You are here:

Teaching WITH (not near) Virtual Manipulatives

, University of Northern Colorado, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Washington, D.C., United States ISBN 978-1-939797-32-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Although mathematics teachers are expected to use technology to enhance student understanding, many teachers report that they are not prepared to teach with technology. The following study presents a task analysis framework and guiding questions used during a professional development (PD) opportunity for mathematics teachers aimed at supporting their efforts to teach with rather than near virtual manipulatives (VMs). Findings focus on teachers’ appropriation of two tools introduced during the PD to support their efforts to critique and modify VM tasks aimed at meeting their student needs and promoting the development of conceptual understanding. Implications for supporting teachers’ integration of technology tools are discussed.


Reiten, L. (2018). Teaching WITH (not near) Virtual Manipulatives. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1826-1835). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 21, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Albion, P.R., Tondeur, J., Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Peeraer, J. (2015). Teachers’ professional development for ICT integration: Towards a reciprocal relationship between research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 655-673.
  2. Bicer, A., & Capraro, R.M. (2017). Longitudinal effects of technology integration and teacher professional development on students’ mathematics achievement. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Sciences and Technology, 13(3), 815-833.
  3. Bouck, E.C., Flanagan, S., & Bouck, M. (2015). Learning area and perimeter with virtual manipulatives. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(4), 381-393.
  4. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
  5. Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
  6. Driskell, S.O., Bush, S.B., Ronau, R.N., Niess, M.L., Rakes, C.R., & Pugalee, D.K. (2016). Mathematics education technology professional development: Changes over several decades. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K.F. Hollebrands (Eds.), Transforming mathematics teacher education in the digital age (pp. 107-136). Hershey, PA:
  7. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
  8. Grossman, P.L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1-29.
  9. Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.
  10. Leatham, K.R. (2002). Preservice secondary mathematics teachers’ beliefs about teaching with technology. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia). Retrieved from
  11. Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., & McMillan Culp, K. (2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 55-76.
  12. Matzen, N.J., & Edmunds, J.A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 417-430.
  13. Mouza, C. (2009). Does research-based professional development make a difference? A longitudinal investigation of teacher learning in technology integration. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1195-1241.
  14. Moyer, P.S., Bolyard, J.J., & Spikell, M.A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372-377.
  15. Moyer-Packenham, P.S., Baker, J., Westenskow, A., Anderson-Pence, K.L., Shumway, J.F., & Jordan, K.E. (2014). Predictors of achievement when virtual manipulatives are used for mathematics instruction. REDIMAT, 3(2), 121-150. .
  16. Moyer-Packenham, P.S., & Westenskow, A. (2013). Effects of virtual manipulatives on student achievement and mathematics learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 4(3), 35-50.
  17. Ok, M.W., Kim, M.K., Kang, E.Y., & Bryant, B.R. (2016). How to find good apps: An evaluation rubric for instructional apps for teaching students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(4), 244-252.
  18. Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44 (4), 921958.
  19. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Second Edition. Sage Publications Ltd.: Los Angeles, CA.
  20. Sinclair, M.P. (2003). Some implications of the results of a case study for the design of pre-constructed, dynamic geometry sketches and accompanying materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 289-317.
  21. Trocki, A. (2014). Evaluating and writing dynamic geometry tasks. Mathematics Teacher, 107(9), 701-705.
  22. Vukovic, R.K. (2012). Mathematics difficulty with and without reading difficulty: Findings and implications from a four-year longitudinal study. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 280-300.
  23. Walker, A., Recker, M., Ye, L., Robertshaw, M.B., Sellers, L., & Leary, H. (2012). Comparing technology-related teacher professional development designs: A multilevel study of teacher and student impacts. Educational Technology Research& Development, 60, 421-444.
  24. Webster-Wright. A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
  25. Wilson, P.S. (2008). Teacher education: A conduit to the classroom. In G.W. Blume & M.K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and perspectives (pp. 415426).

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact