This meta-analysis extended the current literature regarding the effects of computer technology (CT) on mathematics achievement, with a particular focus on low-performing students. A total of 45 independent effect sizes extracted from 31 empirical studies based on a total of 2,044 low-performing students in K-12 classrooms were included in this meta-analysis. Consistent with previous reviews, this study suggested a statistically significant and positive effect of CT ( = 0.56) on low-performing students’ mathematics achievement. Of four CT types, the largest CT effect was found with problem-solving system ( = 0.86), followed by tutoring = 0.80), game-based intervention ( = .58), and computerized practice ( = .23). Furthermore, other moderators were found to explain variation in CT effects on low-performing students’ mathematics achievement. Study findings contributed to clarifying the effect of CT for low-performing students’ mathematics achievement. Implications for instructional design and practices are also discussed.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
2.
AECT Task Force on Definition and Terminology. (1977). Educational technology: Definition and glossary of terms. Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
3.
*AfzalM.GondalB.FatimaN. (2014).
The effect of computer based instructional technique for the learning of elementary level mathematics among high, average and low achievers. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT,
10(4), 3–51. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/150712/
4.
*AlexisE. G. (2015). State math and English assessments as predictors of high school students’ success in an online credit recovery program (Publication No. 3664494) [Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
5.
*ArnoldK. T. (2013). A comparison of Georgia criterion referenced competency test math scores between at-risk fifth grade students receiving computer-based math instruction and at-risk students not receiving computer-based math instruction (Publication No. 3602284) [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
6.
Bangert-DrownsR. L.KulikJ. A.KulikC.-L C. (1985).
Effectiveness of computer-based education in secondary schools. Computers in Human Behavior,
1(1), 59–68.
7.
*BaroodyA. J.EilandM. D.PurpuraD. J.ReidE. E. (2013).
Can computer-assisted discovery learning foster first graders’ fluency with the most basic addition combinations?American Educational Research Journal,
50(3), 533–573. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212473349
BayraktarS. (2001).
A Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
34(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782344
10.
BlokH.OostdamR.OtterM. E.OvermaatM. (2002).
Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research,
72(1), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072001101
11.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis.
John Wiley & Sons.
12.
*BosB. (2007).
The effect of the Texas instrument interactive instructional environment on the mathematical achievement of eleventh grade low achieving students. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
37(4), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.37.4.b
13.
*BrownR. (2018).
Using laptop technology to improve mathematical achievement rates: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
37(3), 217–238. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/178474/
14.
*BurnsM. K.KaniveR.DeGrandeM. (2012).
Effect of a computer-delivered math fact intervention as a supplemental intervention for math in third and fourth grades. Remedial and Special Education,
33(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510381652
15.
ByunJ.JoungE. (2018).
Digital game‐based learning for K–12 mathematics education: A meta‐analysis. School Science and Mathematics,
118(3–4), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12271
16.
*ChangK.-E.SungY.-T.LinS.-F. (2006).
Computer-assisted learning for mathematical problem solving. Computers & Education,
46(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.002
17.
*ChappellS.ArnoldP.NunneryJ.GrantM. (2015).
An examination of an online tutoring program’s impact on low-achieving Middle school students’ mathematics achievement. Online Learning,
19(5), 37–53. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085790.pdf
18.
ChauhanS. (2017).
A Meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Computers & Education,
105, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.005
19.
CheungA. C. K.SlavinR. E. (2013).
The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K–12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review,
9, 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
20.
ChristmannE. P.BadgettJ. L. (2003).
A meta-analytic comparison of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on elementary students’ academic achievement. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual,
2003(1), 91–104. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/18866/
21.
CibulkaJ. G.CooperB. S. (Eds.). (2017). Technology in school classrooms: How it can transform teaching and student learning today.
Rowman & Littlefield.
22.
CohenJ. (1960).
A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
20(1), 37–46.
23.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Erlbaum.
24.
ColeyR.CradlerJ.EngelP. K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED412893.pdf
25.
CookL. L. (2008). Increasing middle grades math achievement through effective teaching practices (Publication No. 3288765) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
26.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of research synthesis.
Russell Sage Foundation.
27.
Core Team R. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 4.0.2). The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
DemirS.BaşolG. (2014).
Effectiveness of computer-assisted mathematics education (CAME) over academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,
14(5), 2026–2035.
31.
*FedeJ. L.PierceM. E.MatthewsW. J.WellsC. S. (2013).
The effects of a computer-assisted, schema-based instruction intervention on word problem-solving skills of low-performing fifth grade students. Journal of Special Education Technology,
28(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341302800102
32.
Fletcher-FlinnC. M.GravattB. (1995).
The efficacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
12(3), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.2190/51D4-F6L3-JQHU-9M31
33.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamletC. L.PowellS. R.CapizziA. M.SeethalerP. M. (2006).
The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
39(5), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390050701
34.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009).
Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research,
79(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
35.
GoldbergA.RussellM.CookA. (2003).
The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment,
2(1), 3–51.
36.
GrayL.ThomasN.LewisL. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009. (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509514.pdf
37.
*HarrisT. D. (2011). An integrated learning system: Impact on at-risk students’ ninth grade TAKS mathematics achievement (Publication No. 539330) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
38.
HartleyS. S. (1977). Meta-analysis of the effects of individually paced instruction in mathematics [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Colorado.
39.
*Hassler HallstedtM.KlingbergT.GhaderiA. (2018).
Short and long-term effects of a mathematics tablet intervention for low performing second graders. Journal of Educational Psychology,
110(8), 1127–1148. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000264
40.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G. (2002).
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine,
21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
41.
HigginsK.Huscroft-D’AngeloJ.CrawfordL. (2019).
Effects of technology in mathematics on achievement, motivation, and attitude: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
57(2), 283–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117748416
42.
HobbsR. M. (2012). Improving problem-solving techniques for students in low-performing schools (Publication No. 3493910) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
43.
HsuY.-C. (2003).
The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in statistics education: A meta-analysis [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona]. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,
64(5-A), 1526.
44.
*HuangT.-H.LiuY.-C.ChangH.-C. (2012).
Learning achievement in solving word-based mathematical questions through a computer-assisted learning system. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
15(1), 248–259. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.15.1.248
45.
HwangW.-Y.ChenN.-S.HsuR.-L. (2006).
Development and evaluation of multimedia whiteboard system for improving mathematical problem solving. Computers & Education,
46(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.05.005
46.
JitendraA. K.LeinA. E.ImS.-H.AlghamdiA. A.HefteS. B.MouanoutouaJ. (2018).
Mathematical interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children,
84(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917737467
47.
*KaniveR.NelsonP. M.BurnsM. K.YsseldykeJ. (2014).
Comparison of the effects of computer-based practice and conceptual understanding interventions on mathematics fact retention and generalization. The Journal of Educational Research,
107(2), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.759405
48.
*KarnerM. L. (2016). An analysis of the effectiveness of ALEKS within a high school mathematics setting (Publication No. 10194365) [Doctoral dissertation, Aurora University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
49.
KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E. H. (2003).
Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education,
24(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020501
50.
KulikC.-L C.KulikJ. A. (1991).
Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior,
7(1–2), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(91)90030-5
51.
KulikJ. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O’Neil (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9–34). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52.
KulikJ. A.KulikC.-L C.Bangert-DrownsR. L. (1985).
Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior,
1(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(85)90007-X
53.
KulikJ. A.KulikC.-L C.CohenP. A. (1980).
Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research,
50(4), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050004525
54.
Lantz-AnderssonA.LinderothJ.SäljöR. (2009).
What’s the problem? Meaning making and learning to do mathematical word problems in the context of digital tools. Instructional Science,
37(4), 325–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9050-0
55.
LarwinK.LarwinD. (2011).
A meta-analysis examining the impact of computer-assisted instruction on postsecondary statistics education: 40 years of research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
43(3), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782572
56.
*LehJ. (2011). Mathematics word problem solving: An investigation into schema-based instruction in a computer-mediated setting and a teacher-mediated setting with mathematically low-performing students (Publication No. 3439742) [Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
57.
*LehJ. M.JitendraA. K. (2013).
Effects of computer-mediated versus teacher-mediated instruction on the mathematical word problem-solving performance of third-grade students with mathematical difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly,
36(2), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712461447
58.
LiQ.MaX. (2010).
A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review,
22(3), 215–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8
59.
LiaoY.-K C. (2007).
Effects of computer-assisted instruction on students’ achievement in Taiwan: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education,
48(2), 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.12.005
60.
LouY.AbramiP. C.d’ApolloniaS. (2001).
Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
71(3), 449–521. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003449
61.
*LuftC. D. B.GomesJ. S.PrioriD.TakaseE. (2013).
Using online cognitive tasks to predict mathematics low school achievement. Computers & Education,
67, 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.001
Means, B. (Ed.). (1994). The technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise.
Jossey-Bass.
64.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G.; PRISMA Group. (2009).
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine,
6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
65.
*Moyer-PackenhamP.SuhJ. (2012).
Learning mathematics with technology: The influence of virtual manipulatives on different achievement groups. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching,
31(1), 39–59. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/37643/
66.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM]. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts, and cultures. National Academies Press.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Offices. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
71.
National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9822
72.
NiemiecR.SamsonG.WeinsteinT.WalbergH. J. (1987).
The effects of computer-based instruction in elementary schools: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
20(2), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1987.10781826
OkM. W.BryantD. P. (2016).
Effects of a strategic intervention with iPad practice on the multiplication fact performance of fifth-grade students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
39(3), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715598285
75.
*OuthwaiteL. A.GullifordA.PitchfordN. J. (2017).
Closing the gap: Efficacy of a tablet intervention to support the development of early mathematical skills in UK primary school children. Computers & Education,
108, 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.011
PerkinsJ.GilmanD. A. (2002).
Discourse technology: An evaluation of math technology and proficiency scores for Worthington City schools. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475145.pdf
78.
RakesC. R.ValentineJ. C.McGathaM. B.RonauR. N. (2010).
Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
80(3), 372–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310374880
79.
*RäsänenP.SalminenJ.WilsonA. J.AunioP.DehaeneS. (2009).
Computer-assisted intervention for children with low numeracy skills. Cognitive Development,
24(4), 450–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.09.003
80.
ReusserK. (1996). From cognitive modeling to the design of pedagogical tools. In S. Vosnadiou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Eds.), International perspectives on the design of technology supported learning environments (pp. 81–104). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
81.
*ReynoldsJ. L. (2010).
The effects of computerized instruction and systematic presentation and review of math fact acquisition and fluency (Publication No. 3440726) [Doctoral dissertation, Central Michigan University].
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
82.
RobottiE.Baccaglini-FrankA. (2017). Using digital environments to address students’ mathematical learning difficulties. In E. Faggiano, F. Ferrara, & A. Montone (Eds.), Innovation and technology enhancing mathematics education: Perspectives in the digital era (pp. 77–106). Springer.
83.
RosenthalR. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 232–243). Russell Sage Foundation.
84.
RutherfordT.FarkasG.DuncanG.BurchinalM.KibrickM.GrahamJ.RichlandL.TranN.SchneiderS.DuranL.MartinezM. E. (2014).
A randomized trial of an elementary school mathematics software intervention: Spatial-temporal math. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
7(4), 358–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.856978
*SalminenJ.KoponenT.RäsänenP.AroM. (2015a).
Preventive support for kindergarteners most at-risk for mathematics difficulties: Computer-assisted intervention. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
17(4), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2015.1083837
87.
*SalminenJ. B.KoponenT. K.LeskinenM.PoikkeusA. M.AroM. T. (2015b).
Individual variance in responsiveness to early computerized mathematics intervention. Learning and Individual Differences,
43, 124–131). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.09.002
88.
SchenkerJ. D. (2007). The effectiveness of technology use in statistics instruction in higher education: A meta-analysis using hierarchical linear modeling (Document No. kent1194979182) [Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University]. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1194979182
89.
*ShinN.SutherlandL. M.NorrisC. A.SolowayE. (2012).
Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology,
43(4), 540–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01197.x
SlavinR. E.LakeC. (2008).
Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
78(3), 427–455. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308317473
92.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.GroffC. (2009).
Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
79(2), 839–911. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330968
93.
SosaG. W.BergerD. E.SawA. T.MaryJ. C. (2011).
Effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in statistics: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
81(1), 97–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310378174
94.
Steenbergen-HuS.CooperH. (2013).
A Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105(4), 970–987. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0032447
95.
SwanK.GuerreroF.MitraniM.SchoenerJ. (1990).
Honing in on the target: Who among the educationally disadvantaged benefits most from what CBI?Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
22(4), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1990.10781929
96.
*TienkenC. H.MaherJ. A. (2008).
The influence of computer-assisted instruction on eighth grade mathematics achievement. RMLE Online,
32(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2008.11462056
97.
TraynorP. L. (2003).
Effects of computer-assisted-instruction on different learners. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
30(2), 137–143.
98.
*TsueiM. (2012).
Using synchronous peer tutoring system to promote elementary students’ learning in mathematics. Computers & Education,
58(4), 1171–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.025
99.
TuckerS. I. (2018). Applying the modification of attributes, affordances, abilities, and distance for learning framework to a child’s multi-touch interactions with an idealized number line. In L. Ball, P. Drijvers, S. Ladel, H.-S. Siller, M. Tabach, & C. Vale (Eds.), Uses of technology in primary and secondary mathematics education (pp. 35–57). Springer.
100.
VeronikiA. A.JacksonD.ViechtbauerW.BenderR.BowdenJ.KnappG.KussO.HigginsJ. P. T.LanganD.SalantiG. (2016).
Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods,
7(1), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1164
101.
ViechtbauerW. (2010).
Conducting Meta-analyses in R with the Metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software,
36(3), 1–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
102.
WilsonA. J.DehaeneS.DuboisO.FayolM. (2009).
Effects of an adaptive game intervention on accessing number sense in low‐socioeconomic‐status kindergarten children. Mind, Brain, and Education,
3(4), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01075.x
103.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K. (1999).
The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education,
32(4), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699903200402
104.
*YsseldykeJ.SpicuzzaR.KosciolekS.TeelucksinghE.BoysC.LemkuilA. (2003).
Using a curriculum-based instructional management system to enhance math achievement in urban schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,
8(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327671ESPR0802_4
105.
ZunkerL. J. (2008). Computer-based instruction and mathematics skills of elementary students with learning disabilities (Publication No. 3332683) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University-Kingsville]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
