Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 4 no. 6 (2026)

Development and Validation of a Supplementary Learning Material in Grade 8 Geometry Using the Think-Pair-Share Strategy with TechnologyIntegration

Jaymar B. Taguba | Sheryl Irene Manaligod

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

This study developed and validated supplementary learning materials for Grade 8 Geometry using the Think-Pair-Share strategy with technology integration to address the need for valid, acceptable learning resources. Specifically, it aimed to determine the level of validity in terms of content quality, instructional quality, technical quality, and other findings, and determine the level of acceptability in terms of clarity, usefulness, suitability, adequacy, timeliness, language, style, and format, illustrations, and presentation of the developed material based on the evaluations of the teachers and expert validators, and if there is significance difference between the two validators ratings on the validity and acceptability of the developed learning material. The study used a developmental research design and involved 44 validators, composed of 23 mathematics teachers and 21 experts. Data were gathered using the Department of Education Learning Resource Management and Development System questionnaire for validity and an adapted acceptability tool. Results showed that the material was rated Very Satisfactory in validity by both teachers and experts. It was also rated Very Much Acceptable by teachers and experts. Statistical results further showed no significant difference in ratings between the two groups for validity and acceptability. These findings indicate that the developed supplementary learning material is valid through expert and teacher evaluation and highly acceptable for use in Grade 8 Geometry. Future studies may examine its effect on students’ academic performance and learning outcomes.



References:

  1. Acosta-Gonzaga, E., & Ramirez-Arellano, A. (2022). Scaffolding matters? Investigating its role in motivation, engagement, and learning achievements in higher education. Sustainability, 14(20), Article 13419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013419
  2. Almanasreh, E., Moles, R., & Chen, T. (2019). Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 15(2), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066
  3. Alsmadi, M., Tabieh, A., Alsaifi, R., & Al-Nawaiseh, S.J. (2023). The effect of the collaborative discussion strategy think-pair-share on developing students’ skills in solving engineering mathematical problems. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(2), 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.1123
  4. Bansiong, A. (2019). Readability, content, and mechanical feature analysis of selected commercial science textbooks intended for third-grade Filipino learners. Cogent Education, 6(1), Article 1706395. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1706395
  5. Benson, P. (2011). What’s new in autonomy? The Language Teacher, 35(4), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT35.4-4
  6. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
  7. Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22. https://tinyurl.com/mtdhktd7
  8. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Buntins, K., Kerres, M., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2020). Facilitating student engagement in higher education through educational technology: A narrative systematic review in the field of education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 315–368. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1255976
  9. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
  10. Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
  11. Dinçer, N. (2022). The voice effect in multimedia instruction revisited: Does it still exist? Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(3), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202214591
  12. Dinnesen, M., Olszewski, A., Breit-Smith, A., & Guo, Y. (2020). Collaborating with an expert panel to establish the content validity of an intervention for preschoolers with language impairment. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 41(2), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740118795158
  13. Elangovan, N., & Sundaravel, E. (2021). Method of preparing a document for survey instrument validation by experts. MethodsX, 8, 101326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101326
  14. Fiantika, F.R. (2018). Internal process: What is abstraction and distortion process?. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 983, No. 1). IOP Publishing., 012086. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012086
  15. Garay Abad, L., & Hattie, J. (2025). The evolving definition of quality: How teacher experience and subject domain shape perceptions of instructional materials. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1671376. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1671376
  16. Garay Abad, L., & Hattie, J. (2025). The impact of teaching materials on instructional design and teacher development. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1577721. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1577721
  17. Gebremeskel, A.A., Ayele, M.A., & Wondimuneh, T.E. (2025). Student engagement, conceptual understanding, and problem-solving ability in learning plane geometry through an integrated instructional approach. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(5), Article em2634. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16391
  18. Gillies, R. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n3.3
  19. Hohenwarter, M., & Fuchs, K. (2004). Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra and calculus in the software system GeoGebra. Computer Algebra Systems and Dynamic Geometry Systems in Mathematics Teaching Conference, 1–6. https://tinyurl.com/y99cepd3
  20. Johnson, A., Wilson, J., & Roscoe, R. (2017). College student perceptions of writing errors, text quality, and author characteristics. Assessing Writing, 34, 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.10.002
  21. Kaminski, J., & Sloutsky, V. (2020). The use and effectiveness of colorful, contextualized, student-made material for elementary mathematics instruction. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0199-7
  22. Kurniati, K., Kusumah, Y.S., Sabandar, J., & Herman, T. (2015). Mathematical critical thinking ability through contextual teaching and learning approach. Journal on Mathematics Education, 6(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.6.1.1901.53-62
  23. Liljedahl, P. (2023). Building thinking classrooms in mathematics (Grades K–12): 14 teaching practices for enhancing learning. Corwin.
  24. Lyman. (1981). Mainstreaming digest. University of Maryland.
  25. Mayer, R. (2020). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
  26. Mayer, R. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1
  27. Mullis, I.V. (2019). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College’s Lynch School of Education and Human Development.
  28. Mundelsee, L., & Jurkowski, S. (2021). Think and pair before share: Effects of collaboration on students’ in-class participation. Learning and Individual Differences, 88, Article 102015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102015
  29. OECD. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en
  30. Orr, R., Csikari, M., Freeman, S., & Rodriguez, M. (2022). Writing and using learning objectives. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(3), Article fe3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-04-0073
  31. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
  32. Polit, D., & Beck, C. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
  33. Richey, R.C., & Klein, J.D. (2014). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Routledge.
  34. Salavaria, F. (2014). Development and validation of worktext in statistics [Unpublished thesis]. Bataan Peninsula State University.
  35. Schoenherr, J., Strohmaier, A., & Schukajlow, S. (2024). Learning with visualizations helps: A meta-analysis of visualization interventions in mathematics education. Educational Research Review, 43, Article 100639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100639
  36. Seels, B.B., & Richey, R.C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. AECT, Washington DC.
  37. Shi, L., Dong, L., Zhao, W., & Tan, D. (2023). Improving middle school students’ geometry problem solving ability through hands-on experience: An fNIRS study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1126047.
  38. Sieng, V. (2024). Improving students’ visual representation and conceptual understanding to overcome learning difficulties in geometry using GeoGebra. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v8i2.29834
  39. Suryani, T., Jamilah, & Astuti, R. (2025). Overcoming learning obstacles in cylinder and cone volume: A didactic design research approach. Jurnal Elemen, 11(4), 951–965. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v11i4.31842
  40. Suryawati, E., & Osman, K. (2018). Contextual learning: Innovative approach toward the development of students’ scientific attitude and natural science performance. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79329
  41. Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000528
  42. Tomlinson, C.A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.
  43. Tullis, J., & Benjamin, A. (2011). On the effectiveness of self-paced learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.002
  44. UNESCO. (2024). Sustainable development goals and quality education in Nigeria: A study of Rivers State Universal Education. Journal of Public Administration and Social Welfare Research, 90.
  45. Van de Walle, E.A. (2019). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally. Pearson.
  46. Van den Akker, J.C. (2007). Curriculum design research. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
  47. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  48. Weigand, H.-G., Hollebrands, K., & Maschietto, M. (2025). Geometry education at secondary level–A systematic literature review. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 57(4), 829–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-025-01703-1
  49. Yan, D., & Poole, A. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Teacher Development, 27(5), 664–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2023.2237484
  50. Zaharias, P., & Poylymenakou, A. (2009). Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: Beyond functional usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802546716
  51. 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
  52. Ziatdinov, R. & Valles, J., Jr. (2022). Synthesis of modeling, visualization, and programming in GeoGebra as an effective approach for teaching and learning STEM topics. Mathematics, 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10030398
  53. Zydney, J., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.001

Tools


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