Examining primary school educators preferences for using digital versus non-digital games to support mathematics instruction

International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science and Technology
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tmes20
Examining primary school educators' preferences

for using digital versus non-digital games to
support mathematics instruction
James Anthony Russo, Anne Roche, Toby Russo & Penelope Kalogeropoulos
To cite this article: James Anthony Russo, Anne Roche, Toby Russo & Penelope Kalogeropoulos
(25 Jun 2024): Examining primary school educators' preferences for using digital versus non-
digital games to support mathematics instruction, International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2024.2361699
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2361699
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 25 Jun 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1374
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmes20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2361699
Examining primary school educators’ preferences for using

digital versus non-digital games to support mathematics
instruction
James Anthony Russo a , Anne Roche a , Toby Russob and
Penelope Kalogeropoulos a
a School of Curriculum, Teaching and Inclusive Education, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton,
Australia; b Department of Education, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Both digital and non-digital games have been shown to be effective Received 24 October 2023
for supporting student engagement in mathematics. However, little KEYWORDS
is known about educator preferences for a particular game mode (i.e. Primary education;
digital versus non-digital), and what factors influence these prefer- mathematics education;
ences. To address this gap, 111 Australian primary school educators game-based learning; digital
completed a questionnaire reporting on their usage of, and prefer- games; non-digital games;
ences for using, digital compared with non-digital games to support teacher perspectives
mathematics instruction. Participants were considerably more likely
to use non-digital games than digital games in their classrooms, and
the majority indicated a clear preference for using non-digital games.
Thematic analysis revealed several themes that explained why many
participants preferred non-digital games, with the most frequently
coded theme being for pedagogical reasons such as: that they were
better for promoting collaboration and communication; that they
afforded opportunities for students to use manipulatives; and that
they were easily adapted and differentiated for specific groups of stu-
dents. Other notable themes included: assessment, in particular, the
perception that when students played non-digital games it was eas-
ier to observe their understanding; access to, and limited awareness
of, suitable digital resources; and managing the setup and delivery of
the game. Implications of the findings are discussed.
1. Introduction
Game-based learning (GBL) has received substantial interest from education researchers
and practitioners (Ariffin et al., 2014). In mathematics education, this interest has at
least partially stemmed from a desire to make mathematics education more engaging for
students. Previous research has shown that students become less interested in learning
mathematics and more likely to dislike mathematics as they progress through schooling
CONTACT James Anthony Russo james.russo@monash.edu School of Curriculum, Teaching and Inclusive
Education, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Level 2, Learning and Teaching Building, Clayton Campus, Clayton, VIC
3800, Australia
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 J. A. RUSSO ET AL.
(Thomson et al., 2017). However, learning mathematics through game play has been iden-
tified as engaging and motivational for learning (Bragg, 2003, 2006b; Bright et al., 1985;
White & McCoy, 2019).
Studies focused on the efficacy of educational games in mathematics generally focus on
one mode of game, either digital or non-digital, and have compared games in this partic-
ular mode with non-game activities or traditional instruction (e.g. Abdullah et al., 2012;
Bragg, 2012; Kamii et al., 2005; Miller & Robertson, 2011). Moreover, whereas much of
the research into mathematical games has focused on the impact of games on student aca-
demic outcomes and affect, far fewer studies are concerned with how teachers choose to
use games to support mathematics instruction (Russo et al., 2021). Consequently, there
are gaps in the research literature, both in terms of studies that directly compare digital
and non-digital games in mathematics education, as well as those that consider specifically
how and why teachers choose to use games. The current study endeavours to address these
gaps by examining primary school educators’ preferences for using digital compared to
non-digital games to support mathematics instruction, and their reasons for holding these
preferences.
1.1. Defining games

A game can be defined as
an activity often classified as fun, governed by precise rules that involve varying degrees of
strategy or chance, and one or more players who cooperate or compete (with self, the game,
one another, or a computer) through the use of knowledge or skill in an attempt to reach a
specified goal. (Jaffe, 2019, p. 300)
Jaffe (2019) categorised games into three genres: Games, Simulations and Simulation
Games. Games included both non-digital (e.g. board and card games), and digital games.
Furthermore, educational games ‘are believed to provide learning benefits that last beyond
the game for all participants’ (p. 300). Similarly, Talan et al.’s (2020) definition takes a
broad view of GBL that includes any instructional activity specific to teaching mathematics
based on the use of games, whether they are conducted traditionally (non-digital classroom
games) or via digital technology (computers, consoles, tablets, etc.). In contrast, Gough’s
(1999) definition of games does not include students playing a game on their own. He sug-
gests, ‘a game needs to have two or more players, who take turns, each competing to achieve
a “winning” situation of some kind, each able to exercise some choice about how to move
at any time through the playing’ (p. 12). The view of games adopted in the current study
aligns with these definitions, and includes both digital and non-digital games, played in
pairs, small groups or teams, or as a large group. Moreover, our study focused on educa-
tional games; specifically, games that might be used by teachers to support mathematics
learning and instruction in the primary mathematics classroom.
1.2. Affordances of non-digital games

As noted earlier, much of the literature involving the use of games in the primary mathe-
matics classroom has investigated student outcomes related to playing non-digital games,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3
with fewer studies focused on how and why teachers use such games. In particular, stud-
ies have shown that non-digital GBL in mathematics education improves achievement in
mathematics knowledge and skills (Asplin et al., 2006; Bragg, 2006a: Bright et al., 1983;
Ramani & Siegler, 2008; White & McCoy, 2019); including for low-performing students
(Kamii et al., 2005; Karnes et al., 2021). For example, Bragg (2006a) reported that 9–12-
year-old students started to question their own misconceptions in relation to multiplication
and division of decimals through playing Guestimate (Swan, 1996). Students were required
to estimate the result of multiplying some ‘messy’ number that usually included a decimal
portion with another number (often less than one). The game playing helped students to
wrestle with a common misconception that multiplication always makes the number bigger
(McIntosh et al., 1997). In another example, the findings of Asplin et al. (2006) showed that
the mental computation knowledge and skills of Grade 6 students could be improved by
playing a commercial card game (Numero) four times a week for ten weeks.
Furthermore, playing mathematical card games beyond the classroom in the home envi-
ronment has been shown to improve students’ achievement. For example, Casey et al.
(2020) revealed that the addition accuracy of 6–7-year-old students in the United States
improved after playing informal card games at home with their mother. Indeed, the results
from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, involving over 60 coun-
tries, reported that children who frequently played card or number games at home had
higher than average mathematics achievement (Mullis et al., 2012).
Beyond improved mathematics understanding and achievement, playing non-digital
games has been associated with a number of other benefits. Specifically, it has been shown
that playing non-digital mathematical games can: reduce anxiety in learning mathematics
(Alanazi, 2020); increase students’ growth mindset (White & McCoy, 2019); and encour-
age active learning, cooperation, and interactivity (Ernest, 1986). Game play has also been
shown to improve students’ use of mathematical vocabulary (Andayani et al., 2022) and
increase students’ proficiency with mathematical reasoning (McFeetors & Palfy, 2018).
Moreover, Bragg (2012) found that playing mathematical games was associated with an
increase in the time students spent discussing mathematics whilst engaging with a task,
which is of particular significance given the importance of discourse for supporting math-
ematics learning (Hiebert & Wearne, 1993; Seegar, 2001; Sfard, 2001). Moreover, in the
same study, Bragg (2012) also found that playing games helped to maximise students’
time-on-task. Specifically, it was reported that students spent 93% of class-time exhibiting
on-task behaviours when playing games, compared with 72% of the time when partici-
pating in other mathematically rich, non-game activities. Given that student engagement
is a multifaceted construct with behavioural, cognitive, and affective components (Skin-
ner, 2016), Bragg’s findings in relation to mathematical discourse (representing cognitive
engagement) and time-on-task (representing behavioural engagement) are particularly
notable. They suggest that the capacity of games to engage students goes beyond the well-
established notion that games promote affective engagement through being perceived as
fun and enjoyable to play (Russo et al., 2023).
1.3. Affordances of digital games

Studies into the use of digital games in mathematics instruction in the primary grades
have found that many of the cognitive and affective outcomes for students are similar to
those for non-digital games. For example, Abdullah et al. (2012) reported that the use
of computer-based video games that supplement conventional teaching had a significant
effect on retention and mastery of multiplication tables of Year 3 students, compared with
those who only received the conventional instruction. Similarly, Miller and Robertson
(2011), utilising a randomised control trial design, showed that primary students (aged
10–11-year-old) in the experimental group had 50% greater gains in accuracy, and twice
the gain in speed of mental calculation skills, compared with students in the control group.
The students in the experimental group used a commercial off-the-shelf computer game,
whilst the control group continued their normal classroom routines. Additionally, Miller
and Robertson found that students in the digital games group reported a small but signifi-
cant improvement in attitude towards school compared with the control group. Employing
a quasi-experimental approach, Hung et al. (2014) reported that digital GBL improved
fifth grade students learning about symmetry, promoted their self-efficacy, and enhanced
their motivation to engage with mathematics, compared with students in the control group
who received teacher-directed instruction. They also reported a decrease in mathematics
anxiety between the pre- and post-questionnaires for both the digital GBL group and the
e-learning group, which was not apparent in the control group.
Focussing on studies published between 2015 and 2020, Barz et al. (2023) conducted
a meta-analysis on the effect of digital GBL on cognitive, metacognitive, and affective-
motivational learning outcomes, compared with traditional teaching methods. While the
meta-analysis did not solely focus on mathematics content, and included both primary and
secondary school students, the findings indicated that there was a medium effect for both
overall learning and cognitive learning and a small effect for affective-motivational learn-
ing outcomes. However, there was no significant effect of digital GBL on metacognitive
learning outcomes.
1.4. Comparing the affordances of digital and non-digital games

The studies discussed thus far have generally focused on either digital or non-digital games,
while some have compared the impact of one or the other against traditional teaching or
non-GBL approaches. We have identified no studies that directly compared the effective-
ness of using digital and non-digital games for teaching mathematics in the primary years.
The closest we could find to illuminating this issue was conducted by Talan et al. (2020).
Talan et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis incorporated 154 empirical studies undertaken
between 2004 and 2019, and was focused on evaluating the effects of playing digital and
non-digital educational games on student achievement. The studies included students of
all ages (preschool through to university) and a range of school subjects (e.g. science, math-
ematics, foreign languages). Overall, the findings indicated that educational games, when
considered collectively, had a medium positive effect on academic achievement. However,
Talan et al. reported that when measuring academic achievement the effect size was higher
for interventions employing non-digital games compared with digital games. The authors
cautioned that this does not negate the many studies that show the merit of digital games
and noted the dramatic improvement in gaming technology in recent decades.
As a further commentary on the implications of Talan et al.’s (2020) findings for our cur-
rent study, it is noteworthy that the seven studies included in the meta-analysis that focused
on the impact of non-digital games on mathematics achievement in a primary education
context were all unpublished Masters or Doctoral theses; whereas seven out of the twelve
studies focused on digital games in the equivalent context were published in peer-reviewed
journals. To the extent that these different sources can serve as a proxy for study quality and
methodological rigour, it makes comparison between the impact of different game modes
problematic. Indeed, the tendency for many of the intervention-type studies in primary
mathematics education that incorporate non-digital games to remain as unpublished the-
ses also explains the relative absence of such studies from similar systematic reviews and
meta-analyses that have used stricter inclusion criteria (e.g. Abdul Jabbar & Felicia, 2015).
When comparing digital and non-digital games more generally, we note that, despite the
many similarities in outcomes, there are at least two discrete differences worth consider-
ing. Non-digital games can incorporate physical activity, sometimes outside the classroom
(Bahrami et al., 2012; Cichy et al., 2020), which is generally not the case when technology is
involved. By contrast, digital games differ from non-digital games in that they unfold in an
interface principally ‘regarded as an entertainment medium’ (Cojocariu & Boghian, 2014,
p. 641), whereas non-digital games often repurpose resources and representations designed
for educational ends as game objects (e.g. calculators, Bragg, 2006a; fraction walls, Clarke
& Roche, 2010; number charts, Russo, 2018; number lines, Bofferding, 2014). Framed in
this manner, designing and implementing digital games for the purpose of teaching math-
ematics might be captured by the phrase making entertainment educational, whereas for
non-digital games, it is perhaps making education entertaining. This of course does not
negate the notion that both digital and non-digital games can be enjoyable and promote
positive emotions.
Beyond primary mathematics education in particular, a small number of studies have
directly compared the student experience when engaging with digital and non-digital ver-
sions of a particular game. For example, Fang et al. (2016) investigated students’ preference
for a board game (Monopoly) and Jenga when each is played in its physical table format
compared with two digital formats (on a desktop computer and on a tablet). Students
reported greater satisfaction with, and a visceral preference for (attraction to form, tex-
ture and colour), games when played in their physical table format over either of the
technological interfaces. The physical table format was also more conducive to social inter-
action. Collectively these findings led Fang et al. to conclude that students valued the more
‘tangible’ experiences offered through a physical table game.
These preferences for more tangible, physical experiences revealed in the Fang et al.
(2016) study may overlap with the benefits of using tactile materials or manipulatives
in primary school classrooms. For example, researchers and educators have reported
that incorporating concrete manipulatives improves student knowledge, engagement, and
enjoyment in learning mathematics (Roche et al., 2023; Swan & Marshall, 2010; Vesso-
nen et al., 2021). Indeed, a survey conducted by Swan and Marshall (2010) confirmed
that teachers strongly supported the use of manipulatives, especially in the early primary
grades. For example, 83% and 48% of teachers indicated they used manipulatives daily in
Foundation and Year 1, respectively. However, this dropped to 9% in Year 6.
1.5. Virtual and physical manipulatives

Moyer (2001) noted that physical manipulatives have become popular in the mathemat-
ics classroom, in part because it has been argued, by both researchers and theorists (e.g.
Piaget, 1952), that multiple representations or ‘embodiments’ of a concept support students’

understanding. Moreover, manipulatives in particular are valued by mathematics educa-
tors because they have both visual and tactile appeal for students, can make learning more
enjoyable for both teachers and learners, and serve to promote image making that can be
used when mentally manipulating abstract ideas (Moyer, 2001). Skemp (1987) theorised
that students’ experiences with physical objects form the basis of later abstract thinking,
whilst Stein and Bovalino (2001) argued that manipulatives such as pattern blocks, tiles,
and cubes ‘contribute to the development of well-rounded, interconnected understandings
of mathematical ideas’ (p. 1). Physical manipulatives may also enhance mathematical com-
munication opportunities. For instance, Kosko and Wilkins (2010) have shown there is a
positive correlation between how often a child is observed discussing mathematics prob-
lems with other children, and how often they are observed working with manipulatives.
This seems an important finding, given what is known about the importance of student
mathematical discourse to support mathematical learning (Stein et al., 2008).
However, Moyer (2001) also reported that the teachers in their study viewed manip-
ulatives as ‘fun’ but not necessarily useful for teaching and learning mathematics. Fur-
thermore, Stein and Bovalino (2001) also cautioned that, rather than allowing students to
construct mathematical meaning through the manipulative, that manipulatives can instead
be used in a mechanical or teacher directed way, thereby supporting procedural learning
without the associated conceptual understanding. The key implication that can be drawn
from the literature is that manipulatives have the potential to support students’ learning
and development in mathematics, provided they are used appropriately.
Interestingly, Larkin (2016) suggested that ‘when concrete materials become digitised,
their usefulness may diminish as they become distanced from the concrete nature of the
resource; thus limiting their ability to be enacted by students’ (p. 15). Additionally, Swan
and Marshall (2010) advocated for the delay in the introduction of virtual manipula-
tives until students have had experience with the ‘real thing’ (p. 14). The authors noted
from their classroom observations that younger children had difficulty understanding a
two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object, and that when objects are
displayed on an interactive whiteboard the students do not have access to the objects.
In contrast to these views, some researchers and educators have reported that the
introduction of virtual manipulatives into primary schools led to gains in mathemat-
ics achievement, time-on-task, motivation, and/ or enjoyment of mathematics learning
(Baturo et al., 2003; Steen, 2006). Indeed, Moyer-Packenham and Westenskow (2013) con-
ducted a meta-analysis synthesising the findings of 66 research articles and concluded
that virtual manipulatives used in the teaching of mathematics have the potential to pro-
mote learning and engagement. The effect size varied across grade levels, with virtual
manipulatives being associated with large effects in Grades 9–12 and at University-level,
a moderate effect at Preschool to Grade 4, a small effect in Grades 5–6, and no effect in
Grades 7–8.
To conclude this section, it is worth noting that any framing of virtual and physical
manipulatives as being an either/ or choice is of course overly simplistic. For example, a
study by Doias (2013) indicated that combining the use of concrete and virtual manip-
ulatives showed measurable improvements in mathematics that surpassed that of using
concrete manipulatives alone.
1.6. Teacher preferences for game use and barriers inhibiting their use
Mathematical games are commonly used in Australian primary schools to support mathe-
matics teaching and learning (Russo et al., 2021; Russo & Russo, 2020). Russo et al. (2021)
surveyed 248 primary teachers across all the primary years (Foundation to Year 6) and
found that 79% of teachers reported playing mathematics games more than once a week.
Moreover, recent research by the same authors has shed light on the characteristics of games
that primary teachers and other mathematics leaders and educators consider educationally
valuable. Specifically, they value games that are ‘suitably challenging, engaging, enjoyable,
modifiable to support different learners, and transformable into an investigation or broader
mathematical inquiry’ (Russo et al., 2023, p. 1). Importantly from the perspective of the
current study, Russo et al. (2021) also revealed that, when asked to describe their favourite
mathematical game, teachers preferred games that required minimal or no materials (e.g.
cards, dice games, pen and paper), with only 4% of teachers mentioning a game involv-
ing any form of interaction with digital technology (e.g. calculators, interactive number
charts), and only 1% specifically choosing a digital game.
Teachers’ motivation to incorporate digital games and the associated technologies may
be influenced by their beliefs about the potential effectiveness of using technology for learn-
ing more generally (Ertmer et al., 2012). Stieler-Hunt and Jones (2015) investigated the
reasons why some primary and secondary teachers in Australia embraced the use of digi-
tal GBL. The results indicated that the positive beliefs that teachers held regarding the use
of digital GBL stemmed from experiencing success with their use in the classroom, per-
sonal experiences with digital GBL, and exposure to information that promoted the use of
digital GBL. Furthermore, these teachers tended to hold positive attitudes towards infor-
mation and communication technologies (ICT) more generally and had been invited to
use ICT by someone in authority. They also felt that using digital GBL set them apart from
other teachers. However, Stieler-Hunt and Jones (2017) also reported that teachers who
are advocates for digital GBL sometimes felt resentment from colleagues, curriculum con-
cerns, and that there was insufficient advocacy or acceptance of digital GBL at the school
level. Classroom concerns included: the difficulty in finding links between curriculum and
digital games; the fear of ‘losing control’ of the class; as well as the logistics of managing
game use.
However, not all teachers are positive about the use of technology and its benefits for
learning. Ertmer (1999) identified two types of barriers that impact on whether teachers’
use technology in the classroom. These were described as external barriers and internal bar-
riers. External barriers included resources (hardware and software), training, and support.
Internal barriers were defined as teachers’ confidence, beliefs about how students learned,
and the value of technology for teaching and learning. In relation to the value of technol-
ogy, Cabellos et al. (2023) reported that primary preservice teachers perceived that the use
of video games in education (though not specifically mathematics) was less likely to pro-
mote learning than secondary teachers. Furthermore, Kaimara et al. (2021) reported that
a major obstacle to pre-service teachers adopting digital GBL was the lack of availability
of resources such as devices and software, and the lack of relevant training for teachers,
school administrators, and policy makers.
Given the reluctance of some teachers to embrace digital game-play to support learning,
some researchers have advocated for professional learning in this area (Chee et al., 2015;
Cojocariu & Boghian, 2014; Meletiou-Mavrotheris & Prodromou, 2016). Chee et al. (2015)
argued for professional support to maximise potential learning from digital games, while
Cojocariu and Boghian (2014) proposed that primary teachers should be taught the rele-
vance of GBL and appropriate methods and techniques to include them during instruction.
In support of these ideas, Meletiou-Mavrotheris and Prodromou (2016) found that pre-
service teachers had more positive perceptions of digital GBL and felt more competent
to select, evaluate, and utilise digital games as an instructional tool, after participating in
an instructional intervention focused on the knowledge, skills, and experience needed to
integrate educational games into the mathematics curriculum.
Given the prevalence in which Australian primary teachers use mathematical games,
and despite the evidence being ambiguous about the relative merits of digital versus non-
digital games, the current study sought to investigate primary school educators’ preferences
for utilising each particular game mode (digital vs non-digital) to support mathematics
instruction. In addition, we also considered if educators’ preferences are moderated by the
size of the group that they intend to use a game with (whole-class vs small-group), and
their beliefs about the relative affordances of each game mode.
The research questions guiding this study included:
• To what extent do primary school educators have game mode preferences (digital vs
non-digital) when using games to support mathematics learning?
• To what extent does game structure (whole-class vs small-group) moderate primary
school educators’ game mode preferences (digital vs non-digital) when using games to
support mathematics learning?
• What are the relative affordances of digital games compared with non-digital games for
supporting mathematics learning according to primary school educators?
2. Methodology
2.1. Data collection
An anonymous online questionnaire was used to collect insights about educators’ pref-
erences for the use of digital and non-digital games using Qualtrics.1 Snowball sampling
was employed to ensure the questionnaire’s widespread distribution. Specifically, the first
author dispatched the questionnaire link via email to 15 contacts situated across the three
largest Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland). Additionally, social
media platforms were harnessed to engage participants directly. The questionnaire was in
the field for three months (1st June 2023 – 31st August 2023). The sole requisite for inclu-
sion in the resultant analysis was that the respondent was a classroom teacher, specialist
teacher, or instructional leader currently working in an Australian primary school, and
that they had completed all relevant quantitative items from the questionnaire (see below).
One-hundred and twenty respondents completed all relevant parts of the questionnaire,
with nine of these individuals being subsequently excluded because they resided outside of
Australia, were not currently teachers, or taught at a secondary or tertiary level only. This
resulted in 111 study participants.
The questionnaire included demographic information (current role and years of teach-
ing experience), quantitative items (Likert scale items and items requiring a quantitative
response), and qualitative items (open response items). The quantitative and qualitative
items reported on in the current paper were divided into two sections, those items cov-
ering whole-class mathematical games and small-group mathematical games. These items
are described below.
2.1.1. Whole-class mathematical games2

1a) Out of every 100 mathematics lessons you teach, about how frequently do you play a
whole-class mathematical game? (Quant; Accepted response range 0 to 100)
1b) What is your favourite whole-class mathematical game to use in the classroom? (Qual)
2a) Out of every 100 mathematics lessons you teach, about how frequently do you play a
whole-class digital mathematical game? (e.g. a game from a website or app projected onto
an electronic whiteboard) (Quant; Accepted response range 0 to 100)
2b) Out of every 100 mathematics lessons you teach, about how frequently do you play a
whole-class non-digital mathematical game? (e.g. a game using only whiteboards, pen/ paper,
oral language) (Quant; Accepted response range 0 to 100)
3a) Overall, do you prefer to use digital or non-digital whole-class mathematical games?
(Quant) (Strongly prefer digital games – 1; Somewhat prefer digital games – 2; Neutral – 3;
Somewhat prefer non-digital games – 4; Strongly prefer non-digital games – 5).
3b) Please explain your preference (Qual)
2.1.2. Small-group mathematical games3

4a) Out of every 100 mathematics lessons you teach, about how frequently do you play small-
group mathematical games? (Quant; Accepted response range 0 to 100)
4b) What is your favourite small-group mathematical game to use in the classroom? (Qual)
5a) Out of every 100 mathematics lessons you teach, about how frequently do your students
play small-group digital mathematical games? (e.g. a game from a website or app that students
play on a device) (Quant; Accepted response range 0 to 100)
5b) Out of every 100 mathematics lessons you teach, about how frequently do your students
play small-group non-digital mathematical games? (e.g. a game using only whiteboards, pen/
paper, oral language) (Quant; Accepted response range 0 to 100)
6a) Overall, do you prefer to use digital or non-digital small-group mathematical games?
(Quant)
6b) Please explain your preference (Qual)
All participants were working in primary schools in Australia. Participants were compar-
atively experienced teachers on average, with a mean of 14.1 years teaching experience
(SD = 8.0 years; Median = 12 years) in a school setting. Most participants were current
classroom teachers (n = 81; 73%), with many teaching multiple year levels and some with
an additional leadership or specialist role.
2.2. Data analysis

2.2.1. Quantitative items
Quantitative analysis was undertaken with the support of SPSS Statistics, v. 26. Descriptive
statistics are presented and differences between participant preferences and usage of digital
and non-digital games are explored. In terms of our inferential analysis, when comparing
participant preferences for non-digital versus digital games across settings (whole-class
versus small-group), paired-samples t-tests and independent-samples t-tests were used, as
all relevant statistical assumptions were met. By contrast, as participant reported usage of
digital games was strongly positively skewed, and therefore a normal distribution could
not be assumed, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and spearman rank-order correlations were
instead employed for this analysis.
2.2.2. Qualitative items

Initially, educators’ open responses that explained their preference of mode for small-group
games or whole-class games were sorted between those that indicated they preferred digi-
tal games, non-digital games, or were neutral. The written explanations for their choice of
game mode were then analysed using qualitative line-by-line coding as outlined by Braun
and Clarke (2006). The following stages were conducted: (1) familiarisation with the data,
(2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining
and naming themes, and (6) producing a report and coding framework. Initially, sub-
themes were identified that sought to explain the reasons for educators’ preferences for
mode of game (digital and non-digital) for each of the two group settings when playing
games (small-groups and whole-class). In most cases, the responses were coded holisti-
cally to a specific sub-theme to maintain context (Bazeley, 2007), and most responses were
assigned to one sub-theme (63% and 61%, for questions 3b and 6b, respectively). However,
some responses were coded to more than one sub-theme as appropriate. For example, the
response for Participant #84 was assigned two sub-themes. The participant wrote: ‘I value
student talk, collaboration and seeing their thinking’, and this was assigned to Better for
promoting collaboration, interactions, and communication, as well as Easier to observe stu-
dents’ understanding. The mean number of sub-themes to which educators’ responses were
coded was 1.3 and 1.2 for questions 3b and 6b, respectively. The final stage in the analytical
process involved grouping the emergent sub-themes into seven main themes. The coding
framework and percentages of educators coded to each theme and sub-theme are presented
in Tables 6 and 7 in the Results section.
3. Results: quantitative analysis

3.1. Comparing frequency of game use across game mode
Primary school educators typically used both whole-class games and small-group games
during the majority of their mathematics lessons, with the median participant reporting
that they used games in each of these settings in three out of every five lessons (see Table 1).
Table 1. Percentage of lessons in which participants reported playing games by setting by game mode.
Median Q1 Q3 Min Max
Whole-Class Games: Overall 63% 31% 80% 9% 100%
Whole-Class Games: Digital 20% 10% 40% 0% 95%
Whole-Class Games: Non-Digital 51% 22% 79% 6% 100%
Small-Group Games: Overall 60% 30% 78% 0% 100%
Small-Group Games: Digital 11% 3% 25% 0% 100%
Small-Group Games: Non-Digital 60% 30% 80% 0% 100%
Table 2. Spearman correlation coefficients by setting by game mode: teaching experience and year level
taught.
Teaching experience
(years) Year level taught
Whole-Class Games: Overall .14 .03
Whole-Class Games: Digital –.02 .11
Whole-Class Games: Non-Digital .08 .01
Small-Group Games: Overall .03 –.10
Small-Group Games: Digital –.01 .27∗
Small-Group Games: Non-Digital .04 –.10
∗p = .017.
Importantly from our perspective in the current study, participants were far more likely
to report using non-digital games than digital games. Specifically, comparing the median
responses using a series of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, participants reported using non-
digital games approximately three times as frequently in a whole-class setting (Z = 6.463,
p < .001, r = .61). and five times as frequently in a small-group setting (Z = 7.555,
p < .001, r = .72). Moreover, whilst there was no statistically significant difference in how
frequently participants used non-digital games across settings (Z = 1.498, p = .134), again
comparing the median responses revealed that participants were approximately twice as
likely to report using digital games with the whole-class than in small-groups (Z = 4.274,
p < .001, r = .41).
Finally, Table 2 reveals that whilst there were no significant correlations between partic-
ipants’ level of teaching experience and their tendency to use games, upper primary school
teachers were somewhat more likely to use digital games in a small-group setting than their
lower primary school counterparts.
3.2. Examining participant preferences for non-digital games

Consistent with our finding that primary school educators used non-digital games more
frequently than digital games, participants had, on average, a clear preference for using
non-digital games over digital games in both whole-class (M = 3.77, SD = 0.93) and
small-group settings (M = 4.00, SD = 0.88), with the median response for both set-
tings being ‘somewhat prefer non-digital games (4)’. Figure 1 indicates that approximately
60% to 70% of participants preferred using non-digital games, whereas only around 5%
of participants preferred digital games. However, closer analysis does reveal a notable
difference in preferences across setting. Specifically, comparison of mean game mode pref-
erence scores using a paired samples t-test indicates that educators were somewhat more
likely to prefer non-digital games for use in small-group settings relative to whole-class
settings, t(110) = 3.23, p = .002, d = 0.31; although perhaps unsurprisingly participant
preferences across settings were also strongly correlated (r = .67, p < .001).
Table 3 compares mean game mode preference scores for those participants with more
than 10 years teaching experience with those who have 10 or less years teaching expe-
rience. Results of an independent-samples t-test reveal that more experienced educators
had stronger preferences for using non-digital games compared with their less experi-
enced counterparts, and this was the case for using games in both whole-class settings
(t(109) = 2.23, p = .023, d = 0.44) and small-group settings (t(109) = 3.19, p = .002,
d = 0.60). More generally, teaching experience was weakly-to-moderately correlated with
34%
Strongly Prefer Non-Digital Games (5)
25%
36%
Somewhat Prefer Non-Digital Games (4)
34%
25%
Neutral (3)
35%
5%
Somewhat Prefer Digital Games (2)
4%
0%
Strongly Prefer Digital Games (1)
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Small Group Games Whole Class Games
Figure 1. Participant preferences for non-digital versus digital games by setting.
Table 3. Mean game mode preference scores by setting by experience level.

Mean SD N
Whole-Class Games: Overall 3.77 0.93 111
More than 10 years experience 3.94 0.82 66
10 or less years experience 3.53 1.04 45
Small-Group Games: Overall 4.00 0.88 111
More than 10 years experience 4.21 0.76 66
10 or less years experience 3.69 0.97 45
Note: A mean score above 3 indicates an average preference for non-digital games over digital games, with a higher score
indicating a stronger preference.
a preference for non-digital games (whole-class, r = 0.27, p = .005; small-group, r = 0.30,

p = .001).
Table 4 displays mean game mode preference scores for the subset of participants
(n = 78) who were current classroom teachers and exclusively taught in either lower pri-
mary (Foundation to Year 2) or upper primary (Year 3 to Year 6) to establish whether year
level taught impacted on teachers’ relative preference for non-digital games. Independent-
sample t-tests indicate that participants who currently taught in the lower primary
year levels were more likely to prefer using non-digital games in small-group settings
(t(76) = 2.21, p = .030, d = 0.53), although there were no statistically significant differ-
ences in whole-class settings (t(76) = 0.97, p = .333).
To summarise the results of our quantitative analysis, Australian primary school edu-
cators typically reported using mathematical games in the majority of their mathematics
lessons, however, were far more inclined (three to five times more likely) to use non-
digital games than digital games, particularly in small-group settings. Consistent with this
Table 4. Mean game mode preference scores by setting by year level taught.
Mean SD N
Whole-Class Games: Lower Primary 3.79 0.88 28
Whole-Class Games: Upper Primary 3.58 0.91 50
Small-Group Games: Lower Primary 4.18 0.82 28
Small-Group Games: Upper Primary 3.74 0.85 50
Notes: A mean score above 3 indicates an average preference for non-digital games over digital games, with a higher score
indicating a stronger preference. Also note that this table only includes those participants who taught exclusively in lower
primary (F-2) or upper primary (3–6) year levels.
Table 5. Participant preferences for each game mode by setting and the number of participants who
provided an explanation for their preferences.
Whole-class: Preference Whole-class: Reason Small-group: Preference Small-group: Reason
Prefer digital n=6 n=5 n=5 n=4
Prefer non-digital n = 66 n = 63 n = 78 n = 66
Neutral n = 39 n = 34 n = 28 n = 19
Total 111 102 111 89
reported differential usage, around two-thirds of participants indicated that they preferred
non-digital games over digital games, with most of the remaining participants responding
neutrally regarding their preference for a given game mode. Moreover, there was some evi-
dence that more experienced educators, and lower primary teachers, had relatively stronger
preferences for non-digital games. The focus of our analysis now shifts to the qualita-
tive data generated from the open-ended items, in order to shed light on the reasons that
Australian primary school educators generally preferred non-digital over digital games.
4. Results: qualitative analysis

Table 5 provides the number of participants who indicated a preference for digital games,
non-digital games, or did not have a game mode preference (i.e. were neutral) for each
group setting (small-groups or whole-class), as well as the number of participants who
explained their preference. These explanations provided the qualitative data for the cur-
rent study. As noted in the method section, these data were analysed thematically, and first
grouped into sub-themes before being distilled into main themes that explained partici-
pants’ preferences for a particular game mode. These main themes included: pedagogical
reasons; assessment; access to, or awareness of, suitable digital resources; managing the setup
and delivery; student affect and behaviours; technology; and beliefs about digital games.
We will now consider in turn the results of our analysis explaining participant prefer-
ences for either non-digital games, or digital games, as well as those who indicated that
they did not have a particular preference. Illustrative quotations from participants will be
presented to help elaborate the analysis.
4.1. Reasons for preferring non-digital games

Table 6 presents the seven main themes that emerged from our qualitative analysis that
captured why most participants preferred non-digital games. The first point to note is that
generally the explanations provided for preferring non-digital games were not contingent
Table 6. Reasons for preferring non-digital games by game setting.

Small Group Whole class Small Group Whole class
Setting setting Setting setting
N = 66 N = 63 N = 66 N = 63
Main theme (%) (%) Sub-theme (%) (%)
Pedagogical 32 (48%) 37 (59%) Better for promoting 18 (27%) 13 (21%)
reasons collaboration interactions,
and communication
More ‘hands on’ or use of 8 (12%) 17 (27%)
manipulatives
Easily adapted/differentiated 7 (11%) 9 (14%)
Prefer less screen time and 6 (9%) 3 (5%)
technology use
Assessment 14 (21%) 12 (19%) Easier to observe student 11 (17%) 10 (16%)
understanding
Easier to monitor time on task 4 (6%) 2 (3%)
(engagement)
Access to, or 11 (17%) 11 (17%) Lack of awareness of (hard to 9 (14%) 8 (13%)
awareness of find) quality or suitable
suitable ‘digital’ ‘digital’ games
resources Easier access to suitable 2 (3%) 3 (5%)
non-digital resources
Managing the set 10 (15%) 7 (11%) Managing the set up and 10 (15%) 7 (11%)
up and delivery delivery
Student affect and 17 (26%) 14 (22%) Students more engaged/ 8 (12%) 7 (11%)
behaviours Games more engaging
Promotes cooperation/turn 4 (6%) 2 (3%)
taking
Less distracted 4 (6%) 4 (6%)
Less arguments 2 (3%)
Digital games can be 1 (2%)
over-stimulating
Difficulties with 9 (14%) 13 (21%) Limited access to technology 6 (9%) 7 (11%)
technology for digital games
Technical issues with digital 3 (5%) 5 (8%)
games
Lack of expertise with 1 (2%)
technology
Beliefs about the 5 (8%) 6 (9%) Digital games only promote 5 (8%) 6 (10%)
limited nature of basic recall of number facts
digital games
on setting, with similar reasons emerging for both small-group games and whole-class
games. Consequently, the remainder of our description of the qualitative analysis will
consider the two settings together.
Around half of participants who indicated that they preferred non-digital games had
their explanation for this preference coded to the theme pedagogical reasons. In particular,
participants valued the opportunities for collaboration and communication that playing
a non-digital game facilitated, as well as the tactile nature of the learning experience as
students engaged with hands-on manipulatives. Illustrative quotations include:
I value student talk, collaboration. Encourage students to communicate with their peers, share
their methods and allow greater interactions. (Participant #85)
The non-digital games promote dialogue and there is more interaction between students.
(Participant #170)
The opportunity to use hands-on materials is a big reason why I prefer non-digital games.
(Participant #20)
I like the physical nature of materials. Blocks, counters, dice etc. I find they work well for hands
on kids. (Participant #149)
The prevalence of the two aforementioned pedagogical sub-themes seems to imply that
educators viewed non-digital games as more consistent with constructivist learning prin-
ciples (Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004), as students are afforded opportunities to
interact meaningfully with their learning environment to develop their understanding of
mathematical ideas. However, there is also perhaps a more tacit implication that non-digital
games offer a ‘healthier’ learning experience than digital games. Indeed, the sub-theme
‘prefer less screen time and technology use’ implies that some educators believed there was
particular value in pursuing activities that did not involve devices, given the ubiquity of
technology across so much of education and recreation. For example:
(There is) enough technology at home. (Participant #82)
It’s good for them to not be on their devices, as we have a one to one iPad program at the
school. (Participant #139)
The final pedagogical sub-theme related to the fact that participants appreciated the level
of control they had in being able to adapt a non-digital game for a particular content focus
and to differentiate learning opportunities to meet their students’ learning needs:
(With) a non-digital game I can adapt on the fly to match the content I’m covering. (Partici-
pant #75)
I find non-digital games give more scope to extend or scaffold students. (Participant #138)
In small groups I can influence the members in the group and have some children that can
support or extend others. (Participant #162)
Beyond pedagogy, another notable theme to emerge that explained preferences for non-
digital games was that of assessment. In particular, some participants noted that it was easier
to observe a student’s level of understanding of a mathematical concept when they were
playing a non-digital game compared with a digital game. For example:
I feel like I can assess the game easier when it’s not digital. I can see what they are doing and
see their recording clearly when it is not digital. (Participant #13)
I can see if they are counting or confidently outlining a region; physically manipulating sticks
in the Place Value game – it is easy to see how they are moving them (e.g. by ones, by bundles
etc.). (Participant #168)
The enhanced visibility of student mathematical behaviour when playing a non-digital
game (relative to a digital game) is consistent with the previously noted idea that this game
mode is more conducive to generating mathematical communication and interactions; all
of which serves to make mathematical thinking more visible. However, this assessment
theme also encompassed the notion that it is easier to monitor student time on task when
they were playing a non-digital game, implying that participants again also preferred this
game mode because it enhanced their sense of control:
(It’s) easier to check students are on task. (Participant #3)
(It’s) much easier to ensure students are on task with no screens. (Participant #175)
Non-digital shows me who is not just mimicking or pretending to participate. (Participant

#84)
A further theme which helped to explain participant preferences for non-digital games was
their lack of awareness of suitable digital resources:
A digital game I have to pre-search, play/check etc and even then, it isn’t usually what I’m
looking for exactly. (Participant #75)
I have no knowledge of great digital games that can be played whole class or in groups.
(Participant #58)
I found it is hard to find games online which match what you are trying to teach the kids.
(Participant #120)
This can be contrasted with the resources required to facilitate non-digital games, which
tended to be readily available and well known to participants:
Dice or deck of cards are readily available. (Participant #141)
My own knowledge of good mathematical games tends towards non-digital. (Participant
#190)
Even when participants were aware of digital games, they tended to perceive them as
pedagogically limited. This indeed was another theme to emerge, that of educators’ beliefs
about the limited nature of digital games. Several participants viewed digital games as having
limited utility because they did not provide students with opportunities to solve problems
in multiple ways and to develop computational flexibility, but rather were narrowly focused
on accurate and rapid recall of number facts. For instance:
I find that most digital games focus on fluency rather than understanding. (Participant #168)
I’m not really aware of many small group maths games that aren’t fluency related. (Participant
#22)
Often the answer is required with little knowledge of strategy or understanding in online
games. (Participant #12)
Often digital platforms are only one player, are grounded more in fast recall of facts. (Partici-
pant #58)
Given that teachers are generally time poor (Ainley & Carstens, 2018), it seems reasonable
that if relevant and pedagogically rich digital games are not known to them already, they
will tend to incorporate non-digital games that they are both more familiar with, and for
which the relevant resources are already present in the classroom environment. Indeed,
difficulties with technology more generally, including a lack of access, expertise, as well as
its reported unreliability, was another theme describing educators’ relative preference for
non-digital games over digital games:
Limited access to technology can make digital games more challenging to use. (Participant
#4)
We don’t have an interactive whiteboard which I feel restricts the use of digital games . . . We
don’t have the resources for most students to access a digital device. (Participant #55)
A related concern is the issue of classroom management, which manifested in our study
through the theme managing the setup and delivery of a game. Evidently many participants
found using a non-digital game easier to navigate with their students, particularly in the
early years of primary school:
(Non-digital games are) easier to manage and navigate for students in younger years. (Partic-
ipant #64)
Digital anything with P-1s (Foundation, Year 1) can be a logistical and supervision nightmare.
(Participant #153).
Transition into the learning experience is easier for my students when they DON’T have access
to iPads. (Participant #160).
The last theme that helped partially to explain why some educators preferred non-digital
games related to student affect and behaviours, which was in fact the second most frequently
coded theme after pedagogical reasons. In particular, a subset of participants noted that
non-digital games appeared to be more engaging for students, due to the opportunities to
manipulate physical objects and interact directly with peers:
Kids seem more engaged with manipulatives and partners. (Participant #79)
More engaging to play a game against another student when they have eye contact. (Participant
#136)
Students seem more animated and therefore more engaged playing non-digital games.
(Participant #142)
Other participants indicated that non-digital games were more engaging because digital
devices could be distracting or over-stimulating:
Students gets distracted on computers. (Participant #150)
The class gets distracted by the technology and game play elements and don’t fully utilize their
math skills and number knowledge. (Participant #24)
I’m also concerned about their cognitive load and extra stimulation from technology.
(Participant #76)
In addition, this theme also encompassed the idea that some participants believed engaging
with non-digital games was an opportunity to develop students’ social and emotional skills,
such as cooperating with others and turn-taking, particularly when working with younger
students:
With Prep students, I feel that non-digital games are best in a small group because of their
need to learn to work together and take turns. (Participant #152)
Teaching the Foundation students to play a non-digital game is teaching them the skills of
turn taking and sharing. (Participant #55)
This can be contrasted with digital games, which were sometimes viewed as undermining
of students’ capacity to work together, leading to arguments:
When using digital games, they argue over whose turn it is to operate the game, whereas
non-digital games seem more efficient and cause less confrontation. (Participant #24)
The kids often end up arguing in small groups when using digital games. (Participant #59)
Table 7. Reasons for preferring digital games by game setting.

Small Group Whole class Small Group Whole class
Setting setting Setting setting
Main theme N = 4 (%) N = 5 (%) Sub-theme N = 4 (%) N = 5 (%)
Managing the set 1 (25%) 2 (40%) Managing the set up and 1 (25%) 2 (40%)
up and delivery delivery
Student affect and 4 (100%) 4 (80%) Students more engaged/ 4 (100%) 4 (80%)
behaviours Games more engaging
4.2. Reasons for preferring digital games

As noted in Table 7, only a small number of participants indicated that they preferred digital
games over non-digital games. This preference could be attributed to one of two explana-
tions: student affect and behaviours, and managing the setup and delivery. In almost every
instance in which an educator offered an explanation for preferring a digital game in either
a whole-class or small-group setting, it related to the idea that students were more engaged
playing digital games compared with non-digital games:
I find student engagement is higher with digital games. (Participant #157)
Kids find it more engaging to use their devices or screens. (Participant #19)
One particular participant connected the idea of higher levels of student engagement with
the relative ease of managing the setup and delivery of a digital game:
If I did not intend to work with the students I would slightly prefer a digital game as it often
helps them stay on task and can avoid misinterpretation of the rules/mechanics. (Participant
#2)
Other participants highlighted the ease of setting up a digital game as a reason in its own
right for preferring games of this mode:
Easy to set up, easy for all students to see. (Participant #136)
Easier set up. (Participant #83)
It is noteworthy that none of the 111 participants put forward a pedagogical explanation
for preferring digital games, in contrast to the frequency with which this theme emerged
when coding explanations for preferring non-digital games.
Finally, participants who indicated that they did not have a definite preference for
non-digital or digital games tended to explain this position by indicating that they had
no preference as long as the game was appropriate for the content focus, or that their
preference depended on one of several factors including:
• Access to technology
• Access to suitable materials (for non-digital games)
• Suitability of the games available for a given content focus or learning purpose
• The interests/ age level of the particular group of students
5. Discussion
The current study set out to investigate Australian primary school educators’ preferences
for using non-digital as opposed to digital mathematical games, whether these prefer-
ences varied across game setting (whole-class versus small-group), and the reasons for
these preferences. This was in response to an identified gap in the literature in terms of
studies that have investigated how teachers use mathematical games, as opposed to their
impact on student engagement and performance, as well as the paucity of studies that have
directly compared non-digital and digital games. There are several notable findings worth
considering that contribute to the literature about what we know about how teachers use
mathematical games.
First, our overall findings are consistent with previous pre-pandemic research that indi-
cates that game usage is prevalent within Australian primary schools, with the median
teacher using mathematical games in the majority of their mathematics lessons (Russo
et al., 2021; Russo & Russo, 2020). This suggests that games remain a central part of
Australian primary school teachers’ instructional repertoire post-pandemic, and that fur-
ther research focused on better understanding both how and why teachers use games is a
worthwhile endeavour.
Secondly, although prior research has implied that teachers prefer non-digital games to
digital games (e.g. Russo et al., 2021), the current study is the first that we are aware of
that reveals directly that primary school educators have a strong preference for using non-
digital games over digital games, and are far more inclined to report incorporating such
games into their mathematics teaching practice. Perhaps unsurprisingly given evidence
that older teachers are less inclined to utilise digital technologies or resources to support
their mathematics instruction compared with younger teachers (Yao & Zhao, 2022), this
tendency to prefer non-digital games was amplified for participants with more teaching
experience (who were also presumably on average older); although notably this did not
translate into any direct correlation between the reported use of games of a particular mode
and levels of teaching experience.
Thirdly, although there was no difference in the overall frequency of game use by set-
ting, participants were more inclined to prefer, and twice as likely to report using, digital
games in whole-class settings compared with small-group settings. This preference was
amplified for participants who taught students in the early years of primary school. These
quantitative findings were indirectly supported by our qualitative analysis, which implied
that participants were concerned about digital games from a social and emotional develop-
mental perspective (e.g. too much screen time, too many arguments), as well as the notion
that facilitating access to technology and managing the setup and delivery of a digital game
were particularly problematic when working with younger students. It may be that partic-
ipants believed that these issues could be at least partially mitigated against by the teacher
facilitating access to a digital game with the whole-class, rather than letting students play
digital games independently in small groups. However, the more immediate, pragmatic
constraint on using digital games in small groups could of course be a lack of access to
appropriate digital technology resources, which was indeed an issue identified by a num-
ber of participants; and one that may be amplified in the early primary years, given that
many Australian schools adopt a ‘one-to-one’ device program in the upper primary years
(Pope et al., 2015).
Collectively, these findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that access
to technology and supportive resources is a substantial barrier to teachers adopting digi-
tal GBL (Ertmer, 1999; Kaimara et al., 2021), and that teachers of older students are more
inclined to believe that digital games are effective for supporting learning than teachers of
younger students (Cabellos et al., 2023). Moreover, it confirms that some teachers perceive
there to be unique classroom management challenges faced when attempting to incor-
porate digital games into mathematics lessons, particularly involving younger students
(Stieler-Hunt & Jones, 2017).
By contrast, some of the other reasons for preferring non-digital games to digital games
resonated with the literature espousing the benefits of non-digital games more gener-
ally when compared to other activities or traditional instruction. For example, Ernest
(1986) concluded that games can foster cooperation and interactivity, while one of the
more frequent explanations provided by our study participants for preferring non-digital
games to digital games was because they better fostered interaction, collaboration, and
communication. However, in juxtaposition to the mathematical games’ literature overall,
educators in our study placed less emphasis on benefits pertaining directly to mathemati-
cal thinking, learning, and performance, and more emphasis on the enhanced capacity to
meet students’ social and learning needs through non-digital games. In particular, partic-
ipants emphasised that they could adapt and differentiate a non-digital game for specific
groups of students, whilst this mode of game was also more conducive to effective assess-
ment and observation of student understanding; both actions which are consistent with a
teacher enacting principles of student-centred mathematics learning (Bingolbali & Bingol-
bali, 2015; Black, 2007). An additional relative benefit highlighted by participants, and one
also consistent with student-centred teaching approaches, is that non-digital games provide
students with access to hands-on manipulatives, potentially enabling them to visualise and
connect mathematical ideas (Moyer, 2001), and facilitating more mathematical talk (Kosko
& Wilkins, 2010). By contrast, participants did not describe the benefits of digital games in
terms of providing students with access to virtual manipulatives, perhaps reflecting the
belief that digitised concrete materials are less useful because their two-dimensionality
limits students’ ability to interact with them as mathematical objects (Larkin, 2016; Swan
& Marshall, 2010), or simply reflecting participants limited knowledge of digital games
that purposefully connect various mathematical representations and incorporate virtual
manipulatives.
It is noteworthy that the idea that students experience a particular game mode as dis-
tinctively engaging was a theme that emerged explaining participants preferences for both
digital games and non-digital games, albeit in different ways. This apparent paradox can be
partially reconciled if one considers that student engagement is a multifaceted construct,
with behavioural, cognitive and affective components (Skinner, 2016). For instance, whilst
some students might prefer digital games because they find them particularly stimulating
and enjoyable to play (affective engagement), it is possible that they are simultaneously less
cognitively engaged, as they, in the words of one study participant, ‘get distracted by the
technology and game play elements, and don’t fully utilise their math skills and number
knowledge’. By contrast, other students who find enhanced opportunities for social interac-
tion and hands-on experiences particularly affectively engaging may well prefer non-digital
games, given that it may be that such students are, in the words of another participant,
‘more engaged with manipulatives and partners’. Future research could seek to explicitly
establish how each game mode impacts each of the three components of student engage-
ment, and attempt to build a profile of the types of students who might experience digital
or non-digital games as particularly engaging.
6. Conclusions and implications

Our study had at least three limitations that need to be acknowledged, and which might
be addressed through future research. First, participants were limited to Australian pri-
mary school educators, implying that future research could explore whether the strong
preference for non-digital games revealed through the current study held up in other con-
texts (e.g. Australian secondary schools; other countries). Secondly, we relied exclusively
on retrospective, self-report, questionnaire data to answer our research questions. Con-
sequently, our findings would be complemented by future research that adopted different
methodologies (e.g. classroom observations; lesson diaries). Finally, our questionnaire was
disseminated through a snowball sampling approach using a number of key informants, as
well as through social media. This of course means that participants in this study cannot be
assumed to be representative of Australian primary educators overall. Having said this, we
remain confident in the overall trends reported in the current study for at least two reasons.
First, other studies have revealed similar rates of high game usage amongst Australian pri-
mary school teachers irrespective of whether they have used a snowball sampling/ social
media dissemination strategy (Russo et al., 2021), or a convenience sample attending a
system-level professional learning initiative unrelated to mathematical games (Russo &
Russo, 2020). Second, to the extent that using an online questionnaire and online distribu-
tion channel generated some form of self-selection bias (Thompson et al., 2003), we might
expect this to result in a higher proportion of participants preferring digital games relative
to non-digital games than would otherwise be the case if we sampled the overall population
of primary school educators. Consequently, we would contend that the strong preference
for non-digital games revealed in the current study is likely to be a robust finding. How-
ever, clearly there would be benefit in replicating the current research with a larger, random
sample of educators.
There are further implications for future research and practice implied by our study.
In particular, our findings showed that educators lack awareness of high-quality digital
resources and games that go beyond supporting students to develop accuracy and speed
with arithmetic. We note that this was one of the more notable reasons why participants
indicated a preference for non-digital games, beyond pedagogical reasons and classroom
management concerns. However, given we did not attempt to measure participant’s knowl-
edge of digital games, it is not possible to establish whether these views reflect an informed
perspective, or are a result of limited exposure to digital games and resources. Conse-
quently, given that a lack of awareness of how to identify and access high quality digital
resources was viewed as an impediment to incorporating digital games (and a reason for
preferencing non-digital games), it would be interesting if future research endeavoured to
control for this factor through presenting educators with high quality digital games that
could be directly compared with high quality non-digital games. It also suggests that there
is value in providing professional learning that raises educator awareness of where such
high-quality digital games and activities can be sourced.
To conclude, despite the ubiquitousness of technology across almost all facets of
Australian society, and the proliferation of digital games to support young children’s
mathematical learning, primary school educators remain comparatively disinclined to

incorporate digital games into their mathematics instruction. This is despite primary math-
ematics education being at least somewhat reimagined through an extended period of
remote learning brought about by the pandemic, a period through which playing non-
digital games was more difficult to facilitate than digital games. It seems that primary
school educators perceive there to be unique value in students’ experiencing non-digital
games, due to the fact that they are socially mediated, embedded in the physical world, and
co-constructed through the actions of teachers themselves. However, our results simultane-
ously imply that Australian primary mathematics educators need opportunities to broaden
their awareness of how to access high-quality digital games, and to deepen their knowledge
of how to effectively integrate digital resources into their classroom practice.
Notes
1. Note that participation in the questionnaire was interpreted as implied consent to participate in
the research. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki,
and approved by the Ethics Committee of Monash University (Project 21806).
2. Prior to completing the relevant questions, participants were provided with the following expla-
nation: A whole-class teacher facilitated learning experience involves the collective participation
of all students in structured, collaborative activities under the guidance of the teacher. Exam-
ples might include a number talk, a teacher-led ‘mini-lesson’ to unpack a mathematical idea, or
a whole-class mathematical game.
3. Prior to completing the relevant questions, participants were provided with the following
explanation: A small-group learning experience involves two, three, or four students working
together independently of the teacher. Examples might include students engaged in a collab-
orative problem-solving task, students completing a worksheet together, or students playing a
small-group mathematical game.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
James Anthony Russo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9855-7522
Anne Roche http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5045-1764
Penelope Kalogeropoulos http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8300-8638
References
Abdul Jabbar, A. I., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based
learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 740–779. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0034654315577210
Abdullah, M. R. T. L., Abu Bakar, Z., Ali, R. M., Faye, I., & Hasan, M. H. (2012). The impact of
video games in children’s learning of mathematics. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, 64, 968–974.
Ainley, J., & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 con-
ceptual framework (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 187). OECD Publishing. https://
doi.org/10.1787/799337c2-en
Alanazi, H. M. N. (2020). The effects of active recreational maths games on maths anxiety and per-
formance in primary school children: An experimental study. Multidisciplinary Journal for Edu-
cation, Social and Technological Sciences, 7(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2020.12622
Andayani, A., Saputra, H., Itianto, E., & Setiawan, B. (2022). GESAMSU (Gedrik Saruk Memang
Seru) based environmental: Effectiveness of games on mathematics ability of elementary student.
Jurnal Pendidkan, 14(2), 2359–2368. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i2.1745
Ariffin, M. M., Oxley, A., & Sulaiman, S. (2014). Evaluating game-based learning effective-
ness in higher education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 20–27. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1393
Asplin, P., Frid, S., & Sparrow, L. (2006). Game playing to develop mental computation: A case study.
In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, Cultures, and Learning
Spaces: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group
of Australasia, Canberra (pp. 46–53). MERGA.
Bahrami, F., Chegini, Z. R., Kianzadeh, A., Emami, F., & Abdi, H. (2012). A comparison of the effec-
tiveness of game-based and traditional teaching on learning and retention of first grade math
concepts. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 2(6), 2099–2102.
Barz, N., Benick, M., Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., & Perels, F. (2023). The effect of digital game-
based learning interventions on cognitive, metacognitive, and affective-motivational learn-
ing outcomes in school: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 94(2), 193–227.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231167795
Baturo, A. R., Cooper, T. J., & Thompson, K. (2003). Effective teaching with virtual materials: Years
six and seven case studies. In N. A. Patemen, B. J. Doughert, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), PME 27: PME-
NA25, Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 4; pp. 299–306). CRDG,
College of Education. University of Hawai’i.
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage.
Bingolbali, E., & Bingolbali, F. (2015). Principles of student-centred teaching and implications
for mathematics teaching. In CERME 9-Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in
Mathematics Education (pp. 2600–2606).
Black, R. (2007). Crossing the divide (ERIC Document No. ED501899). The Education Foundation.
Bofferding, L. (2014). Order and value: Transitioning to integers. Teaching Children Mathematics,
20(9), 546–554. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.20.9.0546
Bragg, L. A. (2003). Children’s perspectives on mathematics and game playing. In L. Bragg, C. Camp-
bell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics Education Research: Innovation, Networking,
Opportunity – Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 160–167). MERGA.
Bragg, L. A. (2006a). Hey, I’m learning this. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(4), 4–9.
Bragg, L. A. (2006b). Students’ impressions of the value of games for the learning of mathematics.
In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 217–224). PME.
Bragg, L. A. (2012). The effect of mathematical games on on-task behaviours in the primary class-
room. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-
012-0045-4
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bright, G. W., Harvey, J. G., & Wheeler, M. M. (1983). Use of a game to instruct on logical reasoning.
School Science and Mathematics, 83(5), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1983.tb155
26.x
Bright, G. W., Harvey, J. G., & Wheeler, M. M. (1985). Learning and mathematics games. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 1, 1–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/749987
Cabellos, B., Sánchez, D. L., & Pozo, J. (2023). Do future teachers believe that video games help learn-
ing? Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(2), 803–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09
586-3
Casey, B. M., Caola, L., Bronson, M. B., Escalante, D. L., Foley, A. E., & Dearing, E. (2020). Mater-
nal use of math facts to support girls’ math during card play. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 68, Article 101136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101136
Chee, Y. S., Mehrotra, S., & Ong, J. C. (2015). Professional development for scaling pedagog-
ical innovation in the context of game-based learning: Teacher identity as cornerstone in
‘shifting’ practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 423–437. https://doi.org/

10.1080/1359866x.2014.962484
Cichy, I., Kaczmarczyk, S., Kruszwicka, A., Przybyla, T., Klichowski, M., & Rokita, A. (2020).
Participating in physical classes using eduball stimulates acquisition of mathematical knowl-
edge and skills by primary school students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02194
Clarke, D., & Roche, A. (2010). The power of a single game to address a range of important ideas in
fraction learning. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(3), 18–23.
Cojocariu, V.-M., & Boghian, I. (2014). Teaching the relevance of game-based learning to
preschool and primary teachers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 640–646.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.679
Cooperstein, S. E., & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: A constructivist
approach to learning. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/0090732
0410537658
Doias, E. D. (2013). The effect of manipulatives on achievement scores in the middle school mathematics
class [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Lindenwood University.
Ernest, P. (1986). Games: A rationale for their use in the teaching of mathematics in school.
Mathematics in School, 15(1), 2–5.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for tech-
nology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://
doi.org/10.1007/bf02299597
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher
beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education,
59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Fang, Y., Chen, K., & Huang, Y. (2016). Emotional reactions of different interface formats: Com-
paring digital and traditional board games. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 8(3), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814016641902
Gough, J. (1999). Playing mathematical games: When is a game not a game? Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom, 4(2), 12–15.
Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learn-
ing in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312030002393
Hung, C.-M., Huang, I., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Effects of digital game-based learning on stu-
dents’ self-efficacy, motivation, anxiety, and achievements in learning mathematics. Journal of
Computers in Education, 1(2–3), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0008-8
Jaffe, L. (2019). Games are multidimensional in educational situations. In M. J. Bradshaw, B. L. Hul-
tiquist, & D. Hagler (Eds.), Innovative teaching strategies in nursing and related health professions
(8th ed., pp. 299–307). Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Kaimara, P., Fokides, E., Oikonomou, A., & Deliyannis, I. (2021). Potential barriers to the imple-
mentation of digital game-based learning in the classroom: Pre-service teachers’ view. Technology,
Knowledge and Learning, 26(4), 825–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09512-7
Kamii, C., Rummelsburg, J., & Kari, A. (2005). Teaching arithmetic to low performing, low SES first
graders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.
12.004
Karnes, J., Barwasser, A., & Grünke, M. (2021). The effects of a math racetracks intervention on the
single-digit multiplication facts fluency of four struggling elementary school students. Insights
into Learning Disabilities, 18(1), 53–77.
Kosko, K., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2010). Mathematical communication and its relation to the fre-
quency of manipulative use. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 5(2),
79–90. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/251
Larkin, K. (2016). Mathematics education and manipulatives. Which, when, how? Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom, 21(1), 12–17.
McFeetors, P. J., & Palfy, K. (2018). Educative experiences in a games context: Supporting emerg-
ing reasoning in elementary school mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 50, 103–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.02.003
McIntosh, A., Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., Bana, J., & Farrell, B. (1997). Number sense in school math-
ematics: Student performance in four countries. Mathematics, Science & Technology Education
Centre.
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Prodromou, T. (2016). Pre-service teacher training on game-enhanced
mathematics teaching and learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(3), 379–399.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-016-9275-y
Miller, D. J., & Robertson, D. P. (2011). Educational benefits of using game consoles in a pri-
mary classroom: A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5),
850–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01114.x
Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014596316942
Moyer-Packenham, P., & 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. https://doi.org/10.4018/jvple.2013070103
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in
mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Piaget, J. (1952). The child’s conception of number. Humanities Press.
Pope, J., Collin, P., Third, A., Ogun, N., & Campbell, J. (2015). eSmart schools evaluation report 2015.
https://www.communications.gov.au/sites/default/files/submissions/alannah_and_madeline_fou
ndation_appendix_a.pdf.
Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in low-income
children’s numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development, 79(2),
375–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01131.x
Roche, A., Gervasoni, A., & Kalogeropoulos, P. (2023). Factors that promote interest and engagement
in learning mathematics for low-achieving primary students across three learning settings. Math-
ematics Education Research Journal, 35(3), 525–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00402-w
Russo, J. A. (2018). Exploring multiplication: Three-in-a-row lucky numbers. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 24(6), 378–383. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.24.6.0378
Russo, J., Bragg, L., & Russo, T. (2021). How primary teachers use games to support their teach-
ing of mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(4), 407–419.
https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2021.200
Russo, J., Bragg, L., Russo, T., & Minas, M. (2023). Identifying the characteristics of non-
digital mathematical games most valued by educators. Education Sciences, 13(1), 30. https://doi.
org/10.3390/educsci13010030
Russo, J., & Russo, T. (2020). Transforming mathematical games into investigations. Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom, 25(2), 14–19.
Seegar, F. (2001). Research on discourse in the mathematics classroom: A commentary. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 46(1/3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014092200410
Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as commu-
nicating to learn more about mathematics learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1/3),
13–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014097416157
Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. Erlbaum.
Skinner, E. (2016). Engagement and disaffection as central to processes of motivational resilience
and development. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miel (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd
ed., pp. 145–168). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773384-14
Steen, K. B. (2006). The impact of virtual manipulatives on first grade geometry instruction and
learning. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 373–391.
Stein, M. K., & Bovalino, J. W. (2001). Manipulatives: One piece of the puzzle. Mathematics Teaching
in the Middle School, 6(6), 356–359. https://doi.org/10.5951/mtms.6.6.0356
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathe-
matical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
Stieler-Hunt, C., & Jones, C. M. (2015). Educators who believe: Understanding the enthusiasm of
teachers who use digital games in the classroom. Research in Learning Technology, 23, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26155
Stieler-Hunt, C., & Jones, C. M. (2017). Feeling alienated: Teachers using immersive digital games in
classrooms. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 26(4), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759
39x.2017.1334227
Swan, P. (1996). Kids and calculators: Using calculators in the primary classroom. A-Z Type.
Swan, P., & Marshall, L. (2010). Revisiting mathematics manipulative materials. Australian Primary
Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 13–19.
Talan, T., Doğan, Y., & Batdı, V. (2020). Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games: A
comparative meta-analysis and a meta-thematic analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 52(4), 474–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1743798
Thompson, L. F., Surface, E. A., Martin, D. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2003). From paper
to pixels: Moving personnel surveys to the web. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 197–227.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00149.x
Thomson, S., Wernert, N., O’Grady, E., & Rodrigues, S. (2017). TIMSS 2015: Reporting Australia’s
results. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Vessonen, T., Hakkarainen, A., Väisänen, E., Laine, A., Aunio, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2021). Dif-
ferential effects of virtual and concrete manipulatives in a fraction intervention on fourth and
fifth grade students’ fraction skills. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 13(4), 323–337.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2021.1982586
White, K., & McCoy, L. P. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on attitude and achievement
in elementary mathematics. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 21(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.4148/2470-6353.1259
Yao, X., & Zhao, J. (2022). Chinese mathematics teachers’ use of digital technologies for instruc-
tion: A survey study. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(8),
em2135. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12209

Examining primary school educators preferences for using digital versus non-digital games to support mathematics instruction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Examining primary school educators preferences for using digital versus non-digital games to support mathematics instruction

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Examining primary school educators preferences for using digital versus non-digital games to support mathematics instruction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Mathematical Education in

Science and Technology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tmes20

Examining primary school educators' preferences

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2024.2361699

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 25 Jun 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1374

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Examining primary school educators’ preferences for using

Australia; b Department of Education, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

1.1. Defining games

1.2. Affordances of non-digital games

1.3. Affordances of digital games

1.4. Comparing the affordances of digital and non-digital games

1.5. Virtual and physical manipulatives

Piaget, 1952), that multiple representations or ‘embodiments’ of a concept support students’

2.1.1. Whole-class mathematical games2

2.1.2. Small-group mathematical games3

2.2. Data analysis

2.2.2. Qualitative items

3. Results: quantitative analysis

3.2. Examining participant preferences for non-digital games

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Figure 1. Participant preferences for non-digital versus digital games by setting.

Table 3. Mean game mode preference scores by setting by experience level.

a preference for non-digital games (whole-class, r = 0.27, p = .005; small-group, r = 0.30,

4. Results: qualitative analysis

4.1. Reasons for preferring non-digital games

Table 6. Reasons for preferring non-digital games by game setting.

Non-digital shows me who is not just mimicking or pretending to participate. (Participant

Table 7. Reasons for preferring digital games by game setting.

4.2. Reasons for preferring digital games

6. Conclusions and implications

mathematical learning, primary school educators remain comparatively disinclined to

‘shifting’ practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 423–437. https://doi.org/

You might also like