Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 36 no. 6 (2025)

Application of Math Productivity Software in a System of Linear Equations and Inequalities and Students’ Graphing Skills in Mathematics 8

Kriscel Ann Cagape | Rey Fuentibilla

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study investigated the impact of Mathematics Productivity Software (Software X and Software Y) on the graphing skills of Grade 8 students at Kapingkong National High School in the Philippines during the school year 2024-2025. The study employed a quasi-experimental design with three groups: a control group receiving conventional instruction and two experimental groups utilizing Software X (GeoGebra) and Software Y (Desmos), respectively. The findings revealed that while all groups exhibited comparable graphing skills at the beginning of the study, significant improvements were observed in both experimental groups after the intervention. Students using Software X demonstrated the most substantial gains in their graphing abilities, followed by students using Software Y. The control group showed progress, but it lagged behind the experimental groups. These results suggest that Mathematics Productivity Software can effectively enhance students' graphing skills, particularly Software X, which outperformed both Software Y and traditional instruction methods. The study highlights the potential of technology-based learning tools to improve student performance in mathematics and emphasizes the need for educators to explore and integrate such tools into their teaching practices.



References:

  1. Abraham & MacDonald (2011). Quasi-experimental design, Iowa State University. Ames Iowa United States.
  2. Abramovich, S. (2013). Computers in mathematics education: An introduction. Computers in the Schools, 30(1-2), 4-11.
  3. Akkaya, A., Tatar, E., & Kagizmanli, T (2011). Using dynamic software in teaching of the symmetry in analytic geometry: The case of Geogebra. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,15, 2540-2544.
  4. Alkhateeb, M. A., & Al-Duwairi, A. M. (2019). The effect of using mobile applications (GeoGebra and Sketchpad) on students’ achievement. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(3), 523–533.
  5. Amadebaiin, E. (2022). Importance of productivity software. Producriptions. https://produscriptions.com/importance-of-productivity-software-in-education/
  6. Amoako, T., Sheng, Z. H., Dogbe, C. S. K., & Pomegbe, W. W. K. (2022). Assessing the moderation role of ICT in the relationship between supply chain integration and SME performance. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, 7(2), 203-233.
  7. Anario, K. A., Quimpo, M. L., & Bais, N. R. (2023). Mathematical software GeoGebra: It affects students’ competency in mathematics. Industry and Academic Research Review, 4(1), 344-351.
  8. Anderson, J., & Bodily, R. (2018). The impact of using desmos on algebra 1 students' attitudes, understanding, and achievement. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 37(2), 191-208.
  9. Ansong, E., Wiafe, D. A., & Amankwah, R. (2021). Application of GeoGebra to improve academic performance of students in geometry. International Journal of Computer Applications, 183(29), 26-32. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2021921671
  10. Arbain, N. & Shukor, N. A. (2015). The Effects of Geogebra on Students Achievement. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 172.
  11. Arthur, Y. D. (2022). Modeling student interest in mathematics: Role of history of mathematics, peer-assisted learning, and student’s perception. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(10), em2168.
  12. Asikainen, H., Nieminen, J. H., Häsä, J., & Katajavuori, N. (2022). University students’ interest and burnout profiles and their relation to approaches to learning and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 93, Article ID: 102105.
  13. Azmidar, A., Darhim, D., & Dahlan, J. A. (2017). Enhancing students’ interest through mathematics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895, 012072.
  14. Babbie, E.R. (2016) The Practice of Social Research. 14th Edition, Cengage Learning, Belmont.
  15. Bada, S. O. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(5), 47-52.
  16. Bakar, K. A., Ayub, A. F. M, Luan, W. S., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2010). Exploring secondary school students’ motivation using technologies in teaching and learning mathematics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 14, 4650-4654.
  17. Bakar, K. A., Ayub, A. F. M., Tarmizi, R. A., & Luan, W. S. (2015). Effect of teaching mathematics using GeoGebra on students with dissimilar spatial visualisation. In AIP Conference Proceedings, 1682, Article ID: 030006. AIP Publishing LLC, American Institute of Physics (AIP).
  18. Baker, R. S., & Inventado, P. S. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 277-294). Springer.
  19. Baki, A., & Bagdat, H. B. (2019). The effect of mathematics software on the achievement of students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(8), 69-76.
  20. Barr, J., Tassell, J., Rice, J., & Hambacher, E. (2017). Beyond the flash card: Exploring mobile math apps and their use in elementary mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36(4), 375-392.
  21. Bennet, D. (2019). Exploring geometry with geometer’s sketchpad.
  22. Birgin, O., & Acar, H. (2020). The effect of computer-supported collaborative learning using GeoGebra software on 11th grade students’ mathematics achievement in exponential and logarithmic functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(4), 872-889.
  23. Birgin, O., & Topuz, F. (2021). Effect of the GeoGebra software-supported collaborative learning environment on seventh-grade students’ geometry achievement, retention, and attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(5), 474–494.
  24. Bouck, E. C., et al. (2018). Teaching with Desmos activities. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 23(6), 360-365.
  25. Bright et al., (2022). The effect of using technology in teaching and learning mathematics on student’s mathematics performance. The mediation effect of student’s mathematics interest. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher 4(2):em059
  26. Cai, S., Liu, E., Shen, Y., Liu, C., Li, S., & Shen, Y. (2020). Probability learning in mathematics using augmented reality: Impact on students’ gains and attitudes. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(5), 560-573.
  27. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. Publications Office of the European Union.
  28. Chen, L., Chen, P. and Lin, Z. (2020) Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278.https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510
  29. Chorney, S. (2022). Classroom practice and craft knowledge in teaching mathematics using Desmos: Challenges and strategies. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(12), 3203-3227.
  30. Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2018) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Los Angeles.
  31. Cullen, C. J., Hertel, J. T., Nickels, M., Cullen, C. J., Hertel, J. T., Nickels, M., & Roles, T. (2020). The roles of technology in mathematics education. The Educational Forum, 84(2), 166-178.
  32. Dahal, N., Shrestha, D., & Pant, B. (2019). Integration of GeoGebra in teaching and learning geometric transformations at ordinary level in Zimbabwe. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 1(1), ep20001.
  33. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140.
  34. Dasari, D., & Taman, B. (2021). The use of Geogebra software in teaching mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Volume 1882.
  35. Dasari, N. A., & Arbain, N. (2015). The Effects of Geogebra on Students Achievement. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 172.
  36. Dede, C. (2000). Emerging Influences of Information Technology on School Curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies Volume 32, Number 2, 2000 ISSN 0022-0272
  37. Dogan, M. (2010 ). The role of dynamic geometry software in the process of learning: GeoGebra example about triangles. http://www.time2010.uma.es/Proceedings/Papers/A026_Paper.pdf Ennis, R. H.
  38. Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at the middle school level. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 263-286.
  39. Ebert, D. (2014). Graphing Projects with Desmos. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Volume 108 : Issue 5.
  40. Edwards, M. (2012). Our digital conversion. Education Digest, 78(1), 4-9.rtmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175-182. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008
  41. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Send Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning.  Computers & Education, 64, 175-182. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008
  42. Fabian, K., Topping, K. J., & Barron, I. G. (2018). Using mobile technologies for mathematics: Effects on student attitudes and achievement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1119-1139.
  43. Field, A.P. (2018) Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 5th Edition, Sage, Newbury Park.
  44. Fisher, A., Exley, K., & Ciobanu, D. (2014). Using technology to support learning and teaching. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  45. Fishman, B., Dede, C., & Means, B. (2016). Teaching and technology: New tools for new times. In Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1269-1334). Routledge.
  46. Freiman, V. (2020). Teaching and learning mathematics with technology: tools and resources for interactive mathematics. Springer.
  47. Goals. (2000): Educate America Act, H.R. 1804. (1994). http://www2ed.gov.legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html
  48. Gómez-García, M., Hossein-Mohand, H., Trujillo-Torres, J. M., Hossein-Mohand, H., & Aznar-Díaz, I. (2020). Technological factors that influence the mathematics performance of secondary school students. Mathematics, 8(11), 1935.
  49. Grandgenett, N. (2007). Mathematics and computer education. ProQuest Education            Journal, 41(3), 276.
  50. Gulati, S. (2014). Graphing with Desmos–An online graphing calculator. At Right Angles, 3(2), 61-66.
  51. Haciomeroglu, E. & Andreasen, J. (2013). Exploring calculus with dynamic mathematics software. Mathematics and Computer Education, 47(1), 6-18.
  52. Halilovic, A., Nesimovic, S., & Velic, S. (2023). Educational software as resources for improving mathematics teaching in primary schools. International Journal of Science Academic Research, 4(4), 1691-1696.
  53. Hamzah, N. A. H., & Hidayat, R. (2022). The role of GeoGebra software in mathematics education: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 12(1), 1-10.
  54. Hatfield, M. M., & Bitter, G. G. (1994). A multimedia approach to the professional development of teachers: A virtual classroom. NCTM, 102-115.
  55. Hegarty, M., & Narayanan, N. H. (2018). Technology in mathematics education: Preparing teachers for the future. Routledge.
  56. Hernandez – Ramos, et al (2014). Test of e-Learning Related Attitudes (TeLRA) scale: Development, reliability and validity study. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 2016, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 20-36.
  57. Hidayat, R., Kamarazan, N. A., Nasir, N., & Ayub, A. F. M. (2023). The effect of GeoGebra software on achievement and engagement among secondary school students. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 17(4), 611–627.
  58. Hohenwarter, M., & Fuchs, K. (2004). Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra, and calculus: The software system GeoGebra. Mathematics Education Review, 5, 22-31.
  59. Hohenwarter, M., et al. (2008). Exploring the effectiveness of geogebra in mathematics teaching and learning. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 103-113.
  60. Hohenwarter, M., & Preiner, J. (2007). GeoGebra: A dynamic mathematics software for all levels of education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 135-146.
  61. Idris, N. (2016). Exploring the effects of T1-84 plus on achievement and anxiety in mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2 (3), 66-78.
  62. Jelatu, S. et al., (2018). Effect of Geogebra - Aided REACT Strategy on Understanding of Geometry Concepts. International Journal of Instruction.
  63. Johnson, D. & Maddux, C. (2003). Technology in education: A twenty-year  retrospective. Computers in the Schools, 20(1/2), 1-186.
  64. Jon Orr, 2017. Function Transformations and the Desmos Activity Builder.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Volume 110: Issue 7.
  65. Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2020). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in mathematics education. In Technology-Enhanced Innovative Teaching and Learning (pp. 115-129). Springer.
  66. Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers' self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 14.
  67. Kemp, A. (2016). Clocks, angles and functions. Mathematics Teaching, 198, 35-37.
  68. Kieran, C. (2012). Functions, graphing, and technology: Integrating research on learning and instruction. In Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 190-237). Routledge.
  69. Kim, E., & Willson, V. L. (2010). Evaluating pretest effects in pre-post studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(5), 796-817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410372639
  70. Kinchin, I. M., Gobert, J. D., & Wegerif, R. (2016). The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking. Routledge.
  71. King, A. (2017). Using Desmos to draw in mathematics. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73(2), 33-37.
  72. Knauff, M., & Nejasmic, J. (2014). An efficiency comparison of document preparation systems used in academic research and development. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e115069.
  73. Kurz, T. L., et al. (2019). Technology and mathematics: effects on students' learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(3), 155-165.
  74. Kusumah, Y. S., Kustiawati, D., & Herman, T. (2020). The effect of GeoGebra in three-dimensional geometry learning on students' mathematical communication ability. International Journal of Instruction, 13, 895-908.
  75. Lai, K.-W., Headage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student-centered and Web 2.0 learning: A case study of an online master's degree program in mathematics education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 49-60.
  76. Lannin, J. K., Barker, D. D., & Townsend, B. E. (2016). The power of representations and reasoning in mathematics and science learning: a strategy to support ELLs' mathematics understanding. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 127-160.
  77. Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377-389.
  78. Maksimovic, M., Kontrec, N., Panić, S., & Petrović, M. (2018). Analysis of the effects of using GeoGebra on geometry teaching. Proceedings of the Scientific-Professional Conference with International Participation ITOP18.
  79. McLeod, S. (2025). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. The University of Manchester.
  80. Means, B., Baka, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: What research tells us about whether, when, and how. Routledge.
  81. Millar, E. (2013). The pros and cons of digital classrooms. Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada).
  82. Myers, R. J. (2013). Problem-Based Learning: A case study in integrating teachers, students, methods and hypermedia data bases. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and State University.
  83. Naakaa, T., Abah, J. A., & Atondo, G. T. (2019). Influence of school environmental variables on students’ performance in junior secondary school mathematics in Gwer-East Local Government Area of Benue State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 3(1), 61-70.
  84. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2020). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. NCTM.
  85. NCTM. (2015). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  86. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.
  87. Nongharnpituk, P., Yonwilad, W., & Khansila, P. (2022). The effect of GeoGebra software in calculus for mathematics teacher students. Journal of Educational Issues, 8(2), 755-770.
  88. Pomerantz, H. (2017). The role of calculators in mathematics education. http://education.ti.com/sites/US/downloads/pdf/therole.pdf
  89. Piaget, J. (2013). The child's conception of the world. Routledge.
  90. Polly, D., McGee, J., Wang, C., Martin, C., Lambert, R., & Pugalee, D. (2010). A comparative study of the effectiveness of integrated versus segregated mathematics and science course sequences in urban high schools. School Science and Mathematics, 110(5), 254-266.
  91. Rajagopal, S., Ismail, Z., Ali, M., & Sulaiman, N. (2015). Attitude of secondary students towards the use of GeoGebra in learning loci in two dimensions. International Education Studies, 8(13), 27-32.
  92. Rashidov, A. (2020). Use of differentiation technology in teaching mathematics. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, 8(7), 163-167.
  93. Reis, Z. A., & Ozdemir, S. (2010). Using geogebra as an information technology tool: parabola teaching. Istanbul University, Department of Informatics, Istanbul 34452, Turkey.
  94. Ridha, M. R., & Pramiarsih, E. E. (2020). The use of GeoGebra software in learning geometry transformation to improve students' mathematical understanding ability. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1477, 042048.
  95. Roberts, J., & Simpson, K. (2016). Stakeholders’ perspectives on inclusion of students with autism in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education.
  96. Sansone, C., Fraughton, T., Zachary, J.L., Butner, J., & Heiner C. (2011). Self-regulation of motivation when learning online: The importance of who, why, and how. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59(2), 199-212.
  97. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2017). Desmos: a new era in digital math. Teaching Children Mathematics, 24(7), 402-403.
  98. Schaen, R. J., Hayden, G., & Zydney, J. M. (2016). “Now” we have an app for that. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(8), 506-509.
  99. Sengupta, E., & Moyer-Packenham, P. (2019). The role of technology in elementary mathematics: A historical analysis. In D. Polly, M. M. Patton, & R. Kelley (Eds.), Handbook of research on technology tools for real-world skill development (pp. 213-230). IGI Global.
  100. Septian, A., Inayah, S., Suwarman, R. F., & Nugraha, R. (2020, August). GeoGebra-assisted problem-based learning to improve mathematical problem-solving ability. In SEMANTIK Conference of Mathematics Education (SEMANTIK 2019) (pp. 67-71). Atlantis Press.
  101. Shivakumar, G. S., & Manichander, T. (2013). Restructuring the future classroom- A global perspective. Imanager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 9(2), 19-24.
  102. Smaldino, S. E., et al (2012). Instructional Technology and Media for Learning. https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/preface/0/1/3/4/0134287517.pdf
  103. Spears, S. A. (2012). Technology-enhanced learning: The effects of 1:1 technology on student performance and motivation (Doctoral thesis). University of West Florida.
  104. Straber, R., & Krainer, K. (2011). GeoGebra in Teaching and Learning Calculus. In A. C. Barton et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1777-1784).
  105. Sulzenbruck, S., Hegele, M., Rinkenauer, G., & Heuer, H. (2011). The death of handwriting: Secondary effects of frequent computer use on basic motor skills. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43(3), 247-251.
  106. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (pp. 37–76). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
  107. Taylan, R. D., & Dundar, M. (2013). GeoGebra as a tool for enhancing students' learning in algebraic concepts. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 120-130.
  108. Thomas, L. (2020). Quasi-experimental design: definition, types & examples. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quasi-experimental-design
  109. Thurm, D., & Barzel, B. (2022). Teaching mathematics with technology: A multidimensional analysis of teacher beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109(1), 41-63.
  110. Uwurukundo, M. S., Maniraho, J. F., & Rwibasira, M. T. (2022). Effect of GeoGebra software on secondary school students’ achievement in 3-D geometry. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5749–5765.
  111. Vanderwerf, S. (2016): Evangelizing Desmos: https://www.saravanderwerf.com/evangelizing-desmos/.
  112. Vidergor, H. E., & Ben-Amram, P. (2020). Khan Academy effectiveness: The case of math secondary students’ perceptions. Computers and Education, 157, 103985.
  113. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  114. Wang, Y. (2016). A review of research on technology-assisted mathematics learning: What we know and where we need to go. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 85-100.
  115. Weller, T., & Johnson, V. (2013). History in the digital age. New York.
  116. Routledge.
  117. White, J. (2015). The impact of technology on student engagement and achievement in mathematics classroom. Paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Education, Memorial University, NL.
  118. Yeh, C. Y. C., Cheng, H. N. H., Chen, Z. H., Liao, C. C. Y., & Chan, T. W. (2019). Enhancing achievement and interest in mathematics learning through math-island. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14, 5.
  119. Zengin, Y., Furkan, H., & Kutluca, T. (2012). The effect of dynamics mathematics software 10 The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology Volume 1, Issue 4 www.mojet.net
  120. Zengin, Y. (2018). Incorporating the dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra into a history of mathematics course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1083-1098.
  121. Zulnaidi, H., et al. (2020). Effect of use of Geogebra on achievement of high school mathematics students. Education and Information Technologies 25 (1). 

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic