Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Multiplication Fluency 1
RUNNING HEAD: USING IPADS TO INCREASE MULTIPLICATION FLUENCY
Using iPads to Increase Multiplication Fluency
Multiplication Fluency
Madison C. Boyd
Kennesaw State University
Multiplication Fluency 2
Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Importance of the Study.……………………………………….………………………………… 4
Review of Literature……………………………………………………………...……………… 5
What are the benefits of technology?………...…………………………………………………....5
Where does math education stand today?………...…………………………..…………………...6
Ready for the iPad?……..…………………………………………………………………………8
Further Available Research………………..……………………………………………………..10
Concluding Research………………...…………………………………………………………..11
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………….12
Purpose……………..……………………………………………………………………………12
Participants………………………………………………………………………………………12
Data Collection………………….…………………………………………………………….…13
Research Context……...……………………………………………………………………....... 14
Results…...……………………………………………………………………………………… 14
Analysis of Data…………...……………………………………………………………………. 16
Implications………………………………………………………………………………………17
Limitations………….………………………………………………………………………........17
Conclusions..……………………………………………………………………………………..18
Implications for Educators..……………………………………………………………………..19
References………………………………………………………………………………………..21
Appendices……………..………………………………………………………………………..25
Multiplication Fluency 3
Abstract
The use of technology is transforming the classroom environment in elementary schools
across the country. Classrooms are being updated with newer and faster forms of technology that
allow students to learn in an entirely new way. Cell phones, tablets, iPads, iPods, laptops, and
Kindles are just a few of the technology devices young children have access to today. What does
that mean for teachers? Today’s classrooms are evolving into technology driven environments
with less focus on teacher centered instruction. The purpose of this study is to determine the
effectiveness of iPads as educational tools. Specifically, this study assesses the differences in
student performance and motivation when using traditional teaching methods like flashcards
verses the iPad.
Multiplication Fluency 4
Introduction
The changes in technology are changing the way teachers deliver lessons and the way
students expect to be taught. Integrating technology has shown to improve student learning and
student performance. While there have been numerous studies on technology in the classroom,
there are very few researchers that have studied the connection between technology and
mathematics. Even fewer researchers have studied the connection between the use of iPads and
math fluency. This study will discuss the importance of integrating technology, the use of the
iPad in the classroom, and effective apps to improve math performance in struggling students.
In March 2010, Apple released a new cutting edge technology device. The iPad was
introduced to consumers across the globe. What was Apple’s purpose for creating such a device?
Mobile tablets like the iPad have been “touted as magical tools full of educational promise”
(Miller, 2012). Apple released a series of commercials preceding the arrival of the iPad in 2010
and marketed the iPad as a tool to enhance learning. Apple released a commercial entitled
“Learn” in which it shows “the iPad being used to watch a TED talk, to practice writing in
Chinese, to look up the definition of a word, to investigate human anatomy, to explore
astronomy, and to play chess and the piano” (Miller, 2012). This simple commercial showed the
world the vast abilities of an iPad as an education tool. Currently, the starting price for an iPad is
the cheapest it has ever been, making it possible for schools and teachers to provide iPads in an
educational setting (Peckham, 2013).
Importance of the Study
Mathematics is a main focus of educators and a core subject in elementary classrooms.
Yet, with all of the focus on the importance of mathematics education, students are relatively low
in scores in comparison with other countries. The work of Clements said “studies show that the
Multiplication Fluency 5
mathematics test-score gap is evident at every level of schooling and can be linked to students’
earlier performance” (Clements et. al, 2011, p.1). Why is this and how can we improve it? I
believed that by integrating technology tools, like the iPad, students would receive more practice
and instruction that would allow them to reach the academic level expected of them. The
achievement gap is beginning prior to elementary school and lasting into students’ secondary
education (Lee et. al, 2006). As educators, we must find a way to close the gap and provide
students with the tools needed to succeed academically in mathematics. Through the integration
of iPads and education apps, students have a better chance of improving their math fluency and
succeeding in math courses across all grade levels. This study aims to answer the following
questions: Can the use of applications on an iPad aid struggling students in mathematics? Can
the use of an iPad increase student scores in math fluency? Can the use of an iPad increase
student motivate and student engagement in mathematics?
Review of Literature
What are the benefits of technology?
It is important that educators spend time learning the best ways to incorporate technology
into the pedagogy of mathematics education. Matus, Summa, and Kuschke said, “as technology
advances and becomes more prevalent in the environment, the careful and thoughtful integration
of these technologies becomes more critical” (2011, p.1). Educators have a responsibility to learn
and discover the most efficient way to incorporate these new technologies in a way that benefits
the students. What are the benefits to the students? There are many ways in which technology
can help both student and teacher. For the teacher, technology cuts down on paperwork, serves as
a device to collect student data, and provides apps to further the students’ education (Keeling,
2012). From a student’s perspective, technology is a way to make learning more engaging and a
Multiplication Fluency 6
more interactive process. It allows students to discover math, science, social studies, and reading
through thought provoking games and applications. Integrating technology also provides
opportunities for collaborative learning in which students are expected to work together with
peers on assignments or discussions (Cheung & Vogel 2013).
There are specific benefits to incorporating technology into mathematics. Attard and
Northcote cited a study done by Pierce and Ball in which they claimed, “it is a common belief
that the incorporation of computer technology into mathematics teaching and learning motivates
and engages students” (2011, p.29). Mathematics is an area in which students struggle and are
least engaged. They are able to go through the steps of solving a problem without truly
understanding it. Attard and Northcote warn against the danger of “technology driving
pedagogy, rather than pedagogy driving the technology” (2011, p.29). This is to say that
technology is supposed to support the mathematics instruction rather than replace it or become
the main focus. When instruction is set up with technology as a support, learning devices like the
iPad have immense benefits.
Where does math education stand today?
Researchers across the spectrum reflect on the current trends in math education. Students
are proving to be less motivated and engaged, which in turn is affecting their performance
academically (Gottfried et. al, 2009). The achievement gap is evidenced at some of the earliest
levels of schooling and is continuing to show through as students reach the higher grade levels.
A study done by Peggy and Timothy compared the motivation and achievement between sixth
and seventh graders at the beginning of the school year. The researchers predicted seventh grade
students would be less motivated than sixth grade students. In regards to the hypothesis,
researchers found enough data to highly support this claim. Seventh graders were less interested
Multiplication Fluency 7
in math activities and felt that math was less valuable than the sixth graders did (Peggy &
Timothy, 2009). These results line up with other reports from researchers that students’
motivation and desire to engage in learning typically declines over time.
Why are these trends found in mathematics today? There are many challenges and
difficulties to teaching young children math. Teachers must address the issues of pedagogy and
identify the characteristics of quality math education for young children. One researcher
described what math education should look like when she said, “issues such as building on
young children’s prior-to-school knowledge; engaging children in general mathematical
processes; and assessing and documenting children’s learning are some of the key aspects of
high-quality early childhood mathematics education” (Dunphy, 2009, p.1). There is a great deal
that goes into explaining complex mathematical concepts to young children. Students must be
able to complete the steps to solving an equation, while understanding why these steps are
necessary in order to apply their knowledge to other problems. These are highly difficult tasks
for students of all ages.
Another study done by Al-Agili, Mamat, Abdullah and Abd Maad discussed the
influence of “teaching practices and teaching methods, teachers’ attribution, classroom climate,
students’ attitude toward mathematics, and students’ mathematics anxiety on students’
achievement in mathematics” (2013, p.5). Their findings showed that each of these attributes
factor into students’ overall math achievement. As teachers, this means that there are a wide
variety of factors that influence the performance of students in math. By incorporating
technology, like the iPad, student performance has shown to improve as well as students’
attitudes toward math education. The integration of technology addresses all of the factors
mentioned by the above researchers. Technology in mathematics education has shown to
Multiplication Fluency 8
positively impact teaching practices and methods, teachers’ attribution, classroom climate, and
students’ attitude toward mathematics.
Ready for the iPad?
There is some research-based literature available that discusses the use of iPads in early
childhood classrooms as an education tool. While there is not a great deal of accessible research,
the research performed thus far all seems to agree on one thing; iPads have been shown to be an
effective educational tool. A study done by O’Malley, Jenkins, Wesley, Donehower, Rabuck,
and Lewis addressed the effectiveness of using iPads to build math fluency (2013). The
importance of math fluency is what drove the researchers to investigate using iPads as a way to
increase academic abilities in struggling students. The researchers believed that math fluency is
“a strong predictor of math achievement tests, needed to acquire higher-order math skills, and
essential for future successful independent living” (O’Malley et al., 2013). The researchers
compared two groups of students. One group of students maintained a traditional learning
environment, while the other group of students spent approximately 10 minutes per day
practicing on the iPad to build fluency. Researchers overall found that the results indicate the
iPad was an effective instructional tool for students with moderate to severe disabilities.
Teachers were highly satisfied with the results and thought the intervention was a success.
Teachers also found that students were more eager to participate in the iPad activities and even
showed more interest in content during intervention phases. Students seemed to be disappointed
when having to return to paper and pencil, timed math probes. Teachers expressed an interest in
having more opportunities to use the iPads in the classroom. The statistical and visual analysis
also supports the researchers claim that the iPad was an effective instructional tool. The students’
Multiplication Fluency 9
rate of fluency gains increased during the intervention phase and regressed to the baseline levels
when the iPad was removed.
Murray and Olcese are researchers who looked at the overall capabilities of the iPad. The
iPad has many characteristics that make it a good candidate to be incorporated as an educational
tool. Compared to laptops or individual computers, iPads are much less expensive and fit into a
realistic budget. Not every student needs an iPad, but with access to a few per classroom,
students have the opportunity to reinforce their math knowledge. The iPad offers thousands of
free applications that teachers can introduce to students in the classroom. There is no pricey
software needed. IPads are also very portable and easy to carry from place to place within a
classroom. Lastly, they are easily plugged into a Smart Board or computer and projected for the
entire class to see. Murray and Olcese acknowledged the power of the iPad when they said, “we
understand that current application development has potential to not only extend what can be
done in classrooms but also strive for better connection to learning theories and hardware
capabilities (Murray & Olcese, 2012, p.7). It is clear in the research available that iPads make
for an excellent source of technology that has the potential to transform classrooms of all ages.
By incorporating the use of iPads into building math fluency, there is strong promise for students
to benefit.
With so many thousands of available applications to be downloaded on the iPad, how do
educators determine which ones are most beneficial? Fortunately, there are many articles based
on research that layout the best downloads available. When it comes to great apps to use in the
classroom, Brian Nadel wrote about four incredibly helpful applications for math fluency.
Although the apps he discussed are not all free, they ranged between $2.00 and $5.00, which is a
low price to pay for an application that can help each student in the classroom. The first app he
Multiplication Fluency 10
suggested was Mad Math 2. Nadel said, “this app contains several games for math facts practice,
including Bingo and Math Bubbles” (Nadel, 2012, p.30). The app also allows students to write
on the screen to solve the problems, which is good practice for how they would take a math
assessment in the classroom. This app was used in the following study and allowed students to
play a variety of interactive games all aimed at increasing multiplication fluency.
Further Available Research
A study done by Kiger further studied the influence of mobile learning intervention on
third grade math achievement. Kiger’s study was similar to the study done by O’Malley and
peers, with the exception of the iPad. Rather than using the iPad, Kiger used the iPod Touch that
is essentially a smaller version of the iPad and has many of the same functions and abilities.
Kiger performed a 9-week study comparing 2 classes of traditional teaching with 2 classes using
the MLI (mobile learning intervention). All four classes were third graders at the same
elementary school. The experiment consisted of furnishing two classrooms with iPod touch’s,
while the other two classrooms maintained traditional teaching methods like flash cards, math
games, and number sequences. Each classroom teacher was instructed to teach in the same way.
Where they differed was in the way students practiced their multiplication facts. Students in the
traditional classroom spent 10 minutes using the flashcards or other chosen methods. Students in
the MLI classrooms were given an individual iPod touch to practice for the same amount of time
as the traditional classroom. Researchers overall found that the MLI using iPod touch devices
was an effective way of increasing math performance on multiplication in third grade
classrooms. The students in the classrooms using MLI outperformed the comparing students that
used traditional methods of practice. The findings also emphasize the benefits of using both
traditional methods with mobile devices as an effective tool to increase multiplication
Multiplication Fluency 11
competency. The use of mobile devices is also a cost effective solution to other highly expensive
technology tools like laptops and tablets. The main merit of this study was determining the “MLI
cost per student ($252) is fiscally preferable to one-to-one laptop programs and similar initiatives
that require significantly more investment in hardware, software, and technical support” (Kiger,
2012). Students with the iPod touch intervention answered more questions correctly on the
posttest, and were able to perform better on the double-digit multiplication items.
Concluding Research
It is important for educators of young children to remember the importance of play. There
is a vast availability of research that supports the idea of play in the classroom. The use of the
iPad and apps fits into the design for integrating play in the classroom. Educators Mei-Ju and
Hung-Chang discuss the importance of play in a child’s learning environment. They say, “play
occupies a very significant position in children’s learning. Through play, children come to know
how to adapt themselves to the world and how to develop emotional, EQ and social intelligence”
(Mei-Ju & Hung-Chang, 2012, p. 296). The use of the iPad balances the traditional idea of play
with the new cutting edge technology that allows children to play in an entirely different way.
Not only will students develop academically through the use of the iPad, they will also develop
cognitively, socially, and emotionally.
Allard and Northcote sum up why using iPads for learning mathematics is an approach
that all educators should consider.
Although the use of mathematics apps can be engaging and of benefit to students in terms
of building fluency and increasing motivation through their sometimes competitive
nature, mobile technologies offer much more in terms of allowing students access to a
Multiplication Fluency 12
broad range of tools that have the potential to enhance teaching practices, student
engagement, and student learning. (Allard & Northcote, 2011, p.2)
There are endless possibilities regarding the use of an iPad as an educational tool. It doesn’t have
to be limited to mathematics education, but rather can be used across the entire curriculum
(Peerey, 2013). Math fluency is an important aspect of early grades and should be practiced as
much as the teacher allows. By integrating an iPad, the teacher is provided with an extra resource
that will allow more drill in a fun and interactive way.
While there is evidence that supports the use of iPads in math education, it is important to
consider the limitations and think of ways to minimize them. Before researching the effects of
iPads on math fluency, it is important to plan out students’ access to the iPad, the application that
will use, and the instruction that will support the fluency practice. The apps also need to be used
consistently in order to accurately determine whether or not the iPad has any promise as an
educational tool.
Methodology
Purpose
The purpose of this action research study was to determine the effectiveness of iPads to
aid struggling students in the area of multiplication fluency and motivation. This research is
necessary due to the lack of current studies available linking technology to mathematics as well
as specifically multiplication.
Participants
In this study, students worked individually using applications on the iPad to enhance
math fluency and gain practice with basic multiplication facts. As the researcher, I selected a
group of six struggling students to work in a small group setting. The students were chosen
Multiplication Fluency 13
based on their current math performance using test grades, observations, and formative
assessments given in the class. Three students chosen participated in using the iPad, while the
other three students received traditional instruction. The three students who received traditional
instruction did so in a small group, which has been seen as an opportunity for teachers to
invigorate their teaching (Allery, 2012). Students worked between 10-15 minutes on an
application before returning to whole group instruction. This was done using the time they would
meet with me in a small group setting. I anticipated students would be more engaged and
motivated in learning mathematics when iPads are used to make learning more fun and
interactive. I anticipated that the students in the study would increase their multiplication fluency
and be able to complete timed math facts tests more quickly and accurately. I believed the
students using the iPad would increase their fluency scores more so than the students receiving
traditional small group instruction.
Data Collection
I collected quantitative data using timed math facts tests, a pre-test, post-test, and daily
check-ins. Quantitative data was the best choice for the research based on the needs of the study
and what was being measured (Venkatesh et. al., 2013). No commercially available tests used,
but rather data was collected based on student grades and performance in the classroom. The
goal of the study was to determine if iPads could improve student performance in multiplication
fluency. I also looked at students’ grades from the beginning of the unit to the end of the unit.
Students were given a pre and post-test with 50 multiplication problems on it. Only accuracy was
evaluated on the pre and post-test. Students were also given a timed facts test once a week as
another method for determining if they improved in math fluency. Did their overall math grade
increase? Did they become faster at timed tests? I predicted the timed math test to be the greatest
Multiplication Fluency 14
indicator of whether or not iPads were an effective teaching tool in the area of mathematics. I
looked at the difference in number of correct answered on the pre and post-test as well as the
timed math tests to determine the effectiveness of the iPad instruction. The pre and post-test
provided the most accurate results to show if the addition of technology was a factor in
performance. Because both groups of students received the same whole group instruction, it was
clear the difference in results was due to the small group instruction provided. Other data
analysis came from the daily check-ins. Before leaving small group instruction for the day, both
groups in the study completed a daily check-in that included 4 multiplication facts. By plotting
the results on a graph, I looked to see if the students’ accuracy increased throughout the course of
the study.
Research Context
The design of this study was chosen in order to eliminate classroom distractions for both
the teacher and students. Students participated in this study during non-instructional time.
Students that participated did not miss out on whole-group lessons, but rather they spent time
with me during small group or other down-time in the classroom. The study only helped students
and did not cause them further issues with mathematics. I anticipated that students would be
more engaged and motivated in learning mathematics when iPads were used to make learning
more fun and interactive since previous studies have found that to be true (Godziki et.al., 2013). I
anticipated that the students in the study would increase their math fluency and be able to
complete timed math facts tests much more quickly and accurately.
Results
Multiplication Fluency 15
After eight weeks of data collection, the results were inconclusive and did not show
enough growth to determine whether or not the use of an iPad increased multiplication fluency or
student motivation. Following the end of the study period, various pieces of data were analyzed.
The first piece of data analyzed was the Pre Test and Post Test. These tests included
multiplication problems dealing with numbers 0 to 12. I selected problems randomly using a
worksheet generator website. Each test had 50 multiplication problems and students had 1
minute to accurately answer as many problems as possible. On average, the flashcard group
increased their multiplication fluency by 11 problems between the Pre Test and the Post Test
(data displayed in figure 1 and 2). The iPad group increased their multiplication fluency on
average of 5 problems between the Pre Test and the Post Test (data displayed in figure 1 and 2).
Based on this data, the students using the flashcards to practice multiplication facts made larger
gains over the eight-week time period.
The second piece of data analyzed was the students’ overall mathematical average.
During the eight weeks, we continued mathematics units with instruction in multiplication and
division. The flashcard group increased their overall average by approximately 8.24 points (data
shown in figure 3). On the contrary, students using the iPad saw an average decrease in their
overall average by approximately 3.27 points (data shown in figure 3). The overall changes in
the timed test as well as student averages can be seen in figure 4 and 5.
The last analysis done was based on student motivation. I determined student motivation
using observations of the students’ attitudes and overall perception of multiplication instruction.
The observation clearly determined students using the iPad were more motivated and
enthusiastic about learning their multiplication facts. The application the students used, Mad
Math 2, allowed them to earn virtual rewards as well increase levels of the game. The students’
Multiplication Fluency 16
desire to beat all levels and reach a new high score meant they were eager to sit down and
practice their multiplication facts. Students were often so excited to use the iPad they argued
over who would get to use it first and how long each student could be on it. They also asked to
use the iPad at other various points in the day if they finished their work early. Students using the
flashcards to learn their multiplication facts were far less motivated than the students using the
application on the iPad. Their treatment was much more routine and mundane and thus didn’t
give them the excitement that the iPad gave those students. Although the students were routine in
practicing with the flashcards, they needed much more encouragement and guidance in order to
get started. This lack of motivation is completely expected considering there were no levels to
beat, no high scores to establish, and there wasn’t any fun sound effects and graphics as apart of
their treatment.
Analysis of Data
Previous research supports the idea that students are more motivated to learn when
technology is involved in their instruction. As previously stated, a study done by Pierce and Ball
claimed, “it is a common belief that the incorporation of computer technology into mathematics
teaching and learning motivates and engages students” (2011, p.29). Another set of researchers
found a negative to flashcards when saying, “the use of flashcards to assist children with
mastering basic facts has been a common practice in education, but its use if often unsystematic
and its efficacy not evaluated” (Skarr et. al., 2014, p. 78). My study however differs from
previous research when it comes to analyzing the students’ scores on the timed test and
mathematical averages. The study done by Kiger, which used an MLI device similar to an iPad,
showed that students using the device outperformed the comparing students that used traditional
methods of practice. One study by D’Ettorre did however have similar findings and saw the
Multiplication Fluency 17
flashcard group excel and make larger gains than the interactive group (D’Ettorre, 2009).
Although the majority of previous studies do not support the flashcard group outperforming the
iPad group, I believe it has to do with some of the limitations of this study.
Implications
Limitations
The first limitation of the study was the time period over which it was done. The study
took place for eight weeks beginning in February and concluding in March. I believe that the
eight week time period was not ample time in order to make a conclusion about the effectiveness
of the iPad as an instructional tool. A statistical website wrote, “most research projects require at
least a couple of weeks solid work and may, exceptionally, take a year or more of full time
work” (“How long does…”). In order to truly determine if an iPad can aid in multiplication
fluency, the study should have lasted over many months to provide a more reliable result. The
time of year the study took place is also a limitation. Students began receiving multiplication
instruction during the fall semester of school. To more accurately assess their knowledge of
multiplication facts, the study should have started when the instruction began in the fall. This
would provide true results that better measure growth of students. The study should have
concluded at the end of the year to further provide a true measure of growth.
The third limitation of the study was the small group of students that was chosen to
participate. Although the six students chosen were selected at random based on parental consent,
it was a very small sampling which limits the accuracy of the results. A better sample would
have been to divide the class half and half and have 11 participants in each group. The results
would have greater reliability and validity had the sample group been larger. Unfortunately there
were not enough available iPads for the study to be designed that way. Using the small group of
Multiplication Fluency 18
students caused further limitations like attendance and days at the talented and gifted program.
One student was also very upset at the time he took the Post Test, which I believe is what caused
his score to decrease. He did not want to start the test until only half the time was left.
The fourth limitation of the study was the factor of background knowledge. Students each
began the study with differing amounts of knowledge of multiplication facts, which hinders
students’ ability to comprehend and learn (Marzano, 2004). Had the study began before any
multiplication instruction was given; I believe this limitation would be eliminated. Some students
had more room to grow while some students had less room to grow. Lastly, the application
chosen was a limitation and I believe it contributed to the surprising results. In some of the
games on the application, students could choose the answer similar to a multiply choice problem.
I believe the students were quickly able to identify the answer when presented in front of them,
but could not produce it on the timed test. The timed test did not give them any choices; they
simply had 50 multiplication problems and needed to provide the answer for each. Students were
passing all the levels on the iPad, which is why I believe it was the requirement of producing
their own answer hindered them on the written test.
Conclusions
After collecting data for eight weeks, there was not enough growth to say that the use of
the iPad can aid struggling students in mathematics. In fact, the flashcard group did slightly
better overall and showed more improvement than did the iPad group. This was determined
based on the Post Test given to both the flash card and iPad group and the changes in the
students’ averages in math. However, it was found that students using the iPad were more
motivated and eager to learn their multiplication facts. The flash card group needed more
encouragement to work on their flashcards than did the iPad group.
Multiplication Fluency 19
Overall, there were positives and negatives with both forms of instruction. While the iPad
increased student motivation and enthusiasm for learning, it also hindered their ability to produce
written answers on the timed test. In relation to the flashcard group, these students were less
motivated and showed less enthusiasm for learning. They did however perform better on the
timed test because the flashcards better prepared them to produce their own answer when no
choices were provided.
Based on the results of the study, I will continue to use a balance of both traditional
teaching using flashcards as well as the integration of technology into my lessons. A study done
in a fourth grade classroom found that when combining flashcards with a story or picture,
students outperformed the others with just pictures or just flashcards (Brewer, 2004). I will
consider combining the use of visuals like the iPad as well as flashcards to determine the effect
that has on the students’ multiplication fluency. I will continue using technology in the
classroom to see how it affects their multiplication fluency over a longer period of time and
focus on the benefits that iPads offer to students (Gentile, 2012). I will also continue using the
option of flashcards as a way to practice multiplication facts.
