Educational interventions involving physical manipulatives for improving children's learning and development: A scoping review

Abstract

AbstractPhysical manipulatives (PMs) are concrete objects used during hands‐on learning activities (e.g., building blocks, fraction tiles, counters), and are widely used in primary‐school teaching, especially during maths instruction. This scoping review collated studies that have examined the effectiveness of educational PM interventions with pre‐primary and primary‐age children. A total of 102 studies met the inclusion criteria and were synthesised in the review. Most studies included a sample of children aged 4–6 years and were conducted in a school setting. They spanned 26 different countries, but almost all took place in high‐ or middle‐income contexts, mainly in the USA. Interventions were grouped into three main learning domains: maths, literacy and science. Considerable heterogeneity was identified across the review studies in terms of the PMs and hands‐on activities used (e.g., block building, shape sorting, paper folding, enactment with figurines). Evidence relating to effectiveness of the intervention programmes was synthesised, with the most promising findings identified in the maths domain. Benefits to children's spatial, literacy and science skills were also reported. Overall, however, the evidence was mixed: other studies found that PMs were not associated with learning benefits, and many were hindered by methodological shortcomings. This calls for caution when drawing conclusions about the overall effectiveness of PM interventions. Nevertheless, the findings illustrate the many ways hands‐on PM activities can be incorporated into children's early learning experiences. Recommendations for further research and for using PMs in practice are made. Context and implicationsRationale for this studyPhysical manipulatives (PMs) are used during hands‐on learning activities and promote children's active involvement in learning. The review sought to map a broad range of interventions using PMs.Why the new findings matterFindings reveal gaps in the research and highlight the many facets to consider when developing and testing educational interventions using PMs.Implications for practitionersRecommendations for using PMs in practice: (a) choose materials and activities that are age‐appropriate and focused on the learning goal; (b) consider the type and amount of instructional guidance needed (adjusted based on learning content and children's needs); and (c) consider the level of physical interaction afforded by PMs and activities and its importance for the learning goal.