Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comparative Analysis of Digital Tools
and Traditional Teaching Methods in
Educational Effectiveness
Aarush Kandukoori¹ • Aditya Kandukoori² • Faizan Wajid³
Poolesville High School¹ • Poolesville High School² • University of Maryland³
Abstract
In today's world technology comprises a large
aspect of our lives so this study aimed to
investigate if using computers and digital tools
are better than traditional methods like using
textbooks and worksheets for learning math.
This study was done at Clarksburg Elementary
School with help from MoCo Innovation
which is a club that focuses on fostering an
interest in technology among students. A
major question that sparked our minds was:
Are digital tools like learning on computers
better than traditional methods for
improving students’ math skills? We believe
students who use digital tools might improve
more in their math skills. To find out we
worked with 30 students from the school. We
split them into two groups and gave each
group a pre assessment and post assessment.
One group learned math using computers and
were able to use interactive math websites
such as Khan Academy while the other group
used worksheets. After some learning we gave
them a post assessment to see how much they
had improved. Our results showed that the
students who used the digital tools improved
test scores averages by 24.2% from 70% to
87% while the students who used traditional
methods only improved by 8.3% from 72% to
78% in math. These results show that digital
tools are superior to regular teaching methods
especially for subjects like math. But more
research is required to see if digital tools are
the main reason for this improvement. This
research is definitely important to help schools
decide if they want to use more technology.
Introduction
In recent years and particularly during the
COVID 19 pandemic, education has
undergone significant changes (Li, 2022). One
of the most notable changes has been the rapid
integration of digital tools into the learning
environment (Zhang, 2022). This happened
due to the necessity of remote learning during
the pandemic (Newton, 2020). This paper
aims to solve the critical inquiry by exploring
the comparative efficacy of digital and
traditional educational approaches in K-5
mathematics. In the past schools have
typically used traditional methods to teach
mathematics. These methods involve teachers
assigning chapters to read within textbooks
and assigning paper based worksheets to
reinforce skills. The worksheets involve text
and images at the beginning of the worksheet
to provide reference for students as they
complete the later part of the worksheet
involving the application of learned material
(Buniel & Monding, 2021). While these
approaches have been the norm for math
education for years they do have some
limitations. For example the standardized
problems in textbooks and lectures may not
cater to the learning requirements and
different speeds of students. Enter digital
tools—ranging from specialized educational
software to interactive mobile apps—that
promise not just a different way of learning
but potentially a better one. These digital
platforms offer a host of features that
traditional methods lack such as personalized
learning pathways, instant feedback and a
more engaging as well as interactive
experience (Hendriks, 2016). Moreover,
digital tools can provide a variety of
representations of mathematical concepts from
visual models to real-world applications
thereby catering to different learning styles
(Hendriks, 2016). Schools may need to rethink
how they allocate resources, make decisions
and provide teacher training to incorporate
digital tools in the classroom. This becomes
more relevant in a post pandemic world where
the integration of technology into education is
already gaining momentum. Additionally,
knowing the ways to enhance academic
performance could be extremely valuable for
students and parents alike. Therefore, the main
goal of this study is to assess how effective
digital tools are when compared to traditional
approaches in teaching mathematics. We will
measure this effectiveness by analyzing the
differences in the post-test and pre-test quiz
results on the topic of elementary probability
for the traditional and digital tools. For the
experiment, we refer to the digital learning
group as DLG and the traditional learning
group as TLG. Our hypothesis suggests that
students who actively use digital platforms for
learning portray a greater improvement in
their mathematical skills and comprehension
compared to those who solely rely on
traditional methods.
Methods
Since there has been a rapid integration of
digital tools in education due to the COVID
19 pandemic, we need to evaluate the
effectiveness of using these new tools (Li
2022). The study was conducted at Clarksburg
Elementary School with the help of MoCo
Innovation which is an after school club
focused on fostering innovation and creativity
in students by teaching STEM. The setting
and the organization's mission advocating for
STEM education provided an ideal place for
this study which aims to compare the efficacy
of digital tools versus traditional methods in
enhancing elementary school students'
mathematical skills. The main objective of this
study is to measure the improvement in
mathematical skills among elementary school
students from pre assessment to post
assessment using two different teaching
methods. The experiment involved 30 students
who were divided equally into two groups of
15 each. Before the learning session all
participants were administered a baseline test
to assess their existing knowledge on the
preselected math topic of elementary
probability. The first group referred to as the
Traditional Methods Group (TMG) was
provided with a math packet containing
instructional material, exercises and practice
problems on 7th grade level counting and
probability
(https://www.ntschools.org/cms/lib/NY190009
08/Centricity/Domain/754/Probability/Probabi
lity%20Notes%20Key.pdf).
Advantages of DLG
Advantages of TLG
1.Digital tools offer
personalized
learning experiences
tailored to individual
student needs.
2.Students receive
instant feedback on
their work, allowing
for real-time error
correction and
understanding.
3.The interactive
nature of digital
tools keeps students
more engaged and
motivated to learn.
4.Digital platforms
provide a wide range
of resources,
including videos,
visual models, and
interactive exercises.
1.Students and
teachers are more
familiar with
traditional methods,
which have been the
standard for years.
2.Traditional
methods offer a
more structured
learning
environment with
clear guidelines and
expectations.
3.Traditional
methods do not rely
on technology, so
there are fewer
chances of technical
glitches or software
issues disrupting the
learning process.
4.Worksheets and
textbooks provide
hands-on practice
that some students
may find beneficial
for reinforcing
learning.
This packet represents traditional classroom
teaching methods where students learn from 1
hard copy paper packet with text and images
on the topic that students can read and follow
along. The second group referred to as the
Digital Learning Group (DLG) was equipped
with School issued Chromebooks loaded with
Khan Academy’s Statistics and Probability
(https://www.khanacademy.org/math/cc-seven
th-grade-math/cc-7th-probabilit
y-statistics). This resource provides
personalized learning experiences, immediate
feedback and a variety of resources for
learning the selected math topic. Both groups
learned for 30 minutes during which
participants in both groups engaged with the
provided materials to learn and practice the
selected math topic. Facilitators from the
MoCo Innovation team were present to
provide any necessary assistance without
actually teaching to ensure the smooth flow of
the learning process. The facilitators would
not provide any additional help regarding the
content of the learning method but rather any
glitches, bugs, software issues or hardware
issues, mainly in the DLG. After the learning,
all participants were administered a post test
which was different from the baseline test but
designed to assess the same mathematical
material. The post test aimed at evaluating the
extent of learning and comprehension
achieved by the participants from both groups.
The evaluation of the effectiveness of
traditional versus digital learning methods was
based on the comparative analysis of the
performance improvements from the pre test
to the post test among participants in the TMG
and DLG. This structured approach was aimed
at providing a controlled environment to fairly
compare the traditional and digital learning
methods while ensuring the reproducibility of
the experiment for further studies.
Results
The experiment was conducted at Clarksburg
Elementary School with the assistance of
MoCo Innovation to compare the efficacy of
traditional and digital learning tools to
improve students' math skills. Two groups
were involved with one group using
traditional learning materials and the other
group utilizing digital tools on Chromebooks.
The participants are all students in MoCo
Innovation’s program between grades 3, 4 and
5, containing boys and girls of a diverse set of
races including white, hispanic, black and
asian ethnic groups. These students have
previously signed up and consented for the
MoCo Innovation after school session. The
students were split randomly by counting the
students off 1-30 and having all odd numbered
students be part of the DLG and even
numbered students be part of the TLG to
ensure that the age of the participant would
not affect the results. Initially, a pre test was
distributed to both groups to gather data and
assess their current knowledge of a selected
math topic. The group using traditional
methods scored an average of 72% and the
group using digital tools scored an average of
70%:
These scores set a baseline that helped in
evaluating the progress made by
each group after the learning session. After a
dedicated learning session, a post test was
administered to both groups. The results were
quite revealing. The TMG showed a marked
improvement with their average score rising to
78% as shown below:
On the other hand, the DLG exhibited a more
pronounced improvement with their average
score soaring to 87% as shown below:
The statistical data indicated a 8.3%
improvement for the TMG and a 24.2%
improvement for the DLG.
This data suggests that the digital learning
tools had a more significant impact on
improving the students' understanding and
performance in the selected math topic.
This improvement in averages are also shown
in the following diagram:
The data analysis from the study provides
important findings on how digital tools
compare to traditional teaching methods in
enhancing students' math abilities. The DLG
showed a notable increase in their average
score from 70% before the study to 87%
afterwards. This marked improvement was
confirmed to be statistically significant with a
paired t-test showing a result of (p<.01). On
the other hand, the Traditional Methods Group
(TMG) also saw an increase in their average
score from 72% in the pre-assessment to 78%
in the post-assessment. This difference was
also statistically as indicated by the paired
t-test results ( p < .01). An independent t-test
comparing the pre-assessment scores between
the DLG and TMG showed a statistically
significant difference (p = 0.040) indicating
that the groups started at slightly different
levels. However the post Assessment scores
comparison revealed a highly significant
difference (p < .01) underscoring that the
DLG showed more significant improvement
than the TMG. These findings strongly
support the hypothesis as the DLG exhibited a
more substantial improvement in their scores
compared to the TMG. The initial differences
in pre assessment scores were minimal
compared to the pronounced differences
observed in the post assessment which
highlighted the impact of the digital tools used
in the DLG. The DLG had the advantage of
receiving immediate feedback from the digital
tools which contributed to a better
understanding and real time error correction.
In contrast the TMG relied on the participants
checking their own work for feedback which
wasn’t as instantaneous. This difference in
feedback mechanism could also have
contributed to the better performance of the
DLG in the post test. In conclusion the
statistical data alongside the observational
analysis underscores the effectiveness of
digital learning tools in improving students'
math skills compared to traditional learning
materials. The higher improvement
percentage, increased engagement, immediate
feedback and access to a wide range of
resources are substantial indicators that digital
learning tools provide a more conducive
environment for learning and improving in
mathematics. The findings from this
experiment contribute valuable insights into
the potential benefits of integrating digital
tools in the learning process especially in
enhancing mathematical skills.
Discussion
The experiment at Clarksburg Elementary
School through the MoCo Innovation club
brought to light some important points
regarding how students learn math using
traditional methods versus digital tools. The
study was divided into two main groups. One
used traditional math packets and the other
used digital tools on Chromebooks. The
results of the experiment showed a clear
difference in the performance between the two
groups. The Digital Learning Group (DLG)
showed a more significant improvement in
their post test scores since it moved from an
average score of 70% to 87%. On the other
hand the Traditional Method Group (TMG)
also showed improvement but to a lesser
extent by moving from an average score of
72% to 78%. The improvements can also be
shown in the box plots below:
This suggests that digital tools can provide a
more effective or engaging way for students to
learn and improve their math skills. Moreover,
the DLG had access to more advanced
technological resources which may enhance
their overall learning experience. On the
contrary, the TMG had limited resources
confined to the provided math packet which
may have restricted their exploration and
understanding to a certain extent. However the
experiment had some limitations that need to
be acknowledged. Firstly the sample size was
small with only 30 students participating. This
small sample size may not represent the
broader student population. Even though
MoCo Innovation helps students from diverse
backgrounds all the participants were from the
same school and were part of the same after
school club which could limit the diversity of
the sample. Additionally, the experiment was
short since it only lasted 30 minutes. It's
unclear if the same results would be observed
over a more extended period or with a
different set of students. The findings from
this experiment could be significant for
educators and policymakers. If digital tools
can help improve students' math skills more
effectively than traditional methods then they
might be a valuable resource in educational
settings (Zhang et al., 2020). These results
could encourage schools to invest more in
digital resources, training for teachers on how
to use these tools and further research to better
understand how digital tools impact learning.
However, more research is needed to confirm
these findings and explore other factors that
might affect students' learning experiences
with digital tools. Several questions remain
unanswered by this experiment. For instance
what would happen over a longer period?
Would digital tools continue to help students
improve their math skills? Also, how would
students of different ages or from different
schools perform in a similar experiment? And
are there particular digital tools that work
better than others for learning math?
Moreover, would the results hold if the
experiment was conducted on a larger scale
with a more diverse group of students?
Furthermore, could we merge the DLG and
TMG into one group and combine traditional
methods with digital tools to evaluate their
combined effectiveness in math learning
compared to separate groups? Would the
post-assessment’s combined group score be
the greatest and would it provide a broader
data range? These questions highlight the need
for further research to build upon the findings
of this experiment. They also show that
research is needed to explore the pros and
cons of using digital tools to learn math or
whether it should be used as a supplement to
traditional teaching methods. Technology
should be used to enhance and support
traditional teaching methods instead of
replacing them entirely. The idea is to
integrate technology into the existing
educational framework to enrich the learning
experience (Newton et al., 2020). Also, it
should be used effectively because the crucial
factor is how teachers utilize this technology
in their teaching (Zhang et al., 2020). For
instance a tablet can be a powerful educational
tool when used interactively by teachers or
facilitators to engage students, explain
concepts or provide personalized learning
experiences. The study was mainly designed
to find innovative and effective ways to use
technology to enhance traditional teaching
methods. This provides a richer and more
diverse learning environment for students to
help develop their STEM skills. The
experiment at Clarksburg Elementary School
has opened a door to a new perspective on
how digital tools can be used to enhance
students' math skills. However, walking
through that door requires a deeper
understanding and further exploration to
ensure that the full potential of digital tools
can be harnessed to benefit students in their
mathematical journey.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the data from this study
strongly supports the integration of digital
tools in mathematics education. The increased
improvement percentages, higher engagement
levels, immediate feedback and access to a
broad array of resources indicate that digital
tools can create a more conducive learning
environment for mathematics. These findings
offer compelling evidence for the potential
benefits of incorporating digital tools into
educational curriculum. This research
contributes to a growing body of evidence that
digital tools can enhance the educational
process. As education professionals continue
to explore the challenges and opportunities
from the use of technology, studies like this
one are imperative to guide the way forward.
References
1. Oxford Education Blog.
https://educationblog.oup.com/digital-f
utures/technology-should-supplement-
other-teaching-rather-than-replace-trad
itional-approaches Garelick, B. (2022,
August 29).
2. Traditional Math: The Exception or the
Rule? Traditional Math.
https://barrygarelick.substack.com/p/tr
aditional-math-the-exception-or
Hendriks, D. (2016).
3. Comparing traditional and digital
learning methods to improve the
learning outcomes of young children.
https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=14101
2Li, D. (2022).
4. The Shift to Online Classes during the
Covid-19 pandemic: Benefits,
Challenges, and Required
Improvements from the Students’
Perspective. Electronic Journal of
E-Learning, 20(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.1.2106
Newton, J. R., Williams, M. C., &
Feeney, D. M. (2020).
5. Implementing non-traditional
assessment strategies in teacher
preparation: Opportunities and
challenges. Journal of Culture and
Values in Education, 3(1), 39–51.
https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.03.01.3
Zhang, A., Olelewe, C. J., Orji, C. T.,
Ibezim, N. E., Sunday, N. H.,
Obichukwu, P. U., & Okanazu, O. O.
