Effects of Teaching Activities via Google Sketchup and Concrete Models on Spatial Skills of Preservice Mathematics Teachers

Year 2016, , 510 - 535, 08.12.2016

Candaş Uygan , Aytaç Kurtuluş

https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.273993

Cited By: 3

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of
teaching activities supported by Google SketchUp, which is a 3–Dimensional
modeling software, and concrete models on the basic skills related to spatial
ability in teaching geometric solids. The study sample consisted of 72
preservice teachers who were studying elementary mathematics education in
2009-2010 academic–year in a state-funded university in Central Anatolia,
Turkey. This was an experimental study. The study used a pretest posttest
control group design and included two experimental groups and a control group.
One of the experimental groups was taught using Google SketchUp while the other
one was taught with concrete model-aided teaching activities. The activities,
designed for the control group, were carried out with some traditional teaching
tools such as paper, pencil and classroom writing board. The Santa Barbara
Solids Test (SBST) and the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test (PSVT) were used
to measure spatial ability. The SBST measures the ability to mentally visualize
the cross-sections of 3D objects. The PSVT consists of three parts:
“Developments”, which measures skills to visualize a 3D object based on its
surface development; “Rotations”, which measures skills to mentally rotate 3D
objects; and “Views”, which measures skills to visualize different views of 3D
objects. The study identified significant increases in the scores received for
all of the tests by the group using Google SketchUp, in the scores received for
the SBST and Developments part by the group using concrete models, and in the
scores received for only the Developments part by the control group. Also, the
posttest average score received for the “Views” part by the experimental group
using Google SketchUp was significantly higher than the score of the
experimental group using concrete models and the control group.

Keywords

Spatial ability, Google SketchUp, concrete model, geometric solids, preservice elementary mathematics teacher

References

• Alias, M., Black, T. R., & Gray, D. E. (2002). Effect of instructions on spatial visualization ability in civil engineering students. International Education Journal, 3(1), 1–12.
• Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., & Yıldırım, E. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri SPSS uygulamalı (6. Baskı). Sakarya: Sakarya Publishing.
• Baki, A., Kösa, T., & Güven, B. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of using dynamic geometry software and physical manipulatives on the spatial visualization skills of pre-service mathematics teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 291–310.
• Baştürk, R. (2010). Bütün yönleriyle SPSS örnekli nonparametrik istatistiksel yöntemler. Ankara: Anı Press.
• Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender differences in high school geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 47–60.
• Baykul, Y. (2004). İlköğretimde matematik öğretimi 1.-5. sınıflar için (7th ed.). Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
• Bayrak, M. E. (2008). Investigation of effect of visual treatment on elementary school student’s spatial ability and attitude toward spatial ability problems (Unpublished master’s thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• Capraro, R. M. (2001, February). Exploring the influences of geometric spatial visualization, gender, and ethnicity on the acquisition of geometry content knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
• Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Sources of difficulty in imagining cross sections of 3D objects. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 179–184). Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.
• Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2008, June). Spatial visualization training using interactive animation. Paper presented at Conference on research and training in spatial intelligence, sponsored by National Science Foundation, Evanston, IL.
• Dorta, N. M., Saorin, J. L., & Contero, M. (2008). Development of a fast remedial course to improve the spatial abilities to engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 505–513.
• Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51–71.
• Fleron, J. F. (2009). Google SketchUp: A powerful tool for teaching, learning and appliying geometry. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from http://www.wsc.ma.edu/math/prime/concrete.ideas/GSUPaperNCTM.pdf
• Goldsby, D. (2009). Research summary: Manipulatives in middle grades mathematics. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from http://www.amle.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/ Mathematics/tabid/1832/Default.aspx.
• Guay, R. B., & McDaniel, E. D. (1977). The relationship between mathematics achievement and spatial abilities among elementary school. Journal of Research on Mathematics Education, 8, 211–215.
• Gutierrez, A. (1992). Exploring the links between Van Hiele levels and 3-dimensional geometry. Structural Topology, 18, 31–48.
• Güven, B. (2012). Using dynamic geometry software to improve eight grade students’ understanding of transformation geometry. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 364–382.
• Güven, B., & Kösa, T. (2008). The effect of dynamic geometry software on student mathematics teachers’ spatial visualization skills. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 7(4), 100–107.
• 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.
• Karaman, T., & Toğrol A.Y. (2000). Relationship between gender, spatial visualization, spatial orientation, flexibility of closure abilities and performance related to plane geometry subject among sixth grade students. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 26(1), 1–25.
• Kennedy, L. M. (1986). A rationale. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 6–7.
• La Ferla, V., Olkun, S., Akkurt, Z., Alibeyoğlu, M. C., Gonulates, F. O., & Accascina, G. (2009, July). An international comparison of the effect of using computer manipulatives on middle grades students’ understanding of three-dimensional buildings. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 9th international conference on technology in mathematics teaching, France.
• Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A.C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A-meta analysis. Child development, 56, 1479–1498.
• Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes and knowledge. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 181–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Maier, P. H. (1998). Spatial geometry and spatial ability: How to make solid geometry solid?, In E. Osnabrück, Cohors-Fresenborg, K.Reiss, G. Toener, & H. Weigand (Eds.), Selected papers from the annual conference of didactics of mathematics 1996 (pp. 63–75). Munich, Germany: Gessellschaft für Didaktik der Mathematik (GDM).
• McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 889–918.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2009a). İlköğretim matematik dersi 1-5. sınıflar öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2009b). İlköğretim matematik dersi 6-8. sınıflar öğretim programı ve kılavuzu. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2013). Ortaokul matematik dersi 5-8 sınıflar öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu.
• Moyer, P. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197.
• Naraine, B. (1989). Relationships among eye fixation variables on task-oriented viewing of angles, Van Hiele Levels, spatial ability and field dependence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (1989). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, Va.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Olkun, S. (2003). Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(1), 43–56.
• Olkun, S., & Altun, A. (2003). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin bilgisayar deneyimleri ile uzamsal düşünme ve geometri başarıları arasındaki ilişki. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(4), 86–91.
• Olkun, S., Altun, A., & Smith, G. (2005). Computers and 2D geometric learning of Turkish fourth and fifth graders. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 317–326.
• Olkun, S., Smith, G. G., Gerretson, H., Yuan, Y., & Joutsenlathi, J. (2009). Comparing and enhancing spatial skills of pre-service elementary school teachers in Finland, Taiwan, USA and Turkey. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1545–1548.
• Scarpino, M. (2010). Automatic SketchUp: Creating 3D Models in Ruby. CA: Eclipse Engineering, Walnut Creek.
• Scribner, S. A. (2004). Novice drafters’ spatial visualization development: influence of instructional methods and individual learning styles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southern Illionis University, Carbondale.
• Shieh, W. (1985). Spatial visualization, attitudes towards mathematics, and mathematics achievement among Chinese-American, Hispanic American, and Caucasian seventh and eighth grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pacific University, Stockton, California.
• Sorby, S. A. (1999). Developing 3-D spatial visualization skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 63(2), 21–32.
• Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans, B. (2000). The development and assessment of a course for enhancing the 3-D spatial visualization skills of first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 301–307.
• Sundberg, E. S. (1994). Effect of spatial training on spatial ability and mathematical achievement as compared to traditional geometry instruction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City.
• Szendrei, J. (1996). Concrete materials in the classroom. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 411–434). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
• Tso, T., & Liang, Y.N. (2002). The study of interrelationship between spatial abilities and Van Hiele levels of thinking in geometry of eight-grade students. Retrieved April 8, 2011 from http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/epub/j46/se46-1.htm
• Turğut, M. (2010). Teknoloji destekli lineer cebir öğretiminin ilköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının uzamsal yeteneklerine etkisi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
• Turğut, M., & Uygan, C. (2014). Spatial ability training for undergraduate mathematics education students: designing tasks with SketchUp. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 8(1), 53–65.
• Uygan, C. (2011). Katı cisimlerin öğretiminde Google SketchUp ve somut model destekli uygulamaların ilköğretim matematik öğretmeni adaylarının uzamsal yeteneklerine etkisi (Unpublished master’s thesis). Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir.
• Weidemann, W.J. (1990). Three methods of teaching locus of points problems in high school geometry (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
• Yılmaz, B. (2009). On the development and measurement of spatial ability. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 83–96.