Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An evaluation of interactive tabletops in elementary mathematics education

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research examined the effect that a relatively new Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) device, specifically an interactive tabletop, has on elementary students’ attitudes toward collaborative technologies, mathematical achievement, and the gender gap in mathematics. Prior research has shown many positive effects of CSCL technologies on mathematics education, such as increased math performance and an increased interest in math. Further, previous research has shown inconsistent results regarding gender differences in mathematics and has not examined the effect that CSCL technology has on the gender gap. Therefore, the effects of interactive tabletops on math performance, attitudes, and gender differences were examined. This study was conducted using a sample of 53 elementary students. The technology was brought to the classroom twice each week for an entire academic semester. To obtain a more accurate understanding of the influence of the CSCL technology, both self-report data and performance data were collected. Specifically, changes in students’ attitudes and reactions and changes in cognitive learning were measured. The results show that students learn and react favorably towards interactive tabletops. Implications for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvarez, K., Salas, E., & Garofano, C. M. (2004). An integrated model of training evaluation and effectiveness. Human Resource Development Review, 3(4), 385–416. doi:10.1177/1534484304270820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo, I., Royer, J. M., & Woolf, B. P. (2011). Using an intelligent tutor and math fluency training to improve math performance. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21, 135–152. doi:10.3233/jai-2011-020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beltran, D. O., Das, K. K., & Fairlie, R. W. (2008). Are computers good for children? The effects of home computers on educational outcomes. Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.

  • Chan, C. K. K., & Van Aalst, J. (2004). Learning, assessment and collaboration in computer-supported environments. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 87–112). USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B., & Ingraffea, A. (2007). Social networks, communication styles, and learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Education, 49(2), 309–329. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman-Martin, M. B., Heller, K. W., Cihak, D. F., & Irvine, K. L. (2005). Using computer-assisted instruction and the nonverbal reading approach to teach word identification. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(2), 80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crombie, G., Sinclair, N., Silverthorn, N., Byrne, B. M., DuBois, D. L., & Trinneer, A. (2005). Predictors of young adolescents? Math grades and course enrollment intentions: Gender similarities and differences. Sex Roles, 52(5–6), 351–367. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-2678-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.]. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. doi:10.1177/0956797610377342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 491–514. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9127-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, N., Bosker, R. J., & Harskamp, E. G. (2011). Exploring gender and gender pairing in the knowledge elaboration processes of students using computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 56(2), 325–336. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhon, G. J., House, S. H., & Stinnett, T. A. (2012). Evaluating the generalization of math fact fluency gains across paper and computer performance modalities. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 335–345. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. A., Feenstra, E., Ryon, E., & McNeill, D. (2011). A multimodal approach to coding discourse: Collaboration, distributed cognition, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 253–278. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9113-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M., Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi, P. (2006). Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supported university contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 163–176. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, E. A., Wu, D., & Passerini, K. (2010). Computer-supported team-based learning: The impact of motivation, enjoyment and team contributions on learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 55(1), 378–390. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gress, C. L. Z., Fior, M., Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Measurement and assessment in computer-supported collaborative learning☆. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 806–814. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, S. (n.d.). District Benchmark Assessment Program. Retrieved from http://www.ba.k12.ok.us/vnews/display.v/ART/4e5544c381557?in_archive=1.

  • Gweon, G., Rosé, C. P., Albright, E., & Cui, Y. (2006). Help providers and help receivers in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, Alberta, Canada.

  • Higgins, S. E., Mercier, E., Burd, E., & Hatch, A. (2011). Multi-touch tables and the relationship with collaborative classroom pedagogies: A synthetic review. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 515–538. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9131-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, W.-Y., Chen, N.-S., & Hsu, R.-L. (2006). Development and evaluation of multimedia whiteboard system for improving mathematical problem solving. Computers & Education, 46(2), 105–121. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (1981). How large are cognitive gender differences: A meta-analysis using ω2 and d. American Psychologist, 36(8), 892–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. H., Audley-Piotrowski, S. R., & Kiefer, S. M. (2012). Relationships among adolescents’ perceptions of friends’ behaviors, academic self-concept, and math performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 19–31. doi:10.1037/a0025596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, H. W., & Zentall, S. S. (2011). Computer-generated geometry instruction: A preliminary study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 783–797. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9186-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. M., Vozdolska, R. R., & McComb, S. A. (2010). Team decision making in computer-supported cooperative work: How initial computer-mediated or face-to-face meetings set the stage for later outcomes. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 933–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowledge Adventure. (2010). Math Blaster. Torrance, CA: Knowledge Holdings, Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N., Garza, V., & Rangel, M. (2009). Media naturalness reduction and compensatory channel expression: A study of online and face-to-face sections of the same course. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Resources Management.

  • Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H. S., & Jong, T. (2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 223–251. doi:10.1007/s11412-011-9110-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraiger, K. (2008). Transforming our models of learning and development: Web-based instruction as enabler of third-generation instruction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 454–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lever, J. (1978). Sex differences in the complexity of children’s play and games. American Sociological Review, 43(4), 471–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135. doi:10.1037/a0021276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, O. L., & Wilson, M. (2009). Gender differences in large-scale math assessments: PISA trend 2000 and 2003. Applied Measurement in Education, 22(2), 164–184. doi:10.1080/08957340902754635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marjanovic, O. (1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, R., Lubienski, S. T., & Strutchens, M. E. (2006). A closer look at gender in NAEP mathematics achievement and affect data: Intersections with achievement, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 129–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Motivation: The contribution of interactive whiteboards to teaching and learning in mathematics. Retrieved from http://rcsdk8.edlioschool.com/pdf/technology.../iwb/IWB_MOtivation.pdf.

  • Mohammed, A. A., & Kanpolat, Y. E. (2010). Effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction on enhancing the classification skill in second-graders at risk for learning disabilities. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(3), 1115–1130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ota, K. R., & DuPaul, G. J. (2002). Task engagement and mathematics performance in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects of supplemental computer instruction. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(3), 242–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinsen, F., Volman, M., Terwel, J., & Vandeneeden, P. (2009). Effects on participation of an experimental CSCL-programme to support elaboration: Do all students benefit? Computers & Education, 52(1), 113–125. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richtel, M. (2011). In classroom of future, stagnant scores. The New York Times.

  • Rick, J., Marshall, P., & Yuill, N. (2011). Beyond one-size-fits-all: How interactive tabletops support collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Distributed Computing, Delft, the Netherlands.

  • Rinn, A. N., McQueen, K. S., Clark, G. L., & Rumsey, J. L. (2008). Gender differences in gifted adolescents’ math/verbal self-concepts and math/verbal achievement: Implications for the STEM fields. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(1), 34–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. P., & Lubienski, S. T. (2011). The development of gender achievement gaps in mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school: Examining direct cognitive assessments and teacher ratings. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 268–302. doi:10.3102/0002831210372249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Y., Lim, Y., Hazlewood, W., & Marshall, P. (2009). Equal opportunities: Do shareable interfaces promote more group participation than single user displays? Human-Computer Interaction, 24(1), 79–116. doi:10.1080/07370020902739379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Y., & Lindley, S. (2004). Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: Which way is best? Interacting with Computers, 16(6), 1133–1152. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Matute, E., & Inozemtseva, O. (2009). Gender differences and cognitive correlates of mathematical skills in school-aged children. Child Neuropsychology: A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and Adolescence, 15(3), 216–231. doi:10.1080/09297040802195205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scafidi, T., & Bui, K. (2010). Gender similarities in math performance from middle school through high school. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 252–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957–975. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, A. (2012). Do gestural interfaces promote thinking? Embodied interaction: Congruent gestures and direct touch promote performance in math. Dissertation Abstracts International, 72(7-B), 4340–4478.

  • Seo, Y.-J., & Bryant, D. P. (2009). Analysis of studies of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 53(3), 913–928. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, Y., & Song, K. (2011). Role of face-to-face and computer-mediated communication time in the cohesion and performance of mixed-mode groups. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14(2), 126–139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01341.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (pp. 409–425). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starcic, A. I., & Zajc, M. (2011). An interactive tangible user interface application for learning addition concepts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), E131–E135. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01217.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2004). Learning online: A review of current research on issues of interface, teaching presence and learner characteristics. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, into the mainstream (pp. 63–79). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379–383. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Langen, A., Bosker, R., & Dekkers, H. (2006). Exploring cross-national differences in gender gaps in education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(2), 155–177. doi:10.1080/13803610600587016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watt, H. M. G. (2008). What motivates females and males to pursue sex-stereotyped careers? In H. M. G. Watt & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences (pp. 87–113). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram, S. (2012). Mathematica for primary and secondary education: Wolfram Research, Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.wolfram.com/solutions/precollege/.

  • Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering E-learning in the new millennium: An overview of E-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based on research sponsored by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under agreement number FA8750-09-1-0208. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of DARPA or the U.S. Government. The authors would like to thank Joseph Mazzola, Courtney Nelson, Kelsey Parker, Lauren Robertson, and Mathias Simmons for their helpful comments and suggestions. The authors would also like to thank Annalise Brady and Liang Kong for their contributions in designing the educational game and providing technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kansas State University, 492 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

    Alexander T. Jackson

  2. Department of Psychology, The University of Tulsa, 302G Lorton Hall, Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA

    Bradley J. Brummel

  3. The Institute for Information Security, The University of Tulsa, 1418 Meadow Lane, Bartlesville, OK, 74006, USA

    Cody L. Pollet

  4. The Institute for Information Security, The University of Tulsa, 800 South Tucker Drive, Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA

    David D. Greer

Authors
  1. Alexander T. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bradley J. Brummel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cody L. Pollet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David D. Greer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander T. Jackson.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Student’s attitudes questionnaire

Please read each of the following statements about what you think of technology, working in groups, and your classmates and show your level of agreement with each statement by circling your response. Note. All items were presented in a random order and subscale names were removed.

 

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

Technology use in the classroom

 

 Technology in the classroom helps me practice things I have learned

1

2

3

4

5

 I like using technology in the classroom

1

2

3

4

5

 I think I learn better when I use technology

1

2

3

4

5

 Technology makes learning more fun

1

2

3

4

5

 Technology is easy to use

1

2

3

4

5

 I would like to use technology every day

1

2

3

4

5

Group work

 I like to work in groups

1

2

3

4

5

 Working in groups is better than working alone

1

2

3

4

5

 I learn better when working in groups

1

2

3

4

5

 Working in groups lets people learn from each other

1

2

3

4

5

Classmates

 My classmates can easily focus on learning

1

2

3

4

5

 My classmates like to help each other

1

2

3

4

5

 My classmates work well in groups

1

2

3

4

5

 My classmates enjoy learning

1

2

3

4

5

 My classmates are generally well behaved

1

2

3

4

5

Appendix 2: Student’s open-ended reactions to the CSCL program

  • Response 1: “You guys are so much fun I have had in class!! You guys are the best!!”

  • Response 2: “Only sometimes my class works well.”

  • Response 3: “I love working in groups alot and on the gigant Ipad!”

  • Response 4: “You are cool. Do you play soccer.”

  • Response 5: “You rock guys.”

  • Response 6: “You guys are the BEST! I LOVED working with you guys! It was FUN in groups!”

  • Response 7: “I like it!!!”

  • Response 8: “I dont like to work in groups during social studys.”

  • Response 9: “My needed work on working together this kind of helped”

  • Response 10: “I thought the big computer was fun.”

  • Response 11: “I liked being a Lab Rat.”

  • Response 12: “Can you come back? I really liked the iPad.”

  • Response 13: “I will miss you tu. I hope you graduate from collage. Bye.”

  • Response 14: “I think you guys should make individual pad’s because lots of classmates will unlock you box and put it in without your ok!”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jackson, A.T., Brummel, B.J., Pollet, C.L. et al. An evaluation of interactive tabletops in elementary mathematics education. Education Tech Research Dev 61, 311–332 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9287-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9287-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation