Abstract

Many teachers can talk confidently about how manipulatives fit into the popular concrete-pictorial-abstract (CPA) heuristic but fewer can justify the pedagogical virtues of choosing one manipulative over another to deliver the specific areas of the primary mathematics curriculum. A complex landscape of Maths Hubs, Multi Academy Trusts and commercial publishers is influencing not only the manipulative choices that are made but how notions of mastery are defined within primary schools. Has the influx of two-sided counters into our classrooms encouraged primary teachers to consider the pedagogical principles behind using these tools or is it the case that a manipulative in a scheme of work which is also available in the classroom cupboard is rationale enough for its use in a lesson? This PhD research adopts a case study approach using qualitative data from online questionnaires (n=130) and follow-up interviews (n=14). Analysis using thematic analysis produced ten themes which this presentation will explore within the context of wider theory, such as a meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching maths with manipulatives conducted by Carbonneau, Marley and Selig (2013). The research scrutinises partnerships between teachers and Maths Hubs and/or Trusts to better understand teachers’ pedagogical understanding of Teaching for Mastery (TfM) principles and how this influences the decisions they make in their classrooms. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of pedagogy, practicality and preference drive teachers’ choices when using certain manipulatives to teach specific concepts.