852

A Conceptual Paper on The Effect of Teaching using GeoGebra on Year

2 Dual Language Programme (DLP) Pupils ’ Achievement in learning

Shape and Space

Ziham Zawawi Bin Mazlan,

SK Seberang Jaya, Penang

ABSTRACT

This is a conceptual paper to study the effect of teaching using GeoGebra on Year 2

pupils’ achievement. The study reviews on literature of the van Hiele Theory of geometric

thinking as proposed by Pierre and Dina van Hiele. The paper goes on to analyse five phases

learning or phase-based instruction which are needed to be used in teaching geometry after

determining learners’ van Hiele level of geometric thinking. Studies from Pavethira , Rohaidah

et al., Nazihatulhasanah and Nurbiha, Leong, Shadaan, and Kamariah et al. were analysed and

discussed throughout the paper in the context of how effective is GeoGebra in helping learners

in learning geometry from various level of education. Achievement is the focused perspective

that has been analysed for this conceptual paper. Learner’s achievement in learning geometry

can be understand using van Hiele level of geometric thinking. A deep analysis on TIMSS 2015

was used to acquire literatures on the topic. The method for conducting future research on the

effect of teaching using GeoGebra on Year 2 pupils’ achievement in learning shape and space

is provided. The finding of the paper includes effect of teaching using GeoGebra on Year 2

pupils’ achievement in learning shape and space. In conclusion, using GeoGebra in teaching

various levels of education such as the primary level, should be taken into consideration. The

paper ends with recommendations on future research on how GeoGebra can enhance pupils’

learning in geometry from various other aspect.

Keywords: GeoGebra, learning geometry, phase-based instruction,

Introduction

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study or TIMSS has been conducted by

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Up until now, five

cycles have been done among 50 countries including Malaysia. Malaysia has participated on all five

cycles which are TIMSS 1999, TIMSS 2003, TIMSS 2007, TIMSS 2011 and the latest TIMSS 2015.

The reason why Malaysia participated in this study is to evaluate Science and Mathematics education

that have been carried out in Malaysia (Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan,

2016). The input collected from this study will then be used to improve Malaysia ’s curriculum, teaching

and learning process in the classroom and evaluation. Based on TIMSS 2015 report, Malaysia has

improved its score as compared to TIMSS 2011 study. Malaysia has gained 465 points, an increment

of 25 points compared to 440 points in TIMSS 2011.

E01

853

Figure 1.1 Trends in Mathematics achievement for Malaysian 8 graders.

Source: Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Hooper (2015), p.2 (Exhibit 1.6)

However, Malaysia ’s average scale score for 2015 in overall mathematics score is still

low as compared score for 2007, 2003 and 1999. In this study, TIMSS divided evaluation into

two sections which are cognitive domain and content domain. In content domain, 20% of its

item is Geometry; while the other three topics are Number, Algebra and Data and Probability.

In TIMSS 2015, Malaysian students managed to score 455 points for Geometry domain. Even

though that number hiked up as much as 5.324% as compared to TIMSS 2011, in which

Malaysia 8 graders managed to score only 432 points. This score is still 4.00% below the

score in TIMSS 2007. Table 1.2 shows the difference in achievement of mathematics content

domains for geometry across assessment years for 8 grade students.

Figure 1.2. Trends in Mathematics achievement for Malaysian 8 graders in geometry

Domain.

Source: Mullis et al. (2015)

Based on the two figures shown previously, even the scores for TIMSS 2015 shows a

significant improvement, the score is still lower than TIMSS 2007. This leads to other findings

854

from TIMSS 2015 report where the use of computer-based activities during mathematics

lessons in Malaysian classroom is low as compared to the international average. Going deeper

in this report, only 10% of Malaysia 8 graders agreed to the statement that computers are

available for them to use during mathematics lessons. Table 1.1 shows percentage of students

whose teachers have them use computers at least monthly.

Table 1.1 The use of

computer during mathematics lessons

Reis (2010) suggested, to help learners to understand mathematical concepts, teachers

need to attract the pupils’ attention. Therefore, teachers need materials that attract their

attention. As suggested by many studies, the use of technology is effective to enhance students’

achievement in mathematics. Thus, which technology is the most effective one to assist

students’ activities in learning mathematics? A few studies conducted, proved that computer is

effective to enhance student ’s achievement in learning mathematics (Chew, 2009; Chew &

Lim, 2013; Pacemska, 2012; Pavethira & Leong, 2017; Reis, 2010).

Using technology in learning does give positive impact in constructing students’

knowledge and understanding (Noorbaizura & Leong, 2013). By using technology,

mathematical visualization can be carried out. To achieve deep understanding, visualization

cannot be isolated from the rest of mathematics. Students must know how ideas can be

represented symbolically, numerically, and graphically, and vice-versa between these modes

(Zimmerman & Cunningham, 1991). Even though the effect of using computer is proven, yet,

computer activities during mathematics lessons is still low in Malaysia. This will affect the

students’ achievement because computer provides access to wider resources. Based on TIMSS

2015 report, 66% of students are affected because of mathematics resource shortages, 6% of

students are affected a lot and only 27% students are not affected because of this scenario

(Mullis et al, 2015).

Since 2013, the new curriculum for primary school or Kurikulum Standard Sekolah

Rendah (KSSR) undertaken to replace Integrated Curriculum for Primary School or Kurikulum

Bersepadu Sekolah Rendah (KBSR); this new curriculum encompassed few topics that are yet

to be taught in primary school before. For example, coordinates, geometry and data handling.

Computer activities during Mathematics Lessons

(As reported by teacher)

Malaysia (%)

International average (%)

To explore Mathematics principles and concepts.

6 21

To practice skills and procedures. 5 23

To look up ideas and information. 5 22

To process and analyse data. 4 19

855

Since its insertion in primary school curriculum, geometry has been taught as early from Year

One. Even though many studies have been conducted and proved that it can enhance pupils’

achievement in mathematics, however there is still not many study has been conducted to

comprehend how technology can enhance pupils’ achievement in primary school in learning

geometry especially for the topic of shape and space in Malaysia.

Thus, a further study need to be conducted to discover how technology can enhance

pupils’ achievement in learning geometry within Malaysian primary school setting. Result

from TIMSS 2015 in geometry for 8 graders still cannot suppress the score in TIMSS 2007,

thus it reflects on how Malaysian students still having problem in achievement in learning

geometry. Thus, something is needed to be done to overcome this problem before it gets

worsen. In this study, GeoGebra is selected to be used as it has been proven by many studies

where it can help learners to enhance their achievement (Dayi, 2015; Dikovic, 2009; Farida

Nursyahidah et al., 2016; Kamariah et al., 2010; Lee, 2011; Leong, 2015; Mihailova, 2014;

Nazihatulhasanah & Nurbiha, 2015; Pavethira & Leong, 2017; Rohaidah, Ting, Nor’ain,

Zamzana & Raja Lailatul Zuraida, 2016; Shadaan & Leong, 2013) in learning mathematics.

Inquiry Questions

This conceptual paper is intended to identify and understand on the effectiveness of

GeoGebra on Year 2 pupils’ achievement in learning shape and space. Therefore, the inquiry

questions for this paper are:

1. Is there a significant effect of teaching using GeoGebra on year 2 pupils’ achievement

in learning shape and space?

2. What are Year 2 pupils’ feedback of learning shape and space using GeoGebra?

3. What are teachers ’ feedback of teaching shape and space using GeoGebra?

The answer to the inquiry questions will be based on an extended review and analysis

of literature.

Significance of the Inquiry

This conceptual paper is significant because it will explore the effects of teaching using

GeoGebra on primary pupils’ achievement in learning shape and space. This paper will

examine thess effect and make recommendation for future research.

Summary of Theoretical Framework

The essence of this study is based on Van Hiele’s Levels of Geometric Thinking. As this

study is a quasi-experimental study, there are two groups of pupils involved in this study, they

are experimental group and control group. For experimental group, pupils will have to undergo

a series of learning activities which are designed with Phased- based learning (of van Hiele ’s

levels of geometric thinking). On the contrary, the control group will have to undergo the

conventional instruction. Before conducting the intervention involving the designated theories

and selected teaching method, teachers need to determine on which van Hiele levels of

geometric thinking are their pupils are in. Then, phase-based learning will be used to design

856

suitable lesson activity to cater pupils’ level of geometric thinking.

857

Limitations

This conceptual paper is limited by several elements. Firstly, this paper relies on the

data collected by other researchers previously due to the inability to collect data on my own.

Secondly, all the literature for the topics were not explored due to time constraints. Thirdly, the

future findings of this study are not representing pupils from Malaysian primary school. In

Malaysian primary school setting, government school can be divided into two types, which are

National Primary School or Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) and Vernacular Primary School or

Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (SJK) which comprising SJK(C) for Chinese vernacular Primary

School and SJK(T) for Tamil Vernacular Primary School.

Analysis and Discussion of the Literature

This section will explore the related theories involving The van Hiele Theory and Five

Phases of Learning and literature on how teaching using GeoGebra effects Year 2 pupils in

learning shape and space.

Literature on the Related Theories

The van Hiele Theory

At first, the van Hiele Theory of geometric thinking has been proposed by the Dutch

educators Pierre and Dina van Hiele which explains the development of human geometric

thinking in response to difficulties learners encountered (Watson, 2012). Van Hiele’s theory

has been used by many researchers as the basis for their research on students’ reasoning

(Perdikaris, 1996). The essence of this model is the idea of each level has its own language and

symbols, that a learning process is a reasoning using a new mathematical language, and the

levels are hierarchical (Wang & Kinzel, 2014).

