Prior reviews and meta-analyses of manipulative use yielded conflicting findings, with mean effect sizes ranging from zero to 1.03¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Earlier syntheses disagreed: Parham (1983) obtained a mean effect size of 1.03 for grades 1-6, while Sutawidjaja (1987) found an overall mean effect size of zero for primary grades, and Domino (2010) found 0.50 for K-6. → 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

q2 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

The review reports, citing Parham (1983) and Sutawidjaja (1987), conflicting pooled effects; it also reports Domino (2010) found an overall effect size of 0.50 for physical manipulatives in grades K-6 from 1989 to 2010. These are second-hand figures from prior syntheses.

"Parham (1983) obtained a mean effect size of 1.03 for the effect of manipulative use on student achievement compared to nonuse in grades 1-6, whereas Sutawidjaja’s (1987) meta-analysis focused on primary grades students found an overall mean effect size of zero"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Manipulatives use during mathematics instruction yields a small statistically significant achievement advantage over nonuse in grades PK-12 — related
• Advance organizers produce a small average learning benefit, larger for high-ability than for low-ability learners — related
• Mean effect sizes across the 13 reviewed meta-analyses ranged from -.11 to .57 — related