Transforming learning with computers: Calculus for kids


The Calculus for Kids project was deliberately designed to use computers in the transformation of curriculum. The intervention used multi-media learning materials to assist teachers and Year 6 (aged 11–12 years) students understand the principles of integral calculus. They used Maple mathematics software to solve real-world problems using these principles and by employing conventional mathematics notation on their individual computers. Between June 2010 and April 2016, it was implemented in 23 classes at 19 schools involving 434 students. Two methods were used to calculate effect sizes of 22.19 (pre-test/post-test Cohen’s d) and 1.17 (age-maturation). Positive gains were also found in students’ attitudes, particularly in Technology confidence. This article discusses methods for calculating effect sizes for transformational education with computers and recommends further research in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Allen, D. (2001). Learning integral calculus through non-template problem solving. Primus: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 11(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, J. (2010). ICT transforming education: A regional guide. Bangkok. UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015a). Guide to understanding ICSEA (index of community socio-educational advantage) values. Author.

  4. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015b). National Assessment Program – Literacy and numeracy 2014: Technical report. Sydney: ACARA

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barkatsas, A. (2004). A new scale for monitoring students’ attitudes to learning mathematics with technology (MTAS). 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

  6. Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2017). Overcoming system inertia in education reform. Boston, MA, USA: Center for Curriculum Redesign

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blin, F., & Munro, M. (2008). Why hasn’t technology disrupted academics’ teaching practices? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory. Computers & Education, 50(2), 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bloom, H. S., Hill, C. J., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1(4), 289–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burford, S., Partridge, H., Brown, S., Hider, P., & Ellis, L. (2015). Education for Australia’s information future. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(3), 458–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cerna, L. (2013). The nature of policy change and implementation: A review of different theoretical approaches. OECD

  11. Chin, C.K.H., Fluck, A., Chong, C.L., Penesis, I., Ranmuthugala, D. and Coleman, B. (2017). Higher order thinking through Calculus for Kids. Journal of Digital Learning and Teaching Victoria 4(1)26–31.

  12. Chrisafis, A. (2018) French school students to be banned from using mobile phones. The Guardian (newspaper) 7 Jun 2018.

  13. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cordes, C., & Miller, E. (Eds.). (2000). Fool's gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. Alliance for Childhood: College Park, MD, USA

    Google Scholar 

  17. Crean, A. (2018) French parliament backs Macron bill to ban phones in schools. Sky News.

  18. Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., Vickers, M., & Williams, M. (2002). Making better connections. Science and Training: Commonwealth Department of Education

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fluck, A. (2003a). Why isn't ICT as effective as it ought to be in school education? ICT and the Teacher of the Future: International Federation for Information Processing Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Working Conference, 26–31 January 2003, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 39–41.

  21. Fluck (2003b). Integration or Transformation?: A cross-national study of Information and Communication Technology in School Education. Thesis: University of Tasmania.

  22. Fluck, A. (2005). The realities of transforming education through ICT, invited keynote at Global Project Based Learning Forum and Exhibition, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 29–35 (Eng).

  23. Fluck, A., Ranmuthugala, S.D., Chin, C.K.H. & Penesis, I. (2011). Calculus in elementary school: an example of ICT-based curriculum transformation, SITE 2011, Nashville, USA, pp. 3203–3210.

  24. Fluck, A.E., Ranmuthugala, D., Chin, C. and Chong, J. (2016). Innovating with Science-ercise. Australian Council for Computers in Education Conference Proceedings, 29 September - 2 October 2016, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 46–51.

  25. Freiberger, V., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2012). Competence beliefs and perceived ability evaluations: How do they contribute to intrinsic motivation and achievement? Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4), 518–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Google. (2019). Using the TAR model to connect technology to your vision. Fort Osage R-1 School District / Independence, MO, USA.

  28. Goss, P., & Chisholm, C. (2016). Widening gaps: What NAPLAN tells us about student progress: Technical report. Grattan Institute: Carlton, VIC, AU

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39(1–3), 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gylfason, G. J. (2016). An introduction to the Icelandic national examinations for 7th grade 2016. Kópavogi, Iceland: Directorate of Education, Iceland.

  31. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Head, B. (2016) Australia’s record on digital disruption: A retrospective report card. In The Executive’s Guide to Navigating Digital Disruption. Australian Computer Society.

  34. Hillier, M. & Fluck, A. (2017). Transforming exams - how IT works for BYOD e-exams In H. Partridge, K. Davis, & J. Thomas. (Eds.), Me, us, IT! Proceedings ASCILITE 2017: 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education (pp. 100-105). Toowoomba, 4-6 December.

  35. Hopkins, W. G. (1997). New view of statistics.

  36. Hornstra, L., van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2015). Innovative learning and developments in motivation and achievement in upper primary school. Educational Psychology, 35(5), 598–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Huang, Y.-M., Liao, Y.-W., Huang, S.-H., & Chen, H.-C. (2014). A jigsaw-based cooperative learning approach to improve learning outcomes for mobile situated learning. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 128–140

    Google Scholar 

  38. Jónasson, J. T. (2016). Educational change, inertia and potential futures: Why is it difficult to change the content of education? European Journal of Futures Research, 4(7), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 746–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kotrlik, J. W., & Williams, H. A. (2003). The incorporation of effect size in information technology, learning and performance research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kozma, R. B. (2011). A framework for ICT policies to transform education. In Transforming education: The power of ICT policies. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

  42. Lattu, M. (2014). Digitalisation of the Finnish matriculation examination - geography on the first wave in 2016. Invited talk presented at the Open Source Geospatial Research and Education Symposium, Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland. 10–13 June. .

  43. Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lopez, X., Valenzuela, J., Nussbaum, M., & Tsai, C. (2015). Some recommendations for the reporting of quantitative studies. Computers & Education, 91(2015), 106–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Magana, S. (2017). Disruptive classroom technologies: Transcending the status quo with the T3 framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Maple. (2016). User case study: Maple helps teach calculus to 11-year old students. Maplesoft, a division of Waterloo Maple Inc., Waterloo, Ontario.

  47. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (Australia and New Zealand) (MCEETYA). (2005). Contemporary learning: Learning in an online world. Curriculum Corporation.

  48. Moursund, D. (2005). Introduction to information and communication Technology in Education. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  49. MySchool. (2017). The my school website. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority

    Google Scholar 

  50. NAP [National Assessment Program]. (2017). NAPLAN Online. Author

    Google Scholar 

  51. National Assessment Program (2016). Score equivalence tables.

  52. Nitschke, S. (2016). Calculus for Kids: Engaging Students in Mathematics through ICT. Australian Council for Computers in Education Conference Proceedings, 29 September - 2 October 2016, Brisbane, Australia.

  53. OECD. (2017). Characteristics of education systems, in Education at a glance 2017: OECD indicators, OECD publishing. Paris: DOI

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Papert, S. (2000). Technology in schools: To support the system or render it obsolete. Milken Family Foundation.

  55. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students’ attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers & Education, 48(2007), 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education.

  59. Puentedura, R. R. (2017). Why prudence is (sometimes) not prudent: The trouble with too much substitution.

  60. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and conducting survey research. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for Lifelong Kindergarten. Educational Technology Research & Development, 46(4), 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Future of Children, 10(2), 76–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/knowledge forum®. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp. 183-192).

  65. SRI International. (2011). SimCalc: The mathematics of change. Retrieved from

  66. Staff Writer. (2018). New categories for 2018 digital disruptors awards. Information Age, Jun 19 2018.

  67. Tallmadge, G. K. (1977). The joint dissemination review panel IDEABOOK. Washington, DC: U. S. Office of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Tamim, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Pickup, D., Bernard, R. M., & El Saadi, L. (2015). Tablets for teaching and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Commonwealth of Learning.

  69. Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 16–21

    Google Scholar 

  70. Tinker, R. (2000). Ice machines, steamboats, and education: Structural change and educational technologies. Paper presented at The Secretary's Conference on Educational Technology, September 11-12.

  71. Volk, M., Cotic, M., Zajc, M., & Starcic, A. I. (2017). Tablet-based cross-curricular maths vs. traditional maths classroom practice for higher-order learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 114(2017), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Wiliam, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. CACM Viewpoint, March 2006, pp. 33–35,

Download references


This work was supported by the Australian Research Council [LP130101088] with the University of Tasmania and industry partner Australian Scientific & Engineering Solutions Pty Ltd.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew E. Fluck.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fluck, A.E., Ranmuthugala, D., Chin, C.K.H. et al. Transforming learning with computers: Calculus for kids. Educ Inf Technol 25, 3779–3796 (2020).

Download citation


  • Transformation of learning
  • Primary education
  • Integral calculus
  • Computer-based assessment
  • Learner attitudes/perceptions
  • Effect size of innovations