This study compares the effect of frontal teaching methods on achievement levels in math to those of alternative teaching methods in elementary schools where classroom teaching is reinforced with computer sessions. The study was conducted in two urban, elementary schools in underprivileged areas and involved 479 students in grades 4, 5 and 6 and 18 teachers 9 who used the frontal method and 9 who used the alternative method. Progress was checked while accounting for students’ age and level. Significant differences between the two methods were found: Students in the alternative method progressed more during the year than those in the frontal method. Furthermore, the lead of alternative students mostly increased with age and grade level, while most frontal students remained at their level. District tests conducted two years after data collection for the study further corroborated the study findings. The results indicate that the teaching method is a decisive factor in student achievement in math and that full coordination of classroom teaching with computer practice is of prime importance. This requires a change from the traditional teaching methods, incorporating attention to the differing needs and achievements of students.
KeywordsAlternative TeachingAchievement MathematicsComputer-AssistedElementary SchoolTeaching MethodsMathematics EducationTechnology and Education
Becta ICT Research (2003). What the Research Says about Using ICT in Maths. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/ https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/15014MIG2799.pdf
Bielaczyc, K. (2001). Designing Social Infrastructure: The Challenge of Building Computer-Supported Learning Communities. European Perspectives on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 106-114.
Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing Social Infrastructure: Critical Issues in Creating Learning Environments with Technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 301-329. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_1
Campbell, P. F. (1988). Microcomputers in the Primary Mathematics Classroom. Arithmetic Teacher, 35, 22-29.
Cosgrove, M., & Osborne, R. (1985). Lesson Frameworks for Changing Children’s Ideas. In: R. Osborne, & P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in Science—The Implications of Children’s Science (pp. 101-111). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Davis, D., Vinner, S., Finkelstein, T., & Regev, H. (1986). Observations at Computer Rooms in Schools. Computers in Education (An Israeli Journal in Hebrew), 2, 9-17.
Echeverria, B. (1985). Evaluation of Arithmetic Performance. Educational Research Journal, 3, 183-210. Proyecto E.A.O.-TOAM. (In Spanish)
Goodlad, J. I. (1974). Looking behind the Classroom Door. Worthington, OH: Chareles A. Jones.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining Teaching, Re-Imagining Teacher Education. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 15, 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
Harari, H., & The Supreme Committee for Education in Technology and Sciences (1992). Discussion on the Harari Committee. Tel Aviv: Ort. (In Hebrew)
Hativa, N. (1988a). CAI versus Paper and Pencil—Discrepancies in Students’ Performance. Instructional Science, 17, 77-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00121235
Hativa, N. (1988b). Computer-Based Drill and Practice in Arithmetic: Widening the Gap Between High- and Low-Achieving Students. American Educational Research Journal. 25, 366. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312025003366
Hativa, N., Shapira, R., & Navon, D. (1990). Computer-Managed Practice Effects on Instructional Methods and on Teacher Adoption. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(90)90007-R
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Fuchs, I., Sharabany, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1989). Students’ Interactive and Noninteractive Behaviors in the Classroom: A Comparison between Two Types of Classroom in the City and the Kibbutz in Israel. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(89)90003-9
Iram, Y., & Schmida, M. (1993). Recurring Reforms and Changes in the Israeli Educational System: An Analytic Approach. International Journal of Educational Development, 13, 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-0593(93)90030-4
Jarvenoja, H., & Jarvela, S. (2009). Emotion Control in Collaborative Learning Situations—Do Students Regulate Emotions Evoked by Social Challenges? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 463-481. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X402811
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the Pitfalls for Social Interaction in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments: A Review of Research. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 335-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2
Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird, H. (1994). Learning Science in a Cooperative Setting: Academic Achievement and Affective Outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1121-1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660311006
Louden, W., Rohl, M., & Hopkins, S. (2008). Teaching for Growth: Effective Teaching of Literacy and Numeracy. Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia. http://www.web.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/615686/TFG_Final_Report.pdf
Mevarech, Z. R. (1985). Computer-Assisted Instructional Methods: A Factorial Study within Mathematics Disadvantaged Classrooms. The Journal of Experimental Education, 54, 22-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1985.10806393
Mevarech, Z. R., & Rich, Y. (1985). Effects of Computer Assisted Instruction on Disadvantaged Pupils’ Cognitive and Affective Outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1985.10885638
Nesher, P. (1986). Learning Mathematics: A Cognitive Perspective. American Psychologist, 41, 1114-1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1114
Osin, L. (1984). TOAM: C.A.I. on a National Scale. In Proceedings of the 4th Jerusalem Conference on Information Technology (pp. 418-424). Silver Spring, MD: IEEE Computer Society.
Osin, L., & Nesher, P. (1989). Comparison of Student Performance in Arithmetic Exercises: TOAM vs. Paper and Pencil Testing, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31, 293-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(89)90009-6
Osin, l., Nesher, P., & Ram, J. (1994). Do the Rich Become Richer and the Poor Poorer? A Longitudinal Analysis of Pupil Achievement and Progress in elementary Schools Using Computer Assisted Instruction. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 53-64.
Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart Schools. New York: Free Press.
Piaget, J. (1972). The Principles of Genetic Epistemology. New York: Basic Books.
Raloff, J. (1988). U.S. Education: Failing in Science? Science News, 133, 165-166. https://doi.org/10.2307/3972482
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student Thought and Classroom Language: Examining the Mechanisms of Change in Dialogic Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48, 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.775898
Safir, P. M., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Ben Tsvi-Mayer, S., & Kupermintz, H. (1992). Prominence of Girls and Boys in the Classroom: Schoolchildren Perceptions. Sex Roles, 27, 439-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290002
Salomon, G., Almog, T., & Ben Zakan, E. (1993). Towards a Pedagogical Approach for Learning in Technology Enriched Classrooms. Platform for Discussion. Haifa: Haifa University, School of Education.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York, NY: Basil Books.
Shaftiya, L. (1989). Alternative Teaching Methods: Towards Improving the Education Method in the School. Jerusalem: Mechon Henrietta Szold. (In Hebrew)
Shamos, M. (1988). The “Crisis” in Science Education. The Education Digest, 54, 19-22.
Solomon, G. (1994). Integrating of Media, Cognition, and Learning: An Exploration of How Symbolic Forms Cultivate Mental Skills and Affect Knowledge Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Solomon, G., & Gardner, H. (1986). The Computer as Educator: Lessons from Television Research. Educational Research, 16, 13-19. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015001013
Stevens, J. (1986) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Sutton, R. E. (1991). Equity and Computers in the School: A Decade of Research. Review of Educational Research, 61, 475-503. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061004475
Swan, K., Guerrero, F., & Mitrani, M. (1989). Comprehensive Computer-Based Instructional Programs: What Works for Educationally Disadvantaged Students? Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, 1989, San Francisco, CA, NYC Board of Education.
Swan, K., Guerrero, F., Mitrani, M., & Schoener, J. (1990). Honing in on the Target: Who among the Educationally Disadvantaged Benefits Most from What CBI? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22, 381-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1990.10781929
Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (2001). Integrating Technology in Teaching and Teacher Education: Implications for Policy and Curriculum Reform. Educational Media International, 38, 127-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980110041944