Most entering pre-service teachers in the sample were at van Hiele Levels 0–2, and none attained Level 5 before or after instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q3 i? At pretest, 24% and 22.67% of pre-service teachers were at Level 0 in the control and experimental groups respectively, and no participant attained Level 4 or 5. → Armah 2018 q3 i? Even after VHPI, no pre-service teacher attained van Hiele Level 5, and only 18.67% of the experimental group reached Level 4, suggesting difficulty with formal proof. → Armah 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Armah 2018¶

Armah, R.B., Cofie, P.O., & Okpoti, C.A. (2018). Investigating the effect of van Hiele Phase-based instruction on pre-service teachers' geometric thinking. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 4(1), 314-330. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.383201

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Pre-test bar-chart analysis (Figure 3) of van Hiele levels for both groups; the article adds that 36% of each group attained VHL 2 and "no PT attained VHL 4 and 5", indicating low entry levels of geometric thinking.

"As shown in Figure 3, 24% and 22.67% of PTs attained van Hiele Level (VHL) 0 (i.e. the Pre -recognition Level or Level for those who have not yet attained any van Hiele Level) in the control and experimental groups respect ively."

Armah 2018 (2)¶

Armah, R.B., Cofie, P.O., & Okpoti, C.A. (2018). Investigating the effect of van Hiele Phase-based instruction on pre-service teachers' geometric thinking. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 4(1), 314-330. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.383201

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Authors' interpretation of the post-test level distribution: the low percentages at Level 4 and the absence of Level 5 indicate the pre-service teachers had difficulties understanding the proof of theorems despite the experimental group's significant gains.

"Key to this study is the finding that none of the PTs attained van Hiele Level 5 in both pretest and posttest. These findings show that the cohorts of PTs were not prepared for formal geometric proofs in college of education."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Geometric Reasoning — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Pre-service teachers taught with van Hiele Phase-based Instruction attained significantly higher van Hiele levels of geometric thinking than those taught with conventional instruction — related
• Before the intervention, the control and experimental groups were statistically equivalent in geometric thinking — related
• Paired-samples t-tests show a significant mean-score gain from pre- to post-test in the VHPI group but not in the conventional-instruction group — related