Exploring How Digital and Physical Tools Differently Influence Preservice Teachers’ Understanding
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.5653Keywords:
Content knowledge, Interventions, Comparative study, Teacher education, Digital and physical toolsAbstract
This study examines the effectiveness of using a digital tool (GeoGebra) and a physical tool (tracing paper) to support preservice teachers’ understanding of rotation. A quasi-experimental, pretest–posttest design was conducted with 17 preservice teachers, divided into two class groups – one using a digital tool and the other a physical tool intervention – at a state university in the United States. A content assessment was administered to all participants both before and after their participation in one of the interventions. Results from the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test indicate significant improvement in preservice teachers’ relevant content knowledge after using either tool. No significant difference was found between the two intervention groups, suggesting that both digital and physical tools can provide comparable positive effects on key aspects of rotation. Further descriptive statistics revealed that these two tools helped learners understand rotation in varied yet complementary aspects. Therefore, it is promising to integrate both into instruction for more effective learning outcomes.
References
Akayuure, P. (2021). Preservice Teachers’ Content Knowledge and Learning Obstacles in Shape and Space. Asian Research Journal of Mathematics, 17(7), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.9734/arjom/2021/v17i730318.
Aysen, O. (2012). Misconceptions in geometry and suggested solutions for seventh grade students. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports and Science Education, 1(4), 1-13.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 843–908). NCTM.
Boggan, M., Harper, S., & Whitmire, A. (2010). Using manipulatives to teach elementary mathematics. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3(1), 1–7.
Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031084
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). Macmillan.
National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School (CCSSO) Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. https://corestandards.org/mathematics-standards/
Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 23–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00006-6
FasterCapital. (2025, April 11). Small but mighty: The Wilcoxon test for small sample sizes. FasterCapital. https://fastercapital.com/content/Small-but-Mighty--The-Wilcoxon-Test-for-Small-Sample-Sizes.html
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.
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.
Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 515-556). Macmillan.
Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. Bishop et al. (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 323-349). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0273-8_11
Laborde, C. (2001). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(3), 283–317.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moyer Packenham, P. S., & Westenskow, A. (2013). Effects of virtual manipulatives on student achievement and mathematics learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 4(3), 35–50.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM.
Mason, M. (2002). The van Hiele levels of geometric understanding. Retrieved from http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT8990/Geometry/MasonVanHiele.pdf
Mbusi, N.P. & Luneta, K. (2021). Mapping pre-service teachers’ faulty reasoning in geometric translations to the design of Van Hiele phase-based instruction. South African Journal of Childhood Education 11(1), a871. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v11i1.871
Moyer, P. S., & Jones, M. G. (2004). Controlling choice: Teachers, students, and manipulatives in mathematics classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 104(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb17978.x
Mukuka, A., & Alex, J. K. (2024). Student teachers’ knowledge of school-level geometry: Implications for teaching and learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 13(3), 1375-1389. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.13.3.1375
Ndungoa, I., Balimuttajjobe, S., & Akugizibwe, E. (2025). Conceptual and procedural trajectories in transformation geometry: A comparative study of technology-enhanced and conventional van Hiele phased instruction. International Journal of Education, Technology and Science 5(2), 160-184. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15577682
Ng, O-L., & Sinclair, N. (2015). Young children reasoning about symmetry in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 47(3), 421-434. DOI 10.1007/s11858-014-0660-5
Olive, J., Makar, K., Hoyos, V., Kor, F. K., Manuela, P., & Santos, M. (2010). Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies. In C. Hoyles & J. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain (pp. 71-88). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0949-6_5
Reichardt, C. S. (2009). Quasi-experimental design. In R. E. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 46–71). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020994.n3
Reinke, K. S. (2010). Area and perimeter: Presertice teachers’ confusion. School Science and Mathematics, 97(2), 75-77. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17346.x
Salifu, A. S., Ibrahim, F. I., & Yakubu, A. R. (2020). Investigating perceived difficult concepts in geometry by pre service teachers of E. P. College of Education, Bimbilla, Ghana. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 9(1), 1–11.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reforms. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Suydam, M. N. (1986). Manipulative materials and achievement. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 10-32.
Thompson, P. W. (1994). Concrete materials and teaching for mathematical understanding. Arithmetic Teacher, 41(9), 556-558.
Uduosoro, U. J. (2011). Perceived and actual learning difficulties of students in secondary school mathematics. International Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(5), 357-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v5i5.28
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2019). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (10th ed.). Pearson.
Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4), Article Two.
Venkat, H., & Spaull, N. (2015). What do we know about primary teachers’ mathematical content knowledge in South Africa? An analysis of SACMEQ 2007. International Journal of Educational Development, 41, 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.02.002
Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: The perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 1169-1208). Information Age Publishing.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Technology in Education and Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
