Matthew Rice

Assignment Three

MEDT 8484

The purpose of Does Math Achievement h’APP”en when iPads and Game-Based

Learning are Incorporated into Fifth-Grade Mathematics Instruction? Is to evaluate the

effectiveness of integrating technology, specifically Apple iPads, into fifth grade math

classrooms. This study holds significant value due to the fact that it could provide data in an area

that currently does not have much at the present time. It also provides value in regards to the fact

that it may help decide whether allocating funding to “teach with technology and games” is an

appropriate allocation of funding for future generations to learn and be taught from. One

significant drawback to this study is the focus solely on iPads and their success. Could the same

outcome not be achieved with a differing type of tablet computer? Or is the success really tied to

the specific brand and type of technology?

The literature review provided by the authors of the study appeared to be complete and

through upon dissection of its contents. The groundwork for this study was laid nearly 100 years

ago with Dewey and his focus on student-centric teaching and learning. This study deduces that

student-centric learning is the best experience for students and that iPad integration will provide

that experience for them. Carr (2012) cites several studies in which other types of instructional

technology has shown to have a positive correlation in regard to student achievement. Carr also

mentions that using an iPad is beneficial because of its portability, user-friendliness and ability to

connect to Wi-Fi (Carr, 2012, p.272). The fact that there is not much data out there in regard to

classroom instruction with tablets is also addressed and is a significant component to this study.
 The sampling procedure selected for this study was one of convenience. Fifth grade

students at two elementary schools in the same school district and with similar demographics

were selected for the study. I feel that a convenience sample was possibly not the best choice for

this case study. Perhaps something like a simple-random sample would have been better for this

purpose. I also think that expanding the sample size would have also allowed for more in-depth

results. Perhaps they could have utilized an entire grade level of students at multiple schools to

have a wider sample population.

The data collected is from the state testing instrument, the SFAW Virginia SOL aligned

assessment. According to Carr, this assessment has “been used often in studies assessing

achievement over time.” (Carr, 2012, p.275) All students completed the assessment as a pre-test

before any intervention took place with the experimental group. Each child then completed it

after the interventions had taken place as well. Based on the information provided, this

instrument is a suitable tool to provide the data needed for the study.

The data analysis consisted of initial descriptive statistics that included mean, median,

mode, skewness, kurtosis and standard deviation for each group. A one-way ANOVA was used to

determine whether the results were statistically significant. This study does not clearly describe

the procedures used for the data analysis. Since only two groups were compared for this study,

something like a T-Test would have been more appropriate in this situation. The study relies on

the assumption that a normal curve will be reflected in the data. In contrast, this is not what

occurs. This does have an impact on the analysis of the data and generalization to the population.

The analysis also shows that statistical significance was not sufficient to reject the null

hypothesis (Carr, 2012, p.276). There is also a chart and data graph presented to the readers on

page 277 to help further explain the data in a visual representation, rather than a text-based
explanation. This result responds to the questions studied since it shows that there was only a

small positive difference in the mean score of the experimental group as compared to the control

group’s score.

In the discussion, Carr states that “Instruction with the supplemental use of iPads was not

an effective intervention for fifth grade students’ math achievement according to the manner in

which the investigation was conducted. These findings are aligned with existing studies where

1:1 mobile learning devices, like the iPad were not shown as influential on student achievement.”

(Carr, 2012, p.278) The author also implies that the instrument used is also not sufficient to show

“21st century learning.” (Carr, 2012, p.278) To me, standardized testing isn’t a true reflection of

a child’s ability to engage in authentic learning, as the test isn’t authentic learning in its nature. It

is more summative and not probing in nature. It is more recall and only some application of facts

are employed in the testing itself.

In conclusion, after reviewing the outcomes, I would suggest the following improvements

to any studies like this one that may be conducted in the future: longer duration for data to be

collected. 40 days of class time is not nearly enough to get a realistic picture and ample data to

show growth in student achievement. The text states that some studies may run for a course of up

to eight years to accurately report on their findings. The last piece that I feel also could be done

better if this study were repeated or re-created at a later date, would be to unify the teaching

styles and lesson plans as much as possible, to ensure that the lessons are being taught and

implemented with fidelity across the board to help remove any possible limitations or

inconsistencies. If the skills are being presented, but, not with fidelity, this too will lead to

limitations or study inconsistencies that can and do affect the outcome and the data that will be

collected for this experiment.

 Rubric: Assignment 3 (Article Critique)
Topics: Scores
1. Purpose of 0 1 2
the study and/ or Discussion is The purpose of the study and/or The objectives 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 0 2 2
Review Discussion is Discussion of the theoretical Discussion of the theoretical framework is
(2p) 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 0 1 2
procedure Discussion is The sampling procedure is discussed The sampling procedure is adequately
(2p) 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. Instrumentat 0 1 2
ion Discussion is Data collection procedures are partially Data collection procedures are correctly
(2p) 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 0 1 2
analysis 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 Discussion 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