You are here:

Developing Students’ Representational Fluency Using Virtual and Physical Algebra Balances
Article

, , George Mason University, United States

JCMST Volume 26, Number 2, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Both virtual and physical manipulatives are reported as effective learning tools when used with different groups of students in a variety of contexts to learn mathematical content. The use of multiple representations and the flexibility to translate among those representational forms facilitates students' learning and has the potential to deepen their understanding. This classroom project involved two groups of third-grade students in a week-long unit focusing on algebraic relationships. The purpose of the unit was to engage students with different algebraic models and encourage students to use informal strategies to represent their relational thinking. The paper highlights examples of these student representations as evidence of the children's developing algebraic thinking. Result from the pre- and post-test measures showed that students in the physical and virtual manipulative environments gained significantly in achievement and showed flexibility in translating and representing their understanding in multiple representations: manipulative model, pictorial, numeric and word problems. The researchers recorded field notes, interviewed students, and videotaped class sessions in order to identify unique features of the learning environments. The virtual environment had unique features that promoted student thinking such as: a) explicit linking of visual and symbolic modes; b) guided step-by-step support in algorithmic processes; and c) immediate feedback and self-checking system. In the physical environment, some unique features were: a) tactile features; b) opportunities for invented strategies; and c) mental mathematics. These results show that although the different manipulative models had different features, both the physical and virtual environments were effective in supporting students' learning and encouraging relational thinking and algebraic reasoning.

Citation

Suh, J. & Moyer-Packenham, P. (2007). Developing Students’ Representational Fluency Using Virtual and Physical Algebra Balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155-173. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 12, 2019 from .

© 2007 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Balka, D.S. (1993). Making the connections in mathematics via manipulatives. Contemporary Education, 65(1), 19-23.
  2. Borenson, H. (1997). Hands-on equations® learning system. Allentown, PA: Borenson and Associates.
  3. Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991) Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 71, 64-73.
  4. Cramer, K. (2003). Using a translation model for curriculum development and classroom instruction. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism. Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Dorward, J. (2002). Intuition and research: Are they compatible. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 329-332.
  6. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
  7. Greenes, C., & Findell, C. (1999). Developing students’ algebraic reasoning abilities. In L.V. Stiff & F.R. Curico (Eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12, 1999 yearbook. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  8. Kaput, J. (1989). Linking representations in the symbol system of algebra. In C. Kieran& S.Wagner (Eds.), A research agenda for the learning and teaching of algebra. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  9. Lesh, R., Landau, M., & Hamilton, E. (1983). Conceptual models in applied mathematical problem solving research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts& Processes (pp. 263-343). New York:
  10. Moyer, P.S., Niezgoda, D., & Stanley, J. (2005). Young children’s use of virtual manipulatives and other forms of mathematical representations. In W.J. Masalski & P.C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments, 67th environments, 67th environments, 67 yearbook (pp. 17-34). Reston, VA: National Council of
  11. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P.S. (2005). Third graders learn about fraction using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Math and Developing Students' Representational Fluency 173
  12. Rieber, L.P. (1994) Computers, graphics and learning. Madison, WI: WCB Brown& Benchmark.
  13. Suh, J. (2005). Third graders’ mathematics achievement and representation preference using virtual and physical manipulatives for adding fractions and balancing equations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
  14. Takahashi, A. (2002). Affordances of computer-based and physical geoboards in problem-solving activities in the middle grades. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(11), 3888.
  15. Terry, M.K. (1996). An investigation of differences in cognition when utilizing math manipulatives and math manipulative software. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-St. Louis, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts Internation DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.