TEKNOLOJİ DESTEKLİ MATEMATİK ÖĞRETİMİNİN ÖĞRENCİLERİN MATEMATİK PERFORMANSINA ETKİSİ: İKİNCİ DERECEDEN BİR META-ANALİZ

Öz

Matematik öğretiminde kullanılan tüm teknolojik desteklerin öğretimsel yönüne bakılmaksızın öğrencilerin matematik performanslarını olumlu düzeyde etkileme gücüne sahip olduğu ifade edilmektedir. Bu bağlamda bu araştırmada teknoloji destekli matematik öğretiminin öğrencinin matematik performansına etkisini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. 2017-2022 yılları arasında teknoloji destekli matematik öğretiminin öğrencilerin matematik performansı üzerindeki etkisini inceleyen 18 meta analiz araştırması ve bu araştırmalardan gelen 27 etki büyüklüğü second-order meta analiz yöntemiyle birleştirilmiştir. Teknoloji destekli öğretimin matematik performansına etkisinin orta düzeyde olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca teknoloji destekli öğretim ile ilgili çalışmalarda lokasyon ve yayın kalitesinin öğrencilerin matematik performansı üzerinde anlamlı bir farklılık oluşturduğu tespit edilmiştir. Öte yandan Technology Based Instruction, performance type, grade level, bias status, report type and year range moderatör değişkenlerine göre istatistiksel olarak bir farklılık oluşturmadığı belirlenmiştir. Teknoloji destekli tüm öğrenme modellerinin öğrencilerinin matematik performansını artırdığı ancak Digital Tools Based Instruction ve Software Based Instruction modellerinin öğretim sürecinde kullanımının öğrencilerin matematik performansına etkisi bakımından diğer öğrenme modellerine göre daha etkili olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca araştırma sonuçları doğrultusunda önerilere yer verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mathematics performance
• technology based instruction
• teaching methods
• meta-analysis

THE EFFECT OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED MATHEMATICS TEACHING ON MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE: A SECOND-ORDER META-ANALYSIS

Abstract

It is mentioned that all types of technological supports used in the mathematics instruction process have positive impacts on student mathematics performance without analyzing their educational dimension of them. In this context, the purpose of this research is to analyze the impact of technology-based mathematics instruction on the mathematics performance of students. 22 meta-analyses about the effects of technology-based mathematics instruction on student performance were carried out between 2017 and 2022; 27 impact sizes collected from these researches are combined with second-order meta-analyses. It is found that technology-based instruction’s impact on mathematics performance is medium-level. On the other hand, in studies about technology-based instruction, it is determined that the location and quality of the article caused important improvements in the mathematics performance of students. On the other hand, technology-based instruction, performance type, grade level, bias status, report type, and year range moderator variables didn’t cause statistical differences. It is determined that technology-based instruction methods increase the mathematics performance of students; however, Digital Tools Based Instruction and Software Based Instruction models are more efficient when compared to the other learning methods. Suggestions based on the research results are presented in the study.

Keywords

• teaching method
• technology-based instruction
• mathematics performance
• meta-analysis

References

1. Ahsan, M. G. K., Cahyono, A. N., & Kharisudin, I. (2023, June). Learning mathematical modelling with digital tools: A systematic literature review. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2614, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0126587
2. Akar, H. (2020). The effect of smart board use on academic achievement: a meta-analytical and thematic study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(3), 261-273. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.v8i3.908
3. Akçay, A. O., Karahan, E., & Bozan, M. A. (2021). The effect of using technology in primary school math teaching on students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis study. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 7(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.32865/fire202172231
4. Akın, A. (2022). The effectiveness of web-based mathematics instruction (WBMI) on K-16 students’ mathematics learning: a meta-analytic research. Education and Information Technologies, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10931-x
5. Aktaş, M., Bulut, G.G. & Aktaş, B.K. (2018). Dört işleme yönelik geliştirilen mobil oyunun 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin zihinden işlem yapma becerisine etkisi. Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 90-100.
6. Aktaş, M., Bulut, G. G., Aktaş, B. K., & Akçay, M. (2023). Matematik dersinde dört işlem ve işlem önceliğine yönelik akıllı tahta için geliştirilen eğitici oyun kullanımının öğrencilerin akademik başarısına etkisi. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, (e-ISSN:2587-1587), 8(105), 4247-4254. https://doi.org/10.29228/sssj.66672
7. Atay, H. (2023). Matematik öğretiminde bilgisayar destekli eğitimin yeri ve önemi. Ulusal ve Uluslararası Sosyoloji ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 5(2), 214-221. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8375704
8. Aydoğmuş, B. S. (2010). Matematik öğretmenlerinin öğretim yazılımlarından yararlanma konusundaki görüşleri (Tez No. 250864) [yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.

9. Baki, A. (2002). Öğrenen ve öğretenler için bilgisayar destekli matematik. Ceren Yayın Dağıtım.
10. Baki, A., & Gürsoy, K. (2020). Bilgisayar destekli matematik öğretiminin matematik dersindeki akademik başarıya etkisi: bir meta-analiz çalışması. Turkish Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 31-56 http://tujme.org/index.php/tujme/article/view/2
11. Benavides-Varela, S., Laurillard, D., Piperno, G., Minor, D. F., Lucangeli, D., & Butterworth, B. (2023). Digital games for learning basic arithmetic at home. Progress in Brain Research, 276, 35-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2023.02.001
12. Byun, J., & Joung, E. (2018). Digital game-based learning for K–12 mathematics education: a meta-analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3-4), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12271.
13. Chan, K. K., & Leung, S. W. (2014). Dynamic geometry software improves mathematical achievement: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(3), 311-325. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.3.c.
14. Chen, Y. C. (2019). Effect of mobile augmented reality on learning performance, motivation, and math anxiety in a math course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7), 1695-1722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119854036.
15. Crompton, H. (2015). Understanding angle and angle measure: a design-based research study using context aware ubiquitous learning. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1564/tme_v22.1.02.
16. Çavuş, H., & Deniz, S. (2021). The effect of technology assisted teaching on success in mathematics and geometry: A meta-analysis study. Participatory Educational Research, 9(2), 358-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.22.45.9.2
17. Demirci, E., & Karaatlı, M. (2019). Ülkelerin gelişmişlik seviyelerinin tahmininde kullanılan sınıflandırma algoritmalarının karşılaştırılması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 703-714
18. Dogruer, S. S., & Akyuz, D. (2020). Mathematical practices of eighth graders about 3D shapes in an argumentation, technology, and design-based classroom environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 1485-1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10028-x
19. Fadda, D., Pellegrini, M., Vivanet, G. ve Callegher, C. Z. (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.12618.
20. Fazlı, E., & Ömer, A. (2022). Matematik eğitiminde motivasyon ve öz-düzenleme: Tek bir durum çalışması. Harran Maarif Dergisi, 7(1), 1-45. https://doi.org/10.22596/hej.976349
21. Feeley, T. H. (2020). Assessing study quality in meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 46(2-3), 334-342 https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa001
22. Greefrath, G., Hertleif, C., & Siller, H. S. (2018). Mathematical modelling with digital tools--a quantitative study on mathematising with dynamic geometry software. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 50(1), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0924-6
23. Gui, Y., Cai, Z., Yang, Y., Kong, L., Fan, X., & Tai, R. H. (2023). Effectiveness of digital educational game and game design in STEM learning: a meta-analytic review. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00424-9
24. Güler, M., Bütüner, S. Ö., Danişman, Ş. & Gürsoy, K. (2021). A meta-analysis of the impact of mobile learning on mathematics achievement. Education and Information Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10640-x
25. Gündüz, S., & Kutluca, T. (2019). A meta-analysis study on the effect of the use of smart board in the teaching of mathematics and science to students’ academic achievements. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 7(13), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.533986.
26. Guzeller, C. O., & Akin, A. (2012). The effect of web-based mathematics instruction on mathematics achievement, attitudes, anxiety, and self-efficacy of 6th grade students. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 1(2), 42–54.
27. Hamidi, H., & Chavoshi, A. (2018). Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: A case study of students of the university of technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1053-1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.016.
28. Helsa, Y., Superman., Juandi, D., Turmudi., & Ghazali, M. B. (2023). A meta-analysis of the utilization of computer technology in enhancing computational thinking skills: Direction for mathematics learning. International Journal of Instruction, 16(2), 735-758. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16239a
29. Higgins, K., Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., & Crawford, L. (2017). Effects of technology in mathematics on achievement, motivation, and attitude: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(2), 283-319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117748416.
30. Higgins, J.,P.,T., Green, S, (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
31. Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: a context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897.
32. Huda, M. N., Mulyono, M., & Rosyida, I. (2019). Mathematical creative thinking ability in term of learning ındependence in creative problem solving assisted learning with mobile learning. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 121-127. http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/ujmer International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement [IAE]. (2019). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/timss-2019-international-report.
33. Juandi, D., Kusumah, Y., Tamur, M., Perbowo, K., Siagian, M., Sulastri, R., & Negara, H. (2021). The effectiveness of dynamic geometry software applications in learning mathematics: a meta-analysis study. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(2), 18-37. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i02.18853.
34. Karim, S., & Zoker, E. M. (2023). Technology in Mathematics Teaching and Learning: An Impact Evaluation in Selected Senior Schools in Masingbi Town. Assyfa Learning Journal, 1(2), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.61650/alj.v1i1.63
35. Kaur, S. (2013). Computer based instruction and its effectiveness on achievement of students in mathematics. International Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 4(1), 29-31. https://doi.org/ISSN 0976-849
36. Kavak, A. (2023). Toplum 5.0 perspektifinde kütüphane 5.0: teknoloji ve insan merkezli yeni nesil kütüphane hizmetleri. Bilgi Yönetimi, 6(2), 280-309. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1343297
37. Kaya, A. & Öçal, M. F. (2018). A meta-analysis for the effect of GeoGebra on students' academic achievements in mathematics. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 12(2), 31-59. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.505918
38. Kilit, B., & Güner, P. (2021). Matematik derslerinde web tabanlı uzaktan eğitime ilişkin matematik öğretmenlerinin görüşleri. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 85-102. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.803167
39. Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., Lefler, M., Andreasen, L., Walker, A., & Axelrod, D. (2020). Computer-based scaffolding targeting individual versus groups in problem-centered instruction for STEM education: Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 415-461. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10648-019-09502-3
40. Koparan, T. (2021). Yükseköğretimde dijital oyun tabanlı öğrenme ortamından yansımaların incelenmesi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 11(3), 503-515. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.919370
41. Koyuncu, I., Akyuz, D., & Cakiroglu, E. (2015). Investigating plane geometry problem-solving strategies of prospective mathematics teachers in technology and paper-and-pencil environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 837-862. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9510-8
42. Kul, Ü., Çelik, S., & Aksu, Z. (2018). The Impact of educational material use on mathematics achievement: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 303-324. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11420a Larkin, K., & Calder, N. (2015). Mathematics education and mobile technologies. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0167-6
43. Lee, Y., Dunbar, N., Kornelson, K., Wilson, S., Ralston, R., Savic, M., Stewart, S., Lennox, E., Thompson, W. & Elizondo, J. (2016). Digital game based learning for undergraduate calculus education: ımmersion, calculation, and conceptual understanding. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 8(1), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGCMS.2016010102.
44. Lei, H., Wang, C., Chiu, M. M., & Chen, S. (2022). Do educational games affect students’ achievement emotions? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning., 38(4), 946–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12664
45. Leung, A. (2017). Exploring techno-pedagogic task design in the mathematics classroom. In A. Leung & A. Baccaglini-Frank (Eds.), Digital technologies in designing mathematics education tasks (pp. 3–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43423-0_1
46. Lin, C. (2009). A comparison study of web-based and traditional instruction on preservice teachers’ knowledge of fractions. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 257-279. Matic, L. J., Karavakou, M., & Grizioti, M. (2023). Is digital game-based learning possible in mathematics classrooms?: A study of teachers' beliefs. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 13(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.323445
47. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousands Oak, CA: Sage Inc
48. Morris, P. E. (2020, December). Teachers and tech: The relationship between motivation to ıncorporate educational technology and teacher job satisfaction. ProQuest: https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/teachers-tech-relationshipbetween-motivation/docview/2487453457/se-2 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], (2008). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles-and-Standards/
49. Oh, I. S. (2020). Beyond meta-analysis: Secondary uses of meta-analytic data. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 125-153. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045006
50. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD](2018). Pisa 2018-insightsandinterpretations.https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20 Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf
51. Özen-Ünal, D., & Filiz, M. (2023). Matematik Eğitimi Araştırmalarında Dinamik Geometri Yazılımlarının Kullanımı. Eğitim Bilim ve Araştırma Dergisi, 4(2), 494-516. https://doi.org/10.54637/ebad.1346350
52. Özdemir, F., Aslaner, R., & Açıkgül, K. (2020). The effect of the computer-aided mathematics teaching on the students’ attitudes towards mathematics: A meta-analysis study. Inonu University Journal of the Graduate School of Education, 7(13), 18-40. https://doi.org/10.29129/inujgse.543534.
53. Öztop, F. (2022). Matematik öğretiminde mobil teknoloji kullanımının akademik başarı üzerindeki etkisi: bir meta-analiz çalışması. Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 66-81.
54. Peters, M. L. (2013). Examining the relationships among classroom climate, self-efficacy, and achievement in undergraduate mathematics: A multi-level analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 459-480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9347-y
55. Poçan, S., Altay, B., & Yaşaroğlu, C. (2023). The effects of mobile technology on learning performance and motivation in mathematics education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 683-712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11166-6
56. Radkowitsch, A., Vogel, F., & Fischer, F. (2020). Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(1), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09316-4
57. Ran, H., Kim, N. J., & Secada, W. G. (2022). A meta-analysis on the effects of technology's functions and roles on students' mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 258–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12611.
58. Schmidt, F. L., & Oh, I. S. (2013). Methods for second order meta-analysis and illustrative applications. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 204-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.-obhdp.2013.03.002
59. Schmidt, F., L, & Hunter, J, E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.) Sage.
60. Sokolowski, H. M., & Ansari, D. (2017). Who is afraid of math? what is math anxiety? and what can you do about it. Frontiers for Young Minds, 5(57), 1-7 http://doi.org/10.3389/frym.2017.00057. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034752
61. 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.2015.11.008
62. Taleb, Z., Ahmadi, A., & Musavi, M. (2015). The effect of m-learning on mathematics learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 83-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.092
63. Taşpınar Şener, Z. (2023). The impact of technology-mediated applications on mathematics achievement: a meta-analytical review. International Journal of Education Technology & Scientific Researches, 8(23) 1977-2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijetsar.624
64. Turgut, S., & Dogan Temur, Ö. (2017). The effect of game-assisted mathematics education on academic achievement in Turkey: A meta-analysis study. International E-J of Elementary Education, 10(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2017236115
65. Uwineza, I., Uworwabayeho, A., & Yokoyama, K. (2023). Grade-3 learners’ performance and conceptual understanding development in technology-enhanced teaching with interactive mathematics software. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(2), 759-774. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.759 Ünal, Y., & Yeşilyurt, M. (2023). Teknoloji destekli öğretimin bölme işlemi konusunu anlamaya etkisi. Fen Matematik Girişimcilik ve Teknoloji Eğitimi Dergisi, 6(2), 160-170.
66. 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 Education, 102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101565
67. Viberg, O., Grönlund, Å., & Andersson, A. (2023). Integrating digital technology in mathematics education: a Swedish case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(1), 232-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1770801
68. Vickers, A., Goyal, N., Harland, R., & Rees, R. (1998). Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Controlled clinical trials, 19(2), 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-2456(97)00150-5
69. Yalçın, H., Yeşilyurt, G. S., Çıvgış, S., & Duran, N. (2023). Uzaktan eğitim uygulamalarının ilkokul öğrencileri ve sınıf öğretmenleri üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. Eurasian Education & Literature Journal, (18), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.17740/eas.edu.2023-V18-05
70. Yorganci, S. (2018). A Study on the views of graduate students on the use of GeoGebra in mathematics teaching. Online Submission, 4(8), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo/1272935
71. Young, J. (2017). Technology-enhanced mathematics instruction: A second-order meta-analysis of 30 years of research. Educational Research Review, 22, 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.001
72. Zhang, Y., Wang, P., Jia, W., Zhang, A., & Chen, G. (2023). Dynamic visualization by GeoGebra for mathematics learning: a meta-analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2250886
73. Zheng, R. (2008). Understanding the underlying constructs of Webquests. In Handbook of research on instructional systems and technology (pp. 752-767). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59904-865-9.ch054
74. Zinchenko, V., Dorosheva, A., & Mosiy, I. (2023). Innovative and cultural transformations of educational environment of the future: digitalization, barriers for traditional learning. Futurity Education, 3(1), 45-62. https:// https://doi.org/10.57125/FED.2023.25.03.04