EFFECTIVENESS OF MANIPULATIVE -BASED INSTRUCTION AMONG GRADE 1 AND GRADE 2

Authors

  • CRISTINE JOY VIERNES APAYAO STATE COLLEGE Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64358/fp6f1e70

Keywords:

Manipulative-Based Instruction (MBI), mathematics, numeracy, learner engagement, instructional toolkit, academic performance, validation

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of manipulative-based instruction (MBI) in improving the mathematical performance of Grade 1 and Grade 2 learners at Upper Atok Elementary School. Addressing the persistent challenge of low achievement and engagement among early elementary students in mathematics, the research sought to determine whether hands-on learning with concrete materials could bridge conceptual gaps and foster positive attitudes toward the subject.

Employing a one-group pre-test post-test design and mixed-methods approach, the study involved the administration of standardized assessments and surveys to measure academic progress and behavioral changes before and after the intervention. Statistical analyses, including paired t-tests and descriptive measures, revealed significant gains in mathematical performance for both grade levels, with mean scores and proficiency levels rising substantially post-intervention. Qualitative feedback further indicated increased confidence, enjoyment, and engagement among students. The findings affirm that manipulative-based instruction serves as a vital cognitive bridge for young learners, supporting the transition from concrete experiences to abstract thinking.

The study concludes that MBI not only enhances academic achievement but also cultivates positive learner dispositions, underscoring its significance as an effective instructional strategy in primary mathematics education.

 

References

REFERENCES

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428

Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., et al. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612440101

Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 850–867. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014939

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(2), 136–163. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034954

Department of Education. (2023). DepEd Order No. 013, s. 2023: The MATATAG Curriculum. Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/

Department of Education. (2018). Rationalizing the National Mathematics Program for Basic Education. Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/

Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Westenskow, A. (2013). The role of visual technologies and manipulatives in learning. Research Review, 33(2), 28–39.

Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084

Baroody, A. J., & Purpura, D. J. (2017). Early number and operations: The path to mathematics proficiency. Brookes Publishing.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press. https://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/jerome-bruners-theories

Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. Routledge.

Kamii, C. (1994). A constructivist approach to primary arithmetic (K-4). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(5), 548–551. http://www2.education.uiowa.edu/html/iae/iae-z-op-devries-1-5.pdf

Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, M. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 18(2), 121–131.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Guillermo, B. I. (2025). Impact of math manipulatives on Grade One pupils’ attitudes and academic achievement. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 51(2), 453–463. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2025/v51i21798

McNeil, N. M., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories collide: The influence of manipulatives on children's mathematical knowledge. Cognitive Development, 22(3), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840701593899

Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197.

Willingham, D. T. (2017). Ask the cognitive scientist: Do manipulatives help students learn? American Educator, 41(3), 34–40.

Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. Routledge.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.

Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498–505.

Furner, J. M., & Worrell, N. L. (2017). The importance of using manipulatives in teaching math today. Transformations, 3(1), 1–7.

Uribe-Flórez, L. J., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2010). Elementary school teachers’ manipulative use. School Science and Mathematics, 110(7), 363–371.

Suh, J. M., Moyer, P. S., & Heo, H. J. (2005). Examining representations in mathematics curricula. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(2), 102–109.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/

Boggan, M., Harper, S., & Whitmire, A. (2012). Using manipulatives to teach elementary mathematics. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3(1), 1–6.

Dinsmoor, L. (2022). Math manipulatives: A student-centered approach to teaching mathematics. Eureka Math2. https://greatminds.org/math/blog/eureka/math-manipulatives-a-student-centered-approach-to-teaching-mathematics

Downloads

Published

2026-08-30

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): International Journal of Education, Literacies and Curriculum Studies

Section

Articles