Instructional Guidance and Realism of Manipulatives Influence Preschool Children's Mathematics Learning [“Realistic” manipulatives vs. “bland” manipulatives]
Carbonneau, Kira J.; Marley, Scott C. (2015). Journal of Experimental Education, v83 n4 p495-513. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1071109
-
examining72Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for “Realistic” manipulatives)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Procedural knowledge measure |
“Realistic” manipulatives vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample (realistic v. bland manipulatives);
|
8.53 |
8.04 |
No |
-- | |
|
Conceptual knowledge |
“Realistic” manipulatives vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample (realistic v. bland manipulatives);
|
7.01 |
8.67 |
Yes |
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Suburban, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
West
-
Race Native American 6% Other or unknown 3% White 48% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 43% Not Hispanic or Latino 57%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a daycare center on a university campus in a western state. In order to enroll, the students had to be the child of a student, staff member, or faculty member.
Study sample
Demographics were collected on all 72 participants. The sample included an even number of boys and girls. In addition, 48% of the students were White, 43% were Hispanic, 6% were Native American and 3% of parents did not report their child's ethnicity. The mean age of the students was 4.17 years.
Intervention Group
The intervention included a learning game that varied the instructions given to students (high vs. low guidance) and varied the type of manipulatives given to students (realistic vs. bland). For students in the high guidance condition, after having their crocodile ‘eat’ the set of objects in higher quantity, the researcher translated the scenario into mathematics terms (e.g., ‘This makes an inequality that reads three is more than two.’). Bland manipulatives were green circles (as opposed to green frogs). The entire session, which included both the intervention and the assessment of outcomes, lasted 30-minutes and was delivered one-on-one by the researchers. The learning game included a paper crocodile that was assigned the task of eating the larger of two piles of objects. In the intervention condition, the "realistic manipulatives" used as the pile of objects to be eaten by the crocodile were frogs. Only the realism of manipulatives variable was of interest for this practice guide.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received the same general training as the intervention group but interacted with bland manipulatives. The low guidance condition involved having another student present with no translation of the game into terms of inequality. Because the review is focused on the realism of the manipulatives, the two groups of students with the bland manipulatives represent the comparison condition for the review.
Support for implementation
No support was provided for implementation since the intervention lasted less than 30 minutes.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).