Table 2 Effect sizes of using ECEs in grades 1 to 8 mathematics
Study (first author) | ES | SE | 95% CI | Reliability of measure | Program used, research findings, research specifications | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | ||||||
Pilli (2013) | 0.76 | 0.24 | 0.05 | 1.09 | Researcher developed, Cronbach’s α = 0.9 | Used Frizbi Mathematics 4. Explored arithmetic operations | |
Kong (2007) | −0.33 | 0.27 | 0.12 | 1.15 | Teacher developed | Used Graphical Partitioning Model (GPM). Fraction operations were explored. GPM has a potential for promoting collaborative learning | |
Hwang (2013) | 0.72 | 0.59 | 0.07 | 1.93 | Researcher developed | Used virtual manipulative and 3D objects. Investigated the effect of peer learning | |
Lai (2012) | 0.51 | 0.18 | 0.71 | 0.97 | California Mathematics Standard Test | Used NeoGeo. Interactive environment helped make the applications meaningful. Investigated a peer effect | |
Chang (2006) | 0.77 | 0.18 | 0.26 | 0.96 | Researcher developed | Used schemata-developed problem solving. Provided teacher guidance to support phases of problem solving | |
Erbas (2011) | 2.36 | 0.05 | 0.26 | 0.71 | Researcher developed | Used DGE. Dynamic environment contextualized scenarios well | |
Roschelle (2010) | 0.63 | 0.07 | 0.51 | 0.75 | Researcher developed | Used SimCalcMathWorlds. Explored the concepts of change | |
Kapa (2007) | 0.68 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 1.00 | Ministry of Education guided | Used three-step problem-solving and open-ended scenarios | |
Papadopoulos (2008) | 0.34 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 1.02 | Researcher developed | Used computers to help explore hypotheses and verify the solutions | |
Eid (2005) | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.19 | 0.92 | Standardized | Contrasted students’ performance using computerized scenarios and traditional representations | |
Huang (2012) | 3.27 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 1.13 | Researcher designed | Used onscreen presented solutions to walk students through the course of thinking | |
Lan (2010) | 0.18 | 0.40 | 0.09 | 0.42 | CEA assessment | Used Group Scribbles (GS) platform that enhances collaboration. Developed stages of problem solving | |
Van Loon-Hillen (2012) | −0.01 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 1.40 | Researcher developed | Worked examples to help with following procedures | |
Guven (2012) | 0.61 | 0.32 | 0.19 | 1.22 | Researcher developed | Used dynamic geometry software (DGS). Developed four stages of difficulty: recognition, analysis, deductive, and rigorous | |
Chen (2010) | 0.71 | 0.34 | 0.01 | 1.30 | Teacher developed | Incorporated personal contexts that helped students relate mathematics concepts with their experience | |
Ku (2002) | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.26 | 0.96 | Teacher developed | Used personalized context to help students with mathematics concept understanding | |
Suh (2007) | 0.14 | 0.34 | 0.09 | 1.30 | Researcher developed | Incorporated principle of balance scale to model linear equations | |
Panaoura (2012) | 0.37 | 0.13 | 0.34 | 0.85 | Researcher developed | Developed program that divided problem into stages that focused the students’ attention of cognitive processes | |
Kanive (2013) | 0.36 | 0.27 | 0.05 | 1.14 | Researcher developed | Computer program provides intermediate feedback | |
Shin (2013) | 0.39 | 0.31 | −0.04 | 1.23 | Researcher developed | Computer program provided a game-like environment | |
Hwang (2010) | 0.57 | 0.27 | 0.03 | 1.14 | Teacher developed | Used computer programs to provide students with tasks descriptions | |
Kesan (2013) | 0.71 | 0.32 | −0.04 | 1.25 | Researcher developed | Used Sketchpad geometry software | |
Cakir (2010) | 0.69 | 0.22 | 0.17 | 1.03 | Used PISA test bank | Used computer program to personalized and scaffold tasks | |