concrete vs vitual manipulatives in the mathematics classroom

Manipulatives in Mathematics
Name
Institutional Affiliation

Manipulatives in Mathematics
Concrete vs. Virtual Manipulatives in the Mathematics Classroom
“I hear, and I forget, I see, and I remember, I do, and I understand.” That is according to Confucius. The application of manipulatives in math classrooms is a long tradition that has continually proven beneficial to both teachers and students. This notion is supported by Boggan, Harper and Whitmire (2010) who insinuate that manipulatives are very useful in teaching and beneficial to students. There are two main categories of manipulatives used by math teachers currently. They consist of concrete manipulatives and virtual manipulatives. As conceptualized by Boggan et al. (2010), concrete manipulatives are physical objects such as coins, clocks, cards, and MAB blocks, which are used to facilitate easy learning. On the contrary, virtual manipulatives are an emerging technologically-based field with 3-D models of concrete manipulatives. They perform the same function as concrete manipulatives. Scholars are divided over, which is effective between concrete and virtual manipulatives. By rooting for the former, this discussion indicates that concrete manipulatives are useful because they aid engagement during math lessons, which is a necessary precursor towards understanding better. As such, they should be used prevalently to guide math learning.
Compared to the virtual ones, concrete manipulatives aid better understanding for math students.

A study carried out by Mendiburo (2010) shows that students tend to understand better when they use physical manipulatives as opposed to the virtual ones. Within her study, Mendiburo (2010) used a fixed number of students who were exposed to both physical and virtual manipulatives for two weeks. The learning conditions under which the teaching aids were used was controlled by factors such as math problems and duration of each learning session being held constant. Because of the hands-on approach and the ability to induce long-term memory in the brain, physical manipulatives are considered to be more effective. This is a position that is also shared by Boggan et al. (2010) who show that physical aids underlie abstract conceptualization. In a subsequent research study, Hunt, Nipper and Nash (2011) use their findings to support the notion that physical manipulatives aid in better understanding among lower grade students.
Concrete manipulatives are easier to use, cost effective and their presence in a math classroom motivates students. According to Hunt et al. (2011), physical manipulatives, which have been around for a long time, are easy to use and more engaging compared to the virtual manipulatives. The latter is dependent on technology, which can be challenging for lower school students. As a changing aspect, technology is getting complex by each passing day. This means that for a school to rely on virtual manipulatives, relevant stakeholders have to be willing to bear parallel costs that are associated with their functionality. As opposed to virtual manipulatives, many students from lower socio-economic class can comfortably afford a set of concrete manipulatives. Besides this, Hunt et al. (2011) also indicate that physical manipulatives in math classrooms motivate students. These manipulatives are a sign of an engaging and easy to understand learning session. As such, when students get physically engaged with their concrete manipulatives, their anxiety levels naturally drop.
Regardless of concrete manipulatives being superior, virtual manipulatives also have several advantages and several areas where they outdo the former. It is inevitable to dispute the fact that technology dictates the modern society. As such, most aspects of life, including education, are becoming technologically defined. According to Mendiburo (2010), virtual manipulatives are faster to use. This notion is also explored further by Hunt et al. (2011) who acknowledge that virtual manipulatives yield more rapid responses compared to the physical ones. More studies on virtual manipulatives are still being carried out as they evolve and determine their place in math classrooms. The current generation Y is characterized by strong adherence to technological aspects of life, mainly the popularity of the social media. As a result, the presence of technological learning aids within classrooms elucidates the attention of such students. Other advantages of virtual manipulatives include the exposure of users to a variety of experiences and the fun factor linked with it. However, despite the several superior aspects exhibited by virtual manipulatives, they are still lagging behind concrete manipulatives concerning learning efficiency.
Concrete manipulatives induce a deeper thinking process, allows the teacher to engage the whole class, makes use of units that are easier to distinguish and are relatable to a real world scenario. According to Hunt et al. (2011), the use of physical manipulatives initiates a strong cognitive process which creates room for creativity. The ability of these manipulatives being relatable to a real world scenario is one of the aspects that make learning appealing to elementary students. When all these factors are combined, concrete manipulatives remain the best option for both teachers and students.
In summary, it is rational to conclude that concrete manipulatives are way effective than virtual ones for both the teacher and the students. Manipulatives, in general, have a defined position in math classrooms. However, their efficiency differs depending on the type used. Physical manipulatives have the edge over the virtual ones. This because they have several advantages which include being cost effective, easy to use, and initiate a better understanding of other numerous advantages. As such, it is advisable for teachers to stick on traditional manipulatives for enhanced student conceptualization of math.

References
Boggan, M., Harper, S., & Whitmire, A. (2010). Using manipulatives to teach elementary mathematics. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10451.pdf
Hunt, A. W., Nipper, K. L., & Nash, L. E. (2011). Virtual vs. Concrete Manipulatives in Mathematics Teacher Education: Is One Type More Effective than the Other?. Current Issues in Middle-Level Education, 16(2), 1-6.
Mendiburo, M. A. (2010). Virtual manipulatives and physical manipulatives: Technology’s impact on fraction learning (Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University). http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-04052010-171448/unrestricted/100422MendiburoCompleteDraft.pdf