Nickey Grandea

Assignment 3 – Article Critique

The purpose of Does Math Achievement h’APP’en when iPads and Game-Based Learning

are Incorporated into Fifth-Grade Mathematics Instruction? is to explore the effectiveness of

integrating iPad applications into the fifth grade math curriculum. This study is important

because it may provide data to prove whether or not the funding devoted to instructional

technology is appropriate. A weakness of the purpose of this study is the focus on the iPad

specifically. Perhaps if the focus was on the applications themselves, the data would be more

applicable on other technological platforms. Definitions were not provided for all terms in the

research question.

The literature review provided by the author of the study was thorough. The theoretical

framework reflects back nearly one hundred years to Dewey and his focus on student-centric

teaching and learning. This study assumes that student-centric learning is the optimum

experience for students and that iPad integration will provide that experience. Carr (2012) cites

several studies in which other types of instructional technology have been shown to have a

positive correlation to student achievement. She also mentions the benefits of using an iPad,

including portability, user-friendliness, and high speed computing (272). The lack of research

into instructional uses of tablets is also addressed in the literature review.

The sampling procedure used in the study was a convenience sample. Fifth grade

students in two elementary schools, located in a similar area, with similar demographics, were

chosen to participate in the study. Another method of sampling would provide better
generalizability to the population being studied. Perhaps using a simple random sample from

every elementary school in the district would provide more reliable results; targeting a

population with similar pretest results and collecting the sample from that population

specifically would also provide better generalizability.

The data collected is from the state testing instrument (SFAW Virginia SOL aligned

assessment). According to Carr (2012), this assessment has “been used often in studies

assessing achievement over time” (275). All students completed the assessment as the pretest

prior to any intervention with the experimental group, and each student completed it again

after the treatment was applied to the experimental group. Based on the information provided

in the article, this instrument is appropriate to provide the data needed for the study.

The data analysis consisted of initial descriptive statistics including mean, median,

mode, skewness, kurtosis, and standard deviation for each group. A one-way ANOVA was used

to determine whether the results were statistically significant. The study does not clearly

describe the procedures used for the data analysis. Because only two groups were compared in

this study, a t-test would have been sufficient in this situation. The study relies on the

assumption that a normal curve will be reflected in the data. However, this is not the case,

which impacts the analysis of the data and generalization to the population.

The data analysis showed statistical significance that was not sufficient to reject the null

hypothesis. Carr (2012) provides the descriptive statistics in a chart as well as a graph of the

data (277). This result responds to the questions studied because it shows that there was only a
small positive difference in the mean score of the experimental group as compared to the mean

score of the control group.

In the discussion, Carr (2012) states that “instruction with the supplemental use of the

iPad was not an effective intervention for fifth grade students’ mathematics achievement

according to the manner in which the current investigation was conducted. These findings are

aligned with existing studies in which 1:1 mobile learning devices, like the iPad, were not shown

as influential on student achievement” (278). The author also implies in the discussion that the

instrument used is not sufficient to show “21st century learning” (Carr, 2012, 278). Perhaps,

standardized testing will change over time and allow for a truer picture of the authentic

learning in which students participate.

In the conclusion, Carr (2012) recommends that further research focus on “longer study

duration, incorporating different mathematics applications, using students from various

elementary grades, and the addition of qualitative data collection such as satisfaction and

confidence as dependent variables are suggested for further research studies on 1:1 mobile

learning device interventions” (280). Longer study duration would improve the quality of the

results. By allowing students to use the technology over a longer period of time, the impact of

the technology will become more evident (if there is an impact). Controlling for individual

differences in teaching styles and lesson planning would also have less impact on the study

results with a longer duration, as the teacher would change over multiple school years.
 Rubric: Assignment 3 (Article Critique)

Topics: Scores

1.Purpose of the 0 1 2
study and/ or
research questions Discussion is The purpose of the study and/or The objectves of the study and/or research
(2p) not included research questions are partially stated questions are clearly stated and accurate.
or is or not entirely accurate.
irrelevant.

Discussion on the importance of the

goals and/or research questions is Discussion of the importance of the goals
included but is unclear or only and/or research questions is coherent and
partially correct. well-founded.

2.Literature Review 0 2 2
(2p)
Discussion is Discussion of the theoretical Discussion of the theoretical framework is
not included framework is vague or partially coherent and well-founded.
or is accurate.
irrelevant.
Discussion of theoretical assumptions
is vague or partially accurate. Discussion of theoretical assumptions is
coherent and well-founded.
Relationships of the study with the
current literature are not clearly stated. Relationships with the current literature are
clearly stated.

3.Sampling procedure 0 1 2
(2p)
Discussion is The sampling procedure is discussed The sampling procedure is adequately
not included but the discussion is incomplete or described.
or is only partially accurate.
irrelevant.

Some strengths and/ or weaknesses of

the sampling procedure are identified. Strengths and/ or weaknesses of the
sampling procedure are correctly identified.

4.Instrumentation 0 1 2
(2p)
Discussion is Data collection procedures are partially Data collection procedures are corectly
not included identified. identified.
or is
irrelevant.
Appropriateness of data collection Discussion of measurement accuracy is
procedures is discussed but the well-founded.
discussion is incomplete, vague, or
 unclearly justified.

5. Data analysis 0 1 2
procedures
(2p) Discussion is Some data analysis procedures are All data analysis procedures are correctly
not included identified. identified.
or is
irrelevant.

Discussion of the choice of data Disscussion of the choice of data analysis

analysis procedures is included and is procedures is clear and accurate.
mostly accurate.

Some assumptions of data analysis

procedures are correctly identified. Most assumptions of data analysis
procedures are correctly identified.

Discussion of the extent to which the

assumptions are met is included and is The discussion of the extent to which the
mostly accurate. assumptions are met is clear and accurate.

6.Results 0 0.5
(1p)
Discussion is Discussion of the extent to which
not included results are accurately reported is
or is included but is incomplete or only
partially accurate.
irrelevant.
Discussion of the extent to which
the reported results respond to the
research questions is included but is
only partially accurate.
1
Discussion of the extent to which results are
accurately reported is clear, complete, and
accurate.
Discussion of the extent to which
the reported results respond to the research
questions is accurate.

7.Scholarly 0 1 2
significance of the
findings Discussion is Discussion of the accuracy of the Discussion of the accuracy of conclusions is
(2p) not included conclusions is included but is only clear and adequate.
or is partially accurate.
irrelevant.

Discussion of generalizability issues is

included but may contain inaccuracies. Generalizability issues are accurately
discussed.

8. Suggestions for 0 1 2
future research
(2p) Discussion is Discussion is included but is vague, or Discussion is relevant, related to the study
not included not clearly justified. and the current literature, and clearly
or is
irrelevant. justified.

Total: /15