Relational-understanding technologies show the most divergent effects (.09 to 1.02), moderated by grade level, duration, and mathematics subject matter¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Effect sizes for technology supporting relational understanding are the most divergent, ranging from 0.09 to 1.02, with grade level, duration, and mathematics subject matter as consistent statistically significant moderators. → Young 2016
Evidence¶
Young 2016¶
Young, J.R. (2016). Unpacking TPACK in Mathematics education research: A systematic review of meta-analyses. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 2(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.2.1.19
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
The review's synthesis of mathematics-specific software and virtual manipulatives meta-analyses (e.g., Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper 2013, ES .09; Sokolowski et al. 2015, ES .60). The article reports the range 0.09 to 1.02 and offers subject-matter specificity as one explanation for the divergence. It states "the consistent statistically significant moderators of effect sizes were grade level, duration, and mathematics subject matter."
"The overall effect sizes range from 0.09 to 1.02. One explanation is that unlike the other didactical functionalities, tools to support relational understanding are more subject -matter specific (algebra, geometry, etc.)"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Geometric Reasoning — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Five TPACK-related moderators are most salient across meta-analyses: grade level, assessment, duration, instructional modality, and mathematics subject matter — a broader claim this one bears on
- Digital technology-assisted STEM education shows a significantly larger effect on science achievement (d=2.838) than on mathematics achievement (d=1.255) — related
- Discipline significantly moderates the effects of educational robotics on STEM learning, with larger effects in technology and cross-disciplinary contexts than in science and mathematics — related
- Mathematics and technology show the highest pre–post scaffolding effect sizes among STEM disciplines (ḡ = 1.29 and ḡ = 1.06) — related
- CBI/CAI effects on mathematics achievement vary from small to medium, with duration and instructional modality as statistically significant moderators — related
- Calculator effects on mathematics achievement tend to converge at moderate effectiveness, with grade level and assessment as statistically significant moderators — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.