Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selection of Apps for Teaching Difficult Mathematics Topics: An Instrument to Evaluate Touch-Screen Tablet and Smartphone Mathematics Apps

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Virtual Manipulatives

Part of the book series: Mathematics Education in the Digital Era ((MEDE,volume 7))

Abstract

Manipulatives—including the more recent touch-screen mobile device apps—belong to a broader network of learning tools . As teachers continue to search for learning materials that aid children to think mathematically, they are faced with a challenge of how to select materials that meet the needs of students. The profusion of virtual learning tools available via the Internet magnifies this challenge. What criteria could teachers use when choosing useful manipulatives? In this chapter, we share an evaluation instrument for teachers to use to evaluate apps . The dimensions of the instrument include: (a) the nature of the curriculum addressed in the app—emergent , adaptable or prescriptive, and relevance to current, high quality curricula —high, medium, low; (b) degree of actions and interactions afforded by the app as a learning tool—constructive, manipulable, or instructive interface; (c) the level of interactivity and range of options offered to the user—multiple or mono, or high, moderate or low; and, (d) the quality of the design features and graphics in the app—rich, high quality or impoverished, poor quality. Using these dimensions, researchers rated the apps on a three-level scale: Levels I, II, and III. Few apps were classified as Level III apps on selected dimensions. This evaluation instrument guides teachers when selecting apps. As well, the evaluation instrument guides developers in going beyond apps that are overly prescriptive, that focus on quizzes, that are text based, and include only surface aspects of using multi-modality in learning, to apps that are more aligned with emergent curricula, that focus also on conceptual understanding, and that utilize multiple, interactive representations of mathematics concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bartolini, M. G., & Martignone, F. (2014). Manipulatives in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 365–372). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basham, J., Meyer, H., & Perry, E. (2010). The design and application of the digital backpack. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 339–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortolossi, H. J. (2012). Criando conteúdos educacionais digitais em matemática e estatística com o uso integrado de tecnologias GeoGebra, JavaView, HTML, CSS, MathMLe JavaScript. Revista do Instituto GeoGebra de São Paulo, Journal od the Sao Paulo GeoGebra Institute, 1(1), 38–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, B. (2009a). Technology with cognitive and mathematical fidelity: What it means for the math classroom. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, B. (2009b). Virtual math objects with pedagogical, mathematical, and cognitive fidelity. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 521–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, B. (2011). Professional development for elementary teachers using TPACK. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 167–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder, N. (2015, October). Apps: Appropriate, applicable, and appealing? In T. Lowrie & R. Jorgensen (Eds.), Digital games and mathematics learning (pp. 233–250). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cayton-Hodges, G., Feng, G., & Pan, X. (2015). Tablet-based math assessment: What can we learn from math apps? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, T. P. (2008). Keeping the faith: Fidelity in technological tools for mathematics Education. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and perspectives. (pp. 333–339). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, H., & Churches, A. (2012). Apps for learning: 40 best iPad/iPod Touch/iPhone apps for high school classrooms. Vancouver, BC: 21st Century Fluency Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Donnelly, K. (2015). Evaluating and assessing tools in the digital swamp. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G. (2014). Young children, mathematics and coding: A low floor, high ceiling, wide walls learning environment. In D. Polly (Ed.), Cases on technology integration in mathematics education (pp. 312–344). Hersey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G. (2015). Coding as a Trojan horse for mathematics education reform. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(2), 155–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G., & Schindler, K. (2006). Learning objects and embedded pedagogical models. Computers in the Schools, 23, 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G., Sedig, K., & Liang, H. N. (2004). Designing online mathematical investigation. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(3), 273–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G., & Yiu, C. (2014). Math and code. Retrieved from www.researchideas.ca/mathncode

  • Gee, J. P. (2005). Good video games and good learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2012). Digital games and libraries. Knowledge Quest, 41(1), 61–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, K., & Highfield, K. (2012). iTouch and iLearn: An examination of “educational” apps. Paper presented at Early Education and Technology for Children Conference, March 14–16, 2012, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, K., & Highfield, K. (2013). A framework for examining technologies and early mathematics learning. In L. D. English & J. T. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 205–226). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haugland, S. W. (1999). The newest software that meets the developmental needs of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26(4), 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugland, S. W. (2005). Selecting or upgrading software and websites in the classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(5), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heydon, R., & Wang, P. (2006). Curricular ethics in early childhood education programming: A challenge to the Ontario kindergarten program. McGill Journal of Education, 41(1), 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Highfield, K., & Goodwin, K. (2013). Apps for mathematics learning: A review of ‘educational’ apps from the iTunes App Store. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Melbourne, VIC: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, F. (Ed.). (2002). Representations and mathematics visualization. Mexico: PME-NA, Cinvestav-IPN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamii, C., Lewis, B. A., & Kirkland, L. D. (2001). Fluency in subtraction compared with addition. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2009). Assessing learning, quality and engagement in learning objects: The learning object evaluation scale for students (LOES-S). Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, K. (2013). Mathematics education. Is there an app for that? In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 426–433). Melbourne, VIC: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, K. (2014). iPad apps that promote mathematical knowledge? Yes, they exist! Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 19(2), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, K. (2015a). The search for fidelity in geometry apps: An exercise in futility? In M. Marshman, V. Geiger, & A. Bennison (Eds.), Mathematics education in the margins. Proceedings of the 38th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. Sunshine Coast, QLD: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, K. (2015b). An app! An app! My kingdom for an app: An 18-month quest to determine whether apps support mathematical knowledge building. In Digital games and mathematics learning (pp. 251–276). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, C., Johnson, D., & Willis, J. (2001). Educational computing: Learning with tomorrow’s technologies. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M., Goos, M., Keddie, A., Honan, E., Prendergast, D., Gilbert, R., & Renshaw, P. (2009). Productive pedagogies: A redefined methodology for analyzing quality teacher practice. Australian Educational Researcher, 36(3), 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 202–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Shumway, J. F., Bullock, E., Tucker, S. I., Anderson-Pence, K., Westenskow, A., et al. (2015). Young children’s learning performance and efficiency when using virtual manipulative mathematics iPad apps. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(1), 41–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namukasa, I. K., Stanley, D., & Tutchie, M. (2009). Virtual manipulative materials in secondary mathematics: A theoretical discussion. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28, 277–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelton, L. F., & Pelton, T. (2012, March). Sharing strategies with teachers: iPods in math class. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (Vol. 2012, No. 1, pp. 4363–4366).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepin, B., & Gueudet, G. (2014). Curriculum resources and textbooks in mathematics. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 132–135). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J. C. (1972, May). Fourteen different strategies of multiplication of integers or why (−1) (−1)=+1. The Arithmetic Teacher, 19(5), 397–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirie, S., & Kieren, T. (1994). Growth in mathematical understanding: How can we characterize it and how can we represent it? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26(2–3), 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedig, K., Parsons, P., Dittmer, M., & Haworth, R. (2014). Human-centred interactivity of visualization tools: Micro- and macro-level considerations. In W. Huang (Ed.), Handbook on human centric visualization (pp. 717–743). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Skip, J. (1990). But everybody accepts this explanation: Operations on signed numbers. In J. Fauvel (Ed.), History in the mathematics classroom (The IREM papers) (Vol. 1). London, England: Mathematical Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trouche, L., Drijvers, P., Gueudet, G., & Sacristan, A. I. (2013). Technology-driven development and policy implications for mathematics education. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 753–790). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Government News Release. (February 4, 2014). Year of code and £500,000 fund to inspire future tech experts launched. Retrieved from www.gov.uk/government/news/year-of-code-and-500000-fund-to-inspire-future-tech-experts-launched

  • Yerushalmy, M., & Ben-Zaken, O. (2004). Mobile phones in education: The case for mathematics, Haifa. Retrieved from http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~michalyr/celular%20report.pdf

  • Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, M., Trussell, R. P., Gallegos, B., & Asam, R. R. (2015). Using math apps for improving student learning: An exploratory study in an inclusive fourth grade classroom. TechTrends, 59(2), 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Western University, London, Canada

    I. K. Namukasa, G. Gadanidis & K. Aryee

  2. Pleasant View Junior High School, Toronto, Canada

    V. Sarina

  3. Universidade Estadual Paulista (São Paulo State University), São Paulo, Brazil

    S. Scucuglia

Authors
  1. I. K. Namukasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Gadanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Sarina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Scucuglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Aryee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. K. Namukasa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA

    Patricia S. Moyer-Packenham

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Namukasa, I.K., Gadanidis, G., Sarina, V., Scucuglia, S., Aryee, K. (2016). Selection of Apps for Teaching Difficult Mathematics Topics: An Instrument to Evaluate Touch-Screen Tablet and Smartphone Mathematics Apps. In: Moyer-Packenham, P. (eds) International Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Virtual Manipulatives. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32718-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32718-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32716-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32718-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation