You are here:

Teaching Geometry In The 21st Century: Investigating Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Levels

, Atatürk University, Turkey ; , Kafkas University, Turkey ; , Oregon State University, United States

JCMST Volume 37, Number 2, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


This qualitative case study investigates teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) when teaching high school geometry. Geometry teachers’ TPACK was examined through four recognized TPACK components, considering the teacher-participants’: (1) overarching conceptions about the purposes for incorporating technology in teaching solid geometry, (2) knowledge of students’ understandings, thinking and learning in solid geometry with technology, (3) knowledge of curriculum and curricular materials that integrate technology in learning and teaching solid geometry topics, and (4) knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching and learning secondary solid geometry topics with technologies. Five TPACK levels (recognizing, accepting, adapting, exploring and advancing) framed the investigation with the four TPACK components. Three high school mathematics teachers participated in the study through semi-structured interviews, preparation of course plans and microteaching experiences. The results revealed that the teachers were generally at a level not represented in the five levels, rather were at a level called pre-recognizing. Examination of the teachers’ TPACK levels through the microteaching experiences and their course plans suggested levels lower than that identified through their interviews. This result suggests that while teachers may be able to envision ways to integrate the technologies in their instruction, they are less likely to actually follow through in their actual teaching.


Tatar, E., Aldemir, R. & Niess, M. (2018). Teaching Geometry In The 21st Century: Investigating Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Levels. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 37(2), 111-129. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 18, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Aktümen, M., Yıldız, A., Horzum, T., & Ceylan, T. (2011). The views of primary school mathematics teachers on the applicability of GeoGebra software in courses. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 2(2), 103-120.
  2. Bainville, E. And Laborde, J.M. (2004) Cabri3D, V.1.0.3 Cabrilog, Tatar, Aldemir, and Niess mathematics curriculum. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 6(2), 285-298.
  3. Cox, S. & Graham, C.R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 60-69.
  4. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (Second edition). London: Sage.
  5. Demir, V. (2010). The impact of Cabri 3d dynamic geometry software on geometric thinking and academic success, Master’s thesis. Marmara University, Institute of Educational Sciences, şstanbul.
  6. Escuder, A. (2013). Mıddle School Teachers’ usage Of Dynamıc Mathematıcs Learnıng Envıronments As Cognıtıve Instructıonal Tools. Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida.
  7. Graham, C.R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers& Education, 57(3), 1953-1960.
  8. Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  9. Hohenwarter, M. (2002). GeoGebra-a software system for dynamic geometry and algebra in the plane (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Salzburg, Austria.
  10. Huang, H.M.E., & Witz, K.G. (2013). Children’s conceptions of area measurement and their strategies for solving area measurement problems. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 2(1), 10.
  11. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
  12. Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In. AACTE committee on innovation and technology (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Teaching and Teacher Educators, (pp. 3-34). New York and London: Routledge.
  13. Koehler, M., Shin, T.S. & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. Robert N. Ronau, Christopher R. Rakes and Margaret L. Niess, (Eds.), Educational Technology, Teacher Knowledge, and Classroom Impact: A Research Handbook on Frameworks and Approaches, (pp. 16-31). United States of America: IGI Global.
  14. Kösa, T. (2011). An investigation of secondary school students’ spatial skills. Doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Trabzon.
  15. Lyunlinskaya, I, & Tournaki, N. (2011). The effects of teacher content authoring on TPACK and on students achievement in algebra: Research on instruction with the TI-Nspire handheld. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference, Nashville, TN: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Teaching Geometry in The 21st Century TPACK development in mathematics and science through assessment of lesson plan. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(4), 449-470.
  16. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teacher College Records, 108(6), 1017–1054.
  17. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.
  18. Niess, M.L. (2007, March). Developing teacher’s TPCK for teaching mathematics with spreadsheets. Paper presented for the Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE) Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.
  19. Niess, M.L. (2013). Central component descriptors for levels of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Special issue on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 173-198.
  20. Niess, M.L., Ronau, R.N., Shafer, K.G., Driskell, S.O., Harper S.R., Johnston, C., Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, S.A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 9(1). Retrieved from Niess, M.L., Suharwoto, G., Lee, K., & Sadri, P. (2006, April). Guiding inservice mathematics in developing TPCK. Paper presented at the Annual
  21. Riales, J.W. (2011). An examination of secondary mathematics teachers’ TPACK development through participation in a technology-based lesson study. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Mississippi, 265 pages; UMI Number: 3461312.
  22. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. Shulman, L., S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  23. Sung, Y.T., Shih, P.C., & Chang, K.E. (2015). The effects of 3D-representation instruction on composite-solid surface-area learning for elementary school students. Instructional Science, 43(1), 115-145.
  24. Ural, A. (2015). Examining middle school mathematics teachers’ use of ınformation and communication technologies and psychomotor skills. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 6(1), 93-116.
  25. Yenilmez, K & Karakuş, Ö. (2008). The views of elementary school and mathematics teachers on computer aided mathematics teaching. Mehmet Akif University Journal of Education Faculty, 87-98.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact