Trigonometry learning often presents challenges as students struggle to apply mathematical concepts in real-world contexts. Traditional instruction tends to emphasize procedural fluency over conceptual understanding, limiting the development of students’ adaptive thinking skills. Digital tools like PhET simulations offer interactive visualizations that support conceptual learning, but their role in enhancing adaptive thinking remains underexplored. This study investigates the comparative effectiveness of PhET-based worksheets versus traditional paper-based worksheets in fostering adaptive thinking in trigonometry. The study involved 80 first-year students from Universitas Serang Raya’s Mathematics Education and Informatics Engineering programs, enrolled in the 2023–2024 Calculus course. Participants were divided into an experimental group using PhET-based worksheets and a control group using paper-based worksheets. Data were collected through pre-tests, post-tests, and student preference questionnaires, and analyzed using independent t-tests. Results show that the PhET group outperformed the control group, with a 35% improvement in adaptive thinking skills versus 20% in the control group (p < 0.05). Students using PhET-based worksheets demonstrated greater flexibility in applying trigonometric concepts, creative problem-solving, and knowledge transfer to real-life situations. In contrast, the paper-based group showed moderate gains, particularly in structured and procedural problem-solving. Questionnaire responses revealed that students appreciated the interactivity and engagement of PhET-based media, while also valuing the focus and clarity offered by paper-based worksheets. These findings highlight the potential of a blended learning approach that combines digital interactivity with structured offline tasks to enhance adaptive thinking. Future research should explore the long-term effects and broader applications of such strategies in mathematics education.

Digital Learning Media; PhET Simulation; Trigonometric Concepts; Trigonometry Worksheets; Student Preferences

Åkerblad, L., Seppänen-Järvelä, R., & Haapakoski, K. (2021). Integrative Strategies in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(2), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820957125

AlGerafi, M. A. M., Zhou, Y., Oubibi, M., & Wijaya, T. T. (2023). Unlocking the Potential: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Education. Electronics 2023, Vol. 12, Page 3953, 12(18), 3953. https://doi.org/10.3390/ELECTRONICS12183953

Arhin, J., & Hokor, E. K. (2021). Analysis of High School Students’ Errors in Solving Trigonometry Problems. Journal of Mathematics and Science Teacher, 1(1), em003. https://doi.org/10.29333/MATHSCITEACHER/11076

Artasari, A., Oktaviyanthi, R., Zahwatuzzukhrufiah, & Delvianingsih, N. (2024). Optimizing Algebraic Thinking using the Area Model Algebra Worksheet based on PhET Interactive Simulation. Plusminus: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 4(2), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.31980/PLUSMINUS.V4I2.1465

Bazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2000). The NVIVO Qualitative Project Book. The NVIVO Qualitative Project Book. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020079

Bizami, N. A., Tasir, Z., & Kew, S. N. (2023). Innovative pedagogical principles and technological tools capabilities for immersive blended learning: a systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(2), 1373–1425. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-022-11243-w

Borji, V., Radmehr, F., & Font, V. (2021). The impact of procedural and conceptual teaching on students’ mathematical performance over time. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(3), 404–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1688404

Cash, P., Isaksson, O., Maier, A., & Summers, J. (2022). Sampling in design research: Eight key considerations. Design Studies, 78, 101077. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DESTUD.2021.101077

Chinaka, T. W. (2021). The Effect of PhET Simulation vs. Phenomenon-based Experiential Learning on Students’ Integration of Motion Along Two Independent Axes in Projectile Motion. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 25(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2021.1969739

Choppin, J., Roth McDuffie, A., Drake, C., & Davis, J. (2022). The role of instructional materials in the relationship between the official curriculum and the enacted curriculum. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 24(2), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1855376

Cohen, J. (n.d.). A power primer. Methodological Issues and Strategies in Clinical Research (4th Ed.)., 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-018

Creamer, E. G. (2018). An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research. An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802823

Drastisianti, A., Dewi, A. K., & Alighiri, D. (2024). Effectiveness of Guided Inquiry Learning With PhET Simulation to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Ability and Understanding of Reaction Rate Concepts. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 8(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.20961/IJPTE.V8I2.93924

Elliott, R., & Timulak, L. (2021). Essentials of descriptive-interpretive qualitative research: A generic approach. Essentials of Descriptive-Interpretive Qualitative Research: A Generic Approach. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000224-000

Eversberg, L., & Lambrecht, J. (2023). Evaluating digital work instructions with augmented reality versus paper-based documents for manual, object-specific repair tasks in a case study with experienced workers. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 127(3–4), 1859–1871. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00170-023-11313-4

Fanguy, M., Baldwin, M., Shmeleva, E., Lee, K., & Costley, J. (2023). How collaboration influences the effect of note-taking on writing performance and recall of contents. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(7), 4057–4071. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1950772

Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, S. A., & Vaughn, M. (2022). Adaptive teaching in mathematics: a review of the literature. Educational Review, 74(2), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1722065

Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World, 1–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780195153729.001.0001

Giyanti, G., Artasari, A., Oktaviyanthi, R., & Husain, S. K. S. (2024). Factor analysis of algebraic thinking skills: A case study on developing area model algebra worksheet based on PhET Interactive Simulation. Jurnal Inovasi Teknologi Pendidikan, 11(4), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.21831/JITP.V11I4.79362

González‐pérez, L. I., & Ramírez‐montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of Education 4.0 in 21st Century Skills Frameworks: Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022, Vol. 14, Page 1493, 14(3), 1493. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU14031493

Gube, M., & Lajoie, S. (2020). Adaptive expertise and creative thinking: A synthetic review and implications for practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100630. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2020.100630

Hinton, P. R. (2014). Statistics explained, third edition. Statistics Explained, Third Edition, 1–358. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797564

Hirose, M., & Creswell, J. W. (2023). Applying Core Quality Criteria of Mixed Methods Research to an Empirical Study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221086346

Hooshyar, D., Pedaste, M., Yang, Y., Malva, L., Hwang, G. J., Wang, M., Lim, H., & Delev, D. (2020). From Gaming to Computational Thinking: An Adaptive Educational Computer Game-Based Learning Approach., 59(3), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120965919

Kraemer, H. C., & Blasey, C. (2017). How Many Subjects?: Statistical Power Analysis in Research. How Many Subjects?: Statistical Power Analysis in Research. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398761

Lestari, A., Maridi, M., & Ashadi, A. (2018). The Importance of Appropriate Instructional Methods for Training Students’ Thinking Skill on Environmental Learning. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 2(0), 5-45–52. https://doi.org/10.20961/IJPTE.V2I0.19828

Lim, J., Whitehead, G. E. K., & Choi, Y. D. (2021). Interactive e-book reading vs. paper-based reading: Comparing the effects of different mediums on middle school students’ reading comprehension. System, 97, 102434. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2020.102434

Lim, W. M. (2024). What Is Quantitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264622

Maharjan, M., Dahal, N., & Pant, B. P. (2022). ICTs into mathematical instructions for meaningful teaching and learning. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(2), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2022.02.004

Makransky, G., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Benefits of Taking a Virtual Field Trip in Immersive Virtual Reality: Evidence for the Immersion Principle in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 34(3), 1771–1798. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-022-09675-4

Maphutha, K., Maoto, S., & Mutodi, P. (2023). Exploring grade 11 learners’ mathematical connections when solving two-dimensional trigonometric problems in an activity-based learning environment. Journal on Mathematics Education, 14(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.22342/JME.V14I2.PP293-310

Martinez, B. L., Sweeder, R. D., VandenPlas, J. R., & Herrington, D. G. (2021). Improving conceptual understanding of gas behavior through the use of screencasts and simulations. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40594-020-00261-0

Matović, N., & Ovesni, K. (2023). Interaction of quantitative and qualitative methodology in mixed methods research: integration and/or combination. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 26(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1964857

Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/JCAL.12197

Molina Roldán, S., Marauri, J., Aubert, A., & Flecha, R. (2021). How Inclusive Interactive Learning Environments Benefit Students Without Special Needs. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 661427. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.661427

Müller, C., & Mildenberger, T. (2021). Facilitating flexible learning by replacing classroom time with an online learning environment: A systematic review of blended learning in higher education. Educational Research Review, 34, 100394. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2021.100394

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2019). Timss 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science Timss & Pirl. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 1–609. https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/index.html

Namli, Ş. (2024). Comparing Ninth-Grade Students’ Approaches to Trigonometric Ratio Problems Through Real-World and Symbolic Contexts. International Education Studies, 17(4), p70. https://doi.org/10.5539/IES.V17N4P70

Ngu, B. H., & Phan, H. P. (2023). Differential instructional effectiveness: overcoming the challenge of learning to solve trigonometry problems that involved algebraic transformation skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(4), 1505–1525. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10212-022-00670-5

Oktaviyanthi, R., & Agus, R. N. (2021). Guided Worksheet Formal Definition of Limit: An Instrument Development Process. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(1), 449–461. https://doi.org/10.35445/ALISHLAH.V13I1.483

Oktaviyanthi, R., & Agus, R. N. (2023). Evaluating graphing quadratic worksheet on visual thinking classification: A confirmatory analysis. Infinity Journal, 12(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.22460/INFINITY.V12I2.P207-224

Oktaviyanthi, R., & Sholahudin, U. (2023). Phet Assisted Trigonometric Worksheet for Students’ Trigonometric Adaptive Thinking. Mosharafa: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 12(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.31980/MOSHARAFA.V12I2.779

Olugbade, D., Oyelere, S. S., & Agbo, F. J. (2024). Enhancing junior secondary students’ learning outcomes in basic science and technology through PhET: A study in Nigeria. Education and Information Technologies, 29(11), 14035–14057. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-023-12391-3

Perkins, K. (2020). Transforming STEM Learning at Scale: PhET Interactive Simulations. Childhood Education, 96(4), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2020.1796451

Pham, H. (Ed.). (2023). Springer Handbook of Engineering Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7503-2

PISA 2022 Results (Volume I). (2023). https://doi.org/10.1787/53F23881-EN

Reed, M. S., Ferré, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Blanche, R., Lawford-Rolfe, R., Dallimer, M., & Holden, J. (2021). Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework. Research Policy, 50(4), 104147. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2020.104147

Ridder, H.-G. (2014). Book Review: Qualitative Data Analysis. A Methods Sourcebook. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1177/239700221402800402, 28(4), 485–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221402800402

Riyanto, W. D., & Gunarhadi, G. (2017). The Effectiveness of Interactive Multimedia in Mathematic Learning: Utilizing Power Points for Students with Learning Disability. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 1(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.20961/IJPTE.V1I1.8400

Robinson, R. S. (2023). Purposive Sampling. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 5645–5647. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1

Sánchez, M. A., Gómez, C. P., Rincón, T. O. del, & Musonda, T. M. (2023). Designing a Theoretical Proposal Using Problem – Based Learning to Improve Learning of Trigonometric Ratios among Grade Eleven Students. American Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.12691/EDUCATION-11-2-5

Satria, T. G., Sapriya, S., Sa’ud, U. S., Riyana, C., Syamsijulianto, T., & Helandri, J. (2024). Enhancing Learning Outcomes and Creative Thinking through Project-Based Learning Modules in Fourth Grades. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 8(2), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.20961/IJPTE.V8I2.89320

Setiawan, B., & Rodgers, A. (2024). Determinants Affecting Students’ Satisfaction In The Use of Learning Management Systems on Instructional Content, Interaction, and Accessibility. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 8(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.20961/IJPTE.V8I2.89853

Shi, Y., Yang, H., Yang, Z., Liu, W., Wu, D., & Yang, H. H. (2022). Examining the effects of note-taking styles on college students’ learning achievement and cognitive load. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.14742/AJET.6688

Sholahudin, U., & Oktaviyanthi, R. (2023). The Trigonometric Adaptive Worksheet Performance in Optimizing Trigonometric Thinking of Prospective Mathematics Teacher: Single Subject Research. Jurnal Didaktik Matematika, 10(2), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.24815/JDM.V10I2.33216

Silva Pacheco, C., & Iturra Herrera, C. (2021). A conceptual proposal and operational definitions of the cognitive processes of complex thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100794. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2021.100794

Sternberg, R. J. (2013). Thinking and Problem Solving. Thinking and Problem Solving, 1–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-02249-1

Subekti, M. A. S., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2021). Developing Interactive Electronic Student Worksheets through Discovery Learning and Critical Thinking Skills during Pandemic Era. MATHEMATICS TEACHING RESEARCH JOURNAL, 13(2), 137–176. http://www.hostos.cuny.edu/mtrj/

Sun, S., Wu, X., & Xu, T. (2023). A Theoretical Framework for a Mathematical Cognitive Model for Adaptive Learning Systems. Behavioral Sciences 2023, Vol. 13, Page 406, 13(5), 406. https://doi.org/10.3390/BS13050406

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory, 55, 37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8

Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3

Teófilo De Sousa, R., Régis, F., & Alves, V. (2022). Quadratic Functions and PhET: An Investigation from the Perspective of the Theory of Figural Concepts. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 3(1), ep22010. https://doi.org/10.30935/CONMATHS/11929

Wang, L. H., Chen, B., Hwang, G. J., Guan, J. Q., & Wang, Y. Q. (2022). Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: a meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40594-022-00344-0

Weng, C., Chen, C., & Ai, X. (2023). A pedagogical study on promoting students’ deep learning through design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(4), 1653–1674. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10798-022-09789-4

Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching Physics Using PhET Simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3361987

Winarno, H. R., & Legowo, N. (2024). Analysis of Success Factor of The E-Learning System Using Delone and Mclean Models. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 8(2), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.20961/IJPTE.V8I2.95795

Yang, K. H., & Chen, H. H. (2023). What increases learning retention: employing the prediction-observation-explanation learning strategy in digital game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3898–3913. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1944219

Yu, J., Zhou, X., Yang, X., & Hu, J. (2022). Mobile-assisted or paper-based? The influence of the reading medium on the reading comprehension of English as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(1–2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.2012200

Ziatdinov, R., & Valles, J. R. (2022). Synthesis of Modeling, Visualization, and Programming in GeoGebra as an Effective Approach for Teaching and Learning STEM Topics. Mathematics 2022, Vol. 10, Page 398, 10(3), 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/MATH10030398