International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education Indexed in ESCI
Mathematical Communication and Its Relation to the Frequency of Manipulative Use
APA
In-text citation: (Kosko & Wilkins, 2010)
Reference: Kosko, K. W., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2010). Mathematical Communication and Its Relation to the Frequency of Manipulative Use. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(2), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/251
AMA
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Kosko KW, Wilkins JLM. Mathematical Communication and Its Relation to the Frequency of Manipulative Use. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2010;5(2), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/251
Chicago
In-text citation: (Kosko and Wilkins, 2010)
Reference: Kosko, Karl W., and Jesse L. M. Wilkins. "Mathematical Communication and Its Relation to the Frequency of Manipulative Use". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2010 5 no. 2 (2010): 79-90. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/251
Harvard
In-text citation: (Kosko and Wilkins, 2010)
Reference: Kosko, K. W., and Wilkins, J. L. M. (2010). Mathematical Communication and Its Relation to the Frequency of Manipulative Use. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(2), pp. 79-90. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/251
MLA
In-text citation: (Kosko and Wilkins, 2010)
Reference: Kosko, Karl W. et al. "Mathematical Communication and Its Relation to the Frequency of Manipulative Use". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 5, no. 2, 2010, pp. 79-90. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/251
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Kosko KW, Wilkins JLM. Mathematical Communication and Its Relation to the Frequency of Manipulative Use. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2010;5(2):79-90. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/251

Abstract

Many studies on manipulatives describe communication in mathematics as a component for properly implementing manipulatives in the classroom. However, no empirical research is available to support this relationship. Secondary analysis of data collected by the National Center for Educational Statistics from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study was used to examine whether a relationship between students’ manipulative use and communication in mathematics learning exists. Correlational analyses found a significant relationship between students’ verbal and written communication and manipulative use.

References

  • Borasi, R., & Rose, B. J. (1989). Journal writing and mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(4), 347-365.
  • Broderick, S. D. (2009). A comparison of mathematical discourse in online and face-to-face environments. Unpublished masters thesis. Brigham Young University, USA.
  • Bruner, J. (1967). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  • Bruner, J. (1973). Beyond the information given. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
  • Butler, F., Miller, S., Crehan, K., Babbit, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(2), 99-111.
  • Clements, D. (1999). Concrete manipulatives, concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 45-60.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cramer, K., & Karnowski, L. (1995). The importance of informal language in representing mathematical ideas. Teaching Children Mathematics, 1(6), 332-6.
  • Early Childhood Longitudinal Study [ECLC] (2004). Spring 2004 fifth grade child-level questionnaire: Mathematics teacher. Retrieved March 16, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/pdf/fifthgrade/teacherMath.pdf.
  • Hiebert, J. & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393 – 425.
  • Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Wearne, D., Murray, H., Olivier, A., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense: teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.
  • Jurdak, M. & Abu Zein, R. (1998). The effect of journal writing on achievement in and attitudes toward mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 412-419.
  • Kamii, C., Kirkland, L., & Lewis, B. (2001). Representation and abstraction in young children’s numerical reasoning. In A. Cuoco (Ed.), The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics (pp. 24–34). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  • Kenney, J. M. (2005). Literacy strategies for improving mathematics instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Kroll, C. & Halaby, M. (1997). Writing to learn mathematics in the primary school. Young Children, 52(4), 54-60.
  • Lee, C. (2006). Language for learning mathematics: Assessment for learning in practice. Maidenhead, Berkshire England: Open University Press.
  • Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching children how to use language to solve maths problems. Language and Education, 20(6), 507 – 528.
  • Moch, P. (2001). Manipulatives work! The Educational Forum, 66(1), 81-87.
  • Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175-197.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  • Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. New York: Routledge & K. Paul.
  • Shepard, R. G. (1993). Writing for conceptual development in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 287–293.
  • Silver, E., Kilpatrick, J., & Schlesinger, B. (1990). Thinking through mathematics: Fostering inquiry and communication in mathematics classrooms. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
  • Stein, M. K., & Bovalino, J. W. (2001). Manipulatives: One piece of the puzzle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(6), 356-359.
  • Uttal, D., Scudder, K., & DeLouche, J. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 37-54.
  • Warrington, M. & Kamii, C. (1998). Multiplication with fractions: A Piagetian constructivist approach. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3, 339-43.
  • Whitin, P. (2004). Promoting problem-posing explorations, Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(4), 180-186.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.