You are here:

Does Math Achievement h’APP’en when iPads and Game-Based Learning are Incorporated into Fifth-Grade Mathematics Instruction?

, Bridgewater College, United States

JITE-Research Volume 11, Number 1, ISSN 1539-3585 Publisher: Informing Science Institute


After 10 years of No Child Left Behind standards-focused education, mathematics scores have improved only marginally for elementary-aged students. Students who developed a solid conceptual mathematics foundation at the elementary level succeeded later in higher-level mathematics courses; thus, educators have sought ways to increase mathematics achievement, especially among elementary school students. Educators have utilized advances in technology with game-based learning applications and wireless Internet access to create exciting interactive learning opportunities for students that may translate into student achievement. The purpose of this quantitative, quasi-experimental study was to examine the effects of iPad use as a 1-to-1 (1:1) computing device on 5th-grade students’ mathematics achievement in two rural Virginia elementary schools. A nonequivalent groups pretest and post-test design was used with 104 fifth-grade students. For one academic quarter of nine weeks, the experimental group used iPads as 1:1 computing devices daily during mathematics class while the control group members did not. A pretest was administered before the iPad intervention and a post-test was administered after the iPad intervention. The change from pretest to post-test was not significantly different between the two groups as measured by a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance. Recommendations for future study include increasing the intervention duration, using additional participants, collecting qualitative data, and providing students with continuous 24-hour, seven-day-a-week iPad access.


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(1), 269-286. Informing Science Institute. Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Agodini, R., Harris, B., Atkins-Burnett, S., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., & Murphy, R. (2009). Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula: Findings from first graders in 39 Schools (NCEE 2009-4052). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
  2. Alagic, M. (2003). Technology in the mathematics classroom: Conceptual orientation. Journal of Computers in Mathematics& Science Teaching, 22(4), 381-399.
  3. Allsopp, D.H., Kyger, M.M., & Lovin, L.H. (2007). Teaching mathematics meaningfully: Solutions for reaching struggling learners. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes.
  4. Amin, J. (2010). Twenty first century classrooms: Changing scenario. Learning Community: An International Journal of Education& Social Development, 1(1), 23-28.
  5. Ash, K. (2011, February 4). Calif. District pushes digital-text initiative forward. Education Week Digital Directions. Retrieved from
  6. 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
  7. Bauleke, D.S., & Herrmann, K.E. (2010). Reaching the “iBored”. Middle School Journal, 41(3), 33-39.
  8. 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.
  9. Bell, A. (2007). Handheld computers in schools and media centers. Santa Barbara, CA: Linworth Books.
  10. Berk, R.A. (2010). How do you leverage the latest technologies, including Web 2.0 tools, in your classroom? International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 1-13. Retrieved from Buckley, P. (2010). The rough guide to the iPad. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
  11. Castelluccio, M. (2010). The table at work. Strategic Finance, 92(5), 59-60.
  12. Clark, A.C., & Ernst, J.V. (2009). Gaming in technology education. Technology Teacher, 68(5), 21-26.
  13. Cozby, P.C. (2009). Methods in behavioral research (10th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
  14. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  15. DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D., & Cho, G. (2002). Technology: Panacea or obstacle in the education of diverse student populations? Multicultural Education, 10(2), 25-30.
  16. Dewey, J. (1922). Democracy and education. New York, NY: MacMillian. Dewey, J. (1938/1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary edition. Indianapolis, IN. Kappa Delta Pi Press.
  17. 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. Doi:10.2190/EC.42.4.d
  18. Enriquez, A.G. (2010). Enhancing student performance using tablet computers. College Teaching, 58(3), 77-84. Doi:10.1080/87567550903263859
  19. Franklin, T. (2011). Mobile learning: At the tipping point. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 261-275.
  20. Goddard, M. (2002). What do we do with these computers? Reflections on technology in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), 19-26.
  21. Granberg, E., & Witte, J. (2005). Teaching with laptops for the first time: Lessons from a social science classroom. New Directions for Teaching& Learning, 101, 51-59. Doi:10.1002/tl.186 281 The Impact of iPads on Math Achievement
  22. Griffin, S. (2007). Early intervention for children at risk of developing mathematical learning difficulties. In D.B. Berch & M.M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children?: The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 343-345). Baltimore, MD: Paul H
  23. Heise, B., & Himes, D. (2010). The course council: An example of student-centered learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(6), 343-345.
  24. Hill, R.A. (2011). Mobile digital devices. Teacher Librarian, 39(1), 22-26.
  25. Hlodan, O. (2010). Mobile learning: Anytime, anywhere. BioScience, 60(9), 682. Doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.4
  26. Hoffmann, L. (2009, August 1). Learning through games. Communications of the ACM, 52(8), 21-22. Available from Holcomb, L.B. (2009). Results& Lessons learned from 1:1 laptop initiatives: A collective review. TechTrends: Linking Research& Practice to Improve Learning, 53(6), 49-55. Doi:10.1007/s11528-0090343-1
  27. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2012). HMH Fuse™ algebra I: Results of a yearlong algebra pilot in Riverside, California. Retrieved from
  28. Hu, W. (2007, May 4). Seeing no progress, some schools drop laptops. Retrieved from Hubbard, L. (2000). Technology-based math curriculum. T.H.E. Journal, 28(3), 80-84.
  29. Huizenga, J.J., Admiral, W.W., Akkerman, S.S., & Dam, G. (2009). Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: engagement, motivation, and learning in a mobile city game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 332-344. Doi:10.1111/J.1365-2729.2009.00316.x
  30. Jackson, J. (2009). Game-based teaching: What educators can learn from videogames. Teaching Education, 20(3), 291-304. Doi:10.1080/10476210902912533
  31. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  32. Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1/2), 75-94. Doi:10.1016/0747-5632(91)90030-5
  33. Lavín-Mera, P.P., Torrente, J.J., Moreno-Ger, P.P., Vallejo-Pinto, J.A., & Fernández-Manjón, B.B. (2009). Mobile game development for multiple devices in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 4(S2), 19-26. Retrieved from
  34. Lewis, R.E. (2011). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction on student math achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI 3441943).
  35. Li, S.C., & Pow, J.C. (2011). Affordance of deep infusion of one-to-one tablet-PCs into and beyond classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(4), 319-326.
  36. Lowther, D.L., Ross, S.M., & Morrison, G.M. (2003). When each one has one. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23-44. Doi:10.1007/BF02504551
  37. Mansour, S.S., & El-Said, M. (2009). Multi-players role-playing educational serious games: A link between fun and learning. International Journal of Learning, 15(11), 229-239.
  38. Marlowe, B.A., & Page, M.L. (2005). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Carr
  39. Mendicino, M., & Heffernan, N. (2007). Comparing the learning from intelligent tutoring systems, nonintelligent computer-based versions, and traditional classroom instruction. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  40. Moreau, N. (2010). Do clickers open minds? Use of a questioning strategy in developmental mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
  41. Murphy, G.D. (2011). Post-PC devices: A summary of early iPad technology adoption in tertiary environments. E-Journal of Business Education& Scholarship of Teaching, 5(1), 18-32.
  42. 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/s11528-011-0540-6National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2000). The nation’s report card: 2000. Retrieved from National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2003). The nation’s report card: 2003. Retrieved from
  43. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  44. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2008). Position statement on equity in mathematics education. Retrieved from,Pub.L.No.107-110.§115,Stat.1425(2002).Retrievedfrom
  45. Nugent, G.C. (2005). Use and delivery of learning objects in K-12: The public television experience. TechTrends: Linking Research& Practice to Improve Learning, 49(4), 61-66.
  46. Ornstein, A.C., & Levine, D.U. (2003). Foundations of education (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  47. Ozel, S., Yetkiner, Z.E., & Capraro, R.M. (2008). Technology in K-12 mathematics classrooms. School Science& Mathematics, 108(2), 80-85. Doi:10.1111/J.1949-8594.2008.tb17807.x
  48. Park, H. (2008). The impact of technology use on Hispanic students’ mathematics achievement within family and school contexts: Subgroup analysis between English-and non-English speaking students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(4), 453-468.
  49. Pieratt, J.R. (2010). Advancing the ideas of John Dewey: A look at the high tech Schools. Education& Culture 26(2), 52-64.
  50. Price, A. (2011). Making a difference with smart tablets. Teacher Librarian, 39(1), 31-34. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2000). Messages from PISA 2000. Retrieved from,3417,en_32252351_32236159_1_1_1_1_1,00.htmlProgramforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA).(2003).Internationaloutcomesoflearninginmathematicsliteracyandproblemsolving:PISA2003resultsfromU.S.perspective.Retrievedfrom,3417,en_32252351_32236173_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
  51. Resendez, M., & Azin, M. (2006). 2005 Scott Foresman –Addison Wesley elementary math randomized control trial: Final report. Jackson, WY: Pres Associates.
  52. Resendez, M., Azin, M., & Strobel, A. (2009). A study on the effects of Pearson’s 2009 enVision math program: Final summative report. Jackson, WY: Pres Associates.
  53. Rockman, S. (2004). A study in learning: What does the latest research on mobile computing tell us about teachers, students– and testing. Technology& Learning, 25(3), 1-12.
  54. Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the time to know program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225-241.
  55. Ross, S.M., Morrison, G.R., & Lowther, D.L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17-35.
  56. Salkind, N.J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  57. Sarama, J., & Clements, D.H. (2009). Teaching math in the primary grades. Young Children, 64(2), 63-64.
  58. Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
  59. Silvernail, D.L., & Gritter, A.K. (2004). Maine’s middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Gorham, ME: University of Southern Maine.
  60. Stevens, C. (2011). Designing the iPad: Building applications that sell. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
  61. Suki, N.M., Suki, N.M., Eshaq, A.R., & Choo, K.A. (2010). Using mobile device for learning: Students’ perspective. Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 291-299).
  62. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  63. Texas Center for Educational Research. (2009). Evaluation of the Texas technology immersion pilot: Final outcome of a four-year study. Retrieved from Todd, A. (2010). The effects of progressive time delay utilizing an iPod on math fact acquisition (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (AAT 3407486)
  64. Traxler, J. (2010). Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock. Distance Education, 31(2), 129-138. in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMSS]. (2003). Highlights from the trends in international mathematics of science study (TIMSS) 2003. Retrieved from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMSS]. (2007). 2007 results. Retrieved from
  65. Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. (2007). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage.
  66. Tzuo, P. (2007). The tension between teacher control and children’s freedom in a child-centered classroom: Resolving the practical dilemma through a closer look at the related theories. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 33-39.
  67. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). State and county quickfacts. Retrieved from
  68. VandeWalle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2010). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  69. Vartuli, S., & Rohs, J. (2007). Selecting curriculum content that stimulates thought. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(5), 393-396.
  70. Viadero, D. (2009). Study gives edge to 2 math programs. Education Week, 28(23), 3-4.
  71. Walberg, H.J. (2011). Tests, testing, and genuine school reform. Chicago, IL: Hoover Institution Press.
  72. Wang, W. (2010). My new iPad: A user’s guide. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.
  73. Westbook, R.B. (1993). John Dewey 1859-1952. Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education. 23(1/2), 277-291.
  74. Wright, A. (2012). Tablets over textbooks. Communications of the ACM, 55(3).

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact