Technology-Integrated Discovery Learning for Elementary Mathematical Understanding and Engagement

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61277/ije.v4i2.295

Keywords:

Technology-Integrated Learning, Discovery Learning, Mathematics Education, Conceptual Understanding, Learning Engagement, Elementary Education

Abstract

This study developed and evaluated a technology-integrated discovery learning model to strengthen elementary students' mathematical conceptual understanding and learning engagement. Although digital technologies are increasingly available in primary classrooms, mathematics instruction frequently remains dominated by teacher-centered practices that prioritize procedural fluency over conceptual reasoning. To address this problem, the study employed a Research and Development design guided by the ADDIE framework, which comprises analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The participants included fifth-grade elementary students involved in small-group and large-group trials, a classroom teacher, and three expert validators specializing in mathematics education, instructional media, and language. Data were collected using expert validation sheets, teacher and student practicality questionnaires, classroom observations, and pretest-posttest assessments. The data were analyzed through descriptive statistics, normalized gain analysis, and paired-sample t-tests. The findings indicate that the developed model achieved a high level of validity, with an average expert validation score of 90%. Teacher and student responses also showed that the model was highly practical, with an average practicality score of 89%. Furthermore, implementation of the model substantially improved students' mathematics learning outcomes, as reflected in high N-gain scores of 0.81 in the small-group trial and 0.75 in the large-group trial. Paired-sample t-tests confirmed significant differences between pretest and posttest scores (p < .05). These findings suggest that integrating discovery learning with digital technology offers a pedagogically sound, student-centered, and conceptually meaningful approach to elementary mathematics instruction.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017

Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21-32.

Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, Article 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897

Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681-718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 9-35). Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.

Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52-66). Routledge.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346-362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346

Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361

Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A mixed-method study. Educational Technology Research and Develo

Downloads

Published

20.07.2026

How to Cite

Usman, S., Waluyo, E., & Supiati, S. (2026). Technology-Integrated Discovery Learning for Elementary Mathematical Understanding and Engagement. IJE : Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 4(2), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.61277/ije.v4i2.295