Pre-Service Elementary Mathematics Teachers’ Evaluations of Meetings with Expert and Peer Participation Based on van Hiele Geometric Thinking Levels

Year 2023, Volume: 7 Issue: 15, 752 - 768, 21.10.2023

Duygu Arabacı , Oben Kanbolat

https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.1345567

Cited By: 1

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to present the pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ (PEMT) evaluations of meetings with expert and peer participation based on van Hiele geometric thinking levels (vHGTL). The case study method was used and the study group of the research consists of three PEMT who are studying in the third year of a state university. Data were collected with meeting records, reflection reports of the PEMTs, researcher’s field notes and interviews and were analyzed simultaneously by two researchers to ensure coding reliability with content analysis method. As a result of the research, it was seen that there was a positive change in PEMTs’ criteria for determining vHGTL. It was determined that they had difficulties in clearly distinguishing the differences between the levels at the beginning, and that in the last meetings, they insisted on the criteria related to the levels they determined and made more accurate determinations about the levels. As a matter of fact, the teacher candidates also stated that meetings enabled them to determine the achievements’, solved and unsolved problems’ vHGTL better. In addition, they stated that allowing them to freely express their ideas in meetings contributed to their professional development in geometry teaching knowledge. Suggestions regarding experts and peers participatory meetings were presented.

Keywords

Preservice elementary mathematics teachers, van Hiele theory, meetings, expert, peer

References

• 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 and Technology Education, 12(8), 2223-2236.
• Altaylı, D., Konyalıoğlu, A. C., Hızarcı, S., & Kaplan, A. (2014). The investigation of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge on three dimensional objects. Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 4-24.
• Armah, R. B., Cofie, P. O., & Okpoti, C. A. (2017). The geometric thinking levels of pre-service teachers in Ghana. Higher Education Research, 2(3), 98-106.
• Armah, R. B., Cofie, P. O., & Okpoti, C. A. (2018). Investigating the effect of van Hiele phase-based instruction on pre-service teachers’ geometric thinking. International Journal of Research in Education And Science, 4(1), 314-330.
• Atasoy, E. (2019). Elementary mathematics teacher candidates' geometric thinking levels and their self-efficacy in geometry. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 12(2), 161-170.
• Aydın, S. (2018, November). İlköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının sayı öğretme bilgilerini yordayan değişkenler [Variables predicting number teaching knowledge of primary school mathematics teacher candidates]. Paper presented at the 2. International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Scientific Studies, Samsun, Türkiye.
• Baki, A. (2008). Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi [Mathematics education from theory to practice]. Ankara: Harf Education Publication.
• Baki, M. (2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının matematiği öğretme bilgilerinin gelişiminin incelenmesi: Bir ders imecesi (Lesson study) çalışması [Investigating development of prospective primary teachers' mathematical pedagogical content knowledge: Lesson study]. [Doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Trabzon].
• Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
• Baş, F., & Işık, A. (2014). Öğretmen ve akademisyenler arasında oluşturulan web-tabanlı ve yüz-yüze bilgi paylaşım ortamlarının katılımcılar perspektifinden değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the web-based and face to face information sharing context between teachers and academicians from the viewpoints of the participants]. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 231-258.
• Bieda, K., Cavanna, J., & Ji, X. (2013). Developing mathematical knowledge for teaching through mentor-guided lesson study. North American chapter of the ınternational group for the psychology of mathematics education.
• Bischoff, P. J., Hatch, D. D., & Watford, L. J. (1999). The state of readiness of initial level preservice middle grades science and mathematics teachers and its implications on teacher education programs. School Science and Mathematics, 99(7), 394-399.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri(19. Baskı)[Scientific research methods]. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches(2th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
• Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
• Crowley, M.L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought. In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.). Learning and teaching geometry, K-12, NCTM,1-16. Reston.
• Çelik, D., Özmen, Z. M., Güneş, G., Açıkyıldız, G., Arabacı, D., Gürsoy, K., …Aydın, S. (2020). Anabilim dalı başkanlarının matematik öğretmeni adaylarına sunulan öğrenme fırsatlarına ilişkin değerlendirmeleri [Heads of division’s evaluation of learning opportunities provided for prospective elementary mathematics teachers]. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 11(1), 15-52.
• Erdoğan, T., & Durmuş, S. (2009). The effect of the instruction based on van Hiele model on the geometrical thinking levels of preservice elementary school teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 154-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.029
• Guskey, T. R. (2007). Results-oriented professional development. In A. C. Onstein, E. F. Pajak, & S. B. Ornstein (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Curriculum (pp. 334–346). Boston, Pearson Edu.
• Gürbüz, K., & Durmuş, S. (2009). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenlerinin dönüşüm geometrisi, geometric cisimler, örüntü ve süslemeler öğrenme alanlarındaki yeterlilikleri [The qualification levels of in-service elementary school teachers on the sub-learning strands, namely transformational geometry, geometric objects, pattern and tesselations]. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(1), 1-22.
• Güven, B. (2006). Öğretmen adaylarının küresel geometri anlama düzeylerinin karakterize edilmesi [Characterizing student mathematics teachers’ levels of understanding of spherical geometry].Doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Trabzon]. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
• Kaleli-Yılmaz, G., & Koparan, T. (2016). The effect of designed geometry teaching lesson to the candidate teachers’ van Hiele geometric thinking level. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(1), 129-141. http://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i1.1067
• Kanbolat, O. (2015). Matematik öğretmeni adaylarıyla yürütülen ders imecesinde dış uzmanların paylaşım içerikleri ve rolleri [The roles and contributions of knowledgeable others to the lesson study involving pre- service mathematics teachers].[Doctoral dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Trabzon].
• Kanbolat, O., & Arslan, S. (2022). Öğretmen eğitiminde ders imecesi [Lesson study in teacher training]. In A. Sağlam Arslan & M. Beşken Ergişi (Eds.), Öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimi için stratejiler, kavramlar ve metodolojiler [Strategies, concepts and methodologies for professional development of teachers] (pp. 261-292). Ankara, Turkey: Eğiten Kitap.
• Karakuş, F., & Peker, M. (2015). The effects of dynamic geometry software and physical manipulatives on pre-service primary teachers’ van Hiele levels and spatial abilities. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 338-365. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.31338
• Kriewaldt, J. (2012). Reorienting teaching standards: Learning from lesson study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.643761
• Kutluca, T. & Gömlekçi, M. (2022). Examination of the relation between science high school students’ geometry success and van hiele geometric thinking levels. Journal of Educational Studies and Multidisciplinary Approaches (JESMA), 2(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.51383/jesma.2022.63
• Lewis, C. (2002). Does lesson study have a future in the United States? Journal of the Nagoya University Department of Education, 1, 1‐23.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2019). Secondary school and imam hatip middle school mathematics textbook (5th grade). Ministry of National Education, Ankara.
• Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-based nursing, 18(2), 34-35.
• Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü [ÖYGM]. (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Retrieved November 12, 2019 from https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/StPrg/Ogretmenlik_Meslegi_Genel_Yeterlikleri.pdf
• Özgenel, M. (2019). Öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimlerine ilişkin fenomenolojik bir araştırma. Akademik Platform Eğitim ve Değişim Dergisi, 2 (2) , 128-143.
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
• Potari, D. (2011). Response to part II: Emerging issues from lesson study approaches in prospective mathematics teacher education. In L. C. Hart, A. Alstone, & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education (pp. 127-132). Springer.
• Pusey, E. L. (2003). The van Hiele model of reasoning in geometry: A literature review. Master’s thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, United States. Retrieved from https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstream/handle/1840.16/2275/etd.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1
• Ruohotie-Lyhty, M., & Moate, J. (2016). Who and how? Preservice teachers as active agents developing professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 318-327.
• Salifu, A. S., Yakubu, A. R., & İbrahim, F. I. (2018). van Hiele geometric thinking levels of pre-service teachers of EP college of education, Bimbilla-Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice, 9(23), 108-119.
• Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledgegrowth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
• Suh, J., & Parker, J. (2010). Developing reflective practitioners through lesson study with preservice and inservice teachers. Mathematics teaching: Putting research into practice at all levels, 125-140.
• Toluk, Z., Olkun, S., & Durmuş, S. (2002, September). Problem merkezli ve görsel modellerle destekli geometri öğretiminin sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin geometrik düşünme düzeylerinin gelişimine etkisi. Paper presented at the 5th National Sciences and Mathematics Education Congress, Ankara, Turkey.
• Tutak, T., & Birgin, O. (2008, May). The effects of computer assisted instruction on the students’ achievement in geometry. Paper presented at the 8th International Educational Technology Conference, Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry (Final Report). Retrieved September 22, 2020 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED220288.pdf
• Watanable, T. (2005). Knowledgeable others: What are your roles and how do you become more effective? Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1–3. Retrieved October 2, 2020 from http://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/handout13-1.pdf
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
• Yi, M., Flores, R., & Wang, J. (2020). Examining the influence of van Hiele theory-based instructional activities on elementary preservice teachers’ geometry knowledge for teaching 2-D shapes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 103038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103038