Research article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Progressive Education 2025, Vol. 21(3) 1-25

Mathematical Modeling Studies on Geometry Subjects: What, How, When. A Systematic Literature Review

Berna Somuncu, Kübra Alan, Seyma Sengil Akar, Elif Saygı

pp. 1 - 25   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2025.1317.1

Publish Date: June 30, 2025  |   Single/Total View: 0/0   |   Single/Total Download: 0/0


Abstract

The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of mathematical modeling studies on geometry between 2007 and 2023. For this purpose, trends in the scope and methods of the studies to be examined were determined. A systematic literature review was conducted through ERIC, Web of Science and Scopus databases that the researcher's institution had access to. In this context, it was realized that there were a limited number of articles. All studies from the databases that met the inclusion criteria determined within the scope of the research were included. As a result of the analysis, it was seen that most of the studies dealing with geometry topics were conducted in 2022, and qualitative analysis was mostly adopted in the studies. When the application levels of the studies were examined, it was seen that conducting research with high school students was more preferred. When the aims of the studies examined are considered within the framework of findings and results, it is possible to classify the aims in 4 subcategories. These are, respectively, the transfer of mathematical knowledge outside the classroom and the effect of the techniques used in this process on the skills in the modeling process, the transfer of mathematical situations to real life situations, the effect of modeling problems on the problem solving process and activity design, and the examination of the transition between the modeling cycle steps in the modeling problem solution phase. As emphasized in the literature, the aims of the studies were generally on the development of mathematical skills through mathematical modeling. When the implementation options of the articles in the classroom were examined, geometry topics in mathematical modeling were mostly given in a technology-supported environment. In addition, it is seen that Geogebra is the most prominent application among different technological tools during modeling. In this direction, it is thought that the study will provide a holistic perspective to the data of the researches conducted so far and will give an idea to future mathematical modeling studies in geometry.

Keywords: Geometry, Mathematical Modelling, Mathematical Modelling Activities, MEAs, Systematic Review


How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Somuncu, B., Alan, K., Akar, S.S., & Saygi, E. (2025). Mathematical Modeling Studies on Geometry Subjects: What, How, When. A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Progressive Education, 21(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2025.1317.1

Harvard
Somuncu, B., Alan, K., Akar, S. and Saygi, E. (2025). Mathematical Modeling Studies on Geometry Subjects: What, How, When. A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Progressive Education, 21(3), pp. 1-25.

Chicago 16th edition
Somuncu, Berna, Kubra Alan, Seyma Sengil Akar and Elif Saygi (2025). "Mathematical Modeling Studies on Geometry Subjects: What, How, When. A Systematic Literature Review". International Journal of Progressive Education 21 (3):1-25. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2025.1317.1

References
  1. Akyildiz, S. & Ahmed, K.H. (2021). An overview of qualitative research and focus group discussion. Journal of Academic Research in Education, 7(1), 1-15. DOI: 10.17985/ijare.866762. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alisina, C. (2007). Less chalk, fewer words, less symbols ... more objects, more context, more [Google Scholar]
  3. actions. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modeling and [Google Scholar]
  4. applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 35–44). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ang, K. C. (2010). Teaching and learning mathematical modeling with technology. In W. Yang, M. Majewski, T. Alwis, & W. P. Hew (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 1–11). USA: Mathematics and Technology.06.12.2023.http://atcm.mathandtech.org/ep2010/invited/3052010_18134.pdf [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum, W. & Leiß, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modeling problems? In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modeling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering, and economics (222-231). Chichester: Horwood Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bonotto, C. (2007). How to replace word problems with activities of realistic mathematical [Google Scholar]
  8. modeling. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modeling and [Google Scholar]
  9. applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 45-56). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  10. Borromeo Ferri, R. (2006). Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modeling process. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik-ZDM, 38 (2), 86-95. [Google Scholar]
  11. Budinski, N. (2017). An Example of how Geogebra can be used as a tool for the stem. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 24(3), 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1564/tme_v24.3.07 [Google Scholar]
  12. Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th ed.). Melbourne: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  13. Clements, D. H., (1997). "(Mis) Constructing constructivism". Teaching Children Mathematics, 14(4), 198–200. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chinnappan, M. (2010). Cognitive load and modeling of an algebra problem. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 8-23. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cooper, H. M. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  16. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
  17. Çevikbaş, M., Kaiser, G., & Schukajlow, S. (2022). A systematic literature review of the current discussion on mathematical modeling competencies: State-of-the-art developments in conceptualizing, measuring, and fostering. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Dixon-Woods, M. (2011). Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Medicine, 9(39), 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ekol, G. (2011). Understanding and promoting mathematical modeling competencies: an applied perspective. In G. Kaiser et al. (eds.), Trends in Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling, International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling, 57–64. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_7, [Google Scholar]
  20. English, L.D. (2010). Young children's early modeling with data. Mathematics Education Research Journal 22(2), 24–47. [Google Scholar]
  21. English, L.D., & Watters, J. (2004). Mathematical modeling with young children. 28th Conference of The International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 335–342. Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College. [Google Scholar]
  22. EPPI (2010). EPPI-Centre methods for conducting systematic reviews. London: EPPI. [Google Scholar]
  23. E.W. Packel & S. Wagon, (1994). Animating calculus: Mathematica notebooks for the laboratory, W.H. Freeman, New York, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fredriksen, H. (2020). Exploring realistic mathematics education in a flipped classroom context at the tertiary level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(2), 377-396. [Google Scholar]
  25. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., Redmond, R., & Lowe, J. (2008). CAS enabled devices to be provocative agents in the process of mathematical modeling. In M. Goos, R. Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Inc. 219-226. [Google Scholar]
  26. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as 'agents provocateurs' in teaching and learning mathematical modeling in secondary school classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48-68. [Google Scholar]
  27. Girnat, B. & Eichler, A. (2011). Secondary teachers' beliefs on modeling in geometry and stochastics. In G. Kaiser et al. (eds.), Trends in Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling, International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling, 75-84. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0910-2_9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Greefrath, G., Hertleif, C., & Siller, H-S. (2018). Mathematical modeling with digital tools-a quantitative study on mathematizing with dynamic geometry software. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(1-2), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0924-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Greefrath, G. & Siller, H-S. (2018). GeoGebra as a tool in modeling processes. Uses of Technology in Primary and Secondary Mathematics Education, ICME-13 Monographs, 363-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76575-4_21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Guerrero-Ortiz, C. & Camacho-Machín, M. (2022). We are characterizing tasks for teaching mathematics in dynamic geometry systems and modeling environments. Mathematics 10 (1239), 1-20. https:// doi.org/10.3390/math10081239 [Google Scholar]
  31. Güneş, G. & Şahin, V. (2019). The algorithm of mathematical modeling for learning styles of preschool children. Education, International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education 3-13, 47(3), 277-292, DOI:10.1080/03004279.2018.1430844 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haas, B., Lavicza, Z & Kreis, Y. (2023). Parent's experience in remote learning during COVID-19 with digital and physical-mathematical modeling. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 18(13), 1-21. [Google Scholar]
  33. Henn, H.W. (1998). Crash tests and the head injury criterion. Teachıng Mathematıcs and Its Applıcatıons, 17(4), 162-170. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hıdıroğlu, Ç.N. & Bukova Güzel, E. (2016). The Conceptualization of the Mathematical Modelling Process in a Technology-Aided Environment. International Journal of Technology in Mathematics Education, 24(1), 17-37. [Google Scholar]
  35. Jackiw, N. & Sinclair, N. (2009). Sounds and pictures: dynamism and dualism in Dynamic Geometry. ZDM Mathematics Education 41, 413–426. DOI 10.1007/s11858-009-0196-2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jones, G., Langrall, C., Thornton, C., & Nisbet, S. (2002). Elementary school children's access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 113–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaiser-Meßmer, G. (1986). Anwendungen im mathematikunterricht (Applications in mathematics classrooms). Bad Salzdetfurth: Franzbecker. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kalinec-Craig, C., Prasad, P.V., & Luna, C. (2019). Geometric transformations and Talavera tiles: a culturally responsive approach to teacher professional development and mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics and the Arts, 13(1-2), pp. 72-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513472.2018.1504491 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Kemp, A., & Vidakovic, D. (2021). Ways secondary mathematics teachers apply definitions in Taxicab geometry for a real-life situation: Midset. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 62, 100848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100848 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Latifi, M., Eseghir, A., Elmaroufi, A., Hattaf, K., & Achtaich, N. (2022). Modeling with differential equations and Geogebra in high school mathematics education. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 12(3), 47-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2022-0065 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Lee, N.H., Yeo, J.S.D., & Hong, S.E. (2014). A metacognitive-based instruction for primary four students to approach non-routine mathematical word problems. ZDM - the International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(3), 465–480. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Origins and evolutions of model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. In R. A. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on teaching, learning, and problem-solving in mathematics education (pp. 59-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  43. Lesh, R. & Caylor, B. (2007). Introduction to the special issue: Modeling as application versus modeling as a way to create mathematics. Int J Comput Math Learning, 12 (2007), 173–194. DOI 10.1007/s10758-007-9121-3 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of models and modeling perspective on three mathematics teaching, learning, and problem-solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching, (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lesh, R., & Yoon, C. (2007). What is distinctive in (our views about) models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching? In W. Blum, W. P. Galbraith, P., Henn, H.W. & Niss M. (Eds.), Modeling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 161-170). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lesh, R.A., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem-solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  47. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., ... Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Maaß, K. (2006). What are modeling competencies? Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik [ZDM], 38(2),113-142. [Google Scholar]
  49. Makar, K., & Confrey, J. (2007). Moving the context of modeling to the forefront: Preservice. [Google Scholar]
  50. Teachers' investigations of equity in testing. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.W. Henn, M. Niss (Eds.), Modeling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 485-490). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  51. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (2015). Qualitative data analysis (Translation from Second Edition). (Translated by S. Akbaba-Altun and A. Ersoy). Ankara: Pegem A Akademi Publications. [Google Scholar]
  52. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A. and PRISMAP Group (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1-9. [Google Scholar]
  53. Morante, A. & Vallejo, J.A. (2012). Modeling the landing of a plane in a calculus lab. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43 (7), 936 949, DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2011.633626 [Google Scholar]
  54. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NCTM (2020). Standards for School Mathematics Teacher Preparation. [Google Scholar]
  55. Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H.W. Henn,& M. Niss (Eds.), Modeling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI Study (pp. 3-33). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  56. OECD (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During - and From - Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Ortiz, G. & Machin, M. (2022). Characterizing tasks for teaching mathematics in dynamic geometry systems and modeling environments. Mathematics, 10(8), 1239. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10081239 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(422). http://dx.doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2017.00422. [Google Scholar]
  60. Passarella, S. (2022). Supporting emergent modeling by implementing model eliciting activities: the case of 3D-Euclidean geometry. Research in Mathematics Education, 24(3), 347-366, DOI:10.1080/14794802.2021.1994869 [Google Scholar]
  61. Rellensmann, J., Schukajlow, S., & Leopold, C. (2020). Measuring and investigating strategic knowledge about drawing to solve geometry modeling problems. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(1), 97-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01085-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  62. Rellensmann, J., Schukajlow, S., Blomberg, J., & Leopold, C. (2023). Does strategic knowledge matter? Effects of strategic knowledge about drawing on students' modeling competencies in geometry. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 25(3), 296-316, DOI: 10.1080/10986065.2021.2012741 [Google Scholar]
  63. Rincón Flores, E.G., Montoya, M.S.R., & Mena, J. (2016). Challenge-based gamification and its impact on teaching mathematical modeling. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, November 2, 2016; pp. 771-776. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3012430.3012605 [Google Scholar]
  64. Rusiman, M. S., Hau, O. C., Abdullah, A. W., Sufahanı, S. F., & Azmı, N. A. (2017). An analysis of time series for the prediction of Barramundi (Ikan Siakap). Price in Malaysia. Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 102 (9), 2081-2093. [Google Scholar]
  65. Segaran, J.S. & Kwan Eu, L. (2022). I am exploring initial mathematical modeling process using Geogebra of form four students. Malaysıan Onlıne Journal Of Educatıonal Sciences, 10(3), 47-59. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sevinc, S. & Lesh, R. (2018). Training mathematics teachers for realistic math problems: A case of modeling based teacher education courses. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50, 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0898-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  67. Siregar, R.N., Suryadi, D., Prabawanto, S., & Mujib, A. (2023). We are increasing student's self-regulated learning through a realistic mathematical education. Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 12(1), 1197-1212 [Google Scholar]
  68. Sokolowski, A. (2015). The Effects of Mathematical Modeling on Students' Achievement-Meta-Analysis of Research. The IAFOR Journal of Education, 3(1), 93-114. [Google Scholar]
  69. Sriraman, B. (2005). Conceptualizing the Notion of Model Eliciting. Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  70. Stillman, G. (1998). Engagement with task context of applications task: student performance and teacher beliefs. Nordisk Matematikk Didaktikk Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 6(3/4), 51-70. [Google Scholar]
  71. Stillman, G., Brown, J., & Galbraith, P. (2013). Identifying challenges within transition phases of mathematical modeling activities at year 9. In R. Lesh et al. (eds.), Modeling students' mathematical modeling competencies, International perspectives on the teaching and learning mathematical modeling, pp. 385–397. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-6271-8_33 [Google Scholar]
  72. Susanto, N. C. P., Hartati, S. J., & Standsyah, R. E. (2023). Systematic literature review: application of dynamic geometry software to improve mathematical problem-solving skills. Mathline: Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika, 8(3), 857-872. [Google Scholar]
  73. Tezer, M. & Cumhur, M. (2017). Mathematics through the 5E instructional model and mathematical modeling: The geometrical objects. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(8):4789-4804. DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00965a [Google Scholar]
  74. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. (2012). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  75. Wess, R., Klock, H., Siller, H.S. & Greefrath, G. (2021). Mathematical modeling. In R. Wess, H. Klock, H.S. Siller and H. Greefrath (Eds.), International perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematical modeling: measuring professional competence for the teaching of mathematical modeling (pp: 3-17). Switzerland AG, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78071-5_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  76. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2016861 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  77. Zapata-Grajales, F.N., Cano-Velásquez, N.A & Villa-Ochoa, J.A. (2017). Art and geometry of plants: experience in mathematical modeling through projects. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(2), 585-603. DOI:10.12973/ejmste/76958 [Google Scholar]
  78. Zawojewski, J.S., Lesh, R., & English, L. (2003). A model and modeling perspective on the role of small group learning activities. In R. Lesh and H.M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 337-358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]