AccScience Publishing / AC / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/AC026250045
Cite this article
101
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Reconstructing art with mathematical functions: A qualitative case study integrating mathematics and art through GeoGebra

Nymfodora Voulgari1 Michail Panagopoulos1*
Show Less
1 Department of Audio and Visual Arts, Faculty of Music and Audiovisual Arts, Ionian University, Corfu , Greece
Received: 19 June 2026 | Revised: 27 August 2026 | Accepted: 1 September 2026 | Published online: 21 September 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

The increasing use of digital technologies in arts education has created new opportunities to explore connections between mathematical representation, visual form, and creative practice. In this context, dynamic mathematics software such as GeoGebra provides a flexible environment for examining and reconstructing artistic compositions through mathematical and geometric representations. This qualitative case study examined how first-year students in an audiovisual arts program used GeoGebra to reconstruct selected compositions by Yiannis Moralis through mathematical functions and geometric objects. All 72 students enrolled in the course received compulsory introductory instruction in GeoGebra. The assessed semester assignment, which contributed 30% of the final course grade, offered 18 alternative topics; 14 students voluntarily selected Topic 18, the GeoGebra reconstruction task. The analyzed corpus comprised 12 reflective narratives and 12 accessible GeoGebra files, with both data sources available for 11 participants. Reflexive thematic analysis of the narratives was combined with structural and interpretive analysis of the digital constructions. Descriptive theme-presence counts and a case-by-case triangulation matrix were used to examine patterns across this topic-selected corpus. The artifact analysis identified substantial variation in modeling approaches, including dense use of domain-restricted linear and quadratic functions, hybrid combinations of functions and geometric objects, polygonal decomposition, and polynomial curve fitting. Students reported recurring difficulties with complex curves, parameter sensitivity, domain selection, vertical contours, and software use. Their affective accounts were mixed, encompassing curiosity, frustration, persistence, fatigue, incompletion, and satisfaction. The findings indicate that the activity created opportunities for iterative representational experimentation and prompted some students to describe mathematics as an artistic medium. However, the data do not establish generalized learning gains or measured attitude change, and the findings are limited by the small, self-selected topic group and the graded instructional context.

Keywords
Mathematics education
Science
Technology
Engineering
Arts
and Mathematics education
GeoGebra
Affective learning
Mathematical modeling
Qualitative case study
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
Michail Panagopoulos is an Editorial Board Member of this journal, but was not in any way involved in the editorial and peer-review process conducted for this paper, directly or indirectly. Separately, the other author declared that she has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.
References
  1. Harasymowycz MA. Mathematics versus the arts: a comparative look at students’ attitudes and beliefs. Doctoral thesis. University of Plymouth; 2008. doi:10.24382/4282
  2. Miller M. Teaching and learning in affective domain. In: Orey M, ed. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology. University of Georgia; 2005.
  3. Weber K, Martin M, Patterson B. Teacher behavior, student interest and affective learning: putting theory to practice. J Appl Commun Res. 2001;29(1):71-90. doi:10.1080/00909880128101
  4. Voulgari N, Panagopoulos M, Garneli V. A systematic review of augmented reality in mathematics education: fostering learning through art integration. Arts Commun. 2024;3(2):4446. doi:10.36922/ac.4446
  5. Hickman R, Huckstep P. Art and mathematics in education. J Aesthet Educ. 2003;37(1):1-12. doi:10.1353/jae.2003.0001
  6. Jensen HJ. Mathematics and painting. Interdiscip Sci Rev. 2002;27(1):45-49. doi:10.1179/030801802225000000
  7. Reiner F. Mathematics and the arts: taking their resemblances seriously. Humanist Math Netw J. 1994;1(9):6. doi:10.5642/hmnj.199401.09.06
  8. Dreyfus T, Eisenberg T. On the Aesthetics of Mathematical Thought. Learn Math. 1986;6(1):2-10.
  9. Halmos PR. Mathematics as a Creative Art. In: Selecta Expository Writing. Springer New York; 1983:251-265. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-8211-9_25
  10. Lovitt WV. Imagination in Mathematics. Math Teach. 1924;17(5):263-268. doi:10.5951/MT.17.5.0263
  11. Cevikbas M, Greefrath G, Siller HS. Advantages and challenges of using digital technologies in mathematical modelling education-a descriptive systematic literature review. Front Educ. 2023;8:1142556. doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1142556
  12. Engelbrecht J, Borba MC. Recent developments in using digital technology in mathematics education. ZDM Math Educ. 2024;56(2):281-292. doi:10.1007/s11858-023-01530-2
  13. Hohenwarter M, Fuchs KJ. Combination of dynamic geometry, algebra and calculus in the software system GeoGebra. In: Computer Algebra Systems and Dynamic Geometry Systems in Mathematics Teaching. 2004:128-133.
  14. Mainali B. Representation in teaching and learning mathematics. Int J Educ Math Sci Technol. 2021;9(1):1-21. doi:10.46328/ijemst.1111
  15. Bedada TB, Machaba F. The effect of GeoGebra on STEM students learning trigonometric functions. Cogent Educ. 2022;9(1):2034240. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2022.2034240
  16. Haas B, Lavicza Z, Houghton T, Kreis Y. Can you create? Visualising and modelling real-world mathematics with technologies in STEAM educational settings. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2023;52:101297. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101297
  17. Misini N, Kabashi F. The impact of GeoGebra on learning the concept of quadratic function. In: 2021 UBT International Conference. 2021:402.
  18. Yohannes A, Chen HL. GeoGebra in mathematics education: a systematic review of journal articles published from 2010 to 2020. Interact Learn Environ. 2023;31(9):5682-5697. doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2016861
  19. Chehlarova N, Gachev G. Online contest “Mathematics and art” for the development of key competencies. Pedagogika-Pedag. 2021;93(1):87-99. doi:10.53656/ped2021-1.07
  20. Fenyvesi K, Koskimaa R, Lavicza Z. Experiential education of mathematics: art and games for digital natives. Kasvatus Aika. 2015;9(1):107-134.
  21. Goldstein TR, Lerner MD, Winner E. The arts as a venue for developmental science: realizing a latent opportunity. Child Dev. 2017;88(5):1505-1512. doi:10.1111/cdev.12884
  22. Aktümen M, Yıldız A. GeoGebra as an artist’s paintbrush. Malays Online J Educ Technol. 2016;4(1):17-31. doi:10.52380/mojet.2016.4.1.74
  23. Saeki A, Kaneko M, Saito D. Case Study of Pre-service Teacher Education for Mathematical Modelling and Applications: Connecting Paintings with Mathematics. In: International Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling. Springer International Publishing; 2017:313-323. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62968-1_27
  24. Serpe A, Frassia MG. Promote connections between mathematics drawing and history of art in high school through a STEM approach. Atti Accad Pelorit dei Pericol Cl Sci Fis Mat Nat. 2021;99(S1):A5-1-A5-19. doi:10.1478/AAPP.99S1A5
  25. Zapata-Grajales FN, Cano-Velásquez NA, Villa-Ochoa JA. Art and geometry of plants: experience in mathematical modelling through projects. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2018;14(2):585-603. doi:10.12973/ejmste/76958
  26. Shephard K. Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes. Int J Sustain High Educ. 2008;9(1):87-98. doi:10.1108/14676370810842201
  27. Simamora RE, Saragih S, Hasratuddin. Improving Students’ Mathematical Problem Solving Ability and Self-Efficacy through Guided Discovery Learning in Local Culture Context. Int Electron J Math Educ. 2019;14(1):61-72. doi:10.12973/iejme/3966
  28. Baker MJ, Andriessen J, Järvelä S, eds. Affective Learning Together: Social and Emotional Dimensions of Collaborative Learning. Routledge; 2013. doi:10.4324/9780203069684
  29. Beck LA. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. J Leis Res. 1992;24(1):93-94. doi:10.1080/00222216.1992.11969876
  30. Picard RW, Papert S, Bender W, et al. Affective Learning- A Manifesto. BT Technol J. 2004;22(4):253-269. doi:10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047603.37042.33
  31. Schukajlow S, Rakoczy K, Pekrun R. Emotions and motivation in mathematics education: where we are today and where we need to go. ZDM Math Educ. 2023;55(2):249-267. doi:10.1007/s11858-022-01463-2
  32. Weiss MK, Moore-Russo D. Thinking like a mathematician. Math Teach. 2012;106(4):269-273. doi:10.5951/mathteacher.106.4.0269
  33. Whitcombe A. Mathematics: Creativity, Imagination, Beauty. Math Sch. 1988;17(2):13-15.
  34. Koyunkaya MY, Dede AT. Using different digital tools in designing and solving mathematical modelling problems. Educ Inf Technol. 2024;29(14):19035-19065. doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12577-3
  35. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  36. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917733847. doi:10.1177/1609406917733847
  37. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398-405. doi:10.1111/nhs.12048
  38. Abar CAAP, de Almeida MV, Lavicza Z. Arts and mathematics: GeoGebra focused on isometric transformations. J Math Arts. 2024;18(1-2):47-65. doi:10.1080/17513472.2024.2365361
  39. Araújo AB. A GeoGebra tool for drawing immersive perspectives. In: Silva BM, ed. ARTeFACTo2020: International Conference on Digital Creation in Arts and Communication. Edições Centro de Investigação em Artes e Comunicação; 2020:155-160.
  40. Dana-Picard T, Zehavi N. Automated study of envelopes: the transition from 2D to 3D. Electron J Math Technol. 2019;13(2):121-135.
  41. Portaankorva-Koivisto P, Havinga M. Integrative phenomena in visual arts and mathematics. J Math Arts. 2019;13(1-2):4-24. doi:10.1080/17513472.2018.1504269
  42. Diego-Mantecón JM, Blanco TF, Búa Ares JB, González Sequeiros P. Is the relationship between art and mathematics addressed thoroughly in Spanish secondary school textbooks? J Math Arts. 2019;13(1-2):25-47. doi:10.1080/17513472.2018.1552068
  43. Rizzo KA, Del Río LS, Manceñido ME, Lavicza Z, Houghton T. Linking photography and mathematics with the use of technology. Open Educ Stud. 2019;1(1):262-266. doi:10.1515/edu-2019-0020
  44. Berget IKL. Mathematical modelling in the discourses of the KOM and PISA frameworks and teacher interviews. Res Math Educ. 2024;26(3):425-442. doi:10.1080/14794802.2023.2165536
  45. Radford L. The Ethics of Being and Knowing: Towards a Cultural Theory of Learning. In: Semiotics in Mathematics Education. BRILL; 2008:215-234. doi:10.1163/9789087905972_013
  46. Furner JM, Marinas CA. Teaching math with GeoGebra while developing a passion for photography. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. 2020:1-17.
  47. Hasyim M, Kurniawati HF. Digital literacy in using GeoGebra learning media in terms of self-directed learning. MaPan: J Mat Pembel. 2021;9(1):40-58. doi:10.24252/mapan.2021v9n1a4
  48. Elliott V. Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. Qual Rep. 2018;23(11):2850-2861. doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3560
  49. Long H. An empirical review of research methodologies and methods in creativity studies (2003-2012). Creat Res J. 2014;26(4):427-438. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.961781
  50. Borromeo Ferri R. Theoretical and empirical differentiations of phases in the modelling process. ZDM. 2006;38(2):86-95. doi:10.1007/BF02655883
  51. Greefrath G, Vorhölter K. Teaching and Learning Mathematical Modelling: Approaches and Developments From German Speaking Countries. Springer; 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45004-9
  52. Joklitschke J, Rott B, Schindler M. Notions of creativity in mathematics education research: a systematic literature review. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2022;20(6):1161-1181. doi:10.1007/s10763-021-10192-z
  53. Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2021;21(1):37-47. doi:10.1002/capr.12360
  54. Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13(2):201-216. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846
  55. Braun V, Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol. 2021;18(3):328-352. doi:10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
  56. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11(4):589-597. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
  57. Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant. 2022;56(3):1391-1412. doi:10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Share
Back to top
Arts & Communication, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4090 Published by AccScience Publishing