Manipulatives use during mathematics instruction yields a small statistically significant achievement advantage over nonuse in grades PK-12¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Students who used manipulatives during mathematics instruction had statistically significant higher mathematics achievement than students who did not, with a random-effects weighted standardized mean difference effect size of 0.22 (about a 9-percentile-point gain). → Amy B. Holmes 2013

Evidence¶

Amy B. Holmes 2013¶

Amy B. Holmes, Vanderbilt University. (2013). Effects of Manipulative Use on PK-12 Mathematics Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. SREE Spring 2013 Conference Abstract. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED563072

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects inverse variance weighted meta-analysis of 14 studies (14 effect sizes, 1126 students) comparing manipulatives use to a business-as-usual nonuse condition. The pooled standardized mean difference effect size was 0.22, "which translates to a mathematics achievement percentile gain of 9%", reported as statistically significant.

"the random effects weighted standardized mean difference effect size for the effect of manipulatives use to nonuse was 0.22, which translates to a mathematics achievement percentile gain of 9%"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Virtual manipulatives show a non-significant advantage over physical manipulatives on mathematics achievement — related
• Prior reviews and meta-analyses of manipulative use yielded conflicting findings, with mean effect sizes ranging from zero to 1.03 — related
• Moderator analyses for manipulative effects are inconclusive, with no discernable heterogeneity across participant and intervention characteristics — related