Refereed article in conference proceedings (A4)
Computer-Assisted Learning: Using Automatic Assessment and Immediate Feedback in First Grade Mathematics
List of Authors: E. Kurvinen, R. Lindén, E. Lokkila, M.J. Laakso
Conference name: International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies
Publication year: 2015
Journal: EDULEARN proceedings
Book title *: EDULEARN15 Proceedings: 7th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies
Journal name in source: EDULEARN15 - 7th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies
Start page: 2303
End page: 2312
Number of pages: 10
ISBN: 978-84-606-8243-1
ISSN: 2340-1117
URL: https://library.iated.org/view/KURVINEN2015COM
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).