Abstract
Learning mathematics is a challenge in the current educational context. This is demonstrated by a high percentage of students who both fail to develop these numerical-type skills and have a low academic performance. This research performs a quasi-experiment to develop mathematical skills and knowledge. The sample consisted of 54 students (20 female and 34 male) between 10 and 14 years old (Mage = 11.11, SD = .79) organized into two groups. First, an experimental group (N = 26) that received a technological intervention of learning virtual objects and second, a control group (N = 28). The results shown a statistical significant interaction between the experimental group and the post-test, which suggests that the intervention improves the skills to solve root exercises F(1, 52) = 10.41, p = .002, η2 = .17, with a significant main effect F(1, 52) = 1184.02, p = <.001, η2 = .96. The knowledge of root exercises problem-solving variable has no meaningful interaction with the intervention F(1, 52) = 2.14, p = .15, η2 = .04. Nevertheless, there was a direct effect between the pre- and post-test measurement differences and the intragroup factor F(1, 52) = 17.95, p = <.001, η2 = .26. The results are discussed about the benefit generated by the use of virtual learning objects in favor of developing mathematical skills and based on previously published studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Auliya, R., & Munasiah, M. (2019). Mathematics learning instrument using augmented reality for learning 3D geometry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1318(012069), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1318/1/012069.
Baki, A., & Cakiroglu, U. (2010). Learning objects in high school mathematics classrooms: Implementation and evaluation. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1459–1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.009.
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Olaf, Z., & Michael, K. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(2), 2–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/S41239-019-0176-8.
Borba, M., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Sanchéz, M. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48, 589–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4.
Cai, J., Mok, I., Reddy, V., & Stacey, K. (2017). International comparative studies in mathematics: Lessons and. (G. Kaiser, Ed.) Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, 77-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62597-3_6.
Callejas, M., Hernández, E., & Pinzón, J. (2011). Learning objects, a state of the art. Entramado, 7(1), 176–189 Retrieved from: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2654/265420116011.pdf.
Demitriadou, E., Stavroulia, K., & Lanitis, A. (2020). Comparative evaluation of virtual and augmented reality for teaching mathematics in primary education. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09973-5.
Dermot, F., Gerard, L., & Linn, M. (2020). Impact of graph technologies in K-12 science and mathematics education. Computers & Education, 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103748.
Ministry of Education of Ecuador. (2019). Curriculum of compulsory education levels medium sublevel. Quito. Retrieved from: https://www.educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2019/09/EGB-Media.pdf
Fernández, R., Peralvo, M., Durán, M., Brenlla, J., & García, M. (2019). Virtual intervention program to improve the working memory and basic mathematical skills in early childhood education. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 24(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicod.2018.09.002.
García, J. (2013). The problem of teaching and learning Calculus in engineering. EDUCACIÓN, 37(1), 29–42 https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/440/44028564002.pdf.
Hankeln, C. (2020). Mathematical modelling in Germany and France. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 103, 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10649-019-09931-5.
Hernández, R., Fernández, C., & Baptista, P. (2014). Investigation methodology (Sexta ed.). México: McGraw-Hill.
IBM. (2018). SPSS Software. Retrieved on February 4, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.ibm.com/analytics/ec/es/technology/spss/#spss-featured-products
INEVAL. (2018). Education in Ecuador PISA results for development. Quito. Retrieved from: http://www.evaluacion.gob.ec/evaluaciones/pisa-documentacion/
Knipping, C. (2003). Learning from comparing a review and reflection on qualitative oriented comparisons of teaching and learning mathematics in different countries. ZDM Mathematics Education, 35(6), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02656692.
Manzini, J. (2000). Helsinki statement: Ethical principles for medical investigation on human subjects. Bioethics Act, 6(2), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2000000200010.
Ministry of National Education. (2007). National Bank of learning and information objects. Retrieved from Colombia Aprende: http://portalapp.mineducacion.gov.co/drupalM/
Morales, M., Luz, Y., Gutiérrez, L., & Ariza, L. (2016). Guide for the design of virtual learning objects (OVA). Application to the process. General José María Córdova, 127–147. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4762/476255360008.pdf
Mosquera, D., Guevara, C., & Aguilar, J. (2019). Adaptive learning objects in the context of eco-connectivist communities using learning analytics. Heliyon, 5(11), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02722.
Nathanson, V. (2013). Revising the declaration of Helsinki. BMJ, 346, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2837.
OCDE. (2016). PISA. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus-ESP.pdf
OCDE. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for student life. París: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.
Prensky, M. (2010). Digital natives and immigrants. SEK 2.0 notebooks, 20. Retrieved from: https://www.marcprensky.com
Ramos, C., Bolaños, M., Ramos, V., Moscoso, J., & Jadán, J. (2019). Critical status of research in Ecuadorian psychology: The abandonment of statistics as a basis of scientific production. Psychology, Society, & Education, 11(3), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v10i1.1448.
Recio, A., & Godino, J. (2001). Institutional and PERSONALMEANINGS of mathematical PROFF. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015553100103.
Reflections on Educational Studies in Mathematics. (2002). Educational Studies in Mathematics, 50(3), 251–257 Retrieved from: www.jstor.org/stable/3483266.
Seage, S., & Türegüm, M. (2020). The effects of blended learning on STEM achievement of elementary school students. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 6(1), 133–140 Retrieved from: https://www.ijres.net/index.php/ijres/article/view/728.
Şen, E., & Hava, K. (2020). Prospective middle school mathematics teachers’ points of view on the flipped classroom: The case of Turkey. Education and Information Technologies, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10143-1.
Universität-Düsseldorf. (2018). G*Power: Statistical Power Analyses. Retrieved from: http://www.gpower.hhu.de/
Williams, J. (2008). Revising the declaration of Helsinki. World Medical Journal, 64(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.08.050955.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cóndor-Herrera, O., Ramos-Galarza, C. The impact of a technological intervention program on learning mathematical skills. Educ Inf Technol 26, 1423–1433 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10308-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10308-y