A Comparison of 1:1 Flashcards and a Tablet App on Student Mathematics Proficiency

Abstract

There is a dearth of research comparing the effects of iPad technology and paper-and-pencil-delivered interventions on student mathematics outcomes. Nine studies have compared intervention modalities such as computer-mediated instruction and teacher-mediated instruction to examine differences in student performance, but only two of these have used iPad technology to do so and neither examined student fact fluency as the outcome. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of an iPad-based versus a paper-and-pencil-based flashcard intervention on the basic fact fluency of four second-grade boys within a Midwestern US charter school. Using an adapted alternating treatments design, three conditions were compared: iPad-delivered flashcards, paper-and-pencil-based flashcards, and a control condition. The results suggest that for three of four students, there was no difference in gains between treatment conditions, and both were more successful than the no-treatment control. Descriptive data on the acceptability and number of opportunities to respond between intervention modalities are described.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 4.5 Million (and Counting) iPads in U.S. Schools. (2013). In EdSurge. Retrieved November 23, 2019, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2013-03-01-4-5-million-and-counting-ipads-in-u-s-schools

  2. Bahrick, H. P., Hall, L. K., & Baker, M. K. (2013). Life-span maintenance of knowledge. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Begeny, J. C., Krouse, H. E., Ross, S. G., & Mitchell, R. C. (2009). Increasing elementary-aged students’ reading fluency with group-based interventions: A comparison of repeated reading, listening passage preview, and listening only strategies. Journal of Behavioral Education,18(3), 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral Fluency: Evolution of a New Paradigm. The Behavior Analyst19(2), 163–197.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bouck, E. C., Chamberlain, C., & Park, J. (2017). Concrete and app-based manipulatives to support students with disabilities with subtraction. Education and Training in autism and Developmental Disabilities,52(3), 317.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. L. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review,35(3), 401.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cates, G. L. (2005). Effects of peer versus computer-assisted drill on mathematics response rates. Psychology in the Schools,42(6), 637–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Christ, T. J., Scullin, S., Tolbize, A., & Jiban, C. L. (2008). Implications of recent research: Curriculum-based measurement of math computation. Assessment for Effective Intervention,33(4), 198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Christle, C. A., & Schuster, C. A. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation, academic achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education,12(3), 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Codding, R. S., Archer, J., & Connell, J. (2010). A systematic replication and extension using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education,19(1), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Codding, R. S., Burns, M. K., & Lukito, G. (2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,26(1), 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Codding, R. S., Volpe, R., Martin, R. J., & Krebs, G. (2019). Enhancing mathematics fluency: Comparing the spacing of practice sessions with the number of opportunities to respond. School Psychology Review,48, 88–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Codding, R. S., Volpe, R. J., & Poncy, B. C. (2017). Effective math interventions: A guide to improving whole-number knowledge. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cooke, N. L., & Reichard, S. M. (1996). The Effects of Different lnterspersal Drill Ratios on Acquisition and Generalization of Multiplication and Division Facts. Education and Treatment of Children, 124–142.

  15. Cosden, M., Gannon, C., & Haring, T. G. (1995). Teacher-control versus student-control over choice of tasks and reinforcement for students with severe behavior problems. Journal of Behavioral Education,5(1), 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Crowe, A. R. (2010). “What's math got to do with it?”: Numeracy and social studies education. The Social Studies,101(3), 105–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review,36(4), 562.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Daly III, E. J., Martens, B. K., Witt, J. C., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review26(4), 554–574.

    Google Scholar 

  19. DeFouw, E. R., Codding, R. S., Collier-Meek, M. A., & Gould, K. M. (2018). Examining dimensions of treatment intensity and treatment fidelity in mathematics intervention research for students at risk. Remedial and Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518774801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Minneapolis: Leadership Training Institute. Special Education, University of Minnesota.

  21. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Eckert, T. L., Dunn, E. K., & Ardoin, S. P. (2006). The effects of alternate forms of performance feedback on elementary-aged students’ oral reading fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education,15(3), 148–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Eckert, T. L., Hier, B. O., Hamsho, N. F., & Malandrino, R. D. (2017). Assessing children’s perceptions of academic interventions: The kids intervention profile. School Psychology Quarterly,32(2), 268.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education,41(2), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children,38(1), 57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly,41(1), 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly,31(2), 79–92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Schatschneider, C., Hamlett, C. L., et al. (2013). Effects of first-grade number knowledge tutoring with contrasting forms of practice. Journal of Educational Psychology,105(1), 58.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fuson, K. C., & Brinko, K. T. (1985). The comparative effectiveness of microcomputers and flash cards in the drill and practice of basic mathematics facts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,16, 225–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools. NCEE 2009–4060. What Works Clearinghouse.

  32. Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education,33(1), 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gersten, R., Clarke, B., Jordan, N. C., Newman-Gonchar, R., Haymond, K., & Wilkins, C. (2012). Universal screening in mathematics for the primary grades: Beginnings of a research base. Exceptional Children,78(4), 423–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hains, A. H., & Baer, D. M. (1989). Interaction effects in multielement designs: Inevitable, desirable, and ignorable. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,22(1), 57–69.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haring, N. G. (1978). Research in the classroom: Problems and procedures. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 1–22). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hattie, J. A. C., & Learning, V. (2009). A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Haydon, T., Hawkins, R., Denune, H., Kimener, L., McCoy, D., & Basham, J. (2012). A comparison of iPads and worksheets on math skills of high school students with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders,37(4), 232–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Heering, P. W., & Wilder, D. A. (2006). The use of dependent group contingencies to increase on-task behavior in two general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children,29, 459–468.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children,71(2), 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Krosnick, J. A., & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly,51(2), 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research,58(1), 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Landeen, J. J., & Adams, D. A. (1988). Computer-assisted drill and practice for behaviorally handicapped learners: Proceed with caution. Education and Treatment of Children,11, 218–229.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Martens, B. K., Lochner, D. G., & Kelly, S. Q. (1992). The effects of variable-interval reinforcement on academic engagement: A demonstration of matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,25(1), 143–151.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mattoon, C., Bates, A., Shifflet, R., Latham, N., & Ennis, S. (2015). Examining computational skills in prekindergarteners: The effects of traditional and digital manipulatives in a prekindergarten classroom. Early Childhood Research & Practice,17(1), n1.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mellard, D., McKnight, M., & Jordan, J. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 217–225.

  48. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). International data explorer,2015 Trends in international mathematics and science study [TIMSS]. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://nces.ed.gov/timss/idetimss/.

  49. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP),2017 mathematics assessment. Retrieved September 8, 2019, from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/.

  50. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (Ed.). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics (Vol. 1). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  51. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html

  52. Pearson, N. C. S. (2004). Curriculum based measurement writing. AIMSweb. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://aimsweb.pearson.com/downloads/AdminAndScoringWE-CBM.pdf.

  53. Petersen-Brown, S. M., Henze, E. E., Klingbeil, D. A., Reynolds, J. L., Weber, R. C., & Codding, R. S. (2019). The use of touch devices for enhancing academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychology in the Schools,56(7), 1187–1206.

  54. Podell, D. M., Tournaki-Rein, N., & Lin, A. (1992). Automatization of mathematics skills via computer-assisted instruction among students with mild mental handicaps. Education and Training in Mental Retardation,17, 200–206.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Poncy, B. C., & Skinner, C. H. (2011). Enhancing first-grade students’ addition-fact fluency using class wide cover, copy, and compare, a sprint, and group rewards. Journal of Applied School Psychology,27(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (1994a). Increasing the quality of educational intervention research. Educational Psychology Review,6(3), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (1994b). More about increasing the quality of educational intervention research: A synthesis. Educational Psychology Review,6(3), 271–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Price, G. R., Mazzocco, M. M., & Ansari, D. (2013). Why mental arithmetic counts: Brain activation during single digit arithmetic predicts high school math scores. Journal of Neuroscience,33(1), 156–163.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Quizlet Inc. (2017). Quizlet plus (version 3.7.1) (Mobile application software). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/quizlet-flashcards/id546473125?mt=8.

  60. Rich, S. E. H., Duhon, G. J., & Reynolds, J. (2017). Improving the generalization of computer-based math fluency building through the use of sufficient stimulus exemplars. Journal of Behavioral Education,26(2), 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Shinn, M. R. (2004). Administration and scoring manual CBM. AIMSweb.

  63. Silva, M., (2017). Exploring the effect of intervention choice on academic performance and student acceptability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

  64. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children,8, 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Skinner, C. H. (2010). Applied comparative effectiveness researchers must measure learning rates: A commentary on efficiency articles. Psychology in the Schools,47(2), 166–172.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Stickney, E. M., Sharp, L. B., & Kenyon, A. S. (2012). Technology-enhanced assessment of math fact automaticity: Patterns of performance for low-and typically achieving students. Assessment for Effective Intervention,37(2), 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams-Wilson, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(1), 54.

  68. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2007). Everyday mathematics. Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://Ieverydaymath.uchicago.edu/about/program_goals/.

  69. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2016). What works clearinghouse: Procedures and standards handbook (version 3.0). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://whatworks.ed.gov.

  70. VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention,30(3), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Wilson, R., Majsterek, D., & Simmons, D. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed instruction on the multiplication performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,29(4), 382–390.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Zhang, M., Trussell, R. P., Gallegos, B., & Asam, R. R. (2015). Using math apps for improving student learning: An exploratory study in an inclusive fourth grade classroom. TechTrends,59(2), 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The contents of this manuscript were developed under a grant from the US Department of Education, #H325D160016. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Sarah J. Allen, Ph.D.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kourtney R. Kromminga.

Ethics declarations

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the present study were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the participating University’s institutional review board. This study met the following category for exemption: (1) research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices. (Both the procedures involve normal education practices, and the objectives of the research involve normal educational practices.). IRB ID: STUDY00001337.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kromminga, K.R., Codding, R.S. A Comparison of 1:1 Flashcards and a Tablet App on Student Mathematics Proficiency. J Behav Educ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09392-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mathematics
  • Technology
  • iPad
  • Intervention
  • Single-case design