Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 215–243 | Cite as

A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Computer Technology on School Students’ Mathematics Learning

Review Article

Abstract

This study examines the impact of computer technology (CT) on mathematics education in K-12 classrooms through a systematic review of existing literature. A meta-analysis of 85 independent effect sizes extracted from 46 primary studies involving a total of 36,793 learners indicated statistically significant positive effects of CT on mathematics achievement. In addition, several characteristics of primary studies were identified as having effects. For example, CT showed advantage in promoting mathematics achievement of elementary over secondary school students. As well, CT showed larger effects on the mathematics achievement of special need students than that of general education students, the positive effect of CT was greater when combined with a constructivist approach to teaching than with a traditional approach to teaching, and studies that used non-standardized tests as measures of mathematics achievement reported larger effects of CT than studies that used standardized tests. The weighted least squares univariate and multiple regression analyses indicated that mathematics achievement could be accounted for by a few technology, implementation and learner characteristics in the studies.

Keywords

Meta-analysis Technology Mathematics Achievement Attitude 

References

  1. Albright, M., & Graf, D. (1992). Teaching in the Information Age: The role of educational technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J., Boyle, F., et al. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228(4698), 456–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J., Corbett, A., et al. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, S. (1988). Computers, concrete materials and teaching fractions. School Science and Mathematics, 88, 470–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braden, J. P., Shaw, S. R., et al. (1991). An evaluation of a computer-assisted instructional program for elementary hearing-impaired students. The Volta Review, 93(6), 247–252.Google Scholar
  6. Brush, T. A. (1997). The effects of group composition on achievement and time on task for students completing ILS activities in cooperative pairs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1), 2–17.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, P. K., & Bozeman, W. C. (1981). Computer-assisted instruction and mathematics achievement: Is there a relationship? Educational Technology, 21(10), 32–39.Google Scholar
  8. Burrill, G., Allison, J., et al. (1992). Handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for classroom practice. Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments Corp.Google Scholar
  9. Char, C. (1989). Computer graphics feltboards: New software approaches for young children's mathematical exploration. San Francisco: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  10. Christmann, E., Badgett, J., et al. (1997). Microcomputer-based computer-assisted instruction within differing subject areas: A statistical deduction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–460.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, D. (1998). Young Children and Technology. Washington, DC: Forum on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education.Google Scholar
  13. Coley, R., Cradleer, J., et al. (2000). Computers and the classroom: The status of technology in US schools. Princeton: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, J., Heron, T., et al. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus: Merrill.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Farrell, A. M. (1996). Roles and behaviors in technology-integrated precalculus classrooms. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators' instructional adaptation for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., et al. (2002). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on the mathematical problem solving performance of students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Funkhouser, C. (1993). The influence of problem-solving software on student attitudes about mathematics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 339–346.Google Scholar
  20. Gaur, A., & Gaur, S. (2006). Statistical methods for practice and research: A guide to data analysis using SPSS. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Glass, G. V., B. McGaw, et al. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA, SAGE.Google Scholar
  22. Hartley, S. S. (1977). Meta-analysis of the effects of individually paced instruction in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International 38(7A): University Microfilms No. 77-29, 926.Google Scholar
  23. Hecht, J. B., N. K. Roberts, et al. (1995). Teacher Teams and Computer Technology. 1995 Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  24. Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analyses. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Hembree, R., & Dessart, D. J. (1986). Effects of hand-held calculators in precollege mathematics education: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Irish, C. (2002). Using peg- and keyword mnemonics and computer-assisted instruction to enhance basic multiplication performance in elementary students with learning and cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 29–40.Google Scholar
  27. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics in education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Kieran, C., & Hillel, J. (1990). It's tough when you have to make the triangles angles: Insights from a computer-based geometry environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9, 99–127.Google Scholar
  29. Kim, S. (1993). The relative effectiveness of hands-on and computer-simulated manipulative in teaching seriation, classification, geometric, and arithmetic concepts to kindergarten children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(09), 3319.Google Scholar
  30. Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., et al. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30–43.Google Scholar
  31. Kozma, R. (2001). Learning with media. In D. P. Ely and T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 155–188). Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1986). Effectiveness of computer-based education in colleges. AEDS Journal, 19, 81–108.Google Scholar
  33. Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kulik, J., Kulik, C., et al. (1980). Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50, 525–544.Google Scholar
  35. Kulik, K., Schwalb, B., et al. (1982). Programmed instruction in secondary education: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 133–138.Google Scholar
  36. Kulik, J., Bangert-Drowns, R., et al. (1983). Effects of computer based teaching on secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li, Q. (2004). Technology and mathematics education: Any impact? The Eleventh International Literacy and Education Research Network Conference on Learning, La Havana.Google Scholar
  38. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., et al. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Means, B. (1994). The technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 215–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mushi, S. (2000). Use of interactive video technology to teach middle school mathematics. Chicago: Northeastern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  43. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  44. Niemiec, R., & Walberg, H. (1985). Computers and achievement in the elementary schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Niemiec, R., Samson, G., et al. (1987). The effects of computer-based instruction inclementary schools: A quantitative synthesis. Journal for Research on Computing in Education, 20, 85–103.Google Scholar
  46. Nute, N. (1997). The impact of engagement activity and manipulatives presentation on intermediate mathematics achievement, time-on-task, learning efficiency and attitude. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(08), 2988.Google Scholar
  47. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  48. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Royer, J. M., Greene, B. A., et al. (1994). Can U.S. developed CAI work effectively in a developing country? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salerno, C. A. (1995). The effect of time on computer-assisted instruction for at-risk students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(1), 85–97.Google Scholar
  52. Shyu, H. Y. (1999). Effects of media attributes in anchored instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(2), 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Smith, C., McLaughlin, M., et al. (1997). Conduct control on usenet. Journal of Computermediated Communication, 2(4), 1–11.Google Scholar
  54. Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., et al. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1–21.Google Scholar
  55. Terry, M. (1996). An investigation of differences in cognition when utilizing math manipulatives and math manipulative software. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(7), 2650.Google Scholar
  56. Woodward, J. (1995). Technology-based research in mathematics for special education. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(2), 3–23.Google Scholar
  57. Woodward, J., Reith, D. (1995). Technology-based research in mathematics for special education. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(2), 3–23.Google Scholar
  58. Xin, J. F. (1999). Computer-assisted cooperative learning in integrated classrooms for students with and without disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual: 61–78.Google Scholar
  59. Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., et al. (2003). Using a curriculum-based instructional management system to enhance math achievement in urban schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 8(2), 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reference of Studies Used in This Meta-Analysis

  1. *Ash, J. (2005). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on middle school mathematics achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tennessee State University.Google Scholar
  2. *Berryman, H. (1999). The effects of technology education labs on third grade mathematics scores. University of Sarasota, Sarasota, FL.Google Scholar
  3. *Blanton, W. E., Moorman, G. B., Hayes, B. A., & Warner, M. L. (1997). Effects of participation in the fifth dimension on far transfer. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 371–396.Google Scholar
  4. *Carter, C., & Smith, L. (2002). Does the use of learning logic in algebra I make a difference in algebra II? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 157–161.Google Scholar
  5. *Chute, R., & Miksad, J. (1997). Computer assisted instruction and cognitive development in preschoolers. Child Study Journal, 27, 237–253.Google Scholar
  6. *Clariana, R. (1996). Differential achievement gains for mathematics computation, concepts, and applications with an integrated learning system. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science, 15, 203–215.Google Scholar
  7. *Clark, D. (2004). The effects of using computer-assisted instruction of assist high school geometry students achieve higher levels of success on the Florida Competency Achievement Test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio.Google Scholar
  8. *Connell, M. L. (1998). Technology in constructivist mathematics classrooms. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 17, 311–338.Google Scholar
  9. *Feng, S., & Caleo, J. (2000). Playing computer games versus better learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association. Clearwater, FL.Google Scholar
  10. *Fischer, E. (1997). The effects of applied technology instruction on mathematics achievement and career interests of urban seventh-grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University.Google Scholar
  11. *Forde, T. B. (2003). The effects of technology-supported cognitive mathematical instruction on African-American students characterized as at-risk for school failure. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  12. *Funkhouser, C. (2003). The effects of computer-augmented geometry instruction on student performance and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 163–175.Google Scholar
  13. *Iskander, W., & Curtis, S. (2005). Use of colour and interactive animation in learning 3D vectors. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24, 149–156.Google Scholar
  14. *Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53, 83–93.Google Scholar
  15. *Lester. (1996). The effects of the geometer's sketchpad software on achievement of geometric knowledge of high school geometry students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  16. *Lewis, S. K. (2004). The relationship of full-time laptop computer access to student achievement and student attitudes in middle school. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  17. *Ling, S. (2004). Enhancing the learning of conics with technology. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University Dominguez Hills, Dominguez Hills.Google Scholar
  18. *Mac Iver, D. J., Balfanz, R., & Plank, S. B. (1998). The talent development middle school. An elective replacement approach to providing extra help in math—The CATAMA program (computer- and team-assisted mathematics acceleration). Report No. 21. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  19. *Martindale, T., Pearson, C., Curda, L. K., & Pilcher, J. (2005). Effects of an online instructional application on reading and mathematics standardized test scores. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 349–360.Google Scholar
  20. *McBride, R. O., & Lewis, G. (1993). Sharing the resources: electronic outreach programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 372–386.Google Scholar
  21. *Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 215–248.Google Scholar
  22. *Olkun, S. (2003). Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22, 43–56.Google Scholar
  23. *Page, M. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 389–409.Google Scholar
  24. *Phillips, C. K. (2001). The effects of an integrated computer program on mathematics and reading improvement in grades three through five. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
  25. *Quinn, D. W., & Quinn, N. W. (2001a). PLATO evaluation series. Grades 1–8, Apache Junction Unified School District 43, Apache Junction, Arizona. Bloomington, MN: PLATO Learning, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. *Quinn, D. W., & Quinn, N. W. (2001b). PLATO evaluation series. Jobs for Youth-Boston, Madison Park Technical-Vocational H.S. Boston, Massachusetts. Bloomington, MN: PLATO Learning, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. *Schpilberg, B., & Hubschman, B. (2003). Face-to-face and computer mediated tutoring: A comparative exploration on high school students' math achievement. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  28. *Shyu, H. Y. (2000). Using video-based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan's experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 57–69.Google Scholar
  29. *Smith, B. (2002). The impact of the utilization of advantage learning systems' technology on students' academic achievement. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, Tennessee State University.Google Scholar
  30. *Soeder, K. (2001). The effect of computer-aided instruction on mathematics achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Immaculata College.Google Scholar
  31. *Wheeler, J. L., & Regian, J. W. (1999). The use of a cognitive tutoring system in the improvement of the abstract reasoning component of word problem solving. Computers in Human Behaviour, 15, 243–254.Google Scholar
  32. *Wittman, T. K., Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Hamodey-Douglas, S. (1998). Computer assisted automatization of multiplication facts reduces mathematics anxiety in elementary school children. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  33. *Wodarz, N. (1994). The effects of computer usage on elementary students' attitudes, motivation and achievement in mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
  34. *Ysseldyke, J., Betts, J., Thill, T., & Hannigan, E. (2004). Use of an instructional management system to improve mathematics skills for students in Title 1 programs. Preventing School Failure, 48(4), 10–14.Google Scholar
  35. *Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., Kosciolek, S., & Boys, C. (2003). Effects of a learning information system on mathematics achievement and classroom structure. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 163–173.Google Scholar
  36. *Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., Kosciolek, S., Teelucksingh, E., Boys, C., & Lemkuil, A. (2003). Using a curriculum-based instructional management system to enhance math achievement in urban schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 8, 247–265.Google Scholar
  37. *Ysseldyke, J., Tardrew, S., Betts, J., Thill, T., & Hannigan, E. (2004). Use of an instructional management system to enhance math instruction of gifted and talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27, 293–310Google Scholar
  38. *Zumwalt, D. (2001). The effectiveness of computer aided instruction in eighth grade pre-algebra classrooms 1061Q6 in Idaho. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Idaho State University, Idaho.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations