Examination of 5th Grade Students’ Levels of Geometric Thinking in Terms of Some Variables

Year 2010, Volume: 27 Issue: 27, 185 - 197, 01.01.2010

Yücel Fidan Elif Türnüklü

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to determine the 5th grade primary students’ levels of geometric thinking and examine the students’ levels of geometric thinking in terms of gender, computer usage, attending preschool education and parents’ education level. As a measuring tool, test for determination levels of geometric thinking which was developed by the researchers used. The sample consists of 1644 5th grade students at 32 primary schools in Izmir. Stratified random sampling was used. It is found that 47.9% of students were at the level 0; that is, they could not be appointed to any level, 29.3% were at the level 1, 16.7% were at the level 2, and 6.1% were at the level 3. In other words, almost half of the students could not be appointed to any level. Also the students’ levels of geometric thinking differ in terms of gender, attending preschool education, computer usage and parents’ education level.

Keywords

Level of geometric thinking, primary education, geometry education, mathematics

İlköğretim 5. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Geometrik Düşünme Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi1

Abstract

Bu çalışma ile ilköğretim 5.Sınıf öğrencilerinin geometrik düşünme düzeylerinin belirlenmesi ve öğrencilerin geometrik düşünme düzeylerinin cinsiyet, okul öncesi eğitime devam etme, bilgisayar kullanma ve ebeveynlerinin eğitim düzeylerine göre incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen geometrik düşünme düzey belirleme testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini İzmir ilindeki 32 ilköğretim okulundaki 1644 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada tesadüfi tabakalı örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak öğrencilerin %47.9‘unun 0. düzeyde olduğu yani hiçbir düzeye atanamadığı, %29.3’ünün 1.düzeyde, %16.7’sinin 2.düzeyde, %6.1’inin 3.düzeyde olduğu görülmektedir. Başka bir deyişle öğrencilerin yaklaşık yarısı 0. düzeydedir yani hiçbir düzeye atanamamıştır. Ayrıca öğrencilerin geometrik düşünme düzeyleri cinsiyete, okul öncesi eğitime devam etme, bilgisayar kullanma ve ebeveynlerinin eğitim düzeyine göre değişmektedir.

Keywords

Geometrik düşünme düzeyi, ilköğretim, geometri eğitimi, matematik eğitimi.

References

• Akkaya, S. Ç. (2006). Van hiele düzeylerine göre hazırlanan etkinliklerin ilköğretim 6.sınıf öğrencilerinin tutumuna ve başarısına etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Assaf, S. A. (1986). The effects of using logo turtle graphics in teaching geometry on eight grade students’ level of thought, attitude toward geometry and knowledge of geometry. Dissertation Abstract Index, 46 (10), 2925A.
• Bayram, S., (2004). The effect of ınstruction with concrete models on eighth grade students’ geometry achievement and attitudes toward geometry. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
• Bobango, J. C. (1988). Van Hiele levels of geometric thought and student achievement in standard content and proof writing: The effect of phase-based instruction. Dissertation Abstract Index, 48 (10) 2566A.
• Breen, J. J. (2000). Achievement of van Hiele level two in geometry thinking by eight grade students through the use of geometry computer-based guided instruction. Dissertation Abstract Index, 60 (07) 2415A.
• Burger, W., ve Shaughnessy, J.M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal For Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 31- 48.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş.(2003). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. , Çakmak, E. K. , Akgün, Ö. E. ,Karadeniz Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Carroll, W., M. (1998). Geometric knowledge of middle school students in a reformbased mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 188-197.
• Choi-Koh, S. S. (1999). A student’s learning of geometry using the computer. Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 301-311.
• Clements, D. H. ve Battista, M. T. (1990). The effects of logo on children’s conceptualization of angels and polygon. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 21(5), 356-371.
• Clements, D. H. , Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M. A. Z. ve Sarama, J. (1999). Young children’s concept of shape. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 30(2), 192-212.
• Clements, D. H.. Battista, M. T. ve Sarama, J. (2002). Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph Number 10.
• Darke, I. (1982). A review of research related to the topological primacy thesis. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 13(2). 119-142.
• De Villiers, M. D. (2003). Rethinking proof with the geometer’s sketchpad. Emmeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
• Duatepe, A. (2000). An investigation of the relationship between van Hiele geometric level of thinking and demographic variable for pre-service elementary school teacher. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi.
• Fontaine, N. S., Torre, D. L., ve Grafwallner, R. (2004). Effects of quality early care on school readiness skills of children at risk. Early Child Development and Care, 176 (1), 99- 109.
• Fuys, D. (1985). Van Hiele levels of thinking in geometry. Education and Urban Society, 17(4), 447-462.
• Fuys, D., Geddes, D., ve Tischler, R. (1988). The van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph. 3. Reston, VA: National council of teachers of mathematics.
• Geeslin, W. E., ve Shar, A. O. (1979). An alternative model describing children’s spatial preferences. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10, 57–68.
• Han, H. (2007). Middle school students’ quadrilateral learning: a comparision study. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Minnesota, The Faculty of the Graduate School.
• Hoffer, A. (1979). Geometry. Teacher’s Edition. Menlo Park. CA. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
• Hoffer, A. (1981). Geometry is more than proof. Mathematics Teacher, 74(1), 11-18.
• Hortaçsu, N. (1994). Parents’ education level, popularity, ındividual cognition, and academic performans: An investigation with Turkish children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155 (2). 179-189.
• Hortaçsu, N. (1995). Parents’ education levels’, parents’ beliefs, and child outcomes. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 156(3). 373- 383.
• Huetinck ve Munshin (2000). Teaching mathematics for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Colombus. Ohio.
• Karasar, N. (1995). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. 3 A Araştırma Eğitim Danışmanlık. Ankara, Altıncı Baskı.
• Kılıç, Ç., Köse, N., Y., Tanışlı, D. ve Özdaş, A. (2007). Determining the fifth grade students’ van Hiele geometric thinking levels in tessellation. İlkögretim Online E-Dergi, 6(1),11-23.
• Larew, L., W. (1999). The effects of learning geometry using a computer-generated automatic draw tool in the levels of reasoning college developmental students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. College of Human Resources and Education. Morgantown, West Virginia.
• Laurendeau, M., ve Pinard, A. (1970). The development of the concept of space in the child. New York: International Universities Press, Inc.
• Mayberry, J. (1983). The van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(1), 58- 69.
• MEB (2004). Pisa 2003 projesi: Ulusal ön rapor. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Eğitimi Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlığı. Ankara.
• MEB (2003). Timss 1999 Üçüncü uluslar arası matematik ve fen bilgisi çalışması: Ulusal Rapor. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Eğitimi Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlığı. Ankara.
• Mistretta, R. M. (2000). Enhancing geometric reasoning. Adolescence, 35(138), 365-379.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
• National Council for School Mathematics, (2000). Principles and standarts for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
• Odabaşı, F. (2006) Bilgisayar destekli eğitim. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi: Açık Öğretim Yayınları.
• Olkun, S., ve Toluk, Z., (2003) İlköğretimde etkinlik temelli matematik öğretimi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Olkun, S. , Sinoplu, N. B. ve Deryakulu, D. (2005) Geometric explorations with dynamic geometry applications based on van Hiele levels. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. İnternetten 21 Kasım 2008’de http:// www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/olkun. pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
• Önder, F. (2001). Bilgisayar destekli geometri öğretiminin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin başarısı üzerine etkilerinin araştırılması. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Özçelik, D. A. (1998). Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. Ankara: ÖSYM Yayınları. 3.Baskı
• Peel, E. A. (1959). Experimental examination of some of Piaget’s schemata concerning children’s perception and thinking, and a discussion of their educational significance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 29, 89–103.
• Piaget, J. ve Inhelder, B. (1956) The child’s conception of space. London Routledge ve Kegan Paul
• Piaget, J. ve Inhelder, B. (1967) In The child’s conception of space. The Coordination of Perspectives. New York: Norton ve Co.
• Scally, S. P. (1991). The impact of experience in a logo learning environment on adolescent’ understanding of angle: A van Hiele-based clinical assessment. Dissertation Abstract Index, 52 (03) 372A.
• Senk, S. L. (1989). Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 309-321.
• Sezer, N. (1989). Bilgisayarlı öğretimin ilkokul 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik erişisine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
• Taşdemir, M., ve Taşdemir, A. (2008). A comparison of turkish primary school students’ achievement in science and maths subjects. Journal of Qafqaz University, 22(2). 190-198.
• Tekin, H. (2003). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Yargı Yayınevi. 15.Baskı
• Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. University of Chicago. ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
• Van Hiele, D. (1957). The didactics of geometry in the lowest class of secondary school(translated). Unpublished Utrecht University. dissertation,
• Van Hiele, P. M. (1957). The problem of insight in connection with school children’s insight into the subject matter of geometry (English summary by P. M. van Hiele). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.
• Van Hiele, P. M (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Academic Pres, Inc. Orlando, Florida.
• Wellington, J. (2006). Educational research: contemporary approaches. London: Continuum. and practical
• Whitman, N. C., Nohda, N., Lai, M. K., Hashimoto, Y., Iijima, Y., Isoda, M., ve Hoffer, A.(1997). Mathematics education: A cross-cultural study. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 215-232.
• Wirszup, I. (1976). Breakthroughs in the psychology of learning and teaching geometry. In J. I. Martin and D. A. Bradbard (Eds.). Space and geometry: Papers from a Research Workshops. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics and Environment Education.