Timed tests for knowledge of geometry fundamentals: naming figures, defining and illustrating terms, and giving hypotheses or conclusions of propositions¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 theoretical), q1 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

To test the first desired result, the article proposes limited-time tests in which pupils write names opposite a series of geometrical figures, define a list of terms informally, illustrate them by drawing, give additional properties, supply conclusions for stated hypotheses of fundamental propositions, and state sufficient hypotheses for given conclusions. It prints a full list of sample terms and propositions for such tests.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Time limits must be imposed, and additional properties given by pupils should not include relations to external things

Constraints¶

Target Learners¶

• high school geometry students

Target Learning Goals¶

• knowledge of fundamental geometric content

Affordances¶

• Three Lines Geometry Experimental Investigation

Claims¶

• The article argues geometry teaching should target ten enumerated outcomes, with the general powers rather than the content as the chief aim [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Paired reasoning tests in geometry and in other subjects to detect transfer of logical ability
• Concentration tests on originals under deliberate distractions, with and without unusual distraction conditions

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• William H. Metzler. (1912). Problems in the Experimental Pedagogy of Geometry. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070947