Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 53–78 | Cite as

Mobile technologies in the service of students’ learning of mathematics: the example of game application A.L.E.X. in the context of a primary school in Cyprus

  • Andreas O. KyriakidesEmail author
  • Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris
  • Theodosia Prodromou
Original Article


This article reports on the main experiences gained from a 2-year study which incorporated A.L.E.X., an educational puzzle game available on iPad or Android tablet devices, within the primary school mathematics curriculum. The study took place in a public primary school, located in a rural area of Cyprus. The majority of its students come from low socioeconomic status families. Among the school community, a group of 15 pupils (eight boys and seven girls), aged 10–11 years old, was randomly selected to comprise the sample. The same group of students was visited twice within a period of 2 years, and a teaching intervention was organized. In both interventions, the application A.L.E.X. accompanied by a student worksheet constituted the main means of instruction. The worksheets were designed to integrate a technology with core mathematical ideas embedded in the national mathematics curriculum. Findings gained from the teaching intervention suggest that game apps hold a lot of promise as a tool for reforming mathematics education. While working with A.L.E.X., the children identified and processed mathematical themes that emerged spontaneously. They experienced unique emotions of surprise and enthusiasm regarding the existence of games with mathematical content that led them to acknowledge the pedagogical role that tablet devices could play. This helped them to broaden their fundamentally narrow viewpoint of mathematics as being primarily computation and arithmetic.


Mobile technologies Game apps Primary school Mathematics learning 


  1. Attard, C. (2015). Introducing iPads into primary mathematics classrooms: teachers’ experiences and pedagogies. In: M. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, K. Mavrou, & E. Paparistodemou (Eds.), Integrating touch-enabled and mobile devices into contemporary mathematics education (pp. 193–213). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:  10.4018/978-1-4666-8714-1.
  2. 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 (pp. 75–82). Singapore: MERGA.Google Scholar
  3. Attard, C., & Orlando, J. (2014). Early career teachers, mathematics and technology: device conflict and emerging mathematical knowledge. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: research guided practice. Proceedings of the 37th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 71–78). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  4. Aydin, E. (2005). The use of computers in mathematics education: a paradigm shift from “computer assisted instruction” towards “student programming”. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 27–34.Google Scholar
  5. Blanden, J., & Gregg, P. (2004). Family income and educational achievement: a review of approaches and evidence for Britain. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20(2), 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calder, N., & Campbell, A. (2015). “You play on them. They’re active.” Enhancing the mathematics learning of reluctant teenage students. 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 (pp. 133–140). Sunshine Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  7. Cavanagh, S. (2008). Playing games in class helps students grasp math. Education Week, 74(3), 43–46.Google Scholar
  8. Chau, C. L. (2014). Positive technological development for young children in the context of children’s mobile apps. PhD dissertation. Tufts University.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, W. & Luckin, R. (2013). What the research says—iPads in the classroom. London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education: University of London.Google Scholar
  10. Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1051–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B. K. (1988). Social and cognitive interactions in educational computer environments. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and Geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph 10. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of mathematics. doi:  10.2307/749924.
  13. Common Sense Media. (2013). Zero to eight: children’s media use in America 2013. Retrieved from
  14. Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture. (2010). Mathematics curriculum. Nicosia, Cyprus: Pedagogical Institute, Department of Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  15. Felicia, P. (2009). Digital games in schools: a handbook for teachers. European School net: Brussels. Retrieved from
  16. Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2006). Using games and simulations for instruction: a research review. In Society for Applied Learning Technology (Ed.), Proceedings of new learning technologies 2006 conference, Warrenton, VA: Society for Applied Learning Technology.Google Scholar
  17. Fuson, K. C., Kalchman, M., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Mathematics understanding: an introduction. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn mathematics in the classroom (pp. 217–256). Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  18. Galbraith, P., Goos, M., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2000). Reshaping teacher and student roles in technology enriched classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Geist, E. A. (2012). A qualitative examination of two-year-olds interaction with tablet based interactive technology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(1).Google Scholar
  20. Guernsey, L., Levine, M., Chiong, C., & Severns, M. (2012). Pioneering literacy in the Digital Wild West: empowering parents and educators. Washington DC: The Campaign for Grade-Level Reading.Google Scholar
  21. Guida, C. T. (2014). A.L.E.X. (version 1.4) [mobile application software]. Retrieved from
  22. Hatfield, L. L. (1981). Towards comprehensive instructional computing in mathematics. NCTM Yearbook, 1–9.Google Scholar
  23. Hopscotch Technologies (2012). Daisy the Dinosaur (VErsion 1.2) [mobile application software]. Retrieved from
  24. Hopscotch Technologies (2014). Hopscotch (version 2.13.1) [mobile application software]. Retrieved from
  25. Joan Ganz Cooney Center (2014). Teachers surveyed on using digital games in class. Games and Learning Publishing Council. Retrieved from
  26. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC horizon report: 2013 K-12 edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  27. Jordan, N. C., & Levine, S. C. (2009). Socioeconomic variation, number competence, and mathematics learning difficulties in young children. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15, 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jorgensen, R., & Lowrie, T. (2013). Both ways strong: using digital games to engage Aboriginal learners. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(2), 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kabali, H. K, Irigoyen, M. M., Nunez-Davis, R., Budacki, J. G., Mohanty, S. H., Leister, K. P., & Bonner, R. L. (2015). Exposure and use of mobile media devices by young children. Pediatrics, 136(6). Retrieved from
  30. Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 539–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ketelhut, D. J., & Schifter, C. C. (2011). Teachers and game-based learning: improving understanding of how to increase efficacy of adoption. Computers & Education, 56(2), 539–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Köller, O., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 448–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolovou, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Köller, O. (2013). An intervention including an online game to improve grade 6 students’ performance in early algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(3), 510–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 (pp. 341–348). Sunshine Coast: MERGA.Google Scholar
  35. 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 T. Lowrie & R. Jorgensen (Eds.), Digital games and mathematics learning: potential, promises and pitfalls. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015: smart phones facilitate shifts in communication landscape for teens. Pew Research Center, Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved from
  37. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233–263.Google Scholar
  38. Light Bot Inc. (2014). Light-Bot (version 1.4) [mobile application software]. Retrieved from
  39. Lopez-Moreto G., & Lopez G. (2007).  Computer support for learning mathematics: A learning environment based on recreational learning objects, Computers & Education, 48, 618–641.Google Scholar
  40. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) (2014). Scratch Jr (version 1.0.4) [mobile application software]. Retrieved from
  42. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2013). Integrating game-enhanced mathematics learning into the pre-service training of teachers. In S. de Freitas, M. Ott, M. Popescu, & I. Stanescu (Eds.), New pedagogical approaches in game enhanced learning: curriculum integration (pp. 142–166). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  43. Melhuish, K., & Falloon, G. (2010). Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading, Technology, 22(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, D. J., & Roberstson, D. P. (2010). Using a games-console in the primary classroom: effects of ‘Brain Training’ programme on computation and self-esteem. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 242–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murray, M., Mokros, J., & Rubin, A. (1999). Mathematically rich, equitable game software. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(3), 180–186.Google Scholar
  46. Nextis Great (2014). Move the Turtle (version 1.4) [mobile application software]. Retrieved from
  47. Papert, S. (1980). Mind storms: children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  48. Peluso, D. (2012). The fast-paced iPad revolution: can educators stay up to date and relevant about these ubiquitous devices? British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 125–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01310.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scriven, M. (1987). Taking games seriously. Educational Research and Perspectives, 14(1), 82–135.Google Scholar
  50. Shin, N., Sutherland, L., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 540–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sowder, L. (1980). Concept and principle learning. In R. Shumway (Ed.), Research in mathematics education (pp. 244–285). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  52. Subhi, T. (1999). The impact of LOGO on gifted children’s achievement and creativity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 98–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Surf Score Inc. (2015). Kodable (version 6.0.6) [mobile application software]. Retrieved from
  54. Sutherland, R. (1994). The role of programming: towards experimental mathematics. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Strasser, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 177–187). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  55. Tirosh, D., Hadass, R., & Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1991). Overcoming overgeneralizations, the case of commutativity and associativity. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 3, pp. 310–315). Assissi, Italy: Universita di Genova.Google Scholar
  56. TTS Group Limited (2012). Bee-Bot (version 1.2) [mobile application software]. Retrieved from
  57. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2005). Mathematics as a constructive activity: learners generating examples. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1997). Using computer-based text analysis to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in research on collaborative learning. Language and Education, 11(4), 271–86.Google Scholar
  59. Wilson, A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M. (2012). Evaluation of computer games developed by primary school children to gauge understanding of programming concepts. Paper presented at the 6th European conference on games-based learning (ECGBL), 4–5 October 2012, Cork, Ireland.Google Scholar
  60. Yang, D. C., Lai, M. L., Yao, R. F., Huang, Y. C. (2014). Effects of remedial instruction on low-SES & low-math students’ mathematics competence, interest and confidence. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(1). Retrieved from
  61. Young-Loveridge, J. (2005). Students’ views about mathematics learning: A case study of one school involved in the great expectations project. In J. Higgins, KC Irwin, G. Thomas, T. Trinick, & J. Young Loveridge (Eds), Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Project 2004 (pp. 107--114). Wellington: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas O. Kyriakides
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris
    • 1
  • Theodosia Prodromou
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Arts and Education SciencesEuropean University CyprusNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations