Multiplication Fluency 1 RUNNING HEAD: USING …...Multiplication Fluency 6 more interactive process. It allows students to discover math, science, social studies, and reading through

Multiplication Fluency 1

RUNNING HEAD: USING IPADS TO INCREASE MULTIPLICATION FLUENCY

Using iPads to Increase Multiplication Fluency

Multiplication Fluency

Madison C. Boyd

Kennesaw State University


Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Importance of the Study.……………………………………….………………………………… 4

Review of Literature……………………………………………………………...……………… 5

What are the benefits of technology?………...…………………………………………………....5

Where does math education stand today?………...…………………………..…………………...6

Ready for the iPad?……..…………………………………………………………………………8

Further Available Research………………..……………………………………………………..10

Concluding Research………………...…………………………………………………………..11

Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………….12

Purpose……………..……………………………………………………………………………12

Participants………………………………………………………………………………………12

Data Collection………………….…………………………………………………………….…13

Research Context……...……………………………………………………………………....... 14

Results…...……………………………………………………………………………………… 14

Analysis of Data…………...……………………………………………………………………. 16

Implications………………………………………………………………………………………17

Limitations………….………………………………………………………………………........17

Conclusions..……………………………………………………………………………………..18

Implications for Educators..……………………………………………………………………..19

References………………………………………………………………………………………..21

Appendices……………..………………………………………………………………………..25


Abstract

The use of technology is transforming the classroom environment in elementary schools

across the country. Classrooms are being updated with newer and faster forms of technology that

allow students to learn in an entirely new way. Cell phones, tablets, iPads, iPods, laptops, and

Kindles are just a few of the technology devices young children have access to today. What does

that mean for teachers? Today’s classrooms are evolving into technology driven environments

with less focus on teacher centered instruction. The purpose of this study is to determine the

effectiveness of iPads as educational tools. Specifically, this study assesses the differences in

student performance and motivation when using traditional teaching methods like flashcards

verses the iPad.


Introduction

The changes in technology are changing the way teachers deliver lessons and the way

students expect to be taught. Integrating technology has shown to improve student learning and

student performance. While there have been numerous studies on technology in the classroom,

there are very few researchers that have studied the connection between technology and

mathematics. Even fewer researchers have studied the connection between the use of iPads and

math fluency. This study will discuss the importance of integrating technology, the use of the

iPad in the classroom, and effective apps to improve math performance in struggling students.

In March 2010, Apple released a new cutting edge technology device. The iPad was

introduced to consumers across the globe. What was Apple’s purpose for creating such a device?

Mobile tablets like the iPad have been “touted as magical tools full of educational promise”

(Miller, 2012). Apple released a series of commercials preceding the arrival of the iPad in 2010

and marketed the iPad as a tool to enhance learning. Apple released a commercial entitled

“Learn” in which it shows “the iPad being used to watch a TED talk, to practice writing in

Chinese, to look up the definition of a word, to investigate human anatomy, to explore

astronomy, and to play chess and the piano” (Miller, 2012). This simple commercial showed the

world the vast abilities of an iPad as an education tool. Currently, the starting price for an iPad is

the cheapest it has ever been, making it possible for schools and teachers to provide iPads in an

educational setting (Peckham, 2013).

Importance of the Study

Mathematics is a main focus of educators and a core subject in elementary classrooms.

Yet, with all of the focus on the importance of mathematics education, students are relatively low

in scores in comparison with other countries. The work of Clements said “studies show that the


mathematics test-score gap is evident at every level of schooling and can be linked to students’

earlier performance” (Clements et. al, 2011, p.1). Why is this and how can we improve it? I

believed that by integrating technology tools, like the iPad, students would receive more practice

and instruction that would allow them to reach the academic level expected of them. The

achievement gap is beginning prior to elementary school and lasting into students’ secondary

education (Lee et. al, 2006). As educators, we must find a way to close the gap and provide

students with the tools needed to succeed academically in mathematics. Through the integration

of iPads and education apps, students have a better chance of improving their math fluency and

succeeding in math courses across all grade levels. This study aims to answer the following

questions: Can the use of applications on an iPad aid struggling students in mathematics? Can

the use of an iPad increase student scores in math fluency? Can the use of an iPad increase

student motivate and student engagement in mathematics?

Review of Literature

What are the benefits of technology?

It is important that educators spend time learning the best ways to incorporate technology

into the pedagogy of mathematics education. Matus, Summa, and Kuschke said, “as technology

advances and becomes more prevalent in the environment, the careful and thoughtful integration

of these technologies becomes more critical” (2011, p.1). Educators have a responsibility to learn

and discover the most efficient way to incorporate these new technologies in a way that benefits

the students. What are the benefits to the students? There are many ways in which technology

can help both student and teacher. For the teacher, technology cuts down on paperwork, serves as

a device to collect student data, and provides apps to further the students’ education (Keeling,

2012). From a student’s perspective, technology is a way to make learning more engaging and a


more interactive process. It allows students to discover math, science, social studies, and reading

through thought provoking games and applications. Integrating technology also provides

opportunities for collaborative learning in which students are expected to work together with

peers on assignments or discussions (Cheung & Vogel 2013).

There are specific benefits to incorporating technology into mathematics. Attard and

Northcote cited a study done by Pierce and Ball in which they claimed, “it is a common belief

that the incorporation of computer technology into mathematics teaching and learning motivates

and engages students” (2011, p.29). Mathematics is an area in which students struggle and are

least engaged. They are able to go through the steps of solving a problem without truly

understanding it. Attard and Northcote warn against the danger of “technology driving

pedagogy, rather than pedagogy driving the technology” (2011, p.29). This is to say that

technology is supposed to support the mathematics instruction rather than replace it or become

the main focus. When instruction is set up with technology as a support, learning devices like the

iPad have immense benefits.

Where does math education stand today?

Researchers across the spectrum reflect on the current trends in math education. Students

are proving to be less motivated and engaged, which in turn is affecting their performance

academically (Gottfried et. al, 2009). The achievement gap is evidenced at some of the earliest

levels of schooling and is continuing to show through as students reach the higher grade levels.

A study done by Peggy and Timothy compared the motivation and achievement between sixth

and seventh graders at the beginning of the school year. The researchers predicted seventh grade

students would be less motivated than sixth grade students. In regards to the hypothesis,

researchers found enough data to highly support this claim. Seventh graders were less interested


in math activities and felt that math was less valuable than the sixth graders did (Peggy &

Timothy, 2009). These results line up with other reports from researchers that students’

motivation and desire to engage in learning typically declines over time.

Why are these trends found in mathematics today? There are many challenges and

difficulties to teaching young children math. Teachers must address the issues of pedagogy and

identify the characteristics of quality math education for young children. One researcher

described what math education should look like when she said, “issues such as building on

young children’s prior-to-school knowledge; engaging children in general mathematical

processes; and assessing and documenting children’s learning are some of the key aspects of

high-quality early childhood mathematics education” (Dunphy, 2009, p.1). There is a great deal

that goes into explaining complex mathematical concepts to young children. Students must be

able to complete the steps to solving an equation, while understanding why these steps are

necessary in order to apply their knowledge to other problems. These are highly difficult tasks

for students of all ages.

Another study done by Al-Agili, Mamat, Abdullah and Abd Maad discussed the

influence of “teaching practices and teaching methods, teachers’ attribution, classroom climate,

students’ attitude toward mathematics, and students’ mathematics anxiety on students’

achievement in mathematics” (2013, p.5). Their findings showed that each of these attributes

factor into students’ overall math achievement. As teachers, this means that there are a wide

variety of factors that influence the performance of students in math. By incorporating

technology, like the iPad, student performance has shown to improve as well as students’

attitudes toward math education. The integration of technology addresses all of the factors

mentioned by the above researchers. Technology in mathematics education has shown to


positively impact teaching practices and methods, teachers’ attribution, classroom climate, and

students’ attitude toward mathematics.

Ready for the iPad?

There is some research-based literature available that discusses the use of iPads in early

childhood classrooms as an education tool. While there is not a great deal of accessible research,

the research performed thus far all seems to agree on one thing; iPads have been shown to be an

effective educational tool. A study done by O’Malley, Jenkins, Wesley, Donehower, Rabuck,

and Lewis addressed the effectiveness of using iPads to build math fluency (2013). The

importance of math fluency is what drove the researchers to investigate using iPads as a way to

increase academic abilities in struggling students. The researchers believed that math fluency is

“a strong predictor of math achievement tests, needed to acquire higher-order math skills, and

essential for future successful independent living” (O’Malley et al., 2013). The researchers

compared two groups of students. One group of students maintained a traditional learning

environment, while the other group of students spent approximately 10 minutes per day

practicing on the iPad to build fluency. Researchers overall found that the results indicate the

iPad was an effective instructional tool for students with moderate to severe disabilities.

Teachers were highly satisfied with the results and thought the intervention was a success.

Teachers also found that students were more eager to participate in the iPad activities and even

showed more interest in content during intervention phases. Students seemed to be disappointed

when having to return to paper and pencil, timed math probes. Teachers expressed an interest in

having more opportunities to use the iPads in the classroom. The statistical and visual analysis

also supports the researchers claim that the iPad was an effective instructional tool. The students’


rate of fluency gains increased during the intervention phase and regressed to the baseline levels

when the iPad was removed.

Murray and Olcese are researchers who looked at the overall capabilities of the iPad. The

iPad has many characteristics that make it a good candidate to be incorporated as an educational

tool. Compared to laptops or individual computers, iPads are much less expensive and fit into a

realistic budget. Not every student needs an iPad, but with access to a few per classroom,

students have the opportunity to reinforce their math knowledge. The iPad offers thousands of

free applications that teachers can introduce to students in the classroom. There is no pricey

software needed. IPads are also very portable and easy to carry from place to place within a

classroom. Lastly, they are easily plugged into a Smart Board or computer and projected for the

entire class to see. Murray and Olcese acknowledged the power of the iPad when they said, “we

understand that current application development has potential to not only extend what can be

done in classrooms but also strive for better connection to learning theories and hardware

capabilities (Murray & Olcese, 2012, p.7). It is clear in the research available that iPads make

for an excellent source of technology that has the potential to transform classrooms of all ages.

By incorporating the use of iPads into building math fluency, there is strong promise for students

to benefit.

With so many thousands of available applications to be downloaded on the iPad, how do

educators determine which ones are most beneficial? Fortunately, there are many articles based

on research that layout the best downloads available. When it comes to great apps to use in the

classroom, Brian Nadel wrote about four incredibly helpful applications for math fluency.

Although the apps he discussed are not all free, they ranged between $2.00 and $5.00, which is a

low price to pay for an application that can help each student in the classroom. The first app he


suggested was Mad Math 2. Nadel said, “this app contains several games for math facts practice,

including Bingo and Math Bubbles” (Nadel, 2012, p.30). The app also allows students to write

on the screen to solve the problems, which is good practice for how they would take a math

assessment in the classroom. This app was used in the following study and allowed students to

play a variety of interactive games all aimed at increasing multiplication fluency.

Further Available Research

A study done by Kiger further studied the influence of mobile learning intervention on

third grade math achievement. Kiger’s study was similar to the study done by O’Malley and

peers, with the exception of the iPad. Rather than using the iPad, Kiger used the iPod Touch that

is essentially a smaller version of the iPad and has many of the same functions and abilities.

Kiger performed a 9-week study comparing 2 classes of traditional teaching with 2 classes using

the MLI (mobile learning intervention). All four classes were third graders at the same

elementary school. The experiment consisted of furnishing two classrooms with iPod touch’s,

while the other two classrooms maintained traditional teaching methods like flash cards, math

games, and number sequences. Each classroom teacher was instructed to teach in the same way.

Where they differed was in the way students practiced their multiplication facts. Students in the

traditional classroom spent 10 minutes using the flashcards or other chosen methods. Students in

the MLI classrooms were given an individual iPod touch to practice for the same amount of time

as the traditional classroom. Researchers overall found that the MLI using iPod touch devices

was an effective way of increasing math performance on multiplication in third grade

classrooms. The students in the classrooms using MLI outperformed the comparing students that

used traditional methods of practice. The findings also emphasize the benefits of using both

traditional methods with mobile devices as an effective tool to increase multiplication


competency. The use of mobile devices is also a cost effective solution to other highly expensive

technology tools like laptops and tablets. The main merit of this study was determining the “MLI

cost per student ($252) is fiscally preferable to one-to-one laptop programs and similar initiatives

that require significantly more investment in hardware, software, and technical support” (Kiger,

2012). Students with the iPod touch intervention answered more questions correctly on the

posttest, and were able to perform better on the double-digit multiplication items.

Concluding Research

It is important for educators of young children to remember the importance of play. There

is a vast availability of research that supports the idea of play in the classroom. The use of the

iPad and apps fits into the design for integrating play in the classroom. Educators Mei-Ju and

Hung-Chang discuss the importance of play in a child’s learning environment. They say, “play

occupies a very significant position in children’s learning. Through play, children come to know

how to adapt themselves to the world and how to develop emotional, EQ and social intelligence”

(Mei-Ju & Hung-Chang, 2012, p. 296). The use of the iPad balances the traditional idea of play

with the new cutting edge technology that allows children to play in an entirely different way.

Not only will students develop academically through the use of the iPad, they will also develop

cognitively, socially, and emotionally.

Allard and Northcote sum up why using iPads for learning mathematics is an approach

that all educators should consider.

Although the use of mathematics apps can be engaging and of benefit to students in terms

of building fluency and increasing motivation through their sometimes competitive

nature, mobile technologies offer much more in terms of allowing students access to a


broad range of tools that have the potential to enhance teaching practices, student

engagement, and student learning. (Allard & Northcote, 2011, p.2)

There are endless possibilities regarding the use of an iPad as an educational tool. It doesn’t have

to be limited to mathematics education, but rather can be used across the entire curriculum

(Peerey, 2013). Math fluency is an important aspect of early grades and should be practiced as

much as the teacher allows. By integrating an iPad, the teacher is provided with an extra resource

that will allow more drill in a fun and interactive way.

While there is evidence that supports the use of iPads in math education, it is important to

consider the limitations and think of ways to minimize them. Before researching the effects of

iPads on math fluency, it is important to plan out students’ access to the iPad, the application that

will use, and the instruction that will support the fluency practice. The apps also need to be used

consistently in order to accurately determine whether or not the iPad has any promise as an

educational tool.

Methodology

Purpose

The purpose of this action research study was to determine the effectiveness of iPads to

aid struggling students in the area of multiplication fluency and motivation. This research is

necessary due to the lack of current studies available linking technology to mathematics as well

as specifically multiplication.

Participants

In this study, students worked individually using applications on the iPad to enhance

math fluency and gain practice with basic multiplication facts. As the researcher, I selected a

group of six struggling students to work in a small group setting. The students were chosen


based on their current math performance using test grades, observations, and formative

assessments given in the class. Three students chosen participated in using the iPad, while the

other three students received traditional instruction. The three students who received traditional

instruction did so in a small group, which has been seen as an opportunity for teachers to

invigorate their teaching (Allery, 2012). Students worked between 10-15 minutes on an

application before returning to whole group instruction. This was done using the time they would

meet with me in a small group setting. I anticipated students would be more engaged and

motivated in learning mathematics when iPads are used to make learning more fun and

interactive. I anticipated that the students in the study would increase their multiplication fluency

and be able to complete timed math facts tests more quickly and accurately. I believed the

students using the iPad would increase their fluency scores more so than the students receiving

traditional small group instruction.

Data Collection

I collected quantitative data using timed math facts tests, a pre-test, post-test, and daily

check-ins. Quantitative data was the best choice for the research based on the needs of the study

and what was being measured (Venkatesh et. al., 2013). No commercially available tests used,

but rather data was collected based on student grades and performance in the classroom. The

goal of the study was to determine if iPads could improve student performance in multiplication

fluency. I also looked at students’ grades from the beginning of the unit to the end of the unit.

Students were given a pre and post-test with 50 multiplication problems on it. Only accuracy was

evaluated on the pre and post-test. Students were also given a timed facts test once a week as

another method for determining if they improved in math fluency. Did their overall math grade

increase? Did they become faster at timed tests? I predicted the timed math test to be the greatest


indicator of whether or not iPads were an effective teaching tool in the area of mathematics. I

looked at the difference in number of correct answered on the pre and post-test as well as the

timed math tests to determine the effectiveness of the iPad instruction. The pre and post-test

provided the most accurate results to show if the addition of technology was a factor in

performance. Because both groups of students received the same whole group instruction, it was

clear the difference in results was due to the small group instruction provided. Other data

analysis came from the daily check-ins. Before leaving small group instruction for the day, both

groups in the study completed a daily check-in that included 4 multiplication facts. By plotting

the results on a graph, I looked to see if the students’ accuracy increased throughout the course of

the study.

Research Context

The design of this study was chosen in order to eliminate classroom distractions for both

the teacher and students. Students participated in this study during non-instructional time.

Students that participated did not miss out on whole-group lessons, but rather they spent time

with me during small group or other down-time in the classroom. The study only helped students

and did not cause them further issues with mathematics. I anticipated that students would be

more engaged and motivated in learning mathematics when iPads were used to make learning

more fun and interactive since previous studies have found that to be true (Godziki et.al., 2013). I

anticipated that the students in the study would increase their math fluency and be able to

complete timed math facts tests much more quickly and accurately.

Results


After eight weeks of data collection, the results were inconclusive and did not show

enough growth to determine whether or not the use of an iPad increased multiplication fluency or

student motivation. Following the end of the study period, various pieces of data were analyzed.

The first piece of data analyzed was the Pre Test and Post Test. These tests included

multiplication problems dealing with numbers 0 to 12. I selected problems randomly using a

worksheet generator website. Each test had 50 multiplication problems and students had 1

minute to accurately answer as many problems as possible. On average, the flashcard group

increased their multiplication fluency by 11 problems between the Pre Test and the Post Test

(data displayed in figure 1 and 2). The iPad group increased their multiplication fluency on

average of 5 problems between the Pre Test and the Post Test (data displayed in figure 1 and 2).

Based on this data, the students using the flashcards to practice multiplication facts made larger

gains over the eight-week time period.

The second piece of data analyzed was the students’ overall mathematical average.

During the eight weeks, we continued mathematics units with instruction in multiplication and

division. The flashcard group increased their overall average by approximately 8.24 points (data

shown in figure 3). On the contrary, students using the iPad saw an average decrease in their

overall average by approximately 3.27 points (data shown in figure 3). The overall changes in

the timed test as well as student averages can be seen in figure 4 and 5.

The last analysis done was based on student motivation. I determined student motivation

using observations of the students’ attitudes and overall perception of multiplication instruction.

The observation clearly determined students using the iPad were more motivated and

enthusiastic about learning their multiplication facts. The application the students used, Mad

Math 2, allowed them to earn virtual rewards as well increase levels of the game. The students’


desire to beat all levels and reach a new high score meant they were eager to sit down and

practice their multiplication facts. Students were often so excited to use the iPad they argued

over who would get to use it first and how long each student could be on it. They also asked to

use the iPad at other various points in the day if they finished their work early. Students using the

flashcards to learn their multiplication facts were far less motivated than the students using the

application on the iPad. Their treatment was much more routine and mundane and thus didn’t

give them the excitement that the iPad gave those students. Although the students were routine in

practicing with the flashcards, they needed much more encouragement and guidance in order to

get started. This lack of motivation is completely expected considering there were no levels to

beat, no high scores to establish, and there wasn’t any fun sound effects and graphics as apart of

their treatment.

Analysis of Data

Previous research supports the idea that students are more motivated to learn when

technology is involved in their instruction. As previously stated, a study done by Pierce and Ball

claimed, “it is a common belief that the incorporation of computer technology into mathematics

teaching and learning motivates and engages students” (2011, p.29). Another set of researchers

found a negative to flashcards when saying, “the use of flashcards to assist children with

mastering basic facts has been a common practice in education, but its use if often unsystematic

and its efficacy not evaluated” (Skarr et. al., 2014, p. 78). My study however differs from

previous research when it comes to analyzing the students’ scores on the timed test and

mathematical averages. The study done by Kiger, which used an MLI device similar to an iPad,

showed that students using the device outperformed the comparing students that used traditional

methods of practice. One study by D’Ettorre did however have similar findings and saw the


flashcard group excel and make larger gains than the interactive group (D’Ettorre, 2009).

Although the majority of previous studies do not support the flashcard group outperforming the

iPad group, I believe it has to do with some of the limitations of this study.

Implications

Limitations

The first limitation of the study was the time period over which it was done. The study

took place for eight weeks beginning in February and concluding in March. I believe that the

eight week time period was not ample time in order to make a conclusion about the effectiveness

of the iPad as an instructional tool. A statistical website wrote, “most research projects require at

least a couple of weeks solid work and may, exceptionally, take a year or more of full time

work” (“How long does…”). In order to truly determine if an iPad can aid in multiplication

fluency, the study should have lasted over many months to provide a more reliable result. The

time of year the study took place is also a limitation. Students began receiving multiplication

instruction during the fall semester of school. To more accurately assess their knowledge of

multiplication facts, the study should have started when the instruction began in the fall. This

would provide true results that better measure growth of students. The study should have

concluded at the end of the year to further provide a true measure of growth.

The third limitation of the study was the small group of students that was chosen to

participate. Although the six students chosen were selected at random based on parental consent,

it was a very small sampling which limits the accuracy of the results. A better sample would

have been to divide the class half and half and have 11 participants in each group. The results

would have greater reliability and validity had the sample group been larger. Unfortunately there

were not enough available iPads for the study to be designed that way. Using the small group of


students caused further limitations like attendance and days at the talented and gifted program.

One student was also very upset at the time he took the Post Test, which I believe is what caused

his score to decrease. He did not want to start the test until only half the time was left.

The fourth limitation of the study was the factor of background knowledge. Students each

began the study with differing amounts of knowledge of multiplication facts, which hinders

students’ ability to comprehend and learn (Marzano, 2004). Had the study began before any

multiplication instruction was given; I believe this limitation would be eliminated. Some students

had more room to grow while some students had less room to grow. Lastly, the application

chosen was a limitation and I believe it contributed to the surprising results. In some of the

games on the application, students could choose the answer similar to a multiply choice problem.

I believe the students were quickly able to identify the answer when presented in front of them,

but could not produce it on the timed test. The timed test did not give them any choices; they

simply had 50 multiplication problems and needed to provide the answer for each. Students were

passing all the levels on the iPad, which is why I believe it was the requirement of producing

their own answer hindered them on the written test.

Conclusions

After collecting data for eight weeks, there was not enough growth to say that the use of

the iPad can aid struggling students in mathematics. In fact, the flashcard group did slightly

better overall and showed more improvement than did the iPad group. This was determined

based on the Post Test given to both the flash card and iPad group and the changes in the

students’ averages in math. However, it was found that students using the iPad were more

motivated and eager to learn their multiplication facts. The flash card group needed more

encouragement to work on their flashcards than did the iPad group.


Overall, there were positives and negatives with both forms of instruction. While the iPad

increased student motivation and enthusiasm for learning, it also hindered their ability to produce

written answers on the timed test. In relation to the flashcard group, these students were less

motivated and showed less enthusiasm for learning. They did however perform better on the

timed test because the flashcards better prepared them to produce their own answer when no

choices were provided.

Based on the results of the study, I will continue to use a balance of both traditional

teaching using flashcards as well as the integration of technology into my lessons. A study done

in a fourth grade classroom found that when combining flashcards with a story or picture,

students outperformed the others with just pictures or just flashcards (Brewer, 2004). I will

consider combining the use of visuals like the iPad as well as flashcards to determine the effect

that has on the students’ multiplication fluency. I will continue using technology in the

classroom to see how it affects their multiplication fluency over a longer period of time and

focus on the benefits that iPads offer to students (Gentile, 2012). I will also continue using the

option of flashcards as a way to practice multiplication facts.

Implications for Educators

The implications for the study are that technology can increase student motivation and

can be a useful aid in the teaching of multiplication facts. Flashcards are also shown to be an

effective way at increasing multiplication fluency and the mastery of multiplication facts. If an

educator is struggling to excite students and motivate them to learn, incorporating technology,

especially an iPad, can help students desire to learn and excel within the classroom. Educators

desiring to do a similar study to this one should take into account the limitations of the study

before designing one of their own. I believe this study applies to all areas of teaching, not just


mathematics. Due to the high volume of applications available for educational use, I see great

potential for the use of the iPad across the curriculum and in other subject areas. I also believe

teachers would be pleased with the use of this technology based on the ease of use and overall

convenience to young children. Because of the large amounts of limitations, I do not feel like

major implications can be made and no set conclusion can be established.


References

Al-Agili, M. G., Mamat, M., Abdullah, M., & Abd Maad, H. (2013). Path Analysis of the

Factors Influencing Students' Achievement in Mathematics. Australian Journal Of

Basic & Applied Sciences, 7(4), 437-442.

Allery, L. (2012). How to . . . Use small groups to invigorate your teaching. Education For

Primary Care, 23(6), 446-450.

Attard, C., & Northcote, M. (2011). Teaching with Technology. Australian Primary

Mathematics Classroom, 16(4), 29-31.

Brantley, B. (2013). iPad Apps for Teaching Success. Techniques: Connecting Education

& Careers, 88(2), 8-9.

Brewer, R. A. (2004). Memory, Multiplication and Mnemonics: A Study into the Recall of Basic

Multiplication Facts. Online Submission

Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting User Acceptance of Collaborative Technologies: An

Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning. Computers &

Education, 63160-175.

Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Farran, D., Lipsey, M., Hofer, K. G., Bilbrey, C., & Society

for Research on Educational Effectiveness, (2011). An Examination of the

Building Blocks Math Curriculum: Results of a Longitudinal Scale-Up Study.

Society For Research On Educational Effectiveness

D'Ettorre, J. (2009). Mastering the Multiplication Facts. Online Submission

Devlin, K. (2013). The Music of Math Games. American Scientist, 102(2), 87-91


Dunphy, E. (2009). Early childhood mathematics teaching: challenges, difficulties and

priorities of teachers of young children in primary schools in Ireland. International

Journal Of Early Years Education, 17(1), 3-16. doi:10.1080/09669760802699829

Gentile, M. (2012). The Importance of Managing iPads in the Classroom. Education Digest:

Essential Readings Condensed For Quick Review, 78(3), 11-13.

Godzicki, L., Godzicki, N., Krofel, M., & Michaels, R. (2013, May 1). Increasing Motivation

and Engagement in Elementary and Middle School Students through Technology-

Supported Learning Environments. Online Submission

Gottfried, A., Marcoulides, G. A., Gottfried, A. W., & Oliver, P. H. (2009). A latent curve model

of parental motivational practices and developmental decline in math and science

academic intrinsic motivation. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 729-739.

doi:10.1037/a0015084

"Grade 3 » Introduction." Common Core State Standards Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr.

2014. <http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/3/introduction/>

"How long does a research project take?." Select: Statistical Consultants. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr.

2014. <http://www.select-statistics.co.uk/faq/how-long-does-re"search-project-take>.

Keeling, K. B. (2012). iTeaching: Using an iPad to Go Green While Supporting Teaching

Efficiency. Business Education Innovation Journal, 4(2), 44-49.

Kiger, 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.


Lee, J., & Harvard Civil Rights Project, C. A. (2006). Tracking Achievement Gaps and

Assessing the Impact of NCLB on the Gaps: An In-Depth Look into National and State

Reading and Math Outcome Trends. Civil Rights Project At Harvard University (The)

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building Background Knowledge for Academic Achievement : Research

on What Works in Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Matus, J., Summa, K., & Kuschke, R. (2011). An Analysis of Technology-

Enhanced Pedagody and Learning: Student Response

Systems (Clickers) – Tool or Toy?. International Journal Of Business

& Social Science, 2(12), 6-13.

Mei-Ju, C., & Hung-Chang, L. (2012). The Application of the iPad on

Children’s Play- Based on Brain Science Theory. International

Journal Of Organizational Innovation, 5(1), 296-308.

Miller, W. (2012). iTeaching and Learning. Library Technology Reports, 48(8), 54-59.

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/s11528-011-0540-6

Nadel, B. (2012). Must-Have Math Apps. Instructor, 121(5), 30.

O'Malley, P., Jenkins, S., Wesley, B., Donehower, C., Rabuck, D., & Lewis, M. (2013).

Effectiveness of Using iPads to Build Math Fluency. Kennedy Krieger Institue, 1,

1-20. Retrieved June 17, 2013, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED541158.pd

Peckham, M. (2013). 5 Reasons to Buy the iPad Air, 5 for the Retina iPad Mini and 5 to

Buy Neither. Time.Com, 1.


Peerey, J. (2013). Ipads, Qr Codes, The Big 15, And Screencast-O-Matic: It’s All Happening in a

Library Media Center. Library Media Connection, 32(3), 34-37.

Skarr, A., Zielinski, K., Ruwe, K., Sharp, H., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2014). The

Effects of Direct Instruction Flashcard and Math Racetrack Procedures on Mastery of

Basic Multiplication Facts by Three Elementary School Students. Education & Treatment

Of Children (West Virginia University Press), 37(1), 77-93.

Timothy J., C., & Peggy P., C. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement

in middle school: Variations across grade level and math context. Journal Of

School Psychology, 47291-314. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.002

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the Qualitiative- Quantitative Divide :

Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54.


Appendices

Figure 1: Timed Multiplication Test (out of 50)

Figure 2: Timed Multiplication Test (out of 50)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F

Pre Test Fluency

Post Test Fluency

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pre Test Fluency Post Test Fluency

Student A

Student B

Student C

Student D

Student E

Student F


Figure 3: Changes in Overall Math Average

Student Type of

Treatment Beginning Math Grade Feb. 1 2014

Multiplication problems in 1 minute: Pre-Test

A Flashcards 69.93% 9/50 B Flashcards 76.76% 9/50 C Flashcards 85.08% 11/50 D iPad 81.10% 10/50 E iPad 80.96% 6/50 F iPad 79.05% 10/50 Figure 4: Pre Test Data

Student Type of

Treatment Ending Math Grade March 28, 2014

Multiplication problems in 1 minute: Post-Test

A Flashcards 85.50% 19/50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F

Math Average (February)

Math Average (March)


B Flashcards 77.50% 14/50 C Flashcards 93.50% 29/50 D iPad 78.50% 15/50 E iPad 70.50% 5/50 F iPad 82.00% 20/50 Figure 5: Post Test Data


















!"#$%!%&'%"%%

#$%&'($)*+,'-&'(*.,%/*%

(0123*45*%363789:*-1;<=>*()*+#%*!",)%-&%./*0,%10/$+23%*+%4/0-*50*2"-*&+%*

%

%363789:38?6*+4@1791*A@548B7104@>*%%6$)$"728$79%4",*)&+%.&3,:%;<=>?%@>>A<B>C:%D&3,EFG'/0-&+)28&&0)H&7#%

I7",/"-$%J,K*)&79%L7H%4"7*"%M8"8$$+:%;<=>?%=N=AB>ON:%4)8"8$$+GP$++$)"QH$,/%%

%

R&/7%28*0,%*)%D$*+#%*+K*-$,%-&%-"P$%5"7-%*+%"%7$)$"728%)-/,3%2&+,/2-$,%D3%4",*)&+%.&3,%&'%S$++$)"Q%

M-"-$%(+*K$7)*-3H%%.$'&7$%3&/%,$2*,$%-&%"00&Q%3&/7%28*0,%-&%5"7-*2*5"-$%*+%-8*)%)-/,3:%3&/%)8&/0,%7$",%-8*)%

'&7E%"+,%")P%T/$)-*&+)%*'%3&/%,&%+&-%/+,$7)-"+,H%%

%

C36980D104@*45*#84E391**

The purpose of this action research study is to determine the effectiveness of iPads to aid struggling students in the area of mathematics. Students will work individually using applications on the iPad to enhance math fluency and gain practice with basic math facts. %*&FD27@7104@*45*#8493<;836**

As the researcher, I will select group of six students. The students will be chosen based on their current math performance using test grades, observations, and formative assessments given in the class. Three students chosen will to participate in using the iPad, while the other three students will receive traditional instruction. The three students receiving traditional instruction will do so in a small group. Students will work between 10-15 minutes on an application before returning to whole group instruction. This will be done using the time they would meet with me in a small group setting. I anticipate that students will be more engaged and motivated in learning mathematics when iPads are used to make learning more fun and interactive. I anticipate that the students in the study will increase their math fluency and be able to complete timed math facts tests much more quickly and accurately. I believe the students using the iPad will increase their fluency scores more so than the students receiving traditional small group instruction.

%

(0B3*%3G;083<*

*M-/,$+-)%Q*00%+&-%D$%$U5$2-$,%-&%2&E50$-$%"+3%",,*-*&+"0%"))*#+E$+-)%&7%)5$+,%",,*-*&+"0%-*E$%-&%-8$*7%

,"*03%)28$,/0$H%M-/,$+-)%Q*00%5"7-*2*5"-$%*+%-8$%)-/,3%,/7*+#%-8$%+&7E"0%FC%E*+/-$)%-8$3%Q&/0,%)5$+,%*+%

"%)E"00%#7&/5%Q&7P*+#%Q*-8%-8$%-$"28$7H%%

%

%06H6*48*C0694B54816*

*V8$7$%"7$%+&%P+&Q+%7*)P)%&7%"+-*2*5"-$,%,*)2&E'&7-)%*+%-8*)%)-/,3H%%

*

I3@35016**


!"#$%!%&'%!%%

()*+%+,-./%0"+%.$+*#1$.%0*,)%2"1/%3&++*45$%4$1$'*,+6%7,-.$1,+%0*55%8$9$*:$%"..*,*&1"5%8$+&-89$+%*1%&8.$8%,&%"*.%*1%,)$*8%2-5,*35*9",*&1%'5-$19/6%7,-.$1,+%+)&-5.%4$9&2$%'"+,$8%"1.%2&8$%"99-8",$%0)$1%

9&235$,*1#%2-5,*35*9",*&1%'"9,+6%()$%-+$%&'%*!".+%+)&-5.%"5+&%8$*1'&89$%,)",%5$"81*1#%9"1%4$%'-1%"1.%*1,$8$+,*1#;%$+3$9*"55/%0)$1%,$9)1&5&#/%*+%*1,$#8",$.6%%%

"#$%&'()*+#'%%%()$8$%*+%1&%9&23$1+",*&1%'&8%3"8,*9*3",*1#%*1%,)*+%+,-./6%%

,"#'-+.&'*+)/+*0,,

()$%8$+-5,+%&'%,)*+%3"8,*9*3",*&1%0*55%4$%9&1'*.$1,*"56%<55%.","%9&55$9,$.%*1%,)*+%+,-./%0*55%8$2"*1%9&1'*.$1,*"5;%&15/%,&%4$%+)"8$.%0*,)%=$11$+"0%7,",$%>1*:$8+*,/6%7,-.$1,%1"2$+%"1.%3$8+&1"5%*1'&82",*&1%0*55%4$%?$3,%9&1'*.$1,*"56%@15/%+,-.$1,%.","%%"1.%8$+$"89)%"1"5/+*+%9&55$9,$.%.-8*1#%,)$%+,-./%

0*55%4$%+)"8$.6%<55%8$+$"89)%0*55%4$%.&1$%0*,)*1%,)$%+"2$%95"++8&&2%,&%2"*1,"*1%9&1'*.$1,*"5*,/6%%>+$%&'%@15*1$%7-8:$/+%%%

1'2/3(+#',"4+*&4+),-#4,5)4*+2+%)*+#',%!"8,*9*3"1,+%0*55%"55%4$%*1%,)$%,)*8.%#8".$%'8&2%,)$%+"2$%95"++8&&26%7,-.$1,+%*1%,)*+%95"++%8"1#$%'8&2%

+$:$1%,&%1*1$%/$"8+%&5.6%7,-.$1,+%0*55%1&,%4$%+$5$9,$.%'8&2%"1/%&,)$8%95"++8&&2%&8%#8".$%5$:$56%%%

"#'(&'*,*#,5)4*+2+%)*&,%A%#*:$%2/%9&1+$1,%'&8%2/%9)*5.;%BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB;%

,&%3"8,*9*3",$%*1%,)$%8$+$"89)%38&C$9,%.$+98*4$.%"4&:$6%%A%-1.$8+,"1.%,)",%,)*+%3"8,*9*3",*&1%*+%:&5-1,"8/%"1.%,)",%A%2"/%0*,).8"0%2/%9&1+$1,%",%"1/%,*2$%0*,)&-,%3$1"5,/6%%A%"5+&%-1.$8+,"1.%,)",%2/%9)*5.%2"/%0*,).8"0%)*+D)$8%"++$1,%",%"1/%,*2$%0*,)&-,%3$1"5,/6%%

%%BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB%

7*#1",-8$%&'%!"8$1,%&8%<-,)&8*E$.%F$38$+$1,",*:$;%G",$%%%%

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB%7*#1",-8$%&'%A1:$+,*#",&8;%G",$%%

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB%%567897,91:;,<=>?,"=5179,=@,>?19,@=ABC,D775,=;7,8;E,A7>FA;,>?7,=>?7A,>=,>?7,1;G79>1:8>=A,

F$+$"89)%",%=$11$+"0%7,",$%>1*:$8+*,/%,)",%*1:&5:$+%)-2"1%3"8,*9*3"1,+%*+%9"88*$.%&-,%-1.$8%,)$%&:$8+*#),%&'%"1%A1+,*,-,*&1"5%F$:*$0%H&"8.6%%<..8$++%I-$+,*&1+%&8%38&45$2+%8$#"8.*1#%,)$+$%"9,*:*,*$+%,&%,)$%A1+,*,-,*&1"5%F$:*$0%H&"8.;%=$11$+"0%7,",$%>1*:$8+*,/;%JKKK%L)"+,"*1%F&".;%MKJJN;%=$11$+"0;%O<%

PKJQQRSSTJ;%UVWXY%WTWRNNVX6%

Documents

Multiplication Fluency 1 RUNNING HEAD: USING …...Multiplication Fluency 6 more interactive process. It allows students to discover math, science, social studies, and reading through