Initial Effect of Calculators in Elementary School Mathematics

Author(s): Richard J. Shumway, Grayson H. Wheatley, Terrence G. Coburn, Arthur L. White,

Robert E. Reys, Harold L. Schoen
Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Mar., 1981), pp. 119-
141
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/748707 .
Accessed: 09/04/2011 13:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctm. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

http://www.jstor.org
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
1981, Vol. 12, No. 2, 119-141

EFFECT
INITIAL INELEMENTARY
OFCALCULATORS
SCHOOLMATHEMATICS

RICHARD J. SHUMWAY ARTHURL. WHITE

The Ohio State University The Ohio State University

GRAYSONH. WHEATLEY ROBERTE. REYS

Purdue University Universityof Missouri at Columbia

TERRENCE G. COBURN HAROLDL. SCHOEN

Oakland Public Schools Universityof Iowa
Pontiac, Michigan

Every principal and mathematics teacher is faced with decisions con-

cerning use of calculators in the schools. Public debate over calculator use
for teaching mathematics is spirited and appears most controversial for cal-
culator use in elementary schools (Shumway, 1976).
The Calculator Information Center has collected and abstracted research
reports dealing with calculator effects. In a recent report (Suydam, 1979),
over 100 studies were summarized and critiqued. Most of the studies re-
ported suffered from serious design and sampling problems and few valid
conclusions can be drawn.

Purpose
The purpose was to determine the effect the availability of calculators to
students and the availability of calculator-related curriculum resources,
consultant resources, and in-service workshops for teachers had on the ele-
mentary school children's attitudes and achievement in mathematics,
Grades 2-6.
There were many possible effects one might reasonably expect, such as
changes in parent willingness to make calculators available in the home,
differences in teacher acceptance and use of calculators, modification of the

This material is based on research supported by the National Science Foundation

under Grant No. SED 77-18077. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recom-
mendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

March 1981 119

mathematics curriculum, changes in knowledge of basic facts by children,
changes in children's attitude toward mathematics, changes in teacher's atti-
tude toward calculator use, changes in children's general mathematical
achievement, and changes in use of exploratory techniques in learning
mathematics. While information on many of these effects was gathered,
principal focus was centered on those effects of immediate concern to par-
ents and educators; namely, (a) change in children's attitude toward calcu-
lators and school mathematics, (b) possible interference with children's
growth in knowledge of basic facts and paper-pencil computations, (c)
changes in children's scores on standardized achievement tests in mathe-
matics, (d) potential development of additional mathematics concepts re-
lated to calculator, and (e) change in computational power of children of all
grade levels (2-6) when using calculators.
Sample
The sampling design included three dimensions: Site, Grade Level, and
Treatment. The site dimension had five levels (or states)-Indiana, Iowa,
Missouri, Michigan, and Ohio; the grade level dimension had five levels-
Grades 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; and the treatment dimension had two levels-No
Calculator and Calculator.
One teacher and his or her class were selected from each site at each
grade level for each treatment. Fifty teachers and their classes were in-
volved in the study, 5 from each of the five sites. Five classes at each site
were in the No Calculator treatment and five in the Calculator treatment.
The No Calculator and the Calculator groups each included a total of 25
teachers and their classes.
A site director in each state selected an elementary school from the local
area. At one site it was necessary to select two schools because the K-3
grades and 4-6 grades were housed in different buildings. The schools se-
lected represent a broad spectrum including large urban, suburban, and ru-
ral consolidated attendance area schools. Table 1 summarizes school char-
acteristics by site.
Standardized testing in October using the Stanford Achievement Tests,
without use of calculators, is reported in Table 2. These data indicated
mathematics achievement levels ranging from nearly two grade levels below
norm in Grade 6 at Site 3 to more than one grade level above norm in
Grade 6 at Site 4.
Treatments
Teachers and their classes were the subjects. The essential differences be-
tween treatments were on the following dimensions: (a) availability of cal-
culators to teachers for their students, (b) teacher workshops on the use of
calculators, (c) availability of calculator-based instructional materials, and
(d) the researchers'interactions with teachers as consultants. The treatments
began in October and ended in February, for 67 school days of treatment.

120 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

 Table 1
Site Characteristics:Descriptive Statistics
Site

Characteristic 1 2 3a 4 5
Number of students in 780 348 620 (K-3) 745 420
building 550 (4-6)
Attendance rate (Percent) 97 96 92 (K-3) 96 95
93 (4-6)
Average class size (2-6) 27.2 23.2 28.7 25.3 25.5
Percent minority 0 6 50 6 2
Percent bussed 100 19 45 50 18
County population (1970) 109,378 72,127 907,872 80,911 833,249
School type Rural Small Large Small City Large City
City Urban Suburban Suburban
Income level Low- Middle Low High Middle
Middle
Building constructed 1968 1954,1963 1957 1964 1955,1958,
1968
a Site housed in two
buildings K-3, 4-6.

Table 2
Site Characteristics:
Grade Equivalents for October Standardized Testing by Site
Site
Grade
level Test 1 2 3 4 5
Gradea 2 Concepts 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.8 2.7
Computations 2.1 2.4 2.0 2.7 2.6
Application 1.9 2.6 2.1 2.9 2.9
Grade 3 Concepts 3.0 3.7 2.7 4.0 3.7
Computations 2.6 3.4 2.8 3.7 3.4
Applicatipn 2.8 3.5 2.9 3.9 3.8
Gradeb 4 Concepts 4.3 4.8 3.3 4.7 4.8
Computations 4.2 4.5 3.8 4.8 4.3
Application 4.2 5.0 3.7 4.5 4.9
Grade 5 Concepts 4.9 6.1 4.2 6.4 5.3
Computations 5.4 5.7 4.6 6.5 5.7
Application 4.7 5.8 4.0 6.0 5.4
Grade 6 Concepts 6.1 6.5 4.5 7.5 6.5
Computations 6.0 6.8 5.1 7.4 6.4
Application 5.4 6.7 4.3 7.1 6.3
a Grades 2-3 Stanford Mathematics Achievement
Primary IIA.
b Grades
4-6 Stanford Mathematics Achievement Intermediate IA.

Availability of calculators. Teachers in the No Calculator group were in-

structed to ask students not to use calculators for any mathematics work.
Teachers in the Calculator group were given calculators for themselves and
all their students and were asked to assign one calculator to each student. A
registration procedure was suggested that included taping students' names
to their calculators. It was suggested that calculators be kept in individually
assigned cubby holes in the classroom when not in use by students.

March 1981 121

 Teacher workshops.Two teacher workshops were given by the researchers
on classroom use of calculators in mathematics instruction. All teachers ex-
pected to have calculators available sometime during the year. (The No
Calculator teachers expected to have calculators available after February.)
The first workshop was given by the researchers before treatments had be-
gun and teachers in both the No Calculator and Calculator groups partici-
pated. The workshop consisted of a pretest of teacher attitude toward
mathematics and toward calculators, the registration of a calculator to each
teacher including taping their name to the calculator, basic instruction in
the use of the calculator, 14 pages of activities involving counting, comput-
ing, concept of negative integers, applications problems, and a problem-
solving activity involving approximating the square root of a number to
eight significant digits, 7 sample textbook pages together with suggestions
regarding adapting the pages to calculator use, a list of new concepts likely
to come up through calculator use, a brief examination of the internal
mechanism of a calculator (including the chip), and posttests of attitude to-
ward mathematics and toward calculators. The workshop was 2 hours long.
Immediately following the first workshop, teachers in the Calculator group
were asked to remain and were given calculators for all their students, two
extra calculators, several extra batteries, and registration forms including
instructions for students to put their names on their calculators. In an effort
to standardize the workshop across sites, the director gave the workshop to
the researchers, slight modifications were made by the researchers and de-
tailed agreement was reached on the conduct of the workshop by each site
director. Each teacher was given a 27-page workbook of the materials to use
during the workshop and to take with them for later reference.
The second workshop for teachers was given to Calculator teachers about
2 weeks later, lasted an hour, and included distribution of copies of 45
pages of pupil ready pages of calculator-related mathematics activities and
brief discussion of illustrative examples. The No Calculator teachers re-
ceived no second workshop until after the experiment in February.

Calculator materials. In addition to the 66 pages of calculator activities

from the two workshops, one or two copies of available commercial materi-
als were purchased and placed in each school building. The commercial cal-
culator materials were displayed on a table in the mailroom, library, or
teacher work room for ready access by Calculator teachers for use. (A list of
calculator materials and the workshop materials are available from ERIC/
SMEAC, 1200 Chambers Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212.)
Consultants.The site directors and/or their research assistants were in the
school for about 4 hours each day. Mathematics classes were visited daily.
The site directors and their research assistants served as mathematics re-
source persons for teachers and responded to requests for help and advice
uniformly for both treatment groups. Consultants identified and provided

122 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

resource materials and gave suggestions to any teacher seeking help. Con-
sultants interacted with children but did not lead or guide instruction. Deci-
sions regarding instruction were always made by the teacher. Every effort
was made by the consultants to treat all teachers in the project the same ex-
cept for discussions and suggestions concerning calculator use. The methods
and suggestions for calculator use were included in the discussions the con-
sultants had with the teachers who were in the Calculator group and no
suggestions related to calculator uses were made to the teachers who were in
the No Calculator group.
In summary, the treatments differed on four dimensions: calculator avail-
ability, workshops, instructional materials available, and consultant dis-
cussions. The effects of these conditions on teacher and student behavior
will be discussed in later sections.
Potential treatment effects. Teachers together with their students were
subjects, and variability in teacher behavior as well as student behavior was
expected. The treatments, as outlined in the previous section, were stan-
dardized. The amount and nature of calculator use among teachers having
calculators available as a treatment effect was expected to vary consid-
erably, as it might in a school first adopting calculator use for instruction.
Treatment effects could therefore range over variables such as student
achievement on standardized tests, availability of calculators in the home,
amount of teacher use of calculators, administrative position on the use of
calculators for instruction, and goals for instruction.
Among the array of potential treatment effect variables, the following
student variables were chosen to be of highest priority for this initial study
of the effects of calculator availability in elementary school mathematics
programs: (a) student attitude towards mathematics, (b) student attitude to-
wards calculators, (c) student knowledge of basic facts, (d) student achieve-
ment on a standardized mathematics test of Concepts, Computations, and
Applications, (e) student achievement on an advanced standardized test of
computation while using a calculator, (f) student ability to estimate, and (g)
student achievement on a special topics test of potentially calculator related
topics.
Other variables observed included amount and type of student use of cal-
culators, teacher attitude toward mathematics and calculators, teacher use
of calculators during the instruction, instructional strategies used, student
attendance, availability of calculators in the home, availability of calcu-
lators to children in classroom, batteries consumed, calculators replaced,
number of children owning their own calculators, teaching styles, goals for
instruction, classroom behavior of children, the introduction of new topics,
and children and parent reactions to the use of calculators for instruction.
While teacher and classroom activities will be critical variables in further
development and research regarding calculator use for instruction, the focus
here was on student achievement and attitude variables deemed most im-

March 1981 123

portant to teachers, parents, administrators, and researchers as initial calcu-
lator use is considered.

Design
The basic design was experimental including two treatment groups with
pre- and posttesting. Figure 1 is a summary of the time and sequence of
events. The experiment was conducted from the second week in October
1977 through the second week of February 1978. The pretests were given
the first week in October 1977 and the posttests were given during the third
week of February.
The treatment occurred during an 18-week time period which included
regular school holidays and days missed due to heavy snowfalls and bliz-
zard conditions. The treatments were in effect for an average of 66.6 school
days, ranging from 56 days at Site I up to 74 days at Site 4. This is equiva-
lent to 13.32 weeks of school time.
A follow-up period was included in the project to allow for the remedia-
tion of any detrimental effects, should they occur. The follow-up period ex-
tended from the middle of February through the first week in May.

Instruments
The testing included responses from students in five categories. The cate-
gories were attitudes, basic facts, mathematics achievement, estimation and
special topics. Classroom observations were made throughout the treatment
period.
Attitudes. The attitude scales were two six-item semantic differentials with
five response options. One scale was used to measure mathematics attitude
and the other to measure calculator attitude of the children. The six pairs of
terms used were bad--good, sad--happy, boring--exciting, jump in--hold
back, hard--easy, and more--less. These terms were selected as a result of
consultation with teachers and children. The instruments were piloted and
children interviewed to determine how valid the scales were for reflecting
the students' attitudes. The same scales were used for all grades (2-6). The
instructions and the scales were read to Grade 2 and Grade 3 students but
not to Grade 4 through Grade 6 students.
The scales were scored by assigning scores of 5 through 1 to the student
responses. If the student response was in the space adjacent to a term signi-
fying a positive attitude a score of 5 was assigned; if the response was next
to a term signifying a negative attitude a score of 1 was assigned. For ex-
ample:
---score---
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
bad -_ _ - :good
The scores for the six items were added together resulting in an attitude

124 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

 C4

I rI -A= - 0 C ot I
0
0,0IC4
0
CII . u CL CL
4c C40 E r- -A
C4 _ -000.o
R I

<I 0 E % 00
%4

$.--0 - 4)
* - cc - I -

4, r - 1-
o N<IU
:u
•• U,
•••• • -,
. )
•• I
0 V) CL .j tn .

-
F
I • • "
I <•. • <
0U
c,4
C4 E r- C4
'a.
s C4UC
4 CE
CC4
i
C. _ _ _ <:
< <
2!.
V,
-0 r-E 0. E
D
:* iS E m
U U <CS c ~
o -o,. -o • o uo
LA- a-
0 - <
r0> .0
0"- 0
r-
0
C U.I
0
l v
""' --. - .. 0" "-
41
r,,, p._ ''>
0. 4 0.tu'& 0. -0 "t
2 1 I I I
-- . I. I

*1 L.." .. )

0.00
4).9-,*IuU -%, E

-0 o--
o 00,.) 0 4.

0.. U0.- .! 00

-0ol U- la
OYO YFXC .-ooe0.1'
4)YY ~B
e' O ?P c
g >PY
0-0-0
-O M
-

: E
w

-5o
c E
o
-0. 'v ur- E -0.

~ f c
N>
Z
I.0.0
1-
i
1 CEaEpE" Pl-I.-t
eP~lgp~
ncC~ O cE888 ,
z•.
r-
.
c-•-.
.. p"

0 140- -0zi z I
o •. .•o ~ c
I - CNc- C -C-J
score with a maximum of 30 and minimum of 6. The internal consistency
reliability estimates of these scales ranged from 0.82 to 0.92 for Mathe-
matics Attitude (MAT) and from 0.66 to 0.88 for Calculator Attitude
(CAT).

Basic facts. The four basic facts tests (ADD, SUB, MUL, DIV) were each
made up of 20 randomly selected items (10 easy, e.g., 4 x 2, and 10 hard,
e.g., 8 x 7, basic fact combinations). These were read to students at all
grades (2-6) with a 5-second delay between items for responding. Calcu-
lators were not used.
The student responses were scored right or wrong. The scores on each
basic facts test could range from 0 to 20. The internal consistency reliability
estimates were from 0.55 to 0.89 for Addition, 0.88 to 0.90 for Subtraction,
0.84 to 0.94 for Multiplication, and 0.75 to 0.95 for Division. The low relia-
bility estimates for Addition were for Grade 6. The Addition basic facts
test was very easy for Grade 6 and the majority of errors were careless er-
rors resulting in low internal consistency estimates.

Mathematics achievement. The Mathematics Tests of the Stanford

Achievement Tests (1972-1973) were used to test Concepts, Computations,
and Application. A summary of the Stanford Achievement Test schedule is
included in Figure 1. Grades (2-3) were given primary level tests. The Pri-
mary Level II A tests were used as pretests and the Primary Level III A tests
as posttests. Grades (4-6) were given intermediate level tests. The Inter-
mediate Level I A tests were used as pretests and the Intermediate Level II
A tests as posttests. The internal consistency reliability estimates were deter-
mined for each of the 50 classes on each of the achievement tests and
ranged from 0.72 to 0.93.

Calculator-relatedmathematics achievement.At posttest time Grades 2-3

were given the Intermediate Level I A Computations test and Grades 4-6
were given the Advanced Level A Computations test. The students were
given calculators to use while taking these tests. The tests which involved
the use of the calculator are identified with an asterisk in Figure 1.
The Estimation test (EST) was a 12-item multiple choice test designed by
the researchers. The test was administered to Grades (2-6) in a fashion sim-
ilar to the basic facts tests. The items were read by the teachers with a 5-
second delay between items for students to respond. Calculators were not
used by the students. The student response sheet included the item and the
response choices. The students were asked to circle their responses. For ex-
ample:
Teacher says, "two hundred eight divided by ninety-eight is about"
(circle one)
Response Sheet: 208 + 98 2 20 200 2000

126 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

 The responses were scored as right or wrong. The scores could range
from 0 to 12. The internal consistency reliability estimates for the Estima-
tion test ranged from 0.29 to 0.68. The low reliabilities were partially due to
the extreme difficulty of the items resulting in random responses from the
students.
Two levels of Special Topics posttests were designed by the researchers.
The primary level (SPCPA), Grades (2-3), consisted of two parts (I, II).
Part I consisted of 12 items and was taken by students withoutthe use of cal-
culators. Part II consisted of 6 items and was taken using the calculators.
An example of a Part I item is:
(circle one)
8. Which number is smaller? -6 -3

The teacher was instructed to read the item as follows: "Number 8. Which
number is smaller?" The teacher was instructed not to read the options.
An example of a Part II item is:
(circle one)
17. Mr. Jackson has 1253 2274 4780 4,419,331 28,148,443
cars to load on his boat.
Each car weighs 3527
pounds. How many pounds
will be added to the boat?

The teacher asked all children to turn on their calculators to see that the
calculators were working just prior to beginning Part II. For all Part II
items the teacher was instructed to read the item but not the options. The
total number of items answered correctly on Parts I and II was used as the
score on the primary level Special Topics test. The maximum possible
score was 18.
The Special Topics test for the intermediate level (SPCIA), Grades (4-6)
consisted of two parts (I, II). Part I consisted of 12 items and was taken by
students withoutthe use of the calculators. Part II consisted of 11 items and
was taken using calculators.
An example of a Part I item is:
5. Write the number for five
thousand seven hundred sixty- 5.
three and sixty-five thousandths.
The student was instructed to write the answer in the space provided. The
teacher did not read the questions to the students.
An example of a Part II item is:
(circle one)
14. Which number is bigger? 3/7 5/13

March 1981 127

The teacher asked all children to turn on their calculators to see that the
calculators were working just prior to beginning Part II of this test. The cor-
rect answers for Part I and II were combined to obtain the students' score
on the Special Topics test (SPCIA). The maximum possible score was 23.
The internal consistency reliability estimates for the Grade (2-3) and Grade
(4-6) Special Topics tests (SPCPA and SPCIA) ranged from 0.59 to 0.90.
Observationaldata. A classroom observation schedule was established for
the 18-week time period during which the treatment occurred. Observa-
tional data was collected every 11 school days by the site directors at each
of the five sites. Both the Calculator and No Calculator classes were ob-
served.
The purpose of these observations was to document the degree and type
of calculator use as well as other important characteristics of the classroom
activities and mathematics instruction. Two observation forms were pre-
pared to guide the observers. The site directors observed the entire mathe-
matics instruction time for each class (10 per site) once every 11 days for a
total of 6 observations throughout the project. Each site director also ob-
served each class at a time other than the mathematics instruction time to
document other uses of the calculator.
In addition to these scheduled observations, each site director made daily
visits to the schools. Time was spent visiting classes and interacting with
teachers and students informally on a daily basis. The site directors kept
logs for recording observations and interactions throughout the project.

Results
The results include the analysis of pretest and posttest data relevant to
the hypotheses stated earlier. The purpose of the pretest analysis was to
identify the level of achievement and attitudes of students prior to treat-
ments and determine whether or not pretest differences would require co-
variance procedures in subsequent analyses.

Pretests
The pretests were given 3-6 October 1977. Tables 3 and 4 give margin
means for Grade and Treatment contrasts and summarize the multivariate
and univariate analyses of variance for the pretest measures. The data for
Grades 2-3 were analyzed separate from the data for Grades 4-6. Since no
interaction effects were significant, the interaction contrast was omitted
from the summary tables. In the primary grades (2-3) the expected grade
level differences were found on basic facts and mathematics achievement
while no attitude differences were found between grades. The treatment
groups were assumed to be equivalent prior to the beginning of the experi-
ment since no evidence of treatment group differences were found.
The pretest data for Grades (2-3), Table 3, result in the Grade Level dif-
ferences that are generally expected for ADD, SUB, and MUL basic facts.

128 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

The third-grade students do better than the second-grade students. The
same effect exists for the Stanford Achievement Tests. The means for the at-
titude measures by Treatment, and Grade Level (2-3) are given in Table 4.
The attitudes of second- and third-grade children towards calculators (X =
27.8) is significantly higher (p ! .001) than their attitudes toward mathe-
matics (X = 22.6).
The pretest data for Grades (4-6), Table 5, reports no multivariate statis-
tical significance (p ! .05) for Grade Level attitude differences, therefore
the univariate test for CAT (p _ .036) is not considered significant. In-
spection of the Calculator Attitude means from Tables 3 and 5 show some
indication of lower attitudes toward calculators in Grade 6 than in Grades
(2-5). The mean attitude scores by Treatment, and Grade Level (4-6) are
given in Table 6. The pretest attitudes of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade
children towards calculators (X = 27.2) was statistically significantly higher
(p ! .001) than their attitudes toward mathematics (X = 21.2). The grade
Table3
MarginMeansand SignificanceLevels
for GradeLeveland TreatmentContrastsfor Pretests-Grades2-3
Grade level Test Treatment Test
U M U M
2 3 p< p< NC C p< p<
Attitude .724 .808
MAT 22.9 22.4 .651 22.5 22.8 .801
CAT 27.6 28.0 .509 27.6 28.0 .530
Basic facts .023* .626
ADD 14.6 18.6 .001** 16.4 16.8 .726
SUB 12.2 16.2 .004** 13.7 14.7 .423
MUL 2.6 6.7 .013* 4.7 4.5 .914
DIV 1.0 4.7 .039* 2.7 3.1 .780
Mathematics
achievement .004** .706
CNP2A 18.3 25.6 .001** 21.7 22.3 .702
CMP2A 18.3 25.3 .001** 21.6 22.1 .739
APP2A 14.5 19.6 .001** 16.5 17.6 .402
Note. NC-No Calculator; U-univariate; C--Calculator; M-multivariate.
*p < .05.
**p< .01.

Table 4
Cell Means,MarginMeans,and SignificanceLevels
for Math and CalculatorAttitudePretestsby Treatmentfor Grades2-3
Attitude
Treatment grade MAT CAT
Second 23.7 27.1
NC Third 21.3 28.1
Combined 22.5 27.6
Second 22.2 28.1
C Third 23.4 27.9
Combined 22.8 28.0
Overall 22.6 27.8 p .001

March 1981 129

 Table 5
Margin Means and Significance Levels
for Grade Level and Treatment Contrasts for Pretests--Grades 4-6
Gradelevel Test Treatment Test
U M U M
4 5 6 p< p< NC C p< p<
Attitude .145 .965
MAT 21.2 20.9 21.6 .733 21.1 21.3 .788
CAT 27.5 27.6 26.5 .036(*) 27.2 27.2 .915
Basicfacts .001** .997
ADD 19.3 19.6 19.3 .620 19.4 19.4 .944
SUB 18.2 18.4 18.4 .974 18.3 18.4 .927
MUL 13.3 18.1 18.5 .001** 16.6 16.6 1.000
DIV 10.0 14.7 16.5 .001** 13.8 13.6 .908
Mathematics
achievement .001** .673
CNI1A 13.9 18.4 21.6 .001** 18.3 17.6 .632
CMI1A 15.4 23.9 28.6 .001** 22.7 22.6 .991
APIlA 23.1 27.5 30.9 .009** 27.5 26.8 .724
Note. NC-No Calculator; U-univariate; C--Calculator; M-multivariate.
*p < .05.
**p <.01.

Table 6
Cell Means, Margin Means, and Significance Levels
for Math and Calculator Attitude Pretests by Treatment for Grades 4-6
Attitude
Treatmentgrade MAT CAT
Fourth 20.6 27.6
Fifth 21.3 27.3
NC Sixth 21.5 26.7
Combined 21.1 27.2
Fourth 21.8 27.3
Fifth 20.5 28.0
C Sixth 21.6 26.2
Combined 21.3 27.2
Overall 21.2 27.2 p - .001

level differences that are generally expected for MUL and DIV basic facts
are found in Table 5. The students at the higher grade levels do better than
those at the lower grade levels. A similar interpretation can be made con-
cerning the Stanford Achievement Test mathematics scores.
Posttests
The posttests were given 13-17 February 1978. The basic facts (+,-,x,+)
and mathematics achievement (Concepts, Computations, and Applications)
tests were analyzed for pre-posttest differences. The same basic facts test
was used for Grades (2-6) and for pre- and posttests. These scores were an-
alyzed directly. The mathematics achievement scores for Concepts, Compu-
tations and Applications were obtained from different batteries of the Stan-
ford Achievement Tests depending on the Grade Level of the students and

130 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

Testing Time (pre or post). In order to compare scores on the different bat-
teries of the Stanford Achievement Tests, the scores were converted to
scaled scores (Madden, Gardner, Rudman, Karlsen, & Merwin, 1973, p.
13). These scaled scores allow comparisons, within a single subtest area,
from grade to grade, battery to battery, and form to form.
A Treatment by Grade by Site by Testing Time (pre-post) four-way mul-
tivariate analysis of variance was computed using the four basic facts scores
and the three mathematics achievement test scores as dependent variables.
The results were as follows:
1. No significant effects for
(a) Treatment by Grade by Testing Time interaction
(b) Treatment by Grade interaction
(c) Treatment by Testing Time interaction
(d) Treatment
2. Significant effects for
(a) Grade by Testing Time interaction (Multivariate p ! .001) (Uni-
variates-ADD p ! .001, SUBp < .006, MULp ! .001, DIVp _
.001)
(b) Grade (Multivariate p _ .001) (Univariates each p _ .001)
(c) Testing Time (Multivariate p! .001) (Univariates each p _ .001)
The Grade by Testing Time interaction was due to the basic facts scores.
The lower grade students had relatively low pretest scores on the basic facts
tests and showed expected growth on the posttests. The upper grade levels
had high basic fact pretest scores and did not show the same proportion of
growth since they tended to be nearer the maximum scores on the pretests.
The means by Grade Level and Testing Time are plotted in Figure 2.
The Testing Time effects were all significant at p _ .001 for all tests. This
result indicates that the students in the study made significant growth on
basic facts and mathematics achievement from October 1977 to February
1978.
In addition, the result of no significant difference for the Treatment by
Testing Time effects, gives no evidence that the use of calculators was detri-
mental or facilitative for basic facts or mathematics achievement.
The mean scores for the pretest and posttest basic facts by treatment
group are given in Table 7.
The scaled Stanford Achievement Test mathematics scores for Concepts,
Computations, and Applications showed significant gains from pre- to post-
testing. There was no significant interaction effect for testing time by treat-
ment. This result provides no evidence of detrimental or beneficial effects of
calculator use. The grade equivalents for pre- and posttest Concepts, Com-
putations, and Applications scores are given in Table 8.
The posttests were given 13-17 February 1978. Tables 9 and 10 summa-

March 1981 131

20 20
6.-
5"

16 16
5

12 12
4

8 8

3
4 4
2 MUL DIV

Pre Post Pre Post

20 5 _ 20
4 --6 6
5
3

16 16 :3

12 12 2

8 8

4 4
ADD SUB

0o I 0
Pre Post Pre Post
Figure 2. Basic facts grade by testing time.

rize the margin means and the multivariate and univariate analyses for
posttest difference for Grades 2-3. No interaction effects were found; there-

132 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

 Table 7
Basic Facts Means Across Grade Levels by Treatment by Testing Time
No Calculator Calculator
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
ADD 18.2 18.8 18.4 19.0
SUB 16.5 17.9 16.9 17.8
MUL 11.8 14.6 11.8 14.5
DIV 9.4 12.4 9.4 12.4

Table 8
Grade Equivalents for Mathematics Achievement
by Treatment by Testing Time
No Calculator Calculator
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Concepts 4.4 5.4 4.4 5.5
Computations 4.3 5.0 4.3 4.9
Applications 4.2 5.2 4.1 5.2

Table 9
Margin Means and Significance Levels for
Grade Level and Treatment Contrasts for Posttests-Grades 2-3
Gradelevel Test Treatment Test
U M U M
2 3 p< p< NC C p< p<
Attitude .595 .569
MAT 23.1 22.4 .591 22.3 23.2 .444
CAT 27.0 27.2 .635 27.1 27.0 .805
Basicfacts .001** .509
ADD 17.2 19.0 .009** 17.7 18.5 .210
SUB 15.0 18.2 .001** 16.7 16.6 .880
MUL 4.4 13.0 .001** 8.6 8.8 .915
DIV 2.5 9.7 .001** 5.9 6.4 .770
Mathematics
achievement .001** .850
CNP3A 13.3 19.4 .001** 15.8 16.9 .515
CMP3A 13.3 21.2 .001** 17.1 17.4 .840
APP3A 13.8 19.1 .004** 16.1 16.8 .671
Calculator-
related
mathematics
achievement .002** .258
EST 3.6 4.7 .001** 4.0 4.2 .508
SPCPA 3.6 6.6 .001** 4.5 5.7 .091
CMIlA 20.3 27.8 .001** 23.8 24.3 .748
Note. NC-No Calculator; U-univariate; C-Calculator; M-multivariate.
* < .05.
p
**p < .01.

fore, only the grade level and treatment contrasts are reported in the sum-
mary. There were no treatment effects identified for Grades 2 and 3 as evi-
denced by the significance tests reported in Table 9. None of the
multivariate tests for differences between treatment groups were significant.

March 1981 133

 Table 10
Cell Means, Margin Means, and Significance Levels
for Math and Calculator Attitude Posttests by Treatment for Grades 2-3
Attitude
Treatmentgrade MAT CAT
Second 23.0 26.6
NC Third 21.6 27.6
Combined 22.3 27.1
Second 23.2 27.3
C Third 23.3 26.8
Combined 23.2 27.0
Overall 22.8 27.1 p : .001

Only one variable out of the 12 measured showed even the slightest in-
dication of a statistical difference and that was SPCPA, the Special Topics
test (p < .091). The scores for the Calculator classes showed some sign of
being greater than those of the No Calculator classes. The difference be-
tween Calculator and No Calculator classes in experience with negative
numbers could have accounted for such a difference.
Across the basic facts measures and all achievement measures Grade 3
scores were significantly higher than Grade 2 scores (p - .01), which is to be
expected.
The grade equivalents associated with the Calculator Aided Computa-
tions (CMIlA) were 5.0 and 6.0 for Grades 2 and 3, respectively. This level
of computation performance, when the calculator was used while taking the
test, was not dependent on the treatment condition. The children learned to
use the calculator for calculations with ease. Assuming that second graders
would be expected to have grade equivalent scores of 2.5 and third graders
scores of 3.5 on the Computations test without calculators in February, the
Calculator Aided Computations scores of 5.0 and 6.0 were found to be sig-
-
nificantly higher (p .001) than would be expected for both second- and
third-grade children.
The second- and third-grade children did not do well on the Estimation
test. The mean score was 4.1, while the chance score was 3.0. Similar differ-
ences between attitudes toward mathematics and calculators observed from
the pretest scores were also observed in the posttest scores. A breakdown of
the attitude score means by Grade Level and Treatment are given in Table
10.
There were no Treatment effects identified for Grades 4-6 as evidenced
by the significance tests reported in Table 11. None of the multivariate tests
for differences between treatment groups were significant.
Statistically significant Grade Level effects were identified for the mathe-
matics achievement measures. These differences reflect an increase in per-
formance level from Grade 4 to Grade 6 which is to be expected. The grade
equivalents associated with the Calculator Aided Computations (CMADA)
were 5.8, 7.0, and 7.8 for Grades 4, 5, and 6, respectively. This level of com-

134 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

 Table 11
Margin Means and Significance Levels for
Grade Level and Treatment Contrasts for Posttests-Grades 4-6
Grade level Test Treatment Test
U M U M
4 5 6 p< p< NC C p< p<
Attitude .065 .569
MAT 21.7 20.6 21.4 .512 21.3 21.2 .916
CAT 26.6 25.3 24.8 .020(*) 25.8 25.3 .261
Basic facts .140 .940
ADD 19.4 19.6 19.2 .488 19.5 19.3 .619
SUB 18.7 18.6 18.7 .971 18.7 18.6 .834
MUL 17.7 18.8 18.8 .122 18.6 18.3 .559
DIV 15.1 17.4 17.4 .082 16.8 16.4 .685
Mathematics
achievement .023* .223
CNI2A 16.4 20.3 23.6 .008** 20.3 19.9 .825
CMI2A 18.4 24.6 29.4 .002** 25.0 23.2 .427
API2A 18.2 23.6 27.3 .005** 23.5 22.6 .651
Calculator-
related
mathematics
achievement .006* .840
EST 4.9 5.9 6.3 .053 5.7 5.6 .851
SPCIA 5.2 8.1 10.8 .002** 7.9 8.2 .817
CMADA 16.5 21.0 24.6 .002** 20.5 20.9 .777
Note. NC-No Calculator; U-univariate; C--Calculator; M-multivariate.
* < .05.
p
**p < .01.

putational skill when the calculator was used while taking the test was not
dependent on the treatment condition. Performance was virtually the same
for Calculator and No Calculator groups. It was assumed that the fourth
graders would be expected to have grade equivalent scores of 4.5, the fifth
graders scores of 5.5, and the sixth graders scores of 6.5 on the Computa-
tions test without use of calculators in February.
The Calculator Aided Computations scores of 5.8, 7.0, and 7.8 for Grades
4, 5, and 6, respectively, were found to be significantly higher than would be
expected for fourth graders (p < .001), fifth graders (p -< .01), and sixth
graders (p < .01).
The Estimation scores show increased skill from fourth grade to sixth
grade. The means range from 2 to 3 points above chance. This is lower than
expected.
The multivariate Grade Level effect for attitude approached significance
(p < .065). On further inspection of the univariate tests of significance it can
be seen that the Calculator Attitude scores were primarily responsible for
this effect (CAT, p < .02). Inspection of the means across Grades (4-6) re-
veals a decrease in positive attitude from Grades 4 through 6. The older stu-
dents still viewed the calculator as something they liked, but perhaps they
learned that the calculator does not solve all of the problems for them.
Mathematics still requires thinking even if you use a calculator. This effect
was not dependent on treatment.

March 1981 135

 The differences between Mathematics Attitudes (MAT) and Calculator
Attitude (CAT) observed from the pretest scores were also observed in the
posttest scores. A breakdown of the attitude score means by Grade Level
and Treatment are given in Table 12. For Grades 4, 5, and 6 the overall
mean of the MAT posttest scores was 21.2, and the overall mean of the
CAT scores was 25.5. These means were significantly different at p _ .001.
The classroom observations were tabulated and the following statements
summarize these data:
1. Games were more prevalent in Calculator classes than in No Calcu-
lator classes (p < .05).
2. When calculators were used by the Calculator classes during mathe-
matics instruction, approximately 60% of the students were using them.
3. Calculators were used for instruction by the Calculator classes, on the
average, about 40% of the class time.
Summaryof Resultsby Hypotheses
L
Hypothesis No evidence was found to support the hypothesis that use
of calculators influences student attitudes toward mathematics.
Hypothesis II. Evidence was found to support the hypothesis that stu-
dents have a more positive attitude toward calculators than toward mathe-
matics. These effects were observed at Grades (2-3) and Grades (4-6) (p
.001) independent of calculator use.
Hypothesis III. Evidence was found to support the hypothesis that stu-
dents with and without calculators show gains for basic facts (+, -, x, +:
p - .001) and for mathematics achievement (Concepts, Computations, and
-
Applications, p .001). These gains were independent of calculator use.
Hypothesis IV. No evidence of effects of calculator use on student knowl-
edge of basic facts or on student mathematics achievement was found.

Table 12
Cell Means,MarginMeans,and SignificanceLevels
for Mathand CalculatorAttitudePosttestsby Treatmentfor Grades4-6
Attitude
Treatment grade MAT CAT

Fourth 21.7 27.5

Fifth 20.6 24.7
NC Sixth 21.6 25.3
Combined 21.3 25.3
Fourth 21.7 25.7
Fifth 20.7 21.2
C Sixth 21.2 24.3
Combined 21.2 25.2
Overall 21.2 25.5 p .001

136 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

 Hypothesis V. No evidence of effects of calculator use on student achieve-
ment of estimation skills or special topics of mathematics was found.
Hypothesis VI. Evidence was found to support the hypothesis that the use
of the calculator on computations tests would increase student computa-
tions test scores. This effect was observed at Grades [2-4, (p < .001)] and
Grades [5-6, (p - .01)] independent of Treatment group.
Limitations
It is important to identify limitations and assess potential impacts such
limitations may have on results and future work. Limitations were placed in
three general categories: Breadth, Duration, and Power.
Breadth. (a) The standardized achievement tests do not necessarily reflect
specific classroom activities and valued mathematics outcomes but are tests
of general achievement.
Because current evaluation of school mathematics programs by policy
making groups such as administrators, school boards, and parents is almost
always made with standardized tests, standardized testing, while of general
nature, needed to be a major component of the testing. It is not envisioned
that many policy making groups will change policy regarding calculator use
without standardized test data. The tests of basic facts and attitudes used do
reflect specific goals and are less susceptible to this limitation.
(b) There was a broad range of calculator use across teachers rather than
a systematic controlled calculator use.
All site directors could envision activities which, in their view, would
have significantly multiplied both the time and quality of calculator use in
the classroom. However, we were attempting to define and evaluate the first
level use of calculators which typical elementary schools might consider. It
is our view that the first level use must be examined before more extensive
treatments are considered. The question of massive, general debilitating ef-
fects for calculator use in elementary schools was of highest priority.
The purpose was to determine the most prominent general effects of first
level calculator use. The treatments and testing were necessarily limited and
general in nature.
Duration. The actual treatments were approximately 67 school days in
length. For a year long study, 67 days would appear to be shorter than nec-
essary. There were several factors which reduced the available time. Given
the general public view that calculator use in schools would cause serious
debilitation of students' mathematical achievement, it was important to of-
fer ample time to recover from such debilitation and/or share the benefits
of calculator use for the children in both treatment groups. The posttests
were given in February of the school year to allow for careful testing and
time for recovery from potential disadvantages. Even though significant
growth was found for Calculator and No Calculator groups clearly the 67-

March 1981 137

day treatment over 41 months may have been too short to produce potential
debilitations or potential advantages.
It is clear once initial fear over debilitating effects for calculator use is re-
lieved, longer term studies need to be conducted to determine the effects of
regular calculator use over several years time. We accepted the limitations
of an 18-week treatment in order to protect children from possible debilita-
tions and obtain quick careful information concerning the initial effects of
calculator use.
Power. Any study designed to determine whether or not a device or treat-
ment causes feared debilitations must expect to present data describing the
power of the statistical tests used to support the strength of the inference
that if no differences were detected then there were no differences. Because
power arguments are very infrequently reported, it is important to note the
limitation is not that such an inference cannot be made or supported by
probability statements. We have used the statistical technique of power
analysis to appropriately support the inference that no significant differ-
ences detected implies no differences existed. The limitation relative to
power is that our planned variability among schools necessarily reduced the
power of the experiment. Significantly greater power would have been pos-
sible by reducing cell variance due to school. However, for example, if we
had chosen all schools of a similar type the power would have been in-
creased, but at the expense of limiting generalizability to schools of only
one type. Our choice was to obtain generalizability to most elementary
schools and consequently sacrifice some statistical power.
A rigorous standard of a = 0.05 and power = 0.95 was adopted for this
study. The data in Tables 13 and 14 give the raw score differences (critical
differences) which would have to exist between the means of the Calculator
group and the No Calculator group if statistical significance at the 0.05 level
would be found. The probability of finding such a difference if in fact it ex-
isted is the power (0.95).
For instance in Table 13 a SUB difference of 2.76 items between Calcu-
lator and No Calculator group posttest means would be found to be signifi-
cant at the 0.05 level and if such a difference in fact exists it will be detected
95 times out of 100. Since no significant difference between Treatments was
found for SUB in this study then it is unlikely that such a difference (--3
items) exists. The nearer the critical difference approaches or exceeds a
meaningful difference in raw scores the less confident we are that no differ-
ences exists.

Conclusions
Widespread concern over the use of calculators by young children
prompted a broad, year-long study of the impact of calculators on elemen-
tary school mathematics learning. In the context of the level of calculator
use elementary teachers are likely to implement in the first year with calcu-

138 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

 Table 13
Critical Treatment Differences Required
for 0.95 Power in Grades 2-3 (a = .05)
Possible raw
score range Pre Post
MAT 6-30 4.47 4.53
CAT 6-30 2.32 1.97
ADD 0-20 3.75 2.28
SUB 0-20 4.65 2.76
MUL 0-20 5.58 5.58
DIV 0-20 6.31 6.28
CNP2A 0-35 5.88 NG
CNP3A 0-32 NG 5.97
CMP2A 0-37 6.20 NG
CMP3A 0-36 NG 5.97
APP2A 0-28 4.71 NG
APP3A 0-28 NG 5.92
EST 0-12 NG 1.07
SPCPA 0-18 NG 2.63
CMIIA 0-40 NG 5.61
Note. NG-Test not given.

Table 14
Critical Treatment Differences Required
for 0.95 Power in Grades 4-6 (a = .05)
Possible raw
score range Pre Post
MAT 6-30 3.49 3.51
CAT 6-30 1.68 2.34
ADD 0-20 1.30 1.21
SUB 0-20 2.57 2.17
MUL 0-20 - 2.33
DIV 0-20 5.96 4.33
CNIIA 0-32 6.83 NG
CNI2A 0-35 NG 7.82
CMI1A 0-40 - NG
CMI2A 0-45 NG 10.21
API A 0-40 8.57 NG
API2A 0-40 NG 9.50
EST 0-12 NG 1.94
SPCIA 0-23 NG 5.36
CMADA 0-45 NG 7.39
Note. NG-Test not given.

lators available for all children and limited supplementary materials for stu-
dent use, the following conclusions seem warranted:
1. Children's attitude toward calculators is more positive than their atti-
tude toward mathematics.
2. Children grow significantly on basic fact and mathematics achieve-
ment tests taken without the use of calculators regardless of whether or not
calculators were used during instruction.

March 1981 139

 3. The use of calculators increases children's computational power with
little instruction.
4. Accepting power arguments associated with the needed differences re-
ported in Tables 13 and 14, there is no evidence of measurable detrimental
or positive effects for initial first-year use of calculators for teaching mathe-
matics.
Observed growth in basic facts and mathematics achievement argues for
evidence that feared debilitations did not occur. Lack of differences on the
Estimation and Special Topics tests is most likely explained by insufficient
attention to these topics by teachers in either treatment.
In summary, children enjoyed calculators, increased their computational
power with little instruction when using calculators, and did not develop
any of the feared debilitations when tested without calculators because of
calculator use for instruction.
Future Directions
Recommendations for future directions are divided into those for re-
search, those for school practices, and those of a philosophical nature need-
ing widespread discussion and study.
Research
Almost 100 studies on the effects of calculators have been conducted and
most conclusions indicate no measurable detrimental effects associated with
the use of calculators for teaching mathematics (Suydam, 1979). This re-
search is consistent with these findings. We believe the next step is to exam-
ine specific effects for specific calculator activities. Such work should be
coupled with continued monitoring of the longer range effects of classroom
use of calculators. Specific potential advantages for calculator use suggested
by our experiences included:
1. increased number and variety of examples of mathematical concepts and
computations;
2. facilitation of the introduction of new topics such as decimals, metric
measure, negative integers, and number theory earlier in a student's
mathematical training.
3. improvement in student and teacher attitude towards mathematics.
Careful determination of whether or not these suggestions are, in fact, po-
tential benefits of calculator use needs study.
We believe the existing body of work on calculator effects justifies further
work in specific areas and longer range study of calculator effects.
School Practices
Programs of calculator use similar to those examined here can be consid-
ered and implemented without fear of automatic, dramatic debilitation of

140 Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education

students' mathematical abilities as usually measured. The research does not
guarantee no debilitation due to calculator use but simply gives evidence
that debilitation need not occur. We endorse school use of calculators pro-
vided there is appropriate monitoring of effects and significant time is allo-
cated to thoughtful consideration of appropriate activities for calculator
use.
We believe the most common error made in decisions about calculator
use is the failure to use calculators at times when they could be used effec-
tively.
A second common error is one of double standards. Children are encour-
aged to use calculators but are tested without calculators. Testing programs
should accurately reflect expected student outcomes. Consequently, most
testing should be conducted with calculators available. Calculator use can
support drill and practice activities including basic facts, estimation, and
mental arithmetic. Testing of these skills should be done without calculator
use. Other testing should reflect calculator use as expected in the classroom.
In most cases, the school uses of standardized test data can be adapted
quickly to the new "norms" generated by calculator use through mainte-
nance of system norms and cooperative sharing of such data with other rep-
resentative schools.

PhilosophicalQuestions
Although we did not attempt to do so, it would seem possible to use cal-
culators in such a way that algorithms such as the long division algorithm
need not be taught and would not be learned. The impact of such deletions
from the curriculum is unknown to us but should be considered. Societal
need of such algorithms would be one factor, mathematics curriculum need
of such algorithms another factor, and psychological need in learning
mathematics yet another factor. The replacement of these traditional al-
gorithms by others should be considered. Such issues cannot be resolved ef-
fectively by experimental research alone but rather in conjunction with sur-
vey, philosophical, and clinical research. We endorse such efforts as a
needed next step.
REFERENCES
Madden, R., Gardner, E., Rudman, H., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J. Stanford Achievement Test,
Intermediate Level II Battery: Norm Booklet Form A. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovano-
vich, 1973.
Shumway, R. J. Hand calculators: Where do you stand? Arithmetic Teacher, 1976, 23, 569-572.
Stanford Achievement Tests. Mathematics Tests. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
1972-1973.
Suydam, M. N. The Use of Calculators in Pre-College Education: A State-of-the-Art-Review.
Columbus, Ohio: Calculator Information Center, May 1979.

March 1981 141