Scribd
Upload
35 views2 pages

Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Writing Geometry Proofs - Reaction Paper

The document summarizes a reaction paper about a journal article that examines the relationship between students' van Hiele levels of geometric understanding and their ability to write geometry proofs. It describes the five van Hiele levels that students must progress through to master geometry. The journal article presented findings from a study of over 2,600 students that used various instruments to assess students' van Hiele levels and proof writing abilities. The study found that guiding students systematically through the van Hiele levels helped them understand geometry formally and write proofs. It recommends that teachers initially examine students' van Hiele levels when teaching geometry.

Uploaded by

Emjoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views2 pages

Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Writing Geometry Proofs - Reaction Paper

The document summarizes a reaction paper about a journal article that examines the relationship between students' van Hiele levels of geometric understanding and their ability to write geometry proofs. It describes the five van Hiele levels that students must progress through to master geometry. The journal article presented findings from a study of over 2,600 students that used various instruments to assess students' van Hiele levels and proof writing abilities. The study found that guiding students systematically through the van Hiele levels helped them understand geometry formally and write proofs. It recommends that teachers initially examine students' van Hiele levels when teaching geometry.

Uploaded by

Emjoy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Writing Geometry Proofs – Reaction Paper

When I first read the journal article “Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing
geometry proofs” by Sharon L. Senk (1989), I was curious about what van Hiele levels are and
how they are related to students’ achievement in geometry proof writing. Hence, I read more
about the van Hiele levels. According to Mason (n.d.), the five van Hiele levels formulated by
husband and wife teachers Pierre van Hiele and Dina van Hiele-Geldof are the levels of
geometric thinking and understanding that students need to go through consecutively to reach
mastery of geometric concepts. These five levels are: Level 1 (Visualization) where students just
base their understanding on the appearance of a geometric figures; Level 2 (Analysis) where
students categorizes figures with groups of properties but cannot see the relationship among the
properties and tell which properties are necessary to distinguish a geometric figure; Level 3
(Abstraction) where the students can see the relationships among the properties and the figures
and use informal proofs to support their reasoning but not yet reach the practice of formal
deduction; Level 4 (Deduction) where students can already write formal proofs; and Level 5
(Rigor) where students can now also use indirect proof and proving by using contrapositive.
However, in the journal article by Senk (1989), it was mentioned that before, instead of the 1 to 5
levels, the 0 to 4 levels were used, where Level 0 is a “nonlevel” meaning that the students at this
level do not have prior knowledge or skill on geometry at all, but van Hiele asserted for them to
be classified at Level 1. Senk (1989) wrote that she did not agree with this because there is a
difference manifested by students at Level 0 and Level 1. As for me, I agree that it should start
with Level 1, because students come to class with some informal knowledge of the subject
matter already.
The journal article clearly presented the problem about the relationship of the students’
van Hiele levels of geometric understanding to their achievement in proof writing. Also, the
problem is significant and very relevant in mathematics education. I agree that when the students
are guided throughout the five van Hiele levels step by step and in depth, it will significantly
enable them understand geometry formally and help them write formal proofs.
The journal article presented varying related literature about the topic, which also told
about the different classifications of the levels – contrasting the 1 to 5 and 0 to 4 levels — and
also why the van Hiele level system is important in teaching and learning geometry.
The study which the journal article is based had a good sample size of 2,699 and well
represented students from different background. Although I noted that she only reported about
the 241 students who took the same form of one instrument used, the CDASSG Proof Test. Still,
it is a reliable sample size and has a good ratio between female and male students.
Three instruments were used in the study, which are the CDASSG Proof Test, the Van
Hiele Geometry Test, and tests for knowledge of standard content. I commend the thorough
descriptions of the instruments, as there was several examples of test questions given and
explanations of how the instruments assessed the students and the statistical tools used, such as
the Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficients (KR-20).
The procedure was briefly discussed, yet the general idea of how the study was
conducted was clear. It is also remarkable that standardization of the testing procedures was
reserved, for instance, providing scripts for every testing.
The discussion part of the results and conclusion of the study was concisely explained in
the journal article. It showed the results of the statistical tools used in tables and explained in
paragraphs, which helped me understand the findings. Recommendations based on the study
were also provided in the journal article. The recommendations were brief and pointed to other
studies, such as Wirszup (1976) and (Fuys, Geddes, & Tischler, 1985) in Senk (1989) but
relevant. For example, one recommendation stated that it would aid in the students’ transition
among levels if prerequisites to geometry were emphasized, which would better aid them in
understanding geometry.
As a mathematics educator, I learned from this study that it would be beneficial for me
and also my students and other mathematics teachers as well, when the van Hiele levels of the
students are initially examined when teaching geometry, to know if they are ready for learning
the concepts to be discussed and how to create learning activities that cater to their levels and
aim in the smooth transition among the levels.

References:
Mason, M. (n.d.). The van Hiele levels of geometric understanding. Professional handbook for
teachers, geometry: explorations and applications [Netlibrary version]. Retrieved from
http://geometryforall.yolasite.com

Senk, S. L. (1989). Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education. Education, 20(3), 309-321. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/749519.

You might also like