Middle School Students' Views on the Use of Manipulatives in Mathematics Lessons

Öz

This research was conducted to determine middle school students' opinions on the use of mathematical manipulatives in lessons. For this purpose, the participants consisted of 91 middle school students selected from middle schools in the Yenimahalle district of Ankara province using a convenient sampling method, one of the purposeful sampling methods. Data for the study were collected using a semi-structured interview form prepared by the researcher, and the obtained data were analyzed using content analysis. The results of the research revealed that middle school students' opinions on the use of mathematical manipulatives in lessons were primarily categorized into: 'teachers' use of manipulatives', 'manipulatives used by the teacher', 'which mathematical manipulatives have an impact on the lesson?', and 'the contribution of manipulatives used in the lesson to other subjects'. Based on these results, it is recommended that mathematics teachers use educational, instructive, and entertaining virtual and tangible manipulatives, especially in the teaching and evaluation of mathematics lessons.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Manipulatives
• middle school students
• qualitative research.

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Matematik Dersinde Manipülatif Kullanımına İlişkin Görüşleri

Öz

Araştırma, ortaokul öğrencilerinin derslerde matematiksel manipülatif kullanımına ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemek amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda katılımcılar, Ankara ili Yenimahalle ilçesinde bulunan ortaokullardan amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden biri olan kolay ulaşılabilir örnekleme yöntemine göre belirlenen 91 ortaokul öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmanın verileri, araştırmacı tarafından hazırlanan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme sorunlarının yer aldığı form ile toplanmış ve elde edilen veriler içerik analizi ile çözümlenmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarında ortaokul öğrencilerinin öğrencilerinin derslerde matematiksel manipülatif kullanımına ilişkin görüşlerinin; temel anlamda ‘öğretmenlerin matipülatif kullanımı’, ‘öğretmenin kullandığı manipülatifler’, ‘derse etki açısından hangi matematiksel manipülatifler?’, ‘derste kullanılan manipülatiflerin diğer derslere katkısı’ şeklinde ana kategorilerden meydana geldiği belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlardan hareketle özellikle matematik derslerinin işlenmesinde ve konuların değerlendirilmesinde eğitici, öğretici ve aynı zamanda eğlendirici sanal ve somut manipülatiflerin matematik öğretmenleri tarafından kullanılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Manipülatifler
• ortaokul öğrencileri
• nitel araştırma.

Kaynakça

1. Acar, N. (2010). Kesir çubuklarının ilköğretim 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin kesirlerde toplama ve çıkarma işlemlerindeki başarılarına etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.
2. Atabey, S. (2023). Matematik ve sanat. Görünüm, 14, 61-80.
3. Baki, A., Kosa, T. ve Güven, B. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of using dynamic geometry software and physical manipulatives on the spatial visualisation skills of pre-service mathematics teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01012.x.
4. Bartolini, M. G. ve Martignone, F. (2020). Manipulatives in mathematics education. S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education içinde (ss. 487-494). Springer. https://hdl.handle.net/11579/145178.
5. Bassette, L., Shurr, J., Bouck, E., Park, J. ve Cremeans, M. (2019). Comparison of concrete and app-based manipulatives to teach subtraction skills to elementary students with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 54(4), 391- 405.
6. Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1), 23-28.
7. Batista, M. ve Clements, D. H. (1994). Computer environments for learning geometry. J. Educ Comput Res, 10, 173-197. doi: 10.2190/8074-298A-KTL2-UQVW.
8. Boggan, M., Harper, S. ve Whitmire, A. (2010). Using manipulatives to teach elementary mathematics. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3, 1-6.

9. Bouck, E. C. ve Flanagan, S. M. (2010). Virtual manipulatives: What they are and how teachers can use them. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 186-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451209349530.
10. Breen, J.J. (2000). Achievement of van hiele level two in geometry thinking by eighth grade students through the use of geometry computer-based guided ınstruction. Dissertation Abstract Index, 60(07), 116A. 258.
11. Bütüner, S. Ö. ve Uzun, S. (2011). Fen öğretiminde karşılaşılan matematik temelli sıkıntılar: Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin tecrübelerinden yansımalar. Journal of Theoretical Educational Sciences, 4(2), 262-272.
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, (7. Baskı). Pegem.
13. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C. ve 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.
14. Clements, D. H. (1999). Concrete manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45-60.
15. Cockett, A. ve Kilgour, P. W. (2015). Mathematical manipulatives: Creating an environment for understanding, efficiency, engagement, and enjoyment. Teach Collection of Christian Education, 1(1), 47-54.
16. Cope, L. (2015). Math Manipulatives: Making the Abstract Tangible. Delta Journal of Education, 5(1), 10-19.
17. Das, K. (2019). Role of ICT for better mathematics teaching. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 7(4), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v7i4.641.
18. Dienes, Z. P. (1960). Building up mathematics. Hutchison Education.
19. Dişbudak, Ö. ve Akyüz, D. (2019). The comparative effects of concrete manipulatives and dynamic software on the geometry achievement of fifth-grade students. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 3-20.
20. Dockendorff, M., Merino, R. ve Gomez Zaccarelli, F. (2026). Challenges to using digital technologies in mathematics teaching and learning: The view of Chilean teacher educators. Frontiers in Education, 11, Article 1795323. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1795323.
21. Domino, J. (2010). The effects of physical manıpulatives on achievement in mathematics in grades K-6: A meta-analysis, Department of Learning and Instruction Faculty of the Graduate School of the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, New York.
22. Driscoll, M. J. (1983). Research within reach: Elementary school mathematics and reading. St. Louis: CEMREL, Inc.
23. Durmuş, S. ve Karakırık, E. (2006). Virtual manipulatives in mathematics education: A theoretical framework. The Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 117-123.
24. Frerking, B. G. (1994). Conjecturing and proof-writing in dynamic geometry (Order No. 9507424). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304097038). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/conjecturing-proof-writing-dynamic-geometry/docview/304097038/se-2 adresinden 12.12.2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
25. Furner, Joseph M. ve Worrell, Nancy L. (2017). The importance of using manipulatives in teaching math today. Transformations, 3(1), Article 2.
26. Gargaro, F. D. (2024). Advantages and disadvantages of technology in the mathematics classroom. Transformations, 10(1), Article 6. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/transformations/vol10/iss1/6.
27. Gecu-Parmaksiz, Z. ve Delialioğlu, O. (2019). Augmented reality-based virtual manipulatives versus physical manipulatives for teaching geometric shapes to preschool children. Br. J. Educ Technol, 50, 3376-3390. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12740.
28. Gick, M. ve Holyoak, K. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
29. Gurung, R. K. ve Chaudhary, D. K. (2022). Effectiveness of ınstruction with manipulative materials on fourth graders’ geometry learning achievement. Journal of Bhuwanishankar, 1(1), 69-84.
30. Hasselbring, T.S., Goin, L.I. ve Bransford, J.D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role ofcomputerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20(6), 1-7.
31. Haviger, J. ve Vojkůvková, I. (2015). The van hiele levels at czech secondary schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 912-918. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.209.
32. Henn, H. W. (2007). Modelling in school-chances and obstacles. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, Monograph, 3, 125-138.
33. Heward, W. L. (2009). Exceptional children (9th ed.). Person Education.
34. Hurrell, D. (2018). I’m proud to be a toy teacher: Using CRA to become an effective teacher. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1231485.pdf adresinden 06.12.2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
35. Hurst, C. ve Linsell, C. (2020). Manipulatives and multiplicative thinking. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 04.
36. Karaman, İ., Tay, B. ve Baş, M. (2023). Sosyal bilgiler dersi kazanımları ile sosyal bilgiler ders kitabı konularının matematik dersi kazanımları açısından incelenmesi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43(3), 1805-1836. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.1375328.
37. Kaur, K., Gurnani, B., Nayak, S., Deori, N., Kaur, S., Jethani, J., Singh, D., Agarkar, S., Hussaindeen, J. R., Sukhija, J. ve Mishra, D. (2022). Digital eye strain: A comprehensive review. Ophthalmology and Therapy, 11(5), 1655-1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-022-00540-9.
38. Kılıç, H. (2013). Lise öğrencilerinin geometrik düşünme, problem çözme ve ispat becerileri. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(1), 222-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/nefmed160.
39. Kurz, T. L. ve Kokic, I. B. (2011). Preservice teachers’ observations of children’s learning during family math night. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098423.pdf adresinden 15.12.2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
40. Lange, T. (2009). Difficulties, meaning and marginalisationin mathematics learningas seen through children’s eyes. Institut for Uddannelse, Læring og Filosofi, Aalborg Universitet. https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/5495211 05/PHD_9788791543722_ Troels_Lange.pdf adresinden 21.12.2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
41. Larbi, E. ve Mavis, O. (2016). The use of manipulatives in mathematics education. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(36), 53-61.