(2020).
6. Effects of Innovative and Traditional
Teaching Methods on Technical
College Students’ Achievement in
Computer Craft Practices. SAGE
Open, 10(4), 215824402098298.
https://doi.org/10.1177/215824402098
2986
7. Buniel, J. M. C., & Monding, V. A.
(2021). EFFECTIVENESS OF
DEVELOPED WORKSHEETS TO
THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
OF STUDENTS IN SCIENCE 9
CONCEPTS. International Journal for
Innovation Education and Research,
9(4), 210–214.
https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss4.
3041
Appendix
Pre-Test
1. What is the probability of flipping a coin and it landing on heads?
a) 1/3
b) 1/2
c) 1/4
d) 1
2. If you roll a standard six-sided die, what is the probability of
rolling a number greater than 4?
a) 1/6
b) 2/6
c) 1/3
d) 4/6
3. You have a spinner with 4 equal sections: Red, Blue, Green, and
Yellow. What is the probability of landing on Green?
a) 1/4
b) 1/2
c) 1/3
d) 1/8
4. There are 3 red, 2 blue, and 1 green marble in a bag. If you pick
one marble without looking, what is the probability of picking a blue
marble?
a) 1/3
b) 1/2
c) 2/6
d) 1/6
5. If you roll a die and flip a coin at the same time, how many
possible outcomes are there?
a) 12
b) 10
c) 8
d) 6
6. What is the probability of not landing on tails when flipping a
coin?
a) 1
b) 1/2
c) 1/3
d) 1/4
7. Which event has a greater probability: Rolling a number less than 4
on a six-sided die or flipping a coin and getting heads?
a) Rolling a number less than 4
b) Flipping a coin and getting heads
c) Both are the same
d) Neither
8. If the odds of drawing a red marble from a bag are 3:2, how many
red marbles are there compared to non-red marbles?
a) 1 red to 2 non-red
b) 3 red to 2 non-red
c) 2 red to 3 non-red
d) 3 red to 1 non-red
9. If you flip a coin 10 times and it lands on heads 7 times, what is the
experimental probability of getting heads?
a) 1/2
b) 1/3
c) 7/10
d) 3/10
10. What is the probability of drawing a red card from a standard
deck of cards?
a) 1/4
b) 1/2
c) 1/3
d) 1/6
Post-Test
1. What is the chance of rolling a die and getting an even number?
a) 1/6
b) 2/6
c) 3/6
d) 4/6
2. If you pick a card from a deck of 52 cards, what is the probability
of getting a heart?
a) 1/2
b) 1/3
c) 1/4
d) 1/13
3. You have a bag with 5 red, 3 blue, and 2 yellow marbles. What is
the probability of drawing a yellow marble?
a) 1/5
b) 1/10
c) 1/2
d) 1/3
4. If you spin a spinner with 8 equal sections, what is the probability
of landing on a number less than 5?
a) 3/8
b) 1/8
c) 4/8
d) 5/8
5. What is the chance of picking a red marble from a bag with 4 red, 3
blue, and 5 green marbles?
a) 1/12
b) 4/12
c) 7/12
d) 5/12
6. If you flip a coin twice, what is the probability of getting heads
both times?
a) 1/2
b) 1/4
c) 3/4
d) 1
7. What is the likelihood of rolling a number greater than 2 on a
six-sided die?
a) 1/2
b) 1/3
c) 4/6
d) 5/6
8. If you pick a marble from a bag with 2 red, 2 blue, and 6 green
marbles, what is the probability of picking a red or blue marble?
a) 4/10
b) 6/10
c) 8/10
d) 10/10
9. If you roll two dice, what is the probability of the sum being 7?
a) 1/12
b) 1/6
c) 2/6
d) 5/6
10. What is the probability of not picking a face card from a standard
deck of cards?
a) 4/52
b) 12/52
c) 40/52
d) 52/52
