The Degree of Conformity of Tenth Grade Male and Female Students' Apprehensions of Geometrical Figures with the Problems of Geometry Textbook

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate 10th-grade students’ understanding of geometric shapes based on Duval’s theory, as well as to examine the 10th-grade geometry textbook in terms of how it addresses each dimension of understanding geometric shapes. The study employed survey and content analysis methods. The statistical population for the survey section consisted of 10th-grade mathematics students in Pakdasht County, with a sample of 235 students selected through cluster random sampling. In the content analysis section, the statistical population included all problems in the 10th-grade geometry textbook, with the sample being identical to the population. The data collection tool for the survey was a test designed based on related studies, the validity of which was confirmed by experts, and its reliability verified using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. The findings indicated that the percentage of incorrect and unanswered responses was higher for reasoning and operational problems compared to perceptual and sequential problems, and there was no significant difference between the performance of male and female students. The analysis of the geometry textbook also revealed that most of its problems are related to reasoning and operational understanding. In fact, although most of the problems in the 10th-grade geometry textbook focus on reasoning and operational tasks, students’ performance in these areas was below expectations. It is suggested that either the presentation of the textbook content or the teaching methods of geometry be revised to better support the development of all four dimensions of students’ geometric understanding.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Alamian, V., Seyyedi, M., & Habibi, M. (2018). Identifying the misconceptions of eighth grade students on geometry skills and the use of Van Hiele theory to improve their geometry skills. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations, 17(3), 123-147. [Persian]
Adolphus, T. (2011). Problems of teaching and learning of geometry in secondary schools in Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(2), 143-152.
Bagheri, G. (2015). Identifying common misconceptions in geometry1 and using van Hiele method to improve students’ geometry reasoning. Master Thesis in Mathematics Education. University of Shahid Chamran, Ahvaz. [Persian]
Bakhshalizadeh, S., Broojerdian, N. (2018). Identifying the primary school fourth grade students’ common misconceptions in content area of geometry and measurement: A comparison of their performance with the mean performance at international level. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations, 16(4), 101-126. [Persian]
Barut, M. E. O., & Retnawati, H. (2020). Geometry learning in vocational high school: Investigating the students’ difficulties and levels of thinking. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1613, No. 1, p. 012058). IOP Publishing.
Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal for research in mathematics education, 17(1), 31-48.
Carroll, W. (1998). Middle school students’ reasoning about geometric situations. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(6), 398-403.
Clements, D. H., Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M. A. Z., & Sarama, J. (1999). Young children’s concepts of shape. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 192-212.
Deliyianni, E., Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., Monoyiou, A., & Panaoura, A. (2010). A theoretical model of students’geometrical figure understanding. In Proceedings of the 6th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, (pp. 696-705).
Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for Learning (Plenary address). In F. Hitt and M. Santos (Eds), Proc. 21st PME-NA Conference, (1, pp. 3-26). Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana and V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st century, (pp. 37–52), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings, In R. Suttherland and J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education, (pp. 142-157). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(2), 139-162.
Gagatsis, A., Elia, I., Geitona, Z., Deliyianni, E., & Gridos, P. (2022). How could the presentation of a geometrical task influence student creativity?. Journal of Research in Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 5(1), 93-116.
Gagatsis, A., Michael-Chrysanthou, P., Deliyianni, E., Panaoura, A., & Papagiannis, C. (2015). An insight to students' geometrical figure apprehension through the context of the fundamental educational thought. Communication & Cognition, 48( 3 & 4), 89 – 128.
Gridos, P., Avgerinos, E., Mamona-Downs, J., & Vlachou, R. (2021). Geometrical figure apprehension, construction of auxiliary lines, and multiple solutions in problem solving: Aspects of mathematical creativity in school geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(4), 1-18.
Gridos, P., Gagatsis, A., Elia, I. & Deliyianni, E. (2019). Mathematical creativity and geometry: The influence of geometrical figure apprehension on the production of multiple solutions. In U. T. Jankvist, M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education: Working Group 4 (pp. 789–796). Utrecht, Netherlands: Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, Netherlands and ERME.
Jones, K. (1998), Theoretical frameworks for the learning of geometrical reasoning. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 18(1&2), 29-34.
Karpuz, Y., & Atasoy, E. (2019). Investigation of 9th grade students’ geometrical figure apprehension. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 285-300.
Lak, R. (2015). The effect of spatial ability training on performance geometry, Technical drawing and spatial visualization of the seventh graders of the city of Dezful. Master Thesis in Psychology. University of Shahid Chamran, Ahvaz. [Persian]
Mahdian, M., Liaghatdar, J., & Arizi, H. (2017). Model for Geometric growth thinking: the impact of visual memory on the Geometric thinking through Geometry scientific epistemology. Journal of Educational Sciences, 24(1), 45-68. [Persian]
Michael, P. (2013). Geometrical figure apprehension: Cognitive processes and structure (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of Cyprus, Cyprus.
Michael, P., Gagatsis, A., Avgerinos, E. & Kuzniak, A. (2011). Middle and high school students’ operative apprehension of geometrical figures. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae–Mathematics, 11, 45-55.
Reyhani, E., Hamidi, F., Kolahdouz, F. (2012). Grade 10 Students’ Conception of Mathematical Reasoning and Proof. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 6(24), 157-182. [Persian]
Reyhani, E., Mesgarani, H., & Farmehr, F. (2009). Investigation of the Roles of Dynamic Geometry Software in Problem Solving Skills and Conjecture Making. Journal of Educational Technology, 3(2), 73-86. [Persian]
Sabbaqi, Z. (2014). Students’ Errors about Concept in Congruence of Triangles. Master Thesis in Mathematics Education, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran. [Persian]
Sabzali, N., Tavanaie, N. (2021). Investigating the Effect of Teaching Geometry Based on Van Hiele Theory on the learning of Students. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 1(2), 1-11.
Safabakhsh, A. (2015). The study of 8th grade students’ level of understanding and reasoning according to the Van Hiele model, Master Thesis in Mathematics Education, Shahid Rajaee teacher training University, Tehran. [Persian]

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 October 2023
  • Revise Date: 13 March 2024
  • Accept Date: 01 June 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics