Tangible Calculus: An Exploratory Study of the Effectiveness and Student Acceptance of the AreaGO for Learning Area Under a Curve
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37134/jpsmm.vol16.1.10.2026Keywords:
Area under a curve, Learning tool, Quasi-experimental, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Student acceptanceAbstract
Developing conceptual understanding remains a challenge for undergraduate students, particularly repeater in Calculus. One common difficulty is identifying and applying appropriate formulas when solving area under a curve problem. To address this issue, AreaGO, a learning tool with structured guidance, was invented. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of AreaGO and examine students’ acceptance of the tool. A quasi-experimental one-group pre-test and post-test design was employed involving 10 repeater students. Students participated in a workshop session where AreaGO was introduced and applied through hands-on activities. Pre-test and post-test scores were used to measure students’ performance, while a questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) assessed students’ perceptions. Due to the small sample size, descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test were used for data analysis. The results reported a significant improvement in students’ performance (Z= 2.812, p =0.005), with a large effect size (r = 0.89). Furthermore, the questionnaire findings revealed high levels of acceptance across all TAM constructs. Significant positive relationships were also observed among the key TAM constructs, particularly between perceived usefulness, attitude, and behavioral intention. These findings suggest that AreaGO has potential as a learning aid to improve students’ understanding and future studies involving larger samples are recommended to validate its effectiveness and acceptance.
Downloads
References
Alam, A. (2020). Challenges and possibilities in teaching and learning of calculus: A case study of India. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 407-433.
Artigue, M. (1991). Analysis. In D. Tall & S. Vinner (Eds.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 167–198). Kluwer.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS quarterly, 351-370.
Brijlall, D., & Abakah, F. (2022). High school learners’ challenges in solving circle geometry problems. PONTE–International Journal of Sciences and Research, 78(12/1).
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Delport, D. (2021). The impact of math manipulatives as a multi-sensory teaching technique in statistics. MUST: Journal of Mathematics Education, Science and Technology, 6(2), 186-206.
Domondon, C. S., Pardo, C. G., & Rin, E. T. (2022). Analysis of difficulties of students in learning calculus. Science International (Lahore), 34(6), 1-4.
Dong-Hai Nguyen and N. Sanjay Rebello (2011). Students’ difficulties with integration in electricity. Physics Review Special Topics
Fauzan, A. (2024). How Students Understand the Area under a Curve: A Hypothetical Learning Trajectory. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 16(3), 80-100.
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 141(1), 2.
Garcia-Suarez, A., Gonzalez-Calleros, J. M., & Guerrero-Garcia, J. (2024, September). Assessment of the Impact of a Tangible Technological Interface on Teaching-Learning Processes in an Educational Context. In International Conference on Virtual Campus (pp. 127-136). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Gilligan-Lee, K. A., Hawes, Z. C., Williams, A. Y., Farran, E. K., & Mix, K. S. (2023). Hands-On: Investigating the role of physical manipulatives in spatial training. Child development, 94(5), 1205-1221.
Jenal, R. Z., Ruslan, N. N., Salleh, S., & Jenal, R. (2025). Inovasi Smart RoMat dalam meningkatkan penguasaan operasi tambah bagi pembelajaran matematik sekolah rendah. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 15(1), 1-18.
Joel, L. O. (2025). Students' Failure in Mathematics: A Case Study of Calculus-Related Modules at a University in Johannesburg. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Interdisciplinary Sciences, 8(1), 294-312.
Johnson, P., O’Meara, N., & Leavy, A. (2021). Factors supporting and inhibiting teachers’ use of manipulatives around the primary to post-primary education transition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 52(7).
Justo, E., Delgado, A., Llorente‐Cejudo, C., Aguilar, R., & Cabero‐Almenara, J. (2022). The effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives on learning and motivation in structural engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(4), 813-851.
Kunselman, A. R. (2024). A brief overview of pilot studies and their sample size justification. Fertility and sterility, 121(6), 899-901.
Lange, J. (2021). The importance of using manipulatives in math class. Northwestern College: Iowa. Master Thesis https://nwcommons.nwciowa.edu/education_masters /291/.
Loong, E. Y. K. (2014). Fostering mathematical understanding through physical and virtual manipulatives. Australian Mathematics Teacher, The, 70(4), 3-10.
Musa, M., Khalid, S. N., Rahmat, F., Mohamed, N. A., & Mat, N. A. A. (2023). Pengintegrasian STEM bagi bidang pembelajaran statistik dan kebarangkalian dalam KSSM Matematik tingkatan dua.
Nabayra, J., & Nabayra, L. J. M. (2021). Exploring how culture of excellence is personified by mathematics teachers in the public schools. International Journal of Arts and Humanities Studies, 1(1), 88-94.
Omar, N. A., Mad, S., Saleh, S. S. M., Azeman, S. N. A., & Sarudin, E. S. (2022). A behavioural intention to use e-learning in mathematics courses. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(10), 929-941.
Parcia, R. O., & Estimo, E. T. (2017). Employees’ financial literacy, behavior, stress and wellness. Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(5), 78-89.
Purnomo, E. A., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., Junaedi, I., & Agoestanto, A. (2022). Analysis of Problem Solving Process on HOTS Test for Integral Calculus. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 14(1), 199-214.
Sullah, R. M., Ismail, N. H., & Abdullah, A. H. (2017). A comparison between virtual and physical manipulatives in geometry learning for standard 2 mathematics. Man in India, 97(17), 235-247.
Surbakti, R., Umboh, S. E., Pong, M., & Dara, S. (2024). Cognitive load theory: Implications for instructional design in digital classrooms. International Journal of Educational Narratives, 2(6), 483-493.
Teo, T. (2009). Is there an attitude problem? Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM. British journal of educational technology, 40(6), 1139-1141.
Toraman, Ç. Ç. (2025). What Do We Know About Underachievement in Mathematics? A Review Based on SCOPUS and WOS: Underachievement in Mathematics. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 17(1), 61-77.
Weng, F., Yang, R. J., Ho, H. J., & Su, H. M. (2018). A TAM-based study of the attitude towards use intention of multimedia among school teachers. Applied system innovation, 1(3), 36.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Norshakila Abd Rasid, Yasmeen Nadhirah Ahmad Najib, Mohamad Hidayad Ahmad Kamal, Nor Alwani Omar, Siti Nur Aisyah Azeman, Nurul Hafizah Zainal Abidin, Roslah Arsad, Kamarul Nasser Mokri, Puteri Zirwatul Nadila Megat Zamanhuri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
