Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 3 no. 8 (2025)

GeoGebra Integration in Mathematics Teaching: Bridging Research and Classroom Practice

Genaro T. Ardina | Guillermo Bautista, Jr. | Maria Salud M. Delos Santos

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The integration of technology in mathematics education offers dynamic tools for enhancing students’ Mathematics engagement, motivation, and understanding. This study assessed and explored the practical application of GeoGebra, a dynamic mathematics software, to translate research findings into actual classroom practices within a teacher education context. Using a mixed-method sequential explanatory design, the study developed and implemented nine structured GeoGebra-integrated lesson plans guided by Madeline Hunter’s Instructional Model. The participants were Bachelor of Secondary Education students majoring in Mathematics from a private university in Cebu province. Quantitative data on students’ mathematics motivation, engagement, and understanding were collected using validated instruments, followed by qualitative analysis of students’ perceptions and experiences. Results showed numerical improvements across all domains, with post-test findings indicating higher levels of Mathematics motivation, engagement, and understanding. However, statistical tests revealed no significant differences between pre- and post-test scores, although significant positive correlations were found among the three constructs. Thematic analysis highlighted benefits such as improved visualization and deeper understanding, alongside challenges including limited access to devices, unstable internet connections, and initial difficulties in using GeoGebra. Despite these constraints, students appreciated the creative possibilities offered by GeoGebra and its ability to connect mathematical concepts to real-world applications. The study culminated in the development of a compendium of lesson plans designed to support educators in effectively integrating GeoGebra into their instruction. These findings highlight the potential of structured technology integration in developing student-centered and interactive mathematics learning environments, while also underscoring the need for adequate pedagogical support for successful implementation.



References:

  1. Ahmed, W. (2017). Motivation and self-regulated learning: A multivariate multilevel analysis. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 4(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2017.03.001
  2. Alzankawi, M. (2024). The contribution of technological innovations to enhance education for sustainable development. International Journal of Education, Learning and Development, 12(7), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijeld.2013/vol12n73548
  3. Ardina, G., & Boholano, H. (2024). The cognitive and non-cognitive effects of GeoGebra integration. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 18(2), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.47836/mjms.18.2.12
  4. Ardyan, N. R. (2024). The role of digital technology in mathematics learning and its impact on learning concepts. Aksioma Education Journal, 1(4), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.62872/94nb5c80
  5. Barete, M., & Taja-on, E. (2024). Students’ perception in learning the course Mathematics in the Modern World: A qualitative study. European American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(7). https://doi.org/10.55927/eajmr.v3i7.10071
  6. Bascones, G. Y., Yunzal, A. N., & Casinillo, L. F. (2024). Exploring contextual factors affecting student performance in mathematics: A sequential explanatory research. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth, 16(3), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjfy30045
  7. Bautista, G., Jr., Malacapo, J., Gallos‐Cronberg, F., Kasti, H., Dana‐Picard, N., & Lavicza, Z. (2025b). Function art: Linking mathematics, technology, and visual arts. School Science and Mathematics, 18373. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.18373
  8. Bautista, G., Jr., Prodromou, T., & Lavicza, Z. (2024). Function art: Analyzing popular functions and strategies. In Proceedings of the 17th ERME Topic Conference MEDA4 (pp. 65–72).
  9. Bautista, G., Saimon, M., Yunianto, W., Sami El-Kasti, H., Lavicza, Z., & Fenyvesi, K. (2025a). Challenges and opportunities in function art. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 24, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.28945/5522
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2016). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. QMiP Bulletin, 1(21), 48–50. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsqmip.2016.1.21.48
  11. Bravo, G., & Nobles, B. (2023). Students’ growth mindset, motivation, and mathematics performance: A correlational study. Asia Pacific Higher Education Research Journal (APHERJ), 10(1). https://doi.org/10.56278/apherj.v10i1.1976
  12. Calicdan, T. N. P., & Gementiza-Cubio, L. (2025). Student engagement in learning algebra: A mixed method study. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 858–872. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra19894
  13. ElSayary, A. (2023). Students’ active engagement in online learning. In Higher Education: Considerations, Strategies, and Resources for Success (pp. 97–106). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003342335-12
  14. Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2011). Educational change through technology: A challenge for obligatory schooling in Europe. In Mapping and Measuring the Impact of ICT Use in Education in Europe (pp. 97–110). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23985-4_9
  15. Fiorella, L., Yoon, S. Y., Atit, K., Power, J. R., Panther, G., Sorby, S., Uttal, D. H., & Veurink, N. (2021). Validation of the Mathematics Motivation Questionnaire (MMQ) for secondary school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00307-x
  16. Goldin, G. A. (2019). Chapter 5: Exploring a conative perspective on mathematical engagement. In Mathematics and Cognition (pp. 111–129). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04432-9_8
  17. Hanin, V., & Van Nieuwenhoven, C. (2016). The influence of motivational and emotional factors in mathematical learning in secondary education. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 66(3), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2016.04.006
  18. Harefa, D. (2023). The relationship between students’ interest in learning and mathematics learning outcomes. AFORE : Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 2(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.57094/afore.v2i2.1054
  19. Joshi, D. R., Adhikari, K. P., Khanal, B., Khadka, J., & Belbase, S. (2022). Behavioral, cognitive, emotional and social engagement in mathematics learning during COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE, 17(11), e0278052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278052
  20. Koretsky, M. (2017). Cognitive and social aspects of engagement in active learning. Chemical Engineering Education, 51(4), 198–204. https://journals.flvc.org/cee/article/download/104870/100762
  21. Kunjiapu, S., Sinnappan, P., Anor Salim, F. A., & Kunasegaran, M. (2025). Challenges and dilemmas of digitalization in Philippine education: A grassroots perspective. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 14(2), 232. https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v14i2.22325
  22. Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054
  23. Lestari, S., Syahrilfuddin, S., Putra, Z. H., & Hermita, N. (2019). The effect of realistic mathematic approach on students’ learning motivation. Journal of Teaching and Learning in Elementary Education, 2(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.33578/jtlee.v2i2.7335
  24. Letchumanan, M., Husain, S. K. S., Ayub, A. F. M., Kamaruddin, R., & Zulkifli, N. N. (2023). Determining the factors that promote higher order thinking skills in mathematics technology enhanced learning environment: Perspective from university students. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 17(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.47836/mjms.17.1.02
  25. Matthews, D. S. (2017). The successes and challenges of utilizing GeoGebra to integrate MP5: Use appropriate tools strategically (Master’s thesis). Missouri State University. https://tinyurl.com/mr3szzfu
  26. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  27. Mursyida, M., Gustiningsi, T., & Rohman, R. (2024). Application of the quantum learning model assisted by GeoGebra to support students’ concept understanding ability. Prima Magistra, 5(3), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.37478/jpm.v5i3.4296
  28. Ngwabe, A., & Felix, C. (2020). Using GeoGebra to address students’ misconceptions about the transformation of algebraic hyperbola functions. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 24(3), 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2020.1854494
  29. Ninness, C., Barnes‐Holmes, D., Rumph, R., McCuller, G., Ford, A. M., Payne, R., Ninness, S. K., Smith, R. J., Ward, T. A., & Elliott, M. P. (2006). Transformations of mathematical and stimulus functions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2006.139-05
  30. Numan, A., & Hasan, S. S. (2017). Test-anxiety-provoking stimuli among undergraduate students. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 27(1).
  31. Pantziara, M., & Philippou, G. N. (2015). Students’ motivation in the mathematics classroom: Revealing causes and consequences. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 385–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9502-0
  32. Perry, A. B. (2004). Decreasing math anxiety in college students. College Student Journal, 38(2), 321–325. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ704967
  33. Saat, N. A., Alias, A. F., & Saat, M. Z. (2024). Digital technology approach in mathematics education: A systematic review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v13-i4/22956
  34. Saralar-Aras, İ. (2022). Countries’ responses to COVID-19 pandemic in K–12 education: Toward a digital education in mathematics. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(2), 450–478. https://doi.org/10.47615/issej.1147274
  35. Seftiana, G., Lestari, N., Isnawan, M. G., & Rusmayadi, Muh. (2024). Utilization of GeoGebra software in mathematics learning: A literature systematic review. Polyhedron International Journal in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.59965/pijme.v2i1.95
  36. Semenikhina, E., Drushlyak, M., Bondarenko, Y., Kondratiuk, S., & Dehtiarova, N. (2019). Cloud-based service GeoGebra and its use in the educational process: The BYOD-approach. TEM Journal, 8(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM81-08
  37. Sukmawati, R. K., Yusritawati, I., Salsabila, S., Dewi, M. F., & Wulandari, I. F. (2023). Analisis self-efficacy siswa dalam pembelajaran matematika: Studi kasus di SMA Negeri 1 Cigugur dengan Kurikulum Merdeka. Indo-MathEdu Intellectuals Journal. https://doi.org/10.54373/imeij.v4i3.444
  38. Tran, L. T., & Nguyen, T. S. S. (2021). Motivation and mathematics achievement: A Vietnamese case study. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(3), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.3.14274.449-468
  39. Trigueros, M., & Lage, A. E. (2006). An analysis of students’ ideas about transformations of functions. In Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 1–7). https://tinyurl.com/4nxjunrj
  40. The Pell Institute. (n.d.). Analyze qualitative data. Evaluation toolkit. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/j8wfmu8w
  41. Unaenah, E., Saharani, A. L., Putri, C. M., & Pertiwi, N. P. (2023). Analisis minat belajar siswa melalui pendekatan matematika realistik pada pembelajaran berbasis daring di kelas VI Sekolah SDN Blendung. YASIN, 3(4), 887–893. https://doi.org/10.58578/yasin.v3i4.1539
  42. Uwurukundo, M. S., Maniraho, J. F., & Tusiime, M. (2020). GeoGebra integration and effectiveness in the teaching and learning of mathematics in secondary schools: A review of literature. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajesms.v16i1.1
  43. Wang, M., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The Math and Science Engagement Scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008
  44. Xia, Q., Yin, H., Hu, R., Li, X., & Shang, J. (2022). Motivation, engagement, and mathematics achievement: An exploratory study among Chinese primary students. SAGE Open, 12(4), 215824402211346. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221134609
  45. Zazkis, R., Liljedahl, P., & Gadowsky, K. (2003). Conceptions of function translation: Obstacles, intuitions, and rerouting. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.09.003 

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic