Content uploaded by Robin Holding Kay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robin Holding Kay on Mar 16, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR SELECTING AND EVALUATING
EDUCATIONAL APPS
R. Kay
University of Ontario Institute of Technology (CANADA)
Abstract
Currently, there are thousands of educational apps available, however, most are not formally
regulated, and educators have limited guidance on how to choose the most effective apps [1,2]. The
purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive framework for selecting and evaluating
educational apps based on an extensive review of the research from 2008 to 2017. First, the history
and growth of educational apps and the limitations of previous metrics will be discussed. Second,
eight types of educational apps will be discussed (instructive, practice-based, metacognitive,
constructive, productive, communicative, collaborative, game-based). Third, eight characteristics of
effective apps will be summarized including learning value, content quality, learning goals, usability,
engagement, challenge level, feedback, and collaboration. Fourth, practical issues for selecting apps
will be explored. Finally, guideless for using the app characteristics and types are provided.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
An educational app is a software application that works on a mobile device and is designed to support
learning [3,4]. The worldwide growth of educational apps over the past five years has been
extraordinary [5,6,7]). According to Statista [6], spending on mobile education around the world was
estimated at 16.2 billion (US dollars) in 2017. The projected compound annual growth rate of
educational apps is expected to be 28% to 35% until 2020 [5,7]. The projected number of apps
available in 2017, both free and paid, is over 5 million, 15% of which focus on education [7]. This
means that there are roughly 750,000 apps available in the domain of education. It is not surprising
that educators find choosing appropriate apps a daunting task [1,3,4]. Consequently, there is a clear
need for an evidence-based model for organizing and selecting educational apps.
1.2 Previous Evaluation Metrics
1.2.1 App Types
Over the past seven years, at least at least 11 papers have proposed classification schemes for
educational apps in general education [8,9], mathematics [1,10,11,12], science [13], augmented reality
[14], and higher education [15]. Over 30 distinct main categories have been identified in previous
classification schemes making it challenging and somewhat confusing for educators to assess
education apps efficiently. Some papers organized apps based on only three or four main categories
[8-10] thereby restricting the classification process. Other papers incorporated 14 to 32 subcategories
[1, 11, 12, 15] making the classification process unwieldy and overwhelming. Almost all of these
classification frameworks offer limited theoretical grounding and research support. Consequently, a
comprehensive but workable, evidenced-based, theoretically grounded model for classifying and using
educational apps in needed.
1.2.2 App Characteristics
At least 26 articles have been written on the assessing the learning characteristics of educational apps
in domains such as computer-aided instruction [16], health [17], mathematics [18], special needs [19],
augmented reality [14], higher education [15]. Three-quarters of these papers were discussion-based
focusing on the practical and theoretical identification of essential app characteristics. Less than 25%
of the papers developed and formally tested metrics to evaluate educational apps [4, 8, 17].
Furthermore, well over 60 app characteristics have been proposed, making it challenging to develop a
practical and efficient evaluation metric. Therefore, these characteristics need to synthesized into a
scalable, coherent framework.
Proceedings of INTED2018 Conference
5th-7th March 2018, Valencia, Spain
ISBN: 978-84-697-9480-7
0374
2 METHODOLOGY
Several steps were followed to ensure a high-quality review and analysis of the literature on
classifying educational apps. First, a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed journals, but not
conference papers was conducted. Numerous databases were searched including AACE Digital
Library, Academic Search Premiere, EBSCOhost, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scholars Portal
Journals. Second, the reference section for relevant articles was searched in order to find additional
articles. Third, key educational and technology journals from around the world were examined
independently including following publications: Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, British
Journal of Educational Technology, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Computers and
Education, Computers in Human Behavior, Educational Technology Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, Journal of Educational Computing Research, and the Turkish Journal Online Journal of
Distance Education.
3 RESULTS
3.1 App Types
3.1.1 Instructive
A direct instructional app provides information that fully explains the concepts and procedures to be
learned [20]. The rationale for using this type of app is to develop the foundational knowledge and
cognitive skills necessary to support higher level thinking and problems solving [21-23]. Direct
instruction, as a teaching strategy, is grounded in social learning [24], elaboration [25], cognitive-load
theories [20] and worked-example learning theories [20, 26]. There is a common misconception by
some that students should not be taught using direct instruction, that they should construct knowledge.
However, there are situations where teaching by telling is very useful [21]. In a review of the
literature, Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark [20] provide considerable evidence that direct instruction is an
effective teaching approach, particularly for novices whose working memory can be overloaded if not
enough scaffolding is offered [27]. Sample instructive apps include TED Talks, wikiHow, BitsBoard, or
Curiosity.
3.1.2 Practice-Based
Practice-based apps are designed to help students practice new content, concepts, and skills [11].
While many teachers are encouraged to promote critical and reflective thinking, a basic knowledge of
content and concepts is required to participate in higher levels of thinking, especially at the elementary
school level. Practice-based apps can be used for diagnostic [27] or formative [21] and to develop
mastery [27]. This kind of app is supported by behaviourist [28] and cognitive apprenticeship [29]
learning theories. There is considerable evidence to suggest that regular feedback [21, 30], relevant
recall questions [30], self-testing [32, 33) is particularly effective with respect to improving student
achievement. Sample productive apps include Khan Academy, Duolingo, Quizlet, or BrainPOP.
3.1.3 Metacognitive
Metacognitive apps focus on goal setting, planning and execution, reasoning, problem-solving,
working memory, and organization [34]. Research and educators have argued that teaching meta-
cognitive skills streamline the application and flow of knowledge [27, 35) and should be integrated into
learning [21]. Substantial evidence suggests that metacognition is teachable [33]. Furthermore,
planning and self-monitoring significantly improve student achievement [33]. Sample metacognitive
apps include PearlTrees, Mindomo, myHomework, or Microsoft OneNote.
3.1.4 Constructive
Constructive apps emphasize exploration [12], making sense of new information, reflection, conjecture
[11], skill acquisition, data management [36] and the active manipulation of ideas and concepts [37].
This type of app could be particularly useful for helping students to construct understanding and
applying or extending concepts/skills. The foundations of constructive apps rest in discovery learning
[38] and social constructivism [39]. Empirical evidence suggests that students engaging in deduction,
problem-solving, experimental inquiry, and questioning experience significant gains in student
achievement. Sample constructive apps include Desmos, Pocket Code, Gizmos, or PhET Interactive
Simulations.
0375
3.1.5 Productive
Productive or tool-based apps [9]) are used to demonstrate and use knowledge/skills by creating
artefacts and may involve collaboration [11, 12]. The use productive apps are founded on project-
based learning [40], problem-based learning [41] and distributed cognition [42]. A number of studies
suggest that the kind of activities supported by productive apps in project and problem-based learning
have a significant positive impact on student learning [40, 43]. Sample productive apps include
Google Docs and Slides, Weebly, Gamestar Mechanic and Thinglink.
3.1.6 Communicative
Communicative apps, including a wide array of social media tools, allow students to communicate with
their peers in a variety of ways, anytime, anyplace, supporting Lave & Wenger’s communities of
practice model of learning [44]. The use of communication apps is based on a pedagogy of
participation [45.46] and is founded on social cognitive theory [28] and situated cognition [29].
Research backing the use of these type of apps suggests that communities of practice can have a
positive impact on teaching practice and student achievement [47]. Sample communicate apps
include edublogs, Seesaw, YouTube, and Google Hangouts.
3.1.7 Collaborative
According to Hsu & Ching [48], collaborative learning allows students to work with others to create
questions, discuss ideas, explore problems and solutions, complete tasks and reflect. Like
communicative apps, students interact and communicate, but with collaborative apps, groups focus on
solving a solution or creating a product. Collaborative learning is rooted in social development theory
[49] and discourse analysis [50]. A number of studies have suggested that students learn more when
they work together than when they work alone [51] and that collaboration significantly improves
attitude and achievement in primary, secondary and tertiary settings. Sample collaborative apps
include Monday.com, Peergrade, Slack, and Stride.
3.1.8 Game-Based
A game-based is a challenging activity, created with rules, goals, progression and rewards, and
provides a safe space for experimentation, mistake making, discussion, practice, active-problem
solving, reflection and/or creativity [52]. The use of games to support learning is grounded in flow-
theory [53], situated cognition [54], and behaviourism [55]. Some evidence suggests that game-based
learning has a positive impact on engagement, motivation, broad knowledge acquisition, and problem-
solving skills [56]. Sample game-based apps include Prodigy, Minecraft, and Lure of the Labyrinth.
3.2 App Characteristics
3.2.1 Learning Value
The primary focus of any education app is to support learning. Not surprisingly, then, one of the more
researched characteristics of apps is learning value, typically assessed through teacher or student
perceptions. Key areas of emphasis are control over learning [57], promoting knowledge building and
information searching skills [36, 58], improving learning outcomes and achievement [60,61], and on
student achievement. Ideal apps break down learning into manageable and connected steps, as well
as provide strategies for completing the work [19].
3.2.2 Content Quality
If an educational app has poor quality content, the impact on learning can be negative, particularly
with respect to instructive and practice-based apps. A number of studies have examined the content
quality of education apps and focussed on features such as bias [4,19], links to the curriculum [62],
authenticity [2, 62] and errors [4, 19, 62].
3.2.3 Learning Goals
Explicit learning goals can help teachers in the selection of appropriate apps and provide students with
a clear learning focus [2, 16]. Falloon [63] noted that the absence of learning goals in an educational
app could lead students off task in the pursuit of gamification and entertainment. Unfortunately,
learning goals are not often articulated in educational apps [19], and teacher guidance may be
required.!
0376
3.2.4 Usability
Usability is critical but not sufficient for an educational app to support learning. Extensive discussion
has focussed on numerous qualities that can promote or inhibit usability including clarity [62],
consistency [62], accessibility [19, 62], control [2], organization, intuitive interface, layout, navigation,
and language level.
3.2.5 Engagement
Fredricks et al. [64] identified three components are considered to be important when looking at
engagement for educational apps: behavioural engagement (involved in activities), emotional
engagement (positive and negative reactions), and cognitive engagement (investment in learning). An
educational app may be emotionally engaging and highly interactive, for example, but should be
cognitively engaging to support learning [2, 18]. Even if students appear to be engaged, it is hard to
ascertain without direct observation what they are focusing on [63]. Key features of engagement
noted in the literature include fun and excitement [65], sense of control [16], incentives [4], graphics
quality [4], authenticity [14], adaptability [18, 65], and choice [19].
3.2.6 Challenge Level
Challenge level, sometimes referred to as differentiation or the adaptability of an app to adjust to and
meet the learning needs of a student is another significant app characteristic [18, 60, 61]. When
challenge level does not match a student’s needs, app fatigue can be brought about by boredom or
cognitive overload leading students to disengage or seek entertainment [63]. Features identified by
researchers to describe challenge level include flexible ability levels [19]; real-time adaptability [14],
and variable practice opportunities [16,19] differentiation, levelling, independent learning, selecting
content parameters, and instructional pacing [12,18, 60, 61, 63]. The fundamental premise is that a
responsive math app needs to match students’ personal preferences (e.g., look and feel avatars)
and/or ability level. Falloon [63] cautions that if the challenge level does not align with cognitive ability,
elementary school students will experience app fatigue, disengage, or seek entertainment.
3.2.7 Feedback
The quality of an educational app’s feedback is paramount to successful learning, particularly with
practice-based, constructive, and game-based apps. Different kinds of feedback in the form of rewards
and visual progress markers, the ongoing status of the problem being solved, corrective guidance, and
conceptual correction can help students learning concepts and skills better [2, 3, 18, 30, 63].
Monitoring student behaviour in the form of a report can also provide useful information for both
students and the teacher regarding learning progress [10, 63].
3.2.8 Collaboration
Collaboration in the form of meaningful discussion, cooperation, and peer tutoring can have a marked
impact on student achievement [30]. Having to explain one’s reasoning to another and think through
an argument or process deepens one’s understanding of the problem at hand [2]. Built-in collaboration
within an educational app is rare and has not been examined in detail [9,10]. However, because of
the importance of collaboration, teachers can intervene and adjust app-based activities to more team-
based.
3.3 Practical Issues in Selecting Apps
There are a number of practical issues that educators may need to consider when selecting an
education-based app including subject domain, cost, platform, and privacy. The subject domain of an
app can influence the type of app selected [10, 16]. The learning goals and app types may be quite
different for mathematics and science compared to history, geography or music. Cost of an app is
also a critical factor in the selection process [65]. Free apps are desirable for many economically
challenged schools, however, the quality of apps and the inclusion of advertisements may be an issue.
Paid apps may be of better quality, but affordability could be a barrier. A platform that an app runs on
is worthy of consideration when selecting an app [16,65]. Ideally, an educational app should run on
multiple systems (typically iOS and Android) or be web-based. Finally, the privacy of student
information needs to be considered if data from an app is stored externally in “the cloud.”
0377
3.4 Guidelines for Selecting and Evaluating Apps
3.4.1 Role of the Educator
The teacher is critical in determining the success or failure of an education app [66]. For example,
many apps do not provide explicit learning goals, nor do they connect the education app to specific
course curricula. Teachers can supplement this process by communicating learning goals to the class
and selecting apps that meet course learning objectives. Additionally, teachers can optimize the use of
constructive and productive apps using a collaborative, by adding a team-based element.
Furthermore, teachers can select a wide range of educational apps to accommodate the ability and
interest levels of a wide variety of students within the same class [3]. Teachers must also monitor app
use during class to ensure the intended learning goals are pursued. It is particularly challenging to
determine whether actual learning is occurring without observing and interacting with students using
the educational apps [63]. In some cases, teachers will need to provide scaffolding and guidance to
avoid the haphazard interactions with an app [2]. Finally, it is critical to integrate educational apps with
the most effective teaching strategy. Matching the right app to the desired learning goals and
appropriate learning approach is a challenging but necessary process to attain meaningful learning
gains [12].
3.4.2 Selection Process
When selecting an educational app, the first step is to establish intended learning outcomes. If the
learning goal is to help students learn a new concept, then an instructive app might be appropriate.
On the other hand, if the intent is to review concepts previously learned, practice or game-based apps
could be a good choice. Metacognitive apps could be relevant when the learning goal is to organize
thinking, perhaps through brainstorming or concepts maps. Constructive apps might be more helpful
when exploring and developing higher level skills. Productive apps could be particularly useful for a
culminating task and bring a number of learning tasks and goals together for a single project.
Communicative apps, as the name suggests, would be helpful if the learning goals involved the
exchange and discussion of ideas. Finally, collaborative apps could be used to support attaining other
learning goals through teamwork and the completion of a project. Note that some apps may represent
multiple types. For example, game-based or instructive apps can involve opportunities to practice.
Productive apps may incorporate the construction of knowledge and higher-level skills or include
collaboration features. Once the type of education app is selected, the teacher can then evaluate it
based on the eight characteristics discussed below. All apps should provide clear learning goals,
accurate content, and an easy-to-use format. The influence of the other characteristics, though, will
vary by app type.
3.4.3 Evaluation Process
Once an app is selected, it is important for an educator to test and evaluate the various characteristics
identified in this paper. It is highly unlikely that any single education app will score highly on all eight
app characteristics, so educators need to decide which are most important and which may need to be
supplemented by external intervention. As stated earlier, learning value is critical and if the
educational app does not make a meaningful contribution, the evaluation process is over, and it is time
to select an alternative tool. Content quality may be important for instructive and practice-based apps,
but not for other app types. It is more than likely that learning goals and links to the curriculum will
have to be augmented by the teacher, however, it is essential that students understand the purpose of
using the app. Usability and engagement may be best pilot tested, as teachers may not be able to
gauge these features accurately from the perspective of the student. Challenge-level may be
addressed within an app or by using a range of app types to accommodate students with different skill
levels. It is more than likely that challenge level will be relevant for instructive, practice-based and
game-based apps. Effective feedback is particularly important for instructive, constructive, practice-
based and game-based apps. Of primary concern is feedback that helps students learn from their
mistakes. Finally, collaboration is built into some open-ended apps, but it is likely that most apps will
not include this feature, so teachers will have to integrate educational app use is teamwork is one of
the intended learning goals.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Selecting and evaluating educational app can be a daunting and time-consuming take for educators.
A preliminary framework, based on a content-analysis of the literature, provide a metric for choosing
0378
an appropriate app type and evaluating important app characteristics. This framework will not help
educators identify perfect educational apps, but it could help them find promising tools to augment and
support student learning. It is vital to understand, though, in most cases app selection and quality will
need to be enhanced by thoughtful and purposeful educator scaffolding.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Alon, H. An, & D. Fuentes. “Teaching mathematics with tablet PCs: A professional
development program targeting primary school teachers” in Tablets in K-12 education:
Integrated experiences and implications (G. Christou, S. Maromoustakos, K. Mavrou, K., M.
Meletiou-Mavrothers, & G. Stylianou, G. Eds.), pp.175-197. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2015
[2] K. Hirsh-Pasek, J. Zosh, R. Golinkoff, J. H. Gray, M. B. Robb, & J. Kaufman, “Putting education
in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning”, Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3–34, 2015.
[3] E. C. Bouck, R. Satsangi, & S. Flanagan, “Focus on Inclusive education: Evaluating apps for
students with disabilities: supporting academic access and success”, Childhood Education, vol.
92, no. 2, pp. 324-328, 2016.
[4] S. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, & N. Zaranis, “Designing and creating an educational app
rubric for preschool teachers”, Educ Inf Technol, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 3147-3165, 2017.
[5] R. Chang, “U.S. education apps market to grow 28.15% in 2016-2020”, The Journal, retrieved
from https://thejournal.com/Articles/2017/01/26/U.S.-Education-Apps-Market-to-Grow-28.15-
Percent-in-2016-to-2020.aspx, 2017.
[6] Statista, “Compound annual growth rate of free and paid education app downloads worldwide
from 2012 to 2017”, retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/273971/cagr-of-free-and-
paid-education-app-downloads-worldwide/, 2018
[7] Technavio, “Global Education Apps Market- Market Study 2015-2019”, retrieved from
http://www.reportsnreports.com/reports/426935-global-education-apps-market-market-study-
2015-2019.html, 2015
[8] T. Cherner, J. Dix, & C. Lee, “Cleaning up that mess: A framework for classifying educational
apps”, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 158-193.,
2014.
[9] O. T. Murray & N. R. Olcese, “Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or not? TechTrends, vol.
55, no. 6, pp. 42-48, 2011.
[10] M. Ebner, “Mobile applications for math education – how should they be done?” In Crompton,
H., & Traxler, J. (Eds.). Mobile learning and mathematics. Foundations, design, and case
studies, pp. 20-32, 2015
[11] N. Grandgenett, J. Harris, & M. Hofer, M., “An activity-based approach to technology integration
in the mathematics classroom”, NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, vol. 13.,
no. 1, pp. 19-28.
[12] B. Handal, C. Campbell, M. Cavanaugh, & P. Petocz, “Characterising the perceived value of
mathematics educational apps in preservice teachers”, Mathematics Education Research
Journal, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 199-221, 2016.
[13] J. M. Zydney & Z. Warner, “Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research’, Computers &
Education, vol. 94, pp. 1-17, 2016.
[14] P. M. O’Shea & J. B. Elliott, “Augmented reality in education: An exploration and analysis of
currently available educational apps”, International Conference on Immersive Learning, pp. 147-
159, 2016.
[15] E. Pechenkina, “Developing a typology of mobile apps in Higher Education: A national case-
study”, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 134-146, 2017.
[16] M. Kuittinen, “Criteria for evaluating CAI applications”, Computers & Education, vol. 31, pp. 1-
16, 1998.
0379
[17] S. Stoyanov et al., “Mobile app rating scale: A new tool for assessing the quality of health
mobile apps”, JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth, vol. 3, no. 1, 2015.
[18] G. A. Cayton-Hodges, G. Feng, & X. Pan, “Tablet-based math assessment: What can we learn
from math apps?”, Educational Technology & Society, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 3–20, 2015.
[19] M. W. Ok, M. K. Kim, E. Y. Kang, & B. R. Bryant, “How to find good apps: an evaluation rubric
for instructional apps for teaching students with learning disabilities”, Technology Trends, vol.
51, no. 4, pp. 244-252, 2016.
[20] P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, & R. E. Clark, “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and
inquiry-based teaching”, Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75-86, 2016.
[21] M. S. Donovan, J. D. Bransford & W. & Pellegrino, W. (2000). How people learn: Brain. mind,
experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press., 2000
[22] P. De Bruckere, P. A. Kirschner, P. A., & C. D. Hulshof. Urban myths about learning and
education. New York: Elsevier, 2015
[23] D. T. Willingham, Why students don’t like school? San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 2009.
[24] A. Bandura, Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press, 1977.
[25] C. M. Reigeluth, “The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions.
Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory”, vol. 2, pp.
425-453, 1999.
[26] R. K. Atkinson, S. J. Derry, & D. Wortham, “Learning from examples: Instructional principles
from the worked examples research”, Review of Educational Research, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 181-
214, 2000
[27] S. A. Ambrose, M. W. Bridges, M. DiPietro, M. C. Lovett, & M. K. Norman, How learning works:
Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 2010.
[28] D. H. Schunk, Learning theories – An Educational perspective (5th Ed), Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson, 2008.
[29] A. Collins, J. S. Brown, & S. E. Newman, “Cognitive apprenticeship. Thinking:”, The Journal of
Philosophy for Children, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 2-10, 1988.
[30] G. Petty, Evidence-based teaching (2nd Ed). Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thomes, 2009
[31] P. C. Brown, H. Roediger, & M. A. McDanial, “Make it stick: The science of successful learning”,
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014.
[32] J. Hattie, Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact on learning, New York: Routledge,
2012.
[33] A. K., Ellis, J. B. Bond, & D. W. Denton, “An analytical literature review of the effects of
metacognitive teaching strategies in primary and secondary student populations”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Educational Development, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9-23, 2012.
[34] D. Wilson & M. Conyers, Teaching students to drive their brains, Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development, 2016.
[35] D. J. Levitin, The organized mind: Thinking straight in the age of information overload. Toronto,
Ontario: Penguin Canada Books Inc.
[36] M. G. Domingo & A.B. Gargante, “Exploring the use of educational technology in primary
education: Teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in
the classroom”, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 56, pp. 21-28, 2016.
[37] J. Keengwe, iPad integration in an elementary classroom in Anderson, A. & Hur, J.W. (Eds.),
Pedagogical applications and social effects of mobile technology integration (pp. 42-54).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2013.
[38] J. S. Bruner. The process of education. Harvard University Press, 2009.
[39] L/ Vygotsky. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
0380
[40] D. Kokotsaki, V. Menzies, & A. Wiggins, “Project-based learning: A review of the literature”,
Improving Schools, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 267-277, 2016.
[41] F. Dochy, M. Seger, P. Van den Bossche, “Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis”,
Learning and Instruction, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 533-568, 2003
[42] M. Perry, Distributed Cognition. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.) HCI Models, theories, and frameworks:
Toward an interdisciplinary science (pp. 193-223). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers, 2003.
[43] J. Merrit, M. Y. Lee, P. Rillero, & B. M. Kinach, “Problem-based learning in k–8 mathematics
and science education: A literature review”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based
Learning, vol. 11, no. 2.
[44] J. Lave & Wenger, E., Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
University Press, 1998.
[45] S. Downes, “New technology supporting informal learning”, Journal of Emerging Technologies
in Web Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 1) pp. 27-33, 2010
[46] G. Siemens, “Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age”, International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3-10, 2005.
[47] V. Vescio, D. Ross, & A. Adams, “A review of research on the impact of professional learning
communities on teaching practice and student learning”, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol.
24, no. 1, pp. 80-91, 2008.
[48] Y. Hsu & Y. Ching, “Mobile computer-supported collaborative learning: A review of experimental
research”, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 44, no. 5, E11-E114, 2013.
[49] L. Vygotsky, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
[50] L. Harasim, Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY: Routledge, 2012.
[51] D. W. Johnson, R. T. Johnson, “Making cooperative learning work”, Theory into Practice, vol.
38, no. 2, pp. 67–73, 2009.
[52] N. Whitton, Digital games and learning: Research and theory. New York: Routledge, 2014.
[53] M. Csíkszentmihályi, Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper
Perennial, 2008.
[54] J. S. Brown & P. Duguid, “Situated cognition and the culture of learning”, Educational
Researcher, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 32-42, 1989.
[55] B. F. Skinner, About behaviorism. New York: Vintage, 1976
[56] T. Connolly, E. Boyle, E. MacArthur, T. Hainey, & J. M. Boyle, “A systematic literature review of
empirical evidence on computer game and serious games”, Computers & Education, vol. 59,
no. 2, pp. 661-686, 2012.
[57] W. Clark & R. Luckin, “IPads in the Classroom”, London Knowledge Lab, vol. 1, pp. 1-31.
[58] C. C. Chou, L. Block, & R. Jesness, “Strategies and challenges in iPad initiative: Lessons
learned from year two. IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet”, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 85-
101, 2014.
[59] M. G. Domingo & A.B. Gargante, “Exploring the use of educational technology in primary
education: Teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in
the classroom”, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 56, pp. 21-28, 2016.
[60] H. An, S. Alon, & D. Funetes, iPad implementation approaches in K-12 school environments in
Alon, S., An, H. & Fuentes, D. (Eds.), Tablets in K-12 education: Integrated experiences and
implications (pp. 22-33). Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2015.
[61] N. Milman, A. Carlson-Bancroft, & A. Vanden Boogart, “Examining differentiation and utilization
of iPads across content areas in an independent, PreK–4th Grade elementary school”,
Computers in the Schools, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 119-133, 2014.
0381
[62] R. Boone & K. Higgins, “The software √-list: Evaluating educational software for use by students
with disabilities”, Journal of Special Education Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 50-63, 2012.
[63] G. Falloon, “Researching young students’ learning pathways using iPads: What's going on
behind the screens?”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 318–336,
2014.
[64] J. A. Fredricks, P. C. Blumenfeld, & A. H. Paris (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 59–109,
2004.
[65] R. O. Hawkins, T. Collins, & E. Flowers, “Using computer-assisted instruction to build math fact
fluency”, Intervention in School and Clinic, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 141-147, 2017.
[66] M. M. Riconscente, “Results from a controlled study of the iPad fractions game Motion Math”,
Games and Culture, vol. 8, no. 4, 186-214, 2013
0382
