Impacts of implementing geogebra on eleventh grade student’s learning of Euclidean Geometry
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of applying GeoGebra software as a teaching tool to enhance high poverty, rural grade 11 students’ understanding of Euclidean geometry circle theorems. The experimental group received instruction on how to use, make simple constructions, and measure elements in GeoGebra. The control group was taught in a traditional lecture method. Using a quantitative research design, the findings indicated that the use of GeoGebra had a statistically significant effect on the students’ ability to correctly complete problems regarding some circle geometry theorems. Additionally, using a Likert scored questionnaire, students demonstrated that they valued the use of GeoGebra and appreciated this learning innovation. Altogether, students who interacted with GeoGebra were highly engaged in the learning processes and actively collaborated with other students rather than remaining passive learners. The students who participated in the study evaluated GeoGebra as an appropriate tool to assist them in the learning of mathematics.
Downloads
References
Akkaya, A., Tatar, E., & Kagizimanli, T. 2011. Using dynamic software in the teaching of the symmetry in analytical geometry: The case of GeoGebra. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 15, 2540-2544.
Bansilal, S. 2015. Exploring student teachers’ perceptions of the influence of technology in
learning and teaching mathematics. South African Journal of Education, 35(4), 1-8. Doi: 10.15700/saje.v35n4a1217.
Baykul, Y. 2000. Egitimde ve Psikolojide Olcme: Klasik ve Test Teorisi ve Uygulamasi. Ankara: OSYM Yayinlari.
Bereiter, C. 1994. Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper’s World 3. Educational Ressearch, 23(7), 21-23.
Chetty, K., & Grinter, R. 2007. HCI4D: HCI challenges in the global south. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Extended Abstracts Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California. doi: 10.1145/1240866.1241002.
Chigona, A., Chigona, W., & Davids, Z. 2014. Educators’ motivation on integration of ICTs into pedagogy: Case of disadvantaged areas. South African Journal of Education, 34(3): Art.#859, 8 pages. Doi:10.15700/201409161051.
Department of Basic Education (DBE). 2010. Curriculum news. Improving the quality of learning and teaching. Strengthening curriculum implementation from 2010 and beyond. Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RIQ3WgihTQA%3D&t
Department of Basic Education. 2012. National curriculum statements (NCS). Curriculum and policy statement. Intermediate phase. Grades 4-6. Mathematics. Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers.
Department of Basic Education 2015. National senior certificate examination 2014: Diagnostic Report. Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers.
Dogan, M., & Icel, R. 2011. The role of dynamic geometry software in the process of learning GeoGebra example about triangles. International Journal of Human Sciences, 8 (1), 1441-1458. doi: http://dx,doi.org10.1016:/s0364-0213. (99)80061-5.
Donaldson, G. 2014. Teacher education and curriculum change in Scotland. European Journal of Education, 49(2), 178-191. Doi: 10.1111/ejed.12077.
Duncombe, R. 2011. Researching impact of mobile phones for development: Concepts, methods and lessons for practice. Information Technology for Development, 17(4), 268-288. doi: 10.1080/02681102.561279.
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. 2003. Perspectives on technology mediated learning in secondary school mathematics classrooms. Journal of Mathematical behaviour, 22 (1), 73-89.
Guven, B. 2012. Using dynamic geometry software to improve eight grade students’ understanding of transformation geometry. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 364-382.
Hohenwarter, M., Jarvis, D. & Lavicza, Z. 2009. Linking geometry, algebra and mathematics teaching: GeoGebra software and the establishment of the international GeoGebra institute: International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 83-87.
Isman, A., & Eskicumali, A. 2003. Egitimde Planlama ve Degerlendirme. Istanbul: Degisim Yayinlari.
Lei, J & Zhao, Y. 2007. Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49(2), 284-296. Doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.013.
Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, S. C. & Tsai, C. C. 2013. Bridging the gap: Technology trends and use of technology in schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 59-68.
Piaget, J. 1950. The psychology of intelligence. New York, USA: Routledge.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Shadaan, P. & Leong, K. E. 2013. The effectiveness of using GeoGebra on students’ understanding in learning circles. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(4), 1-11.
Skarma-Grover, A., Plaunche, M., Bernard, E., & Kuun, C. 2009. HIV health information assess using spoken dialogue systems: Touchtone vs. speech. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, Education City, Doha, Qatar.
Stols, G. 2012. Does the use of technology makes a difference in the geometric growth of pre-service mathematics teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1233-1247.
Stols, G. & Kriek, J. 2011. Why don’t all math teachers use dynamic geometry software in their classrooms? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 137-151.
Stylianou, D. A. 2010. Teacher’s conceptions of representation in middle school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(4), 325-343.
Tall, D. 2010. A sensible approach to the calculus. Presented as a plenary at The National and International Meeting on Teaching of Calculus, 23-25 September 2010, Puebla, Mexico. Doi+10.1.1.377.5699&rep=repl1&type=pdf.
Umalusi. 2014. What’s in the CAPS package? Mathematics. A comparative study of national curriculum statement (NCS) and curriculum and assessment policy statement (CAPS). Further education and training (FET) phase. Pretoria, RSA: Government Printers.
Unay, A. I. & Ozmen, C. 2006. Building structure design as an integral part of architecture: A teaching model for students of architecture. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(3), 253-271.
Wang, Q. 2008. A generic model for guiding the integration of ICT into teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 411-419.
West, R., Waddoups, G., & Graham, C. 2006. Understanding the experience of instructors as they adopt a course management system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 1-26.
White, J. 2012. The impact of technology on student engagement and achievement in the mathematics classroom. Mastoral dissertation. Memorial University, New Zealand.
Copyright (c) 2019 Anass Bayaga
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This journal is an open access journal, and the authors and journal should be properly acknowledged, when works are cited.
Authors, copyright holders, may use the publishers version for teaching purposes, in books, theses, dissertations, conferences and conference papers.
A copy of the authors' publishers version may also be hosted on the following websites:
- Non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
- Institutional webpage.
- Authors Institutional Repository.
The following notice should accompany such a posting on the website: This is an electronic version of an article published in SAJHE, Volume XXX, number XXX, pages XXX “XXX", DOI. Authors should also supply a hyperlink to the original paper or indicate where the original paper (http://www.journals.ac.za/index.php/SAJHE) may be found.
Authors publishers version, affiliated with the Stellenbosch University will be automatically deposited in the University Institutional Repository SUNScholar.
Articles as a whole, may not be re-published with another journal.
The following license applies:
Attribution CC BY-NC-ND 4.0