GeoGebra in mathematics education: a systematic review of journal articles published from 2010 to 2020

References

• Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahuja, O. P. (2006). World-class high quality mathematics education for all K-12 American students. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 3(2), 223–248.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aktumen, M., & Bulut, M. (2013). Teacher candidates’ opinions on real life problems designed in GeoGebra software. The Anthropologist, 16(1-2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2013.11891345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antohe, V. (2009). Limits of educational soft” GeoGebra” in a critical constructive review. Arxiv preprint arXiv:0905.4430.
   Google Scholar
• Arbain, N., & Shukor, N. A. (2015). The effects of GeoGebra on students achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.356
   Google Scholar
• Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024312321077
   Google Scholar
• Atasoy, E., & Konyalıhatipoğlu, M. E. (2019). Investigation of students’ holistic and analytical thinking styles in learning environments assisted with dynamic geometry software. Ted EĞİtİm Ve Bİlİm, 44(199). https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2019.8003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billah, A., Khasanah, U., & Widoretno, S. (2019). Empowering higher-order thinking through project-based learning: A conceptual framework. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2194, 020011. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139743
   Google Scholar
• Božić, R., Takači, Đ, & Stankov, G. (2021). Influence of dynamic software environment on students’ achievement of learning functions with parameters. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(4), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1602842
   Google Scholar
• Bozkurt, G., & Ruthven, K. (2017). Classroom-based professional expertise: A mathematics teacher’s practice with technology. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9732-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulut, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkey: A case of primary school mathematics curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75399
   Google Scholar
• Çelik, H. C. (2018). The effects of activity based learning on sixth grade students’ achievement and attitudes towards mathematics activities. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(5), 1963–1977. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/85807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, K. K., & Leung, S. W. (2014). Dynamic geometry software improves mathematical achievement: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(3), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.3.c
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dogruer, S. S., & Akyuz, D. (2020). Mathematical practices of eighth graders about 3D shapes in an argumentation, technology, and design-based classroom environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10028-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne, E., & Hulek, K. (2020). Mathematics Subject Classification 2020. EMS Newsletter, 3(115), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.4171/NEWS/115/2
   Google Scholar
• Fahlberg-Stojanovska, L., & Stojanovski, V. (2009). Geogebra—freedom to explore and learn. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 28(2), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/hrp003
   Google Scholar
• Faulkner, F., Hannigan, A., & Fitzmaurice, O. (2014). The role of prior mathematical experience in predicting mathematics performance in higher education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(5), 648–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.868539
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education (7thed.). McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Fu, Q.-K., Lin, C.-J., & Hwang, G.-J. (2019). Research trends and applications of technology-supported peer assessment: A review of selected journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(2), 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00131-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granberg, C., & Olsson, J. (2015). ICT-supported problem solving and collaborative creative reasoning: Exploring linear functions using dynamic mathematics software. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greefrath, G., Hertleif, C., & Siller, H.-S. (2018). Mathematical modelling with digital tools—a quantitative study on mathematising with dynamic geometry software. Zdm, 50(1-2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0924-6
   Google Scholar
• Gür, B. S., Celik, Z., & Özoğlu, M. (2012). Policy options for Turkey: A critique of the interpretation and utilization of PISA results in Turkey. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.595509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haciomeroglu, E. S. (2011). Visualization through dynamic GeoGebra illustrations. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-centered learning: Pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra (pp. 133–144). Brill Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Han, S., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2016). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project based learning affects high-need students in the US. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hohenwarter, M., Jarvis, D., & Lavicza, Z. (2009). Linking geometry, algebra, and mathematics teachers: GeoGebra software and the establishment of the International GeoGebra institute. international Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(2), 83–86.
   Google Scholar
• Hohenwarter, M., & Jones, K. (2007). Ways of linking geometry and algebra, the case of geogebra. Proceedings of the British Society for Research Into Learning Mathematics, 27(3), 126–131.
   Google Scholar
• Hoyles, C. (2016). Engaging with mathematics in the digital age. Cuadernos, 15, 225–236.
   Google Scholar
• Ince-Muslu, B., & Erduran, A. (2021). A suggestion of a framework: Conceptualization of the factors that affect technology integration in mathematics education. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(1), em0617. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/9292
   Google Scholar
• Jolejole-Caube, C., Dumlao, A. B., & Abocejo, F. T. (2019). Anxiety towards mathematics and mathematics performance of grade 7 learners. European Journal of Education Studies, 6(1), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2694050
   Google Scholar
• Ker, H. (2013). Trend analysis on mathematics achievements: A comparative study using TIMSS data. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 200–203. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2013.010309
   Google Scholar
• Kohen, Z., Amram, M., Dagan, M., & Miranda, T. (2019). Self-efficacy and problem-solving skills in mathematics: The effect of instruction-based dynamic versus static visualization. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1683588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong, S. C., Chan, T.-W., Huang, R., & Cheah, H. M. (2014). A review of e-learning policy in school education in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Beijing: Implications to future policy planning. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(2), 187–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0011-0
   Google Scholar
• Kramarenko, T., Pylypenko, O., & Muzyka, I. (2020). Application of GeoGebra in Stereometry teaching.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar, A., & Kumaresan, S. (2008). Use of mathematical software for teaching and learning mathematics. ICME 11 Proceedings, 373–388.
   Google Scholar
• Lepmann, T. (2008). Some possibilities of teaching geometry with GeoGebra. Programmi GeoGebra kasutamisvoimalusi geomeetria opetamisel. Koolimatemaatika, (35), 52–57.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, R., Wang, L., Lei, J., Wang, Q., & Ren, Y. (2020). Effects of an immersive virtual reality-based classroom on students’ learning performance in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2034–2049. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maaß, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: A synthesis. Zdm, 45(6), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0528-0
   Google Scholar
• Mbugua, Z. K., Kibet, K., Muthaa, G. M., & Nkonke, G. R. (2012). Factors contributing to students’ poor performance in mathematics at Kenya certificate of secondary education in Kenya: A case of Baringo county, Kenya.
   Google Scholar
• Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782552
   Google Scholar
• Okafor, C. F., & Anaduaka, U. S. (2013). Nigerian school children and mathematics phobia: How the mathematics teacher can help. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(7), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-1-7-5
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parmelee, D., Michaelsen, L. K., Cook, S., & Hudes, P. D. (2012). Team-based learning: A practical guide: AMEE guide no. 65. Medical Teacher, 34(5), e275–e287. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.651179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2011). Using dynamic geometry to bring the real world into the classroom. In Model-centered learning (pp. 41-55): Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Radović, S., Radojičić, M., Veljković, K., & Marić, M. (2020). Examining the effects of geogebra applets on mathematics learning using interactive mathematics textbook. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1512001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rincon, L. F. (2009). Designing dynamic and interactive applications using geogebra software in the 6–12 mathematics curriculum. Kean University.
   Google Scholar
• Ruzlan, M.-A., & Kim, K. M. (2018). Geogebra in learning of mathematics towards supporting STEM education. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, (6), 778–782. https://doi.org/10.32861/jssr.spi6.776.78
   Google Scholar
• Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essential Readings in Problem-Based Learning: Exploring and Extending the Legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 9(2), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq6fh.6
   Google Scholar
• Statistics, U. I. f. (2012). International standard classification of education: ISCED 2011. UNESCO Institute for Statistics Montreal.
   Google Scholar
• Stols, G. (2012). Does the use of technology make a difference in the geometric cognitive growth of pre-service mathematics teachers?. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1233–1247. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takači, D., Stankov, G., & Milanovic, I. (2015). Efficiency of learning environment using GeoGebra when calculus contents are learned in collaborative groups. Computers & Education, 82, 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomić, M. K. (2013). Mathematical software in Croatian mathematics classrooms–A review of geogebra and sketchpad. Croatian Journal of Education: Hrvatski Časopis za Odgoj i Obrazovanje, 15(Sp. Ed. 1), 197–208.
   Google Scholar
• Tomić, M. K., Aberšek, B., & Pesek, I. (2019). Geogebra as a spatial skills training tool among science, technology engineering and mathematics students. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27(6), 1506–1517. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trouche, L., Drijvers, P., Gueudet, G., & Sacristan, A. I. (2012). Technology-driven developments and policy implications for mathematics education. In Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 753-789): Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Turgut, M. (2019). Sense-making regarding matrix representation of geometric transformations in R2: A semiotic mediation perspective in a dynamic geometry environment. Zdm, 51(7), 1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01032-0
   Google Scholar
• Tutkun, O. F., & Ozturk, B. (2013). The effect of GeoGebra mathematical software to the academic success and the level of Van Hiele geometrical thinking. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(4), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-4/B.3
   Google Scholar
• Ubuz, B., Erbaş, A. K., Çetinkaya, B., & Özgeldi, M. (2010). Exploring the quality of the mathematical tasks in the new Turkish elementary school mathematics curriculum guidebook: The case of algebra. Zdm, 42(5), 483–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0258-5
   Google Scholar
• Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, J. (2001). Social constructivism in the classroom. Support for Learning, 16(3), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.00206
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Zengin, Y. (2017). Investigating the use of the Khan academy and mathematics software with a flipped classroom approach in mathematics teaching. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 89–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zengin, Y. (2018). Examination of the constructed dynamic bridge between the concepts of differential and derivative with the integration of GeoGebra and the ACODESA method. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 99(3), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9832-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zengin, Y., Furkan, H., & Kutluca, T. (2012). The effect of dynamic mathematics software geogebra on student achievement in teaching of trigonometry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.038
   Google Scholar
• Zengin, Y., & Tatar, E. (2017). Integrating dynamic mathematics software into cooperative learning environments in mathematics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 74–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar