Engaging Primary School Students in Mathematics: Can iPads Make a Difference?

Abstract

Research on the impact of the integration of technologies such as iPads on primary students’ attitudes and engagement in mathematics is limited. Further, there have been claims that teachers’ pedagogical choices can strongly influence the effectiveness of iPads for engaging students in mathematics. This paper presents an investigation of the influence of teaching and learning mathematics with iPads on students’ attitudes and engagement in mathematics. The participants in this study were students in a large urban primary school, implementing an iPad program for teaching and learning across the curriculum. Surveys with five-point Likert-type items were used to measure students’ attitudes to mathematics. Students from Years 2 to 6 completed the survey at the beginning and end of two consecutive school years. Survey results suggested that iPad use in mathematics has the potential to impact positively on students’ attitudes to mathematics. At the end of the second year of the study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers and students. The interview responses confirmed that iPads had a positive influence on students’ engagement and attitudes to mathematics, and that the pedagogical approaches utilised by teachers for embedding iPads in their mathematics lessons contributed positively to these outcomes.

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

References

  1. Adelson, J. L. & McCoach, D. B. (2011). Development and psychometric properties of the Math and Me Survey: Measuring third through sixth graders’ attitudes toward mathematics. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 44(4), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Attard, C. (2011). “My favourite subject is maths. For some reason no-one really agrees with me”: Student perspectives of mathematics teaching and learning in the upper primary classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Attard, C. (2013a). iPads and primary mathematics. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 18(4), 38–40.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Attard, C. (2013b). Thanks for the iPads, but what do we do with them? Integrating iPads into the teaching and learning of primary mathematics. Curriculum and Leadership Journal, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/integrating_ipads_into_the_teaching_and_learning_o,35917.html?issueID=12708.

  5. Attard, C. (2014). ‘I don’t like it, I don’t love it, but I do it and I don’t mind’: Introducing a framework for engagement with mathematics. Curriculum Perspectives, 34(3), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Attard, C. (2015). Engagement and mathematics: What does it look like in your classroom? Journal of Professional Learning, Semester 2. Retrieved from http://cpl.asn.au/journal/semester-2-2015/engagement-and-mathematics-what-does-it-look-like-in-your-classroom.

  7. Attard, C. & Curry, C. (2012). Exploring the use of iPads to engage young students with mathematics. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics Education: Expanding Horizons. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA) (pp. 75-82). Singapore: MERGA.

  8. Attard, C. & Northcote, M. (2011). Mathematics on the move: Using mobile technologies to support student learning (Part 1). Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 16(4), 29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barkatsas, A., Kasimatis, K. & Gialamas, V. (2009). Learning secondary mathematics with technology: Exploring the complex interrelationship between students’ attitudes, engagement, gender, and achievement. Computers and Education, 52, 562–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brace, N., Kemp, R. & Snelgar, R. (2009). SPSS for psychologists. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

  11. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge Falmer.

  12. Commonwealth of Australia (2008). National numeracy review report. Canberra, Australia: Author.

  13. Couse, L. & Chen, D. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Donaldson, A. (2012). It’s about the learning, not the toys. TechTrends, 56(4), 3–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dowker, A., Bennett, K. & Smith, L. (2012). Attitudes to mathematics in primary school children. Child Development Research, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/124939

  16. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D. & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fabian, K., Topping, K. J. & Barron, I. G. (2016). Mobile technology and mathematics: Effects on students’ attitudes, engagement, and achievement. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 77–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Franklin, T. & Peng, L.-W. (2008). Mobile math: Math educators and students engage in mobile learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P. & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R. & Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics—A “hopeless issue”? A control-value approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goos, M. & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 102–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Goos, M., Dole, S., & Geiger, V. (2012). Auditing the numeracy demands of the Australian curriculum. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics Education: Expanding Horizons: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA) (pp.314-321). Singapore: MERGA.

  23. Handal, B., Novak, A., Watson, K., Maher, M., MacNich, J., & Eddles-Hirsch, K. (2014). Numeracy education through mobile apps. Middle Years of Schooling Association, 14(1), 28-37. Retrieved from www.adolescentsuccess.org.au.

  24. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: The ACER Annual Conference, Melbouren, Australia.

  25. Ireland, G. V. & Woollerton, M. (2010). The impact of the iPad and iPhone on education. Journal of Bunkyo Gakuin University Department of Foreign Languages and Bunkyo Gakuin College, 10, 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kunzler, G. (2011, September 11). iPads motivate students to learn, improve the education experience. iPad News. Retrieved from http://www.mactrast.com/2011/11/ipads-motivate-students-to-learn-improve-the-education-experience.

  27. Kyanka-Maggart, J. (2013). iPads, motivation, self-efficacy, engagement in upper elementary school mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baker University, Baldwin City, KS.

  28. Kyriacou, C. & Goulding, M. (2006). A systematic review of strategies to raise pupils’ motivational effort in Key Stage 4 mathematics. London, United Kingdom: EPPI Centre, Institute of Education.

  29. Larkin, K. & Jorgensen, H. (2015). ‘I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?’ Using iPad video diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in Year 3 and Year 6 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9621-x.

  30. Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596). New York, NY: Macmillan.

  32. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Science Education, 15, 625–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Noyes, A. (2012). It matters which class you are in: Student-centred teaching and the enjoyment of learning mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(3), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Oliver, K. & Corn, J. (2008). Student-reported differences in technology use and skills after implementation of one-to-one computing. Educational Media International, 45(3), 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Malley, P., Jenkins, S., Wesley, B., Donehower, C., Rabuck, D. & Lewis, M. (2013). Effectiveness of using iPads to build math fluency. Paper presented at 2013 Council for Exceptional Children Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.

  37. Pierce, R. & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pintrich, P. R. & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic.

  39. Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R. & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shah, N. (2011). iPads become learning tools for students with disabilities. Education Week, 5(1), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Singer, J. (2015). The effects of iPad devices on elementary school students’ mathematics achievement and attitudes Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Northeastern University Digital Raspitory Service (D20198325).

  42. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  43. Usher, E. & Pajares, F. (2006). Inviting confidence in school: Invitations as a critical source of the academic self-efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 12(7), 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  44. van Oostveen, R., Muirhead, W. & Goodman, W. M. (2011). Tablet PCs and reconceptualising learning with technology: A case study in higher education. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 8(2), 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thanks the teachers and students who participated in this study and Dr. Geoff Hilton for his contribution and helpful comments on drafts of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Hilton.

Appendix. Factor Analysis for the Maths and Me Surveys

Appendix. Factor Analysis for the Maths and Me Surveys

Table 9 Factor analysis for 2014 pre- and post-surveys
Table 10 Factor analysis for 2015 pre- and post-surveys

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hilton, A. Engaging Primary School Students in Mathematics: Can iPads Make a Difference?. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 16, 145–165 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9771-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Primary school mathematics
  • iPads in mathematics
  • Engagement
  • Attitudes to mathematics