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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? After instruction, 80.5% of the experimental group versus 19.5% of the control group attained van Hiele Levels 3 and 4, a statistically significant difference (χ² = 58.949; df = 1; p < 0.05). → Armah 2018 q3 i? The experimental group recorded more pre-service teachers at the higher van Hiele levels (64% at Level 3, 18.67% at Level 4) than the control group (20% at Level 3, 0% at Level 4). → 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 · r1

Chi-square test on the 2×2 contingency table of group by van Hiele level (VHL0,1&2 vs VHL3&4) for 150 pre-service teachers after the intervention; the article reports "only 19.5% of PTs in the control group attained VHL3&4, whereas 80.5% of PTs in the experimental group attained VHL3&4".

"Table 8 presents the results of the chi -square test for PTs post -test scores and as can be seen from this table the difference highlighted above was statistically significant (χ2 = 58.949; df = 1; p < 0.05 )."

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

Post-test bar-chart analysis (Figure 4) of van Hiele levels in the experimental group: Level 3 rose from 8% to 64% and 18.67% reached Level 4, while the control group reached 20% at Level 3 and 0% at Level 4. Percentages are descriptive; no effect size is printed.

"However, the percentage number of PTs at VHL 3 increased significantly from 8% to 64%. Also, it was interesting to see 18.67% of PTs operating at VHL 4 in the experimental groups' posttest."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Geometric Reasoning — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Most entering pre-service teachers in the sample were at van Hiele Levels 0–2, and none attained Level 5 before or after 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
• Senior high school students taught with generative AI-supported instruction scored significantly higher on geometric reasoning and proof construction than students taught conventionally — related