pelbagai penjelmaan) dan antara mod memerlukan perhatian sedar. Di bawah keadaan biasa, kanak-kanak diberi bahan-bahan semasa urutan pengajaran di mana konsep yang diperkenalkan dan dibangunkan. Secara umum, tidak cukup perhatian

dibayar kepada cara di mana pengalaman ini enactive berkaitan dengan perwakilan simbolik pengalaman yang, contohnya, kanak-kanak mungkin memanipulasi blok, sempoa, atau depressors lidah semasa pendedahan awal kepada konsep nilai tempat. Mereka boleh, bagaimanapun, tidak pernah menerima arahan tentang bagaimana bahan-bahan ini mencerminkan, secara konkrit, manipulasi simbol abstrak yang pasti untuk mengikuti pengalaman enactive; iaitu, isomorfisma sedia ada antara mod pandangan perwakilan idea tidak pernah sedar ditubuhkan. Apabila kanak-kanak ini kemudiannya dinilai untuk menilai tahap pencapaian mereka, mereka dijangka untuk tidak melaksanakan di peringkat enactive, di mana konsep yang telah diperkenalkan dan dibangunkan, tetapi di peringkat simbolik. Ini tidak konsisten antara mod pengajaran dan cara penilaian tidak mempunyai keraguan menyebabkan banyak palsu (dan mungkin negatif) kesimpulan mengenai sifat kesan bahanbahan manipulatif kepada pembangunan konsep. Salah satu cara di mana hubungan antara mod enactive dan simbolik boleh diketengahkan adalah untuk mendekatkan mereka, secara beransur-ansur pudar daripada mod yang lebih konkrit. Iaitu: Enactive (E) -> Enactive / simbolik (ES) -> simbolik / Enactive (SE) -> simbolik (S) Model ini menunjukkan bahawa konsep perlu diperkenalkan enaktif, dengan penekanan awal semata-mata kepada manipulasi fizikal (E). Seterusnya, walaupun penekanan utama masih manipulasi fizikal, kanak-kanak diminta untuk hanya mencatat keputusan aktiviti beliau (ES). Ketiga, kanak-kanak itu diminta untuk melaksanakan manipulasi simbolik dan untuk memeriksa atau mengesahkan keputusan simbolik oleh reenacting atau model masalah asal atau senaman menggunakan bahan manipulatif, (SE). Lalu, bahan-bahan ini pudar sama sekali, dan kanak-kanak yang beroperasi secara eksklusif di peringkat simbolik (S). Kejayaan dalam fasa terakhir ini akan kelihatan logik bergantung kepada pengalamanpengalaman sebelumnya dalam tiga yang lain. Perhatikan bahawa fasa ikonik tidak diwakili. Ia adalah, pada masa ini, tidak jelas cara terbaik menggunakan mod ini dalam urutan pengajaran, tetapi ia seolah-olah menjadi tambahan yang berharga untuk pengalaman konkrit. Pada masa ini, bagaimanapun, penyelidikan adalah muktamad mengenai hal ini (Suydam dan Higgins 1976, ms 24-25). HALANGAN KEPADA PENGGUNAAN manipulatif Mengapa bahan manipulasi tidak lebih digunakan secara meluas, memandangkan pujukan hujah-hujah teori bagi menyediakan pengalaman enactive dalam bilik darjah matematik? Guru-guru kelas, ketika menjawab soalan ini, pada mulanya mencadangkan bahawa kekurangan sumber kewangan adalah faktor yang paling penting menghalang penggunaan yang lebih meluas bahan-bahan manipulatif. Sebab-sebab sebenar adalah pasti lebih kompleks daripada ini. Adalah dicadangkan di sini bahawa sifat tekun dan tekanan politik inschool halus tetapi kuat adalah dua faktor yang paling penting memperlahankan pergerakan ke arah penggunaan berkembang pengalaman enactive di sekolah-sekolah di negara ini. Terdapat bukti bahawa pengalaman konkrit yang digunakan di sekolah-sekolah rendah. Walau bagaimanapun, satu kajian menunjukkan bahawa pada tahun 1978, 9 peratus daripada kelas matematik negara

(tadika melalui gred enam) tidak pernah menggunakan bahan-bahan, dan 37 peratus menggunakan mereka kurang daripada satu masa seminggu (Fey 1979, ms. 12). Hakikatnya adalah bahawa penggunaan sistematik bahan adalah lebih sukar bagi guru daripada mentadbir program direka teks dan buku kerja. Sekolah-kanak adalah (atau sepatutnya) dalam proses pembelajaran untuk bertanggungjawab atas tindakan mereka sendiri dan belajar untuk mengawal tingkah laku mereka sendiri. Saya t Oleh itu, sukar bagi mereka untuk melengkapkan segmen besar terganggu masa pada tugas, terutamanya apabila masa yang muncul di permukaan untuk menjadi lebih longgar berstruktur daripada penyelesaian sistematik muka surat buku teks. Akibat yang tidak dapat dielakkan (tetapi sementara) masalah peralihan yang berkaitan dengan pengurusan dan kawalan kelas, ramai guru-guru telah diberikan di atas makmal seperti pendekatan awal, iaitu sebelum pelajar telah mempunyai peluang yang mencukupi untuk membangunkan tahap yang perlu kawalan diri. Ia perlu diambil perhatian bahawa keputusan itu dibuat atas sebab-sebab yang berkaitan dengan pengurusan dan kawalan dan tidak semestinya atas sebab-sebab yang berkaitan dengan pedagogi atau pembelajaran. Ini adalah berasingan (walaupun berkaitan) isu-isu dan tidak perlu keliru, yang malangnya mereka sering. Isu akauntabiliti juga berfungsi untuk menghalang pelepasan meluas daripada status quo. Apabila pencapaian dilihat dari segi "meliputi" muka surat dalam buku teks, penggunaan aktiviti teks tambahan seolah-olah bercanggah dan produktif. Di samping itu, apabila berjaya dalam program keseluruhan ditentukan oleh sejauh mana pelajar dapat mengira di peringkat simbolik kepada beberapa alat standard, penggunaan meluas bahan-bahan manipulatif seolah-olah hampir tidak produktif. Sehingga orang ramai menyedari bahawa skor ujian tidak boleh ditafsirkan sebagai instrumen yang sah pemahaman yang benar dan bahawa perkara-perkara itu diukur tidak boleh, dalam analisis terakhir, menjadi hasil yang paling penting program matematik, keadaan ini mungkin akan tetap tidak diubah. Sifat kemahiran asas dan pembelajaran dalam matematik ditakrifkan agak berbeza oleh penduduk meletakkan, dengan guru-guru kelas, dan oleh pendidik matematik peringkat universiti. Sebagai definisi berkembang daripada kemahiran asas yang sama dengan yang dicadangkan oleh Majlis Kebangsaan Penyelia Matematik (NCSM 1978) menjadi diterima secara meluas oleh pendidikan dan meletakkan masyarakat, sifat hasil yang guru-guru kelas dipertanggungjawabkan untuk akan begitu juga diperluaskan. Ini harus mempunyai kesan yang positif untuk mengembangkan penggunaan pengalaman enactive sebagai kaedah pembelajaran. Ini seterusnya akan memberi kesan kepada tahap yang manipulatif dianggap satu aspek penting dalam program matematik. Semasa "back-to-asas" pergerakan asasnya tidak konsisten dengan apa-apa pandangan yang lebih luas tentang sifat dan skop kemahiran asas dalam matematik. Jackson (1979, ms 76-78) mengenal pasti kepercayaan salah yang biasa dan penyalahgunaan berikutnya akibat daripada penerimaan keterlaluan bahan-bahan manipulatif seperti jangka dicari penawar pendidikan. Berikut telah dimasukkan dalam senarai kepercayaan silap. Hampir apa-apa bantuan manipulasi boleh digunakan untuk mengajar mana-mana konsep yang diberikan. Bantuan manipulasi semestinya memudahkan pembelajaran konsep matematik.

Pengajaran matematik yang baik sentiasa mengiringi penggunaan bahan-bahan manipulatif. Alat bantuan lebih manipulasi digunakan untuk satu konsep, lebih baik konsep ini dipelajari. A bantuan pelbagai guna tunggal ini harus digunakan untuk mengajar semua atau kebanyakan matematik konsep. Bantuan manipulasi adalah lebih berguna di peringkat sekolah rendah daripada dalam gred pertengahan dan menengah, lebih berguna dengan pelajar keupayaan rendah berbanding dengan pelajar-pelajar yang tinggi keupayaan. Soal sama ada atau tidak untuk menggunakan bahan-bahan manipulatif di dalam kelas matematik adalah satu pelbagai aspek. Ia seolah-olah jelas bahawa pada rutin harian kelas purata, dilema yang menyelubungi penggunaan alat bantuan manipulasi adalah rumit dan agak samar-samar. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi keputusan yang paling tidak berkenaan dengan isu-isu pembangunan konsep dan pembelajaran matematik tetapi dengan desakan hidup sehari-hari. Isu-isu yang kompleks, dan resolusi mereka pasti akan memerlukan komunikasi yang lebih terbuka antara kumpulan yang terlibat dan perumusan satu matlamat utama pendidikan matematik. BAHAN manipulasi dan PERANAN GURU THE Satu tinjauan baru-baru ini (Weiss 1978) mencadangkan "... penggunaan yang biasa gaya pengajaran di mana penjelasan guru dan disoal diikuti oleh seatwork pelajar di atas kertas dan pensil tugasan ..", "Kajian kes NSF (Pegangan dan Easley 1978) mengesahkan gambar ini pejalan kaki aktiviti sehari-hari di dalam kelas matematik di semua peringkat, "(Fey 1979, p 12.) Penggunaan sistematik bahan manipulasi boleh memberi kesan yang mendalam terhadap peranan guru menganggap dalam proses pengajaran dan pembelajaran. Mungkin yang paling penting, guru perlu mengubah imej mereka yang dianggap sebagai sumber dari mana semua berasal pengetahuan. Guru yang terlibat dengan pembelajaran aktif matematik tidak lagi terutamanya berkenaan dengan pengajaran kerana ia telah secara tradisional ditakrifkan, iaitu, makna syarahan, demonstrasi, dan lain-lain bentuk penjelasan yang jelas. Sebaliknya, guru menumpukan perhatian kepada mengatur atau memudahkan interaksi yang sesuai antara pelajar (s) dan bahan-bahan. Ini bukan untuk mengatakan bahawa semua kejadian memberitahu tingkah laku yang dimansuhkan, tetapi mereka cenderung untuk menjadi ketara terhad. Ini peranan yang ditakrifkan semula dapat dikesan secara langsung kepada sifat pembelajaran seperti yang dibincangkan sebelum ini. Sejak kanak-kanak belajar dengan lebih baik melalui pertemuan enactive, pengalaman yang sesuai dengan bahanbahan yang diharapkan untuk membantu kanak-kanak dengan pembangunan konsep. Ini tidak menyingkirkan guru kelas, ia akan sentiasa perlu bukan sahaja untuk mengatur syaratsyarat pembelajaran tetapi juga untuk berbincang, debrief, dan menggalakkan penerokaan masa depan dengan bertanya soalan yang betul atau memberi arahan yang sesuai pada masa yang paling sesuai. Peranan guru dalam menggunakan manipulatif dalam persekitaran makmal adalah lebih kompleks dan dalam erti kata lain lebih mencabar daripada peranan yang lebih tradisional memberitahu dan menjelaskan. Kerja individu dan kumpulan kecil akan mengambil alih keutamaan pengajaran yang lebih tinggi. Ini biasanya dicapai dengan de-penekanan serentak pada kuliah / demonstrasi. Format tersebut membolehkan guru untuk membezakan tugasan

pelajar lebih realistik (pendekatan stesen seolah-olah sesuai untuk ini) (b) membebaskan guru untuk berinteraksi dengan individu-individu dan kumpulan kecil yang lebih meluas, menangani persoalan dan kebimbangan yang timbul, dan (c ) memerlukan sumber baru arah setakat penstrukturan aktiviti pelajar berkenaan. Ini diperlukan kerana guru tidak boleh memberikan arahan kepada semua kumpulan secara serentak. Tugas atau tugasan kad boleh memenuhi sebahagian besar daripada keperluan ini. Kad ini digunakan untuk menentukan tugas-tugas pelajar jelas. Guru hanya perlu memilih orang-orang yang paling sesuai untuk individu dan / atau kumpulan. Oleh kerana terdapat beribu-beribu-ribu kad-kad tugasan individu didapati secara komersial, guru tidak perlu merasa bertanggungjawab untuk mewujudkan aktiviti-aktiviti yang kanak-kanak untuk menjalankan. Literature Review

Whatever the appropriate role of iconic experiences, it seems clear that the Brunerian model will prove to be overly simplistic since it does not include reference to such variables as the nature and scope of the human interaction patterns that invariably accompany the educational process. Previous research in all areas continually reaffirms the importance of the teacher variable, a variable that has proved to be extremely difficult to identify and control. The research literature regularly suggests that the teacher effect is responsible for the largest percentage of the identifiable variance. This is true regardless of grade level, mathematical topic, or the level of the students' ability. Comprehensive research in the future must surely attend to this difficult area. Recent interest in the teaching experiment as an alternative to the more traditional form of educational research, which utilizes classical research designs and their attendant statistical analyses, is a promising innovation in research in mathematics education. The teaching experiment is nonexperimental in nature. It typically utilizes fewer students, sometimes omits the use of a control group, and is designed primarily to maximize interaction between investigator and student. In-depth probing of students' reasoning processes is usually the major research objective. Insights gained by the researcher often result in the formulation of new and more precise hypotheses that can at some later point be subjected to experimental research. Important insights into how students of all ages think mathematically have resulted from increased use of this technique over the past decade. In the future such procedures will undoubtedly shed new light on the more subtle and as yet unanswered questions regarding the nature and role of manipulative materials in the learning of mathematical concepts.

