A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 105, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 380-400

  Carbonneau, Kira J ^a   Marley, Scott C ^a   Selig, James P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity based learning; Concrete objects; Hands on learning; Manipulatives; Mathematics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881107558     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0031084     Document Type: Article

References (123)

1. Aburime, E. F. (2007). How manipulatives affect the mathematics achievement of students in Nigerian schools. Education Research Quarterly, 3(1), 3-16.
2. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18. doi:10.1037/a0021017
3. Anderson, G. R. (1957). Visual-tactual devices and their efficacy: An experiment in grade eight. Arithmetic Teacher, 4(3), 196-203.
4. Aurich, M. R. (1963). A comparative study to determine the effectiveness of the Cuisenaire method of arithmetic instruction with children at the first grade level (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.
5. Babb, J. H. (1975). The effects of textbook instruction, manipulatives and imagery on recall of the basic multiplication facts. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 36, 4378.
6. Baranes, R., Perry, M., & Stigler, J. W. (1989). Activation of real-world knowledge in the solution of word problems. Cognition and Instruction, 6(4), 287-318. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0604_1
7. Battle, T. S. (2007). Infusing math manipulatives: The key to an increase in academic achievement in the mathematics classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED498579)
8. Biazak, J. E., Marley, S. C., & Levin, J. R. (2010). Does an activity-based learning strategy improve preschool children's memory for narrative passages. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(4), 515-526. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.03.006
9. Billstein, R., Libeskind, S., & Lott, J. W. (2009). A problem solving approach to mathematics: For elementary school teachers. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
10. Bring, C. R. (1972). Effects of varying concrete activities on the achievement of objectives in metric and non-metric geometry by students of grades five and six. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 32(7), 3775.
11. Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., & Glenberg, A. M. (2009). Using concreteness in education: Real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 160-164. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00098.x
12. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21-32.
13. Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1-15. doi:10.1037/h0044160
14. Burns, M. (1996). How to make the most of math manipulatives. Instructor, 105(7), 45-51.
15. Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 99-111. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00066
16. Canobi, K. H. (2005). Children's profiles of addition and subtraction understanding. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(3), 220-246. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.06.001
17. Carbonneau, K. J., & Marley, S. C. (in press). Activity-based learning strategies and academic achievement. In J. A. C. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), The international handbook of student achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19. Carmody, L. M. (1970). A theoretical and experimental investigation into the role of concrete and semi-concrete materials in the teaching of elementary school mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 31, 3407.
20. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active- constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
21. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1987). A dual coding perspective on encoding processes. In M. A. McDaniel & M. Pressley (Eds.), Imagery and related mnemonic processes: Theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 5-33). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
22. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Cook, D. M. (1967). Research and development activities in R & I units of two elementary schools in Janesville, Wisconsin, 1966-1967 (Report No. TR-45). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
24. Copley, J. V. (2000). The young child and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED448906)
25. Cramer, K. A., Post, T. R., & delMas, R. C. (2002). Initial fraction learning by fourth- and fifth-grade students: A comparison of the effects of using commercial curricula with the effects of using the Rational Number Project Curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 111-144. doi:10.2307/749646
26. Dawson, D. T. (1955). An experimental approach to the division idea. Arithmetic Teacher, 2(1), 6-9.
27. Dean, D., & Kuhn, D. (2007). Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view. Science Education, 91(3), 384-397. doi:10.1002/sce.20194
28. DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children's use of scale models. Child Development, 71(2), 329-338. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00148
29. Dyer, L. (1996). An investigation of the use of algebraic manipulatives with community college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
30. Egan, D. (1990). The effects of using Cuisenaire rods on math achievement of second grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Central Missouri State University, Warrensburg, MO.
31. Ekman, L. G. (1967). A comparison of the effectiveness of different approaches to the teaching of addition and subtraction algorithms in the third grade. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 27, 2275-2276.
32. Engelkamp, J., Zimmer, H. D., Mohr, G., & Sellen, O. (1994). Memory of self-performed tasks: Self-performing during recognition. Memory & Cognition, 22(1), 34-39. doi:10.3758/BF03202759
33. Fennema, E. H. (1972). The relative effectiveness of a symbolic and a concrete model in learning a selected mathematical principle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3(4), 233-238. doi:10.2307/748490
34. Fujimura, N. (2001). Facilitating children's proportional reasoning: A model of reasoning processes and effects of intervention on strategy change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 589-603. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.589
35. Garcia, E. P. (2004). Using manipulatives and visual cues with explicit vocabulary enhancement for mathematics instruction with grade three and four low achievers in bilingual classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
36. Getgood, J. F. (2000). The effect of factor blocks, a manipulative, in student understanding of greatest common factor, least common multiple and prime factorization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
37. Glenberg, A. M., Brown, M., & Levin, J. R. (2007). Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 389-399. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.03.001
38. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 424-436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424
39. Glenberg, A. M., Jaworski, B., Rischal, M., & Levin, J. (2007). What brains are for: Action, meaning, and reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 221-240). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
40. Goins, K. B. (2001). Comparing the effects of visual and algebra tile manipulative methods on student skill and understanding of polynomial multiplication. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 62, 12.
41. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 414-466. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00519-4
42. Gürbüz, R. (2010). The effect of activity-based instruction on conceptual development of seventh grade students in probability. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(6), 743-767. doi:10.1080/00207391003675158
43. Hawkins, V. J. (1982). A comparison of two methods of instruction, a saturated learning environment and traditional learning environment: Its effects on achievement and retention among female adolescents in first-year algebra. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 43, 02.
44. Hedges, L. V. (1982). Fitting categorical models to effect sizes from a series of experiments. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7(2), 119-137. doi:10.2307/1164961
45. Hedges, L. V. (1983). A random effects model for effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 388-395. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.388
46. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
47. Hiebert, J., Wearne, D., & Taber, S. (1991). Fourth graders' gradual construction of decimal fractions during instruction using different physical representations. Elementary School Journal, 91(4), 321-341. doi: 10.1086/461658
48. Hinzman, K. P. (1997). Use of manipulatives in mathematics at the middle school level and their effects on student grades and attitudes (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411150).
49. Johnson, R. L. (1970). Effects of varying concrete activities on achievement of objectives in perimeter, area and volume by students grades four five and six (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Denver, CO.
50. Jordan, L., Miller, M. D., & Mercer, C. D. (1999). The effects of concrete to semiconcrete to abstract instruction in the acquisition and retention of fraction concepts and skills. Learning Disabilities, 9(3), 115-122.
51. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320(5875), 454-455. doi: 10.1126/science.1154659
52. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. (2009). Transfer of mathematical knowledge: The portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 151-155. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00096.x
53. King, V. C. (1976). A study of the effect of selected mathematics instructional sequences on retention and transfer with logical reasoning controlled. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 37(5), 2696-2697.
54. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
55. Kormi-Nouri, R., Nyberg, L., & Nilsson, L. G. (1994). The effect of retrieval enactment on recall of subject-performed tasks and verbal tasks. Memory & Cognition, 22(6), 723-728. doi:10.3758/BF03209257
56. Kuhfittig, P. K. F. (1974). The relative effectiveness of concrete aids in discovery learning. School Science and Mathematics, 74(2), 104-108. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1974.tb09207.x
57. LeBlanc, J. F. (1968). The performance of first grade children in four levels of conservation of numerousness and three IQ groups when solving arithmetic subtraction problems. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 29, 67A.
58. Lefrançois, G. R. (1997). Psychology for teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
60. Lucas, J. S. (1966). The effects of attribute block training on children's development of arithmetic concepts. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 27, 2400-2401.
61. Lucow, W. H. (1964). An experiment with the Cuisenaire method in grade three. American Educational Research Journal, 1(3), 159-167. doi: 10.2307/1162217
62. Marley, S. C., & Levin, J. R. (2006). Pictorial illustrations, visual imagery, and motor activity: Their instructional implications for Native American children with learning disabilities. In R. J. Morris (Ed.), Disability research and policy: Current perspectives (pp. 103-123). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
63. Marley, S. C., & Levin, J. R. (2011). When are prescriptive statements in educational research justified. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 197-206. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9154-y
64. Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2007). Improving Native American children's listening comprehension through concrete representations. Contemporary educational psychology, 32(3), 537-550. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.03.003
65. Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2010). What cognitive benefits does an activity-based reading strategy afford young Native American readers. Journal of Experimental Education, 78(3), 395-417. doi:10.1080/00220970903548061
66. Marley, S. C., & Szabo, Z. (2010). Improving children's listening comprehension with a manipulation strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 227-238. doi:10.1080/00220670903383036
67. Marley, S. C., Szabo, Z., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2011). Investigation of an activity-based text-processing strategy in mixed-age child dyads. Journal of Experimental Education, 79(3), 340-360. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2010.483697
68. Martin, T. (2009). A theory of physically distributed learning: How external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 140-144. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00094.x
69. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587-625. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15
70. Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
71. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
72. McClung, L. W. (1998). A study on the use of manipulatives and their effect on student achievement in high school Algebra I class. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425077)
73. McNeil, N., & Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don't add up: disentangling he manipulatives debate. Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 309-316. doi: 10.1080/00405840701593899
74. McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 171-184. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.005
75. Miller, J. W. (1964). An experimental comparison of two approaches to teaching multiplication of fractions. Journal of Educational Research, 57(9), 468-471.
76. Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori method. New York, NY: Schocken.
77. Moody, W. B., Abell, R., & Bausell, R. B. (1971). The effect of activityoriented instruction upon original learning, transfer, and retention. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2(3), 207-212. doi:10.2307/749045
78. Nasca, D. (1966). Comparative merits of a manipulative approach to second-grade arithmetic. Arithmetic Teacher, 13(3), 221-225.
79. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of US. fourth- and eighthgrade students in an international context. Washington, DC: U.S. De- partment of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid2009001
80. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid 2012458
81. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Standards & focal points. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/default. aspx?id58
82. Nichols, E. J. (1972). A comparison of two methods of instruction in multiplication and division for third grade pupils. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 32, 6011.
83. Nickel A. P. (1971). A multi-experience approach to conceptualization for the purpose of improvement of verbal problem-solving in arithmetic. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 32, 2917-2918.
84. Nishida, T. K. (2007). The use of manipulatives to support children's acquisition of abstract math concepts. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 69(1), 718.
85. Norman, M. (1955). Three methods of teaching basic division facts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of Iowa, Ames, IA.
86. Olkun, S. (2003). Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(1), 43-56.
87. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
88. Paolini, M. W. (1977). The use of manipulative materials versus nonmanipulative materials in a kindergarten mathematics program. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 39, 5382.
89. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
90. Peterson, S. K., Mercer, C. D., & O'Shea, L. (1988). Teaching learning disabled students place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4(1), 52-56.
91. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: Norton.
92. Piaget, J., & Coltman, D. (1974). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York, NY: Grossman.
93. Prigge, G. R. (1978). The differential effects of the use of manipulative aids on the learning of geometric concepts by elementary school children. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9(5), 361-367. doi:10.2307/748772
94. Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. F. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 41-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
95. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313-349. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2303_1
96. Robinson, E. B. (1978). The effects of a concrete manipulative on attitude toward mathematics and levels of achievement and retention of a mathematical concept among elementary students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East Texas State University, Commerce, TX.
97. Rosenshine, B. V., & Berliner, D. C. (1978). Academic engaged time. British Journal of Teacher Education, 4(1), 3-16. doi:10.1080/0260747780040102
98. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
99. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
100. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1986). Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 400-406. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.400
101. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). "Concrete" computer manipulatives in mathematics education. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 145-150. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00095.x
102. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102-119. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.1.102
103. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
104. Sherman, J., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Equivalence in symbolic and nonsymbolic contexts: Benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 88-100. doi:10.1037/a0013156
105. Shoecraft, P. J. (1971). The effects of provisions for imagery through materials and drawings on translating algebra word problems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED071857)
106. Slaughter, H. B. (1980). Using Title 1 control group for evaluation research of a supplemental mathematics project for third and fifth grade students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
107. Smith, L. F., & Montani, T. O. (2008). The effects of instructional consistency: Using manipulatives and teaching strategies to support resource room mathematics instructions. Learning Disabilities, 15(2), 71-76.
108. Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498-505. doi:10.2307/749423
109. Steen, K., Brooks, D., & Lyon, T. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 373-391.
110. Steger, C. (1977). The effects of two classes of sensory stimuli and race on the acquisition and transfer of the mathematics principle place value. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 37, 4120.
111. Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101-109. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1101:: AID-TEA63.0.CO;2-Z
112. Suh, J., & Moyer, P. (2007). Developing students' representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155-173.
113. Taylor, F. M. (2001). Effectiveness of concrete and computer simulated manipulatives on elementary students learning skills and concepts in experimental probability (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
114. Threadgill-Sowder, J. A. & Juilfs, P. A. (1980). Manipulative versus symbolic approaches to teaching logical connectives in junior high school: An Aptitude Treatment interaction study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11(5), 367-374. doi:10.2307/748627
115. Tindall-Ford, S., & Sweller, J. (2006). Altering the modality of instructions to facilitate imagination: Interactions between the modality and imagination effects. Instructional Science, 34(4), 343-365. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-6075-5
116. Uttal, D. H., O'Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L. L., & DeLoache, J. (2009). Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 156-159. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00097.x
117. Wallace, P. (1974). An investigation of the relative effects of teaching a mathematical concept via multisensory models in elementary school mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 35, 2998-2999.
118. Weber, A. W. (1970). Introducing mathematics to first grade children: Manipulative vs. paper/pencil. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 30, 3373-3374.
119. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2009). President Obama launches "Educate to Innovate" campaign for excellence in science, technology, engineering & math (STEM) education [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidentobama- launches-educate-innovate-campaign-excellence-sciencetechnology- en
120. Witzel, B. S., Mercer, C. D., & Miller, D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 121-131. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00068
121. Wood, C. M. (1974). A comparison of the effects of sequence and mode upon the initial acquisition, retention, and transfer of elementary multiplication concepts. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED108909)
122. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho- Educational Battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM.
123. Yuan, Y., Lee, C.-Y., & Wang, C.-H. (2010). A comparison study of polyominoes explorations in a physical and virtual manipulative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 307-316. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00352.x