Research Article

Van Hiele Theory-Based Instruction and Grade 11 Students’ Geometric Proof Competencies

Eric Machisi 1 * , Nosisi Nellie Feza 2
More Detail
1 College of Science, Engineering & Technology, University of South Africa, SOUTH AFRICA2 Walter Sisulu University, Buffalo City Campus, SOUTH AFRICA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 2(1), 2021, ep21007, https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/9682
OPEN ACCESS   1068 Views   1270 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

South African matric results on the National Senior Certificate indicate low success in geometry, as do other African countries such as Nigeria. This poor performance affects potential career choices for students and limits the number of students who enter the highly-needed engineering fields on the African continent. Hence, this paper reports findings from a quasi-experiment involving 186 Grade 11 students from four conveniently selected township secondary schools in the Limpopo province of South Africa. The study tested the effect of Van Hiele theory-based instruction on the students’ geometric proof competencies. Data were collected using a geometry proof test and analysed using nonparametric analysis of covariance. Results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in students’ performance between the treatment and control groups (𝑇=595.9,𝑝=.005,𝜂𝑝2 =.684). Analysis of nonparametric regression curves fitted for the treatment and control groups showed that the treatment group had higher post-test scores than the control group. It was therefore concluded that Van Hiele theory-based instruction is more effective in teaching non-routine geometric proofs than conventional instruction. The study recommends that geometry teachers in upper secondary school should consider implementing Van Hiele theory-based instruction to enhance students’ geometric proof competence.

CITATION (APA)

Machisi, E., & Feza, N. N. (2021). Van Hiele Theory-Based Instruction and Grade 11 Students’ Geometric Proof Competencies. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 2(1), ep21007. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/9682

REFERENCES

  1. Abdullah, A. H., & Zakaria, E. (2013, May). Enhancing Students’ Level of Geometric Thinking Through Van Hiele’s Phase-based Learning. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 6(5), 4432-4446. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2013/v6i5.13
  2. Alex, J. K., & Mammen, K. J. (2012). A Survey of South African Grade 10 Learners’ Geometric Thinking Levels in Terms of the Van Hiele Theory. Anthropologist, 14(2), 123-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2012.11891229
  3. Alex, J. K., & Mammen, K. J. (2016). Lessons Learnt from Employing van Hiele Theory Based Instruction in Senior Secondary School Geometry Classrooms. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science ans Technology, 12(8), 2223-2236. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1228a
  4. Atebe, H. U. (2008). Students’ van Hiele Levels of Geometric Thought and Conception in Plane Geometry: A Collective Case Study of Nigeria and South Africa (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa.
  5. Cirillo, M. (2009, November). Ten things to consider when teaching proof. Mathematics Teacher, 103(4), 251-527. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.103.4.0250
  6. Crowley, M. L. (1987). The van Hiele Model of the Development of Geometric Thought. In M. M. Lindquist, Learning and Teaching Geometry, K-12, 1987 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 1-16). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  7. Department of Basic Education. (2015). National Senior Certificate Examination 2014 Diagnostic Report. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education.
  8. Fabiyi, T. R. (2017). Geometry Concepts in Mathematics Perceived Difficult to Learn by Senior Secondary School Students in Ekiti State, Nigeria, Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7(1), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0701018390
  9. Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The van Hiele Model of Thinking in Geometry among Adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3, 1-196. https://doi.org/10.2307/749957
  10. Gutiérrez, A., Jaime, A., & Fortuny, J. M. (1991). An alternative paradigm to evaluate the acquisition of the van Hiele levels. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(3), 237-251. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.22.3.0237
  11. Harel, G., & Fuller, E. (2009). Current Contributions Toward Comprehensive Perspectives on the Learning and Teahing of Proof. In D. A. Stylianou, M. L. Blanton, & E. J. Knuth, Teaching and Learning Proof Across the Grades: A K-12 Perspective (pp. 355-370). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203882009-21
  12. Jones, K. (2002). Issues in the teaching and learning of geometry. In L. Haggarty (Ed.), Aspects of Teaching Secondary School Mathematics: Perspectives on Practice (pp. 121-139). London: Routledge Falmer. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.62
  13. Liu, K.-W. (2005). The Effectiveness of van Hiele-Based Instruction (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.
  14. Luneta, K. (2014, December). Foundation Phase Teachers’ (Limited) Knowledge of Geometry. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 4(3), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v4i3.228
  15. Luneta, K. (2015). Understanding students’ misconceptions: An analysis of final Grade 12 examination questions in geometry. Pythagoras, 36(1), Art. #261. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v36i1.261
  16. Malloy, C. E. (2002). The van Hiele Framework. In D. K. Pugalee, J. Frykholm, H. Slovin, A. Johnson, & C. E. Malloy, Navigating Through Geometry Grades 6-8. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  17. Meng, C. C. (2009). Enhancing Students’ Geometric Thinking Through Phase-Based Instruction Using Geometer’s Sketchpad: A Case Study. J. Pendidik dan Pendidikan, Jil, 24, 89-107.
  18. Mudaly, V. (2007). Proof and Proving in Secondary Schools. Pythagoras, 66, 64-75. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v0i66.81
  19. Mwadzaangati, L. (2015). Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Geometric Proof: Learning from Teachers’ Practices. Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 3308-3308). Prague, Czech Republic: CERME.
  20. Ndlovu, M., & Mji, A. (2012). Pedagogical implications of students’ misconceptions about deductive geometrical proof. Acta Academia, 44(3), 175-205.
  21. Paiva, C. E., Barroso, E. M., Carneseca, E. C., Souza, C. d., Santos, F. T., López, R. V., & Paiva, B. S. (2014). A critical analysis of test-retest reliability in instrument validation studies of cancer patients under palliative care: a systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-8
  22. Rahim, M. H. (2014). Research implications for teaching and learning strategies in undergraduate mathematics. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2A), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9634
  23. Serow, P. (2008). Investigating a phase approach to using technology as a teaching tool. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 445-452). MERGA.
  24. Shaughnessy, M. J., & Burger, W. F. (1985, September). Spadework Prior to Deduction in Geometry. Mathematics Teacher, 78, 419-428. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.78.6.0419
  25. Shi-Pui, K., & Ka-Luen, C. (2009). The van Hiele Phases of Learning in Studying Cube Dissection. Retrieved from http://math.unipa.it/~grim/21_project/Kwan358-363.pdf
  26. Siew, N. M., Chong, C. L., & Abdullah, M. R. (2013). Facilitating Students’ Geometric Thinking Through van Hiele’s Phase-Based Learning Using Tangram. Journal of Social Sciences, 9(3), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2013.101.111
  27. Siyepu, S. (2014). Analysis of Van Hiele’s Theory in Circle Geometry: A Focus in FET Level. In M. Lebitso, & A. Maclean (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual National Congress of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa. 2, pp. 61-63. Kimberley: AMESA.
  28. Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry. Chicago: University of Chicago.
  29. Van Hiele, P. M. (1984). A Child’s Thought and Geometry. In D. Fuys, D. Geddes, & R. Tischler (Eds.), English Translation of Selected Writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele (pp. 247-256). Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College.
  30. Van Hiele-Geldof, D. (1984). The Didactic of Geometry in the Lowest Class of Secondary School. In D. Fuys, D. Geddes, & R. Tischler (Eds.), English Translation of Selected Writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldoff and Pierre M. van Hiele (pp. 10-222). Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College.
  31. West African Examination Council. (2015). Chief Examiners Report. Lagos: WAEC.
  32. Yaghmaie, F. (2003). Content validity and its estimation. Journal of Medical Education, 3(1), 25-28.