SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kapadokya Eğitim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1

Elementary mathematics teacher candidates’ desmos experiences: technology literacy and pedagogical reflections

İlköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının desmos deneyimleri: teknoloji okuryazarlığı ve pedagojik yansımalar

İrem İsmahan Söyler(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0007-4385-1613
Atilla Özdemir(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4775-4435
Pages
100–132
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, qualitative findings indicated that a positive shift began in perceptions regarding technological self-confidence, pedagogical awareness, and interactive material design.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine the Desmos experiences of elementary mathematics teacher candidates and the reflections of this experience on their 21st-century technology literacy skills.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was conducted with 12 teacher candidates from Süleyman Demirel University, and the participants received a 6-week Desmos training based on the ADDIE model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, qualitative findings indicated that a positive shift began in perceptions regarding technological self-confidence, pedagogical awareness, and interactive material design.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Desmos · Teknoloji okuryazarlığı · Matematik eğitimi

Abstract

This study aims to examine the Desmos experiences of elementary mathematics teacher candidates and the reflections of this experience on their 21st-century technology literacy skills. The study was conducted with 12 teacher candidates from Süleyman Demirel University, and the participants received a 6-week Desmos training based on the ADDIE model. In the research, which was designed with an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, data were collected using the “21st Century Technology Literacy Skills Scale”, “Word Association Test (WAT)”, and “semi-structured interviews”. Quantitative data were analyzed using the Jamovi (2.6.44 solid) statistical software, while WAT data were analyzed by the researchers, and interview data were analyzed with the support of MAXQDA 24 software. At the end of the training, no statistically significant difference was found in the candidates’ technology literacy scores (p > ,05). However, qualitative findings indicated that a positive shift began in perceptions regarding technological self-confidence, pedagogical awareness, and interactive material design. Participants evaluated Desmos as effective for conceptual concretization and real-time student monitoring, and stated their intentions to use it in the future. In conclusion, although the reflection of the short-term implementation on quantitative scores remained limited, it was observed that it triggered a significant pedagogical transformation in the candidates’ professional perspectives and increased their awareness regarding technology integration.

Özet

Bu çalışma, ilköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının Desmos deneyimlerini ve bunun 21. yüzyıl teknoloji okuryazarlıklarına yansımalarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi’nden 12 öğretmen adayıyla yürütülmüş ve katılımcılara ADDIE modeline dayalı 6 haftalık Desmos eğitimi verilmiştir. Açıklayıcı sıralı karma desenle kurgulanan araştırmada veriler, “21. Yüzyıl Teknoloji Okuryazarlık Becerileri Ölçeği”, Kelime İlişkilendirme Testi (KİT) ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerle toplanmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizi Jamovi (2.6.44 solid) istatistiksel yazılımı ile gerçekleştirilirken, KİT verileri araştırmacılar tarafından, görüşme verileri ise MAXQDA 24 yazılımı desteğiyle analiz edilmiştir. Eğitim sonunda adayların teknoloji okuryazarlık puanlarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (p > ,05). Buna karşın nitel bulgular, teknolojik özgüven, pedagojik farkındalık ve materyal tasarımına yönelik algılarda olumlu bir değişim başladığını göstermiştir. Katılımcılar Desmos’u kavramsal somutlaştırma ve anlık öğrenci takibinde etkili bularak gelecekte kullanma niyetlerini belirtmişlerdir. Sonuç olarak, kısa süreli uygulamanın nicel puanlara yansıması sınırlı kalsa da adayların mesleki bakış açılarında önemli bir pedagojik dönüşümü tetiklediği ve teknoloji entegrasyonuna yönelik farkındalıklarını artırdığı görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Söyler, İ. İ., Özdemir, A. (2026). Elementary mathematics teacher candidates’ desmos experiences: technology literacy and pedagogical reflections. Kapadokya Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1, 100–132. https://doi.org/10.69643/kaped.1854111

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (100)

  1. Angeli, C. (2004). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: effects on preservice teachers technology competency. Computers & Education, 45, 383-398
  2. Antunes, G., & Cambrainha, M. (2020). Modelos de exploração matemática na plataforma Desmos: Ensinar e aprender em um ambiente virtual de aprendizagem (1ª ed.). Associação Nacional dos Professores de Matemática na Educação Básica. https://anpmat.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/e-book_Desmos_final.pdf
  3. Avdiu, E., Bekteshi, E., & Gollopeni, B. (2024). Learning skills for the future - implementing the 21st-century learning. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 7(1), 2025011. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2025011
  4. Avsec, S., & Jamšek, J. (2016). Technological literacy for students aged 6-18: A new method for holistic measuring of knowledge, capabilities, critical thinking and decision-making. Int J Technol Des Educ, 26, 43-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9299-y
  5. Ayvacı, H. Ş., Bülbül, S. & Ünsal, H. (2019). Farklı programlarda öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji okuryazarlık seviyelerinin çeşitli değişkenler çerçevesinde karşılaştırılması. Fen, Matematik, Girişimcilik ve Teknoloji Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(1), 1-14.
  6. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A.H., & Sutcliffe, R.G. (1999). Investigation of students’ cognitive structure in elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 134-141.
  7. Bahar, M. & Özatlı, N. S. (2003). Kelime iletişim test yöntemi ile lise 1. sınıf öğrencilerinin canlıların temel bileşenleri konusundaki bilişsel yapılarının araştırılması. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 75-85.
  8. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
  9. Baran, S. (2011). İlköğretim II. kademe öğrencilerinin üçgenler ve geometrik cisimler konusundaki kavram yanılgıları [Yüksek lisans tezi, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  10. Baroody, A. J. (2003). The development of adaptive expertise and flexibility: The integration of conceptual and procedural knowledge. In A. Baroody ve A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise (pp. 1-34). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Battal, A., & Çalışkan, A. (2021). Bilgisayar destekli matematik eğitimi alanında 2015-2019 yılları arasında yapılan araştırmaların incelenmesi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(40), 2258-2287. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.837465
  12. Blyznyuk, O., Kachak, T., Blyznyuk, T., & Katarzyna Nazaruk, S. (2025). Quality education in the digital age: Adapting to 21st century primary school learners. Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 12(1), 58-68. https://doi.org/10.15330/jpnu.12.1.58-68
  13. Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2021). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (31. Bs.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  15. Chechan, B., Ampadu, E., & Pears, A. (2023). Effect of using Desmos on high school students’ understanding and learning of functions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(10), em2331. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13540
  16. Chorney, S. (2021). Classroom practice and craft knowledge in teaching mathematics using Desmos: Challenges and strategies. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(12), 3203-3227. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1931974 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage.
  17. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage.
  18. Çetin, İ. (2017). Ortaöğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (tpab) yeterliklerindeki ve düzeylerindeki değişimin incelenmesi [Doktora tezi, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  19. Çumbur Akçay, N. (2023). Lise matematik öğretmenlerinin desmos aracının kullanımına yönelik eğitimi ile TPAB gelişimlerinin incelenmesi [Yüksek lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  20. Dani, A., & Ashok, D. (2025). Exploring the impact of Desmos on students’ understanding and learning of transformations. In N.-J. Howard, J. Buckley, P. Foley, B. Hassall, S. Suresh, & N. Singh (Eds.), Proceedings of the HCT International General Education Conference (HCTIGEC 2024) (pp. 71-87). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-660-4_6
  21. Dinçer, S. (2018). Are preservice teachers really literate enough to integrate technology in their classroom practice? Determining the technology literacy level of preservice teachers. Educ Inf Technol, 23, 2699-2718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9737-z
  22. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428-1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
  23. Ebert, D. (2014). Graphing projects with desmos. The Mathematics Teacher, 108(5), pp. 388-391.
  24. Erdoğan, F. (Ed.). (2023). Matematik ve fen bilimleri eğitiminde yeni yaklaşımlar 2023-II. Efe Akademi Yayınları.
  25. Erstad, O., Eickelmann, B. & Eichhorn, K. (2015). Preparing teachers for schooling in the digital age: A meta-perspective on existing strategies and future challenges. Educ Inf Technol 20, 641-654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9431-3
  26. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture ıntersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
  27. Ezziane, Z. (2007). Information technology literacy: Implications on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 175-191. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.10.3.175
  28. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  29. Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486-489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 233–252.
  30. Gulli, C. (2021). Technology in teaching mathematics: Desmos, Proceedings of Great Day. https://knightscholar.geneseo.edu/proceedings-of-great-day/vol2020/iss1/8
  31. Guzman, A. & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in the classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 453-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00322.x
  32. Gül, S. İ., & Aydın, S. (2025). Geometer’s sketchpad üzerine Türkiye’de yayımlanmış çalışmaların sistematik incelemesi. Fen Matematik Girişimcilik Ve Teknoloji Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(3), 229-252.
  33. Hakim, R. N., Suhendra, M., & Arifin, M. Z. (2025). Exploring the role of Desmos in mathematics learning: A quantitative descriptive study. Gammath Jurnal Ilmiah Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 10(1), 1-9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390434044
  34. Hari, J. (2022). Çalınan dikkat: Neden odaklanamıyoruz? (Çev. B. E. Aksoy). Metis Yayıncılık.
  35. Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536
  36. Haryani, F., & Harso, Y. Y. (2023). Promoting mathematical literacy using desmos polygraph. Southeast Asia Mathematics Education Journal, 13(1), 31-42.
  37. Haylock, D. (2024). Mathematics explained for primary teachers. Sage.
  38. Herman, N. D. Maknun, J. Barliana, M. S., & Mardiana, R. (2018). Technology literacy level of vocational high school students. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 299, 519-522.
  39. Instefjord, E., & Munthe, E. (2016). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology: an analysis of the emphasis on digital competence in teacher education curricula. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2015.1100602
  40. ITEA (2000). Technology for all american project; standards for technological literacy. Content for The Study of Technology.
  41. İçel, R. (2011). Bilgisayar destekli öğretimin matematik başarısına etkisi: Geogebra Örneği [Yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  42. Jorgensen, R. (2020). Teaching Mathematics in Primary Schools. Routledge.
  43. Kalaycı, R., & Eşgi, N. (2024). Development of the 21st century technology literacy skills scale, validity and reliability study. European Journal of Education Studies, 11(5), 175-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v11i5.5293
  44. Karassyova, L. N., Kostangeldinova, A. A., Ibraeva, S. N., Babaeva, A. D., & Keldibekova, A. O. (2024). Development of algorithmic competence of students in studying mathematics: An experimental study of the effectiveness of the use of information and communication technologies. Qubahan Academic Journal, 4(3), 851-860. https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v4n3a1094
  45. Karindra, D. A., & Ekawati, R. (2022). Development of electronic students’ worksheet linear function-problem based using Desmos application. Jurnal Cendekia: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 6(1), 445-458.
  46. Kassel, A. K. (2022). Impact of professional development on teachers’ orientations and instrumental genesis in their use of desmos in instruction (Publication No. 29261174) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wyoming]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  47. Kaya, M. (2024). Web tabanlı matematik öğretimine yönelik öğrenci görüşlerinin belirlenmesi: Desmos örneği [Yüksek lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  48. Kaya, D., & Aydoğdu, Ş. (2022). Teknoloji destekli matematik eğitimi: Türkiye’deki lisansüstü tezlerin incelenmesi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 12, 185-203. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1123491
  49. King, A. (2017). Using Desmos to draw in mathematics. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73(2). 33-37.
  50. Kristanto, Y. D. (2021). Pelatihan desain aktivitas pembelajaran matematika digital dengan menggunakan desmos. Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, 27(3). 192-199.
  51. Koştur, M., & Yılmaz, A. (2017). Technology supports learning exponential and logarithmic functions. Ihlara Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 50-68. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2023). Qualitative content analysis: Methods, practice and software (2nd ed.). Sage.
  52. Lewis, T., & Gagel, C. (1992). Technological literacy: A critical analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(2), 117-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027920240202
  53. Liang, S. (2016). Teaching the concept of limit by using conceptual conflict strategy and Desmos graphing calculator. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 2(1), 35-48.
  54. Liao, Y.C., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Karlin, M., Glazewski, K. & Brush, T. (2017). Supporting change in teacher practice: Examining shifts of teachers’ professional development preferences and needs for technology integration. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 522-548. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/178710/
  55. Lim, C. P., Chai, C. S., & Churchill, D. (2011). A framework for developing pre‐service teachers’ competencies in using technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Educational Media International, 48(2), 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2011.576512
  56. Lumley, T., Diehr, P., Emerson, S., & Chen, L. (2002). The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140546
  57. Madrilejos, L. D. (2024). The perspectives of using Desmos for students’ conceptual understanding and procedural fluency to solve linear equations (Publication No. 30993081) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  58. Mediana, N.L., & Dio, R. V. (2025). Systematic review on the efficacy of desmos integration in mathematics education: Unveiling impacts on learning outcomes and pedagogical strategies. International Journal of Future Engineering Innovations, 2(4). 104-115. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
  59. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  60. Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42, 34-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420508
  61. Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S.J. & Kaput, J.J. (2008). From static to dynamic mathematics: historical and representational perspectives. Educ Stud Math 68, 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9116-6
  62. Mujtaba Asad, M., Aftab, K., Sherwani, F., Churi, P., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., & Pourshahian, B. (2021). Techno-pedagogical skills for 21st century digital classrooms: An extensive literature review. Education Research International, 8160084, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8160084
  63. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.
  64. Nayıroğlu, B., & Tutak, T. (2024). Matematik öğretiminde yapay zekanın rolü: Eğitimde kullanılan araçların incelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 11(1), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.33907/turkjes.1415591
  65. Nawaz, A., & Kundi, G. M. (2010). Digital literacy: An analysis of the contemporary paradigms. Journal of Science and Technology Education, 1(2), pp. 19-29.
  66. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
  67. Niess, M. (2023). Teachers’ knowledge for the digital age. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 3 Dec. 2025, https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-364
  68. Nuri, B., Zikriana, L., & Iqbal. (2023). Effectiveness of Desmos application integrated with PjBL in multimedia mathematics learning in terms of mathematical literacy skills. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(11), 10457-10465. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i11.5497
  69. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv in Health Sci Educ, 15, 625-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
  70. Özer, A. Ö. (2023). Teknoloji destekli modelleme etkinlikleriyle üstel ve logaritmik fonksiyonların öğretimi [Doktora tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  71. Özerbaş, M. A., & Kaya, A. B. (2017). Öğretim tasarımı çalışmalarının içerik analizi: ADDIE modeli örneklemi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(1), 26-42.
  72. Özkaya, A., Bulut, S., & Şahin, G. (2023). Disiplinler arası matematiksel modelleme etkinliklerinin öğretmen adaylarının matematiksel düşünme becerileri ve matematik okuryazarlığına etkisi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(4), 634-650. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.1312400
  73. Özpostacı, Ö. (2022). Fonksiyon öğretiminde 5E modeline uygun web 2.0 aracları ile işlenen canlı derslerin değerlendirilmesi: Bir eylem araştırması [Yüksek lisans tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  74. P21 (2019). Frameworks & Resources. P. F. Learning, Producer. Battelle for Kids. https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources
  75. Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
  76. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816
  77. Rafi, M., JianMing, Z. & Ahmad, K. (2019), Technology integration for students’ information and digital literacy education in academic libraries. Information Discovery and Delivery, 47(4). pp. 203-217, https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-07-2019-0049
  78. Ramadani, M., Pujiastuti, H., Faturrohman, M., & Syamsuri. (2023). Integrasi teknologi desmos dalam pembelajaran matematika: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Pendidikan, 6(2). 850-856.
  79. Ravid, R. (2010). Practical statistics for educators (fourth edition). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  80. Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33.
  81. Rofi’i, A., Nurhidayat, E., & Firharmawan, H. (2023). Teachers’ professional competence in integrating technology: A case study at english teacher forum in majalengka. IJLECR (International Journal of Language Education and Cultural Review), 9(1), 64-73. https://doi.org/10.21009/ijlecr.v9i1.37683
  82. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  83. Smolin, L. I., & Lawless, K. A. (2003). Becoming literate in the technological age: New responsibilities and tools for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 56(6), 570-577. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20205249
  84. Statti, A., & Torres, K. M. (2020). Digital literacy: The need for technology integration and its impact on learning and engagement in community school environments. Peabody Journal of Education, 95(1), 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1702426
  85. Şimşek, N., & Yaşar, A. (2019). GeoGebra ile ilgili lisansüstü tezlerin tematik ve yöntemsel eğilimleri: Bir içerik analizi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 10(2), 290-313. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.450566
  86. Tatar, E., Kağızmanlı, T. B., & Akkaya, A. (2013). Türkiye’deki teknoloji destekli matematik eğitimi araştırmalarının içerik analizi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (35), 33-45.
  87. Tesfamicael, S. A. (2022). Prospective teachers’ cognitive engagement during virtual teaching using GeoGebra and Desmos. Pythagoras, 43(1), a691. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v43i1.691
  88. TLS, D. S., & Herman, T. (2020). An analysis of pre-service mathematics teachers’ Desmos activities for linear programming lesson. International Journal of Pedagogical Development and Lifelong Learning, 1(1), ep2002. https://doi.org/10.30935/ijpdll/8312
  89. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Siddiq, F. & Baran, E. (2020). Enhancing pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): a mixed-method study. Education Tech Research Dev, 68, 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09692-1
  90. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. John Wiley & Sons.
  91. Tucker, S. Y. (2014). Transforming pedagogies: Integrating 21st century skills and web 2.0 technology. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 166-173. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.32300
  92. Türk Eğitim Derneği. (2009). Öğretmen yeterlikleri: özet rapor. Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları.
  93. Türel, Y. K., Şimşek, A., Şengül Vautier, C. G., & Şimşek, E. (2023). 21. Yüzyıl becerileri ve değerlere yönelik araştırma raporu. T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı
  94. Van de Walle, J., Karp, K., Bay-Williams, J. M., Brass, A., & Livy, S. (2024). Primary and Middle Years Mathematics: Teaching Developmentally. (2nd ed.) Pearson Australia Group.
  95. Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before Technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6, 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012976702296 Weber, N., Campbell, K., Bauer, H., & McCarthy, C. (2024). Voices from the field: Current trends and challenges in instructional design and learning technology. The Online Learning Consortium.
  96. Yazlık, D. Ö. (2020). Matematik öğretmeni adaylarının cabri yazılımıyla çalışma yaprakları tasarlama süreci ile bunların geometri öğretiminde kullanılması üzerine görüşleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(3), 1291-1334.
  97. Yılmaz, A., & Koştur, M. (2022). Mutlak değer fonksiyonu problemlerinin çözümünde grafik hesap makinesi kullanımı. Proceedings Book, 239.
  98. Yurtyapan, M.İ., & Kaleli Yılmaz, G. (2024). Tahmin-gözlem-açıklama öğretim yönteminin matematik eğitimine entegre edilmesinde alternatif bir bakış: Teknoloji destekli tahmin-gözlem-açıklama-değerlendirme. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 12(24), 638-665. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1504515
  99. Zimmerman, D. W. (1998). Invalidation of parametric and nonparametric statistical tests by concurrent violation of two assumptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 67(1), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220979809598344
  100. Tucker, S. Y. (2014). Transforming pedagogies: Integrating 21st century skills and web 2.0 technology. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 166-173. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.32300