Moyer-Packenham 2016

Math Ed Res J (2016) 28:79–105
DOI 10.1007/s13394-015-0161-z
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
The role of affordances in children’s learning performance

and efficiency when using virtual manipulative
mathematics touch-screen apps
Patricia S. Moyer-Packenham 1 & Emma K. Bullock 1 &

Jessica F. Shumway 1 & Stephen I. Tucker 2 &
Christina M. Watts 1 & Arla Westenskow 1 &
Katie L. Anderson-Pence 3 & Cathy Maahs-Fladung 1 &
Jennifer Boyer-Thurgood 1 & Hilal Gulkilik 4 & Kerry Jordan 1
Received: 23 February 2015 / Revised: 16 November 2015 / Accepted: 24 November 2015 /

Published online: 5 December 2015
# Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2015
Abstract This paper focuses on understanding the role that affordances played in
children’s learning performance and efficiency during clinical interviews of their
interactions with mathematics apps on touch-screen devices. One hundred children,
ages 3 to 8, each used six different virtual manipulative mathematics apps during 30–
40-min interviews. The study used a convergent mixed methods design, in which
* Patricia S. Moyer-Packenham
patricia.moyer-packenham@usu.edu
Emma K. Bullock
ekpbullock@gmail.com
Jessica F. Shumway
jfshumway10@gmail.com
Stephen I. Tucker
situcker@vcu.edu
Christina M. Watts
Cwatts1212@gmail.com
Arla Westenskow
arlawestenskow@gmail.com
Katie L. Anderson-Pence
kander19@uccs.edu
Cathy Maahs-Fladung
cathy.maahs-fladung@usu.edu
Jennifer Boyer-Thurgood
Thurgood@me.com
Hilal Gulkilik
gthilal@gmail.com
80 P.S. Moyer-Packenham et al.
quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently to answer the research
questions (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011). Videos were used to capture each child’s
interactions with the virtual manipulative mathematics apps, document learning per-
formance and efficiency, and record children’s interactions with the affordances within
the apps. Quantitized video data answered the research question on differences in
children’s learning performance and efficiency between pre- and post-assessments. A
Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test was used to explore these data. Qualitative
video data was used to identify affordance access by children when using each app,
identifying 95 potential helping and hindering affordances among the 18 apps. The
results showed that there were changes in children’s learning performance and effi-
ciency when children accessed a helping or a hindering affordance. Helping
affordances were more likely to be accessed by children who progressed between the
pre- and post-assessments, and the same affordances had helping and hindering effects
for different children. These results have important implications for the design of virtual
manipulative mathematics learning apps.
Keywords Affordances . Virtual manipulative . iPad . Math apps . Manipulatives
The use of mathematics apps on touch-screen devices is becoming ubiquitous in

the learning experiences of young children. Yet, there is limited research on
how children interact with these mathematics apps and what affordances of the
apps support or hinder children’s learning. In a previous paper, we reported on
the learning performance and efficiency of 100 children, ages 3–8, when they
used virtual manipulative mathematics apps on iPad devices (Moyer-Packenham
et al. 2015). The purpose of this paper is to take this inquiry one step further
by focusing more specifically on understanding the role that affordances played
in children’s learning performance and efficiency during their interactions with
the mathematics apps.
In this paper, we use the terms virtual manipulatives, apps, and affordances.
A virtual manipulative (VM) is defined by Moyer et al. (2002) as Ban interac-
tive, Web-based visual representation of a dynamic object that presents oppor-
tunities for constructing mathematical knowledge^ (p. 373). Virtual manipula-
tives refer to the interactive dynamic mathematics objects that we selected for
use during the interviews with children during this study. Apps are defined as
applications for mobile devices with a touch-screen (Gröger et al. 2013). We
define the term affordances below as part of our theoretical framework.
Kerry Jordan
Kerry.jordan@usu.edu
1
The Virtual Manipulatives Research Group, Utah State University, 2605 Old Main Hill, Logan,
UT 84322, USA
2
Virginia Commonwealth University, 821 W. Franklin Street, Richmond, VA 23284, USA
3
University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Columbine 3045, 1420 Austin Bluffs Pkwy, Colorado
Springs, CO 80918, USA
4
Gazi University, Teknikokullar 06500 Ankara, Turkey
The role of affordances in children’s learning performance 81
Theoretical framework
Mathematics learning using apps on the touch-screen
A review of the literature reveals that most studies on mathematics learning

with touch-screen devices have been published in the past 5 years. However,
mathematics apps on touch-screen devices are increasingly common in schools.
Research shows that 72 % of the most popular selling apps on the Apple app
store are targeted toward preschool and elementary aged children (Shuler 2009).
The proliferation in the use of apps has led to an increase in the need for
teachers to understand effective ways to facilitate learning using mathematics
apps. Simply allowing children to work with technology does not guarantee
improvements in achievement (Reid and Ostashewski 2011). Carr (2012) and
Aronin and Floyd (2013) suggest that combining the use of physical manipu-
latives with the use of virtual manipulatives on touch-screen devices may be
beneficial for children; however, understanding how and when to use these
tools is important.
Some of the recent research has produced positive outcomes with touch-
screen devices that support the use of apps in mathematics classrooms. For
example, Spencer (2013) reported that children aged 4–5 demonstrated signif-
icant gains in number recognition and digit formation, and Riconscente (2012,
2013) reported that fifth-graders showed gains in their fraction ability. Paek and
colleagues (Paek 2012; Paek et al. 2011, 2013) conducted a series of quantita-
tive studies with first- and second-grade students that showed that feedback
(i.e., audio and visual) and interaction types (i.e., touch versus mouse) had
important impacts on children’s learning. For example, the presence of audio
feedback was initially important on the mid-test, but the use of the touch-screen
interaction (versus the mouse) was statistically significant in the long term.
Other research with touch-screen devices has shown significant increases in
student motivation (Bartoschek et al. 2013; Chen 2011, 2012; Haydon et al.
2012; Kilic 2013). increased time on task (Haydon et al. 2012). perceived
convenience (Reid and Ostashewski 2011). and improved student efficiency
(Bertolo et al. 2014).
The touch-screen platform can be used to reduce children’s cognitive load, while at
the same time preserving underlying mathematical foundations (Bertolo et al. 2014;
Kortenkamp and Ladel 2013).
For example, Bertolo et al. (2014) found that efficiency was improved because
children’s cognitive load was decreased. Kortenkamp and Ladel (2013) found that
designing apps to get children to focus on the mathematical concepts, rather than
on interacting with the technology platform, helped to draw children’s attention to
the mathematics, thereby reducing the possibility of the apps being a distraction as
well as reducing the cognitive load. Research conducted by Byers and Hadley
(2013) on 150 touch-screen mathematics apps for children ages 3–8 revealed that
the majority of mathematics apps exhibited a question/answer format or traditional
gaming features. One of the key findings by Byers and Hadley, important for the
present study, is that features of the apps can obscure children from interacting
with mathematics concepts. Essentially, what this means is that what the app
affords for the learner, or its affordances, could be hindered by features built into
the apps during the design process.
Affordances and learning
In this study, we investigate the role that affordances played in changes that
were observed in children’s learning performance and efficiency during
interviews where children interacted with virtual manipulative mathematics
apps on iPads. Affordances are defined by Burlamaqui and Dong (2014) as
Bcues of the potential uses of an artefact by an agent in a given environment^
and refer to possibilities that the agent has for action (p. 13). Gibson (1986)
initially described the term affordance as something that Bdoes not change,^
saying that BThe observer may or may not perceive or attend to the affordance,
… but the affordance, being invariant, is always there to be perceived^ (p.
138–139). For our purposes, this means that the affordances of the virtual
manipulative apps that children used in this study did not vary; rather, there
were variations in the ways children accessed affordances. In this study, we use
the term access and we use the phrase accessed an affordance to describe an
observable action by the child with the affordance, whereby the child attends to
the cues of the potential uses of the virtual manipulatives in a way that is
observable. Gibson (1986) also wrote that affordances could have both a
helping effect (e.g., some offerings of the environment are beneficial) or
hindering effect (e.g., some are injurious) (p. 137).
There are two main approaches to affordances in technology design. Gaver
(1991) expanded on Gibson’s description of affordances, to encompass how
design suggests affordances. McGrenere and Ho (2000) asserted that Gibson’s
notion of an affordance was that the affordance was always there and available
to the individual; however, in some cases, the affordance was Bindependent of
the individual’s ability to perceive this possibility^ (p. 1). Burlamaqui and
Dong (2014) argued that this interpretation was impractical for design purposes,
as only perceivable affordances can be useful as imperceptible affordances are,
by definition, not empirically observable.
Greeno (1994) explained that an affordance is a graded property that Brelated
attributes of something in the environment to an interactive activity by an agent who
has some ability^ based on its own attributes (p. 383). This implies that there may be
a variety of manifestations of access to a given affordance and that a user’s ability
influences this access. Affordances and abilities exist only in relationship to one
another (Greeno 1994) and are paired in continuous systems (Chemero 2003). Every
child has an array of abilities, each of which determines how they access the
affordance that corresponds to their abilities. During cognitive development, young
children make sense of their world through enactive means (i.e., the manipulation of
physical objects) that are later connected with iconic (visual images, pictures) and
symbolic (words, numbers, symbols) modalities (Bruner 1964). When children are
learning with a virtual manipulative mathematics app on a touch-screen device, we
can observe the processes of their cognitive restructuring by examining changes in
children’s activity with the device and changes in what that activity is relying upon
(i.e., what the device affords, or its affordances) (Piaget 1970).
Methods
This study used a convergent mixed method design, in which quantitative and
qualitative data were collected and analyzed to answer complementary research
questions, and then merged following analysis, to answer an overarching re-
search question (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011; Teddlie and Tasshakori 2006).
The rationale for this design is that the researcher wants to obtain complemen-
tary data on the same topic to better understand the research problem and then
merge the two sets of results together to allow an overall interpretation. This
type of design Blends itself to team research, in which the team can include
individuals with both quantitative and qualitative expertise^ (Creswell and
Plano Clark 2011; p. 78). The quantitative data analysis focused on examining
changes in children’s learning performance and efficiency. The qualitative data
analysis focused on identifying the children’s access of affordances of the
virtual manipulative mathematics apps. The interplay between quantitative and
qualitative aspects of the mixed methods design allowed researchers to trian-
gulate methods (also referred to as complementarity of methods) (Creswell and
Plano Clark 2011) and interpret the merged results using multiple perspectives.
The overarching research question in this study was: What role do affordances
play in changes in children’s learning performance and efficiency when interacting
with virtual manipulative mathematics apps on touch-screen devices? The quanti-
tative research question was: How do interactions with virtual manipulative touch-
screen apps change children’s mathematics learning performance and efficiency?
This question focused on the collection and analysis of quantitative data on
changes in mathematics learning performance and efficiency. Learning performance
was defined as accuracy on pre- and post-assessment tasks, and learning efficiency
was defined as changes in the speed with which children completed the learning
tasks. The qualitative research question was: What affordances do children access
when interacting with virtual manipulative mathematics apps on touch-screen
devices? This question focused on an in-depth analysis of videos to identify
children’s affordance access when using the mathematics apps. The quantitative
and qualitative results were merged in a complementary way to answer the
overarching research question. This merging process may include direct comparison
of the results or may include transforming the results to facilitate additional
analyses (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011).
Participants
A total of 100 children participated in the study. The children were recruited from
local elementary schools and preschools in three age-specific groups: preschool
(ages 3–4, N=35), kindergarten (ages 5–6, N=33), and grade 2 (ages 7–8, N=32).
Most of the children were Caucasian (89 %), and parents reported that one third
(34 %) of the children received free- or reduced-cost lunch services at school,
indicating that these children were from low socio-economic families. Parents
reported on the use of touch-screen devices in the home noting that 78 % had
between one and four devices in the home, 13 % of children had their own
device, and 45 % of children used the device every day.
Procedures
Researchers selected six apps to be used with each of the three age-specific groups of
children, resulting in a total of 18 apps being used. The apps all contained a virtual
manipulative (i.e., interactive visual representation of a dynamic object) and included
features of the affordance categories linked to positive learning effects reported by
Moyer-Packenham and Westenskow (2013). namely Bfocused constraint, creative
variation, simultaneous linking, efficient precision, and motivation^ (p. 35). The
research team created interview protocols for each of the age-specific groups to guide
children’s interactions with each of the apps (Schubert 2009).
Each child in the study participated in one 30–40-min one-to-one structured clinical
interview. Researchers videotaped the children as they completed multiple tasks with
virtual manipulative mathematics apps on iPads that focused on two different mathe-
matics topics (See Table 1). Each interview began with a pre-assessment of mathemat-
ics topic 1, two learning apps that focused on mathematics topic 1, and a post-
assessment of mathematics topic 1. This was followed by a pre-assessment of mathe-
matics topic 2, two learning apps that focused on mathematics topic 2, and a post-
assessment of mathematics topic 2. The columns in Table 1 show the sequence of the
interviews, the mathematics topics, and the apps used with each age-specific group (see
Appendix A for screen shots of the apps). Interviews were conducted in clinical rooms
equipped with wall-mounted video cameras for recording data and an audio-supported
booth with a two-way mirror for observation. Interviewers were all experienced
classroom teachers with training in conducting clinical interviews with young children.
Interview protocols, permission forms, apps, iPad devices, and video equipment were
all tested during piloting (Moyer-Packenham et al. 2014a, b).
Data sources
There were three data sources used to answer the research questions: wall-mounted
camera videos, GoPro camera videos, and observation notes. The wall-mounted camera
Table 1 Sequence of the interviews
Interview Preschool Kindergarten Grade 2
Topic: seriation Topic: subitizing Topic: skip counting

App #1 (pre) Pink tower: free moving 10 frame 100 s chart
App #2 (learning) Pink tower: tap Hungry guppy Frog number line
App #3 (learning) Red rods Fingu Counting beads
App #1 (post) Pink tower: free moving 10 frame 100 s chart
Topic: counting Topic: quantity Topic: place value

App #4 (pre) Base-10 blocks Base-10 blocks Base-10 blocks
App #5 (learning) Base-10 blocks: 1-5 Base-10 blocks: 11–20 Zoom number line
App #6 (learning) Base-10: numerals Base-10: numerals Place value cards
App #4 (post) Base-10 blocks Base-10 blocks Base-10 blocks
captured video of the interview from approximately six feet away from the child and
the interviewer (see Fig. 1).
The GoPro camera was worn by the child and captured video from six inches away
from the iPad. This camera view was positioned below the child’s chin to capture an
up-close iPad screen perspective of the child’s hands interacting with the virtual
manipulative apps, providing a second perspective (Roschelle 2000) (see Fig. 2). Video
data were most appropriate for recording and analyzing children’s interactions because
it allows for repeated and separate viewings of the interview and multiple viewers could
attend to different features during each viewing (DeCuir-Gunby et al. 2012). One
researcher recorded observation notes from the observation booth through a two-way
mirror.
To answer the quantitative research question, researchers created pre-
assessment tasks and post-assessment tasks for each mathematics learning topic.
The assessment tasks were designed to be specific to the apps that the children
were using so that children could use the apps to complete the tasks. The
assessment tasks for preschool children included counting the number of given
unit blocks (1–9) and seriating a set of 10 blocks of different sizes into the
correct order from largest to smallest. The assessment tasks for kindergarten
children included modeling numbers (between 10 and 99) with blocks and
identifying how many more to reach a target number. The assessment tasks
for grade 2 children included modeling numbers (between 100 and 999) with
blocks and skip counting by 4, 6, and 9 s on a hundreds board.
To answer the qualitative research question, which focused on the affordances
children accessed when interacting with the virtual manipulative mathematics apps,
researchers examined the videos for observable behaviors by the children that showed
that the children were accessing an affordance while using the mathematics apps. For
example, the Pink tower: tap learning app used by preschoolers constrains inaccurate
moves and affords a model for the correct answer.
The Base-10 Blocks: 11–20 learning app used by kindergarteners affords a cue to
the correct response by providing celebration sparkles with an audio sound. The 100 s
chart used by second graders provides an arrangement that affords pattern recognition.
These affordances were identified by watching the videos of the children interacting
with the apps, and narrative logs were created to describe these interactions.
Fig. 1 Wall-mounted camera view

Fig. 2 GoPro camera view
Analysis
After the interviews were conducted, members of the research team analyzed the
quantitative and the qualitative data. Pairs of researchers developed coding protocols
(see Appendix B for sample coding protocol), worked together to test the protocols on
videos in the data set, independently coded videos in the data set, met to refine the
coding protocols, and then trained additional members of the research team to inde-
pendently code the entire data set (Cai et al. 1996; Patton 1990; Schubert 2009; Corbin
and Strauss 2014). Over 30 % percent of the videos were independently coded by two
researchers.
To answer the quantitative research question, researchers created a video coding
rubric that was used to quantitize children’s learning performance and efficiency
and compare differences between the pre- and post-assessments. Children were
scored on these performance tasks based on the accuracy of their responses and on
the speed with which they completed the tasks. Only the portion of the videos that
focused on children’s use of the pre- and post-assessment apps was used in this
portion of the analysis. Children’s accuracy on each task was used to determine a
learning performance measure. Time stamps on each task were used to compare
speed of completion between the pre- and post-assessments as a learning efficien-
cy measure. A Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test was used to explore the
quantitized video data because they were not normally distributed and the sample
size was small. This non-parametric statistical test uses the medians of related
samples (e.g., pre- and post-assessment scores) to compare data sets (Cohen
2014). The data were right skewed; hence, both the medians and mean ranks were
considered in the analysis. We used SPSS to compute the Wilcoxon signed-rank
test and obtained the z-score for the normal approximation of the Wilcoxon
signed-rank test.
Gravetter and Wallnau (2013) state, Bwhen a sample is relatively large, the values for
the Wilcoxon T statistic tend to form a normal distribution. In this situation, it is
possible to perform the test using a z-score statistic and the normal distribution rather
than looking up a T value in the Wilcoxon table. When the sample size is greater than
20, the normal approximation is very accurate and can be used^ (p. 748). With a sample
size of over 30 participants within each grade level group, we reported our results using
the normal approximation of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
To answer the qualitative research question, researchers examined the videos to identify
affordance access by children when using each app (Corbin and Strauss 2014). Theoretical
guidance for the analysis focused on Gibson’s (1986) two major claims that (1) the
individual may or may not attend to an affordance and (2) that affordances may be
Bbeneficial^ or Binjurious.^ These two claims guided our qualitative analysis of the videos.
For example, when it was clear from the behavioral data in the video that the child was
attending to an affordance, this was coded as the child accessing the affordance, and a
description of that access was recorded in a narrative form in the log. When we say that the
child accessed an affordance or attended to an affordance, we are describing an observable
action by the child to the cues of the potential uses of the virtual manipulatives. In addition,
we noted in the narrative log whether the access was helping or hindering. The entire
interview videos, including the pre- and post-assessment apps and the two learning apps,
were used in the qualitative analysis. Specific examples of multiple children accessing an
affordance were used to construct and summarize patterns observed when children accessed
an affordance. Examples of affordance access were summarized and used to develop a
coding protocol that could guide viewing of the videos by members of the research team.
Researchers used transcription and memoing to note descriptions of children’s access of an
affordance. This descriptive information helped to explain what the children were doing
when they accessed an affordance and whether this access was helping or a hinderance.
To answer the overarching research question, we merged the quantitative and qualita-
tive results to understand how the videos of children’s affordance access related to their
performance and efficiency on the tasks. As Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) suggest, we
developed Bprocedures to transform one type of result into the other type of data^ (p. 79).
We used the results on affordance access to create a thematic classification of potentially
Bhelping^ and potentially Bhindering^ affordances based on the way that the children
interacted with the apps. We identified 95 potential affordances among the 18 apps. The
unit of analysis was each child’s (N=100) interaction with every coded affordance
possibility (N=95). Thus, each affordance possibility was the unit of analysis and there
were thousands of codeable opportunities. Grouping the codes using the thematic classi-
fication allowed us to bring together the quantitative and qualitative data in a frequency
analysis showing the relationship between affordances children accessed and their learn-
ing performance and efficiency. Finally, the research team reviewed the observation notes
and returned to the videos to provide context for the overall patterns that were observed.
Returning frequently to the video data allowed researchers to employ methodological
complementarity and interpret the data holistically (Greene et al. 1989; Tashakkori and
Teddlie 2008). This in-depth video analysis provided context for the results and some
potential explanations for the outcomes. This paper is one of several papers published
from this large interview data set (Bullock et al. 2015; Moyer-Packenham et al. 2014a, b;
Moyer-Packenham et al. 2015; Tucker & Moyer-Packenham 2014; Tucker et al. 2014).
Results
The results that follow focus on understanding the role that children’s access of
each app’s affordances played in changes that were observed in children’s learning
performance and efficiency during clinical interviews with virtual manipulative
mathematics apps.
Learning performance and efficiency
The quantitative research question focused on changes that occurred in chil-

dren’s mathematics learning performance and efficiency after interacting with
the virtual manipulative touch-screen apps. Table 2 summarizes the significant
results of the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test for each age group in
each learning sequence.
Children’s mathematics learning performance and efficiency was examined for
changes between pre- and post-assessment tasks. On the seriation tasks with pre-
schoolers, there were no significant changes in children’s learning performance while
children’s learning efficiency improved. The results of a Wilcoxon matched pairs
signed-rank test indicated that preschool children’s efficiency (Preschool Efficiency
Measure D: average seconds per block to order the blocks from largest to smallest) on
the seriation task improved significantly, Z=−2.095, p=.036. This means that children
became faster on the task between the pre- (seconds per block, Mdn=4.9, mean rank of
Table 2 Summary table of learning performance and efficiency for pre- and post-assessment tasks
Measures N Mean rank Mean rank z p

Posta Prea
Preschool seriation 35
Performance measures NS
Efficiency measure D 16.35 16.89 −2.095 .036*
Preschool counting 35
Efficiency measure H 18.52 14.00 −4.244 .000**
Efficiency measure I 18.65 13.07 −3.522 .000**
Kindergarten subitizing 33
Performance measure C 2.67 7.25 −2.228 .026*
Efficiency measures NS
Kindergarten quantity 33
Efficiency measure H 18.17 12.22 −2.880 .000**
Grade 2 skip counting 32
Performance measure A .00 3.50 −2.214 0.27*
Performance measure C .00 3.50 −2.214 0.27*
Efficiency measure D 14.98 20.17 −3.539 .000**
Efficiency measure F 14.20 15.58 −2.495 .013*
Grade 2 place value 32
Efficiency measures NS
NS indicates that the measures were not significant

*Significant at p<.05; **significant at p<.001
a
Negative ranks are shown first; then positive ranks for each paired condition
16.89) and post- (Mdn=4.0, mean rank of 16.35) assessments while they maintained
the same levels of performance. Similarly, on the counting tasks, preschooler’s learning
performance remained the same while their efficiency improved statistically. The
efficiency measure recorded the average number of seconds it took the child to
complete the counting tasks (i.e., Preschool Efficiency Measure H: counting block
quantities of 2, 3, 4, or 5 and Preschool Efficiency Measure I: counting block quantities
of 6, 7, 8, or 9). Children were able to complete the tasks faster when counting
quantities of 2, 3, 4, or 5 between the pre- (Mdn=3.00, mean rank of 14.00) and
post- (Mdn=2.00, mean rank of 18.52) assessments, Z=−4.244, p<.001. They were
also able to complete the tasks faster when counting quantities 6, 7, 8, or 9 between the
pre- (Mdn=3.33, mean rank of 13.07) and the post- (Mdn=2.67, mean rank of 18.65)
assessments, Z=−3.522, p<.001.
On the subitizing tasks, kindergartener’s learning efficiency remained the
same while their performance improved. Children became significantly more
accurate between the pre-(Kindergarten Performance Measure C: subitizing the
number of disks used to make the target number, Mdn=1.00, mean rank of
7.25) and post- (Mdn = 1.00, mean rank of 2.67) assessments, Z = −2.228,
p=.026, while they maintained their efficiency. Conversely, on the quantity
tasks, kindergartener’s learning performance remained the same while efficiency
improved. The children became significantly faster on the tasks that required
them to build target numbers between the pre-assessment (Kindergarten Effi-
ciency Measure H: seconds per block, Mdn =2.500, mean rank of 12.22) and
the post-assessment (Mdn=1.875, mean rank of 18.17), Z=−2.880, p<.001.
On the skip counting tasks, second graders’ learning efficiency and learning
performance both improved. Children became significantly more accurate at
skip counting by 4 s (Second-Grade Performance Measure A) between the
pre- (Mdn=1.00, mean rank of 3.50) and post- (Mdn=1, mean rank of 0.00)
assessments, Z=−2.214, p=.027. They also became significantly more accurate
at skip counting by 9 s (Second-Grade Performance Measure C) between the
pre- (Mdn=1.00, mean rank of 3.50) and post- (Mdn=1, mean rank of 0.00)
assessments, Z = −2.214, p =.027. Additionally, children became significantly
faster when skip counting by 4 s (Second-Grade Efficiency Measure D) be-
tween the pre- (Mdn=2.00, mean rank of 20.17) and post- (Mdn=1.64, mean
rank of 14.98) assessments, Z=−3.539, p<.001. They also became significantly
faster when skip counting by 9 s (Second-Grade Efficiency Measure F) between
the pre- (Mdn=3.00, mean rank of 15.58) and post- (Mdn=1.75, mean rank of
14.20) assessments, Z=−2.495, p=.013. However, on the place value tasks with
second graders, there were no statistically significant changes in children’s
learning efficiency or learning performance.
Affordance access
The qualitative research question focused on the affordances children accessed

