How teachers experience MatheZeit in the classroom

Whether a learning platform works in the classroom is not decided by the technology alone, but by how it is embedded in teaching, and that is in the hands of the teachers. In the efficacy study on MatheZeit, this perspective was therefore surveyed separately: after at least two weeks of use, the 33 participating teachers completed a progress questionnaire with rating scales and free-text fields. This article summarises how they experienced the use of the platform, in their own words.

The ratings at a glance

The teachers rated six statements on a scale from 1 to 10, and not a single statement averaged below 8. The highest value went to recommending the platform: “I would recommend MatheZeit to my colleagues” was rated 9.7 on average, and 95 per cent of the teachers gave it a full 9 or 10 points. Behind that follow:

• “The children enjoy working with MatheZeit.” (9.3)
• “The overviews help with targeted support.” (8.8)
• “MatheZeit fits well into lessons.” (8.8)
• “MatheZeit helps the children learn.” (8.5)
• “MatheZeit can save preparation and teaching time.” (8.2)

For each of these statements, all 33 teachers were in the agreeing range. More revealing than the numbers, however, are the free-text answers, which condense into recurring themes.

Independent, focused work

The picture from the classroom described most often is a class working quietly and independently:

“The children are so incredibly motivated. They work for 40 minutes without interruption, completely quietly and with full concentration. What they like best are the duels.”

This experience matches the feedback from the children themselves: in a direct comparison with an established learning platform, they rated MatheZeit considerably better on enjoyment and concentration. For teachers, this independence has a practical value that one of them describes like this:

“I highlight the MatheZeiten that have to be worked on. Then the children work completely independently.”

This gives the teacher time for what only they can do: supporting individual children in a targeted way while the class works.

What a lesson with MatheZeit looks like

In the free-text answers, the teachers describe what a typical lesson looks like for them, and the sequences are similar:

“All the children get an iPad, we briefly discuss today's topic and any information they need, and then the children log in and work. First the MatheZeit I have pinned, after that they are allowed to play the Knobelbox and duels.”

“A short prompt and introduction to the topic, fetch the iPads, start MatheZeit. We finish with a feedback round.”

A teacher from a mixed-year class describes a use that would be organisationally difficult without the platform:

“We teach across year groups. I often use MatheZeit when I want to explain something to one group (year three or year four); the other group then works on suitable topics that I highlight. They work so quietly and with such concentration.”

Another response puts the children's ability to find their own way down to the structure:

“The interface is wonderfully appealing, and the learning path is easy for the children to follow. I find that very important, because it means the children always know exactly where they stand.”

Building it flexibly into lessons

Several teachers describe the platform as a way of covering topics that otherwise get too little attention in everyday school life:

“With MatheZeit I can quickly bring topics into my lessons that often take a back seat (geometry, measures).”

The content is oriented towards the state curriculum requirements and structured by topic; teachers choose what fits the current phase of teaching and use the class settings to control which areas their class sees. One teacher notes that younger classes can work with it too:

“The children are motivated. The tasks really invite you to get started. Even the year two classes can already work with it.”

Understanding instead of working through

Strikingly often, the teachers set MatheZeit apart from pure practice programmes:

“It is much more about real basic understanding and modelling. Other apps are only good for practising.”

“It is not working through things, it is understanding them.”

They mention the Knobelbox (“a unique selling point in itself”), the high proportion of written language, where children practise reading carefully, and the adaptive tasks:

“The varied and adaptive tasks are particularly suited to reaching all the children without a lot of effort.”

The tutor Mazio and the adaptive system also come up in the feedback, with exactly the qualities they are built for:

“Mazio as a little helper gives tips skilfully and helps the pupils along without telling them the answer. The children like using him. The system adapts to the pupils' performance, helps, praises and supports. Small playful elements such as collecting animals and accessories are not time-wasters, they are done quickly and briefly and are motivating.”

Diagnostics: seeing where the class stands

A recurring theme is the diagnostic value of the evaluations:

“The diagnostics help me assess the children. I usually look at the weekly report.”

“I am currently working with two parallel classes on MatheZeit and I am amazed at how accurately the diagnostics reflect the classes. I am glad about the suggestions for catching up or going deeper. That makes the work easier.”

Behind the weekly report is, among other things, the misconception diagnostics: from the actual wrong answers, MatheZeit reconstructs recurring error patterns and names them in subject terms, for example when a child converting units turns 4 kg into 400 g because the conversion factor is not tied to the unit. Instead of a blanket “weak at maths”, the teacher gets a specifically named pattern that can be worked on in a targeted way. The procedure is deliberately cautious: a high error rate alone does not trigger a diagnosis, because when many children fail at a hard task, that is down to the task and not to the children. How this class evaluation is structured is described in the article When many children make the same mistake.

“Would you recommend MatheZeit?”

At the end of the questionnaire came the question of whether the teachers would recommend MatheZeit to their colleagues. Alongside the rating of 9.7 out of 10 points, the freely formulated answers are especially revealing:

“Absolutely. I have already done a lot of promoting for it.”

“Definitely. The pupils practise in a meaningful way, they enjoy it, and it makes lesson preparation and diagnostics easier.”

“Yes, I already have. Quick to use as a replacement for maths puzzles!”

“I have been on board from the start. Now it has been taken to a new level. I hope I will be able to present the app to my colleagues soon.”

“My ‘maths genius' had shining eyes and is generally very critical; there is no stronger recommendation than that.”

And one wish for the future, which we are happy to take on board:

“Maybe develop it further for years one to ten. That could turn out really well.”

The feedback is based on the teachers' own accounts, not on classroom observations, and should be read as an indication of fit and practicality. That is precisely where its value lies: it shows that the effect measured in the study arises in teaching that teachers experience as practicable, motivating and diagnostically useful, and which they recommend almost unanimously.