Interactive Manipulatives in Enhancing Grade 7 Conceptual Understanding and Procedural Skills

Developing learners' conceptual understanding and procedural skills is one of the primary goals of mathematics education. However, many Grade 7 learners continue to face difficulties in understanding abstract mathematical concepts, interpreting word problems, and carrying out mathematical procedures accurately. These learning challenges are often associated with the limited use of interactive instructional materials in the classroom. Recognizing this concern, the present study developed and evaluated the MATHATAG Cube, an interactive manipulative designed to provide meaningful and engaging learning experiences aligned with the Department of Education's MATATAG Curriculum.
Objectives
This study aimed to identify the learning difficulties encountered by Grade 7 learners in terms of conceptual understanding and procedural skills, develop an interactive manipulative that responds to these identified needs, determine the acceptability of the MATHATAG Cube in terms of content quality, instructional quality, technical quality, and other qualities, and examine whether significant differences existed in the evaluations of school administrators and mathematics teachers.
Methods
The study employed a quantitative descriptive research design. Thirty (30) Grade 7 mathematics teachers from public secondary schools in District 1, Quezon City, participated through total enumeration to identify learners' instructional needs and validate the developed instructional material. The MATHATAG Cube was likewise evaluated by 30 mathematics teachers, 10 school heads, and 5 department heads using a researcher-developed validation checklist. Descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, weighted mean, and grand mean, were used to analyze the data, while one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) determined whether significant differences existed among the validators' assessments.
Results and Discussion
The findings showed that Grade 7 learners commonly struggled with understanding abstract concepts, interpreting mathematical problems, performing accurate computations, and completing multi-step solutions. In response to these challenges, the MATHATAG Cube was developed as a six-faced interactive manipulative that supports hands-on learning across the major competencies of the Grade 7 Mathematics curriculum. The instructional material received overall ratings ranging from 4.52 to 4.62, interpreted as Very Acceptable, across all evaluation criteria. Although the ANOVA results revealed significant differences in the ratings given by teachers, school heads, and department heads, all groups consistently evaluated the MATHATAG Cube positively, indicating that it is appropriate, practical, and aligned with curriculum standards. These findings suggest that interactive manipulatives can make mathematics lessons more engaging while helping learners better understand mathematical concepts and perform procedures with greater confidence and accuracy.
Conclusion
The study concludes that the MATHATAG Cube is a highly acceptable instructional manipulative that effectively addresses the conceptual and procedural learning needs of Grade 7 learners. By providing concrete and interactive learning experiences, it has the potential to improve learners' understanding of mathematics and support more meaningful classroom instruction. The study recommends the integration of the MATHATAG Cube into Grade 7 mathematics classes as a supplementary instructional material and encourages future studies to examine its effectiveness in improving learners' academic achievement and higher-order thinking skills in different educational settings.

NA

1. A. Journal Articles [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Asuncion, K. K., Balios, S. M. A., & Parcon, D. R. (2025). Enhancing problem-solving skills in simple interest among Grade 7 students through the INTER (Identify, Note, Track, Evaluate, Review) strategy. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR),11(5),1546–1558. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra22614 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baraquiel Cenita, R., & Peña, D. B. (2024). Enhancing computational skills of Grade 7 students using indigenous manipulatives. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 9(12), 353–354. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. M. (2010). Virtual manipulatives: What they are and how teachers can use them. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 186–191. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bouck, E. C., & Park, J. (2018). A systematic review of the literature on mathematics manipulatives to support students with disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 41(1), 65–106. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bouck, E. C., Mathews, L. A., & Peltier, C. (2020). Virtual manipulatives: A tool to support access and achievement with middle school students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(1), 51–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Carbonneau, K. J., Wong, R. M., & Borysenko, N. (2020). The influence of perceptually rich manipulatives and collaboration on mathematic problem-solving and perseverance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101846. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Colango, A. (2024). Teaching strategies on the use of manipulatives and students’ understanding of numeracy.Zenodo. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11158818 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Donevska-Todorova, A., Lieban, D., & Gonçalves, B. (2020). Fostering heuristic strategies in mathematical problem solving with virtual and tangible manipulatives. Mathematics Education in the Digital Age (MEDA), 175. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Farra, N. K. A., Belbase, S., Tairab, H., Qablan, A., Opoku, M. P., & Safi, S. K. (2024). Impact of using virtual and concrete manipulatives on students’ learning of fractions. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2379712 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Gregorio, J. M., & Rabut, J. (2024). Strategic intervention materials using LUMI Education (SIMULE) and students’ conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. Zenodo. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11651941 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Jones, J. P., & Tiller, M. (2017). Using concrete manipulatives in mathematical instruction. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 45(1), 18–23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Keldgord, F., & Ching, Y. H. (2022). Teachers’ experiences with and perceptions of virtual manipulatives following the COVID-19 pandemic. TechTrends, 66(6), 957–967. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lafay, A., Osana, H. P., & Valat, M. (2019). Effects of interventions with manipulatives on immediate learning, maintenance, and transfer in children with mathematics learning disabilities: A systematic review. Education Research International, 2019, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2142948 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lee, C. Y., & Chen, M. J. (2015). Effects of worked examples using manipulatives on fifth graders' learning performance and attitude toward mathematics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 264–275. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Linaza, N. D., Gultiano, S. O., & Susada, B. L. (2025). Enhancing Grade 4 students’ mathematical problem-solving skills using manipulatives. Davao Research Journal, 16(1), 62–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. https://doi.org/10.59120/drj.v16i1.303 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Magto, R. Y., & Salazar, D. A. (2025). Tangible mathematics in Grade 7 classrooms: Effects on learner understanding, problem-solving skills, and engagement in rational number operations. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science, 10(5), 1350–1362. https://doi.org/10.51584/ijrias.2025.1005000118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Salkind, G., & Bolyard, J. J. (2008). Virtual manipulatives used by K–8 teachers for mathematics instruction: Considering mathematical, cognitive, and pedagogical fidelity. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3). https://citejournal.org/volume-8/issue-3-08/mathematics/virtual-manipulatives-used-by-k-8-teachers-for-mathematics-instruction-considering-mathematical-cognitive-and-pedagogical-fidelity [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Obut, V., Denopol, L., & Baluyos, G. (2024). The effectiveness of manipulating real objects in enhancing retention among Grade 7 students struggling with concepts of angles. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 9(9), 2052–2060. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Ochugboju, A. O., & Díez-Palomar, J. (2025). Systematic review on the use of virtual and physical manipulatives by primary school teachers. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, Article 102188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102188 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Siller, H., & Ahmad, S. (2024). The effect of concrete and virtual manipulative blended instruction on mathematical achievement for elementary school students. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 24(2), 229–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-024-00336-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Tessema, G., Michael, K., & Areaya, S. (2024). Realist hands-on learning approach and its contributions to learners’ conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills on solid geometry. Pedagogical Research, 9(1), Article em0186. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/14096 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Yakubova, G., Defayette, M. A., & Chen, B. B. (2023). Mathematics learning through online video-based instruction for an autistic child. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(6), 2349–2361. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. B. Books [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. C. Conference Proceedings [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Donevska-Todorova, A., Lieban, D., & Gonçalves, B. (2020). Fostering heuristic strategies in mathematical problem solving with virtual and tangible manipulatives. In Mathematics Education in the Digital Age (MEDA 2020 Conference Proceedings). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. D. Dissertation / Doctoral Thesis [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Collins, A. R. (2020). The impact of language-mathematics instruction on critical thinking and reading comprehension: A quasi-experimental study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Gullion, H. L. (2024). Virtual versus tangible math manipulatives: A quasi-experimental study comparing the impact of different types on mathematical understanding (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mello, C. M. (2023). The most effective engagement strategies for online learning: A qualitative e-Delphi study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. E. Eric / Online Educational Resources [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Durmuş, S., & Karakirik, E. (2006). Virtual manipulatives in mathematics education: A theoretical framework. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1),117–118. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1102492.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study