Evaluating Photomath as a Classroom Formative Assessment Intervention: Effects on Grade 9 Learners’ Achievement in Radicals
Abstract
Purpose of the study: This study aims to evaluate Photomath application as a formative assessment intervention integrated into the classroom cycle to determine if it can improve Grade 9 learners’ achievement levels in solving radicals and to explore learners’ perceptions of the application as a formative assessment intervention.
Methodology: The study used a one-group pretest–posttest design with qualitative support. Tools included a researcher-made 30-item achievement test, Photomath mobile application, and open-ended perception survey. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was applied for statistical analysis. Qualitative responses were examined through thematic analysis.
Main Findings: Learners’ mean scores increased from 9.8 to 23.5, with all participants improving in the posttest. Most reached proficient or advanced levels. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test showed a significant difference (p < 0.0001). Learners reported that the intervention helped in correcting errors and misconceptions, step-by-step understanding, and confidence in solving radicals.
Novelty/Originality of this study: This study contributed to the classroom assessment policy by using Photomath specifically as a formative assessment mechanism, requiring learners to attempt solutions independently before checking the steps through the application. Findings imply that such use of Photomath helps improve learners’ achievement in radicals and enhances their understanding and confidence in solving mathematical problems.
References
A. Ozkan, “Misconceptions in radical numbers in secondary school mathematics,” New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 205–212, 2019.
Ş. C. Şenay, “Analysis of misconceptions and errors regarding exponential and radical expressions through the theory of reducing abstraction,” Research on Education and Psychology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 281–295, 2024.
J. I. Alvarez, “Game of the radicals: Intervention in teaching simplifying radicals,” International Journal of Research Studies in Education, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 73–80, 2021.
E. K. Moru and M. Mathunya, “A constructivist analysis of Grade 8 learners’ errors and misconceptions in simplifying mathematical algebraic expressions,” JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education), vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 130–144, Jul. 2022.
M. Borba, P. Askar, J. Engelbrecht, G. Gadanidi, S. Llinares, and M. Aguila, “Digital technology in mathematics education: Research over the last decade,” in Proc. 13th Int. Congr. Math. Educ. (ICME-13), G. Kaiser, Ed. Springer, 2017, pp. 221–233.
P. Black and D. Wiliam, “Assessment and Classroom Learning,” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 7–74, 1998, doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102.
P. Black and D. Wiliam, “Developing the theory of formative assessment,” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5–31, 2009.
V. J. Shute, “Focus on formative feedback,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 153-189, 2008, doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795.
J. Hattie and H. Timperley, “The power of feedback,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81-112, 2007, doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.
A. Jurāne-Brēmane, “Digital Assessment in Technology-Enriched Education: Thematic Review,” Education Sciences, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 522, May 2023, doi: 10.3390/educsci13050522.
F. M. Van der Kleij, R. C. W. Feskens, and T. J. H. M. Eggen, “Effects of Feedback in a Computer-Based Learning Environment on Students’ Learning Outcomes,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 475–511, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.3102/0034654314564881.
Karolin Maskos, A. Schulz, S. S. Oeksuez, and K. Rakoczy, “Formative Assessment in Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review,” ZDM, May 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11858-025-01696-x.
Z. Abidin, A. Mathrani, and R. Hunter, “Student engagement with technology use in mathematics education: An Indonesian secondary school context,” in PACIS 2017 Proceedings, Paper 165, 2017.
A. Torressibille, V. Cloquellballester, and R. Darton, “Development and validation of a multicriteria indicator for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 40–66, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2007.05.002.
I. M. Hamadneh, “Math teachers’ attitudes towards Photomath application in solving mathematical problems using mobile camera,” Educational Research and Reviews, vol. 10, no. 14, pp. 1930–1936, 2015.
K. Maass, V. Geiger, M. R. Ariza, and M. Goos, “The role of mathematics in interdisciplinary STEM education,” ZDM, vol. 51, pp. 869–884, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11858-019-01100-5.
A. Iyad and A. Aslan, “Photomath: A mobile app for real-time mathematical expression recognition using a smartphone camera,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Image Processing, Computer Vision, and Pattern Recognition (IPCV), pp. 131–137, 2015.
S. Hartono, “Using Photomath learning to teach 21st century mathematics skills: A case study in two-variable linear equation problem,” in Int. Conf. Education and Regional Development IV, pp. 296–301, 2019.
K. Saundarajan et al., “Learning algebra using augmented reality: A preliminary investigation on the application of Photomath for lower secondary education,” Int. J. Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol. 15, no. 16, pp. 123–133, 2020.
I. N. Zain, M. A. Setambah, M. S. Othman, and M. H. Hanapi, “Use of Photomath applications in helping improve students’ mathematical (algebra) achievement,” European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 85–87, 2023.
A. Bozkurt and M. Tuncer, “The impact of digital learning environments on students’ mathematics achievement: A meta-analytic review,” Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 475–493, 2018.
M. Jang, M. Aavakare, S. Nikou, and S. Kim, “The impact of literacy on intention to use digital technology for learning: A comparative study of Korea and Finland,” Telecommunications Policy, vol. 45, no. 7, p. 102154, 2021.
D. F. Polit and C. T. Beck, “The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations,” Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 489–497, 2006, doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.
G. F. Kuder and M. W. Richardson, “The theory of the estimation of test reliability,” Psychometrika, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 151–160, Sep. 1937, doi: 10.1007/bf02288391.
D. W. Zimmerman, “An Efficient Alternative to the Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test for Paired Nonnormal Data,” The Journal of General Psychology, vol. 123, no. 1, pp. 29–40, Jan. 1996, doi: 10.1080/00221309.1996.9921257.
R. R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 64–74, Jan. 1998, doi: 10.1119/1.18809.
K. Saundarajan, S. Osman, J. Kumar, M. Daud, M. Abu, and M. Pairan, “Learning Algebra using Augmented Reality: A Preliminary Investigation on the Application of Photomath for Lower Secondary Education,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol. 15, no. 16, pp. 123–133, Aug. 2020.
D. R. Hulagpos, Mycel Gabertan, H. A. Rojas, J. R. Damasco, and K. Q. Sipin, “Enhancing Independent Learning and Academic Performance in Algebra Through Photomath Application,” International Journal of Studies in Education and Science, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 149–163, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.46328/ijses.138.
L. P. Amparo, R. V. Dacup, K. R. O. Sales, H. K. D. Tocbo, and J. Q. Rondina, “Using Photomath mobile application as a learning tool in teaching algebra during distant learning,” Scientific International (Lahore), vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 331–334, 2022.
A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 5th ed. Sage, 2018.
J. Cohen, “A power primer,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 112, no. 1, pp. 155–159, 1992.
D. Hillmayr, L. Ziernwald, F. Reinhold, S. I. Hofer, and K. M. Reiss, “The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis,” Computers & Education, vol. 153, Article 103897, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897.
A. Barana, M. Marchisio, and M. Sacchet, “Interactive feedback for learning mathematics in a digital learning environment,” Education Sciences, vol. 11, p. 279, 2021, doi: 10.3390/educsci11060279.
S. Aljabri, “Timing of feedback and retrieval practice: A laboratory study with EFL students,” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2024.
N. Mensah, F. O. Boateng, and J. Frank Gordon, “The effect of using Photomath on pre-service teachers’ algebra achievement: The mediating role of conceptual understanding,” Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 71–84, 2025, doi: 10.33902/jpsp.202531125.
D. R. Sadler, “Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems,” Instructional Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 119–144, 1989, doi: 10.1007/BF00117714.
D. J. Nicol and D. Macfarlane-Dick, “Formative Assessment and Self‐regulated learning: a Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice,” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 199–218, 2006, doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090.
A. A. Jumhur, R. A. Avianti, P. E. Nurfitri, and I. Mahir, “Implementation of problem-based learning to improve critical thinking ability of vocational students in Jakarta,” European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 16–24, 2024.
E. M. Albay, “Towards a 21st century mathematics classroom: Investigating the effects of the problem-solving approach among tertiary education students,” Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 8–15, 2020.
N. Klang, N. Karlsson, W. Kilborn, P. Eriksson, and M. Karlberg, “Mathematical problem-solving through cooperative learning—the importance of peer acceptance and friendships,” in Frontiers in Education, vol. 6, p. 710296, Aug. 2021.
H. Heeren, J. Jeuring et al., “Automated feedback for mathematical learning environments,” 2019.
C. A. Barbieri, D. Miller-Cotto, S. N. Clerjuste, and K. Chawla, “A meta-analysis of the worked examples effect on mathematics performance,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 11–42, 2023.
E. V. Javiniar and R. Sinangote, “The perceptions of senior high school students on the use of Photomath,” Ascendens Asia Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, vol. 3, no. 5, 2019.
A. T. Capinding, “Revolutionizing pre-calculus education: Photomath’s AI-powered mathematics tutorship,” Problems of Education in the 21st Century, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 758–775, 2023.
Z. Ersozlu, “The role of technology in reducing mathematics anxiety in primary school students,” Contemporary Educational Technology, vol. 16, no. 3, Article ep517, 2024, doi: 10.30935/cedtech/14717.
Y. Attali and F. van der Kleij, “Effects of feedback elaboration and feedback timing during computer-based practice in mathematics problem solving,” Computers & Education, vol. 110, pp. 154–169, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.012.
S. Söderström, “Computer-based formative assessment for problem solving,” International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, pp. 1–25, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1080/0020739x.2023.2178982.
J. M. Faber, H. Luyten, and A. J. Visscher, “The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement and student motivation: Results of a randomized experiment,” Computers & Education, vol. 106, no. 106, pp. 83–96, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.001.
R. Smit, H. Dober, K. Hess, P. Bachmann, and T. Birri, “Supporting primary students’ mathematical reasoning practice: the effects of formative feedback and the mediating role of self-efficacy,” Research in Mathematics Education, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1–24, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1080/14794802.2022.2062780.
P. Ackerlauer, J.-M. Diego-Mantecón, and Z. Lavicza, “Digital assessment data to provide formative feedback in mathematics: a longitudinal study of teachers’ engagement with Quop in Austria,” Teacher Development, pp. 1–17, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1080/13664530.2026.2616491.
Copyright (c) 2026 Roziel Anne Basa, Douglas A Salazar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and acknowledge that the Indonesian Journal of Education Research (IJoER) is the first publisher licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citation of published work.
.png)
.png)
