Numerous researches conducted in recent decades have reported on the difficulties experienced by students learning geometry. The main reason for these difficulties is the gap between the level of instruction and the students’ ability to understand and learn. In other words, the students have a low level of geometrical thinking, while the teachers are attempting to instill knowledge that is at a higher level of thinking than the current level of their students. On this background, we present in this article an ethnomathematical approach combined with Van Hiele’s theory of levels of thinking, with the aim of improving the instruction of geometry by making it effective, interesting, and more successful for students. For this purpose, the article will present Van Hiele’s theory and the various levels of thinking, followed by the characteristics of the stages of thinking and stages of instruction. Other perspectives on learning geometry will be presented in the fifth section, followed by an attempt to explain students’ difficulties in geometry through cognitive load theory and students’ attitudes toward this subject, the ethnomathematical approach and its effect on the instruction of geometry will be presented, finally the effect of integrating cultural values on learning mathematics.
Aichele, D., & Downing, C. (1985). Increasing the Participation of Native Americans in Higher Mathematics. Project funded by the National Science Foundation.
Amit, M., & Abu Qouder, F. A. (2017). Weaving Culture and Mathematics in the Classroom: The Case of Bedouin Ethnomathematics. In M. Rosa et al. (Eds.), Ethnomathematics and Its Diverse Approaches for Mathematics Education (pp. 23-50). ICME-13 Monographs, Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59220-6_2
Amit, M., Fried, M. N., & Abu-Naja, M. (2007). The Mathematics Club for Excellent Students as Common Ground for Bedouin and Other Israeli Youth. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, Monograph, 1, 75-90.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The Two Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Researches, 13, 4-16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X013006004
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/749317
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
Crowley, M. L. (1987). The Van Hiele Model of the Development of Geometric Thought. Teaching and Learning, K-12—1987 Yearbook. Virginia, USA: NCTM.
D’Ambrosio, U. (1984). Socio Cultural Basis of Mathematics Education—Plenary Address at the Fifth International Congress on Mathematical. Adelaide Australia: Education.
D’Ambrosio, U. (1987). Reflections on Ethnomathemathematics. International Study Group on Ethnomathemathematics. Newsletter, 3, 3-5.
D’Ambrosio, U. (2002). Ethnomathemathematics: An Overview. In M. de Monteiro (Ed.), Proceedings of Second International Conference on Ethnomathemathematic (pp. 3-5). (ICEM2), CD Room, Ouro Preto, Prazil: Lyrium Comunacacao Ltda.
Fuys, D., & Geddes, D. (1984). An Investigation of Van Hiele Levels of Thinking in Geometry among Sixth and Ninth Grades. Research Findings and Implications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 27 April 1984.
Gawlick, T. (2002). On Dynamic Geometry Software in the Regular Classroom. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 34, 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02655711
Gilmer, G. (1990). An Ethnomathematical Approach to Curriculum Development. International Study Group on Ethnomathematics. Newsletter, 5, 4-6.
Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., Schorr, R. Y., & Warner, L. B. (2011). Beliefs and Engagement Structures: Behind the affective Dimension of Mathematical Learning. ZDM, 43, 547-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-011-0348-z
Gutierrez, A., Jaime, A., & Fortuny, J. M. (1991). An Alternative Paradigm to Evaluate the Acquisition of the van Hiele Levels. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 237-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/749076
Hershkowitz, R., & Vinner, S. (1983). On Concept Formation in Geometry. Zentralbatt feur Didactic der Mathematic, 1, 20-25.
Hilgard, E. R., & Atkinson, R. C. (1967). Introduction to Psychology (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt.
Hoffer, A. (1981). Geometry Is More than Proof. The Mathematics Teacher, 74, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.74.1.0011 https://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/9066AD04-2DC3-4BE6-9D31-981391E7619D/104162/TIMSS_2007_fullreport.pdf
Keitel, C., Damero, P., Bishop, A., & Gerdes, P. (1989). Mathematics, Education, and Society. Science and Technology Education. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Keith, J. (2000). Teacher Knowledge and Professional Development in Geometry. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 20, 109-114. http://www.bsrlm.org.uk/IPs/ip20-3/BSRLM-IP-20-3-19.pdf
Lipka, J., Wong, M., & Andrew-Ihrke, D. (2013). Alaska Native Indigenous Knowledge: Opportunities for Learning Mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25, 129-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0061-4
Mayberry, J. W. (1983). The Van Hiele Levels of Geometric Thought in Undergraduate Preservice Teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 58-69. https://doi.org/10.2307/748797
NCTM (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating Complex Information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00016-0
Powell, A. B., & Frankenstein, M. (Eds.) (1997). Ethnomathematics: Challenging Eurocentrism in Mathematics Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Robert, P. L. (1982). The Relationship of Attitude, Achievement and Introversion— Extraversion among High School Student in Euclidean and Transformational Geometry Classes. Ph.D. Thesis, New York: Fordham University.
Senk, S. L. (1985). How Well Do Students Write Geometry Proofs? The Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448-456. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.78.6.0448
Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (2004). Supervision That Improves Teaching: Strategies and Techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1997). Increased Knowledge in Geometry and Instructional Practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 467-483. https://doi.org/10.2307/749683
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.
Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry (Final Report). Chicago, IL: Department of Education, University of Chicago.
Van Hiele, P. M. (1959). Development and the Learning Process. Acta Pedagogical Ultrajectra (pp. 1-31). Groningen: J. B. Wolters.
Van Hiele, P. M. (1987). Van-Hiele Levels, a Method to Facilitate the Finding of Levels of Thinking in Geometry by Using the Levels in Arithmetic. In M. M. Lindquist (Ed.), The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 1-16). Reston, VA: National.
Verner, I., Massarwe, K., & Beshouty, D. (2013). Constructs of Engagement Emerging in an Ethnomathematically-Based Teacher Education Course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32, 494-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.06.002
Vinner, S. (1976). The Naive Concept of Definition in Mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 413-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00452223
Vinner, S. (1977). The Concept of Exponentaion at the Undergreduate Level and the Definition Approach. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 8, 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00302501