• School Mathematics
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.147-164
• /
• 2009

This study investigated the development of geometrical thinking levels of the under achievers at mathematics through supplementary classes according to van Hiele's learning process by stages using mathematical journal writing. We selected five under achievers at mathematics among the fourth graders. We examined their geometrical thinking levels in advance and interviewed them to collect basic data related to their family backgrounds and their attitude toward mathematics and their characteristics. Supplementary classes for the under achievers were conducted a couple of times a week during 12 weeks. Each class was conducted through five learning stages of van Hiele and journal writing was applied to the last consolidating stage. After 12th class had been finished, posttest on geometrical thinking levels was conducted and the journals written by the pupils were analyzed to find out changes in their geometrical thinking levels. The result is that three out of five under achievers showed one or two level-up in their geometrical thinking levels, though the other two pupils remained at the same level as the results by the pretest. Moreover we found that mathematical journal writing could provide the pupils with opportunities to restructure the content which they study through their class.

• Research in Mathematical Education
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.81-91
• /
• 2011

The aim of this study was to explore the grade 1-3 students' geometrical thinking level descriptors based on van Hiele level descriptors. The data were collected through collection of geometric curriculum materials such as indicators and learning standards in Basic Education Core Curriculum and mathematics textbook for grades 1-3. The findings were found that 1) Inconsistency between descriptors appeared on mathematics curriculum and Thai mathematics textbooks. 2) Using topics on textbooks as criterion for exploring 5 of 7 descriptors appeared on Thai mathematics textbook indicated geometrical thinking levels based on van Hiele's model merely level 0 (Visualization) across textbooks for grades 1-3.

• Education of Primary School Mathematics
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.85-97
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to develop a teaching program in consideration of the geometrical thinking levels of students to make a contribution to teaching figures effectively. To do this, we checked the geometrical thinking levels of fourth-graders, developed a teaching program based on van Hiele's theory, and investigated its effect on their geometrical thinking levels. The teaching program based on van Hiele's theory put emphasis on group member interaction and specific activities through offering various geometrical experiences. It contributed to actualizing activity-centered, student-oriented, inquiry-oriented and inductive instruction instead of sticking to expository, teacher-led and deductive instruction. And it consequently served to improving their geometrical thinking levels, even though some students didn't show any improvement and one student was rather degraded in that regard - but in the former case they made partial progress though there was little marked improvement, and in the latter case she needs to be considered in relation to her affective aspects above all. The findings of the study suggest that individual variances in thinking level should be recognized by teachers. Students who are at a lower level should be given easier tasks, and more challenging tasks should be assigned to those who are at an intermediate level in order for them to have a positive self-concept about mathematics learning and ultimately to foster their thinking levels.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.59 no.2
• /
• pp.113-130
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to analyze how well middle school students understand space geometrical concept related to a cylinder. To this end, we developed the test tool based on prior research and examined 433 middle school students in November and December, 2018. And in March 2019, we interviewed 4 students who showed some type of errors. The difference in the correct answer rate of the questions by the grade and gender was tested, and the error type was analyzed based on the student's responses to the questions to evaluate the spatial reasoning ability. The results of this study are as follows. First, the difference by graders was not statistically significant in the questions evaluating spatial visual ability. On the other hand, in the case of the two questions for evaluating spatial measurement ability and spatial reasoning ability, the difference in the correct answer rate between the 7th graders and 8th is not significant, but the difference between lower graders and 9th was significant. Second, there was no significant difference in the spatial geometric ability of all girls and boys participating in this study. Third, analyzing the student's error type for an item which assessed spatial reasoning ability, we found that there are various error types in relation to visual, manipulative, and reasoning errors.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.53 no.2
• /
• pp.275-290
• /
• 2014

This study investigated the types of the 3D geometric thinking and spatial reasoning through the observation of the 2D representing activities for representing the 3D geometrical objects with preservice secondary mathematics teachers. For this purpose, the 43 sophomoric students in college of education were divided into 10 groups and observed their group task performance on the basis of the representation they used. Observed processes were all recorded and the participants were interviewed based on the task. As a result, the role of physical object that becoming the object of geometric thinking and spatial reasoning, and diverse strategies and phenomena of the process that representing the 3D geometric figures in 2D were discovered. Furthermore, these processes of representing were assumed to be influenced by experience and study practice of students, and various forms of representing process were also discovered in the process of small group activities.

• School Mathematics
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.109-122
• /
• 1999

In this paper we give a description of students' obstacles in their learning of geometry, especially resulted from their confusing a physical drawing with a figure, a geometrical object which a physical drawing represents. In computer-based teaching-learning environment, we could relieve such obstacles through providing students for experiences in which they must focus on elements of a figure and relations of them. But there may be potential in computer-based environment if we offer students only visual experience for validity of geometrical gacts: students' lack of understanding for need of proof and experience of cognitive obstacles which is very important for students to reflect their thinking and activities. Thus an didactical treatment must follows, which we also give an example.

• Fashion & Textile Research Journal
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.31-39
• /
• 2002

The analysis revealed that the pattern represent the function of written language, the Miao's idea of nature as tie object of worship and exorcism, and their primitive thinking. The patterns are chiefly embroidered collars, shoulders of blouse, waist blind and hem lines of skirt. The design of patterns are animals and plants and geometrical figured. Most of patterns are dragon, fishes, birds, butterflies, which are liked by the Miao people. The patterns are highly imaginative and true to life, and are made with strong national and popular features.

• Research in Mathematical Education
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.103-128
• /
• 2014

This paper presents the Global van Hiele (GVH) questionnaire as a tool for mapping knowledge and understanding of plane and solid geometry. The questionnaire facilitates identification of the respondents' mastery of the first three levels of thinking according to van Hiele theory with regard to key geometrical topics. Teacher-educators can apply this questionnaire for checking preliminary knowledge of mathematics teaching candidates or pre-service teachers. Moreover, it can be used when planning a course or granting exemption from studying in basic geometry courses. The questionnaire can also serve high school mathematics teachers who are interested in exposing their students to multiple-choice questions in geometry.

• Journal of Elementary Mathematics Education in Korea
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.247-282
• /
• 2011

In the elementary school mathematics textbooks of the 7th national curriculum, just simple construction education is provided by having students draw a circle and triangle with compasses and drawing vertical and parallel lines with a set square. The purpose of this study was to examine the mathematical thinking of sixth-grade elementary school students in the construction process in a bid to give some suggestions on elementary construction guidance. As a result of teaching the sixth graders in gifted and nongifted classes about the equal division of line segments and evaluating their mathematical thinking, the following conclusion was reached, and there are some suggestions about that education: First, the sixth graders in the gifted classes were excellent enough to do mathematical thinking such as analogical thinking, deductive thinking, developmental thinking, generalizing thinking and symbolizing thinking when they learned to divide line segments equally and were given proper advice from their teacher. Second, the students who solved the problems without any advice or hint from the teacher didn't necessarily do lots of mathematical thinking. Third, tough construction such as the equal division of line segments was elusive for the students in the nongifted class, but it's possible for them to learn how to draw a perpendicular at midpoint, quadrangle or rhombus and extend a line by using compasses, which are more enriched construction that what's required by the current curriculum. Fourth, the students in the gifted and nongifted classes schematized the problems and symbolized the components and problem-solving process of the problems when they received process of the proble. Since they the urally got to use signs to explain their construction process, construction education could provide a good opportunity for sixth-grade students to make use of signs.

• The Mathematical Education
• /
• v.39 no.2
• /
• pp.151-166
• /
• 2000

The purpose of this study is to understand what two models of SOLO taxonomy and van Hiele theory suggest and find out what relation there is between the category system of the SOLO taxonomy and the thinking level of the van Hiele theory. The van Hiele theory describes in line of ranking level so that it may increase the teaching effects by putting together a class, which takes into consideration the students thoughts. The SOLO taxonomy focused on the response mode of the students rather than the thinking level or the developmental stage of them to pursuit the method that can describe the students understanding in depth quality-wise. Although the SOLO taxonomy and the van Hiele model seem to have different form and character from outside in terms of their goals, a closer examination reveals that the two stances have much in common and that the models are complementary. Although the van Hiele placed more focus on the thoughts, because the conclusion was based on the students responses, the van Hiele theory can be interpreted within the structure identified in the SOLO model. In this study, we have tried to understand how the response structure form the SOLO taxonomy and the thinking level of the van Hiele theory are related, based on the studies of Pegg and Davery1998). If you briefly look at them, there are following corresponding relation between the SOLO taxonomy and the van Hiele theory. a) The relational level(R) in iconic moe is van Hiele level 1. b) The multisturctural level(M$_2$) in the second cycle of concrete-symbolic mode is van Hiel level 2. c) The relation level(R$_2$) in the second cycle of concrete-symbolic mode is van Hiele level 3. d) The unistructural level(U$_2$) in the second cycle of formal mode is van Hiele level 4. e) The postformal mode is van Hiele levle 5. Though it would be difficult to conclude that these correspondences were perfectly done, if you look at their relation, you can see that the learning process of the students were not carried out uniformly. Therefore, by studying the students response structure, using the SOLO taxonomy, and identifying the learning cycle and understand the geometrical concept more in depth.