The Effect of Using GeoGebra on Grade 11 Students’ Learning of Measurement at a Selected Secondary School in Guyana

Grade 11 students in Mahaica-Berbice, Guyana, consistently demonstrate unsatisfactory achievement in CSEC Mathematics measurement concepts, particularly in visualizing properties of geometric solids and calculating surface area and volume. This quantitative quasi-experimental study employed a Non-Equivalent Pre-test–Post-test Control Group Design with two intact Grade 11 classes (n = 31 per group) at a selected secondary school. The experimental group received four weeks of GeoGebra-assisted instruction while the control group received traditional instruction on identical CSEC-aligned content. The experimental group recorded a higher post-test mean (M = 18.74, SD = 4.54) than the control group (M = 16.61, SD = 4.32), yielding a mean difference of 2.13 marks and a small-to-medium effect size (d = 0.481), though the difference did not reach statistical significance, t (60) = 1.892, p = .063. The finding tentatively suggest that GeoGebra-assisted instruction may offer a potentially beneficial, accessible, and theoretically grounded approach to measurement instruction in resource-constrained Caribbean secondary schools, warranting further investigation with larger samples.

GeoGebra, Measurement, 2D shapes, Solids, CSEC Mathematics

1. Adelabu, F. M., Marange, I. Y., & Alex, J. (2022). GeoGebra software to teach and learn circle geometry: Academic achievement of grade 11 students. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal, 14(3), 2–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Akendita, P. A., Obeng, B. A., Abil, M., & Ahenkorah, M. (2024). Investigating the effect of socio-constructivist mathematics teaching on students' mathematics achievement: The mediating role of mathematics self-efficacy. Educational Point, 1(2), 110. https://doi.org/10.71176/edup/15662 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research in education (10th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Asnawi, M. H., Turmudi, T., & Harini, S. (2023). Development of GeoGebra-assisted digital learning media for geometry transformation materials based on Van Hiele's theory. International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education, 6(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v6i2.22444 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Attard, C., & Holmes, K. (2020). An exploration of teacher and student perceptions of blended learning in four secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 34(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00359-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Baksh, A., Bhagarathi, L. K., & Ally-Charles, B. R. (2025). The challenges and opportunities of teaching mathematics online at the higher levels in region 6, Guyana: A pilot study. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 25(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.25.3.0757 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Barbieri, C. A., & Rodrigues, J. (2025). Leveraging cognitive load theory to support students with mathematics difficulty. Educational Psychologist, 60(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2025.2486138 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bretscher, N. (2022). Conceptualising TPACK within mathematics education: Teachers' strategies for capitalising on transitions within and beyond dynamic geometry software. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 8(2), 232–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-022-00115-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bulut, A., & Isiksal-Bostan, M. (2019). Perceptions of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers on their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) regarding geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(2), 153–176. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cameron, S. A., Sharif, W. R., Khan, A., Goolsarran, M., & Narain, L. (2024). Secondary school teachers' perceptions: Integrating the national consolidated mathematics curriculum in the Lower Corentyne District, Guyana. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, 2(4), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2024.2(4).13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Caribbean Examinations Council. (2021). Report on candidates’ work in the Secondary Education Certificate Examination May/June 2021: Mathematics general proficiency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Caribbean Examinations Council. (2022). Report on candidates’ work in the Secondary Education Certificate Examination May/June 2022: Mathematics general proficiency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Caribbean Examinations Council. (2023). Report on candidates’ work in the Secondary Education Certificate Examination May/June 2023: Mathematics general proficiency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Caribbean Examinations Council. (2024). Report on candidates’ work in the Secondary Education Certificate Examination May/June 2024: Mathematics general proficiency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Caribbean Examinations Council. (2025a). Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate mathematics syllabus: CXC 05/G/SYLL 16. https://www.cxc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/CSEC-Mathematics-AmendedOct2025.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Caribbean Examinations Council. (2025b). Report on candidates' work in the Secondary Education Certificate Examination May/June 2025: Mathematics general proficiency. https://www.cxc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/01RPT2024CSECMayJuneMathematicsSubjectReportv1.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Carneiro, D., & Barbosa, R. (2021). A framework for online education in computer science degrees with a focus on motivation. In Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems (pp. 137–146). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86618-1_14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Carriazo-Regino, Y., Hurtado-Carmona, D., & Bermudez-Quintero, A. (2024). Improving trigonometric competency with GeoGebra: A quasi-experimental study in a high school. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(5), 2876–2886. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i5.28995 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2019). Instructional visualizations, cognitive load theory, and visuospatial processing. In Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 111–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Clapham, C., & Nicholson, J. (2009). The concise Oxford dictionary of mathematics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199235940.001.0001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Cockett, A., & Kilgour, P. W. (2015). Mathematical manipulatives: Creating an environment for understanding, efficiency, engagement, and enjoyment. TEACH Collection of Christian Education, 1(1), 47–54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Deng, L., Wu, S., Chen, Y., & Peng, Z. (2020). Digital game-based learning in a Shanghai primary-school mathematics class: A case study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(5), 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12438 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Dogruer, S. S., & Akyuz, D. (2020). Mathematical practices of eighth graders about 3D shapes in an argumentation, technology, and design-based classroom environment. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1485–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10028-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ega, G., Firmansyah, B., Noviani, J., & Khairatul, U. (2025). Fostering higher-order thinking skills in mathematics education: Strategies, challenges, and classroom practices. Prisma Sains: Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Matematika dan IPA IKIP Mataram, 13(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v13i2.15099 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Fitri, P., Hiltrimartin, C., Indaryanti, & Hapizah. (2020). Attitude of middle school students toward mathematical modelling. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1480(1), Article 012043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1480/1/012043 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Fujita, T., Kondo, Y., Kumakura, H., Kunimune, S., & Jones, K. (2020). Spatial reasoning skills about 2D representations of 3D geometrical shapes in grades 4 to 9. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(2), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00335-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Galanti, T. M., Baker, C. K., Morrow-Leong, K., & Kraft, T. (2020). Enriching TPACK in mathematics education: Using digital interactive notebooks in synchronous online learning environments. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(3), 290–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/itse-08-2020-0175 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. George, L. (2023). Investigating large-scale, high school mathematics achievement through the lens of the cognitive domains. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 27(3), 35–63. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/23076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. 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), Article 1935. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8111935 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Gurmu, F., Tuge, C., & Hunde, A. B. (2024). Effects of GeoGebra-assisted instructional methods on students' conceptual understanding of geometry. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2379745. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2024.2379745 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, Article 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Huang, H.-M. E. (2016). Curriculum interventions for area measurement instruction to enhance children's conceptual understanding. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(7), 1323–1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9745-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Huang, H.-M. E., & Witz, K. G. (2012). Children's conceptions of area measurement and their strategies for solving area measurement problems. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v2n1p10 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Ismail, Z., & Rahman, S. N. A. (2017). Learning 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional geometry with GeoGebra: Which would students do better? International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education, 1(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.12928/ijeme.v1i2.5541 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Izard, B. (2020). What does it mean to be me? A preservice mathematics teacher's identity development during an education abroad program [Conference paper]. Psychology of Mathematics Education – North America. https://doi.org/10.51272/pmena.42.2020 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Jelatu, S., Sariyasa, S., & Ardana, I. M. (2018). Effect of GeoGebra-aided REACT strategy on understanding of geometry concepts. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11421a [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Joseph, A., & Turner, C. (2025). Secondary STEM+C education in the United Kingdom and the English-speaking Caribbean. INTED Proceedings, 1, 7264–7271. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2025.1883 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Kandaga, T., Novianti, I., & Adnan, M. (2024). Abstraction level of Van Hiele's theory: Occurrence of side effects in GeoGebra integration. Jurnal Elemen, 11(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v11i1.26938 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Kutluca, T. (2013). The effect of geometry instruction with dynamic geometry software GeoGebra on Van Hiele geometry understanding levels of students. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(17), 1509–1518. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Leacock, C. (2015). Status of mathematics education in the Eastern Caribbean: Issues and possible solutions for teacher preparation and support. Journal of Eastern Caribbean Studies, 40(3), 210–233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Lewis, M. A. (2023). Exploring how three psychological factors — attitude, interest and readiness — have affected students' performance in Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examination in mathematics. Texila International Journal of Academic Research, 10(4), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.21522/tijar.2014.10.04.art018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Li, M., Vale, C., Tan, H., & Blannin, J. (2024). A systematic review of TPACK research in primary mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-024-00491-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Liburd, K. K. D., & Jen, H. Y. (2021). Investigating the effectiveness of using a technological approach on students' achievement in mathematics: Case study of a high school in a Caribbean country. Sustainability, 13(10), Article 5586. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105586 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Lindenbauer, E., & Lavicza, Z. (2021). Diagnosing and enhancing students' conceptions in a formative assessment tool utilizing digital worksheets in functional thinking. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1564/tme_v28.3.03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Lowrie, T., Logan, T., & Ramful, A. (2017). Visuospatial training improves elementary students' mathematics performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 170–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12142 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Mania, S., & Alam, S. (2021). Teachers' perception toward the use of ethnomathematics approach in teaching math. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 9(2), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.1551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Martinez, A. R. (2017). The effects of using GeoGebra on student achievement in secondary mathematics [Master's thesis, California State University, Monterey Bay]. Digital Commons @ CSUMB. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/caps_thes_all/137 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. McDonald, W. (2025). Equity in STEM education post-COVID: Broadband, device access, and racial/income disparities in U.S. and Caribbean K–12 students [Preprint]. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5545518 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., Cheng, Y.-L., Young, C., Hambrick, D. Z., Ping, R., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2016). Separate but correlated: The latent structure of space and mathematics across development. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(9), 1206–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000182 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Mozahem, N. A., Boulad, F. M., & Ghanem, C. M. (2021). Secondary school students and self-efficacy in mathematics: Gender and age differences. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 9(sup1), S142–S152. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2020.1763877 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Newcombe, N. S., & Frick, A. (2010). Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what, and how. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(3), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2010.01089.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Noviana, W., Hadi, W., & Handayani, I. (2020). The effectiveness of GeoGebra-based Van Hiele model on mathematical disposition assessed from early mathematics ability. Kalamatika: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 5(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.22236/KALAMATIKA.vol5no2.2020pp167-180 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Ntshangase, S. C., Ndlovu, M., & Oladele, J. I. (2024). The effect of dynamic geometry software use for teaching and learning Grade 11 circle geometry. African Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 3(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajoted.v3i1.50 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Orville, B., & Disraeli, H. (2022). Teaching from the postmodern edge: The intersection of education and cultural studies in the contemporary Caribbean. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 14(4), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJSA2022.0959 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Prince, T. (2024). The impact of GeoGebra on student confidence and perceptions in Calculus III. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 55(6), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2023.2258883 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Rahman, M., Hamid, A., & Asmaun, A. (2025). Enhancing students' strategic competence with GeoGebra and productive disposition: Elevating mathematics learning in the digital age. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 13(4), 930–946. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4923 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Sahin, A., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2020). The effect of augmented reality technology on middle school students' achievements and attitudes towards science education. Computers & Education, 144, Article 103710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103710 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Shittu, M., & Alex, J. K. (2025). The 5E instructional model of constructivism in mathematics education: Teachers' beliefs and classroom practices. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(9), Article 2704. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16884 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Simanjuntak, M. P., Hutahaean, J., Marpaung, N., & Ramadhani, D. (2021). Effectiveness of problem-based learning combined with computer simulation on students' problem-solving and creative thinking skills. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 519–534. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14330a [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Sisman, G. T., & Aksu, M. (2015). A study on sixth grade students' misconceptions and errors in spatial measurement: Length, area, and volume. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1293–1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9642-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Siswanto, D. H., Tanikawa, K., Alghiffari, E. K., Limori, M., & Aprilia, D. D. (2024). A systematic review: Use of GeoGebra in mathematics learning at junior high school in Indonesia and Japan. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika (KUDUS), 7(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.21043/jpmk.v7i1.26201 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Sweeney, A., & George, L. (2024). STEM education in the Caribbean: Challenges, goals, and possibilities. Caribbean Journal of Education and Development, 1(1), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.46425/cjed1101019192 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Sweeney, A., Williams, H., & George, L. (2024). STEM education research, policy and practice in the Caribbean: Imperatives for the next five years. Caribbean Journal of Education and Development, 1(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.46425/cjed1001018191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Tamam, B., & Dasari, D. (2021). The use of GeoGebra software in teaching mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1882(1), Article 012042. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012042 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Uwurukundo, M. S., Maniraho, J. F., & Tusiime, M. (2020). GeoGebra integration and effectiveness in the teaching and learning of mathematics in secondary schools: A review of literature. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajesms.v16i1.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Vennila, B., Renuga, K., & Bagyam, A. (2023). Impact of GeoGebra on student learning and inclusion of GeoGebra in the mainstream. In Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series (pp. 249–278). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7583-6.ch011 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Wang, Y. (2022). A comparative study on the effectiveness of traditional and modern teaching methods. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities and Arts (pp. 206–210). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-89-3_32 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Wassie, Y. A., & Zergaw, G. A. (2019). Some of the potential affordances, challenges and limitations of using GeoGebra in mathematics education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), Article em1734. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108436 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Ziatdinov, R., & Valles, J. R. (2022). Synthesis of modeling, visualization, and programming in GeoGebra as an effective approach for teaching and learning STEM topics. Mathematics, 10(3), Article 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10030398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Zulnaidi, H., & Oktavika, E. (2020). Effect of GeoGebra on students' conceptual understanding in derivative topics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1480(1), Article 012047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1480/1/012047 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Zulnaidi, H., Oktavika, E., & Hidayat, R. (2020). Effect of use of GeoGebra on achievement of high school mathematics students. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09899-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study