You are here:

One-to-one iPad Technology in the Middle School Mathematics and Science Classrooms
ARTICLE

IJTES Volume 3, Number 1, ISSN 2651-5369 Publisher: International Journal of Technology in Education and Science

Abstract

Computer technology (CT) for student use is a popular avenue for school districts to pursue in their goal to attain higher academic achievement. The purpose of this study is to examine the use of iPads in a one-to-one setting, where every student has his own device 24/7, to determine the effects, if any, on academic achievement in the areas of mathematics and science. This comparison study used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to examine three middle schools in a private school district. Two of the schools have implemented a one-to-one iPad program with their sixth through eighth grades and the third school uses computers on limited occasions in the classroom and in a computer lab setting. The questions addressed were what effect, if any, do the implementation of a one-to-one iPad program and a teacher’s perception of his use of constructivist teaching strategies have on student academic achievement in the mathematics and science middle school classrooms. The research showed that although the program helped promote the use of constructivist activities through the use of technology, the one-to-one iPad initiative had no effect on academic achievement in the middle school mathematics and science classrooms.

Citation

Bixler, S. (2019). One-to-one iPad Technology in the Middle School Mathematics and Science Classrooms. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 3(1), 1-18. Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Anderson, D. (2012). Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM): An introduction to key concepts within cross-sectional and growth modeling frameworks. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED545279.pdf
  2. Ayaz, M. & Sekerci, H. (2015). The effects of the constructivist learning approach on student’s academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(4), 143-156.
  3. Bayraktar, S. (2002). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research in Technology Education, 34(2), 173-188.
  4. Brown, B. (1998). Applying constructivism in vocational and career education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Columbus OH.
  5. 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, 269-286.
  6. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and The Council of Chief State School Officers. Http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
  7. Dunleavy, M. & Heineche, W.F. (2007). The impact of 1:1 laptop use on middle school math and science standardized test scores. Computer in the Schools, 24(3/4), 7-22.
  8. Finger, M. (1999). SHINES Project Manual. Strategies to help implement new educational standards. Florida Gulf Coast University.
  9. Fisher, B., Lucas, T., & Galstyan, A. (2013). The role of iPads in constructing collaborative learning spaces. Tech Know Learn, 18, 165-178.
  10. Heinrich, P. (2012). The iPad as a tool for education. Naace Report. Retrieved http://www.naace.co.uk/publications/longfieldipadresearch.
  11. Henry, B.B. (2003). Frequency of use of constructivist teaching strategies: Effect on academic performance, student social behavior, and relationship to class size (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://accountability.leeschools.net/research_projects/pdf/betsyhenry.pdf.
  12. Hoffman, J. (2010). What we can learn from the first digital generation: Implications for developing twenty-first century learning and thinking skills in the primary grades. Education, 38(1), 47-54.
  13. Hyde, J.S. & Linn, M.C. (2006). Gender Similarities in mathematics and science. Science, 314, 599-600.
  14. IXL Learning. (2016). IXL Learning. Retrieved from: https://www.ixl.com/company/ixl.
  15. Kiger, D., Herro, D., & Prunty, 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.
  16. Kim, J.S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. AsiaPacific Education Review, 6(1), 7-19.
  17. Koh, J.H., Chai, C.S., & Tsai, C.C. (2014). Demographic factors, TPACK constructs, and teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Educational Technology& Society, 17 (1), 185-196.
  18. Li, Q. & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 215-243.
  19. Marlowe, B.A. & Page, M.L. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., 45-48.
  20. Melhuish, K. & Falloon, G. (2010). Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad. Computer in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading Technology, 22(3), 1-15.
  21. Milman, N.B., Carlson-Bancroft, A., & Boogart, A.V. (2012) iPads in a preK-4th independent school-year 1-enhancing engagement, collaboration, and differentiation across content areas. International Society for Technology in Education Conference.
  22. NBPTS. (2002). National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Florida excellent teaching program. Tallahassee, FL 32399.
  23. Oliver, K.M., & Corn, J.O. (2008). Student-reported differences in technology use and skills after the implementation of one-to-one computing. Educational Media International, 45(3), 215-229.
  24. Overbay, A., Patterson, A.S., Vasu, E.S., & Grable, L.L. (2010). Constructivism and technology use: Findings from the IMPACTing leadership project. Educational Media International, 47(2), 103-120.
  25. Penuel, W.R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-ne computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348.
  26. Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, second edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  27. Santa, C.M., Havens, L.T., & Maycumber, E.M. (1998). Creating independence through student-owned strategies, 2nd edition. Kalispell, MT: Kendall Hunt.
  28. Sultan, W.H., Woods, P.C., & Koo, A. (2011). A constructivist approach for digital learning: Malaysian schools case study. Educational Technology& Society, 14(4), 149-163.
  29. Thorndike, R.M. & Thorndike-Christ, T. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education, eighth edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
  30. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Education Technology Plan.
  31. Van Dusen, B. & Otero, V. (2012). Influencing students’ relationships with physics through culturally relevant tools. 2012 Physics Education Research Conference, 410-413. .
  32. Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2005). Development of elementary school students’ cognitive structures and information processing strategies under long-term constructivist-oriented science instruction. Retrieved from: www.interscience.wiley.com.Author Information Sharon Grace Bixler, PhD Asbury University 1 Macklem Drive Wilmore, KY 40390 USA Contact e-mail: sharon.bixler@asbury.edu

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