Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Associate Professor, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Isfahan
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the Van Hiele theory-based instruction Process on the students’ motivation toward geometry compared to the traditional teaching. Through using random sampling method, among girls high schools in Tiran and Karvan, Two high school classes, one consisting of math. Major students and the other science majors, were selected as experimental groups, while two similar groups were selected to act as control groups. Instruments included Raven test for intelligence evaluation, Math 1 grades, lesson plans data collected based on Van Hiele post-descriptive test of Geometry. The independent-samples t-test, Levene's Test, and ANOVA were used as the statistical tools. Results of this study indicated that teaching based on Van Hiele theory has more positive effect on student motivation compared to the traditional teaching. Before applying the independent variable, the groups were tested to make sure that there were no significant differences among them in terms of intelligence and ability of mathematic. But after the test period, there was a significant difference between their Geometry performance.
Keywords
باقری ششتمدی، ع. (1375). تأثیر تجارب تحصیلی بر پیشرفت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان با توجه به جنسیت، خودپنداره تحصیلی و منبع کنترل آنان. تهران: مرکز اطلاعات و مدارک علمی ایران.
بحرانی، محمود (1372). بررسی رابطه‌ی انگیزش تحصیلی و عادات مطالعه‌ی گروهی از دانش‌آموزان متوسطه‌ی شیراز. پایان نامه فوق لیسانس، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی
دانشگاه شیراز.
بلوم، ب. (1363). ویژگی‌‌های آدمی و یادگیری آموزشگاهی، ترجمه علی اکبر سیف، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
جواهری، ج (1383). تأثیر استفاده از نرم افزار Power Point در بهبود کیفیت فراگیری افزار‌های کامپیوتر هندسه فضائی. چکیده مقا لا ت هفتمین کنفرانس آموزش ریاضی. سنندج: سازمان آموزش و پرورش استان کردستان.
حافظی، ع (1381). رابطه بین انگیزش تحصیلی و شیوه‌‌های رویارویی با تنیدگی، پیشرفت تحصیلی دانش‌آموزان سمپاد. مجله استعداد‌‌های درخشان، شماره 47.
حسن زاده دیزج، ر (1373). بررسی رابطه بین مفاهیم انگیزشی، منبع کنترل و پیشرفت تحصیلی پسران سال دوم دبیرستان شهر گرگان. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تربیت معلم.
زارعی، ع (1380). بررسی رابطه بین سبک‌‌های اسنادی و انگیزه پیشرفت با پیشرفت تحصیلی. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تربیت معلم.
طهوریان، ج (1372). آموزش دوره متوسطه. مشهد: آستان قدس رضوی.
عالی، م (1384). نگرش دانش‌آموزان دختر پایه دوم رشته‌‌های تجربی و ریاضی شهر کرمان نسبت به هندسه. مجله رشد آموزش ریاضی، دوره بیست و دوم، شماره 1.
فهمیده توکلی، ع (1373). بررسی رابطه انگیزش پیشرفت، اسناد علمی و پیشرفت تحصیلی در دانش‌آموزان مقطع متوسطه شهر همدان. تهران: مرکز اطلاعات و مدارک علمی ایران.
منظری توکلی، ع (1375). بررسی رابطه انگیزه پیشرفت، هسته کنترل و پیشرفت تحصیلی در بین دانش‌آموزان مقطع متوسطه. مرکز اطلاعات و مدارک علمی ایران.
مهرپرور، ز؛ قاسمی، م (1377). آموزش مفاهیم اساسی ریاضیات و هندسه در قالب بازی. مجموعه مقالات چهارمین کنفرانس آموزش ریاضی. تهران: سازمان آموزش و پرورش استان تهران.
نصری، ص (1381). بررسی ارتباط عملکرد ریاضی با برخی از متغیر‌های روانشناختی در دانش‌آموزان. مجموعه چکیده مقالات ششمین کنفرانس آموزش ریاضی. شیراز: سازمان
آموزش و پرورش استان فارس.
Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1998). Gender and the science major. Advances in motivation and achievement (2, 165-196). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the Van Hiele Levels of Development in Geometry”. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 31-48.
Bussi, M. G. B., & Boero, P. (1998). Teaching and Learning Geometry in Contexts. In Carmelo Mammana & Vinicio Villani (Eds.,), Perspectives on the Teaching of Geometry for the 21st Century. An ICMI Study. Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chappell, M. F. (2003). Keeping Mathematics front and Center: Reaction to Middle-Grades Curriculum Projects Research. In S.L. Senk & D.R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula. What are They? What Do Students Learn? (285-298). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: NJ.
Dev, P. C. (1998). Intrinsic Motivation and the Student with Learning Disability”. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31 (2): 98-108.
Erdogan, T., Akkaya, R., & Akkaya, S. (2009). “The Effect of the Van Hiele Model Based Instruction on the Creative the Inking Levels of 6th Grade Primary School Students”. Journal Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9 (1): 181-194.
Fujita, T. Jones, K. Yamamoto, S. (2004). The Role of Intuition in Geometry Education: Learning from the Teaching Practice in the Early 20TH Century. Topic Study Group 29 (TSG29) at the 10th International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME-10). Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of Academic Intrinsic Motivation from Childhood Through Late Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1): 3-13.
Goos, M., & Spencer, T. (2003). Properties of Shape, Mathematics-Making Waves. In Goos, M., & Spencer T. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Nineteenth Biennial Conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (424-434). Inc. Adelaide: AAMT Inc.
Halat, E. (2003). DissertationApproaches in Geometry Instructional Performance, Motivation and Gender with Two Different. Doctor of Philosophy, Department of Middle and Secondary Education, etd-08192004-111155.
Halat, E. (2006). Sex-Related Differences In The Acquisition Of The Van Hiele Levels And Motivation In Learning Geometry. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7 (2): 173-183.
Halat, E. (2007). Reform-Based Curriculum & Acquisition of the Levels. Eurasia. Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3 (1): 41-49.
Hang, K. H. (1994). The VAN HIELE levels of Geometric Thought of Secondry School and Junior Students, from http: // www. Rose-net.co.ir/iaudi.
Hartfield, M. M., Edwards, N. T., & Bitter, G. G. (1997). Mathematics Methods for Elementary and Middle School Teachers. 3rded. USA. Allyn Bacon.
Halat, E., Jakubowski, E., & Aydin, N. (2008). Reform-Based Curriculum and Motivation in Eometry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4 (3), 285-292.
Halat, E., & Şahin, O. (2008). Van Hiele Levels of Pre- and In- Service Turkish Elementary School Teachers and Gender Related Differences in Geometry. Journal the Mathematics Educator, 11 (1/2), 143-158.
Henderson, E. M. (1988). Preservice Secondry Mathematics Teachers Geometric Thinkinkgs and Their Flexibility in Teaching Geometry. pUnpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, a Thens, GA.
Hoffer, A. (1986). Geometry and Visual Thinking. In T. R. Post (Ed.), Teaching Mathematics in Grades K-8: Research Based Methods (233-261). Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Keller, J. M. (1999). The ARCS Model. Designing Motivating Instruction. Tallahassee, FL: John Keller Associates.
Mayberry, J. (1983). The Van Hiele Levels of Geometric Thought in Undergraduate Preservice Teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 58-69.
Messick, R. G., & Reynolds, K. E. (1992). Middle Level Curriculum in Action”. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. (1999). Motivation for Achievement in Mathematics: Findings, Generalizations, and Criticisms of the Recent Research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30 (1), 65-88.
Muschla, J. A., & Muschla, G. R. (2000). Geometry Teacher’s Activities Kit, Ready-to-use Lessons & Worksheets for Grades 6-12. USA. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rabinson, A. (1998). Giftedness: An Excepyionality Examins Annual Reviews, Inc.
Runnels, J. R., Rooze, G. E. (1996). Effect of Cooperative Learning Among Spanich Students in Dementry Social Studies. Journal of Educational Research, 3 (3), 187-191.
Serra, M. (1993). Discovering Geometry. Berkeley, CA. Key Curriculum Press.
Silfverbeg, H. (1999). Peruskoulum Yaasteen Opplilaan Geometrinen kasitetieto, From. http: /// www. rose – net . co.ir/jaudi.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of Research of Cooperative Learning. Educational Leadership, 48, 71-77.
Stipek, D. (1998). Motivation to learn from theory to practice. (3rded.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon A Viacom Company.
Uguroglu, M., & Walberg, H. J. (1979). Motivation and Achievement: A Quantitative Synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 375-389.
Unal, H. (2005). The Influence of Curiosity and Spatial on Preservice Middle and Secondary Mathematics Teachers Understanding of Geometry. Retrived 2005-30-03 from. http://www.google.com.
Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry.(Final Report of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Project.) Chicago: University of Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED220288).
Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and Insight: A Theory of Mathematics Education. New York: Academic Press.
Young-Loveridge, J. (2005). The Impact of Mathematics Education Reform in New Zealand: Taking Children’s Views into Account. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, A. Roche (Eds), Proceedings of MERGA28. (1, 18-33). Sydney, Australia.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Students motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (3), 411-419.
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 202-209.
)