Implications for Educators
The implications for the study are that technology can increase student motivation and
can be a useful aid in the teaching of multiplication facts. Flashcards are also shown to be an
effective way at increasing multiplication fluency and the mastery of multiplication facts. If an
educator is struggling to excite students and motivate them to learn, incorporating technology,
especially an iPad, can help students desire to learn and excel within the classroom. Educators
desiring to do a similar study to this one should take into account the limitations of the study
before designing one of their own. I believe this study applies to all areas of teaching, not just
Multiplication Fluency 20
mathematics. Due to the high volume of applications available for educational use, I see great
potential for the use of the iPad across the curriculum and in other subject areas. I also believe
teachers would be pleased with the use of this technology based on the ease of use and overall
convenience to young children. Because of the large amounts of limitations, I do not feel like
major implications can be made and no set conclusion can be established.
Multiplication Fluency 21
References
Al-Agili, M. G., Mamat, M., Abdullah, M., & Abd Maad, H. (2013). Path Analysis of the
Factors Influencing Students' Achievement in Mathematics. Australian Journal Of
Basic & Applied Sciences, 7(4), 437-442.
Allery, L. (2012). How to . . . Use small groups to invigorate your teaching. Education For
Primary Care, 23(6), 446-450.
Attard, C., & Northcote, M. (2011). Teaching with Technology. Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom, 16(4), 29-31.
Brantley, B. (2013). iPad Apps for Teaching Success. Techniques: Connecting Education
& Careers, 88(2), 8-9.
Brewer, R. A. (2004). Memory, Multiplication and Mnemonics: A Study into the Recall of Basic
Multiplication Facts. Online Submission
Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting User Acceptance of Collaborative Technologies: An
Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning. Computers &
Education, 63160-175.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Farran, D., Lipsey, M., Hofer, K. G., Bilbrey, C., & Society
for Research on Educational Effectiveness, (2011). An Examination of the
Building Blocks Math Curriculum: Results of a Longitudinal Scale-Up Study.
Society For Research On Educational Effectiveness
D'Ettorre, J. (2009). Mastering the Multiplication Facts. Online Submission
Devlin, K. (2013). The Music of Math Games. American Scientist, 102(2), 87-91
Multiplication Fluency 22
Dunphy, E. (2009). Early childhood mathematics teaching: challenges, difficulties and
priorities of teachers of young children in primary schools in Ireland. International
Journal Of Early Years Education, 17(1), 3-16. doi:10.1080/09669760802699829
Gentile, M. (2012). The Importance of Managing iPads in the Classroom. Education Digest:
Essential Readings Condensed For Quick Review, 78(3), 11-13.
Godzicki, L., Godzicki, N., Krofel, M., & Michaels, R. (2013, May 1). Increasing Motivation
and Engagement in Elementary and Middle School Students through Technology-
Supported Learning Environments. Online Submission
Gottfried, A., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., & Oliver, P. H. (2009). A latent curve model
of parental motivational practices and developmental decline in math and science
academic intrinsic motivation. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 729-739.
doi:10.1037/a0015084
"Grade 3 » Introduction." Common Core State Standards Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr.
2014. <http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/3/introduction/>
"How long does a research project take?." Select: Statistical Consultants. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr.
2014. <http://www.select-statistics.co.uk/faq/how-long-does-re"search-project-take>.
Keeling, K. B. (2012). iTeaching: Using an iPad to Go Green While Supporting Teaching
Efficiency. Business Education Innovation Journal, 4(2), 44-49.
Kiger, D. (2012). Examining the Influence of a Mobile Learning Intervention on Third
Grade Math Achievement. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education,
45(1), 61-82.
Multiplication Fluency 23
Lee, J., & Harvard Civil Rights Project, C. A. (2006). Tracking Achievement Gaps and
Assessing the Impact of NCLB on the Gaps: An In-Depth Look into National and State
Reading and Math Outcome Trends. Civil Rights Project At Harvard University (The)
Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building Background Knowledge for Academic Achievement : Research
on What Works in Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Matus, J., Summa, K., & Kuschke, R. (2011). An Analysis of Technology-
Enhanced Pedagody and Learning: Student Response
Systems (Clickers) – Tool or Toy?. International Journal Of Business
& Social Science, 2(12), 6-13.
Mei-Ju, C., & Hung-Chang, L. (2012). The Application of the iPad on
Children’s Play- Based on Brain Science Theory. International
Journal Of Organizational Innovation, 5(1), 296-308.
Miller, W. (2012). iTeaching and Learning. Library Technology Reports, 48(8), 54-59.
Murray, O., & Olcese, N. (2011). Teaching and Learning with iPads, Ready or Not?.
Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 55(6), 42-48.
doi:10.1007/s11528-011-0540-6
Nadel, B. (2012). Must-Have Math Apps. Instructor, 121(5), 30.
O'Malley, P., Jenkins, S., Wesley, B., Donehower, C., Rabuck, D., & Lewis, M. (2013).
Effectiveness of Using iPads to Build Math Fluency. Kennedy Krieger Institue, 1,
1-20. Retrieved June 17, 2013, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED541158.pd
Peckham, M. (2013). 5 Reasons to Buy the iPad Air, 5 for the Retina iPad Mini and 5 to
Buy Neither. Time.Com, 1.
Multiplication Fluency 24
Peerey, J. (2013). Ipads, Qr Codes, The Big 15, And Screencast-O-Matic: It’s All Happening in a
Library Media Center. Library Media Connection, 32(3), 34-37.
Skarr, A., Zielinski, K., Ruwe, K., Sharp, H., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2014). The
Effects of Direct Instruction Flashcard and Math Racetrack Procedures on Mastery of
Basic Multiplication Facts by Three Elementary School Students. Education & Treatment
Of Children (West Virginia University Press), 37(1), 77-93.
Timothy J., C., & Peggy P., C. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement
in middle school: Variations across grade level and math context. Journal Of
School Psychology, 47291-314. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.002
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the Qualitiative- Quantitative Divide :
Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54.
Multiplication Fluency 25
Appendices
Figure 1: Timed Multiplication Test (out of 50)
Figure 2: Timed Multiplication Test (out of 50)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F
Pre Test Fluency
Post Test Fluency
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Pre Test Fluency Post Test Fluency
Student A
Student B
Student C
Student D
Student E
Student F
Multiplication Fluency 26
Figure 3: Changes in Overall Math Average
Student Type of
Treatment Beginning Math Grade Feb. 1 2014
Multiplication problems in 1 minute: Pre-Test
A Flashcards 69.93% 9/50 B Flashcards 76.76% 9/50 C Flashcards 85.08% 11/50 D iPad 81.10% 10/50 E iPad 80.96% 6/50 F iPad 79.05% 10/50 Figure 4: Pre Test Data
Student Type of
Treatment Ending Math Grade March 28, 2014
Multiplication problems in 1 minute: Post-Test
A Flashcards 85.50% 19/50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F
Math Average (February)
Math Average (March)
Multiplication Fluency 27
B Flashcards 77.50% 14/50 C Flashcards 93.50% 29/50 D iPad 78.50% 15/50 E iPad 70.50% 5/50 F iPad 82.00% 20/50 Figure 5: Post Test Data
Multiplication Fluency 28
Multiplication Fluency 29
Multiplication Fluency 30
Multiplication Fluency 31
Multiplication Fluency 32
Multiplication Fluency 33
Multiplication Fluency 34
Multiplication Fluency 35
Multiplication Fluency 36
Multiplication Fluency 37
Multiplication Fluency 38
Multiplication Fluency 39
Multiplication Fluency 40
Multiplication Fluency 41
Multiplication Fluency 42
Multiplication Fluency 43
Multiplication Fluency 44
!"#$%!%&'%"%%
#$%&'($)*+,'-&'(*.,%/*%
(0123*45*%363789:*-1;<=>*()*+#%*!",)%-&%./*0,%10/$+23%*+%4/0-*50*2"-*&+%*
%
%363789:38?6*+4@1791*A@548B7104@>*%%6$)$"728$79%4",*)&+%.&3,:%;<=>?%@>>A<B>C:%D&3,EFG'/0-&+)28&&0)H&7#%
I7",/"-$%J,K*)&79%L7H%4"7*"%M8"8$$+:%;<=>?%=N=AB>ON:%4)8"8$$+GP$++$)"QH$,/%%
%
R&/7%28*0,%*)%D$*+#%*+K*-$,%-&%-"P$%5"7-%*+%"%7$)$"728%)-/,3%2&+,/2-$,%D3%4",*)&+%.&3,%&'%S$++$)"Q%
M-"-$%(+*K$7)*-3H%%.$'&7$%3&/%,$2*,$%-&%"00&Q%3&/7%28*0,%-&%5"7-*2*5"-$%*+%-8*)%)-/,3:%3&/%)8&/0,%7$",%-8*)%
'&7E%"+,%")P%T/$)-*&+)%*'%3&/%,&%+&-%/+,$7)-"+,H%%
%
C36980D104@*45*#84E391**
The purpose of this action research study is to determine the effectiveness of iPads to aid struggling students in the area of mathematics. Students will work individually using applications on the iPad to enhance math fluency and gain practice with basic math facts. %*&FD27@7104@*45*#8493<;836**
As the researcher, I will select group of six students. The students will be chosen based on their current math performance using test grades, observations, and formative assessments given in the class. Three students chosen will to participate in using the iPad, while the other three students will receive traditional instruction. The three students receiving traditional instruction will do so in a small group. Students will work between 10-15 minutes on an application before returning to whole group instruction. This will be done using the time they would meet with me in a small group setting. I anticipate that students will be more engaged and motivated in learning mathematics when iPads are used to make learning more fun and interactive. I anticipate that the students in the study will increase their math fluency and be able to complete timed math facts tests much more quickly and accurately. I believe the students using the iPad will increase their fluency scores more so than the students receiving traditional small group instruction.
%
(0B3*%3G;083<*
*M-/,$+-)%Q*00%+&-%D$%$U5$2-$,%-&%2&E50$-$%"+3%",,*-*&+"0%"))*#+E$+-)%&7%)5$+,%",,*-*&+"0%-*E$%-&%-8$*7%
,"*03%)28$,/0$H%M-/,$+-)%Q*00%5"7-*2*5"-$%*+%-8$%)-/,3%,/7*+#%-8$%+&7E"0%FC%E*+/-$)%-8$3%Q&/0,%)5$+,%*+%
"%)E"00%#7&/5%Q&7P*+#%Q*-8%-8$%-$"28$7H%%
%
%06H6*48*C0694B54816*
*V8$7$%"7$%+&%P+&Q+%7*)P)%&7%"+-*2*5"-$,%,*)2&E'&7-)%*+%-8*)%)-/,3H%%
*
I3@35016**
Multiplication Fluency 45
!"#$%!%&'%!%%
()*+%+,-./%0"+%.$+*#1$.%0*,)%2"1/%3&++*45$%4$1$'*,+6%7,-.$1,+%0*55%8$9$*:$%"..*,*&1"5%8$+&-89$+%*1%&8.$8%,&%"*.%*1%,)$*8%2-5,*35*9",*&1%'5-$19/6%7,-.$1,+%+)&-5.%4$9&2$%'"+,$8%"1.%2&8$%"99-8",$%0)$1%
9&235$,*1#%2-5,*35*9",*&1%'"9,+6%()$%-+$%&'%*!".+%+)&-5.%"5+&%8$*1'&89$%,)",%5$"81*1#%9"1%4$%'-1%"1.%*1,$8$+,*1#;%$+3$9*"55/%0)$1%,$9)1&5&#/%*+%*1,$#8",$.6%%%
"#$%&'()*+#'%%%()$8$%*+%1&%9&23$1+",*&1%'&8%3"8,*9*3",*1#%*1%,)*+%+,-./6%%
,"#'-+.&'*+)/+*0,,
()$%8$+-5,+%&'%,)*+%3"8,*9*3",*&1%0*55%4$%9&1'*.$1,*"56%<55%.","%9&55$9,$.%*1%,)*+%+,-./%0*55%8$2"*1%9&1'*.$1,*"5;%&15/%,&%4$%+)"8$.%0*,)%=$11$+"0%7,",$%>1*:$8+*,/6%7,-.$1,%1"2$+%"1.%3$8+&1"5%*1'&82",*&1%0*55%4$%?$3,%9&1'*.$1,*"56%@15/%+,-.$1,%.","%%"1.%8$+$"89)%"1"5/+*+%9&55$9,$.%.-8*1#%,)$%+,-./%
0*55%4$%+)"8$.6%<55%8$+$"89)%0*55%4$%.&1$%0*,)*1%,)$%+"2$%95"++8&&2%,&%2"*1,"*1%9&1'*.$1,*"5*,/6%%>+$%&'%@15*1$%7-8:$/+%%%
1'2/3(+#',"4+*&4+),-#4,5)4*+2+%)*+#',%!"8,*9*3"1,+%0*55%"55%4$%*1%,)$%,)*8.%#8".$%'8&2%,)$%+"2$%95"++8&&26%7,-.$1,+%*1%,)*+%95"++%8"1#$%'8&2%
+$:$1%,&%1*1$%/$"8+%&5.6%7,-.$1,+%0*55%1&,%4$%+$5$9,$.%'8&2%"1/%&,)$8%95"++8&&2%&8%#8".$%5$:$56%%%
"#'(&'*,*#,5)4*+2+%)*&,%A%#*:$%2/%9&1+$1,%'&8%2/%9)*5.;%BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB;%
,&%3"8,*9*3",$%*1%,)$%8$+$"89)%38&C$9,%.$+98*4$.%"4&:$6%%A%-1.$8+,"1.%,)",%,)*+%3"8,*9*3",*&1%*+%:&5-1,"8/%"1.%,)",%A%2"/%0*,).8"0%2/%9&1+$1,%",%"1/%,*2$%0*,)&-,%3$1"5,/6%%A%"5+&%-1.$8+,"1.%,)",%2/%9)*5.%2"/%0*,).8"0%)*+D)$8%"++$1,%",%"1/%,*2$%0*,)&-,%3$1"5,/6%%
%%BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB%
7*#1",-8$%&'%!"8$1,%&8%<-,)&8*E$.%F$38$+$1,",*:$;%G",$%%%%
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB%7*#1",-8$%&'%A1:$+,*#",&8;%G",$%%
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB%%567897,91:;,<=>?,"=5179,=@,>?19,@=ABC,D775,=;7,8;E,A7>FA;,>?7,=>?7A,>=,>?7,1;G79>1:8>=A,
F$+$"89)%",%=$11$+"0%7,",$%>1*:$8+*,/%,)",%*1:&5:$+%)-2"1%3"8,*9*3"1,+%*+%9"88*$.%&-,%-1.$8%,)$%&:$8+*#),%&'%"1%A1+,*,-,*&1"5%F$:*$0%H&"8.6%%<..8$++%I-$+,*&1+%&8%38&45$2+%8$#"8.*1#%,)$+$%"9,*:*,*$+%,&%,)$%A1+,*,-,*&1"5%F$:*$0%H&"8.;%=$11$+"0%7,",$%>1*:$8+*,/;%JKKK%L)"+,"*1%F&".;%MKJJN;%=$11$+"0;%O<%
PKJQQRSSTJ;%UVWXY%WTWRNNVX6%