Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Supporting Teachers in the Creation of Animations and Applets through Leveraging Content Knowledge

Franklin Yu 1 *
1 Virginia Commonwealth University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 9, Issue 1, January 2026, pp. 1-21
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 102 DOWNLOADS: 84 Publication date: 15 Jan 2026
ABSTRACT
The integration of animations and applets in mathematics education has been widely recognized for its potential to enhance learning. Despite the growing number of free resources such as Desmos and GeoGebra, instructors often find that these tools do not fully meet their specific pedagogical needs. This manuscript explores the benefits of implementing a short unit focused on training teachers to create their own animations and applets. In particular, this study emphasizes the importance of Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) and the reciprocal relationship between an individual’s content understanding and the capabilities of existing technology, namely Desmos Graphing Calculator. This study’s findings demonstrate how engaging teachers with graphing technologies through their mathematical understandings can both deepen their understanding of mathematical concepts and enhance their ability to leverage technology in the classroom.
KEYWORDS
Animations, Applets, Technological Content Knowledge, Teacher Training
CITATION (APA)
Yu, F. (2026). Supporting Teachers in the Creation of Animations and Applets through Leveraging Content Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 9(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.17338
REFERENCES
  1. Akkaya, R. (2016). Research on the development of middle school mathematics pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding the use of technology in teaching mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(4), 861-879.
  2. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & education, 52(1), 154-168.
  3. Berney, S., & Bétrancourt, M. (2016). Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 101, 150-167.
  4. Bhagat, K. K., & Chang, C. Y. (2015). Incorporating GeoGebra into Geometry learning-A lesson from India. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 77-86.
  5. Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2017). Digital technology in mathematics education: Research over the last decade. In Proceedings of the 13th international congress on mathematical education: ICME-13 (pp. 221-233). Springer International Publishing.
  6. Brand, B. R. (2020). Integrating science and engineering practices: outcomes from a collaborative professional development. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 13.
  7. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research–A systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255-273.
  8. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2016). Enhancing student engagement through the affordances of mobile technology: a 21st century learning perspective on Realistic Mathematics Education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28, 173-197.
  9. Carlson, M. P., O’Bryan, A., & Rocha, A. (2023). Instructional Conventions for Conceptualizing, Graphing and Symbolizing Quantitative Relationships. In Quantitative reasoning in mathematics and science education (pp. 221-259). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  10. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The psychologist, 26(2).
  11. Cullen, C. J., Hertel, J. T., & Nickels, M. (2020, April). The roles of technology in mathematics education. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 166-178). Routledge.
  12. Dilling, F., & Witzke, I. (2020). The use of 3D-printing technology in calculus education: Concept formation processes of the concept of derivative with printed graphs of functions. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 6(3), 320-339.
  13. Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology Enhanced Learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement. Computers & education, 137, 104-113.
  14. Erduran, A., & Ince, B. (2018). Identifying Mathematics Teachers’ Difficulties in Technology Integration in Terms of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(2), 555-576.
  15. Francom, G. M. (2020). Barriers to technology integration: A time-series survey study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 1-16.
  16. Gimbert, B., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002). Learning to teach with technology: From integration to actualization. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 2(2), 204-217.
  17. Heck, D. J., Plumley, C. L., Stylianou, D. A., Smith, A. A., & Moffett, G. (2019). Scaling up innovative learning in mathematics: Exploring the effect of different professional development approaches on teacher knowledge, beliefs, and instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(3), 319-342.
  18. Hidayat, R., & Wardat, Y. (2024). A systematic review of augmented reality in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(8), 9257-9282.
  19. Jablonski, S., & Ludwig, M. (2023). Teaching and learning of geometry—A literature review on current developments in theory and practice. Education sciences, 13(7), 682.
  20. Jensen, E. O., & Skott, C. K. (2022). How can the use of digital games in mathematics education promote students’ mathematical reasoning? a qualitative systematic review. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 8(2), 183-212.
  21. Kaput, J. J., & Thompson, P. W. (1994). Technology in mathematics education research: The first 25 years in the JRME. Journal for research in mathematics education, 25(6), 676-684.
  22. Karakus, F. (2018). An Examination of Pre-Service Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Beliefs Using Computer Technology in Mathematics Instruction. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 3.
  23. Kartal, B., & Çınar, C. (2024). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ TPACK development when they are teaching polygons with geogebra. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 55(5), 1171-1203.
  24. Kidron, I., & Tall, D. (2015). The roles of visualization and symbolism in the potential and actual infinity of the limit process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 88, 183-199.
  25. Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 176-198.
  26. Lee, M. Y. (2021). Using a technology tool to help pre-service teachers notice students’ reasoning and errors on a mathematics problem. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 53(1), 135-149.
  27. Lingefjärd, T., & Ghosh, J. (2022). Enhancing students mathematical thinking using applets. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher, 2(2).
  28. Lu, J., Schmidt, M., Lee, M., & Huang, R. (2022). Usability research in educational technology: A state-of-the-art systematic review. Educational technology research and development, 70(6), 1951-1992.
  29. Makina, A., & Kadzere, L. (2022). Exploring low-tech opportunities for higher education mathematics lecturers in an emergency techno-response pedagogy. Pythagoras, 43(1), 1-10.
  30. Mauntel, M., & Zandieh, M. (2024). Forms of Structuring Space by Linear Algebra Students with Video Games and GeoGebra. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 10(3), 754-780.
  31. Mercader, C., & Gairín, J. (2020). University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: the importance of the academic discipline. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 4.
  32. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  33. Mistretta, R. M. (2005). Integrating technology into the mathematics classroom: The role of teacher preparation programs. Mathematics Educator, 15(1), 18-24.
  34. Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., ... & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 4-24.
  35. Oehrtman, M., Carlson, M., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students’ function understanding. Making the connection: Research and teaching in undergraduate mathematics education, 27, 42.
  36. Okumuş, S., Lewis, L., Wiebe, E., & Hollebrands, K. (2016). Utility and usability as factors influencing teacher decisions about software integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(6), 1227-1249.
  37. Paoletti, T., Stevens, I. E., Acharya, S., Margolis, C., Olshefke-Clark, A., & Gantt, A. L. (2024). Exploring and promoting a student’s covariational reasoning and developing graphing meanings. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 74, 101156.
  38. Paoletti, T., Lee, H. Y., Rahman, Z., Vishnubhotla, M., & Basu, D. (2022). Comparing graphical representations in mathematics, science, and engineering textbooks and practitioner journals. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(7), 1815-1834.
  39. Ploetzner, R., Berney, S., & Bétrancourt, M. (2020). A review of learning demands in instructional animations: The educational effectiveness of animations unfolds if the features of change need to be learned. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 838-860.
  40. Presmeg, N. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education, 205-235.
  41. Pujiastuti, E., & Pambudi, M. (2025). Promoting Mathematics Problem-Solving Ability in Gamification Integration Using Augmented Reality. European Journal of Educational Research, 14(2), 645-660.
  42. Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 47-58.
  43. Shen, L. (2011, March). Learning Advanced Mathematics Successfully by Using Technology. In Proceedings of the 2011 Third International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science-Volume 02 (pp. 210-213).
  44. Silverman, J. (2018). Distance learning, e-learning and blended learning in mathematics education. Springer International Publishing.
  45. Smith, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2007). Quantitative reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. Algebra in the early grades, 95-132.
  46. Spiteri, M., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2020). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 115-128.
  47. Stein, H., Gurevich, I., & Gorev, D. (2020). Integration of technology by novice mathematics teachers–what facilitates such integration and what makes it difficult?. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 141-161.
  48. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: sage.
  49. Sullivan, P. (2022). Using CODAP to Grow Students’ Probabilistic Reasoning. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 115(4), 283-293.
  50. Thompson, A. G., & Thompson, P. W. (1996). Talking about rates conceptually, Part II: Mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 2-24.
  51. Thompson, P. W., Byerley, C., & Hatfield, N. (2013). A conceptual approach to calculus made possible by technology. Computers in the Schools, 30, 124-147.
  52. Thompson, P. W., & Harel, G. (2021). Ideas foundational to calculus learning and their links to students’ difficulties. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53(3), 507-519
  53. Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, Part I: A teacher’s struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 279-303.
  54. Thompson, P. W. (2002). Didactic objects and didactic models in radical constructivism. In Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 197-220). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  55. Thompson, P. W. (1990). Over & Back 1.0. Computer Program for Macintosh. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University.
  56. Thurm, D., & Barzel, B. (2020). Effects of a professional development program for teaching mathematics with technology on teachers’ beliefs, self-efficacy and practices. ZDM, 1-12.
  57. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189-1209.
  58. Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., & Wulff, A. (2006). High school teachers’ course designs and their professional knowledge of online teaching. Informatics in Education, 5(2), 313-328.
  59. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge–a review of the literature. Journal of computer assisted learning, 29(2), 109-121.
  60. Wawro, M., Mauntel, M., & Plaxco, D. (2023, January). “The shape will have no volume”: Relationships students observed about determinants in a dynamic geometric applet. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education.
  61. Weigand, H. G., Trgalova, J., & Tabach, M. (2024). Mathematics teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital age. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56(4), 525-541.
  62. Wijers, M., Jonker, V., & Drijvers, P. (2010). MobileMath: exploring mathematics outside the classroom. ZDM, 42, 789-799.
  63. Yu, F. (2025). A Quantitative and Covariational Reasoning Approach to Introducing Instantaneous Rate of Change: A Lesson Analysis Manuscript. PRIMUS, 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2025.2518528
  64. Yu, F. (2023) Promoting Productive Understandings of Rate of Change in Calculus Courses, PRIMUS, 33:9, 965-980, DOI: 10.1080/10511970.2023.2214891
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.