IPad and Math Achievement Research Article Critique

The purpose of the study conducted by Carr (2012) was to determine if there is a

relationship to student achievement in mathematics while using IPad’s in the classroom. Carr’s

question was to determine what difference exists, if any, in student learning mathematics using a

1:1 instructional setting. A small, rural Virginia school district was selected to conduct the

research with each school having similar demographics. To conduct the research, both IPad’s

and mathematics classes were selected since there has been minimal research on using IPad’s in

the classroom and none using technology with mathematics. With the push of using technology

in mathematics clasrooms, the IPad was selected due to this technology containing specialized

applications using muliple senses.

With students becoming more immersed in technology and gaming, the research question

is important to determine if technology could increase learning in the classroom, more

specifically a combination of IPads and mathematics. Depending on the results of this study, the

findings could be used to either expand 1:1 technology into other subject areas or to not consider

the extra costs of the IPad’s to be worth the expense for nominal results.

In this IPad study, the theoretical framework was based on John Dewey’s beliefs that

students could become more active participants in their learning through the use of student-

centered learning. Dewey believed that this type of learning provided more flexibility for the

students and allowed them to use their previous individual experiences. Using this theory, the

researcher believed that the students’ learning in this study would be influenced by the use of the

IPads.

Current literature referenced in the article supported the researcher’s belief that using

IPad’s for instruction would be a natural extension of technology since students have become

accustomed with mobile technology usage outside the classroom. Furthermore, educational
leaders have been investing money in new technologies and the Ipad’s are a popular choice.

Other literature review stated that using game-based mathematics instruction would be a useful,

interactive tool to help students stay engaged. No literature was reviewed discussing the possible

negative aspects of incorporating this technology into mathematics instruction.

To obtain sampling, two fifth-grade mathematics classes were chosen from a small, rural

Virginia school district. The classes were similar with each class having approximately the same

number of students. Both schools used the same curriculum and standardized achievement tests

for Virginia schools. The strength of the sampliing selection included students with similar

demographics, being in the same school district. Also, both the control and experimental group

were approximately the same sample size. Weaknesses of this sampling procedure include the

small sample size and the short timeframe of the research.

All students were given the same pretest at the beginning of the study and the same

posttest at the conclusion. One class was selected as a control group, with instruction conducted

as usual. The experimental class was given IPad’s to supplement instruction. The IPad’s were to

be used daily in class but the students were not allowed to use elsewhere. The data collected is

not fully an accuarte measure. A survey should have been conducted prior to beginning the study

to determine the technology skill level of the participants. The assumption, based on the

literature review, was that most students are capable of using technology and gaming for

learning. However, this particular group of participants might not have adequate technology

skills. They might have scored higher on the posttest had there been more time to become

comfortable with the Ipad’s or were able to use outside the classroom.

The data analyis procedure used in this study was experimental research. While this

procedure allows two groups to be compared, the study should have been broken down
further to examine the students’ level of technology skills within each group. The procedure does

answer the research question and addresses the purpose of the study but leaves unanswered

questions. The assumptions of using experimental research was that each group had the same

technological skill and educational level. Also it was assumed that the two teachers in the study

had similar teaching styles. These assumptions were addressed afterwards, mentioning that

perhaps the group with lower pretest results could have benefitted more and that it was hard to

determine if one teacher was more effective than the other.

The most significant results reported in the study are the mean, median, and mode pretest

and posttest scores from both the control and experimental group. The author previously

mentioned in the methodology the gender breakdown of each group but did not include an

analysis. The summary of the results, however, did address the purpose of the study and

answered the research question.

The conclusion drawn from this study match the data results. The author determined that

the current investigation using IPads did not significantly increase student achievement in

mathematics. Furthermore, she stated that the findings were similar to other technology studies

with no significant findings for using IPads in instruction. It seemed that several generalizations

were mentioned to explain why the results were low. Possible reasons included the length of the

study, the grouping of the students used, as well as teacher knowledge of technology.

Due to the mixed results of prior studies and the inclusive results of this study, the author

suggested more research be conducted. Her suggestions included a study with a broader age

range as well including qualitative data and a longer duration. Considering the inconclusive

evidence from this, as well as prior studies, I agree that further studies should be conducted. The

qualitative data should include a survey to determine students’ prior knowledge of using

technology. Also having a longer duration as well as allowing students to practice their
mathematics at home with the Ipads could have a more positive impact on learning. The study

should also include data analysis based on individual student achievement rather than on

comparing groups. Finally, the study might have more validity if the participants in both groups

had the same instructor.

 References

Carr, J.M. (2012). Does math achievement h’APP’en when iPads and game-based learning are

incorporated into fifth-grade mathematics instruction? Journal of Information Technology

Education: Research. 11(2012), 269-286.

 Rubric: Assignment 3 (Article Critique)
Topics: Scores
1.Purpose of the 0 1 2
study and/ or Discussion is The purpose of the study and/or The objectves of the study and/or research
research questions not included research questions are partially stated questions are clearly stated and accurate.
(2p) or is or not entirely accurate.
irrelevant.
Discussion on the importance of the Discussion of the importance of the goals
goals and/or research questions is and/or research questions is coherent and
included but is unclear or only well-founded.
partially correct.
2.Literature Review 0 2 2
(2p) Discussion is Discussion of the theoretical Discussion of the theoretical framework is
not included framework is vague or partially coherent and well-founded.
or is accurate.
irrelevant. Discussion of theoretical assumptions Discussion of theoretical assumptions is
is vague or partially accurate. coherent and well-founded.
Relationships of the study with the Relationships with the current literature are
current literature are not clearly stated. clearly stated.
3.Sampling procedure 0 1 2
(2p) Discussion is The sampling procedure is discussed The sampling procedure is adequately
not included but the discussion is incomplete or described.
or is only partially accurate.
irrelevant.
Some strengths and/ or weaknesses of Strengths and/ or weaknesses of the
the sampling procedure are identified. sampling procedure are correctly identified.
4.Instrumentation 0 1 2
(2p) Discussion is Data collection procedures are partially Data collection procedures are corectly
not included identified. identified.
or is
irrelevant. Appropriateness of data collection Discussion of measurement accuracy is
procedures is discussed but the well-founded.
discussion is incomplete, vague, or
unclearly justified.
5. Data analysis 0 1 2
procedures Discussion is Some data analysis procedures are All data analysis procedures are correctly
(2p) not included identified. identified.
or is
irrelevant. Discussion of the choice of data Disscussion of the choice of data analysis
analysis procedures is included and is procedures is clear and accurate.
mostly accurate.

Some assumptions of data analysis Most assumptions of data analysis

procedures are correctly identified. procedures are correctly identified.

Discussion of the extent to which the The discussion of the extent to which the
assumptions are met is included and is assumptions are met is clear and accurate.
mostly accurate.
6.Results 0 0.5 1
(1p) Discussion is Discussion of the extent to which Discussion of the extent to which results are
not included results are accurately reported is accurately reported is clear, complete, and
or is included but is incomplete or only accurate.
irrelevant. partially accurate.

Discussion of the extent to which Discussion of the extent to which

 the reported results respond to the the reported results respond to the research
research questions is included but is questions is accurate.
only partially accurate.
7.Scholarly 0 1 2
significance of the Discussion is Discussion of the accuracy of the Discussion of the accuracy of conclusions is
findings not included conclusions is included but is only clear and adequate.
(2p) or is partially accurate.
irrelevant.
Discussion of generalizability issues is Generalizability issues are accurately
included but may contain inaccuracies. discussed.
8. Suggestions for 0 1 2
future research Discussion is Discussion is included but is vague, or Discussion is relevant, related to the study
(2p) not included not clearly justified. and the current literature, and clearly
or is justified.
irrelevant.
Total: /15