Benefits, Challenges and Opportunities of Using Computer-Assisted Instruction in Mathematics Education

Technology advancements in education have fuelled worldwide digital technology agendas, providing students with skills necessary for success in the twenty-first century, including digital literacy and the ability to communicate effectively, think critically, work effectively in teams, and generate original ideas. With just about 7 years left, achieving SDG4 has become the hallmark of many educational systems. Objective 4.7 calls for opportunities to ensure all learners acquire the knowledge and skills to promote sustainable development. Adapting different technological tools has become prominent in our quest for maximizing meaningful student engagement and active participation in the teaching-learning process. This chapter provides a position orientation of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in mathematics education with cognizance of its benefits, challenges, and opportunities. We begin with a position on CAI’s meaning, objectives, features, and mode of delivery. Theoretically, we discuss some technology integration frameworks used in a CAI environment and contribute to the debate on using CAI in mathematics. Through a review of meta-analysis studies, we offer evidence of the positive effect of CAI on students’ mathematics learning outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 117.69 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 158.24 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

How Does Mathematics Education Evolve in the Digital Era?

The role of digital technologies in mathematics education: purposes and perspectives

Technology in Primary and Secondary School to Teach and Learn Mathematics in the Last Decades

References

• Abd-Kadir, J., & Hardman, F. (2007). The discourse of whole class teaching: A comparative study of Kenyan and Nigerian primary English lessons. Language and Education, 21(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2167/le684.0ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Abelson, H., Goodman, N., & Rudolph, L. (1974). LOGO Manual (AIM-313). Artificial Intelligence Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6226
• Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction: Methods and development (2nd ed.). Pearson College Div. Google Scholar
• Asami-Johansson, Y., Attorps, I., & Winsløw, C. (2020). Comparing mathematics education lessons for primary school teachers: Case studies from Japan, Finland and Sweden. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(5), 688–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1614688ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Baker, R. S. J., D’Mello, D., Rodrigo, S. K., Ma, M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(4), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.12.003ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Balacheff, N., & Kaput, J. J. (1996). Computer-based learning environments in mathematics. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education: Part 1 (pp. 469–501). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_14ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Becker, H. J. (1992). Computer-based integrated learning systems in the elementary and middle grades: A critical review and synthesis of evaluation reports. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.2190/23BC-ME1W-V37U-5TMJArticleGoogle Scholar
• Begg, A. (2002). Enactivism and some implications for education: A personal perspective. Vinculum, 39(2), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.121113ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cai, J., Lew, H. C., Morris, A., Moyer, J. C., Fong Ng, S., & Schmittau, J. (2005). The development of studients’ algebraic thinking in earlier grades. Zentralblatt Für Didaktik Der Mathematik, 37(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655892ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Lin, S. F. (2006). Computer-assisted learning for mathematical problem solving. Computers & Education, 46(2), 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.002ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Chauhan, S. (2017). A meta-analysis of the impact of technology on learning effectiveness of elementary students. Computers & Education, 105, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.005ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Chou, B. K. P. (2012). The paradox of educational quality and education policy in Hong Kong and Macau. Chinese Education & Society, 45(2), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932450206ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Christmann, E., Badgett, J., & Lucking, R. (1997). Progressive comparison of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on the academic achievement of secondary students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(4), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1997.10782202ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Corey, D. L., Peterson, B. E., Lewis, B. M., & Bukarau, J. (2010). Are there any places that students use their heads? Principles of high-quality Japanese mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 438–478. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Croy, M. J. (1988). The use of CAI to enhance human interaction in the learning of deductive proof construction. Computers and the Humanities, 22(4), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118603ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cullen, C. J., Hertel, J. T., & Nickels, M. (2020). The roles of technology in mathematics education. The Educational Forum, 84(2), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1698683ArticleGoogle Scholar
• De Witte, K., Haelermans, C., & Rogge, N. (2015). The effectiveness of a computer-assisted math learning program. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(4), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12090ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Dolasinski, M. J., & Reynolds, J. (2020). Microlearning: A new learning model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(3), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020901579ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Edutech202. (2012). Computer in education: Computer-assisted instruction. In Introduction to educational communication and technology. http://edutech202.blogspot.com/2012/12/computer-in-education-computer-assisted.html
• Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597ArticleGoogle Scholar
• European Commission. (2000). Communication from the Commission-e-Learning–Designing tomorrow’s education (pp. 1–13). COM (2000) 318 final. Google Scholar
• Fadda, D., Pellegrini, M., Vivanet, G., & Zandonella Callegher, C. (2022). Effects of digital games on student motivation in mathematics: A meta-analysis in K-12. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12618ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fede, J. L., Pierce, M. E., Matthews, W. J., & Wells, C. S. (2013). The effects of a computer-assisted, schema-based instruction intervention on word problem-solving skills of low-performing fifth grade students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341302800102ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., & Gravatt, B. (1995). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(3), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.2190/51D4-F6L3-JQHU-9M31ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Forbringer, L., & Weber, W. (2014). RtI in math: Evidence-based interventions for struggling students. Routledge. BookGoogle Scholar
• Genlott, A. A., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). Closing the gaps—Improving literacy and mathematics by ict-enhanced collaboration. Computers & Education, 99, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.004ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: response to intervention (rti) for elementary and middle schools. IES practice guide. NCEE 2009–4060. In What works Clearinghouse. What Works Clearinghouse. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504995
• Granlund, R., Berglund, E., & Eriksson, H. (2000). Designing web-based simulation for learning. Future Generation Computer Systems, 17(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-739X(99)00112-0ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-yArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hemmi, K., Lepik, M., & Viholainen, A. (2013). Analyzing proof-related competences in Estonian, Finnish and Swedish mathematics curricula—Towards a framework of developmental proof. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(3), 354–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.754055ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hemmi, K., Bråting, K., & Lepik, M. (2021). Curricular approaches to algebra in Estonia, Finland and Sweden—A comparative study. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 23(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1740857ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Henrekson, M., & Jävervall, S. (2016). Educational performance in Swedish schools is plummeting—What are the facts? (pp. 1–49). The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences (IVA). Google Scholar
• Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The rat—Replacement, amplification, and transformation—Framework (pp. 1616–1620). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/22293/
• Jones, K. (2000). The student experience of mathematical proof at university level. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/002073900287381ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(91)90030-5ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C.-L. C., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(85)90007-XArticleGoogle Scholar
• Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Liao, Y. C. (1998). Effects of hypermedia versus traditional instruction on students’ achievement. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(4), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1998.10782232ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Liao, Y. C. (2007). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on students’ achievement in Taiwan: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 48(2), 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.12.005ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lindvall, J., Helenius, O., & Wiberg, M. (2018). Critical features of professional development programs: Comparing content focus and impact of two large-scale programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.013ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A. E., Kronlid, D., & McGarry, D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.018ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Luitel, B. C., & Taylor, P. C. (2009). Defrosting and re-frosting the ideology of pure mathematics: An infusion of eastern-western perspectives on conceptualizing a socially just mathematics education. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 21, 1–25. Google Scholar
• Madej, L. (2022). Primary school students’ knowledge of the equal sign—The Swedish case. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(2), 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10144-zArticleGoogle Scholar
• Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., & Trafton, J. G. (1992). Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 277–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0203_2ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Munter, C. (2014). Developing visions of high-quality mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 584–635. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.5.0584ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK. In Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 223–250). Routledge. Google Scholar
• Niess, M., Browning, C., Driskell, S., Johnston, C., & Harrington, R. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and revising teacher preparation (pp. 3588–3601). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/31207/
• Okolo, C. M. (1992). The effect of computer-assisted instruction format and initial attitude on the arithmetic facts proficiency and continuing motivation of students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 3(4), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362839209524815ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Psycharis, S., & Kallia, M. (2017). The effects of computer programming on high school students' reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem-solving. Instructional Science, 45(5), 583–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9421-5ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Rakes, C. R., Valentine, J. C., McGatha, M. B., & Ronau, R. N. (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 372–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310374880ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Rakes, C. R., Stites, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Bush, S. B., Fisher, M. H., Safi, F., Desai, S., Schmidt, A., Andreasen, J. B., Saderholm, J., Amick, L., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., & Viera, J. (2022). Teaching mathematics with technology: Tpack and effective teaching practices. Education Sciences, 12(2), 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020133ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ran, H., Kasli, M., & Secada, W. G. (2021). A meta-analysis on computer technology intervention effects on mathematics achievement for low-performing students in k-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(1), 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120952063ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Renshaw, C. E., Taylor, H. A., & Reynolds, C. H. (1998). Impact of computer-assisted instruction in hydrogeology on critical-thinking skills. Journal of Geoscience Education, 46(3), 274–279. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-46.3.274ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Rosen, Y., & Salomon, G. (2007). The differential learning achievements of constructivist technology-intensive learning environments as compared with traditional ones: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2190/R8M4-7762-282U-554JArticleGoogle Scholar
• Rosenquist, B. A., Henrick, E. C., & Smith, T. M. (2015). Research–practice partnerships to support the development of high-quality mathematics instruction for all students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 20(1–2), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.988335ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Rushby, N. J. (2019). An introduction to educational computing. Routledge. BookGoogle Scholar
• Sampath, K., Panneerselvam, A., & Santhanam, S. (1990). Introduction to educational technology. Sterling Publishers. Google Scholar
• Schwier, R., & Misanchuk, E. R. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Educational Technology Publications. Google Scholar
• Selwyn, N., Pangrazio, L., Nemorin, S., & Perrotta, C. (2020). What might the school of 2030 be like? An exercise in social science fiction. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694944ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Seo, Y.-J., & Woo, H. (2010). The identification, implementation, and evaluation of critical user interface design features of computer-assisted instruction programs in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 55(1), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.002ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Sharma, R. (2017). Computer assisted learning—A study. International Journal of Advanced Research, 4(2), 102–105. Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines: From the experimental study of learning come devices which arrange optimal conditions for self-instruction. Science, 128(3330), 969–977. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.128.3330.969ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427–515. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308317473ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Soe, K., Koki, S., & Chang, J. M. (2000). Effect of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) on reading achievement: A meta-analysis (p. 26). Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED443079Google Scholar
• Splittgerber, F. L. (1979). Computer-based instruction: A revolution in the making? Educational Technology, 19(1), 20–26. Google Scholar
• Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Tokac, U., Novak, E., & Thompson, C. G. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on students’ mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12347ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Tucker, S. I. (2018). Applying the modification of attributes, affordances, abilities, and distance for learning framework to a child’s multi-touch interactions with an idealized number line. In L. Ball, P. Drijvers, S. Ladel, H.-S. Siller, M. Tabach, & C. Vale (Eds.), Uses of technology in primary and secondary mathematics education: Tools, topics and trends (pp. 35–57). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76575-4_3ChapterGoogle Scholar
• UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/CGBA9153BookGoogle Scholar
• Usiskin, Z. (1995). Why is algebra important to learn? American Educator, 19(1), 30–37. Google Scholar
• Van Scoyoc, A. M. (2003). Reducing library anxiety in first-year students: The impact of computer-assisted instruction and bibliographic instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 42(4), 329–341. Google Scholar
• Xie, C., Cheung, A. C. K., Lau, W. W. F., & Slavin, R. E. (2020). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on mathematics achievement in mainland China: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101565ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Zeng, J., Parks, S., & Shang, J. (2020). To learn scientifically, effectively, and enjoyably: A review of educational games. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.188ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052–1084. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628645ArticleGoogle Scholar

Acknowledgements

The first author acknowledges the support of the REMATH research school, funded by the Swedish Research Council, grant number 2021-00534, and Helge Ax:son Johnsons stiftelse, grant number Nr F23-0012.