top of page
Are Tablet Math Programs Effective? A Closer Look at the Aspiranti Meta-Analysis

Tablet software has several theoretical advantages for Mathematics instruction. It can automatically mark students, make use of games, be programmed to have superior Mathematical knowledge, and unlike a traditional computer it uses touch screen technology, opposed to a mouse and keyboard. In theory this would make the apps perfect for teaching Math to young students. However, theory and practice don’t always line up. In 2021, Kathleen Aspiranti and Karin Larwin conducted a meta-analysis of studies on tablet Math instruction. Their meta-analysis examined 20 studies and found a mean effect size of d = .48 , suggesting a strong positive effect. That said the meta-analysis inclusion criterion was weak and accepted 4 studies that did not have control groups, which would have likely inflated the mean effect size found.

However, the authors did an incredibly robust moderator analysis, which controlled for this weakness and allowed for some really interesting interpretations. I have created an interactive chart below, that you can use to explore their findings further. If you are on a computer, you can hover over a bar, to learn more specifics of that specific variable. I will note, I removed variables with 4 or less underlying studies to lower confusion.

 

Table 1. 

Aspiranti & Larwin, 2021 Moderator Analysis. 

Instructional Takeways

From an instructional perspective, I have three main takeaways. Current research evidence shows that tablet programs can be used to effectively teach Math. Math instruction is dose dependent. The more Math instruction a student receives, the better they perform on Math assessments. This trend would seem like a no brainer, and yet we rarely discuss dose in educational discussions. Tablets were significantly more useful for teaching advanced Math concepts opposed to basic ones. This trend surprised me. I expected the opposite, as tablet programs are often geared towards younger students. Perhaps, this trend is a reflection of students benefiting more from working at their own pace with advanced concepts or perhaps it’s reflective of some teachers having insufficient training to teach advanced Math concepts by comparison.
 

Research Takeaways

There were several interesting research trends in this study, not immediately pertinent to teachers. Essentially this study consistently showed an inverse linear relationship between study quality and student achievement. Studies that used standardized tests had lower results, than studies where the researcher created their own tests. Studies that met WWC standards had lower effect sizes than studies that met WWC standards with reservations. Studies that met WWC standards reservations had lower effect sizes than studies that did not meet WWC standards at all. Studies that compared tablet instruction to equivalent instruction had lower effect sizes than studies that used business as usual control groups. Moreover, studies that used business as usual control groups had higher effect sizes than studies with no control groups. Lastly studies that were focused on specific tablet programs (likely sponsored) showed 3x larger effect sizes than studies on generic tablet usage in Math. In otherwords, the more rigorous studies were, they lower the effect size that was found. These results highlight the importance of analyzing individual studies and their effect sizes, according to the design of that specific study. That said, it is important to note that even the most rigorous of studies showed effect sizes of above .20, suggesting that tablet programs are genuinely helpful for Math instruction.

These results are far higher than past studies on reading instruction, with technology, suggesting that it is easier to teach Math via technology than it is reading. Perhaps, this difference is a reflection of the fact that basic Math literacy skills are less complex than basic literacy skills. 

 

Apple vs Android

The authors found that Android programs were on average far better than Apple programs. As an Adroid user, I am tempted to declare victory. However, I think this difference is likely a reflection of the fact that some random noise is completely inescapable in meta-analysis. As, I can think of no logical reason that Android Math apps would be overall superior.

Written by Nathaniel hansford

Last Edited 

2025-08-02

​

References:

Aspiranti, K. B. & Larwin, K. H. (2021). Investigating the effects of tablet-based math interventions: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 5(4), 629–647

Formulario de suscripción

¡Gracias por enviar!

7052091873

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

©2021 por Pedagogía Non Grata.
Aquí en Pedagogía Non Grata nos enorgullece ofrecerle investigación educativa de alta calidad de forma gratuita. Sin embargo, los costos del servidor no son gratuitos. Si le gusta nuestra investigación, considere donar en nuestra página de Patreon para ayudarnos a seguir entregando más contenido de forma gratuita: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=70587114

bottom of page