The effect of the instruction based on Van Hiele model on the geometrical thinking levels of preservice elementary school teachers

Investigating the Effect of van Hiele Phase-based Instruction on Pre-service Teachers’ Geometric Thinking

“…after the intervention) at p < 0.05 favoring PTs in the experimental group; 19.5% of PTs in the control group attained VHL 3 and 4, as compared to 80.5% of PTs in the experimental group who attained VHL 3 and 4. This finding confirms the claim (Al-ebous, 2016;Alex & Mammen, 2016;Erdogan and Durmus, 2009;Mostafa, Javad & Reza, 2017;Ramlan, 2016;Siew & Chong;Yazdani, 2007) that instruction consistent with VHPI has a positive effect on the geometric thinking Levels of learners.…”

“…The purpose of this section is to look at the effects of the VHPI on the development of learners' geometric thinking Levels. Erdogan and Durmus (2009) investigated the effects of instruction based on the VHPI on 142 senior PTs' geometric thinking Levels. There were eight classes of senior PTs, two of them were randomly assigned as experimental groups which were instructed with the VHPI and the other two were randomly assigned as control groups which were instructed with traditional instruction.…”

“…These findings raise concerns about the delivery of instruction that is appropriate to learners' level of thinking. Several studies (Atebe & Schafer, 2008;Erdogan & Durmus, 2009;Howse & Howse, 2015;Mostafa, Javad & Reza, 2017;Siew & Chong, 2014;Usiskin, 1982;Yazdani, 2007) have emphasized that learners' abysmal performance in geometry are significantly linked to the quality of classroom instruction.…”

“…This is supported by De Villiers (2012) when he indicates that majority of geometry teachers follow the conventional way of teaching where teachers only "provide students with ready-made content (definitions, theorems, proofs, classifications, and so on) that they merely have to assimilate and regurgitate in tests and exams" (p. 13). Meanwhile, there is enough evidence suggesting that current conventional textbook-chalkboard teaching approaches promote inadequate spatial experience (Alex & Mammen, 2016;Erdogan & Durmus, 2009;Fletcher & Anderson, 2012). Sakyi (2014) emphasized that "there is also the need to shift away from rote-learning and the current exam-centred educational system in Ghana, which produces robotic products who cannot solve problems or apply their knowledge to creative endeavours" (p. 4).…”

“…It is widely recognized in literature that the VHPI is one of the most significant theoretical frameworks to understand students' learning processes, places learners at the center of learning and has interventions that can effectively improve learners' geometric thinking levels (Al-ebous, 2016;Erdogan & Durmus, 2009;Howse & Howse, 2015;Mostafa, Javad & Reza, 2017;Ramlan, 2016). Integrating hands-on investigations with manipulative concrete materials in the VHPI can help learners to build concrete concepts, and also provide learners ample opportunities to unleash their own creativity as they explore geometric concepts (Zhang, 2003cited in Siew & Chong, 2014.…”