A Study Comparing Virtual Manipulatives with Other Instructional Treatments in Third- and Fourth-Grade Classrooms

Abstract

The study reported here examined virtual manipulatives as an instructional treatment in 17 third-and fourth-grade classrooms. Students were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: texts and physical manipulatives (PM), and virtual manipulatives (VM). Results revealed no significant differences in achievement between the treatments. Additional results showed that objective ability predicted fraction achievement; virtual manipulative use can be modulated by test question type (e.g., symbolic vs. pictorial); percentage of class time using representations differed between VM and PM classrooms; and percentage of class time spent using representation types differed, potentially providing differential opportunities to learn.

Using Open-Response Fraction Items to Explore the Relationship Between Instructional Modalities and Students’ Solution Strategies

“…VMR and PMTR instruction led students to use similar responses and strategies on the open-response fraction items. Overall, the results of this study corroborate previous research indicating the importance of both types of instructional modalities, showing that virtual manipulatives and physical manipulatives are effective instructional tools with positive effects on student learning (e.g., Burns & Hamm, 2011;Carbonneau et al, 2012;Mendiburo & Hasselbring, 2011;Moyer-Packenham & Westenskow, 2013;Sowell, 1989). However, a conversion mixed methods analysis offers researchers an opportunity to explore the nuances of students' fractions understanding.…”

“…A beneficial quality of many virtual manipulatives applets is their simultaneous linking of pictorial and symbolic representations (Moyer-Packenham & Westenskow, 2013). Physical manipulatives do not typically contain the simultaneous linking affordance; therefore, many researchers have described the importance of transparency and linking representations when using physical manipulatives to teach concepts (Cramer, Post, & delMas, 2002).…”

“…Some teachers use virtual manipulatives (Moyer, Bolyard, & Spikell, 2002), which combine representations (e.g., pictorial and symbolic) and representational modalities (e.g., visual and haptic). Studies indicate that using multiple representations and modalities in fraction instruction develops and expands students' understanding of fractions (Behr, Lesh, Post, & Silver, 1983;Moyer-Packenham & Westenskow, 2013;Sowell, 1989).…”

“…Some teachers use virtual manipulatives (Moyer, Bolyard, & Spikell, 2002), which combine representations (e.g., pictorial and symbolic) and representational modalities (e.g., visual and haptic). Studies indicate that using multiple representations and modalities in fraction instruction develops and expands students' understanding of fractions (Behr, Lesh, Post, & Silver, 1983;Moyer-Packenham & Westenskow, 2013;Sowell, 1989).The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between instructional modalities used for learning fraction concepts-specifically using virtual manipulatives or physical manipulatives with textbooks-and students' solution strategies on open-response fraction items. We employed a conversion mixed methods approach (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2006) to analyze open-response items, which we coded and quantitized for quantitative and qualitative analysis.…”

“…By engaging with virtual manipulatives, students leave the concrete portion of Bruner's concrete-pictorial-abstract model (1966) and go beyond the pictorial phase, because virtual manipulatives provide a dynamic visual or pictorial model (Moyer, Niezgoda, & Stanley, 2005). A recent meta-analysis of 82 effect size scores from 32 studies comparing the effects of using virtual manipulatives on student achievement with other methods of instruction indicates that virtual manipulatives have moderate effects on student achievement during instruction when compared to other types of instruction (Moyer-Packenham & Westenskow, 2013). …”