Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

An Exploration of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs and Goals Regarding a Dynamic Tool in Mathematics Lessons: Case of GeoGebra

Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 5, Issue SI, June 2022, pp. 41-63
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 3037 DOWNLOADS: 1417 Publication date: 15 Jun 2022
Currently, teaching with technology has become crucial. This case study investigated the beliefs and goals of four middle school mathematics teachers regarding a dynamic mathematics software: GeoGebra. The participants of the study were four mathematics teachers working in public middle schools in Turkey. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews, lesson observations and perceived technology, pedagogy and content knowledge surveys. Data analysis revealed a consensus on GeoGebra’s usefulness in teaching units that link geometry and algebra. Most of the participants integrated GeoGebra to provide students with an explorative environment in which students were supported with feedback. Teachers’ goals of using the software were found to be providing visual representations, facilitating students’ learning, increasing students’ engagement, as well as decreasing their workload and saving time. Moreover, teachers listed several challenges such as classroom management and lesson planning. Despite the challenges they faced, teachers were willing to integrate the software into their lessons. Therefore, complementary workshops were seemed to be necessary to overcome these challenges. These workshops might aim at providing the necessary 21st-century competencies for mathematics teachers to integrate the software into their lessons effectively.
Dynamic Tools, Case Study, GeoGebra, Mathematics Teachers, Middle School
Saralar-Aras, I. (2022). An Exploration of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs and Goals Regarding a Dynamic Tool in Mathematics Lessons: Case of GeoGebra. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(SI), 41-63.
  1. Agyei, D. D., & Benning, I. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ use and perceptions of GeoGebra software as an instructional tool in teaching mathematics. Journal of Educational Development and Practice, 5(1), 14-30.
  2. Akyıldız, P., Aktaş, F., Dede, Y. & Haciömeroğlu, G. (2021). Mathematics teachers’ values about teaching mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68.
  3. Alabdulaziz, M. S., Aldossary, S. M., Alyahya, S. A., & Althubiti, H. M. (2021). The effectiveness of the GeoGebra Programme in the development of academic achievement and survival of the learning impact of the mathematics among secondary stage students. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2685-2713.
  4. Arbain, N., & Shukor, N. A. (2015). The effects of GeoGebra on students’ achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 208-214.
  5. Balgalmış, E., Çakıroğlu, E., & Shafer, K. (2014). An investigation of a pre-service elementary mathematics teacher’s techno-pedagogical content knowledge within the context of teaching practices. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2014 (pp. 2210–2217). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  6. Bates, T. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education. London: Rutledge.
  7. Batubara, B. M. (2021). The Problems of the World of Education in the Middle of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(1), 450–457.
  8. Benning, I. (2021). Enacting Core Practices of Effective Mathematics Pedagogy with GeoGebra. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 23(2), 102–127.
  9. Birgin, O., & Uzun Yazıcı, K. (2021). The effect of GeoGebra software–supported mathematics instruction on eighth‐grade students' conceptual understanding and retention. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 925–939.
  10. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research–a systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255–273. https://10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004
  11. Bu, L., Spector, M., & Hacıömeroğlu, E. S. (2011). Toward model-centred mathematics learning and instruction using GeoGebra: A theoretical framework for learning mathematics with understanding. In Model Centered Learning (1st ed., pp. 13–40).
  12. Bulut, A. (2012). Investigating perceptions of preservice mathematics teachers on their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) regarding geometry. [Unpublished Master's Thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  13. Bulut, M., & Bulut, N. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ usage of dynamic mathematics software. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 294–299.
  14. Celen, Y. (2020). Student opinions on the use of GeoGebra software in mathematics teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 19(4), 84–88.
  15. Clarkson, P., Seah, W. T., Pang, J. (Eds.). (2019). ICME 13 Monograph on Values and Valuing in Mathematics Education. Springer.
  16. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 213–220.
  17. Cross, D. I. (2009). Alignment, cohesion, and change: Examining mathematics teachers’ belief structures and their influence on instructional practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(5), 325–346.
  18. Dikkartin-Övez, F. T. (2018). The impact of instructing quadratic functions with the use of GeoGebra software on students’ achievement and level of reaching acquisitions. International Education Studies, 11(7), 1–11.
  19. Edwards, J., & Jones, K. (2006). Linking geometry and algebra with GeoGebra. Mathematics Teaching, 194(1), 28–30.
  20. Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. Mathematics Teaching: The State of the Art, 249, 254.
  21. Eryiğit, P. (2010). The effect of utilising the three-dimensional dynamic geometry software in geometry teaching on 12th-grade students, their academic standings, their attitude towards geometry [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Dokuz Eylul University.
  22. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill Education.
  23. GeoGebra Official Web Page. (2021). GeoGebra: Powerful, free, online graphing calculator and interactive geometry.
  24. Grandgenett, N. (2007). GeoGebra. Mathematics and Computer Education, 41(3), 276–278.
  25. Hannula, M. S., Leder, G. C., Morselli, F., Vollstedt, M., & Zhang, Q. (2019a). Fresh perspectives on motivation, engagement, and identity: An introduction. In ICME 13 Monograph on Affect and Mathematics Education (pp. 3–14). Springer.
  26. Hannula, M. S., Leder, G. C., Morselli, F., Vollstedt, M., & Zhang, Q. (2019b). Fresh perspectives on motivation, engagement, and identity: A conclusion. In ICME 13 Monograph on Affect and Mathematics Education (pp. 431–437). Springer.
  27. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2011). Software tools for geometrical problem-solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 235–256.
  28. Hohenwarter, M., Hohenwarter, J., & Lavicza, Z. (2008). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to secondary school teachers: The case of GeoGebra. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 135–146.
  29. Horzum, T., & Ünlü, M. (2017). Pre-Service mathematics teachers' views about GeoGebra and its use. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 10(3), 77-90.
  30. Icel, R. (2011). Effects of computer-supported learning on mathematics achievement: GeoGebra example. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Selçuk University.
  31. Karaarslan, E., Boz, B., & Yıldırım, K. (2013). Technology-based approaches in mathematics and geometry education. In XVIII. Internet Conference (pp. 9–11). Istanbul, Turkey.
  32. Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35(3), 207–256.
  33. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
  34. McCulloch, A.W., Hollebrands, K, Lee, H., Harrison, T., & Mutlu, A. (2018). Factors that influence secondary mathematics teachers' integration of technology in mathematics lessons. Computers & Education, 123, 26–40.
  35. Mehanovic, S. (2011). The potential and challenges of the use of Dynamic Software in upper secondary mathematics: Students’ and teachers’ work with integrals in GeoGebra based environments [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Linköping University.
  36. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  37. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
  38. Ministry of National Education (2010). Turkey's Movement of Enhancing Opportunities and Improving Technology (FATIH).
  39. Musa, M., Mamat, Y., & Ghazali, M. (2021). Teachers’ Status of GeoGebra Use in The Teaching of Geometric Transformation. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(14), 4326–4332.
  40. Mwingirwa, I. M., & Miheso-O’Connor, M. K. (2016). Status of teachers’ technology uptake and use of GeoGebra in teaching secondary school mathematics in Kenya. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 286–294.
  41. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.
  42. Niess, M. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523.
  43. Niess, M. (2006). Guest Editorial: Preparing teachers to teach mathematics with technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2), 195–203.
  44. Niess, M. (2008). Mathematics teachers developing technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (TPACK) (pp. 5297–5304). Presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  45. Nur, M. A. (2010). Factors that Influence Secondary School Students’ Performance in Mathematics in Banadir Region, Somalia (Master’s Thesis). Kenyatta University, Kenya.
  46. Polly, D., & Orrill, C. H. (2016). Designing professional development to support teachers’ TPACK in elementary school mathematics. In M. C. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Educators (pp. 259–268). New York: Routledge.
  47. Preiner, J. (2008). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to mathematics teachers: The case of GeoGebra [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. The University of Salzburg.
  48. Preiner, J., & Hohenwater, M. (2007). Creating mathlets with open source tools. The Journal of Online Mathematics and its Applications, 7(1), 1–29.
  49. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. R. (1998). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. London: Sage.
  50. Ruthven, K. (2005). Expanding current practice in using dynamic geometry to teach about angle properties. MicroMath, 21(2), 26–30.
  51. Saralar, I., Isiksal-Bostan, M., & Akyuz, D. (2018). The evaluation of a pre-service mathematics teacher’s TPACK: A case of 3D shapes with GeoGebra. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 3–21.
  52. Saralar-Aras, I., & Firat, K. (2021). Preparing pre-service primary teachers to teach with technology: A case of England. Elementary Education Online, 20(1), 777-788.
  53. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
  54. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
  55. Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 213–226.
  56. Suryani, A. I., & Rofiki, I. (2020, February). The practicality of mathematics learning module on triangles using GeoGebra. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1470, No. 1, p. 012079). IOP Publishing.
  57. Tezer, M. (2018). The effect of an answer-based computer-assisted geometry course on students’ success level and attitudes. Quality & Quantity, 52(5), 2321–2329.
  58. Unal, Z., & Unal, A. (2012). The impact of years of teaching experience on the classroom management approaches of elementary school teachers. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 41-60.
  59. Wassie, Y. A., & Zergaw, G. A. (2019). Some of the potential affordances, challenges and limitations of using GeoGebra in mathematics education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), em1734.
  60. Yang, X., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2020). Relationship between pre-service mathematics teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and instructional practices in China. ZDM, 1-14.
  61. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
  62. Yurekli, B., Stein, M. K., Correnti, R., & Kisa, Z. (2020). Teaching mathematics for conceptual understanding: Teachers’ beliefs and practices and the role of constraints. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(2), 234–247.
  63. Zakaria, E., & Maat, S. M. (2012). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices. Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 8(2), 191–194.
  64. Zbiek, R., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). A research-informed view of the process of incorporating mathematics technology into classroom practice by inservice and prospective teachers. In M.K. Heid, & G. Blume (Eds.), Handbook of research on technology in the learning and teaching of mathematics: Syntheses and perspectives, (pp. 287–344). Information Age.
Creative Commons License