Research Article

Integration of GeoGebra in Teaching and Learning Geometric Transformations at Ordinary Level in Zimbabwe

Edmore Mukamba 1, Chipo Makamure 2 *
More Detail
1 Gilston Secondary School, ZIMBABWE2 University of South Africa (UNISA), SOUTH AFRICA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 1(1), 2020, ep20001,
OPEN ACCESS   1193 Views   2397 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


The performance of learners in ‘O’ level mathematics has been generally poor in Zimbabwe. There is evidence that learners have challenges in understanding and interrelating Geometric Transformation concepts as they are used in mathematics. Inappropriate pedagogical strategies of teaching the topic are viewed as the main causes of the problem. This backdrop prompted the authors to enquire the effectiveness of GeoGebra as a pedagogical tool in teaching and learning Geometric Transformations (GT) at ‘O’ level, as contrasted to traditional teaching methods used by most classroom practitioners. A real classroom set up involving the control and experimental groups of learners was used to carry out the study. The mixed methods approach used, incorporated semi-structured interviews for mathematics teachers, while written pre and post tests for both groups of learners were administered. The outcomes of this study show that although the traditional methods had a positive impact on learners’ performance, the use of GeoGebra improved their performance more in GT. Based on these findings the study recommends that for effective and quality learning in GT, teachers should embrace virtual manipulatives to conduct mathematics instruction as it is likely to enhance the mastery and retention of concepts as reflected in the study.


Mukamba, E., & Makamure, C. (2020). Integration of GeoGebra in Teaching and Learning Geometric Transformations at Ordinary Level in Zimbabwe. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 1(1), ep20001.


  1. Ada, T., & Kurtulus, A. (2010). Students’ Misconceptions and Errors in Transformation Geometry. International Journal of Science and Technology, 41(7), 901-909.
  2. Akay, G. (2011). The effect of Peer Instruction Method on 8th Grade students Mathematics Achievement in Transformation Geometry and Attitudes Towards Mathematics (Masters Thesis). Middle East Technical University.
  3. Alharbi, A. M. (2013). Teacher’s Attitudes towards Integrating Technology: Case Studies in Saudi Arabia and the United States (Masters Thesis). Grand Valley State University. Graduate Research and Creative Practice.
  4. Arienda, A., Blas, A. L., Fulgencio, M. G., Laristan, S. D., & Elipane, L. E. (2016). Identifying Advantages and Challenges of Integrating GeoGebra in Teaching Ellipse through Lesson Study. Proceedings of the 2016 KSME International Conference on Mathematics Education, Gyeonggi-do, Korea.
  5. Bakar, K. A., Ayub, A. F. M., Luan, W. S., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2002). Exploring secondary school students’ motivation using technologies in teaching and learning mathematics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 14, 4650-4654.
  6. Bansilal, S. (2015). Exploring Student Teacher’s Perceptions of the Influence of Technology in Learning Mathematics. South African Journal of Education, 35(4), 1-8.
  7. Billman, C. (2014). Reflection/Rotation/Translation Geogebra Available at: (Accessed: 24 May 2020).
  8. Bu, L., Spector, J. M., & Haciomeroglu, E. S. (2011). Toward Model-Centered Mathematics Learning and Instruction using GeoGebra: A Theoretical Framework for Learning Mathematics with Understanding. In Bu, L. & Schoen, R. (Eds.). Modeling and Simulations for Learning and Instruction: Model-Centered Learning Pathways to Mathematical Understanding Using GeoGebra (pp. 13-40). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  9. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2013). Rethinking early mathematics: What is research based curriculum for young children? In L. D. English & J. T. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 121-147). Dordrecht: Springer.
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  11. Dale, E. (1969). Audio-visual methods in Teaching (3rd ed). New York: The Dryden Press.
  12. Davidson, L. Y. J., Richardson, M., & Jones, D. (2014). Teachers’ perspective on using technology as an instructional tool. Research in Higher Education Journal, 24.
  13. Denis, S., & Livia, P. (1987). Relationship between stages of cognitive development and van Hiele levels of geometry thought among Pueto Rican adolescents. Fordham University.
  14. Dogan, M. (2010). The role of dynamic geometry software in the process of learning: GeoGebra example about triangles. Retrieved from
  15. Freinman, V., Martinovic, D., & Karadag, Z. (2010). A Snapshot of GeoGebra Community Endeavours: Building a Research Agenda. Ithaca College: USA
  16. Freudenthal, H. (1978). Weeding and sowing: Preface to a science of mathematics education. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
  17. Gravemeijer, K. P. E., Cobb, P., Bowers, J., & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, Modeling, and Instructional Design. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Communicating and symbolizing in mathematics: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 225-273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Haggart, L. (2002). Teaching Mathematics in Secondary Schools: A reader. London, The Open University.
  19. Herceg, D., & Herceg, D. (2010). Numerical integration with GeoGebra in high school. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics, 17(4), 205-210.
  20. Hohenwarter, M. & Preiner, J. (2007). Dynamic mathematics with GeoGebra. The Journal of Online Mathematics and Its Applications, 7, 1448.
  21. Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2007). Mathematics Teacher Development with ICT: Towards an International Geogebra Institute. In D. Kuchemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 27, 3, 49-53.
  22. Hollebrands, K. F. (2003). High school students’ understanding of geometric transformations in the context of a technological environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 55-72.
  23. Hoong, L.C., & Khoh, L.S. (2003). Effects of Geometres’ Sketchpad on Spatial and Achievement in Transformation Geometry among Secondary Two Students in Singapore. Association of Mathematics Teacher, 7(1), 32-48.
  24. Idris, N. (2006). 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.
  25. Jaji, G. (1990). The Teachers as an Implementor of the Curriculum in Zimbabwe Secondary schools. The Case of mathematics. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational research, 2(1), 1-24.
  26. Kekana, G.R. (2016). Using GeoGebra in Transformation Geometry: An Investigation based on the Van Hiele Model (Dissertation). Faculty of Education, University of Pretoria.
  27. Korenova, L. (2012). The use of A digital environment for developing the creativity of mathematically gifted high school students. 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Seoul, Korea.
  28. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1987). Computer-based Instruction: What 200 evaluations say. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
  29. Laurens, F., Batlolona, F. A., Batlolona, J. F., & Leasa, M. (2017). How Does Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) Improve Students’ Mathematics Cognitive Achievement? EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 569-578.
  30. Makamure, C. (2018). Evoking Motivation for Achievement in Ó’ Level Mathematics in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Education (IJE), 6(4), 13-21.
  31. Mnguni, L. E. (2014). The theoretical cognitive process of visualization for science education. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 1-9.
  32. Murphy, S. J. (2009). The power of visual learning in secondary mathematics education. Retrieved from
  33. Mutendi, M., & Makamure, C. (2019). The Role of Written Feedback in Numeracy in the Primary School Classroom. International Journal of Education, 11(2), 52-67.
  34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics: An Overview. Reston.
  35. Nazihatulhasanah, A., & Shukor, N.A. (2015). The effects of GeoGebra on students’ achievement. Procedis-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 208-214.
  36. Nziramasanga, C. T. (1999). Zimbabwe Report of the Presidential Inquiry into Education and Training to His Excellency, The President, Harare: Government Printers.
  37. O’Malley, P. (2010). Students evaluation: Steps for creating teacher-made test. Paper presented at Assessment Group Conference-School programme, Maryland, Kennedy Krieger Institute.
  38. Ogwel, A. (2009). Using GeoGebra in Secondary School Mathematics Teaching. ICT in the Classroom Conference. Durban Girls’ College: September 24-26, 2009.
  39. Pleet, L. J. (1990). The effects of Computer Graphics and Mira On Acquisition of Transformation Geometry Concepts and Development of Mental Rotation Skills in Grade Eight. Los Angeles: Oregon State University.
  40. Reis, Z. A., & Ozdemir, S. (2010). Using Geogebra as an information technology tool: Parabola teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 565-572.
  41. Seloraji, P. & Eu, L. K. (2017). Students’ Performance in Geometrical Reflection Using GeoGebra. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 65-77.
  42. Shadaan, P., & Eu, L. K. (2013). Effectiveness of Using GeoGebra on Students’ Understanding in Learning Circles. The Malaysian Online Journal of Education, 1(4), 1-11.
  43. Soon, Y. (1989). An investigation of van Hiele-like levels of learning in transformation geometry of secondary school students in Singapore (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), The Florida State University.
  44. Stols, G., & Kriek, J. (2011). Why Do not All Maths Teachers Use Dynamic Geometry Software in Their Classrooms? Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 137-151.
  45. Vasquez, D. E. (2015). Enhancing student achievement using GeoGebra in a Technology Rich Environment (Masters Thesis), Faculty of Science, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
  46. Wesslem, M., & Fernandez, A. (2005). Transformation Geometry. London: King’s College.
  47. White, H., & Sabarwal, S. (2014). Quasi-experimental design and methods: methodological briefs, impact evaluation No. 8. Unicef Office of Research, Innocenti.
  48. Zengin, Y., Furkan, H., & Kutluca, T. (2012). The effect of dynamics mathematics software GeoGebra on student achievement in teaching of trigonometry. Procedia Social and Behavorial Sciences, 31, 183-187.
  49. Zimbabwe school Examination Council (ZIMSEC) (2004-20018). ‘O’ level mathematics Syllabus 4008/4028, CDU: Harare.