Does the use of manipulatives really make a difference in teaching a unit on quadrilaterals?
| dc.contributor.author | Johnson, Judy | |
| dc.contributor.department | Early and Elementary Education | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-06-01T19:39:16Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-06-01T19:39:16Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1988 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Does the use of manipulatives really make a difference in teaching a unit on quadrilaterals in a geometry class? Specifically, is there a notable improvement in students' achievement or attitudes toward geometry? Based on the theories of cognitive styles, does a particular type of learner respond best to the use of manipulatives? These were the questions considered in the study. In order to investigate these questions, the experimenting student teacher conducted her research on her two geometry classes of tenth through twelfth graders. Due to a difference in class size and student ability, twelve students in the experimental group were paired with twelve students in the control group for the purposes of validity and consistency. The experimenter then administered two pretests, one achievement and one attitude/learning style, to both groups. Since these instruments were designed by the experimenter and the thesis advisor, they must be considered an informal means of assessing these qualities. With these scores documented, the experimenter began teaching a unit on quadrilaterals to both groups. The experimental group's lessons were enriched with manipulatives intended to add meaning by linking the concrete to the abstract mathematical concepts. The control group was taught in a traditional manner, void of the use of manipulatives. The entire fourteen-day unit was taught in this manner. At the end of the unit, the chapter test, the achievement posttest, and the attitude posttest were administered, and the scores on each were documented. Analyzing these scores, significant t values (at the 95% confidence level) were obtained by the experimental group in the areas of achievement and attitude when the pretest and posttest scores on each were compared. Their results on the tests were clearly more impressive than those of the control group. Thus, the advantages of using manipulatives to add meaning by bridging the gap between the concrete realm and the abstract realm were supported by this testing. Specifically, t tests also revealed that visual learners followed by kinesthetic learners in the experimental group acceled the most of any group in achievement due to the use of manipulatives. In summary, substantial improvements in achievement and attitude were experienced by the experimental group who learned through manipulative activities. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 110 pages | en_US |
| dc.genre | theses | en_US |
| dc.identifier | doi:10.13016/M2NZ80T00 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11603/10891 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.relation.isAvailableAt | Salisbury University | en_US |
| dc.subject | Manipulatives | en_US |
| dc.subject | Quadrilaterals -- Study and teaching (Primary) | en_US |
| dc.title | Does the use of manipulatives really make a difference in teaching a unit on quadrilaterals? | en_US |
| dc.type | Text | en_US |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- JohnsonJudy_Spring1988.pdf
- Size:
- 3.14 MB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description: