Anda di halaman 1dari 29

Assignment 5

FRIT8435
Debra Scott
Ru Story HuIIman
Julian Young
Fall 2011





2

Executive Summary
This evaluation project is designed to assess the integration oI iPad technology and
applications and its impact on student perIormance in 4
th
grade Mathematics. SpeciIically, the
evaluation project will determine iI the iPads signiIicantly impact student perIormance. The
program to be evaluated is a pilot program Iocused on the integration oI iPad technology in a 4
th

grade math classroom at Sherwood Acres Elementary School in the Dougherty County School
System (DCSS). The Apple iPad technology integration is Iunded by the Federal Title I Program.
SpeciIically, we will answer the question 'What is the value to students and teacher in
integrating iPad technology as an instructional tool?
Introduction to the Report
The evaluation report contains inIormation Ior reporting to stakeholders, and includes the
purpose oI the evaluation, intended audience, primary evaluation questions used to guide the
evaluation, limitations oI the evaluation, an overview oI the plan and procedures, a summary oI
the Iindings, and a discussion oI the implication oI the results.
Purpose of the Evaluation
Sherwood Acres Elementary School is one oI 16 elementary schools in the DCSS (DCSS,
2011). The results oI the evaluation will be useIul Ior making Iuture decisions regarding the
expansion oI the program to more classrooms within the school district. A primary objective oI
this evaluation is to provide data that can help more clearly deIine the program model by
Iocusing on a single implementation site, Sherwood Acres Elementary School. The stakeholders
include: the classroom teacher, instructional specialists, the program manager, the school
principal, students, and parents. The district wide integration program has already progressed to
the partial implementation phase thereIore the basic goals and objectives Ior the program have
3

been agreed upon, although each group has unique concerns. The classroom teacher particularly
wanted to see the eIIect oI the iPad activities on the students` ability to master their math Iacts.
The teacher statement that 'Students who know their math Iacts, perIorm better in class and on
assessments than those who do not (J. Young, personal communication, October 2011),
indicates the basis Ior the evaluation.
udiences for the Evaluation Report
The audiences Ior the evaluation report are the classroom teachers, students, program
manager, administration, parents, and instructional technologists in DCSS. A general survey was
distributed early in the evaluation process. The audience Ior the survey included teachers,
administrators, and instructional specialists. The responses received were thought provoking and
provided insight into the type oI data that the stakeholders would Iind useIul Ior making
decisions about the Iuture oI the program. Questions and comments revealed the Iollowing
general concerns: What methods have been used to align the 4
th
grade math curriculum to the
iPad activities? How will we know that the iPads are contributing to improvement in student
perIormance?
Limitations of the Evaluation
Research suggests that student perIormance oIten improves as a result oI a 'novel tool
simply because it is new (AllPsych, 2011). The novelty eIIect is the tendency Ior perIormance to
initially improve when new technology is introduced, not because oI any actual improvement in
instruction, but in response to the increased interest in the new technology. The increased
attention by students sometimes results in increased eIIort or persistence, which in turn results in
better perIormance. Survey responses Irom both students and teacher indicated that there may be
some student engagement that can be attributed to the iPad being a 'new toy in the room. The
4

question becomes what happens to student engagement as the novelty Iades. Improvement
resulting Irom a novelty eIIect may tend to decrease as students become more Iamiliar with the
new technology. This eIIect has been observed in other research related to the impact oI
technology in secondary school level, grades 6 to 12 (Clark, 1994).
It is probable that the Hawthorne EIIect also played a role in the student`s perIormance. This
theory proposes that the behavior oI an individual or a group will change to meet the
expectations oI the observer iI they are aware their behavior is being observed (AllPsych, 2011).
During the Iormal observation period, students were inIormed that they were participating in an
evaluation oI the program. They were also inIormed that the evaluation was being completed by
their teacher as part oI a class project. Consequently, the students may have been motivated to
perIorm better or worse than they would have iI they were not under observation. The
Hawthorne eIIect is oIten attributed to the interaction between learning and Ieedback. During
their normal routine students would most likely not receive quite as much Ieedback on their
behavior or academic perIormance. (MaceIield, 2007).
Several limitations oI the study are related to overall school and classroom conditions. Post
tests and timed-tests were given in between a two-day Iall break and a Iive-day Thanksgiving
break. During this time period, there was a lot oI atypical activity at the school. Class schedules
were altered due to several special events. With the disruption oI the normal routine, students
may have had greater diIIiculty Iocusing during one or more oI the assessments.
Several limitations were related to the data collection. In the survey responses Ior several oI
the questions, 'Select One was included as an option to deter students Irom automatically
selecting the Iirst option displayed on the list. A Iew students selected this option in several
questions. II the option was selected in error, this may indicate an issue with the selection
5

process. Also, when reviewing the at-task data submitted by the classroom teacher, it was a very
tedious process to read the entries on the observation instrument. In hindsight, it would have
been best iI both ' and 'T were not used as part oI the coding system. Since the entries were
handwritten, it was sometimes diIIicult to tell which one oI those two values was the intended
entry consequently the calculated classroom observation results may not be 100 accurate.
An additional limitation is that all oI the iPad apps were Iree versions; thereIore, some oI the
Ieatures were not available to the students. The Iull or paid versions oI the apps may have
challenged the students more or gone into more depth.

ocus of the Evaluation
escription of the Evaluation Obfect
The object oI evaluation is the integration oI iPads in 4
th
grade mathematics instruction at
Sherwood Acres Elementary School in the Dougherty County school system (DCSS). Sherwood
Acres is a Title I school with a student-to-teacher ratio oI 17:1 (DCSS, 2011). The student
population consists oI 77 AIrican-American, 17 Caucasian, 3 Hispanic, and 3 Other.
Seventy-seven percent oI students are considered economically disadvantaged, while 8 oI the
students have an identiIied disability or disabilities.
The research sample consists oI 4
th
grade students assigned to a single classroom teacher Ior
math instruction. The demographics oI the classes are indicated by Period 1, with 24 students,
Period 2, with 18 students, Period 3, with 19 students, and Period 4, with 22 students. The quasi-
experimental component oI the evaluation will be conducted over a three week period utilizing
an action research design with primarily quantitative data collection methods. The results oI the
evaluation oI this single site will be presented to the stakeholders as a snapshot oI the integration
6

process in order to provide additional insight into the integration objectives and procedures
critical Ior the district wide implementation, which are currently in the preliminary stages.
Evaluative Questions Used to Focus the Study
The Iollowing questions were the basis Ior establishing the evaluation purpose and plan:
1. What impact does daily use oI the iPad to reinIorce basic math skills have on the
academic perIormance oI the 4
th
grade Math students?
2. Does the integration oI iPad technology to reinIorce math skills encourage greater
engagement Irom the student?
Are the selected iPad activities satisIactorily aligned to speciIic 4
th
grade Georgia
Mathematics PerIormance Standards?
Information Needed to Complete the Evaluation
The 4
th
Grade Mathematics PerIormance Standards were required Ior reIerence. Georgia
PerIormance Standards M4N3 and M4N4 were speciIically targeted by the apps used by the
students during the trial period.
Results Irom pre-tests and post-tests Iocused on addition, subtraction, multiplication, and
division. Calculated percentage oI at-task behavior obtained by systematic observation with a
validated observation instrument was required to quantiIy level oI student engagement.
A detailed description oI the iPad app activities identiIying skill sets targeted Ior reinIorcement
were required Ior veriIication oI the alignment oI apps to GPS standards using a degree oI
alignment to standards rubric.



7

rief Overview of Evaluation Plan and Procedures
Prior to the integration oI the iPads, all students were given Iive pre-tests. One oI the pre-tests
Iocused on the GPS and the other Iour Iocused on addition, subtraction, multiplication, and
division Iact Iluency. Students were given 120 minutes to complete the GPS based pre-test and
Iive minutes each Ior the Iact Iluency tests, which was a 100 question, timed-test. The data Irom
these pre-tests were compiled and used as the base-line Ior comparison with the results Irom the
post-tests, which were given at the end oI the iPad integration period.
The evaluation was conducted using Iour classes oI Iourth grade students. Each class rotated
through all oI their subjects daily in 70-minute intervals. As the students entered their math
classroom, the teacher would greet the students and tell them what iPad application they would
be working with Ior the day. The students took a seat at their desks, where the iPads were already
waiting Ior them, and immediately got to work. The students would then work independently Ior
12 minutes using the iPads. AIter working independently with the iPads, the class would then
move on to the Big Ten.
The Big Ten is a set oI ten GPS-based questions that Iocus on the domains oI Numbers and
Operations, Geometry, and Measurement. In short, The Big Ten is used to spiral skills Irom the
heaviest weighted sections oI the CRCT. The Big Ten is displayed through the classroom`s video
projector so that all students can easily view it. The students begin solving the problems using
the Whiteboard app on their iPads. AIter the students have completed the Big Ten, the problems
are reviewed as a class. The teacher clears up any conIusion that the students may have and then
the class moves on to the lesson oI the day.
During the lesson, the teacher may introduce new skills or review previous ones. Students are
allowed to use the Whiteboard app on their iPads during this entire process. AIter the lesson, the
8

teacher generally wraps up with a short quiz that covers various standards. The students work out
the problems to the quiz through the Whiteboard app and submit their answers electronically
using the eInstruction`s CPS Pulse.
A series oI post-tests were given aIter a three-week period oI daily iPad integration. Similar to
the pre-tests, the post-tests consisted oI one GPS based test and Iour timed-tests. The GPS based
post-test covered the same standards as the pre-test, but did not use any oI the same questions.
The post-timed-tests were identical to the pre-timed-tests. The amount oI time given Ior the pre-
tests and post-tests were identical.
During the iPad activity time, the teacher acted primarily as observer, interacting with
students only to answer direct questions. The teacher was advised to document but not correct
behaviors such as talking, students oII task, or distracting others. The teacher surveyed the
classroom every three to Iour minutes documenting observed behaviors using the observation
instrument.
Online surveys were conducted to assess general attitudes toward the use oI the iPad
technology in the classroom. Qualitative data was provided through the use oI a general survey
designed Ior classroom teachers, instructional specialists, and administrators involved in the
integration program. Additionally, two student surveys, with the Iirst administered at the start oI
the trial and the second administered at the close oI the trial period to assess the experience Irom
the viewpoint oI the student were used, and a classroom teacher survey designed to assess the
experience Irom the teacher`s viewpoint.

Presentation of Evaluation Results
Summary of Evaluation Findings
9

Periodically, unsolicited questions, comments, and concerns were Iorwarded by the classroom
teacher. The teacher`s observations are indicated Iollowing.
BeneIits to Instruction
a. Immediate Ieedback encouraged more selI correction
b. In-depth student interaction/engagement with the activities; Irequently to the point oI
'tuning out the teacher
c. The iPad activities quickened the pace oI student`s ability to master 'math Iacts
Distractions Irom Instruction
a. When using the "whiteboard" app on the iPads, some oI the students were distracted by
adjusting settings (i.e. color, width, and opacity) or coloring/doodling resulting in time
oII task.
b. Students accidentally moved or uninstalled apps Irom the iPads.
c. Students accidentally clicked on advertisements in an app which lead them to the app
store or the internet.
Indications oI low level oI student engagement
a. Some students disabled Ieatures oI the apps. For example, playing math ninja with all
operations disabled, except Ior multiplication, and setting the Iactors to 0 or 1. This way,
the answer is always zero or it Iollows the identity property. This removes the challenge
Irom the activity.
b. While playing Math Hunt, several oI the students were observed to have negative scores.
They seemed to be just tapping random numbers on the screen until they Iound the
correct answer. They were not trying the solve the problems.


10

Instructional Support Suggestions
a. Establish a list oI resources to help make it easier to properly implement the iPads. For
example, when teaching the order oI operations, teachers would simply be able to check
the reIerence guide and Iind several apps, websites, videos, eBooks, etc. that are related
to the order oI operations.
b. Establish a reIerence source which clearly lists which apps/websites address particular
perIormance standards.
c. An Audio visual device which allows the display oI the teacher`s iPad screen through the
classroom projector would help better explain how to navigate and use the iPad to the
students.
Interpretation of Evaluation Findings
Several questions were asked to get an idea oI what technology was currently being used by
the students and Ior what reason. Prior to the trial period, 48 oI the students used either a
desktop or laptop computer daily, 24 used an iPad daily, and 88 used the technology in the
home. Sixty-seven percent oI the students responded that they preIerred using an iPad compared
to using a desktop/laptop. In the Iirst survey, 72 responded that they have 'a whole lot oI Iun
using the iPad by the second survey that percentage had increased to 85. In the Iirst survey,
91 oI the students indicated it was 'very easy to use an iPad. By the second survey that
percentage increased to 93. There was no signiIicant diIIerence in the student perception that
the iPad helped them learn math skills, an average oI 74 oI the students reported it to be 'very
helpIul. Surprisingly, there was not much diIIerence reported in the percentage oI time
technology was used to play games compared to doing school work.
Seventy-Iour percent oI the students responded that their Iavorite app was Math Ninja which
11

they described vividly. Recurring themes in their descriptions included 'Iun, 'action and
learning, 'think and playing, 'play and learn, 'high scores, 'earn money, 'buy weapons,
and 'love deIeating the cats and dogs.'
t-Task Observation Results
The results Irom the at-task observation revealed that students were at-task on the average
95 oI the time during the iPad activity. The range oI the at-task percentages based on the
periodic room sweeps was 83-100, with the mode value being 100. The average
percentage Ior students at-task during activities without the use oI technology was 91 with the
mode value being 90. These results indicate that the iPad activity may have contributed to
increased student engagement as they were oII task less than during circumstances in which they
were observed not using technology.
Pre/Post Test nalysis
As the null hypothesis oI the evaluation is in targeted subject areas, there are no signiIicant
diIIerences among the means oI achievement oI the group being taught with the iPad as
reinIorcement as compared to the group taught without the iPad as reinIorcement. A t test
analysis was used to determine iI the diIIerence between the two means was greater than that
expected Irom chance. To test the hypothesis, the 't calculated value was compared to the table
value Ior the signiIicance level chosen. The calculated t values Ior the test scores was
1.26(Addition Test), .53(Subtraction Test), 1.82(Multiplication Test), 2.44(Division Test) with
144 degrees oI Ireedom (dI) and a risk level oI .05 the table t-value is 1.64. Since 1.82 and 2.44
is greater than 1.64, we rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that the mean diIIerence in
achievement between the two samples Ior multiplication and division, which were the areas
target, were greater than would be expected by chance. The statistical analysis indicated a
12

probability that the iPad practice signiIicantly impacted the student's perIormance in
multiplication and division as indicated by a statistically signiIicant increase Irom pre-test to the
post-test scores.

Conclusion and Recommendations
Criteria and standards used to fudge evaluation obfect
Students were required to complete a speciIied activity on an iPad app Ior a minimum oI 12
minutes each class session during the three week trial period. During the iPad activity time, the
teacher acted primarily as observer, interacting with students only to answer direct questions.
The teacher was required to document but not correct behaviors, such as talking, oII task, or
distracting others. To satisIy the criteria Ior increased student engagement, students must remain
on task 90 oI the iPad activity time based on analysis oI data recorded using a validated
observation instrument. Percentage at-task data obtained during periods oI observation when
students were not using technology established a baseline indication oI normal student
engagement.
With the support oI an instructional specialist, the classroom teacher was required to select
appropriate iPad apps and speciIy activities that clearly support the overall objectives oI the 4
th

grade curriculum. To satisIy the criteria Ior alignment to standards, speciIic 4th grade Georgia
Mathematics PerIormance Standards must be clearly identiIied and the iPad activities must
directly address the objectives. At least 90 oI the selected iPad activities must be satisIactorily
aligned to one or more oI the standards based on an analysis using a standard alignment rubric.
udgments and Recommendations
An ultimate goal oI the Dougherty County School System is to produce students with 21
st

century skills enabling them to Iunction as good citizens positively contributing to society. A
13

large percentage oI the student population at Sherwood Acres Elementary School is Irom lower
income households (DCSS, 2011). Providing technology such as the iPad readily available in the
classroom will help to bridge the technology gap that oIten exists due to socioeconomic
diIIerences. This will result in greater opportunities Ior the students to become productive
members in society.
According to Clark (1994), it cannot be argued that any particular technology medium
positively impacts learning. Nevertheless, research has shown that certain media platIorms tend
to be preIerred by certain types oI learners, given speciIied learning goals and tasks. The iPad is
just one oI many tools available to help communicate messages and reinIorce concepts and ideas.
It has advantages and disadvantages just like other tools but there is no doubt that the evaluation
processes involved in the implementation oI the iPad Technology Program will beneIit not only
teachers and students but the community as a whole.
The yearlong integration timeline has provided ample time Ior proIessional development as
well as periodic Ieedback Irom student and teacher surveys. The program plan encourages much
needed collaboration among both students and educators. Such collaboration will establish more
and more resources which will enhance learning and the accomplishment oI the ultimate goal oI
creating 21
st
century model classrooms.
Applied research observed in clearly deIined settings oIten provides inIormation with greater
practical implications Ior the classroom teacher. HopeIully, the evaluation contents will provide
additional insight as the district wide iPad Technology Program integration enters its Iinal
phases.
14

References
AllPsych. (2011). Psychology dictionary Retrieved Irom http://allpsych.com/dictionary/h.html
Clark, R. E., (1994). Media Will Never InIluence Learning. Educational Technology Research
and evelopment, 42(2), 21-29.

Dougherty County School System. (2011). School and departmental directory Retrieved Irom:

http://www.dougherty.k12.ga.us/about/directory.htm

Georgia Mathematics PerIormance Standards. Retrieved Irom https://www.georgiastandards.org

MaceIield, R.(2007). Usability studies and the Hawthorne EIIect ournal of Usability
Studies, 2(3), 145-154.
Open Education Resources: Rubrics and Evaluation Tools. Retrieved
Irom http://www.achieve.org/oer-rubrics
15

ppendices
Table 1: Statistical Analysis oI Test Results
Table 2: Degree oI iPad Application Alignment to Standards
Table 3: Classroom Observation Results
Table 4: Student Survey Results
At-Task Observation Instrument
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36522438/At-TaskObservationinstrument.pdI

Rubric I Degree oI Alignment to Standards Instrument
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36522438/Rubric1DegreeoIAlignmenttoStandards.pdI

General Survey
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewIorm?IormkeydEdjdzFScU4tbTdEeEFtVFdxX1Frak
E6MQ

Student Survey I
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewIorm?hlenUS&IormkeydFEtem1VODk4cXFXWT
lkZDViM2plV2c6MQ#gid0

Student Survey II
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewIorm?IormkeydHVrWUVBWEhxYm8zMHdHclo2Y
XRveVE6MQ
Classroom Teacher Survey Form
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewIorm?IormkeydDRPVnNwN3JkRkwyWG5SSE1NR1
ZSV2c6MQ






16

Table 1
Pre-Test and Post-Test Statistical nalysis
Student ADDC SU8C MUL1C DIVC ADD1 SU81 MUL11 DIV1

11 99 73 82 39 99 82 100 81
12 97 39 23 8 100 76 31 29
13 99 99 100 99 99 96 100 98
14 96 34 82 30 98 38 100 33
13 100 100 100 49 98 100 100 77
16 93 97 82 40 98 99 93 32
17 99 99 98 98 100 100 99 99
18 98 99 98 97 98 93 92 98

19 100 92 100 99 99 93 100 96

110 96 99 73 28 99 83 86 44

111 100 96 99 93 96 98 100 98

112 99 82 84 78 100 72 98 33

113 91 37 36 9 94 33 69 27

114 100 98 98 93 100 96 100 100

113 93 98 98 99 93 100 100 99

116 100 100 99 36 99 93 97 36

117 99 97 93 92 98 99 100 98

118 99 90 97 39 97 98 99 99

119 97 71 71 23 99 82 96 30

120 100 82 81 46 99 98 100 73

21 73 34 43 22 73 37 33 30

22 83 49 34 21 77 31 67 32

23 98 80 68 32 94 77 67 40

24 97 83 100 72 100 92 100 83

23 100 70 63 24 99 100 37 47

26 90 34 73 31 92 63 87 36

27 98 49 61 26 100 44 63 28

28 100 90 83 47 100 99 88 67

29 92 97 62 39 99 93 72 32

210 100 97 62 29 100 99 72 34

211 89 70 79 26 100 78 90 31

212 77 64 61 21 89 32 68 60

213 33 13 16 6 83 37 38 18

214 80 63 76 32 96 83 97 33

213 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 98

17

216 42 33 13 18 33 28 40 38

217 99 99 79 13 100 100 94 64

Student ADDC SU8C MUL1C DIVC ADD1 SU81 MUL11 DIV1

31 76 23 37 2 97 33 68 28

32 73 46 100 100 99 39 100 100

33 100 94 73 17 98 92 80 37

34 90 80 63 31 93 33 84 37

33 99 83 48 19 100 36 37 41

36 83 33 84 21 92 33 97 77

37 97 99 73 44 99 100 99 34

38 98 100 97 100 97 99 100 99

39 93 93 89 63 98 96 100 91

310 98 64 47 23 100 68 63 28

311 39 37 34 31 62 34 39 39

312 83 37 39 23 100 34 64 32

313 97 63 49 20 93 49 48 29

314 100 99 93 39 99 100 100 77

313 36 23 17 1 37 40 49 39

316 94 67 38 23 97 49 27 10

317 98 98 68 49 99 38 36 34

318 99 93 100 96 100 100 100 99

319 100 86 74 34 74 63 43 36

41 100 92 100 100 100 100 100 99

42 96 80 43 22 94 38 40 18

43 92 73 36 23 100 89 39 23

44 99 99 100 99 100 100 100 98

43 99 98 72 19 99 99 60 33

46 76 38 82 30 100 81 90 30

47 93 97 98 32 97 99 100 78

48 100 97 100 99 98 98 100 100

49 94 86 63 24 98 98 77 33

410 97 93 96 66 98 97 96 63

411 82 66 67 39 82 67 68 43

412 99 93 76 43 100 90 86 66

413 99 88 68 33 98 99 82 43

414 100 63 99 60 99 69 100 82

413 92 67 73 42 93 69 79 60

416 100 99 100 97 99 97 100 99

417 98 63 67 1 98 94 83 20

9221 7774 7463 4732 9470 7964 8122 3942 AVG
1293 2218 2290 3124 1093 2121 2090 2764 S1DLV
18

16719 49211 32463 97614 11938 44993 43684 76373 VAk
229 674 719 1337 164 616 398 1046 VAk]N

Add|t|on Subtract|on Mu|t|p||cat|on D|v|s|on
249 190 639 1190
Mean
D|fference
393 1291 1317 2383
VAk1 + VAk
C]N
198 339 363 488 Sk1
126 033 182 244 1Va|ue


r|sk |eve| N df
1tab|e
va|ue
003 73 144 164

19

Table 2

egree of iPad pplications lignment to Standards
App Name Descr|pt|on Degree of
A||gnment
Standards
n MulLlply 1hls ls a LlmsLabl Lyp mulLlpllnaLlon gam wh
plays dag numbd Llls Lo Lhl appoplaL lonaLlon
on a gld 1hls gam nonLalns Lwo mods of play gld
play and gld bllLz 1h gld play mod glvs a play a
Llm llmlL and has Lhm pogss Lhough lnnaslngly
dlfflnulL lvls Cld 8llLz psnLs plays wlLh a andom
mulLlpllnaLlon gld and anks Lhm by how fasL Lhy nan
nomplL Lh gld
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ace-multiply-matrix-hd-
free/id382764277?mt=8
M4n3
lLhm1lCk llash nads hav bn lmpovd ln Lhls sLalghLfowad
maLh fanLs gam lays nan Loggl on and off any of
Lh fou maLhmaLlnal opaLlons 1h a flv
dlfflnulLy lvls whlnh ang fom asy Lo LlnsLln 1h
hlgh lvls lnnlud 2dlglL mulLlpllnaLlon and long
dlvlslon
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/arithmetick-math-flash-
cards/id304848067?mt=8
M4n3
M4n4a

MaLh PunL lays musL lonaL Lh answs Lo andomly gnaLd
poblms ln a flld of numbd bubbls bfo Llm
uns ouL lays nan nhoos bLwn addlLlon
subLanLlon mulLlpllnaLlon and/o dlvlslon poblms
lays nan mlx and maLnh Lhs opaLos as Lhy llk
lays Ly and answ qusLlons qulnkly Lo gL as many
polnLs as posslbl
http://www.appolicious.com/education/apps/564561-math-hunt-
free-erratic-designs-llc
M4n3
M4n4a
MaLh nln[a us you maLh skllls Lo dfnd you L hous agalnsL
a hungy LomaLo and hls oboLln amy ln Lhls fun anLlon
pankd gam" Choos bLwn nln[a sLas smok
bombs o nln[a magln and nhoos you upgads
wlsly" MaLh nln[a ls flashnad gam LhaL has bn
nlvly dlsgulsd ln an anad shooL lays Lak Lh
oll of a nln[a Lylng Lo poLnL hls LfoL fom Lh vll
LomaLo and hls oboLln amy MaLh nln[a lnnluds Lh
lvls of dlfflnulLy (asy nomal and nln[a) and glvs
you Lh ablllLy Lo mlx and maLnh bLwn Lh fou
opaLlons (addlLlon subLanLlon mulLlpllnaLlon and
dlvlslon) lays nan vn gL dp lnLo nusLomlzaLlon
and spnlfy whaL numbs Lo us ln Lh qusLlons WlLh
Lh smallsL valu aL 0 and Lh lagsL valu aL 99 Lhls
gam nan b as asy o as nhallnglng as plays llk
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/math-ninja-hd-
M4n3
M4n4a

20

free!/id373814902?mt=8


App Name Descr|pt|on Degree of
A||gnment
Standards
My MaLh pp 1hls ls an asy Lo us flashnad gam lays nhoos
Lh opaLlon LhaL Lhy wanL Lo sLudy and lmmdlaLly
bgln Lo answ qusLlons 1h hlgh Lh sno and Lh
fuLh you gL ln Lh gam Lh hlgh Lh dlfflnulLy of
Lh qusLlons
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/my-math-flash-cards-
app/id412496588?mt=8
M4n3
M4n4a
WhlLboad 1hls app Luns Lh uss lad lnLo a nlassoom
whlLboad uss nan ad[usL Lh nolo wldLh and
opanlLy of Lhl vlLual maks WhlLboad suppoLs
mulLlLounh aslng and savlng
n/


21

Table 3
Classroom Observation Results
aL lod
1(8am)
lod
2 (9am)
lod
3(10am)
lod
4(11am)
27CnL WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
S1 17/18 23/24
93
S2 18/18 21/24
87
S3 16/18 24/24
S4 17/18 24/24
93
28CnL WlLh
lad
wlLh
lad

S1 13/16 19/19
S2 16/16 19/19
S3 16/16 18/19
S4 13/16 93
94 18/19
S3 16/16 93
31CnL WlLhouL
lad

S1 18/20
90
S2 18/20
90
S3 18/20
S4 20/20

S3 18/19
94

22

aL lod
1(8am)
lod
2 (9am)
lod
3(10am)
lod
4(11am)
31CnL WlLh
lad

S1 19/20 16/18 13/18 21/21
89 83
S2 17/20 17/18 18/18 21/21
83
S3 19/20 16/18 17/18 18/21
93 89 94 86
S4 20/20 18/18 18/18 19/21
90
S3 19/20 17/18 18/18 20/21
94
S6 17/18
94
1nov WlLhouL
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLhouL
lad
WlLh
lad
S1 26/30 17/20 20/23 18/18
87 83 80
S2 27/30 18/20 22/23 17/18
90 90 88 94
S3 28/30 18/20 23/23 17/18
93 90 96 94
S4 19/20 17/18
93
S3 19/20 16/18
88

23

aL lod
1(8am)
lod
2 (9am)
lod
3(10am)
lod
4(11am)
1nov WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
S1 20/20 20/22
91
S2 18/20 20/22
90 91
S3 20/20 22/22
S4 18/20 19/22
90 86
S3 20/20 21/22
S6 20/20
2nov WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
S1 20/22 17/17 19/20 21/22
91 93
S2 21/22 16/17 18/20 22/22
93 94 90
S3 21/22 13/17 20/20 20/22
93 88 91
S4 21/22 16/17 19/20 21/22
93 94 93 93
S3 22/22 17/17 19/20 22/22
93
S6 20/22 13/17
91 88
S7 13/17
88

24

aL lod
1(8am)
lod
2 (9am)
lod
3(10am)
lod
4(11am)
3nov WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
S1 19/20 16/17 20/20 22/22
94
S2 18/20 17/17 19/20 20/22
90 93 91
S3 19/20 17/17 18/20 18/22
90 82
S4 19/20 17/17 17/20 20/22
93 83
S3 18/20 16/17 18/20 21/22
90 90 93
S6 18/20 21/22
4nov WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
S1 20/22 16/16 20/20 20/22
91 91
S2 20/22 16/16 19/20
91 93
S3 20/22 16/16 20/20
91
S4 22/22 16/16 20/20
S3 21/22 13/16 19/20
93 94 93

25

aL lod
1(8am)
lod
2 (9am)
lod
3(10am)
lod
4(11am)
7nov WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
S1 20/21 16/17 20/20 20/20
93 94
S2 21/21 17/17 19/20 20/20
93
S3 21/21 17/17 20/20 19/20
93
S4 20/21 16/17 19/20 20/20
93 94 93
S3 21/21 17/17 19/20 20/20
93
S6 17/17 20/20 19/20
93
S7 17/17 20/20
8nov WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
WlLh
lad
S1 21/21 16/17 20/20 22/22
94
S2 21/21 17/17 19/20 21/22
93 93
S3 20/21 16/17 20/20 22/22
93 94
S4 19/20 17/17 19/20 20/22
93 90
S3 20/20 17/17 20/20 22/22
S6 19/20 17/17 19/20 21/22
93 93 93
S7 17/17 20/20 21/22
93
S8 17/17 20/20

26

Table 4

Student Survey I Results

Question Options No. of
Responses
Percentage
"-1 d-top/l-top 38 0.43
iPad 21 0.24
d-top/l-top/cell 11 0.13
iPad/d-top/l-top 1 0.01

iPad/d-top/l-
top/cell
1 0.01
cell 16 0.18
88
"-2 sometimes 41 0.47
often 35 0.40
select-one 7 0.08
rarely 5 0.06
88
"-3 Yes 77 0.88
No 11 0.13
88
"-4 sometimes 43 0.49
often 28 0.32
rarely 10 0.11
select-one 7 0.08
88
"-5 iPad 52 0.59
d-top/l-top 30 0.34
select-one 6 0.07
88
"-6 A whole lot 55 0.63
select-one 17 0.19
Just a little 6 0.07
Some 7 0.08
None 3 0.03
88
"-7 very easy 80 0.91
a little difficult 4 0.05
select-one 3 0.03
not difficult 1 0.01
88
"-8 very helpful 66 0.75
helpful 11 0.13
not helpful at all 6 0.07
just a little helpful 4 0.05
select-one 1 0.01

88


27




Question Options No. of
Responses
Percentage
"-9 often 35 0.40
sometimes 30 0.34
rarely 12 0.14
select-one 11 0.13
88
"-10 sometimes 41 0.47
often 30 0.34
rarely 16 0.18
select-one 1 0.01
88

28

Table 5

Student Survey II Results

Question Options No. of
Responses
Percentage
"1 iPad 20
d-top 10
l-top 15
cell phone 9

"2 often 44 0.49
rarely 6 0.07
sometimes 39 0.44

"3 a little 4 0.04
a whole lot 76 0.85
none 1 0.01
some 6 0.07
select-one 2 0.02

"4 kind of easy 5 0.06
very easy 83 0.93
select-one 1 0.01

"5 kind of helpful 19 0.21

not helpful at
all
1 0.01
very helpful 64 0.72
select-one 5 0.06

"6 often 60 0.67
rarely 3 0.03
sometimes 22 0.25
select-one 4 0.04

"7 often 39 0.44
rarely 10 0.11
sometimes 36 0.40
select-one 4 0.04

"8 often 28 0.31
rarely 25 0.28
sometimes 33 0.37
select-one 3 0.03

"9 ace multiply 4 0.04
arithmetick 1 0.01
math hunt 11 0.12
29

math ninja 67 0.75
my math app 2 0.02
whiteboard 4 0.04