Research Article

Development and validation of my online teaching with GeoGebra (MyOT_G+) kit on mathematical reasoning among pre-university students

Raihan Zainudin 1 , Hutkemri Zulnaidi 2 * , Nofouz Mafarja 2 , Mohd Zahurin Mohamed Kamali 3
More Detail
1 Center for Foundation Studies in Science, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA2 Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA3 Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(2), April 2025, ep569, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15989
Published Online: 18 February 2025, Published: 01 April 2025
OPEN ACCESS   2186 Views   1351 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Traditional rote learning methods often fail to adequately develop reasoning skills in mathematics, particularly among pre-university students. This study addresses challenges in fostering mathematical reasoning abilities, as evidenced by declining TIMSS results and resistance to pedagogical innovations. My online teaching with GeoGebra (MyOT_G+) kit was developed as a technology-enhanced teaching solution to improve students’ understanding of propositional logic. Grounded in constructivist theory, the kit integrates GeoGebra software and Venn diagrams for an interactive learning experience, focusing on subtopics such as De Morgan’s laws, conditional, converse, inverse, contrapositive, and biconditional statements. Using the design and development research approach and the ADDIE model, the study combined qualitative and quantitative methods. Phase 1 involved interviews with five mathematics lecturers and five pre-university students in Kuala Lumpur to identify instructional needs. Phase 2 focused on designing and validating the MyOT_G+ kit with input from 13 experts. Findings revealed the kit’s user-friendliness, adaptability, and ability to reduce cognitive load, facilitating a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts. This study highlights the potential of integrating technology into mathematics education, offering scalable solutions for improving reasoning skills in pre-university contexts. The MyOT_G+ kit provides evidence that interactive, visual tools enhance comprehension of complex topics, with implications for pre-university education and teacher training programs.
Keywords: online teaching, GeoGebra, MyOT_G+ kit, propositional logic, mathematical reasoning

CITATION (APA)

Zainudin, R., Zulnaidi, H., Mafarja, N., & Mohamed Kamali, M. Z. (2025). Development and validation of my online teaching with GeoGebra (MyOT_G+) kit on mathematical reasoning among pre-university students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(2), ep569. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15989

REFERENCES

  1. Aravantinos, S., Lavidas, K., Voulgari, I., Papadakis, S., Karalis, T., & Komis, V. (2024). Educational approaches with AΙ in primary school settings: A systematic review of the literature available in Scopus. Education Sciences, 14(7), Article 744. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070744
  2. Aréchiga Maravillas, J. C., Díaz, S. A., Salazar-Torres, J., & Andrade, D. A. S. (2019). Testing GeoGebra as an effective tool to improve the understanding of the concept of limit on engineering students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1408, Article 012008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1408/1/012008
  3. Beno, M. (2019). The implications of the industrial revolutions for higher education. In Proceedings of the TAKE 2019 Conference.
  4. Brodie, K. (2010). Teaching mathematical reasoning in secondary school classrooms. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09742-8
  5. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
  7. EduAdvisor. (2019). Find & compare the best pre-university programmes in Malaysia. EduAdvisor. https://eduadvisor.my/pre-university-programmes/
  8. Fariha, N. F., & Lestari, H. P. (2019). Construction of dandelion sphere on definition of conics using GeoGebra classic 5. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1320, Article 012085. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012085
  9. Fatimah, A. T. (2019). The creativity of pre-service mathematics teachers in designing GeoGebra-assisted mathematical task. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1280, 042026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1280/4/042026
  10. Fisk, P. (2017). Education 4.0 … the future of learning will be dramatically different, in school and throughout life. Peter Fisk. https://www.peterfisk.com/2017/01/future-education-young-everyone-taught-together/
  11. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  12. Geteregechi, J. M. (2020). Investigating middle school students’ mathematical reasoning in connected in-school and out-of-school context [PhD dissertation, Syracuse University].
  13. Hasbullah, N. A., Fabil, N., Yusoff, A. M., & Azmi, A. S. (2022). Adapting a design and development research (DDR) approach in designing the mobile application model for Tarentum subject. Advances in Humanities and Contemporary Studies, 3(2), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.30880/ahcs.2022.03.02.018
  14. Hassan, J., & Arifin, J. (2011). Pembinaan instrumen penilaian untuk menilai perisian CDROM Interaktif (CDRI) matapelajaran fizik sekolah menengah kebangsaan [Construction of an evaluation instrument to evaluate the Interactive CDROM [CDRI] software for physics subjects in national secondary schools]. Journal of Science & Mathematics Education UTM.
  15. Hernawati, K., & Surjono, H. D. (2019). Improving trigonometry learning motivation using GeoGebra-assisted guided discovery student worksheet (GDSW). Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1320, Article 012082. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1320/1/012082
  16. Hussin, A. A. (2018). Education 4.0 made simple: Ideas for teaching. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(3), Article 92. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.3p.92
  17. Ic, U., & Tutak, T. (2018). Correlation between computer and mathematical literacy levels of 6th grade students. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.1.63
  18. Jackson, S. L. (2010). Research methods: A modular approach (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.
  19. Karakose, T., Polat, H., Yirci, R., Tülübaş, T., Papadakis, S., Ozdemir, T. Y., & Demirkol, M. (2023). Assessment of the relationships between prospective mathematics teachers’ classroom management anxiety, academic self-efficacy beliefs, academic amotivation and attitudes toward the teaching profession using structural equation modelling. Mathematics, 11(2), Article 449. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11020449
  20. Karakose, T., Tülübaş, T., & Papadakis, S. (2022). Revealing the intellectual structure and evolution of digital addiction research: An integrated bibliometric and science mapping approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), Article 14883. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214883
  21. Khan, N., Khan, S., Tan, B. C., & Loon, C. H. (2021). Driving digital competency model towards IR 4.0 in Malaysia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1793, Article 012049. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1793/1/012049
  22. Lase, D. (2019). Education and Industrial Revolution 4.0. Jurnal Handayani, 10(1), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.24114/jh.v10i1.14138
  23. Layco, E. P. (2022). Mathematics Education 4.0: Teachers’ competence and skills’ readiness in facing the impact of Industry 4.0 on education. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(2), 1233–1259.
  24. Lewin, C. (2005). Elementary quantitative methods. In B. Somekh, & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 215–225). SAGE.
  25. Lim, C. H. (2007). Penyelidikan pendidikan: Pendekatan kuantitatif dan kualitatif [Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches]. McGraw-Hill.
  26. LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2013). Reliability and validity. In G. LoBiondo, & J. Haber (Eds.), Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (pp. 289–309). Mosby.
  27. Lommatsch, C. W. (2018). Learning logic: A mixed methods study to examine the effects of context ordering on reasoning about conditionals. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(5), 730–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1626502
  28. Mashoedah, M., Hartmann, M., Herman, D. S., & Zamroni. (2020). Developing instructional media integrated with learning style instrument for industrial electronics study programs of vocational high schools. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1456, Article 012044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1456/1/012044
  29. Ministry of Education of Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025. PMO. https://www.pmo.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Malaysia-Education-Blueprint-2013-2025.pdf
  30. Mohd Kamaruzaman, F., Hamid, R., Mutalib, A. A., & Rasul, M. S. (2019). Comparison of engineering skills with IR 4.0 skills. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 15(10), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v15i10.10879
  31. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons.
  32. Morsanyi, K., & Szücs, D. (2015). The link between mathematics and logical reasoning: Implications for research and education. In S. Chinn (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of dyscalculia and mathematical learning difficulties (pp. 101–114). Routledge.
  33. Negahban, H., Mazaheri, M., Salavati, M., Sohani, S. M., Askari, M., Fanian, H., & Parnianpour, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of the foot and ankle outcome score: A validation study from Iran. Clinical Rheumatology, 29, 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-009-1344-3
  34. 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
  35. Padzil, M. R., Karim, A. A., & Husnin, H. (2021). Employing DDR to design and develop a flipped classroom and project based learning module to applying design thinking in design and technology. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 12(9), 791–798. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2021.0120988
  36. Papadakis, S. (2023). Choosing the best educational apps for young children: What parents and educators need to know. In Desafíos de la inclusión digital: La brecha digital de género y las competencias digitales docentes en el contexto educativo (pp. 77–94). Octaedro.
  37. Poyner, A. (2018). Mathematical literacy and the secondary student [Senior honor thesis, University of New orleans].
  38. Rashidi, M. N., Ara Begum, R., Mokhtar, M., & Pereira, J. J. (2014). The conduct of structured interviews as research implementation method. Journal of Advanced Research Design, 1(1), 28–34.
  39. Ricco, R. B. (2015). The development of reasoning in children. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Vol. II. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418
  40. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies and issues. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826034
  41. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2014). Design and development research. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 141–149). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5
  42. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2014). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Routledge.
  43. Rizki, L. M., & Priatna, N. (2019). Mathematical literacy as the 21st century skill. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157, Article 042088. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/4/042088
  44. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs: For generalized causal inference. Cengage Learning.
  45. Suruchi, S., & Rana, S. (2014). Test item analysis and relationship between difficulty level and discrimination index of test items in an achievement test in biology. PIJR, 3(6), 56–58. https://doi.org/10.15373/22501991/June2014/18
  46. Triwahyuningtyas, D., Rahayu, S., & Agustin, W. D. (2019). The impact of GeoGebra classic application on learning geometry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1381, Article 012033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1381/1/012033
  47. Tuckman, B. W., & Waheed, M. A. (1981). Evaluating an individualized science programme for community college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(6), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660180603
  48. Tülübaş, T., Karakose, T., & Papadakis, S. (2023). A holistic investigation of the relationship between digital addiction and academic achievement among students. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(10), 2006–2034. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13100143
  49. Velichová, D. (2011). Interactive maths with GeoGebra. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 6, 31–35. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v6iS1.1620
  50. Velleman, D. J. (1994). How to prove it: A structured approach. Cambridge University Press.
  51. Wahid, N. T. A. (2019). Development of a problem-solving multimedia module and its effectiveness to enhance student performance in form four biology [PhD thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia].
  52. Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2009). Research methods in education: An introduction. Pearson.
  53. Wilkinson, D., & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using research instruments: A guide for researchers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203422991
  54. Zulnaidi, H. (2013). Pembangunan dan keberkesanan modul perisian GeoGebra ke atas pengetahuan konseptual dan pengetahuan prosedural matematik pelajar sekolah menengah atas (SMA) [Development and effectiveness of GeoGebra software module on conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge of mathematics of senior secondary school (SMA) students]. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
  55. Zulnaidi, H., & Zakaria, E. (2019). Teknologi GeoGebra dalam pengajaran matematik [GeoGebra technology in teaching mathematics]. UKM Press.