A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students' mathematics learning

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 215-243

  Li, Qing ^a   Ma, Xin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

Achievement; Attitude; Mathematics; Meta analysis; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956421691     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Albright, M., & Graf, D. (1992). Teaching in the Information Age: The role of educational technology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Anderson, J., Boyle, F., et al. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science, 228(4698), 456-462.
3. Anderson, J., Corbett, A., et al. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
4. Ball, S. (1988). Computers, concrete materials and teaching fractions. School Science and Mathematics, 88, 470-475.
5. Braden, J. P., Shaw, S. R., et al. (1991). An evaluation of a computer-assisted instructional program for elementary hearing-impaired students. The Volta Review, 93(6), 247-252.
6. Brush, T. A. (1997). The effects of group composition on achievement and time on task for students completing ILS activities in cooperative pairs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(1), 2-17.
7. Burns, P. K., & Bozeman, W. C. (1981). Computer-assisted instruction and mathematics achievement: Is there a relationship? Educational Technology, 21(10), 32-39.
8. Burrill, G., Allison, J., et al. (1992). Handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for classroom practice. Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments Corp.
9. Char, C. (1989). Computer graphics feltboards: New software approaches for young children's mathematical exploration. San Francisco: American Educational Research Association.
10. Christmann, E., Badgett, J., et al. (1997). Microcomputer-based computer-assisted instruction within differing subject areas: A statistical deduction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 281-296.
11. Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445-460.
12. Clements, D. (1998). Young Children and Technology. Washington, DC: Forum on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education.
13. Coley, R., Cradleer, J., et al. (2000). Computers and the classroom: The status of technology in US schools. Princeton: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
14. Cooper, J., Heron, T., et al. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus: Merrill.
15. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
16. Farrell, A. M. (1996). Roles and behaviors in technology-integrated precalculus classrooms. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 35-53.
17. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators' instructional adaptation for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 23-33.
18. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., et al. (2002). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on the mathematical problem solving performance of students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 90-106.
19. Funkhouser, C. (1993). The influence of problem-solving software on student attitudes about mathematics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 339-346.
20. Gaur, A., & Gaur, S. (2006). Statistical methods for practice and research: A guide to data analysis using SPSS. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
21. Glass, G. V., B. McGaw, et al. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA, SAGE.
22. Hartley, S. S. (1977). Meta-analysis of the effects of individually paced instruction in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International38(7A): University Microfilms No. 77-29, 926.
23. Hecht, J. B., N. K. Roberts, et al. (1995). Teacher Teams and Computer Technology. 1995 Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
24. Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analyses. Orlando: Academic.
25. Hembree, R., & Dessart, D. J. (1986). Effects of hand-held calculators in precollege mathematics education: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 83-99.
26. Irish, C. (2002). Using peg- and keyword mnemonics and computer-assisted instruction to enhance basic multiplication performance in elementary students with learning and cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 29-40.
27. Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics in education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan.
28. Kieran, C., & Hillel, J. (1990). It's tough when you have to make the triangles angles: Insights from a computer-based geometry environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9, 99-127.
29. Kim, S. (1993). The relative effectiveness of hands-on and computer-simulated manipulative in teaching seriation, classification, geometric, and arithmetic concepts to kindergarten children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(09), 3319.
30. Koedinger, K. R., Anderson, J. R., et al. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30-43.
31. Kozma, R. (2001). Learning with media. In D. P. Ely and T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 155-188). Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
32. Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1986). Effectiveness of computer-based education in colleges. AEDS Journal, 19, 81-108.
33. Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75-94.
34. Kulik, J., Kulik, C., et al. (1980). Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50, 525-544.
35. Kulik, K., Schwalb, B., et al. (1982). Programmed instruction in secondary education: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 133-138.
36. Kulik, J., Bangert-Drowns, R., et al. (1983). Effects of computer based teaching on secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 19-26.
37. Li, Q. (2004). Technology and mathematics education: Any impact? The Eleventh International Literacy and Education Research Network Conference on Learning, La Havana.
38. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
39. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., et al. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449-521.
40. Means, B. (1994). The technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 215-248.
42. Mushi, S. (2000). Use of interactive video technology to teach middle school mathematics. Chicago: Northeastern Illinois University.
43. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author.
44. Niemiec, R., & Walberg, H. (1985). Computers and achievement in the elementary schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 435-440.
45. Niemiec, R., Samson, G., et al. (1987). The effects of computer-based instruction inclementary schools: A quantitative synthesis. Journal for Research on Computing in Education, 20, 85-103.
46. Nute, N. (1997). The impact of engagement activity and manipulatives presentation on intermediate mathematics achievement, time-on-task, learning efficiency and attitude. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(08), 2988.
47. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25.
48. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
49. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
50. Royer, J. M., Greene, B. A., et al. (1994). Can U. S. developed CAI work effectively in a developing country? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(1), 41-61.
51. Salerno, C. A. (1995). The effect of time on computer-assisted instruction for at-risk students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(1), 85-97.
52. Shyu, H. Y. (1999). Effects of media attributes in anchored instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(2), 119-139.
53. Smith, C., McLaughlin, M., et al. (1997). Conduct control on usenet. Journal of Computermediated Communication, 2(4), 1-11.
54. Suh, J., Moyer, P. S., et al. (2005). Examining technology uses in the classroom: Developing fraction sense using virtual manipulative concept tutorials. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4), 1-21.
55. Terry, M. (1996). An investigation of differences in cognition when utilizing math manipulatives and math manipulative software. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(7), 2650.
56. Woodward, J. (1995). Technology-based research in mathematics for special education. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(2), 3-23.
57. Woodward, J., Reith, D. (1995). Technology-based research in mathematics for special education. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 17(2), 3-23.
58. Xin, J. F. (1999). Computer-assisted cooperative learning in integrated classrooms for students with and without disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual: 61-78.
59. Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., et al. (2003). Using a curriculum-based instructional management system to enhance math achievement in urban schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 8(2), 247-265.