Int J of Sci and Math Educ

DOI 10.1007/s10763-016-9771-5

Engaging Primary School Students in Mathematics: Can

iPads Make a Difference?

Annette Hilton 1

Received: 22 March 2016 / Accepted: 22 August 2016

# Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2016

Abstract Research on the impact of the integration of technologies such as iPads on

primary students’ attitudes and engagement in mathematics is limited. Further, there
have been claims that teachers’ pedagogical choices can strongly influence the effec-
tiveness of iPads for engaging students in mathematics. This paper presents an inves-
tigation of the influence of teaching and learning mathematics with iPads on students’
attitudes and engagement in mathematics. The participants in this study were students
in a large urban primary school, implementing an iPad program for teaching and
learning across the curriculum. Surveys with five-point Likert-type items were used
to measure students’ attitudes to mathematics. Students from Years 2 to 6 completed the
survey at the beginning and end of two consecutive school years. Survey results
suggested that iPad use in mathematics has the potential to impact positively on
students’ attitudes to mathematics. At the end of the second year of the study, semi-
structured interviews were conducted with teachers and students. The interview re-
sponses confirmed that iPads had a positive influence on students’ engagement and
attitudes to mathematics, and that the pedagogical approaches utilised by teachers for
embedding iPads in their mathematics lessons contributed positively to these outcomes.

Keywords Primary school mathematics . iPads in mathematics . Engagement . Attitudes

to mathematics

Introduction

Information and communication technologies (ICT) are widespread in schools and their
use in mathematics classrooms is becoming more broad and varied. While such

* Annette Hilton
Annette.Hilton@uts.edu.au

1
International Research Centre for Youth Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Building 10,
Level 4, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
 A. Hilton

technologies have the potential to engage students, research results are mixed and
perhaps unsurprisingly, it has been shown that the teacher’s pedagogical approaches
have a strong influence on the potential of ICT to engage students in mathematics
(Attard & Northcote, 2011). Popularity of iPads in schools is continually growing due
to their ease of use; mobility; financial accessibility; their capacity to allow students to
work in flexible learning environments; and the availability of diverse applications,
many of which are cost-free (Ireland & Woollerton, 2010). Despite the continued
growth in iPad use in schools, there exists limited research on the learning outcomes
of iPad integration generally and in particular, its influence on primary school students’
attitudes to and engagement in mathematics (Attard & Curry, 2012).
This paper reports on the first 2 years of a 3-year phased program of iPad integration
across a large urban primary school in Queensland, Australia. In the first year of the
program, all children in at least one class in each year level, from Prep (the year before
Year 1) to Year 6, had their own iPads. The teachers who volunteered to teach these
classes also had their own iPads and were provided with substantial professional
development opportunities that focused on both technological and pedagogical aspects
of iPad integration across the curriculum. The second year of the program mirrored the
first, with additional classes in each year level becoming iPad classes. This program
represented a substantial financial investment for the school and parents. As such, it
was important to investigate a range of student outcomes to determine the effectiveness
of iPad integration across the school. This need was the impetus for the 2-year study
reported in this paper. The purpose of this paper is to focus specifically on the influence
of teaching and learning mathematics with iPads on students’ engagement and attitudes
to mathematics.

Background

Engagement in Mathematics

The extensive corpus of literature on student engagement is complicated by

numerous and nuanced definitions. Indeed, Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris
(2004) argued that an attempt to synthesise the literature is problematic as it
contains a Bproliferation of constructs, definitions, and measure of concepts that
differ slightly, thereby doing little to improve conceptual clarity^ (p. 60). Instead,
Fredricks et al. (2004) argued for the usefulness of considering engagement to be a
multidimensional construct, or a ‘meta’ construct that encompasses behavioural,
cognitive, and emotional engagement, adding that this may provide a richer
characterisation of children’s engagement than would a focus on individual com-
ponents. In considering this tension between conceptual clarity and practicality,
Fredricks et al. (2004) argued that the benefit of mixing concepts when measuring
engagement might outweigh the loss of conceptual clarity, especially in light of
the evidence that engagement is changeable and may be related to context. In
response to these arguments and as a result of a review of the engagement
literature, Attard (2014) defined engagement in mathematics as the ‘coming
together’ of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural engagement that leads to
students’ enjoyment and valuing of mathematics (p. 3). According to Attard
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

(2011), classroom engagement involves active participation and involvement in

classroom activities. Since this study focuses on engagement from the students’
and teachers’ perspectives, Attard’s definition of classroom engagement is adopted
in this paper.

Influences on Engagement

It has long been recognised that affective issues are central to mathematics
teaching and learning (McLeod, 1992). A large body of literature shows that
students have increased levels of engagement if they have positive attitudes to
mathematics, for example, high mathematical self-perceptions and enjoyment of
mathematics (Adelson & McCoach, 2011; Goos, Dole & Geiger, 2012;
Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Usher & Pajares, 2006).
Achievement in mathematics has also been found to be positively related to these
factors, which adds another imperative to find ways to enhance students’ attitudes
and engagement in mathematics (Barkatsas, Kasimatis & Gialamas, 2009;
Commonwealth of Australia, 2008; Dowker, Bennett & Smith, 2012).
Unfortunately, research has shown that by the time children are in upper primary
school, they have developed attitudes to mathematics, which may influence both their
engagement and achievement in mathematics (Dowker et al., 2012; Eccles, Wigfield,
Harold & Blumenfeld, 1993). Research has also revealed more negative attitudes to
mathematics for female students (Frenzel, Pekrun & Goetz, 2007; Larkin & Jorgensen,
2015) and lowered levels of engagement in primary and secondary schooling (Attard &
Curry, 2012; Larkin & Jorgensen, 2015). A worrying finding from recent research
showed that negative attitudes and disengagement may develop even earlier than
previously thought (Larkin & Jorgensen, 2015). Taken together, these research findings
suggest that it is important to investigate ways to enhance children’s mathematical
engagement and their attitudes to mathematics.
Although much is known about attitudes in general and there is much research
interest in students’ mathematical attitudes in particular, there exist very few studies
or psychometrically validated instruments that allow researchers to measure prima-
ry school students’ attitudes in mathematics (Adelson & McCoach, 2011; Larkin &
Jorgensen, 2015). This is of concern given that as early as Year 3 many students
have formed perceptions of themselves as learners of mathematics (Adelson &
McCoach, 2011). Over a period of several years, Adelson and McCoach (2011)
sought to address this need by developing and validating the Math and Me Survey,
which was designed for use with primary school students from 8 years of age to
measure two key aspects of their attitudes to mathematics: self-perceptions and
enjoyment. The authors of this instrument defined mathematical self-perceptions as
Ba person’s perceptions of self as a mathematical learner, including beliefs about his
or her ability to learn and to perform well in mathematics^ (Adelson & McCoach,
2011, p. 226). They defined enjoyment of mathematics as Bthe degree to which a
person takes pleasure in doing and learning mathematics^ (Adelson & McCoach,
2011, p. 44). Their decision to focus on mathematical self-perceptions and enjoy-
ment of mathematics stemmed from the fact that these aspects have not been widely
researched and yet they are known to have a strong influence on students’ engage-
ment and achievement in mathematics.
 A. Hilton

Mobile Technology in Mathematics Learning

Given that mobile devices are ubiquitous in students’ lives beyond school, it makes
sense to identify ways to harness the affordances of these technologies for use in
classrooms and to examine their impact on students. Of particular interest is the
potential for such technologies to engage students in learning (Donaldson, 2012).
Allowing students to use tablet devices is believed to lead to an increase in students’
motivation (Kunzler, 2011), and according to Couse and Chen (2010), technology use
has a positive impact on students’ self-perceptions. However, Attard and Curry (2012)
noted the limited evidence about the capacity of iPad integration to enhance primary
school students’ mathematical engagement. Although engaging students through the
integration of technology into mathematics lessons is a growing area of research
interest, to date, the research on the impact of technology, and particularly mobile
technologies, on students’ engagement in and attitudes to mathematics remains quite
limited and more research is needed to investigate their impact (Fabian, Topping &
Barron, 2016; Handal et al., 2014).
Of the studies that have been conducted, few have focused on the impact of iPad use
on attitudes and engagement and even fewer have been conducted in primary school
classrooms or in mathematics (see Fabian et al., 2016). The majority of studies have
focused on middle to upper secondary school; specific learning activities (e.g. Franklin
& Peng, 2008); university level students (e.g. van Oostveen, Muirhead & Goodman,
2011); or on students with particular difficulties, such as emotional disturbance (see
Kyanka-Maggart, 2013) or cognitive disabilities (e.g. O’Malley et al., 2013; Shah,
2011). Oliver and Corn (2008) conducted a 2-year study into middle school students’
tablet use and found that utilising tablets had a positive influence on students’ attitudes
and engagement. According to Singer (2015), using mobile devices can provide
positive experiences that improve students’ attitudes to mathematics. Attard and
Curry (2012) conducted a qualitative study during a 6-month trial of iPad incorporation
into a Year 3 mathematics classroom and found that integrating iPads into teaching and
learning appeared to have a positive influence on the students’ engagement; however,
they highlighted the need for further investigation into the use of iPads for mathematics
and the pedagogies associated with their use.

Teaching Mathematics with Technology

Researchers have emphasised the need for effective pedagogies to accompany the use
of technology in mathematics classrooms and have highlighted the different ways in
which teachers adopt tablets in their classrooms (see Attard, 2015; Oliver & Corn,
2008). Clearly, it is not sufficient to assume that the mere introduction of technologies,
such as mobile tablets, into the mathematics classroom will enhance engagement in
mathematics. Indeed, Attard and Northcote (2011) noted that ICT might even have a
negative impact on students’ engagement in mathematics, for example, if the teaching
focuses on the technology rather than the mathematics (for example, learning how to
use the device itself rather than using it for learning mathematical concepts). Attard
(2013a) also cautioned that the effectiveness of mobile devices, such as iPads, for
mathematics learning depends on the types of applications (apps) used, and argued that
those based on games or drill-and-practice activities give students few opportunities to
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

use problem solving skills or to reflect on their learning. According to Attard (2013b),
when iPad activities do not involve an appropriate level of challenge, students’
engagement is limited.
Following a longitudinal study of middle years mathematics students, Attard (2014)
devised the Framework for Engagement with Mathematics (FEM) to describe the
pedagogies necessary for engaging students in mathematics. She highlighted the
potential of mobile tablets for providing new opportunities for teachers to engage
students in activities that align with the FEM, which emphasises features of pedagogies
that Attard believes necessary for engaging students in mathematics learning, including
teachers acknowledging students’ backgrounds and learning needs; high levels of
student-student and student-teacher interactions; timely and constructive feedback;
opportunities for substantive conversations about mathematics; student tasks that are
challenging and have an element of choice; embedded technology to promote student-
centred learning; and varied tasks that cater for diverse learning needs. According to
Attard, these pedagogies go beyond the use of particular resources in the classroom to
reflect the level of pedagogical relationships that are essential to promoting students’
engagement. Because teachers have a powerful influence on student engagement
(Hattie, 2003), it is clear that while iPads have the potential to enhance attitudes and
engagement, their influence cannot be considered in isolation of the pedagogies used in
the mathematics classroom. It is also important to obtain students’ perceptions of their
learning environment because these perceptions provide an insight into how the
learning environment influences their engagement (Attard, 2011).

Research Questions

The data reported here are from a broader study, which focused on numerous effects of
integrating iPads on numeracy teaching and learning across the curriculum. The focus
of this paper is on the influence of teaching and learning with iPads on students’
attitudes and engagement in mathematics. To fully address this focus, the paper also
describes the pedagogical choices of teachers that may have contributed to students’
engagement. The research questions addressed are as follows:

1. Is there a difference in attitudes to mathematics of students in iPad and non-iPad

classes at the end of either year of the iPad program?
2. What aspects of learning with iPads enhance students’ engagement in
mathematics?
3. What pedagogical choices regarding the use of iPads in mathematics appear to
influence students’ engagement in mathematics?

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were students in mixed gender and ability classes from
Years 2 to 6 (aged 7 to 11 years) at an urban government school with students from
 A. Hilton

mixed socio-economic backgrounds. This school was chosen because it was embarking
on a phased introduction of iPads. In the first year of this introduction (2014), all
students in at least one class per grade had a personal iPad, purchased by the child’s
parents or carers. A total of 405 students from Years 2 to 6 completed a survey at the
beginning and end of the school year (264 students in non-iPad classes and 141
students in iPad classes). The numbers of boys and girls were approximately equal.
In the second year of the study, an additional iPad class was formed in each grade. A
total of 424 students completed the 2015 pre- and post- surveys (118 students in non-
iPad classes, 150 students in iPad classes in 2014 and 2015, and 156 students from iPad
classes in 2015 only). The iPad classes formed in 2015 contained a mix of students who
had joined the program in its first and second years. The teachers who taught iPad
classes in both 2014 and 2015 were involved in the study (seven teachers). These
teachers were all female, ranging in classroom experience from less than 5 years to over
20 years.

Data Collection

Maths and Me Surveys. The Math and Me Survey (Adelson & McCoach, 2011)
consists of 18 items used to measure students’ attitudes to mathematics (to address
Research Question 1). The authors of the survey gave permission for its use. The
instrument employs five-point Likert-type items (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neither
agree nor disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with negatively worded questions being reverse
coded. Through multiple studies, the authors of the survey conducted content valida-
tion, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and reliability and validity analyses
to develop the final survey, which consists of two scales: Enjoyment of Mathematics
(10 items) and Mathematical Self-Perceptions (8 items). The survey was designed to be
appropriate in terms of reading level for primary school children from Years 3 to 6.
Prior to its administration, the participant school leadership team reviewed the survey to
ensure its suitability in terms of content and readability. Although iPads were introduced
from Prep to Year 6 in the study school, due to readability concerns, it was considered
inappropriate to administer it to children in Year 1 and the preparatory year. Class teachers
were briefed and given written instructions prior to administration of the survey, which
was implemented at the beginning and end of both the 2014 and 2015 school years.
Students completed the survey in class with their own teacher, who provided clarification
as needed. The time to complete the survey varied from 20 to 30 min, depending on the
grade. Across all classes, each survey was administered on the same day each time.

Semi-Structured Interviews. The purpose of the semi-structured interviews was to

collect data related to Research Questions 2 and 3. Toward the end of the second year of
the program, all iPad class teachers who had been involved for both years and a sample
of students from iPad classes were interviewed. The teachers were asked questions
about their students’ learning and engagement in mathematics with iPads and the
teaching strategies and resources employed when iPads were used during mathematics
lessons. Interviews were approximately 40 min in length. Ten students (five boys and
five girls) were interviewed about learning mathematics with iPads. The questions
focused on whether they enjoyed learning mathematics with iPads, whether they felt
learning with iPads helped them in mathematics, and the approaches or tools used by
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

their teachers when iPads were utilised in the mathematics classroom. The students
came from Years 4 to 6. Three students had joined an iPad class in 2015 while the other
seven students had been in an iPad class in both years of the program. The student
interviews were about 20 min in length. The selection of students was not entirely
random; the school provided the names of students who had returned interview consent
forms and students were randomly selected from that list. The researchers had no
knowledge of students’ achievement levels or backgrounds.

Data Analysis

The Maths and Me Surveys. Factor analysis was conducted on each of the four
surveys to ensure that the scales on them aligned with the original scales on the
Adelson and McCoach (2011) instrument. Having established that this was the case,
the Cronbach’s alpha value for each set of surveys was calculated to ensure internal
consistency of the scales on each instrument. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were
used to make comparisons between groups on each pre- and post-survey administered.
Comparison within groups from pre- to post-surveys in each year utilised t tests. The
use of parametric statistics was considered appropriate in this case because the scores
from items were combined to create mean scores for each of the two scales. According
to Norman (2010), while scores on Likert items are ordinal, Likert scales, which consist
of sums across multiple items, can be considered interval and the use of parametric
statistics in this case is both justified and robust.

The Semi-Structured Interviews. The interview data that are presented in this paper
relate to student engagement and the pedagogical approaches of teachers. All interview
responses were transcribed verbatim. They were analysed using NVivo software to
code the data into themes. To address Research Question 2, the responses that were
coded into themes relating to student engagement were selected and analysed further to
identify specifically how the affordances of iPads promoted students’ engagement.
Attard’s (2014) FEM was used to code the responses of both teachers and students to
address Research Question 3. To ensure the internal validity of the qualitative analysis,
coding in all steps was undertaken independently by two researchers. Outcomes were
compared and discussed, with re-coding where necessary until agreement was reached
(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000).

Results

Maths and Me Surveys

Factor Structure. In 2014, the initial factor analysis was conducted with all 18 items.
The principal component analysis, completed with Varimax rotation, produced a
solution that aligned with the original survey and consisted of two factors, with the
items associated with each being the same as those identified by Adelson and McCoach
(2011) (i.e. Factor 1: Enjoyment of Mathematics and Factor 2: Mathematical Self-
 A. Hilton

Perceptions). One item had a factor loading of less than .4 and did not load more
strongly on one factor than the other. Following the rule of thumb that items with a
loading of less than .4 should not be retained (Brace, Kemp & Snelgar, 2009;
Thompson, 2004), this item was omitted from the 2014 survey used in this study.
After omission of this item, component analysis was repeated (again with Varimax
rotation) for the pre- and post-surveys. The final items and the results of the second
component analysis are shown in Table 9 in Appendix A. This procedure was repeated
for the 2015 pre- and post-surveys, but in this case, all 18 items were retained. The
results of the component analysis for the 2015 surveys are shown in Table 10.
Table 1 reports on total variance explained for each factor on the surveys. Increasing
the number of factors did not increase the explanatory power in the case of any of the
surveys. Table 1 also shows Cronbach’s alpha values for each scale and overall values
for each administration of the survey. These values indicated reasonable to high internal
consistency for all items within each factor. The Cronbach’s alpha values for the overall
surveys indicate a high overall reliability for all four surveys.

The Pre-2014 Survey. When the responses of students in the non-iPad and iPad
cohorts on Scale 1 (Enjoyment of Mathematics) and Scale 2 (Mathematical Self-
Perceptions) were compared using t tests, there were no significant differences.
When the data were split by sex, there was a significant difference between the boys
and girls in the iPad cohort on the Mathematical Self-Perceptions scale (t = 2.222,
df = 140, p < .05, two-tailed). As shown in Table 2, while both boys and girls in the
iPad cohort were reasonably positive in their responses to this scale, boys had higher
mathematical self-perceptions than girls. There were no significant differences for the
non-iPad cohort. There were no differences between boys in iPad and non-iPad classes,
nor were there any for the girls in these different cohorts.

The Post-2014 Survey. Once again, t tests were used to compare the responses on
each scale on the post-2014 survey. Responses of students in the non-iPad and iPad

Table 1 Total variance and reliability coefficients for each survey

Survey Scale Total variance explained (%) Cronbach’s alpha

Pre-2014 Enjoyment 40.0 .83

Self-Perceptions 8.7 .79
Overall 48.7 .88
Post-2014 Enjoyment 51.6 .93
Self-Perceptions 10.9 .89
Overall 62.4 .94
Pre-2015 Enjoyment 46.5 .91
Self-Perceptions 8.8 .87
Overall 55.3 .93
Post-2015 Enjoyment 53.5 .92
Self-Perceptions 10.2 .92
Overall 63.6 .94
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

Table 2 Mean scores for Mathematical Self-Perceptions for boys and girls in the iPad cohort

Sex N Mean Standard deviation

Boys 72 3.77 .92

Girls 69 3.45 .80

cohorts on Scale 1 (Enjoyment of Mathematics) and Scale 2 (Mathematical Self-

Perceptions) were compared and there were no significant differences between the
two cohorts. On the post-2014 survey, there were no significant differences between
boys and girls in either cohort on either scale. Examination of the data for the students
in the iPad cohort revealed that the boys’ self-perceptions remained higher than those of
the girls but that the means for the two groups were closer together.
When the responses were compared for boys and girls separately, there were
significant differences between boys in the iPad and non-iPad cohorts on both
scales: Scale 1 (Enjoyment of Mathematics) (t = -2.010, df = 210, p < .05, two-
tailed); Scale 2 (Self-Perceptions) (t = −2.200, df = 210, p < .05, two-tailed).
The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 3. (While data were not
significantly different for the pre-2014 survey, pre-survey results are included to
illustrate differences between the groups). These differences did not exist for
the pre-survey, nor were there any differences between iPad and non-iPad girls
on either survey. Examination of the means shows that while the mean response
for the boys in iPad classes did not change from pre- to post-survey, the mean
response for the boys in the non-iPad classes dropped and these means were
significantly lower than the boys in the iPad classes on the post-survey.

Pre-Post 2014 Survey Comparison. Comparison of the pre-2014 and post-2014

survey responses revealed a significant difference between the non-iPad cohort’s
responses of the on the Enjoyment scale (t = 2.030, df = 262, p < .05, two-tailed).
The mean scores on this scale revealed a decrease in the enjoyment of mathematics for
the students in the non-iPad cohort. These data are shown in Table 4.
There were no significant differences pre- to post-2014 survey on either scale for the
iPad cohort. When the data were split by sex, there were no significant differences for
girls or boys from pre- to post-2014 survey.

Table 3 Mean scores for boys in iPad and non-iPad cohorts on the pre- and post-2014 surveys

Scale Class N Post-surveya Pre-survey

M SD M SD

1. Enjoyment of Mathematics iPad 72 3.87 1.09 3.82 1.03

non-iPad 140 3.54 1.19 3.78 1.10
2. Mathematical Self-Perceptions iPad 72 3.72 .79 3.77 .91
non-iPad 140 3.44 .99 3.58 .95

a
Only post-survey means are significantly different
 A. Hilton

Table 4 Mean scores on Enjoyment of Mathematics for the non-iPad cohort

Survey Mean Standard deviation

Pre-2014 3.74 1.00

Post-2014 3.57 1.06

The Pre-2015 Survey. Comparison among the non-iPad; 2015-only iPad; and
2014 – 2015 iPad cohorts was carried out using ANOVA. There were no significant
differences among whole cohorts or when the data were split by sex.

The Post-2015 Survey. As for the pre-2015 survey, ANOVA was used to compare the
responses of the three cohorts for each scale on the post-2015 survey. The results
revealed a significant difference on the Self-Perceptions scale (F(2, 421) = 3.229,
p < .05). Employing the Bonferroni post-hoc test, significant differences were found
between the non-iPad cohort and the 2014 – 2015 iPad cohort (p < .05) with the mean
for the iPad cohort being significantly higher than that of the non-iPad cohort. Means
and standard deviations are shown in Table 5.
Similar analysis by sex revealed no significant differences among the three cohorts
for the girls on either scale; however, there was a significant difference for the boys on
the Enjoyment of Mathematics scale (F(2, 207) = 3.321, p < .05). Employing the
Bonferroni post-hoc test, significant differences were found between the boys in the
non-iPad cohort and the boys in the 2014 – 2015 iPad cohort (p < .05) with the mean of
the iPad cohort again being significantly higher than that of the non-iPad cohort. These
data are shown in Table 6.
Comparison of boys and girls in each cohort using t tests showed that there was a
significant difference between the responses of the boys and girls in the 2014 – 2015
iPad cohort on the Enjoyment of Mathematics scale (t = 1.981, df = 148, p < .05). The
means and standard deviations are shown in Table 7. There were no significant
differences for the other cohorts on either scale.

Pre-Post 2015 Survey Comparison. There were no significant differences from pre-
to post-2015 for any cohort.

Semi-Structured Interviews

This section presents the results of interview response analysis in two sections. First,
the responses related to student engagement are presented. This is followed by common

Table 5 Mean scores on Self-Perceptions for the non-iPad and 2014 – 2015 iPad cohorts

Cohort N Mean Standard deviation

Non-iPad 118 3.47 .98

2014 – 2015 iPad 150 3.75 .87
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

Table 6 Mean scores on Enjoyment of Mathematics for boys in non-iPad and 2014 – 2015 iPad cohorts

Cohort N Mean Standard deviation

Non-iPad 62 3.45 1.26

2014 – 2015 iPad 73 3.95 0.99

themes that relate to teachers’ pedagogical approaches when using iPads in mathemat-
ics. All respondents are identified using pseudonyms.

Engagement. The responses of all students indicated high levels of engagement in

mathematics classes when using iPads. The following section describes themes that
reflect the ways in which the affordances of iPads and apps promote engagement. The
first of these is the capacity of iPads to provide an element of novelty and challenge.
The following student talked about having fun, being more interested, and feeling
challenged,

I really like learning maths with iPads—it’s fun—it’s like a challenge that’s fun at
the same time. …Because some of the things are hard but we get to use our iPads
or work with others with the mini whiteboard, it’s more fun. There’s not really
much I don’t like but I really think I’m more interested. (Carol, Year 6 student,
2014 – 2015 iPad cohort)

This comment reflects engagement in terms of enjoyment and motivation but it also
suggests a level of cognitive engagement with challenging tasks.
A second theme centred on the capacity of iPads activities to be individualised (e.g.
students can choose the level of difficulty), which enhances students’ sense of
ownership:

I love ShowBie [an iPad app] because we get different level tasks for different
people. It’s good because I’m higher than some of the other kids in the class …
we get to work on harder tasks while the others don’t have exactly the same level.
It leaves you with a challenge and it makes you more attached to your work.
(Sharon, Year 6 student, 2014 – 2015 iPad cohort)

The following response suggests that iPads help to maintain the engagement level of
students who might otherwise not be so engaged: ‘I think iPads are good for all kids. I
think it’s maybe even better for kids who don’t do so well or who aren’t so motivated
because it helps them with their learning’ (Nancy, Year 4 student, 2015 iPad class).

Table 7 Mean scores on Enjoyment of Mathematics for boys and girls in the 2014 – 2015 cohort

Sex N Mean Standard deviation

Boy 73 3.95 .99

Girl 77 3.60 1.16
 A. Hilton

The students were also enthusiastic about the level of variety and choice offered
within apps: ‘The thing I like about it is that it’s something different instead of just with
a book. You get to lots of different things and I feel that I have much more control over
my learning because we have more choice’ (Luke, Year 5 student, 2014 – 2015 iPad
cohort). This comment suggests that the element of choice when learning with iPads
engages students and promotes self-direction.
The teachers too were effusive about the levels of student engagement that they
perceived in their students. While they acknowledged that iPads were sometimes used
for drill and practice, particularly in mathematics, providing students with choices
within and among apps and providing opportunities for problem solving and creativity
were linked to increased levels of engagement:

I suppose there is a lot of drill and practice but we’ve just done assessment for
multiplication using Keynote and Pages and it was very creative. The kids were
so totally engaged. … They’re engaged in ‘How can I show this?’ ‘What can I do
that enhances what I’m doing?’ ‘Will I use photos or just words?’ (Rachel, Year 3
teacher)

This comment also suggests that the capacity of iPads to allow students to learn
through and with multimodalities and to use multiple modes when creating their own
products is a strongly engaging factor.
Other comments highlighted the capacity of iPads to engage students, even when
using drill and practice applications because of the immediate feedback provided by the
apps: ‘They are engaged in learning—with the Mathletics program, they can actually
see their points, and with Skoolbo—they can monitor their achievement as they go
along, so they’re getting feedback straight away on the apps they’re working on
(Tamsin, Year 2 teacher).
Several teachers’ comments reflected the notion that iPads can help to engage a
diverse range of students, including those with special needs because of the multiple
levels offered within apps. In some cases, particularly boys, the element of competition
also played a role in engagement. For example,

I have a little student who is possibly II [intellectually impaired] and he will

engage more with the iPad that without. He just sits with a piece of paper but
when he’s using the iPad, he’s still developing the concepts but he’s not switching
off so I do find that for the lower level learners, it can be helpful. Equally, those
students who are at the upper end will come and talk about their results and try to
improve. You can see them trying to push themselves further and trying to do
better all the time so I would say iPads engage a wide variety of learners. Boys
appear to be more into the technology than the girls—even when entering the
classroom at the beginning of the day—they’re straight on them. Girls like them
too but boys are more driven to look at their results and to try to outdo each other,
to compete with one another. (Tamsin, Year 2 teacher)

Pedagogical Approaches. Several themes emerged from the student and teacher
interviews that reflected the pedagogical approaches identified in the FEM and listed
earlier in this paper. In the interests of brevity, these are summarised in Table 8 with
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

representative quotes. The codes indicate how many students or teachers made com-
ments under each theme and the number of comments made, for example, S: 7(9)
means that seven students made a total of nine comments under the given theme.

Discussion

The majority of students in all cohorts had quite positive attitudes to mathematics
at the beginning and end of each year, although in some cases, the standard

Table 8 Common interview themes, frequency of response, and sample responses for each theme

Teacher awareness of abilities and learning needs T: 6(9); S: 4(4)

I see so many benefits—I think for lower achieving children, perhaps they’re more visual—and they have
progressed faster using iPads than I thought possible. It helps them communicate their understanding—the
iPad is a great tool for that. Some of the children have communication issues—they might know it verbally
but they can’t put it on paper so the iPad gives them a tool to help them communicate their thinking. (Fiona,
Prep Teacher)
Student-student and student-teacher interactions and substantive conversations T: 7(7); S: 7(9)
There’s a lot of sharing—there’s something on the iPad called Airplay and it connects to the interactive
whiteboard and we can see our iPad on the screen so we can explain what we did for others in the class.
(Brian, Year 6 student 1, 2014 – 2015 cohort)
Feedback to students T: 6(9); S: 5(5)
Our teacher puts our work on ShowBie and we can do it and click ‘done’. That lets her check it when she gets
home. (Mark, Year 4 student 2, 2014 – 2015 cohort)
When we’re finished those tasks, our teacher gets our work and she can check if we get them right or wrong
and that’s fun’ (Brian, Year 6 student 1, 2014 – 2015 cohort)
Variety of tasks T: 7(9); S: 6(10)
I really like the Mathletics app and Targeting Maths—they’re really good to help you learn because with both
of them you can do a variety of maths things. Targeting Maths lets you do numbers, shapes and patterns,
money, data and you can also do it timed … I think everyone in our class really likes being in the iPad class
because it’s different instead of just learning—there are lots of tasks and variety. (James, Year 6 student,
2014 – 2015 cohort)
Opportunities for challenge and choice T: 7(8); S: 8(14)
At the beginning of the year we just used a few apps but now they have five choices so they can decide which
one they’re more comfortable with or that will help them best with what they’re doing. It was lovely to see
my SEP [Special Education Program] child—the first time she just sailed through the task and she’s a child
with a lot of anxiety—but now she’s comfortable about what she’s using and that she understands and that’s
powerful. (Rachel, Year 3 Teacher)
Student-centred use of technology T: 7(15); S: 9(13)
We have an app called Explain Everything and you can put everything there—you can put photos, record your
voice—it’s like a slideshow thing so you can explain and record your voice while you’re moving things on
the screen to explain your thinking. I do think I learn more. There’s an app called Khan Academy and it’s
like this maths academy that posts videos about each topic in maths and you can look at them and then put
what you learned into your own presentation to explain it yourself—to represent it in your own way. (Brad,
Year 6 student, 2014 – 2015 cohort)
Differentiation/Catering for diverse learners T: 7(11); S: 6(12)
It’s great because I can differentiate so much more. For example, I can give all students the same tasks but the
higher kids can be working with three-digit numbers while the others are on two-digit numbers—it’s so
much easier to challenge them at the right level (Carolyn, Year 2 Teacher).
 A. Hilton

deviations are relatively high. The quantitative data collected to address Research
Question 1 also reveal a number of differences in enjoyment of mathematics and
mathematical self-perceptions between and among students in iPad and non-iPad
cohorts. At the beginning of study, the girls in the iPad cohort had significantly
lower mathematical self-perceptions than did the boys. This aligns with previous
findings in the literature that boys generally have higher mathematical self-
perceptions than do girls (e.g. Barkatsas et al., 2009; Kyriacou & Goulding,
2006; Preckel, Goetz, Pekrun & Kleine, 2008). This pattern was the same for
the students in the non-iPad cohort, although the difference was not significant. At
the end of 2014, the difference between the iPad cohort boys’ and girls’ self-
perceptions was no longer significant, which may suggest that membership in an
iPad class was beneficial for enhancing the girls’ mathematical self-perceptions.
Since much of the existing literature about girls and attitudes to technology or
mathematics shows that they have more negative self-perceptions in mathematics
and lower confidence in using technology to learn mathematics areas than do boys
(e.g. Barkatsas et al., 2009), this is an interesting finding.
Another interesting difference was noted in the first year of the study between
the boys in the iPad cohort and boys in the non-iPad cohort. At the beginning of
the study, there was no significant difference between the boys’ mean responses
in either cohort on either scale. However, at the end of 2014, they differed
significantly on both scales and in both cases, the attitudes of the boys in the
non-iPad classes were less positive than those of the boys in the iPad classes.
Closer inspection of the results for the iPad boys indicates that while being in
the iPad classes for a year did not improve their attitudes, which were already
generally positive, their attitudes were maintained. This contrasts with the results
for the boys in non-iPad classes whose attitudes became less positive over the
course of the year. This finding may indicate that participating in an iPad class
has the effect of helping to maintain boys’ positive attitudes to mathematics.
Similarly, the pre-post comparison data for 2014 suggest that learning mathe-
matics with iPads has a positive influence on students’ enjoyment of mathemat-
ics. The students in the iPad cohort maintained similar scores on the Enjoyment
scale, while the non-iPad cohort was significantly less positive at the end of the
year. These findings align with those in the literature regarding the positive
influence of tablet devices on students’ attitudes (e.g. Kunzler, 2011; Oliver &
Corn, 2008).
When the data for 2015 were examined, all significant differences occurred
between the non-iPad cohort and the cohort of students who had been in the iPad
program for 2 years. There were no significant differences for the 2015-only
cohort. This trend may indicate that membership in an iPad class over a longer
period of time has a greater influence on students’ attitudes. At the beginning of
2015, the second year of the program, there were no significant differences on
either scale among the cohorts; however, at the end of the year, the 2014 – 2015
iPad cohort had significantly more positive scores on the Self-Perceptions scale
than did the non-iPad cohort. Likewise, the boys in the iPad cohort had signifi-
cantly more positive scores on the Enjoyment of Mathematics scale. This contrasts
with the girls in the 2014 – 2015 iPad cohort. Their scores on the Enjoyment scale
remained similar across the 2 years but were significantly less positive than the
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

boys at the end of 2015. As with the 2014 data, these data suggest that member-
ship in iPad classes promotes positive mathematical self-perceptions for both girls
and boys and also promotes boys’ enjoyment of mathematics.
In summary, learning mathematics with iPads in this study had a positive
influence on students’ mathematical self-perceptions and boys’ enjoyment of
mathematics; however, the results are somewhat modest. Nevertheless, while the
use of iPads does not appear to have had a strong effect on improving children’s
attitudes in the short term, there were several significant differences at the end of
the second year between the students who had not been members of an iPad class
and those who had been in the iPad program for 2 years. Perhaps this finding is
related to the fact that students who have negative attitudes are likely to have
developed them over several years and it may be unrealistic to expect that the use
of iPads in the short term would impact significantly on their attitudes. At the
same time, for the iPad cohorts, attitudes from pre- to post-survey in each year did
not decrease significantly, which suggests that membership in an iPad class helped
to maintain students’ positive attitudes.
Research Question 2 focused on the students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the
influence of learning with iPads. It is clear from both teachers’ and students’
responses to the interview questions that both groups perceived iPads as having a
very positive influence on attitudes and engagement. The affordances of iPads
enhance students’ engagement because of novelty, challenge, and variety within
apps; the ability for students to work at an appropriate level; personal control
over learning; multimodalities; and immediate feedback. The students described
learning with iPads as fun, enjoyable, or exciting, while acknowledging that the
tasks were sometimes challenging. They also talked about having more control
and being self-directed, and they enjoyed getting immediate feedback from the
apps. They also talked frequently about being able to show their thinking, choose
the ways in which they could do this, and they were very positive about the
capacity of the iPads to allow them to collaborate or share with their classmates.
These comments suggest multiple reasons for students’ heightened levels of
engagement.
The teachers and students perceived that using iPads in mathematics had a
positive influence on engagement in the classroom. From the teachers’ perspec-
tives, there was a great deal of talk about engagement. All teachers felt that their
students were more engaged, with several teachers talking about the capacity of
iPads to engage particular students more effectively than traditional lessons might.
They noted that for certain students iPads are particularly powerful for supporting
students’ learning. These students included special education students, low ability
students, and students needing extension. The majority of teachers mentioned that
they felt the boys in their classes were more engaged than they might otherwise
be. Several students echoed this perception. Several girls also talked about how
much they felt the boys enjoyed learning with iPads. The boys who were
interviewed were enthusiastic about learning with iPads and gave many reasons
for this, including being able to compete with other students or to try to improve
on their own previous scores on certain apps; however, a commonly mentioned
reason for both boys and girls being engaged in mathematics when using the iPads
was the amount of control and choice they felt they had over their learning. Many
 A. Hilton

students and teachers spoke about drill and practice or gaming apps and their
potential for engagement. The teachers felt that using Targeting Maths and
Mathletics allowed students to engage in skill development and practice in a more
enjoyable way than simple rote learning. Indeed, these perceptions were echoed
by the students who often mentioned these apps as being enjoyable, allowing them
to set goals, gain instant feedback, monitor their progress, and compare their
progress with other students. These comments are counter to the claims made in
literature that the use of such apps don’t allow students to reflect on their learning
or that they may not challenge or engage students (e.g. Attard, 2013b).
Research Question 3 aimed to elaborate on the teachers’ pedagogical choices
regarding iPads that impacted on students’ engagement in mathematics. As has
been argued by Mishra and Koehler (2006), introducing technologies is not
sufficient in itself to bring about change in students’ outcomes or teachers’
practices. Teachers need to make a long-term commitment to learning when and
how technology should be included in teaching and learning processes (Goos &
Bennison, 2008; Pierce & Ball, 2009). According to Noyes (2012), students are
more likely to have positive attitudes to mathematics when student-centred ap-
proaches are used. Having established that the students and teachers perceived
levels of engagement in mathematics to be greater when using iPads, in order to
address Research Question 3 and determine whether the differences between iPad
and non-iPad cohorts are due to the use of iPads themselves or whether they are
also related to the use of iPads prompting the teachers to use different pedagogies,
it is necessary to further consider the interview data.
Certainly the interviews with teachers and students revealed that the teachers
had changed their approaches to teaching mathematics and that their mathematics
classes were characterised by student-centred learning. When the data were
analysed in terms of pedagogical approaches, there was a close alignment with
Attard’s (2014) FEM. There were recurring comments that reflected a strong
student-centred approach, which was characterised by teachers responding to
individual students’ needs; frequent opportunities for student-student and
student-teacher interaction; timely and constructive feedback; substantive conver-
sations about mathematical thinking; opportunities for students to be challenged
and to make choices in their learning; and differentiated learning opportunities.
Teachers utilised the affordances of different apps (such as iTunesU and Showbie)
to differentiate learning, to cater for individual needs, to provide scaffolding for
students who needed learning support or access to extension materials for advanced
students, and to provide opportunities for students to revisit material about which they
were unsure. They also devised activities to promote self-directed learning and student
choice, to encourage collaboration and discussion among students, and to challenge
students. There was a high emphasis on sharing and on making students’ thinking
visible and this was frequently mentioned by students as well as teachers. The teachers
identified apps that provided a range of modes through which students could show their
learning and students were free to choose the mode through which they created
assessment products.
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

It should also be mentioned that the teachers didn’t see iPads as a cure-all. They
were very aware that the iPads should be viewed as one of a number of tools for
learning mathematics and all were quick to emphasise that iPads are not used all
the time, with continued emphasis on using concrete materials, developing stu-
dents’ social and fine motor skills, promoting class discussion, and recognising
that there were other ‘non-iPad’ ways for students to show their understanding.
Perhaps the most telling response by teachers was that they were unanimous in
that they would never go back to teaching without iPads because of the enhanced
opportunities for teaching in ways that supported and challenged their students. In
the words of the e-learning support teacher (also a Year 3 teacher),

I wouldn’t have it any other way. How could I go back to just pencil and
paper—or even just laptops? The advantage of iPads is immediacy—you don’t
want kids wasting time. In saying that, if I want to achieve something and it
doesn’t align with the affordances of iPads, they don’t get used. It’s not about
busy work and occupying kids, it’s about productive learning.

Conclusion

The data in this study suggest that the use of iPads in mathematics has a positive influence
on students’ engagement and their enjoyment of and self-perceptions in mathematics. The
teachers who were involved with the iPad classes received ongoing professional devel-
opment that focused on integrating iPads into teaching and learning, and while the
approaches used by individual teachers varied from class to class, at the end of 2 years,
there were distinct patterns and common themes in the ways in which they described
pedagogical choices and decisions about when and how to use iPads in the mathematics
classroom. More detailed discussion of these findings is beyond the scope of this paper;
however, the results indicate that there was indeed ongoing and very deliberate consid-
eration about how iPads could benefit students and that students’ engagement and
attitudes to mathematics were promoted by the use of iPads for teaching and learning.
The school’s implementation program has been a learning journey, one that was
embraced by the teachers and the students. There continues to be ongoing profes-
sional development and sharing of ideas among the teachers; however, changing
practice for teachers can take time and perhaps there will be more significant
differences evident in future years. As the school embarks on the final year of its
iPad integration program, it remains to be seen how or whether the current
teachers change their practices further and whether there are more pronounced
differences between outcomes for the children in their second or third years of
iPad classes and those who are new to the program.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thanks the teachers and students who participated in this study
and Dr. Geoff Hilton for his contribution and helpful comments on drafts of this manuscript.
 A. Hilton

Appendix. Factor Analysis for the Maths and Me Surveys

Table 9 Factor analysis for 2014 pre- and post-surveys

Variable (with item number indicating Pre-survey Post-survey

order on survey)
Enjoyment Self-Perceptions Enjoyment Self-Perceptions

2. I love maths .711 .730

4. Maths is boringa .713 .737
6. I enjoy doing maths puzzles .653 .739
10. Maths is fun .443 .811
11. I look forward to learning new maths .754 .773
13. I hate mathsa .724 .742
14. I enjoy playing maths games .535 .710
16. I enjoy studying maths .650 .777
18. Solving maths problems is fun .765 .815
1. I am really good at maths .666 .690
3. I understand maths .677 .720
5. I can solve difficult maths problems .613 .748
7. Maths is very hard for mea .465 .734
9. Maths is confusing for mea .503 .641
12. Maths comes easily to me .747 .742
15. I can tell if my answers make sense .574 .576
17. Doing maths is easy for me .729 .806

a
Negatively worded items were scored in a reverse way. N = 405
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

Table 10 Factor analysis for 2015 pre- and post-surveys

Variable (with item number indicating Pre-survey Post-survey

order on survey)
Enjoyment Self-Perceptions Enjoyment Self-Perceptions

2. I love maths .727 .772

4. Maths is boringa .604 .729
6. I enjoy doing maths puzzles .741 .752
8. I do maths puzzles just for fun .468 .665
10. Maths is fun .789 .831
11. I look forward to learning new maths .729 .793
a
13. I hate maths .635 .508
14. I enjoy playing maths games .659 .635
16. I enjoy studying maths .751 .794
18. Solving maths problems is fun .780 .808
1. I am really good at maths .670 .731
3. I understand maths .678 .745
5. I can solve difficult maths problems .722 .716
7. Maths is very hard for mea .685 .730
9. Maths is confusing for mea .562 .756
12. Maths comes easily to me .696 .772
15. I can tell if my answers make sense .637 .711
17. Doing maths is easy for me .747 .805

a
Negatively worded items were scored in a reverse way. N = 423

References

Adelson, J. L. & McCoach, D. B. (2011). Development and psychometric properties of the Math and Me
Survey: Measuring third through sixth graders’ attitudes toward mathematics. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 44(4), 225–247.
Attard, C. (2011). BMy favourite subject is maths. For some reason no-one really agrees with me^: Student
perspectives of mathematics teaching and learning in the upper primary classroom. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 23(3), 363–377.
Attard, C. (2013a). iPads and primary mathematics. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 18(4), 38–
40.
Attard, C. (2013b). Thanks for the iPads, but what do we do with them? Integrating iPads into the teaching and
learning of primary mathematics. Curriculum and Leadership Journal, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.
curriculum.edu.au/leader/integrating_ipads_into_the_teaching_and_learning_o,35917.
html?issueID=12708.
Attard, C. (2014). ‘I don’t like it, I don’t love it, but I do it and I don’t mind’: Introducing a framework for
engagement with mathematics. Curriculum Perspectives, 34(3), 1–14.
Attard, C. (2015). Engagement and mathematics: What does it look like in your classroom? Journal of
Professional Learning, Semester 2. Retrieved from http://cpl.asn.au/journal/semester-2-2015
/engagement-and-mathematics-what-does-it-look-like-in-your-classroom.
Attard, C. & Curry, C. (2012). Exploring the use of iPads to engage young students with mathematics. In J.
Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics Education: Expanding Horizons. Proceedings of
the 35th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA)
(pp. 75-82). Singapore: MERGA.
 A. Hilton

Attard, C. & Northcote, M. (2011). Mathematics on the move: Using mobile technologies to support student
learning (Part 1). Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 16(4), 29–31.
Barkatsas, A., Kasimatis, K. & Gialamas, V. (2009). Learning secondary mathematics with technology:
Exploring the complex interrelationship between students’ attitudes, engagement, gender, and achieve-
ment. Computers and Education, 52, 562–570.
Brace, N., Kemp, R. & Snelgar, R. (2009). SPSS for psychologists. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London, United
Kingdom: Routledge Falmer.
Commonwealth of Australia (2008). National numeracy review report. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Couse, L. & Chen, D. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood
education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75–98.
Donaldson, A. (2012). It’s about the learning, not the toys. TechTrends, 56(4), 3–4.
Dowker, A., Bennett, K. & Smith, L. (2012). Attitudes to mathematics in primary school children. Child
Development Research, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/124939
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D. & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self-
and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847.
Fabian, K., Topping, K. J. & Barron, I. G. (2016). Mobile technology and mathematics: Effects on students’
attitudes, engagement, and achievement. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 77–104.
Franklin, T. & Peng, L.-W. (2008). Mobile math: Math educators and students engage in mobile learning.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 69–80.
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P. & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the
evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R. & Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics—A Bhopeless issue^? A control-value
approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 22(4), 497–514.
Goos, M. & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in
secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 102–130.
Goos, M., Dole, S., & Geiger, V. (2012). Auditing the numeracy demands of the Australian curriculum. In J.
Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics Education: Expanding Horizons: Proceedings of
the 35th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA)
(pp.314-321). Singapore: MERGA.
Handal, B., Novak, A., Watson, K., Maher, M., MacNich, J., & Eddles-Hirsch, K. (2014). Numeracy
education through mobile apps. Middle Years of Schooling Association, 14(1), 28-37. Retrieved from
www.adolescentsuccess.org.au.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building
Teacher Quality: The ACER Annual Conference, Melbouren, Australia.
Ireland, G. V. & Woollerton, M. (2010). The impact of the iPad and iPhone on education. Journal of Bunkyo
Gakuin University Department of Foreign Languages and Bunkyo Gakuin College, 10, 31–48.
Kunzler, G. (2011, September 11). iPads motivate students to learn, improve the education experience. iPad
News. Retrieved from http://www.mactrast.com/2011/11/ipads-motivate-students-to-learn-improve-the-
education-experience.
Kyanka-Maggart, J. (2013). iPads, motivation, self-efficacy, engagement in upper elementary school
mathematics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baker University, Baldwin City, KS.
Kyriacou, C. & Goulding, M. (2006). A systematic review of strategies to raise pupils’ motivational effort in
Key Stage 4 mathematics. London, United Kingdom: EPPI Centre, Institute of Education.
Larkin, K. & Jorgensen, H. (2015). ‘I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?’ Using iPad video diaries to
investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in Year 3 and Year 6 students. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944. doi: 10.1007/s10763-015-9621-x .
Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and
learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119–137.
McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. A. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575–596). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the Blaws^ of statistics. Advances in Health
Science Education, 15, 625–632.
Using iPads to Engage Students in Mathematics

Noyes, A. (2012). It matters which class you are in: Student-centred teaching and the enjoyment of learning
mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(3), 273–290.
Oliver, K. & Corn, J. (2008). Student-reported differences in technology use and skills after implementation of
one-to-one computing. Educational Media International, 45(3), 215–229.
O’Malley, P., Jenkins, S., Wesley, B., Donehower, C., Rabuck, D. & Lewis, M. (2013). Effectiveness of using
iPads to build math fluency. Paper presented at 2013 Council for Exceptional Children Annual Meeting,
San Antonio, TX.
Pierce, R. & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary
mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299–317.
Pintrich, P. R. & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and
motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp.
249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R. & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability
students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146–159.
Shah, N. (2011). iPads become learning tools for students with disabilities. Education Week, 5(1), 12.
Singer, J. (2015). The effects of iPad devices on elementary school students’ mathematics achievement and
attitudes Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Northeastern University Digital Raspitory Service
(D20198325).
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applica-
tions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Usher, E. & Pajares, F. (2006). Inviting confidence in school: Invitations as a critical source of the academic
self-efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice,
12(7), 7–16.
van Oostveen, R., Muirhead, W. & Goodman, W. M. (2011). Tablet PCs and reconceptualising learning with
technology: A case study in higher education. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 8(2), 78–93.