The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Manipulatives
Replies: 2   Last Post: Apr 11, 1995 8:44 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Tad Watanabe

Posts: 442
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Manipulatives
Posted: Apr 11, 1995 8:23 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

If I may be a little philosophic,...

One possible problem of the misuse of manipulatives is because some
teachers believe that manipulative "represent" and "embody" mathematical
concepts. If we take the constructivism epistemology seriously,
knowledge/concepts do not exist in things out there. They are
constructed by individuals. So, we as adults can "see" a red Cuisenaire
rod representing/embodying the notion of a half when it is compared to a
purple rod, there is no guarantee that children also "see" that
relationship because that relationship we "see" is our own construction.
It is not in those blocks.

To me the most important criterion for a good instructional material is
whether or not students can "think with" it. I think Seymour Papert
discussed this idea in his book, Mindstorm. Cuisenaire rods, pattern
blocks, base-10 blocks, etc. can be wonderful materials if they are
available for students to use in the way that makes sense to them. It's
just that we can't assume that children will make sense of those
materials in the same way we do. When we make that assumption and
structure the activities, then, IMHO, manipulatives are being misused.

* Tad Watanabe e-mail *
* Dept. of Mathematics *
* Towson State University watanabe-t@towsonvx.bitnet *
* Towson, MD 21204 *
* (410) 830 - 3585 (410) 830 - 4149 FAX *

On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Joan Reinthaler wrote:

> I agree with Linda Coutts that working with manipulatives can become as
> rote as other excercises, and certainly one would not want to become
> "dependent" on them in the sense that you had to carry them around with
> you. I do have a couple of other thoughts about manipulatives, however.
> 1. Too often they are contrived and become an end in themselves - their
> connections to the mathematics they are to represent just never really
> get made.
> 2. Where well used, however, they can enable students to visualize the
> mathematics they are doing in ways that pushing symbols around does not
> do. I think that a student who is dependent on *visualizing* pattern
> blocks when working with fractions probably has a far better sense of
> what is going on then the student who has just learned some procedures.
> For older kids -
> When I teach trig, I give my students large unit circles on graph paper
> with a radius of ten graph units of .1 each. They approximate the
> coordinates of the points on the circle at the intersections of the radii
> at pi/6, pi/4, ... etc and write these on the circle. From then on they
> can visualize the important symmetries by referring to the circle and
> they use the circle on tests and in doing work involving trig for several
> years afterward. For these kids the unit circle is a manipulative - they
> depend on it, not for values (they have calculators for these if
> necessary) but for visualizing and understanding the nature of circular
> functions. A kid who doesn't happen to have her circle available will
> often sketch it quickly when working on a problem - which is exactly how
> I would hope she would think
> Joan Reinthaler
> Sidwell Friends School

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.