Home⇛DAVAO RESEARCH JOURNAL⇛vol. 15 no. 4 (2024)

The Effectiveness Of Lego Manipulatives In Solving Area Problems Involving Squares And Rectangles For Grade 3 Students

Cristina P Cueva | Bryan L. Susada

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Problem-solving skills, specifically in solving routine and non-routine problems involving areas of squares and rectangles, are foundational to various mathematical concepts; however, learners consistently find these concepts challenging to master. This study at San Rafael Integrated School (2023-2024) investigated the impact of using Lego kits to teach Grade 3 students how to solve routine and non-routine problems involving the areas of squares and rectangles. Using a quasi-experimental methodology, two groups of 30 students each were compared: a control group taught with traditional methods and an experimental group taught using Legos. Pre-test results indicated that neither the control nor the experimental group met the expectations set by the K to 12 grading system, with 7.41 and 9.12 scores. Although both groups exhibited similar initial proficiency levels, the notable difference in pre-test scores can be attributed to various factors (including the students’ value for mathematics). However, despite their appreciation for the subject, many still struggle with fundamental skills and concepts; this may have influenced their performance in the pre-test. Post-test results (however) revealed a significant improvement in the experimental group’s performance, with a mean score of 25.28 compared to the control group’s 16.07. The findings demonstrate the superior efficacy of the Legos as a manipulative kit over traditional methods in solving routine and non-routine problems involving areas of squares and rectangles. Thus, teachers may incorporate Legos as manipulative kits early in the school year to provide a visual and tactile learning experience that helps students build a concrete understanding of mathematical operations.



References:

  1. Acharya, B. R. (2017). Diversity in mathematics education. Kathmandu: Pinnacle Publication Pvt. Ltd., 58(1), 4750–4755.
  2. Alissa, R. A. S., and Hamadneh, M. A. (2023). The level of science and mathematics teachers’ employment of artificial intelligence applications in the educational process. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 11(6), 1597–1608.
  3. Anawati, S., and Lestari, M. I. (2024). The development of ethnomathematics-based student worksheets (LKPD) in mathematics for fourth grade students. EduMatSains: Jurnal Pendidikan, Matematika dan Sains, 8(2), 293-301.
  4. Angco, R. J., and Angco, L. B. (2024). Meta-synthesis of effective practices and outcomes in the use of manipulatives for teaching mathematics. Human Behavior, Development and Society, 25(2), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.62370/hbds.v25i2.274848
  5. Acharya, B. R. (2017). Factors affecting difficulties in learning mathematics by mathematics learners. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), 8-15.
  6. Arslan, C., and Yazgan, Y. (2015). Common and flexible use of mathematical non-routine problem solving strategies. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(12), 1519-1523. https://doi.org/10.12691/education3-12-6
  7. Bahar, M., and Aksüt, P. (2020). Investigation on the effects of activity-based science teaching practices in the acquisition of problem-solving skills for 5–6-year-old pre-school children. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 22–39.
  8. Bergman, P. (2019). How behavioral science can empower parents to improve children’s educational outcomes. Behavioral Science & Policy, 5(1), 53–67.
  9. Björklund, C. (2013). Less is more—mathematical manipulatives in early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 184(3), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.799154
  10. Boaler, J., Brown, K., LaMar, T., Leshin, M., and Selbach-Allen, M. (2022). Infusing mindset through mathematical problem solving and collaboration: Studying the impact of a short college intervention. Education Sciences, 12(10), 694. https://doi.org/10.3390/educci12100694
  11. Bouck, E. C., Anderson, R. D., Long, H., and Sprick, J. (2021). Manipulative-based instructional sequences in mathematics for students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 54(3), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059921994599
  12. Brunyé, T. T., Mahoney, C. R., Giles, G. E., Rapp, D. N., Taylor, H. A., and Kanarek, R. B. (2013). Learning to relax: Evaluating four brief interventions for overcoming the negative emotions accompanying math anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 1–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.008
  13. Carbonneau, K. J., and Marley, S. C. (2015). Instructional guidance and realism of manipulatives influence preschool children’s mathematics learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 83(4), 495–513.
  14. Castillo, R. D., Waltzer, T., and Kloos, H. (2017). Hands-on experience can lead to systematic mistakes: A study on adults’ understanding of sinking objects. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1). https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-017-0061-8
  15. Cautivo, D. M. G. (2022). The effectiveness of manipulatives in educational skills among grade 2 pupils. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education, 8(5), Article 18446. https://ijariie.com/AdminUploadPdf/THE_EFFECTIVENESS_OF_MANIPULATIVES_IN_EDUCATIONAL_SKILLS_AMONG_GRADE_2_PUPILS_ijariie18446.pdf
  16. Choudhar, S., Bi, N., Singh, P. N., and Talwar, P. (2022). Study on problem solving skills and its importance. World Journal of English Language, 12(3), 47.
  17. Cipriano, N. P. (2023). Exploring mathematics education in the 21st century. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 14(3), 749–758. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n3p47
  18. Disbudak, O., and Akyuz, D. (2019). The comparative effects of concrete manipulatives and dynamic software on the geometry achievement of fifth-grade students. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 3–20.
  19. Devine, M. T. (2013). Glogs as non-routine problem-solving tools in mathematics (Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd/132/
  20. Donovan, A. M., and Alibali, M. W. (2021). Toys or math tools: Do children’s views of manipulatives affect their learning? Journal of Cognition and Development, 22(2), 281–304.
  21. Dovetail Editorial Team. (2023, February 6). How to use and interpret quasi-experimental design.
  22. English, L. D., and Gainsburg, J. (2015). Problem solving in a 21st-century mathematics curriculum. In Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 313-335). Routledge.
  23. Golafshani, N. (2023). Teaching mathematics to all learners by tapping into indigenous legends: A pathway towards inclusive education. Journal of Global Education and Research, 7(2), 99–115.
  24. Gonzales, S. M., Brammer, E. C., and Sawilowsky, S. S. (2015). Belonging in the academy. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(3), 223–239.
  25. Günes, H., and Genç, Z. (2021). The effect of LEGO manipulative use on student performance in the mathematical skills of the 2nd grade: Parents’ and students’ views. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 50–67.
  26. Gupta, M., Pasrija, P., and Kavita. (2015). Effect of problem-solving ability on academic achievement of high school students: A comparative study.
  27. Harron, J., Jin, Y., Hillen, A. F., Mason, L., and Siegel, L. (2022). Maker Math: Exploring mathematics through digitally fabricated tools with K–12 in-service teachers. Mathematics, 10(17), 3069. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10173069
  28. Hendriana, H., Johanto, T., and Sumarmo, U. (2018). The role of problem-based learning is to improve students’ mathematical problem-solving ability and self-confidence. Journal on Mathematics Education, 9(2), 291-300.
  29. Hoon, T. S., Kee, K. L., and Singh, P. (2013). Learning mathematics using heuristic approach. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 862–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.162
  30. Hopkins, H. N. (2017). Social work students’ ability to identify signs of autism in children (Master’s thesis, California State University, San Bernardino). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations, 467.
  31. Horan, E., and Carr, M. (2018). How much guidance do students need? An intervention study on kindergarten mathematics with manipulatives. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(3), 286–316.
