Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10210-7

The use of ICT in teaching geometry in primary school

Maria Arvanitaki 1 & Nicholas Zaranis 1

Received: 18 December 2019 / Accepted: 1 May 2020 / Published online: 14 May 2020
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate if information and communications technol-
ogy (ICT) helps improve students’ achievement in geometry regarding solids’ nets. Our
research compares the achievement of the students in the experimental group taught
using our ICT intervention to students in the control group taught by traditional
teaching methodology. In particular, we designed a teaching intervention with educa-
tional activities, in which we incorporated Augmented Reality (AR) technology to test
whether geometry teaching is enhanced. The study dealt with primary school students
of fourth grade, who were divided into two groups (experimental and control). Students
in both groups were pre-tested and post-tested for their achievement in geometry. The
results of the study indicated that teaching and learning through ICT is an interactive
process for students at primary school and has a positive effect on learning geometry as
compared to the traditional teaching method.

Keywords ICT . Augmented reality (AR) . Math . Geometry . van Hiele model . Primary
school

1 Introduction

Mobile devices with intuitive design, such as tablets, offer educators and students rich
opportunities to use technology to modify and redefine learning. "This may enable
teachers to use technology in a transformative fashion and simultaneously appeal to
today’s students’ digital culture," as Goodwin (2012 p. 20) points out. The studies of
Attard and Orlando (2014) and Green and Hannon (2006) strongly illustrate the impact
of mobile devices' ability to change the teaching model and classroom structure.

* Maria Arvanitaki
arvanitakm@sch.gr

Nicholas Zaranis
nzaranis@edc.uoc.gr

1
Department of Preschool Education, University of Crete, Panepistimioupoli Gallou Rethymno,
74100 Heraklion, Greece
5004 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016

The flexibility of the mobile device regarding the purpose and variety of available
applications enables it to adapt the learning process according to each child’s devel-
opmental stages, needs and to different learning contexts (Goodwin 2012). We can,
therefore, talk about means that offer personalized learning (Green and Hannon 2006).
Many benefits of using tablets in learning have been highlighted by numerous
research on the subject (Attard and Orlando 2014; Clarke and Svanaes 2014;
Goodwin 2012; Green and Hannon 2006; UNESCO 2013). Benefits have also emerged
from the exploitation of mobile learning in the teaching of mathematics at all levels of
education, with the majority of research being conducted in the primary school
(Crompton and Burke's 2015; Fabian et al. 2016). Some of the positive influences that
have emerged are participation, interaction, direct feedback, interest, fun (Attard and
Curry 2012), positive attitudes towards mobile activities and the feeling that they have
improved their performance (Fabian et al. 2016). About teaching Mathematics and the
variety of teaching strategies, have been shown positive benefits such as teamwork and
students’ task switching (Attard and Curry 2012) as well as changing the teaching
model and class’ structure due to portability of mobile devices (Attard and Orlando
2014). Of great interest are also the results of the study by Kiger et al. (2012) indicating
that the use of a mobile device combined with the existing curriculum can improve
students’ performance (Kiger et al. 2012).
In addition, many types of research have been carried out internationally about the
use of Augmented Reality (AR) in a variety of subjects, including education (Azuma
1997; Azuma et al. 2001; Bower et al. 2014). The last decade, in particular, it has been
a very popular topic of educational research (Akçayır and Akçayır 2017) with many
studies that show significant pedagogical benefits (Akçayır and Akçayır 2017; Bacca
et al. 2014; Billinghurst and Duenser 2012; Chen et al. 2016; Jerry and Aaron 2010;
Radu et al. 2010; Yilmaz 2016) and many of them related to the teaching of mathe-
matics (Lin et al. 2015; Estapa and Nadolny 2015; Sommerauer and Müller 2014).
As we have seen above, the use of ICT in education and especially in mathematics
has been a popular topic of research internationally in recent years. In particular,
concerning Geometry, the integration of ICT into teaching has also been the subject
of many types of research, which highlight the positive results of students that it has
been applied (Clements et al. 2008; Clements and Samara 2007; Zaranis and Synodi
2016; Zaranis 2018). At the same time, many researchers from around the world have
focused their research on the impact of ICT use on the development of students'
geometric thinking (Choi-Koh 1999; Clements et al. 2008; Vincent and McCrae
1999; Zaranis 2018; Zaranis and Synodi 2016).
Pierre Marie van Hiele studied Geometry extensively, dealt with the gradual thought
of understanding geometric concepts, and in 1957 formulated a theoretical model that
included the levels of geometric thinking and learning phases. The van Hiele model
comprises five levels (Visualization, Analysis, Informal deduction, Formal Deduction,
Rigor), in which children's geometric thinking evolves as they move hierarchically
from the lowest to the highest level (Van Hiele 1984). These levels describe more about
how we think, that is, the objects of thought, than how much knowledge we have at
each level, with emphasis on the differentiation of thinking objects between levels (Van
de Walle et al. 2008). Many researchers around the world have conducted research that
has confirmed the validity of van Hiele's geometrical theory of thought (Fuys et al.
1988; Toumasis 2002; Van de Walle et al. 2008).
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016 5005

2 Present study

In the present study, we also adopted the van Hiele model for the purposes of our
research. We investigated if ICT helps improve students’ achievement in geometry
regarding solids’ nets in the fourth grade of primary school and designed our interven-
tion with activities based on the first two levels (Visualization and Analysis) of the van
Hiele model. Moreover, we used the five skills in geometry (optical, verbal, drawing,
logical and applied) proposed by Alan Hoffer (1981).
Our study was designed based on the above mentioned international literature; we
set out to investigate the following research questions:
Will the students who will be taught using ICT and AR technology have a
significant improvement on solids’ nets in comparison to those taught using the
traditional teaching method?

3 Methodology

The present research was conducted in three phases. In the first and third phases, the
pre-test and the post-test were given to the classes respectively. In the second phase, the
teaching intervention was performed.

3.1 Research design

The present study was a quasi-experimental design with two groups, one experimental
and one control group. Four classes from two public primary schools at Heraklion of
Crete, participated in this study. From these classes, we randomly assigned two classes
to the control group (n = 19) and the remaining two classes were assigned to the
experimental group (n = 27). In the control group, students were taught geometry by
traditional method as usual. The students in the experimental group were taught by the
researcher using AR applications in tablets following the activities we designed based
on the van Hiele model in conjunction with the school textbook and syllabus.

3.2 Participants

The study was carried out during the 2018–19 school year in 4 classes of fourth grade
in 2 public primary schools located in economically homogeneous areas in the city of
Heraklion, Crete. It was an experimental research, which compared the teaching
process of geometry with the help of ICT and AR technology to traditional teaching.
The sample included 46 students aged 9–10 years old. There were two groups in the
study, one control group (n=19) and one experimental group (n=27).

3.3 Instructional intervention

In the second phase, the control group taught with the traditional teaching method
according to the primary school curriculum. The experimental group covered the same
material at roughly the same time following the worksheet with the activities that we
designed in conjunction with the textbook, the workbook and the tablet. The worksheet
5006 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016

was designed according to the van Hiele model. It shows the sequence of the activities
and has been augmented with multimedia materials that we have built for the needs of
teaching. The augmented activities were designed in the platform of MetaverseStudio1
and presented in tablets using the application Metaverse for the Android operating
system.

3.3.1 Experimental group

In the experimental group, the content of the activities was divided into the first two
levels of the van Hiele model, the Visualization and the Analysis. So, the teaching
intervention was performed in two days. Τhe activities of the first level were conducted
in one teaching hour on the first day and the activities of the second level were
conducted in two teaching hours on the second day. The mathematical activities were
focusing on the geometry of solids’ nets.
According to the van Hiele model of thinking in geometry, students in the first level
recognize figures by appearance, often by comparing them to a known prototype. In the
second level, they see figures as bearers of their properties (Van Hiele 1984). As for
solids’ nets the skills we expect students to have in these two levels, according to the
Hoffer theory, are presented in Table 1.
Each level of the teaching intervention consists of four activities that aim to provide
students with experiences in these skills.
The first level started with an augmented activity and was presented to the students
using the tablet. The main character of the activity is a cute, little frog who informed the
students that they would be doing the lesson together (Fig. 1a), presented them three
short videos and asked them about the subject of the lesson (Fig. 1b). At this point, we
encouraged the discussion with the students to find the subject of the lesson and type it
using a tablet. Finally, we presented the usual large solids we have made for the
intervention (triangular and square pyramid, cube, rectangular rectangle, cylinder and
cone) and allowed the students to unfold them into their nets, to observe the net of each
solid and encouraged them to describe them using their shapes as well as the term
“net”.
The second activity began with an Exercise of the Workbook (Fig. 2), where the
students had to observe the two different nets and then write the name of the solids.
Next, the students activated the augmented activity through the AR application, where
they had to observe the net that appeared, choose which solids correspond to it (Fig.
3a), and then select which of the real objects matches the net (Fig. 3b). The activity
completed with an exercise of the Student Book of finding the solid’s name of the net
shown and choosing the object, which it corresponds to (Fig. 3c).
The third activity began doing a matching exercise in the Workbook (Fig. 4) and
continued activating the augmented activity (Fig. 5a), where students should choose
one solid, process its different nets and find out that one solid may have more than one
different nets, and then try to find which net form is not right (Fig. 5b).
The fourth activity was also augmented and was about the different nets of the cube
and the rectangular. In the first part, students were invited to watch a short video about
the nets of each solid, select one net, and draw it on the special worksheet (Fig. 5c).

1
https://studio.gometa.io
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016 5007

Table 1 Skills about solids’ nets that we expect students to have in the first two van Hiele levels according to
Hoffer theory

Skills Level 1 – Visualization Level 2 – Analysis

optical recognize the nets of usual solids notice the details of a net
verbal use correctly the term “net”, associate the correct solid describe accurately the given net and its
name of the given net and interpret sentences that details
describe nets
drawing design the nets of the cube and the rectangular translate given verbal information into a
picture and use given details to
construct the net
logical realize that there are differences and understand that nets or their parts can be
similarities among nets classified into different groups
applied identify geometric solids and nets recognize geometric properties of physical
in physical objects objects and represent physical objects
in a model

Next, they were asked to take a photo of their project and upload it to the digital wall
we created in the application.
The second level started with an activity, where students processed usual geometric
solids in large size, unfolded them into their nets and identified their details, shapes and
edges. Then, followed a guessing game through the AR application (Fig. 6a), where a
student was invited to randomly select an icon and describe to the rest the net of the
solid that was displayed using its details (seat, acne, base, top, net). The student who
found out the right solid continued the game.
In the second activity, students had to complete a table in the worksheet about the details
of the solids’ nets and suggest possible classification groups based on these data (Fig. 6b).

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 A frog informed the students that they would be doing the lesson together (a) and after presenting them
related videos, asked them about the subject of the lesson (b)
5008 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016

Fig. 2 The second activity began with an exercise of observing and finding the name of the solids

Next, in the third activity, we asked students to complete an exercise of the

Workbook, where they had to observe the net shown and to choose the right size of
the bases (Fig. 7a). Then they should activate the augmented activity to answer six
questions about the solids and their details (Fig. 7b).
The final activity was to construct different solids and combine them and to
represent a real object, such as a house.
There was feedback in every augmented activity by a happy or a sad cartoon and
students had many opportunities to try again when they gave a wrong answer.

3.3.2 Control group

The control group covered at the same time the same material with traditional teaching
according to the primary school curriculum. The content of the teaching was also three
teaching hours in two days. In addition to the exercises of the textbook and the
workbook, additional activities were given to the students of the control group to give
them experiences with the processing of geometric solids, folding and unfolding them.
The additional activity was that the teacher presented the usual solids (triangular and
square pyramid, cube, rectangular rectangle, cylinder, and cone) in large size and
allowed the students to unfold them and to observe their nets and encouraged them
to describe the net of each solid using their shapes as well as the term “net”.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3 Students observe the net that appeared in the augmented activity and choose which solid corresponds to
it (a). Students also select which of the real objects matches the net (b). The second activity ended with a task
of finding the solid’s name of the net shown and choosing the right object (c)
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016 5009

Fig. 4 The third activity began with a matching task

In another additional activity with the geometric solids in large size the students had
to unfold the solids into their different nets and identify the similarities and the
differences between them.
Another activity used by the teacher was to give the nets of different solids to the
students to cut them (Fig. 8a) and construct the solids (Fig. 8b).

3.4 Educational measures

In the first phase, the pre-test was given to the classes of the experimental and the
control groups during the beginning of April 2019 to isolate the effects of the treatment
by looking for inherent inequities in the geometrical achievement potential of the two
groups. For the purposes of the present study we designed an evaluation test with
closed-ended questions, as described below.
The test evaluates students' geometrical knowledge and skills on solid networks and
it was designed based on the modified van Hiele model by Alan Hoffer. Specifically,
the test is structured to evaluate whether the students have acquired each of Hoffer's
five geometry skills (visual, verbal, design, logical, and application) for each of the first

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5 Students activated the third augmented activity (a) and tried to find which net form is not right (b). Nets
for the rectangular designed by the students in the worksheet during the fourth activity(c)
5010 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016

Solid's Real
net Bases Faces Verces Edges Shapes object

(a) (b)
Fig. 6 The first activity was a guessing game through the AR application (a) and the second one was a
classification task (b)

two levels the of van Hiele model of thinking in geometry (Visualization and Analysis).
To this end, the test is divided into two identical sections (tests) corresponding to the
first two levels of the van Hiele model and containing questions of Hoffer's five skills.
The test consists of ten exercises, five exercises for each of the two van Hiele levels
with one exercise for each Hoffer skill (2 x 5 exercises = 10 exercises). The number of
each exercise is accompanied by a letter indicating what skills the exercise is referring
to, namely V = visual, VR = verbal, D = design, L = logical and A = application.
The test was graded based on the correct answers followed by the procedure below.
Since the students are taught the nets of six geometric solids - the cube, the rectangular
rectangle, the square pyramid, the triangular pyramid, the cone and the cylinder - the
exercises, except two (1.D. and 2.D.), have six subquestions, one for each geometric
solid. To avoid any problems in the scoring, each question is scored on a scale of 0-6,

Fig. 7 The third activity started with an exercise of choosing the right size of the bases for the net shown (a)
and followed the augmented activity, where students should carefully observe the net shown and select which
of the two solids it corresponds to (b)
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016 5011

(a) (b)
Fig. 8 Students cut the nets (a) and construct the solids (b)

so that each subquestion is scored with a score of one. Exercises 1.D. and 2.D., in
accordance with the teaching objectives in the teacher's book, evaluate students' design
ability in two solids’ nets, the cube, and the rectangle. So, these exercises have only two
subquestions. To avoid any problems in the scoring, these two questions are scored on
a 0-6 scale with each subquestion being scored 3 points. Thus the test is scored with a
total of 60 points (10 questions x 6 points = 60 points).
The test is not a timed test; therefore, no precise time limits were imposed on the
children being tested. On average, children completed the relevant portion of the test in
35-45 min.
Similarly, during the third and final phase of the study, after the teaching interven-
tion, the same test was given to all students in both the experimental and control groups
as a post-test at the end of May 2019 to measure their improvement. The pre-test and
the post-test were conducted over a seven (7) week period, covering the three (3) to six
(6) week period necessary to ensure the reliability of the results according to Brown
et al. (2008), so that students would not remember their answers in the first test.

4 Results

A set of analyses was conducted to determine the effects of the mathematics interven-
tion on fourth graders’ achievement in geometry and the development of their geomet-
rical thinking. The pre-test and post-test were taken by 46 students. Analysis of the data
was carried out using the SPSS (ver. 21) statistical analysis computer program. The
independent variable was the teaching method (experimental using ICT and AR
technology intervention versus traditional teaching method). The dependent variable
was the students’ post-test score.

4.1 Evaluate students’ achievement on solids’ nets before the teaching intervention

The first analysis, which was an introductory analysis, was an independent sample t-test
among the students’ pre-test scores to examine whether the experimental and the
control group started from the same level. The independent variable had two levels:
experimental and control. The dependent variable was the student's pre-test score.
There was not a significant difference in the students’ pre-test scores for experimental
(M=27.93, SD=9.699) and control groups (M=25.26, SD=9.899) (Table 2). Levene's
Test for equality of variances was not significant (F =.054, p =.817 > .05). The t-test for
equality of means was also not significant (t=-.909, p=.368) (Table 3) indicating no
5012 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016

Table 2 Group statistics of pre-test

Teaching method N Mean Std. Deviation

Pre-test Control group 19 25.26 9.899

Experimental group 27 27.93 9.699

significant differences initially between the experimental and the control groups.
Though the experimental group had a mean score higher than the control group, the
mean difference in the scores was less than -2.66. Thus the experimental and the control
group started from the same level before the teaching intervention.

4.2 Evaluate students’ achievement on solids’ nets after the teaching intervention

Τhe analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the students’ post-test scores for solids’ nets
was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. After adjusting for
scores for solids’ nets in the pre-test (covariate), the following results were obtained
from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). A statistically significant main effect was
found for the type of intervention on the post-test scores, F(1, 43)= 4.260, p=.045<.05,
η2 =.090 (Table 4); thus the experimental group performed significantly higher in the
post-test for achievement on solids’ nets than the control group.
Results of this study expand the research on the positive effects of appropriate
software embedded in a computerized environment as a tool for teaching geometry
used alongside with specially designed activities (Choi-Koh 1999; Clements et al.
2008; Clements and Samara 2007; Zaranis 2018; Zaranis and Synodi 2016).

5 Discussion

The general purpose of the present study is to investigate the impact of using ICT and
AR applications with specially designed activities based on van Hiele model in
teaching geometry to primary school students. We focused our research on teaching
geometric solids to fourth grade students. Summarizing from the analysis of the results
presented in the previous chapter, the following conclusions are drawn.
Our findings suggest that the two groups – control and experimental – showed
statistically significant differences in the post-teaching assessment test with the exper-
imental group students performing better than the control group students. Therefore, the
research question of the present study was answered positively. Students who were
taught with the intervention using ICT and AR apps had a significant improvement on
their post-test achievement on solids’ nets in comparison to those taught using tradi-
tional teaching method according to the primary school curriculum.
Our findings agree with similar researches which indicate that ICT in teaching
geometry has positive effects on student performance (Choi-Koh 1999; Clements
et al. 2008; Clements and Samara 2007).
Our results also expand research on the development of students' geometrical
thinking in conjunction with ICT, as it is consistent with the positive results of related
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016 5013

Table 3 Comparison of student scores in pre-test: Independent sample t-test analysis

t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

Pre-test -.909 44 .368 −2.663

research that have examined the contribution of ICT to the development of geometrical
thinking van Hiele levels (Choi-Koh 1999; Clements et al. 2008; Vincent and McCrae
1999; Zaranis 2018; Zaranis and Synodi 2016).
The results also seem to confirm the research conducted on the use of AR applica-
tions in education and highlight important pedagogical benefits (Akçayır and Akçayır
2017; Bacca et al. 2014; Billinghurst and Duenser 2012; Chen et al. 2016; Jerry and
Aaron 2010; Radu et al. 2010; Yilmaz 2016), in particular in the teaching of mathe-
matics (Lin et al. 2015; Estapa and Nadolny 2015; Sommerauer and Müller 2014).
During the study observational notes were taken by the researcher during teaching
intervention, so we noticed that:

& Students were thrilled that we would use tablets in the classroom. Although their
classroom had a computer and projector and teachers often use ICT in various
ways, they had never used tablets in school. So, this was a new teaching tool, which
immediately caught their interest that is in agreement with other related research
(Attard and Curry 2012).
& All students were familiar with the use of the tablet, although some had never used
it before. This may be due to the fact that it resembles the handling of a mobile
phone. However, the tablet is handled with very simple natural movements that
make it easy to use and flexible.
& Due to the limited number of tablets available, the students worked on two, which
proved to be very helpful as they alternately used the tablet so that one handled it
and the other played a more helpful role in enhancing activities and solving
problems. During the process students collaborated, exchanged ideas, and changed
roles, which we believe contributed to our teaching. The variety of teaching
strategies that the teacher can use, such as teamwork and student turnover, are
benefits of portable mobile devices that have emerged (Attard and Curry 2012;
Attard and Orlando 2014).
& The students showed great interest in enhancing the images. It seemed strange to
them that an icon was “alive” in an activity on the tablet. As the icons were in QR
code, they were very curious about what would appear each time since they had no
clue through the image.

Table 4 Comparison of student scores on solids’ nets in the post-test: ANCOVA analysis

Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta
Squared

teaching_method 200.477 1 200.477 4.260 .045 .090

pretest 2077.427 1 2077.427 44.141 .000 .507
Error 2023.735 43 47.064
5014 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016

Overall from the process, we noticed that at the beginning when we were all working
together in class moving from one phase of teaching to the next, there were some
intervals that some students had finished with the activity and had to wait for the others,
losing their attention and reducing their interest. At the point that groups of students had
to work on their own for a series of activities, the students seemed to enjoy their
autonomy, as they proceeded at their own pace by receiving feedback through the
activities and the teacher. We can therefore talk about personalized learning, as has
been demonstrated by other researches on mobile learning (Goodwin 2012).
Regarding the educational value of the present study, its findings should be taken
into account by a range stakeholders such as students, teachers, researchers, curriculum
designers. Specifically, our designed teaching approaches could be set up as a pilot
study to examine to what extend they help students to understand Geometry. We, as
teacher educators, will certainly try to inform our students about these results, which
they will need to keep in mind when designing activities for students. Moreover, the
learning method based on the van Hiele modelcan interfere in various mathematical
subjects as a research plan.
The above discussion should be referenced in light of some of the limitations of this
study. The first limitation of the present study is that the data collected was from the
participants residing in the city of Heraklion, Crete. The second limitation was the
generalizability of this study, which was limited to participants attending public
schools. Therefore, the results from this research can be generalized only to similar
groups of students. The results may not adequately describe students from other regions
of Greece. However, as the study was of small scale and context-specific, any appli-
cation of the findings should be done with caution. The third limitation of the study was
the capabilities of the tablets. The present study attempted to make full use of AR
technology, which unfortunately was not possible due to the inability of tablets we had
to support such advanced technology with high demands, such as AR. Taking into
account the above limitations, we designed activities for limited intervention teaching.
The contribution of the present study is particularly important for research on mobile
learning by enhancing the benefits of using mobile devices in education (Attard and
Orlando 2014; Goodwin 2012; Green and Hannon 2006; UNESCO 2013) and in
particular of Mathematics (Attard and Curry 2012; Attard and Orlando 2014; Crompton
and Burke’s 2015; Fabian et al. 2016) but also in conjunction with the existing
curriculum (Kiger et al. 2012). Furthermore, the undertaken tablet computer-assisted
educational procedure revealed an extended interest for the tasks involved from the part
of the students which transformed the whole procedure into a thorough, focused,
independent learning environment.

References

Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for
education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11.
Attard, C., & Curry, C. (2012). Exploring the use of iPads to engage young students with mathematics. In J.
Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics education: expanding horizons. Proceedings of the
35th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. (MERGA-35)
(pp. 75–82). Singapore: MERGA.
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016 5015

Attard, C., & Orlando, J. (2014). Early career teachers, mathematics and technology: device conflict and
emerging mathematical knowledge. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in
focus: Research guided practice. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia. (MERGA-37) (pp. 71–78). Sydney: MERGA.
Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence, 6(4), 355–385.
Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & Maclntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in
augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1109
/38.963459.
Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A
systematic review of research and applications. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133–149.
Billinghurst, M., & Duenser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer, 45(7), 56–63.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2012.111.
Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented reality in education –
Cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09523987.2014.889400.
Brown, G. T. L., Irving, S. E., & Keegan, P. J. (2008). An introduction to educational assessment,
measurement, and evaluation: Improving the quality of teacher-based assessment (2nd ed.). Auckland:
Pearson Education.
Chen, P., Liu, X., Cheng, W., & Huang, R. (2016). A review of using augmented reality in education from
2011 to 2016. Innovations in Smart Learning, 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2419-1_2.
Choi-Koh, S. S. (1999). A student's learning of geometry using the computer. Journal of Educational
Research, 92(5), 301–311.
Clarke, B., & Svanaes, S. (2014). An updated literature review on the use of tablets in education. Family kids
and youth, 1-20.
Clements, D. H., & Samara, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on
the building blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Yelland, N. J., & Glass, B. (2008). Learning and teaching geometry with
computers in the elementary and middle school. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on
technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Volume 1, research syntheses (pp. 109–154).
New York: Information Age Publishing.
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2015). Research trends in the use of Mobile learning in mathematics.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4018
/IJMBL.2015100101.
Estapa, A., & Nadolny, L. (2015). The effect of an augmented reality enhanced mathematics lesson on student
achievement and motivation. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 16(3), 40–48.
Fabian, K., Topping, K. J., & Barron, I. G. (2016). Mobile technology and mathematics: Effects on students’
attitudes, engagement, and achievement. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 77–104. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40692-015-0048-8.
Fuys, D., Geddes, D., Lovvet, C., & Tischler, R. (1988). The van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among
adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 3, 1–196.
Goodwin, K. (2012). Use of tablet Technology in the Classroom: NSW curriculum and learning innovation
Centre. Strathfield NSW: NSW Curriculum and Learning Innovation Centre.
Green, H., & Hannon, C. (2006). Their space. Education for a Digital Foundation. London: DEMOS
Foundation.
Hoffer, A. (1981). Geometry is more than proof. Mathematics Teacher, 74, 11–18.
Jerry, T., & Aaron, C. (2010). The impact of augmented reality software with inquiry-based learning on
students’ learning of kinematics graph. In 2nd International Conference on Education Technology and
Computer (ICETC) (pp. V2-1–V2-5). Shanghai: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETC.2010.5529447.
Kiger, D., Herro, D., & Prunty, D. (2012). Examining the influence of a Mobile learning intervention on third
grade math achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 61–82. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782597.
Lin, H.-C. K., Chen, M.-C., & Chang, C.-K. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of learning solid geometry by
using an augmented reality-assisted learning system. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 799–810.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.817435.
Radu, I., Zheng, R., Golubski, G., & Guzdial, M. (2010). Augmented reality in the future of education.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533–1543.
Sommerauer, E., & Müller, O. (2014). Augmented reality in informal learning environments: A field
experiment in a mathematics exhibition. Computers & Education, 79, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2014.07.013.
5016 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:5003–5016

Toumasis, M. (2002). Modern teaching of mathematics. Athens: Gutenberg [Text in Greek].

UNESCO. (2013). Policy guidelines for mobile learning. Paris: UNESCO http://unesdoc.unesco.
org/images/0021/002196/219641e.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2018.
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2008). Elementary and middle school mathematics:
teaching developmentally (7th ed. / John a. van de Walle, Karen M. Karp, Jennifer M. Bay-William).
Boston: Pearson/Allyn and bacon publishers.
Van Hiele, P. M. (1984). A child’s thought and geometry. In Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (Eds.),
English Translation of Selected Writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele (pp. 243–
252). Brooklyn: Brooklyn College, School of Education (Original document in French. La pensée de
1'enfant et la géométrie, Bulletin de l' Association des Professeurs de Mathématiques de l' Enseignment
Public. 1959, 198, 199–205). (1999) Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with
play. Teaching children Mathematics, 5(6), 310–316.
Vincent, J., & McCrae, B. (1999). Cabri Geometry: A catalyst for growth in geometric understanding. Paper
presented at the 22nd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia
(Making a difference), Adelaide, Australia.
Yilmaz, R. M. (2016). Educational magic toys developed with augmented reality technology for early
childhood education. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 240–248.
Zaranis, N. (2018). Comparing the effectiveness of using ICT for teaching geometrical shapes in kindergarten
and the first grade. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 13(1), 50–
63. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.2018010104.
Zaranis, N., & Synodi, E. (2016). A comparative study on the effectiveness of the computer assisted method
and the interactionist approach to teaching geometry shapes to young children. Education and
Information Technologies, 22(4), 1377–1393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9500-2.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.