1.final Thesis Van Hiele

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
Chapter I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Geometry is a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape,
size, relative position of figures, and the properties of space. (Olson, 2012)
According to H.M. S. Coxeter, “Geometry is perhaps the most elementary of the
sciences that enable man, by purely intellectual processes, to make predictions
(based on observation) about physical world. The power of geometry, in the
sense of accuracy and utility of these deductions, is impressive, and has been a
powerful motivation for the study of logic in geometry.”(Bogomolny, 2018)
Schwartz (2014) said that when people recall their geometry learning
experience, they recall it as unpleasant experience and lack of understanding
that lead students to rote memorization. Through this difficulties experience,
geometry is distasteful to most people. Therefore, Schwartz discussed the van
Hiele Theory intended to provide with the actual experiences that will help
student to grow and develop as a geometric thinker. According to Fulton (2013)
“many students, their lack of geometry understanding is due in part from a lack of
opportunities to experience spatial curricula. Geometry is often tackled into the
final chapters of the book, thus students enter high school geometry only knew
1
what the name of the shapes and they only memorize the formulas but they don’t
remember it. It turns out that Fulton introduced the seminal work on geometric
thinking done by a Dutch couple, the van Hiele’s Theory.
Different researchers have used the theory of van Hiele in different
aspects. According to Conolly (2010) many students struggle with geometry and
do not perceive its value. Teachers become frustrated with the slow progress of
most students. In line with this the van Hiele Geometric understanding was
created.
The researchers applied the van Hiele’s Level of Geometric
Understanding to develop an examination that can determine a geometric
understanding of the learner. By the stated definitions, the researchers tracked
also the participant’s level of understanding using the said develop examination.
Background of the Study
The van Hiele theory has been applied to clarify students' difficulties with
the higher order cognitive processes, which is necessary to success in high
school geometry. In this theory if students do not taught at the proper van Hiele
level that they are at or ready for it, will face difficulties and they cannot
understand geometry. The therapy that offered for students by this theory is that
they should go through the sequence of levels in a specific way (Usiskin, 1982).
2
The theoretical framework used Smart (2008) as cited in UKessays (2003)
for his research" Introducing Angles in Grade Four" was a combination of a
teaching theory called Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) and a learning
theory called the van Hiele Model of Geometric Thinking. His research findings
suggest the usefulness of using lesson plans based on the two theoretical
frameworks in helping students develop an analytical conceptualization of
mathematics. In this study the model was neither proved nor disproved but just
accepted as an analytic framework.
Gills, J (2005) as cited in UKessays (2003) investigated students' ability
to form geometric conjectures in both statistic and dynamic geometry
environments in his doctoral thesis. All participants were exposed to both
environment and take parted, up to eight lab activities. He also used van Hiele
theory as the main theoretical framework with more emphasis on geometric
reasoning.
Based on the studies stated above, the researchers would like to develop
an examination that can determine the level of geometric understanding of the
learners. It’s an examination that can help learners to be aware in their level of
geometric understanding and for math curriculum designers and teachers to
create new and helpful strategies for the learners to learn and to have a depth
understanding in Geometry.
3
Theoretical Framework
Pierre van Hiele and Dina van Hiele-Geldof, a husband-and wife team
Dutch educators made an observation to their students and notice that they
encountered difficulties in learning geometry. It led them to develop a theory
involving levels of thinking in geometry known as van Hiele Theory. This theory
explains why many students find geometry as hard subject, especially with formal
proofs. The van Hieles believed that writing proofs requires thinking at a
comparatively high level, and that many students need to have more experiences
in thinking at lower levels before learning formal geometric concepts. (Mason,
2002)
Based on the van Hiele theory of geometric thought, there is five-level
hierarchy of ways of understanding spatial ideas that describes the thinking
processes used in geometric contexts. The level describes how we think on what
types of geometric ideas we think about, rather than how much knowledge we
have. (Walle, 2004)
Level 0 (Visualization): Learners recognize figures by appearance
alone, often by comparing them to a known prototype. At this level,
learners make decisions based on perception, not reasoning.
Level 1 (Analysis): Learners see figures as collections of
properties. They can recognize and name properties of geometric
4
figures, but they do not see relationships between these properties.
When describing an object, a student operating at this level might
list all the properties the student knows, but not discern which
properties are necessary and which are sufficient to describe the
object.
Level 2 (Abstraction / Informal Deduction): Students perceive
relationships between properties and between figures. At this level,
students can create meaningful definitions and give informal
arguments to justify their reasoning. Logical implications and class
inclusions, such as squares being a type of rectangle, are
understood. The role and significance of formal deduction, however,
is not understood.
Level 3 (Deduction): Students can construct proofs, understand the
role of axioms and definitions, and know the meaning of necessary
and sufficient conditions. At this level, students should be able to
construct proofs such as those typically found in a high school
geometry class.
Level 4 (Rigor): Learners at this level understand the formal
aspects of deduction, such as establishing and comparing
mathematical systems. Students at this level can understand the
use of indirect proof and proof by contrapositive, and can
understand non-Euclidean systems. Children at the rigor level can
5
think in terms of abstract mathematical systems. College
mathematics majors and mathematicians are at this level.
The products of thought at each level are the same as the objects of
thought at the next level. The objects (ideas) must be created at one level so that
relationships among these objects can become the focus of the next level. The
van Hiele Theory also presents four related characteristics of the levels of
thought merit special attention. These are the following:
1. The levels are sequential.
2. The levels are not age-dependent in the sense of the
development stages of Piaget.
3. Geometric experience is the greatest single factor influencing
advancement through levels.
4. When instruction or language is at a level higher than that of the
student, there will be a lack of communication.
6
Analysis of
deductive
systems
Deductive
systems of
properties
Relationship
Level 4 Rigor
among
properties
Properties
Level 3 Deduction
of Shapes
Classes Level 2 informal deduction
of Shapes
Level 1 analysis
Shapes
Level 0 Visualization
Figure 1
The van Hiele Theory of Geometric Thought
According to the van Hiele, a student progresses through each level of
thought as a result of instruction that is organized into five phases of learning.
The phases are described below.
1. Information: Through discussion, the teacher identifies what
students already know about a topic and the students become
oriented to the new topic.
7
2. Guided orientation: Students explore the objects of instruction
in carefully structured tasks such as folding, measuring, or
constructing. The teacher ensures that students explore specific
concepts.
3. Explicitation: Students describe what they have learned about
the topic in their own words. The teacher introduces relevant
mathematical terms.
4. Free Orientation: Students apply the relationships they are
learning to solve problems and investigate more open-ended
tasks.
5. Integration: Students summarize and integrate what they have
learned, developing a new network of objects and relations
8
Conceptual Framework
The researchers would like to develop an examination to determine the
levels of geometric understanding of learners in line with geometric
competencies provided by Mathematics Curriculum Guide.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
van Hiele Theory of Item Analysis

Geometric
Understanding Content Validation Level of Geometric
Understanding
Geometric Normality Test Determinant
Competencies provided Examination
by Mathematics Reliability Test
Curriculum Guide
Figure 2
Paradigm of the Study
Statement of the Problem
The main objective of the study is to develop one hundred-item
examination to determine the levels of geometric understanding of students in
line with the geometric competencies provided by Mathematics Curriculum Guide
who are completers of junior geometry.
Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions.
1. What are the initial characteristics of Level of Geometric Understanding
Determinant Examination in terms of:
9
a. Mean and Standard Deviation
b. Item Analysis
c. Normality Test
d. Reliability Test
2. What are the characteristics of pilot testing of Level of Geometric
Understanding Determinant Examination in terms of:
b. Item Analysis
c. Normality Test
d. Reliability Test
3. What is the Level of Geometric Understanding of the participants in the
pilot testing with restriction and without the restriction of van Hiele’s Level
of Geometric Understanding in:
a. Grade 7 competencies
b. Grade 8 competencies
c. Grade 9 competencies
d. Grade 10 competencies
e. Overall competencies
10
Significance of the study
The researchers hope that this study would be significant:
For the curriculum designers of Mathematics, to serve as guide in
developing and improving the Geometry Math Curriculum.
For the school administration, to help them plan the teaching strategy
and techniques in teaching in Geometry.
For the teachers, to help them improve their ability in teaching geometry
and to determine the level of geometric understanding of their students.
For the learners, they will find out what level of understanding they have
in geometry and they can also improve what level they did not excel.
For other researchers, this study will serve as reference for the future
researchers and get some ideas on how to improve their papers.
Scope and Delimitation
The researchers developed an examination in Geometry that can
determine the level of geometric understanding of learners. This research studied
the level of geometric understanding of Grade 11 – Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), sections 7 and 8 students of Polytechnic
University of the Philippines Main Campus School Year 2017-2018 in all junior
11
geometry topics upon using Level of Geometric Understanding Determinant
Examination.
The following statement should be observed:
 Option with 0 index discrimination is retained.
 Respondents only need one mistake to master each level of
geometric understanding.
 Level 4 (Rigor) will not be included because only Mathematicians
and college mathematics majors can reached this level.
 With the restriction of van Hiele’s Level of Geometric
Understanding, learner needs to master level 0 first before
proceed to the next level or simply satisfy the original idea of the
van Hiele Level of Geometric Thought.
 Without the restriction of van Hiele’s Level of Geometric
Understanding, learner has mastery in each level without
mastering the previous level.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were defined for this study will be encountered
throughout the discussion of the study.
12
Content validity. It is the process used by professional Mathematics
teacher to validate the content of the Level of Geometric Understanding of
Determinant Examination.
Determinant Examination. It is a kind of examination that can determine
the level of geometric understanding of the respondent.
Item analysis. This is a statistical technique used in selecting and rejecting
the items of the test on the basis of their difficulty value and discriminated index.
Levels of geometric understanding. This refers to the levels described by
the van Hiele Theory namely visualization, analysis, abstraction or informal
deduction, deduction and rigor.
Level of Geometric Understanding Determinant Examination. This is an
instrument, a 100 – item multiple choice examination that was used to determine
the level of geometric understanding of the learners.
Normality test. It refers to the formula that obtained the normality of the
examination and proves that it comes from the normal distributions of scores of
the respondents.
Reliability Test. It’s used to which a test make dependable, self –
consistent and stable using the split-half method and using the Spearman-Brown
formula.
13
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). This refers
to the academic strand of the respondents in the pilot testing.
Table of Specification. This refers to the matrix that contains the number
of items being constructed in each geometric competencies provided by the
Mathematics Curriculum Guide.
14
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES AND STUDIES
This chapter presents the review of related literature and studies that the
researchers considered relevant to the present study. These studies contributed
for the researchers’ insight into the Developing a Determinant Examination in
Describing van Hiele’s Level of Geometric Understanding.
Related Literature
Conolly (2010) as cited by Maga (2014), on his study “The impact on Van
Hiele’s Geometry based instruction on students understanding” the Van Hiele
model combined with Hoffer’s skill dimensions provided a framework for
understanding the growth of student understanding in geometry, a mathematics
subject substantially different from other high school math courses. With this
framework in mind, teachers are better prepared to assess their students and
develop differentiated instruction targeted at meeting their specific needs.
Burger and Shaughnessy (1986); Clements (2003) as cited by Howse, T. &
Howse, M. (2014). The Van Hiele theory of geometric thought describes the
different levels of understanding through which students’ progress when learning
geometry (Van Hiele 1984). The basis of the theory is the idea that a student’s
growth in geometry takes place in terms of distinguishable levels of thinking.
15
Geometry instruction should be designed with these levels in mind (Choi-koh,
1999).
Related Studies
The van Hiele model is considered one of the most important models in
teaching geometry and the geometric concepts and thoughts are developed
through five phases within an educational program. These phases represent the
development of the thinking process in geometry in addition to the geometric
knowledge acquisition. The process in the student’s thinking leads him to
summarize what he learned and employ it in his daily life activities (Tall & Pegg,
2005 as cited by Al-ebous (2016)
Based on the Idris (2007) study, as cited by Maga (2014) conducted a
study entitled “The effect of Geometers’ Sketchpad on the Performance in
Geometry of Malaysian Students’ Achievement and van Hiele Geometric
Thinking” had found out that effective learning occurs as students actively
experience the objects of study in appropriate contexts of geometric thinking and
as they engage in discussion and reflection using the language of the learning
period. Awareness and knowledge of students on Van Hiele’s level can be a
useful asset and tool to the geometry teacher in the classroom. The significant
improvement of geometry achievement/performance on account of the specially
prepared Van Hiele-based instructional material and geometer’s sketchpad use in
16
this study also suggest that there is a need to provide more interactive and hands-
on learning activities for geometry learning at the lower secondary school level.
According to CCSSI (2010); Cobb and Yackel (1995). The Van Hiele theory
of geometrical thought and phases of learning provide a framework for effective
geometry instruction. Activities like those described in this article draw on well-
structured instruction and purposeful interaction among students to promote deep
understanding of geometric concepts. The set of activities not only benefited
students but also enhanced our skills as mathematics educators. We were
successful in engaging students in activities that are consistent with Common
Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) (CCSSI 2010). During certain
stages of the activities, students were prompted to share their ways of reasoning
by constructing viable arguments in relation to the attribute blocks. Additionally,
students had opportunities to not only reflect on their own thinking but also critique
the reasoning of their classmates. These student practices are consistent with the
Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMP), specifically SMP 3, which promotes
classroom discourse during which students can engage in mathematical talk.
The study of Solaiman as cited in MATHED (2013) as cited in Maga, 2014,
the study aimed to assess Van Hiele ‘s levels of geometric understanding on
quadrilaterals of the third year high school students in selected public schools in
Lanao del Sur. The result revealed that out of 409 respondents, 312 belonged to
level; 0 (pre-cognition), 93 participants reached level 1 (recognition), 4 met level 2
(analysis) and no respondents reached level 3 (deduction) which is the expected
level of entering third year high school students which confirmed the findings of
17
other researchers such as Usiskin (1982), Ginez (2006),Tan and Yebron (2008)
and Dindyal (2007) that majority of the third year high school students have a
level of understanding lower than level 3 (deduction). The study implies that most
of the students were at level 0 (pre-cognition) which shows the difficulty of the
subject which was expected among the participants. It was recommended that
students must undergo evaluation of Van Hiele’s level to be aware of their status
in geometric understanding.
The study conducted by San Gabriel in 2011, the respondents were 196
third year of FVR National High School. They were classified according to the Van
Hiele’s levels (level 0, level 1, level 2, level 3) using a teacher made test. The
research revealed that 44% of the students were at level 0; 37% were at level 1;
18% were at level 2; and only 1% are at level 3. None of the respondents were at
level 4 of van hiele’s levels. It implies that majority of the students were on level 0
or pre-cognition level followed by recognition. The findings may assist teachers in
designing intervention programs to address different difficulties of their students
depending on the different levels of understanding in Geometry. (Maga, 2014)
Synthesis
The van Hiele model is one of the most important models in teaching
geometry as stated by Tall and Pegg (2005) and Clements(2003). Idri (2007) and
Conolly (2010) as cited by Magna (2014), the van Hiele Theory levels is useful
asset and tool on teachers as the teach geometry. In Solaimans’ study as cited in
18
MATHED (2013) as cited in Maga (2014), using van Hiele theory, it was found
that most of the students reached only level 0 of van Hiele levels Geometric
thought and stated that students found difficulties in the said subject.
Based on the review literature and studies cited by the researchers, van
Hiele’s Level of Geometric Understanding is one way to determine how students
think geometrically. Through this theory, teachers can improve the teaching and
learning process in Geometry. Some studies determine what level of
understanding a learner has, it will guide the teacher to think critically and
creatively and utilize the best and appropriate strategies and techniques to be
implemented in his lesson so that learners understand the lesson well. In line with
this, the reviewed literatures and studies cited by the researchers will serve as a
guide to develop an examination to determine the level of geometric
understanding of learners.
19
Chapter III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the respondents of the study and the statistical
procedures employed to systematically answer the specific problems posed for
investigation. Specifically, the research method, the population and sample size,
the sampling technique, the instrument used and the data gathering procedures
together with its development and the corresponding statistical treatment for
accurate analysis and interpretation, are hereby presented.
Research Method to be used
This study used descriptive method of research. The descriptive method of
research is a fact- finding procedure with adequate interpretation. It helped the
researchers analyze and interpret the gathered data easily.
Population and Sample Size
For the dry run testing, the researchers selected Grade 10 students,
sections Genesis and Leviticus of Eulogio Rodriguez Integrated School School
Year (S.Y) 2017 – 2018, where some of the researchers conducted their practice
teaching. It was composed of 79 participants. For the pilot testing, the researcher
chose 98 students of Grade 11 Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM), sections 7 and 8 of Polytechnic University of the Philippines
20
Senior High School Main Campus, School Year (S.Y.) 2017 – 2018. The
participants for the pilot testing were students of the researchers’ adviser, Mr. Ian
Joseph Saguindan.
Sampling Technique
The researchers utilized Convenience Cluster Sampling. For the dry run
testing, the researchers chose Grade 10 students, section Genesis and Leviticus
of Eulogio Rodriguez Integrated School, School Year (S.Y.) 2017 – 2018, where
some of the researchers conducted their practice teaching. The said participants
were students of the two researchers in Mathematics, Ms. Kristine Ann H.
Sabordo for Grade 10 – Genesis and Ms. Jo-Ann O. Villanueva for Grade 10 –
Leviticus. For the pilot testing, the researcher chose Grade 11 Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), sections 7 and 8 of
Polytechnic University of the Philippines Senior High School Main Campus,
School Year (S.Y.) 2017 – 2018. The participants for the pilot testing were
students of the researchers’ adviser, Mr. Ian Joseph Saguindan.
Description of the Respondents
The respondents of this research were Grade 10 students, sections
Genesis and Leviticus of Eulogio Rodriguez Integrated School, School Year (S.Y.)
2017-2018 for the dry run testing. It composed of thirty-six (36) boys and forty-
three (43) girls. Their ages were range from 15 to 21 years old and they are
homogenous in terms of academic standing. For the pilot testing, the respondents
21
are Grade 11 – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
sections 7 and 8 students of PUP Main Campus S.Y. 2017-2018. It composed of
fifty-five (55) boys and forty-three (43) girls. Their ages were range from 17 to 18
years old. The said respondents are completers of Junior Geometry and
heterogeneous in terms of their academic standing.
Instrumentation
The researchers developed an examination to gather data that was used in
the research which found in appendix. The first examination used for dry run
testing was content validated by the researchers’ adviser, Mr. Ian Joseph
Saguindan, a professional Mathematics teacher. It is a 160-item multiple choice
examinations which described the following figure:
Topic Number of Items

Conversion of Units of Measurement 8
Sides and Angles of a Polygon 28
Axiomatic Structure of Geometry 8
Triangle Congruence 20
Inequalities in Triangle 8
Parallel and Perpendicular Lines 8
Parallelograms 16
Triangle Similarities 16
Basic Concepts of Trigonometry 24
Circles 12
Coordinate Geometry 12
Total 160
Figure 3. The numbers of items per topic in Levels of Geometric Understanding a Determinant
Examination for the dry run testing.
22
From one hundred sixty (160) items, it became a hundred (100) items after
conducting the dry run testing, item analysis, reliability and normality of the first
exam. It was also content validated by the researchers’ adviser, Mr. Ian Joseph
Saguindan. It measures the learners’ level of geometric understanding subjected
to van Hiele Theory of Geometric level of Understanding. It was a 100-item
multiple choice examination which described the following figure:
Topic Number of Items
Conversion of Units of Measurement 4
Sides and Angles of a Polygon 18
Axiomatic Structure of Geometry 5
Triangle Congruence 13
Inequalities in Triangle 5
Parallel and Perpendicular Lines 5
Parallelograms 9
Triangle Similarities 9
Basic Concepts of Trigonometry 18
Circles 7
Coordinate Geometry 7
Total 100
Figure 4. The numbers of items per topic in Level of Geometric Understanding a Determinant
Examination for the pilot testing
Data Gathering Procedure
Researchers prepared a table of specifications for the entire topic of
geometry of junior high school (consists of conversion of units of measurement,
23
sides and angles of a polygon, axiomatic structure of geometry, triangle
congruence, inequalities in triangle, parallel and perpendicular lines,
parallelograms, triangle similarities, basic concepts of trigonometry, circles, and
coordinate geometry) to create an instrument. The researchers prepared an
examination which was content validated by researchers’ adviser, Mr. Ian Joseph
Saguindan, then revised and content validated for three times. Researchers sent
a request letter asking permission to Mr. Romeo E. Bandal, principal, thru Ms.
Cynthia M. Delino, assistant to the principal and head of Math Department and
cooperating teachers namely Ms. Emily A. Labang and Ms. LD Babylon H. Carloy
in Eulogio Rodriguez Integrated School to conduct a dry run testing. The
respondents took one - hundred (100) minutes to finish the said examination.
After the dry run testing, researchers conducted an item analysis to
determine the effectiveness of items; the number of items to be eliminated or
retained. It also computed the reliability and normality of the said exam.
Researchers revised the examination and sent a request letter asking permission
to conduct a pilot testing to Dr. Minna L. Cumuyog, principal of Polytechnic
University of the Philippines Senior High School Main Campus. Respondents took
seventy (70) minutes to finish the examination. After conducting a pilot testing,
researchers repeated the item analysis and obtained the reliability and normality
of the examination.
24
Statistical Treatment of Data
1. The researchers used the relative frequency formula. It will also be used to
describe the proportion of respondents in each level of understanding. It is
given the formula:
𝑓
𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 𝑥 100%
𝑛
Where f is the frequency
n is the total number
2. The Arithmetic Mean is defined to be the sum of the values of a group of
items divided by the number of such items. The arithmetic mean was used
in this study to get the average score of the results of the dry run and pilot
testing.
Formula:
∑x
x̅ =
n
Where: x= the sample mean
n= the sample size
3. The standard deviation is a measure of a dispersion of a frequency
distribution that is the square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of
the deviation of each of the class frequencies from the arithmetic of the
frequency distribution. It was used to determine the range of the average
scores in dry run and pilot testing.
25
Formula:
Ʃ(𝑥 − 𝑥̄ )2
𝑠=√
𝑛−1
Where: s = standard deviation
n=sample size
4. The item analysis is a statistical technique which is used for selecting and
rejecting items of a test on the basis of their difficulty value and
discriminated power. A process to assess the quality of the items and a test
as a whole by studying the student’s response to each item. It was used to
determine the items need to retained and eliminated in the examination.
In item analysis, it gives information concerning each of the following:
a. Difficulty of the item
Formula:
Σ𝑥
Index of Difficulty = 𝑥 100
𝑁
Where: Σ𝑥 = the sum of scores of correct answer of the upper and lower
groups of respondents
N = the number of cases in both the upper and lower groups of
respondents
26
b. Discrimination Index
Formula:
𝑅𝑈−𝑅𝐿
Discrimination Index = 𝑁𝐺
Where: RU = right response of the half of the respondent who got highest
scores
LU = right response of the half of the respondents who got lower scores
NG = number of respondents in each group
5. The reliability means the extent to which a test is dependable, self –
consistent and stable using the split-half method and the Spearman-Brown
formula. It was used to determine the reliability of the examination.
Formula:
6Σ𝐷2
𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 1 − 3
𝑁 −𝑁
Where: 𝑟ℎ𝑡 = the reliability of half test
𝐷2 = sum of the squared difference between ranks
N = total number of cases
2(𝑟ℎ𝑡 )
𝑟𝑤𝑡 =
1 + (𝑟ℎ𝑡 )
Where: 𝑟𝑤𝑡 = the reliability of whole test
𝐷2 = sum of the squared difference between ranks
N = total number of cases
27
Interpretation of Correlation Coefficient Value
0.0 to 0.20 Negligible correlation
0.21 to 0.40 Low or slight correlation
0.41 to 0.70 Marked or moderate relationship
0.71 to 0.90 High relationship
0.91 to 0.99 Very high correlation
1.00 Perfect correlation
Figure 5. The Interpretation of Correlation Coefficient Value for the reliability of the examination.
6. The researchers utilized the program Software Packages for Social
Sciences (SPSS) to run the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. Under the
Shapiro-Wilk test, it is assumed that a set of scores comes from a normal
distribution. Hence, if the p-value obtained by the Shapiro-Wilk test is
greater than 0.05, we do not reject the idea that the set of scores comes
from normal distribution. It was used to determine if the said examination
comes is reliable and it was came from a normal distribution of scores.
Formula
(∑𝑛
𝑖=1 𝑎𝑖 𝑥(𝑖) )
2
W= ∑𝑛 2
𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 −𝑥̅ )
Where :
 𝑥(𝑖) =the 𝑖𝑡ℎ order statistics
 𝑥̅ = (𝑥1 + ⋯ + 𝑥𝑛 )/𝑛 = sample mean
 𝑎𝑖 are given by
28
𝑚𝑇 𝑉 −1
(𝑎𝑖 , … 𝑎𝑛 ) =
(𝑚𝑇 𝑉 −1 𝑉 −1 𝑚)2
Where 𝑚 = (𝑚1 , … 𝑚𝑛 )𝑇
𝑚1 , … 𝑚𝑛 = expected values of the order statistics of independent and
identical distributed random variables sampled from the standard normal
distribution
V = covariance matrix of those order statistics.
29
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTEPRETATION
In this chapter, data presented, analysed and interpreted according to the
methodology and specific objective of the study. This study is developing level of
geometric understanding determinant examination conducted in Grade 11 –
STEM, section 7 and 8 of Polytechnic University of the Philippines Senior High
School Main Campus.
Specifically, this study sought the following as answers to the presented
questions:
The data were presented following the order of the statement of the problem:
1. The initial characteristic of Level of Geometric Understanding a
Determinant Examinaton.
a. Mean and Stand Deviation
∑𝑥 ∑𝑥
𝑥̅ = 𝑥̅ =
𝑛 𝑛
Where: 4492
𝑥̅ =
79
x = scores of the respondents
𝑥 = 56.86
n = number of respondents
30
∑(𝑥−𝑥̅ )2
∑(𝑥 − 𝑥̅ )2 s=√
𝑠=√ 𝑛−1
𝑛−1
8893.4684
where: s=√ 79−1
s = standard deviation 𝑥 = 10.678
n= number of respondents
The dry run testing had a mean 56.86 and standard deviation 10.678. It
means that the range of the scores is from 46.18 to 67.54.
b. Item Analysis
Figure 6.1 Difficulty of the Item of Dry Run Testing

