RESEARCH PAPER
A Reconsideration of the Effectiveness of Using Geoboard in Teaching Euclidean Geometry
 
More details
Hide details
1
School of Mathematics, Sciences and Technology Education, Faculty of Education, North West University, SOUTH AFRICA
 
 
Publication date: 2020-06-22
 
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2020;16(9):em1876
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The effect of using Geoboards in teaching Euclidean geometry in Grade 11 mathematics learners is described. A qualitative research design was adopted in the study. This design was preferred as it provides the conceptual understanding of the teaching methods of the teachers. The participants were taught Euclidean Geometry with the use of Geoboard and an assessment was done and marks were recorded. Thereafter, convenience sampling was used to select twenty (n = 20) participants from two secondary schools in the following order: eight (n = 8) of the top learners, four (n = 4) of the middle learners, and eight (n = 8) of the bottom learners were randomly selected from the Euclidean geometry test mark list to form four focus groups. Only five (n = 5) participants were assigned to each group. The study used the constructivism theory as the lens through which the data will be analyzed. The data were collected by means of focus groups and analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings of the study revealed that the Geoboard gives learners the freedom to learn on their own and in small groups while the teacher provides supervisory guideline using geometric theorem worksheets that support and guide learners. It was also noted that a Geoboard allows learners to work collaboratively with their peers while promoting learner-centered learning.
REFERENCES (43)
1.
Abonyi, O., & Eze, A. (2006). Effect of Geoboard on junior secondary school students’ achievement in geometry. Ebonyi State University Journal of Education (EBJE), 4, 243-250.
 
2.
Acharya, B. J. (2017). Factors affecting difficulties in learning mathematics by mathematics learners. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ije....
 
3.
Adolphus, T. (2011). Problems of teaching and learning of geometry in secondary schools in Rivers State. International Journal of Emerging Sciences, 1(2), 143-152.
 
4.
Alegre-Ansuategui, F. J., Moliner, L., Lorenzo, G., & Maroto, A. (2017). Peer Tutoring and Academic Achievement in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 337-354. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmst....
 
5.
Ali, I., Bhagawati, S., & Sarmah, J. (2014). Performance of Geometry among the Secondary School Students of Bhurbandha CD Block of Moigaon District. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 11(3), 73-77.
 
6.
Baig, F. (2015). Application of Teaching Methods in Mathematics at Secondary Level in Pakistan. Pakistan journal of Social Sciences, 35(2), 935-946.
 
7.
Bora, U. J., & Ahmed, M. (2013). E-learning using cloud computing. International Journal on Science and Modern Engineering, 1(2), 1-5.
 
8.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
 
9.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/147808....
 
10.
Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/001318....
 
11.
Caffarella, R. S., & Merriam, S. B. (1999). Perspectives on adult learning: framing our research. Retrieved from http://newprairiepress.org/cgi....
 
12.
Cattaneo, K. H. (2017). Telling Active Learning Pedagogies Apart: from theory to practice. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(2), 144-152. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2....
 
13.
Cheek, D. W. (1992). Thinking Constructively About Science, Technology and Society Education. Albay, NY: State University of New York Press.
 
14.
Cox-Petersen, A. M., & Olson, J. K. (2000). Authentic science learning in the digital age. Learning & Leading with Technology, 27(6), 32-35.
 
15.
Freire, A. F., Rodrigues, F. S., Aquino, M. R., Soares, M. V., Gois, D. D., & Viana, J. D. (2018). The use of the Geoboard in teaching Geometry: calculating area and perimeter. Multidisciplinary Core scientific journal of knowledge, 3, 119-135.
 
16.
Furner, J. M., & Marinas, C. A. (2011). Geoboards to GeoGebra: Moving from the concrete 6 to the abstract in geometry. Retrieved from http://archives.math.utk.edu/I....
 
17.
Grunert, J. (1997). The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach. Bolton: Anker Publishing Co.
 
18.
Hejný, M., & Kuřina, F. (2001). Child, school and mathematics: constructivist approaches to teaching. Portal: Prague.
 
19.
Hoover, W. A. (1996). The practice implications of constructivism. SEDL Letter, 9(3), 1-2.
 
20.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2006). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
 
21.
Jones, K. (2003). Issues in the teaching and learning of geometry. In Aspects of teaching secondary mathematics (pp. 137-155). Routledge.
 
22.
Karnasih, I., & Soeparno. (1999). Teaching mathematics has to focus on logic. Indonesia: Kompas.
 
23.
Khobo, R. J. (2015). The effect of using computers for the teaching and learning of mathematics to grade 10 learners at secondary school. Pretoria: University of South Africa. (Dissertation - M. Ed).
 
24.
Kuzniak, A., & Rauscher, J. C. (2011). How do teachers‟ approaches to geometric work relate to geometry students‟ learning difficulties? Educational studies in Mathematics, 77(1), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649....
 
25.
Louis, E. U. (2001). Effect of using Geoboard in proofs of geometric theorems on students’ achievements (Ph.D. Thesis). Nigeria: University of Nigeria.
 
26.
Manoah, S. A., Indoshi, F. C., & Othuon, L. O. (2011). Influence of attitude and performance of students in mathematics curriculum. Educational Research, 2(3), 965-981.
 
27.
Mata, M., Monterio, V., & Peixoto, F. (2012). Attitudes towards Mathematics: Effects of individual, motivational and social support factors. Journal of Child Development Research, 10, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/8....
 
28.
McKeachie, W., & Svinicki, M. (2006). Teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for College and University teachers. Belmont: CA: Wadsworth.
 
29.
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advance in Physiology Education, 30, 159-167. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.....
 
30.
Mogari, D., Kriek, J., Stols, G., & Iheanachor, O. (2009). Lesotho’s Learners’ Achievement in Mathematics and their Teachers Background and Professional Development. Pythagoras, 70, 3-15. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythag....
 
31.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. In D. Morgan (Ed.), When to use focus groups and why. Newbury Park: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/978148....
 
32.
Mvududu, N. H., & Thiel-Burgess, J. (2012). Constructivism in practice: The case for English language learners. International Journal of Education, 4(3), 108-118. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v4....
 
33.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: The Viking Press.
 
34.
Rahmiati, M. (2016). The attempt to improve mathematics learning motivation using the geoboard (Spiked Board) Among Grade II Elementary School Students. Global Journal of Business and Social Science Review, 4(3), 74-78.
 
35.
Ramanujam, R., & Subramaniam, K. (2012). Mathematics Education in India: Status and Outlook. Mumbai: Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education.
 
36.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, & R. S. Seigler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5 ed., Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.
 
37.
Sani, S., & Salahudeen, B. (2016). Effects of Geoboard and geographical globe on senior secondary school students’ performance in mathematics in Kaduna state. Journal of Science, Technology & Education, 4(1), 140-148.
 
38.
Scandrett, H. (2008). Using Geoboards in primary mathematics: Going…going…gone? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(2), 29-32.
 
39.
Sibiya, M. R. (2018). Exploring the use of a Geoboard in the teaching and learning of Euclidean geometry among grade 11 mathematics learners in King Cetshwayo District (M. Ed. Dissertation). Durban: University of KwaZulu-Natal.
 
40.
Sibiya, M. R. (2019). The effect of Geoboard use on learners’ motivation for learning of Geometry theorems. International Journal of Sciences and Research, 75(6), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.21506/j.pon....
 
41.
Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. (1995). Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
 
42.
Vidermanova, K., & Vallo, D. (2014). Practical Geometry Tasks as a Method for Teaching Active Learning in Geometry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(2015), 1796-1800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbsp....
 
43.
Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology (11 Ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, lnc.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top