LEVELS OF GEOMETRICAL THOUGHT OF EDUCATION STUDENTS OF ATENEO

DE ZAMBOANGA UNIVERSITY
A Research Proposal
Presented to
College of Education
Ateneo de Zamboanga University

In partial fulfillment in the

Requirements in Mathematics Education 201

Presented by:
Sanguan, Maricar A.

September 2016

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Geometry is a branch of mathematics that is concerned with the properties of
configurations of geometric objects - points, (straight) lines, and circles ... geometry derives from
the Greek geo (earth) and metron (measure), which points to its practical roots. Also, geometry
is the visual study of shapes, sizes, patterns, and positions. Accordingly, students geometry
experiences during elementary and middle school years begin to formalize upon entering high
school using more precise definition and developing careful proofs...later in college some
students develop Euclidean and other geometries carefully from a small set of axioms. (N., & C.
(2010).

High

School:

Geometry.

Retrieved

October

03,

2016,

from

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/HSG/ Washington D.C.) Clements and Battista in

1992 stated that the study of geometry enhances students thinking skills using visual imagery.
Chew and Lim (2013) stressed on the importance of learning geometry as an essential skill to
learn other topics in mathematics such as fractions, decimals, percentage, functions and calculus.
In connection to this, Van Hiele in 1984 as cited by Howse et al. (2015) stated that Van
Hiele theory of geometric thought describes the different levels of understanding through which
students progress when learning geometry:
Level 1 (Visualization): Students recognize figures by appearance alone, often by
comparing them to a known prototype. The properties of a figure are not perceived. At this level,
students make decisions based on perception, not reasoning.
Level 2 (Analysis): Students see figures as collections of properties. They can recognize
and name properties of geometric figures, but they do not see relationships between these
properties. When describing an object, a student operating at this level might list all the
properties the student knows, but not discern which properties are necessary and which are
sufficient to describe the object.
Level 3 (Abstraction): Students perceive relationships between properties and between
figures. At this level, students can create meaningful definitions and give informal arguments to
justify their reasoning. Logical implications and class inclusions, such as squares being a type of

rectangle, are understood. The role and significance of formal deduction, however, is not
understood.
Level 4 (Deduction): Students can construct proofs, understand the role of axioms and
definitions, and know the meaning of necessary and sufficient conditions. At this level, students
should be able to construct proofs such as those typically found in a high school geometry class.
Level 5 (Rigor): Students at this level understand the formal aspects of deduction, such as
establishing and comparing mathematical systems. Students at this level can understand the use
of indirect proof and proof by contrapositive, and can understand non-Euclidean systems.
Clements and Battista (1992) also proposed the existence of Level 0, which they call prerecognition. Students at this level notice only a subset of the visual characteristics of a shape,
resulting in an inability to distinguish between figures. For example, they may distinguish
between triangles and quadrilaterals, but may not be able to distinguish between a rhombus and a
parallelogram.
These levels are sequential, invariant, and hierarchical (Clements 2003, p. 152) as cited
by Howse and Howse in their reseach in 2015.
This level describes how students geometric thought develops from Level 0 as it reaches
Level 5 if possible and much better if the students will able to. Teachers must bear in mind that
tracing the level thinking of the students is vital for we focus not on the subject matter but on
how man [students] think. Dealing with students level of thinking in geometry in particular is
difficult to handle when one is not well versed with how the brain works.
Despite that, this research is supposed to study the development of certain people,
especially the education students in the level that Van Hiele presented regarding geometric
thinking. Supposedly, college students are expected to be on the higher level in Van Hieles
Model already but according to a research done by the Turkish that contradicts regarding belief
that the higher the grade level of the students, the higher is their level of geometric thinking. To
add another concrete evidence is what this paper aims to study

to find out the level of the

college education students who are taking and who already took geometry as one of their unit
course particularly the mathematics major of the college of education. Since most of the studies
focused on the development from elementary to high school, this aims to focus on college

students as they are expected to be on the highest level in the Van Hiele model and as well as this
gives an idea for pre-service teachers for more effective instruction materials.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Mathematics Education in the Philippines
In 2011, Department of Science and Technology (DOST) discussed that The Philippine
mathematics basic education curriculum has undergone several revisions over the years. In 1983,
the New Elementary School Curriculum (NESC) was implemented, followed by the New
Secondary Education Curriculum (better known as the Secondary Education Development
Program or SEDP Curriculum), which was launched in 1988. After curricular reviews that began
in 1995, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS, now Department of
Education) decided to adopt the Refined Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC) in 2002. Also
Pascua (1993) as cited in the article above despite the changes in the curriculum the goal remains
the same all throughout and that is to provide opportunities for individuals to develop skills and
attitudes needed for effective participation in everyday living and prepare them for further
education and the world of work so that they make worthwhile contributions to the society at
large.
Geometry in the Basic Education
On the new curriculum of the Philippines which is the K-12 according the 2016
Curriculum Guide in Mathematics shows that in the third quarter of Grade 1 students geometry is
already taught.
DOST discussed that geometry in Basic Education should enable students to:

Explore the characteristics and properties of two and three dimensional geometric

shapes and formulate significant geometric relationships;

Use coordinate geometry to specify locations and describe spatial relationships;
Use transformations and symmetry to analyze mathematical situations;
Use spatial visualization, reasoning and geometric modeling to solve routine and non-

routine problems;
Use geometric proofs to develop higher-order thinking skills (HOTS)

In lower elementary (Grades 1-3) focus is on developing students understanding of

shapes, properties, relations and structures of objects in the environment. In grades 4-6, children
develop better understanding of shapes and figures because they are able to study and analyze
properties. Formal definitions may be introduced but only with the intention of raising the level
of understanding of geometric concepts at this stage and only when they are deemed ready. Then,
the focus of geometry in high school is the analysis of the properties and the relationships that
exist among the different shapes and figures and the use of mathematical arguments and
reasoning to formulate significant geometric relationships, rules and concepts.
In relation to the Van Hiele level, children in Grades 1-3 are in Level 0 (Pre-operation)
and Level 1 (Visualization); while Grades 4-6 must already be in the Level 2 of the Van Hiele
which is the analysis; and high school students are expected to develop their geometric thinking
and must be in the Level 3 and 4 which is the abstraction and deduction level respectively.
Difficulty in Geometry
Cited in an article, the van Hiele levels of geometric understanding are widely used as
indicators of students geometry readiness (Battista & Clements, 1995) Internationally, concern
with difficulties in learning geometry is not new and can be traced back to several decades (for
example, Usiskin 1982; Fuys et al. 1988; Gutierrez et al. 1991; Clements and Battista 1992) as
cited by J.K. Alex* and K. J. Mammen in their research in 2012.
Accordingly, some researches focus on the difficulty of students in proving as what
Daguplo in 2012 mentioned that Proving has been considered by many university students as
one of the most difficult subject matter in studying mathematics. They considered it as the most
disliked and hated mathematical classroom activity at all times. Additionally, studied group in
this research were the education students of Southern Leyte State University- Tomas Oppus who
had performed at below average that contradicts their belief that they were already at the
highest level which is expected from them to be.
The future teachers listed the following steps in proving a theorem: (1) read and
understand the theorem; (2) re-state the theorem into if-and-then form and identify the given and
what to prove; (3) draw a diagram that illustrates the theorem; (4) decide what method of proof
and format to use; (5) gather definitions, axioms/postulates and theorems needed to reach the

conclusion desired; (6) write the statements and corresponding reasons in logical order; and (7)
check the validity of the statements and consult the teacher. The future teachers felt that proving
was difficult. They had poor background in geometry concepts and knowledge in logic and
deductive reasoning, which were prerequisite skills in proving. Also, the study found out that
proving in geometry for the future teachers was difficult, even after intervention, because of
inadequate prerequisite skills.
As what Luneta in 2015 explained The Van Hiele levels explain the understanding of
spatial ideas and how one thinks about them. The thinking process that one goes through when
exposed to geometric contexts defines the levels of operation and they are not dependent on age
(Battista, 2007; Van de Walle, 2004). Van de Walle (2004) insists: While the levels are not agedependent in the sense of the developmental stages of Piaget and a third grader or a high school
student could be at level 0 [] age is certainly related to the amount and types of geometric
experience that we have. Therefore, it is reasonable for all children in K-2 range to be at level 0.
(p. 347)
According to Salazar (2012) in his research entitled Enhanced-Group Moore Method:
Effects on van Hiele Levels of Geometric Understanding, Proof-Construction Performance and
Beliefs he recommended mathematics teachers must promote the development of proof skills
among students, which is, make proof meaningful to their students by: (1) promoting the
development of communication skills; and (2) promoting justification. With respect to the
former, teachers must first elicit the students own explanation in their own words, and then lead
them to developing the language formal proof. Teachers can use questioning techniques and open
problems to promote good communication skills. With regard to the latter, teachers must modify
instructions to accommodate a variety of different proof schemes or methods of proving as much
as possible. That is, teachers must not confine students to the two-column format by using direct
method and paragraph format using proof by contradiction.
Many studies had reported success in the teaching and learning of geometric topics with
the Geometers Sketchpad in enhancing students Van Hieles levels of geometric thinking (Chew
&Idris, 2012; Chew & Lim, 2013; Abdullah &Zakaria, 2013)
In the research made by Sanchez-Garcia and Bellen Cabello (2016) which is entitled An
instrument for measuring performance in geometry based on the van Hiele model they

concluded that the instrument will allow us to explore students errors in geometry
comprehension and seek the best way to correct them through application of the Van Hiele
Model. This test was considered to be a contribution to the field of teaching/learning geometric
concepts, one that can be very useful in the detection of mistakes made by students in this area.
In addition, the present study is similar to some foreign and local research articles which
investigate the level in Van Hieles level of geometric thought. The only difference is that the
present study made use of the tertiary level specifically the mathematics major of the College of
Education of Ateneo de Zamboanga who took geometry as one their major subject. This will
serve as one of the bases on how this findings could help tracked the spatial visualization skill of
the students for teachers modification of their teaching strategies in geometry class.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Supposedly, based on the Van Hiele level, college students must already be in the Level 5
(Rigor) of their geometric understanding. But according a research study conducted by Marvin
Daguplo in 2012, in his research entitled Learning Level in Geometrical Proving of Education
Students in a State University he revealed some inconsistencies between the students' belief and
their actual performance in relation to Van Hiele's Learning Level in Geometrical Proving and
concluded that students poorly performed proving geometrical propositions and their actual
performance were stuck in the Analysis level. With this, the present study will be propose which
will focus on determining students level of geometrical thought of the college Education
students of Ateneo de Zamboanga University.
This research sought to answer the following questions:
1. At what level of geometric thought according to Van Hieles Model do most of
the education students of Ateneo de Zamboanga are under?
2. At what level do the students of Ateneo de Zamboanga felt difficult to surpass?
1.3 Significance of the Study
Students. The research study will help the students to identify their level in the Van Hiele
Model of geometric thought. Also it will give them ample time to enhance their spatialization
skills through recent researches regarding the strategies in enhancing it.

Teachers. The research will help the teachers to modify their teaching instructions and
strategies to cater the needs of the students who need special attention in terms of helping them
to reach a higher level in the Van Hiele and develop more their spatial skills that is useful in other
areas of mathematics.
1.4 Scope and Limitation
The study focuses on measuring and determining the level of the education students in
regards to their level in geometric thought according to the Van Hiele Model and is limited on the
at most 150 education students specifically the mathematics major of Ateneo de Zamboanga
University.

METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research Design
The research design that will be used in this study is the quasi-experimental design a type
of quantitative design to determine the level of the education students with the use of Van Hiele
Geometry Test (VHGT) and qualitative will be employed in describing the data gathered.
2.2 Respondents
The respondents of this study are the mathematics major of Bachelor of Science in
Secondary Education of Ateneo de Zamboonga University who already took their plane, solid as
well as analytic geometry.
2.3 Research Instrument
The Van Hiele Geometry Test (VHGT) will be employed to measure students
performance in the geometry classes. The VHGT consists of 25 multiple-choice geometry
questions sequenced according to the van Hiele levels. In other words, the first five (1 through 5)
items in the test contain level-I (recognition) geometry knowledge, the second five (6 through
10) contain level-II (analysis) geometry knowledge, the third five (11 through 15) contain levelIII (ordering) geometry knowledge, the fourth five (16 through 20) contain level-IV (deduction)
and the fifth five (21 through 25) contain level-V (rigor) geometry knowledge. The VHGT was
developed by the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry
(CDASSG) group from the University of Chicago.
2.4 Data Gathering Procedures
The respondents will be given a letter from the College of Education that allows them to
participate in the study. Also, there will also be a letter signed by the respondents that waive
themselves to participate in the said study. On the approved date, the respondents will be given
test questionnaires (specifically the VHGT) to answer within one (1) hour.
2.5 Data Analysis
As the data related to the students levels of geometric thinking are ordinal scale data,

Wilcoxon- t test for the design of repeated measurement will be used in order to test the
hypotheses.
2.6 Definition of Terms
These are the terms used in the research study:
1. Geometrical thought is the thinking skills of the students in Euclidean Geometry
2.