This article was downloaded by: [114.79.28.

247] On: 21 July 2012, At: 02:03 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmes20

Characterizing student mathematics teachers levels of understanding in spherical geometry

Bulent Guven & Adnan Baki a Fatih Faculty of Education, Secondary School Science and Mathematics Education, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon 61335, Turkey Version of record first published: 21 Sep 2010
a a

To cite this article: Bulent Guven & Adnan Baki (2010): Characterizing student mathematics teachers levels of understanding in spherical geometry, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41:8, 991-1013 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2010.500692

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, Vol. 41, No. 8, 15 December 2010, 9911013

Characterizing student mathematics teachers levels of understanding in spherical geometry

Bulent Guven* and Adnan Baki
Fatih Faculty of Education, Secondary School Science and Mathematics Education, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon 61335, Turkey (Received 10 November 2008) This article presents an exploratory study aimed at the identification of students levels of understanding in spherical geometry as van Hiele did for Euclidean geometry. To do this, we developed and implemented a spherical geometry course for student mathematics teachers. Six structured, taskbased interviews were held with eight student mathematics teachers at particular times through the course to determine the spherical geometry learning levels. After identifying the properties of spherical geometry levels, we developed Understandings in Spherical Geometry Test to test whether or not the levels form hierarchy, and 58 student mathematics teachers took the test. The outcomes seemed to support our theoretical perspective that there are some understanding levels in spherical geometry that progress through a hierarchical order as van Hiele levels in Euclidean geometry. Keywords: levels of understanding; spherical geometry; student mathematics teachers

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

1. Introduction Levels of understanding, which can be defined as the thinking process of students through a number of distinct cognitive levels, have always been a concern of educators [1]. Dina and Pierre van Hiele developed a model to describe different levels of human geometric reasoning. According to this model, the learner, assisted by appropriate instructional experiences, passes through the following five levels, where the learner cannot achieve one level without having passed through the previous levels [2]: Level 1(Recognition): The student recognizes geometric figures by their global appearance and identifies names of figures, but she/he does not explicitly identify their properties. Level 2 (Analysis): The student analyses figures in terms of their components and properties, discovers properties rules of a class of shapes empirically, but she/he does not explicitly interrelate figures or properties. Level 3 (Pre-deductive): The student logically interrelates previously discovered properties rules by giving or following informal arguments.
*Corresponding author. Email: bguven@ktu.edu.tr
ISSN 0020739X print/ISSN 14645211 online 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2010.500692 http://www.informaworld.com

992

B. Guven and A. Baki

Level 4 (Deductive): The student proves theorems deductively and develops sequences of statements to deduce one statement from another, but she/he does not yet recognize the need for rigour. Level 5 (Rigour): The student establishes theorems in different axiomatic systems and analyses/compares these systems. Crowley [3, p. 4] described the distinctive characteristics of the five levels of the van Hiele model as follows: . The progress from one level to the next is not through biological development but rather depends more on instruction. . The linguistic symbols of each level are unique. In other words, each level is regarded as having its own language and learners on different levels cannot understand one another. . The intrinsic characteristic of one level becomes the extrinsic objects of study of the next. In other words, properties of a particular geometrical concept are inherent in its existence but may not be studied as properties until a later level. . The mismatch between the level of instruction and the level at which a student is functioning may restrict the desired progress. Mayberry [4] tested the hierarchical nature of the levels by studying pre-service elementary teachers. Questions designed to evaluate each concept at each of the van Hiele levels were given to the participants in a clinical interview setting, and the results were scored according to a success criterion for each level. If the participants understanding really was hierarchical, then success at any one level should not occur unless success also occurred at each lower level. In a large-scale study, Senk [5] investigated the relationship between students van Hiele levels and their achievement in writing geometry proof. Research findings showed that achievement in writing geometry proofs is positively related to van Hiele levels of geometric understanding. In other words, Senk demonstrated that by determining a students van Hiele level at the beginning of a high school geometry course, one could very accurately predict the students proof-writing ability at the end of the course. Research involving the van Hiele levels has generally focused on the lower levels. Level 5 understanding has not been addressed in research studies. This is partly due to the fact that too few of the participants in the studies conducted during the last 20 years have exhibited any characteristics of level 5 thinking [6]. Indeed, reflecting upon this, van Hiele remarked that level 5 was theoretical and not of particular concern as he saw the goal of K-12 instruction to be the development of level 4 thinking [7]. Another reason research concerning level 5 has been neglected lies in the difficulty in assessing this level using multiple-choice items. Usiskin [8] stated that the fifth level either does not exist or is not testable. This conclusion, together with the lack of advanced participants in the studies that were being conducted, seems to have closed the door with regard to research at this level [6]. 1.1. Spherical geometry Spherical geometry can be said to be the first non-Euclidean geometry [9]. For at least 2000 years humans have known that the earth is (almost) a sphere and that the

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 993 shortest distance between two points on the earth is along great circles (the intersection of the sphere with a plane through the centre of the sphere). In ancient civilizations, geometry literally meant the science of measuring the land [10]. The typical study of geometry in modern classrooms works on the assumption that the land to be measured is flat [11]. We know, however, that our land is on the earth, which is, basically, a sphere. Although Euclidean geometry is locally a good description of the physical world, it cannot apply to navigation on the surface of the earth, to astronomy, and to surveying [12]. Thus, students understanding of spherical geometry is important to understand and explain the physical world around them. However, although it is thousands of years old, spherical geometry is not taught in most schools [12]. The study of spherical geometry is not abstract, because students are wellacquainted with spheres. If students are given the proper tools, this study can be very interesting. Students can easily consider many elementary theorems from plane Euclidean geometry and explore them on a sphere. For instance, they might ask such questions as, Is the angleangle similarity theorem for triangles valid for spheres? [13]. This approach gives students an appreciation that Euclidean geometry is one of many geometries. This is suggested in the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics by NCTM [14] as follows: College-intending students also should gain an appreciation of Euclidean geometry as one of many axiomatic systems. This goal may be achieved by directing students to investigate properties of other geometries to see how the basic axioms and definitions lead to quite different and often contradictory results. For example, great circles, which play the role of lines in spherical geometry, always meet. Thus, in spherical geometry, instead of having exactly one line parallel to a given line through a point not on the line, there are no such lines [14, p. 160]. The NCTMs report implies that it should integrate other geometries into its content, thus making students aware of other geometries. 1.2. Purpose of the study van Hiele [7] only looked at the levels of understanding in Euclidean geometry and was not interested in non-Euclidean geometries. He found non-Euclidean geometries too theoretical to include in the school mathematics curriculum. We now know, however, that there have been different attempts to integrate spherical geometry into school mathematics [1517]. Also, dynamic geometry software, such as Cinderella and Spherical Easel allow non-Euclidean concepts to be worked within a computerbased environment. As a result of these developments, we can look at levels of understanding in non-Euclidean geometries. More specifically, we intend to elaborate these levels of understanding in spherical geometry. This study was undertaken to: . investigate the existence of levels of understanding in spherical geometry; . characterize the levels of understanding in spherical geometry and . determine whether these levels form a hierarchy.

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

2. Methodology Through a similar methodology to van Hiele, we tried to determine whether students have particular understanding levels in spherical geometry. To achieve this goal,

994

B. Guven and A. Baki

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

we designed a model course to introduce the topics of spherical geometry to student mathematics teachers. In developing this, we looked at several textbooks in this field. We extensively utilized the Non-Euclidean Adventures on the Lenart Sphere [18], Experiencing Geometry in Euclidean, Spherical, and Hyperbolic Spaces [19], and Solid Geometry and Spherical Trigonometry [20] during the course. The course curriculum includes computer-based activities requiring the use of the Spherical Easel Program, a dynamic geometry software developed for spherical geometry. Topics of spherical lines (great circles), polar point of a great circle, spherical triangles, polar triangles, spherical polygons, spherical circles and applications of spherical geometry are discoursed in order during the course. The model course took 2 months in one semester, 3 h in a week, and 58 students at the Department of Science and Mathematics of the Faculty of Education, Karadeniz Technical University, participated in the model course. Six structured, task-based interviews were held with eight participants at particular times through the course to determine the spherical geometry learning levels. To achieve a wide range of understanding levels in spherical geometry, we chose students at different van Hiele levels. Two students were selected from each level. After identifying the properties of spherical geometry levels, we developed the Understandings in Spherical Geometry Test (USGT) to check the validity of the prediction and test whether or not the levels form hierarchy, and 58 students took the test.

2.1. Software used in the course At the beginning of the course, we had to decide which learning tool would be used in the spherical geometry lessons, real spheres (e.g. the Lenart Sphere Kit) or computer programs (Cinderella or Spherical Easel). Because the activities designed for the course were based on exploration and accuracy, and many measurements were required to produce acceptable conjectures along the lessons, we decided to use a dynamic geometry software. We decided on Spherical Easel due to its ease of use. This Java-based program allows students to make drawings and explorations in spherical geometry like they do in plane geometry with programs, such as Cabri and Sketchpad. Spherical Easel is designed to be easy to use and will often lead you through the construction of a diagram. A screenshot of the program can be seen in Figure 1.

2.2. Instrument used to select students for interviews: the van Hiele geometry test Determining a students van Hiele level has been a source of controversy due to the criterion of the model. The most valid method to determine a students van Hiele level has been through one-on-one question and answer involving the researcher and the student [21]. Where a large number of participants are involved, however, this method may not be feasible. Therefore, this study utilized the van Hiele geometry test (VHGT), a quantitative instrument that was developed from research conducted for the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Project (CDASSG). The VHGT [8] consists of 25 multiple-choice geometry questions to be administered in 35 min. Usiskin [8] used direct descriptions from the writings of the van Hiele to construct the VHGT. Every five questions correspond to particular van

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 995

Figure 1. A screenshot of Spherical Easel.

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

Hiele level. This test has been widely used by others, yet has fallen under some criticism as well. One advantage of Usiskins test is the ease in its administration and grading. This instrument has been used many times in research studies over the past 25 years [22]. Usiskin presents two options for scoring the van Hiele Test: the 3 of 5 criterion and the 4 of 5 criterion. The 3 of 5 criterion indicates that a student has mastered a given level if he/she correctly answers three or more of the five questions for that level. The 4 of 5 criterion has an analogous interpretation. We decided to use the 4 of 5 criterion for the following reasons: it takes a more conservative stance in the error analysis since type I errors (some students might be at a lower van Hiele level than the researcher assigns to them) are generally considered to be more serious than type II errors (some students are actually at a van Hiele level higher than that the researcher assigns to them). It also reduces the number of students who do not the fit the model, which is important for studies of small sample size such as ours [8].

2.3. Interviews conducted to characterize spherical geometry understanding levels: structured, task-based interviews In this study, by analysing student mathematics teachers interpretations during the task-based interviews [23], we hoped to make inferences about the characteristics of the students geometric thinking in spherical geometry. These interviews were designed to explore the students development of the geometric thinking process longitudinally. Participants were asked to complete activity sheets during the interviews. To analyse the participants thinking process, we asked them questions in the form of informal conversations while they were completing the activity sheets. We used three types of questions: descriptive, structural and contrast. For example, Could you describe what you did when . . . .? (descriptive), What are the steps you generally like to follow in . . . .? (structural),What difference do you see between showing this in Euclidean geometry and spherical geometry? (contrast). Talking on activities during

996

B. Guven and A. Baki

Figure 2. A sample activity sheet.

interviews appeared to give access to the participants thinking process and level of understanding in spherical geometry. Figure 2 presents a sample activity sheet that was given to the students. In addition to task-based interviews, classroom observations were made to see the students interactions as a whole in the environment. We participated in discussions during small group work and whole classroom discussions. This participation took the form of dialogue with the students during the activities and transcribing it soon afterwards while it was still fresh in our minds. This approach helped us describe the context and investigate more extensively the participants perceptions and understandings through their interactions with activities. The large amount of qualitative data collected from the participants was continuously analysed throughout the course, involving an iterative process of data reduction and further data collection. For example, the interview transcripts were read to identify concepts that summarized the students ways of thinking and to identify disconfirming and confirming evidence. This process can be called content analysis [24]. In this process, Hyperresearch software was used for coding qualitative data through a deductive way. In the next step, we tried to identify the properties of levels of understanding by using themes arisen from the coding. After the properties of levels were identified, special cases from the activity sheets completed by the participants were descriptively compared with the properties of levels in spherical geometry.

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

2.4. Understandings in spherical geometry test The interviews and observation helped us to identify properties leading to the description of four levels in spherical geometry. To check the validity of the prediction and test whether or not the levels form a hierarchy, we developed the USGT. The test includes 20 open-ended questions (5 questions for each level). While developing the test, we used direct descriptions of spherical geometry understanding levels developed in the scope of this study. Having developed the test, we sent it and also a description of the spherical geometry understanding levels to three mathematics education researchers who are capable in the field of learning

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 997 levels in mathematics to determine that the questions in the test reflect the features of the levels in other words, to determine that the test is valid. From their suggestions, we made some changes in the test. The test was administered in 45-minute sessions. One question from each level of the test is shown in Table 1 with its characteristic. Scoring the responses to the test questions was also used to determine whether the levels identified in spherical geometry form a hierarchy. We used the same pattern for spherical geometry that Usiskin [8] used to assign levels in Euclidean geometry. This study used the 3 of 5 criterion. To obtain comprehensive data about levels of understanding in spherical geometry, task-based interviews were carried out with eight selected student teachers. Data obtained from interviews were compared with data obtained from USGT. As a result of this comparison, when we used the 4 of 5 criterion, we observed that six of eight student mathematics teachers levels determined through task-based interviews coincided with their levels determined from the USGT. When we used the 3 of 5 criterion, we observed that the levels of eight students obtained through task-based interviews coincided with their levels determined from the USGT.

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

2.5. Scalogram analysis Responses are coded as 1 and 0 (correct answer 1, wrong answer 0) as done by Mayberry [4,25]. If a student scores at least three 1 from the first five questions, it means that he/she has attained the first level. If this student has at least three 1 from the second five questions, then he/she has attained the second level. If this student fails to get at least three correct answers from the third and fourth five questions, the score for this student can be represented as 1100. If the score is represented as 1101, this means that the student has met the criterion on levels 1, 2 and 4 but not level 3. Only 5 of the 16 possible response patterns should appear if the hierarchy is valid: 0000, 1000, 1100, 1110 and 1111. Guttman scalogram analysis was employed to reveal that van Hiele levels as tested form a hierarchy. Guttman [26,27] argued for scales where items can be ranked in difficulty such that if a person responds positively to a given item, that person must respond positively to all easier items. Thus, theoretically a given score on a Guttman scale can only be reached with one pattern of response, and if we know a persons score, we know how that person responded to all items in the scale. Guttman scaling, or scalogram analysis, then, is the estimation of reproducibility given knowledge of a persons scores, that is, the extent to which item responses fit the ideal patterns [28]. The measure of errors for the entire scale is the coefficient of reproducibility (Rep) and is given by the formula [29]: Coefficient of reproducibility Rep: 1 Total errors Total responses ,

where total responses can be calculated by multiplying item and sample size. Thus, Rep gives the fraction of the scores that correctly placed in the response patterns. Therefore, in this study: Rep: 1 Total number of errors Number of levels Number of students

998

B. Guven and A. Baki

Table 1. Sample questions for each level. One of the characteristics Level 1: Recognizing basic geometric figures in spherical geometry Question related to characteristic

Which triangle(s) shown above is spherical triangle? Explain your answer. (Question 2) Level 2: Determining and explaining whether or not plane figures can be drawn on the spherical surface

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

Which quadrilateral shown above can be drawn on the spherical surface? Explain your answer? (Question 8) Level 3: Making logical inference (not formal proof) by using his/her knowledge of spherical and Euclidean geometry Level 4: Starting directly to follow deductive way instead of using special cases and inductive steps in the process of the proof You know that if the sides of two triangles are proportional then these triangles are similar. Is the same theorem valid for spherical geometry? Explain your result with examples. (Question 12)

Triangle ABC and DFH are polar triangles. Prove that the sides and angles of triangle DFH are respectively the supplements of the angles and sides of triangle ABC triangle. (Question 18)

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 999 and Rep: 1 Total number of errors Number of levels 58 :

A coefficient of reproducibility greater than 0.9 is commonly assumed to indicate a scability [30,31]. This means that if the value of Rep is greater than 0.90, it is accepted that the levels form a hierarchy.

3. Findings 3.1. Construction of levels in spherical geometry The student mathematics teachers levels of understanding in spherical geometry were identified through interviews and classroom observations. As in Euclidean geometry, students possess different understanding levels in spherical geometry. The levels constructed for spherical geometry are:

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Transition Definitioncomparison Pre-deductive Deductive.

The characteristics and indications of the levels are described as follows.

3.1.1. Level 1: transition At this level, figures in spherical geometry are recognized by their appearance, and the student at this level considers that there should be various differences between the properties of plane figures and their equivalents on sphere (e.g. plane triangle and spherical triangle). However, he/she does not know those differences. The student is ready to study spherical geometry, but the previously learned concepts of Euclidean geometry seem to dominate his/her perceptions while working on new tasks in spherical geometry. For that reason, this level is labelled as a transition to spherical geometry. At this level, the student is also aware of the existence of different geometries other than Euclidean. Students were asked to draw a spherical line that passes through points A and B on the sphere by using the definition of line on the sphere. As seen in Figure 3, the student could identify and name the given figures in the spherical surface, but was not aware of their definitions and properties. This can be easily seen from the spherical line drawn by the student, because a spherical line (great circles) is defined as follows: . The great circle is a circle whose centre is the centre of the sphere and whose radius is equal to the radius of the sphere, or . the spherical line is the intersection circle of a sphere and a plane that passes from the centre of sphere. It can be seen in Figure 3, however, that while the student knows that spherical lines are circles on the sphere, he did not use the antipodal points (points that lie at the intersection of a great circle and a line through the centre of the circle on the

1000

B. Guven and A. Baki

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

Figure 3. A great circle drawn by a student at level 1.

sphere) and centre of the sphere. He only used his images about spherical lines gained while studying with the Spherical Easel Program. At the transition level, the student is inclined to accept a new geometry with the principles and axioms of Euclidean geometry. Even if the student perceives a new geometry, he/she is not aware of its basic principles and axioms, and does not realize how these principles and axioms play a role in constructing a new geometry. Therefore, a different geometry for the student means a different plane or surface. Characteristics and their indications of transition level is shown Table 2.

3.1.2. Level 2: definition and comparison At this stage, perceptions based on definitions and properties start to replace perceptions based on the appearance of the geometric figures. The student learns the definitions and properties of spherical figures and he/she can compare the definitions and properties of the same shape concepts in the two geometries. At this stage, knowledge based on definitions and logical inferences seems to replace intuitive and visual knowledge. As seen in Figure 4, students can draw basic figures of this geometry by using the formal definitions and properties of figures. In Figure 4, two students drew great circles by using its definition (the intersection of the surface of a sphere by plane that passes through the centre of the sphere, the centre of a great line is the centre of sphere), and as seen in Figure 5 students can construct the polar point of a great circle by using its definition and properties (all spherical lines connecting any spherical line and its polar point is perpendicular it, by using this procedure, students at this level can construct the polar triangle of any triangle). The student starts to use the new terminology belonging to a new geometry, such as great circles, polar point of a great circle and polar triangle. The student can follow a proof in plane and explain why that proof is not valid in spherical geometry.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1001

Table 2. Characteristics and their indications of transition level. Characteristics 1. Recognizing different geometries 2. Recognizing basic geometric figures in spherical geometry 3. Perceiving that appearance and properties of a figure in plane is different from its spherical equivalent 4. Predicting spherical equivalent of the figure (given in plane) on spherical surface 5. Not being able to give reason why a particular property or axiom is true in spherical geometry 6. Being not aware of that a new geometry is constructed when axioms in Euclidean geometry change Indications When a geometric shape is shown to the student, she/he asks in what geometry The student identifies a spherical line among given geometric figures The student knows that the sum of interior angles of a spherical triangle cannot be 180 The student predicts the image of the triangle on spherical surface The student does not know what the sum of interior angles of a spherical triangle is exactly, even though she/he knows that the sum of interior angles of a spherical triangle cannot be 180 The student believes that axioms in Euclidean geometry are still valid in spherical geometry. For example, she/ he thinks that even in spherical surface, only one line passes through two points

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

Figure 4. The great circles (spherical lines) drawn by students at level 2.

For example, when one constructs a figure to prove the sum of interior angles of spherical triangle is 180 , the student at this level can realize that one cannot draw a parallel line to another line on the spherical surface as seen Figure 6. He/she knows that great circles CE and AB cannot be parallels. They intersect at two points that are antipodal points. The student can identify whether or not there exist equivalents of plane figures on the sphere by using experimental results within a computer-based environment (e.g. is there trapezoid on sphere?). The student also compares definitions and properties of the same shape concepts in the two geometries. For example, as in Figure 7, while

1002

B. Guven and A. Baki

Figure 5. Construction of the polar point of a given spherical line.

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

Figure 6. One cannot draw a parallel line to a given line on the spherical surface (CE cannot be parallel to AB).

two lines intersect at one point in plane, two lines intersect at two points that are antipodal in spherical geometry. Characteristics and their indications of definition and comparison level is shown in Table 3.

3.1.3. Level 3: pre-deductive The student, at the level of transition, has intuitive perceptions about spherical geometry. The student, at the level of definition and comparison, supports his/her intuitive perceptions by theoretical definitions and properties. At the level of predeductive, the student can make informal logical inferences about the situations in spherical geometry (as seen in Figures 8 and 9) by using special cases of geometric figure, but is not able to support his/her inferences with formal proofs. In other

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1003

Figure 7. Two lines intersect on one point in plane, two lines intersect on two points that are antipodal in spherical geometry.

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

words, though the student at this level is able to draw conclusions from specific instances, the student is not competent enough to justify his conclusions by providing formal proofs.
Researcher: What can you say about the sum of the exterior angles of a spherical triangle? Student: The sum of interior angles of spherical triangle is greater than 180 . Therefore, the sum of exterior angles should be less than 180 . Researcher: Can you prove that? Student: No I cant. Researcher: In plane triangle the measure of an exterior angle is equal to the sum of the measures of the remote interior angles. Do you think that it is true in a spherical triangle? Student: No it isnt. We know that in spherical triangle we can draw a triangle whom all interior angles are 90 . So the theorem is not valid for spherical triangle. I think the measure of an exterior angle is less than the sum of the remote interior angles. Researcher: Can you prove that? Student: Is my proof not a proof?

As seen in the above explication of the student, the student inferred that in consequence of the sum of interior angles of a spherical triangle being greater than 180 , the sum of exterior angles of the triangle should be less than 360 (by comparing it with the result in plane geometry). However, he could not support his inference with formal proof. Similarly, he inferred by using a trirectangular spherical triangle (a triangle with three right angles) that the measure of an exterior angle of a spherical triangle is less than the sum of the measures of the remote interior angles. However, he could not formally demonstrate that. Furthermore, students at this level can achieve a conjecture by planning their own computer-based designs step by step. The students at this level can independently plan, carry out and bring the conclusion to their computer-based projects. However, they cannot formally explain why the result they experimentally reached is true. During the course, a group of students investigated a relationship between the angles and sides of a spherical triangle by using the Spherical Easel program as shown in Figure 10. As the result of thoughtful and well-designed observations, the students reached the following results but could not prove them. As considered in Figure 10: . If A B 5 180 (m(1) m(3)) then a b 5 180 (m l)

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

1004

Table 3. Characteristics and their indications of definition and comparison level. Indications

Characteristics

B. Guven and A. Baki

1. Defining, drawing and explaining the basic concepts and properties of new geometry 2. The student can follow a proof which is valid in plane and identify which step of the proof is not valid in the spherical geometry 3. Determining and explaining whether or not plane figures can be drawn on the spherical surface

(a) For the student, spherical lines are great circles which their centres are the centre of the sphere (b) The student can draw the line passing through two points given on the spherical surface (c) The student can explain how two lines pass through two points given on the spherical surface The student can follow for example, the proof of the sum of interior angles is 180 and explain why this proof is not valid in the spherical geometry (reason why one cannot draw a parallel line to another line on the spherical surface)

4. Compares definitions and properties of the same shape concepts in the two geometries

(a) The student knows that an equilateral triangle or rectangle given in plane can be drawn on the spherical surface, but a square cannot be drawn on the spherical surface because its interior angle is 90 (b) The student classifies plane figures in terms of the possibilities of their drawings on the spherical surface. For example, the set of deltoids such as deltoid, rhombus can be drawn, and the set of trapezoids such as trapezoid, parallelogram, rectangle and square cannot be drawn The student can make the following comparisons. In plane The length of line is infinite If two different lines do not have intersection, they are parallel There is only one segment passing two points In sphere The length of line is finite There are no parallel lines in the spherical geometry There are two segments passing through two points

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1005

5. Using a special language to define spherical figures 6. Drawing spherical figures that are not drawn in plane

Two points on the line divide the line into three Two points on the line divide the line into two parts parts The shortest distance between two points is the Not always line connecting these points (a) The student uses new words like great circle, pole point and spherical triangle (b) The student defines a spherical triangle as a triangle which sides are on great circles The student can draw triangles constructed by three given points in spherical surface

1006

B. Guven and A. Baki

Figure 8. The sums of interior and exterior angles of a spherical triangle are 180 and 360 , respectively.

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

Figure 9. Trirectangular spherical triangle.

Figure 10. Relationship between the angles and sides of spherical triangle.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1007

Table 4. Characteristics and their indications of pre-deductive level. Characteristics 1. Making logical inference (not formal proof) by using his/her knowledge of spherical geometry and Euclidean geometry Indications The student knows that in both plane and spherical triangle the sum of interior and exterior angles is 540. Therefore, she/he infers that because the sum of interior angles of plane geometry is 180 , its exterior angles is 360 , then the sum of interior angles of a spherical triangle is bigger than 180 , and the sum exterior angles of a spherical triangle should be less than 360 In Euclidean geometry, the measure of an exterior angle of a triangle is equal to the sum of the measures of the remote interior angles. The student knows that this theorem is not valid for a spherical triangle

2. Making decision about whether or not a theorem of Euclidean geometry is valid in spherical geometry. She/he usually use special cases of figures during the decision process

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

3. Using the software to support inductive inferences, but proofs are not formal proofs

At the previous level, the student makes decision by using visual results on the screen. At this level, the student uses the software to support his/her conjectures, but she/he cannot use necessary and sufficient conditions in his/her proofs

. If A B 180 (m(1) m(3)) then a b 5 180 (m l) . If A B 4 180 (m(1) m(3)) then a b 4 180 (m l). Characteristics and their indications of pre-deductive level is shown in Table 4.

3.1.4. Level 4: deductive At this level, deductive reasoning replaces inductive inferences based on: . special cases within spherical geometry, . reflections of Euclidean geometry results in spherical geometry and . visual results appearing on the screen. The characteristics of this level seem to be similar to the fourth level of van Hiele. We present the characteristics and indications of this level by means of the following task related to the construction of a formula for the area of spherical triangle.

1008

B. Guven and A. Baki

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

Figure 11. The area of spherical triangle.

We asked the students to prove that the area of triangle ABC is equal to R2 A B C during the clinical interview session. One of the students explained his proof deductively as in Figure 11. As seen in Figure 11, the student drew triangle ABC and determined its angles as , and . Then she stated the area between two great circles as 4 R2, 4 R2 and 4 R2 by using the formula of area of line. The student who determined that the sum of areas between great circles is equal to the sum of the area of spherical surface and four times the area of triangle ABC acquired the area of triangle ABC. Despite the fact that we did not ask him, he concluded from that formula that the sum of interior angles of triangle is greater than 180 . Similar formal thought can be seen in the following example of a student trying to prove the theorem about the relationship between a spherical triangle and its polar triangle that states, The sides and angles of polar triangle are respectively the supplements of the angles and sides of the primitive triangle (Figure 12). Let A0 B0 C0 be polar triangle of triangle ABC. Let H and T be the intersection points of [AB] and [AC] with [B0 C0 ]. Since A is the pole of B0 C 0 , the spherical angle A is equal to arc HT (Definition given to students at the beginning of the course: great circles which pass through the poles of a great circle are called secondaries to that circle. The angle between any two great circles is measured by the arc they intercept on the great circle to which they are secondaries). And since point C0 is the pole of [AB] and B0 is the pole of [AC], then m(C0 H) m(B0 T) 90 . Because m(C0 H) m(B0 T) 180 , (HT) m(C0 B0 )180 . In this way, A a0 180 .

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1009

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

Figure 12. The sides and angles of polar triangle are respectively the supplements of the angles and sides of the primitive triangle.

Similarly, B b0 180 , C c0 180 . Because triangle ABC is polar triangle of A0 B0 C0 , A0 a 180 , B0 b 180 and C0 c 180 . Characteristics and their indications of deductive level are shown in Table 5.

3.2. Levels form hierarchy Having characterized the levels of understanding in spherical geometry, we tried to determine whether or not the levels form a hierarchy by using Guttman scalogram analysis [4]. The students scores obtained from the test including 20 questions are shown in Table 6. As illustrated in the Table 6, the students scores seem to form a hierarchy, although the scores of S2, S4, S5, S11, S14, S21, S23, S28, S41, S50 and S54 have errors deforming hierarchy. Most of them have one error. Only the fourth students score includes two errors. Different values of Rep were calculated using the four levels, the first three levels and the first two levels to show the power of hierarchy for the sub- sequential levels. Rep2 1 2 116 12 Rep3 1 174 13 Rep4 1 232 0:982, 0:931, 0:943:

1010

B. Guven and A. Baki

Table 5. Characteristics and their indications of deductive level. Characteristics 1. Determining and using what is being given and asked in a proof 2. Starting directly to follow a deductive way instead of using special cases and inductive steps in the process of the proof 3. Using definitions, known theorems, relationships and results 4. Finding the wanted result and generate new conclusions from the result Indications The student draws a triangle on the sphere and shows its sides and interior angles The student uses the figure as a whole to construct the formula giving the area of spherical triangle The student uses the area of spherical line as 2 R2 to find the area of ABC spherical triangle Finding the wanted result and generate new conclusions from the result. The student finds the formula giving the area of a spherical triangle. From the formula, the student can also reach a conclusion that inside of the parenthesis must be positive and then the sum of the interior angles of the spherical triangle must be greater than 180

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

Table 6. Students scores on USGT. Student S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20
b

Score 1110 0100a 1100 0010b 1010a 1110 1000 1111 1100 1110 1010a 1100 1110 1010a 1110 1110 1110 1100 1110 1100

Student S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S35 S36 S37 S38 S39 S40

Score 1010a 1110 1010a 1100 1110 1100 1110 1101a 1100 1110 1100 1110 1000 1110 1000 1100 1111 1110 1110 1111

Student S41 S42 S43 S44 S45 S46 S47 S48 S49 S50 S51 S52 S53 S54 S55 S56 S57 S58

Score 1011a 1110 1111 1110 1110 1111 1110 1110 1110 1011a 1110 0110a 1111 1010a 1100 1110 1110 1110

Notes: aShows one error. Shows two errors.

For three calculations, the scores of Rep are greater than 0.90. Therefore, the levels of understanding in spherical geometry form a hierarchy.

4. Conclusions and suggestions When we consider that the purpose of teaching geometry in schools is to provide students with the knowledge to understand and explain the physical world around

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1011

Table 7. The comparison of van Hiele geometry understanding levels and spherical geometry understanding levels. Properties Visual properties Definitions and properties of geometric figures Informal inferences Formal proof Geometry Spherical Euclidean Spherical Euclidean Spherical Euclidean Spherical Euclidean Levels Transition Visual Definition and comparison Analysis Pre-deductive Pre-deductive Deductive Deductive

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

them, Euclidean geometry is limited to achieve this purpose because the earth on which we live is spherical. This indicates the need for a new integrated geometry curriculum that includes the concepts of spherical geometry. In the development of this kind of curriculum, the first step should be to identify the students levels of understanding in spherical geometry. We found out that levels of understanding in spherical geometry do exist and these levels form a hierarchy. According to these findings, the topics in the new curriculum should be constructed from concrete to abstract, and the topics should take place in the hierarchical order parallel to the levels of understanding. The levels of understanding in spherical geometry are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) Transition Definitioncomparison Pre-deductive Deductive

Generally there are some similarities between van Hiele levels and spherical levels. If we look closely at the levels of spherical geometry, we will see that the characteristics of these levels are slightly different from van Hiele levels. Both levels start with visual perceptions and then continue with intuitive perception of definitions and properties. Finally, in both levels, the students reach deductive reasoning and make logical inferences. These similarities can be summarized as in Table 7. These similarities do not imply that students at both levels possess the same pattern of understanding. For example, the student at the first level of van Hiele is not aware of the properties of plane figures, but the student at the transition level knows the properties of plane figures and is aware that some of these properties are not valid in spherical geometry. The student at the analysis level can list the properties of a figure and compare its properties to another figures properties in plane geometry. On the other hand, the student at the definition and comparison level is inclined to compare the properties and relationships of spherical geometry to the properties and relationships of plane geometry. The student at the pre-deductive level of spherical usually makes logical inferences by using special cases and results in both plane and spherical surfaces. On the other hand, the student at the predeductive level of van Hiele does not use special cases in Euclidean geometry. The results of this study show that students progress through different levels of understanding as they learn spherical geometry and also that these levels form a

1012

B. Guven and A. Baki

hierarchy of understanding. Hence, we suggest that the courses and books which aim to teach spherical geometry should be designed in the light of these levels. Otherwise, we think that the teaching process would fail to provide students with a convenient learning environment and would not go beyond traditional teacher-centred approach. We know that one of the major reasons behind the students failure in understanding Euclidean geometry is the type of instruction which does not take into consideration the students level of understanding regarding Euclidean geometry. Therefore the levels of understanding in spherical geometry should be taken into account in designing teaching activities in order to avoid encountering the same problem in the teaching of spherical geometry.

References
[1] S. Yee-Ping, An investigation of van Hiele-like levels of learning in transformation geometry of secondary school students in Singapore, Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 1989. [2] D. Fuys, D. Geddes, and R. Tiskler, An investigation of the van Hiele levels of thinking in geometry among adolescents, J. Res. Math. Educ. Monogr. No. 3. NCTM, Reston, 1988. [3] M.L. Crowley, The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought, in Learning and Teaching Geometry, K-12 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, M.M. Lindquist and A.P. Shulte, eds., NCTM, Reston, 1987, pp. 116. [4] J. Mayberry, The van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teachers, J. Res. Math. Educ. 4 (1983), pp. 5869. [5] S.L. Senk, van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs, J. Res. Math. Educ. 20 (1989), pp. 309321. [6] S. Blair, Describing undergraduates reasoning within and across Euclidean, taxicab, and spherical geometries, Ph.D. diss., Portland State University, 2004. [7] P. van Hiele, Structure and Insight: A Theory of Mathematics Education, Academic Press, New York, 1986. [8] Z. Usiskin, van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry, cognitive development and achievement in secondary school geometry project, Final Report, The University of Chicago, Chicago, 1982. [9] D. Taimina and D.W. Henderson, (n.d.). How to use history to clarify common confusions in geometry. Available at http://www.math.cornell.edu/$dtaimina/MAA/MAA. [10] M.J. Greenberg, Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries: Development and History, Freeman, New York, 1980. [11] J.M. Sharp and H. Corrine, What happens to geometry on a sphere? MTMS 8(4) (2002), 182188. [12] D.W. Henderson, Experiencing Geometry on Plane and Sphere, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1996. [13] E.H. Davis, Area of spherical triangles, Math. Teach. 92 (1999), pp. 150153. [14] NCTM, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards For School Mathematics, NCTM, Reston, 1989. [15] I. Lenart, Alternative models on the drawing ball, Educ. Stud. Math. 24 (1993), pp. 277312. [16] I. Lenart, Non-Euclidean Adventures on the Lenart Sphere, Key Curriculum Press, Berkeley, CA, 1996. [17] I. Lenart, The plane-sphere project, Math. Teach. 187 (2004), pp. 2227. [18] I. Lenart, Non-Euclidean Adventures on the Lenart Sphere, Key Curriculum Press, Colorado, 1996. [19] D.W. Henderson, Experiencing Geometry in Euclidean, Spherical, and Hyperbolic Spaces, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2001.

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1013

[20] H.L. Leighton, Solid Geometry and Spherical Trigonometry, D. Van Nostrand Company, New Jersey, 1943. [21] J.A. Frykholm, External variables as predictors of van Hiele levels in algebra and geometry students, A report, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, ED372924, 1994. [22] C.W. Faucett, Relationship between type of instruction and student learning in geometry, Ph.D. diss., Walden University, 2007. [23] G.A. Goldin, A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research, in Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education, A.E. Kelly and R.A. Lesh, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2000, pp. 517545. [24] A. Strauss and J.M. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, London, 1990. [25] J.W. Mayberry, An investigation of the van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teachers. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Georgia, 1981. [26] L. Guttman, A basis of scaling qualitative data, Am. Sociol. Rev. 9 (1944), pp. 139150. [27] L. Guttman, A basis of scalogram analysis, in Measurement and Prediction, L. Guttman, A. Suchman, P.A. Lazarsfel, S.A. Star, and J.A. Clausen, eds., Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1950, pp. 6090. [28] M. Henry and L. David, Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks, Child Dev. 75 (2004), pp. 523541. [29] M. Herbert, A new coefficient for scalogram analysis, Public Opin. Quarterly, 17 (1953), 268280. [30] W.H. Goodenough, A technique for scale analysis, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 4 (1944), pp. 179190. [31] W.S. Torgerson, Theory and Methods of Scaling, Wiley, New York, 1962.

Downloaded by [114.79.28.247] at 02:03 21 July 2012