42. Larkin, K. (2016). Mathematics education and manipulatives: Which, when, how? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 21(1), 12-17.
43. Lee, C. ve Chen M. (2010). Taiwanese junior high school students’ mathematics attitudes and perceptions towards virtual manipulatives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), E17-E21.
44. Liggett, R. S. (2017). The impact of use of manipulatives on the math scores of grade 2 students. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1160704.pdf adresinden 15.12.2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
45. Lincoln, Y. ve Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
46. Martin, T. ve Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587-625.
47. McNeil, N. ve Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don't add up: Disentangling the manipulatives debate, Theory in to Practice, 46(4), 309-316, DOI:10.1080/00405840701593899.
48. McIntosh, G. V. (2012). Testing instrumentation validity for measuring teachers’ attitudes toward manipulative use in the elementary classroom. https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537025.pdf adresinden 18.12.2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
49. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Araştırmanın desenlenmesi ve örneklem seçimi (Çev. S. Turan ve D. Yılmaz), S. Turan (Çev. Ed.), Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulama için bir rehber içinde, (ss. 55-82). Nobel.
50. Miller, A. D. ve Heward, W. L. (1992). Do your students really know their math facts? Using Daily time trials to build fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 98-104.
51. Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in mathematics, 47(2), 175-197.
52. Ogg, B. (2010). What is the impact of math manipulatives on student learning? Ohio University The Faculty of the College of Education. Master Research Project of Ohio University, Ohio.
53. Ojose, B. (2008). Applying Piaget’s theory of cognitive development to mathematics instruction. The Mathematics Educator, 18(1), 26-30.
54. Olkun, S. (2003). Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(1), 43-56.
55. Pala, Ş. M. ve Başıbüyük, A. (2019). Matematik becerisinin sosyal bilgiler derslerindeki harita grafik ve tablo okuma becerilerine etkisi. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilgilerde Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 3(1), 41-56.
56. Patni, M. A., Fatima, W., Alshamsi, M. A., Jama, H. A., Shafeeq, M., Rajiv, R., Alsoued, S. M., George, B. T., Salama, R. A. A., Elamin, A. A. E., Pandurangan, T., Bahutair, S. N. ve Ahmad, H. (2026). Digital eye health and behavioral determinants of screen use among university students in the UAE. Frontiers in Digital Health, 8, Article 1719475. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2026.1719475.
57. Poloamina, B., O., Otikor, M., S. ve George, N. R. (2024). Concrete geoboard manipulatives and junior secondary school students’ performance in plane geometry in port harcort. Nigeria. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, 5(6), 1443-1449.
58. Quane, K. (2023). The confluence of attitudes towards mathematics and pedagogical practice: evaluating the use of mathematical manipulatives. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 37, 369-398.
59. Reimer, K. ve Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: a classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25.
60. Satsangi, R. ve Bouck, E. C. (2015). Using virtual manipulative ınstruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 174-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714550101.
61. Shaw, J. M. (2002). Manipulatives enhance the learning of mathematics. https://sgarciaellsummer.weebly.com/uploads/5/4/5/0/54501133/manipulative_in_math1.pdf adresinden 14.12.2025 tarihinde erişilmiştir.
62. Simon, M. A. (2022). Contributions of the learning through activity theoretical framework to understanding and using manipulatives in the learning and teaching of mathematical concepts. J. Math Behav 66:100945. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.
63. Steen, K., Brooks, D. ve Lyon, T. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 25(4), 373-391.
64. Stiles, D., Adkisson, J. L., Sebben, D. ve Tamashiro, R. (2008). Pictures of hearts and daggers: Strong emotions are expressed in young adolescents’ drawings of their attitudes towards mathematics. World Cultures eJournal, 16(2), 1-14.
65. Son, J. Y., Smith, L. B. ve Goldstone, R. L. (2011). Connecting instances to promote children’s relational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 260-277.
66. Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498-505.
67. Suwito, A., Yuwono, I., Parta, I. ve Irawati, S. (2017). Geometry high school students thinking ability based on level Van Hiele. International Conference on Mathematics: Education, Theory, and Application (ICMETA), 1, 200-207.
68. Suydam, M. N. (1985). Research on instructional materials for mathematics. Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.
69. Swan, P. ve Marshall, L. (2010). Revisiting mathematics manipulative materials. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 13-19.
70. 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.
71. Thirey, B. ve Wooster, R. (2013). The touchy-feely Integral: Using manipulatives to teach the basic properties of integration. PRIMUS, 23(7), 605-616.
72. Trespalacios, J. H. (2008). The effects of two generative activities on learner comprehension of part-whole meaning of rational numbers using virtual manipulatives. Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.
73. Uribe‐Flórez, L. J. ve Wilkins, J. L. (2010). Elementary school teachers' manipulative use. School Science and Mathematics, 110(7), 363-371.
74. Yaman, H. ve Şahin, T. (2014). Somut ve sanal manipülatif destekli geometri öğretiminin 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin geometrik yapıları inşa etme ve çizmedeki başarılarına etkisi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 202-220. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2014.14.1-5000091509.
75. Yenilmez, K. ve Uysal, E. (2007). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin matematiksel kavram ve sembolleri günlük hayatla ilişkilendirebilme düzeyi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 89-98.
76. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (8. Baskı). Seçkin.