  32. Horan, J., and Carr, M. (2018). The use of manipulatives in mathematics education: A review of the literature. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 30(1), 1-24.
  33. Hurst, C., and Linsell, C. (2020). Manipulatives and multiplicative thinking. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1267965.pdf
  34. Jonassen, T. S. (2015). Web analytics as a tool for improvement of website taxonomies. Aalborg University’s Research Portal.
  35. Jones, J., and Tiller, M. (2017). Using concrete manipulatives in mathematical instruction. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 45(1), 18–23. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150546.pdf
  36. Kablan, Z. (2014). The effect of manipulatives on mathematics achievement across different learning styles. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 277–296.
  37. Kurz, T. L., and Kokic, I. B. (2011). Preservice teachers’ observations of children’s learning during Family Math Night. Journal of Research in Education, 21(2), 24-36.
  38. Lai, Y., Zhu, X., Chen, Y., and Li, Y. (2015). Effects of mathematics anxiety and mathematical metacognition on word problem solving in children with and without mathematical learning difficulties. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0130570. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130570
  39. Lanante, M. G. A. (2019). Effect of problem-solving enrichment activities on mathematics achievement: A case of elementary pupils in the central part of the Philippines. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3900116
  40. Laski, E. V., Jor’dan, J. R., Daoust, C., and Murray, A. K. (2015). What makes mathematics manipulatives effective? Lessons from cognitive science and Montessori education. SAGE Open, 5(2), 2158244015589588. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015589588
  41. Liggett, R. (2017). The impact of use of manipulatives on the math scores of Grade 2 students. Brock Education Journal, 26(2).
  42. Marley, S., and Carbonneau, K. (2015). How psychological research with instructional manipulatives can inform classroom learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000047
  43. Mazana, M. Y., Montero, C. S., and Casmir, R. (2018). Investigating students’ attitude towards learning mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(1). DOI:10.29333/iejme/3997
  44. McDonough, A. (2016). Good concrete activity is good mental activity. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 21(1), 3–7. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1096473
  45. McIntosh, G. V. (2013). Testing instrumentation validity for measuring teachers’ attitudes toward manipulative use in the elementary classroom. Online Submission. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED537025
  46. Mcleod, S. (2023). Constructivism learning theory and philosophy of education. Retrieved September 12, 2023. https://www.simplypsychology.org/constructivism.html
  47. Nam, P. S., Tuong, H. A., Weinhandl, R., and Lavicza, Z. (2022). Mathematics teachers’ professional competence component model and practices in teaching the linear functional concept—an experimental study. Mathematics, 10(21), 4007. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10214007
  48. Pontual Falcão, T., Dackermann, T., Schüler, M., Ulrich, C., Klemke, A., and Moeller, K. (2018). Tangible tens: Evaluating a training of basic numerical competencies with an interactive tabletop. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-12). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174125
  49. Richards, K. A. R., Jacobs, J. M., Ivy, V. N., and Lawson, M. A. (2020). Preservice teachers’ perspectives and experiences teaching personal and social responsibility. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 25(2), 188–200.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2019.1702939
  50. Santos-Trigo, M. (2020). Problem-solving in mathematics education. Springer eBooks, 686–693. https://www.scribd.com/document/737701230/Problem-solving-in-mathematics-education-tracing-its-foundations-and-current-research-practice-trends
  51. Serici, S., and Bond, M. (2014). Validity evidence based on test content. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 9(1), 92.
  52. Schutz, K. M., and Rainey, E. C. (2019). Making sense of modeling in elementary literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 73(4), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1863
  53. Smith, M. E. (2015). Math teacher perceptions of professional development and student mathematics performance. Walden University.
  54. Syamsuddin, A., Babo, R., and Rahman, S. (2021). Mathematics learning interest of students based on the difference in the implementation of model of thematic learning and character-integrated thematic learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(2), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.10.2.581
  55. Szabó, Z. K., Körtesi, P., Gunčaga, J., Szabo, D., and Neag, R. (2020). Examples of problem-solving strategies in mathematics education supporting the sustainability of 21st-century skills. Sustainability, 12(23), 10113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310113
  56. Tambychik, T., and Meerah, T. S. M. (2012). Students’ difficulties in mathematics problem-solving: What do they say? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.020
  57. Thyer, B. A. (2012). Quasi-experimental research designs. Oxford University Press.
  58. Uyen, B. P., Tong, D. H., and Han, N. N. (2021). Enhancing problem-solving skills of 8th-grade students in learning the first-degree equations in one unknown. International Journal of Education and Practice, 9(3), 568–587. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2021.93.568.587
  59. Van Harpen, X. Y., and Presmeg, N. C. (2013). An investigation of relationships between students’ mathematical problem-posing abilities and their mathematical content knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 117–132.
  60. Yanzick, A. (2017). From a teacher’s perspective: The interaction of mathematics, language, and manipulatives. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 1281–1295.
  61. Yeh, C. Y. C., Cheng, H. N. H., Chen, Z.-H., Liao, C. C. Y., and Chan, T.-W. (2019). Enhancing achievement and interest in mathematics learning through Math-Island. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0101-7

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic