Teacher Attitudes and Barriers to GeoGebra Adoption in Secondary Mathematics Education
Downloads
Objectives: This study investigates GeoGebra implementation patterns and identifies facilitators and barriers to adoption among Greek secondary mathematics teachers using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 82 secondary mathematics teachers in Western Greece was conducted during June-July 2023 (87.7% response rate), using a validated questionnaire to assess actual usage, perceived usefulness, ease of use, and attitudes toward implementation across four mathematical domains. Findings: Results revealed an implementation paradox: low actual usage (M = 2.21) despite positive attitudes (M = 3.53) and recognized usefulness (M = 3.42). Domain-specific variation showed moderate Geometry implementation (M = 2.77) versus very low Statistics adoption (M = 1.77). Regression analysis explained 40.1% of the variance in usage through Ease of Use (β = 0.360) and Attitude (β = 0.281). B2-level ICT certification emerged as a critical threshold for implementation success. Novelty: This study introduces the Contextual Implementation Cascade Framework (CICF), which explains multi-level barriers to educational technology adoption and demonstrates that positive attitudes cannot overcome systemic infrastructural and institutional barriers without comprehensive professional development.
Downloads
[1] Yohannes, A., & Chen, H. L. (2023). GeoGebra in mathematics education: a systematic review of journal articles published from 2010 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(9), 5682–5697. doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2016861.
[2] Gökçe, S., & Güner, P. (2022). Dynamics of GeoGebra ecosystem in mathematics education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5301–5323. doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10836-1.
[3] Engelbrecht, J., & Borba, M. C. (2024). Recent developments in using digital technology in mathematics education. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 56(2), 281–292. doi:10.1007/s11858-023-01530-2.
[4] Awaji, B. M., Khalil, I., & AL-Zahrani, A. (2025). A Bibliometrics Study of Two Decades of Geogebra Research in Mathematics Education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 15(1), 130–150. doi:10.36941/jesr-2025-0011.
[5] Sayaf, A. M., Alamri, M. M., Alqahtani, M. A., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2021). Information and communications technology used in higher education: An empirical study on digital learning as sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(13), 7074. doi:10.3390/su13137074.
[6] Tavares, M. C., Azevedo, G., & Marques, R. P. (2022). The Challenges and Opportunities of Era 5.0 for a More Humanistic and Sustainable Society—A Literature Review. Societies, 12(6), 149. doi:10.3390/soc12060149.
[7] Pan, Y., Ke, F., & Xu, X. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings. Educational Research Review, 36, 100448. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100448.
[8] Tzachrista, M., Gkintoni, E., & Halkiopoulos, C. (2023). Neurocognitive Profile of Creativity in Improving Academic Performance—A Scoping Review. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1127. doi:10.3390/educsci13111127.
[9] Bobryshov, S. V., Sumenko, L. V., Toiskin, V. S., Taran, O. A., & Babayan, A. V. (2022). Paradigmatic Shifts in Education: Causes, Effects, and Risks. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region, 65, 397–405. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-9069-3_44.
[10] Biplob, K. B. B., Hashim, M. A., Hossain, M. E., Bitto, A. K., Hassan, S. N. S., & Sultana, M. (2025). The Impact of Higher Secondary ICT Education on University STEM Student Performance. Emerging Science Journal, 9, 230–242. doi:10.28991/ESJ-2025-SIED1-014.
[11] Alam, A. (2022). Cloud-Based E-Learning: Development of Conceptual Model for Adaptive E-Learning Ecosystem Based on Cloud Computing Infrastructure. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1673 CCIS, 377–391. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21385-4_31.
[12] Aldon, G., Cusi, A., Schacht, F., & Swidan, O. (2021). Teaching mathematics in a context of lockdown: A study focused on teachers’ praxeologies. Education Sciences, 11(2), 1–21. doi:10.3390/educsci11020038.
[13] Toma, F., Ardelean, A., Grădinaru, C., Nedelea, A., & Diaconu, D. C. (2023). Effects of ICT Integration in Teaching Using Learning Activities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(8), 6885. doi:10.3390/su15086885.
[14] Abedi, E. A. (2024). Tensions between technology integration practices of teachers and ICT in education policy expectations: implications for change in teacher knowledge, beliefs and teaching practices. Journal of Computers in Education, 11(4), 1215–1234. doi:10.1007/s40692-023-00296-6.
[15] Valverde-Berrocoso, J., Fernández-Sánchez, M. R., Dominguez, F. I. R., & Sosa-Díaz, M. J. (2021). The educational integration of digital technologies preCovid-19: Lessons for teacher education. PLoS ONE, 16(8 August), 256283. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256283.
[16] Nzaramyimana, E. (2021). Effectiveness of GeoGebra towards Students’ Active Learning, Performance and Interest to Learn Mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics and Computer Research, 9(10), 2423–2430. doi:10.47191/ijmcr/v9i10.05.
[17] Haldorai, A., Murugan, S., & Ramu, A. (2021). Evolution, challenges, and application of intelligent ICT education: An overview. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(3), 562–571. doi:10.1002/cae.22217.
[18] Chee, H., Ahn, S., & Lee, J. (2025). A Competency Framework for AI Literacy: Variations by Different Learner Groups and an Implied Learning Pathway. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(5), 2146–2182. doi:10.1111/bjet.13556.
[19] Tondeur, J., Howard, S., Van Zanten, M., Gorissen, P., Van der Neut, I., Uerz, D., & Kral, M. (2023). The HeDiCom framework: Higher Education teachers’ digital competencies for the future. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(1), 33–53. doi:10.1007/s11423-023-10193-5.
[20] von Kotzebue, L., Meier, M., Finger, A., Kremser, E., Huwer, J., Thoms, L. J., Becker, S., Bruckermann, T., & Thyssen, C. (2021). The framework dikolan (Digital competencies for teaching in science education) as basis for the self-assessment tool dikolan-grid. Education Sciences, 11(12), 775. doi:10.3390/educsci11120775.
[21] Wu, D., Xu, H., Sun, Y., & Lv, S. (2023). What should we teach? A human-centered data science graduate curriculum model design for iField schools. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(6), 623–640. doi:10.1002/asi.24644.
[22] Jackson, I., Gonzales, M. M., & Mensah, A. (2022). It is not equitable if it is not culturally sustaining: teaching and learning in 1:1 laptop schools. Journal for Multicultural Education, 16(4), 323–336. doi:10.1108/JME-09-2021-0180.
[23] Atay, S., Terzi Müftüoğlu, C., Gülmez, N., & Şahin, M. (2025). Society 5.0 and human-centered technology: Redefining talent management in the digital age. Sustainable Futures, 9, 100733. doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100733.
[24] Koul, S., & Nayar, B. (2021). The holistic learning educational ecosystem: A classroom 4.0 perspective. Higher Education Quarterly, 75(1), 98–112. doi:10.1111/hequ.12271.
[25] Al-Adwan, A. S., Albelbisi, N. A., Hujran, O., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Alkhalifah, A. (2021). Developing a holistic success model for sustainable e-learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(16), 9453. doi:10.3390/su13169453.
[26] Halkiopoulos, C., & Gkintoni, E. (2024). Leveraging AI in E-Learning: Personalized Learning and Adaptive Assessment through Cognitive Neuropsychology—A Systematic Analysis. Electronics (Switzerland), 13(18), 3762. doi:10.3390/electronics13183762.
[27] Castañeda, L., Esteve-Mon, F. M., Adell, J., & Prestridge, S. (2022). International insights about a holistic model of teaching competence for a digital era: the digital teacher framework reviewed. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 493–512. doi:10.1080/02619768.2021.1991304.
[28] Yorganci, S., & Subasi, M. (2025). Interactive GeoGebra applets to improving students’ learning performance in e-book-based learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 30(5), 5477–5500. doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13021-2.
[29] Christensen, J. H. (2022). Enhancing mixed methods pragmatism with systems theory: Perspectives from educational research. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 39(1), 104–115. doi:10.1002/sres.2751.
[30] Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? - A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3025–3034. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.
[31] Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology and Society, 18(3), 75–88.
[32] Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 74, 14–31. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006.
[33] Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, United States.
[34] Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371–380. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033.
[35] Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance? Computers and Education, 83, 57–63. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.012.
[36] Caponetto, I., Earp, J., & Ott, M. (2014). Gamification and education: A literature review. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games-Based Learning, 1, 50–57.
[37] Bruner, J. S. (2020). The Act of Discovery. Search of Pedagogy Volume I, 31(1), 67–76. doi:10.4324/9780203088609-13.
[38] Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. doi:10.1037/a0021017.
[39] De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179.
[40] Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.
[41] Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
[42] Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, MindTrek 2011, 9–15. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040.
[43] Hohenwarter, M., & Preiner, J. (2007). Dynamic mathematics with GeoGebra. Journal of online Mathematics and its applications, 7(1), 2-12.
[44] Hohenwarter, M. (2002). GeoGebra - a software system for dynamic geometry and algebra in the plane. Master's thesis, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
[45] Hohenwarter, M., & Fuchs, K. (2004). Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra and calculus in the software system GeoGebra. Proceedings of the Computer Algebra Systems and Dynamic Geometry Systems in Mathematics Teaching Conference, Pécs, Hungary.
[46] Lavicza, Z. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics teaching at the university level. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(1), 105–119. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0225-1.
[47] Preiner, J. (2008). Introducing dynamic mathematics software to mathematics teachers: The case of GeoGebra. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
[48] Botana, F., Hohenwarter, M., Janičić, P., Kovács, Z., Petrović, I., Recio, T., & Weitzhofer, S. (2015). Automated Theorem Proving in GeoGebra: Current Achievements. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 55(1), 39-59. doi:10.1007/s10817-015-9326-4.
[49] Kovács, Z., Recio, T., & Vélez, M. P. (2018). Using automated reasoning tools in GeoGebra in the teaching and learning of proving in geometry. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 33–51. doi:10.1564/tme_v25.2.03.
[50] King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43(6), 740–755. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
[51] Zambeta, E. (2014). Education in times of crisis. Education Inquiry, 5(1), 24042. doi:10.3402/edui.v5.24042.
[52] Birch, C. (2011). Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America by Allan Collins and Richard Halverson. American Journal of Education, 117(3), 659215. doi:10.1086/659215.
[53] Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285–307. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782552.
[54] Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical Perspectives Influencing the Use of Information Technology in Teaching and Learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Springer, 43–62. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_3.
[55] Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551.
[56] Fullan, M. (2013). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 62(4), 429-432.
[57] Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Hippasus, United States. Available online: http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/ (accessed on February 2026).
[58] Ebina Justin, M. A., & Joy, M. M. (2023). Exploring Intrinsic Motivating Factors in Gamified Context: A Mixed-Method Study. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(19), 3728–3744. doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2104018.
[59] Christopoulos, A., & Mystakidis, S. (2023). Gamification in Education. Encyclopedia, 3(4), 1223–1243. doi:10.3390/encyclopedia3040089.
[60] Clanton Harpine, E. (2024). Creating an Intrinsically Motivating Learning Environment: Promoting Student Engagement and Intrinsic Motivation. Service Learning in Higher Education. Springer Nature, 59–76. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-51378-7_5.
[61] Jones, M., Blanton, J. E., & Williams, R. E. (2023). Science to practice: Does gamification enhance intrinsic motivation? Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 273–289. doi:10.1177/14697874211066882.
[62] Saif, S. M., Ansarullah, S. I., Othman, M. T. Ben, Alshmrany, S., Shafiq, M., & Hamam, H. (2022). Impact of ICT in Modernizing the Global Education Industry to Yield Better Academic Outreach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(11), 6884. doi:10.3390/su14116884.
[63] Rahimi, R. A., & Oh, G. S. (2024). Rethinking the role of educators in the 21st century: navigating globalization, technology, and pandemics. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 12(2), 182–197. doi:10.1057/s41270-024-00303-4.
[64] Kanvaria, V. K., & Yadav, A. (2024). Integrating and Innovating: The Role of ICT in Education’s Evolution-An In-depth Analysis of Emerging Technologies, Current Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions in the Digital Age. International Journal for Multidimensional Research Perspectives, 2(2), 33–48.
[65] Oller, J., Engel, A., & Rochera, M. J. (2021). Personalizing learning through connecting students’ learning experiences: an exploratory study. Journal of Educational Research, 114(4), 404–417. doi:10.1080/00220671.2021.1960255.
[66] Antonova, A., & Dankov, Y. (2023). Smart Services in Education: Facilitating Teachers to Deliver Personalized Learning Experiences. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 597 LNNS, 108–117. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21438-7_9.
[67] Lawrence, L. E. M., Echeverria, V., Yang, K., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2024). How teachers conceptualise shared control with an AI co-orchestration tool: A multiyear teacher-centred design process. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 823–844. doi:10.1111/bjet.13372.
[68] Amarasinghe, I., Michos, K., Crespi, F., & Hernández-Leo, D. (2024). Learning analytics support to teachers’ design and orchestrating tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(6), 2416–2431. doi:10.1111/jcal.12711.
[69] Ortega-Arranz, A., Amarasinghe, I., Martínez-Monés, A., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Corrales-Astorgano, M., & Hernández-Leo, D. (2024). Collaborative activities in hybrid learning environments: Exploring teacher orchestration load and students’ perceptions. Computers and Education, 219, 105105. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105105.
[70] Zhao, Z., & Feng, G. (2022). Orchestration of learning environments in the digital world. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–5. doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2144896.
[71] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540.
[72] Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.
[73] Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (3rd ed.). Pearson, Boston, United States.
[74] Copur-Gencturk, Y., & Li, J. (2023). Teaching matters: A longitudinal study of mathematics teachers’ knowledge growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103949. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2022.103949.
[75] Alexaki, P. S., Antonopoulou, H., Gkintoni, E., Adamopoulos, N., & Halkiopoulos, C. (2025). Psychological Dimensions of Professional Burnout in Special Education: A Cross-Sectional Behavioral Data Analysis of Emotional Exhaustion, Personal Achievement, and Depersonalization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(9). doi:10.3390/ijerph22091420.
[76] Maready, B., Cheng, Q., & Bunch, D. (2021). Exploring Mentoring Practices Contributing to New Teacher Retention: An Analysis of the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 19(2), 88–99. doi:10.24384/rgm9-sa56.
[77] Savolainen, H., Malinen, O. P., & Schwab, S. (2022). Teacher efficacy predicts teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion–a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(9), 958–972. doi:10.1080/13603116.2020.1752826.
[78] Ruiz-Rojas, L. I., Salvador-Ullauri, L., & Acosta-Vargas, P. (2024). Collaborative Working and Critical Thinking: Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Higher Education. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 16(13), 5367. doi:10.3390/su16135367.
[79] Strat, T. T. S., Henriksen, E. K., & Jegstad, K. M. (2024). Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: a systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 191–249. doi:10.1080/03057267.2023.2207148.
[80] Van Katwijk, L., Jansen, E., & Van Veen, K. (2023). Pre-service teacher research: a way to future-proof teachers? European Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 435–455. doi:10.1080/02619768.2021.1928070.
[81] Sortwell, A., Trimble, K., Ferraz, R., Geelan, D. R., Hine, G., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Carter-Thuiller, B., Gkintoni, E., & Xuan, Q. (2024). A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses on the Impact of Formative Assessment on K-12 Students’ Learning: Toward Sustainable Quality Education. Sustainability (Switzerland), 16(17), 7826. doi:10.3390/su16177826.
[82] Chan, M. ki, Sharkey, J. D., Lawrie, S. I., Arch, D. A. N., & Nylund-Gibson, K. (2021). Elementary School Teacher Well-Being and Supportive Measures Amid COVID-19: An Exploratory Study. School Psychology, 36(6), 533–545. doi:10.1037/spq0000441.
[83] Walter, H. L., & Fox, H. B. (2021). Understanding Teacher Well-Being During the Covid-19 Pandemic Over Time: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 21(5), 23–40. doi:10.33423/jop.v21i5.4716.
[84] Sortwell, A., Gkintoni, E., Díaz-García, J., Ellerton, P., Ferraz, R., & Hine, G. (2026). Beyond Cognitive Load Theory: Why Learning Needs More than Memory Management. Brain Sciences, 16(1), 109. doi:10.3390/brainsci16010109.
[85] Cai, J., Mok, I. A. C., Reddy, V., & Stacey, K. (2017). International Comparative Studies in Mathematics: Lessons and Future Directions for Improving Students’ Learning. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Springer, 79–99. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62597-3_6.
[86] Sortwell, A., Evgenia, G., Zagarella, S., Granacher, U., Forte, P., Ferraz, R., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Carter-Thuillier, B., Konukman, F., Nouri, A., Bentley, B., Marandi, P., & Jemni, M. (2023). Making neuroscience a priority in Initial Teacher Education curricula: a call for bridging the gap between research and future practices in the classroom. Neuroscience Research Notes, 6(4). doi:10.31117/neuroscirn.v6i4.266.
[87] Yang, X., Chan, M. C. E., Kaur, B., Deng, J., Luo, J., & Wen, Y. (2025). International comparative studies in mathematics education: a scoping review of the literature from 2014 to 2023. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 57(4), 745–761. doi:10.1007/s11858-025-01700-4.
[88] Bekene Bedada, T., & Machaba, M. F. (2022). The Effect of GeoGebra on Students’ Abilities to Study Calculus. Education Research International, 2022, 4400024. doi:10.1155/2022/4400024.
[89] Uwurukundo, M. S., Maniraho, J. F., Tusiime, M., Ndayambaje, I., & Mutarutinya, V. (2024). GeoGebra software in teaching and learning geometry of 3-dimension to improve students’ performance and attitude of secondary school teachers and students. Education and Information Technologies, 29(8), 10201–10223. doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12200-x.
[90] Birgin, O., & Topuz, F. (2021). Effect of the GeoGebra software-supported collaborative learning environment on seventh grade students’ geometry achievement, retention and attitudes. Journal of Educational Research, 114(5), 474–494. doi:10.1080/00220671.2021.1983505.
[91] Birgin, O., & Uzun Yazıcı, K. (2021). The effect of GeoGebra software–supported mathematics instruction on eighth-grade students’ conceptual understanding and retention. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 925–939. doi:10.1111/jcal.12532.
- This work (including HTML and PDF Files) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
