UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : Perpustakaan Tuanku Bainun |
| Geometry serves both as an essential instructional tool in mathematics and a visualizing medium for regulating theoretical and real world constructs. Every mathematics teacher must be adequately equipped with the ways of understanding and thinking of the subject matter required to teach geometry. Relevantly, development of the underlying geometrical reasoning is often subject to the overarching concept of two-dimensional geometric shapes. The purpose of this study is to examine the first-year pre-service undergraduates_ reasoning ability about triangles and quadrilaterals. 140 second-semester undergraduates in lecture setting were given a standardized geometry test, namely the van Hiele Geometric Test (VHGT) which contains 20 multiple-choice questions. A descriptive analysis of the dichotomous data was conducted using SPSS and Winstep programs. The findings suggested that among those pre-service teachers, (a) at least 7.1% performed under the basic, visualization level, (b) at most 5.0% attained the required abstraction level, and (c) the rest belongs to group whose analysis level ability remained largely undifferentiated from the aspect of criterion used. This study indicated that reconstruction and reevaluation of textbook content may foster awareness towards rethinking about teachers_ own mathematical dispositions. By collectively or individually challenging their old belief structure, it is hoped that they could realize the epistemic value of having the shapes and its properties be related to each other as well as gaining ownership of such reconstructions of the concepts.
Key words geometry, van Hiele geometric level, reasoning ability, instructional tool, twodimensional geometric shapes |
| References |
Atiyah, M. (1982). What is geometry. The Mathematical Gazette, 66(437), 179-184.
Aydin, N., & Halat, E. (2009). The impacts of undergraduate mathematics courses on college students’ geometric reasoning stages. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 6(1-2), 151-164.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What make it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of Geometric and Spatial Thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 843-908). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood teacher education: The case of geometry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 133-148. doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9173-0 Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2001). The mathematical education of teachers. Providence, RI and Washington DC: American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.
de Villiers, M.D. (1994). The role and function of a hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 11-18.
Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century (pp. 37-52). Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 139– 162.
Gonzalez, G. & Herbst, P. G. (2006). Competing arguments for the geometry course: Why were American high school students supposed to study geometry in twentieth century? International Journal for the History of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 7-33.
Gray, E. M., & Tall, D. O. (2007). Abstraction as a natural process of mental compression. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 19(2), 23-40.
Hershkowitz, R., Ben-Chaim, D., Hoyles, C., Lappan, G., Mitchelmore, M. C., & Vinner, S. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition: A research synthesis by the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 70-95). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Hoyles, C., Newman, K., & Noss, R. (2001). Changing patterns of transition from school to university mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(6), 829-845.
Jones, K. (2000). Issues in the teaching and learning of Geometry. In L. Haggarty (Ed.), Aspects of Teaching Secondary Mathematics: Perspectives on practice (pp. 121-139). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Lawrie, C. (1999). Exploring van Hiele levels of understanding using a Rasch Analysis. In O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd PME International Conference, 3, 209-216.
Lee, K. H. (2006). Evaluation and reconstruction of mathematics textbook by prospective teachers. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4 (pp. 41-48). Prague, Czech Republic.
Mammana, C., & Villani, V. (1998). Perspective on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 91-98.
Ministry of Education. (2006). Integrated curriculum for secondary schools: Curriculum specifications; Mathematics Forms 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum Development Centre.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Noraini Idris. (2006). Teaching and learning of mathematics: Making sense and developing cognitive abilities. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications & Distributors.
Noraini Idris & Tay, B. L. (2004). Teaching and learning of geometry: Problems and prospects. Majalah Pendidikan, 27, 165-178.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334-370). NY: MacMillian.
Shir, K. & Zaslavsky, O. (2002). Students’ conceptions of an acceptable geometric definition. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4, 201-208.
Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychological of learning mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. (Final report of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Project). Chicago: University of Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 220 288).
van der Sandt, S. (2007). Pre-service geometry education in South Africa: A typical case. IUMPTS: The Journal (Content Knowledge), 1, 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.k-12prep.math.ttu.edu/
Van Hiele, P. M. (1999). Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with play. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(6), 310-316.
Vinner, S. (1991). The role of definitions in the teaching and learning mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 65-81). Kluwer, The Netherlands: Dordrecht.
Wu, H. (2005, September). Key mathematical ideas in Grades 5-8. Paper presented at the NCTM Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |