Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 165

Teaching and Learning of Geometry: Problems and Prospects

Noraini Binti Idris Tay Bee Lian

University of Malaya

Abstrak

Geometri merupakan satu topik yang penting dalam pembelajaran matematik. [a bukan
sahaja merupakan satu penyokong kepada bidang-bidang lain dalam matematik; tetapi juga
dalam kerjaya seperti kejuruteraan, arkitek; fizik dan astronomi. Selain daripada mengenali
bentuk dan sifat-sifat asas ruang dan bentuk-bentuk konkrit, penerokaan konsep-konsep
geometri yang melibatkan penyelesaian masalah dan masalah pengukuran juga diperlukan.
Untuk melaksanakan pengajaran dan pembelajaran geometri yang berkesan, guru perlulah
mengetahui masalah dan cabaran yang dihadapi oleh pelajar serta konsep yang penting
dalam pengajaran geometri. Artikel ini membincangkan permasalahan dalam pengajaran dan
pembelajaran geometri dan cara mengatasinya.

Introduction

Geometry plays an important role in primary and secondary school mathematics curricula in
Malaysia and other countries. It provides a rich source of visualization for understanding
arithmetical, algebraic, and statistical concepts (Battista, 1999; Ben-Chairn, Lappan, &
Houang, 1989; Drickey, 2001; Lappan, 1993; Mathematical Sciences Education Board,
1990). For example, the number line is one way of representing whole numbers, fractions,
integers, and a probability scale; regions are used in learning multiplication, fractions,
percent and area; similar triangles are employed to develop concepts of ratio and proportion;
geometry and number are closely connected in developing the function concept, the
coordinate plane, and graphs (Geddes, 1992; Gredler, 1992).

According to Volderman (1998), geometry provides a more complete appreciation of

the world we live in. For example, geometry appears naturally in the structure of the solar
system, in geological formation, rocks and crystals, plants and flowers, and even in animals.
It is also a major part of our synthetic world such as art, architecture, cars, machines, and
virtually everything humans create. Geometry students learn to analyze characteristics and
properties of two- and
166 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27

three-dimensional geometric shapes and develop mathematical arguments about geometric

relationships; specify location and describe spatial relationships using coordinate geometry
and other representational systems; apply transformations and use symmetry to analyze
mathematical situations; and use visualization, spatial reasoning, and geometric modeling to
solve problems (NCTM, 2000).

In view of its importance, the Ministry of Education places even more emphasis on
geometry in the revised Primary and Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum (Malaysian
Ministry of Education, 1998).

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study - Repeat (TIMSSR) was
carried out in 1999 and Malaysia was one of38 participating countries. The Malaysian Form
Two students' performance was ranked sixteenth in mathematics (Ministry of Education,
2000). The Malaysian mean score 01'519 is still significantly higher than the international
mean of 487, but when compared to other Asian countries, it is far behind the top five
countries of Singapore, Korea, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong and Japan.

In the specific area of geometry, the Malaysian students ranked sixteenth (Ministry of
Education, 2000). Though not significantly higher than the international average of 487
marks, their score of 497 marks is still above the average. These statistics show that in the
international arena, Malaysian Form Two geometry performance is still commendable.
However, in the analysis of geometry and geometry related questions in the TIMSS-R 1999,
it was observed that students performed better in straightforward questions concerning
geometry concepts (ranked seventh), but in questions requiring higher thinking skills,
decision making or integration with other mathematical concepts they were ranked 22nd
(Ministry of Education, 2000).

The ranking reflects their lack of geometry thinking and reasoning skills.
Considering the low thinking ability of our students observed in TIMSS-R, much effort is
needed to improve their cognitive levels in mathematics. In Mullis et al. (2000), TIMSS-R
reported on how much emphasis was placed on teaching approaches and processes among
the 38 participating countries. A comparison of the various teaching emphases in the top five
participating countries and Malaysia in TIMSS-R is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 clearly illustrates that in Malaysia, the teaching emphasis in Mathematics is

only moderate in important areas such as communicating mathematically, solving non-
routine problems and continual assessment when compared to the top five nations. The
emphasis was even lower for deriving formal
 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 167

proofs and working on mathematics projects as compared to the five top scorers. To be on
par with these countries, Malaysia needs to improve on important and pertinent teaching
emphases.

The teaching of mathematics in Malaysia needs re-evaluation in response to

increasing demands for improvement in student mathematics performance. When compared
to high performance countries, the mathematics curriculum in Malaysia lacks emphasis on
teaching approaches that encourage thinking and reasoning skills such as communicating
mathematically, solving non-routine problems, deriving proof, project work and continual
assessments of student learning. Though this represents an overall picture of mathematics
instruction, it can also be inferred to the teaching of geometry.

Table I

Comparison of Mathematics Teaching Emphasis in Six Asian Countries

168 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27

As suggested in the TIMSS-R report, geometry instruction has been designed to encourage
more interactions between teachers and students to enhance mathematical communications.
Geometry instruction needs to encourage more non-routine problem solving activities such as
geometry puzzles and problems based on real-life situations to enhance geometric thinking
skills (Noraini Idris, 1998). TIMSS-R findings also indicate that student mathematics
performance can be improved if students participate actively in formulation and
understanding of mathematical ideas and concepts. According to van Hiele (1999), optimal
geometry learning is achieved when students develop their geometric thinking and reasoning
skills. Both TJMSS-R and van Hiele suggest that completing a large content area does not
necessarily mean maximal learning, but more important is the depth of learner understanding.

Problem of Teaching and Learning of Geometry

For some students at the lower secondary school level (Grade 7), learning geometry is not
easy and many of them fail to develop an adequate understanding of geometry concepts,
geometry reasoning and geometry problem solving skills (Battista, 1999; Mitche1more,
2002). Without a good foundation in geometry at the lower secondary level this problem may
worsen at the upper secondary school level where students may face difficulty in mastering
more complex geometry concepts such as transformation and trigonometry.

According to Strutchens, Harris and Martin (200 1), students learn geometry by
memorizing geometric properties rather than by exploring and discovering the underlying
properties. Geometry knowledge learned in this way is limited and superficial. For example,
if students memorize that a square has four equal sides, they will be unable to distinguish
between a square and a rhombus. Eventually these students find difficulty in applying that
limited geometry knowledge in problem solving. This lack of understanding often
discourages the students, invariably leading to poor performance in geometry tests.

A number of factors have been proposed to explain what makes geometry learning
difficult. First, the geometry language, which involves specific terminology, is unique and
needs particular attention and understanding before it can be used meaningfully. Misuse of
geometry terminology can lead to misconceptions of geometric knowledge (Bishop, 1986;
Lappan, 1999). Next, geometry requires visualizing abilities but many students cannot
visualize threedimensional objects in a two-dimensional perspective. Visualizing cross-
sections of solids is very difficult for students lacking ample prior concrete experiences with
solid objects (Ben-Chaim et al., 1989). Due to their limited geometric
 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 169

experiences, students may 'not have had enough opportunities to develop and exercise their
spatial thinking skills for effective geometry learning.

Another problem is that traditional approaches of geometry instruction do not seem to

help students achieve the intended learning outcomes in the curriculum. By using just
textbooks and chalkboards, classroom geometry experiences hamper optimal learning. In the
Malaysian context, this concern is shown in the poor geometry performance of students in
public examinations (Ministry of Education, 1996; Yeo, 2000). There is an urgent need to
change the traditional mode of geometry instruction to one that is more rewarding for both
teachers and students. Specifically, learners must be given opportunities to personally
investigate and discover geometry to enable understanding of the subject in depth and also in
relation to other fields of mathematics.

However, students could be discouraged by certain hindrances in learning geometry.

Among the problems are geometry language, visualizing space and instruction in geometry.
These problems are discussed in greater detail below.

Geometry Language

A pertinent problem with many geometry students is their weakness in the language of
geometry (Bishop, 1986). The vocabulary in geometry is specific and carries meaning,
descriptions and even properties. Knowing a geometric name like "triangles" and "squares"
may not imply the student understands their exact meanings or their properties involving
angle sums, perimeter or area. Noraini Idris (1999) observed that some 13- and l4-year old
Malaysian students were unable to explain simple terms like "perimeter" and "triangle".
Words like "area, isosceles, scalene, and equilateral" gave rise to much confusion among her
sample subjects. Evidently, geometry language, especially in the comprehension of geometry
terms, plays a very important role in learning and understanding of geometric concepts
(Khoo & Clements, 2001). In a study on the van HieIe levels of thinking in geometry among
sixth and ninth graders, Fuys et al. (1988) found that the inability to advance in level
ofthinking may be related to students' deficiencies in language, both in knowledge of
geometry vocabulary and ability to use it precisely and consistently,

In a study by Noraini Idris (1999), students were involved in geometry activities

requiring them to communicate geometry with each other and the teacher. This was achieved
through group activities and also in discourse with the teacher about what they have learnt
concerning properties of geometric figures. Geometric conjectures made during the lesson
must also be written with proper
170 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27

geometry terms. In each student worksheet, new geometry vocabulary was introduced
explicitly so that students were made aware of any new terms used. The students were
encouraged to use proper geometric terms during discussions. Moreover, as the role model
for students, the researcher paid particular attention to using accurate geometry language at
all times. Such interactions using specific geometric language is reflective of a van Hiele-
based geometry lesson.

 Visualization

Another problem of geometry learning involves the ability to visualize. Many concepts in
geometry require students to visually perceive the objects and identify their properties by
comparing them with their previous experiences involving similar objects. These geometrical
concepts also require visual interpretations as many geometry problems are presented in a
two-dimensional format on paper. Thus students who are unable to extract geometric
information about threedimensional solid objects drawn on paper will face difficulty in
interpreting questions involving solid geometry (Lappan, Phillips, & Winter, 1984).

Research has shown there exists a strong relationship between spatial abilities and
geometry achievement (Lam, 1994; Noraini, 1998). Hershkowitz (1989) claims that
visualization is a necessary tool in geometry concept formation. Some mathematics educators
recommend more visual activities in the classroom to help students understand geometric
concepts (Chong, 2001; Del Grande, 1987; Kor, 1995; Young, 1987; Usiskin, 1987). It
would therefore seem helpful for students if geometry lessons could be carried out with
hands-on activities. By being able to "touch-see-and-do" and interacting with the objects of
their learning, students can learn geometry in a more imaginative and successful way
(Bishop, 1983). This view is supported by Howard Gardner (in Campbell, Campbell, &
Dickinson, 1996), in his Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Gardner suggested that some
learners are kinesthetically inclined, meaning that they learn best when actively involved
with the objects of their learning. For this type of learner, the visual, hands-on and process-
oriented approach might be most beneficial.

This problem of visualization in geometry learning is addressed in a van Hiele-based

instruction. Level I (Visualization) of the van Hie1e model of Geometric Thinking requires
students to visualize and explore properties of geometric objects. By kinesthetically handling
and visually perceiving geometric solids or geometric figures, students learn to interpret and
understand the geometric information these solids and figures possess. Therefore the van
Hiele Theory is adopted in this study to give many opportunities for students to cultivate
necessary visualizing skills in a number of hands-on activities in efforts to understand
underlying geometry concepts.
 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 171

 Geometry Instruction

In the past, geometry lessons were pictured as students copying diagrams and properties
offigures and shapes from blackboards and doing repetitive exercises to calculate angles,
lengths, and areas of geometric figures. This approach posed problems to both teachers and
students, and both groups began to dread geometry. Teachers became frustrated because their
poor conceptual understanding led to poor geometry achievement.

Even in many geometry classrooms today, teachers introduce students to facts about
Euclidean geometry and then drill them with concepts in deductive reasoning. Students are
seldom given opportunity to discover and conceptualize geometry on their own.

In Malaysian schools, geometry is usually taught using mainly the textbooks, the
chalkboard and occasionally the compass and protractor. Sometimes teachers will use
geometry kits to show the different geometric solids mentioned in the syllabus. However this
teaching approach does not seem to help many students as evidenced by poor geometry
performance at the Form Two level (Mullis et aI., 2000) and Form Five level (Ministry of
Education, 1996). Geometry instruction must therefore be evaluated and improved for more
effective geometric understanding.

In geometry instruction, much of the learning experiences rests on the teacher.

Teachers need to select relevant materials, provide opportunities to deepen students'
geometric understanding and even guide classroom investigations and discussions (NCTM,
1991). For effective geometry instruction, the method should not be the same as in teaching
number, algebra or probability. Instead instruction should emphasize hands-on explorations,
developing geometric thinking and reasoning, making conjectures and even carrying out
geometry projects (Strutchens et al., 2001; van Hide, 1999).

van Hiele Levels of Geometric Thought in Mathematics Textbooks

An important issue concerning geometry in the classroom is related to the van Hie1e levels
of the geometry content in the mathematics textbooks used. As part of her study, Kor (1995)
performed a needs assessment on the van Hie1e levels of the geometry content of two
Malaysian Mathematics textbooks. She observed that in a chapter on quadrilaterals in the
Form 2 mathematics textbook, the definitions of quadrilaterals were tabled for easy
memorization. However nowhere could she identify that students had any opportunity to
explore attributes of quadrilaterals or develop spatial thinking and geometry problem solving
skills. Consequently,
172 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27

a diagnostic test revealed problems students encountered with angle estimation, angle-
drawing, concept definition, and classification. Her results showed the textbooks did not
promote effective geometry learning.

In their study, Fuys et al. (1988) analyzed three sets of Mathematics textbooks
popular in the United States. They found the exposition in the text was inconsistent with the
exercises in the textbook. For example, geometric shapes were taught in terms of properties
(Level 2), but the exercises only required the students to name the figures (Level I).
Furthermore, most questions involved application of formulae, which required only minimal
geometric thought but more of algebraic or arithmetic procedures. It was found that most of
the text functioned at a higher level than their exercises. This situation is detrimental to
development of student geometric thinking. On the whole, the geometry content of the three
major textbooks showed an inclination to Level I exposition. Students were seldom tested
beyond visualization experiences and into making conjectures (Fuys et al., 1988).

A study in Singapore also revealed that many worked examples and exercises in two
Singapore Mathematics textbooks, for students aged 15 -16 years, were at Levell and Level 2
only (Yee, 1989). The Singapore study also showed that these textbooks seem to provide
little opportunity for students to progress beyond Level 2. In this case, the textbook created a
limiting factor in development of students' geometric thinking. Thus textbooks play a very
important role in determining students' van Hiele levels. Further investigation is needed on
whether to use mathematics textbooks as the primary source of instruction. This is important
as the van Hiele level of the geometry content in a Mathematics textbook might confuse
students' geometric thought development. It may be necessary for teachers to prepare
separate learning modules in the form of student worksheets and teaching materials, and to
use textbooks only where applicable.

Implications for Geometry Teaching and Learning

The implications outlined here were made by considering the current and future needs and
challenges of mathematics education in Malaysia and the impact of these implications.
Several studies (Baynes, 1999; Brown, 1991; Chong, 2001; Fuys et al., 1988; Noraini, 1998;
Tay, 2003) suggest that a van Hiele-based instruction can significantly increase geometry
achievement, and improve students' van Hiele Levels of Geometric Thinking.

Awareness and knowledge of students' van Hiele levels can benefit the geometry
teacher in the classroom. As related literature and studies have shown,
 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 173

such awareness and knowledge can help teachers adjust their teaching to their students' level
of understanding. Such synchronized teaching and learning can ensure maximal geometry
learning in students (Crowley, 1987; Fuys et al., 1988; van Hiele, 1999).

Tay (2003) in her study found that the majority of students (70.0%) in the
experimental group fit into Levell (Visualization) and therefore the researcher needed to
adjust her pedagogy and instructional materials to meet their thought levels. Such a strategy
had proved beneficial to many of the students as 11 ofthem advanced from Levell to Level 2.
Thus knowing the students' van Hiele level of Geometric Thinking at the beginning of
geometry teaching is important for teachers, especially when teaching lower secondary
students, because teachers tend to teach at a level convenient for themselves and not for their
students. Thus teachers should make an effort to identify their students' level of geometric
reasoning before beginning to teach geometry.

After ten weeks ofteaching geometry following the van Hiele-based Model of
Geometric Thinking, Tay (2003) found that the experimental students' geometric thinking
was still spread out over almost three levels (three at Levell and seventeen at Level 2, of
whom six were almost at Level 3). These results prove that students may not learn geometry
at the same pace, as already mentioned by Burger & Shaughnessy (1986) and Fuys et a1.
(1988) in their respective studies. Therefore teachers need to give more attention to
individual students in a geometry class. Individualized attention may help some students to
master the five phases of geometry learning of Levelland not cycle amidst the phases
meaninglessly. It may help others attain subsequent levels faster. In short, geometry lessons
need to be more student-centered.

The improved van Hiele levels and the significant increase in geometry achievement
of the experimental group (Tay, 2003) indicated that van Hielebased instruction, with a
reorganized geometry content and with van Hielebased instructional materials, had been
successful. Since Baynes (1999), Noraini (1998) and Wu (1994) have reported similar
results, there is a good possibility for success in this type of geometry instruction for other
lower secondary students in the country.

Considering the significant improvement in geometry achievement on account of the

specially prepared van Hiele-based instructional materials used, it is suggested that more
interactive and hands-on learning modules be provided in lower secondary schools.
Curriculum developers, mathematics educators, and textbook writers may need to incorporate
more manipulative activities requiring
174 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27

students to make their own conjectures. Non-routine and thought provoking problem solving
using real-world examples are also helpful in developing geometric reasoning. Geometry
activities and puzzles are rich resources for developing geometric understanding and
reasoning in the classroom. It is suggested that effective geometry learning can be achieved
by using structured instructional materials modeled after van Hiele's Levels of Geometric
Thinking.

Conclusion

In most secondary school geometry programs, the traditional mode of instruction exposes the
students to a formal and abstract level of geometry with little regard for their readiness to
learn it (Pennsylvania Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1999). Often students learn to
memorize theorems and geometric properties without understanding the underlying concepts
related to geometric solids and figures. Such learning methods often lead to unsatisfactory
geometry performance. Expanding the use of van Hide-based geometry instruction in schools
can help improve student achievement in geometry.

Given the importance of the van Hide-based geometry instruction and its impact on
geometry achievement, we must consider sharing knowledge of the van Hiele Levels of
Geometric Thinking with pre- and in-service mathematics teachers. Such knowledge can
guide teachers in assessing their students' van Hiele levels, conducting. a van-Hiele based
instruction and also self-evaluating their classroom practice for improved geometry teaching
and learning. As Mayberry (1981) had recommended, secondary school geometry teachers
need to be trained to understand the van Hiele levels and also to develop their students' van
Hiele levels. It is suggested that teacher training institutions implement this recommendation
to improve the quality of geometry instruction in schools.

References

Battista, M. (1999). Geometry results from the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(6), 367-373.
Baynes, J. F. (1999). The development of a van Hiele-based summer geometry program and
its impact on student van Hiele levels and achievement in high school geometry. (Ed.D.
Dissertation, Teachers College Columbia University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59A(7), 2403. Retrieved Jan 14, 2002, from
http://wwwlib.umLcomldissertations/fullcit/9839049
Ben-Chaim, D., Lappan, G., & Houang, R. 1. (1989). The role of visualization in the middle
school mathematics curriculum. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,
11(1),49-60.
 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 175

Bishop, A. 1 (1983). Space and geometry. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.)

Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes. (pp. 175-203). Florida:
Academic.
Bishop, A. J. (1986). What are some obstacles to learning geometry? Studies in
Mathematics Education (UNESCO), 5, 141-159.
Brown, M. D. (1991). The relationship between traditional instructional
methods, contract Activity Packages and mathematics achievement of fourth grade
students. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 52A, 1999-2000. [DA 9127468].
Burger, W E, & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of
development in geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1),31-
48.
Campbell, L., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (1996). Teaching and learning through
multiple intelligences. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Chong L. H., (2001). Pembelajaran geometri menggunakan perisisan Geometer's Sketchpad
(TI-92 Flus) dan kaitannya dengan tahap pemikiran van Hiele dalam geometri.
Unpublished Masters Project Paper, University of Malaya, Malaysia.
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning.
In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.
New York: Macmillan.
Crowley, M. L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought. In M.
M. Lindquist & A. P. Shulte (Eds), Learning and teaching geometry, K - 12, 1987
Yearbook. pp. 1-16. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Del Grande, 1. J. (1987). Spatial perception and primary geometry. In M. M.
Lindquist & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry, K-12, 1987
Yearbook (pp. 126-135). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Drickey, N. A. (2001). A comparison of virtual and physical manipulatives in teaching
visualization and spatial reasoning to middle school mathematics students. (Doctoral
Thesis, Utah State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(2)A, 499.
Retrieved Jan14, 2002, from http://www.lib.umi. com! dissertations/fullcit/3 0040 11
Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The van Hiele model ofthinking in geometry
among adolescents. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Geddes, D. (1992). Geometry in the middle grades. Curriculum and evaluation standardsfor
school mathematics. Addenda series: Grades 5 - 8. Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Gredler, M. (1992). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. (2nd ed.)
New York: Macmillan.
176 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27

Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry - two sides of the coin. Focus on

Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1), 61-76.
Khoo, S. c., & Clements, M. A. (2001). a-level students' understanding oflower secondary
school geometry. In K. Y. Wong, H. H. Tairab, & M. A. Clements, (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the Department of Science and
Mathematics Education: Energising Science, Mathematics and Technical Education for All
(pp. 213-222). Brunei: Universiti Brunei Darrussalam.
Koh, C. B., & Teo, P. (1999). Pengajaran sukatan minimum matematik untuk pelajar
berpencapaian rendah. Paper presented at the Kursus Peningkatan Prestasi &
Profesionalisme Guru Matematik Menengah Pahang 1999, Kuantan, Malaysia.
Kor, A. L. (1995). The development and evaluation of a logo-based geometry package.
Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Malaya, Malaysia.
Lam, S. Y. (1994). Spatial ability, formal reasoning ability, and field dependence-
independence as predictors of Form IV students' achievements in geometry and engineering
drawing. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Malaya, Malaysia.
Lappan, G. (1993). What do we have and where do we go from here? Arithmetic Teacher,
40(9), 524-526.
Lappan, G. (1999). Geometry: The forgotten strand. (On-line) Retrieved Dec 26, 2002, from
http://www.ntm.orglnews/pastpresident/1999-l2president.htm Lappan, G., Phillips, E.
A., & Winter, M. J. (1984, November). Spatial visualization. Mathematics Teacher,
618-625.
Mathematical Sciences Education Board. (1990). Reshaping school mathematics:
A philosophy and framework for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Mayberry, J. W. (1981). An investigation of the van Hiele levels of geometric thought in
undergraduate preservice teachers. (Ed.D, Dissertation, University of Georgia). UMI
Publications.
Ministry of Education. (1996). Matematik 1449. In Laporan Prestasi SPM 1995 Kuala
Lumpur: Examinations Syndicate.
Ministry of Education. (1998). Huraian sukatan pelajaran matematik KBSM:
Edisi sekolah bestari [KBSM Mathematics Syllabus: Smart School Edition]. Kuala
Lumpur: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2000). Third International Mathematics and Science Study - Repeat.
(TIMSS - R). Kuala Lumpur: Educational Planning and Research Division.
Mistretta, R. M. (2000). Enhancing geometric reasoning. Adolescence, 35(138), 365-379.
Wilson Disc: Education Full Text, 1/00-8/02.
 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27 177

Mitchelmore, M. (2002). The role of abstraction and generalisation in the development of

mathematical knowledge. In 0. Edge & B. H. Yeap (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second
East Asia Regional Coriference on Mathematics Education and Ninth Southeast
Asian Conference on Mathematics Education, VOlume 1: Invited papers (pp. 157-167).
Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. 0., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O'Connor, et
al. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international Mathematics report. Boston: International Study
Center, Boston College.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Noraini Idris. (1998). Spatial visualization, field dependence/independence, van Hiele level,
and achievement in geometry: The influence of selected activities for middle school
students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Noraini Idris. (1999). Linguistic aspects of mathematical education: How precise do teachers
need to be? In M. A. Clements & P. Y. Leong (Eds.), Cultural and Language Aspects
of Science. Mathematics and Technical Education. Brunei:
Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Pennsylvania Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1999). Geometry for all students.
Retrieved December 23, 2002, from: http://www.pctm.org/ GeometryForAll.html
Strutchens, M. E., Harris, K. A., & Martin, W. G. (2001). Assessing geometric and
measurement understanding using manipulatives. Mathematics Teaching in the
Middle School, 6(7),402-405.
Tay, B. L. (2003). A Van-Hiele-based instruction and its impact on the geometry
achievement of Form One students. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of
Malaya, Malaysia.
Usiskin, Z. (1987). Resolving the continuing dilemmas in school geometry. In M. M.
Lindquist & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry, K -12, 1987 Yearbook
(pp. 17-31). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
van Hiele, P. M. (1999). Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with
play. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(6), 310 - 316.
Volderman, C. (1998). How Maths work. London: Dorling Kindersley,
Wu, 0. B. (1994). A study oftheuse of the van Hielemode1 in the teaching of non Euclidean
geometry to prospective elementary school teachers in Taiwan, The Republic of
China. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1994). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 55(5), 1215. Retrieved Jan 14, 2002, from
http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/9427458
178 Masalah Pendidikan Jilid 27

Yee, P. S. (1989). An investigation of van Hiele-like levels of learning in transformation

geometry of secondary school students in Singapore. (Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State
University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50A(3), 619. Retrieved Jan
15,2002, from http://wwwlib.umi. cornldissertations/fullcit/89l5764
Yeo, M. K. (2000). Koleksi kertas peperiksaan sebenar: Matematik SPM KBSM.
I993-2000. Shah Alam, Malaysia: Cerdik.
Young, J. L. (1987). Improving spatial abilities with geometric activities. In J. M.
Hill (Ed.), Geometry for grades K - 6: Readingsfrom the Arithmetic teacher. Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.