To this point research has been designed primarily to address the larger question, "Does the use of manipulative materials produce superior student achievement?" Results thus far have been encouraging. Research to date has not investigated the nature of the factors surrounding the use of materials that result in superior learning. When these factors have been isolated and clearly identified, it will become important to explore further the kinds of interactions between individual differences, learning styles, teaching styles, the structural nature of the most useful materials, the relationship between content and materials, and the sequencing and appropriate use of various modes of representation. The magnitude of this task is enormous and will undoubtedly consume a major portion of the remainder of this century. I t is not a task that can be effectively undertaken by isolated individuals, as answers to these questions will require large-scale externally funded cooperative research projects. These projects will undoubtedly identify a series of related questions for subsequent investigation. If such questions are identified and the total research package planned so that each question and answer will supply a piece of a larger mosaic, the results can and will begin to answer questions that at this point are still in the formative stage.

Pattern blocks[edit]

One of the ways of making a dodecagonwith pattern blocks

Pattern blocks consist of various wooden shapes (green triangles, red trapezoids, yellow hexagons, orange squares, tan (long) rhombi, and blue (wide) rhombi) that are sized in such a way that students will be able to see relationships among shapes. For example, three green triangles make a red

trapezoid; two red trapezoids make up a yellow hexagon; a blue rhombus is made up of two green triangles; three blue rhombi make a yellow hexagon, etc. Playing with the shapes in these ways help children develop a spatial understanding of how shapes are composed and decomposed, an essential understanding in early geometry. Pattern blocks are also used by teachers as a means for students to identify, extend, and create patterns. A teacher may ask students to identify the following pattern (by either color or shape): hexagon, triangle, triangle, hexagon, triangle, triangle, hexagon. Students can then discuss what comes next and continue the pattern by physically moving pattern blocks to extend it. It is important for young children to create patterns using concrete materials like the pattern blocks. Pattern blocks can also serve to provide students with an understanding of fractions. Because pattern blocks are sized to fit to each other (for instance, six triangles make up a hexagon), they provide a concrete experiences with halves, thirds, and sixths. Adults tend to use pattern blocks to create geometric works of art such as mosaics. There are over 100 different pictures that can be made from pattern blocks. These include cars, trains, boats, rockets, flowers, animals, insects, birds, people, household objects, etc. The advantage of pattern block art is that it can be changed around, added, or turned into something else. All six of the shapes (green triangles, blue (thick) rhombi, red trapezoids, yellow hexagons, orange squares, and tan (thin) rhombi) are applied to make mosaics.

Interlocking cubes[edit]

Interlocking centimeter cubes

Interlocking cubes (or mathlink cubes) are usually one cm3 cubes that connect with each other from all sides. There is also a tool called unifixed cubes that are the same size, but only connect from the top to the bottom. They come in a wide variety of colors. Like pattern blocks, interlocking cubes can also be used for teaching patterns. Students use the cubes to make long trains of patterns. Like the pattern blocks, the interlocking cubes provide a concrete experience for students to identify, extend, and create patterns. The difference is that a student can also physically decompose a pattern by the unit. For example, if a student made a pattern train that followed this sequence, Red, blue, blue, blue, red, blue, blue, blue, red, blue, blue, blue, red, blue, blue.. the child could then be asked to identify the unit that is repeating (red, blue, blue, blue) and take apart the pattern by each unit. Also, one can learn addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, guesstimation, measuring and [7] graphing, perimeter , area and volume.

Tiles[edit]

Tiles are one inch-by-one inch colored squares (red, green, yellow, blue). Tiles can be used much the same way as interlocking cubes. The difference is that tiles cannot be locked together. They remain as separate pieces, which in many teaching scenarios, may be more ideal. These three types of mathematical manipulatives can be used to teach the same concepts. It is critical that students learn math concepts using a variety of tools. For example, as students learn to make patterns, they should be able to create patterns using all three of these tools. Seeing the same concept represented in multiple ways as well as using a variety of concrete models will expand students understandings.

Number lines[edit]
To teach integer addition and subtraction, a number line is often used. A typical positive/negative number line spans from -20 to 20. For a problem such as -25 + 17, students are told to find -25 and count 17 spaces to the right giving the feeling that -25 is a stationary number while 17 some sort of movement. Though this method will give the correct answer -8, it may not be the way we would approach the problem if it were in a word problem. Moreover, "to the right" has no intrinsic meaning of "more" or "add" and would get confusing when subtracting negatives.