According to van Hiele (1986) cited in Wang and Kinzel (2014), “… the model suggest

that students must progress through a sequence of discrete, qualitatively different levels of

geometric thinking. The first four levels in the model are as follows: Level 1 (Visualisation),

in which students recognize and learn the name of figures, and figures are judged by their

appearance as a whole; Level 2 (Descriptive), in which students begin to recognize figures by

their properties or component; Level 3 (Theoretical), where students begin to form definitions

of figures based on their common properties and understand some proofs; and Level 4 (Formal

Logic), in which students understand the meaning of deduction and construct mathematical

proofs using propositions, axioms and theorems” (p. 289).

A new revised version of van Hiele levels of geometric thinking has been proposed.

Hourigan and Leavy (2017) explained that there are five levels of geometric thinking. At the

first level or Level 0, the visual level (also called Visualization or Recognition) learners

recognize figures judging them solely on overall appearance. At Level 1, the descriptive level

(or Analysis) students were able to identify a figure’s properties. For Level 2, the informal

deductive level (Ordering), students were able to logically order the properties that have been

discerned. At Level 3, formal deduction (Deduction or Formal Logic) students were able

established theorems within an axiomatic system. For the uppermost level, Level 4, the meta-

mathematical level (Rigour), students were able to manipulate geometric statement such as

858

axioms, definitions, and theorems, and compare axiomatic sys

859

Figure 2.1: Van Hiele hierarchy of geometric thinking

Source: Hourigan & Leavy (2017), p.348

Van Hiele (1999) suggested that each thinking level must be conquered sequentially,

and learner’s discernment is essential to make sure they were able to achieve learning

objectives stated. Van Hiele (1999) also proposed that students’ progression from one level to

one level is more dependent on instruction and learning than age or biological maturation. In

order to have a more complete view of students’ reasoning, we should take into account their

capacity to use each one of the van Hiele levels, rather than assign a single level (Gutierrez et

al, 1991 cited in Perdikaris, 1996). Thus, in planning a lesson activity comprising geometric

thinking, teachers need to determine their students’ level of geometric thinking in order to have

a more effective learning activity that cater student’s needs thus those planned activities were

able to scaffold the students achieving learning objectives.

Five Phases of Learning

Furthermore, to help pupils to move from one level to another level, five phases of

learning or phase-based instruction is needed to be used (Chew & Lim, 2013). According to

van Hiele (1999), there are five phases of learning which are Phase 1 (Inquiry), Phase 2 (Guided

orientation), Phase 3 (Explicitation), Phase 4 (Free orientation) and Phase 5 (Integration). In

Phase 1 (Inquiry), the pupils examined examples and non-examples geometrical shapes (Chew

& Lim, 2013). The second phase or Phase 2 (Guided orientation) pupils actively explore the

topic of study by doing short (often one-step) tasks designed to elicit specific responses. These

steps help students acquaint themselves with the objects from which geometric ideas ae

abstracted (Chew, 2009; p. 93). Phase 3 (Explicitation) is a phase where pupils learn to express

their opinion about the structures observed during class discussions. Pupils at this phase can

express their ideas about objects of the study in their own words. Phase 4 (Free orientation) is

a phase where teacher challenges students with more complex tasks that can be completed in

different ways (Chew, 2009; p. 93). Teacher at this phase will encourage pupils to solve and

860

elaborate complex tasks and its solution strategies. The last phase which is Phase 5 (Integration)

pupils will be able to summarise what they have learned about the objects of study with the

goal of creating an overview of the topic (Chew, 2009).

How does Teaching using GeoGebra effects Year 2 Pupils in Learning Shape and Space?

Achievement

Pavethira and Leong (2017) have conducted a study to ascertain the effects of semi-

concrete tools (GeoGebra) on geometry performance. An experimental research method has

been conducted with a total of 24 Year One students from an international school in Malaysia.

The sample selected were taught and learnt by using GeoGebra software after the pre-test. After

post-test, a paired sample t-test was conducted, and the results indicated a significant difference

between pre-test and post-test. ANOVA also was conducted to test the influence of gender and

ability level on student performance in geometrical reflection. In conclusion, Pavethira &

Leong found that using Geogebra in geometrical studies enhances students’ performance and

it also help them to build and develop their geometry knowledge and explore the concept more

in detail.

Rohaidah, Ting, Nor’ain, Zamzana and Raja Lailatul Zuraida (2016) have conducted a

quasi-experimental of non-equivalent pre-posttest control group design study to comprehend

Malaysian Form Four students’ performance and attitudes in a secondary school in Sibu,

Sarawak in learning Circle III topic by using GeoGebra. The data then analyzed using one-way

ANCOVA and one sample t-test which given conclusion that there was no significant

difference between mean performance scores of students in experimental and control groups.

However, the Attitude Questionnaire shows that sample have shown positive attitudes towards

using GeoGebra while learning Circle III topic.

Nazihatulhasanah and Nurbiha (2015) have conducted a quasi-experimental study

which involved 62 of Form 4 students in Malaysia where students were divided into two groups

of the experimental group and the control group. This study was aimed to prove the extent to

which technology tools can impact the teaching and learning of Mathematics. The experimental

group is the group where students are taught about how to use GeoGebra to solve statistics

problem. Meanwhile, the control group was given statistics problem to be solved without using

GeoGebra. Based on Mann-Whitney U test, the difference in the mean scores for the two test

results for the two groups of students shows that experimental group performed better than the

control group. Nazihatulhasanah and Nurbiha (2015) emphasized that the use of GeoGebra

software has positive impact on students’ achievement in Mathematics. Thus, it is suggested

that the increment in students’ achievement test scores are likely due to the fact that students

are attracted to learn if technology is being implemented.

Leong (2015) has conducted an exploratory case study research design where 24 Form

Four students from a secondary school in Selangor have been chosen. His study was to

comprehend the effect of instruction using GeoGebra on s tudents’ motivation in learning

combined transformation. Transformation Geometry test (TGT) was employed to access

students’ achievement before and after intervention. Results from paired -samples t-test

indicated significant differences in students’ achiev ement (t = -10.025, df = 23, p < .05) after

861

the intervention.

Shadaan and Leong (2013) also has conducted a quasi-experimental study where 53

Form 3 Malaysian students have been selected and divided to experimental group and control

group. Experimental group has been taught about circles using GeoGebra. Finding of the study

indicated a significant difference existed in the mean score between experimental and control

group. The result showed that students in the experimental group outperformed those in the

control group.

Kamariah, Ahmad Fauzi and Rohani (2010) have conducted a true experimental design

study with students being randomly assigned into two groups. One group used GeoGebra while

the other used e-transformation. In this study, there is no control group because both groups

underwent computer-based learning. For the group that used GeoGebra, the analysis on the

performance scores for pre-and post-tests were by using Wilcoxon T. Research findings

indicated that there was significant difference in performance scores for the post test (Mdn =

31.00) compared to the pre-test (Mdn = 25.00), z = -2.85, p = .004 <.05, r = -0.45). The results

showed that students who learned transformation using GeoGebra showed increase in their

performance after they used GeoGebra. However, the effect size was medium.

Methods for Collecting and Analyzing Data

Research Design

The future study is a quasi-experimental design in which two groups of pupils will

undergo a series of intervention. Two mentioned groups are experimental group and control

group where experimental group will learn using GeoGebra meanwhile control group will learn

using conventional instruction. To comprehend how learning shape and space effected by

GeoGebra, quasi-experimental research design has been chosen. According to Mark and

Reichardt (2009), to estimate the effects of one or more treatments on one or more outcome

variables, quasi-experimental research is used by making comparisons across cases which are

exposed to different treatment conditions in some non-random fashion and or by across time

or other comparisons.

The non-equivalent control group design will be used as the researcher randomized the

assignment of intact groups to treatments. The inability to assign individuals to treatments

randomly would add validity threats. As for example, regression and interaction between

selection, maturation, history and testing (Gay & Airasian, 2003). Furthermore, pupils may not

even be aware that they will be involved in this study. In this study, pupils will be divided into

two groups which are experimental group and control group. The control group will learn shape

and space using conventional instruction while the experimental group will learn shape and

space using GeoGebra. The research design for this study can be depicted in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 The research design.

Legends:

Experimental Group

O1

X1

O2

O3

Control Group

O1 X2 O2 -

862

O1 = Shape and Space Achievement Test (SSAT) Pre-test

O2 = Shape and Space Achievement Test (SSAT) Post-test

O3 = Pupils and teacher interview protocol

X1 = Teaching using GeoGebra

X2 = Teaching using conventional instruction

Then, the quantitative data research approach will be used to collect relevant data for the

research questions in this study. Data that has been collected and tabulated using this

method can be used to answer the first inquiry question which is “Is there a significant effect

of teaching using GeoGebra on Year 2 pupils’ achievement in learning shape and space? ”. For

the second inquiry question, which is “What are Year 2 pupils’ feedback of learning shape and

space using GeoGebra? ”, interview protocol will be used. Pupils will be asked a series of

guided questions and their responds will be recorded and then transcribed to be analyzed and

discerned about their feedbacks of using GeoGebra. Interview protocol also will be used to

gather responds from teacher who use GeoGebra to teach experiment group.

Research Variables

Research variable is either a result of some force or is itself the force that causes a

change in another variable (Gay & Airasian , 2003). There are two types of variables, which

are independent variable and dependent variable in experimental research design. Independent

variables are those that (probably) cause, influence or affect outcomes. They are also called

treatment, manipulated, antecedent, or predictor variables. While dependent variables are those

that depend on the independent variables; they are the outcomes or results of the influence of

the independent variables. Other names for dependent variables are criterion, outcome, effect

and response variables (Creswell, 2014, p.52).

The independent variable for this study is the teaching method (teaching using

GeoGebra or conventional instruction) in learning shape and space. While, the dependent

variables for this study are Year Two pupils’ achievement and motivation in learning shap e

and space. Thus, the teaching method (using GeoGebra or conventional instruction) will be

manipulated in this study to examine its effects on Year Two pupi ls’ achievement and

motivation in learning shape and space.

Data Collection and Data Sources for Future Research

Population and Sample

The population consists of Dual Language Program (DLP) schools in Northern

Peninsular of Malaysia. The accessible population will be Year Two primary school pupils in

Penang, Malaysia. However out of nineteen DLP schools in Penang, only two DLP schools

will be selected for this study. The schools for this study will be chosen randomly where these

schools are near to my working place. Overall, both of the selected schools have the same

863

characteristics as the school average score (Gred Purata Sekolah, GPS) for previous year

UPSR examination are almost the same. They also have almost the same demographic

background of the two schools are about the same.

864

To control many extraneous variables simultaneously, randomization is the best way as

it is effective in creating equivalent, representative groups that are same on all relevant

variables (Gay & Airasian , 2003). Thus, the sample for this future study will be chosen based

on cluster sampling too. One out of certain number of classes from each of the schools will be

randomly chosen to be the experimental and control group. Those classes will be chosen as

they share the same criteria in which they have average achievement in school examination.

Therefore, a class of Year Two pupils in school A will be selected as the control group

while a class of Year Two pupils in school B will be selected as the experimental group. In

addition, they were only introduced to the concept of shape and space when they were in Year

One. Moreover, two teachers that teaching Year Two mathematics in the selected schools will

be selected in this future study.

Instruments

There are two instruments that will be used in this future study to determine the effects

of independent variable, which is the teaching method (Teaching using GeoGebra and

conventional instruction) on the dependent variables (achievement and motivation in learning

shape and space) after independent variable is being manipulated and pupil’s feedb acks of the

independent variable. The first instrument is a paper-and-pencil instrument which is called

Shape and Space Achievement Test (SSAT) which requires pupils to answer questions that are

related to Shape and Space topic. The second instrument is interview protocol which will

require pupils from experimental group to answer a range of questions to gather their feedback

regarding the use of GeoGebra in learning shape and space. Interview protocol also will be

conducted to teacher whose teaching using GeoGebra to experimental group.

Shape and Space Achievement Test (SSAT)

Shape and space achievement test is developed by the researcher based on the Year

Two Mathematics Curriculum Standard (Curriculum Development Centre, 2016). The Shape

and Space Achievement Test consisting of 20 items that will be given to both control and

experimental groups. The items will be used for both pretest and posttest, but the sequence of

the test items is rearranged so that the posttest is different from the pretest. The pretest will be

given before the implementation of the intervention while the posttest will be given to the

pupils after the implementation of the intervention. The Shape and Space Achievement Test

were designed according to Year Two Mathematics Document Standard provided by the

Ministry of Education Malaysia.

According to the Document Standard, pupils are required to identify three dimensional

shapes, identify nets of three dimensional shapes and identify two dimensional shapes. Hence,

the items in the Shape and Space Achievement Test is developed according to the test

specification table. The levels of difficulty of the test are easy, moderate and difficult. Based

on the Test Specification Table, SSAT are arranged according to revised Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Teachers will grade the pretest and hold it until the completion of the unit. The Shape

and Space Achievement Test posttest is a parallel test that evaluates the same information as

the pretest and it will be also graded by the teachers. The Shape and Space Achievement test

865

validated by two Mathematics expert teachers who are experienced in teaching Mathematics

for more than 10 years and a pilot test will be administrated at School C for its reliability.

Interview Protocol for Pupils and Teacher’s Feedbacks of Learning and Teaching Shape

and Space using GeoGebra

Interview protocol is a method to gather information where subject and researcher

attend the process of collecting information. The information that researcher gathered is

collected directly by researcher from subject (Majid Konting, 1998). To understand pupils from

experimental group feedbacks’ regarding the use of GeoGebra in learning shape and space,

interview protocol will be used. Interview protocol also will be used to gather teacher’s

feedbacks of using GeoGebra in teaching the topic of shape and space.

Interview protocol is the best instrument to probe and collect information from subject

in details. Interview can be divided into three types which are structured interview, semi-

structured interview and non-structured interview (Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan

Dasar Pendidikan, 2008). For this future study, semi-structured interview will be carried out in

which question will be prepared by researcher to collect targeted information while follow up

questions also will be asked to gather additional information to get a better understanding

regarding pupils’ feedbacks about the use of GeoGebra in learning shape and space. To make

this interview a success, a structured protocol will be followed by researcher to make sure that

this interview to succeed.

Data Analysis Strategies for Future Research

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 will be used to analyze the

collected data from the instruments. To determine whether, at a selected probability level, a

significant difference existed between the means of two independent samples, independent

samples t-test will be used (Gay et al., 2012). In this study, the independent samples t-test will

be applied first to examine whether there is a significant difference in the mean score of pretest

between the experimental and control group pupils. The independent samples t-test is used to

analyze the mean score of the posttest score for both experimental and control groups as they

must essentially the same respectively on the dependent variable’s performance (Gay et al.,

2012).

Independent samples t-test will be used if there is no significant difference between the

mean score of the pretest. Independent samples t-test will be used to examine whether there is

a significant difference in the mean score of the posttest between the experimental group who

will learn shape and space through GeoGebra and the control group who will learn shape and

space through conventional instruction. If the result of the independent samples t -test is

significant for the pretest, a one-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) will be used on the

SSAT posttest to determine if there is any significant difference in shape and space

achievement between the experimental and control groups after the intervention.

Other than that, interview protocol will be carried out to gather pupils and teachers ’

feedback regarding the use of GeoGebra in teaching and learning shape and space. During

conducting interview protocol, the session will be recorded. The recorded session then will be

transcripted word by word. The collected transcripts then will be analyzed and tabulated to

comprehend pupils and teachers’ feedba cks from experimental group regarding the use of

GeoGebra in teaching and learning shape and space.

866

Findings from Literature

Literature was useful for understanding the topic for this conceptual paper. The

literature enabled me to answer the two inquiry questions.

INQUIRY QUESTION 1:

Is there a significant effect of teaching using GeoGebra on year 2 pupils’ achievement

in learning shape and space?

FINDING 1:

Based on literature, it is clear that teaching using GeoGebra gives significant effect in

learning shape and space.

However, those finding from the literature are mostly not based on Year 2 pupils.

Pavethira and Leong (2017) have conducted an experimental research method to ascertain the

effects of GeoGebra on geometry performance. The sample was a total of 24 Year One students

from an international school in Malaysia. The selected sample were taught and learnt by using

GeoGebra software after pre-test. After post-test, a paired sample t-test was conducted, and the

results indicated a significant difference between pre-test and post-test.

Nazihatulhasanah and Nurbiha (2015) have conducted a quasi-experimental study

which involved 62 of Form 4 students in Malaysia. The experimental group is the group where

students are taught about how to use GeoGebra to solve statistics problem. Meanwhile, the

control group was given statistics problem to be solved without using GeoGebra. Based on

Mann-Whitney U test, the difference in the mean scores for the two test results for the two

groups of students shows that experimental group performed better than the control group.

Nazihatulhasanah and Nurbiha (2015) emphasized that the use of GeoGebra software has

positive impact on students’ achievement in Mathematics.

Leong (2015) has conducted an exploratory case study research design where 24 Form

Four students from a secondary school in Selangor have been chosen. His study was to

comprehend the effect of instruction using GeoGebra on students’ achievement in learning

combined transformation. Transformation Geometry test (TGT) was employed to access

students’ achievement before and after intervention. Results from paired -samples t-test

indicated significant differences in students’ achievement ( t = -10.025, df = 23, p < .05) after

the intervention.

Shadaan and Leong (2013) also has conducted a quasi-experimental study where 53

Form 3 Malaysian students have been selected and divided to experimental group and control

group. Experimental group has been taught about circles using GeoGebra. Finding of the study

indicated a significant difference existed in the mean score between experimental and control

group. The result showed that students in the experimental group outperformed those in the

control group.

867

Kamariah, Ahmad Fauzi and Rohani (2010) have conducted a true experimental design

study with students being randomly assigned into two groups. One group used GeoGebra while

the other used e-transformation. In this study, there is no control group because both groups

underwent computer-based learning. For the group that used GeoGebra, the analysis on the

performance scores for pre-and post-tests were by using Wilcoxon T. Research findings

indicated that there was significant difference in performance scores for the post test (Mdn =

31.00) compared to the pre-test (Mdn = 25.00), z = -2.85, p = .004 <.05, r = -0.45). The results

showed that students who learned transformation using GeoGebra showed increase in their

performance after they used GeoGebra. However, the effect size was medium.

FINDING 2:

Based on literature, it is clear that teaching using GeoGebra does not give significant

effect in learning shape and space.

However, this finding from the literature is mostly not based on the sample of Year 2

pupils. Rohaidah et al. (2016) have conducted a quasi-experimental of non-equivalent pre-

posttest control group design study to comprehend Malaysian Form Four students’

performance in a secondary school in Sibu, Sarawak in learning Circle III topic by using

GeoGebra. The data then analyzed using one-way ANCOVA and one sample t-test which given

conclusion that there was no significant difference between mean performance scores of

students in experimental and control groups.

INQUIRY QUESTION 2:

What are Year 2 pupils’ feedbacks of learning shape and space using GeoGebra?

FINDING 1:

Based on literature it is clear that learners give positive feedbacks of learning shape and

space using GeoGebra.

However, those finding from the literature are mostly based on the sample that not

address Year 2 pupils sample. Rohaidah et al. (2016) conducted a quasi-experimental of non-

equivalent pre-posttest control group design study to comprehend Malaysian Form Four

students’ attitudes in a secondary school i n Sibu, Sarawak in learning Circle III topic by using

GeoGebra. The Attitude Questionnaire shows that sample have shown positive attitudes

towards using Geogebra while learning Circle III topic.

868

A set of questionnaires consist of nine items being distributed to experimental group of

Form 4 students in Malaysia by Nazihatulhasanah and Nurbiha (2015) to know their perception

based on their experience using GeoGebra. Based on the data collected, they found that overall

students agreed with item; ‘I like using GeoGebra’. The overall mean is 4.26 shows that overall

students agreed with positive statements about GeoGebra. From the results, Nazihatulhasanah

and Nurbiha (2015) concluded that the use of GeoGebra can increase students’ interest,

confidence and their motivation in learning mathematics. Further explained in their study, they

stated that the students have positive perceptions on GeoGebra in terms of enthusiasm,

confidence, and motivation.

Shadaan and Leong (2013) have conducted a quasi-experimental study to investigate

students understanding in learning circles using GeoGebra. A survey instrument was used to

elicit students’ perception on the use of GeoGebra. About 93% of the student from

experimental group mentioned that they learnt a lot using GeoGebra and benefited much

through the teacher-student’s interactions when using GeoGebra, while 82% of the students

mentioned that they were excited about using GeoGebra software, engaged in the learning

process, and were able to visualize concepts related to circles and answer the questions after

each activity.

FINDING 2:

Based on literature students did not have high confidence in the use of GeoGebra.

However, on a lesser note, the finding does not reflect Year 2 pupils’ feedback towards

GeoGebra. On a study conducted by Shadaan and Leong (2013) it was found that students

reported they did not have high confidence in the use of GeoGebra software attributed to

insufficient time to familiarize themselves with the key strokes of the software.

INQUIRY QUESTION 3:

What are teachers ’ feedback of teaching shape and space using GeoGebra?

FINDING 1:

GeoGebra provide a more conceptual approach in teaching Geometry which enriching

learner’s conceptualization.

Dockendorff and Solar (2017) have conducted a case study of a pre-service training

teacher, namely Simon, in using GeoGebra to design and implement a lesson study in Potificia

Universidad Catolica de Chile’s Teacher Education Programme. According to Dockendorff

and Solar (2017), Simon’s method ological approach modified the nature of classroom routines,

which traditionally address contents from a procedural standpoint to a more conceptual

approach in which multiple representations of the object of learning are systematically

examined to elucidate its critical aspects thus enriching its conceptualization.

869

FINDING 2:

GeoGebra give the teacher and students opportunity to work through the concept

together through exploration and visualization.

According to Shadaan and Leong (2013) t he GeoGebra software gave the teacher and

students the opportunity to work through the concepts together through exploration and

visualization. This encouraged a more interactive teacher-student interactional environment

where everyone worked as a team to guide, help and assist one another to reach the required

goals. In overall, according to Shadaan and Leong (2013) GeoGebra is an effective tool in

assisting the teacher in the mathematics classroom to achieve the principles of constructivist

learning.

Conclusions

The findings led me to draw conclusion on how teaching using GeoGebra affect Year

2 pupil’s achievement in learning shape and space. Most studies conclude that teaching using

GeoGebra does give significant effect on learner’s achievement in le arning geometry and

learners give positive feedbacks on learning geometry using GeoGebra. However, there are a

few studies conclude that GeoGebra does not give significant effect on learner’s achievement

in learning geometry and learners also do not have high confidence in using GeoGebra.

However, the conclusion drawn from the literature does not reflect on Year 2 DLP pupils. Up

until now, there is no study being conducted or published about how GeoGebra effects such

population especially the DLP pupils.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the literature the following recommendations for future research are below:

1. Further research should be conducted to test whether teaching using GeoGebra does

give significant effect on Year 2 DLP pupils’ achievement in learning shape and

space.

2. Further research should be conducted towards understanding on how pupils within Malaysian context school reacts on learning using GeoGebra.

3.Further research should be conducted towards understanding on how primary school teachers within Malaysian context reacts on teaching using GeoGebra.

870

References

Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan . (2016). Laporan TIMSS 2015-Trends in

Mathematics and Science Study . Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia .

Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan. (2008). Buku Manual Kajian Tindakan.

Putrajaya: Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia .

Chew , C. M. (2009). Enhancing Students' Geometric Thinking Through Phase-Based Instruction

using Geometer's Sketchpad: A case Study. Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan , 89-107.

Chew, C. M., & Lim, C. S. (2013). Enhancing Primary Pupils' Geometric Thinking through Phase-

Base Instruction Using The Geometer's Sketchpad. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and

Education, 28, 33-51.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches

(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Dayi, G. (2015). how Geogebra contributes to Middle Grade Algebra I Students' Conceptual

Understanding of Functions. PhD Thesis , Florida State University , College of Education .

Dikovic, L. (2009). Applications GeoGebra into teaching some topics of mathematics at the college

level. Computer Science and Information Systems, 6(2), 191-203. Retrieved from

http://doiserbia.nb.rs/article.aspx?id=1820-02140902191d

Dockendorff, M., & Solar, H. (2017). 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 , 1-19. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2017.1341060

Farida Nursyahidah , Bagus Ardi Saputro, & Muhammad Prayito. (2016). Kemampuan Penalaran

Matematis Siswa SMP dalam Belajar Garis dan Sudut dengan GeoGebra. Suska Journal of

Mathematics Education, 2(1), 13-19.

Gay , L. R., & Airasian , P. (2003). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and

Applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merill Prentice Hall.

Gay, L. R., Mills , G. E., & Airasian , P. W. (2012). Educational Research: Competencies for

Analysis and Applications (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Educational

International.

Hourigan , M., & Leavy , A. M. (2017). Preservice primary teachers' geometric thinking: Is pre-

tertiary mathematics education building sufficiently strong foundations? The Teacher

Educator, 52(4), 346-364. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2017.1349226

Kamariah , A. B., Ahmad Fauzi , M., & Rohani , A. T. (2010). Exploring the effectiveness of using

GeoGebra and e-transformation in teaching and learning Mathematics. Advanced Educational

Technologies, 19-23.

Kamariah Abu Bakar, Ahmad Fauzi Mohd Ayub, Luan, W. S., & Rohani Ahmad Tarmizi. (2010).

Exploring secondary school students' motivation using technologies in teaching and learning

mathematics. Procedia , 4650-4654.

Lee, C.-h. (2011). Using GeoGebra to enhance learning and teaching of basic properties of circles

for a secondary 5 class. Master's thesis , University of Hong Kong .

871

872

Leong, K. W. (2015). The effects of instruction using the ARCS model and Geogebra on upper

secondary students' motivation and achievement in learning combined transformation. Asia

Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 30, 141-158.

Majid Konting , M. (1998). Kaedah Penyelidikan Pendidikan . Kuala Lumpur : Dewan Bahasa dan

Pustaka .

Mark , M., & Reichardt, C. (2009). Quasi-experimentation. In The SAGE handbook of applied social

research methods (2nd ed., pp. 182-214).

Mihailova, M., Mierlus-Mazilu, I., & Velikova, E. (2014). Transition From 2D to 3D with GeoGebra .

Romanian Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science , 209-222.

Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2015). TIMSS 2015 International Results in

Mathematics. Boston College, Lynch School of Education. Massachusetts: IEA: TIMSS &

PIRLS International Study Center.

Nazihatulhasanah Arbain & Nurbiha Shukor. (2015). The Effects of Geogebra on Students

Achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172 , 208-214.

Noorbaizura Thambi, & Leong, K. (2013). Effects of students' Achievement in Fractions using

GeoGebra. Sainsab, 16, 97-106.

Pacemska, S. (2012). Effects of using ICT in Teaching Mathematics. Master Thesis, University Goce

Delcev-Stip, Faculty of Computer Science.

Pavethira Seloraji, & Leong, K. (2017). Students' Performance in Geometrical Reflection Using

GeoGebra. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology , 65-77. Retrieved from

www.mojet.net

Perdikaris, S. (1996). Mathematizing the van Hiele levels: a fuzy set approach. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 27(1), 41-47.

doi:10.1080/0020739960270106

Reis, Z. (2010). Computer supported mathematics with Geogebra. Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Science, 9, 1449-1455. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.348

Rohaidah Masri , Nor'ain Mohd Tajudin , Zamzana Zamzamir, & Raja Lailatul Zuraida Raja Ma'amor

Shah. (2016). The effects of using Geogebra teaching strategy in Malaysian secondary

schools: A case study from Sibu, Sarawak. Journal of Society and Space, 12 (7), 13-25.

Shadaan , P., & Leong, K. (2013). Effectiveness of Using Geogebra on Students' Understandng in

Learning Circles. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(4), 1-11.

Wang, S., & Kinzel , M. (2014). How do they know it is a parallelogram? Analysing geometric

discourse at van Hiele Level 3. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 288-305.

Watson, C. L. (2012, February). A comparison of van Hiele levels and final exam grades of students

at the University of Southern Mississippi. Retrieved from aquila.usm.edu:

https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1087&context=ho

nors_theses

Zimmerman, W., & Cunningham, S. (1991). Editors introduction: What is mathematical

visualisation? Visualisation in Teaching and Learning Mathematics. In W. Zimmermann , &

S. Cunningham (Eds.), Notes and Reports Series, 19. Washington DC: The Mathematical

Association of America.