See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318703663

TABLET COMPUTER ASSISTED COUNTING AND CALCULATING ACTIVITIES

FOR KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN

Conference Paper · March 2017

DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2017.0828

CITATIONS READS

3 123

2 authors:

Nicholas Zaranis Vasiliki Valla

University of Crete 2 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   
64 PUBLICATIONS   761 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Educational apps assessment View project

Χρήση φορητών τεχνολογιών στην Προσχολική Εκπαίδευση View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicholas Zaranis on 08 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TABLET COMPUTER ASSISTED COUNTING AND CALCULATING
ACTIVITIES FOR KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN
Nicholas Zaranis, Vasiliki Valla
University of Crete (GREECE)

Abstract
The aim of this study is to explore the impact on kindergarten children’s mathematical competence
after the implementation of a software application for counting and calculating with tablet computers.
The application consisted of some counting and calculation activities, designed following the
background of realistic mathematics education and more specifically that of the learning teaching
trajectory for the domain of counting and calculation. Four kindergarten schools of Heraklion
participated in the study, which was conducted during spring 2017. The research followed the pre-test
and post-test model, using the Early Numeracy Test (ENT), an instrument measuring the early
mathematical competence. The test comprises of questions for the concepts of comparison,
classification, correspondence, seriation, using counting words, structured counting, resultative
counting, and general knowledge of numbers. The results of the study support a positive correlation
between children’s early numeracy competence and the integration of tablet computers in teaching
and learning numbers.
Keywords: Counting, calculations, numbers, tablet computer, kindergarten.

1 INTRODUCTION
The integration of ICT into primary education has become a high priority for everybody involved in the
learning process [1], [2], [3]. A growing body of literature provides increasing evidence of the
effectiveness of using computer technologies to facilitate instruction and learning across a variety of
school subjects [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Particularly, studies have demonstrated that computers have
supported the development of the abilities in children’s memory, problem-solving, literacy and math
[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. These technologies can therefore play an essential role in
achieving the objectives of the first grade curriculum in all sectors and subjects if supported by
developmentally appropriate software applications [17], [18], [19], [20] embedded in appropriate
educational scenarios [21], [22], [23]. Many early-year practitioners and researchers state that the
interactive environment created in a kindergarten by using tablets is stronger in maintaining children's
interest towards digital activities, and encourages them to become more closely and effectively
involved in digital mathematical activities [24], [25].
Advances in digital technologies and technological gadgets are dramatically altering the tools available
to teachers and students, even in preschool education [26]. Although iPads and other similar tablets
have not been extensively studied as teaching tools in the early childhood classroom, many educators
are enthusiastic about using them; they rave about their versatility, connectivity, mobility, as well as
the potential benefits of thousands of educational apps [27], [28]. Usability studies with tablets find that
preschool children learn to use the devices quickly, independently, and confidently and explore freely
[29]. Also, tablets have three novel features [30] with the potential to make a positive difference in
early education: iPads are portable and light-weight, they eliminate the need for separate input
devices (such as mouse and keyboard) and they are specifically designed to accommodate a number
of apps, many of which have a child friendly intuitive design. Concerning the pedagogical use of
tablets in early childhood education, recent studies have concluded that tablets may have the potential
to act as a valuable tool for educational use, especially in learning mathematical concepts [31], [32],
[33]. The regular use of tablets brings about significant learning gains to young children in areas such
as arithmetic, recognition of numbers and formation of digits [34].
Various researches’ results relate the appropriate use of computers with the ability of students to more
efficiently understand the different mathematical notions [36], [37], [38]. Also, a vast number of studies
show a positive interrelation between the use of computers and the development of mathematical
thinking in school [5], [39]. Nonetheless, computer based activities should reflect the theoretical ideas
behind them [40], [41], [2].

Proceedings of EDULEARN17 Conference ISBN: 978-84-697-3777-4

3rd-5th July 2017, Barcelona, Spain 9680
Following the theoretical framework that blends together kindergarten curriculum in Mathematics and
the use of ICT at the kindergarten level, we designed a new model referred to as the Kindergarten
Counting Calculating Model (KCCM) which consisted of four levels. The majority of previous studies
examined the effects of various teaching methods for mathematics. However, a small number of
studies have found in the kindergarten levels of counting and calculating using tablet computers.
Our study was based on the above mentioned international literature; we set out to investigate the
following research question:
• The kindergarten students who will be taught mathematical concepts with educational
intervention based on KCCM will have a significant improvement of general mathematical
thinking in comparison to those taught using the traditional teaching method.
• The kindergarten students who will be taught mathematical concepts with educational
intervention based on KCCM will have a significant improvement of counting in comparison to
those taught using the traditional teaching method.
• The kindergarten students who will be taught mathematical concepts with educational
intervention based on KCCM will have a significant improvement of calculation in comparison to
those taught using the traditional teaching method.

2 METHODOLOGY
The present pilot research was conducted in three phases. In the first and third phases, the pre-test
and post-test were given to the students respectively. In the second phase, the teaching intervention
was performed. The study was carried out during the 2016-17 school year in four public kindergarten
schools located in the city of Rethymno on the island of Crete (Greece). It was an experimental
research which compared the tablet computer teaching process to traditional teaching based on the
kindergarten grade curriculum. The sample included 118 kindergarteners consisting of 55 girls and 63
boys aged four to six years old. There were two groups in the study, one control (n=51) and one
experimental (n=67). In the control group there was not a computer available for the students to use.
The classes in the experimental group had tablet computers available for daily use by children as part
of the teaching procedure. For the uniformity of the survey, instructions were given to the teachers
who taught in the experimental or control groups.

2.1 First Phase

In the first phase, the pre-test was given to the classes of the experimental and control groups during
the beginning of February 2017 to isolate the effects of the treatment by looking for inherent inequities
in the mathematical achievement potential of the two groups. The pre-test was the Early Numeracy
Test (ENT) [42].
ENT is based on a developmental view of children’s early numeracy, particularly as defined by
Ginsburg and Baroody [42]. It focuses on several aspects of numerical and non-numerical knowledge.
The ENT is valid for children in pre-school and early elementary school (ages 4 to 8). The ENT is an
individually administered tool that takes about 30 minutes per child. The content domains are the
following: 1) Quantity, 2) Comparison, 3) Classification, 4) One-to-One Correspondence, 5) Seriation,
6) Number Words, 7) Counting, and 8) Understanding of Calculating Numbers (Fig. 1, 2). There are a
total of 40 items. The first 20 items are based on the logical principles underlying children’s
understanding of quantities and relations. The last 20 items focus more explicitly on the use and
understanding of whole numbers. Also, one of the purposes for developing the ENT was to provide
researchers with a statistical test that was based on current research and theories about mathematical
thinking. In particular, ENT’s availability would stimulate the study of mathematical thinking in young
children [39].

9681
 Figure1. Child has to count the dots.

Figure2. Child has to do the calculation.

Due to the young age of the children, the test was given to them individually like an interview. Each
task had a grade that was computed from the students’ answers. Scores were computed for each of
the individual mathematical tasks of the ENT.

2.2 Second Phase

In the second phase, the control group taught with traditional teaching according to the kindergarten
curriculum. Group and individual activities were given to children every day. The experimental group
covered the same material at roughly the same time according to the KCCM procedure. The content
of the four week syllabus of the KCCM was divided into four levels. All software activities were
designed using Flash CS6 Professional Edition and App Inventor application and were presented with
tablet computers in the classroom.
The first level started with an activity which a child randomly picks up a number from the floor and
starts to count upwards or downwards by pointing to the correct number (Fig. 3a). Also, in another
activity the child picks up a number randomly and shows the cardinality of the number with his or her
fingers. Finally, a computer activity took place with questions that are solved by counting objects (Fig.
3b).
The second level of the teaching procedure the children are given balls of three different colours and
they are asked to separate the balls by colour and count the number of balls in each group. Then we
took away a number of balls (e.g. one yellow, two greens etc.) and asked the children to count them
and indicate which group has the most or least. Moreover, the kindergarten teacher asks the children
to write down the number of balls in each group. The final part of this level involved a tablet based
group activity in which the students had to count the players of each team and to identify the team with
the most players (Fig. 5).

9682
 (a) (b)
Figure3.The child has to count upwards (a), and count the number of balls (b) (1st level).

Figure 4.The child has to count the balls in each group and write it down (2nd level).

Figure 5.The child has to count the basketball players of each team (2nd level).

In the third level of the teaching procedure the kindergarten teacher gives medals to children. Then
another child joins the group wearing a metal. The children have to construct the calculation problem
with printed cards on the floor (Fig. 6). Finally, a software activity followed with calculation problems
(Fig. 7).

Figure 6.The child has to solve the mathematical problem using numbers (2nd level).

9683
 Figure 7.The child has to calculate the number of children going on the carousel. (2nd level).

In the last level of the teaching process, we do not initially use visual material. The kindergarten
teacher orally presents a mathematical problem such as the following (Fig. 8a). There are five players
in a basketball team and two of the players were injured. How many players are able to continue
playing? Afterwards, there were computer activities where the children had to solve an addition
problem without counting objects (Fig. 8b).

(a) (b)
Figure 8. The child has to solve a math problem presented orally (a) and
has to solve the addition without counting objects (b) (third level).

2.3 Third Phase

Similarly, during the third and final phase of the study, after the teaching intervention, the same test
(ENT) was given to all students in both the experimental and control groups as a post-test at the
beginning of April 2017 to measure their improvement on general mathematical ability, counting and
calculation.

3 RESULTS
Analysis of the data was carried out using the SPSS (ver. 19) statistical analysis computer program.
An independent sample t-test was conducted. The independent variable had two levels: exposure to
educational software (experimental group) and no exposure (control group).
The dependent variable was the student's pre-test score for the total mathematical achievement.
Levene's Test for equality of variances was not significant (F = .111, p = 0.739). The t-test for equality
of means was not significant (t = -.576, p = 0.565), indicating no significant differences initially, in the
total score of mathematical achievement between the experimental and control groups. Though the
control group had a mean score higher than the experimental group, the mean difference in the pre-
test scores was -0.807. The results of this test are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.
In order to determine if the performance of the experimental group for the total mathematical
achievement is significant than the control group after the teaching intervention an independent
sample t-test was conducted between the post-test values. The independent variable had the same
two levels as in the previous test: experimental and control. The dependent variable was the student's

9684
post-test score. Levene's Test for equality of variances was significant (F 4.602, p = 0.034). The t-test
for equality of means was significant (t = 9.889, p = 0.001) indicating significant differences in scores
between the experimental and control groups, as summarized in Table 3 and Table 4.

Table 1. Group Statistics of the total pre test.

Group Ν Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

Experimental 67 16.45 7.743 .946
Control 51 17.25 7.372 1.032

Table 2. Independent Samples Test of the total pre test.

Pre-test t df Mean difference Sig. (2-tailed)

t-test -.576 110.300 -0.807 0.565

Table 3. Group Statistics for the total post-test scores.

Group Ν Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

Experimental 67 30.25 7.768 .949
Control 51 17.04 6.350 .889

Table 4. Independent Samples Test of the total post-test scores.

Pre-test t df Mean difference Sig. (2-tailed)

t-test 9.889 116 13.215 0.001

Similarly, to determine if the performance of experimental group starred from the same level as the
control group in counting, we conducted an independent sample t-test between the pre-test of the two
groups. The dependent variable was the student's pre-test score for counting. Levene's Test for
equality of variances was not significant (F = 0.020, p = 0.889). The t-test for equality of means was
not significant (t = -0.291, p = 0.772), indicating no significant differences initially, in mathematical
achievement for counting between the experimental and control groups. Though the control group had
a mean score higher than the experimental group, the mean difference in the pre-test scores was -
0.124. The results of this test are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6.
Also, to determine if the performance of control group acted significant than the experimental group in
counting, we conducted an independent sample t-test between the post-test of the two groups.
Levene's Test for equality of variances was significant (F = 10.369, p = 0.002). The t-test for equality
of means was significant (t = 7.002, p = 0.001), indicating significant differences, in mathematical
achievement for counting between the experimental and control groups. Though the experimental
group had a mean score higher than the control group, the mean difference in the test scores was
3.365. The results of this test are summarized in Table 7 and Table 8.

Table 5. Group Statistics of pre-test for counting.

Group Ν Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

Experimental 67 2.209 2.390 .292
Control 51 2.333 2.233 .312

Table 6. Independent Samples Test of pre-test for counting.

Pre-test t df Mean Squares Sig. (2-tailed)

t-test -0.291 111,179 -0.124 0.772

9685
 Table 7. Group Statistics of post-test for counting.

Group Ν Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

Experimental 67 5.835 2.957 .361
Control 51 2.470 1.993 .279

Table 8. TIndependent Samples Test of post-test for counting.

Post-test t df Mean Squares Sig. (2-tailed)

t-test 7.002 116 3.365 0.001

Similarly, to determine if the performance of experimental group starred from the same level as the
control group in calculating, we conducted an independent sample t-test between the pre-test of the
two groups. The dependent variable was the student's pre-test score for calculating. Levene's Test for
equality of variances was not significant (F = 1.314, p = 0.254). The t-test for equality of means was
not significant (t = -1.324, p = 0.188), indicating no significant differences initially, in mathematical
achievement for calculating between the experimental and control groups. Though the experimental
group had a mean score higher than the control group, the mean difference in the pre-test scores was
-0.325. The results of this test are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6.
Also, to determine if the performance of control group acted significant than the experimental group in
calculating, we conducted an independent sample t-test between the post-test of the two groups.
Levene's Test for equality of variances was not significant (F = 1.486, p = .225). The t-test for equality
of means was significant (t = 7.180, p = 0.001), indicating significant differences, in mathematical
achievement for calculating between the experimental and control groups. Though the experimental
group had a mean score higher than the control group, the mean difference in the test scores was
1.711. The results of this test are summarized in Table 7 and Table 8.
Results of this study expand the research on the effects of the appropriate software embedded in
tablet computers as a tool for mathematical reasoning used alongside with specially designed non-
computer activities [8], [3], [23], [33], [16], [28], [15], [29], [35], [37]. Also, the outcomes of the present
study helped create a new teaching model using tablet computers and non-computer activities.

Table 9. Group Statistics of pre-test for calculating.

Group Ν Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

Experimental 67 1.60 1.360 .166
Control 51 1.92 1.262 .177

Table 10. Independent Samples Test of pre-test for calculating.

Pre-test t df Mean Squares Sig. (2-tailed)

t-test -1.324 116 -0.325 .188

Table 11. Group Statistics of post-test for calculating.

Group Ν Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error

Experimental 67 3.67 1.342 .164
Control 51 1.96 1.199 .168

Table 12. Independent Samples Test of post-test for calculating.

Post-test t df Mean Squares Sig. (2-tailed)

t-test 7.291 112.965 1.711 0.001

9686
4 CONCLUSIONS
The general purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of instructional intervention using the
Kindergarten Counting Calculating Model (KCCM) for the purpose of teaching the mathematical
concept of counting and calculating in regards to the mathematical competence of the kindergarten
level. In this research, we found that the students who were taught with educational intervention based
on KCCM had a significant improvement on their general mathematical achievement in comparison to
those taught using the traditional teaching method according to the kindergarten curriculum. Our
findings agree with similar researches [12], [38] which implied that ICT helps students to understand
mathematical notions more effectively. As a result, the first research question answered positively.
Moreover, we found that the students that taught with the educational intervention based on KCCM
had a significant improvement on counting comparing to those taught using the traditional teaching
method according to the kindergarten curriculum. Our results overlap with the results of other
analogous studies which indicate the positive effects of a computer based-model of teaching math [8],
[41], [16], [23], [2]. Therefore, the second research question was confirmed.
In addition, we found that the students that taught with the educational intervention based on KCCM
had a significant improvement in calculating comparing to those taught using the traditional teaching
method. These results are in agreement with the results of other studies which indicate the positive
effects of a computer based-model of teaching math [5], [21], [22], [41], [33]. Therefore, the third
research question was confirmed.
The above discussion should be referenced in light of some of the limitations of this study. The first
limitation of the study is that the data collected was from the participants residing the city of Rethymno.
The second limitation of the study is that the data collected was from a very small sample, because
this research was designed as a pilot research. However, as the study was of small scale and context
specific, any application of the findings should be done with caution.
Considering the above limitations of this work, the undertaken computer assisted educational
procedure based on tablets, which is an ongoing challenge for the reflective teacher to decide how this
technology, can be best utilized in kindergarten level.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Research Committee of University of Crete (ELKE)
http://www.elke.uoc.gr/

REFERENCES
[1] J. Chen, & C. Chang, “Using computers in early childhood classrooms: Teachers’ attitudes,
skills and practices,” Journal of Early Childhood Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 169-188, 2006.
[2] N. Zaranis, & V. Oikonomidis, “ICT in Preschool Education,” Athens: Grigoris Publications,
2009, in Greek.
[3] A. Desoete, A. Ceulemans, F. De Weerdt, & S. Pieters, “Can we predict mathematical learning
disabilities from symbolic and non-symbolic comparison tasks in kindergarten?” Findings from a
longitudinal study,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 82, pp. 64–81, 2010.
[4] S. Bayraktar, “A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science
education,” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 34, no 2, pp. 173–188, 2002.
[5] D. H. Clements, “Computers in Early Childhood Mathematics,” Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, vol. 3, no 2, pp. 160-181, 2002.
[6] S. McKenney, & J. Voogt, “Designing technology for emergent literacy: the pictopal initiative,”
Computers and Education, vol. 52, pp. 719–729, 2009.
[7] K. C. Trundle, & R. L. Bell, “The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A
quasiexperimental study,” Computers and Education, vol. 54, no 4, pp. 1078–1088, 2010.
[8] J. Bobis, et al., “Supporting Teachers in the Development of Young Children’s Mathematical
Thinking: Three Large Scale Cases,” Mathematics Education Research Journal, vol. 16, no 3,
pp. 27–57, 2005

9687
[9] D. Dodge, L. Colker, & C. Heroman, “The creative curriculum for early childhood,” Washington,
DC: Teaching Strategies, 2003.
[10] L. Morrow, L. Gambrell, & M. Pressley, “Best practices in literacy education,” New York:
Guilford, 2003.
[11] F. Ihmedieh, “The role of computer technology in teaching reading and writing: Early childhood
teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(1), pp. 60-79,
2010.
[12] S. Judge, “The impact of computer technology on academic achievement of young African
American children,” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, vol. 20, no 2, pp. 91-101,
2005.
[13] D. H. Clements, & J. Sarama, “Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational
technology—a response to “Fool’s Gold”,” Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education (AACE) Journal, vol. 11, no 1, pp. 7-69, 2003.
[14] C. Walcott, et al. “Making sense of shape: An analysis of children’s written responses,” Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, vol. 28, pp. 30–40, 2009.
[15] Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical
knowledge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, Elsevier, 19, 99–120.
[16] H. Kroesbergen, B. A. M. Van de Rijt, & J. E. H Van Luit, “Working memory and early
mathematics: Possibilities for early identification of mathematics learning disabilities,” Advances
in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, vol. 20, pp. 1–19, 2007
[17] L. Brooker, & J. Siraj-Blatchford, “‘Click on Miaow!’: how children of three and four years
experience the nursery computer,” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, vol. 3, no 2, pp.
251-273, 2002.
[18] M. A. Fischer, & C. W. Gillespie, “Computers and young children's development,” Young
Children, viol. 58, no 4, pp. 85-91, 2003.
[19] S. Haugland, “What role should technology play in young children’s learning?” Young Children,
vol. 54, no 9, pp. 26-30, 1999.
[20] Y. Lee, “Pre-K Children’s Interaction with Educational Software Programs: An Observation of
Capabilities and Levels of Engagement,” Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
vol. 18, no 3, pp. 289-309, 2009.
[21] G. Fesakis, & S. Kafoussi, “Kindergarten children capabilities in combinatorial problems using
computer microworlds and manipulatives,” In the Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the
IGPME (PME33), Thessaloniki, Greece, 19-24 July 2009, vol. III, pp. 41-48, 2009, in Greek.
[22] N. Zaranis, & M. Kalogiannakis, “Greek primary students’ attitudes towards the use of ICT for
teaching natural sciences,” In M.F. Costa, B.V. Dorrío, S. Divjak, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Hands-on Science, 50-55, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, 15-17
September 2011.
[23] G. Dimakos, & N. Zaranis, “The influence of the Geometer's Sketchpad on the Geometry
Achievement of Greek School Students,” The Teaching of Mathematics, vol. 13, no 2, pp. 113-
124, 2010, (retrieved 29/3/2011, http://elib.mi.sanu.ac.rs/files/journals/tm/25/tm1324.pdf).
[24] N. S. H. Liu, “iPad infuse creativity in solid geometry teaching,” Turkish Online Journal of
Education Technology, vol. 12, pp. 177–192, 2013.
[25] M. Risconscente, Mobile learning games improves 5th graders’ fraction knowledge and
attitudes, Los Angeles CA: GameDesk Institute, 2012.
[26] G. Biancarosa, & G.G. Griffiths, “Technology tools to support reading in the digital age,” The
Future of Children, vol. 22, pp. 139-160, 2012.
[27] G. Falloon, “Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning
pathways,” Computers & Education, vol. 68, pp. 505-521, 2013.

9688
 [28] O. Mango, “Ipad use and student engagement in the classroom,” The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, vol. 14, pp. 53-57, 2015.
[29] L. D. McManis, & S. B. Gunnewig, “Finding the education in educational technology with early
learners,” YC Young Children, vol. 67, pp. 14-24, 2012.
[30] N. Kucirkova, “iPads in early education: separating assumptions and evidence,” Frontiers in
Psychology, vol. 5, pp. 715, 2014.
[31] N. Pitchford, Unlocking talent: Evaluation of a tablet-based masamu intervention in a Malawian
primary school. University of Nottingham Report: United Kingdom. Retrieved January 12, 2016,
from https://onebillion.org.uk/downloads/unlocking-talent-final-report.pdf, 2014.
[32] C. Shuler, Z. Levine, & J. Ree, iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of Apple’s app
store, New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, 2012.
[33] N. Zaranis, M. Kalogiannakis, & S. Papadakis, “Using mobile devices for teaching realistic
mathematics in kindergarten education,” Creative Education, vol. 4, pp. 1-10, 2013.
[34] C. Chiong, & C. Shuler, Learning: Is there an app for that? Investigations of young children’s
usage and learning with mobile devices and apps, New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at
Sesame Workshop, 2010.
[35] H. P., Ginsburg, & A. J. Baroody, The Test of Early Mathematics Ability (3rd ed.), Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed, 2003.
[36] S. Howie, & A.S. Blignaut, “South Africa’s readiness to integrate ICT into mathematics and
science pedagogy in secondary schools,” Educ Inf Technol, vol. 14, pp. 345–363, 2009, doi:
10.1007/s10639-009-9105-0.
[37] L. Trouche, & P. Drijvers, “Handheld technology for mathematics education: flashback into the
future,” ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, vol. 42, no 7, pp. 667-681,
2010, doi: 10.1007/s11858-010-0269-2.
[38] Walcott, et al., Making sense of shape: An analysis of children’s written responses, Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, vol. 28, pp. 30–40, 2009.
[39] C. Vale, & G. Leder, “Student views of computer-based mathematics in the middle years: does
gender make a difference?” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 56, pp. 287–312, 2004.
[40] D. H. Clements, & J. Sarama, “Building Blocks for early childhood mathematics,” Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 181–189, 2004.
[41] S.N. Dissanayake, A.S. Karunananda, & G.D. Lekamge, “Use of Computer Technology for the
teaching of primary school mathematics,” OUSL Journal, 4, 33-52, 2007.
[42] H.P. Ginsburg, & A.J. Baroogy, “Test of Early Mathematics Ability,” third Edition. Austin, Texas,
PRO-ED, Inc., 2003.

9689

View publication stats