1%
20% Easy
38%
Moderate Easy
Moderate Difficult
Difficult
41%
n = 160
Based on Figure 6.1, most of the items in dry run testing were moderate
difficult which is forty-one percent (41%). Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the items
are difficult, twenty percent (20%) of the items were moderate easy and 1% of the
items are easy.
31
Figure 6.2 Discrimination Indices of Dry Run Testing

4% 1% 1% 0% 1%
(-0.74) - (-0.50)
(-0.49) - (-0.25)
24%
(-0.24) - 0
0.01 - 0.25
0.26 - 0.50
69% 0.51 - 0 .75
0.76 - 0.1
n = 160
Based on figure 6.2, most of the items have a discrimination indices range
from 0.01 to o.25 with a percentage of sixty-nine percent (69%). Most of the items
retained came from the class interval from 0.01 to 0.25 and some of items came
from -0.24 up to 0.
Figure 6.3 Decision of Items of Dry Run Testing
26%
Retained Items
Eliminated Items
74%
n = 160
In figure 6.3, it shows that out of 160-item multiple choice examination,
seventy-four (74%) of the items which is equal to one hundred eighteen (118)
items were retained and twenty-six (26%) of the items were eliminated which is
equal to forty-two (42) items.
32
c. Normality Test
Test of Normality
Shapiro-wilk
Statistic df Significance
0.968 79 0.514
Since the p-value obtained by the Shapiro-Wilk test of 0.514 is greater than
the p-value of 0.05, the researcher did not reject the idea that the set of scores
comes from normal distribution. It means that the test is approximately normal.
33
d. Reliability of the Dry Run Testing
Reliability of the half test Reliability of the whole test
6Σ𝐷2 2(𝑟ℎ𝑡 )
𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 1 − 3 𝑟𝑤𝑡 =
𝑁 −𝑁 1 + (𝑟ℎ𝑡 )
6(38 249.5) 2(0.53)

𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 1 − 𝑟𝑤𝑡 =
793 − 79 1 + 0.53
𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 1 − 0.47 𝑟𝑤𝑡 = 0.69
𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 0.53
According to Figure 5, the reliability of the initial test 𝑟ℎ𝑡 is 0.53 and the
reliability of the whole test 𝑟𝑤𝑡 is 0.69. Since the reliability of the whole test
obtained is moderate relationship between the odd and even items.
2. The characteristics of the pilot testing of Levels of Geometric
Understanding a Determinant Examination.
∑𝑥 ∑(𝑥−𝑥̅ )2
𝑥̅ = s=√ 𝑛−1
𝑛
Where: Where:
x = scores of the respondents s = standard deviation
n = number of respondents n = number of respondents
4950 s=√
11 370.49
𝑥̅ = 98−1
98
𝑥 = 50.51 s = 10.827
34
The pilot testing had a mean 50.51 and standard deviation 10.827. It
means that the scores in pilot testing range from 39.68 to 61.34.
b. Item Analysis
Figure 7.1 Difficulty of Item in Pilot Testing
13% 14%
Easy
Moderate Easy
37% 36% Moderate Difficult

Difficult
n = 100
Figure 7.1 shows that thirty – seven percent (37%) of the items of the pilot
testing of Levels of Geometric Understanding Determinant Examination were
moderately difficult, thirty- six (36%) of the items were moderate easy, fourteen
percent (14%) were difficult and the remaining thirteen percent (13%) of the items
were easy.
Figure 7.2 Discrimination Indices of Pilot Testing

0% 1% 1%
(-0.74) - (-0.50)
12%
(-0.49) - (-0.25)
35%
(-0.24) - 0
0.01 - 0.25
51% 0.26 - 0.50

0.51 - 0 .75
n = 100
35
Given Figure 7.2, most of the discrimination indices of the pilot testing
range from 0.01 to 0.25 with fifty-one percent (51%), thirty-five percent (35%) of
the items were between 0.26 to – 0.50, 12% has an indices from -0.24 – 0, and
1% between -0.74 - -0.50 and -0.49 - -0.25. Most of the items were retained came
from the indices 0.01 – 0 25. The other items retained came from index 0.26 up
to 0.50 and -0.24 -0.
Figure 7.3 Decision of Items in Pilot Testing
12%
Retained Items
Eliminated Items
88%
n = 100
Based on the figure 7.3, most of the items in pilot testing were retained with
the total of eighty-eight (88) and twelve (12) items were eliminated out of 100-
items multiple choice examination.
c. Normality Test
Test of Normality
Shapiro-wilk
Statistic df Significance
0.988 98 0.538
36
Since the p-value obtained by the Shapiro-Wilk test of 0.538 is greater than
the tabular value of 0.05, the researcher did not reject the idea that the set of
scores comes from normal distribution. It means that the test is approximately
normal.
e. Reliability of the Dry Run Testing

Reliability of the half test Reliability of the whole test
6Σ𝐷2 2(𝑟ℎ𝑡 )
𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 1 − 3 𝑟𝑤𝑡 =
𝑁 −𝑁 1 + (𝑟ℎ𝑡 )
6(44 667.69) 2(0.72)

𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 1 − 𝑟𝑤𝑡 =
983 − 98 1 + 0.72
𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 1 − 0.28 𝑟𝑤𝑡 = 0.84
𝑟ℎ𝑡 = 0.72
37
According to Figure 5, the reliability of the pilot testing 𝑟ℎ𝑡 is 0.72 and the
reliability of the whole test 𝑟𝑤𝑡 is 0.84. Since the reliability of the whole test
obtained is high relationship between the odd and even items. Thus the whole test
has a high reliability.
3. The characteristics of the participants in the pilot testing.
The Level of Geometric Understanding of the participants in the pilot testing
with restriction of van Hiele’s Theory in every Grade Level.
Grade 7 Conversion of Units of Grade 7 Sides and Angles of a

Measurement Polygon
Level 0 Level 0
3%
13% 14%
Level 1 Level 1
10% Level 2 18% Level 2
65% 9% 0%
Level 3 68% Level 3
0%
Non-mastery Non-mastery
n = 98
n = 98
Grade 8 Overall Competencies
Level 0
14%
level 1
11%
Level 2
5%
65% Level 3
5%
Non-mastery
n = 98
Figure 8.1 The Level of Geometric Understanding of the PUP Senior High School Grade 11
STEM, section 7 & 8, in the pilot testing with restriction in Grade 7 Competencies.
38
Based on figure 8.1, with the restriction of van Hiele’s Level of Geometric
Understanding, there were thirteen percent (13%) of the participants who reached
level 0 (Visualization), three percent (3%) were at level 1(Analysis), ten percent
(10%) were at level 2 (Informal Deduction) and nine percent (9%) were at level 3
(Deduction) in Grade 7 Conversion of Units of Measurement. In Sides and Angles
of a Polygon, fourteen percent (14%) were at level 0, eighteen percent (18%)
were at level 1 and none of the participants reached level 2 and 3. For the Grade
7 overall competencies with the restriction of van Hiele’s Levels of Geometric
Understanding, most of the participants reached level 0 with fourteen percent
(14%), eleven percent (11%) was at level 1 and five percent (5%) were at level 2
and 3. The sixty-five percent (65%) of the participants did not reached any level in
Grade 7 competencies.
c. Grade 8 Competencies
Grade 8 Axiomatic Stucture of Grade 8 Triangle Congruence

Geometry
6%
7%
7% Level 0 Level 0
Level 1 21% Level 1
27% 35%
Level 2 5% Level 2
Level 3 Level 3
53% 13% 26%
n = 98 n = 98
39
Grade 8 Parallel and

Grade 8 Inequalities in Triangle
Perpendicular Lines
Level 0 4% 1%
5%
Level 0
20% Level 1 Level 1
11%
43%
12% level 2
Level 2
Level 3
8% 79%
17% Level 3 Non-mastery
n = 98 n = 98
13% Level 0
41% 11% Level 1
Level 2
23%
Level 3
12%
Non-mastery
n = 98
Figure 8.2 The Levels of Geometric Understanding of the PUP Senior High School Grade 11
STEM, section 7 & 8, in the pilot testing with restriction in Grade 8 Competencies
Based on Figure 8.2, there are seven percent (7%) of the participants
reached level 0, twenty-seven percent (27%) were at level 1, fifty-three percent
(53%) were at level 2 and seven percent (7%) were at level 3 in Axiomatic
Structure of Geometry. In Triangle Congruence, twenty-one (21%) were at level 0,
five percent (5%) were at level 1, twenty-six (26%) were at level 2, and thirteen
percent (13%) were at level 3. In Inequalities of Triangle, four percent (4%) were
at level 0, one percent (1%) was at level 1, five percent (5%) were at level 2 and
eleven percent (11%) were at level 3. Parallel and Perpendicular lines, there were
40
twenty percent (20%) of the participants were at level 0, twelve percent (12%)
were at level 1, eight percent (8%) were at level 2, and seventeen percent (17%)
were at level 3. For Grade 8 overall competencies, twenty-three percent (23%) of
the participants reached level 2 but forty-one percent (41%) of them did not
master any level of the van Hiele’s Geometric Understanding.
a. Grade 9 Competencies.
Grade 9 Parallelograms Grade 9 Triangle Inequalities
Level 0 Level 0
17% 19%
Level 1 34% Level 1
44%
Level 2 Level 2
23% Level 3
33% Level 3
8% 6%
n = 98 10% 6%
n = 98

Grade 9 basic Concepts of
Trigonometry
Level 0
Level 0 24%
20% 39% Level 1
Level 1
Level 2
Level 2 16%
17% Level 3
62% Level 3
15% Non-mastery
1% Non-mastery
0% 6%
n = 98
n = 98
Figures 8.3 The Level of Geometric Understanding of the PUP Senior High School Grade 11
STEM, section 7 & 8, in the pilot testing with restriction in Grade 9 Competencies
41
Figure 8.3 shows that there were nineteen percent (19%) of the
participants reached level 0, twenty-three percent (23%) were at level 1, eight
percent (8%) were at level 2 and thirty-three percent (33%) were at level 3 in
Parallelogram topic. In the second topic, Triangle Similarities, thirty-four percent
(34%) of the participants were at level 0, six percent (6%) were at level 1 and
another six percent (6%) were at level 2, and ten percent (10%) were at level 3.
For the third topic, Basic Concepts of Trigonometry, twenty percent (20%) were at
level 0, seventeen percent (17%) were at level 1, one percent (1%) was at level 2
and none of the participants reached level 3. For Grade 9 overall competencies,
most of the participants reached level 0 with twenty-four percent (24%) and
sixteen percent (16%) reached level 1. On the other hand, thirty-nine percent
(39%) of the participants did not reach any level of the van Hiele’s Geometric
Understanding.
d. Grade 10 Competencies
Grade 10 Coordinate Geometry

Grade 10 Circles
Level 0
18%
13% Level 0 Level 1
39%
28% Level 1 7%
9% Level 2
6%
Level 2 Level 3
7% Level 3 30%
Non-mastery
43%
Non-mastery
n = 98
n = 98
42
Level 0
27% 23% Level 1
7% Level 2
19% Level 3
24%
Non-mastery
n = 98
Figures 8.4 The Level of Geometric Understanding of the PUP Senior High School Grade 11
STEM, section 7 & 8, in the pilot testing with restriction.
Figure 8.4 shows the level of geometric understanding of the participants in
pilot testing with restriction. For the topic, Circles, twenty-eight percent (28%)
were at level 0, seven percent (7%) were at level 1, forty-three percent (43%)
were at level 2 and nine percent (9%) were at level 3. For the last topic,
Coordinate Geometry, eighteen percent (18%) of the participants were at level 0,
seven percent (7%) were at level 1, six percent (6%) were at level 2 and thirty
percent (30%) were at level 3. For Grade 10 overall competencies, twenty-four
percent (24%) were at level 2, nineteen percent (19%) were at level 0, nineteen
percent (19%) reached level 3, and seven percent (7%) were at level 1.
Unfortunately, twenty-seven percent (27%) of the participants did not reached any
level of van Hiele’s level of geometric understanding.
43
e. The level of geometric understanding of the participants with the
restriction of van Hiele Theory in all Grade level competencies
Number of Students
Level 3 0
Level 2 2
Number of Students
Level 1 2
n = 98
Level 0 6
0 2 4 6 8
Figures 8.5 The Levels of Geometric Understanding of the PUP Senior High School Grade 11
STEM, section 7 & 8, in the pilot testing with restriction in all Grade Level Competencies.
Given figure 8.5, with the restriction of van Hiele’s Levels of Geometric
Understanding and out of ninety-eight (98) participants in the pilot testing, only six
(6) of them were mastered level 0 (Visualization). Only two (2) of the six
participants reached level 1 (Analysis) and level 2 (Informal Deduction). It means
that 2 out of 98 participants reached level 2. For level 3 (Deduction), none of the
participants reached this level.
44
The Level of Geometric Understanding of the participants of the pilot
testing without restriction of van Hiele’s Theory in every Grade Level.
Grade 7 Conversion of Units of Measurement

100% 92%
80%
60% 55%
49%
40% 33%
20%
0%
Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Grade 7 Side and Angles of Polygon

40%
30% 35%
33%
20%
21%
10%
2%
0%
Grade 7 Overall competencies
50% 92%
55%
40% 33% 49%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 8.6 The Level of Geometric Understanding of the 98 PUP Senior High School Grade 11
STEM, section 7 & 8, in the pilot testing without restriction in Grade 7 Competencies.
45
Based on the given figure 8.6, without the restriction of the theory of van
Hiele’s Level of Geometric Understanding, thirty-three percent (33%) of the
participants were master level 0, fifty-five percent (55%) mastered level 1, ninety-
two percent (92%) were master level 2 and forty-nine percent (49%) were master
level 3 for the topic “C-nversions of Units of Measurements”. For Sides and
Angles of Polygon, thirty five percent (35%) were master level 0, thirty percent
(33%) were master at level 1, two percent (2%) of the participants were master
level 2 and twenty-one percent (21%) were master level 3. For the overall
competencies, most of the participants were master level 2 with forty-seven
percents (47%), forty-four percent (44%) were master level 1, thirty-five percent
(35%) were master level 3 and thirty-four percent (34%) were master level 0.
b. Grade 8 Competencies
Grade 8 Axiomatic of
Grade 8 Triangle Congruence
structure of Geometry
100% 100%
95% 92% 80%

80% 85%
60% 60% 70%

65% 64%
40% 40%
20% 20%
16% 16%
0% 0%
Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
46
Grade 8 Parallel and Grade 8 Inequalities in a Triangle

Perpendicular Lines
100%
80%
80% 89%
60% 72%
62% 76%
58% 60%
40%
40% 49%
20%
20%
6%
0% 19%
0%

80%
75%
60%
63% 61%
40%
35%
20%
0%
Figure 8.7 shows the participants who master each level of geometric
understanding without the restriction of the van Hiele’s Theory. In Axiomatic
Structure of Geometry, ninety-five percent (95%) of the participants were master
level 0, ninety-two percent (92%) were master level 1, and sixty-five percent
(65%) were master level 2 and sixteen percent (16%) were master level 3. For the
second topic, Triangle Congruence, sixty-four (64%) were master level 0, seventy
percent (70%) were master level 1, eighty five percent (85%) were master level 2
47
and si-teen percent (16%) were master level 3. In the third topic, which is
Inequalities in a Triangle, nineteen percent (19%) were master level 0, seventy-six
percent (76%) were master level 1, eighty-nine percent (89%) were master level 2
and forty nine percent (49%) were master level 3. In Parallel and Perpendicular
line topic, there were seventy-two percent (72%) of the participants mastered level
1, sixty-two percent (62%) were master level 1, six percent (6%) were master
level 2 and level 3 were master of 58% participants.
d. Grade 9 Competencies
Grade 9 Parallelogram Grade 9 Triangle Similarities

82% 70%
80% 81% 60% 65%
78% 79% 56% 56%

50%
76%
40%
74%
30% 33%
72%
20%
70% 71% 71%
68% 10%
66% 0%
48
Grade 9 Basic Concept of Grade 9 Overall Competencie

Trigonometry
100%
35% 90%
30% 33% 80% 89%
70% 76%
25%
60%
20% 24%
50%
15% 40% 49%
10% 14% 30%
20%
5% 10% 19%
4%
0% 0%
Figure 8.8 The Level of Geometric Understanding of the 98 PUP Senior High School
Grade 11 STEM, section 7 & 8, in the pilot testing without restriction in Grade 9 Competencies
Figure 8.8 shows the percentage of participant who were obtained the
scores to master each level of the van Hiele’s Level of Geometric Understanding
without restriction of van Hiele Theory. For the first topic in Grade 9
competencies, there were seventy-nine percent (79%) obtained the mastery of
level 0, seventy-one percent (71%) were obtained the mastery of level 1,
seventy-one percents 71% also in level 2 and eighty-one percents (81%) of the
participants mastered level 3. For the second topic, Triangle Similarities, fifty six
(56%) were master level 0, thirty-three percent (33%) were at level 1, 655 were at
level 2 and fifty-six percent (56%) were at level 3. Overall, there were only
nineteen (19%) of the participant mastered level 0, level 1 with seventy-six
percent (76%), level 2 with eighty-nine percent (89%) and level 3 with forty-nine
(49%) of the participants.
49
b. Grade 10 Competencies
Grade 10 Circles
100%
81%
50% 65% 69%
17%
0%
Grade 10 Coordinate Geometry Grade 10 Overall

Competencie
68%
80%
67%
67% 73%
66% 60% 66% 67%
66%
65% 40%
65% 42%
64%
64% 20%
63%
62% 0%
Based on the figure 3.8, the participants who master each level in Grade 10
competencies without the restriction of van Hiele Theory was determined. For the
first topic, eighty-one percent (81%) of the participant were obtained the mastery
of level 0, level 1 with seventy-five percent (75%) of the participants, sixty-one
percent (61%) were at level 2 and thirty-five (35%) were at level 3. In Coordinate
50
Geometry topic, sixty-five percent (65%) were at level 0, sixty-six percent (66%)
were at level 1, sixty-our percent (64%) were at level 2 and sixty-seven percent
(67%) were at level 3. For Grade 10 overall competencies, seventy-three percent
(73%) were obtained the mastery at level 0, sixty-six percent (66%) were at level
1, sixty-seven percent (67%) were at level 2 and level 3 with forty-two percent
42% of the participants.
c. The level of geometric understanding of the participants without the
restriction of van Hiele Theory in all Grade level competencies
Overall Competencies
60%
50% 57% 57% 56%
40%
41%
30%
20%
10%
0%
STEM, section 7 & 8, in the pilot testing without restriction in all Grade Level Competencies.
Based on figure 8.9, without the restriction of the van Hiele’s Levels of
geometric understanding, fifty-seven percent (57%) of the participant mastered
level 0, fifty-seven percent (57%) were master level 1, fifty-six percent (56%) were
master level 2 and forty-one percent (41%) were at level 3.
51
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter presents the summary of the study, the conclusion drawn and
the recommendation forwarded.
This study used descriptive method to helped researchers analyzes and
interpret the gathered data easily. Convenience Cluster Sampling was utilized to
obtain the sample size from population of the study.
The researchers developed an examination that can determine the level of
geometric understanding of a student and used the said examination to gather
data in the research. For the dry run testing, a 160-item multiple choice
examination was content validated by the researchers’ adviser, Mr. Ian Joseph
Saguindan. The researchers conducted its item analysis, and obtained the mean
and standard deviation, reliability and normality of the examination. From 160-
items, it was reduced to a 100-item multiple choice examination that was used in
the pilot testing. It also content validated by the researchers’’ adviser, Mr Ian
Joseph Saguindan. After the pilot testing, it went through the process of item
analysis and obtained its mean and standard deviation, reliability and normality
values to be declared as reliable and approximately normal test that came from a
set of score that was normally distributed.
52
The researchers used the pilot testing to determine the level of
geometric understanding of the participants. A relative frequency was used to
describe the proportion of progress of level of understanding of the participants in
the pilot testing.
Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What are the initial characteristics of Level of Geometric Understanding
Determinant Examination in terms of:
a. Mean and Standard deviation
b. Item Analysis
c. Normality test
d. Reliability test
2. What are the characteristics of pilot testing of Level of Geometric
Understanding Determinant Examination in terms of:
a. Mean and Standard deviation
b. Item Analysis
c. Normality test
d. Reliability test
7. What is the Level of Geometric Understanding of the participants in the
pilot testing restriction and without the restriction of van Hiele’s Level of
Geometric Understanding in:
a. Grade 7 competencies
b. Grade 8 competencies
53
c. Grade 9 Competencies
d. Grade 10 competencies
e. Overall competencies
Summary of Findings
1. Based on the collected data, the mean of the dry run testing of Level of
Geometric Understanding a Determinant Examination is 56.86 and the
standard deviation is 10.68 which mean that the range of the scores is from
46.18 to 67.54. Most of the indices of discrimination were between the
class interval from 0.01 to 0.25. The numbers of the items retained were
one-hundred eighteen (118) which are seventy-four percent (74%) of the
whole test and forty-two (42) items were eliminated. For the test of
normality, the p-value obtained by the Shapiro-wilk was 0.514 which is
greater than the tabular value 0.05, it indicates that the set of scores came
from normal distribution and the test is approximately normal. The reliability
test has correlation coefficient value of 0.69 which is moderate relationship.
2. Based on the collected data, the mean of the pilot testing is 50.51 and the
standard deviation is 10.83. Most of the items in dry run testing are
moderately difficult with thirty-seven percent (37%). Most of the indices of
discrimination were between the class interval from 0.01 to 0.25 with fifty-
one percent (51%). The numbers of the items retained were eighty-seven
(87) and thirteen (13) items were eliminated from 100 items. For the test of
normality, the p-value obtained by the Shapiro-wilk was 0.538 which
54
indicate that the said examination is approximately normal and it came
from normal distribution. Since the reliability of the whole test obtained is
high relationship between the odd and even items, thus the whole test is
reliable.
3. Based on the collected data, in pilot testing with restriction of van Hiele
level theory, 14% of the participants were at level 0 in the two topics of
Grade 11% were at level 1, 5% at level 2, another 5% at level 3. In grade 8
topics, only 13% of the participants mastered level 0, 11% reached level 1,
23% were at level 2, and 12% were at level 3. In grade 9, 24% of the
participants reached level 0, 16% were at level 1, 6% were at level 2, and
15% were at level 15. In grade 10, 23% of the participants were at level 0,
7% were at level 1, 24% were at level 2 and 19% were at level 3. For the
overall competencies with the restriction of van Hiele Theory only 6
participants mastered level 0 and the 2 of them mastered up to level 2. On
the other hand, the result for the pilot testing without restriction of van Hiele
theory. In topics of Grade 7, 34% of the participants reached level 0, 44%
were at level 1, 47% were at level 2 and 35% were at level 3. In Grade 8,
63% of the participants were at level 0, 75% were at level 1, 61% were at
level 2 and 35% were at level 3. In grade 9, 56% of the participants
reached level 0, 43% were at level 1, 47% were at level 2 and 50% were at
level 3. In grade 10, 73% were at level 0, 66% were at level 1, 67% were at
level 2 and 42% were at level 3. For the overall competencies without
55
restriction of van Hiele Theory, level 0 and level 1 has the highest
percentage of participants which is 57%.
Conclusion
From the findings, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. Most of the students master higher levels of van Hiele’s Levels of
Geometric Understanding without mastering the previous levels. A
probable cause maybe in this generation, we give more importance in
computation in Geometry rather than to study its properties.
2. Some students can master every level of van Hiele’s geometric
understanding based on the given topic. It maybe because learners find
that topic easier than the other topics.
3. By the restriction of van Hiele’s Levels of Geometric Understanding,
very small proportions are considered to master level 2 (Informal
Deduction). Only six out of ninety-eight respondents mastered level 0
(Visualization), only two participants from six who reached level 0 were
mastered level 2 (Informal Deduction) .
56
Recommendation
The following recommendations were formulated by the researchers based
on the result of the study.
1. Curriculum designers may adapt the Levels of Geometric Understanding a
Determinant Examination in academic learning as a diagnostic test to
determine learners’ strengths and weaknesses in Geometry.
2. School administrator may implement the use of Levels of Geometric
Understanding a Determinant Examination to help teachers improve their
teaching skills in Geometry.
3. Teachers should give more practice in problems or activities in teaching
Geometry especially to level 3 (Deduction) where learners need to prove.
4. Learners should give more emphasis, practice and focus on which levels of
geometric understanding they did not excel with, so that they will enhance
their mastery in Geometry.
5. Other researchers may apply the Level of Geometric Understanding
Determinant Examination to a larger population.
57
REFERENCE
A. Books
Borich, G. & Kubiszyn, T. (2000). Educational Testing and Measurement, New
York, USA: Jihn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Van de Walle, J. A. (2004). Elementary and Middle School Mathematics Teaching
Developmentally. Virginia: Pearson education, Inc.
B. Electronics Source
Al-ebousi (2016). Effect of the Van Hiele Model in Geometric Concepts
Acquisition: The Attitudes towards Geometry and Learning Transfer Effect
of the First Graders Students in Jordan. Jordan: Canadian Center of
Science and Education Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1095792
(Access March 1, 2017)
Bogomolny, A. (2018) What Is Geometry? from Interactive Mathematics
Miscellany and Puzzles. Retrieved from https://www.cut-the
knot.org/WhatIs/WhatIsGeometry.shtml ( Access April 2, 2018)
Conolly, S (2010). The Impact of van Hiele-based Geometry Instruction on
Student Understanding. Retrieve from
https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/mathcs_etd_masters/97/ (Access March
28,2018)
DepEd.gov. (2013). “K to 12 Curriculum Guide in Mathematics” Retrieved from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/Math%20Curriculum%20Guide
%20Grades%201-10%20December%202013.pdf
58
Faculty of Math Illinois Edu. (n.d). Level of Mental Development in Geometry.
Retrieved from https://faculty.math.illinois.edu/~castelln/VanHiele.pdf
(Access January 18, 2017)
Fulton, B. (2013). Why students don’t Understand Geometry and How we can Fix
that. Retrieved from https://www.tttpress.com/blogs/why-students-dont-
understand-geometry-and-how-we-can-fix-that (Access March 29, 2018)
Howse, T. & Howse, M. (2014). Linking the van Hiele Theory to Instruction.
Retrieve April 4, 2017 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1047761 (Access
April 4, 2017)
Mason, M. (2002). “The van Hiele Levels of Geometric Understanding”. Retrieved
from
http://geometryforall.yolasite.com/resources/Mason,%20Marguerite.%20Th
e%20van%20Hiele%20Levels%20of%20Geometric%20Understanding.%2
02002.pdf (Access March 1, 2017)
Olson, M. (2012). Rolu Studio Blog. Retrieve from
http://www.rolublog.com/2012/02/geometry-is-a-branch-of-mathematics-
concerned-with-questions-of-shape-size-relative-position-of-figures-and-
the-properties-of-space-geometry-arose-independently-in-a-number-of-
early-cultures-as-a/ (Access January 17, 2017)
Schwartz (2014). Why do people have difficulty with Geometry? Retrieved from
https://www.education.com/reference/article/why-people-have-difficulty-
geometry/ (Access March 29, 2018)
59
UKessays (2003). The van Hiele Theory of Geometric Thinking. Retrieve from
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/education/the-van-hiele-theory-of-
geometric-thinking-education-essay.php (Access April 4, 2017)
Usiskin, (1982). Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School
Geometry. Retrieve from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED220288.pdf
(Access March 1, 2017)
Wikipedia (2018). Shapiro-Wilk Test. Retrieved March 24, 2018 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro%E2%80%93Wilk_test
C. Unpublished Master’sTheses/Dissertation
Maga, Raffy D. “Level of Understanding of Third year Public and Private Schools
of Pasig City in Solving Geometry Problems using van Hiele’s Model Basis
for a Proposal Teaching Strategy” (Polytechnic University of the
Philippines, 2014)
60
APPENDIX
61
Communication Letter
62
63

1.final Thesis Van Hiele

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.final Thesis Van Hiele

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Geometry is a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape,

According to H.M. S. Coxeter, “Geometry is perhaps the most elementary of the

sciences that enable man, by purely intellectual processes, to make predictions

(based on observation) about physical world. The power of geometry, in the

powerful motivation for the study of logic in geometry.”(Bogomolny, 2018)

experience, they recall it as unpleasant experience and lack of understanding

that lead students to rote memorization. Through this difficulties experience,

geometry is distasteful to most people. Therefore, Schwartz discussed the van

student to grow and develop as a geometric thinker. According to Fulton (2013)

opportunities to experience spatial curricula. Geometry is often tackled into the

thinking done by a Dutch couple, the van Hiele’s Theory.

Different researchers have used the theory of van Hiele in different

The researchers applied the van Hiele’s Level of Geometric

Understanding to develop an examination that can determine a geometric

understanding of the learner. By the stated definitions, the researchers tracked

Background of the Study

the higher order cognitive processes, which is necessary to success in high

The theoretical framework used Smart (2008) as cited in UKessays (2003)

for his research" Introducing Angles in Grade Four" was a combination of a

teaching theory called Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) and a learning

frameworks in helping students develop an analytical conceptualization of

accepted as an analytic framework.

Gills, J (2005) as cited in UKessays (2003) investigated students' ability

to form geometric conjectures in both statistic and dynamic geometry

environments in his doctoral thesis. All participants were exposed to both

theory as the main theoretical framework with more emphasis on geometric

an examination that can determine the level of geometric understanding of the

geometric understanding and for math curriculum designers and teachers to

encountered difficulties in learning geometry. It led them to develop a theory

in thinking at lower levels before learning formal geometric concepts. (Mason,

Based on the van Hiele theory of geometric thought, there is five-level

hierarchy of ways of understanding spatial ideas that describes the thinking

have. (Walle, 2004)

Level 0 (Visualization): Learners recognize figures by appearance

alone, often by comparing them to a known prototype. At this level,

learners make decisions based on perception, not reasoning.

Level 1 (Analysis): Learners see figures as collections of

properties. They can recognize and name properties of geometric

figures, but they do not see relationships between these properties.

When describing an object, a student operating at this level might

properties are necessary and which are sufficient to describe the

Level 2 (Abstraction / Informal Deduction): Students perceive

relationships between properties and between figures. At this level,

students can create meaningful definitions and give informal

arguments to justify their reasoning. Logical implications and class

inclusions, such as squares being a type of rectangle, are

understood. The role and significance of formal deduction, however,

Level 3 (Deduction): Students can construct proofs, understand the

role of axioms and definitions, and know the meaning of necessary

and sufficient conditions. At this level, students should be able to

construct proofs such as those typically found in a high school

Level 4 (Rigor): Learners at this level understand the formal

aspects of deduction, such as establishing and comparing

mathematical systems. Students at this level can understand the

use of indirect proof and proof by contrapositive, and can

understand non-Euclidean systems. Children at the rigor level can

think in terms of abstract mathematical systems. College

mathematics majors and mathematicians are at this level.

thought merit special attention. These are the following:

1. The levels are sequential.

2. The levels are not age-dependent in the sense of the