Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Andriani, S., & Armis. (2025). Profil kemampuan koneksi matematis mahasiswa pendidikan matematika pada awal perkuliahan trigonometri [Profile of mathematical connection abilities of mathematics education students at the beginning of trigonometry lectures]. Jurnal Pendidik Indonesia, 6(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.61291/jpi.v6i2.28
• Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7(3), 245-274. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022103903080
• Báez Ureña, N., Blanco Sánchez, R., & Valdez Reyes, R. B. (2023). Need for knowledge of trigonometry and characteristics of its teaching. Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, 8(3), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.tecs.20230803.13
• Bedada, T. B., & Machaba, F. (2022). The effect of GeoGebra on STEM students learning trigonometric functions. Cogent Education, 9(1), Article 2034240. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2034240
• Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Burgos, M., Bueno, S., Pérez González, O. L., & Godino, J. D. (2021). Onto-semiotic complexity of the definite integral: Implications for teaching and learning calculus. REDIMAT: Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 10(1), 4-40. https://doi.org/10.17583/redimat.2021.6778
• Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill.
• Duval, R. (1993). Registres de représentation sémiotique et fonctionnement cognitif de la pensée [Registers of semiotic representation and cognitive functioning of thought]. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 5, 37-65.
• Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1-2), 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
• Erbilgin, E., & Gningue, S. M. (2023). Using the onto-semiotic approach to analyze novice algebra learners’ meaning-making processes with different representations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 114(3), 337-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10247-8
• Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9072-y
• Font, V., Godino, J. D., & Gallardo, J. (2013). The emergence of objects from mathematical practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 97-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9411-0
• Giacomone, B., Godino, J. D., Blanco, T. F., Burgos, M., & Font, V. (2023). Onto-semiotic analysis of diagrammatic reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(6), 1495-1520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10316-z
• Godino, J. D. (2002). Un enfoque ontológico y semiótico de la cognición matemática [An ontological and semiotic approach to mathematical cognition]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 22(2-3), 237-284.
• Godino, J. D., & Batanero, C. (1994). Significado institucional y personal de los objetos matemáticos [Institutional and personal meaning of mathematical objects]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 14(3), 325-355.
• Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., & Font, V. (2007). The onto-semiotic approach to research in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 39, 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-006-0004-1
• Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., & Font, V. (2019). The onto-semiotic approach: Implications for the prescriptive character of didactics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 39(1), 37-42.
• Godino, J. D., Batanero, C., Burgos, M., & Wilhelmi, M. R. (2024). Understanding the onto-semiotic approach in mathematics education through the lens of the cultural historical activity theory. ZDM Mathematics Education, 56, 1331-1344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01590-y
• Godino, J. D., Rivas, H., Arteaga, P., Lasa, A., & Wilhelmi, M. R. (2014). Ingeniería didáctica basada en el enfoque ontológico-semiótico del conocimiento y la instrucción matemáticos [Didactic engineering based on the ontological-semiotic approach to mathematical knowledge and instruction]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 34(2-3), 167-200.
• Hall, J., & Chamblee, G. (2013). Teaching algebra and geometry with GeoGebra: Preparing pre-service teachers for middle grades/secondary mathematics classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 30(1-2), 12-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.764276
• Hamzah, N., Maat, S. M., & Ikhsan, Z. (2021). A systematic review on pupils’ misconceptions and errors in trigonometry. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 11(4), 209-218. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.11.04.20
• Hoyles, C. (2018). Transforming the mathematical practices of learners and teachers through digital technology. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2018.1484799
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
• Mangwende, E., & Chirume, S. (2025). An APOS analysis of preservice mathematics teachers’ understanding of limits of trigonometric functions. Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education, 10(4), 240-253. https://doi.org/10.23917/jramathedu.v10i4.10440
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
• Pittalis, M., & Drijvers, P. (2023). Embodied instrumentation in a dynamic geometry environment: Eleven-year-old students’ dragging schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(2), 181-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10222-3
• Rabardel, P. (1995). Les hommes et les technologies: Une approche cognitive des instruments contemporains [Men and technology: A cognitive approach to contemporary instruments]. Armand Colin.
• Rabardel, P., & Bourmaud, G. (2003). From computer to instrument system: A developmental perspective. Interacting with Computers, 15, 665-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00058-4
• Ritella, G., & Hakkarainen, K. (2021). Instrumental genesis in technology-mediated learning: From double stimulation to expansive knowledge practices. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Theoretical investigations. Computer-supported collaborative learning series, vol. 18 (pp. 149-167). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49157-4_7
• Sandoval, I., & Possani, E. (2016). An analysis of different representations for vectors and planes in ℝ³: Learning challenges. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(1), 109-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9675-2
• Shvarts, A., Alberto, R., Bakker, A., Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., & Ferrari, G. (2021). Embodied instrumentation in learning mathematics as the genesis of a body-artifact functional system. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(3), 447-469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10053-0
• Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
• Suryadi, D. (2010). Didactical design research (DDR) dalam pengembangan pembelajaran matematika [Didactic design research (DDR) in the development of mathematics learning]. In Proceedings of the National Seminar on Mathematics Education.
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
• Urhan, S., & Bülbül, A. (2023). Investigating university students’ argumentations and proofs using dynamic mathematics software in collaborative learning, debate, and self-reflection stages. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 9(3), 869-907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-022-00207-7
• van Dijke-Droogers, M., Drijvers, P., & Bakker, A. (2021). Statistical modeling processes through the lens of instrumental genesis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107(3), 431-446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10023-y
• Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172796
• Wekullo, B. J., Ramos, R. M., & Huber Castillo, A. (2026). Equipping mathematics pre-service teachers for the digital classroom: Research on tools, pedagogies, and instructional design. Journal of Computers for Science and Mathematics Learning, 3(1), 60-73. https://doi.org/10.70232/jcsml.v3i1.51
• Yildiz, E., & Arpaci, I. (2024). Understanding pre-service mathematics teachers’ intentions to use GeoGebra: The role of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Education and Information Technologies, 29(14), 18817-18838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12614-1
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
• Zengin, Y. (2019). Development of mathematical connection skills in a dynamic learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2175-2194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09870-x

APA

Afifah, D. S. N., Muhtarom, Hayuningrat, S., Ana, R. F. R., Widayanti, E., Nafiʼan, M. I., Azizah, N., Kirom, M., & Setiawan, L. A. (2026). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ mathematical objects and semiotic functions in GeoGebra-based trigonometry tasks: An onto-semiotic analysis. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(8), em2892. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19086

Vancouver

Afifah DSN, Muhtarom, Hayuningrat S, Ana RFR, Widayanti E, Nafiʼan MI, et al. Pre-service mathematics teachers’ mathematical objects and semiotic functions in GeoGebra-based trigonometry tasks: An onto-semiotic analysis. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(8):em2892. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19086

AMA

Afifah DSN, Muhtarom, Hayuningrat S, et al. Pre-service mathematics teachers’ mathematical objects and semiotic functions in GeoGebra-based trigonometry tasks: An onto-semiotic analysis. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(8), em2892. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19086

Chicago

Afifah, Dian Septi Nur, Muhtarom, Silfia Hayuningrat, Ria Fajrin Rizqy Ana, Evi Widayanti, Muhammad Ilman Nafiʼan, Nurul Azizah, Mochamad Kirom, and Lovry Arindo Setiawan. "Pre-service mathematics teachers’ mathematical objects and semiotic functions in GeoGebra-based trigonometry tasks: An onto-semiotic analysis". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2026 22 no. 8 (2026): em2892. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19086

Harvard

Afifah, D. S. N., Muhtarom, Hayuningrat, S., Ana, R. F. R., Widayanti, E., Nafiʼan, M. I., . . . Setiawan, L. A. (2026). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ mathematical objects and semiotic functions in GeoGebra-based trigonometry tasks: An onto-semiotic analysis. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(8), em2892. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19086

MLA

Afifah, Dian Septi Nur et al. "Pre-service mathematics teachers’ mathematical objects and semiotic functions in GeoGebra-based trigonometry tasks: An onto-semiotic analysis". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 22, no. 8, 2026, em2892. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19086