Enhancing Students' Reasoning Skills with GeoGebra-based Digital Worksheets
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt20252137Keywords:
Mathematical reasoning, Digital worksheet, GeoGebra, Geometry lessonAbstract
Introduction: Cultivating robust mathematical reasoning is critical for secondary learners, underpinning skills in argumentation, justification, and problem-solving. Despite its importance, many students encounter persistent difficulties, exacerbated by a scarcity of interactive resources and insufficient intrinsic motivation. These challenges underscore the urgent need for curriculum-aligned digital environments that purposefully embed reasoning practices.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a GeoGebra-integrated digital worksheet to foster Grade 9 students’ mathematical reasoning.
Methods: The research followed the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) with 32 junior high school students in Malang Regency, Indonesia. The worksheet was designed in Canva, converted into a Heyzine Flipbook, and embedded with GeoGebra-based exploratory tasks and assessments. Three mathematics education experts validated the product, and revisions were made accordingly. Data came from pre-tests, post-tests, questionnaires, and teacher interviews. Quantitative results were analyzed with descriptive statistics, while qualitative data were analyzed using Thematics Analysis.
Results: The analysis revealed that the worksheet is valid, practical, and pedagogically effective. Participants exhibited statistically significant score increases from pre-test to post-test and self-reported enhanced motivational levels, improved visual comprehension, and higher engagement. Educators attested to the instrument’s pedagogical relevance and curricular congruence. Identified barriers included erratic Internet connectivity and the constrained instructional scope of a single mathematical topic.
Conclusion: The GeoGebra-integrated digital worksheet is a valid and effective tool for enhancing mathematical reasoning at the secondary school level. It holds strong potential for broader application and future research across more mathematical topics.
References
1. Hačatrjana L, Namsone D. Breaking Down the Concept of Students’ Thinking and Reasoning Skills for Implementation in the Classroom. J Intell 2024;12(11):109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12110109
2. Öz T, Çiftci Z. Mathematical Reasoning Activity: Compare, Generalize and Justify. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektron Fen ve Mat Eğitimi Derg 2024;18(2):291–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1506921
3. Smit R, Dober H, Hess K, Bachmann P, Birri T. Supporting primary students’ mathematical reasoning practice: the effects of formative feedback and the mediating role of self-efficacy. Res Math Educ 2023;25(3):277–300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.2062780
4. Sugita G, Nurhayadi N, Sukayasa S. Ability Reasoning Mathematical Students on Solving Problem. Int J Curr Sci Res Rev 2024;07(12). DOI: https://doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/V7-i12-58
5. Jonsson B, Granberg C, Lithner J. Gaining Mathematical Understanding: The Effects of Creative Mathematical Reasoning and Cognitive Proficiency. Front Psychol 2020;11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.574366
6. Sufyadi S, Lambas, Rosdiana T, Rochim FAN, Novrika S, Iswoyo S, et al. Panduan Pembelajaran dan Asesmen. Jakarta: Pusat Asesmen dan Pembelajaran; 2021.
7. Baiduri B. Students’ mathematical reasoning in mathematics problems solving. AMCA J Educ Behav Chang 2021;1(2):61–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51773/ajeb.v1i2.124
8. Santos L, Mata-Pereira J, da Ponte JP, Oliveira H. Teachers’ Understanding of Generalizing and Justifying in a Professional Development Course. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ 2022;18(1):em2067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11488
9. Raditya A, Saputra NN. Question analysis in indonesians’ new curriculum secondary mathematics textbook. Desimal J Mat 2022;5(3):353–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24042/djm.v5i3.14590
10. Ramganesh E, Reddy TS. Logical Reasoning of School Students as Predictor of their Academic Performance in Mathematics. Int J Manag (Internet) 2021;12(1):707–12. Available from: http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJM707editor@iaeme.comhttp://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=12&IType=1JournalImpactFactor
11. Sidenvall J, Lithner J, Jäder J. Students’ reasoning in mathematics textbook task-solving. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol (Internet) 2015;46:533–52. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:61658784 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2014.992986
12. Shaw ST, Pogossian AA, Ramirez G. The mathematical flexibility of college students: The role of cognitive and affective factors. Br J Educ Psychol (Internet) 2020;Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:210982190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12340
13. Agusantia D, Nurlaelah E. Mathematics Analogy Reasoning Ability of Junior High School Students in Solving Problems of Pyramid. Mathline J Mat dan Pendidik Mat 2023;8(3):989–1004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31943/mathline.v8i3.487
14. Burkholder E, Mohamed-Hinds N, Wieman C. Evidence-Based Principles for Worksheet Design. Phys Teach 2021;59(6):402–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0020091
15. Khastini RO, Rohmah WS, Sahida AN. The Effectiveness of the e-Student Worksheets to Improve Students’ Learning Outcomes and Critical Thinking Skills on Digestive System Concepts. Int J Biol Educ Towar Sustain Dev 2023;3(1):52–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53889/ijbetsd.v3i1.160
16. Serth S, Teusner R, Renz J, Uflacker M. Evaluating Digital Worksheets with Interactive Programming Exercises for K-12 Education. In: 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE; 2019. page 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028680
17. Hohenwarter M, Fuchs KJ. Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra and calculus in the software system GeoGebra. Zdm (Internet) 2004;128–33. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15254420
18. Haciomeroglu ES. Visualization Through Dynamic Geogebra Illustrations. In: Model-Centered Learning. Rotterdam: SensePublishers; 2011. page 133–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-618-2_10
19. Villaroza RD, Villaroza RC, Canoy JCD, Macalong ERN, Coronado WA. Exploring the Impact of GeoGebra on Mathematical Proficiency and Inductive Reasoning Ability in Geometry Students of MSU N – Integrated Developmental School. Int J Sci Manag Stud 2023;128–42.
20. Zhang Y, Wang P, Jia W, Zhang A, Chen G. Dynamic visualization by GeoGebra for mathematics learning: a meta-analysis of 20 years of research. J Res Technol Educ 2025;57(2):437–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2250886
21. Hapsari MR, Nurcahyo A, Toyib M. Development of Learner Worksheets Assisted by Geogebra Software on Trigonometry Material for Class X. J Medives J Math Educ IKIP Veteran Semarang 2024;8(3):402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31331/medivesveteran.v8i3.3307
22. Nichols Hess A, Greer K. Designing for Engagement: Using the ADDIE Model to Integrate High-Impact Practices into an Online Information Literacy Course. Comminfolit 2016;10(2):264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.27
23. Allen WC. Overview and Evolution of the ADDIE Training System. Adv Dev Hum Resour 2006;8(4):430–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306292942
24. Suratnu R. The adoption of the ADDIE model in designing an instructional module: The case of malay language remove students. IJIET (International J Indones Educ Teaching) 2023;7(2):262–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v7i2.3521
25. Riduwan. Skala pengukuran variabel-variabel penelitian. Bandung: ALFABETA; 2018.
26. Sharma LR, Jha S. Applying Major Parametric Tests Using SPSS in Research. Int Res J MMC 2023;4(2):85–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/irjmmc.v4i2.56017
27. Nissen JM, Talbot RM, Nasim Thompson A, Van Dusen B. Comparison of normalized gain and Cohen’s d for analyzing gains on concept inventories. Phys Rev Phys Educ Res 2018;14(1):010115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010115
28. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2012.
29. Creswell JW., Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Sage publication; 2007.
30. Hawes Z, Moss J, Caswell B, Naqvi S, MacKinnon S. Enhancing Children’s Spatial and Numerical Skills through a Dynamic Spatial Approach to Early Geometry Instruction: Effects of a 32-Week Intervention. Cogn Instr 2017;35(3):236–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1323902
31. OECD. PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework (Internet). OECD; 2022. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-assessment-and-analytical-framework_dfe0bf9c-en.html
32. Riwayati S, Destania Y. Design of Internet Integrated Students Worksheet for Developing the Ability of Mathematical Reasoning. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Sciences and Teacher Profession (ICETeP 2018). Paris, France: Atlantis Press; 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/icetep-18.2019.8
33. Jones K, Mackrell K, Stevenson I. Designing Digital Technologies and Learning Activities for Different Geometries. 2009. page 47–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0146-0_4
34. Stratton SJ. Quasi-Experimental Design (Pre-Test and Post-Test Studies) in Prehospital and Disaster Research. Prehosp Disaster Med 2019;34(6):573–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X19005053
35. Hyman R. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (Book). J Pers Assess 1982;46(1):96–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_16
36. Plomp T, Nieveen N. An Introduction to Educational Design Research. In: Proceedings of the seminar conducted at the East China Normal University, Shanghai (PR China), November 23-26, 2007. 2010.
37. Pinandhita F, Yasin MH bin M. Optimizing Students’ Reading Skills through Microlearning with Canva: A Digital Approach in ELT. IJORER Int J Recent Educ Res 2025;6(2):470–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v6i2.807
38. Riyanto MATP, Putri SJD. The Utilization of Canva Application in Innovative Learning For Elementary School Teachers. Expert Net Explor J Technol Educ Trends 2025;1(2):61–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59923/expertnet.v1i2.271
39. Mueller MF, Maher CA. Promoting equity through reasoning. Teach Child Math 2010;16(9):540–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.16.9.0540
40. Hirschhorn DB, Thompson DR. Technology and Reasoning in Algebra and Geometry. Math Teach 1996;89(2):138–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.89.2.0138
41. Anwar L, Mali A, Goedhart M. Formulating a conjecture through an identification of robust invariants with a dynamic geometry system. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol (Internet) 2024;55(7):1681–703. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2144517 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2144517
42. Mayer RE. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 1st Edition (Internet). 2005. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:267932905 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.002
43. Mulat A, Sudarsono S, Salam U. Instructional Design for Reading Comprehension Teaching Materials. Int J Learn Instr 2024;6(1):7–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26418/ijli.v6i1.79109
44. Morrison GR, Ross SM, Kemp JE. Designing Effective Instruction. 5th Edition. Jossey-Bass, An Impr Wiley (Internet) 2006;Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:61038124
45. Isna Amaliya, Aida Suraya, Sumaji, Sri Utaminingsih, Pratama H. The Effectiveness of Digital Interactive Media Worksheets in Improving Elementary School Students’ Mathematical Literacy. Stud Technol Educ 2024;3(3):1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55687/ste.v3i3.112
46. Plomp T. Educational design research: An introduction (Internet). Educ. Des. Res.2013;204. Available from: http://international.slo.nl/publications/edr/%5Cnhttp://international.slo.nl/edr/
47. Mayer RE. Using multimedia for e-learning. J Comput Assist Learn 2017;33(5):403–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197
48. Willems J, Farley H, Freund K, Britten D, Tickner S, Tucker S, et al. Digital Equity. ASCILITE Publ 2018;565–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/apubs.2018.1980
49. Treviranus J. Learning differences & digital equity in the classroom (Internet). 2018. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:149426715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53803-7_74-1
50. Kalogiannakis M, Zourmpakis AI, Menšíková M, Lategan F, Patelarou A, Patelarou E, et al. Use of an e-toolkit in the development of digital competencies in Weeks of International Teaching. Adv Mob Learn Educ Res 2023;3(1):702–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2023.01.019
51. D. Villaroza R, C. Villaroza R, D. Canoy JC, N. Macalong ER, A. Coronado W. Exploring the Impact of GeoGebra on Mathematical Proficiency and Inductive Reasoning Ability in Geometry Students of MSU N – Integrated Developmental School. Int J Sci Manag Stud 2023;128–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51386/25815946/ijsms-v6i4p116
52. Negara HRP, Wahyudin, Nurlaelah E, Herman T. Improving Students’ Mathematical Reasoning Abilities Through Social Cognitive Learning Using GeoGebra. Int J Emerg Technol Learn 2022;17(18):118–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i18.32151
53. Yerizon, Arnellis, Tasman F, Widjaja W. Enhancing Junior High School Students’ Reasoning of Linear Equations Using GeoGebra Software. Int J Interact Mob Technol 2023;17(18):16–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v17i18.41441
54. Diener MJ. Cohen’s d (Internet). 2010. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118784905
55. Tran C, Smith B, Buschkuehl M. Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cognition: Nondigital and digital approaches. Cogn Res Princ Implic 2017;2(1):16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0053-8
56. Nurulaini Jaafar, Siti Rohani Mohd Nor, Siti Mariam Norrulashikin, Nur Arina Bazilah Kamisan, Ahmad Qushairi Mohamad. Increase Students’ Understanding of Mathematics Learning Using the Technology-Based Learning. IInternational J Adv Res Futur Ready Learn Educ 2022;28(1):24–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37934/frle.28.1.2429
57. Serin H. Technology-integrated Mathematics Education: A Facilitating Factor to Enrich Learning. Int J Learn Dev 2017;7(4):60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijld.v7i4.12082
58. Serin H. The Integration of Technological Devices in Mathematics Education: A Literature Review. Int J Soc Sci Educ Stud 2023;10(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v10i3p54
59. Clements DH, Battista MT. Geometry and spatial reasoning. (Internet). 1992. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:208102237
60. Mayer RE. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press; 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333
61. van Dijk AM, Lazonder AW. Scaffolding students’ use of learner-generated content in a technology-enhanced inquiry learning environment. Interact Learn Environ 2016;24(1):194–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.834828
62. Fraenkel J, Wallen N, Hyun H. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 2011.
63. Koehler MJ, Mishra P, Akcaoğlu M, Rosenberg JM. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework for Teachers and Teacher Educators (Internet). 2013. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14595097
64. Hidayati A, Zuhdi S, Resti M, Azaria TT, Andary L. Use of Canva in Primary School Education: A Qualitative Study of The Use, Advantages and Disadvantages of Canva. ICEETE Conf Ser 2024;2(1):322–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36728/iceete.v2i1.207
65. Zainal Abidin SR, Jalaluddin NF, Ismail NZ, Zainal MA. The Efficacy of Canva as a Digital Tool for Enhancing Student Learning in Multimedia Interactive Subjects. Int J e-Learning High Educ 2025;20(2):1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24191/ijelhe.v20n2.2021
66. Abdullah IH, Wahyudi D, Syam Tonra W, Syam Tonra W, Hasbi M. DEVELOPMENT OF DIGITAL TEACHING MATERIALS BASED ON DIFFERENTIATED LEARNING USING CANVA FOR MATHEMATICS SUBJECTS. EduMatSains J Pendidikan, Mat dan Sains 2025;9(2):244–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33541/edumatsains.v9i2.6322
67. Polya G. How to Solve it. Princeton University Press; 1973.
68. Lithner J. Principles for designing mathematical tasks that enhance imitative and creative reasoning. ZDM 2017;49(6):937–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0867-3
69. Morales Méndez G, Lozano Avilés AB. Augmented reality and GeoGebra 3D for improving spatial intelligence in teaching volumetric geometry. Rev Educ a Distancia 2025;25(82). DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/red.644051
70. Yerizon Y, Dwina F, Tajudin NM. Improving Students’ Spatial Ability with GeoGebra Software. Univers J Educ Res 2021;9(1):129–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2021.090114
71. Mayer RE. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press; 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678
72. Nelson-Fromm T. Creating Better Teaching Tools Through Examining Teachers’ Understanding of Data Representations. In: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE; 2021. page 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC51201.2021.9576206
73. Pedersen MK, Bach CC, Gregersen RM, Højsted IH, Jankvist UT. Mathematical Representation Competency in Relation to Use of Digital Technology and Task Design—A Literature Review. Mathematics 2021;9(4):444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/math9040444
74. Setiyani S, Putri DP, Ferdianto F, Fauji SH. DESIGNING A DIGITAL TEACHING MODULE BASED ON MATHEMATICAL COMMUNICATION IN RELATION AND FUNCTION. J Math Educ 2020;11(2):223–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.7320.223-236
75. Lehane P. Use without training: A case study of evidence-based software design for intuitive use. Hum Technol 2019;100–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201902201610
76. Bass M, Movahed SH. To What Extent can ‘Bring Your Own Device’ be an Enabler to Widening Participation in Higher Education for the Socially Disadvantaged? J Perspect Appl Acad Pract 2018;6(1):3–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v6i1.321
77. Baccaglini-Frank A. To tell a story, you need a protagonist: how dynamic interactive mediators can fulfill this role and foster explorative participation to mathematical discourse. Educ Stud Math 2021;106(2):291–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10009-w
78. Rabani S, Khairat A, Guilin X, Jiao D. The Role Of Technology In Indonesian Education At Present. J Comput Sci Adv 2023;1(2):85–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55849/jsca.v1i1.403
79. Tomić MK, Aberšek B, Pesek I. GeoGebra as a spatial skills training tool among science, technology engineering and mathematics students. Comput Appl Eng Educ 2019;27(6):1506–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22165
80. Kim KM, Md-Ali R. Geogebra: Towards realizing 21st century learning in mathematics education. Malaysian J Learn Instr 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli.2017.7799
81. Martín‐Gutiérrez J, Gil FA, Contero M, Saorín JL. Dynamic three‐dimensional illustrator for teaching descriptive geometry and training visualisation skills. Comput Appl Eng Educ 2013;21(1):8–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20447
82. Stylianides GJ. Reasoning-and-proving in school mathematics textbooks. Math Think Learn 2009;11(4):258–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060903253954
83. Jeannotte D, Kieran C. A conceptual model of mathematical reasoning for school mathematics. Educ Stud Math 2017;96(1):1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9761-8
84. Fried L, Konza D. Using Self-Determination Theory to Investigate Student Engagement in the Classroom. Int J Pedagog Curric 2013;19(2):27–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7963/CGP/v19i02/48898
85. Ikahihifo TB. Self-Determination Theory and Student Emotional Engagement in Higher Education (Internet). 2019. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:181365266
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lathiful Anwar, Cholis Sa’dijah, Yuhana Faradila Muzam Roudloh, Yerizon, Maiyastri (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
