Authors : Johnrick Christopher B. Espenosa; Danimel C. Garao; Eric Nickson Besa

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 1 - January

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/bdd9m7dr

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3wu37skw

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jan365

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Solid geometry remains a persistent challenge in secondary mathematics education due to its reliance on spatial visualization skills, which are often underdeveloped through traditional instruction. This study explores the effectiveness of GeoGebra-Assisted Instruction (GAI) in enhancing student achievement and engagement in solid geometry among Grade 10 students in the Philippines. Drawing from a robust literature base and a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, the study investigates the impact of GAI on academic performance, spatial visualization, and student engagement. It also examines how socio-demographic variables—such as sex, prior academic performance, home technology access, and parents' educational attainment—mediate learning outcomes. The findings aim to inform localized, evidence-based pedagogical strategies for integrating technology in mathematics education.

Keywords : GeoGebra, Solid Geometry, Spatial Visualization, Mathematics Achievement, Mixed-Methods Research, Educational Technology, Philippine Education.

References :

1. Ajayi, K. O., Lawani, A. O., & Adeyanju, H. I. (2011). Effects of students' attitude and self-concept on achievement in senior secondary school mathematics in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Research in National Development, 9(2), 202–211.
2. Briones, J. C., & Prudente, M. S. (2023). Student engagement in the new normal: The role of technological resources. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(5), 123–134.
3. Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007013
4. Dagondon, K. B. (2018). Parents’ educational attainment and involvement on the academic performance of their children [Unpublished manuscript]. Cagayan de Oro College, PHINMA Education Network.
5. Daguplo, M. A. (2013). Predictors of mathematics achievement of students in a public high school [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of the Philippines Diliman.
6. Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294
7. Furner, J. M. (2024). Creating connections: Using problem-based mathematics and technology like GeoGebra for STEM integration. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 12(4), 957–970. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4018
8. Geary, D. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(2), 229–284.
9. Guven, B., & Kosa, T. (2008). The effect of dynamic geometry software on student mathematics teachers' spatial visualization skills. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 100–107.
10. Gurmua, F., Tugea, C., & Hundeb, A. B. (2024). Effects of GeoGebra-assisted instructional methods on students’ conceptual understanding of geometry. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2379745. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2379745
11. Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362
12. Kosa, T., & Karakus, F. (2018). The effects of computer-aided design software on engineering students’ spatial visualisation skills. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(2), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1350142
13. Kusnadi, F. N., & Asih, E. C. M. (2023). GeoGebra on students’ engagement in mathematics learning: A literature review. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2734(1), 090022. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0156522
14. Lucha, R. G. (2021). Effectiveness of GeoGebra-aided instruction in improving students’ performance in analytic geometry. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 11(9), 245–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.11.09.2021.p11731
15. Muslim, N. E. I., Zakaria, M. I., & Fang, C. Y. (2023). A systematic review of GeoGebra in mathematics education. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 12(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i3/19133
16. Nagy-Kondor, R. (2010). Spatial ability, descriptive geometry and dynamic geometry systems. Annales Mathematicae et Informaticae, 37, 199–210.
17. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. OECD Publishing.
18. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing.
19. Pentang, J. T. (2021). Mathematics performance in the Philippines: A systematic review. Social Science and Humanities Journal, 5(2), 1–15.
20. Picaza, J. N., et al. (2024). Effects of GeoGebra application on the performance of college students in geometry. Davao Research Journal, 15(3), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.59120/drj.v15i3.227
21. Saha, R. A., Ayub, A. F. M., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2010). The effects of GeoGebra on mathematics achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 686–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.095
22. Salera, J. M. B., & Guhao, E. S. (2022). Least learned competencies in mathematics of grade 7 students. International Journal of Scientific and Management Research, 5(6), 118–132.
23. Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804042519
24. Shadaan, P., & Leong, K. E. (2013). Effectiveness of using GeoGebra on students' understanding in learning circles. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(4), 1–11.
25. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373
26. Suparman, S., Marasabessy, R., & Helsa, Y. (2024). Fostering spatial visualization in GeoGebra-assisted geometry lesson: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(9), em2509. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15170
27. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and cognitive load theory. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 59–79). Cambridge University Press.
28. Tindowen, D. J. C., Bassig, J. M., & Cagurangan, J. A. (2019). Twenty-first-century skills of students and the schools’ readiness. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Education and Social Science (pp. 23–35).
29. Zarei, M. (2025). How to write a powerful narrative review: A step-by-step guide. Litmaps. https://www.litmaps.com/articles/write-narrative-review
30. Zengin, Y., Furkan, H., & Kutluca, T. (2012). The effect of dynamic mathematics software GeoGebra on student achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.038
31. Zetriuslita, Z., Nofriyandi, N., & Istikomah, E. (2020). The effect of GeoGebra-assisted direct instruction on students’ self-efficacy and self-regulation. Infinity Journal, 9(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v9i1.p41-48