Examining the influence of a mobile learning intervention on third grade math achievement

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 61-82

  Kiger, Derick ^a   Herro, Dani ^a   Prunty, Deb ^a  

^a Oconomowoc Area School District   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881441689     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2012.10782597     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Allen, R. (2011). Can mobile devices transform education? Education Update, 53(2), 2-7.
2. Anusen Inc. (2010). Math magic [software]. Available from http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/math-magic/id291478690?mt=8
3. AppBlit, LLC. (2009). Pop math lite [software]. Available from http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pop-math-lite/id303258911?mt=8
4. Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the iPod touch in K-12 education: Visions and vices. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 121-131. doi:10.1080/07380561003801590
5. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One-to-one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2), 1-59.
6. Bebell, D., & O'Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings, Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 1-16.
7. Bebell, D., O'Dwyer, L. M., Russell, M., & Hoffmann, T. (2010). Concerns, considerations, and new ideas for data collection and research in educational technology studies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 29-52.
8. Blackboard. (2011). Learning in the 21st century: 2011 trends update. Update. Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.blackboard.com/Markets/K-12/Learn- for-K12/Leadership-Views/Education-in-the-21st-Century.aspx
9. Blueonionsoft Corp. (2009). Multiplication genius lite [software]. Available from http://itunes. apple.com/us/app/multiplication-genius-lite/ id335947469?mt=8
10. box2 technologies, LLC. (2011). Multiplication flashcards to go [software]. Available from http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/flashcards-to-go- multiplication/;0386810403?mt=8
11. Brown, A., & Green, T. (2010). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Growth and maturation of web-based tools in a challenging climate; Social networks gain educators' attention. In M. Orey, S. A. Jones, and R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media & technology yearbook (pp. 29-43). New York: Springer.
12. Cheung, A. C, & Slavin, R. E. (2011, July). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. The best evidence encyclopedia (ERE). Johns Hopkins University School of Education's Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE). Retrieved from http://www.bestevidencs.org
13. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
14. Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hartley, K. (2010). An examination of one-to-one computing in the middle school: Does increased access bring about increased student engagement? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 423-441.
15. Dunleavy, M. M., Dexter, S. S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(5), 440-452. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00227.x
16. Eisele-Dyrli, K. (2011a). Mobile goes mainstream. District Administration, 47(2), 46-48.
17. Escondido Union School District. (2011). Project iRead. Retrieved from http://www.eusd4kids.org/edtech/iRead.html
18. Fulton, K. (2012, April). The flipped classroom: Transforming education at Byron High School. THE Journal, 39(3), 18-20.
19. Glazerman, S., Levy, D. M., & Myers, D. (2003). Nonexperimental versus experimental estimates of earnings impact. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Misleading Evidence, and Evidence-Led Policy: Making Social Science More Experimental, 589, 63-93.
20. Goodwin, B. (2011). One-to-one laptop programs are no silver bullet. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 78.
21. Greaves, T. W. (2010). More than hardware for 1:1 computing. School Administrator, 67(11), 44.
22. Groovy Squared, LLC. (2009). Brain thaw [software]. Available from http://www.appolicious. com/games/apps/30476-brain-thaw-lite-groovy-squared
23. Harris, D. N. (2009). Toward policy-relevant benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes: Combining effects with costs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 3-9.
24. HeavyLifters Network. (2010). Math tappers: Multiples [software]. Available from http://itunes. apple.comms/app/mathtappers-multiples-math/ id371520443?mt=8
25. Henry, G. T. (2010). Comparison group designs. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 125-143). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26. Hill, C. J., Blcom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Washington, DC: MDRC.
27. Holcomb, L. B. (2009). Results and lessons learned froml:l laptop initiatives: A collective review. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(6), 49-55. doi:10.1007/sll528-009-0343-l
28. Instant Interactive. (2010). Math drills lite [software]. Available from http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/math-drills-lite/id302881372?mt=8
29. Irving Independent School District. (2004). A computer for every student: Teaching and learning in a one-to-one classroom. Retrieved from http://www.irvingisd.net/one2one
30. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC horizon report: 2011 K-12 edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
31. Khan Academy. (2012). A free world-class education for anyone anywhere. Available at http://www.khanacademy.org/about
32. Kolb, L. (2011). Adventures with cell phones. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 39.
33. Larkin, K. (2011). You use! I use! We use!: Questioning the orthodoxy of one-to-one computing in primary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(2), 101-120.
34. Lunchbox Apps. (2010). Mad math lite [software]. Available from http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mad-math-lite/id389099317?mt=8
35. National Center on Response to Intervention, (n. d.). NCRTITRC on instruction: Glossary of terms. Retrieved April 7, 2012, from http://www.rti4success.org/tools-charts/supplementalContent/instruction/ InstructionToolsGlossary.pdf
36. Oconomowoc High School. (2011). Leading and learning with technology. Retrieved from http://www.oasd.kl2.wi.us/page.cfm ?p=5295
37. Palasoftware Inc. (2011). Flow Math [software]. Available from http://itunes-apple.com/us/app/flowmath-multiplication-division/id294549225?mt=8
38. Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78-102.
39. Peng, H., Su, Y., Chou, C, & Tsai, C. (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: Mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 46(2), 171-183. doi:10.1080/ 14703290902843828.
40. Project Tomorrow. (2011). The new 3 E's of education: Enabled, engaged, empowered: How todays educators are advancing a new vision for teaching and learning. Irvine. CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/ pdfs/SU 10-3EofEducationJEducators.pdf
41. Project Tomorrow. (2012). Mapping a personalized learning journey: K-12 students and parents connects the dots with digital learning. Irvine, CA: Author. Retrievec from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SUll- PersonalizedLearning-Students.pdf
42. Quillen, I. (2010). Left to their owned devices. Digital Directions, 4(Fall), 30-35
43. Schneps, M. H., O'Keeffe, J. K., Heffner-Wong, A., & Sonnert, G. (2010). Using technology to support STEM reading. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(3), 21-33.
44. Schochet, P. Z. (2010). The late pretest problem in randomized control trials of education interventions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(4), 379-406.
45. Scybot Technologies, LLC. (2009). Flash to pass [software]. Available from http://itunes.apple. com/us/app/flashtopass-free-math-flash/id330482882?mt= 8
46. Shin, N., Norris, C, & Soloway, E. (2011). Mobile gaming environment Learning and motivational effects. In P. Felicia (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving teaming and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 467-481). doi:10.4018/978-l-60960-495-0.ch022
47. Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children's learning. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
48. Shultz, K. S., & Whitney, D. J. (2005). Measurement theory in action: Case studies and exercises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Slavin, R., & Smith, D. (2009). The relationship between sample sizes anc effect sizes in systematic reviews in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 500-506.
50. Song, M., & Herman, R. (2010). Critical issues and common pitfalls in designing and conducting impact studies in education: Lessons learned from the What Works Clearinghouse (Phase I). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 351-371.
51. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52. Suhr, K. A., Hernandez, D. A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and fourthgrade literacy: Assisting the jump over the fourth-grade slump. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(5), 1-45.
53. The Master's Academy. (2012). iPad initiative. Retrieved from http://www.mastersacademy.org/article.asp?articleID=75
54. Traxler, J. (2005). Defining mobile learning. IADIS International Conference MobLe Learning 2005.
55. Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing, and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-12.
56. Traxler, J. (2010). Students and mobile devices. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 149-160. doi:10.1080/09687769.2010.492847
57. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2011). Everyday mathematics goals. Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education. Retrieved from, http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/about/program-goals
58. U. S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-eased practices in online learning. A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Author.
59. Wallace, P. (2011). M-Learning: Promises, perils, and challenges for K-12 education. New Horizons for Learning journal, 9(1), 1-40.
60. Waxman, H. C, Lin, M. E, & Michko, G. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the ejfectivenesss of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
61. Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth abcut 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(6), 1-26.
62. Wong, L.-H. (2012). A learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E19-E23. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2011.01245.x
63. Wu, W.-H., Jim Wu, Y.-C., Chen, C.-Y., Kao, H.-Y., Lin, C.-H., & Huang, S.-H. (in press). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817-827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu. 2012.03.016
64. Young, M. E, Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G, Mulin, G., Lai, B., & Yukhymenko, M. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61-89. doi:10.3102/0034654312436980