when interacting with the virtual manipulative mathematics apps (see examples
Appendix C). Video analysis revealed that there were trends in children’s access
to different affordances of the apps. These trends were based on the types of
affordances (helping or hindering) that were accessed by subgroups of children
(those who progressed, those who regressed, and those who stayed the same in
learning performance and efficiency during the interviews). There were six
major affordance access trends (see Table 3).
In the tables below, we report the specifics of these six major affordance
access trends in relation to the significant and non-significant results. Both
types of results are reported because accessing a hindering affordance could
potentially produce a non-significant result. For the sake of brevity in the
tables, we have not included affordance access trends when only one affordance
was associated with that trend.
Affordance access in the preschool seriation tasks Table 4 shows the 13 potential
affordances coded in the preschool seriation task apps (10 potentially hindering; 3
potentially helping). An example of a hindering affordance in the Pink Tower: Free
Moving app was Btiny blocks difficult to drag^ (which afforded restricted movability).
An example of a helping affordance in the Pink Tower: Tapping app was Bbuilds the
tower for the child in a perfect stack^ (which afforded a model for the correct answer).
In the preschool seriation tasks, only changes in efficiency were statistically signif-
icant. The most common affordance access type for efficiency was the BALANCED
trend, meaning that children who accessed an affordance were equally likely to
progress or regress in efficiency. Since most affordances were potentially hindering
in this sequence, it appears that children who progressed were able to overcome the
hindering effects. In fact, the third most common trend was HIND-PML, where
children who accessed a hindering affordance were more likely to improve their
efficiency during the tasks.
While 66 % of the children improved in efficiency, there was a fairly equal split
among children who progressed, regressed, or stayed the same on the learning
performance measures. Because children’s performance remained the same,
affordance access trends suggest that the hindering affordances did not have a
negative effect on performance. For example, on Measure C, children who
Table 3 Six major trends of affordance access
Code Definition
HELP-PML HELPING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed by children who

PROGRESSED than children who regressed between the pre and
post-assessments for that particular measure.
HELP-RML HELPING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed by children
who REGRESSED than children who progressed.
HIND-PML HINDERING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed by children
who PROGRESSED than children who regressed.
HIND-RML HINDERING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed by children
who REGRESSED than children who progressed.
SML Affordance (helping or hindering) MORE LIKELY to be accessed by
children who stayed the SAME than children who progressed/regressed.
BALANCED Affordance (helping or hindering) was equally likely to be accessed by
children who progressed/regressed; access was BALANCED.
Table 4 Preschool relationship between affordance access, performance, and efficiency for the seriation
sequence
Seriation measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

(see appendix) access trend
Performance
Measure A Post: 14.00 −0.286 .775 0.500 A2, 4, 6, 7, 11 BALANCED
Pre: 11.43 0.500 A1, 3, 8, 9 HIND-RML
A5, 10, 12 HELP-PML
Measure B Post: 13.58 −0.013 .989 0.500 A2, 3, 4, 6, 8 BALANCED
Pre: 12.46 0.500 A1, 9, 11 HIND-RML
A7, 12, 13 HIND-PML
A5, 10 HELP-PML
Measure C Post: 10.33 −1.370 .171 0.857 A2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 HIND-PML
Pre: 13.07 0.714 A1, 11 SML
Efficiency
Measure D Post: 16.35 −2.095 .036* 4.000 A3, 6, 7, 9, 10 BALANCED
Pre: 16.89 4.900 A1, 2, 8, 11 HIND-RML
A12, 13 HIND-PML
Measure A number of correct blocks, Measure B number of correct moves, Measure C how far off from the
number of correct blocks, Measure D seconds per block
*Significant at p<.05
a
Negative Ranks are shown first; then positive ranks for each paired condition. N=35
progressed were more likely to access the hindering affordances (e.g., accessing 7
of the potentially hindering affordances), thus overcoming the hindering aspects of
these affordances. Those who regressed accessed the helping affordances differ-
ently than those who progressed, which is confirmed by the prevalence of the
BALANCED trend in performance measures A and B. The video analysis con-
firmed that children who progressed were able to overcome the hindering
affordances to their benefit while those who regressed were not. Specific examples
from the videos include Luke (a pseudonym), who improved his efficiency but did
not access any of the helping affordances on the Pink Tower: Free Moving app. In
contrast, children who regressed in efficiency accessed four of the hindering
affordances (e.g., tiny blocks difficult to move). For example, although Ivy
improved her performance on the post-assessment, she continued to struggle with
the dragging motion that the task required which slowed her efficiency.
In contrast to the Pink Tower: Free Moving app, the Pink Tower: Tap app had
affordances that were helping and did not allow the child to be wrong (e.g., blocks did
not move if a child selected the wrong block). Jake’s performance increased but
efficiency decreased because the block dragging motion was frustrating to him, where-
as tapping allowed him to focus on the task of seriation. Unlike Jake, Sally’s efficiency
improved because she better understood how to seriate the block tower after completing
the Pink Tower: Tap app. The children who made gains in efficiency were better able to
seriate the blocks and navigate the dragging motion.
Affordance access in the preschool counting tasks Table 5 shows the 21 affordances
coded in the preschool counting task apps (all considered potentially helping). One
example of a helping affordance in the Base 10: Blocks app was Bcelebration sparkles
feedback^ (which affords a cue to the correct response). The most common affordance
access type for both efficiency measures was the HELP-PML trend, meaning that
children who accessed a helping affordance were more likely to improve in efficiency.
Overall, 88 % and 77 % improved efficiency on measures H and I, respectively,
indicating that the affordances supported efficiency.
Similar to the seriation sequence, there were no significant changes in preschooler’s
performance on the counting tasks. On performance measure F (cardinality for numbers
2–5), the children who progressed (HELP-PML) were more likely to access the helping
affordances. Conversely, on measure G (cardinality for numbers 6–9), children who
regressed (HELP-RML) were also more likely to access the helping affordances.
Children’s differing access patterns on this app may have contributed to the non-
significant results on the performance measures. For example, in the Base-10 Blocks
app, celebration sparkles are deployed when the target amount is reached, which
affords a cue to the correct answer. The video analysis showed that this affordance
Table 5 Preschool relationship between affordance access, performance, and efficiency for the counting
sequence
Counting measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

Performance
Measure F Post: 4.40 −1.403 .161 1.000 A1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, HELP-PML
Pre: 3.00 1.000 15, 16, 18, 19, 20
A2, 8, 17, 21 BALANCED
A4, 10, 11 HELP-RML
Measure G Post: 5.00 −0.917 .359 1.000 A2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, HELP-RML
Pre: 5.00 1.000 11, 16, 17, 20
A1, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, SML
19
Efficiency
Measure H Post: 18.52 −4.244 .000** 2.000 A1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, HELP-PML
Pre: 14.00 3.000 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21
A9, 10, 11 HELP-RML
Measure I Post: 18.65 −3.522 .000** 2.670 A1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, HELP-PML
Pre: 13.07 3.330 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21
A9, 16, 19 BALANCED
A6, 10, 15 HELP-RML
Measure F cardinality for numbers 2–5, Measure G cardinality for numbers 6–9, Measure H number of
seconds counting numbers 2–5, Measure I number of seconds counting numbers 6–9
a
both helped and hindered children. The slight time delay between when the child
reached the target number and the deployment of the celebration sparkles is what
caused this effect. Children who reached the correct target number and attended to the
celebration sparkles used this as a helping affordance; however, children who continued
to add blocks beyond the target number and then attended to the celebration sparkles
after adding one too many blocks were hindered. It was common for children to quickly
add blocks and get ahead of the counting feature in the app, thereby adding more blocks
than necessary. For example, frequently, Liam was already in the process of adding
another block before the celebration sparkles deployed. Consequently, he always had
one more block than the target quantity, and unfortunately, the celebration sparkles
were confirmation to Liam of an incorrect amount every time. This affordance had the
effect of causing some children to become faster and more accurate and other children
to become faster and less accurate.
Affordance access in the kindergarten subitizing tasks Table 6 shows the 27

affordances coded in the kindergarten subitizing task apps (9 potentially hin-
dering; 18 potentially helping). An example of a hindering affordance in the
Fingu app was Bchild misses because their fingers did not touch at the same
time^ (which affords more precision on future attempts). A helping affordance
in the Hungry Guppy app was Bbubble pops and child recognizes an incorrect
combination^ (which affords greater accuracy on future attempts).
Children who accessed a helping affordance were more likely to progress in
performance during the subitizing sequence (HELP-PML), and children who
accessed a hindering affordance were more likely to regress (HIND-RML). The
most common affordance access type for efficiency measure D was the BAL-
ANCED trend, meaning that children who accessed an affordance (whether
Table 6 Kindergarten relationship between affordance access, performance, and efficiency for the subitizing
sequence
Subitizing measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

Performance
Measure C Post: 2.67 −2.228 .026* 1.000 A2, 5, 10, 11, 21, 27 HELP-PML
Pre: 7.25 1.000 A3, 13, 16, 20, 26 HIND-RML
A4, 24, 25 HELP-RML
Efficiency
Measure D Post: 2.67 −1.440 .150 1.750 A2, 3, 5, 13, 21, 24, 25 BALANCED
Pre: 7.25 2.000 A1, 27 HELP-PML
A4, 6 HELP-RML
A20, 26 HIND-RML
Measure C counting the difference between the disks, Measure D number of seconds per disk to count
*Significant at p<.05
a
Negative ranks are shown first; then positive ranks for each paired condition. N=33
helping or hindering) were equally likely to progress or regress in efficiency.

This may explain why there were no statistically significant changes in
efficiency.
The video analysis supported that children who progressed seemed to im-
prove because they learned the goals of the tasks and how to use the technol-
ogy to become more accurate. The app feedback confirmed their thinking and
allowed them to correct their own mistakes. For example, the Friends of Ten
app provides feedback for selecting numerals representing the number of col-
ored disks that were moved. As Myles began to understand the task, he used
feedback to know whether or not he chose the correct numeral for the disks
moved. When the feedback told him he was incorrect, he was able to self-
correct his answer. Sofia, who also progressed, used the bubble-popping feed-
back in Hungry Guppy to become more accurate as she made combinations of
four (e.g., 3+1, 2+2). Cal used the feedback in the Fingu app to learn how to
play the game, coordinate his fingers, and use the touch-sensitive technology.
Affordance access in the kindergarten quantity tasks Table 7 shows 19

affordances coded in the kindergarten quantity task apps (4 potentially hinder-
ing; 15 potentially helping). One hindering affordance in these apps was
Bdifficulty dragging blocks^ (which affords restricted movability). A helping
affordance in the Base 10: Numerals app was Bmakes noise as child touches
each block^ (which affords recognition of one-to-one correspondence).
The most common affordance access type (HELP-RML) for the efficiency
measure was that children who accessed a helping affordance were more likely
to regress in efficiency. Four of the helping affordances (A6, 11, 16, and 17)
caused some children to become slower at the tasks, while two of the helping
affordances (A1 and 3) caused other children to improve their efficiency
(HELP-PML). On both performance measures, children who accessed a helping
affordance were more likely to progress in accuracy (HELP-PML). The video
analysis sheds some light on why there were changes in efficiency while
performance stayed the same. Many children transitioned to using a tens rod
instead of the ones blocks. For example, after Carl counted ten single blocks
into the ones area, he noticed that they formed a tens rod. Children who
progressed in efficiency used both tens and ones blocks to create two-digit
numbers on the post-assessment, while children who regressed in efficiency
continued to use only ones blocks to build the numbers. In addition, similar to
the preschoolers, kindergarteners found that the voice and numeral representa-
tions had a slight delay and children added one too many blocks. Erica waited
patiently for the voice to say the correct number of tens before moving on to
the ones. On the other hand, Jace placed one more tens rod than he needed but
removed it when the audio said Btwenty^ instead of Bten.^ Consequently, the
affordance hindered efficiency for Erica while it improved accuracy for Jace.
Affordance access in the grade 2 skip counting tasks Table 8 shows 15

affordances coded in the second-grade skip counting apps (6 potentially hin-
dering; 9 potentially helping). One hindering affordance in the Counting Beads
app was Bbeads difficult to move^ (which afforded restricted movability). One
Table 7 Kindergarten relationship between affordance access, performance, and efficiency for the quantity
sequence
Quantity measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

Performance
Measure E Post: 4.42 −0.578 .563 1.000 A2, 6, 11, 15 HELP-PML
Pre: 7.90 1.000 A1, 16 BALANCED
Measure G Post: 11.22 −0.150 .881 1.000 A1, 2, 3, 11, 17 HELP-PML
Pre: 9.91 1.000 A15, 16 BALANCED
Efficiency
Measure H Post: 18.17 −2.880 .000** 1.875 A6, 11, 16, 17 HELP-RML
Pre: 12.22 2.5 A2, 8, 15 BALANCED
A1, 3 HELP-PML
Efficiency
Measure I Post: 16.33 −1.935 .053 10.00 A6, A15, A16, A17 HELP-RML
Pre: 13.85 16.00 A1, A8, A11 BALANCED
A2, A3 HELP-PML
Measure E accuracy of counting ones and tens, Measure G use of the tens rods, Measure H number of seconds
per block, Measure I number of seconds
a
Negative ranks are shown first; then positive ranks for each paired condition. N=33
helping affordance in the 100 s chart app was B100 s chart arrangement^
(which afforded pattern recognition). It is interesting to note that none of the
second graders regressed in learning performance during the skip counting
tasks.
For second graders, the affordances were more likely to be accessed by
children who stayed the same in performance (SML), while the children who
accessed a helping affordance were more likely to improve their efficiency
(HELP-PML). The video analysis indicated that helping affordances allowed
children to improve their efficiency, but that they did not need the helping
affordances to improve their accuracy. For example, the 100 s chart app
contained a grid of numbers organized in rows of ten, highlighting base-10
patterns. Children recognized and used these patterns to skip count and
progressed in efficiency. For example, Aron performed faster when skip
counting on the post-assessment because he switched from using only one hand
to tap the numbers on the pre-assessment to using both hands to tap the
numbers on the post-assessment. His gestures and language indicated that he
recognized the diagonal pattern of the multiples of nine.
The videos show that Abri accessed the pattern affordance on both the pre-
and post-assessments, using it to make her faster at completing the patterns.
Abri selected 4 and 8 quickly, but then counted on her fingers to get the rest of
the numbers in the sequence. At this point, she recognized the pattern: BIt looks
Table 8 Second grade relationship between affordance access, performance, and efficiency for the skip
counting sequence
Skip counting measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

Performance
Measure A Post: .00 −2.214 0.27* 1.000 A5, 13 SML
Pre: 3.50 1.000 A1, 4 BALANCED
Measure B Post: .00 −1.342 .180 1.000 A7, 8 SML
Pre: 1.50 1.000
Measure C Post: .00 −2.214 .027* 1.000 A3, 10, 11, 12, 15 SML
Pre: 3.50 1.000
Efficiency
Measure D Post: 14.98 −3.539 .000** 1.640 A4, 13 HELP-PML
Pre: 20.17 2.000 A5, 6 HIND-RML
Measure E Post: 11.83 −0.122 .903 1.835 A2, 8, 9 BALANCED
Pre: 12.18 1.835
Measure F Post: 14.20 −2.495 .013* 1.750 A3, 10, 15 HELP-PML
Pre: 15.58 3.000 A11, 12 BALANCED
Measure A skip counting by 4 s, Measure B skip counting by 6 s, Measure C skip counting by 4 s, Measure D
number of seconds to skip count by 4 s, Measure E number of seconds to skip count by 6 s, Measure F
number of seconds to skip count by 9 s
*Significant at p<.05; ***significant at p<.001
a
like it goes like this. It’s like a pattern each time^ (pointing diagonally).
Recognizing these patterns on the pre-assessment greatly benefited Abri when
she returned to the post-assessment when she said: BOh yeah! I remember the
pattern!^
Affordance access in the grade 2 place value tasks There were high levels of
performance on the pre-assessment tasks, and no statistically significant changes
in learning performance or efficiency for the grade 2 place value sequence.
However, there were helping and hindering affordances observed. For example,
when a child dragged a block to the place value chart, the app linked this
action to changes in the symbolic representations of the quantity (e.g., number
cards) and the cumulative quantity (e.g., 345). However, the app only began to
represent the changes once the child paused briefly. Thus, children often placed
multiple blocks before the representations aligned. Some children acted quickly,
appearing to ignore the number tiles and only accessing the link between
actions and representations when they finished modeling the quantity. Other
children slowed their actions when accessing the number cards, and some
children slowed enough to use the number cards to track their input. Other
children struggled to reconcile the mismatched representations.
Table 9 Significant results and major trends of affordance access
Significant Code Definition

results
1. Pre—Eff. HELP-PML HELPING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed

2. Pre—Eff. by children who PROGRESSED than children who regressed.
3. Kindr—Perf.
4. Gr2—Eff.
5. Gr2—Eff.
1. Kinder—Eff. HELP-RML HELPING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed
by children who REGRESSED than children who progressed.
0 HIND-PML HINDERING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed
by children who PROGRESSED than children who regressed.
0 HIND-RML HINDERING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed
by children who REGRESSED than children who progressed.
1. Gr2—Perf. SML Affordance (helping or hindering) MORE LIKELY to be accessed
2. Gr2—Perf. by children who stayed the SAME than children who progressed/
regressed.
1. Pre—Eff. BALANCED Affordance (helping or hindering) was equally likely to be accessed
by children who progressed/regressed; access was BALANCED.
Trends between affordance access and learning performance and efficiency
To answer the overarching research question, which focused on the relationship

between children’s affordance access and their learning performance and effi-
ciency, we merged the results from the quantitative and qualitative analyses.
Table 9 summarizes the affordance access trends for the nine statistically
significant results reported in previous sections of the paper.
The first pattern that emerged was that the helping affordances were more
likely to be accessed by children who progressed than children who regressed
in 5 of the 9 significant results. Also important to note is that this pattern
occurred in all three age groups of children for both performance and efficiency
measures. The fact that the helping affordances would be accessed more
frequently by children who progressed in performance and efficiency measures
is the result that app developers would hope to find in our analysis. Essentially,
this means that the features that app developers have built into their apps are
providing affordances that help children to progress in performance and in
efficiency. The features that app developers design into apps are there to afford
help to children. In this study, this means that significant results were obtained
more often when children accessed those helping affordances in the way that
they were likely meant to be employed. That is, the app features were designed
to afford help, and for many children across all age groups, the affordances
were helping.
The second pattern is that of the mixed results in which both helping and
hindering affordances were accessed by children (e.g., two significant results
for SML and one significant result for BALANCED). There were a number of
affordances that helped some children while hindering others. These results
support Gibson’s claim that affordances can be helping or hindering to different
children, and that the way that the child attends to the affordance impacts
whether the affordance helps or hinders learning. While app developers may not
create design features to intentionally hinder children, our observations reveal
instances where the intention of the design features do not match the actual
experience of using the app. Additionally, some affordances are designed for
hindering to promote positive outcomes (e.g., when the incorrect placement of
the child’s fingers means the child gets the answer wrong, this leads to more
precision in finger placement). There is also a close relationship between
hindering affordances and constraining features of apps (Moyer-Packenham
and Westenskow 2013). For example, a constraining affordance of the Pink
Tower: Tap app (which did not allow the child to select the wrong block) and
the Motion Math: Zoom app (that did not allow children to go too far beyond
the target number on the number line) was beneficial for learning. There is a
fine line between when an affordance is accessed by a user as hindering and
when a constraining feature in an app hinders or supports learning.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to understand the role that affordances played in
children’s learning performance and efficiency during their interactions on
touch-screen devices with a variety of mathematics apps for learning. The
results provide evidence of the variations in children’s access of the
affordances. Access to an affordance, whether it is a helping or a hindering
affordance, has implications for children’s learning performance and efficiency
as inferred by Byers and Hadley (2013). Our results support Byers and Hadley
(2013) findings and show that affordances of technology apps can support
learning performance and efficiency for some children (when accessed), can
hinder, slow down or frustrate some children (when accessed), or can be
ignored by other children (meaning that they did not access the affordance at
all). These results mirror Gibson’s (1986) writings that the individual may or
may not attend to the affordance. In this section, we discuss and explore these
results.
Observations about trends in affordance access and changes in performance

and efficiency
Our results showed improved efficiency for preschool, K and grade 2 students
in seriation, counting, subitizing, quantity, and skip counting tasks. Similarly,
Bertolo et al. (2014) found improved student efficiency for the university
students in his study during 3D geometry problem solving. However, while
Bertolo’s investigation reported reductions in cognitive load to explain increased
efficiency, our results may help to explain the relationship between the way in
which students attend to the affordances of an app and the reduction of
cognitive load. Kortenkamp and Ladel (2013) also found that the careful design
of apps could support cognitive mathematical processes in children. While more
research is needed to confirm a link between affordance access and a reduction
in cognitive load, the implication is that children who attended to the helping
affordances of the apps, as intended by the designers, were more likely to see
significant gains in performance and efficiency.
Spencer’s (2013) results with preschool and kindergarten aged children
showed significant gains in numeracy learning over a 5-day treatment period.
Our results showed significant gains in subitizing performance with kindergar-
ten children and skip-counting performance with second-grade children in only
one session. This indicates that young children may be able to make significant
gains in numeracy performance in a short period of time while interacting with
the iPad apps. Furthermore, while our effects were observed in only one
interview, Paek et al. (2013) results showed that there were positive long-term
effects when children used a touch-screen device. Future research can focus on
types of affordance access and its relation to short- and long-term results as
young children interact with mathematics apps. For example, children who
accessed the helping affordances in some tasks became less efficient. Accessing
a helping affordance may cause children to lose efficiency, but at the same
time, slowing down may allow their performance to improve. The trends in
affordance access identified in the present study can serve as a guide for future
coding and analysis protocols.
By simply observing children, we cannot determine if they did not perceive
the affordances or if they perceived and chose to ignore the affordances.
However, as Gibson (1986) and McGrenere and Ho (2000) stated, the
affordance was always there to be perceived. In addition, Greeno (1994) stated
that an affordance is a graded property with a variety of manifestations of
access. We did not examine the child’s ability in this study, so we cannot know
what it was about the affordance-ability relationship that influenced when a
feature was accessed in a helping or a hindering way. Thus, follow-up inter-
views in future studies can help to clarify this distinction between children’s
affordance access and children’s perception of affordances.
Implications
These results lead to further questions about the implications of affordances for
mathematics learning when children use virtual manipulative mathematics apps
on touch-screen devices. Some questions to consider are: What is it about a
particular affordance in an app that lends itself to being accessed by children in
a helping way versus a hindering way? How can features of apps be designed
to maximize the possibility that a helping affordance of an app will consistently
be accessed by the child in a helping way? The Bcelebration sparkles^ in the
Base-10 app was clearly one of those features that was designed by app
developers to be a helping affordance for children. However, half of the
children were helped while the other half were hindered by the timing of the
sparkles. This specific example, and several others, was a hindering affordance
as much as it was a helping affordance for the children overall. The implica-
tions of this are that every effort must be made in the design of mathematics
apps to ensure that an intended helping affordance in design is actually a
helping affordance when accessed by the child in practice. App designers and
children must work together during the design process so that mathematics apps
can be tested with children before they are distributed for educational use.
Another important implication is that the relationship between performance
and efficiency is not always a positive relationship. For example, as we
observed with some of the children in our study, they became more efficient,
but they did not improve their performance, and they became less efficient,
which did improve their performance. Additionally, in a few cases, children
became more efficient and their performance worsened. In some cases, the way
that the children interacted with the apps was more efficient, but it may have
also led to misconceptions about the mathematical content and a decrease in
performance. While it is important to improve efficiency and numerical auto-
maticity for many topics in mathematics, it is a negative outcome if children’s
learning performance suffers as efficiency improves (i.e., getting faster at
getting more answers wrong). Children are improving efficiency, but at what
cost? In classrooms where teachers use touch-screen devices with children, it is
important to consider the right balance between learning the mathematical
topics with understanding and developing efficiency and automaticity.
Conclusion
This study sought to contribute to the limited body of research on children’s

affordance access when interacting with virtual manipulative mathematics apps
for learning. Important patterns emerged in our analysis. The results showed
that access to an affordance, whether it is a helping or a hindering affordance,
resulted in changes to children’s learning performance and efficiency consistent
with the theoretical framework considered as the foundation for this study
(Burlamaqui and Dong 2014; Greeno 1994). Helping affordances were more
likely to be accessed by children who progressed between the pre- and post-
assessments, while some of the same affordances (whether intended to be
helping, or not) contributed to differing performance and efficiency results for
children. These results have important implications for the design of virtual
manipulatives mathematics learning apps. Because mathematics learning on
touch-screen devices is an emerging field and teachers and children in K-12
classrooms are commonly using mathematics apps on touch-screen devices for
mathematics instruction, it is imperative that researchers and educators under-
stand the role that affordances play in children’s learning.
Acknowledgments Financial support for the work reported in this paper was provided for a project titled:
Captivated! Young Children’s Learning Interactions with iPad Mathematics Apps, funded by the Vice
President for Research Office category of Research Catalyst Funding at Utah State University, 2605 Old
Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322, USA.
Appendixes
Appendix A
Mathematics apps selected for the pre- and post-assessments and learning activities
PRESCHOOL APPS
Pre/Post Pre/Post
Montessori Numbers— Pink Tower – A
Math Activities for Kids Montessori Sensorial
(Quantity: 1-9) Experience (Free Moving)
Activity A Activity A
Montessori Numbers— Pink Tower – A
Math Activities for Kids (1 Montessori Sensorial
to 20: 1-5) Experience (Card #12)
Activity B Activity B
Montessori Numbers— Intro to Math, by
Math Activities for Kids Montessori (Red Rods)
(Numerals from Quantity:
1-9)
KINDERGARTEN APPS
Pre/Post Pre/Post
Montessori Numbers— Friends of Ten (Teaching
Math Activities for Kids Tool)
(Quantity Activity: 10-99)
Montessori Numbers— Motion Math: Hungry
Math Activities for Kids (1 Guppy (Dots: four dots of
to 20: 11-20) the same color)
Montessori Numbers— Fingu (Level 1)
Math Activities for Kids
(Numerals from Quantity:
10-99)
GRADE 2 APPS
Pre/Post Pre/Post
Montessori Numbers— 100s Board
Math Activities for Kids
(Quantity: 100-999)
Motion Math: Zoom (Levels Teaching Number Lines
2-4) (Skip Counting Test)
Montessori Place Value Montessori Skip Counting
Cards (3-digit problems Beads
without zeros)
Appendix B
Sample of coding protocol for preschool
I Evidence
App ff1 Pretest: pj nk Tow er-FreeMolting

Task1 I 3 Ot det ed the fif'$t 6 correct ty
App ffZ Learning:pj nk Tow er-Top
Task1 I 0 Picked the fif'$t one cottecUyandtttenguess.ed
App ff3 Learning:Red Rods
Task1 I 4 coueaty ordered rods
App ff4 Postt est:Pink Tow er-Free Movjng
Task1 I 4 coueaty ordered bloc ks
LearningProgression Level Evidence

App ff4 Pretest:Bose-JO B/ocks
Child moved the 4 blocks correcttywnie i ncorrectlycountingabLKI.
Task 1
' Wotld naw continued if ootfor thespar.
Cnikl moved the 8 blocks correcttywhie i ncorrectl
Task Z
App •s Learning:Bose-10:1·5
' ycoun.tinga'oLKI. woutdnaw continued if ootfor the spa.rktes.
Child filed in the blockswhile countinga'.oLMf w th rai'Kfom numbe.r

Task1(3• 1
words.No ui'Kf erstancfngofthequanfty she buitt.
Task 2 {4• 1
words.No ui'Kf erstancfngofthequanfty she buitt.
Task 3 (5• 1
words.No ui'Kf e.rstancfngofthequanfty she buitt.
App fJ6 Learning:Bose-10:Numerals
child to Md each block ai'Kf cor rectly se ected tM nurne.r als whi5e
Task 1 4
countirt? a oLMf.
Child to Md each block ai'Kf cor rectly se ected tM nurne.r al1whi5e
Task z 4
countirt? a oLMf.
Child touched each block andcor rectly counted out loLMf the 6 blocks
Task 3
' but incorrectly se':ected the nume.raJ 4. Then tr iEd 3,tMn 8,then 9,
then 6 after prompted bythe interviewe.r.
Child to Md each block ai'Kf cor rectly se ected tM nurne.r al2 whi5e
Task 4 4
count n:a o\bd.
Child touched each block andcor rectly counted out loLMf the 7 blocks
but incotvectly se ected the nurne.r al6. Then tried S fmdicatifl: she
Task s
' k a:
was 5., then 4, then 3, then
the intetviewe.r.
z. Then 7 afte.r prompted by
Child touched each block and correc tly counted OL.'t loLKI the 8 blocks
Task 6
' but irKottr ectly se':ected the nume.raJ 6. Then tried 4. Pick..o.d 8 afte.r
prompted by ttte inte.rv ewe.r.
Child to Md each block ai'KI cor rectly se ected tM nurne.r als whi5e
Task 7 4
countin:a oud.
1ocorrectty counted the 4 blocks as S. Afte.r recounting she correctty
counttd the blocki ind u:erct!d the numeral9. ttte:n ttten q ttte:n 5
Ta!k6
' aam then4.
App ff4 Postt est: Bos.e.-10 Blocks
child moved 6 blocks inwhen ttte app wasasking for swhie
incorrecttycountin:aloud.Wou1dhaw continued if ootfor the
Task 1
' spa.r.
Child moved the 7 blocks correcttywhie i ncorrectl
Tasks Z
' ycountinga'oLKI. Wotldhaw continued if ootfor the spa.r.
Appendix C
Table 10 Sample affordances
App name Code Affordance description
Preschool apps
Pink tower: free moving SER:A1 Tiny blocks difficult to drag
(affords restricted movability)
Pink tower: Tap SER:A4 Does not allow the child to be wrong
(affords a model for the correct answer)
Base-10 QUA:A1 Links visual representation of quantity, written
symbolic representation of quantity, and verbal number name
(affords opportunities to connect representations)
Base-10 QUA:A4 Celebration sparkles feedback
(affords a cue to the correct response)
Base-10 QUA:A20 Feedback makes a sound when child touches each block
(affords cues to 1-to-1 correspondence)
Kindergarten apps
10 frame SUB:A1 Chooses to use different colored chips
(affords keeping track of child’s counting)
Hungry guppy SUB:A6 Bubble pops causing recognition of an incorrect combination
(affords greater accuracy on future attempts)
Fingu SUB:A18 Finger hits black edge: correct response counted incorrect
(affords more precision on future attempts)
Base-10 blocks QUA:A5 Tiny blocks difficult to drag
Base-10: numerals QUA:A11 Celebration sparkles feedback
(affords a cue to the correct response)
Grade 2 apps
100 s chart SKP:A1 100 s chart arrangement
(affords pattern recognition)
Counting beads SKP:A5 Beads difficult to move
Counting beads SKP:A12 Number cards difficult to move
References
Aronin, S., & Floyd, K. K. (2013). Using an iPad in inclusive preschool classrooms to introduce STEM
concepts. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 34–39.
Bartoschek, T., Schwering, A., Li, R., & Münzer, S. (2013). Ori-Gami–An App fostering spatial competency
development and spatial learning of children. In D. Vandenbroucke, B. Bucher, & J. Crompvoets (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 15th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science. Leuven,
Belgium: Springer.
Bertolo, D., Dinet, J., & Vivian, R. (2014). Reducing cognitive workload during 3D geometry problem solving
with an app on iPad (Presented at the Science and Information Conference, pp. 896–900). London: IEEE.
doi:10.1109/SAI.2014.6918292.
Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1–15.
Bullock, E. P., Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Shumway, J. F., Watts, C., & MacDonald, B. (2015). Effective
teaching with technology: Managing affordances in iPad apps to promote young children’s learning.
Unpublished manuscript.
Burlamaqui, L., & Dong, A. (2014). The use and misuse of the concept of affordance. In J. S. Gero (Ed.),
Design Computing and Cognition DCC’14. Springer.
Byers, P., & Hadley, J. (2013). Traditional and novel modes of activity in touch screen math apps. In J. P.
Hourcade, N. Sawhney, & E. Reardon (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Interaction Design and Children. New York: ACM.
Cai, J., Lane, S., & Jakabcsin, M. S. (1996). The role of open-ended tasks and holistic scoring rubrics:
Assessing students’ mathematical reasoning and communication. In P. C. Elliott (Ed.), Communication in
mathematics, K-12 and beyond (pp. 137–145). Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Carr, J. M. (2012). Does math achievement h’app’en when iPads and game-based learning are incorporated
into fifth-grade mathematics instruction? Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 269–286.
Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195. doi:10.
1207/S15326969ECO1502_5.
Chen, L. L. (2011). Enhancing special needs student’s learning with iPad. In World Conference on E-Learning
in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (Vol. 2011, pp. 2324–2330). Retrieved
from http://www.editlib.org/p/39076/.
Chen, L. L. (2012). Integrating iPad in a special education class: A case study. In World Conference on E-
Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Highez Education (Vol. 2012, pp. 530–534).
Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/41645/.
Cohen, B. H. (2014). Explaining psychological statistics (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. D2014]. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded
theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=
MaKWBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Basics+of+qualitative+research:+Techniques+and+procedures+
for+developing+grounded+theory&ots=QrDevRc5O0&sig=4EBsGKn1LSLNVTMdws57MfHAOuo.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2012). Using mixed methods to analyze video data: A
mathematics teacher professional development example. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(3), 199–216.
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems (pp. 79–84). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/108844.108856.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2013). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (9th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method
evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.
Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336–342. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.
101.2.336.
Gröger, C., Silcher, S., Westkämper, E., & Mitschang, B. (2013). Leveraging apps in manufacturing. A framework
for app technology in the enterprise. Procedia CIRP, 7, 664–669. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2013.06.050.
Haydon, T., Hawkins, R., Denune, H., Kimener, L., McCoy, D., & Basham, J. (2012). A comparison of iPads
and worksheets on math skills of high school students with emotional disturbance. Behavioral Disorders,
37(4), 232–243.
Kilic, A. (2013). An investigation of the use of the iPad and textbooks on the achievement of students with
special needs in algebra (Master’s thesis). New Jersey: Rowan University.
Kortenkamp, U., & Ladel, S. (2013). Designing a technology based learning environment for place value
using artifact-centric activity theory. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th
conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Mathematics
learning across the life span (Vol. 1, pp. 188–192).
McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. In Graphics interface (Vol.
2000, pp. 179–186). Montreal: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children
Mathematics, 8(6), 372–377.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Westenskow, A. (2013). Effects of virtual manipulatives on student achievement and
mathematics learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 4(3), 35–50.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Anderson, K. L., Shumway, J. F., Tucker, S., Westenskow, A., Boyer-Thurgood, J.,
Bullock, E., Mahamane, S., Baker, J., Gulkilik, H., Maahs-Fladung, C., Symanzik, J., Jordan, K., & The
Virtual Manipulatives Research Group at Utah State University. D2014a]. Developing research tools for
young children’s interactions with mathematics apps on the iPad Dpp. 1685–1694]. Honolulu, Hawaii:
Proceedings of the 12th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Education DHICE].
ISSN# 1541–5880.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Westenskow, A., Shumway, J. F., Bullock, E., Tucker, S. I., Anderson- Pence, K. L.,
Boyer-Thurgood, J., Maahs-Fladung, C., Symanzik, J., Mahamane, S., MacDonald, B., Jordan, K., & The
Virtual Manipulatives Research Group at Utah State University. (2014b). The effects of different virtual
manipulatives for second graders’ mathematics learning and efficiency in the touch-screen environment
(Paper presentation). Herceg Novi, Montenegro: 12th International Conference of the Mathematics
Education into the 21st Century Project.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Shumway, J. F., Bullock, E., Tucker, S. I., Anderson-Pence, K. L., Westenskow, A.,
Boyer-Thurgood, J., Maahs-Fladung, C., Symanzik, J., Mahamane, S., MacDonald, B., & Jordan, K.
(2015). Young children’s learning performance and efficiency when using virtual manipulative mathe-
matics iPad apps. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(1), 41–69.
Paek, S. (2012). The impact of multimodal virtual manipulatives on young children’s mathematics learning
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (UMI No. 3554708).
Paek, S., Hoffman, D., Saravanos, A., Black, J., & Kinzer, C. (2011). The role of modality in virtual
manipulative design. In D. Tan, B. Begole, & W. A. Kellogg (Eds.), CHI conference on human factors
in computing systems (pp. 1747–1752). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1979742.1979839.
Paek, S., Hoffman, D. L., & Black, J. B. (2013). Multi-modal interaction with virtual manipulatives:
Supporting young children’s math learning. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar
(Eds.), Proceedings, 10th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
(Vol. 2, pp. 117–120). Madison, WI.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Piaget, J. D1970]. The child’s conception of movement and speed. New York: Basic Books
DOriginal work published 1946].
Reid, D., & Ostashewski, N. (2011). iPads in the classroom–new technologies, old issues: Are they worth the
effort? In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Vol.
2011, pp. 1689–1694). Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/38089/.
Riconscente, M. M. D2012]. Mobile learning game improves 5th graders’ fractions knowledge and attitudes
Dp. 46]. Los Angeles: GameDesk Institute. Retrieved from http://www.gamedesk.org/reports/MM_
FINAL_REPORT.pdf.
Riconscente, M. M. (2013). Results from a controlled study of the iPad fractions game motion math. Games
and Culture, 8(4), 186–214.
Roschelle, J. (2000). Choosing and using video equipment for data collection. In A. E. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.),
Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 709–729). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schubert, C. (2009). Video analysis of practice and the practice of video analysis. In H. Knoblauch, B.
Schnettler, J. Raab, & H. G. Soeffner (Eds.), Video analysis methodology and methods: Qualitative
audiovisual data analysis and sociology (pp. 115–126). New York: Peter Lang.
Shuler, C. D2009]. Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. New York:
The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Retrieved from http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/
hal-00696254.
Spencer, P. (2013). iPads: Improving numeracy learning in the early years. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini
(Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow: Proceedings of the 36th annual confer-
ence of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 610–617). Melbourne: MERGA.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2008). Introduction to mixed method and mixed model studies in the social and
behavioral sciences. The Mixed Methods Reader, 7–26.
Teddlie, C., & Tasshakori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods.
Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12–28.
Tucker, S. I., & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2014). Virtual manipulatives’ affordances influence student
learning. In S. Oesterle, C. Nicol, P. Liljedahl, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of
PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 6, p. 251). Vancouver: PME.
Tucker, S. I., Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Shumway, J. F., & Jordan, K. (2014). Zooming in on students’
thinking: How a number line app revealed, concealed, and developed students’ number understanding.
Unpublished manuscript.

Moyer-Packenham 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moyer-Packenham 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Math Ed Res J (2016) 28:79–105

The role of affordances in children’s learning performance

Patricia S. Moyer-Packenham 1 & Emma K. Bullock 1 &

Received: 23 February 2015 / Revised: 16 November 2015 / Accepted: 24 November 2015 /

Keywords Affordances . Virtual manipulative . iPad . Math apps . Manipulatives

The use of mathematics apps on touch-screen devices is becoming ubiquitous in

Mathematics learning using apps on the touch-screen

A review of the literature reveals that most studies on mathematics learning

Affordances and learning

Table 1 Sequence of the interviews

Interview Preschool Kindergarten Grade 2

Topic: seriation Topic: subitizing Topic: skip counting

Topic: counting Topic: quantity Topic: place value

Fig. 1 Wall-mounted camera view

Fig. 2 GoPro camera view

Learning performance and efficiency

The quantitative research question focused on changes that occurred in chil-

Measures N Mean rank Mean rank z p

NS indicates that the measures were not significant

The qualitative research question focused on the affordances children accessed

Table 3 Six major trends of affordance access

HELP-PML HELPING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed by children who

Seriation measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

Counting measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

Affordance access in the kindergarten subitizing tasks Table 6 shows the 27

Subitizing measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

helping or hindering) were equally likely to progress or regress in efficiency.

Affordance access in the kindergarten quantity tasks Table 7 shows 19

Affordance access in the grade 2 skip counting tasks Table 8 shows 15

Quantity measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

Skip counting measures Mean ranka z p Median Affordance codes Affordance

Table 9 Significant results and major trends of affordance access

Significant Code Definition

1. Pre—Eff. HELP-PML HELPING affordance was MORE LIKELY to be accessed

Trends between affordance access and learning performance and efficiency

To answer the overarching research question, which focused on the relationship

Observations about trends in affordance access and changes in performance

This study sought to contribute to the limited body of research on children’s

Sample of coding protocol for preschool

App ff1 Pretest: pj nk Tow er-FreeMolting

LearningProgression Level Evidence

Child filed in the blockswhile countinga'.oLMf w th rai'Kfom numbe.r

Table 10 Sample affordances

App name Code Affordance description

You might also like