Refereed article in conference proceedings (A4)

Computer-Assisted Learning: Using Automatic Assessment and Immediate Feedback in First Grade Mathematics

List of AuthorsE. Kurvinen, R. Lindén, E. Lokkila, M.J. Laakso

Conference nameInternational Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies

Publication year2015

JournalEDULEARN proceedings

Book title *EDULEARN15 Proceedings: 7th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies

Journal name in sourceEDULEARN15 - 7th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies

Start page2303

End page2312

Number of pages10





In this paper we present the results of a research, where learning performance is compared between

normal pen-and-paper teaching methods and computer-assisted learning (CAL) using ViLLE. The

experiment reported in this paper is a part of a larger research conducted in collaboration with the city

of Salo and the University of Turku. Two Finnish primary schools from the city of Salo were selected

for this research. Two first grade classes from each school took part in the research. Each school had

one control group and one treatment group. In the treatment group, one mathematics lesson per week

was converted into a computer-assisted ViLLE lesson. Both groups had the same amount of lessons

per week. There were a total of 37 students in the treatment group (N=37) and a total of 42 students in

the control group (N=42). Learning results were evaluated with a pre- and mid-test. There were 19

weeks of lessons between the pre- and mid-tests.

In addition to comparing the treatment and the control groups, both groups in each schools were also

compared individually using Mann-Whitney U-test. In the pre-test, school A’s classes did not have

statistically significant (p=0.173) difference, although control group’s average score was higher. In the

mid-test the treatment group managed to pass the control group and the difference was statistically

significant (p=0.038) in favour to treatment group. In school B, both classes were very similar: there

were practically no difference between the groups in the pre-test (p=1). In the post-test treatment

group managed to increase the difference between the groups, although the difference was not

significant (p=0.1534). When combining both control treatment groups the difference at pre-test is

levelled (p=0.281). Yet the learning performance clearly improved in favour of the treatment groups in

the mid-test (p=0.024).

Last updated on 2021-24-06 at 09:25