Review Article LUMAT Special Issue 2023

Technology integration in geometry teaching

and learning: A systematic review (2010–2022)
Gladys Sunzuma
Bindura University of Science Education, Zimbabwe

Technology advancement provides an opportunity for helping both teachers and

ARTICLE DETAILS
students to solve and improve mathematics teaching and learning performances.
This systematic review aims to add to the discussion through a comprehensive LUMAT Special Issue
overview of the integration of digital technologies into the teaching and learning Vol 11 No 3 (2023), 1–18
of geometry at the secondary school level. A systematic literature review was Received 15 February 2023
conducted following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Accepted 5 July 2023
meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with a focus on publication trends, types of Published 22 August 2023
technologies used, types of contributions, learning domains and research meth-
Pages: 18
ods. Twenty-nine articles published between 2010 and 2022 were searched from References: 62
the ERIC database. The findings showed that the majority of the articles were
published in 2015 and the technologies that were used were GeoGebra, aug- Correspondence:
gsunzuma@gmail.com
mented reality, computer animation package, video-based cooperative, graphing
calculator, micromedia flash, Powtoon animation, learning management system, https://doi.org/10.31129/
interactive whiteboard, digital simulations-applets, iPads and tablet. Most of the LUMAT.11.3.1938
reviewed articles focused on the effectiveness of the technologies in geometry
teaching and learning. The findings indicated that the majority of the reviewed
articles used quantitative research methods followed by qualitative methods stud-
ies. It is suggested that other studies be conducted with other databases and fo-
cus on challenges of integrating technology into the teaching and learning of ge-
ometry.

Keywords: geometry, teaching, learning, technology, systematic review

1 Introduction

Mathematics consists of several components such as statistics, algebra and geometry

among others. Geometry is a vital component in mathematics that includes the na-
ture and relation between points, lines, shapes and space. Geometry is the mathe-
matics knowledge that involves the nature of shape and space, measurement, magni-
tude as well as the relations of dots, lines, corners and surfaces (Abd Rahim et al.,
2018). Geometry is an exceptionally rich area of knowledge, not merely for its great
diversity and assortment, but in addition for its practical applications such as visual
presentations, computer animation, virtual reality, and medicine (in the area of
medical imaging, which led to substantial new results in fields such as geometric
tomography), robotics, geometric modelling (including design, modification and
the manufacture of cars and aeroplanes, in the construction of buildings, etc.) and

LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education

Published by the University of Helsinki, Finland / LUMA Centre Finland | CC BY 4.0
 LUMAT

computer-aided design (CAD) (Viseu et al., 2022). According to Jones (2000), sev-
eral modern developments in mathematics are largely geometric, for instance, geo-
metric algebra (a representational and computational system for geometry that is
entirely distinct from algebraic geometry), mathematical visualisation (the art of
transforming the symbolic into geometry) and work on dynamical systems (a disci-
pline closely intertwined with the main areas of mathematics). Due to its multiplicity
of applications, there is a need for schools to promote geometry learning (Septia et
al., 2018). Some of the reasons for including geometry in the mathematics curricu-
lum and teaching in schools are helping students to think visually, helps in solving
problems in other mathematics-related fields, helps students who experience ab-
straction problems and that the world is built by form and space (Petrus et al., 2017).
In many countries globally, the objective of including geometry in the school cur-
ricula is to enable students to develop skills of problem-solving, visualisation, intui-
tion, critical thinking, perspective, conjecturing, logical argumentation, deductive
reasoning as well as the ability to produce proof (Jones & Tzekaki, 2016; Kuzniak,
2018; Horsman, 2019). In addition, the purpose of teaching geometry in schools is
that students can use visualization; have spatial abilities as well as geometry model-
ling skills to solve problems (NCTM, 2000).
However, it was noted that the desired objectives associated with teaching
geometry could not be accomplished and the conceptual understanding of geometry
concepts could not be developed (Gülburnu, 2022). Regardless of the importance
and popularity of geometry, researchers (Sutiarso et al., 2018; Nursyahidah, 2016)
noted many difficulties associated with its teaching and learning and most students
experience difficulties in learning geometry. Furthermore, research has established
that geometry is one of the components of mathematics that is abstract and complex
that both teachers and students find difficult to teach and learn (Gambari et al,
2014). Amongst the causes of the student's difficulties with geometry are misconcep-
tions of geometry (Sutiarso et al., 2018) as well as the abstract and conventional ap-
proach of teaching that makes students learn by heart without understanding the
concepts (Bergstrom & Zhang, 2016; Abdul Hanid et al., 2022). Such approaches
have contributed to poor achievement in geometry.
Mathematics educators have been constantly searching for innovative ap-
proaches to teach mathematics for understanding including improving students'
achievement and performance (Mensah & Nabie, 2021). An innovative approach to
mathematics teaching that motivates learning and promotes higher achievement as

2
 SUNZUMA (2023)

well as improves the performance of students is the integration of digital technolo-

gies in the teaching and learning process (Mensah & Nabie, 2021; Tay & Mensah-
Wonkyi, 2018). Two major purposes of using digital technologies in mathematics
teaching are supporting the organisation of the teacher’s work such as formative and
summative assessment of students and producing learning materials as well as sup-
port for new approaches to doing and representing mathematics (Clark-Wilson et
al., 2020). According to Ayan and Isiksal Bostan (2016), the integration of digital
technologies in mathematics teaching activities enables students to be actively in-
volved and be in a position to solve complex problems. According to Klančar et al.
(2019) using digital technologies in the teaching and learning process enables the
designing of rich learning environments through the use of varied digital materials
and digital support tools such as simulations, animations and applets. Such technol-
ogies support different methods of teaching, for instance, experimentation, simula-
tion, modelling, and research including solving routine mathematical problems and
non-routine problems (Klančar et al., 2019). Digital technologies augment the
learning of mathematics by facilitating practical, problem-solving and collaborative
methods of teaching and learning (Žakelj & Klančar, 2022). Given such benefits of
integrating digital technologies into the teaching and learning of mathematics, this
study is a systematic review of integrating technology into the teaching and learning
of geometry.

2 Technology in geometry teaching and learning

The teaching and learning of geometry require students to be able to imagine, con-
struct and understand the construction of shapes to relate them with associated facts
(Praveen & Kwan Eu, 2013). Hence, digital technologies will help students in imag-
ining, and making observations and facts (Praveen & Kwan Eu, 2013). Numerous
digital technologies are available for the teaching and learning of geometry, for in-
stance, Geometers Sketchpad, calculators, interactive whiteboards, and GeoGebra
(Praveen & Kwan Eu, 2013). GeoGebra is a dynamic geometric software that amal-
gamates statistics, calculus, algebra, geometry, arithmetic, and spreadsheet elements
into a solitary easy-to-use package that enables the learning and teaching of mathe-
matics at various stages (Abebayehu & Hsiu-Ling, 2021).
Research has revealed that geometry concepts taught using computer-based
technology result in improved student achievement as compared to the conventional
approaches that rely on the use of textbooks (Christou et al., 2006; Abdul Hanid,

3
 LUMAT

2022). The integration of technology in geometrical learning is crucial as it enables

students to understand the geometry concepts' problem solving process, for in-
stance, the use of various problem-solving approaches including reducing miscon-
ceptions to understand geometry concepts (Hwang et al., 2009). A study by Gutiér-
rez (1996) revealed students’ ability to solve geometry problems using software that
helped them to manipulate 3D Geometry object essentially for the visualisation and
mental image. Students will be attentive and actively involved in geometry concepts
taught through the use of technology (Hollebrands & Okumuş, 2018). In addition,
digital technologies provide students with an opportunity to use the varied technolo-
gy resources for the geometry content and solve any problem (Lee & Hollebrands,
2006).
Regarding the current systematic literature review about integrating digital
technologies into the teaching and learning of mathematics, studies have been con-
ducted. Mohamed et al. (2022), for instance, provides a systematic review of artifi-
cial intelligence in mathematics education. Zhong and Xia (2020) provide a stimu-
lating learning experience with robotics in the learning of mathematics. Ahmad and
Junaini (2020) focused on augmented reality in the teaching and learning of math-
ematics. A systematic review was also conducted by Abebayehu and Hsiu-Ling
(2021) on the use of GeoGebra in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Even
though these studies focused on digital technology integration into the teaching and
learning of mathematics, they focused on mathematics in general. The current study
focuses on the integration of digital technologies into particular mathematics topics
geometry at secondary school level. To direct this systematic literature review, the
current study addressed the following research questions:

1. What is the trend of articles on the integration of technologies into geometry

teaching and learning from 2010 to 2022?
2. What are the leading technologies that have been integrated into the teaching
and learning of geometry?
3. What are the types of contributions made by the articles in terms of implemen-
tation, development and effectiveness in geometry teaching and learning?
4. What are the learning domains in the teaching and learning of geometry?
5. What are the research methods used to study technology integration in geome-
try teaching and learning?

4
 SUNZUMA (2023)

3 Methodology

A systematic search was conducted using the PRISMA specification that enables
transparent and comprehensive reporting of systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021).
Articles published in indexed journals are generally more systematically scrutinized
such that they have a greater impact on the area of study (Duman et al., 2015). In
this study, articles were searched from Education Resources Information Center
(ERIC) because it is a chief source of high quality indexed academic journals
(Akçayır & Akçayır, 2018). The search function was used and input the keywords
“Geometry” or “Secondary level” or “Teaching and Learning” or “Technology” and
“Information Communication Technology (ICT).”
The screening criteria excluded book chapters, books, conference proceed-
ings, systematic review articles, or books. The study focused on English-language
journal articles to avoid complex or uncertain translations. Journal articles pub-
lished between the years 2010 and 2022 focusing on secondary school level geome-
try teaching and learning and technology integration were included. From the
screening process, 873 articles were identified. To guarantee that all 873 articles fit
the study's selection criteria and objectives, each article's title, abstract, methodolo-
gy, results, and discussion were scrutinized. Ten articles were removed as they were
duplicates. 812 articles were rejected because of the following reasons; they did not
explain how technologies were integrated into the teaching and learning of geometry
at the secondary school level, not written in English and were books and confer-
ences. Another 32 articles were rejected because they focused on the teachers’ use of
technology only without the teaching and learning component. Finally, 29 articles
were included in the final stage of the review process as shown in Figure 1. Thematic
analysis was carried out to classify the themes related to the research trends and pat-
terns in the study. Useful data was extracted from the 29 articles that were used to
answer the research questions. The 29 articles used in this study were marked with
an asterisk in the list of references.

5
 LUMAT

Identification of studies via databases and registers

I
D
E Records removed before the
N Records identified from*: screening:
T Databases (n = 873) Duplicate records removed (n
I =10)
F
I
C
A
T Records excluded**
I (n =802)
O Records screened Focussed on primary level and
N (n =863) tertiary secondary school level
(n=750).
Studies not written in English
(n=20).
Books and conferences (n=32)

S
C
R
E Reports sought for retrieval Reports not retrieved
E (n = 61) (n =0)
N
I
N
G

Reports excluded:
Reports assessed for eligibility Focussed on teachers’ use of
(n =61) technology only without teaching
and learning component (n =32)

I
N
C
L
U Studies included in the review
D (n =29)
E
D

Figure 1. Systematic literature review procedure used in the study following concepts in Page, et al. (2021).

4 Results and Discussion

A search performed on the ERIC database resulted in 873 journal articles. Only 29
articles met the inclusion criteria. The findings of the systematic review are present-
ed under the following themes: trends of article publication; type of technologies;
type of contribution (development, implementation, and effectiveness), learning
domain and research approaches used to carry out the studies.

6
 SUNZUMA (2023)

4.1 Trends in article publication

The trend of the 29 published articles integrating different technologies into the
teaching and learning of geometry from 2010 to 2022 is shown in Figure 2. To com-
prehend the development of the research, the 29 articles were classified based on the
year of publication. There were no articles published in 2012 and 2017 (Figure 3).
There is a gradual increase in articles from 2013 to 2015 with the highest number of
seven articles recorded in 2015. The number of published articles remained relative-
ly consistent from 2021 to 2022. The general trend shows that some researchers fo-
cus on the integration of technology into the teaching and learning of geometry.
Such findings from the systematic review show that even though the articles were
very few in terms of number some progress has been made in the integration of
technology into the teaching and learning of geometry. Even though the trend is
moving upwards and downwards there is evidence that the issue of technology inte-
gration in geometry teaching and learning is progressively becoming an area of focus
that is getting numerous researchers’ attention.

Number of articles per year

8

6
number of articles

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Year

Figure 2. Number of articles per year.

7
 LUMAT

4.2 Types of technologies used

Different types of technologies were used in the teaching and learning of geometry
as shown in Figure 3. The majority of the studies used dynamic geometry software
with GeoGebra having a total of 10 articles, Cabri had two articles, multiuser dynam-
ic geometry, dynamic geometry general, and dynamic geometry of sketchpad each
having one article. The findings of the current review are in line with Abebayehu and
Hsiu-Ling (2021) who found out that GeoGebra is widely used in the teaching and
learning of geometry. Geometry is one of the most frequent mathematics topics that
integrate GeoGebra because of its potential to visualize abstract and difficult con-
cepts through many representations. Representations help students to understand
and make associations between geometry concepts. Visualization is not merely per-
tinent for illustrative purposes but is as well acknowledged as an essential compo-
nent of problem solving, reasoning and even proofs (Abebayehu & Hsiu-Ling, 2021).
Augmented Reality had the second largest number of four articles. Alt-
hough augmented reality has the second largest number of articles, a study by Ah-
mad and Junaini (2020) showed its wide use in the teaching and learning of geome-
try. Augmented reality in geometry teaching and learning provides students with an
interactive learning environment, increased understanding and retention as well as
enhanced visualization (Ahmad & Junaini, 2020). Computer animation package,
video-based cooperative, graphing calculator, micromedia flash, Powtoon anima-
tion, learning management system, interactive whiteboard, digital simulations-
applets, iPads and tablet device each had only one article. The limited use of such
digital technologies could be due to the lack of adequate and ample training for
teachers as observed by Dockendorff and Solar (2018) who reported that a lot of
teachers are inadequately prepared to incorporate digital technology into the math-
ematics curriculum.

8
 SUNZUMA (2023)

12
10
10

6
4
4
2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 3. Types of technologies used.

4.3 Types of contributions (Implementation, development, and effec-

tiveness)

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the types of contributions made by the articles to
the teaching and learning of geometry in terms of implementation, development and
effectiveness of technological tools for geometry learning. Twenty-one articles (73%)
focused on the effectiveness of technological tools in the teaching and learning of ge-
ometry (Gambari et al. 2014; Doğan & İçel, 2011; Ibili et al. 2020; Praveen & Kwan
Eu 2013; Gambari et al. 2016; Diaz-Nunja et al. 2018; Kandemir & Demirbag, 2019;
et al. 2019; Yani & Rosma, 2020; Mailizar., & Johar, 2021; Brito et al. 2021; Shaame
et al. 2020; Perry & Steck, 2015; Gómez-Chacón et al. 2016; Lin et al. 2014; Samur
Turk & Akyüz, 2016; Abdul Hanid et al. 2022; Viseu et al. 2022; Lin et al. 2015; Du-
roisin et al. 2015). The greatest number of articles focused on the effectiveness of the
technological tools as shown in Figure 4. Five articles (17%) focused on the imple-
mentation of technological tools in the teaching and learning of geometry (Ng & Sin-
clair, 2015; Lin et al. 2015; Prasad, 2016; Komatsu & Jones, 2020; Gülburnu, 2022).
Only three articles (10%) focused on development. Akmalia et al. (2021) developed
powtoon animation. Sherman and Cayton (2015) developed a framework for teach-
ing geometry using technology. Baccaglini-Frank and Mariotti (2010) developed a
dragging model for generating conjectures in dynamic geometry. The finding of this

9
 LUMAT

review disagrees with earlier findings by Ahmad and Junaini (2020) where the find-
ings showed that the major contribution of the articles reviewed was the develop-
ment of apps. In view of the fact that most of the articles in the current review fo-
cused on effectiveness, additional research on technology integration into the teach-
ing and learning of geometry other than effectiveness should be conducted even
more.

17%

10% implementation
development
effectiveness

73%

Figure 4. Types of contributions.

4.4 Learning domains

Technology integration into the teaching and learning of geometry had been classi-
fied based on Bloom's Revised Taxonomy of learning domains which includes the
cognitive domain, the affective domain, and the psychomotor domain (Krathwohl,
2002). The cognitive learning domain which includes the component of obtaining
knowledge from learning as well as the development of intellectual capabilities
through low to higher-order learning such as problem solving and learning perfor-
mance had ten articles (Gambari et al. 2014; Doğan & İçel, 2011; Lin et al. 2015;
Praveen & Kwan Eu, 2013; Gambari et al. 2016; Kandemir & Demirbag, 2019; Ade-
labu et al. 2019; Kaushal Kumar & Chun-Yen, 2015; Shaame et al. 2020; Samur Turk
& Akyüz, 2016). The articles revealed positive effects on student learning and
achievement. They found an increased achievement in geometry after using various
technologies. The study by Gómez-Chacón et al. (2016) shows that the use of dy-

10
 SUNZUMA (2023)

namic geometry affords students greater intellectual independence in geometrical

work, whilst Ibili et al. (2020) found out found that geometry teaching supported by
Augmented Reality increased the students' 3D thinking skills. A study by Fukawa-
Connelly and Silverman (2015) focused on the development of mathematical argu-
mentation in an unmoderated, asynchronous multi-user dynamic geometry envi-
ronment. The study showed that the students made progressively more in-depth and
mathematical descriptions of the data, developed more conceptual warrants, as well
as progressively behaved as if giving reasons was normative in the discussion.
The affective learning domain involves students’ feelings about learning,
for example, motivation and learning perceptions. Seven articles had issues to do
with the affective domain. The integration of technology into the teaching and learn-
ing of geometry improves students' motivation as mentioned in one study. The
study by Doğan and İçel (2011) has shown that the use of GeoGebra improves stu-
dents' motivation with a positive impact. Five studies (Samur Turk & Akyüz, 2016;
Gómez-Chacón et al. 2016; Gülburnu, 2022; Duroisin et al. 2015; Lin et al. 2015)
found the benefits of various technologies in developing students' positive attitudes
towards geometry learning. The study by Perry and Steck (2015) assessed the effect
of integrating iPads in geometry teaching on student engagement, self-efficacy, and
meta-cognitive self-regulation. The finding showed that the students who used the
iPad experienced higher levels of off-task behaviours and similar levels of self-
efficacy and meta-cognitive self-regulation as compared to the group that did not use
the iPad.
The psychomotor learning domain involves the manipulation or motor skill
area of learning such as spatial skills. The integration of technologies into the teach-
ing and learning of geometry enhances the spatial ability and visualization skills. The
study by Yani and Rosma (2020) showed an improvement in students' spatial ability
and visualization skills after the use of the macromedia flash. Abdul Hanid et al.
(2022) stated that Augmented Reality enhances students' visualization skills.
Meanwhile, technology has made geometry learning more interactive. Three studies
explained this benefit. Gómez-Chacón et al. (2016) stated that dynamic geometry
software affords interaction with the context that impacts learning opportunities in
geometric proofs; whilst Gülburnu (2022) was of the idea that Cabri 3D encourages
interaction through facilitating drawings and measurements. Duroisin et al. (2015)
stated that the use of the interactive whiteboard encourages interactions between
the students and has a positive effect on the efficiency of the learning sequence itself.

11
 LUMAT

A study by Gülburnu (2022) showed that Cabri 3D encourages the association of ge-
ometric knowledge about solids volume measurement with daily life by contributing
to conceptual and permanent learning. GeoGebra offers students an opportunity to
experiment and explore that result in improved results (Viseu et al. 2022).

4.5 Research Approaches used in the studies

Different research methods were employed in the 29 articles. The research findings
show that only three research approaches which are quantitative, qualitative and
mixed methods were used in the 29 articles as shown in Figure 5. The analysis re-
vealed that the majority of the studies reviewed (62%, n=18), (Gambari et al. 2014;
Doğan & İçel, 2011; Ibili et al. 2020; Praveen & Kwan Eu 2013; Gambari et al. 2016;
Diaz-Nunja et al. 2018; Kandemir & Demirbag, 2019; Adelabu et al. 2019; Yani &
Rosma, 2020; Mailizar., & Johar, 2021; Akmalia et al. 2021; Brito et al. 2021;
Shaame et al. 2020; Perry & Steck, 2015; Gómez-Chacón et al. 2016; Lin et al. 2014;
Samur Turk & Akyüz, 2016; Abdul Hanid et al. 2022) used quantitative research
methods. The quantitative methods were mainly empirical studies. According to
Yang et al. (2019), an empirical study is carried out to examine the cause-and-effect
relationship between independent and dependent variables under conditions of apt
control hence it is regarded as the most scientific method among all the experi-
mental research. The quantitative approach was mainly chosen as it put more em-
phasis on the objective measurement and analysis of numerical or statistical, data
collected through tests, surveys and questionnaires.
Seven studies (24%) of the reviewed studies used qualitative research
methods (Ng & Sinclair, 2015; Fukawa-Connelly & Silverman, 2015; Gülburnu,
2022; Sherman & Cayton, 2015; Prasad, 2016; Baccaglini-Fran &, Mariotti, 2010;
Komatsu & Jones, 2020). Qualitative research methods involve collecting and ana-
lyzing non-numerical data with the purpose of a better understanding of concepts,
views, or experiences. Case studies are employed to examine a phenomenon in-
depth as well as to understand particular situations and provide an in-depth analysis
(Olsson, 2018). For example, Gülburnu (2022) employed a case study that enabled
the researcher to investigate students' views on geometry teaching through the use
of the three-dimensional dynamic geometry software Cabri 3D.
Although mixed methods incorporate the benefits of both quantitative and
qualitative methods, the current systematic review showed that only four studies
(14%) used the mixed method research (Viseu et al. 2022; Kandemir & Demirbag,

12
 SUNZUMA (2023)

2019; Duroisin et al. 2015; Lin et al. 2015). Mixed methods are of use in understand-
ing inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative findings and they enhance
the problem by comparing the findings. For example, in a study by Viseu et al.
(2022), the quantitative method focused fundamentally on the characteristics of the
student's answers with regard to their level of correctness, whilst the qualitative
method focused as well on the students' answers but the intention to analyse the
reasons beyond such answers. Mixed method research fosters intellectual interac-
tion and flexibility since researchers would expand the distribution of data on tech-
nology integration into the teaching and learning of geometry.

0
14%

quantitative
qualitative
24%
mixed methods
62%

Figure 5. Research approaches used.

5 Conclusion and suggestions

The teaching and learning of geometry are challenging because most of the concepts
are abstract. One effective method of improving geometry learning is through tech-
nology integration into the teaching and learning process. Students can investigate,
solve, and explain geometrical concepts in different forms in a technology-rich envi-
ronment. The current review assists to understand a systematic and comprehensive
examination over the last twelve years of research in technology integration into the
teaching and learning of geometry at the secondary school level. In addition, an up-
dated analysis was provided that reveals learning and technological requirements for

13
 LUMAT

further studies to be conducted in the future. Restricted by the scope of the current
review findings were classified into themes such as publication trends, types of tech-
nologies used, types of contributions, learning domains and research methods.
Technology integration into the teaching and learning of geometry helps to ease the
process of learning.
The systematic review revealed that GeoGebra is widely used in the teaching
and learning of geometry followed by augmented reality. This review also found that
the most observed contribution of the articles is the effectiveness of technology inte-
gration into the teaching and learning process. It is important to be acquainted with
the extent of the effectiveness of technology integration into the teaching and learn-
ing of geometry to enable its wide application in the future if results in positive effec-
tiveness. In learning domains, the cognitive domain focused on students' learning
achievement and 3D thinking skills. The affective domain was based on assessing
student engagement, self-efficacy, meta-cognitive, motivation as well as perceptions.
The psychomotor domain focused on students' visualization skills, spatial ability and
interactive learning in geometry. The review reveals a clear outline of the often-used
research methods employed in the articles incorporated in this study. For example,
the quantitative research method was the most commonly used approach in articles
on technology integration in the teaching and learning of geometry, whilst mixed
methods had the least number of articles.

6 Limitation and Implications for Future Studies

The search terms used in the methodology are a limitation of this study. Only the
articles published in ERIC database were included in this study. Therefore, further
studies could be conducted using other databases. In addition, there is a need to
carry out more research on the negative side effects of using technology in the teach-
ing and learning of geometry.

References
Abebayehu Y., & Hsiu-Ling, C. (2021). GeoGebra in mathematics education: a systematic review of
journal articles published from 2010 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments, DOI:
10.1080/10494820.2021.2016861
Ahmad, N. I. N., & Junaini, S. N. (2020). Augmented Reality for Learning Mathematics: A
Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Emergency Technology learning,
15(16), 106–122

14
 SUNZUMA (2023)

Abd Rahim, F., Ujang, N., & Said, M. T. (2018). Geometri dan peranannya dalam reka bentuk ban
dar Islamik. Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 14(2), 82–96.
https://doi.org/10.17576/geo-2018--1402-07
*Abdul Hanid, M., Mohamad Said, M., & Yahaya, N. (2022). Effects of augmented reality

application integration with computational thinking in geometry topics. Education

Information Technology 27, 9485–9521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10994-w
*Adelabu, F. M, Makgato, M., and Ramaligela, M.S., (2019). The Importance of Dynamic Geometry

Computer Software on Learners’ Performance in Geometry. The Electronic Journal of e-

Learning, 17(1), 52–63
Ayan, R., & Isiksal Bostan, M. (2016). Middle School Students? Reasoning in Nonlinear
Proportional Problems in Geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 16, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9777-z
Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and
challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334–345.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021
*Akmalia, R., Fajriana; R., Nufus, H., & Wulandari, W. (2021). Development of powtoon animation

learning media in improving understanding of mathematical concept. Malikussaleh Journal

of Mathematics Learning, 4(2), 105–116.
*Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M.A. (2010). Generating Conjectures in Dynamic Geometry:
The Maintaining Dragging Model. International Journal Computer Mathematics
Learning 15, 225–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9169-3
Bergstrom, C., & Zhang, D. (2016). Geometry interventions for K-12 students with and without
disabilities: A research synthesis. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 134–
154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.04.004
*Brito, L. P., Almeida, L. S. & Osório, A. J. (2021). Seeing in believing: impact of digital simulation

pedagogical use in spatial geometry classes. International Journal of Technology in

Teaching and Learning, 17(2), 109–123
Christou, C., Pittalis, M., Mousoulides, N., & Jones, K. (2006). Developing the 3DMath dynamic
geometry software: theoretical perspectives on design. International Journal, 13, 168–174.
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/42114/
Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Thomas, M. (2020). Teaching with digital technology. ZDM
Mathematics Education, 52(7), 1223–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01196-0
*Diaz-Nunja, L., Rodríguez-Sosa, J., & Lingán, S.K. (2018). Teaching of Geometry with the

GeoGebra Software in High School Students of an Educational Institution in Lima,

Propósitos y Representaciones 6(2), 217–251. Doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2018.v6n2.251
Dockendorff, M., & Solar, H. (2018). ICT integration in mathematics initial teacher training and its
impact on visualization: The case of GeoGebra. International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, 49(1), 66–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2017.1341060
*Doğan, M. İçel, R. (2011). The role of dynamic geometry software in the process of learning:

GeoGebra example about triangles International Journal of Human Sciences, 8(1).

Available: http://www.InsanBilimleri.com/En
*Duroisin, N., Temperman, G., & De Lièvre, B (2015). Restrict or Share the Use of the Interactive

Whiteboard? The Consequences on the Perception, the Learning Processes and the
Performance of Students within a Learning Sequence on Dynamic Geometry. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 144–154
Duman, G., Orhon, G., & Gedik, N. (2015). Research trends in mobile assisted language learning
from 2000 to 2012. ReCALL, 27(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000287

15
 LUMAT

*Fukawa-Connelly, T., & Silverman, J. (2015). The development of mathematical argumentation in

an unmoderated, asynchronous multi-User dynamic geometry environment. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(4), 445–488.
*Gambari, A.I., Falode, C.O., & Adegbenro, D. (2014). Effectiveness of Computer Animation and

Geometrical Instructional Model on Mathematics Achievement and Retention among Junior

Secondary School Students. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2,
127–146.
*Gambari, A.I., Shittu, A. T., Daramola, F. O., & James, M. (2016). Effects Of Video-Based

Cooperative, Competitive And Individualized Instructional Strategies On The Performance

Of Senior Secondary Schools Students In Geometry. Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Sciences, 4(4), 31–47
*Gómez-Chacón, I.M., Romero Albaladejo, I.M. & del Mar García López, M. (2016). Zig-zagging in

geometrical reasoning in technological collaborative environments: a Mathematical Working

Space-framed study concerning cognition and affect. ZDM Mathematics Education 48, 909–
924 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0755-2
*Gülburnu, M. (2022). Secondary School Students' Views on Geometry Teaching via Three-

Dimensional Dynamic Geometry Software Cabri 3D: Solid Volume Measurement.

International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 14(1), 1088–1105
Gutiérrez, A. (1996). Visualization in 3-dimensionalgeometry: In search of a framework. In L. Puig,
and A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th PME Conference (pp. 56-79).
Hollebrands, K.F., & Okumuş, S. (2018). Secondary mathematics teachers’ instrumental
integration in technology-rich geometry classrooms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
49, 82–94.
Horsman, R., (2019). International perspectives on the teaching and learning of geometry in
secondary schools. Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 96–100.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2018.1531055
Hwang, W.-Y., Su, J.-H., Huang, Y.-M., & Dong, J.-J. (2009). A Study of Multi-Representation of
Geometry Problem solving with virtual manipulatives and whiteboard system. Educational
Technology & Society, 12 (3), 229–247.
*İbili, E., Çat, M., Resnyansky, D., Şahin, S., & Billinghurst, M. (2020). An assessment of geometry

teaching supported with augmented reality teaching materials to enhance students’ 3D

geometry thinking skills, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology, 51(2), 224–246
Jones, K. (2000), Critical Issues in the Design of the Geometry Curriculum. In Bill Barton (Ed).
Readings in mathematics education (pp. 75-90). Auckland, New Zealand.
Jones, K. & Tzekaki, M. (2016). Research on the teaching and learning of geometry. In A Gutiérrez,
GC Leder & P Boero (eds). The second handbook of research on the psychology of
mathematics education: The journey continues. Rotterdam, The Netherlands
*Kandemir, M.A., & Demirbag Keskin, P. (2019). Effect of graphing calculator program supported

problem solving instruction on mathematical achievement and attitude. International

Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(1), 203–223.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuzniak, A. (2018). Thinking about the teaching of geometry through the lens of the theory of
geometric working spaces. In P Herbst, U Cheah, P Richard & K Jones (eds). International
perspectives on the teaching and learning of 12 Smith, Julie, Gierdien geometry in secondary
schools. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-77476-3_2

16
 SUNZUMA (2023)

*Kaushal, K., & Chun-Yen, C. (2015). Incorporating GeoGebra into Geometry Learning - A Lesson
from India. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 77–
86
Klančar, A., Cotič, M., & Žakelj, A. (2019). Učenje in poučevanje geometrije z uporabo
informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije v osnovni šoli [Learning and teaching geometry
using ICT in elementary school]. Založba Univerze na Primorskem.
https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-7055-63-4
*Komatsu, K., & Jones, K. (2020). Interplay between Paper-and-Pencil Activity and Dynamic-

Geometry-Environment Use during Generalisation and Proving. Digital Experiences in

Mathematics Education, 2020(6), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-020-00067-3
Lee, H. S., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2006). Students’ use of technological features while solving a
mathematics problem. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(3), 252–266.
*Lin, H, K., Chen, M., & Chang, K. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of learning solid geometry by

using an augmented reality assisted learning system. Interactive Learning Environments,

23(6), 799–810.
*Lin, J.R. H., & Lin, S.S.J. (2014). Cognitive load for configuration comprehension in computer-

supported geometry problem solving: An eye movement perspective. International Journal

of Science and Mathematics Education 2014(12), 605–627 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-
013-9479-8
*Mailizar., & Johar, R. (2021). Examining Students’ Intention to Use Augmented Reality in a

Project-Based Geometry Learning Environment. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2),

773–790.
Mohamed, M. Z., Hidayat, R., Suhaizi, N. N., Sabri, N. M., Mahmud, M. K. H., & Baharuddin, S.
N. (2022). Artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A systematic literature review.
International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(3),
Mensah, J. Y., & Nabie, M. J. (2021). The effect of PowerPoint instruction on high school students’
achievement and motivation to learn geometry. International Journal of Technology in
Education (IJTE), 4(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.55
NCTM. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston: National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
*Ng, O., & Sinclair, N. (2015). Area Without Numbers”: Using Touchscreen Dynamic Geometry to
Reason About Shape. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and technology Education.
15(1), 84–101
Nursyahidah, F., Saputro, B, A., & Prayito, M. (2016). Kemampuan Penalaran Matematis Siswa
SMP dalam Belajar Garis dan Sudut dengan GeoGebra. Suska Journal of Mathematics
Education, 2(1), 13–19
Olsson, J. (2018). The contribution of reasoning to the utilization of feedback from software when
solving mathematical problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 16(4), 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9795-x
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D.,
Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.
M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S.,
McGuinness, L. A., Stewart A.L., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch. V. A., Whiting, P., &
Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting
systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
*Perry, D. R., & Steck, A. K. (2015). Increasing Student Engagement, Self-Efficacy, and Meta-

Cognitive Self-Regulation in the High School Geometry Classroom: Do iPads

Help? Computers in the Schools, 32(2), 122–143, DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2015.1036650

17
 LUMAT

Petrus, Z., Karmila., & Riady, A. (2017). Deskripsi Kemampuan Geometri Siswa SMP Berdasarkan
Teori Van Hiele. Pedagogy, 2(1), 145–160
*Praveen, S., & Kwan Eu, L. ( 2013). Effectiveness of Using GeoGebra on Students' Understanding

in Learning Circles. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(4) 1–11

*Prasad, P. V. (2016). Leveraging Interactive Geometry Software to Prompt Discussion.

Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 22(4), 226–233.

https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.22.4.0226
*Samur Turk, H., & Akyüz, D. (2016). The Effects of Using Dynamic Geometry on Eighth Grade

Students’ Achievement and Attitude towards Triangles. International Journal for

Technology in Mathematics Education, 95–102. https://hdl.handle.net/11511/35759
Septia, T., Prahmana, R. C. I., Pebrianto, & Wahyu, R. (2018). Improving Students Spatial
Reasoning with Course LAB. Journal on Mathematics Education, 9(2), 327–336
*Shaame, A.A., Anatory, J., Osaki, K.M., & Mrutu, S.I. (2020). Exploring a Learning Management
System as a Way to Improve Students’ Understanding of Geometry in Secondary
Schools. Africa Education Review, 17, 17–40.
*Sherman, M. F., & Cayton, C. (2015). Using appropriate tools strategically for instruction.

Mathematics Teacher, 109(4), 306–310.

Sutiarso, S., Coesamin, M., & Nurhanurawati. (2018). The effect of various media scaffolding on
increasing understanding of geometry concepts in elementary school students. Journal on
Mathematics Education, 9(1), 95–102.
Tay, M. K, & Mensah-Wonkyi, T. (2018). Effect of using GeoGebra on senior high school students’
performance in circle theorems. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and
Sciences, 14, 1–17
*Viseu, F., Rocha, H., & Monteiro, J. M. (2022). Rethinking Digital Technology versus Paper and

Pencil in 3D Geometry. Journal of Learning for Development, 9(2), 267–278

*Yani, M., & Rosma, F. (2020). Improving Students' Spatial Ability by Using Macromedia Flash on

Geometry Materials. Malikussaleh Journal of Mathematics Learning, 3(1), 18–22

Yang, Q.F., Lin, C. J., & Hwang, G.J. (2019). Research focuses and findings of flipping
mathematics classes: A review of journal publications based on the technology-enhanced
learning model. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(4), 1–34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1602842
Žakelj, A., & Klančar, A. (2022). The role of visual representations in geometry learning. European
Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 1393–1411. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-
jer.11.3.1393
Zhong, B., & Xia, L. (2020). A systematic review on exploring the potential of educational robotics
in mathematics education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
18(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/

18