ISSN 0883-9530

JOURNAL
FOR

RESEARC
IN

MATHE

E DUCATIO
MONOGRAPHNUMBER 3

A SI S

NationalCouncilof
Teachers
ofMathematics
A Monograph Series of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
The JRME monograph series is published by
the Editorial Panel as a supplement to the
journal. Each monograph has a single theme
related to the learning or teaching of mathe-
matics. To be considered for publication, a
manuscript should be (a) a set of reports of
coordinated studies, (b) a set of articles synth-
esizing a large body of research, (c) a single
treatise that examines a major research issue,
or (d) a report of a single research study that is
too lengthy to be published as a journal article.
Proposals for a monograph may be sent at any
time to the monograph series editor. A propo-
sal must contain the following items:
1. An outline of the work with enough detail
to permit an evaluation of its significance
for mathematics education
2. The names, affiliations, and qualifications
of the contributing authors
3. A time line for the development of the
monograph
If a draft manuscript of no more than 200
double-spaced typewritten pages has already
been produced, four copies of it should be
enclosed with the proposal. Any other infor-
mation about the nature of the monograph
that might assist the series editor and the Edi-
torial Panel in its review is welcome.
Series Editor
FRANK K. LESTER,JR., Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47405
Associate Editor
DIANA LAMBDIN KROLL, Indiana Univer-
sity, Bloomington, IN 47405
Editorial Panel
FRANK K. LESTER,JR., Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47405; Chairman
DOUGLAS H. CLEMENTS, Kent State Uni-
versity, Kent, OH 44242
JAMES HIEBERT, University of Delaware,
Newark, DE 19716
MIRIAM A. LEIVA, University of North
Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223
J. MICHAEL SHAUGHNESSY, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 97331
ALBA G. THOMPSON, Illinois State Univer-
sity, Normal, IL 61761
MARY M. LINDQUIST, Columbus College,
Columbus, GA 31993; Board Liaison
Proposals for monographs should be sent to
Frank K. Lester, Jr.
Room 309, Education Building
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN 47405.
This researchprojectwas supported(1980-83) undera grant(#SED 7920640) from the Research
in Science Education(RISE) Programof the NationalScience Foundation. The membersof the
ProjectStaff are faculty at BrooklynCollege, City Universityof New York and include: David
Fuys, DorothyGeddes, C. James Lovett and RosamondTischler. The materialcontainedin this
monographshould not be interpretedas representingthe opinions or policies of the National
Science Foundation.
Illustrationsanddrawingsin this manuscriptare by RosamondW. Tischler,with the exceptionof
the title page and the end page, which come from the doctoralthesis of Dina van Hiele-Geldof
(1957/1984).

Copyright ? 1988 by
THE NATIONALCOUNCILOF TEACHERSOF MATHEMATICS,INC.

1906 AssociationDrive, Reston, VA 22091

All rightsreserved

Second printing 1995

The publications of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics present a variety of

viewpoints. The views expressedor implied in this publication,unless otherwise noted, should
not be interpretedas official positionsof the Council.

Printedin the United States of America

 FOREWORD

My relationswith BrooklynCollege began in 1980. It was an importantdate

for two reasons. First, the Brooklyn College Projecttranslatedinto English some
of my writings and those of my late wife, thus making my theory available to a
wider audience. Second, it markedthe beginningof the collection of experimental
datain the UnitedStatesto supportmy theory. The clinical interviewsconductedby
the Brooklyn College Project confirmedmy predictionthat even after pupils had
some years of instructionin geometry,theirperformancewould be disappointing.
The Project also found that many pupils were able to improve their performance
when the instructionwas changedin accordancewith my theory.

The van Hiele model contains recommendationsto change textbooks. The

BrooklynCollege investigationmade clear thatin the geometrymaterialsin grades
K-8 textbooksthe van Hiele levels aremixedup--notsequenced--andbecauseof this
the higherlevels are rarelyreached. Frommy own work and that of the Brooklyn
College Projectcertainresultsareevident:
* We know the shortcomingsof traditionalinstructionandways to improveit.

* We know thatinstructionmustbe adjustedto accountfor the differentphases

of the learningprocess.
* We know thattextbooksmust be rewrittento accountfor the variousphases
of the learningprocess.

* We know thatinstructionat level 0 can be given at an earlyage andvery often

oughtto be given at thatage.
Futureinvestigationsandapplicationsof my theoriesin mathematicsandalso in
othersubjectsincludethe following:

(1) Textbooksof geometrycan be designedin accordancewith the levels.

(2) A greatdeal of geometryof level 0 can be given at the primaryschool with

childrenof 6-10 years (justlike in the Soviet Union).

(3) Investigationscan be startedto learnmore aboutlevel 0 of arithmetic.Such

investigationsrelateto childrenof ages 1-6. The methodsneeded to stimulatesuch
childrenare quite differentfrom those needed to stimulateolder childrenbecause
theiractions, for the most part,are determinedby innermotives.

iii
 (4) An investigationcan be startedto analyze the levels in physics. For this
topic the sequencing of the levels is quite complicated. The specialization and
mechanizationof modem life is such that level 0 of physics is invisible to a great
extent. So, much of level 0 of physicsmustbe providedby instruction.This can be
given at the same time andeven coordinatedwith geometryof level 0.
(5) I have seen a textbook on economics which takes the levels into account.
Fromthe very beginninga readerof this textbookis fascinatedby the sequencingof
the material. It is worththinkingaboutthe use of the levels in such othertopics.

Fromthe above we may concludethatthe BrooklynCollege investigationshave

opened up many new perspectives. I hope that in the future I too will make
contributionsin exploringthese new perspectives.

March12, 1988 P. M. van Hiele

Voorburg,The Netherlands

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Foreword......................................... .... iii

List of Tables ..............v................................. vii

Preface ............. ............................................. ix

Chapter1. Overviewof Project....................................... 1

ResearchObjectives,Methods,Design andAnalyses ......... 1

Chapter2. The van Hiele Model ...................................... 4

Background............................................ 4
Levels andTheirCharacteristics......................... 5
Development,DocumentationandUse of Level Descriptors . 8
Translationof Writingsof the van Hieles .................. 8

Chapter3. InstructionalModules .............................. ....... 11

MajorCharacteristicsof Modules ........................ 11
DevelopmentandValidationof the Modules ............... 15
Module1 .............................................. 17
Module2 ........................................ . 29
Module3 .............................................. 44

Chapter4. Van Hiele Level Descriptors:DevelopmentandDocumentation.. 56

Formulationof the van Hiele Model....................... 56
Level DescriptorsandSampleStudentResponses ...........58
Level 0 ........................................... 58
Level 1 .......................................... 60
Level2 ........................................... 64
Level3 ........................................... 69
Level4 ........................................... 71
Documentation......................................... 72
AnotherFrameof Referencefor the Levels ............... 77

Chapter5. ClinicalStudy:Interviewswith Sixth GradeSubjects .......... 78

Subjects............................................... 78
Results:An Overview................................... 78
GroupI .... ............... ....... ................. 82
Group II .............. ............................ 85
GroupIII ....................................... 89

v
Chapter6. ClinicalStudy:Interviewswith NinthGradeSubjects........... 99
Subjects............................................... 99
Results:An Overview ................................... 99
GroupIV .............................. .......... 101
GroupV ......................................... 104
GroupVI ........................................ 118

Chapter7. Discussionof Findingsof ClinicalStudy................... . 133

Summaryof Students'Levels of Thinking ................. 133
FactorsAffectingStudents'Performanceon Modules........ 135
Levels of Thinkingon SpecificTasks...................... 139
Retentionof Students'Levels of Thinking ................. 141
Discussionof the InstructionalModules.................... 142

Chapter8. ClinicalInterviewswith Preserviceand InserviceTeachers ..... 144

Subjects............................................... 144
Procedure............................................ 144
Teachers'Responsesto SelectedModuleActivities .......... 145
Teachers'Commentson InstructionalModuleActivities ..... 151
Teachers'Identificationof van Hiele ThoughtLevels ........ 153
Implicationsfor TeacherPreparationand ClassroomPractice. 154

Chapter9. Text Analysis ............................................. 157

Goal ................................................. 157
Procedure............................................ 157
Findings ............................................... 161
Text Presentationof ThreeContentStrandsAs Relatedto
van Hiele Didactics................................. 172
Implications ........................................... 175

Chapter10. ImplicationsandQuestionsfor FurtherResearch ............. 180

Implicationsaboutthe Levels ............................ 180
Implicationsfor ProjectLevel Descriptorsand Their Use .... 183
Implicationsfor FutureResearch ......................... 186

Bibliography....................................................... 192

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. AchievementTest Scoresand ModulesCompletedby SixthGraders .....79

2. Sixth Graders'Level of Thinkingon Key ModuleActivities ............ 80

3. AchievementTest Scores andModulesCompletedby NinthGraders..... 100

4. NinthGraders'Level of Thinkingon Key ModuleActivities ............ 102

5. Percentof Lessons at MaximumLevel 0, 1 or 2 ........... ............ 167

6. Percentof Lessonswith ExercisesAll at Level 0 or "Unassignable"...... 168

vii
 PREFACE

This monograph presents a report of the research project entitled: An

Investigationof the Van Hiele Model of Thinkingin GeometryAmong Adolescents,
supported under grant number SED 7920640 from the Research in Science
EducationProgramof the NationalScience Foundation.The focus of this research
was the conductand analysisof six hoursof clinical interviewswith sixth andninth
grade students to investigate how they learn geometry in light of the van Hiele
model.

In Chapter1, an overview of the Projectand its four majorgoals is given. The

theoreticalmodel, namely,the van Hiele levels andphaseswithinlevels of thinking,
as initially characterizedby van Hiele and others, is describedin Chapter2. The
Project's elaboration of these levels, in terms of specific student behaviors, is
presentedin a later chaptersince the level descriptorsare most easily understoodif
one is familiarwith the context(instructionalmodules)in which they are examined.

In Chapter3, the developmentand detaileddescriptionof the Project'sresearch

tool, InstructionalModules 1, 2 and 3 (Propertiesof Polygons, Angle Measurement
and Angle Sum for Polygons, Area of Polygons) are set forth. Chapter4 follows
with the Project'sformulationof the van Hiele model and level descriptorswith
sample student responses to questions or activities in the instructionalmodules.
Chapter4 also contains documentationof the level descriptorsusing quotations
from the writingsof Dina van Hiele-GeldofandPierrevan Hiele.

In Chapters5, 6 and 7, the individualperformancesof 32 students (16 sixth

graders and 16 ninth graders) during approximately six hours of one-to-one
videotaped clinical interviews, using the Project's instructional modules, are
analyzed and discussed and the findings are summarized. The performancesof
eight preservice and five inservice teachers on selected activities from the
instructionalmodulesare analyzedand reportedin Chapter8.

An analysisof the geometrystrandin threeUnitedStatesmathematicstextbook

series, grades K-8, in light of the van Hiele levels is set forth in Chapter 9.
Implicationsof the Project'sstudy--thatis, theoreticalimplicationsaboutthe nature
of the van Hiele levels and methods of determiningthem, and implicationsof the
study for classsroom practice, teachertrainingand curriculumdesign--as well as
questionsfor furtherresearchare discussedin Chapter10.
It should be noted that the Projecthas also publisheda monographcontaining
translationsof significantworks of the van Hieles in orderto provide the English-
speakingresearchcommunitywith a resourcethatwill shed more light on the van
Hiele model. Among otherwritings, it containsthe complete dissertationof Dina

ix
van Hiele-Geldof: The Didactics of Geometryin the Lowest Class of Secondary
School. The monographis entitled:English Translationof Selected Writingsof
Dinavan Hiele-GeldofandPierreM. van Hiele andis availablethroughEducational
ResourcesInformationCenter(ERIC,numberED 287 697).

x
 m

y7\
\/7/ ~THE VAN HIELE MODEL
\ tA A OF THINKING IN GEOMETRY
AMONG ADOLESCENTS

David Fuys, Dorothy Geddes,andRosamondTischler

BrooklynCollege
City Universityof New York

/\/V:

IV/\/\/V
-_ VVV/\/VV\/
.NV
XX L I\ /\ / \ _ /\ /\ / 4,
 CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

This monographis the resultof a three-yearresearchprojectwhich focused on

a model of geometrylearningpresentedin 1957 by the Dutch educatorsP. M. van
Hiele andhis late wife, Dina van Hiele-Geldof.This model has motivatedconsidera-
ble researchand resultantchangesin geometrycurriculumby Soviet educators,and
in recentyears, interesthas been growingin the UnitedStates. This Project,funded
by the NationalScience Foundation,Researchin Science EducationProgram, was
one of three federally funded investigations of the model during 1980-83.
References to the other projects (William Burger, Oregon State University and
ZalmanUsiskin, Universityof Chicago)are includedin the bibliography.

The van Hiele model identifiesfive levels of thinkingin geometry. According

to this model, the learner,assisted by appropriateinstructionalexperiences,passes
throughthese levels beginning with recognition of shapes as a whole (level 0),
progressing to discovery of properties of figures and informal reasoning about
these figures and their properties(levels 1 and 2), and culminatingin a rigorous
study of axiomatic geometry (levels 3 and 4). The van Hieles have developed
curriculummaterials (in Dutch) based on their model, and others, especially the
Soviets, have also appliedit to curriculumdevelopment.

Research Objectives, Methods, Design and Analyses

The general question that this research addressed is whether the van Hiele
model describeshow studentslearngeometry. Therewere four main objectives:

(1) To develop and documenta workingmodel of the van Hiele levels, based on
severalsourceswhich the Projecthad translatedfromDutch into English.
(2) To characterizethe thinkingin geometryof sixth andninthgradersin termsof
levels--in particular,at what levels are students?,do they show potentialfor
progress within a level or to a higher level?, and what difficulties do they
encounter?.
(3) To determineif teachersof grades6 and 9 can be trainedto identifyvan Hiele
levels of geometrythinkingof studentsand of geometrycurriculummaterials.
(4) To analyzecurrentgeometrycurriculumas evidencedby Americantext series
(gradesK-8) in light of the van Hiele model.
The first objectivewas achieved afteran analysisof van Hiele source material,
in particular,Dina van Hiele-Geldofs doctoralthesis (1957/1984) and Pierrevan
Hiele's article (1959/1984), "Lapensee de l'enfantet la geometrie,"which were
unavailable in English until the Project translatedthem. (See Fuys, Geddes, &
 2

Tischler, 1984, EnglishTranslationof Selected Writingsof Dina van Hiele-Geldof

andPierreM. van Hiele.) Based on specific quotationsfromthe van Hiele sources,
the Project formulateda detailed model of the levels (see Chapter4 for level
descriptors).Pierrevan Hiele andtwo othervan Hiele researchers,Alan Hofferand
WilliamBurger,examinedthe level descriptorsandvalidatedthemfor each level.

The second objectivewas achievedthrougha clinical studythatwas carriedout

in several phases. The first involved the development and validation of three
modules based on the model and designed for use as a researchtool in clinical
interviews. Modules dealt with Propertiesof Quadrilaterals,Angle Relationships
for Polygons, and Area of Quadrilaterals.The module on Angle Relationshipswas
based on the approaches and materials used by Dina van Hiele-Geldof in her
doctoral research which involved a geometry teaching experiment for twelve-
year-olds. The modules includedinstructionalactivitiesalong with key assessment
tasksthatwere correlatedwith specific level descriptors.Moduleswere pilot tested
andrevised along with scriptsfor the interviewers.See Chapter3 for descriptionof
contentof modulesandfor sampleactivities.

To facilitateanalysisof studentresponsesto tasks in the clinical interviews,the

Projectdeveloped protocolforms for each module. These forms, to be completed
by reviewersof the videotapes,containednot only check lists andquestionsto assess
a student'suse of vocabulary/language, responsesto differenttasks,responsesto key
questions, van Hiele level of response, of materials,andtypes of difficultiesbut
use
also spaces for reviewers'descriptivecommentsabouta student'sattitude,style of
learning, non-verbal communication,and preferenceof materials.The modules,
together with the protocol forms, were validated by the researcherscited above
againstthe Project'slevel descriptors.
In the second phase, clinical interviewswere conductedwith 16 sixth graders
and 16 ninth graders. In six to eight 45-minute sessions, these subjects worked
throughthe modules with an interviewer(a memberof the Projectstaff). Sessions
were videotaped. Each subjectreceiveda smallhonorarium.

The final phasedealtwith the analysisof the videotapesand synthesisof results

for the sixth andninthgraders. This was done in threestages. First,videotapesfor
individual subjects were reviewed by one member of the Project staff who
completed detailedprotocol forms. The forms were then summarized(1-2 pages
for each module) on each student'sperformance. Summary index cards were
prepared noting briefly the student's level of thinking (initial and progress),
difficulties,language,learningstyle, andmiscellaneous. The next stage involveda
review and validationof the initialanalysisof each student'sperformanceby one or
more other members of the Project staff. This review included discussing
informationrecordedon the protocolforms and viewing again key portionsof the
student'svideotapes. In the final stage of the data analysis, one Projectmember
reviewed and synthesized results for the sixth gradersand anotherdid the ninth
graders. These overallresultswere then discussedand refinedby the Projectstaff.
 3

The Project assessed the "entry"level of thinking of students relative to

geometry topics that are commonly studied in grades 4-6. This was done mainly
through key questions or tasks throughoutModule 1 and at the beginning of
Modules2 and 3. These tasks, to which studentscould respondat levels 0, 1, or 2,
were presented with little or no promptingfrom the interviewer, who accepted
whateverresponse the studentgave. Since, accordingto the van Hieles, level of
thinking is determined in part by prior learning experiences, such "static
assessments"may not accuratelyassess the student'sability to think in geometryif
the student has had little or no learning experiences on the topic involved.
Therefore,the Projectalso assessed whatmight be termedthe student's"potential"
level by examining the student's responses as the student moved through the
instructionin the interviews. This more dynamic form of assessment during a
learning experience, as Dina van Hiele-Geldof did in her teaching experiment,
enabledthe Projectto examinechangesin a student'sthinking,withina level or to a
higherlevel, and also difficultieswhich impededprogress.
The thirdobjectivewas achievedthroughone-to-onevideotapedinterviewsby
one memberof the Projectstaff with 8 preserviceand 5 inservice teachers. In the
first 2-hour session, the teachers worked through selected activities from the
instructionalmodules with the interviewer. In the second session the interviewer
described the van Hiele model, showed and discussed videotaped segments of
students doing selected activities, and evaluated sample geometry curriculum
materials(K-8) accordingto van Hiele levels. In a final session, the teacherswere
given sample curriculummaterials to evaluate in terms of the van Hiele levels.
They were also shown videotaped segments of two students doing geometry
activities and asked to discuss the levels of thinking evidenced by the students.
Inservice teachers were also asked to comment on and informally evaluate the
appropriatenessof the activities in the modules for classroomuse. The preservice
and inserviceteachersreceivedhonorariafor participatingin the Project.

Concurrently,the fourthresearchobjective,an analysis of the geometrystrand

of three widely used commercial textbook series (grades K-8), was initiated in
orderto determine: (1) what geometrytopics are taughtby gradelevel in orderto
measurethe richnessand continuityof instruction;(2) at what van Hiele level the
materialsare at each gradelevel; (3) if the van Hiele level of materialis sequenced
by grade level; (4) if there are jumps across van Hiele levels; (5) if the text
presentationof geometry topics is consistent with didactic principles of the van
Hieles. Data forms were used to collect and record each text's page by page
introductionand use of vocabularyat each gradelevel, the aim of each lesson, and
the van Hiele level of the expository material, of the exercises, and of the test
questionsfor each geometrylesson in the threetext series, gradesK-8. The levels
of exposition,exercises andtest questionsof a text lesson were determinedby using
the Project-developedlevel descriptors. Completeddataforms were analyzedand
summarizedwith comparisonsbeing madeamongthe threetext series.
 CHAPTER 2

THE VAN HIELE MODEL

Background

Experiences of secondary school mathematics teachers indicate that many

students encounter difficulties in high school geometry, in particular,in doing
formal proofs. What are some causes for these difficulties? During the period
from 1930 to 1950, severalSoviet mathematicseducatorsandpsychologistsstudied
learningin geometryand triedto answerthis question. Wirszup(1976) reportsthat
this very significant research has influenced the improvement in the
teaching of geometry only slightly. The truly radical change and
far-reachinginnovationsin the Soviet geometrycurriculumhave, in fact,
been introduced thanks to Russian research inspired by two Western
psychologistsandeducators. (p. 76)
The first is Jean Piaget and the second is P. M. van Hiele, a Dutch educator,
whose work on the role of intuition in the learning of geometry attractedthe
attentionof the Soviets afterhe delivereda paperentitled"Lapensee de l'enfantet la
geometrie"at a mathematicseducationconferencein Sevres, Francein 1957. It was
published laterin 1959. Frequentreference is made to this paperin the workof
A. M. Pyshkalo(1968/1981) as he describesthe Soviet educators'extensiveresearch
and experimentationon van Hiele's theory. It is reportedthat the Soviets have
substantiallyrevisedtheirgeometrycurriculumon the basis of the van Hiele levels
of thinkingin geometry.

As experiencedteachersin Montessorisecondaryschools, the van Hieles were

greatly concernedaboutthe difficulties their studentsencounteredwith secondary
school geometry. They believed thatsecondaryschool geometryinvolves thinking
at a relatively high "level" and students have not had sufficient experiences in
thinking at prerequisitelower "levels." Their researchwork focused on levels of
thinkingin geometryand the role of instructionin helping studentsmove fromone
level to the next. In 1957 the van Hieles completedcompaniondissertationsat the
University of Utrecht on levels of thinking and the role of insight in learning
geometry. Dina van Hiele-Geldofs work (1957/1984) dealt with a didactic
experimentaimed at raisinga student'sthoughtlevel, while Pierrevan Hiele (1957)
formulatedthe structureof thoughtlevels and principlesdesigned to help students
gain insightinto geometry.
 5

Levels and Their Characteristics

Accordingto the van Hieles, the learner,assisted by appropriateinstructional

experiences, passes throughthe following five levels, where the learner cannot
achieveone level of thinkingwithouthavingpassedthroughthe previouslevels.

Level 0: The studentidentifies,names, comparesand operateson geometric

figures (e.g., triangles, angles, intersecting or parallel lines)
accordingto theirappearance.
Level 1: The student analyzes figures in terms of their components and
relationshipsamong componentsand discoversproperties/rulesof a
class of shapesempirically(e.g., by folding, measuring,using a grid
or diagram).

Level 2: The studentlogically interrelatespreviously discoveredproperties/

rules by giving or following informalarguments.

Level 3: The student proves theorems deductively and establishes

interrelationshipsamongnetworksof theorems.
Level 4: The studentestablishestheoremsin different postulationalsystems
andanalyzes/compares these systems.

The van Hieles (1958) noted that learningis a discontinuousprocess and that
there are jumps in the learningcurve which reveal the presence of "levels." They
observedthatat certainpoints in instruction

the learningprocesshas stopped. Lateron it will continueitself as it were.

In the meantime,the studentseems to have "matured."The teacherdoes
not succeedin explainingthe subject. He seems to speaka languagewhich
cannot be understoodby pupils who have not yet reachedthe new level.
They might accept the explanationsof the teacher,but the subjecttaught
will not sink into theirminds. The pupil himself feels helpless, perhapshe
can imitatecertainactions,but he has no view of his own activity until he
has reachedthe new level. (1958, p. 75)

Overall,the van Hieles made certainobservationsabout the generalnatureof

these levels of thinking and their relationship to teaching. P.M. van Hiele
(1959/1984) notes that
at each level thereappearsin an extrinsicway that which was intrinsicat
the precedinglevel. At level 0, figures were in fact determinedby their
properties,but someonethinkingat level 0 is not awareof these properties.
(p. 246)
 6

For example: I I I/ /

A 8 ^A-
/L 4.1 = 4.2
/ / C-_6.

O c 4D-- Saw
so 4. 4.3

Level 0: Student ILevel1: Studentdiscoversthat Level 2: Studentgives an in-

measuresangles anglesof parallelograms formalargument
o*pposite whyopposite
of a parallelogram, areequal by coloringin equal anglesareequalusingknown
nglesin a gridof parallelograms. principles(e.g., saw or ladder).

Van Hiele (1959) states that the levels are "characterized by differences in
objects of thought" (p. 14). For example, at level 0, the objects of thought are
geometric figures. At level 1 the student operates on certain objects, namely, classes
of figures (which were products of level 0 activities), and discovers properties for
these classes. At level 2, these properties become the objects that the student acts
upon, yielding logical orderings of these properties. At level 3, the ordering
relations become the objects on which the student operates, and at level 4 the objects
of thought are the foundation of these ordering relations.

LEVEL 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2

S
aeprey exp%erece 9MI**
(Et..s?.s45 <.u<t? c1UL.v.4
ci,;; v;ul iir 5 --- 0 ' sIt
.
Objects of I 'eSQRAo'E;"
thought J\ W

Structure of So,t;^,
(,.34, ot, o
Rl ^i,i;t, prts// F^.iV-t;^ lctl g
thinking Lset;?. 4j ci.rcittrit4;cS / rTelSo t;p I/
/J prf,
0d clKssus. 1--3. /l ;t ;t/

A sKides tI,
,idP.Po?Os'df
fOul
Examples to- oaif{' ,ot S$tC iuVft bi
Sq9vrcs oo
t
^ ?, 54e?r , 1, ll .k yvx&t-t
C(
uSX

Van Hiele (1959/1984) also points out that

each level has its own linguistic symbols and its own system of relations
connecting these symbols. A relation which is "correct"at one level can
reveal itself to be incorrect at another. Think, for example, of a relation
between a square and a rectangle. Two people who reason at different
levels cannot understand each other. Neither can manage to follow the
thought processes of the other. (p. 246)
 7

Languagestructureis a criticalfactor in the movement throughthe van Hiele

levels--from global (concrete) structures(level 0), to visual geometric structures
(levels 1-2), to abstract structures(levels 3-4). In stressing the importanceof
language, van Hiele notes that many failures in teaching geometry result from a
languagebarrier--theteacherusing the languageof a higherlevel thanis understood
by the student.

Progress from one level to the next, asserts van Hiele (1959/1984), is more
dependent upon instructionthan on age or biological maturation,and types of
instructionalexperiencescan affect progress(or lack of it).

It is possible however that certainmethods of teaching do not permitthe

attainmentof the higher levels, so that methods of thoughtused at these
levels remaininaccessibleto the student.(p. 246)

The van Hieles point out thatit is possible to presentmaterialto studentsabove their
actual level. For example, students are given properties for rectangles and
memorizethem ratherthandiscoveringpropertiesthemselves (level 1), or students
just copy a "proof"ratherthancreatingit themselvesor at least supplyingreasonsin
the proof (level 2). This results in a "reduction"of the subject matterto a lower
level.

Accordingto Pierrevan Hiele (1959/1984), progressfrom one level to the next

involves five phases: information,guided orientation,explicitation, free orien-
tation, and integration. The phases, which lead to a higher level of thought,are
describedas follows with examplesgiven for transitionfromlevel 0 to level 1.

Information: The student gets acquaintedwith the working domain (e.g.,

examinesexamplesandnon-examples).

Guided orientation: The studentdoes tasks involving differentrelationsof

the network that is to be formed (e.g., folding, measuring, looking for
symmetry).

Explicitation: The student becomes conscious of the relations, tries to

express them in words, and lears technicallanguagewhich accompaniesthe
subjectmatter(e.g., expressesideas aboutpropertiesof figures).
Free orientation: The studentlearns,by doing more complex tasks, to find
his/her own way in the networkof relations(e.g., knowing propertiesof one
kind of shape,investigatesthesepropertiesfor a new shape,such as kites).

Integration: The student summarizesall that he/she has learned about the
subject, then reflects on his/her actions and obtainsan overview of the newly
formed network of relations now available (e.g., properties of a figure are
summarized).
 8

In summary,the majorcharacteristicsof the van Hiele "levels"are that (a) the

levels are sequential; (b) each level has its own language, set of symbols, and
networkof relations;(c) what is implicit at one level becomes explicit at the next
level; (d) materialtaught to studentsabove their level is subject to reductionof
level; (e) progress from one level to the next is more dependenton instructional
experiencethanon age or maturation;and (f) one goes throughvarious "phases"in
proceedingfrom one level to the next.

Development, Documentation and Use of Level Descriptors

The Project'sinitialbrief descriptionsof the van Hiele levels were basedmainly
on three articles (van Hiele & van Hiele-Geldof, 1958; van Hiele, 1959/1984;
Wirszup, 1976). In order to develop fuller characterizationsof the levels and
examples of how they are applied, there was a need to analyze several other van
Hiele source documents, in particular, the doctoral dissertation of Dina van
Hiele-Geldof (translatedby the Project). As a result of this analysis, the Project
developed a more detailedlisting of level descriptors.This listing is presentedin
Chapter4 and includes specific examples of studentperformancefor each level
descriptor. Since examples are based mainly on the instructionalmodules, the
modules are discussed first (Chapter3) before examiningthe level descriptorsin
detail (Chapter4). The Projectused its detailed characterizationof the levels in
termsof studentbehaviors: (a) in designingthe assessmentand instructionalparts
of the threemodules, (b) in analyzingvideo-tapedepisodes of studentsdoing the
modules, (c) in analyzing the van Hiele level of textbook materials(exposition,
exercises, activities,test items). These descriptorscan also be used to examinethe
languageof teachersand studentsduringinstructionand to characterizeclassroom
activitiesin geometry.

Translation of Writings of the van Hieles

At the outset, the Projectendeavoredto collect the majorwritingsof Dina van

Hiele-Geldofand Pierrevan Hiele. These were obtainedfrom a varietyof sources
includingpublishersin The Netherlandsas well as researchersin the United States
(Cilley, 1979; Hoffer, 1981; Mayberry,1983) who were also investigatingthe van
Hiele model. Most of the writingswere in Dutch, with a few articlesin Frenchor
Germanand two in English. Four majornon-Englishwritings of the van Hieles
were translatedinto Englishby the Project.

1. The doctoraldissertationby Dina van Hiele-Geldof(1957/1984) entitled"De

Didaktiek van de Meetkundein de Eerste Klas van het V.H.M.O." (The
Didacticsof Geometryin the LowestClassof SecondarySchool), 177 pages.

2. The last articlewrittenby Dinavan Hiele-Geldof(1958/1984): "Dedidaktiek

 9

van de meetkundeals leerprocesvoor volwassenen"(Didactics of Geometry

as a LearningProcessfor Adults), 14 pages.

3. Selected sections of the book by Pierrevan Hiele (1973), Begrip en Inzicht

(Understandingand Insight),230 pages.
4. An article by Pierre van Hiele (1959/1984): "La pensee de l'enfant et la
geom6trie"(The Child'sThoughtand Geometry),8 pages.
Dina van Hiele-Geldof died shortly after completing her dissertation. Thus,
except for her dissertation,one articleby her in 1958 and a joint journalarticle (in
English) with Pierre (1958), all other writing describing the thought levels in
geometryhas been done by Pierrevan Hiele. Dina van Hiele-Geldofs dissertation
describesa year-long "didacticexperiment"involving two classes of 12 year-olds
which she taught. As she statesin ChapterI of the thesis,the studyinvestigatedthree
mainquestions.

1. Is it possible to follow a didacticas a way of presentingmaterialso that the

thinkingof the child is developedfrom the lowest level to higher levels in a
continuousprocess?

2. Do 12 year-oldsin the lowest class of the secondaryschool have the potential

to reason logically about geometric problems and to what extent can this
potentialbe developed?
3. To what extent is language operativein the transitionfrom one level to the
next?

Almost half of the dissertationis a detailed and fascinating log of her teaching
experiment. ChaptersmI,IV andX of the thesis describein detailthe subjectmatter
covered, methods of presentation,and "classroomconversations"between teacher
and students for the didactic experiment. These three chaptersand related ones
(XI-XIV) which present analyses of the students'thinkingshould be of particular
interestto researchersof the van Hiele levels. The only informationon the levels
which was previously availablein English was of a more generalnaturethan that
found in this dissertation. The dissertationprovidesspecific examples of students'
behaviors at the levels in response to many specific instructionaltasks. The last
articlewrittenby Dina van Hiele-Geldof(1958/1984) gives furtherclarificationand
insightinto the levels as relatedto a student'sbehaviorandwas recommendedto the
Project staff by Pierre van Hiele as being an importantresource document to
translateinto English.

Pierrevan Hiele wrotemanyarticlessettingforthhis ideas on learning,thought

levels, insight and structure. A numberof these articles became the basis of his
1973 book, Begrip en Inzicht(Understandingand Insight). An articlehe wrote in
Frenchin 1959, "Lapensee de l'enfantet la geometrie"(The Child'sThoughtand
 10

Geometry),which was not includedin Begrip en Inzicht, attractedthe attentionof

Soviet psychologistsand educatorswho had long been studyinghow childrenlearn
andwere particularlyconcernedaboutstudentdifficultywith geometry.

Pierrevan Hiele has also writtenandpublishedgeometrycurriculummaterials

basedon the levels for studentsin grades7-12 in The Netherlands.The Projectstaff
has examinedthe geometryactivities in these text series, van a tot z (1976-1979).
Pierre van Hiele's books, Struktuur (1981), and Structure and Insight (1986)
provide furtherclarification of the thought levels and their applicationto other
curriculumareas.

The Project obtainedthe services of Dr. MargrietVerdonck,a native of The

Netherlandsliving in Brooklyn, to do the Project'stranslationwork from Dutch
into English. Dr. Verdonck translated Dina van Hiele-Geldofs doctoral
dissertation(item 1, above) in its entiretyas well as her last article(item 2, above).
The first draftof the translationof the doctoralthesis was sent to Pierrevan Hiele
for review. Aside from a few minor suggestionsfor word changes, Dr. van Hiele
indicated that he thought it was "a very fine translation." Dr. Verdonck read
Begrip en Inzicht (item 3, above) in its entiretyand preparedan English summary
of each of the chapters. After conferringwith the Projectstaff, she provideda full
English translation of those portions of the text considered importantto the
Project'swork. The article by Pierrevan Hiele (1959/1984) in French (item 4,
above) had previously been translatedinto English in 1975 by Rosamond W.
Tischler,a memberof the Projectstaff.
After editing these translations,the Projecthas published, for the benefit of
teachers, curriculum developers, and the research community, a monograph
entitled:English Translationof Selected Writingsof Dina van Hiele-Geldof and
PierreM. van Hiele. The monographcontainsthe completeEnglishtranslationsof
items 1, 2 and 4 above. Also includedis an English summaryof Pierrevan Hiele's
dissertationentitled:"TheProblemof Insightin Connectionwith School Children's
Insightinto the SubjectMatterof Geometry."The monographis availablethrough
EducationalResourcesInformationCenter(ERIC,numberED 287 697).
 CHAPTER 3

INSTRUCTIONAL MODULES

The van Hiele model focuses on the role of instructionin helpingstudentsmove

from one thoughtlevel to the next. It was, therefore,necessary for the Projectto
develop andvalidateinstructionalmodulesbased on the model and designedfor use
as a researchtool in a one-to-oneinstructional/testingsetting. This section describes
the three modules developed by the Project for the clinical interviews. First the
major characteristics of the instructional modules are discussed and then the
developmentof the modules is summarized.Finally, a detaileddescriptionof each
moduleis given, includinggoals, specific activities,andrationale.

Major Characteristics of Modules

Content

The following geometrytopics are treated.

Module1: Basic geometric concepts (parallelism, angle, congruence, etc.),

propertiesof quadrilaterals
Module2: Angle measurement;angle sums for triangles, quadrilaterals,penta-
gons; angle relationships in triangles and parallelograms (i.e.,
exteriorangle, oppositeangles)

Module3: Area measurement;area of rectangles, triangles, parallelograms,

trapezoidsandfigureswhose vertices lie on two parallellines.
Several factors affected this choice of topics. First, a variety of topics were
chosen because of the need to assess level of thinking across different topics.
Second, topics had to be of such a naturethat they could be presentedat different
van Hiele levels--in particular,levels 0, 1, and2. Third,topics shouldbe revelantto
the school experiencesof both sixth andninthgraders,yet the topics shouldnot be
overly familiar in order to minimize the influence of prior learning on the new
learningto take place in the interviews. These topics were comparedwith those
normally taught in grades 5-9, as specified by the New York City Mathematics
CurriculumGuide (1981). In addition, the content and approach (via tiling
patterns, saws/ladders, family trees) in Module 2 were chosen because they
embodiedthe instructionalmaterialsused by Dina van Hiele-Geldofin her "teaching
experiment"research(1957/1984).
 12

Flexibility
Since therewould be differencesin the geometryexperienceof sixth and ninth
graders,the modules were designed to be used flexibly in the interviews, with
optionsfor branchingto instructionat severalpoints,dependingon the responsesof
studentsto major assessmentquestions. In the 6-8 hours of interviews, stronger
studentsmight progress throughall three modules. Othersrhightwork through
Modules 1 and 2, or 1 and 3, requiringconsiderableinstructionalong the way.
Additionalprovisionfor contingencywas incorporatedinto the interviewsthrough
the module scripts. Althoughthe scriptsguidedthe interviewer,in particularabout
key questions and specific instructionalsuggestions, they allowed interviewersto
rephrasewordingand to vary instructiondependingon the student'sresponses. Of
course, such implementationof the modules depended upon the interviewer's
familiaritywith the subjectmatterand spontaneityin questioningand instructing,
while following the student'strainof thought.

Assessment of Thinking and Key Questions

The primarypurpose of the modules was to provide a context for clinical

interviews which could shed light on the student'slevel of thinking, cognitive
processes (e.g., inductiveand deductivereasoning),and learningdifficulties (e.g.,
poor geometry vocabulary, perceptual difficulties) that may adversely affect
thinkingin geometry. Accordingto van Hiele, two majorfactorsthat determinea
student'slevel are abilityandpriorgeometryexperiences. A student'sresponsesto
questions about a topic will indeed provide assessment informationabout what a
studentcurrentlyknows aboutthattopic. However,this may not yield an accurate
assessmentof the student'spotentialto thinkat certainlevels, if the studenthas little
or no experiencewith the topic being assessed. In this case, assessmentmust also
focus on progress(or lack of progress) thata studentmight make withina level, or
possibly to a higherlevel, as a resultof instruction.To this end the threemodules
were designedto assess both "entry"level of thinkingabouta topic and "potential"
level as reflectedby the student'sperformancein a learningsituationon thattopic.

The student's"entry"level of thinkingwas assessed mainlythroughanalysisof

his/herresponsesto key questions/activitiesin Module 1 andat the startof Modules
2 and 3. These questions, which allow for responses at different levels, were
presentedto the studentwithoutpromptsor hints, althoughthe interviewermight
ask follow-up questionsto clarifythe student'sanswers. For example, in Module 1
the studentswere askedto describea rectangleto a friendwho didn'tknow what it
was or to sort a mixed-upset of cut-outquadrilateralsinto appropriateboxes (e.g.,
squares,rectangles,parallelograms,trapezoids)and to tell what they were thinking
aboutas they did this. In Module 2, the studentswere asked: "Twoangles of this
triangle each are 50 degrees. What does the third angle equal? Why?" If the
explanationwas based on "theangle sum is 180 degrees,"the studentwas asked:
 13

"Doesthe angle sum of any triangleequal 180 degrees? Explain." Studentscould

respondto such questions at differentlevels. For example, to the questionsnoted
above for Module2, a studentcould respondat level 0 by measuringthe thirdangle,
at level 1 by generalizingthe angle sum on the basis of experimentation,or at level 2
by explaining/provingthis using alternateinterior/corresponding angles (saws and
laddersin Module2).

The student'sability to thinkaboutspecific concepts in geometryand to make

progresswithin levels was assessed in a more dynamicway--throughresponsesto
new instructionand to relatedassessmenttasks and key questions. This teaching
experimentapproachallows one to look at changesin a student'sthinkingand,most
importantly,at difficultiesthatimpedeprogress. This type of assessmentwas done
in each module, where after an initial assessment, extensive instruction was
providedas needed, with questioningduringinstruction,at summarypoints, and at
the end of each modulethrougha final activityinvolvinglevel 1 and 2 thinkingon a
new but related topic (e.g., in Module 2 on angle sums, the related topic was
exteriorangles of a triangle). Questionsthroughouteach module were correlated
with level descriptors (see pages 58-71) to facilitate identification of level of
thinkingwhen videotapedinterviewswere analyzed.

Phases

As stated above, the modules were designed to involve studentsin geometry

activities that would reveal their level of thinking. In this sense, the modules
embodythe level aspectof the van Hiele model. The modulesalso embodyanother
aspect of the van Hiele theory--namely, phases within levels. As described
previously in Chapter2, there are five phases: Information,Guided Orientation,
Explicitation,Free Orientation,and Integration.Since, accordingto van Hiele, the
learningprocess involved in filling in a level or in moving from one level to the
next consists of these five phases, the modules were designed to reflect this
approach. For example, in an activity on area of parallelogramsin Module 3, the
activity opens with informal work with area of parallelogramsto acquaint the
student with this topic (Information). Then the student is guided to discover a
procedure for finding the areas of parallelograms(Guided Orientation). Next,
studentsare asked to express the procedurein words, in particularusing technical
terminologysuch as base and height (Explicitation). Next, a variety of problems
embodying the concept just learned are presentedto the student for exploration
(Free Orientation). Finally, the student summarizes this in a family tree
(Integration).
The van Hieles appliedthe levels andphases to a teachingexperimentwithina
classroom setting over an extended period of time (i.e., one year). The Project
neverthelesssoughtto incorporatethe phasesof the learningprocessinto the clinical
interviews. Obviouslythe formatandtime constraintsof this study (6-8 hourswith
 14

each subject) did not allow for students exchanging newly formed ideas in the
explicitationphase or for extendedfree orientationtasks.

Informal Introductory Activities

The modules were designedto reflectthe spiritof van Hiele levels andphases.
Morespecifically,each moduleopenedwith activitiesfeaturingvisual global struc-
tures--inModule 1, pictures of cityscapes and other scenes embodying geometry
concepts; in Module 2, tiling patternsand floor designs; in Module 3, tangram
puzzles, areaof covers of jewelryboxes anda map of lots in downtownBrooklyn.

Beginning activities in each module were designed as ice-breakers or

change-of-pacefrom previous work. These informalactivities were presentedas
games and were meantto providea non-threateningcontextfor beginningthe topic.
This type of beginning activity was intendedto be appealing and relevantto the
subjects(in this case, innercity adolescents).
Initial activities gave the interviewerinformationaboutthe subject'slanguage
related to that topic. If non-standardterms were used (e.g., "straight"for right
angle), the intervieweracceptedthis responsewithoutinitial correction,introduced
alternativestandardterms, and encouragedthe subject to adopt and use standard
terms,perhapssayingboth non-standardand standardterms,and graduallyshifting
to only standardones.

Hands-on Approach

Activitieswere in two modes--thefirst, dynamic,involvingthe manipulationof

materials(e.g., moving objects, folding, coloring), and the second, more "static,"
relyingprimarilyon verbalor pictorialinformation(as is done in most textbooks).
Special materials were designed for the manipulativemode: cutout cardboard
shapesfor sorting;D-stix for makingangles or figures andfor showingparallelism;
devices to show angles andto test for congruenceor to measureangles;clearplastic
squareinch grids, stripsof squareinches, and tiles for area;cutoutpieces to lead to
discovery of area rules; tiles and tiling design sheets for coloring; clear plastic
devices to show saws/ladders;propertycards and arrowsto set up in family trees.
Project-developedselection sheets, reflecting the static mode, provided students
with opportunitiesfor identifying examples and non-examples of concepts and
properties. Using these two modes enabledthe researchersto determineif certain
subjectswere more successfulin one mode thananother,and whetherthey had any
preferencefor a mode or used both simultaneously. Also use of materialscould
help less verbal studentsto express their ideas about geometry (e.g., by gesturing
with D-stix aboutparallellines andthenaddingverbalresponses).
 15

Development and Validation of the Modules

The modules were developed, triedout, and validatedin threephases priorto
their use in the clinical interviews. The first phase (summerand early fall, 1980)
involved the development of initial versions of the modules. After being
pilot-tested with 3-4 students,the modules were revised. Statementsof specific
goals for each activityin a modulewere clarified. The scriptwas expanded,mainly
with suggestionsaboutcontingenciesfor assessmentand instruction. Some special
manipulatives were designed and added to the modules (e.g., saws/ladders on
transparentplastic to help studentsidentify saws/laddersin grids, strips of square
inches to help studentsdiscoverareaof rectanglesas repeatedaddition,L-Squareto
assist studentsin findingheightsof figures).

In fall, 1980 these revised modules were tried out by an interviewer (a

secondaryschool teacher)trainedby Projectstaff. This providedvaluablefeedback
about the clarity of the script and appropriatenessof manipulatives from the
standpointof a new interviewer. As a result,some minorrevisionof the scriptwas
made and key questions were starred in the script. Also, manipulatives were
packagedfor easieruse and storage.
The second phase of the developmentof the modules occurredin spring, 1981
and focused on the preparationand tryoutof a fourthmodule thatmainly assessed
level 2 thinking. Contentof this module extended ideas treatedin Modules 1-3.
This module was to be done by studentswho had completedall threemoduleswith
evidenceof level 2 thinking. Pilottestingindicatedthatthis was not feasiblebecause
of limited interviewtime. As a result,differentpartsof this module were included
as final activitiesin Modules 1 (Propertiesof Kites), Module2 (ExteriorAngle of a
Triangle), and Module 3 (Midline Area Rule). During the second phase, some
minor changes in the scripts were made. Also, materialsfor each module were
organizedinto a kit formatthatwas easy to transportandto use duringinterviews.
The final phase (summer,1981) dealtmainlywith validationof the modules,in
particular,the appropriatenessof key questionsfor assessingthe levels of thinking.
Copies of the script and videotapes of clinical interviews were sent to three
mathematicseducatorswho were well acquaintedwith the van Hiele model through
their own research (William Burger at Oregon State University; Alan Hoffer at
University of Oregon; and John Del Grandeat Board of Education,Borough of
North York, Ontario,Canada). Their evaluationsindicatedthat the modules were
on target. They affirmed that responses to key questions were
providing
information about levels. The only negative criticisms involved some of the
instructiongiven by the interviewers--namely,the interviewerin some instances
was leading too much. As a result,interviewerswere instructedto be less directive
and to allow students more time to think and respond, especially when
guiding
studentsto make discoveries. A subsequentvalidationwas doneby Pierrevan Hiele
himself, when he conferredwith Project staff for two days in April, 1982. Van
 16

Hiele reviewedthe modulescriptsandkey questionsandviewed videotapedepisodes

of several studentsrespondingto key questions. It was his view that the modules
embodiedthe levels, and that the interviewsyielded informationaboutthe level of
thinkingof the subjects. Furthermore,his evaluationof the level of thinking of
these students agreed with those of the Project staff, thereby supporting the
usefulnessof the module-basedclinicalinterviewsfor assessinglevel of thinking.

After the final phase of development and validation, the modules were
consideredreadyfor use in the clinical partof the Project. It should be noted that,
althoughthe modules went throughconsiderabledevelopmentand revisions, they
should not be thoughtof as in final ideal form. In fact, interviewersoften made
some adaptationsto the activitiesand script,in particularfor less capablestudents.
For example, it was sometimesnecessaryto add extra examples to help a student
discovera pattern,to provideextrareview (especiallywhen therewas considerable
time between interview session), or to have studentssummarizemore frequently
what they had leared. Thus, as interviewersgained experiencewith the modules,
they actually provided furtherdevelopment or refinement of the module in the
interviewsetting.
 17

Module 1

Overview

This module concerns classification of two-dimensionalshapes. It serves to

assess students'backgroundin topics to be treatedin the latermodules, to provide
instructionas needed,andto determinestudents'levels of thinkingaboutshapesand
their properties. After an ice-breakingintroductorygame, studentsare invited to
talk about geometricalaspects of some pictures. Then a sorting activity leads to
explicit considerationof propertiesand inclusion relations. The role of properties
in students'conceptionsof shapesis explored,includingthe recognitionof minimal
properties. A final classificationactivity is presentedto studentsat a later session,
afterthe end of the module,to check on retentionandtransferof thinkingprocesses.
The moduleis summarizedin this diagram.

3.3 Propertiesof Classes of Quadrilaterals

I
3.4 Relations t
Inclusion byParallelism
> 3.5 Sorting

'I

3.6-3.7 GuessingShapesfrom PartialView/Properties

3.8 MinimalProperties

'V

4 Kites: Sorting,Properties,InclusionRelations I
 18

Activity 1. Introductory Activity

This ice-breaking "game"has two goals: to create a relaxed atmospherein
which student and interviewer can communicate, and to assess informally the
mathematicallanguage(standardandnon-standard)used by the student.

A_.*/_\ ^aPairs
of shapes are presented. For the first
pair,the interviewersays somethingthatis the
l---i ~ same about them and the student says
1---1_ isomething thatis different. For the next pair,
A
Axn~ ~ the roles are reversed. This is repeatedfor six
O \\
~__/ ~pairs.

o-<> Azsz
note: This activityrevealssome interestingcharacteristicsof students,for example:
theirinclinationto initiateor to copy ideas;or to gestureand handlematerialsor to
look only. The interviewerintroducesno formalvocabulary,insteadusing gestures
(fittingan angle on top of another)or commoninformalterms(sides, comers, same
length). In this and the next activity, studentsare given as much opportunityas
possible to introducetheirown geometricvocabularyspontaneously.

Activity 2. Shapes in Pictures

This activityassesses students'familiaritywith some basic geometricconcepts,
namely:

conceptsof shapes: triangle

square
rectangle
parallelogram

conceptsof components angles,rightangles

of shapes: parallelsides
oppositesidesandangles
congruentsidesandangles
Moredetailedassessmentis madefor rectangle,rightangle, and parallel.
 a

19

Firstthe studentis shown photographsof city

environments(San Francisco skyline, build-
ings) and is asked to find "geometricideas"in
them. For shapes identified,they are asked to
find other examples in the picture, and to
decide on some examples and nonexamples
selectedby the interviewer.

The concepts listed above are required for

laterwork, and any responserelatedto one of
these is pursued in this way. (All other
.- 1 11 responses are simply praised.) For any of
TRlA<G(B
these concepts which are not mentioned,
n
studentsare shown examples and are asked if
~v~ they recognizethe configurationandcan name
A it--if not, they are shown "word-and-picture
au cards."

Three concepts are explored in greaterdepth

cn ,, I

WIALc oi tHse A?< Ctt*^-5s

-
as they arise, rectangle, right angle and
parallelism. Students are asked to construct
exampleswith D-stix, and then to describethe
F idea to someone who didn'tknow what it was
"overthe phone." Selection sheets allow for
detailedassessmentof students'graspof these
concepts. Studentsare asked "whichof these
are _ 's" and "why?" In the course of the
^" session the interviewer keeps track of the
student's understanding of the concepts
t> /-\G-
presentedin the word-and-picturecards, and
thenproceedswith instructionas needed.

note: While interviewers should not prolong a "guessing game" when correct
responsesare unlikely, it is neverthelessimportantthatthe studentsbe given every
opportunityto produce their own non-standardvocabularybefore standardterms
are introduced. If a non-standardtermis produced,the intervieweruses it together
with the standardterm thereafter,until the student seems comfortable with the
standardterm.

Only three concepts are pursued in depth because it was found to be time-
consuming and a bit boring for the students to discuss more at this point. (In
Activity 3, understandingof other concepts is assessed more carefully.) The
 20

questioningaboutrectangles,rightanglesandparallelismin this activitydoes allow

for responsesat eitherlevel 0 (looking at individualshapes,descriptionsin termsof
"lookinglike")or at level 1 (invokingpropertiesof a class of figures).

Instructional Branches

The module includesinstructionalmaterialfor all of the concepts listed above

except for square,rectangle,triangle.It was felt thatstudentswho do not have some
level 0 acquaintancewith these threeconcepts were far below expectationsat this
level, and would not be able to do enough of the module to make them suitable
subjects. Thusany such studentsshouldbe droppedfromthe study.
Materialsfor instructionon differentconcepts follow a similarpattern. They
begin with referenceto the real world situationsin which the concept arises, then
allow for examples to be pointedout. Subjectsthen constructtheirown examples
and non-examples, and test their understandingby doing a selection sheet--
identifyingexamples and non-examplesand explainingwhy. Finally, studentsare
shown a shape and asked what they notice about the shape, allowing them to
formulatea propertyusing the concept just discussed (e.g., opposite angles of a
parallelogramare congruent).
For example, the instructional branch for
x
1 I / parallelism begins with consideration of
-^ I~ streetson a local streetmap. Sticks arelaid on
' Xi lM>. ^wM / streets while students discuss the distances
X~
A*9 -.= . . between streets and whether or not streets
-"~ - I meet. The term parallel is introduced,and
shown with sticks--students then construct
.PH^QcL P^>^vis parallels with sticks. The term is related to
,9AALf,.L tA.^ pictures of other common uses ("parallel
bars," "parallel parking") and the idea is
<c^;. ^ ^summarized on the word-and-picturecard.
__ ll ! Then students return to the task of identifying
parallels in the photos, and proceed with the
PARALLEL L,NE rest of the activity, including in this case
^~
<--^+ ~ selectionsheetsandverbaldescription.

?W'^icaof t?s oy?t

f ^--?"} _ ~
pafrelvl ?

$\
-C| D
 21

Activity 3. Sorting and Properties of Groups

This activity is designedto assess a student'sability to thinkabout shapes (for
example, squares) in terms of properties rather than merely by a shape's
appearance.Activity 3 has severalpartswhich are describedseparatelybelow.
3.1-3.2 Sorting. These activities assess whethera studentsorts on a "looks
like"basis, or by thinkingaboutproperties.

In Activity3.1 studentsare shown a collection

4 C
4 a l
of cardboardcut-outpolygons and some mats.
The interviewer says "These shapes came
from several differentboxes but they got all
mixed up. This is how someone tried to put
them back in groups which belong together."
The interviewerthenplaces a couple of pieces
on each mat, sortingby numberof sides, and
says "Canyou guess wherethis will go? Why?
And this? Why? Can you arrangethe rest of
the pieces using this idea?" Finally students
are asked to describethe way the pieces were
sorted, and if they know names for triangle
and quadrilateralpiles.

note: The firstsortingactivityis presentedin this "GuessMy Rule"formatbecause

it was found that when the challenge to arrangethe pieces was presentedin a less
structuredmanner,studentsoften triedto put pieces togetherin a puzzle formatand
it was awkwardto establishwhatwas meantby sorting. The open sortprovedto be
too time-consuming,althoughmany interestingideas arose.

Studentsthinkingat level 0 tend to explainplacementof pieces by phrasessuch

as "theylook alike,"while level 1 thinkerstry to find a commoncharacteristicsuch
as the numberof sides.
In Activity3.2 studentsare showna collection
of quadrilaterals. Again students are asked
0____
CD -- it
"How could we place these into groups of
Do D~ things thatbelong together?"They are asked
[ 4<j ftoexplain theirthinkingas they sort. Eventu-
-- Zj ally a sort by square, rectangle, parallelo-
/^^_^N gram, trapezoid,quadrilateralis expected. If
studentssort in some otherway, theirthinking
is discussed and their work praised,and they
are then asked to try it anotherway. If the
standardsort is not produced, a "Guess My
Rule"formatis followed.
 22

note: Again level of thinkingis assessed by the extent to which studentsdescribe

placementof pieces in terms of properties. This activity provides a richercontext
for sorting than the previous one. Studentsthinkingat level 0 may place pieces
together in roughly similar pairs, making judgements by eye, while students
thinkingat level 1 might spontaneouslyinvoke properties("I'mputtingall the ones
with four right angles here.").

The module might have been designed so that studentswould sort pieces into
loops (Venn diagrams) but it was decided that it would take too much time to
develop this language, and so disjoint mats are used, and inclusion relations are
discussedlaterin termsof movingpieces frommat to mat.

3.3 Listing Properties. The next activity serves to assess a student's

abilityto characterizethe groupsof shapesin termsof properties,and also, through
guidedquestioning,to instructthe studentin this area.
The interviewer points to the group of
0C squaresand says "Ifyou were talkingwith
your friend over the phone and you
DD wantedto describethesepieces, whatcould
you say about them?"For each group of
SQUARE RECTANGLe PARALLE shapes there is a name card, and a set of

o.e 4 1
color-coded property cards. (For ex-
[Ther |Thcre aoe 4
i s.
side I sides. ] ample, all cardsconcerningparallelismof
[ Allsides o. Offosite si4es I opposite sides are orange.) As students
oIr cosirvt .T mention a name or a property,the inter-
A1t.Av5tes.| viewer places the correspondingcard on
Ir*t a^W31es.| the group.

Studentsareencouragedto say as much as

they can aboutthe squares,thento go on to
other shapes. Prompts are given as
needed, for example "Is there anything
you can say about the sides here? the
angles?" If necessary,sticks areplacedon
shapes to remind of parallelism, angles.
This continues until all properties are
listed. Then studentsare asked to look at
selection sheets for each shape, on which
they identifyexamples and non-examples,
and to explaintheirthinking.
 23

note: Many studentshave learnednon-standarddefinitions, that is, they include

incorrectpropertiesin theirdescriptions(e.g., "Oneside is longer than another"for
a rectangle). When possible, these misunderstandingswere corrected--thatis,
explanationsand illustrationswere given to show studentsthattwo differentlengths
for the sides was not a necessary condition for rectangles; also that the word
"rectangle"was derived from "rightangle"--hencethe rectangleonly had to have
right angles. These explanationswere not readily accepted by some students (in
light of theirpriorschool instruction)and so some of these misunderstandingswere
not corrected,given the relatively short amount of time available for instruction
duringthe interviews. The responsesof such studentswere noted and subsequent
reasoning(basedon theirmisconceptionof a rectangle)was evaluatedaccordingly.
Some students listed many propertiesspontaneouslyand systematically,and
transferredproperties given for one shape to another. Other students gave few
propertiesspontaneously. For these students the instructor'sguidance may have
servedto fill in level 1 experiences. A laterassessmentactivity(4) is designedto see
if studentshave merely followed along in this activity, or if they can duplicatethe
processesinvolved.

3.4 Subclass Relations. This activity assesses if a studentcan identify and

explain subclassrelations--forexample,all rectanglesare parallelograms.
The interviewer says "Whenyou sorted the
D first set of shapes, do you rememberthat you
had a group of triangles, and one of
quadrilaterals or four-sided figures, and
a L five-sided ones, and six-sided ones? Where
wouldall these shapeson the tablehave gone?"
When studentshave respondedcorrectly,the
interviewerpicks up a square, saying "So I
could move this squareto the quadrilateralor
ULRE RECTANGLE PtaALI
4 4 sJsl
four-sidedgroup--asquareis a special kind of
IF•l ad.t
Mt?s5as .
s.4I.j]t IPtv Lt. i..
.$
I [Tni ,,e
, " *-Aq quadrilateral. What makes it special?" The
[N"6 , |C^?? interviewer then asks: "Can we move this
%a;1 J
square to the rectangle group? Why? (or
JC*r..<| ne,?jit.^
u-
i .(,l|ICH 1 t*;
rJ Ptre4<r| lf

Why not?)"

note: Level 0 thinkerstend to find it difficultto acceptplacementof squaresin the

rectangle group, since judgmentsabout shapes are made on the basis of "looking
like",not on the basis of a propertysuch as "fourrightangles". Howeversome level
1 thinkersalso will not accept this placementof a square--theymay be reasoning
correctly,but from an incorrectdefinitionof a rectangle. The following questionis
askedin orderto distinguishbetweenthese two situations:
 24

Someone yesterday said that a square is a

special kind of a rectangle. A square is a
rectanglewith equal sides. Do you think she
could be right? What do you think she said
when she put a square in the parallelogram
67
pile? Couldthatbe right? Mightshe have put
LD a rectangle in the parallelogrampile? What
wouldshe have said?"

This type of questioning can determine if students can accept the logic of the
inclusion relation, even if their own definitions of the shapes dictate
non-intersectionof the sets. A studentwho still has difficultyhere will do the next
activity(3.5). For studentswho do acceptplacementof a squarewith the rectangles,
the interviewcontinuesas follows:

"Wouldit be possible to call EVERYsquarea

rectangle? Could I move this rectangleto the
squaregroup? Why (or Why not?) Would it
be possible to call every rectanglea square?
0
0 C Why?"
This is repeatedfor squareand parallelogram.
(Thepropertycardsand sortedpieces arethen
put away.)

note: Some studentsanswerthese questionsby visually checking the properties

listed on each mat one by one. Othersgive a more formal explanation,without
looking at the propertycards or the particularshape being considered,saying for
example, "squaresare parallelogramsbecause the opposite sides are parallel and
oppositeangles are congruent,"indicatingthatthe studentis thinkingof squaresand
rectanglesin terms of properties. Of course the presence of the propertycards on
the mats here does encouragestudentsto respondin terms of properties. A later
activity (4) checks to see if a studentthinksin termsof propertieswhen describing
othersets of figures,namelykites.

3.5 Parallelogram Sort. This activity is designed for those studentswhose

incorrect definitions of shapes prevent them from giving or following inclusion
arguments. This sorting activity helps them to develop the concept of
parallelogram.
 25

Using the same shapes as were used in

activities 3.2-3.4 (but without squares and
rectangles), the interviewerprovides another
"GuessMy Rule"challenge. A few pieces are
placed in each of threepiles: no parallelsides,
^Q 0 one pair of parallelsides, two pairs of parallel
sides. Students are asked to explain their
\ C1a decisions on where the remaining pieces
should go. Hints are provided if necessary
(placing sticks on shapes, or saying "I was
thinkingaboutparallelsides")to help students
verbalizethe descriptionof the piles in terms
of number of pairs of parallel sides. Then
students are asked where the squares and
rectangleswill go. Finally, studentsare led to
see that anothername for the pile with two
pairsof parallelsides is "parallelograms," and
they are asked again about the inclusion
relationsbetween squareand parallelogram.

3.6-3.7 Uncovering Shapes. These activities are similar in format, but

one is presentedvisually andthe othermoreabstractly.They assess how the student
uses partialinformationabouta figure (a partialview or a few properties)to make
judgmentsaboutwhatthe figurecould or could not be.
3.6 The interviewer uncovers a cardboard
cut-out in four stages, asking at each stage
"Whatcould this be? Could it be anything
else? Why? Whatcouldn'tit be? Why?"The
process is repeatedfor a second shape if the
student seemed to be confused about the
,LZL Kn7 directionsthe first time.
ThKsQ.tC V , + s;dles.
3.7 The interviewer says "Let's try that
Opt.o't s;tes iat e?us
guessing game again. You will try to figure
o?9 & .st 'Ot
r Q out what shape I'm thinkingof, only now you
rc;t 0*4 c. won'tsee any of the shape;insteadI'lljust give
Omt s;dt ts lo6g5r tI*A
oVotltr sid. you some clues about it. I'll show you the
clues one by one--after each tell me all you
Tke . aoct Wo.lrots. can. What COULD it be? Could it be
A leIkat on*e o^t(
a. v'vt
is
oLg5e.
vot
anythingelse? WhatCOULDN'Tit be?" The
interviewerslides a piece of paper down the
At ltsCt ote side is sheet to uncoverclues one by one. At the end
PC,41.I to its o oskitt
the student is asked "Canyou think of other
Opfoi;te siAds oa.e elvl.
clues I couldput down? Are you sure?Why?"
This processis repeatedfor two sets of clues.
 26

note: This activity is presented in a visual form first (3.6) to set the stage for the
property-oriented presentation (3.7). Students vary in the type of reasoning
demonstrated. In 3.6, some trace possible outlines with their fingers, operating
perceptually, at level 0, while others verbalize properties in their answers ("It
couldn't be a square because it doesn't have a right angle there.") indicating level 1
thought. Some students are consistent in their answers, realizing that if the shape
could not be a rectangle after two properties, it could not be one after more
properties are revealed. Others seem to answer with each new clue as if previous
answers were unrelated.

3.8 Minimum Properties. This activity assesses if a student can deduce

some property from another, within the context of their knowledge. They are
encouraged to use a drawing or D-stix to check their thinking. The activity asked a
student to select the fewest properties necessary to describe a shape.

Students are shown a collection of "clue cards"

for a square. "Here are a lot of properties of a
TkhIt O.c + .*Atles.
square that you have talked about. Suppose
Tkeve o.ve, s;des. that you wanted to make up some clues for a
AlU sides oti cogvtvvr t. square for your friend. Do you think that
fll g\.Lts Yv ''t nt gt's. your friend would need to see ALL of these
(Vt
cDCow5044i.
properties to know that you were thinking of a
OfooS.tA arkte!
square? Which cards could you take away?
iet
ottos?;te -?ies coo^at. Why? Any others?" When the student has
OIP0S' tt Side S po.
sYtre ltel finished, the interviewer takes away first a
card which is necessary, then one which is not
necessary (if any remain) and asks for each
"Could I take this away? Why?" If the
explanation is incomplete, the interviewer
asks, "Canyou show me why in a drawing?"
CotS 40F
or . f.YL\N? t
"Now suppose that you wanted to give your
& f(f-jr-SiJl
^n
p&ToA^ioft0^
iSs
friend clues for a parallelogram. What is the
smallest number of clues you could give her so
O
si4d
that she would know you were thinking of a
R. YftOCt cf

parallelogram? Why?"

I6?Ak ( ) The interviewer then shows the sheet at left.

I,S
"Three people were arguing about their
C sys T' skft sIr descriptions of a parallelogram. These are the
TvoLgtts 1 only clues that they gave--they were all talking
about four-sided figures. Who was correct?
Why?"
 27

note: It was not expectedthatstudentsin this studywould be able to give complete

argumentsabout why some propertiesimplied others. However this activity does
allow one to assess the student'srecognitionof the need for such arguments,and the
student'sability to search for counter-examplesthroughdrawingor construction.
Level 1 thinkersmight respondby saying that "yes, a parallelogramhas all those
properties"withoutseeing duplicationor logical relations. Level 2 thinkerswould
either reason("You don'tneed 'oppositeangles are equal'because 'all four angles
are rightangles'and so they are equal.")or try to test a hypothesis("if the opposite
sides areparallel,thenthe oppositesides will alwaysbe equal").

Activity 4. Kites
This activity, done in a session following the earlier parts of the module,
assesses a student's ability to analyze a new set of figures (kites) in terms of
properties,and to recognize inclusion relationshipsinvolving kites. The intention
here is not to instructin propertiesof kites, but to observe the student'smethodof
approach. Only small hints are given, and studentsare not pressed if they don't
respondeasily.
Students are shown a collection of
cut-out shapes arrangedon three cards:
"Theseare kites," "Theseare not kites,"
and "Whichof these are kites?" (The
only square included is on the third
card.) Students are asked to place the
TI 5?C o,cre tot shapes on the thirdcard on the first two
kites. cards, and to explain their thinking. If
necessary,placementis correctedso that
all kites are on the first card. Students
are then asked why a rectangularcut-out
does not go in the kite pile, and why a
i.chi of +tCsC square cut-out does. Finally the
aret kit s ? interviewer asks "How would you
describea kite?"and if propertiesarenot
yet mentioned, "Whatpropertiesdoes a
` I3 kite have?"

This activityrevealswhethera studentspontaneouslyformulatespropertiesfor a set

of figures (indicatinglevel 1 thought)or tends to rely on a "lookinglike" approach
(indicatinglevel 0 thought). The final partof the activity formalizesthe inclusion
relations.
 28

Studentsare remindedof earlierdiscussionof

how a rectangle is a special kind of
quadrilateral. "To show this we sometimes
put an arrow like this between the
quadrilateraland rectangle card. You could
thinkof it as a one-way streetsign." Students
are asked if every rectangleis a quadrilateral,
and if every quadrilateralis a rectangle, and
about which placement of the arrow is
correct. They are then shown name cardsfor
SQUARE, QUADRILATERAL,and KITE,
1 , cc and some more arrows. "Canyou put arrows
down between these cards to show some
relationships?" If students don't themselves
mentionthe relationship,they are asked "Can
a square be a kite? Is every square a kite?
Why? (or Why not?)"
IQUADRILATERPALI

note: Since this activity is done withoutpropertycardsbeing in sight, it assesses

whetherit is naturalfor a studentto thinkof inclusionin termsof properties. Some
students provide fluent explanations of placement of the arrows in terms of
sufficientproperties,indicatinglevel 1 or possibly level 2 thought,while othersare
not even quite sure about what directionthe arrowshould go, and reason on the
basis of a squarecut-outbeing includedin the kite pile.
 29

Module 2

Overview

This module concernsangle measurementand angle relationshipsin polygons.

The sequenceof activitiesis in partmodelledon the workof Dina van Hiele-Geldof,
as reportedin her thesis. An initialactivityassesses students'understanding of angle
measureand the sum of the angles of a triangle. Subjectsare led to imagineand/or
construct tiling patterns from several polygons (squares, rectangles, parallelo-
grams, right triangles, non-right triangles). In the context of these grids they
review various geometric concepts which arose in Module 1 (parallel lines,
congruentangles, shape identification,etc.), and also discover new patternsand
properties,in particular"saws"and "ladders."Propertiesof saws and laddersare
used to justify congruenceof angles. This techniqueis then applied to a triangle
gridto show thatthe sum of the angles of a triangleis 180 degrees. Once this result
is established,studentsare encouragedto relateit to otherfacts (angle sum of other
polygons, saw and ladderproperties)and to arrangethese facts in a "familytree."
In the last activity, studentsare asked to first discover the relationshipbetween an
exteriorangle and the sum of the two opposite interiorones, and then to "prove"it
informally,using saws and ladders. The moduleis summarizedin this diagram.

1 Angle Measurement| >1InstructionalBranch

2 MakingTilings andGrids

13 Saws andLadders

\ Z
4 ColoringAngles

|5 Developing Propertiesfrom Grids

r6 Family Trees

j7 ExteriorAngle of a Triangle
 30

Activity 1. Angle Measurement

This activity is intended to assess both understandingof and skill in angle
measurement,recognitionof how angle measuresof adjacentangles can be added,
and understandingof the fact that the angle sum of a triangle is 180 degrees. If
studentsexperiencedifficulty with angle measurement,they go to activities in the
InstructionalBranch(describedon the next page).

Studentsare shown a trianglemade of D-stix,

and then one side is removed to show a
flexible model for angle. They are also shown
a telescoping "angle maker" (the arms can
slide out). These materialsare used to make
1-~ two angles, as shown, and studentsare asked
"Whichis more open? Which is larger?"By
superposition,if necessary,they are led to see
thatopennessof an angle stays the same when
\AAkiW 9kcce fiti? lengthof sides is changed. They arealso asked
to recognizeand constructrightangles. They
are then presented with a puzzle involving
matching an angle by eye, which motivates
Mb. more exact measurementto check. First stu-
0>
dents are asked what they would choose to
to,
measure with, then if and how they have
learnedto measureangles in school. Students
are asked to estimate three angle measure-
ments in degrees,and, if the responseso far is
satisfactory,to check the measureswith a pro-
tractor.(If studentshave never used a protrac-
tor or say they are uncomfortableusing one,
acetate angle measureoverlays, as described
underthe InstructionalBranch,are provided.)

Once students are able to measure angles in

some way, they are shown the diagramof two
adjacentangles to the left. They are asked to
measure the two angles, then to predict the
"outside"one (the sum). (In case perception
of the angles is a problem, a diagram with
color tracingis available.) Studentsare then
shown the diagram to the left with three
adjacent angles. They are asked to predict
angle measurements, after making some
measurements.This leads to discussionof the
measureof a straightangle.
 31

Finally,studentsare shown a triangle,and are

asked to measure angles in it (which are
simply recordedfor later reference). Then a
triangleis shownwith only two measurements
marked, and students are asked if they can
predictthe measureof the unmarkedone. If
they cannot,nothingmore is said aboutangle
sum of a triangle at this point. If they can,
they are asked to explain their reasoning
which probablyinvolves learningaboutangle
sum of a trianglein school. Studentsareasked
about when they learned this, if they can
explain why it is true, and if they learned
aboutangle sum of any otherpolygons.

Instructional Branch

Since students enter this module with a wide range of understandingabout

angles, they might enter the instructionalsequence at any point. The instruction
follows a developmentalsequence for measurement:first comparisonof angles is
discussed, then measuringwith non-standardunits (15 degree wedges), then the
meaning of the unit "degree,"and finally use of a measuringdevice. It was found
that the protractoras a measuringdevice caused many problemsfor students,and
there was not time in this module to remedy them. Thus it was decided to use a
simpler device, angle overlays, which suffices for the measuringrequiredin later
partsof the module.
Studentsare shown an angle and are invitedto
make a congruentone with an angle maker.
They can check by superposition. They are
then challenged to do the same activity, but
this time both angles are made on clock faces
(unmarked)and so checking cannot be done
by direct superposition. Students can check
indirectly by moving an angle maker, but
realize that this is inaccurate,and that a more
reliable way to measure is by placement of
wedges as shown. Studentspracticeestimating
and measuringwith the wedges, discovering
that a right angle measuressix wedges, and a
straight angle twelve. It becomes apparent
that measuring angles this way is quite
imprecise, and that a smaller unit might be
useful. Students examine one wedge that is
 32

marked off in 15 congruent wedges (each

I,s" , 7/ measuring one degree), and are told that
angles are in fact usually measured in these
fv 7is/ i units. They use the fact that there are 15
-,~
~- ,'[__ in an orange wedge to measure
~degrees
' various angles. Once they are comfortable
L... with this process,acetateoverlayswith angles
(multiplesof 15 degrees) are presentedas an
X\$
~___0 easierway to measurethanwith the wedges.

note: Since the overlays come in two sheets, one all acute or rightangles and the
otherall obtuseor rightangles, studentsare led to compareangles with a rightangle
whenmeasuring(althoughthe terminologyacuteandobtuseis not introducedunless
the studentbringsit up). In subsequentwork,studentsare given a choice of whatto
measure with--the overlays, wedges, or a protractor (the last only if it was
previouslyaskedfor andused successfully).

Activity 2. Making Tilings and Grids

This activityestablishesa "globalvisual structure"(in the van Hieles' terms)in
which angle relationshipsof trianglescan be examined. Studentsare encouragedto
manipulatetiles if necessaryto establishthis structure,and then to draw the tiling
patternsand note families of parallellines. The activityalso providesa contextfor
reviewingconceptslearnedin earlieractivities.
Studentsare asked "Canyou close your eyes
and visualize a floor covered with square
tiles? Could you sketch what it would look
like?" (Tiles are available in case a student
needs them.) The student is then shown a
precisely drawn square grid, and is asked
"Whatcan you see in it?"

The interviewerthenasks studentsif they have

seen any other types of tiling patterns, and
shows some pictures of sample floor tilings
which use more than one shape. "Whatother
shapecould you use if you wantedto use only
one shape? Could you use rectangles?"(the
latterquestionbeing asked only if the student
does not suggest it). "Couldyou draw how
they would fit together?" Studentsare led to
I II see how to make a quick drawingusing two
familiesof parallellines.
 33

Students are then given parallelogramtiles,

andaskedto use themto make a tiling. Again
they are led to first constructand then drawa
tiling which contains two families of parallel
/ lines.

Next students are given two right triangles

(more are available, but having just two at
first helps them see the relation to a
rectangle). "Haveyou ever seen trianglesused
as tiles? Try these ones. Can you describe
your method?" When the tiling is complete,
studentsare shown a rectanglegrid. "Hereis a
precise picture of the rectangle tiling you
made. How couldyou put these sticksdownto
make it into a triangulartiling? Is that the
same pattern you made with the pieces?"
Studentsare led to see how a quick drawing
could be made using the three families of
parallellines.

Finally students are given non-righttriangle

tiles, and the process just described is
repeated. Once the trianglegrid is established
from the parallelogram one, students are
shown a complete trianglegrid and are asked
to identify parallel lines, congruent angles,
andvariousshapes.

In summary,studentsare asked what kinds of

shapes can be used to tile, and what kinds of
lines arisein the tilings.

note: Studentsapproachthese tiling tasks in many differentways. Some seem to

"see"the overall scheme at first, and workmethodicallyby rows, while othersuse a
trial and errormethod for each piece. Some see the relationshipbetween triangle
and rectangle/parallelogram grids easily and use it in the construction,while others
do not, preferring to place triangles one by one. If students are becoming
frustrated,the interviewer can begin a patternto be completed, but as long as
studentsremaininterestedin the construction,they are not rushedtowardscreating
the standardgrids.
 34

Activity 3. Saws and Ladders

In this activity a triangle grid is used to identify "saws"and "ladders."The
activity assesses a student's ability to see shapes embedded in a grid, and to
formulatepropertiesof saws and ladderswithoutinstruction.
~
\\A.~~s Students look at a right triangle grid (see
diagram A to the left), and are asked to
B identify shapes and lines in it. They are then
'-^.. ^ K givenan acetatesheetwitha ladderdrawnon
2^^^^ [it (diagramB), and asked if they can find it in
c _~_P I~ fthe grid. They are asked what it looks like,
(g____ o __ and are shown pictures of "ladder-like"
X I' ~objects (diagram C). Two more ladders
- _Y g drawnon acetatearepresented(diagramsD
..______
and E), to be identified in the grid. The
instructorthen demonstrateshow on a ladder,
one stick can be placed on the "side," and
anotherstick slid down it to make the "rungs"
,
6Q(diagram F). (Studentsare asked to demon-
strate this on another ladder.) Students are
shown a pictureof a non-ladder(diagramG):
"Do you think this looks like the ladders
T,k .... L,,d?, you've seen? Why not? Actually this one is
^ '~ , ~not a ladder. Do you see why?" If students
T oce* ,Mi.,? have difficulty forming this concept, a
\^^
^^"creature f^ card"is availablewhich shows more
wo,,u,^,,..s examples and non-examples, and asks the
? i c.t G' student to decide on some others. Finally
studentsareaskedto describea ladder.
^' ~ This sequence is repeatedfor saws: showing
_,-^"
T'< '"
"-~ft?^ an example on acetate to locate in the grid,
fi t2
t4 ///Lu some "saw-like"
a
pictures,somemoreacetate
w k.6, .Vt, SW-,: examples,and figurewhich is not a saw;then
1
v CL showing the "creature card," and finally
askingfor a descriptionof a saw.

note: This activity allows studentsinitially to develop the concept of ladderand

saw at level 0, on a basis of "looks like one". However questioning about why
figuresare and arenot laddersor saws, andthe descriptionof these concepts,allows
one to assess the student'stendencyto think spontaneouslyin terms of properties.
The activity also determines how readily students use standard vocabulary
introducedin Module 1.
 35

Activity 4. Coloring Angles

In this activity studentsexaminecongruentangles on a trianglegrid and areled
to develop propertiesof parallelism and angle congruence of saws and ladders.
They are then asked to apply these properties in a parallelogram grid to
formulate/explainthatthe oppositeangles of a parallelogramare congruent.
Fi;tishStW. A^,c.y Studentsare given coloredmarkingpens anda
' ',^_ .^f"~ ~ sheet with a triangle grid on which parts of
r~/.j^i^^ ~ several saws and laddershave been marked.
They are asked to extend these, identifying
them as saws or ladders. When this is com-
pleted,they areaskedto look at one ladderand
color in all angles on it congruentto a given
one. (A cardboardcut-outtriangleis available
: to check congruence.) They then color in
t
~? 1 congruentangles on each of the otherladders,
and are asked "Whatdo you notice about the
angles?" Students are led to summarizethe
fact that ladders have two sets of congruent
angles, which is summarizedon a file cardfor
LADDER lateruse. Finally, the interviewerasks "Now
you've found some featuresof ladders. What
else can you say about a ladder?" If students
do not respondspontaneously,they are led to
summarize the parallelism property of
ladders.

The same process of formulatingpropertiesis

repeatedfor saws. Studentscolor in angles on
SAW the saws in the grid, summarizethe property
(one set of congruent angles) on a card for
later reference, and then discuss parallelism
(two families of parallel lines). Finally
r aVL^I•
a.^~ , students are asked to review the special
propertiesof a saw.

note: Studentswho are thinkingat level 0 can follow throughmost of this activity
by looking at specific examples, but may not be able to summarize fluently.
Spontaneousformationof the two propertiesof saw and ladder indicates level 1
thought. The next partof this activity is designedto see if studentscan relatethese
properties,and if they spontaneouslyformulateor duplicate"if-then"phrasing.
 36

Students are shown how parallel lines can

easily be madeusing opposite sides of a ruler,
and how congruent angles can be made by
tracing around an angle cut-out. Then the
interviewer constructs a ladder using only
P _ parallels as follows: "I'm going to make
-) p somthingusing only this ruler. FirstI'll make
several parallellines, like this--thenI'll draw
a line crossing them, like this. What do you
think is true about these angles? What could
you call what I have made?" Then the inter-
viewer constructs a ladder using only
congruentangles by drawinga line and then
tracing congruentangles along it. "Whatdo
you thinkI could say aboutthese lines? What
could you call what I have made?" In
summary,the interviewersays: "So you see
there are two ways to make a ladder--one
using parallel lines, one using angles. If I
makeone using parallellines, do you thinkthe
angles will always be congruent? And if I
r il '"T---
makeone with congruentangles,will the lines
alwaysbe parallel?"
The demonstrationis now repeatedfor a saw.
The intervieweruses the ruler to constructa
saw with parallellines, and then the studentis
asked to constructa saw using only the traced
7A _-)
//_ angle. Studentsareled to summarizewhathas
been done for saws, and also to summarize
againwhatwas done for ladders.
note: If studentsdo not recognize the "if-then"natureof this constructionat this
point, they are not questioned further,but if they do, they are asked about the
converse. Awarenessof the distinctionbetween a statementand its converse is an
indicationof level 2 thinking.

Next studentsare asked to apply what they know about saws and laddersto
prove informallythatangles are congruent.
Students are shown the parallelogramgrid
constructedearlier, and are asked to review,
in particular,to identify parallel lines, saws
andladders.They arethenshown sheets 1 and
2 (see drawings):"Hereare two picturesof a
 37

I I part of this grid. If we wanted to color in

angles which are congruent, we might use
I L L I L I saws andladdersto help. Forexample,on this
one, could you use a saw or a laddderto show
f- + I
/ / that these two angles are congruent?" (The
summary cards for saw and ladder are
availablefor reference.)

When students can identify the appropriate

saw and ladder in sheets 1 and 2, they are
shown sheet 3. "Sometimeswe need to use a
combinationof saws and laddersto show that
Y L~~~~~i angles are congruent." Students are given a
4'~~~~~5 chance to try this, and if necessaryare shown
how to do it. This process is repeated for
iii / 7 sheets4 and5.

Students are then shown the parallelogram

grid again,and are askedto color in all angles
congruent to a given one. They are
encouragedto use saws and laddersto explain
the coloring. "Do you notice anythingabout
the angles in a parallelogram?"In summary,
studentsareaskedto explainwhy the opposite
angles of a parallelogramare congruentusing
of X.
saws and ladders. If they need guidanceto do
OpffrOit< wlcte
p 1roroverat^. are this, they are then asked to summarize the
argument for the other pair of opposite
angles. Finally, a summarycardfor opposite
angles of a parallelogram is shown, and
4/p studentsare asked if (andhow) they have seen
this fact before.

note: In orderto be able to reasonthroughsheets 3 and 4, studentsmust be able to

applythe transitivepropertyof congruence. Some studentshave difficultywith this
unless particularnumbersare assignedto the angles--theydo not seem able to make
generalstatements,but can say "Let'ssay this one is 70 degrees,then so is this one,
and this one." Other studentshave difficulty more generally in following/giving
explanationswith severalsteps.
The five sheets on the parallelogramgrid are necessaryto practiceapplication
of the saw and ladder propertiesprior to considerationof their use in informal
"proofs"(level 2) (such as the one given for congruence of opposite angles of a
parallelogram,andthe one to come in the next activity).
 38

Activity 5. Developing Properties from Grids

This activity is designed to develop angle sum properties of triangles and
quadrilateralsusing grids of tilings, and to assess a student'sabilityto explainthese
properties.
., ,./ /,/
/ Nl Studentsare given a triangle grid, on which
one triangle has its angles colored in three
differentcolors. Studentsare asked to color
in congruent angles in appropriatecolors,
using saws and laddersto explain. When all
angles have beeen colored around a point,
studentsare asked "Whatdo the three colors
correspondto in the originaltriangle? What
rdo
iE^j<~ you notice aboutthe colors aroundthis
point?" Then one half is coveredwith a sheet
y^r ~of paper. "Whatdoes this tell you about the
threedifferentangles together?"The fact that
the angle sum of the triangleis 180 degreesis
shown summarizedon a card. Students are
Suwvol tic gIcs then asked to verify the fact on another grid,
ofoto:Tri-\t
a',iA\ct is iS l0?
I0
and asked if they think it would work on any
.....- triangle grid. They also consider the
7/:\. measurementsthey made of a trianglein
Activity 1, so that at least four instanceshave
been verified.

Studentsare then asked to explain again how

the coloringon the summarycardtells thatthe
sum of the angles is 180 degrees, (including
why the saws and ladders are saws and
ladders). They are asked if they have learned
this fact before, and if so, how. Finally, if
studentsdid not complete it earlier, they are
again shown the sheet from Activity 1 which
shows a triangle with only two angle
measurementsgiven.

note: This is the first time that studentsare asked explicitly about the sum of the
angles of a triangle. In Activity 1, it was found thatmany subjectshad learnedthis
fact before by rote or by measuringangles and addingthe measures. In Activity 5,
it was found thatthis priorknowledgecould interferewith theirreasoningaboutthe
saw and ladderargumentbecause they do not feel the need to explain what they
alreadyknow. Thus it was decidedto ask aboutpriorlearningof this fact only after
it was developedhere.
 39

Questioning about use of saws and ladders in other grids or on the summary
card allows assessment of whether a student is thinking in terms of a particular
diagram,or is able to abstractthe argumentto a more generalsituation.
Studentsare then asked to considerthe angle
'{J| ^_ ^_
_ I11 sum of quadrilaterals.They are asked about
= i-+1 I ! -
!? i !
I angle sums while looking at square,rectangle,
andparallelogramgrids. They are then asked
-O^~~-, if the sum of the angles of any quadrilateral
will be 360 degrees. To verify, they are given
copies of an irregularquadrilateralwith the
four angles colored, which can be fitted
together. A summary card is presented for
angle sum of quadrilaterals. Students are
asked if they had learnedthis fact before, and
if so, how.

By this point, some studentswill have intro-

duced the idea of finding the angle sum of a
quadrilateralby dividing it into two triangles.
If it has not been suggested, the interviewer
leads studentsto discover this method. Once
I students seem comfortable with this idea,
II using it on a couple of examples, they are
given the diagramshown with two diagonals
drawnin: "Someonedividedthis quadrilateral
into four triangleslike this, and said that the
0 sum of the angles of each triangle is 180
I
I
degrees. Whatwould happenif you do it this
I
I way?"

Finally,studentsare askedto summarizewhat

they've learned about quadrilaterals, and
which way they prefer to think about angle
sum (tiling patterns or subdivision into
triangles).
note: Many students seem to misinterpretthe subdivision of a quadrilateralinto
two triangles--theyconfuse measurementof angle with area. The question about
four triangles determinesif they really know what is being added, if they can see
that an extra 360 degrees is includedwhen the angle sums of all four trianglesare
added. The question about which method is preferred distinguishes between
studentswho like the strong visual impactof the tiling, and those who appreciate
thatthe subdivisionargumentwill work for any quadrilateral.
 40

Activity 6. Family Trees

This activity is designed to assess the student'sunderstandingof concepts
developedpreviouslyin the module, to introducearrowsas a symbol for relations
between properties,and to assess the student'sability to interrelatepropertiesand
develop a logical hierarchy.
Studentsare shown cards from earlieractivi-
ties which summarize facts and properties
developed. These cardsreferto:

|LPOD SAW
Saw (congruentangles coloredin)
,\
Ladder(congruentangles coloredin)
Oppositeangles of parallelogramare
A st -o.glt c5l\C
congruent
mea5u<es S00O Ofpositet -1les Straightangle measures180 degrees
< /,\ of a. fpour.1Atloyf Angle sum of a triangle
&
I 1 Angle sum of a quadrilateral.
Studentsare asked "Canyou explainwhatthis
card means?" If answers are not complete,
students are led to review parallelism and
angle congruence of saws and ladders, the
process of coloring angles in a trianglegrid,
and the two techniquesfor finding angle sum
of a quadrilateral.

The notion of an "ancestor"relationbetween

facts is introducedthroughreferenceto facts
of arithmetic. "Sometimes you can use
informationthat you know to help you learn
new things. For example, do you remember
when you learnedhow to add numbers? First
10 you had to learn the simple facts such as
,
?,I 2+3=5 and 5+4=9. Then lateryou used these
facts to help you lear how to add two-digit
numbers, using tens and ones, in problems
such as 25+34=59." This relationis pictured
with an arrow,as shown. Studentsare asked
to put arrows in the diagram relating other
types of arithmeticfacts, and to explain their
thinking.The completeddiagramis compared
to a "familytree."
 41

of aoA\Ces
The interviewer points to the fact summary
SuvY
of (o tr'i ^a lI cards and says: "Let us return to these
is t 0?.
%,J geometryfacts we've been discussing. Do you
see how one of thesefacts couldbe an ancestor
of another?"If necessaryan example is given
of how to place an arrowfrom "anglesum of a
triangle" to "angle sum of a quadrilateral"
cards. Studentsare then asked "Whatcould
you say about the angle sum of a five-sided
figure, a pentagon? Why?" If a hint is
necessary,studentsareprovidedwith sticks to
subdivide a pentagon. They may construct
either three triangles, or a triangle and a
quadrilateral,and if necessary they are led to
see how this implies thatthe angle sum of the
pentagon can be found as 180+180+180
degrees, or 180+360 degrees. A card is
shown summarizingthis fact.

Studentsare then askedhow this fact could fit

into the family tree startedbefore. Whichever
method they use (three triangles or quadri-
lateral and triangle), the interviewer points
out thatit couldbe done the otherway andthat
the family tree will then be a bit different.
Studentswho have been successfulto thispoint
are asked if they can thinkof any other cards
that might be put at the bottom of the family
trees. Some studentssuggest a cardfor angle
sum of hexagons,etc.

The interviewer then refers back to the

remainingfact cards, more loose arrows,and
a scalene triangle grid. "Could we go the
other way--could we find some ancestorsof
this fact, the angle sum of a triangle is 180
degrees? It may help you to rememberif you
look at this trianglein a grid. What did you
need to find the angle sum?" If necessary,
studentsare helped to recall the use of saws
and ladders in this argument. "How would
you arrangethe cards?"Studentsare askedto
explain their placement of arrowsand cards.
The expected family tree is as shown to the
left.
 42

I5AvJ l\ LAVDEP Finallystudentsareaskedto identifyancestors

|/|@ /l /5a~k of the fact card for opposite angles of a
parallelogram,and to fit this into the family
a s tree. "Haveyou ever thoughtabouthow facts
Opposite oIf
'C
o(L^llo-rom L, can be related like this before? in geometry?
co .5At. in other mathematics topics? in anything
Y]ELg 7else?"
note: The initialintroductionof the languageof ancestorsandfamily trees is put in
the context of a familiar topic, arithmetic, to avoid confusion of reasoning
difficultieswith difficultiesin geometricconcepts. Some studentstend to interpret
the arrowas meaning "I learnedthis first." For this reason,care is taken to show
thatdependingon how you thinkaboutit, the pentagonangle sum could fit into the
family tree in two differentways. The review of the saw andladderargumentsfor
angle sum of a trianglein this activitydeterminesjust how comfortablestudentsare
with this type of thinking. Studentswho give the logical relationseasily, and can
express them fluently with arrows (explaining why arrows can't be reversed)
indicatelevel 2 thinking. Studentswho can only relatethe arrowsto time sequence
in whichthe facts were introducedmay be thinkingonly at level 1.

Activity 7. Exterior Angle of Triangle

In this activity students are challenged to apply previously learned facts
(propertiesof saws, ladders, sum of the angles of a triangle) to a new situation
(exteriorangle of a triangle),and to provide a logical justificationof an observed
fact. This activitydeterminesif studentswho did level 1 or level 2 workbefore can
do likewise here in a new situation. The activityis only done if studentshave been
successful in formulatingthe angle sum propertyof a triangle,that is, if they are
thinkingat least at level 1.
Students are given a sheet as shown: "We
looked at some propertiesof a triangleearlier,
Maybe we can find a new propertyinvolving
angles. Could you say anything about the
*i
Z ^~ ~ relationship among these three marked
angles?" Students are allowed time to think
(45 75', zo') aboutthis. Then they can measureand record
the angles.

They are then shown a second sheet. "Inthis

one, two measures are given. What do you
/0. \ thinkthe third,the exteriorangle, would be?"
'/~* ~ Again, studentsare given time to think about
it. Then they are asked, "Measureto check.
 43

Do you notice anything?"Studentsare led, if

necessary,to see thatthe sum of the measures
of the two interior angles marked is the
measureof the exteriorangle marked. When
the propertyseems to have been discovered,
studentsare askedto summarizeit.

They are then asked "Can you explain why

thatshouldbe so?" Littlehelp is given at first,
since the aim is not to instructin the argument,
but to assess the subject's ability to reason
/\Q#{#88{~~~~~~~ throughthis alone. However if necessary, a
hint can be given to thinkof saws and ladders,
or to provide the dotted line shown, and ask
how it relatesto partsof the triangle. Students
are led through the argument if they fail to
provide the reasoning themselves, for they
should not end the module with a sense of
frustration. However if they can provide a
logical explanationthemselves,they areasked
n to explainwhatthey say, and if they thinkit is
true for any triangle. Finally they are shown
another sheet, showing a triangle with the
exterior angle drawn in a different position.
Students are asked if it is also true for this
triangle,andto explainwhy.
The family tree from the previous activity is
TI. tAtcvior Aic. of then shown, and studentsare asked "Canyou
o -trol& Cis c5usl to
+~^ suw* of tt +two fit this cardinto the family tree thatyou made
OphoirQ te ior 0 a^t\5. before? Why did you arrangeit thatway?"

note: Some students provide an algebraic

explanation,arguingthat x+y+z = 180, and w+z = xw
180, so w = x+y. When this happens, students are
congratulated, and asked if they can also do it
anotherway, perhapsusing the diagramshown.

Studentsreasoningat level 2 are likely to searchfor and use propertiesof saws

and laddersto justify the numericalrelationsamongthe angle measures,while those
at level 1 may be satisfied to check particularexamples. Level 1 thinkerstend to
talk about angles in this activity by attachingvalues to each angle measurement,
while level 2 thinkersseem more capableof discussingthe angle measurementsin
general.
 44

Module 3

Overview

This module deals with discovering procedures for finding the area of
rectangles,right triangles,parallelograms,trianglesin general,and trapezoids. At
level 0, students use tiles or transparentsquare inch grids to find the area of a
figure. At level 1, they discoverproceduresfor finding areawhich are generalized
for figures of a certaintype (e.g., the area of right trianglesis found by forminga
rectangle,finding its area,and takinghalf). At level 2, studentsshow relationships
among arearules using family trees and also give informaldeductiveargumentsto
justify arearules (e.g., explainingwhy two congruentrighttriangleswhen properly
placed must form a rectangle).Hence, for right triangles,the area is one-half the
productof its base andheight. (note:Throughoutthis module word descriptorsare
used for finding areas of figures instead of symbolic formulas unless students
initiatethe use of symbolismthemselves.)

The module opens with a change-of-paceactivityusing tangrams.Activity 2 is

basically assessment--thusindicatingwhich instructionalactivitiesneed to be done
(as shown in the diagramon the next page). Activities 3 to 7 sharea formatwhich
blends instructionand assessment. Firststudentsare led to discoverproceduresfor
finding the area of a shape, to generalizethe procedure(e.g., "tellhow to find the
area of this kind of shape to a friend")and then "explainwhy it works." Several
areaproblemsare given and studentsexplain their solutions indicatingwhich rule
they used andhow they used it. Finallythe arearulesarerelatedin a family tree.
The final activities are optional for students who have done some level 2
thinking in the module. One deals with similarity,use of saws and ladders, and
discovery/proofof the midline rule for the areasof figures having theirvertices on
two parallellines (Area= midlinex height),thus unifyingthe arearulespreviously
developed. The other assesses a student's ability to recognize and explain
interrelationshipsamongthe variousfamily trees thathave been constructedduring
prioractivities in the threemodules. The module is summarizedin the diagramon
the next page.
 45

1 Tangrams

2 Assessmentof AreaConcepts--Waysof FindingAreasof Figures

Note: ResultsfromActivity2 determined
whatactivitywasdonenext. Most
studentswentto Activity3 or4.

3 Areaof Rectangles

4 Area of RightTriangles

5 Area of Parallelograms I
6 Areaof Triangles

(7 Area of Trapezoids

41
8 Areaof FiguresWhose VerticesLie on Two ParallelLines

9 9 FinalAcvity
Final Activity on FamilyTree
FamilyTrees

Activity 1. Tangrams
This activity provides a change of pace from work in Modules 1 and 2. It
informally assesses understanding of area and gives some experiences in
decomposingshapesinto othershapesin orderto compareareas.

Tangram pieces are placed in front of the

student with no directives from the
interviewer,to see what the studentdoes with
the pieces. The interviewerasks if the student
has seen thesebefore,andif so, whatwas done
with them. After demonstratinghow to make
 46

a simple puzzle, the interviewer asks the

student:"Canyou use these two smalltriangles
to make this small square? The middle size
triangle?This parallelogram?"After making
the boat, house, and dragon puzzles, the
interviewerdirects the student'sattentionto
the bottoms of the puzzles (the shadedparts)
and asks: "Whichof these shapeshas a larger
A
-L i bottom part? Or do they have the same
space?" The studentis then asked to compare
the areaof three shapesjust by looking. The
1 8/?b studentcanuse tangrampieces to explain.

note: This activityprovidessome informationaboutthe student'svisual abilities,

in particularwhen they solve the tangrampuzzles. Some studentsworkquicklyand
confidentlyand seem to take visual cues from propertiesof the shapes (e.g., sides
that match). Others struggle, do puzzles on a "piece by piece basis," become
frustrated,and need hints from the interviewer. Studentswho have difficulty with
the puzzles also tend to have trouble comparingareas of figures or need to use
pieces to do this. Otherstudentsimaginepieces when comparingareas.

Activity 2. Assessment of Area Concepts and Ways of Finding Areas of

Figures
This activityassesses the student'sunderstandingof "area"(as "spaceinside"),
measureof area (as "howmany units cover a figure"),and proceduresfor finding
the area of rectangles, triangles, parallelograms,and trapezoids. Based on the
student'sresponses here, the interviewerbranches to appropriateinstructionin
Activities3 to 7.

Square inch tiles, a ruler, and a square inch

plastic grid are available to the student.
Showing two cardboard pieces, the inter-
(5) () viewer says: "Supposeyou wantedto make a
little jewelry box for a friend/sister. You
want to cover the top with expensive gold
(5) paper. You can use these two sizes of boxes.
(t) Which top is larger? Which needs more gold
UO?C_<!- paperto cover it? How can you check this?"
?g^^/'^^ 'M~Thenthe interviewersays: "Someoneasks you
which top has the greaterarea. Which does?
Whatdo you mean by 'area'? Anotherperson
says the areaof this cover is 24. Whatdoes he
meanby 'theareais 24'?"
 47

Then the studentwho uses a rule (e.g., "length

times width") is asked to explain why one
multiplies here and whether the rule works
for other shapes (non-rectangles). This type
of assessment is repeated for cut-out right
triangles, parallelograms,and trapezoids, if
the studentknows a rule. If not, the student
uses a gridto figureout the area.

note: In this activity the intervieweris carefulnot to provideinstructionon area,

but simply to assess whatthe studentknows. Assessmentis not pushedbeyondwhat
a studentseems to be able to do. Forexample,if the studentcannotexplainthe area
rule for a rectangle (this is the case for many sixth and some ninth graders),the
studentis not pressed to explain rules for othershapesand may just be asked to try
to find areas of right triangles (using a grid and counting square inches). This
activity reveals studentdifficulties with area concepts due to prior learning (e.g.,
confusion of area and perimeter, mainly for ninth graders). It also provides
examples of "reductionof level" (i.e., when students apply area rules by rote
withoutthinkingaboutwhy they hold).

Activity 3. Rectangles
This activity begins with Level 0 experienceson area--namely,countinghow
many square inches cover a rectangle. Then it leads students to discover a
procedurefor finding the area of a rectangle--multiplyingthe number of square
inches in a row by how manyrows are in a rectangle. The procedureis summarized
by the arearule "lengthx width." Activities4 and5 builduponthis idea.

Having counted squaresto fmd the area of a

| | rectangle,the studentis askedto find a quicker
| way to do this using strips of squares. "How
3|
many squares in a row? How many rows?
How many squares in all? Why?" This is
repeatedfor several rectangles with prompts
if necessary, until the studentformulatesthe
area rule "rowstimes numberof squaresin a
row." The transitionto "lengthx width" is
made by relating area via strips with area
determinedby measuring length (rows) and
width(squaresin a row). The studentis asked
to "describethe rule to a friendover the phone
and explain why one multiplies." To solidify
understandingof the rule, the studentis asked
 48

to find areasof rectanglesand relatedshapes,

explainingwhen the rule applies and when it
does not.
r 7. i
Now an alternate rule, "base x height," is
developed, using an L-square device to
measurebase and height of cut-outrectangles
held upright.

note: After the AssessmentActivity 2, studentscan enterthis activity at different

places. Those who do not know any rule for area of a rectangleenter at the very
beginning and carefully develop the area rule, usually throughmany examples.
Students who know "length x width" but could not explain it may quickly go
throughthe developmentof the rule, often catchingon aftera couple of examples.
Finally,some studentsknow the rule and explainit, but are unfamiliarwith "basex
height." These studentsenter the activity reviewing the rule they know and then
develop the alternateform.

Activity 4. Right Triangles

Studentsare led to discovera procedurefor finding the area of a righttriangle
in termsof the areaof a relatedrectangle. After summarizingthis resultas "Area=
base x height / 2," they are asked to explain why the rule works. Then they relate
the arearules for rectangleand right trianglein a family tree. Finally, finding the
area of lots on a map of downtown Brooklyn provides practice on area of a
rectangle,square,and righttriangle. This mapis used againin lateractivities.

, . The activityopens with findingthe heightand.

base of right triangles, using the L-square
device. The studentthen finds the area of a
: ^1 !i ^[ couple of cut-out right trianglesby counting
squares on an overlay square inch grid.
!l ITI Students notice it is hard to count pieces of
i\ iM
H square inches. A secondcopy of the triangleis
54 availableand studentsare asked if using this
would help. Reference to student's prior
6se Wtl5kt A rf of AreK of work with the tangram puzzle is made as
necessary. The desired procedure is
S et developedby having the studentfind areasof
L N
right triangles systematically--taking 2
congruentcopies, forming a rectangle,using
It
^I^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ base x height, and taking half. Results for
several examples are recorded in a table.
After discovering the method, the student is
 49

asked: "If you were talking to a friend on the

Recta, It telephoneandhe/she had a righttriangle,what
would you tell him/herto do to find its area?
1 What measurementsshould be made? What
|. riLt
itlkt shouldbe done? Explainwhy this works."

Then the family tree idea is reintroduced.

"Howcouldyou place an arrowto show which
of these two rules we used to figure out the
L/ lori 1 other?"
'C or I I
Studentsthen find areas of lots on a map of
downtown Brooklyn to review area rules
// /1/--I? learnedso far.

note: Students can respond at different levels in this activity. At level 0, the
studentuses a transparentgrid to countsquaresandfigure out areasof triangles. At
level 1, studentsdiscoverthe rule "measurelengthandwidthandmultiply,thentake
half because two congruenttrianglesmake a rectangle."They say the rule seems to
work for any right triangle. At level 2, the student carefully explains why two
congruentrighttrianglesform a rectangle. Studentscan do the activity on level 0,
then level 1. Some, however, can give careful arguments, when guided and
encouragedby the interviewer. For example,the interviewersays: "Well,you said
the two righttrianglesmake a rectangle,but how can you be sure? How could you
explain that carefully to me?" Here the interviewer'slanguage about what is
expectedfocuses the student'sthinkingon level 2, namely,explainingwhy.

Activity 5. Parallelograms
In this activitystudentsare askedto discoverproceduresfor finding the areaof
a parallelogram.Three ways are possible: (a) using a grid and countingsquares,
(b) breaking it into two right triangles and a rectangle, (c) cutting off a right
triangle and moving it to form a rectangle with the same base and height as the
parallelogram.Studentsare guided to discover the thirdmethod,to explain it, and
then to relate the parallelogramarea rule to those for rectangleand right triangle
via a family tree.

The activity opens with a discussion of the

base and height of cut-out parallelograms,
<. . .I
.

again using the L-square. Then the studentis

askedto find the areaof a parallelogramlot on
the map, using available materials (overlay
grid, ruler, special cut-out pieces) which
aLL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
embodymethodsb andc above. The studentis
 50

guided, if necessary, to method c. After

fre. of
A. f
trying this method for a couple of
parallelograms, the student is asked to
summarizethis "to a friend"and also explain
why the method works. Then the studentis
pt grof
asked:"Let'sgo back to our family tree. Can
lrec.to.It you put the parallelogramrule into that tree?
Explain."
6--- I CI P ef

The studentis also askedto reviewmethodb if

he/she discoveredit and to place thatmethod
into the family tree.
IAreo of

Activity 6. Triangles
In this activity students are asked to discover ways to find the area of any
triangle. Threeapproachesare shown below.

(a) (b) (c)

Forma rectangle, Subdivideintotwo Forma parallelogram,

thentakehalf. righttriangles. then take half.

Instructionleads studentsto discovermethodc. The activityassesses theirabilityto

discoverthis method,to explainit, andto relatethis new rule to rulesfor rectangles,
righttriangles,andparallelogramsvia family trees.
The activity opens with a review of the area
LstA rule for parallelogramsand how it fits into a
NKs\^ ~familytree. Then the student returnsto the
?I?^^\
'^^^ mmapof Brooklyn to find the area of a
triangulargrassy plot. Students can use a
grid, ruler,D-stix, and duplicatecopies of the
triangle. For whatever approach they use
first, students are asked: "Do you think this
approach would work for any triangle?
\><At-<
-Explain." Then students are guided to
approach c. After using it they are asked:
"How do you know that the two triangles
 51

togetherform a parallelogram? What has to

be trueaboutit to be a parallelogram?"After
some examples, studentsare again asked "Do
you think this method will work for any
triangle? Why?"
Then studentsare given arearule cardsfor the
four shapes discussed so far and asked "How
can you arrange them in a family tree?
Explainwhy you placedthe arrowsthatway."
If the student found the area in other ways,
he/she is askedto show the otherway it would
fit into a family tree.

Activity 7. Trapezoids
As in the two previousactivities,this one deals with ways of findingthe areaof
a particularshape,namely, a trapezoid.

(a) (b) (c)

Divide the figure into Divide the figure into Divide the figure into
a rectangle and two two triangles. a parallelogramand
right triangles. a triangle.

Studentsare guided to methodb which can be expressedinformallyas "theareaof

the trapezoidequals the sum of the areasof a top and a bottomtriangle;thatis, (top
base x height / 2) + (bottombase x height/ 2)." The activity assesses the students'
ability to sort accordingto propertiesof a shape, to discover and explain the area
rule, and to relateit to otherrulesvia family trees.

The activity opens with a "Guess-My-Rule"

'7 sortingof cut-outquadrilaterals
into3 groups
I CI~according
'-' r^/ to the numberof pairs of parallel
Q\J \9 sides (i.e., 2, 1, or 0). The studentguesses the
\1 yO~ ~rrule and then is asked:"Whatmakes a shapea
trapezoid?"and "Forwhich of these 3 groups
do we know area rules?" This, of course,
leads to considerationof finding the area of
trapezoids. (note: This activity is the same as
the optional activity in Module 1. If the
studenthas alreadycompletedthis activity, it
is only recalledhere.)
 52

The studentis askedto measurethe heightof a

trapezoid,and its "base(s)."Then the student
identifies trapezoidlots on a map and tries to
"/ \ find a method for finding their areas. The
.., , student is encouragedto develop any of the
three approachesand is eventually guided to
the second approach. "Whatdo you need to
measurehere to fmd the areaof the trapezoid?
Explain." (For ninth graders with algebra
experience, the rule A = 1/2 bh + 1/2 b'h is
RrtLoof developed, and they are asked to explain it.)
Vc-ct* lc The student is asked: "Do you think this
fY
\:2~ Imethod will work for any trapezoid? Why?"
The studentis askedto summarizeby explain-
fro.r o \\ ing how to find area of a trapezoid to a friend
rigttink ofkl on the phone. Then the student is asked to put
paeloeloyL' the trapezoid rule in the family tree and
D=7
[?att explain. If other methods were cited by the
os; J student,he/she is askedto put themin a family
tree also. The activity closes with considera-
ft [- o| ft^/
]Po.t \I
tion of ways to find the areas of shapes in the
^ PR,->e
of thirdgroupof the initial sort--generalquadri-
-Z troce3o0; laterals. Methods are summarized in the
LhZ. ~familytreeby the student.

Activity 8. Area of Figures Whose Vertices Lie on Two Parallel Lines

This activityis for studentswho have done level 2 thinkingin this module. It
provides opportunitiesfor studentsto discover a generalprinciplefor finding the
areaof figureswhose verticeslie on two parallellines. It assesses a student'sability
to learnand apply new concepts (e.g., similarity,ratio,midpoint)and to interrelate
previously learnedarea rules using propertiesof parallellines, saws and ladders,
and similartriangles. Thus, this activityprovidesan overallassessmentof students'
level 1 and2 thinkingrelatedto area.

Given a sheet of ruled paper, the student draws

several lines in different positions on the paper
: i\ and is asked what is trueof the segments,formed
by the ruled lines, on each of the lines drawn.
This leads to the discovery: "If parallellines are
equally spaced then they cut off equal pieces on
any line crossing them." Other diagrams
illustratingexamples and non-examples of this
principleareexaminedby the student.
 53

Next the student is shown a spider web-like

figurewhich containsvarioussets of triangles.
In exploringthis figure, the studentdiscovers
propertiesof similar triangles--namely,"two
trianglesare similarif theirangles agree"and
"corresponding sides of similartriangleshave
the same ratio." These discoveries are
checked by placing cut-out figures on the
spiderweb figure.

The studentis guidedto use these discoveries

in exploring relationships in figures whose
vertices lie on two parallel lines (e.g.,
rectangle,parallelogram,triangle,trapezoid).
The concept of midline is introducedand the
studentthen establishes,by means of ladders
and similarity,thatthe midline of a triangleis
one half of its base. The student is asked:
"Wouldthis be true in any triangle? Why?
Explain."If guidancehas been necessary,the
studentis askedto recapitulatethe argument.

The studentis asked: "Couldwe express the

area of a triangle in another way, using the
midline?" The usual response is "Oh, it is
midline x altitude."

The student then shows (with guidance as

needed), by dividing the trapezoid into two
trianglesandby using the midlineof a triangle
fact, thatthe midlineof a trapezoidis equalto
one half the sum of the bases. From this the
studentdiscovers that the area of a trapezoid
can also be expressedas midlinex altitude.
a,
Tropeo30.d
The questionis raised:"Couldyou express the
area of a rectangle and a parallelogramin a
Mi(ll,e = -1 Sum of similarway? Explain." This is followed by:
?OoLLSt "If you wanted to summarizefinding area of
i
'w_-~ t
(b+b') these figures, using the midline idea, what
would you say?" The studentis usually quite
surprisedand delightedby the discovery that
midline x altitudeworksin all cases.
 54

The studentis then asked to put all the ideas

I\
If porolll ;ies ocve
generatedin this activityinto a family treeand
to explainthe interrelationships.
5Ps.cet,
IV,lty. it4y

pC.ros o sa itv..
y
c ro50ss ?flta^(L .

,% ll
Fo-r f'igvus w;iA
vt'iceoS ipr&lltl iwtS :

t-/-/ z
A/---\
ft _x VIAt

Activity 9. Final Activity of Family Trees

The goal of this final activity is to assess the student'sability to recognizeand
point out interrelationshipsamongpreviouslydevelopedprinciples.
The familytreesthatthe studenthas developed
in Modules 2 and 3 are displayed (i.e. angle
rto*Xl\ sum for polygons, properties of parallelo-
grams, areas of polygons, areas of figures
[ EI whose vertices lie on two parallel lines) and
0, Or.f\
the student is asked to explain each family
_
ight tf.ifkl tree. The studentis asked: "Canyou see any
Areo.of relationship among these trees? Do they have
otllelIoy,, any common ancestors? Which? What does
/ 7 having a common ancestor mean? Explain
X72
n~ and/orillustrate." The studentis encouraged
of
ARreL \\to traceinterrelationshipsin trees and to note
tria^k v7 the role of saw/ladder principles. "Do you
| </ A^-e< of think the saw and ladder principles have
1pe30.4
to ancestors? What are they?" The student is
/7 .' helped to recognize that there must be some
beginningpoint.
 55

LAQDEP, Questions are raised and discussed about the

/
/OOS possibility of constructing family trees for
otherpartsof mathematicsbesides geometry--
thatis, arithmeticor algebra?
 CHAPTER 4

VAN HIELE LEVEL DESCRIPTORS:

DEVELOPMENTAND DOCUMENTATION

An overview of the five van Hiele levels, theirproperties,andmovementfrom

one level to the next throughfive phaseswas given in Chapter2. This chaptertakes
a closer look at the five levels, in particular,at the Project'scharacterizationof the
van Hiele model in terms of specific behavioral level descriptors. First, the
Project'sformulationof an operationalversion of the van Hiele model is described
and examples of student responses are cited for level descriptors. Second, the
Project's documentationof the level descriptorsby quotations from van Hiele
sourcesis presentedanddiscussed.

Formulation of the van Hiele Model

The Project'scurrentformulationof the van Hiele model is the result of an

evolutionaryprocesswhich involvedthe analysisandreanalysisof van Hiele source
materialsand discussions with Pierrevan Hiele and other van Hiele researchers.
The Project'sinitial version of the van Hiele model was relatively simplistic and
based on Wirszup's (1976) characterizationof the levels, P. M. van Hiele's
(1959/1984) own descriptionof the levels and Cilley's(1979) initialresearchon the
levels.

While this version provided an adequatestartingpoint, it lacked sufficient

detail to be an operationalmodel for the developmentof the Project'sinstructional/
assessmentmodulesandfor the assessmentof a student'slevel of thinking.Thus,the
Projectneeded to flesh out this skeletalversion. This was done by reviewingother
van Hiele sourcematerials--inparticular,Dina van Hiele-Geldofs dissertation. In
all, ten originalvan Hiele sourceswereexamined(see page 72 for a listing).
In reviewing these sources the Projectsought to locate specific passages that
dealtwith the levels. Manysuchpassageswere found,with a majoritycoming from
three sources: P. M. van Hiele's "TheChild'sThought and Geometry",Dina van
Hiele-Geldofs dissertation,and their joint article, "A Method of Initiation into
Geometryin the SecondarySchool." Analysis of these passagesled to revisionand
expansion of the initial version of the model and the generaldescriptorsfor each
level were recastin behavioralterms. Also, specific behavioraldescriptorsfor each
level were formulatedand examples of specific tasks or responses of studentsto
activitieswere given for some level descriptors.This second versionwas examined
in April 1980 by P. M. van Hiele who agreedwith the Project'sinterpretationof the
levels.

This second version underwentfurtherchanges as a result of reanalysisof the

 57

van Hiele sourcesandcarefuldocumentationof the specific level descriptorsagainst

70 selectedpassagesfrom the sources. This revisedsecondversionwas reviewedby
P. M. van Hiele, in May 1981, and also by Alan Hoffer and William Burger,two
researcherson the van Hiele levels. Their reviews resulted in minor changes in
wording for level 1 and 2 descriptorsand the additionof examples for each level
descriptor. These examples served to clarify the Project's interpretationof the
levels. Examples for levels 0, 1, and 2 were derived from performancesof 12
year-olds in Dina van Hiele-Geldofs teaching experiment (1957/1984) and
performancesof sixth andninthgraderson tasks correlatedwith level descriptorsin
the Project's clinical interviews. Students' thinking at levels 3 and 4 were not
investigatedeitherin this Projector in Dina's. Examplesareprovidedfor level 3 as
illustrationsof thinkingat this level, however they were not directly observed in
this study.

The Project's current version of the model includes the above mentioned
changes and also modificationof the descriptorsfor level 4. While making these
revisions, the Project clarified its interpretationof the model and also of the
expression "on a level" in relation to a student--namely,the studentconsistently
exhibits behaviors for all Project descriptorsfor that level. The descriptorsfor
level 0 play a somewhat different role than the descriptorsfor higher levels of
thinking. Level 0 is analogousto the groundfloor of a building--itrepresentsthe
type of thinkingthat all studentswill initially bring to a new subject. Of course,
some studentsmay not be able to do all of the types of actions listed underlevel 0
descriptors, possibly due to lack of experience in the area under study, or to
incompleteor erroneouspriorlearning. Such studentsshould not be describedas
"notyet at level 0." In the Van Hiele model, thereis no "basement,"no level below
level 0.

The revised level descriptorsare presentedon the following pages. For each
level a generaldescriptorprecedes a list of specific descriptorsand accompanying
examples. A discussion of this currentversion in light of results of the clinical
interviews is included in Chapter 10 where questions are raised about the
appropriatenessof some descriptorsfor levels 1 and 2.
 Van Hiele Level Descriptors and Sample Student Responses

Level 0: Student identifies and operates on shapes (e.g., squares, triangles) and other geometric
configurations(e.g., lines, angles, grids) according to their appearance.

Level 0 Descriptors Level 0 Sample StudentResponses

The student
1. identifies instances of a shape by its
appearanceas a whole
a. in a simple drawing, diagram or la. Student identifies squares!in a set of cut-out shap
set of cut-outs. or drawings.

b. in differentpositions. lb. Student points out angles, rectangles, and triangl

in different positions in a photographor on a pag
of diagrams.

c. in a shape or other more complex Ic. Studentpoints to the rightangles in a trapezoid.

configurations.
Student outlines figures in a grid (e.g., angles
parallel lines, ladders).
2. constructs,draws,or copies a shape. 2. Student makes figures with D-stix: rectangle
parallel lines.
Studentmakes a tiling patter with cut-out triangl
and copies the patter (piece by piece) on paper.

3. names or labels shapes and other 3. Studentpoints to angles of a trianglecalling them

geometric configurations and uses
standard and/or nonstandard names Student refers to angles by color (e.g.; the "redan
and labels appropriately. by letter symbols (e.g., "anglesA and B add to ma
4. comparesand sorts shapes on the basis
of theirappearanceas a whole.
5. verbally describes shapes by their
appearanceas a whole.
6. solves routine problems by operating
on shapes rather than by using
propertieswhich apply in general.
7. identifies partsof a figure but
a. does not analyze a figure in terms
of its components.
b. does not think of properties as
characterizinga class of figures.
c. does not make generalizations
about shapes or use related lan-
guage.
4. Student says "one is a square, the other is a rect
when asked to say what is differentabout a cut-ou
Student sorts cutout quads into "squares,rectang
"theylook alike."
5. Student describes a rectangle as "looks like a squ
as "aslanty rectangle"or angle as "likehands on c
6. Student uses trial-and-error approach to so
tangram puzzles such as making square
parallelogrampieces from two small trianglepiec
Student verifies that opposite sides of a rectangle
parallelby placing D-stix on edges.
Student uses transparent"angle overlay" to find
measure of the thirdangle of a triangle.
Student places square inch tiles on a rectangle
counts them to figure out the area of the rectangl
7a. Student identifies squares by appearanceas a wh
taneously introduce"equalsides and right angles
7b. Student points to sides of a square and measures
but does not generalize equal sides for all square
7c. Student does not spontaneously use "all, some,
such quantifiers in telling whether all, some, or n
shape have a property.
 Van Hiele Level Descriptors and Sample Student Responses
(continued)

Level 1: Student analyzes figures in terms of their components and relationships between
components,establishes propertiesof a class of figures empirically, and uses properties
to solve problems.

Level 1 Descriptors Level 1 Sample Responses

The student

1. identifies and tests relationships 1. Studentpoints to sides and angles of a figure and s
among components of figures (e.g., "ithas 4 right angles and all 4 sides are equal."
congruence of opposite sides of a
parallelogram;congruence of angles
in a tiling pattern).

2. recalls and uses appropriatevocabu-
lary for componentsand relationships
(e.g., opposite sides, corresponding
angles are congruent,diagonals bisect
each other).
2. Student observes that for a parallelogram "th
parallel and so are these,"checking with D-stix th
or are equally spaced.

3. a. comparestwo shapesaccording to 3a. Studenttells how a cut-out squareand rectanglea

relationships among their com- terms of their angles and sides.
ponents.
b. sorts shapes in different ways 3b. Student makes up a rule for sorting quads--for
according to certain properties, numberof right angles, or by numberof pairs of
including a sort of all instances of
a class from non-instances.

4. a. interpretsand uses verbaldescrip- 4a. Student reads property cards "4 sides" and "all s
tion of a figure in terms of its prop- draw a shape with these two propertiesthat is not
 erties and uses this descriptionto
draw/construct the figure.
b. interpretsverbalor symbolicstate- 4b. When shown a propertycard for "saw,"the s
mentsof rulesandappliesthem. scribesa sawanduses it to identifycongruentang
Studentcan explainthe arearule--Area= lengthx
andrecognizeswhenit appliesanddoesnotapply

5. discovers properties of specific 5. After coloring in congruentangles in a triang

figures empiricallyand generalizes
propertiesfor thatclass of figures.
studentnotesthat"thethreeanglesof the triangl
sameas thethreeanglesthatmakea straightlinea
angle sum of the triangleis 180 degrees." The
thinksthis will workfor othertrianglesandtries
thisby usinggridsbasedon othertriangles.
After several instances of putting two congue
trianglestogetherto forma rectangle,the student
you can find the area of a right triangleby m
rectangleandtakinghalf its area.
Fromseveral numericalcases, the studentdisco
angleof a triangleequalsthe sumof its two non-
andbelievesthatthis is trueforanytriangle.

6. a. describes a class of figures 6a. Studentdescribesa squareoverthe telephoneto a

(e.g., parallelograms)in termsof sides,4 rightangles,all sidesareequal,andoppos
its properties.
b. tells whatshapea figureis, given 6b. Givencertainpropertiesas cluesabouta shape,stu
certainproperties. mustbe on thebasisof theproperties.
 Van Hiele Level Descriptors and Sample Student Responses
Level 1 Descriptors
7. identifies which properties used to
characterizeone class of figures also
apply to another class of figures and
compares classes of figures according
to their properties.
8. discovers properties of an unfamiliar
class of figures.
9. solves geometric problems by using
known properties of figures or by
insightfulapproaches.
(continued)
Level 1 Sample Responses
7. -laving noted that parallelograms have "oppos
student spontaneously adds "oh, so do these squa
(pointing to these groups of sorted cutout quads).
8. After completing a sort of quads into kites and
discovers and verbalizes propertiesthat character
9. When asked to find some angles in a photograph
are lots of angles because there are many triangle
each has 3 angles."
Student solves a problem about the line conne
centers of two circles of equal radiiand the line co
the two points where the circles intersect.The stu
a rhombus in the diagram and observes that the
perpendicularbecause they are diagonals of the rh
Studentfigures out the angle sum of a quad is 360
the 4 angles arounda point (i.e., 360?) or because
into two triangles (180? + 180? = 360?).
Student figures out how to find the area of a ne
shape by subdividing or transformingit into shap
whose areas he can already determine (e.g.,
parallelogram into 2 triangles and a rectangle o
into a rectangle).
10. formulates and uses generalizations
about propertiesof figures (guided by
teacher/materialor spontaneously on
own) and uses related language (e.g.,
all, every, none) but

a. does not explain how certain lOa. When shown a parallelogram grid, the student
properties of a figure are inter- explain how the idea "opposite angles are equal" f
related. from "oppositesides are parallel."

b. does not formulateand use formal lOb. When asked to define a parallelogram,the student
definitions. but does not identify a set of necessary or a set of su

c. does not explain subclass relation- lOc. After the studenthas listed the propertiesof all the
ships beyond checking specific in- family, the student cannot explain why "all recta
stances against given list of prop- grams"or why "all squares are kites."
erties.

d. does not see a need for proof or lOd. After discovering the principle that the angle sum of
logical explanationsof generaliza- coloring angles in a triangle grid or by measuring,
tions discovered empirically and see any need for giving a deductive argumentto sh
does not use related language is valid.
(e.g., if-then, because) correctly.
 Van Hiele Level Descriptors and Sample Student Responses
(continued)

Level 2: Studentformulatesand uses definitions, gives informal argumentsthat orderpreviousl

discovered properties,and follows and gives deductive arguments.

Level 2 Descriptors Level 2 Sample StudentResponses

The student

1. a. identifies different sets of prop- la. Student selects properties that characterize a c
erties that characterize a class of squares, parallelograms) and tests by drawings
figures and tests that these are D-stix that these propertiesare sufficient.
sufficient.
Student explains that two different sets of proper
characterize a class of parallelograms--either "4
sides are parallel"or "4 sides" and "oppositesides a
b. identifies minimumsets of proper- Ib. In describing a square to a friend, the student selec
ties thatcan characterizea figure. erties the fewest properties so the friend would b
must be a "square."
c. formulates and uses a definition Ic. Studentformulatesa definition of a kite and uses it
for a class of figures. are or are not kites.
2. gives informal arguments(using dia-
grams, cutout shapes that are folded,
or other materials).

a. having drawn a conclusion from 2a. Studentconcludes that "if angle A = angle B and an
given information, justifies the angle B, then angle A = angle C because they bot
conclusion using logical relation- angle B."
ships.
 When asked to explain why angle A = angle B in a
grid, the student says "the lines are parallel, and th
saw (pointingto it), so angle A equals angle B by a s

b. ordersclasses of shapes. 2b. Student responds to the question Is a rectangle a

explaining "yes, because they have all the propert
and also the special propertyof right angles."

Student uses the propertiesthat characterizekites a

why all squaresare kites but not all kites are square

c. orders two properties. 2c. Given a list of propertiesof a square,the studentsa

equal is not needed because it alreadysays that all fo
Having figured out a rule for the area of a right tria
a rectangle, the student summarizesby making a fa
ing "you need this thought (rectangle rule) befo
rule)."
acute angles in an
d. discovers new properties by de- 2d. Student explains that the two
triangle add up to 90? because "180 minus the rig
duction.
leaves 90, and that is what is left for the two acute a

Student deduces that the angle sum for any quad

360? "because the quad can be cut into two trian
180? plus 180? makes 360?." When asked if it is po
get 4 x 180? = 720? for the angle sum if the qua
divided into 4 triangles (as shown here), the
explains that "No, the inside angles are not par
quad'sangles. So, if you do 4 x 180? you have to ta-
the extra angles in the middle, and that gives 720?
360? just as before."
 Van Hiele Level Descriptors and Sample Student Responses
(continued)
Level 2 Descriptors Level 2 Sample StudentResponses

Studentdiscovers that the angle sum for a pentago

by breaking the pentagon into a quad (360?) and a
(180?) and says that this will work for any pentago
e. interrelatesseveral properties in a 2e. Student arranges property cards to form a
gene
family tree. "ancestral" relationships--that is, student expla
"straightangle = 180?"are ancestors of "anglesum
and how this leads to "anglesum of a quad is 3600."
Student tells how the area rule for a parallelogram
the area rule for a rectangle and puts this in a famil
3. gives informaldeductivearguments
a. follows a deductive argument and 3a. Student gives reasons for steps in a proof that the a
can supply partsof the argument. sum of a triangle equals 180? as the interviewergu
the student through the proof.
b. gives a summaryor variation of a 3b. Student is given a parallelogramgrid and asked to
deductive argument. a logical explanation why "opposite angles are c
gruent." The student is not able to give the explana
on his own but does follow the one given by the in
viewer for angle A = angle C. Then the stu
summarizes the explanation in his own words and
explains why angle B = angle D.
Interviewer assists the student through a deduc
explanation of why the exterior angle of a tria
(angle X) equals angle P + angle Q. Stu
summarizes this argument and then gives a comp
argument on her own for a variation of this (
angle Y = angle R + angle S).
 c. gives deductive arguments on
own.
4. gives more than one explanation to 4.
prove something and justifies these
explanationsby using family trees.
5. informally recognizes difference
between a statementand its converse.
6. identifies and uses strategies or in- 6.
sightful reasoningto solve problems.
3c. Studentgives explanationon own for "oppositeang
are equal."
Studentjustifies why the area of a right triangleis
explaining that two congruent right triangles mak
put the two trianglestogetherlike this, you get oppo
the trianglesare the same size). Angles B and D are
angles in the right triangles. Also, angles A and
right angles because in a right triangle the two sm
angles togethermake 90?. Angle Z is the same as an
so Angle Y and Z add up to 90?. So the shape mus
rectangle, and the right triangle must be half the a
the rectangle."
Student gives two different explanations why the a
equals 180?--eitherby two saws or by a saw and a l
are then shown by two different family trees.
Student explains the angle sum of a pentagon equa
into three triangles (3 x 180?) or by dividing it into
(360? + 180?) and showing each method by a family
5. In a discussion of saws and ladders, the studentdisc
angles are made equal, then the lines are parallel"
lines are parallel, then the angles are equal." When
same statements, the student realizes "No, in one y
lines and make the angles equal, and in the otheryou
Given the problem that M is the midpoint of AB in
triangle ABC, and MT is parallel to BC, find the
ratio of MT to BC, the student uses the strategy of
ladder to get congruent angles and hence similar
triangles. So since AM:AB as 1:2, then MT:BC
as 1:2.
 Van Hiele Level Descriptors and Sample Student Responses
Level 2 Descriptors
11
7. recognizes the role of deductive 7.
argumentand approachesproblems in
a deductivemannerbut
a. does not grasp the meaning of
deduction in an axiomatic sense
(e.g., does not see the need for
definitionsand basic assumptions).
b. does not formally distinguish be-
tween a statementand its converse
(e.g., cannot separatethe "Siamese
twins"--the statement and its con-
verse).
c. does not yet establish interrela-
tionships between networks of
theorems.
(continued)
Level 2 Sample StudentResponses
Given two intersectingcircles A and B, not with th
same radii, and a common chord CD, show that AB
is perpendicularto CD. The studentproves this
b
establishing that ADBC must be a kite and then th
perpendicularity of its diagonals makes AB
perpendicularto CD.
Student recognizes the role of logical explanatio
ments in establishing facts (versus an inductive,
em
says (after giving a logical explanation) "I know
every pentagon is 540? and I don't have to mea
student has yet to experience "proof' in an axiom
postulates, axioms, definitions) and so is uncert
possible "ancestors"to the saw and ladderprinciple
 Level 3: Student establishes, within a postulational system, theorems and interrelationship
between networks of theorems.

Level 3 Descriptors Level 3: Sample StudentResponses

Note: This study was not designed to include an in-d

studentsusing level 3 type of thinking. However,
proposed student responses which in the Proj
The student indicative of level 3 thinking.

1. recognizes the need for undefined 1. Student gives examples of axioms, postulates, and t
terms, definitions, and basic assump- plane geometry and describes how they are related
tions (e.g., postulates).

2. recognizes characteristicsof a formal 2. Student identifies sufficient properties for def

definition (e.g., necessary and suffi- parallelogram)and derives other propertiesfrom th
cient conditions) and equivalence of
definitions. Student proves that two sets of properties are equ
shape (e.g., parallelogram).

3. proves in an axiomatic setting rela- 3. Studentproves the sum of the angles of a trianglee
tionships that were explained in- way (e.g., using the parallel postulate, saws and l
formally on level 2. about angle addition).

4. proves relationships between a 4. Student proves that if a triangle is isosceles, the

theorem and related statements (e.g., congruent, and conversely.
converse, inverse, contrapositive).
Using proof by contrapositive, student proves that
do not bisect each other.

5. establishes interrelationships among 5. Student recognizes the role of saws and ladders
networks of theorems. involving propertiesof quadrilateralsand area rule
 Van Hiele Level Descriptors and Sample Student Responses
(continued)

Level 3 Descriptors Level 3: Sample StudentResponses

6. compares and contrasts different 6. Student gives proofs via Euclidean geometry
proofs of theorems. geometry (or vector geometry) that the diagona
bisect each other and comparesthe two methods of

Student compares alternateproofs of the Pythagor

7. examines effects of changingan initial 7. Startingwith "Two lines perpendicularto the same
definition or postulate in a logical student investigates how to prove other parallel line
sequence.
8. establishes a general principle that 8. Student proves the following relationship for the
unifies several differenttheorems. vertices lie on two parallellines: area = midline x
9. creates proofs from simple sets of 9. Student gives proofs of theorems in a fmite geomet
axioms frequently using a model to
supportarguments.
10. gives formal deductive argumentsbut 10. Studentdoes not examine independence,
does not investigate the axiomatics consistency
set of axioms.
themselves or compare axiomatic
systems.
Level 4: Studentrigorouslyestablishes theorems in differentpostulationalsystems and analyze
comparesthese systems.

Level 4 Descriptors

The student

1. rigorouslyestablishes theorems in different

axiomatic systems (e.g., Hilbert'sapproach
to foundationsof geometry).

2. compares axiomatic systems (e.g., Euclide-

an and non-Euclidean geometries); spon-
taneously explores how changes in axioms
affect the resultinggeometry.

3. establishes consistency of a set of axioms,

independenceof an axiom, and equivalency
of different sets of axioms; creates an
axiomatic system for a geometry.

4. invents generalized methods for solving

classes of problems.

5. searches for the broadestcontext in which a

mathematicaltheorem/principlewill apply.

6. does in-depth study of the subject logic to

develop new insights and approaches to
logical inference.
 72

Documentation

As noted above, the Project's current version of the van Hiele model was based
largely on analyses of van Hiele sources. Nine major sources were the basis for the
documentation reported below. Translations of sources 2, 8 and 9 are included
along with source 1 in the Project's English Translation of Selected Writings of
Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele (Fuys, Geddes, & Tischler, 1984).

1. van Hiele, P. M. (1957). Englishsummary.[Theproblemof insightin connection

with school children'sinsight into the subjectmatterof geometry.] (Unpublished
Universityof Utrecht).
doctoraldissertation,
2. van Hiele,P. M. (1959). [A child'sthoughtandgeometry.] Bulletinde l'Association
des Professeursde Mathematiques Public,198, 199-205.
de l'Enseignment
3. van Hiele, P. M. (1959). Developmentandthe learningprocess. Acta Paedogogica
Ultrajectina.Groningen:J. B. Wolters,1-31.
4. andinsight.] Purmerend:
van Hiele,P. M. (1973). [Understanding Muusses.
5. van Hiele, P. M. (1980, April). Levelsof thinking,how to meet them.how to avoid
them. Paperpresentedat the annualmeetingof the NationalCouncilof Teachersof
Mathematics, Seattle,WA.
6. andInsight.New York:AcademicPress.
vanHiele,P. M. (1986). Structure
7. vanHiele,P. M., & vanHiele-Geldof,D. (1958). A methodof initiationintogeometry
at secondaryschools. In H. Freudenthal(Ed.),Reporton methodsof initiationinto
geometry(pp.67-80). Groningen:J. B. Wolters.
8. van Hiele-Geldof,D. (1957). [The didacticsof geometryin the lowest class of
Universityof Utrecht,1957).
doctoraldissertation,
secondaryschool.] (Unpublished
9. van Hiele-Geldof,D. (1958). [Didacticsof geometryas learningprocessfor adults.]
Antwerp:Drukkerij N.V.
"Excelsior"

note: In this section (pages 72-76) all page references for quotations from sources
1, 2, 8 and 9 are made in terms of pages in the Project's English translation of
selected writings of the van Hieles (Fuys, Geddes, & Tischler 1984).

About 100 passages in these sources were found to be related to the levels.
Others were more specific, perhaps stated in terms of responses of pupils in Dina
van Hiele-Geldofs teaching experiment. Several passages repeated ideas in others.
In all, 70 quotations were selected for documentation of the levels. A sample of
these quotations is given on pages 74-76.

Documentation was done by a Project staff member who identified quotations

and checked each quote against level descriptors. After the staff member correlated
the quotes with level descriptors, another staff member validated the documenta-
tion. Differences between raters were identified: (a) quotes that were inappropri-
 73

ately matched to a descriptor,and (b) quotes that were not matched initially and
shouldhave been. Most differenceswere of the secondtype, and they were resolved
by discussingthe passageandpossible descriptors.In most cases, differencesarose
from alternativeinterpretationsof or inferences to be drawnfrom the passage, in
particular,the more generalpassagesfor levels 2, 3, and4.
The documentationyielded 11 quotationsfor level 0, 19 for level 1, 21 for level
2, 11 for level 3, and 8 for level 4. Some quotationsdocumentedmore than one
specific descriptor. Many descriptorswere documentedby severalquotations. All
but five descriptors(2-la, 2-lb, 2-5, 4-8, 4-9) were documentedby at least one
quotation. A complete listing of the 70 quotations and Tables indicating their
correlationwith level descriptorsare found on pages 79-105 of the Project'sFinal
Report (Fuys, Geddes, & Tischler, 1985) which is available throughEducational
ResourcesInformationCenter(ERIC).

Results of the documentationsupportthe Project'sinterpretationof the van

Hiele model. The largenumberof quotationswas includedin this documentationto
facilitatea more completecharacterizationof the levels thanwas providedby other
researcherswho did not have available English translationsof several majorvan
Hiele sources, most notably, Dina van Hiele-Geldofs thesis. The validation of
descriptorsfor levels 0, 1, and 2 is particularlystrong, since most descriptorsare
documentedby several quotations. The abundanceof referencesin the sources to
levels 0, 1, and 2 is to be expected since the van Hieles were secondary school
teachersand thereforechiefly concered aboutteachingandlearningat these levels.
This explains, in part, why there are relatively few referencesin their writings to
levels 3 and 4. They providenumerousexamples of studentperformanceat levels
0, 1, and 2, but give almost none at levels 3 and 4. Also, they tend to speak in
generaltermsaboutthe higherlevels. Projectdocumentationof specific descriptors
at level 3 and, in particular,at level 4 is less precise. Hence the Projectregarded
these descriptorsas tentative. The Projectstaff engaged in considerablediscussion
about the specific descriptorsfor levels 3 and 4. In additionto analyzingthe van
Hiele sources, staff membersdrewupon theirexperienceslearninggeometryat the
secondary, undergraduate,and graduate levels and their experiences teaching
geometryat the secondaryandcollege levels in formulatingthese level descriptors.
As noted above five level descriptorswere not correlated with any quotations.
These descriptors were kept because they reflected student performances that
seemed to fill in a level. For example, 2-la ("identifiesdifferentsets of properties
that characterize a class of figures") and 2-lb ("identifies minimum sets of
propertiesthat can characaterizea figure")lead to 2-lc ("formulatesand uses a
definitionfor a class of figures").

In additionto sheddinglight on the natureof eacihlevel, the quotationsprovide

some insight into the overall natureof the van Hiele model. For example, some
quotations(see 7 and 12 below) highlightan importantfeatureof the model, namely
that at each level there appearsin an extrinsic way that which was intrinsicat the
 74

precedinglevel. Others(see 5 and 11 below) supportanotherfeatureof the model--

namely, that the levels are characterizedby different "objectsof thought." The
importof languageat each level is seen in manyquotations.
Almost all of the quotations deal with cognitive aspects of the model--for
example,processes such as comparisonof figuresby theirappearance,formulation
of a definition,and giving an informalproof. However, a few of the 70 quotations
deal with a differentaspectof the model,namelythe intentionof the studentto think
in a certainway. For example,one indicatesthatstudentsare at the firstlevel when
"theyknow they have to searchfor relations"(source9, page 225). Anothernotes
thatat level 2 "purposefuldeductionfinally becomes a habit"(source9, page 231).
These quotationssuggest thatthinkingat a level is more thanjust knowing content
and performingcertaingeometricprocesses (e.g., giving a proof). It is also being
awareof whatis expected,planningpurposefullyto thinkon a level, andmonitoring
one'sthinkingas a problemis solved. These aremetacognitiveaspectsof the model.
As will be discussed in Chapters 7 and 10, the interviewer-teacherplays an
importantrole in helping studentslear the subjectmatterandprocessesand also in
becomingawareof expectationsandevaluatingthe qualityof theirown thinking.

Quotations Relating to Level 0

1. At the Base Level (level 0) of geometry,figures are judged by their appear-
ance. A child recognizesa rectangleby its formanda rectangleseems different
to him than a square. In our researchwhen one has shown a six year old child
what is a rhombus,a rectangle, a square, a parallelogram,he is capable of
reproducingthese figureswithouterroron a geoboard. Thus the child will not
be botheredby the difficulties resulting from drawing figures. At the Base
Level, a child does not recognizea parallelogramin the rhombusshape. At this
level, the rhombus is not a parallelogram;the rhombus seems to him a
completelydifferentthing. (2, p. 245)
2. The importantthing on the basic level is that all the solutions thatpupils are
askedto find can be readfrom the structure.The problemsthe pupils have are
purely visual, there are no rules. With the structurethe pupils are able to
discoverimportantprinciplesof working. With the instructionsgiven to them,
the pupils fill out the basic level; that means that they are forming a rich
structureon thatlevel. (5, p. 2)

Quotations Relating to Level 1

3. At the First Level of Geometry, the figures are holders of their properties.
Thata figureis a rectanglemeansthatit has four rightangles, the diagonalsare
equal, and the opposite sides are equal. Figures are recognized by their
 75

properties. If one tells us thatthe figure drawnon a blackboardhas four right

angles, it is a rectangleeven if the figure is drawnbadly. But at this level the
propertiesare not yet ordered,so that a squareis not necessarilyidentifiedas
being a rectangle. (2, p. 245)
4. A first level is attainedwhen the pupil is able to apply operativeproperties
known to him in a figureknownto him. For instance,if a pupil knows thatthe
diagonalsof a rhombare perpendicular,afterhaving reachedthe first level he
must be able to concludethat,if two equal circles have two points in common,
the segmentjoining the centersof the circles areperpendicularto each other. It
may be that he does not directly see the rhombin the figure, or he should be
able to finish afterhavinghis attentiondrawnto this rhomb. On the otherhand,
the pupil not having attained the level, does not see the importanceof the
knowledgeof the figurecontainingthe rhomb. (6, p. 41)
5. At this first stage we say that the first level of thinking--the aspect of
geometry--hasbeen reached. This implies for example that the pupil who
knows the propertiesof the rhomband can name them will also have a basic
understandingof the isosceles triangle--semirhomb....At this level a geometric
shape is still interpretedas the totalityof its geometricproperties. The pupils
are not yet capable of differentiatingthem into definitions and propositions.
Logical relations are not yet a fit study-objectfor pupils who are at the first
level of thinking. (7, pp. 77-78)

Quotations Relating to Level 2

6. At the Second Level, the propertiesare ordered. They are deducedfrom one
another:one propertyprecedes or follows anotherproperty. At this level the
intrinsicmeaningof deductionis not understoodby the students. The squareis
recognizedas being a rectanglebecauseat this level defmnitions
of figurescome
into play. (2, p. 245)

7. At this secondlevel of thinkinga childknowshow to reasonin accordancewith

a deductive logical system: that is, its argumentsnow show an "intrinsic
planning,fullfilling the laws of formal logic." This is not however identical
with reasoning"onthe strength"of formallogic. (3, p. 8)

8. A second level is attainedwhen a pupil is able to apply operativelyrelations

known to him between figures known to him. Thatmeans thata pupil having
attainedthis level is able to apply congruenceof geometricalfigures to prove
certainpropertiesof a total geometricalfigure of which the congruentfigures
are a part. It means also that the pupil can conclude from the parallelismof
lines the equalityof angles. (6, p. 42)
 76

9. The childrendiscoveredby reasoningthat the angles of a trianglesum up to

180 degrees, the analogous facts for other polygons, and the interrelation
between these facts.... The logical relationswere put into a logical pattern,
using the implicationarrow. (7, pp. 71-72)

Quotations Relating to Level 3

10. At the ThirdLevel, thinkingis concernedwith the meaningof deduction,with
the converse of a theorem, with axiom, with necessary and sufficient
conditions. (2, p. 245)

11. The thirdlevel, thatof discernmentin geometry,or the essence of mathematics.

The aim of instructionis now to understandwhat is meantby logical ordering
(what do we mean by: one property "precedes"another property?). The
materialis madeup of geometrictheoremsthemselves. In the orderingof these
theorems certain ideas will become apparent,namely: the link between a
theoremandits converse,why axioms anddefinitionsare indispensable,when a
conditionis necessaryand when sufficient. Studentscan now try to ordernew
domainslogically, as for examplewhen they first studythe cylinder.(2, p. 250)

12. At the third level it would be possible to develop an axiomatic system of

geometry,but the axiomaticsthemselvesbelong to the fourthlevel. (7, p. 75)

Quotations Relating to Level 4

13. Systems of axioms belong to the fourthlevel where in fact one no longer asks
the question:what are points, lines, surfaces,etc.? At this fourthlevel, figures
are definedonly by symbolsboundby relations. (2, pp. 248-249)

14. Finally we can choose as a subject-matterthe system of propositionsitself. A

comparative study of the various deductive systems within the field of
geometrical relations is a subject reserved for those, who have reached the
fourth level of thinking of geometry. Of these we can say, that they have
acquireda scientificinsightinto geometry. (7, p. 80 and 8, p. 211)
15. Only the pupils who have reachedthe scientific insight(fourthlevel) can study
the foundationsof the theory. They are able to help with the buildingup of a
deductivesystem fromthe foundations.Amongthem,andonly them,one fmds
personswho can comparedifferenttheories,who can seek out missing axioms
in other geometriesand who can establishthe foundationof a new theoryand
build a deductivesystemon it. (8, p. 192)
 77

Another Frame of Reference for the Levels

In describinglevels of thought,the van Hieles frequentlyused, in sequence,the

phrases "aspect of," "essence of," "discernment of" (or "insight into"), and
"scientific insight" as applied to thinking in geometry and mathematics. For
example,in describinga geometrycourse,P. M. van Hiele (1959/1984) stated:
The first part of a geometry course ought to allow the attainmentof the first
level of thought,which we will call the aspectof geometry.... The secondpart
of the course shouldallow the attainmentof the second level of thought,which
we will call the essence of geometryor the aspectof mathematics.... The third
partof the course shouldallow the attainmentof the thirdlevel, thatof discern-
ment in geometry,or the essence of mathematics ... If a course could be con-
tinued further(which is generallyimpossiblein generaleducation),the fourth
level would be attained,thatof discernmentin mathematics.( pp. 249, 250)

The van Hieles also used this sameframeof referencein describinglevels of thought
for the subject of logic in comparisonto geometry and mathematics. The chart
below summarizesthe van Hieles' description of the levels using this frame of
reference.

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

GEOMETRY Aspect of Essence of Insightinto Scientific Insight

Geometry Geometry Geometry into Theoryof the
Subjectof Geometry
MATHEMATICS Aspect of Essence of Insightinto
Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics
LOGIC Aspect of Essence of
Logic Logic

The following quotations from the writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof

(1958/1984) suggest a possible "fifth"level, and indicate her thinking about a
furtherextensionof the chartabove.

There has to be a "fifth"level of thinking, that is, insight into the subject
logic .... (p. 231) The objects of study of a logician are the thinking
operationsof a mathematicalthinker,but his informationhas to be acquiredby
means of sensoryperception,thatis, only a mathematicalthinkercan arriveat
such a study. (pp. 232-233)
 CHAPTER 5

CLINICAL STUDY: INTERVIEWS WITH SIXTH GRADE SUBJECTS

This chapter reports the results of the Project's clinical study with sixth
graders. Subjectswere interviewedindividuallyin six to eight 45-minutesessions
as they workedwith an intervieweron the InstructionalModules. The first section
below describes the subjects. In the second section an overview of the results is
presented. The subsequentsections presentand discuss resultsin termsof specific
behaviorsof individualstudents. In additionto characterizingthe level of thinking
of the sixth gradesubjects,these sectionsfocus on the subjects'progress(or lack of
it) withinlevels or to higherlevels, and on learningdifficulties.

Subjects

Subjects for the clinical interviews were selected to reflect the diversity of
studentsin New York City publicschools, bothraciallyand in termsof achievement
level. There were 16 sixth-gradesubjects--9boys and 7 girls; 12 were minority
students(9 Blacks and 3 Hispanics). The 16 were studentsin two large K-6 public
schools in Brooklyn (denoted as A and B). School A, located near Brooklyn
College, serves a predominantlyminority population with a variety of ethnic
backgrounds. School B serves a mainly Hispanic population. All but one sixth
gradesubject(Juan)came from school A.
The Project'smodules were designed primarilyfor students with average or
above average achievement. As indicatedin Table 1, subjects were mainly at or
above gradelevel as determinedby theirscoreson mathematicsandreadingsubtests
of the Metropolitan Achievement Test (Intermediate, Form L), which were
administeredas partof city-wide testing in late Spring. A score of 6.8 or so would
be consideredon grade level at that time of testing. Studentsone or more years
above gradelevel were classsifiedas high achieversin this study;those one or more
years below gradelevel as low achievers. All subjects,except Arthurand Frieda,
were interviewedfor eight sessions. Arthurand Friedawere interviewedfor four
one-hoursessions; they workedonly on Module 1 and were given extrainstruction
andpractice/reviewon basic geometricconcepts(e.g., rightangle, parallelism)and
use of these conceptsin propertiesof figures.

Results: An Overview

As statedearlier,a student'slevel of thinkingwas determinedmainlyby his/her

responsesto assessmenttasksin Modules1, 2 and3, in particular,to questionsin key
activitiesin these modules. Entriesin Table2 (p. 80) characterizein a generalway
each student'sthinkingon key activities. Threetypes of codes were used to describe
 79

Table 1

Achievement Test Scores and Modules Completed by Sixth Graders

GradeEquivalencyScores Modules
.Stllrint R?onlinr MAthirmnatlr.e 1 2 3

Andy 12.9 HS x x x
Norma 12.9 HS x x
John 12.9 HS x x
Jeffrey 12.0 HS x x x
Juan 12.0 HS x x
Luce 9.0 HS x x
David 8.8 HS x x x
Murielle 7.0 HS x x
Gene 6.8 7.4 x
Frieda 6.8 7.1 x
Arthur 6.8 6.8 x
Bruce 6.7 8.1 x
Ramona 5.9 7.1 x
Sherry 5.5 5.4 x
Adam 5.4 4.4 x
Deanna 4.5 5.3 x

note: X means that studentscompletedthe entiremodule.

/ means that the module was partiallydone.
HS means student scored 9.0 or above.
 Table 2

Sixth Graders' Level of Thinking on Key Module Activities

Group I Group II Grou

d)
c P ?o . gE
.I $ $ o .2 = 5
cC t) bk ed
g II
U9 0
?~ ~ S- i

tiasic Concepts ir u*-1 u' . u' U* u* u* (u* lp . 1 1 lp

Sorting
(Polygons, Quads) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-1 0-1 0 0 0
Propertiesof
Quads 0-ig 0-ig 0-lg g 0-Ig O-lp 0-lg 0-lg lp lp lp lp Ip I
Subclass
Inclusions 0 0 0-1 0-1 0-1 01 0-1 1-2 1-2p 2p 1-2p 1-2p l
Uncover
Shapes 0 0 0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 1 1 1 1
Minimum
Pioperties 0 0* O* -- -- 0-1 - -2p 1-2p 2s 2p 2

Definitions -- -- -- -- -- I 1
Kites
Properties 0 0 0 0 0-1 0-lg -g 0-g
0--lg - p ip lpps

Subclass -- -0 - - 0 0 2 2p 2p -
Angle
Measurement 0* 0* 0* 0 0

Saw/Ladder 0-1 0 Is Is Is Is
Proofsvia
Saw/Ladder -- -- 2g - 2g 2p
AngleSum:
Triangle 1-2g Ig 1-2g 2p
AngleSum:
Quad,Pentagon 2p Ig 2p 2s
Exterior
Angle lp lp -

Concept
of Area 0* 0 0 0 0
Area:
Rectangle 0-1 0-1 0 0 Ip Ig
Area:
RightTriangle Ig Is Is s
Area:
Parallelogram 0 0 . g ip
Area:
Any Triangle - 0 i g
Area:
Trapezoid
Area:
MidlineRule

Key: -- unable to respond

O* weak response
g respondedwith guidance
p respondedafter a prompt
s respondedspontaneously
 82

the qualityof a student'sresponsesin termsof the Project'slevel descriptors.

(1) Students often did not respond consistently at one level on a task, and the
following codes were used in these situations: 0-1 indicatesthatthe student's
responses were on an "it looks like" basis as well as being based on some
properties.
1-2 indicates that students formulated properties and gave some simple
deductive arguments(usually with guidance from the interviewer)but were
not able to give argumentsof theirown.

(2) Sometimesstudentswere simply unableto respondat all to questions. This is

indicatedby a dash (--). At times a student'sthinkingin level 0 was weak;that
is, the studenthad incompleteunderstandingof basic concepts (e.g., parallel-
ism, right angle, measure of an angle) and also had little or no facility with
relatedterminology. This was coded 0*.

(3) Studentsrespondedwith varyingamountsof assistancefrom the interviewer,

especiallywhen initiallyrespondingto assessmentquestionsor in instructional
situations. At times studentsrespondedwithouthelp to questionsposed by the
interviewer. This type of response was coded by a number (e.g.,"l").
Sometimesa studentwould respondspontaneouslywithouteven being askeda
question or given any instructions--for example, a student might
spontaneouslygive propertiesof a new shape. Othertimes studentsneeded a
prompt. For example, the interviewermight prompta studentby asking a
generalquestionsuch as "Whatelse do you notice aboutthe parallelograms?
Whatdo you notice abouttheirangles?" Still othertimes an interviewermight
provideguidance,for example,asking specific questionssuch as: "Whatcan
you say about these two opposite angles? . . . And these? . . . What about the
other figures?" Frequentlyguidance was needed in deductive explanations
(level 2), with the studentgiving reasonsalong the way andthenbeing askedto
summarize the argument. The amount of assistance provided during
questioning is denoted by: s = spontaneous, p = prompt, g = guidance.

As shown in Table 2, these 16 sixth gradersfall roughlyinto threegroups: (I)

students who made little or no progress within level 0 or toward level 1; (II)
studentsin level 0 who are progressingtowardlevel 1; and (III) studentswho enter
with level 1 thinkingand are in varyingstages of transitiontowardlevel 2. These
threegroupsare discussedin detailin the following threesections.

Group I
The thinkingof the students(Sherry,Deanna,Gene) in this groupwas almost
uniformlyat level 0, focusing on shapesas a whole and involvinglittle or no analy-
sis of shapesin termsof partsandrelationsbetweenparts. Sherryand Deannawere
 83

low achievers, and Gene was about on grade level. The students could identify
familiarshapes (square,rectangle,triangle),but did not do this readily in complex
configurations (e.g., photographs and tiling patterns). There was also some
difficulty with figures in different orientations. Their initial descriptions of
"rectangle"were incomplete and poorly stated. Deanna's response was non-
verbal--merelya gesturewith her hands of the sides of a rectangle. Sherrysaid "2
lines wouldbe shortand 2 wouldbe long." Gene identified I as a rectangleand
for a squaresaid, "Na,that'sa box." They had little knowledge of partsof shapes
and some misconceptions. For example, when Gene referredto the sides of a
rectangle,he meantonly the two verticalsides. The othertwo sides were the "top"
andthe "bottom,"not "sides."

All three students had great difficulty with angles. Sherry tended to say
"triangle"insteadof angle, even afterextensive instructionin Module 1 and some in
Module 2. She may have been seeing an angle as a closed figure, a triangle,
indicatingthatshe was relyingheavily on the visual appearanceof the angle andwas
not thinkingmore abstractlyin termsof the concept "angle."Or this mightreflecta
languagedifficulty,causingher to confuse phoneticallysimilartermssuch as angle
and triangle. Sherryand Deannathoughtthat a cutoutparallelogramwith oblique
angleshad 4 rightangles. They called obliqueangles rightangles severaltimes. All
threedid not recall measuringangles in gradeschool, indicatinga gap in theirlevel
0 experienceswith angles. These studentswere also deficientin theirlevel 0 experi-
ences with shapes. They had not heardof termssuch as parallelogramand quadri-
lateral,and they had greatdifficultyusing such terms,even shortlyafterinstruction
on them. For example,in an activityin which shapeswere graduallyuncoveredand
students were asked to name what it could or couldn'tbe, Gene forgot the new
words "parallelogram" and "trapezoid"and Sherry said "Oh it couldn'tbe one of
these threehardwords"(i.e. parallelogram,trapezoid,quadrilateral).

Relations such as parallelism of lines and equality of angles were also not
understoodby these students;hence all the instructionalbranchesin Module 1 were
done with them. However, even after instruction,which at times was slow, they
experienced many difficulties, thus indicatingthat they had not yet learnedthese
concepts and the relatedvocabularyin orderto use themeffectively. Forexample,
Deannacould makeparallellines with D-stix andtest for parallelismwith D-stix but
could not readilyidentify them by eye, nor could she verbalizecorrectlywhy lines
were or were not parallel. Sherryand Gene also relied on D-stix to check parallel-
ism and often lapsedback to non-standardlanguage(e.g., "theyare straight")to tell
why lines areparallel.
These studentswere not able to use the conceptsof parallelismand equalityto
describe shapes. In a summary activity on Kites, after six sessions, Deanna
mentionedonly "4 sides, 4 angles, andthe sides are different"as thingsto say about
kites. When the interviewerprompted,"Lookat the sides, what do you notice?"she
said, in a questioning voice, "Equal?Parallel?" She was guessing and seemed
 84

incapable of formulating anything but a very simple description of the kites.

Difficulties in using geometry vocabularywere compoundedfor these students
when doing Activity 3 which requiredthe studentto list propertiesfor types of
quadrilaterals.They relied heavily on promptsand guidancefrom the interviewer.
Expressionslike "oppositesides are equal"were not partof theirspeechpatternand
seemed to be pulled out of them by the interviewer. They did not seem to
understandpropertystatements. For example, Sherrythought"oppositesides are
parallel"meant some sides are parallel, not necessarily two pair. Non-verbal
responses were typical for these students, who seldom respondedwith words or
sentenceswhenpointingwould suffice.

These studentshad difficulties in attributinga propertyto a group of shapes.

Sometimes they would check a propertyfor only one or two shapes in the grour
ignoringothers,and then say the propertyheld for the group. This inabilityto test
all given examplesin a groupmay indicatecarelessnessor perhapsa lack of level 1
thinkingaboutpropertiesof a class. Othertimes,when they did check each shapein
the group,they did this slowly, shapeby shape,andoften with an aid (e.g., D-stix to
test parallelism). Certainlytheir lack of prerequisitecompetency with parts of
shapes and simple relations (e.g., parallelismof two lines) limited their thinking
about a group of shapes. These students respondedincorrectlyor at level 0 on
Activities 4 (Uncovering Shapes), 5 (MinimumProperties),and 6 (Kites), which
were intendedto assess level 1 andlevel 2 thinking.

SherryandGene did some initialworkin Module2, againat level 0, andneeded

instructionon angles andanglemeasure. They madesome progressbut it seemedas
if the instructionwas not sufficient for studentswho had majordeficiencies with
that topic. Gene did tiling and saws/laddersbut with little success. He still used
D-stix to check for parallellines.

Sherryand Gene struggledin Activity 2 of Module 3 with the comparisonof

areastask (5x5 squareversus6x4 rectangle). They respondedby eye. Gene at first
said the squarewas bigger (wherethe rectanglehad a base of 4) but then said it was
not bigger whenhe turnedthe rectangleso its base was 6. He could find the areaby
multiplying "this side times that side" and explained "it'sbetter than counting."
Sherryfound the area this way: "I timesed it ... because you can add it ... it
would be the same thing"(i.e., 6 + 6 + 6 + 6). She could calculate the area of
rectanglesbut did not verbalizea ruleas "lengthtimes width."
The above characterizationof these students' thinking indicates that they
encounteredmany difficultiesin the modulesand showed little progressin level of
thinking. Therewere glaringdeficienciesin theirgeometrybackgrounds.It was as
if these studentswere "geometrydeprived",they did not understandbasic geometric
concepts and related terminology. All showed a markedinability to talk about
shapes,and theirexpressive languagein generalwas weak. In addition,they were
unable to use quantifiers such as "all," "some," "none," which are used in
 85

characterizingclasses of figures (level 1). Theirperformanceon the modules was

mainly at level 0, even after doing all the instructionalbranches in Module 1.
Limited improvementin their level 0 visual thinking about shapes, angles, and
parallel lines seemed to be facilitated by manipulativesupon which they relied
extensively.

Group II
Students in Group II (Adam, Arthur, Bruce, Frieda, Ramona) exhibited
thinkingthat was at times similarto that of studentsin GroupI but at othertimes
markedly different, in particularwhen propertiesof shapes were involved. Of
these five students, four were approximately at grade level in reading and
mathematics,and one, Adam,was about1.5 yearsbelow gradelevel. Two students,
Arthurand Frieda,were interviewedlast after several studentinterviewshad been
analyzed. They received a modified version of Module 1 over 4 hours.
Modificationsstrengthenedthe instructionalnatureof Module 1 and included: (a)
availabilityof vocabularyreferencecardswith key termsprintedon them (parallel,
right angle, opposite sides, quadrilateral,parallelogram); (b) review of basic
concepts at the start of each session; (c) more explicit directions from the
interviewer to the student to "tell me carefully .. .," "use these geometry words ...
" This last modificationwas intendedto make the studentmore awareof the kind
of languagethatwas expected. Indirectlyit also meantthatthe expectationwas "to
describecarefully,"which is one aspectof level 1 thinking. It shouldbe noted that
modifications (b) and (c) were also made when Adam was interviewed since he
neededextrainstructionand review.

The students in this group identified shapes, at least familiar ones such as
rectanglesand triangles,in photographsand other complex configurations. Some
showed an ability to recognize instantly a collection of specific shapes. Bruce
pointed out a "whole row of triangles"in a picture ratherthan identifying one
trianglethenlooking for another. Some studentshad orientationdifficulties. Adam
called I a right angle but not /\ because it didn't"go straight."He thoughta
rectanglehad only 1 rightangle,but thenturninghis head to view the figurenoted it
did have 4. He also orientedcutoutfigures the same way (base horizontal)when
sortingthem or discussingthem.
The geometric languageof all five studentswas richerand more precise than
that of studentsin GroupI, althoughit tended to be as informaland non-standard
initially. They had heardtermssuch as hexagon,pyramid,parallel,rightangle, and
90?. However,most could not describevery well whatthese termsmeant. Ramona
said a rightangle was "linesthatgo acrossandup"andat anothertime "linesthatare
straight." These students gave initial descriptionsof a rectangle that were more
complete than those of Group I subjects, but still using mainly non-standard
vocabularyand relatedto concretemodels or specific instancesof a rectangle. For
example,Friedasaid,
 86

[referringto a D-stix rectangle she made] Sides are longer. . . they'reeven

[showing 2 sides are equal length and directlyabove each other]... and these
are straight[gesturingthatthe sides meet at rightangles].

Whereas students in Group I completed Module 1 without improving their

initial descriptionsvery much, GroupII studentsdid improve. Friedadescribeda
rectanglein the fourthsession: "Thetop and bottomhave straightparallellines ...
top andbottomarethe same size andthe two sides arethe same size ... It has 4 right
angles ... it has opposite angles ... and they are equal [prompted] ... it has opposite
sides andthey are the same size." She then said a parallelogramwith obliqueangles
was not a rectanglebecause "it'sslanted,"but added "becauseit doesn'thave right
angles"when the intervieweraskedherto "saythis moreexactly." This tendencyto
lapse into using non-standardlanguage,even after instructionon terminology,and
to respondmore exactly aftera directivefrom the interviewerwas characteristicof
these students. This was particularlythe case in Activity 3 when students first
described properties of groups of quadrilaterals. They needed considerable
promptingandguidance,and this activitywas basicallya learningexperiencerather
thanassessmentfor them. Arthurand Friedafrequentlyreferredto the vocabulary
referencecards while doing this. All studentswere able to give propertiesusing
familiarconcepts (4 sides, 4 angles, right angles, sides parallel)but had difficulty
with propertiesinvolvingoppositesides andangles. Frequentlythey said "theshape
had oppositeangles"and no more (i.e., omittingwhat was trueaboutthe angles). It
seemed as if they needed more level 0 experience in identifying, comparing,and
measuringsides and angles of figures. These studentsmade progressin describing
shapesin termsof properties(level 1), althoughthis was mainly limitedto familiar
shapes (squares,rectangles). For example,considerAdam'sdescriptionof squares
andrectanglesat the beginningof the thirdsession afterpropertieshadbeen listed in
session2.

Squares have 4 even sides. The sides are equal. Squareshave right angles.
They have parallellines [He pointedto shapesin the squaregroupas partof his
explanation.]. These rectangles have all right angles, have opposite sides.
They'reparallel [prompted],all 4 not the same, 2 even, 2 other even. These
[parallelograms]have 4 sides and [afterguidance] opposite sides are parallel
andequal.

Bruce and Arthurgave similar descriptions of these three types of shapes.

Arthur'sresponsefor parallelogramswas quite interesting. He was the only student
of all 16 to say thathe "forgotwhatthatshapelookedlike." He said this for parallel-
ograms but when shown cutouts from the sorting in Activity 3, he immediately
responded: "Oh, yeah ... 4 sides ... 4 angles ... sides are parallel." He seemed to
have "mentalimages" for the familar shapes "square"and "rectangle"and could
verbalizetheirproperties,but he lackedthis for other,less familiar,shapes.

Activity 3-6 (Uncovering Shapes) also provided more practice on using

 87

properties. Students frequentlyused propertiesin telling why the hidden figure

could or couldn't be a certain shape but also lapsed into level 0 explanations.
Similarfindingswere obtainedin Activity 6, Kites. These studentstendedat first to
give level 0 "it looks like" descriptionsof kites and with some guidance to use
properties. Adam gave "4 sides and 4 angles"for kites. Then when promptedto
look at the sides, he pointedto equal ones but could not expressthis verbally. When
askedaboutangles, he said, "norightangles,"which was correctfor all but a square
in the kite set. Whendirectedto look for equal angles, Adamsaid, "therearenone."
The interviewerreviewed the meaning of equal angles and then Adam noted, "oh,
yeah, these are equal,"pointingto equal angles in some kites. The responsesof the
otherfour studentsin GroupII were similarto this. They were not able to analyze
these unfamiliarshapes in termsof propertieswithouthelp. Progresshere was slow
but at times striking. For example, Frieda spent about 10 minutes on the kite
activity. After she was promptedto look at partsof the shapes,she identifiedequal
sides, learned and then correctly used new vocabulary ("adjacentsides"), and
graduallyformeda verbaldescriptionof kites. Her final descriptionof kites was "a
pair of opposite angles are equal and two pairs of adjacentsides are equal." At the
end of her last session (fourth)she was askedwhatshe had learned. She said, "about
shapes ... how they are formed ... theirnames." Then when asked abouthow to
name shapes, she replied, "Idon'tknow ... [pause]oh, thinkaboutthe things they
have in it... the sides and angles"[pointingto a D-stix model for a kite]. She was
makingprogressinto level 1, albeit slowly and not withoutlapses to level 0. Other
studentsalso made limitedprogress.

While showing evidence of some level 1 thinkingaboutpropertiesof shapes,

GroupII studentsdid not logically interrelatepropertiesand give deductiveexplan-
ations(level 2). All were able to explainsimplesubclassinclusionssuch as "squares
are quadrilaterals"but none explained other inclusions such as "squares are
parallelogramsandkites." The studentshad not yet formeddefinitionson which to
base subclassinclusions.

An interestingapproachto subclassinclusionwas KITE

givenby Adam. In thekiteactivityAdammadethis
family tree and correctly explained easy inclusions.
When asked "Cansquaresbe kites?"he said, "oh,yes" I-- - I
(putting an arrow to show this) but explained "because SQUARE - QUAD
there was a square in the kite group." He was not
justifying the subclass inclusion by a logical X-- /
explanation (level 2) but rathermerely naming the RECT
squareas a kite on the basis of its appearance(level 0).
The students did not logically relate properties in Activity 3-8 (Minimum
Properties),althoughsome studentssaid 4 sides meant4 angles. Adamdid this and
also said "oppositesides areequal"was not neededin describinga squarebecauseof
the clue "all sides are equal." This thinking seemed to be about number
relationships (If 4 are ... then 2 are .. .), not geometric ones, and hence did not
 88

indicategeometricreasoningat level 2. The absence of deductiveexplanationwas

also evidencedby the studentswho did Activity 4 in Module 2, which requiredthe
use of saws/laddersin deductivearguments.

As indicated in Table 2, responses of Adam and Ramona in Module 2 and

Adam, Ramonaand Bruce in Module3 were mainly at level 0, and, with guidance,
at level 1. AdamandRamonaenteredModule2 with little knowledgeof anglesand
measurement. Adam said a right angle was "90?"but had no idea what this meant.
To him, "90?"was just a name he associated by rote with "rightangle." He had
orientation difficulties with angles: not recognizing right angles in different
positions, needingto turn a page with drawnangles
to check for angles congruentto a given one, andnot
identifyingcongruentangles in saws. He said angles
marked"a"are equal but did not agree that angles b b
marked"b"were equal. Both Adam and Ramona
had difficulty estimating the measure of angles in degrees. Ramonaprogressed
slowly from almost no concept of angle to a limited understandingof angles and
measurement,but did not work with angleseasily in gridsand saws/ladders.
In Module 3, Ramonaand Bruce understoodarea to mean how many squares
are needed to cover a shape, althoughBruce initiallyconfused areawith perimeter.
Ramona could find area only by counting squares (level 0). Bruce's thinking
revealedreductionin level. He multipliedto find the area of the 6 by 4 rectangle
saying "that'sthe only way to do it"to explainwhy he multiplied. For a trianglehe
multipliedall threesides!
In summary,the studentsin GroupII began in level 0 much like those in Group
I, but made progress within level 0 (learningbasic concepts) and towardlevel 1.
They used newly learnedconcepts to describeshapes and formulatepropertiesfor
some classes of shapes, in particular,familarones such as square and rectangle.
Difficulties were encountered on unfamiliar shapes (e.g., parallelograms and
trapezoids). However,progresswas markedby frequentinstabilityand oscillation
between level 0 and 1. These studentsseemed to be in transitionfrom level 0 to 1.
While they began to think about classes of shapes in terms of properties(level 1),
they showed little or no evidence of logically relatingproperties(level 2). None
saw a need to explainwhy. They all tendedto be moreverbalthanthose in GroupI,
althoughmost had difficulty expressinggeometricideas, especially with standard
geometric vocabulary. The students frequentlyused manipulativedevices (e.g.,
D-stix) in checking propertiesor when answering. These students, like those in
Group I, had a poor backgroundin geometry, reportingthat they had done little
geometryin grades5-6. They tendedto respondmore easily in the interviewsthan
studentsin GroupI and also were less dependenton the interviewerfor feedback
and reinforcement. Their progress was slow, and they seemed to profit from
carefully paced instruction that required them to work concretely while they
verbalizedresultsin newly learnedterminology.
 89

Group III
The third group of sixth graders consisted of eight students (John, Luce,
Norma, Juan, Murielle,Jeffrey, David, and Andy) all of whom had high achieve-
ment in mathematics(high school gradeequivalencyscores). As indicatedin Table
1, studentsin GroupIII exhibitedthinkingrelatedto descriptorsfor levels 1 and 2,
with level 1 often occurringon entry assessment tasks and level 2 occurringas a
resultof instruction(i.e., "potentiallevel"). The eight seemed to subdivideinto two
groups:Luce, John, and Norma who needed additionalexperiences which helped
them to be successful on all level 1 descriptorsyet made some limited progress
towardlevel 2, and the other five studentswho were more fluent and confidentin
level 1 andmade considerableprogresstowardslevel 2. Below, resultsare reported
on these eight students'workon each of the threemodules.

Module 1: Analysis. All eight students readily identified shapes in

photographsand were familiarwith basic geometricconceptsand terms. Most had
learnedaboutangle, rightangle, parallel. Whennew ideas were introducedstudents
seemed to approachlearning them confidently. For example, when asked if she
knew the meaning of "oppositeangles," Murielle responded,"I never heard that
wordbeforebut I thinkI know what it means...." Murielle,Luce andJuanneeded
to review the meaning of paralleland John and Luce reviewed right angles. Luce
noted that she "didright angles last year but forgot." Interestingly,later, in giving
propertiesof squares,Luce did not cite "allangles are rightangles,"indicatingextra
review might have been useful for her before the listing of properties.

Most of the students had no trouble rememberinggeometric terminology.

Murielle,who scoredonly on gradelevel in reading,showedsigns of weaknesswith
standardterms. She often lapsed into using terms such as "slanty"for non-right
angle and "straight"for parallel, even after standardterms had been introduced.
However, her use of non-standardterms was correct and precise. Juan also had
some initial difficulties with new terms,but the interviewer,sensing this, addeda
review of terms before Juan discussed propertiesof shapes. This seemed to help
Juansolidify his familaritywith those terms,andhe didn'thave difficultywith them
in the discussionof properties.

Orientation of shapes was not a problem for these students in Module 1.

However, the orientationof a shape did influence how some students named it.
Normainitiallythought /\was not a rightangle unless turnedthis way I . Juan
called O a diamondbut said "it was a parallelogramif it was like this 7 ."
Sometimesstudentsrotatedcutoutshapesor turnedtheirheads to view shapesfrom
a preferredorientation.

All eight students seemed comfortablewith the idea of shapes having parts:
sides and angles. When asked to identify angles in a picture,Jeffrey responded:
"Oh,yes, I just foundtriangles[a whole row] so therearelots of anglesbecauseeach
 90

trianglehas threeangles"(level 1). Respondingin a similarway by using properties

of a shape,Juanfound severalrightangles by noting "Ijust found squaresand they
have rightangles."

These studentsgave initialdescriptionsof shapes(i.e., rectangles)in Activity2

thatwere informaland similarto those given by studentsin GroupII. The Group
Il descriptionswere usuallymore completeandelaborate.However,these students
did not use precise geometric language to describe rectangles,even though they
knew termssuch as paralleland rightangle.

Responses of these studentsto several key assessmentactivities in Module 1

(Sortingand PropertyCards,UncoveringShapes,and Kites) indicatedthatthey all
exhibitedlevel 1 thinking. It shouldbe notedthatthese tasks,while intendedmainly
for assessment,providedthese studentswith learningexperiencesthathelped them
sharpentheiruse of geometriclanguageand strengthentheirassociationof a shape
to formally statedproperties. While these studentssortedby propertiesof shapes,
theirexpressivelanguagewas informal. This tendencyto describesorts informally
persisted in a later assessment sort on kites, even after formal terms had been
introduced.However,in Activity 4-2, Kites, a promptfrom the interviewerusually
resultedin moreprecise language. Muriellesaid: "theyhave four sides ... two pair
of adjacent sides are congruent . . . all four sides slant . . . both sides are
symmetrical."
For these studentsthe descriptionof quadrilateralsvia propertycards(Activity
3-3) went quiteeasily withoutmuchguidance,except whenpropertiesinvolvednew
termssuch as "oppositeangles are equal." But aftera promptfrom the interviewer
(i.e., "whatdo you notice about the angles . . . opposite angles"),studentsusually
gave appropriateresponses and tended to check spontaneouslywhetherthis new
propertyheld for other groups. They all seemed to realize that the objectivehere
was giving propertiesfor each of the groups. The studentsverified by eye whether
a propertyheld, ratherthan by relying on D-stix or other manipulativesto check.
Their ability to do this quickly by eye seemed to enable them to check rapidly
whethera propertyheld for all figuresin a groupas opposedto studentsin GroupsI
andII who tendedto check figureby figure.

The studentstendedto use propertyexpressionssuch as "notall anglesare right

angles"or "oppositesides are not parallel"when telling why certainshapes could
not arise in Activity 3-6, UncoveringShapes. At times, however, they lapsed into
level 0 explanations(e.g., it doesn't look like a rectangle)and informallanguage
(e.g., sides are slanty),mainlyin the firstpartof this activitywherethe stimuluswas
a cutout shapebeing graduallyuncovered. The visual natureof the task may have
evoked level 0 responses. In the second partof this activity where propertycards
were uncovered, studentsused "propertycard"language to match the format in
whichthe taskwas presented.
 91

Resultsfrom Activity 3-8 (Minimumpropertiesneededto define a squareanda

parallelogram)indicatea mix of level 1 and 2 thinkingfor several students. When
asked for the fewest propertiesfor a parallelogram,Andy said, "4 sides ... opposite
sides are parallel"and noted "you need the four sides, otherwise it could be a
hexagon." He recalledthis from a previousactivityaboutparallelsides andopposite
sides of a hexagon. He seemed carefulabout selecting necessaryconditionshere.
Luce initially said all seven propertieswere needed--aresult she probablyrecalled
from Activity 3-3 where she listed properties that characterizeparallelograms
(level 1). But upon questioningaboutindividualproperties,she eliminatedsome:
"fourangles" because there are "foursides," "oppositesides equal"because "all
sides are equal"(see level 2 descriptor2-2c). David and Normaalso did not have
the fewest number of propertiesfor a square;they included "opposite sides are
parallel"along with the properties (four sides, all right angles, all sides equal)
which the other five students chose. Jeffrey, John and Juan all used the same
strategyto choose the fewest properties--selectingpropertiesto eliminate shapes
they didn'twant (level 1). For example,Jeffreysaid, "foursides gives any quad...
opposite sides parallel takes away all others except squares, rectangles, and
parallelograms... all right angles leaves out parallelogramsand I need one more
... all sides equal." Murielle and Andy respondeddeductively (level 2). After
thinkingsilently for abouta minutebefore answeringthe interviewer,they selected
the threebasic propertiesand thenexplained:

[Murielle] Obviously,if it has four sides it has four angles ... because it says
"all right angles." Once you know that you don'tneed to know the opposite
angles are congruent.... Because it already says all sides are equal, you don't
need "oppositesides areequal."

[Andy] Four sides means four angles ... all sides equal means opposite sides
are equal so we don'tneed that... rightangles are equal so oppositeangles are
equal.

Thus, while most of the eight arrived at a minimum set of properties for
square,the qualityof thinkingto do this differed. Andy and Muriellespontaneously
proceededto eliminatepropertiesdeductively(level 2) and the othersproceededby
addingpropertiestill a squarewas characterized(level 1). It should be noted that
when questioned a bit later, Jeffrey, David and Luce did explain how some
propertiesresultedbecause of others.
Student responses to questioningabout subclass inclusions indicatedthat all
eight could readilyexplain simple inclusions. For example, squaresare quadsbe-
cause they have four sides. There was some initial confusion, however, about
inclusion involving certainshapes and quads. Luce thoughtthat squareswere not
quads because "it's got other properties ... ," thinking that quads were shapes with
only one property,"foursides," as suggested by the sorting in Activity 3-3. The
interviewer was easily able to help the student correct this misconception.
 92

However, for several students confusion about inclusion relations among other
shapes persistedeven after some interventionby the interviewerto show that one
shapewas a special type of anothershape (e.g., squaresare special parallelograms).
Muriellecontendedthata squarewas not a parallelogrambecause "it'snot slanty...
andhas rightangles." David said thata squarewas not a "regular" rectanglebecause
"itssides are all equal and rectangleshave sides with two differentlengths"(which
was David's initial definitionof rectangle). Even when some studentsagreedwith
the interviewerabout such inclusions, they later lapsed into incorrectstatements.
For example, John agreedthat squaresand rectanglesare parallelograms,but later
in the Kites activity revised that, indicatingparallelogramshave "no right angles"
and then, after a promptfrom the interviewer,correctedthis.

A main check on subclass inclusion thinkingwas done in Activity 4-2 (Kites)

where studentswere asked to make a family tree to orderthe shapes kite, square,
rectangle, parallelogram,and quadrilateral.The arrowhere meant"is a special."
Correct responses ranged from very exact Q,P
-
argumentsusing definitions(level 2) by Jeffrey
and Andy to informal explanations from Norma / / _\
.
and Juan (level 1). David and Luce were / -PL^^
.g \i
confused by the arrowdiagramshere and gave / j \
incomplete or incorrect responses. Sa -- E

Module 2. The responses of these eight students;in Module 2 provided

further insights into their capacity to discover properties of figures such as
saws/ladders(level 1) and to follow/give deductive argumentsto orderproperties
(level 2). Unlike studentsin GroupsI andII, these subjectsall had experiencewith
angles and angle measurement. They easily identifiedangles in figures, although
Norma initially thought right angles had to be oriented a certain way and Andy
seemed to have some perceptual difficulty in identifying right angles. They
estimated the measures of angles well, and several used a strategy to estimate
angles--for example David, who put his thumbon a obtuse angle to show a right
angleandacuteangle andaddedhis estimateof the acuteangleto 90?.
All studentswere quick to discover propertiesof saws and ladders(level 1).
Propertieswere sometimesinformallystatedand often involvedextraneousaspects,
such as in a ladderthe "rungshave to be equal length"(Murielle). The extraneous
propertiesmay have been cited for saws/laddersbecausemost of the exampleshad
those characteristicsandbecausethe students,who were quickto note such features,
gave all the properties they noticed when describing a figure such as a saw or
ladder.

The studentsassociated"parallellines"and "equalangles"with saw andladder.

Herethey were dealingwith a statementandits converse(e.g., the statement,"iftwo
lines are parallel, then alterate interiorangles are equal," and its converse, "if
alternateinterior angles are equal, then the two lines are parallel."). Dina van
 93

Hiele-Geldofreferredto these two as "Siamesetwins." All eight studentshad some

difficultyin separatingthese Siamesetwins. Severaldid not distinguishbetweenthe
statementand its converse--a result similar to that found by Dina in her teaching
experimentwith 12 year-olds. Otherstudentseventuallydid make this distinction,
but only afterinitiallyassociating"parallellines -, equalangles"with saw/ladder.

The studentsencounteredinformaldeductive argumentsin Module 2--first in

chainingargumentsusing combinationsof saws andladders,then in informalproofs
thatthe oppositeangles of a parallelogramareequal andlaterin proofs for the angle
sum of a triangleand the exteriorangle of a triangle.

None of the eight studentsspontaneouslyproduced

an argumentchainingsaws/laddersto explainwhy angle
1 = angle 2 (Activity 3). However, given only the
promptto "trytwo steps," Andy arguedthat angle 1 =
angle x by a ladderand angle 2 = angle x by a saw so
angle 1 = angle 2. Andy colored in equal angles as he
explainedratherthanusing terminology such as "angle
1= angle 2." 2

David, Jeffrey,Murielle,andJuaninitiallytriedwithoutsuccess to use just saws

or just ladders, and responded "I don't know how" or "it can't be done." After
being given some guidance,they realized what was expected and how to give an
argument. As David said, "Oh,now I see it!" Murielleeven seemed to generalize
the approachin these arguments:"If one angle is congruentto some angle and
anotherangle is congruentto that same one, thatmakes the other two congruent."
However,threeof the eight (Norma,John,andJuan)had difficultyhere andneeded
guidancefrom the interviewer,who asked them to give reasonswhy certainangles
were equal. One student,Luce, did not seem to catch on at all. But in her final
session she correctlyused saws/laddersin the angle sum of a triangleexplanation.

Of the eight students, five (Jeffrey, Juan,

Murielle, Andy, and David) presented deductive
arguments why opposite angles are equal for a
parallelogram,using saws and ladders. Andy and
David both gave clear and careful explanations--
basically that angle a = angle c by a ladder and
angleb = angle c by a saw, so since angleb andangle a bothequalangle c, angleb =
angle a. Jeffreyand Juangave similarargumentsafterhaving been guided through
it first by the interviewer.These were examplesinvolvingdeductiveargumentsthat
logically interrelateproperties(see level 2 descriptors2-3a, 2-3b, 2-3c).
Now we look at how studentsapproachedthe angle sum of a triangle. Norma
enteredModule2 knowingthis; she recalledthatshe had "heardthis in fifth grade."
However,she did not seem to be sureof it, for she askedthe interviewera few times
 94

"does the triangle equal 180??" even after the interviewerhad guided her
througha saw-ladderexplanationof this. Later when
the interviewerexplainedwhy the angle sum of a quad
is equalto 360?, Normawas puzzledabouthow the two
triangleswhich looked so differentand unequalcould
both have an angle sum of 180?. Perhaps she was
thinkingabout the areas of these trianglesratherthan
their angle sums. Nevertheless, Norma exitedfrom
Module2 showingthatshe was beginningto realizethat"explainingwhy"was what
was expectedin the interviews. She readthe card"Anglesum for a triangle= 180?"
and immediatelyadded "because.. ." She had to be helped throughthe proof but
the expectationto explain why was clear to her. Throughoutthe previous sessions
Norma had strongly resisted attempts to have her explain, since in her view
"explaining"was not an expectationin school mathematics. As will be discussed
later, a similar belief seemed to affect the performanceon the modules of ninth
graderswho were studentsin highly procedure-oriented algebracourses.
The other seven studentsshowed varying degrees of progress towardlevel 2
thinkingrelativeto angle sums. John,Luce, JuanandMuriellediscoveredthe angle
sum for triangles by coloring in angles in a triangulargrid and verifying equal
angles (same color) by saws/ladders.Andy, David, andJeffrey knew the angle sum
for a trianglefrom school, so they were asked to verify it by a new approach(i.e.,
not by measuringbut by a deductiveargument). The studentstended to leave out
partsof the deductiveargument. Murielleand David summarizedthatthe colored
top angles (a, b, and c) are the same as those
inside the triangleand theirsum equals 180?--
but neglected to be precise about why certain
angles (e.g., a and d) are colored the same. d
However, they both gave "saw" as a reason
when questionedby the interviewer.

All studentsexcept Norma establishedby [sr 4. = I SA

informaldeductiveargumentsthe angle sum for I
quads and pentagons. They easily showed the IS oF Xs oF
angle sum interrelationships via a family tree. =A l o*
A

There were some interestingvariationsin how differentstudentsfound these

angle sums. Luce proceededinductively,notingthat"theangle sum for all quadsso
far (squares,rectangles)equaled360o." She then divideda quad into two triangles
to explain anotherway. Murielle explained that the angle sum for squares and
rectanglesequals360?because"4x 90? = 360?" andthenclaimedthatthe anglesin a
parallelogram"sumto 360?"because"itis like a slantyrectangle."Next she madea
tiling using quads and observedthatthattherewere four colors of angles arounda
point, and so she concluded that the sum is 360?. Finally she explained this by
subdivisionof the quadinto two triangles.
 95

David was asked aboutwhat comes next afterthe angle sum for quad= 360?.
Reasoninginductively,he speculated"pentagonshave a sum of 720?, thatis double
360?." David measuredangles in two pentagons"tocheck,"obtainingsums of 543?
and 535?! He then explained by subdividinginto 3 triangles and reconciled the
discrepancybetween the 540? and his two measurementssaying, "the measure-
ments were off a bit." When questionedabouthis preferencein approach,David,
who was initiallyweddedto experimentation by measuringto show the angle sum of
a triangle,now voted for the subdivisionexplanation. The interviewer'sdiscussion
with David about a measuringapproachthat leads to discoveries (level 1) and a
deductive approach(level 2) seemed very appropriatehere for him. It seemed to
help him begin to realize the role of the deductive method and reinforced his
understandingof the new expectationto explainthingscarefully.
As indicated above, the sixth graders showed progress toward level 2 by
following and/or giving informal deductive arguments about angle sums for
polygons. Progress, although limited for some students, was also seen by their
performanceon the activityon the exteriorangle of a triangle,which was presented
as an assessment task in a session after completion of Activity 6. The students
(including Norma) quickly discovered that the measureof an exterior angle of a
triangleequals the sum of the measuresof the remoteinteriorangles, usually after
measuringangles in two examples. Some studentsdevelopeda proofon theirown,
even discoveringwhereto place the auxilaryline, while otherswere guidedthrough
an explanation. Most of these studentshad no troubleshowing how this new fact
was interrelatedto previous ideas by constructinga family tree, thus beginning to
build a networkof theorems.

Module 3. The intent of this module was to examine furtherthe students'

thinking--inparticular,at level 1 (discoveringarea rules) and level 2 (explaining
area rules and logically interrelatingthem)--in a context different from that of
angle measurement. Of the eight students,two (Murielleand Juan)did not do the
modulebecause they spent the 8 sessions on Modules 1 and 2. One otherstudent,
Luce, did only the initial assessmentpartof Module 3. Five studentsspent from
1-1/2 to 3 sessions on it, developing area rules for rectangles, right triangles,
parallelograms,any triangle,and even trapezoidsand any quadrilateral.Of these
six, all had higher than level 0 understandingof area as "covering space" and
interpreteda certain area as how many squarescould cover the shape. They all
knew the area rule for rectangle,and appliedit to find how many squareinches of
gold were needed to cover the top of a jewelry box (Activity 2). Two (Normaand
Luce) could not explain why the area rule worked. Luce noted: "Theytaughtme
like that . . you got to figure out what to multiply first... use a rule ...." This
rote learningof a rule is an instanceof reductionof level. The four otherstudents
explainedwhy the rule workedby specific examples (e.g., "thereare four rows of
six in the rectangle,so multiply."). None knew a rule for righttriangles,although
Jeffrey and Andy spontaneouslyformulateda methodwhen given a righttriangle:
put two trianglestogetherto makea rectangle,thentakehalf its area.
 96

In Activity 2, which was designed to assess understandingof area and area

rules, some unexpectedlevel 1 thinkingaboutpropertiesof solids was evidenced.
Two students(Norma,David) treatedthe jewelry box much like they did the cutout
quadrilateralsin Module 1 and noted properties. When asked to describe the box
and if it had any properties,Norma,pointingto partsof the box, responded: "Four
sides [i.e., faces] ... opposite sides are congruent ... they have the same area ...
these [top edges] are parallel." David gave similar propertieswhen questioned.
Althoughfocused on a specific three-dimensional object,not the class of rectangular
solids, theirthinkingindicatesthatthey were able to identifyrelationshipsbetween
partsof solid figures (level 1).
As described below, Jeffrey, Norma, and John made progress in level 1 on
area, whereas Andy and David progressedeven furtherby being guided to give
careful deductive arguments to establish area rules for right triangle and
parallelogram.The differencein progressis probablynot due to differencesin the
abilities of these studentsbut ratherto differentexpectationsset by the interviewer
who, for Andy and David, augmentedthe scriptwith more detailedexplanationsand
askedthemto give carefularguments.

Aided by the instruction,Jeffrey, John, and Norma developed proceduresfor

finding areas of shapes. After finding the areas of two pairs of cutout congruent
right triangles, Norma formulateda method: take two congruentright triangles,
put them together to make a rectangle,then divideby two. Studentswere asked
to report these methods "over a telephone to a
friend."For a parallelogram,John said "takeit and ,
cut off two trianglesat ends, put them togetherand
then find area of the two squares [or rectangles]."
Laterhe formulatedanotherapproach,cut off the
triangleat one end, move it to otherend; "measure
the bottomand how far up, thenmultiply."

Jeffrey and John came up with imaginativesolutions to problems of finding

areas. For a parallelogram,Jeffrey said, "Makea rectanglearoundit and subtract
off two triangles."Johnfound fourmethodsfor trapezoids:

(1) make a parallelogramandsubtracta triangle

(2) make a parallelogramand adda triangle /

(3) make two trianglesanda rectangle f \

(4) make two triangles.

However, all this work involved only level 1 thinking--mainly, solving

problemsusing propertiesof shapes. This was not reallydeductivelevel 2 thinking
 97

becausethese studentsdid not explainwhy certainrulesmustbe true.They observed

thattwo cutoutcongruentrighttrianglesform a rectangleand said the arearulewas
"length x width divided by two,"without explainingwhy the two trianglesmust
make a rectangle. This lack of deductive
thinking also characterized the family trees / |
created by these students to show how area
rules are related. Their trees seemed to be IARE OF A osl
simply a visual format for summarizing a Lr C:? E
procedure.This tree by Jeffrey shows how he /
used a triangleand a rectangleto find the areaof
any parallelogram. The relationship was R o
generalized inductively here, but not
deductively.

Andy andDavid made level 1 discoveriesof areaproceduresas did the students

above. But they made inroadsinto level 2 whenjustifying arearules that they had
discovered. David gave the following argumentwhen asked why 2 right triangles
give a rectangle. He explained that ABCD mustbe a rectangleby showingall the
angles are right angles. The argumentbegan
with the observationthat angle A and angle C ^ B
are right angles because of the right triangles. 3
Now to get angle B and angle D to be right
angles, he first said, "Well, angle 2 is 30? so 2
angle 4 is 60? and they make 90?." Here he was D C
using specific valuesfor anglesto explain. The
interviewerpressed David about why angle 2 and angle 4 form a right angle. He
explainedthat in a righttriangle"thetwo angles equal 90? because 180?minus 90?
leaves 90?, so angle 2 + angle 4 = 90?. Since the two triangles are the same, angle 4
is the same as angle 1, so angle 2 + angle 1 = 90?, a right angle, and likewise for
angle B."

Andy gave a similarargumentwhich he summarizedby a family tree. At first

he couldnot explainwhy angle2 + angle4 made90?. At the followingsession Andy
said that he had figured it out "while eating
dinner." He reasonedthat the acuteanglesadd 4 suf orA
to 90? in a right triangle. The proof Andy gave O AREA o
was correct; he did need some guidance to [ bx
explain all the details. The interviewer x\
discussed these careful argumentswith Andy
and David, who used the words "clinchit" and
lA+ //
"be technical," respectively, to characterize rI^li ,
their explanations. This was an attemptby the ocF^
interviewer to make the students more aware of AKEA
oF
the kind of explanation expected. Andy and {b
?b 3
David seemed to have made considerablepro-
 98

gress towardlevel 2. Moreexperiencein giving careful("technical")explanations

and discussingthe quality of theirexplanationswould no doubthave helped these
two students to give careful informal argumentsmore fluently and consistently,
therebyenablingthemto reachlevel 2.
In summary,the GroupIII studentsexhibitedevidence of level 1 thinkingfrom
the outset,althoughmost neededto fill in or review some conceptsat level 0. They
also needed to become more fluent with terminologyused at level 1 in describing
shapesin termsof properties.Most studentsprogressedtowardlevel 2 by following
andthen summarizingarguments,while a few progressedfartherandbeganto give
argumentsmore independently and with more details. They tended to equate
"proof" with generalization by examples (i.e., inductive approach) and only
graduallydid some acquirea sensitivityto a deductiveapproachto geometry(level
2). Even when they followed/gavedeductiveexplanations,studentsdid not yet seem
sureof the power of theirarguments.Thatis, althoughthey gave simple deductive
proofs, they did not yet clearly see the need for careful deductive explanations.
They were quiteverbalandtendedto expressthemselvesconfidently. They seemed
more reflective about the problems they were doing and also about their own
thinking.
 CHAPTER 6

CLINICAL STUDY: INTERVIEWS WITH NINTH GRADE SUBJECTS

Results of the interviews with ninth grade subjects are reportedbelow. First
the subjects are described,then in subsequentsections results in terms of specific
behaviorsof individualstudentsarediscussed. In additionto discussingthe level of
thinkingof ninthgraders,discussionsof relationshipsbetweenlevel of thinkingand
school achievement, learning style, language, learning difficulties, and thinking
processes arepresented.

Subjects

Subjects for the clinical interviews were selected to reflect the diversity of
studentsin New York Citypublicschools,both raciallyandin termsof achievement
level. Therewere 16 ninth graders--5boys and 11 girls; 13 were minoritystudents
(10 Blacks, 1 Hispanic and 2 Orientals). The 16 were enrolled in two public
secondaryschools--onejuniorhigh school andone high school.
The Project's modules were designed primarily for work with students of
average or above average achievement. Table 3 presentsthe readingand mathe-
matics achievementscores for each studentbased on the student'sperformanceon
the Metropolitan Achievement Tests, Advanced 1, Form L which were
administeredas part of city-wide testing in late Spring. Three students(Pete, Pat
and Barth)were enrolled in a ninth gradefundamentalsof mathematicsclass; one
student(Madeline)was in a three-semesterelementaryalgebrasequence;all other
students were enrolled in a regular two-semester elementary algebra sequence.
Table 3 also show the amountof work completedby each studenton the Project's
instructionalmodulesin approximatelysix to eight hoursof clinical interviews.

As statedearlier,a student'slevel of thinkingwas determinedmainlyby his/her

responsesto assessmenttasksin Modules1, 2 and3, in particularto questionsin key
activities in these modules. Entriesin Table 4 characterizein a general way each
student'slevel of thinkingon key activities. The codes used in this table to describe
the quality of a student'sresponse at a particularlevel are the same as those used
previously in Table 2. When reviewing the performanceof the ninth grade sub-
jects, one shouldkeep in mind thatthereare severalinformalgeometryunits in the
New York City MathematicsCurriculumfor grades7 and 8 and presumablythese
subjectshave had some instructionin geometrythroughthese curriculumunits.

Results: An Overview
As a resultof the analysisof the videotapesandin a mannersimilarto thatused
for the sixth graders,the Project staff assigned the ninth gradesubjectsto three
 100

Table 3

Achievement Test Scores and Modules Completed by Ninth Graders

Test Scores Modules

PRArtin \ athPmitirY e 1 2 3 Ext

Alice 81 47 x x x x
Carol 79 47 x x x x
Barbie 79 43 x x
Barth 70 34 x x x
Kathy 68 45 x x x x
Samantha 67 46 x x x x
Beth 66 45 x x
Doreen 65 28 x x x
Madeline 57 37 x x
Linda 56 47 x x x x
Mau 56 45 x x x x
Ling 56 42 x x x x
Elena 55 40 x x x
Jorge 55 33 x x
Pete 49 32 x x
Pat 45 30 x x

note: Testscoreson MetropolitanAchievement Tests,Advanced1, FormL.

X indicatesthata studentcompletedtheentiremodule.
/ meansthatthemodulewaspartiallydone.
 101

groups on the basis of their performanceson key activities in the modules. A

detailedanalysisof the responsesand level of thinkingof the subjectsin GroupIV,
V andVI is presentedbelow.

Group IV
The thinkingof the two studentsin this group(PatandPete, whose achievement
scores were at least one year below gradelevel) was to a large degree at level 0 as
they did the activities in Module 1. They seldom analyzedshapes in termsof their
partsor theirproperties. Identifyingshapes in differentorientationsor in complex
configurations(photograph)was a problemfor these students. Because of theirlack
of familiarity with basic geometric concepts and language, they were guided
throughall the InstructionalBranches(parallel,angle, rightangle, opposite angles,
oppositesides, congruent,angle measurement.. .) of the modules. Pete commented
about the word "rectangle"(after instructionwas given), "Oh,that'sa new word."
He had a similarcommentaboutthe word "parallel."Pete had difficulty learning
andrememberingnew ideas andcontinuallyconfused"rectangle"and "rightangle."
Not until the fourthor fifth interviewsession did Pete begin to use new words such
as parallelogramand rectangleanduse themcorrectly.

Pat had similar difficulties with language. The word "side"proved to be a

major stumbling block for her. Her concept of "side" of a shape was a
vertical segment. Because of Pat'slack of clarityon the concept of "side,"she had
considerabledifficulty doing the first sort of polygons. Pete also needed many
examples before he caught on to the initial sort of polygons, but later carefully
explainedthathe had sortedthemby the numberof sides.
These two students'initialdescriptionsof squareandrectanglewere incomplete
and poorly stated. In the quadrilateralsort, Pat describeda squareas "looks fat,
looks like boxes, sides are not longer,they are shortandsmall;straightall the way."
She describeda rectangleas: "longerthana square,has four sides, aboutthe sameas
a squarebut longer,"and a parallelogramas: "slantedon sides, a rectangleis not
slanted." She sortedthe shapes into threepiles--rectangle,parallelogram,square--
mainly on the basis of "pointyness."Consequently,trapezoidand otherquadswere
placed ratherrandomlyin her threepiles. Both studentsneededmuch guidanceand
prompting in Activity 3, Properties of Quadrilaterals. They had difficulty
attributinga propertyto a groupof shapes--sometimescheckinga propertyfor only
one or two shapes in the group. This failureto test all given examples in a group
suggestsa lack of level 1 thinkingaboutpropertiesof a class of figures.
Neitherof the studentsfully graspedsubclassrelationships,althoughPatargued
correctly (fromher incorrectdefinitionof parallelogram)thata rectangle cannot
go in the parallelogrampile because "ithas rightangles and parallelogramsdon't."
Throughout this activity on subclass relations, Pete argued from a visual
perspective, never referringto nor basinghis argumentson, the propertieswhich
 102

C3
_4
CA
_l
(C

C1 v)
- C CS cl

CI

Cl

1n (A CI

a' upuFI _^
C4 Il
_, N
0

cc

N
r-4

O. -

Q,
1
Cl

....... Cl
...........
-4

C-L

CL.

-w

0.
Q-
I.-O

CL
= T t
aq.re 1=-
~-
-c

0. c.

tlo

cu 6 -..

Cr,

*- Q-.
0 0 0
??r? b

*
C"
0 0 6 0 o

-
6
C(
V CZ 0
"/I CA g,
._
6 > C.
D- d<L
._ c_ C, L=
tv O -' 3
C3
CQ C)
C v .}a D UC a2 CA
Angle
Measurement 0 0 lp 0 0 0 0 0 0-1 1 1 1

Saw/Ladder 1 Ip 1 1 1 0-1 1 0-1 1 1 1-

Proofs via
Saw/Ladder : 1-2p 1-2 1-2 1-2p 1-2p . 1-2g 1-2 1-2
Angle Sum:
Triangle 2
1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2p 1-2 1-
Angle Sum:
Quad, Pentagon 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 l-2p 1-2 1-2 2 2 1-
Exterior
Angle Ig 1-2p 1-2 1-2 1-2 2

Concept
of Area 0 0-0-1 0-1 0-1 01 0- 10 1 1 0-
Area:
Rectangle 1 lg 1 Ig ig lg 1 1 1 1
Area:
Right Triangle 0-1 1 1 lgg 1 lg 11-2 1-2
Area:
Parall-logram 0-1 1 1 Ip 1 1 1-2 1
Areal:

Area:
Trapezoid 1-2 Ip 0-1 :1 1-2 1-2 2
Area:
Midline Rule 12 1-2 1-2

Key: O* weak response

g responded with guidance
p responded after a prompt
s responded spontaneously
 104

were listed on the table in frontof him. Forexample,a rectanglecould not go in the
parallelogrampile "unlessyou cut it... take a triangleandadd it to it."
Similar to the GroupI sixth grade students,both of these studentsresponded
incorrectlyor at level 0 (i.e., it looks like) on Activities 4 (Uncover Shapes), 5
(Minimum Properties), 6 (Kites) which were intended to assess level 1 and 2
thinking. Neither studentunderstoodthe directionalnatureof the "is a special"
arrowin the task of arranginga tree with the words "square,""kite,"and "quadri-
lateral";both said it didn'tmatterwhich way the arrowwas placed. Orientationof
shapesalso continuedto be a problemfor them. Interestingly,the strategyadopted
by both studentswas "guess"--Patfrequentlysaid "Idon'tknow, just guessing"and
Pete commented"Alwaystake a guess, it might be right."However, their guessing
tendedto be random--withoutthought--rather thaneducatedguessing.

Pat did some initial work in Module2, againat level 0, and needed instruction
on angles and angle measurement.After a numberof examples, she became quite
proficientat estimatingthe size of angles in termsof cut-outwedges; she then chose
to measureangles with a protractorand after some confusion did reasonablywell
with a little guidance. Pete did four of the activitiesin Module 3 on area. Despite
some initial confusion about perimeterand area and some random guessing of
answers,some of which were correct(andhe commented"luckyguess"),he showed
considerableinsight in solving problems involving finding the area of irregular
shapes (rectangles with pieces cut out) and the surface area of an open box.
Difficulties with vocabularypreventedPete from giving clear explanations. His
approach to finding areas of shapes was always visual and physical. As he
explained,"Youcould cut--takeoff triangleandput it on--won'tchange." Pete was
also able to explain some arearules reasonablywell using physical models. In the
last two sessions, Pete beganto use some of the new geometryvocabularycorrectly
andconsistentlyandwas able to explainnot only the rulefor findingthe areaof any
trianglebut also why the rule works, thus exhibiting some level 1-2 behaviorson
areatasks.

The above characterization of these two ninthgradestudentsindicatesthe same

glaringdeficienciesin theirgeometrybackgroundas was noted in the GroupI sixth
gradestudents. Little school experiencewith geometrycoupledwith languageand
memory difficulties resulted for the most part in level 0 performance. These
students, especially Pat, seldom realized that they could figure things out in
mathematicsby thinking about them--rather,they utilized a strategy of random
guessing which they evidently felt had worked for them before. While these
students made some progress filling in level 1 as a result of instruction and
experiencewith the activities,progresswas limited.
Group V
As a result of the analysis of the videotapes,the Projectassigned seven ninth
 105

grade subjects to Group V (Barbie, Barth, Beth, Doreen, Madeline, Elena and
Jorge). Performancesof these seven students were markedlydifferent from the
studentsin GroupIV althoughat times some of the studentsin this groupexhibited
level 0 thinking to justify a response. Table 4 provides a characterizationin a
generalway of the level of thinkingon key activitiesof each studentin this group.
The responsesto the activitiesin Modules1, 2 and 3 of the studentsin this groupare
analyzedbelow.
Module 1. The students,for the most part, readily identified shapes such as
rectangles,squares,and trianglesin photographsand othercomplex configurations.
Also mentionedby some studentsin this groupwere parallelogramsand trapezoids.
Some students had orientation difficulties and needed to turn a figure before
decidingon its shape. In describinga rectangle,all the studentscited the propertyof
"4 sides with two equal longer sides and two equal shortersides." Only Barbie
indicatedthe need for rightangles, althoughDoreen and Elena said it was "almost
like a square." After giving the descriptionof a rectangle,subjectswere asked to
constructa rectanglefrom a set of D-stix. Jorge and Madelineselected 4 sticks of
the same length. Madelinequickly realizedher figure was a squareand remadethe
figure with differentsticks. When the D-stix constructionof a rectanglemade by
each subjectwas alteredslightly by the interviewerso that it became a figure with
non-rightangles (i.e., a parallelogram),Jorgeand Beth still thoughtthe figure was a
rectangle. Barthcalled it "adiamond"and Doreensaid it was "aslantedrectangle."
Otherssaid, "No,for a rectanglethe sides have to be straight."

Parallel lines were described by all the subjects as "lines that never meet."
Doreenthoughtthe lines also hadto be equalin length. InitiallyElenaandBeth used
the word "straight"in lieu of the word "parallel."Right angles were describedas
"squarecomers"by Elena, Barbie,and Doreen;Barbiealso spoke of "right"angles
and "left"angles. Madelinedescribeda rightangle as an angle with "straightsides"
and is "over30? up to 90?." Othersdescribedrightanglesas "90?."JorgeandBeth,
although saying that right angles contained90?, were unable to distinguishright
angles from obtuse and acute angles, or to identify right angles in different
orientations. After instruction,Beth was able to identify right angles correctly
although she frequently called them "righttriangles." Jorge, on the other hand,
despiteextensive instructionanddespitehavinga cut-outmodel for checkingto see
if an angle was a rightangle, continuedto have greatdifficulty in identifyingright
angles. This difficulty persisted throughoutthe eight interview sessions, thus
suggestinga visual perceptionproblem.
Most of the students recognized or were familiar with basic geometry
vocabulary(angle, parallel, diagonal, congruent,opposite sides... ) and needed
only a brief review. The geometriclanguageof all seven subjectsin this groupwas
richerand more precise than that of GroupIV studentsalthough,as noted above,
initiallyit tendedto be informaland non-standard.Theiruse of precise vocabulary
in giving descriptionsof figurestendedto improveas they workedthroughthe first
 106

module;perhapsthey beganto realizethatthis is whatwas expectedof them.

In doing the quadrilateralsort (Activity 3), six of the seven subjects did a
systematic sort into piles of "rectangles,squares, parallelograms,others", with
Madeline, Beth and Barbie then separatingthe "others"pile into "trapezoid"and
"miscellaneous."Jorgedid the sorthesitantlyandexplainedhis sort as "Iput sets of
similar figures in each group"and "theshapes that are left over are not similar."
Actually, some of the shapes in his sets were similar(in the technicalsense of the
word) and some were not.
When the studentswere asked to list the propertiesof the shapes in each pile,
most respondedquickly and correctlyfor squaresand rectangles. Promptswere
needed to obtain all the propertiesof a parallelogramand trapezoid,particularly
concerningthe parallelismof the sides. When a new propertywas noted, such as
"opposite angles are equal" (in a parallelogram), Doreen and Barbie said
spontaneously:"Oh,you could say that aboutthe squareand rectanglepiles also."
When asked: Are these properties true for all parallelograms or just these
parallelograms?,the students in this group were very thoughtfuland Madeline's
answer was typical: "Hm. . . all parallelograms. . . yeah, all." On the selection
sheets, most studentsspontaneouslyreferredto propertiesin informallyjustifying
their classification of figures. Fluent studentresponses indicatedthat they were
analyzingfigures in terms of their componentsand relationshipsbetween compo-
nents and establishingpropertiesof a class of figures (i.e., necessarypropertiesof a
conceptwere establishedempirically),thusexhibitinglevel 1 thinking.
In Activity 3-4 (InclusionRelations),students'priorlearninginfluencedtheir
answersto the questions:Could a squarebe placed in the rectanglepile? Why or
Why not? Madeline, Doreen, Barth and Elena gave negative replies with Elena
adding, "All rectangles are long; that's what they taught me," and the others
indicatinga need for two longer and two shortersides. After discussionsbased on
using only the propertieslisted in frontof them,these four studentsagreedthatthey
could think of a squareas a "special"rectangle. Jorge gave no reply and afterhe
was guidedto check out each of the propertiesof a rectangleas being applicableto a
square,he decided "Yes." Beth and Barbie gave affirmativereplies with Barbie
saying: "Letme look at the properties... Yes... Justbased on these propertiesyou
could put a squarein the rectanglepile; but if you had the propertyof one longer
andone shorterside, you could not."

In responseto the questions,Can a rectanglebe placed in the squarepile? Why

or why not?, all studentsjustified theirnegative replies by citing a property(e.g.,
"allthe sides arenot even"). By now the studentsrecognizedwhatwas expectedand
so theiranswersto successivequestionsrelatingto placinga squareor a rectanglein
the parallelogrampile, were carefully given--justifying their answers by citing
propertiesof the figures. Beth tendedto interchangethe idea of "havingone more
property"and "missing a property"as she explained why a figure was not in a
 107

particularpile. For example, she said: "A rectangleis not a parallelogrambecause

it is missing a property--ithas four right angles." Beth's difficulty in mixing up
these ideas was not fully resolvedandpersistedin lateractivities.

The subjectsenjoyedthe two activitiesin UncoveringShapes(Activities3-6, 7)

via clues and all based their reasoningon propertiesof shapes (level 1) although
therewas an occasional"itlooks like"at the beginning. Jorgeneeded guidanceand
had to be continually reminded to consider the clues sequentially and not
individually. Beth had difficultyconceptualizingthe meaningof "atleast"on clue
cards,such as "hasat least one rightangle."

Exceptfor Jorge,who consideredall propertiesas necessary,all the studentsin

doing the Minimum Propertiesactivity (Activity 3-8) for a square immediately
removed"oppositesides are equal"and "oppositeangles are equal"as unnecessary.
They reasoned that the descriptors"all sides are equal"and "all angles are right
angles"covered the opposite sides and opposite angles. They also removed "four
angles"since "if it has four sides, it must have four angles." Most of the students
were uncertainabout the necessity of the descriptor"oppositesides are parallel."
Theirgeneralfeeling was thatperhapsit was not necessary,but all chose to leave it
in theirlist of necessarydescriptorsfor a square.

In doing the same activity, but selecting necessary descriptors for a

parallelogram,Jorge was the only one who initially selected the minimumnumber
of necessaryproperties(i.e., four sides, opposite sides are parallel). In additionto
Jorge's descriptors,Beth and Barbie thought that "oppositesides are equal" and
"oppositeangles are equal"were necessary. When askedto verify theirselections,
the studentsdrew figures using the differentproperties,and then decided thattheir
additionalpropertieswere unnecessary. As seen in the above studentresponsesto
the tasks in the Minimum Propertiesactivity, there is evidence of some level 2
behaviors.

The final assessmentactivity,Kites, in this module providedan opportunityto

see if students described properties of a class of figures and if they saw
interrelationshipsamongfigures(level 1). Jorgewas unresponsiveandneededto be
guided to look at the specific propertiesof a kite. Initially Madeline and Beth
describeda kite as "diamondshapewith fourpoints,two sides equal (pointing)and
othertwo sides equal (pointing)." Madelineplaced the squarein the non-kitepile
explainingthat "it doesn'tlook diamondshape"(level 0). The interviewerrotated
the square45?. Madelinesaid, "Oh,it is diamondshape,it has foursides, it has four
points,and two pairsof adjacentsides areequal." She thenproceededto changethe
squareto the kite pile, thusmakingher decision on the basis of properties(level 1).
Beth put the squareon the kite pile but had difficultyverbalizingwhy. She talked
vaguely about propertiesbut seemed to judge on a "looks like" basis and needed
guidanceto completeher explanation. Doreen,Elenaand Barbiedescribedthe kite
as having four sides, two pairs of equal sides, and then focused on the diagonals.
 108

Doreennoticedthatone diagonalcut it into two congruenttriangleswhen she folded

the paperkite. Elenamade the same observationandadded"if the otherdiagonalis
drawn,the trianglesare not congruent."Barbie, referringto the diagonals,spoke
of "theframe of the kite"and said they must cross at a T, at right angles." Barbie
said, "a squareis a non-kitebecause it does not have propertiesof all otherkites."
She checked out her kite propertiesagainstthe square: "Ithas four sides, the frame
fits, the adjacentsides areequal." She then said somewhattentatively,"Itcouldbe
... a squareis a special kind of kite." Barbie'sexplanationshows that she was
thinkingof propertiesof a class of figures(level 1).
When askedto show the interrelationships among
quadrilaterals,kites, and squaresusing "is a special" I
arrows, as shown in the adjacent diagram, Jorge
placed arrows 1 and 2. When asked if he could put
anotherarrowto show a relationof squareandkite, he iQE K33
correctlyplaced arrow 3. Madeline, Doreen, Elena
and Beth placed arrows 1 and 2 correctly. However, Madeline initially placed
arrow3 in reverseposition;Doreen chose not to add arrow3 showing she was still
uncertainabout the relationship;arrow3 was confusing to Elena and she did not
know how to place it; Beth, still showing uncertainty,reversed arrow 3 several
times. Barbie revised her arrowsmany times saying to herself: "Kiteis a special
quad,squareis a specialquad--rightanglesandall sides equal,... a kite is a special
type of square ... no ... a square is a special type of kite because it has the
properties of the rest of the kites" and finally she placed the arrows correctly.
Barbie seemed to have a visual image of a kite and the squaredid not match that
image althoughthe squaredid have "thepropertiesof the rest of the kites."
Module 2. The responses of the seven students in this group to Module 2
activities provide further insights into their capacity to discover properties of
figures, such as saws/ladders and angle sums of polygons (level 1) and to
follow/give informaldeductivearguments(level 2).
As ninth graders,the students had school experience in learning about and
measuringangles in the seventh/eighthgrades. All were able to identifythe larger
angle of a pair,recognizingthatthe size of the raysformingthe angles did not affect
its measure, with Barbie remarking:"the length of the sides is not important."
Exceptfor Jorge,the studentswere quite good at estimatingthe size of acute,right
and obtuse angles. Jorge'sinabilityto identify a right angle consistentlypersisted
even aftercompletingthe InstructionalBranchon Angle Measurement.

Right angles in differentorientationswere trouble-

some to some students. Some turnedthe angle or the
page to look at it; Barth mutteredsomething about a
"left angle"but would not elaborate.Referringto the Ix
diagramat the right, Madelinesaid, "x is not an angle
 109

because the right side of the angle always has to be flat [horizontal]." This
misconceptionapparentlyhad arisenfromher experiencein measuringangles with
a protractor, where she had been cautioned "to place the protractor on the
horizontalray."

In orderto determinetheirfamiliaritywith angle relationshipsin a triangle,the

studentswere asked to estimate and record the measuresof the three angles of a
triangle and then to check their estimates with the transparentangle overlays (or
with a protractor). Jorge, Beth and Barbie spontaneouslyfound the sum of their
angles. Whenaskedwhy they did that,they said thatthey remembereddoing thatin
school. When the otherswere askedaboutthe angle sum, they vaguely remembered
having learneda rule aboutthe angle sum for a triangle. None of the studentscould
rememberor explain why this rule was true.

After tiling with squares, rectangles, parallelograms, right triangles and

trianglesand seeing the associatedgrids, the studentsrecognized that their tilings
and the grids were formed by two or three sets of parallel lines. From this they
learnedto look for and trace other configurationsin the grids, in particular,saws
and ladders and sets of congruentangles. Students needed varying amounts of
experiencewith saws and laddersin differentpositions before feeling comfortable
with them.

Afterexplorationof two methodsfor constructingboth a saw and a ladder(i.e.,

first by parallel lines, second by congruent angles), the students were asked to
describe what was done. None of the studentsin this group spontaneouslyused
"if-then"language (level 2); rather,they tended to use a proceduralapproachand
said, "well, you startedwith parallellines here and ended with congruentangles"
and "the other was the reverse, startwith congruentangles and end with parallel
lines." When the interviewerexpressed the relationshipsin "if-then"language,all
the students agreed with the statements. When considering the statements, "if
parallellines, then congruentangles"and "if congruentangles, then parallellines,"
several students (Jorge, Doreen, Elena) said they were "the same", showing an
inability,as Dina van Hiele-Geldofdescribedit, to distinguishbetweenthe "Siamese
twins"(statementand its converse).

Five problemsin Activity 4 requiredstudentsto show thatparticularangles in a

grid were congruentusing saw/ladderprinciples and the culminatingassessment
task was equivalent to giving an informal proof of "opposite angles of a
parallelogramare congruent."The purposeof this activity, done over two sessions,
was to see if studentscould give or follow informaldeductivearguments(level 2).
All studentscompletedproblem 1 (involving 1 ladder)and problem2 (involving 1
saw) correctly. The next threeproblemscould have been done in several ways (2
ladders, saw and ladder, . . . ) and students had considerable difficulty finding
appropriateladders/saws and determiningwhat strategy to use. Figure-ground
problemsand orientationproblemswere particularlyevident. Madelineand Barbie
 110

initially insistedon tracingin many possible ladders(saws) in the grid--makingthe

diagramso complex that they became confused. They apparentlyfelt the need to
"see"all the saws and laddersbefore looking for a strategythat would help them
relate a particularpair of angles. Jorge, Elena and Beth also needed considerable
guidance in planning and finding an appropriatestrategy. To justify their
conclusionof congruentangles,studentsgave an informalstatementof the transitive
property--Jorge'sanswer is typical: "AngleA = angle X by ladderand angle B =
angle X by saw so they are all equal." When askedwhich angles were equal,Jorge
and the otherstudentseitherrepeatedtheirstatementsor said "A = X = B." During
the second session on this activity,the studentswere more successfulin identifying
congruentangles via saws/laddersand tendedto name the two particularangles in
their conclusions but still needed occasionalpromptingin their argumentsto help
themkeep theirideas in focus. All the studentswere able to follow argumentsand
alternativesolutions suggestedby the interviewerand also to repeator summarize
the interviewer's arguments, although to Beth this was a struggle. After one
interviewsession, Beth, a very serious student,confidedthat she neededextrahelp
with saws and laddersas she did not fully graspthe ideas. This help was given. It
became clear that solving problemsby reasoningand finding a strategywas a new
conceptfor this studentwho thoughtof mathematicssolely as memorization.On the
final assessmenttask in this activity, only Jorge was able to give independentlyan
informal deductive argument to show that both pairs of opposite angles in a
parallelogramare congruent; the other students were able to give parts of the
argumentor to follow and then summarizethe interviewer'sargument.

Activity 5 was designedto have the studentsdiscover why the angle sum of a
triangle is 180?. The previous activities had given the students considerable
experience in identifyingcongruentangles via saws/ladders. AlthoughJorge and
Elenacorrectlyexplainedthe coloringof theirangles on the gridand explainedthat
the sum of the threeangles thatformeda straightangle were "thesame as the three
angles in the triangle,"they both were unconvincedthatthis angle sum relationship
would always be truein every triangle. Afterrepeatingthe activity on at least two
different triangular grids and finding the same results, Elena said it would
"probablywork"on anothergridbut Jorgerefusedto generalize. When questioned
on whetherhe thoughtthe angle sum for a trianglewas more or less than 180?,he
said "probablyless or more"but did not seem to have any particularidea in mind.
Interestingly,he always used the fact that the angle sum was 180? in solving the
numericalproblemsin the activity; when asked why he could do that, he replied,
"Theangle sum is 180 in this triangle."Jorgepersistedin his viewpointthroughout
the remaininginterviews. Since the interviewersuspectedthathe mightbe thinking
about spherical geometry or non-Euclidean geometry, several Project staff
members(in an effort to gain insight into his thinking)discussed these angle sum
ideas with him but these ideas were not meaningfulto him. He said he "justhad a
feeling thatthe angle sum for some trianglewas not 180?";apparentlythe informal
deductive argumenthe had given was not convincing to him. The remaining
studentsgave initial argumentssimilarto those given by Jorge and Elena but then
 111

they were convinced about the generality of their own arguments and readily
showed it was trueon differentgridsandhence was truefor every triangle"because
you could do the same thing."
The students quickly suggested and explained why the angle sum for a
square/rectangle was 360? (four right angles). The angle sum for both a
parallelogramand a quadrilateralwas discovered (throughcoloring angles on a
grid, tiling, or dividing into two triangles)by all students,but Madelinehad greater
confidencein her conclusionwhen she measuredthe angles to find the sum thanby
her informaldeductiveargument.

Beth, when confronted with the possibility of dividing the quad into four
trianglesand gettingan angle sum of 720? insteadof 360? said, "Perhapsboth could
be right . . . depends on the method you use." All the other students needed
guidanceto find the fallacy in the argumentthatthe angle sum of a quadis 720? by
dividing it into four triangles. Except for Elena, all were able to follow and then
summarizethe explanation.

In discoveringthe angle sum of a pentagon,the approachof Jorge, Madeline

and Doreenwas to divide a pentagoninto threetrianglesobtainingan angle sum of
540?;Barthand Elena dividedit into a quadanda triangle,obtainingthe same sum
(360 + 180); Beth andBarbieinitiallysuggested720? for the angle sum with Barbie
dividing a pentagoninto two quads (360 + 360). Madelinewas totally convinced
with her discovery and explanation,stating "anyfigure with five sides, the angle
sum is 540?; you do not have to measure."(Herewe see a movementfromlevel 1to
level 2 thinking.) The students readily placed the card for the angle sum for a
pentagonin theirfamily trees (Activity 6-3) correctly.
In finding the ancestorsto the angle sum for a triangle,studentsreviewedhow
they found the angle sum. Barbieand Doreen immediatelyassembledtheirfamily
trees correctlyand explainedthem well; Madelineand Jorge took a bit more time
and needed only one promptto assemble and explain the tree correctly;Beth and
Elenaneededmore guidanceto completethe task successfully. All studentsseemed
interested in the-family tree approach to showing interrelationships. While
informally discussing the idea of family trees with some of the students, the
interviewer asked if saw and ladder have ancestors, Madeline and Barbie
immediately suggested parallel lines and angles as ancestors; Jorge and Beth
proposedparallellines. All the studentsagreedtheremustbe some beginningpoint
in an ancestraltree. Discussion broadenedto consider the possibility of having
family trees in otherareas of mathematics. Several studentsquickly proposedthat
additionwas an ancestorto multiplicationand then countingand numberwould be
ancestorsto addition.

The fimalassessmenttask,the exteriorangle of a triangle(Activity7-3), for this

modulewas done by four studentsin this group. In this activitystudentswere faced
 112

with an open question of finding a possible relationship among the three angles in-
dicated in the figure. The four students, after
studying the figure, chose to measure the angles in
each of three examples to see what they could
discover. Jorge and Barbie automatically found the
sum of angles a, b and c, "justto see what they add
up to ... just curious." At first Madeline thought all the angles were equal but
after her first set of measurements she noticed that angle c equaled the sum of angles
a and b. She hypothesized that this relationship was true and checked it out in the
next two examples. She verbalized her "theory"and said it was "positively" true in
all triangles. When asked if she had to measure it in the next triangle, her "no"reply
was immediate and emphatic. When asked for a logical argument, Madeline gave no
response except for a big sigh. Several prompts were given such as: "Is any part of
angle c related to angle a or angle b?" She provided several of the steps in the
argument and then gave a review of the complete argument including the reasons
for positioning the auxiliary line that was needed. In order to determine if the
student understood the deductive argument given, a second problem involving the
same principle but in a different orientation was presented. When Madeline was
given the second example, she placed the auxiliary line correctly, carefully
explaining how and why, and then proceeded to give a complete informal deductive
argument (level 2) with no assistance. When asked to place her newly discovered
principle in her family tree, she explained her correct placement well. She seemed
pleased with her accomplishment and said, "I think I understand" and was now
convinced that one could reach conclusions about angles "without measuring."
Jorge, Beth and Barbie needed more guidance than Madeline in developing their
informal arguments for the first problem. In the second problem, Beth gave a good
argument with no assistance and then stated what principle she had established and
explained how to place it in her family tree. Jorge, on the other hand, could provide
only part of the explanation without guidance and then placed the exterior angle of a
triangle card incorrectly (coming from the angle sum of a quad) in his family tree.
Barbie, when given the second problem, had the impression that all the angles
equaled 60? and the following dialogue ensued between the interviewer (I) and the
student (S):

I: Does it matter what size the angles are?

S: Yes, you can't be sure unless you know the measurement of them.
I: You don't have any faith in it without measuring?
S: Right. [to herself] Show these two angles put together equals this one. [She
uses a D-stix with no particularstrategy in mind and no success.]
I: [prompting] Think about what we did in the previous problem.
S: Oh.
[And then Barbie, without any assistance, placed a D-stix correctly and
proceeded to give a good argument justifying her statements with properties
of parallel lines, saws and ladders, congruent angles and concluded that
"two opposite interior angles put together equals the exterior angle."]
 113

I: Are you convincedthatthis is truein every triangle?

S: Yes.
I: You don'thave to measure?
S: [reluctantly]No, you don'thave to measure.
I: Wouldyou like to measurethese?
S: [brightly] I definitelywould!
Barbie happily measured and said: "just curious to see how much each angle
measured." Barbie's extensive prior experience in arriving at conclusions by
measuring overshadowed any real sense of present accomplishment in using
informal deductive argumentsto arrive at new conclusions. However, her work
with family trees--showingand explaininginterrelationships
among ideas--showed
quick comprehensionand clarity.
Module 3. As noted previously, the intent of this module was to examine
further the student'sthinking at level 1 (discovering area rules) and at level 2
(explainingarea rules and logically interrelatingthem) in a context differentfrom
that of angle measurement. Because of the total time restrictionof six hours of
clinical interviewsfor each subject,only five of the studentsin this groupcompleted
all (Doreen,Barth,Elena)or part(Beth andBarbie)of this module.

Activity 2, designedto assess a student'sconceptof area,begins with a problem

of covering the top of a jewelry box with gold foil--one top is a square(5 x 5), and
the otheris a rectangle(6 x 4). When asked which was larger, Doreen, Barthand
Elenaall replied"theyarethe same"andjustifiedtheirresponsesas follows:

Doreen: Each angle is 90?, so they should be the same.

Barth: [afterphysically overlayingthe shapes] One has a bigger width
and the othera biggerlength.
Elena: The areasareequalbecausethey areboth20.

Two commonmisunderstandings areevidentin the responsesof Doreenand Elena:

(1) thinkingof areaas relatedto angle sums and (2) confusingareawith perimeter.
Beth and Barbieboth said the squarewas largerand Beth replied:"Thediameterof
the squareis bigger"while Barbie'sdecision was made on the basis of physically
overlaying the shapes. Doreen and Elena describedarea of a figure as the "space
inside,"while Barthsaid, "Thenumberof tiles representthe size." Beth thoughtof
areaas "thewidth and length aroundit" and Barbiesaid, "Itis length times width,
that's the formula for area." When questioned why that was the formula, she
replied "you could add also 2L + 2W or count squares." (Note the perimeter
interferenceagainin the responsesof Beth andBarbie.) All the studentshad learned
the rule (length times width) for the area of a rectangleand could apply the rule
correctlyin numericalexamples but none could explain why the rule works. This
would be an instance of what Pierre van Hiele calls "reductionof level" (i.e.,
learninga principleby rote withoutunderstandingit).
 114

The students were all quite successful at solving problems which involved
rectangularfigures in differentconfigurationsor with pieces cut out. They usually
could explain more than one way of solving the problems. In one problem, the
studentswere askedto findhow muchgold foil they wouldneed to coverthe sides of
a jewelry box (6 x 4 x 3); they had done the top of the box in the opening activity.
Barth immediately took a ruler, measured the height of the box, found the
perimeterof the base of the box, multipliedto find the resultand then gave a clear
explanation of why his procedure was correct. Barth's solution was visually
reinforcedfor him when he saw thatthejewelry box was so constructedthatit could
be laid out as a networkandhe could see the height andperimeterof the base of the
box as the widthandlengthof a rectanglein the network.

To solve the problemof covering the sides of a jewelry box, Beth found the
productof the length andheight, thenmultipliedby 4 and said, "4 x 18 is the area."
The interviewer turned the box 90? on its base and asked the student to do the
problemagain. This time she found "4 x 12 is the area"and seeing it was not the
same as before said, "I'mtrying to recallsomething... square18... square12.
..." The interviewerguidedher to thinklogically aboutthe problemwith questions
such as: Whatis the areaof the firstside?the secondside? She did thesecalculations
on paperand said, "It's60 cubic squareinches ... not reallya cube ... 60 inches."
The interviewer (I) asked the student (S) to reconsider the 4 x 3 side and the
following dialogueensued:
I: Whatis the areaof this side?
S: Areais 12 inches.
I: Will a piece of string12 incheslong cover the side?
S: Thatwould be too long.
I: Whatwill cover it?
S: Square inches ... tiles.
I: Whenwouldwe use the ideaof cubicinches?
S: Whenyou fill the box.

The memorizedfacts relatingto perimeter,areaandvolume were ratherjumbledin

Beth'sthinking.

Barbie also had some difficulty with the jewelry box problem. Her solution
was to "findthe amountof squareinches in the first side and find the amountof
squareinches in the second side, then just multiplythem." When the interviewer
seemed a bit puzzled, Barbiequickly revisedher answerto "findamountof inches
in length and amount of inches in width and then just multiply them." The
interviewerrestatedthe problemand Barbie said, "Oh,you mean volume." She
arrivedat the correctsolutionafterbeing given help similarto thatgiven to Beth.

Activity 4 was structuredto have studentsdiscoverthe areaof a righttriangle

by finding a pattern. Only one of the students(Barbie)knew the rule. Students
 115

were given four differentpairs of congruentrighttriangleswith which they formed

squaresor rectangles. A fifth pair had the legs noted as b and h. For each pair,
using a transparentgrid overlay to find the areas, the studentsthen recordedin a
chartthe length of the base and height of the triangleand of the rectangleand the
areasof the rectangleand triangle. The patternwas easily found by most students
with Doreen commenting:"Areaof a righttriangleis always one-half of its square
or rectangle." Beth also recognizedthe patternbut when she reachedthe general
case in her chart where the area of the rectanglewas b x h, she said tentatively:
"Areaof triangleis b ... but you still need the height." The interviewer,puzzled
by this response,pursuedthe following line of questioning:
I: If we continuedthe chartand the area of a rectanglewas 50, what would
the areaof the righttrianglebe?
S: 25
I: And if the area of a rectanglewas 100, what would the area of the right
trianglebe?
S: 50
I: And if the area of a rectanglewas p x q, what would the area of the right
trianglebe?
S: p... probably... or possibly q.

Beth's inability to handle the general case and her conception of taking half of
somethingby literallycuttingthe symbolic expressionin half vertically (i.e., p I q)
was a bit startlingconsideringshe was just successfullycompletingone year'sstudy
of elementaryalgebra.

Students were given practice in finding areas of right triangles using their
newly discovered principle. Initially several students (Doreen, Elena, Beth and
Barbie)had difficulty measuringthe height of the triangle;they tendedto measure
an adjacentside ratherthanthe height. When Doreen explainedthe rule, she said,
"Measurethe bottom,then measurethe side of the triangle,multiplyand divide by
two." Instructionwas given in the use of a L-squareto clarify and alleviate this
difficulty. AlthoughBarbie knew the rule for finding the area of a right triangle,
she also used the measureof an adjacentside as the height. When finding the areas
of righttrianglesthe concept of perimetercontinuedto intrudefor several students
(Beth, Barbie and Elena). At one point Barbie was asked the differencebetween
areaand perimeterand she replied,"Areaincludes the sides and what is inside but
perimeteris what is outside."
The students were then asked to begin a family tree for area. Elena's
explanationof her arrowbetween rectangleand righttrianglewas more procedural
thanlogical: "Tofind this (righttriangle),I have to find this (rectangle)first."Beth
explainedthe placementof her arrow(which was backwards):"A rectangleis half
of whata righttriangleis." Askedto reconsiderher statement,she thoughtand then
repeatedthe same statement.She was guidedto look at herpatternsheetandexplain
 116

the pattern. After her explanation,she reversedher arrow.

Before Beth and Barbie completed their last clinical interview, they were
asked: "If we put two congruent right triangles together, will we always get a
rectangle?"This questionwas posed in orderto assess the student'slevel of thinking
in termsof the qualityof the explanationgiven. Barbiereplied, "By puttingthem
together,you can just tell" (level 0). Beth responded,"If you put them together
correctly,the opposite sides will be congruent"(level 1). When asked whathad to
be trueto be a rectangle,both studentscited properties--oppositesides paralleland
four right angles (level 1). In tryingto justify that the opposite sides are parallel,
bothstudentssuggestedusing D-stix andplacingthemin such a way thatthey would
not meet. When pressed to give a careful argumentto justify the parallel lines
formedby placingthe two righttrianglestogether,both studentsneededguidanceto
thinkof applyingsaw/ladderprinciples. In the explanation,Barbiekept reasoning
fromthe converse,showingher inabilityto separatethe "Siamesetwins." (It should
be noted that the studentswere given considerableexperience using "if lines are
parallel,then alternate-interior angles are congruent"in the module tasks but they
had only one brief experienceusing the converse. Until the studentshave greater
experiencewith the converse, it is probablyunrealisticto expect them to "separate
the twins.") Whenaskedto show thatthe angleswererightangles,Barbiemeasured
with the transparentoverlay angle tester and said: "These two angles when put
togethermake 90?--it'sobvious." The interviewerremarked,"Supposeit measured
89? or 91??" Barbiereplied,"Roundit off." The studentwas pressedto give a more
carefulargumentusing the angle sum of a triangle. However, in the middle of her
explanation, she again reverted to it "looking like" a right angle and used a
protractorto measure it. With furtherguidance, she was able to establish right
angles by means of a deductiveargumentbut the quality of her response showed
mainly level 1 thinkingwith no consistent movement towardlevel 2. Beth was
guided to see how one pair of angles formed a right angle and then was able to
explain why the otherpair also formeda right angle. Basically Beth was able to
follow argumentsand providepartsof argumentsbut she had not yet reachedthe
stage of spontaneouslyor independentlythinkingof or initiatinginformaldeductive
arguments.
Doreen,Barthand Elena completedthe next threeactivitiesfor finding areaof
a parallelogram,a triangleand a trapezoidwith varyingdegrees of success. Elena
suggested three different approachesfor finding the area of a parallelogram--
convertingit to a rectangle,dividingit into a rectangleand two righttriangles,and
using an transparentoverlay grid. She had some difficulty describingand finding
the height; the concept of the height makinga right angle with the base was a bit
elusive. In explaining her family tree, she tended to do it from a time line
frameworkratherthanby logical relationships(i.e., "Wedid this first, next we did
this, and then we did this."). She easily developeda rulefor findingthe areaof any
triangle,using two congruenttrianglesto forma parallelogramandnoted that"you
would use b x h and divide in half and that would work for any triangle." Elena
 117

thoughtof four differentways of finding the area of a trapezoid--divideit into two

triangles, into a rectangle and two right triangles, into a parallelogram and a
triangle, or build a parallelogramaroundit and subtractthe extra triangle. She
successfully developed a rule for finding the area of a trapezoid (with little
assistance) using her first method and simplified it algebraically. Then she
immediately wanted to check out her new rule by a numerical example. She
spontaneouslyput her new rule card in her family tree and explainedit well. She
also made correctrevisions in her family tree when consideringthe possible use of
her other approaches for finding the area of a trapezoid. The quality of her
responsesin these activitiesindicatedgood progresstowardlevel 2 type of thinking.
Doreenneeded some promptingwhen she persistedin thinkingof the height of
a parallelogramand of a triangleas the lengthof a side adjacentto the base andalso
when she arguedthat the area of a parallelogramwas 360?. She also thoughtof
differentapproaches(much the same as Elena) for finding the area of a trapezoid
and was successful in organizingand explainingher family tree. Her explanations
varied from level 0 (e.g., "you know its a trapezoid by its shape, it looks like
triangleshave been choppedoff'), to level 1 whereshe madejudgmentson the basis
of propertiesof a class of figures. Barthclearly explainedhis idea of convertinga
parallelograminto a rectanglein orderto find its area. He tendedto use the words
"lengthand width"in talkingabout areasof parallelogramsand trianglesso he too
measured an adjacent side as the height. Barth called trapezoids "half
parallelograms . . . well, not really half." He found the area of a trapezoid by the
method of two triangles and with a promptdeveloped a rule: "Takea ruler and
measurebase andheightof one triangleandtakehalf, thenmeasurebase andheight
of the othertriangleand take half, and add these together." AlthoughBarthwas a
ninth grade student,he was not studying algebra,so his rule was not refined any
further.

Fromthe above analysisof the GroupV students'performanceson Modules 1,

2 and 3, it is apparentthat theirlanguageis richerand more fluent than thatof the
studentsin GroupIV. In generalthey tendedto be at least level 1 thinkersdespite
occasionallapses to level 0 type responsesandsome studentsin the groupexhibited
progresstowardlevel 2 thinking. Barth,Elenaand Doreenbecamemore consistent
in their level 1 thinking and clarified a numberof their misconceptions as they
worked through the modules. Jorge's apparent perceptual difficulties (e.g.,
inability to consistently identify right angles in figures) along with his
non-acceptanceof some generalprincipleshe developed (e.g., angle sum for any
triangle)impededhis progress,allowingcompletionof only two modules;however,
he seemed to have momentsof good insight. On the otherhand,Madeline,who also
only completed two modules, worked slowly and thoughtfully filling in some
conceptsat level 0 or 1, andmade clearstridestowardlevel 2 thinking. She moved
froman almosttotal relianceon a visual approachor measuringto an understanding
of the role of deductionin solving problems,thus makingmeasuringunnecessary.
Beth and Barbie, while in the high ability group, performedmainly at level 1
 118

althoughboth gave evidence of some progresstowardlevel 2 thinking. A strong

opinionof mathematicsas a procedure-oriented subjectby both studentsseemed to
impede their willingness to deal with different approaches to a problem or to
explorenew mathematicalideas.

Group VI
As a result of the analysis of the videotapes,the Projectassigned seven ninth
graders to Group VI (Alice, Carol, Kathy, Samantha, Linda, Mau and Ling).
Performancesof these studentswere differentfrom those in GroupIV and Group
V, in particular,most exhibitedmore consistentlevel 1 thinkingwith evidence of
some level 2 thinking,andworkedmorerapidlyandconfidently. All seven students
in this groupcompletedModules1, 2 and 3 with some Extensionsin the six hoursof
clinical interviews. (While Kathy'sresponses in many instances, as will be seen
below, would place her in GroupV, she workedmore rapidlythanthe studentsin
Group V, consequently completed more activities, and towards the end she
exhibitedlevel 1 thinkingmoreconsistentlywith evidence of some level 2 thinking.
In orderto compareher responsesto those activities with other studentswho also
did these extendedactivities,she has been includedin GroupVI.) See Table4 for a
characterizationin a general way of each student's level of thinking on key
activities. The responsesto the activitiesin the modulesof the studentsin this group
areanalyzedbelow.

Module 1. In responding to tasks in the opening activity, all the students

showed that they were familiarwith basic geometry concepts. For the most part
they used standardterminologyin describinggeometricfigures. While not always
precise, fluency and spontaneityseemed to characterizethe languagethey used in
speakingaboutgeometryideas. In describinga rectangle,Carol'sinitialanswerwas
typical:"foursides, two are equal and the othertwo are equal, all sides parallel,all
four right angles, closed." Linda'sdescriptionof parallellines was "twolines that
nevermeet, are the same distanceapart--theyare like in a plane." Kathyspoke of a
right angle as formed by "two lines--one going down, one going across and they
meet to form an angle of 90?"while Alice said, "Itis 90?, is like an L or a comer of
a square."

The quickness and systematicapproachused by the studentsin this group to

completethe first sort (sortingpolygons by numberof sides) and theirspontaneous
introductionof the numberof sides to describetheirsortcontraststrikinglywith the
performancesof some of the studentsin GroupIV and GroupV. Kathyand Carol
were a bit concernedabouttwo concave shapes which they said had "threeangles
and four sides and looked triangular."When asked to point out the angles in the
concave shapes, Kathysaid (pointingto the reflex angles) "theseare funny angles"
and immediatelydecided the shapes did belong in the quadrilateralset. Ling also
wondered momentarily whether the sides forming the reflex angle should be
thought of as "one side--one bent side" or two sides; he decided on two sides.
 119

Again, in the second sort (sortinga set of quadnlaterals),the studentsworked

quickly and systematically. Ling began by sorting into two sets: "figures with
parallel sides and those with non-parallelsides." Then, he changed to three sets:
"figures with right angles, parallelogramsand figures with no parallel sides."
Finally, he arrivedat four sets: "square,rectangle,parallelogramand figures with
no parallel sides." Alice, Carol and Linda also sorted into four sets of "squares,
rectangles, parallelogramsand others"with Carol thinking of parallelogramsas
"rectangleswhich are lopsided,not perfect." Mau,Kathyand Samanthasortedinto
five sets: "squares, rectangles, parallelograms, trapezoids and others" and as
Samanthadid the sort she spontaneouslyasked,"Areall squaresrectanglesor are all
rectanglessquares?"It was suggestedthatshe mightbe able to answerthatquestion
afterdoing some of the upcomingactivities.

All the studentsreadilylisted propertiesof the shapes(Activity 3-3) in each of

their piles. Upon noting a new propertyfor one pile, they tended to check their
otherpiles quicklyto see if the propertyapplied. Few promptswere needed. Kathy
tended to say "notslanty"ratherthannoting right angles for a rectangle. The flu-
ency of the students'responsesindicatedthatthey were analyzingfiguresin termsof
theircomponentsandrelationshipsbetweencomponentsandestablishingproperties
for a class of figures. Samantha,on examiningher list of propertiesfor squaresand
rectangles, thought back to her question and spontaneouslyconcluded: "Oh, all
squaresare rectanglesbecausethey have all the propertiesof a rectangleand all the
sides areequal." She also explainedclearlywhy all rectanglescould not be squares.

When the studentswere asked in Activity 3-4 (InclusionRelations)if a square

could be placed in the rectanglepile, Alice, Ling andLindaimmediatelysaid: "No,
because a rectanglehas two longer and two shortersides and a squarehas all sides
equal." They were reasoning correctly from their incorrect,previously learned,
definitionof a rectangle. When asked if the squarecould go in the rectanglepile if
only the propertieslisted were considered,they immediatelyresponded:"Yes, but
the rectangle could not go in the squarepile." Linda also arguedthat "a square
could not go in the parallelogrampile because the sides are not slanty and a
parallelogramdoes not have right angles." This reasoning was consistent with
Linda's unlisted property for a parallelogram--"itis slanty, that is, has oblique
angles." (Although the description and propertiesof a parallelogramhad been
discussed with Lindapreviouslyand she had acceptedthe idea that rectanglesand
squares were types of parallelogramsand had explained why, she nevertheless
continuedto think of parallelogram,rectangleand squareas disjointsets. Perhaps
the quadrilateralsort done in Activity 3-2 in some way reinforcedthis idea for her.)
It is interestingto note Linda'slanguage--sheconsistentlyused the word "because"
in her explanationsof subclassrelations,she tendedto use quantifierssuch as "all"
and "some",and she explainedher ideas with statementssuch as "asquarehas four
sides, that'swhy it's a quadrilateral."Otherstudentsin this group also tended to
spontaneouslyjustify theirresponses. Mauwas particularlythoughtfulandfluentin
his explanationof subclassrelationssaying,for example,"Aparallelogramis a quad
 120

because it has four sides, is not a trapezoidbecause they have only one pair of
parallelsides, is not a rectanglebecause they need rightangles, and is not a square
because they need rightangles and all sides equal,but you could put a rectanglein
the parallelogrampile because... [herehe listed all the properties]."

The Uncovering Shapes and Uncovering Clues activities (Activity 3-6, 3-7)
were easily done by the students who referredto propertiesof figures to justify
their conclusions. Mau gave very quick logical answers,citing precisely the right
propertythatwas needed to acceptor refutea given figure'sinclusionin a category.
Linda was also quick to respond to each clue saying, for example, "Squareand
rectangleare possible because of the rightangles, but now squareis eliminated,all
sides arenot going to be equalsince one side is alreadylongerthananotherside."

In decidingon the minimumclues (Activity3-8) neededto describea rectangle,

Alice selected "foursides, all angles are rightangles, opposite sides are congruent"
and ruledthe otherclues out by saying, "Ifit has four sides, then it has four angles;
if all angles are rightangles, their oppositeangles are equal;and if opposites sides
are congruent, then they are parallel." Carol selected three clues to describe a
square--"fourangles, all angles are right angles, all sides are congruent"and said,
pointing to the remainingthree possible clues, "theseare not necessary, they just
come along--if you have four angles, you have to have four sides; if all angles are
right angles, then opposite angles are congruent;if all sides are congruent,then
opposite sides are congruent." (Note the "if-then"language of both Alice and
Carol.) Carol'skeen reasoningalso was evident in her question: "Don'twe need
anotherclue thatsays the figureis closed or is thatjust assumed?" As she pondered
her own question and drew the sketch at the right, she
decidedto add "foursides"as a necessaryclue if yourdon't
assume the figure is closed. Mau, in selecting minimum
clues to describea squaresaid, "Foursides, all angles are
rightangles, all sides congruent."When asked if the clue
"foursides" could be omitted, he immediatelysaid "No"
and drew the figureat the rightto justify his conclusion.

Ling and Samanthadid the minimumpropertiesactivitylater(afterModule2).

They were asked, "Whatwould be the minimumpropertieswe would need to give
to a friend to be sure he/she would know we were thinkingof a parallelogram?"
Both studentsreplied,"Foursides, opposite sides parallel."They were then asked,
"If we only use your two properties,would we be able to show that all the other
propertiesof a parallelogramare true?"The studentsthoughtthis was possible and
easily showed that the opposite angles of a parallelogramwere congruentusing a
saw/ladderargument. Then by drawingin a diagonal, they establishedwith very
little guidancethat the triangleswere congruentand so concludedthat the opposite
sides of a parallelogramare congruent. In reflecting on what he had done, Ling
asked, "So all we need in orderto know that a quad is a parallelogramis that the
opposite sides are parallel?" The interviewer replied, "Yes, does that seem
 121

reasonableto you?" Ling said, "No,I thinkthereare some exceptions." To explore

his doubts, Ling made several attempts to make careful drawings, even
measuringthe sides. Although he was unsuccessfulin
making a drawing which was a counterexample,he
remainedunconvinced,still thinking that it was /
possible for the sides to be unequal if you only start , i
with the fact that the sides areparallel. Herewe have
an interestingexample of a studentwho was able to give a clear cogent deductive
argumentto establish a fact but who remainedunconvincedof the truthof the fact
he had established. Ling and Samanthawere then asked to give the minimum
propertiesneeded to be sure a quadrilateralwas a rectangle. Their responseswere
similar:"Isa quad ... a parallelogramwith four rightangles." To explorewhether
four right angles were needed, they used a D-stix model of a parallelogramand
focused on one angle as they moved the model to differentpositions. Ling noted
that as one angle becamea rightangle, the othersdid
did too ("they are all attached").With a few prompts, / B
the studentsargued,"If A is a right angle, then B is a /
rightangle [oppositeangles of a parallelogramare con- / /
gruent],but A + B = 180?,so C + D = 180 [anglesum
in a quad is 360?], so C = 90? and D = 90? [oppositeangles of a parallelogramare
congruent]." Samantha therefore concluded that it was enough to say that "a
rectangleis a parallelogramwith one rightangle." Ling did not thinkthatone right
angle was enoughdespitehis logical argument.He continuedto thinkthatone could
somehow have both pairs of opposite sides paralleland still have the bottom side
shorterthan the top (referringback to his drawings)and so he concludedthat one
would need more than one right angle. In spite of efforts to help him understand
what he had achieved by his argument,he remainedunimpressedandunconvinced
of the truthof the statementhe had establishedthrougha logical argument.

In the last assessment activity (Kites) in this module, the students'responses

basically referredto propertieswhen asked to describe a class of shapes (kites).
Carolsaid, "Oppositeangles are congruent[one pair],adjacentsides congruent[two
pairs], a diagonalgives two congruenttriangles,[foldinga papercut-out]diagonals
meet inside and are perpendicularlines." Alice stated,"Itlooks like a kite, has one
pair of congruentangles, two longer congruentsides and two shortercongruent
sides." Whenaskedaboutthe rhombus(whichwas in herpile of kites), she removed
it since it did not fit her description("twolongerandtwo shortercongruentsides").
When askedif a squarewas a kite, she thoughtthatwas possible andput it in the kite
pile. She then consideredthe rhombus,put it back in the kite pile, and changedher
description to "four sides, one pair of opposite angles congruent, two pairs of
adjacentsides congruent."Kathyalso did some paperfoldingof the model andnoted
that "congruenttriangles are formed by a diagonal and some kites have parallel
lines." She also said that "a squareis a kite and it could be three dimensional"--
probablythinking of a "realworld"kite. Linda'sresponse to this kite activity in
terms of symmetryis of interest:"Itis diamondshaped,has two pairs of congruent
 122

sides so it will fly more evenly in the sky--it'sbalanced."Lindasaid, "A squareis a

non-kite." Her basic argumentwas "it wouldn'tfly well--not pointed enough."
Hence her final descriptionof a kite was "foursides, two pairs of adjacentsides
congruent,cannotbe a solid shape, it must be pointed enough to flow in the air."
Her strong perception of a "flying"kite made it difficult for Linda to accept the
possibilityof consideringa squareas a kite.
The above sample responses indicate that some students in this group were
makingprogresstowardlevel 2 thinkinginsofaras they were able to identifysets of
properties to characterizea class of shapes (level descriptor 2-la). They also
quickly and correctly assembled their "is a special" arrow diagramsto show the
interrelationshipsof square, kite and quadrilateral. Mau and Kathy went even
further;they explained and showed the interrelationsof all the members of the
quadrilateralfamily (see diagrambelow).

Parallelogram -- Rectangle -- Square

Trapezoid -- Quadrilateral -- Kite

Module 2. Group VI students were all quite proficient in estimating and

measuringthe size of angles (manychoosing to use a protractor).All knew thatthe
angle sum for a trianglewas 180? (having leared it in seventh/eighthgrades)but
none could explain this angle sum fact. Carolthoughtit had somethingto do with
"beingpart of a circle" while Ling said he had "triedit for a few triangles and it
works." Mau confided thathe had "alwayswonderedwhy it was true"but did not
know why.

For the most part, the students had no difficulty doing the various tilings,
recognizing sets of parallellines and congruentangles in their tilings, identifying
some saws/laddersin grids and describingthem in termsof theirproperties. Kathy
needed extended experience in identifying and recognizing saws and ladders in
various positions in grids and then had major difficulties in finding congruent
angles in the grids. There appearedto be few figure-groundor orientationprob-
lems for the other studentsin this group. Alice had such keen visual memorythat
after studying the outline of a saw or ladder on a transparentoverlay, she could
immediatelyplace it correctlyon a grid. Some of these students seemed able to
separate "the Siamese twins" (statementand converse). Alice, Mau, Linda and
Samanthaused "if-then"language. For example, Alice commented, "If you start
with parallellines, then you end with congruentangles and [pointing]if you start
with congruentangles, then you end with parallellines--andthese are different."

In Activities 4-4 and 4-5, the studentswere requiredto give logical arguments
using saws/laddersto show why certainangles were congruent. Each of the first
two problemsrequiresonly one saw or one ladderand posed no difficulty for the
 123

students. The interviewerexplainedthatsometimesit is necessaryto find a "missing

link"when trying to show that two angles are equal, and the interviewerreviewed
the use of the transitiveproperty(which the students had all learned in school).
None of the studentsindependentlysolved the thirdproblem(requiringtwo saws,
ladder and saw, or two ladders), but all were able to follow and summarizethe
interviewer'sexplanation (model solution) and in some instances to suggest an
alternate method for solving the problem. Alice gave precise arguments
(identifying congruent angles via saws/ladders and then using the transitive
property)in the next two problemsandalso in the final assessmentactivity,showing
thatboth pairsof oppositeangles in a parallelogramare congruent. In the courseof
a discussion,Ling thoughtthatthe sum of a pairof consecutive interior angles of a
parallelogramwas 180?. He was encouragedto try to
establishit logically. The interviewersuggestedadding
an "x" to the adjoining diagram. After a thoughtful
moment,Ling said, "B + X =180? by straightangle, /
A = X by a ladder, so B + A = 1800." He concluded that
the same argumentwould hold going all aroundthe
angles of the parallelogram.
First by coloring in congruentangles in a grid via saws/ladders(Activity 5-3)
and thenby informallogical arguments,the studentsbeganto explainwhy the angle
sum for a trianglewas 180?. InitiallyAlice arguedin reverse,statingthat"theangle
sum of a triangleis 180? and thereare two of each of the triangle'sangles at each
vertex of the triangulargrid, so the sum of the six angles about a point is 3600."
With a little prompting, she recognized a straight angle in her grid and then
explained why the three angles of the triangleequaledthe three angles makingup
the straightangle and so the sum was 180?. MauandKathyneededsimilarprompts.
Lindaand Samanthagave similarargumentsnotingthe straightangle andjustifying
theiruse of saws/laddersby pointingout the sets of parallellines in the grid.

All the studentsarguedthat the angle sum for squares/rectangleswas 360? on

the basis of four right angles. Alice and Caroldiscoveredthat the angle sum for a
parallelogramand a quadrilateralwas also 360?, justifying their decisions on the
basis of coloring angles in a parallelogramgrid and tiling with quadrilateralsand
then later explaining their result on the basis of dividing the figures into two
triangles(180? + 180?). Mau,Ling and Samanthaimmediatelyexplainedthe angle
sum for a parallelogramand for any quadrilateralon the basis of subdivisioninto
two triangles. Samanthaand Ling wonderedaloud whether the angle sum for a
concave quadrilateralwas also 360?. They explored this idea, justified their
conclusionby drawingin a diagonalto createtwo triangles,and seemedpleasedthat
the same approachworked. Kathyand Lindainitially said they did not know what
the angle sum of a parallelogrammightbe. "Doesit have to be a set amount?"asked
Linda. With guidance,coloring and tiling, they arrivedat a correctconclusionand
were able to justify theirresult.
 124

When confronted with the possibility of dividing a quadrilateralinto four

triangles and obtaining720? as a possible angle sum, Alice, Mau, Samanthaand
Carol(aftersome thought)pointedout the "extraangles being countedin the center,
so you must subtract 360?."

The angle sum of 540? for a pentagon was discovered and justified easily
throughsubdividing the pentagon into three triangles or a quadrilateraland one
triangleby all the studentsin this groupexcept Kathy,who said the angle sum "is
greaterthan360?--maybe4000." With a promptto thinkaboutwhat we did to find
the angle sum in a quadrilateral,Kathyquickly subdividedthe pentagoninto three
trianglesandnoted thatthis approachwould work in all pentagons. Alice and Ling
both asked what the angle sum of a hexagon would be. They were encouragedto
explore this idea and they quickly explainedhow every hexagon could be divided
into a quadrilateraland two trianglesso the sum would be 720?. It is interestingto
note that many of the students in this group spontaneouslywondered about and
wantedto exploreextensionsof the ideas with whichthey were working.

Activity 6-4 (FamilyTrees) was designedto assess whetherthe studentscould

developedin this module (i.e., saws/ladders,
logically explain the interrelationships
straight angle, angle sum of polygons, congruence of opposite angles in a
parallelogram). All the students in this group built, without any false starts, a
family tree for angle sums of polygons and explainedthe ancestorsfrom a logical
standpoint(level 2) and not from a proceduralor time-line perspective. Therewas
a brief hesitation on their part as they wondered where "opposite angles of a
parallelogramare congruent"would fit in their family trees. Some needed the
prompt, "How did you establish that this was true?" Then, almost instantly
recognizingthe ancestors,they placed the statement in theirfamily trees correctly.

Activity 7-3 (Exterior Angle of a Triangle), one of the possible extension

assessmentactivities,was done by threestudentsin this group. Alice did not at first
see any relationship among the three marked angles (exterior angle and two
non-adjacentinteriorangles), but after measuringthese angles in three different
triangles, she noticed a pattern:"the two interior angles add up to the exterior
angle." In attemptingto give a logical explanationfor her theory, Alice needed a
prompt,"Wouldit be possible to divideup the exteriorangle in some way?" Almost
immediatelyshe recognizedthe possibilityof a saw, drewin a line throughthe ver-
tex of the exteriorangle parallelto one side of the tri-
angle and said, "A = B by a saw. E = F by a ladder. ,
Since A = B, E = F and exterior angle = B + F, then
exteriorangle = A + E." She also gave a similarargu-
ment for the second problemin this activity,explaining
carefullyhow she was placingthe auxilaryline parallel /E
to one side in orderto forma saw andladder.

Kathy'sresponseto the threemarkedangles was "mustbe the same ... no, the
 125

exterior angle is probablybigger ... looks like these two [pointing to the two
interiorangles] would fit in the exteriorangle." She checkedout her hypothesison
three cases and when she found it worked,she exclaimed, "Oh,I got it right! I got
it!" Kathyneeded guidanceto put togethera logical argumentbut she had a clear
view of her aim and gave some of the steps in the argument(e.g., noting the ladder
and congruentangles). Afterwardsshe was able to summarizewhat was done and
restateher argumentcoherently;she was makingprogresstowardslevel 2 thinking.

Linda'sinitial responseto the threemarkedangles was "theexteriorangle and

the interiorangle are the same"but this was quicklyrevisedto "theexteriorangle is
the same as the two interioranglestogetherbecauseif you subtractthemfrom 180?,
they are the same"(an insightfulalgebraicsolution). Then Lindathoughtshe might
explain it by saws/ladders;her aim was to get the two interiorangles equal to two
parts of the exterior angle but she needed one or two promptsto find the correct
ladder. After completingher argumentandrestatingher conclusion,she was asked,
Is it always true? Linda: "Yes--probably always." Interviewer: "We didn't
measure, Would you have more faith in it if you measured?"Linda:"No." In the
second problem,Linda identifiedthe exteriorangle and two non-adjacentinterior
angles, turnedthe paperfor orientation,thoughtof a saw, drew in an auxiliaryline
(statinghow and why) and proceededto give a clear logical argumentwithoutany
assistance. The above instancesindicatethat these studentsare exhibiting level 2
behaviorsin justifyingnewly discoveredpropertiesby deduction. Furtherevidence
of their level 2 thinkingis shown in theircorrectplacementof the new principlein
their previously constructedfamily trees and their thoughtfullogical explanations
of the relationshipof the new principle(exteriorangle of a triangle)to some of the
otherideas shown in theirtrees.

Module 3. In the introductoryTangramactivity, Alice and Linda explained

that the parallelogram, rectangle and trapezoid (all made from the squareand
two small right triangles) were equal in area because
"all quads are equal, all have 360?." After some
discussion, both studentssaid, "theytake up the same \ /
amountof space"and then recognizedthatareadid not
relate to angle measure. Kathy, on the other hand,
insisted, after comparingthe rectangleand the trapezoid,that the trapezoid"takes
up more space because it's longer." The interviewer(I) put two righttriangleTan-
grampieces togetherin differentconfigurationsandthe following dialogueensued.
I: Are you saying thatthe two trianglesin figureA take
up more space thanthe two trianglesin figureB?
S: Yes, they arecoming to a point in A andfit together
inB.
I: Could I move the pieces of the trapezoidso they
would fit on the rectangle? FigureA
S: Neatly?
 126

I: Yes.
S: No, no way.
I: [demonstrates-- moving the left triangle over and
fittingit on the rightside] Are they the same?
S: I guess so. Figu B
I: You are not sure?
S: No, not sure.

The interviewertriedhardto have the studentsee they were equivalentin area,but

to no avail. The studentwas not convinced,since "byeye" one seems bigger and she
said, "butone is longer." It would appearthat the studenthad some perceptual
difficulties or had a problemwith conservationof area. The other studentshad no
difficultywith this introductoryactivity.
In comparingthe sizes of the tops of two jewelry boxes (Activity 2-1), Mau,
Ling, and Carolthoughtthey were the same size. At first Alice and Kathythought
the rectanglewas bigger ("it'slonger,"said Kathy)and then decidedthe squarewas
bigger. From the outset Linda and Samanthathought the square was bigger.
Decisions were made by overlayingthe figures,using a transparentoverlay grid or
using a ruler. Responsesto tasks assessing the student'sknowledgeof the areaof a
rectangleindicatedthatAlice, Kathy,Ling andLindaknew the rule (lengthx width)
and could use it in solving problemsbut could not explain why it worked. Typical
responseswere "that'sthe principle"(Ling) and "it'sa rule"(Linda). Whenpressed
for some explanation of the rule, most said, "well, you could count" and Kathy
added,"oryou could add the four sides." In this task all the studentsdescribedthe
area of a figure as the "numberof squaresinside." When the alternateform of the
rule "lengthx width"was introducedas "basex height,"Ling said, "Ithought'base'
and 'height'were only used with triangles." Mau, Samanthaand Carol easily ex-
plainedwhy the area of a rectanglerule works. Samanthasaid (abouta 4 x 6 rect-
angle), "You'rereally addingfour sixes, multiplicationis a shortcutfor addition."

Finding the area of the outside of the jewelry box did not present major
problems for most of the students;Alice's solution was typical: "Findthe area of
two sides and multiplyby two." Linda'sfirst responsewas "add2L and 2W." The
problem was restatedand she said, "Oh,you want the area ... [mumbledabout
perimeterand 'perimeteris area outside'] . . . add area and perimeter,something
like that, I guess." The interviewersaid, "Let'sfind the area of this face." Linda
quickly used a ruler,found the areaof each face correctly,then found the sum and
announced,"Thearea is 72 squareinches." In spite of several discussions on the
meaning of the units, Kathy tended to give her answers to area tasks in "inches."
However, when prompted(e.g., "Do you mean inches?"or "Whyis the answerin
inches?"),she correctedher answersto "squareinches." It is interestingto note that
uncertainty about area units and confusion of area with angle sum and with
perimeterwas also apparentin the thinkingof some of the studentsin this groupas it
was with studentsin GroupV.
 127

In Activity 4 (Right Triangle), all the students knew a rule (1/2 b x h) for
finding the areaof a righttrianglebut some needed to complete a set of sequenced
tasks to help them discover why the rule was true. Carol gained insight into the
meaningof the rule when she discovereda patternwhen constructingandmeasuring
four rectangles made with four differentpairs of congruenttriangles. She said,
"Thetriangle is half of a rectangleor square;since two congruentright triangles
form a rectangle,the area of the trianglehas to be half the area of the rectangle."
Linda and Kathy both said, "the right triangle is half a square or rectangle"and
proceededto explain how to find the areaof the triangle:"Youfind half the length
andhalf the widthandmultiplythem." This was checkedout numericallyin several
examples using a overlay grid and found to be incorrect. The two studentsneeded
guidanceto overcomethis misconception. All the studentsbegan theirareafamily
treescorrectlyand Mau'sexplanationwas typical:"thisthought[pointingto the area
of a right triangle card] came from this one [pointing to the area of a rectangle
card]"and "since two congruentright triangles form a rectangle, the area of the
trianglewas half the rectangle."

Only Mau and Samanthaknew rules for finding the area of a parallelogram
(Activity 5) and the area of any triangle (Activity 6) and could explain the rules
(giving informal deductive arguments). Samantha,using a grid overlay, said,
"Changethe parallelograminto a rectangle by cutting off a right triangle and
moving it to the other end; then the parallelogramand rectangleare equal, so the
area is base times height." They also explainedthe relationshipsof the parallelo-
gram and triangleto otherpartsof theirfamily tree diagrams. Lindasaid the area
of a parallelogramwas b x h but used the rule as the productof two adjacentsides.
Since the other studentsin this groupindicatedthatthey did not know how to find
the area of a parallelogram,instructionwas given on the meaning of "base"and
"height"as relatedto a parallelogramandany triangle,andthe studentslearnedhow
to use an L-squarefor finding the measureof the height. Lindathen said, "Oh,so
move the trianglecut off by the heightto the otherside andthe size of this rectangle
is the same as the parallelogrambut the shape is different." The other students
exploredvariousways of findingthe areaof a parallelogram.Alice used a grid and
after several numericalexamples hypothesized the area was " also b x h, like a
rectangle." Then she showed how to converta parallelograminto a rectangle(by
cutting off a triangleon the left and moving it to the right side.) Carol initially
thought of cutting the parallelograminto a rectangleand two right triangles and
finding the areas of the threepieces. Ling said, after a moment'sthought,"Ihave
two ways of doing it--builda rectanglearoundit and then subtractthe two triangles
or divide the parallelogram into two triangles" (here he was using his prior
knowledge for finding the areaof any triangle).
The studentshad no difficulty in addingthe parallelogramto theirarea family
trees and explaining how it was related to the rectangle and/or right triangle
dependingon the method(s) they had used. All the studentswere creativein their
approaches to discovering the area of any triangle: "divide it into two right
 128

triangles,""takea duplicatetriangleand form a parallelogram,""builda rectangle

aroundit and subtractthe areas of the other two triangles,""use a grid." Most
students suggested two or three different ways and showed that their methods
worked in acute and obtuse triangles. Kathy,having divided the triangleinto two
righttriangles,said, "areaof the firsttriangleis 1/2 b x h andthe second is 1/2 b x h,
so the whole triangleis b x h." Guidancewas necessary to help her see that her
resultwas incorrectand to assist her in derivingthe correctresult. The placement
of the areaof a trianglecardin the family trees was correctlydone andjustifiedby
all the studentsexcept Linda whose explanationwas: "A triangle equals 180?, a
rectangleor parallelogramequals 360?, thereforethe triangleis half." (Note how
angle sums again reappearin an areaargumenteven thoughLindahadjust finished
giving a logical explanation relating the area of any triangle to the area of a
rectanglebuiltaroundit.)
The studentswere askedto explainhow they could be sure thata parallelogram
was formed when they put two congruenttrianglestogether. Linda describedthe
positioning of the triangles "so the edges are not going to come together... the
sides are parallel." Asked how one might explain thatthe sides were parallel,she
spontaneouslysaid, "makea saw"andpointedto two equal angles. With a prompt
she recalled, "needset of parallellines, then equal angles and if equal angles, then
parallellines." The following dialogue ensued when the interviewer,tracingher
line of reasoning,asked:how do we know these angles [pointing]areequal?

S: Becauseyou have parallellines.

I: But you aretryingto show these lines areparallel.
S: [laughs]If you flip it over...
I: [promptsby moving--notflipping--onetriangleon top of the other]What
can you say aboutthe angles?
S: They are equal.
I: Why?
S: Because the trianglesare congruent.
I: So now whatdoes thatshow?
S: The lines areparallelby a saw.

Lindawas then asked to explainwhy the otherpairof sides were parallel. She had
difficulty selecting the correct angles to show the sides were parallel; once they
were identified,she againengagedin circularreasoning. However,she was able to
follow the logical argumentof the interviewerand to provide some of the needed
steps along the way. With guidance,she began to see the differencebetween the
statementand its converse, recognizedwhen each shouldbe used and then gave a
complete correctsummaryof the argument. Asked if it will always be truethat if
two congruent triangles are placed together the resulting figure will be a
parallelogram, she replied immediately, "well, if they are properly placed."
Carol'sdifficultieswith this problemwere very similarto Linda's. Alice, Ling and
Samantha,in doing the same problem,recognizedthat they had to show the sides
 129

were parallel. They needed only the prompt,"Howdo we show lines are parallel?,"
to make themthinkof a saw or ladderby congruentangles, andthen they gave good
explanations. Following this, they easily gave logical argumentsto show the other
pair of opposite sides were parallel. Evidently these three students had little
difficulty separating the "twins" and could use the statement or converse in
appropriatesituations.

Althoughnone of the studentsknew how to find the area of a trapezoidfrom

previous experience, they all were spontaneous in describing different possible
approaches(Activity 7) for trying to discover a rule. Initially they all suggested
subdividinga trapezoidinto a rectangleandtwo righttriangles;then they thoughtof
subdividingit into two triangles,or into a parallelogramand a triangle. Some also
considered building a rectangle around the trapezoid and subtracting the two
triangles. The studentsexplored the method of subdivision into two triangles in
detail and discoveredandexplaineda rulefor findingthe areaof a trapezoid. Most
of the studentsreadilyexplainedwhy the heights of the trianglesand the trapezoid
were equivalent: "theparallellines are the same distanceapart."All were firstyear
algebra students, so when they arrivedat the rule 1/2 b x h + 1/2 b' x h , some
rewroteit in factoredform spontaneouslywhile othersneeded a prompt. Alice and
Mau immediatelywanted confirmationof their newly discovered rule by using a
numericalexampleto check it out.

The studentsexplainedtheirplacementsof the areaof a trapezoidcardin their

family trees clearly and made correctadjustmentsof the arrowsas they explained
possible altemateapproachesfor findingthe rule. Kathygave good explanations;it
appearedthat she had begun to be more comfortablewith the idea of a family tree
and she respondedmore fluently,explainingwhy cardswere put into the family tree
a certainway and discussing altemateways. As the studentsworked throughthe
activities in this module, they exhibited many level 2 behaviors--givinginformal
arguments,using insightfulreasoningto solve problems,following deductiveargu-
ments and supplyingpartsof the argument,and giving more thanone correctexpla-
nationor approachto a problemandthen relatingthese approachesin a family tree.

All the students except Alice (who had already completed six hours of
interviews, including Activity 9 which will be discussed later) did an extended
activity (Activity 8) to Module 3 in which they endeavored to discover a more
general area rule for figures which have all of their vertices on two parallellines.
Introductorytasks to this activity developed ideas of similartrianglesand the ratio
of their correspondingsides and also the notion of a midline. The studentsthen
spontaneouslyused "ladder"argumentsto explain why a trianglecut off by a line
segment joining the midpoints of two sides of a triangle is similar to the given
triangleand recognizedthatthis was true for any tri-
angle. On the basis of similar triangles, students dis-
covered and explained that the midline of a triangle
was one half the lengthof the base. As a consequence
 130

of this discovery,the students went on to explainthatthe areaof a trianglecouldbe

thoughtof as midlinex height.
All the students needed some prompts in dis-
covering the lengths of the midline of a trapezoidin
relationto the bases. Initiallysome guessedthe midline
was one-half the bottom base or tried to think about
similar trapezoids. But with the prompt,"let'sput in a
diagonal of the trapezoidand look at the pieces of the midline," all the students
quickly saw two sets of similartrianglesand discoveredthe relationof the midline
to the bases. Ling, Lindaand Samanthaapproachedthe problemthroughnumerical
examples first and then gave a more general explanationof why the median of a
trapezoidwas one-half the sum of the bases. In startingher explanation,Linda
questioned,"ShouldI tell you the reasonwhy?" She had begun to thinkof the need
for justifying each step; she proceeded to give a very careful explanation. After
theirdiscoveries,the students,rememberingthe aim of this activity, spontaneously
rewrotethe rule for the areaof a trapezoidas midlinex height. Samanthaexpressed
surprisethat the rule was the same as the one for the triangle. Mau was delighted
with his result but added, pointing to the rectangle and parallelogram,"it'snot
going to be midline x height for them." Note the quality of thinkingdone by this
student--alwaysthinkingahead,questioningwhetheran idea can be extended. When
asked aboutthe length of the midline of a rectangle,Mau instantlyhad insight into
the whole problem and exclaimed (in surprise):"Oh, it is midline x height ...
midlineto base is 1:1." The otherstudentsneededa little moretime andexploration
to arrive at the same result. The studentswere asked if their new rule could be
applied to a given kite. Answers were similar;for example, Samanthasaid, "No,
becausethe comers arenot on parallellines."

One of the culminatingtasksin this activitywas to assemblea family tree of all

the ideas needed to deduce the area rule of midline x height. On the whole, the
students assembled and explained (with little or no guidance) most of the
interrelationshipsshown in their trees correctly. The placement of the similar
triangles principle as an ancestorwas a bit troublesomefor some of the students
untilthey were promptedto reanalyzehow they had establishedthatthe midlineof a
trianglewas half the base. At thatpoint, Linda interjected,"Andyou also need a
ladder as an ancestor to this." She was very thoughtful about constructingher
family tree andgave a preciseexplanationfor each of the interrelationships.
Since Kathy had made a few false startsin earlieractivities but now seemed
more comfortablewith manyof the ideas, her responsesto anothertask, designedto
assess furtherthe level of her thinking,were examinedcarefully. She was askedto
explain why the opposite sides of a quadrilateralare congruent, given that the
oppositesides (bothpairs)areparallel. Kathyspontaneouslydrewin a diagonaland
the following dialogueensued:
 131

S: The two trianglesare congruent. 7

I: Why?
S: We could measure... no ... with two saws,
angle a = angle b, angle c = angle d, and the
thirdangles are equal by what'sleft from 180? b
... so the trianglesare similar.
I: [prompting]The trianglesare not congruentyet... thinkaboutthe sides.
S: [tries folding one triangle over the diagonal to see if the sides are
congruent] Oh, the ratioof the sides [pointingto the commonside] is 1:1,
so the ratioof the othersides is 1:1, so the sides arecongruent.

The above argumentalong with the family tree (shown below) that Kathy then
assembled (and carefully explained) for this problem shows evidence of level 2
thinking.
loppositesidesof a quadareparallel
|

[simrnilar
triangles |

[oppositesidesof a quadarecongruent
|

Linda and Mau did the same problem but experienced some difficulties. Both
needed a prompt(suggestion of drawinga diagonal) but then Linda immediately
gave a good argumentto show why the triangleswere similar;however, she had
difficulty explaining that the ratio of the sides was 1:1 and so needed guidanceto
show that the sides were congruent. Mau needed guidanceto complete the logical
argumentsince he wanted to cut out the shapes and fit them together in orderto
show congruence. Doing the same problem, Ling and Samanthaimmediately
thoughtof drawingin a diagonal as Kathyhad done and then gave careful logical
explanationswith no assistance.
At this point, Mau and Carol had completed their six hours of interviews.
Alice, Kathy, Ling, Samantha and Linda were able to complete the last task
(Activity 9) which was to compare several of the family trees which they had
assembled (e.g., propertiesof a parallelogram,angle sums of polygons, areas of
triangles and quads, areas of figures with all vertices on two parallel lines). In
examining her family trees for ancestors,Alice noted that saws and ladderswere
needed in orderto deducethe congruenceof oppositeangles of a parallelogram,the
angle sum for polygons, the exterior angle of a triangle relationship. She also
recalled using saws to show that two congruenttrianglesform a parallelogramin
obtainingthe areaof a trianglerule;here she was showing insight into how several
of her family trees had the same ancestors. To the question"Wouldsaw and ladder
have ancestors?,"she immediatelyreplied,"parallellines and angles." Tracingback
 132

furthershe said, "Iguess they have ancestorstoo, but I don'tknow what they are."
She agreed there had to be some beginning. In noting that saw/ladder was a
common ancestorin several trees, Kathy said, "Saws and laddersseem to help in
everything."Asked if saws andladdershave ancestors,she replied,"Theylook like
they come fromparallellines andangles." Kathyalso explainedin the areatreethat
the rectanglewas the mainancestorandhow the otherswere derivedfromit. When
askedif she saw a relationshipbetweentrees,she responded,"Yes,we need to know
all this stuff aboutarea [pointingto the areatree] before we could find this midline
rule"and she spontaneouslyplaced an arrowbetween the two trees. Linda,Ling
and Samanthaalso noted the role of saws andladdersin severaltrees andexplained
interrelationsbetween theirtrees.

The interviewer briefly explored the idea of an axiomatic (postulational)

system with each studentand askedif theremightbe "familytrees"in otherpartsof
mathematicsbesides geometry, for example, arithmetic. Thinkingof arithmetic,
Alice said, "Additionis an ancestorto multiplication."She was not familiarwith an
axiomatic system; she indicated that she had heard the words "axiom" and
"postulate"but commented,"I don't rememberwhat they are." To illustrate,the
solutionof the equation3(x+2)=18 was considered.Alice explainedeach step of the
solution and gave appropriatereasons (i.e., distributive property, subtraction
axiom, division axiom). She then recognizedthat axioms were familiarto her as
"rulesof algebra." The idea of a theoremwas discussed and she recognizedfrom
her family trees how certain principles (theorems) has been deduced from
definitions and postulates. There was a similar dialogue about family trees with
Linda. She spontaneouslysaid, "Inorderto do algebra,you had to know arithmetic,
so arithmeticis an ancestorto algebra." She gave an explanation(similarto that
given by Alice) for the solution of an equation. She also noted, "Inorder to do
multiplication,you had to know additionand numbers." Linda thought she had
heardof the words "axiom","postulate","theorem"but said, "Idon'tknow if there
is any differencebetween an axiom and a theorem."The responsesof Carol,Ling,
andSamanthato this discussionwerequitesimilarto thosegiven by Alice andLinda
with Samantharemarking,"Inever thoughtof algebralike that,but it makessense."

The analysisabove indicatesthatmost of the studentsin GroupVI, while filling

in some concepts at level 1, also made significantprogresstowardlevel 2. They
workedmore rapidlyand consistently,and expressedthemselvesmore confidently,
thanthe studentsin GroupsIV andV. They werequickto suggest alternateways of
approachinga problemand appearedto enjoy exploring new ideas and concepts.
Since reasoningby deductionin geometryand giving carefulargumentswere new
approachesfor the students,some neededmoreexperiencein this type of activityin
order to fully appreciatethe power of their arguments. However, this group of
students exhibited most of the level 2 descriptorsin their work on the module
activities. They were not only thoughtfuland inventive about the problemsthey
were doingbut were also reflectiveabouttheirown thinking.
 CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS OF CLIN4ICALSTUDY

The analyses of the sixth and ninth graders'clinical interviews have been
presented in the two preceding chapters. The purpose of this chapter is to
summarizeanddiscussthe findingsof the clinicalstudy.

The clinical study indicates that the van Hiele model provides a reasonable
structurefor describing students'geometry learning. The analyses of the video-
taped clinical interviews provide insight and informationnot only on students'
levels of thinkingin geometrybut also on factors affecting students'performance
on the instructionalmodules (e.g., language, visual perception,misconceptions,
prior learning, students'thinking processes and learning styles). These will be
discussed following a brief summary of the levels of thinking of the students
describedin Chapters5 and 6. In addition,students'levels of thinkingon specific
tasks,retentionof levels of thinking,andaspectsof the instructionalmoduleswill be
examined.

Summary of Students' Levels of Thinking

Sixth Grade Subjects

Analyses of the videotapedinterviews indicatedthat the sixth gradersin the

studyfell roughlyinto threegroups.

Group I. Threeof the 16 were strictlylevel 0 thinkers. They began at level 0

and for the most part, remainedat level 0, even after instruction. Their thinking
showed a lack of analysis of shapes in termsof theirparts,lack of familiaritywith
basic geometric concepts and terminology, and poor language (vocabularyand
grammar)both generallyandin mathematics,especiallyexpressivelanguage.These
students frequently forgot terms and concepts even shortly after they had been
introducedby the interviewer. All had a weak backgroundin school geometryand
also difficultywith arithmeticconceptsand skills. In fact, these threeseemed to be
"geometrydeprived." They showed little knowledge of basic geometric concepts
andlanguage,and they reportedhavingseldomstudiedgeometryin gradeschool.

Group II. Five of the 16 began in level 0, much like the threestudentsabove,
but made progresswith level 0 (learningbasic conceptsand terms)and into level 1
(usingthese conceptsto describeshapesandto formulatepropertiesfor some classes
of shapes, in particular,familiarones such as squares;rectangles). However, they
had difficulty characterizingless familiarshapes (e.g., parallelograms)in termsof
properties. Their progresswas markedby oscillationbetween level 0 and level 1.
Carefulinstructionand frequentreview of conceptsand termswas neededto sustain
 134

theirprogress. While they beganto thinkaboutshapesin termsof properties(level

1), they did not try to relatepropertiesin a logical ordering(level 2). One of these
five was below gradelevel, the otherfour were on gradelevel. They tendedto be
more verbal than the three "level 0 thinkers,"but they had difficulty expressing
themselves using standard geometric terms and often used manipulatives in
checkingproperties(e.g., placingD-stix on sides of a shapeto show parallelism)or
in explaining. These students also had a weak backgroundin geometry. They
tendedto respondmore easily to the interviewerthanthe three studentsabove and
also were less dependenton the interviewerfor feedbackandreinforcement.

Group m1. Eight of the 16 studentsshowed thinkingat levels 0 and 1 at the

startof Module 1, althoughmost had to fill in or review some concepts(rightangle,
oppositesides and angles) at level 0. They also neededto become more fluent with
level 1 languagefor describingshapes in terms of properties(e.g., "oppositesides
are parallel"). These students progressedtoward level 2 by following and then
summarizingarguments,for example, why the opposite angles of a parallelogram
are equal via saws and ladders. A few progressed farther and began to give
explanations (or simple proofs) more independentlyand with more details and
rigor. Initially, however, most students equated "proof' with generalizationby
examples (i.e., inductive reasoning) and only graduallyafter experiencing some
deductiveexplanationsin Modules 2 and 3 did they seem to acquiresome insight
into an informaldeductive approach. Some students,however, did not yet seem
sure of the power of their deductiveargumentseven though they could follow an
argumentor give one on theirown. They did not yet see the need for such deductive
arguments. They were not at level 2, that is, they did not approachproblems
deductively nor did they appreciatethe role of deduction in geometry. These
studentswere all above grade level in achievement. They were quite verbal and
tendedto express themselvesconfidently. They also seemed more reflective about
the questionsandproblemsin the modulesandabouttheirown thinking.

Ninth Grade Subjects

Since the seventh and eighth grademathematicscurriculumhas large units on

informalgeometry,it was expected thatmost ninth graderswould have a stronger
background in basic geometric concepts than sixth graders. Analyses of the
videotapedinterviewsindicatedthatthe ninthgradesubjectsfell into threegroups.
Group IV. The two ninthgradelevel 0 thinkershad characteristicssimilarto
those describedabove for the sixth gradelevel 0 thinkers. Their decision-making
about shapes and properties was always on a "looks like" basis. Particularly
noticeable was their limited vocabularyand poor language (i.e., their inability to
expressan idea clearlyin a completesentence).

Group V. The enteringlevel of seven ninthgraderswas assessed as level 0 in

transitionto level 1. Most had to fill in or review some basic geometricconcepts.
 135

They thoughtof certainshapes (triangles,rectanglesand squares)in terms of their

propertiesbut they had less or no knowledge of parallelogramsand trapezoids.
They used or learnedlevel 1 language for describingshapes and their properties,
only occasionally reverting to level 0 type explanations. In order to justify
conclusions, they frequentlyresortedto an inductive approach(i.e., measuringa
numberof specific cases). In some instancespriorlearningand/ormisconceptions
interferedwith progress (e.g., "a right angle points to the right"; "one ray of an
angle must be horizontal"; "a square cannot be a rectangle"). As with the
comparablegroupof sixth graders,some of these studentsprogressedtowardlevel
2 by following and/or summarizing arguments and by trying to relate some
propertiesby a logical ordering.

Group VI: The remaininggroup of seven ninth graders(whose entry level

was assessed as level 1) needed very little review of basic concepts and used
appropriatebut sometimesnon-standardlanguageto describefigures. They readily
explained subclass relationsand learnedto relatepropertiesin a logical ordering.
They not only followed argumentsbut provided simple deductive explanations,
therebyshowing characteristicsof level 2 thinking. In addition,some were able to
formulatedefinitionsandjustify necessaryand sufficientconditionsin given tasks.
All of the studentsin this groupwere able to successfullycompleteat least some of
the final optional assessment activities on Modules 2 and 3. They spontaneously
wonderedabout and wanted to explore extensions of ideas with which they were
working--the"whatif' phenomenon.

Factors Affecting Students' Performance on Modules

There were some striking similarities in the performanceof sixth and ninth
graderson the modules. Yet, as mightbe expected,becauseof age, maturation,and
greaterexperiencewith geometryconcepts,therewere also significantdifferences.
Factorsaffecting students'performances(i.e., limiting theirprogresswithin a level
or to a higherlevel of thinking)aredescribedbelow.

Language

Although geometry is accepted as a strand in the K-8 school mathematics

curriculum,it was interestingto note that some studentsappearedto be "geometry
deprived"in terms of their vocabulary, some used non-standardlanguage, and
others used standardlanguage, although sometimes imprecisely. Examples of
studentvocabularyfrequentlyused for basic geometricconceptsare given below.
 136

GeometricConcept StudentVocabulary

angle point,vertex,triangle
rightangle straight,righttriangle
parallellines straightlines, horizontallines
perpendicular lines straight,verticallines
diagonal slantedline
side straight,vertical
perimeter area,distancearound,volume
area perimeter,space,volume
rectangle box, long square
equal even, same, similar
The influence of everydaylanguageand experienceis seen in the students'use of
"straight"when speaking about parallel lines, perpendicularlines, sides or right
angles. This may be an importantclue for teachingsuch terminology--namely,that
a carefuldistinctionbe made between commonusage of a word and mathematical
usage. The preferenceof some studentsfor using the gestaltof closed finite regions
ratherthanopen infinite space is seen in theirconsistentuse of the words "triangle"
and "righttriangle"when referringto "angle"and "rightangle."

As expected, ninth graders tended to be more familiar with geometry

terminologythansixth graders. At the outset of an interviewmost students'mathe-
maticallanguagewas ratherimprecise. As the interviewprogressed,most students
(guidedby the interviewer)began to use termsmore accurately. Some had trouble
rememberingnew terms indicatingthat a vocabularyreferenceboard would be a
valuable addition to the clinical interview setting. Initially, some students
respondedto questionsby pointingor using one wordor shortphrasesshowinglack
of fluency or expressive language or perhaps reflecting prior experience in
mathematicsclasses wherethattype of responsewas all thatwas expected. Students
who were in transitionto level 1 neededwell-defineddirectiveswhich focused their
attentionon appropriatelanguageto describepartsof shapesand sets of shapes.

Although most studentswere able to make simple informal deductions,few

spontaneouslyused a logical type of language. They did not exhibitlanguageneeded
for level 1 such as the use of quantifiers (e.g., "all these rectangles have . . .").and
conditional statements (e.g., "if the shape has . . ., then it is a . . ."). Gregory and
Osbome (1975) point out that the interplayof logic and language--asin the use of
"some,""all,""neither,""nor"--isa vulnerableand confusing areafor adolescents.
Studentswho were level 1 thinkersor progressedtowardlevel 2 picked up ideas
quickly, rememberedterminologyand used it appropriately.They became more
fluent in talking about geometry as they moved throughthe modules. They also
displayed the ability to reason well, both inductively and deductively, as was
reflectedby theiruse of languageassociatedwith levels 1 and 2 (e.g., "all,""any,"
"because,""Ican explain,""itfollows that,""itis truebecause,""Ican prove that").
 137

Studiesby Shaughnessyand Burger(1985) and Mayberry(1983) reportsimilar

use of impreciselanguageand languagedifficultieson the partof studentsK-8 and
pre-service teachers. Shaughnessy and Burger (1985) note the importance of
languageat differentlevels of thought. They indicatethat"studentsmay have vastly
differentgeometricconceptsin mind thanwe think"(p. 425). This underscoresthe
need to assess the meanings that students attach to geometric terms during the
instructionalprocess. The resultsof the Project'sclinical study clearly supportthe
contentionthat language structureis a criticalfactor in movementthroughthe van
Hiele levels of thought.

Visual Perception, Misconceptionsand Prior Learning

Perceptual difficulties, including orientation and figure-ground problems,

were evidentin the performanceof some subjects. Burgerand Shaughnessy(1986)
also reportthatthe turningor moving of figuresto more customarypositionsby the
students helped them identify such properties as right angles, parallel lines,
congruentfigures. Students'past experienceswith these figures (in textbooksor in
teacher illustrations)may have been limited to specific orientations. This study
found, as did Fisher (1978), that students'formationof certaingeometricconcepts
tendedto be biased in favor of uprightfigures.

Misconceptions and prior learning, in addition to language and perceptual

difficulties, impededthe progressof many students. Examples of misconceptions
include:

- An anglemusthave one horizontalray.

- A rightangle is an angle thatpointsto the right;some angles were also called
left angles.
- To be a side of a figure the segment must be vertical (e.g., a rectangle in
standardpositionhas two sides anda top andbottom).
- A segmentis not a diagonalif it is verticalor horizontal.
- The heightof a triangleor parallelogramis the side adjacentto the base.
- The angle sum of a quadrilateral is the same as the areaof the quadrilateral.

Vinner and Hershkowitz (1980) studied images which students attach to certain
geometricconcepts. They found,as did this Project,thatsome studentswho know a
correct verbal description of a concept but also have a special visual image
associatedtightlywith the concept(e.g., a leg of a righttrianglemust be horizontal),
have difficultyapplyingthe verbaldescriptioncorrectly.

Examplesof interferenceof priorlearninginclude:

- Having learned that a rectangle has two congruent long sides and two
congruentshort sides, studentscould not accept the subclass relationship
thata squarewas a specialtype of rectangle.
 138

- Vaguely remembering having learneda geometric fact, some students

triedto recall the fact andapply it to a totallyunrelatedsituation(e.g., "use
a2 + b2 = c2 to find the area of a rectangle.").
- Havinglearnedor memorizedrulesrelatingto perimeter,areaandvolume of
figures, many studentswere totally confused aboutthese concepts and the
units of measure(e.g.,"cubicsquareinches").

Wirzup(1976) points out thatthe van Hiele model indicatesthatmaturationin

geometry is a process of apprenticeship. The above examples of student
misconceptionsand interferenceof priorlearningfocus on a need to structurethe
apprenticeshipprocessmore carefullyfor studentsin gradesK-8.
Student Views, Thinking Processes and Learning Styles

In addition to problems caused by misconceptions, interference of prior

learningandperceptualdifficulties,a student'sview of mathematicsand of learning
mathematicscannotbe overlooked. At times students'progresswas impededby
theirexpectationthatmathematicsis a subjectto be recalledor memorized,not one
involvingdiscoveryor reasoning. At the beginning,many of the ninthgradersused
a ratheralgorithmicor procedure-orientedapproachto tasks. Their usual reply,
when askedfor an explanation,was "that'sa rule." This was also truefor some sixth
graders. The idea thatone could stop andthinkabouta geometryproblem,explore
it and find a solution withoutusing a rule was new to many students. Gradually
those studentswho made progresstowardlevel 2 realized that explanationswere
expected and began spontaneouslyoffering reasonsor giving argumentsto justify
theirstatements.

As with any groupof learners,some subjectslackedconfidence,gave up easily,

needed constantreassurance,were reluctantto take risks while others were more
self-assured,were persistent,enjoyed independentexplorationand were willing to
make conjectures. Some were impulsive, others reflective. Two ninth graders,
while lackingconfidence,constantlyused a strategyof randomguessing in problem
solving situationsbecause"youmightbe right."
All subjectsmade extensive use of the concretematerialsprovidedto explore
relationships,discover patterns,or confirmhypotheses. The use of manipulatives
andotherconcretematerialsallowedthe studentsto try out theirideas, look at them,
be reflective, and modify them. The visual approachseemed not only to maintain
student interest but also to assist students in creating definitions and new
conjectures,in gaininginsightinto new relationshipsand interrelationships.
Some studentsquickly arrivedat generalizationsafterexaminingonly one or
two instancesand laterhad to revise theirconclusions;otherswere more cautious,
carefulandthoughtfulin formulatinggeneralizations.Some reasonedby analogyto
arriveat conclusions--sometimescorrectlyand sometimes incorrectly(e.g., "Since
 139

the sum of the angles of a triangle(180?)is one-halfthe sum of the angles of a quad-
rilateral(360?), then the areaof a triangleis one-halfthe areaof a quadrilateral.").

After arrivingat generalizationsby inductionor deduction,studentsfrequently

chose to make a drawingor to measure,thus checking their result in at least one
example. The students'desireto put in values to makeit a specificexampleindicates
their need to examine a concreteexample ratherthanjust thinkingof the abstract
idea; the particularhelped to clarify the generalconcept. Since the deductivepro-
cess of obtainingconclusionswas a new (anduntried)processfor them,the students
felt the need to verify their resultsby methodswith which they were familiar. As
they gainedmore experiencein using deduction,some studentsbegan to appreciate
the power of theirargumentsandno longerresortedto measuringas a check.

As has been seen in the precedingchapters,many studentsmade considerable

progress in moving to a higher level of thinking while a few made little or no
progress. Possiblefactorsthatmay explainthis lack of progressinclude:
- lack of prerequisite knowledge
- poorvocabulary/lackof precisionof language
- unresponsivenessto directivesandgiven signals
- lack of realizationof whatwas expectedof them
- lack of experiencein reasoning/explaining
- insufficientor inappropriateactivitiesto promoteprogress
- insufficienttime to assimilatenew conceptsandexperiences
- rote learning attitude
- not reflectiveabouttheirown thinking

Those studentswho made the most progressto a higherlevel of thinkingtendedto

be systematic and flexible in their approach,were willing to accept changes in
definitions and reason from a new basis, recognized when they were wrong and
reflected on why that could be, and spontaneouslythought of alternateways of
solving problems.

Levels of Thinking on Specific Tasks

Initial activities in each of the three instructionalmodules were designed to

assess students'level of thinking. A question to be asked is why did some sixth
graders and ninth graders engage in mainly level 0 thinking on some "entry"
assessmenttasks? One possible explanationis students'lack of experiencein doing
geometryin school. A second explanation,as will be seen in Chapter9, is thateven
when geometry was studied, the text material probably did little to encourage
higher levels of thinking. A thirdexplanationis that the "entry"assessmenttasks
which involved cut-outfiguresor diagramsand can be respondedto at levels 0, 1 or
2, are done most naturallyat level 0 which matches the format in which they are
 140

presented. Several of this Project'stasks for measuringentrylevel were similarto

those used by Burger (1982) who conducted two non-instructional45-minute
interviewswith studentsin gradesK-12. Burgerfoundmainly level 0 thinkingfor
subjectsin gradesK-8, just as this Projectdid for most assessmentsof entry level.
However,in this study,most students,afterworkingthroughsome activitiesin the
instructionalmodules, performedat a higher level on "potential"assessmenttasks
thanon "entry"tasks,especiallystudentswho progressedtowardlevel 2.

Accordingto the van Hieles (1958), it is possible to teach materialto students

above their actuallevel resultingin what he calls "reductionof level." Therewas
evidence of this in clinical interviews with both sixth and ninth gradersduring
discussionsof certaintopics (e.g., angle sum of a triangle,arearules for rectangles
and triangles). Frequently,studentsknew the rules by rote (no level assigned) and
could apply rules in problems (level 1) but were unable to explain why the rules
were true (level 2).

Three specific ideas (subclass inclusions, Siamese twins, and proof) were
difficult for many sixth gradersand some ninth graders. The activity of sorting
quadrilaterals(Activity 3-3) into separategroups of figures may have led some
studentsto a misconception,thatis, to "see"squares,rectanglesandparallelograms
as separategroupsratherthanrecognizingsubclassrelationshipson the basis of sets
of properties.

The difficulty of seeing the differencebetween the Siamese twins (statement

and its converse)probablycan be alleviatedto some degreeby giving studentsmore
experience in physically constructingthe two situations and in providing more
settingswhich involve eitherthe statementor its converse. Time constraintsin these
interviews did not allow for extended "apprenticeship" with this concept or with
formal deduction. As was seen in Chapters5 and 6, a few sixth gradersand some
ninth graders(GroupVI) afterlimited instructionand experiencewere able to give
careful deductive arguments("proofs")although frequentlynot appreciatingthe
power of theirlevel 2 arguments.
Since the three modules focused on differentconcepts--propertiesof figures,
angle sums and area--an assessment of a student's level of thinking across concepts
could be made. For both the sixth and ninth graders who completed two or three of
the modules, it was evident that the highest level of thinking attained on one concept
remained consistent across other concepts. In beginning a new concept, students
frequently lapsed to level 0 thinking but were quickly able to move to the higher
level of thinking they had reached on a prior concept. This evidence supports the
van Hiele contention that levels of thinking remain stable across concepts.
 141

Retention of Students' Levels of Thinking

The results of this clinical study are based on a student'sperformanceover a

relativelyshortperiodof time--usuallythreeweeks for the eight interviewsessions.
Whetherthese resultsare more permanentover a longerperiodof time and to what
extent students retain what they had learned were not researchquestions of this
Project. However, the Projectdid explore thembriefly by reinterviewingone sixth
graderand one ninth graderone year after their initial interviews. This interview
included tasks on rhombuses--sorting, finding properties and formulating a
definition, subclass inclusions, and establishingpropertiesof figures (e.g., angle
sum, parallelismof sides, equalityof angles). The sixth grader,David, in GroupHI
(now completing seventh grade), readily discoveredpropertiesof a rhombusand
gave different definitions for it (level 1). He also explained carefully subclass
inclusionsfor the rhombuswith quadrilaterals andparallelograms.He also was able
to prove thatthe sum of the measuresof the angles of a triangleis 180? using saw/
laddersandto prove thatthe sulmof the measuresof the anglesof a rhombusis 360?.

The ninth grader, Linda, in Group VI (now in tenth grade), who was just
completing one year of high school geometry,quickly discoveredpropertiesof a
rhombus and gave a definition for it. Her definition included more than was
necessary. She was asked if all the propertiesmentioned were necessary in the
definition. Her reply: "Wellthey are all true." She was remindedthat a definition
should contain only the minimumpropertiesneeded. She thoughta moment and
then correctlyrevised her definitionwith the comment:"Ohyeah, then you could
prove the rest." She thenproceededto prove the otherpropertieson the basis of her
revised definition. She explained subclass inclusionsfor the quadrilateralfamily,
gave carefulproofs for the angle sum of a triangleand of a quadrilateral.She noted
thatin her geometryclass, they had used alternateinteriorangles and corresponding
angles of parallel lines, but "they are the same as saws and ladders." When the
interviewerexplored the student'sunderstandingof a postulationalor axiomatic
system (see level 3 descriptors),the responsesindicatedthatthe student,aftera year
of study of high school geometry,continuedto do thinkingcharacteristicof level 2
with some aspectsof level 3--thusher thoughtlevel in geometrymightbe described
as in transitionto level 3.

Both studentshad done well in the original set of interviews,having filled in

level 1 and andmade considerableprogresstowardlevel 2. Thus, thesetwo students
did not lapse backto a lower level; they retainedmuchof whatthey had leared both
in terms of content and of what was expected of them (e.g., discover properties,
give proofs and explanations).This questionof retentionin relationto the levels of
thinkingshouldbe researchedfurtherwith a largerrepresentativesample.
 142

Discussion of the Instructional Modules

As noted earlier,the instructionalmodules were designed as a researchtool to

assess level of thinking and were structuredto embody van Hiele's five phases
(information, guided orientation, explicitation, free orientation, integration)
requiredfor transitionfrom one level to the next. A numberof the activities were
modeled after those used by Dina van Hiele-Geldof (1957/1984) in her year-long
"teachingexperiment."The Projectfound certaintechniquesand tasks particularly
effective for developingand/orassessingstudentthinking.

The intervieweralong with the instructionalmaterialsplayed a special role in

helping studentsto progress within a level or to a higher level. The interviewer
provided instruction designed to move students to a higher level. Also, the
interviewerguided studentresponsesthroughquestioningand directivesaboutthe
quality of responses, thus helping students to learn the rules of the game. For
example,studentsneeded to lear to observerelationshipsbetweenpartsof a figure
and to make generalizations(level 1) or to give deductive explanations(level 2).
Studentson a given level realizethis, but studentsin transitionneed guidanceabout
expectations,andthe interviewer-teacher can use a meta-languageaboutthinkingto
communicatesuchexpectationsto the student.

Studentsrespondedfavorablyto initial introductionof concepts in real world

settings (e.g., photographs,maps, tiling). Completionof tasks in which they were
given examples and non-examples (e.g., kites) or sets of clues for shapes (e.g.,
square,parallelogram)enabledstudentsto develop definitions. Game formatsused
in some tasks were effective. For example, in the task requiringminideductions
(e.g., saws and ladders),studentswere placed in the role of detectiveschargedwith
finding the missing link. The culminating"familytree"tasks in the modules were
good assessmentactivities. To determineif studentscould summarizewhattheyhad
leared and if they had reflected on their actions, the techniquerequiringthem to
"explainthis to a friendover the telephone"was particularlyuseful.
The instructional materials in Module 1 were designed to review topics
normallycovered in grades4-8, not to develop them for weak students. Also, the
interviewscheduledid not permittime neededto developtopics carefullywith these
students. Additionalresearchis needed to determinewhetherothermaterialsand
extendedinstructionwouldenablelow abilitystudentsto makeprogressinto level 1.

The availability to the students of a wide variety of visual materials and

manipulativesto select fromand to use was an importantfeatureof the instructional
modules. The use of materials and/ormanipulativesby the students frequently
helped them bridge a language gap--allowing them to "explain"their ideas by
demonstratingwith concrete objects or drawings. The sorting, tiling, and family
tree activities allowed the studentsto move pieces (shapes, tiles, arrows)as they
were thinking, to discover patterns, to visualize relationships, to make
 143

modifications,and to reflecton whatthey were doing.

A uniquecharacteristicof this researchwas its focus on a teachingexperiment
approachin the spiritof Dina van Hiele-Geldof. Throughclinical interviewsit was
possible to monitor systematically the students'progress through the carefully
designed instructionalsequences. This Project'sapproachto assessing a student's
"potential" level in a learningcontextis similarin spiritto the methodof assessinga
student'slearningpotentialrecommendedby Vygotsky (1962). He points out that
"studyingchild thought apart from the influence of instruction, as Piaget did,
excludes a very importantsourceof changeandbars the researcherfromposing the
question of the interactionof development and instructionpeculiar to each age
level" (p. 117). In this research,the conceptsstudentswere learning,the processes
they were applying, the errorsthey were making, and the level of thinking they
were demonstratingwere carefullyassessedby meansof the students'performances
on activities in the instructionalmodules. The detaileddescriptionsin Chapters5
and 6 of individualstudents'performancesdocumentchanges in students'thought
levels in geometry as a result of instruction. The Project'sinstructionalmodules
were an effective researchtool for this intensivestudy of individualstudents'levels
of thinkingin light of the van Hiele model. Futureresearchusing aspects of these
instructionalmodulesin teachingexperimentswith groups(or classes) of studentsis
neededandwill be discussedin Chapter10.
 CHAPTER 8

CLINICAL INTERVIEWS
WITH PRESERVICE AND INSERVICE TEACHERS

One of the goals of the Project was to determineif preservice and inservice
teacherscould learnto identifyvan Hiele levels of thinkingin geometryof sixth and
ninthgradestudentsandto identifythe levels of thinkingrequiredby the exposition
and exercises in the geometry strandin various text materialsfor grades K-8. In
orderto have the teachersrecognizethe level of thinkingrequiredby text materials
and identify the thought levels of the students' responses to Project activities
(recordedon videotape),the Projectbelieved that it was importantfor the teachers
to have first hand experience doing some of the same module activities as the
students. This provided an opportunitynot only to explore the teachers'level of
thinkingin geometry but also to have the teacherscomment on the suitabilityof
some of the Project'sinstructionalmaterialsand activitiesfor use in the classroom.
Presentedbelow are a descriptionof the subjectsand proceduresused followed by
four sections: (a) Teachers' Responses to Module Activities; (b) Teachers'
Commentson InstructionalModule Activities; (c) Teachers'Identificationof the
Van Hiele Thought Levels; and (d) Implications for Teacher Preparationand
ClassroomPractice.

Subjects
There were 13 subjects--8preservice and 5 inservice teachers. Of the eight
preservice teachers (undergraduatestudents at Brooklyn College), six were
elementaryeducationmajors,one was an early childhoodeducationmajor,and one
was a mathematicsmajorpreparingto teach at the secondaryschool level. Five of
the elementaryeducationmajorshad completedone year of high school geometry
and one had only studiedhigh school geometryfor two monthsbefore transferring
to a commercialcurriculum. The early childhoodmajorhad studiedno geometry
in high school. Among the five inservice teachers, two were currentlyteaching
sixth grade, one was teaching seventh grade in a middle school and two were
teachingninthgrade,all in Brooklynpublicschools. Two were teachersof some of
the sixth and ninth grade students involved in the Project'sclinical study. The
inservice teachersranged in teaching experience from one to eight years with an
averageof 4 yearsof teaching.

Procedure

Each subject spent approximatelyfive to six hours over four sessions with an
interviewer. At the outset,the subjects(eight preserviceteachersand five inservice
teachers) were given a brief background on the work of the van Hieles, an
 145

explanation of the van Hiele thought levels (including level descriptors)and an

overview of the Projectand its goals. In approximatelythree hours of one-to-one
clinical interviews, the subjects completed selected activities from the Project's
InstructionalModules and informallyevaluatedthe tasks in termsof suitabilityfor
classroom use. In a follow-up one-hour session, videotaped segments of five
studentsdoing some of these activities were shown to the subjects. Each segment
was followed by identificationand discussionof the student'sresponsesin light of
the van Hiele level descriptors. Samplepages on geometryfrom text materialsfor
grades 3-8 were also examined and discussed in terms of level of exposition and
level of thoughtneeded for the studentto respondto the exercises correctly. At a
later one-hour assessment session, subjects were shown four other videotaped
segmentsof studentsdoing activitiesfromthe InstructionalModulesand were asked
to discuss each student'sresponses in terms of level of thought. They were also
askedto review a set of 10 samplegeometrytext pages (grades3-8) and to describe
the level of exposition and the level of thinkingneeded to respondto the exercises
correctly.

Teachers' Responses to Selected Module Activities

The subjectsworkedthroughthe selectedactivitiesin the InstructionalModules

at differentratesdependingon the amountof review needed. All of the preservice
teachersfinished the designatedactivities in Modules 1 and 2 and four completed
some or all of the selected activitiesin Module3. The inserviceteacherscompleted
all of the selected activities in Modules 1, 2 and 3 except for one teacherwho was
unable to complete the last module. Described below are some of the teachers'
responsesto module activitieswhich characterizetheirthinkingin geometry.
Module 1

All the preserviceteachers(except for the two who had not had a high school
geometry course) and all the inservice teachers were quite fluent in their use of
standardgeometry vocabulary. There was some uncertaintyamong six preservice
teachersand one inserviceteacheraboutwhatpropertiesshouldbe includedin their
descriptionof a rectangle(e.g., "Ithink it has to have two longer and two shorter
sides"; "Don'tthe sides have to be straight?";"I'mnot sure if it has to have right
angles";"Idon'trememberwhethera rectangleis a squareor a squareis a rectangle
because a squarehas all sides equal."). Also this same groupthoughtof a diagonal
of a figure as "somethingwhich bisects or divides the figure in half." In describing
parallel lines, one of the two subjects who had not studied high school geometry
said: "linesthatlook like sticks, aboutthe same size (I guess it doesn'treallymatter),
next to each other,but thereis an even space between them." The othersaid: "kind
of like a mirror, lines facing each other, beside each other." This last subject
thought "side of a figure"meant a vertical segment. Whenever instructionwas
needed,all the teachersrespondedeagerlyandquickly.
 146

In Activities 3.1 (Sorting Polygons), 3.2 (Sorting Quadrilaterals)and 3.3

(Propertiesof Classes of Quadrilaterals),most subjectssortedquickly, confidently
and systematically. Many properties of the various quadrilateralswere given
spontaneously.Some subjectswere carefulandcautiousin makingjudgmentsabout
shapes and prefaced their statementswith phrases such as: "Accordingto what is
given, then .. ." or "It appears that .. ." or "Opposite angles appear to be equal."
Some promptingwas occasionally necessary to elicit propertiesof parallelismof
sides or congruenceof oppositeangles.

Some interestingresponses(shownbelow) were spontaneouslygiven by several

preservice(P) and inservice(I) teachersin Activity 3.4 (InclusionRelations)which
included questions such as: Could the squarego in the rectanglepile? Could the
rectanglego in the squarepile? Couldthe squarego in the parallelogrampile?
P: [pointing to array of shapes and properties] As we go along, the less
specific ones embrace the more specific ones ... hm ... so these are special
... so, yes ... according to my definition every square is a rectangle, a
special kind . . . [pause] . . . that's great! [The subject's apparent pleasure
was an indicationof some new insightgainedaboutthese relationships.]

P: WhenI was learningthata squarewas a rectanglebut a rectanglewas not a

square,I wonderedwhy. This is a lot easier way of doing it; it makes it
clearer.

I: [looking at the lists of properties]A rectanglehas all the propertiesof a

parallelogram,so a rectangleis a special parallelogram... so rightangles
are necessaryfor a rectangleandthatwas whatwas missing in my original
description of a rectangle . . . I see now. [Subject was being reflective
abouther own thinking.]

I: [after checking propertieslisted] A square could go in rectanglepile; a

square could go in parallelogram pile ... [long pause] ... I never thought
of that . . . I just discovered something! [Evidence of new insight into
relationshipspreviouslylearned--theAHA! phenomena.]
The activities involving uncoveringshapes/clues(Activities 3.6 and 3.7) were
done quicklyandeasily by the teachers,many of whom spontaneouslyjustifiedtheir
statementson the basis of propertiesof figures. One teachercommented:"These
uncovering activities are really good; they are fun." The Minimum Properties
(Activity 3.8) was quite challenging for most teachers. Some explained why
properties not selected were not necessary. One preservice teacher drew
illustrations of counterexamplesto justify the need for certain properties. One
inservice teacher, after selecting a set of minimum properties, spontaneously
proceededto deduce the otherremainingpossible propertiesand then pointed out
thatthe originalminimumset constituteda definitionof the figure. Anothernoted
 147

that "differentsets of minimum properties allow for the possibility of having

differentdefinitionsof a figure."

Module 2

In the openingactivity,Angle Measurement,most of the teachersestimatedthe

size of the angles well. One of the preserviceteacherswho tendedto overestimate
the measuresof the angles commented:"No wonderI can'tparkmy car." She was
reflecting on how her tendency to overestimate impacted on another activity
involving angles. An inservice teacherthoughtthat the measure of an angle--its
openness--shouldbe foundby using the lengthof a line segmentplacedbetweenthe
rays. All but two of the preserviceteachersknew that the angle sum for a triangle
was 180? and three were able to give a deductive argumentto establish it; all the
inserviceteachersknew this fact andtwo gave carefulproofs. Sampleresponsesare
given below:
P: A circle has 360?. I don'tknow why a trianglehas 180?... they musthave
shown me, but I don'tremember... I thinkit has somethingto do with the
areaof the figure.

I: A trianglehas 180?. I really don'tknow why--I was just told that if you
take the three angles in any triangle and measure them, they add up to
180?--it'ssomethingwe accept.

The Tiling activity was done quickly and systematically (using various
strategies)by all the teachers. After an introductionto the Saw andLadderactivity,
many of the teachersneeded guidanceand practicein identifyingsaws and ladders
and congruentangles in complex grids. There were a few instancesof orientation
or figure-ground difficulties. The miniproofs involving saws and ladders in
Activity 4 were challenging to some of the teachers with one preservice teacher
commenting: "These are like little proofs from tenth grade which I could never
figure out ... but I like these" and an inservice teacher commenting: "These are
making me think hard." In this activity several of the teachers gave very clear
deductiveargumentsand spontaneouslysuggestedand explainedalternatemethods
for solving the problems. For the two preserviceteacherswho had no high school
experience in doing this type of task, the activity was presentedas a game--"To
prove angles equal game"--withtwo rules (saw andladder)and a strategyof finding
the missing link when needed. By the fourth game (problem), one teacher was
enthusiaticand successful and completed the remaininggames (problems)easily
with great delight; the other teacher was impulsive about putting in all saws and
ladders in each diagrambefore really thinkingabout the problem and so became
confusedand frustrated.(Laterthis teacherbecamemore successful as she realized
the need to first think about the problem and plan ahead.) After giving an
explanation of the relation of the game to doing simple deductive proofs in
geometry,the first teacherremarked:"Thisis refreshingthinking... I see that."
 148

After coloring in congruent angles by saw and ladder on a triangulargrid

(Activity 5), many of the teacherswere quick to recognize the importanceof this
activity in termsof "readingfrom the grid"andfinding the angle sum for a triangle.
Among the spontaneousteacherremarkswere the following:
P: Oh, those [pointingto angles forminga straightangle] are the threeangles
of the triangle ... oh, that's wonderful!

I: ... hm... there's your proof for the angle sum of a triangle is 180?.

All the teachers discovered or proved the angle sum for a quadrilateralis 360?
either by tiling with congruentquadrilateralsand readingthe grid or by dividing
the quadrilateralinto two triangles. All but three of the teachers were able to
explainthe fallacy in thinkingthatthe angle sum of a quadrilateral
equals720? when
two diagonalsare drawnand four trianglesare formed.

Most of the teachers were able to assemble and explain the Family Trees
(Activity 6) for the angle sum of a triangleandfor the equalityof oppositeangles of
a parallelogramwith little or no guidance. Typicalcommentsincluded:

P: This shows how you arebuildingon simplerfacts.

I: This shows the use of definitionsandpostulatesin the buildingof a family

tree.

In the final assessment activity for Module 2, Activity 7, ExteriorAngle of a

Triangle, two of the inservice teachers knew the relationshipand the remaining
preserviceand inserviceteachersguessed the relationship"byeye" or discoveredit
by measuringthe angles in several triangles. Four of the teachersgave algebraic
proofs to establish the discoveredrelationship. Guidancewas needed in orderfor
some of the teachersto thinkof constructingan auxiliaryline to be used to developa
geometricproof. With the suggestion of an auxiliaryline, most were able to give
deductive argumentsusing saws and laddersto establish the relationship. Some
typical remarksincluded:
P: I liked this ... I learneda lot. You get a chanceto thinkabouthow things
are related . .. you learn to respect saws and ladders (I never thought I
would) ... you get a chanceto thinkthingsout first.
I: Saws and ladders show this relationshipin such a concreteway--I love it
... you can visualize it and it makes it easier to understand.

The teachers were able to place the newly derived principle in their family trees
correctlygiving appropriateexplanations.
 149

Discussion with the teachersabout a postulational(axiomatic) system and its

elements (undefined terms, definitions, postulates or axioms, theorems) and the
meaning of proof showed that only the three teachers with a substantial
mathematicalbackgroundhad an understandingof these concepts. Even one of
these threeteachersacknowledgedthatshe was not sureof the differencebetweena
definitionanda postulate--"That's
my weakness,"she commented.
Module 3

Nine teachers (five preserviceand four inservice) completed activities in this

module on area. In the initial assessmentactivity (Activity 2), the concept of area
andthe areaof a rectangleseemedto be familiarto all the teachers. All were able to
solve problems involving areas of rectanglesand all but one teacherwere able to
explain why the area rule for a rectangle worked. However, two preservice
teachersand one inservice teacherwere not clear on the type of unit to use in area
measure. The answergiven for the areaof a rectangle6 inches by 4 inches was 24
inches althoughthey had covered the rectanglewith a squareinch grid or with 24
square-inchtiles. All but one indicatedthatthe areaof a righttrianglewas half the
areaof a rectanglesince they could "see"that if two congruentrighttriangleswere
placed togetherappropriately,they would form a rectangle. Only one preservice
teacherandthe inservicemathematicsteacherswere able to give a carefuldeductive
argumentto establishthis fact; the otherswere able to give partsof the explanation
or to follow the argumentgiven by the interviewer. In this initialassessment,most
of the preservice teacherswere uncertainhow to find the area of a parallelogram
and suggestedfindingthe productof two adjacentsides; all of the inserviceteachers
proposed converting the parallelogram into a rectangle or dividing the
parallelograminto a rectangleand two righttrianglesin orderto find its area.
In the succeeding activities in this module, area rules for geometric figures
were discoveredby the subjects. Whatcharacterizedthe teachers'(bothpreservice
and inservice) approachesto these activities were theirspontaneoussuggestionsof
several alternateways for findingthe areaof each of the figures. They appearedto
enjoy thinkingabout differentways of doing each activity. Two of the preservice
teachersthoughtthatusing angle sum relationshipswouldhelp in findingthe areaof
a triangle;this was similarto statementsmade by some of the sixth and ninthgrade
subjects. The teachers were particularlyresponsive to the activities involved in
buildingthe family tree for area. Studyingthe family tree she had constructed,one
preservice teacher commented:"I understandnow how the formulas came about
and how they are related." Anothersaid: "Thefamily tree helps you understand
relationships."

Teachersrespondedfavorablyboth to the materialsused in developingthe area

concepts (tiles, transparentsquare grids, L-square for finding heights, cut-out
shapes, models, .. .) and to the hands-onapproach. One inservice teacherwas so
pleased with the Project'smodel which converteda parallelogram
Co into a rectangle,
C
 150

she made a replica of the model and used it with her sixth grade class. Latershe
reportedhow much easier it was to develop the concept of area of a parallelogram
with her class using the Project'sapproachthanthe way she had taughtit in the past.
In using a model which convertsa trapezoidinto a triangle,one teachercommented:
"Oh,that'snice--thebase of the triangleis madeup of the two bases of the trapezoid,
so the areais one-halfthe sum of the bases times the heightjust like the formulawe
derivedbefore--that'sbeautiful!" On the same task, anotherteacher commented:
"Thisis perfect!... it's so clear... I know this will stick in my head."

The teachers were very thoughtfulabout the discoveries they were making.
After a discussion of the meaning of height of a figure, one preservice teacher,
reflecting back on some previous work, commented: "That'swhat I was doing
wrongbefore ... I shouldhave found the height insteadof measuringthe adjacent
side." Most teachers were not satisfied with finding the area of a figure for a
specific numericalcase, they searchedfor patters, triedto find a generalizationand
looked for interrelationshipsand extensions. Having discoveredthatthe areaof a
trapezoid could be expressed as "midline times altitude," one teacher paused,
reflectedand then said: "Hm... the same principlewould apply to a parallelogram
... and to a triangle... that'sgreat!" Anotherteachermakingthe same discovery
commented: "Oh boy, they are all the same--midline times altitude . . . it's logical
but I never thought of it." The teachers with strong mathematicalbackgrounds
naturallyand spontaneouslyjustified each step of theirexplanations,giving careful
deductive arguments, citing definitions and postulates, . . . (i.e., showing evidence
of many of the Project'slevel 3 descriptors).

In summary,responses to Module 1 activities show that, in terms of level of

thinkingin geometry,two subjectsenteredat level 0 while all othersubjectsentered
at level 1 or higher. With instruction,those at level 0 attainedlevel 1 and one of
these subjects also progressedtowardlevel 2. As might be expected, most of the
preservice and inservice teachers exhibited considerablefluency of language in
describingand explaininggeometricideas. It is of interestto note that some of the
errorsor misconceptionsof the teacherswere the same as those of the sixth or ninth
gradesubjects,for example,thinking"sides"refersonly to verticalsegments,using
the phrase "straight lines" when referring to parallel lines, thinking that a
parallelogramhas to have oblique angles, and thinking that the angle sum of a
polygon relatesto area.
The teachers made frequent comparisons between the module method of
presentation and their previous learning and ideas. Several of the activities
providedopportunitiesfor the teachersto gain insight(the AHA! phenomenon)into
previously studied mathematicalconcepts which they had memorized but never
really understood. The spontaneity of the responses and the quality of the
explanationsgiven by most of the subjectsby the end of Module3 indicatedthatthey
were exhibitingmany of the characteristicsof the Project'slevel 2 descriptors.The
two ninth grade teachers (licensed mathematics teachers) and the preservice
 151

secondary school teacher (mathematicsmajor), who immediately justified their

statementsby proving their conclusions (by giving ratherrigorousargumentsthat
used definitions, postulates, and other proven facts), were exhibiting some of the
level 3 descriptorslisted by the Project.

In a study investigating the van Hiele levels of geometric thought in

undergraduatepreservice teachers,Mayberry(1983) found throughtwo one-hour
interviewsinvolving geometrytasks thatpreserviceteachersoften did not perceive
properties of figures (level 1), frequently did not perceive class inclusions,
relationshipsand implications(level 2), and found deducingrelevantfacts from a
given statement to be very difficult. While the goals of this study and that of
Mayberryare quite different,it is interestingto note thatthe threehours of clinical
interviewsprovidedpreserviceteachersin this study resultedin teachersexhibiting
many level 2 characteristics.
In workingthroughthe instructionalmodules, therewere instancesof teachers
seeing new relationships in previously learned (and not really understood)
structuresas well as indicationsthat teacherswere consciously reflecting on their
own thinking. Fromthis, it would appearthatthe teacherswere, as the van Hieles
mightsay, gaininginsightinto the subjectof geometry.

Teachers' Comments on Instructional Module Activities

Teachers were asked to comment on module activities in relationto possible

classroom use. In general their reactions were positive and enthusiastic. Many
indicatedthey wantedto use these activitieswith theirstudents. Some commentson
selected activitiesare reportedbelow.

Module 1

Activity2: Shapesin Pictures

- The use of photographs, maps, picture of parallel bars, ... and concrete
materials(D-stix, angle testers,...) is good motivation;the studentswill see
geometryideas used in reallife.
Activities 3.1, 3.2, 3.3: SortingPolygons, Quadrilaterals;Propertiesof Classes of
Quadrilaterals
- Sorting is a great idea. I never thought of
using it in math but it ties in
beautifullywith what I do in languagearts--classifyingwords by sound,by
endings, ... and I also develop classificationschemes in science and social
studieswith the children.
 152

- This is a terrific way of having children learn about the properties of

figures. I'm going to try it with my class. [The teacherreportedlater that
she had introducedthis activity in her sixth grade class and "thechildren
loved it. They could see how the figures were related to each other. I'm
going to do more lessons like this." She broughtsamples of the students'
workto show how they developedtheirideas and recordedtheirfindings.]

Activities 3.6, 3.7: GuessingShapesfromPartialView/Properties

- The uncovering shapes is enjoyable. In the uncovering clues [properties],

you have to think about it a bit more--it'sa little more difficult--butit's a
good activity to follow-up after the children have learned about the
propertiesof figures. The activity shows if you understandit or not because
you are thinkingthatmuch harder.

Activity 3.8: MinimumProperties

- This is a tough activity--a challenge--childrenmight get frustrated. My
brightkids [sixth graders]would be stretchedbut they could do it; it would
get them to think. How could you do this activity with a whole class?
[Discussion of this question includedan examinationof the five van Hiele
phasesin the workof Dina van Hiele-Geldofwith seventhgraders.]

Activity 4: Kites--Sorting,Properties,InclusionRelations
- I thinkstudentswouldlike this activity. It'sa nice final assessment.

- I like this. The activity would really force students to look at properties.
The one way streetarrowsare good. They reinforceyour understandingof
the propertiesand theirinterrelationships.

Module 2

Activity4: Miniproofsusing saws andladders

- Grids are a good method to use. It's a very effective way to have students
deduce conclusions. Using saws and ladders in a grid is a nice informal
approachto deductioninsteadof using formalconditionalstatementsat the
beginning.

Activity 5: Coloring;Angle Sums for Polygons

- Now I see why thattheoremis true--thisis a good way of showing children
thatthe threeanglesaddup to 180?.
 153

- I like this for children. By coloring angles and readingfrom the grid, you
have establisheda principleof geometrywhich I hadjust memorized.

Activities 6 and7: FamilyTrees;ExteriorAngle of a Triangle

- I had not thoughtof interconnectionsamongtheorems. I never knew whatI
was doing in 10th grade--but this is a good way to have students see
interconnections.This is definitelyhelpful.

- This family tree activity would definitely help 10th grade geometry
students--theyknow isolated facts--theyhave no connectives for the ideas.
This is a very visual way of showingthe interconnections.

Module 3

The teachers'commentson Module 3 activitiescenteredon the approachesused in

developingthe arearulesandthe use of the "familytree"idea.
- We just throwformulasout at children. . . they need this type of hands-on
experience.

- The family tree is helpful to show area interrelationships.It gives students

insightinto the whole mathematicalsystem.
- It is importantfor teachers to help studentsorganize the ideas they learn.
The family tree is an extremelyuseful way to help studentsdo this.

Teachers' Identification of the van Hiele Thought Levels

After the teachershad completedthe clinical interviews, the interviewerand

the teachersdiscussed the van Hiele levels of thinkingand the Project'slevel de-
scriptorswere discussedin detail. Videotapedsegmentsof five studentsdoing some
of the activities in the InstructionalModules were viewed and students'responses
were analyzed in light of these level descriptors. Wherethere were differencesof
opinion aboutthe level of a student'sthinking,these were resolved by reanalyzing
studentresponses and referringto level descriptors. This analysis and discussion
enabled teachers to justify their decisions by citing appropriatelevel descriptors.
Some teachers were reflective of their own experiences doing the activities in the
InstuctionalModulesandquestionedandcommentedon theirown level of thinking.

Sample pages from the geometry strand of several commercial texts (see
Chapter9 for description)for grades 3-8 were analyzed by the teachers and the
interviewer. Discussion focused on the level(s) of thoughtneededfor the studentto
respondto the expositorytext materialandto the exercise section. Hereagainwhen
 154

differencesof opinionarose,these were examinedandresolvedby referencesto the

level descriptors. In addition, the teacher'scommentaryfor each of the sample
pages was reviewedto see how the suggestedmethodologyandextensionsrelatedto
levels of thought. Inserviceteacherscommentedon theirown experienceswith text
materials and expressed an interest in analyzing their current and future text
selections in the context of the van Hiele model. The inservice teacherswere also
reflective about their own style of teaching and method of questioning in the
classrom--openly asking, "I wonder if the way I teach encourages higher order
thinkingskills." This follow-up session showedthatall the preserviceand inservice
teacherswere learningto identifyvan Hiele levels of thinkingin studentresponses
andlevels requiredby the expositionandexercises in text materials.

In the final session the teachersviewed videotapedsegments of four students

doing activities from the InstructionalModules. Each teacher recorded (on an
Assessment Record Sheet) his/her assessment of the level of thought of each
student'sresponses giving some justificationfor the decision (usually citing some
level descriptors). The teacherswere also asked to review a set of 10 sample text
pages, differentfrom those discussed in the priorsession. Each teacheranalyzed
andrecordedwith some justificationtwo aspectsof each samplepage: (1) the level
of the expository section, and (2) the level of thought needed for the student to
respondto the exercises.
An analysis of the teachers'responses relatingto assessing students'level of
thinking on videotaped segments when compared to assessments of Project
evaluators (staff and consultants) showed an 87% agreement. When a similar
comparisonwas made for assessing the level of text exposition and text exercises,
the agreement between the teachers and Project evaluators was 78% and 84%
respectively. Therewas no patter of commonerrorsin identifyinglevels in either
situation. These results indicatethatpreserviceand inserviceteacherscan learnto
identifyvan Hiele levels of thinkingin studentresponsesand in text materials.

Implications for Teacher Preparation and Classroom Practice

In the clinical interviews, many teachers indicated that much of their prior
learningof geometryhad been by memorizationand rote. It was their view that
teachereducationand staff developmentprogramsand mathematicscoursesshould
providepreserviceand inserviceteacherswith appropriateexperiencesto help them
gain insight into concepts and make orderlyprogressto higher levels of thinking.
They indicatedthatdoing the Projectactivitieshad given themsuch experiences. A
primary goal of teacher preparationprograms is to have mathematics teachers
develop an appreciationof the deductivenatureof mathematics. A program,such
as thatdevelopedby Musserand Burger(1988) at OregonState University, which
incorporatesthe van Hiele approach--itslevels and phases--shouldprovidea good
model for teachersto use in theirown teachingof geometry.
 155

The teachersemphasizedthe majorrole that the concreterepresentationalma-

terials (providedin the Project'sactivities)had played in helping them think intui-
tively aboutconcepts and in assisting them in gaining insight (the AHA phenome-
non). They were unanimousin theirenthusiasticendorsementof the hands-onvisual
concreteapproachto developinggeometricconceptsfor studentsin grades6-9.

The teachersrecognizedand appreciatedthe structureof the Projectactivities

which led the student to higher levels of thought, (i.e., materials that can lead
studentsto experience topics implicitly at one level and then explicitly at the next
higher level). They found the "family tree" approach, while challenging, an
effective way of developing thinkingabout interrelationships.The teachers also
recognizedthe essentialrole of languagein each of the levels.
The teachers in this study consideredtheir experience in learning about and
using the van Hiele levels to evaluate student performanceand text material an
importantaspect of teacherpreparation. They explained that they could now use
this model to identify and analyze thoughtlevels in theirown classroomquestion-
ing, in students'responses, and in curriculummaterials. They believed that a
knowledgeof the van Hiele level hierarchywould assist them in planningactivities,
and in writing exercises or questions requiringdifferentlevels of thought. They
recommended that this type of experience be included in teacher preparation
programs.
Several findings of the Projectlead to practicalimplicationsfor the classroom
teaching of geometry. One finding was that many sixth gradersreporteddoing
relatively little geometry in school. In fact, several seemed to be "geometry
deprived." This suggests thatgeometryis simply not being given due emphasisin
the classroom. It is one of the step-childrenof the mathematicscurriculumwhich
tends to be dominatedby the computationalstrands. Studentcommentsdocument
this regretablesituation. For example, "Geometryis what a substituteteacherdid"
or "Geometry... we usually do thatin June." The responsibilityfor covering the
prescribed geometry curriculumis the teacher's,but it is shared by the school
curriculumcoordinators,mathematicssupervisors,and the school principalwho
need to oversee implementationof this curriculum.

Anotherfinding was thatstudents'learningoften involved a reductionof level.

Forexample,most studentsin this studyknew arearulesonly by rote. Some triedto
recall (ratherthan think out) what their teacherhad told them about the subclass
relationshipbetween squaresand rectangles. Thus, when geometrywas taught,it
appearedto be mainly at a recallor knowledgelevel. Thereare severalreasonswhy
teaching only for recall or rote learning should be avoided. First, such teaching
prevents students from engaging in appropriatethinking about geometry topics.
For example, students are simply not learning much geometry if they memorize
relationshipssuch as "all squaresare rectangles"and "areaof a rectangleis base
times height,"withouttryingto explain them, at least intuitively. Second, students
 156

tend to forget or confuse memorizedinformationand are often unable to apply it,

especially in non-routinesituations. Third, reductionof level conveys the meta-
cognitivemessage thatlearing geometryis just a matterof memorization.This, in
turn,preventsstudentsfrom even wonderingif propertiesare true,and if so, why.
Teachersin gradesK-4, which deal traditionallywith level 0 thinking,should
providechildrenwith a varietyof experiencesthatlay the groundworkfor thinking
about shapes in terms of properties. One way is to encourage children to use
appropriategeometric language in expressing their ideas. Children should be
exposed to challenging, interesting, constructive geometry experiences which
naturallyelicit such language. Examplescan be found in the literatureon tangrams,
tessellations,symmetry,constructionsof geometricpuzzles, etc. Teachersshould
accept children'snon-standardlanguagein initial lessons (e.g., "even"for parallel;
"corer" for angle) but gradually wean them from it to more precise language,
especially when non-standardlanguage can lead to confusion. The notion that
geometry is something to explore, discover, and explain ratherthan to memorize
can be developedeven at level 0. To developlevel 1 thinkingchildrenmustbe given
many opportunitiesto work with collections of shapes--to discover propertiesof
classes of figures,to exploresubclassrelationsand to formulategeneralizations.

These suggestions also apply for teachers in grades 5-9, which treat level 1
thinkingandeven level 2 for some topics such as angle sums, area,andpropertiesof
shapes and definitions. Teachers here should also be careful about the use of
quantifiers(all, some) which are needed for level 1 work. Gregory and Osborne
(1975) found a clear correlation between the frequency of seventh grade
mathematics teachers' use of conditional statements (e.g., "if-then")and their
students'understandingof logical statements. They point out, "Studentsneed
modeling from teachersas well as ample opportunitiesto use logic and language"
(p. 37). Havingstudentsexplaintheirchoice of "always,sometimes,or never true"
for a propertyascribedto a shapeis an effective way to do this. Asking studentsto
tell how they would check this deals with the methodologyof level 1 (i.e., inductive
thinkingbased on a class of shapes)and can focus theirattentionon metacognitive
issues of level 1, namely, what is expected (i.e., to discover relationships,
properties)and how to solve the problem(i.e., by testing various cases). Similar
recommendationsapplyfor level 2--forexample,askingstudentsto explainwhy the
angle sum of a rectangle is 360? (not just asking for the sum) and then having
students think about the explanations given. These suggestions point out the
importanceof teacher questioning in directing the students' thinking. Raising
appropriatequestions,allowinga sufficientresponse-timeanddiscussingthe quality
of the answersaremethodsthattake into accountlevel of thinking.

The above discussionindicatesa need for preserviceand inservicepreparation

in contentandpedagogyrelatedto the van Hiele model. Suchpreparationwill assist
teachers in developing geometry lessons that encourage students to think at
progressivelyhigher levels.
 CHAPTER 9

TEXT ANALYSIS

Goal

One goal of the Projectwas to study Americangeometrycurriculum(K-8), as

evidencedby text series, in the light of the van Hiele model. Questionsinvestigated
by the Projectwere:
(1) Whatgeometrytopics are taughtby gradelevel? Does the selection of topics
indicatecontinuityof instructionandrichnessof geometryexperience?

(2) At what van Hiele level are geometry curriculummaterials at each grade
level?

(3) Is the van Hiele level of materialsequencedby gradelevel?

(4) Are therejumps across van Hiele levels, eitherwithin a gradeor from grade
to grade?

(5) Is the text presentationof geometrytopics consistentwith didacticprinciples

of the van Hieles? (In particular,how does text presentationof content
strandscoveredin the Project'smodulesrelateto van Hiele'stheoryandto the
resultsof the clinical study?)

Procedure

The Project selected three commercial textbook series (K-8), published in

1980-81, for study. Criteriafor selection were frequencyof use both in the United
States (as reportedin the Science EducationDatabook, Directoratefor Science
Education, National Science Foundation, 1980), and in local Brooklyn school
districtsfrom which studentswere to be drawnfor the clinical study (as reportedby
mathematics coordinators). In general, geometry materials intended for the
average studentwere reviewed, althoughactivities for an enrichedprogramwere
also noted. The text series selected offer a varietyof supplementarymaterials,for
example workbooks or duplicating masters for reteaching, extra practice,
enrichment, laboratory explorations. Using different selections from these
materials, teachers can structurevery different types of learning experiences for
their students. However, each series claims that the students'text and teacher's
edition used alone can provide a complete mathematicsprogram. Since many
teachersand studentssee no moreof a series thanthe students'text, it was decidedto
analyzeonly this and the teacher'sedition.
 158

Geometryarises in the students'text in four types of formats:in full lessons

(usually double pages, but sometimes single ones) accompaniedin the teacher's
edition by lesson plans, complete with objectives; in full page activities without
accompanying objectives, labelled as laboratoryactivities or as recreations;in
smallerinserts(puzzles,brainteasers,challenges)in lessons in othercontentstrands
to provide a change of pace; and incidentally,for example, in a lesson on word
problems. The teacher'seditionprovidescommentsandteachingsuggestionsfor all
of these formats,and also overviews or backgroundfor geometrymaterial,some
supplementaryworksheets for practice or enrichment, and sometimes special
sections of activities, projects,and challenges,which include ways to enhancethe
geometrystrand. All of the above-mentionedaspectsof both students'and teacher's
editionwere examined.

In orderto addressthe first questionabove, the Projectundertookan analysis

of the type and extent of geometryvocabularyused at each gradelevel. This study
was similarto Soviet researchon the applicationsof the van Hiele model to their
curriculum, which included a listing of geometry vocabulary by grade level,
leadingto a measureof the richnessof geometrypresentedand the consistencyof a
spiralapproach.
To answerquestions(2)-(4) above, an attemptwas made to assign a level to a
text page. This attempt led to recognitionof how differentaspects of a page can
have differentlevels. It is not the text page which has a level of thinking,but rather
the studentreadingit or the teacherteachingit. It appeareduseful to considerboth
the minimum level of thought with which a student could complete the page
(correctlyrespondto all questions),and the maximumlevel at which the exposition
was written (the level of thinking requiredto completely understandall of the
exposition). These levels may differfor a given text page:for example,when in the
exposition shapes are defined in terms of properties(level 1), but in the exercises
studentsare asked only to name figures, which they can do with no referenceto
properties,simply "by eye" (level 0). For some exercises it is not appropriateto
assign a level of thinkingin geometry. For example,many lessons in the geometry
strand concern the application of formulas, and it is often the case that related
exercises can be done correctlywith minimalgeometricthought--thatis, by relying
on algebraicor arithmeticprocedures. Also, many lessons concerntechniquesof
directmeasurement,ratherthangeometricthinking. Thus when van Hiele levels of
geometric thinking are assigned to text pages, some pages fit into a category
"unassignablelevel of thinking."
The two levels of thoughtrequiredby students("minimum"and "maximum")
sometimesdiffer fromthe van Hiele levels of two additionalaspectsof the text:the
teacher'sedition (aims, notes on teaching and guiding discussion, supplementary
activities, etc.) and the tests includedin the text. Lesson aims were classified as
being concernedwith: (a) developmentand practiceof vocabulary("identify"and
"name"--ingeneral level 0); (b) developing concepts (classifying, formulating
 159

properties--ingeneral level 1); (c) developingrelationshipsamong concepts and

properties (in general level 2); (d) constructions(e.g., ruler and compass); (e)
developing and practicing techniques of direct measurement; (f) practicing and
applyingformulas;(g) explorationor recreation; and (h) testing. The suggestions
in the teacher'seditionmay promotea much richerexperiencefor studentsthancan
possibly be given by a few text pages, and guidelinesfor class discussionmay allow
for development of a higher level of thinkingthan the text page. Test questions
usually are drawn from the exercises in the lessons of a text, but they do not
necessarily reflect all levels of thinkingarisingin the exercises (probablybecause
the higher level questions are often labelled as optional, or only for the most able
students).
In orderto answerquestion(5) above, concerningthe consistencybetweentext
presentationsand the van Hieles' didactics,threegeometrycontentstrands(chosen
for relationto the contentof the Project'sinstructionalmodules) were reviewed in
detail for the three series. The results are summarizedin a later section of this
chapter.
The Projectconsiderednot only how the text series could be describedin terms
of van Hiele levels, but also how the van Hiele model can influence evaluationof
textbooks. Examplesof questionssuggestedby the van Hiele model follow.

(a) For studentsat level 0, whose thinkingaboutshapesis global, "byeye," and

for whom descriptionsof shapes in terms of propertiesare inappropriate,
is the visual informationgiven in the text adequate? For example, if all
diagramsof squareshave one side horizontal,then this characteristicwill
be includedin a level 0 student'sidea of a squareregardlessof whatthe text
page says. The Project examined diagramsfor level 0 introductionof
shapes for features such as inclusion of multiple orientations and
non-examples. Also noted were instructionalproceduresappropriatefor
the level 0 studentaccordingto van Hiele--such as physical manipulation
andpresentationof conceptsin real worldsettings.

(b) A crucialaspectof the progressionfromlevel 0 to level 1 is the recognition

of propertiesas characteristicsof classes of figures (not tied to only one
specific figure). Do the text materialsencouragethis recognition? Forex-
ample, are studentsled to discover/formulatepropertieson theirown, and
on the basis of manyexamples? If a propertyof a shapeis developedon the
basis of only one example,it is not clearthatlevel 1 thoughtis involved.

(c) Van Hiele claims that implicit in each level are thoughtprocesses which
becomeexplicitat the next level (see Chapter2, p. 6). Thusone can choose
teaching materials for a level 0 student which allow the implicit
developmentof relationswhich will be formalizedlater. Howeverchoices
of instructional materials have differing potential for such implicit
 160

experiences. The Project decided to look for materials in the texts which
point out such potential to the teacher, where it exists but is not noted, and
where opportunities are missed.

Data Forms and Their Analysis

Two types of data sheets were used. Data Sheet A contained a listing of geometry
vocabulary used in grades K-8, and provided space for noting use of vocabulary at
each grade level.

Data Sheet B was designed to be used for each grade level. For each full text
page containing a geometry lesson or activity the following aspects were noted.

ITEMS ON DATA SHEET B

Pagenumber(andwhetheroptional,forenrichment,
etc.)
Aim(usingclassification
describedabove)
andused
introduced
Vocabulary
Maximumlevelof exposition
Minimumlevel:percentof exercisesatlevel0, level 1, level2, orof "undetermined
level"
Levelof testquestions(whenapplicable)
Diagrams: referenceto "realworld,"suggestionof physicalmanipulation;
correctness, for
lessonsconcernedwithidentification
of shapes,inclusionof non-examples
andmultiple
orientations
Arethesediscovered/formulated
Properties/Relationships: by thestudent?--on
thebasisof
howmanyinstances?Areseveralproperties of thesameshapeconsidered?Are
logicallyordered?
properties
Spacewas also providedfor comments,in particular on logicalsequencingof concepts;on
gapsin levels;on reductionof level;on correctness/completeness
of definitions,statements,
diagrams;on whetherstudentsareaskedto explain;on thoughtprocessescalledfor (visual
memory,verbal recall, patternfinding, discovery, logical ordering,analogy, applying
formulas,etc.).

Notation was made of ways in which the notes in the teacher's edition suggest
different entries in the above data sheet than the student's page alone. For example,
the proposed lesson plan might suggest a higher level of thinking than the text
exposition. (Record was made only of material in instructional notes, not in
background material for the teacher.) The back of the sheet was used to note any
other occurrences of geometry ideas in other parts of the text, either incidentally, or
in small set-off sections (e.g., puzzles, riddles, and brainteasers), and also to note by
grade additional geometry resources in the teacher's edition.
 161

Pierrevan Hiele examinedan initialformof the datacollection sheets and their

use on samplepages duringhis visit to the Projectin 1982, andapprovedtheiruse in
analyzingtexts. This techniqueof examiningtexts was also discussedwith Project
consultants(JohnDel Grande,KathleenHart)andotherresearchersof the van Hiele
model at professionalmeetings.

While one researchercompleted all data sheets, other Project staff verified
sample sheets and notations for particularpages which exemplified common
characteristicsof the texts. In case of disagreementon a text page, a third staff
memberwas consultedand in most cases, afterdiscussion,all staff membersagreed
on assignmentsof level.

The contentsof the completedDataSheets A were comparedfor the threeseries

by tabulatingextent and reoccurrencesof geometryvocabularyused. A count was
made for each text of the numberof pages primarilydevoted to geometry(includ-
ing those measurementtopics commonlyincludedin the "geometrystrand,"such as
perimeter,area, volume, angle measure,but excluding the developmentof direct
measurementof length). Items on Data Sheet B were tabulatedby gradelevel. For
example,for each grade,the following countsof lessons were madeby text series:
- by categories of aims;
- by maximumlevel on the textpage;
- by minimumlevel of thinkingrequiredto complete 100 or 75 percentof the
exercises suggestedfor averagestudents;
- by gaps in level amongpartsof the text page;
- by incorporationof physicalmanipulationandreal world images.

These datawere comparedfor the threetext series to determinesimilaritiesand

differencesamong the series--inextent of geometryinstruction,level, and style of
presentation. By summarizingcommentson thoughtprocesses called for, further
characterization
of the texts was obtained.

Findings

Description of Text Series

The three text series examined share many features, yet also differed in
importantcharacteristics. To provide a context for the later discussion, a brief
descriptionof each series is given here.
Series A offers a rich variety of geometry experiences, devoting the greatest
percentof pages to geometrictopics, and introducingmany concepts which arenot
mentioned in the other two series (for example, the four color map problem,
pentominoes, center of gravity of a triangle, curves of constant width). The
 162

presentationof many topics includes photographsor diagrams of manipulative

objects, and a greatdeal of physical manipulationis suggested. The text includes
manymathlab activities,geometricpuzzlers,as well as incidentaluses of geometry
in a varietyof real world contexts. Howeverexpositiontends to remainat level 0.
Students are not often asked to go beyond direct perceptualexperience to make
generalities,andmanyopportunitiesto relategeometricfacts logically aremissed.
Series B has the least variety of geometric topics. Physical manipulationis
suggestedin generalonly in the teacher'sedition,and so unless the teacherprovides
supplementarymaterials, students may not get a visual image of the concrete
models. Illustrationsoften seem to play a decorative role, ratherthan relating
significantly to the content. Some illustrationsare of "realworld" settings, but
seldom are they used in the examples in a non-trivialway. Exposition is often at
level 1, but studentsare seldom askedto formulateideas, and most exercises are at
level 0 or are of unassignable level in geometry, throughoutthe series. (An
exception to this generality is provided by some of the masters in the teacher's
edition intended for "enrichment",which often provide level 1 experiences,
especially in the uppergrades.) Logical relationshipsare not exploredin general.
There are fewer opportunitiesfor geometric exploration unrelatedto acquiring
skills (of measurementor formulaapplication)thanin the othertwo series. Finally,
thereare severalcontenterrorsin the answersprovidedin the teacher'sedition (for
example,in identifyinga squareas a non-rectangle),which may cause a problemfor
teachersrelying on this resource.

Series C sharesmany of the characteristicsof Series A (presenceof real world

applications,suggestion of manipulativesin the studenttext, exploratorylessons),
but lacks the rich variety of geometry topics covered. However lessons tend to
requirea higherlevel of thinkingfromthe studentsthanthe othertwo series. In the
upper grades especially, this series provides level 1 or even level 2 exposition,
sometimes with exercises to match. This was the only series surveyed to ask
studentsfrequentlyto explainan answer.

Results of Analysis of Data Sheet A

Geometry Vocabulary. When a count was made for each grade level, the
numberof topics coveredby at least one of the series increasedsteadilyfrom 11 for
Kindergartento 121 in eighth grade. (A total of 152 topics were identifiedin all of
the texts reviewed.) The summaryof Data Sheet A showed that there is general
consistencyon scope andsequenceof majortopics--thatis, those thatarecoveredon
the summarizingtests, especially identification of shapes, and measurementof
perimeter,area, volume, and angle. Below are listed topics on which the series
essentiallyagreed(i.e., therewas no more thanone omissionby one series over the
grades indicated,althoughthe topic may have been introducedearlierby just one
series).
 163

Identification of shapes:
Square,Triangle,Circle(K-8)
Rectangle(1-8)
Parallelogram, Pentagon,Hexagon,Octagon,Polygon,Rectangular andTriangular
prism(4-8)
Quadrilateral,Rhombus,Equilateraltriangle,Cone,Cylinder(5-8)
Scalene,Isoscelestriangle,Regularpolygon(6-8)
Trapezoid(7-8)
Measurement:
Perimeter(4-8)
Areaby counting(2-6)
Areaby formula:rectangle,triangle(5-8); circle(6-8); parallelogram
(7-8);
trapezoid(8)
Surfacearea(6-8)
Volumeby counting(3-6)
Volumeby formula:rectangular prism(5-8); cylinder(7-8)

Angle:
Meaning(4-8)
Rightangle(4-8)
Acute,obtuseangle,Measuring withprotractor,
Anglesumof a triangle(5-8)
Anglesumof a quadrilateral
(8)

There is much more variation in scope and sequence of topics related to parts of
shapes, their properties, and relations among properties. Below are listed some such
topics, together with the initial grade of introduction for the three series (in order,
series A, B, C). A hyphen "-"indicates that the topic was not covered in any grade.

Polygons
Segment(2,6,6);Vertex(5,1,2);Side (4,1,2); Diagonal(6,8,8)
Circles
Radius(3,3,4);Diameter(4,3,4);Arc (4,5,7); Circumference (6,6,6);Pi (6,7,6)
Congruence: of sides(7,7,3);of angles(7,7,5); of figures(3,5,3)
Similarity: of figures(3,6,5)
Scaledrawing(7,7,7)
Indirectmeasurement (6,5,7)
Triangles
Congruenttriangles(8,8,8)
Pythagorean Theorem(7,7,8)
Trigonometric ratios(8,8,8)
Symmetry: of figures(3,1,3);Lineof symmetry(4,3,1)
Lines
Parallelin a plane(5,4,4);in space(6,7,-)
Alternateinterior,exterior,corresponding angles(7,8,8)
Intersect(5,4,4); Perpendicular(5,5,5);Skew(6,7,-)
Polyhedra
Vertex,Edge,Face(3,6,5)
Euler'sformula(5,-,8)
 164

There is considerablevariationin the treatmentof transformationalgeometry.

Series B covers slides, turns and flips consistently in grades 4-7, while series A
touches on one or two a year in these gradesand all threein grade 8, and series C
only mentionsslides andflips briefly in grade7. Solid geometryreceives similarly
varied treatment--inthis case series A has the most complete coverage, including
identificationof generalprismsand pyramidsand the five regularsolids. Series C
omits namingthe regularpolyhedra,and series B omits all of these solid geometry
topics. Ruler and compass constructionsstartin grade5 in series B, in grade6 in
series A, and in grade 7 in series C. By grade 8, the series agree on major
constructionscovered.

SeriesA providesmuchmoreexposureto unusualgeometrytopics andSeriesB

much less, with Series C being in the middle. This was demonstratedby analyzing
the summaryfor Data Sheet A as follows. A count was made of each topic/grade
level entryin which only one seriesappeared.These topics were:

kite, convex/concave,inside/outside/on,straightangles, skew lines, rotational

symmetry, cross-sections of polyhedra, icosadedron, dodecahedron,
octahedron,tetrahedron,explanationof angle sum of a triangle,angle sum of
general polygons, spiral, golden rectangle,parabola,estimation of irregular
areas

Series A appearedin 11 such entries, series B in 1, and series C in 5. About

80%of the topics identifiedare coveredby all series in some gradelevel, and more
thanhalf of the ones omittedby at least one series are "recreational".

In general, once a topic is introduced,it is reviewed each successive year,

except for the "exploratory"topics (such as cross-sections of polyhedra,optical
illusions, mazes, spirals,rotationalsymmetry). This was demonstratedby a count
for each series of the numberof topics introducedbut not returnedto within two
years. Series A had 14 such topics, seriesB had 2, and Series C had 7. These num-
bers reflectthe inclusionof morerecreationaltopics in series A and C. However,in
this respecta count as simple as the one on Data Sheet A does not revealthe whole
story. For example,polyhedra(in particular,prisms and pyramids)are introduced
in grades 4-5, and for the remainingyears surveyed continue to be mentioned.
Early work focuses on classifying and naming them, and maybe counting faces,
edges andvertices. But by the latergrades,the polyhedramay only be mentionedas
a context for applyinga formulafor surfaceareaor volume by substitutingvalues
into algebraicexpressions (in some cases, the two-dimensionalplans of the solids
are provided), and thus studentsmay not be requiredto increase their geometric
understandingof polyhedraor their ability to visualize them. Anotherexample is
providedby symmetry. While this topic is mentionedin five successive gradesin
two series, and in eight successive gradesin the other,for the most partthe level of
thinking remains the same, and first grade questions remarkablyresemble fifth
grade questions on this topic. Thus, in these cases, repeatedoccurrencesof the
 165

topics may represent a "circular"rather than a "spiral"curriculum. A more

meaningful descriptionof spiralling of curriculumis obtainedby examining the
level of thinkingrequiredtogetherwith the topic count.

Results of Analysis of Data Sheet B

Number of Pages Devoted to Geometry. The series do vary consider-

ably in the numberof pages devotedto geometry.Even withoutcountingthe many
recreationalpages, series A has considerablymore than the average number of
geometry pages in four of the grades 3-8. Series B, on the other hand, is
consistentlybelow averagefor seven of the grades1-8, and containsno recreational
pages. Series C lies in the middle,with a highernumberof pages in grades2-4. The
series also differ in the amountof geometryarising incidentallyin the texts. All
series include, as a regularfeature of the text page, corers devoted to puzzles,
brainteasers,problems, etc. In series A and C these are frequently geometric.
Series B includesmanyfewer in geometry.

Aims of Geometry Lessons. The objectives provided in the teacher's

editionsof text seriesaregenerallytied to test items. Van Hiele statesthat"ifthe test
problems cover a limited field of acquirements,algorithmicskill will suffice to
solve them. It is a fairly simple matterto teach a child a numberof manipulative
structuresthat enable him to reduce a high-level problem to a lower level of
thinking"(van Hiele, 1957/1984, p. 241). (Van Hiele refers to this process as
"reductionof level.") Thus, he continues,some types of insight "cannotadequately
be assessed by means of test-papers."For this reason,one might not expect either
text objectives or tests to indicate thinkingat level 1 or 2, and this expectationis
confirmed in the series examined. (Results of the analysis of test questions are
describedlater.)

The instructionalaims of lessons in the grades K-3 text series examined are
predominantly "identify" or "name" (development and practice of
vocabulary--level0), or "measure"(directmeasurement,such as counting square
units--"unassignable"level), and this patternis followed in all three series. In
grades 4-6 there is, in addition,an increasein aims of the type "draw"(e.g., ruler
and compass constructions--donealgorithmically, thus level 0 or unassignable
level), or "findthe measureby applyinga formula"(unassignablelevel).
As noted above, one dramaticdifference among series is in the inclusion of
geometry activities for which no learningobjective is given and/orfor which the
most appropriateaim appears to be open exploration or recreation. Series A
includesan averageof eight of these per grade,Series C includesan averageof two
per grade, while Series B offers only two in all seven grades. The lessons which
were classified in this way do not lead studentsto formulatepropertiesin general,
and thus are at level 0. (However,in series C the lessons aremore likely to relateto
otherpartsof the geometrystrand,andto have potentialfor level 1 thinking.) In all
 166

of the series in GradesK-6 only nine lessons were foundwhose statedaims were to
formulateproperties(level 1), and of these, five were intendedonly for the most
advancedstudents.

The fact thatthe statedobjectives(and,as will be discussedlater,the relatedtest

questions)are so overwhelminglyat level 0 or of unassignablelevel in gradesK-6
does not necessarilyindicatethatelementaryschool studentsare exposed to no level
1 thinking. For example, in a lesson where studentsfill in a chartcontainingnum-
bers of faces, edges and verticesof polyhedra,the statedobjectiveof the lesson is to
identify or count these aspects, and all testing is on this level. However, students
may well be askedto notice patters or generalcharacteristicsof shapesin the expo-
sition of the text page, or in the lesson plan recommendedin the teacher'sedition.

No text page in gradesK-6 of the series surveyedhas as an aim for studentsto

relatepropertieslogically. The developmentof logical reasoningdoes not appearto
be an importantaim in teachingelementaryschool geometry. The sixth gradetext
of Series B providessupportof this statement. In the introductionto the chapteron
geometry,the teacher'sedition points out that special activities relatedto "Logical
Reasoning"are includedthroughoutthe series, and that in this chapterthereis one
which turnsout to be unrelatedto geometry. In the
such activity, a "brainteaser"
same text, a page in the geometrysection labelled "Be Reasonable"turs out not to
refer to reasoning about geometry, but rather to checking reasonableness of
numericalresultswhen applyingformulasfor areaand perimeter.

The curriculumin grades 7 and 8 offers many opportunitiesfor developing

generalpropertiesand informallogical relationships,but most of these are missed,
and "reductionof level" is common. The characteristicsnoted above for gradesK-6
hold true for grades 7-8. Series A again containsby far the most recreationalor
exploratoryactivities (over twenty related to geometry), while series B contains
none and series C contains two. (However series B, in particular,does provide
some experiences of this sort through"enrichment"masters in the teacher'sedi-
tion.) The aims of over half of the geometrylessons in each series concernapplica-
tion of formulas, or ruler and compass constructions. Direct measurementtech-
niques play a much less importantrole thanin earliergrades,but a largenumberof
lessons are still devoted to identifying and naming geometric figures. Series A
containedsix lessons with aims relatedto level 1 thinking(developingpropertiesor
relationships);series B and C both containthree. Howeverthis count of aims does
not entirely reflect the level of thinkingin the text presentation,because even in
lessons wherepropertiesor relationshipsare developed,the statedaim might be to
applya formulaor to measure. (Thishappensoften in series C in the uppergrades.)
Van Hiele Levels of Text Materials. As discussed above, one can assign
levels to variouspartsof the text page. Table 5 (on the next page) summarizesthe
"maximum"level of text pages, that is the level of thinkingrequiredto understand
all of the exposition on the text page. For each grade level andeach series,the
 167

Table 5

Percent of Lessons at Maximum Level 0, 1 or 2

Series A Series B Series C

Grade 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
K 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0
1 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0
2 100 0 0 100 0 0 100 0 0
3 95 5 0 88 12 0 92 8 0
4 96 4 0 71 29 0 75 25 0
5 71 29 0 65 35 0 85 15 0
6 80 20 0 55 45 0 60 40 0
7 58 37 5 67 33 0 43 57 0
8 66 20 14 29 68 3 19 63 18

percent of pages with "maximum" level 0, 1 or 2 is shown. Assignment of level

followed the Project's level descriptors. If discussion of aspects of a figure involved
only what could be seen on the page, level 0 was assigned; however, if statements re-
ferred to a class of figures, level 1 was assigned. Level 2 was assigned only if some
logical relationship between geometric properties was discussed. Lessons concern-
ing techniques of direct measurement, or giving directions for a construction with
no attempt at generality or explanation are here classified under level 0.

This table indicates that the exposition in the three text series follows a fairly
consistent pattern. Level of thinking required to follow the lessons increases
gradually. Series A tends to include more entirely level 0 lessons throughout the
grades (in particular, the large numbers of recreational activities). As compared to
the work of students (grades 7 or 8) reported on in Dina van Hiele-Geldofs thesis,
little level 2 thought is required here.

Table 5 does not necessarily reflect the level of thinking of students using the
text, who may complete exercises correctly without following the text. As long as a
student is getting correct answers to exercises, it is probable that neither student nor
teacher will worry about understanding the expository parts of the text. Thus Table
5 should be compared to Table 6 (on the next page), which shows the minimum level
of thinking required to do the exercises. Entries show the percent of pages at each
grade level which can be done with geometric thinking of level 0 or of
"unassignable" level. For each series there are three columns. The first column
shows the percent of exercises at level 0 or "unassignable" when only the exercises
recommended for the average student are considered. The second column shows the
corresponding percent when exercises for enrichment, or for the above-average
student are also counted in. In the third column, the figures in parentheses are the
percent of pages where at least 75% of the exercises for average students can be
done with the lowest level of thinking. From Table 6 one can see that a level 0
student could do very well in geometry as evaluated by the exercises in series B.
 168

Table 6

Percent of Lessons with Exercises All at Level 0 or "Unassignable"

Gade Series A SeriesB Series C

Av. Enr. 75% Av. 7 Enr. Enr 75%
K 100 100 100 100 100 100
1 100 100 100 100 100 100
2 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 95 95 (100) 100 100 100 100
4 100 100 100 86 80 70 (95)
5 94 94 (100) 88 88 (94) 96 96 (96)
6 80 66 (83) 100 95 100 96
7 92 92 (97) 100 93 78 52 (83)
8 89 89 (91) 100 93 78 59 (81)
Note: Entriesin columnsheadedAv. includeonlyexercisesintendedfortheaveragestudent.
Entriesin columnsheadedEnr.includealso "enrichment"exercises,andexercisesintended
for aboveaveragestudents.
Entriesin columnsheaded75% show the percentof lessons whereat least 75%of the
exercisesforaveragestudentscanbe doneatlevel 0 or "unassignable".

Series A and C both require a certain amount of level 1 thinking. (The only
exercises which required level 2 thinking are in series C in grades 4 and 7, and
concern inclusion relations.) A level 0 student could do well even in the "enriched
program" in series A and B. Only in series C would such a student frequently be
given exercises which required a higher level of thinking.

Analysis of Test Questions. A third table which should be included at this

point is one showing the level of test questions by grade level. This table would be a
very simple one! Almost no test questions were found in the three series surveyed
which could not be done with level 0 thinking, or else with rote learning of a
formula (e.g., substituting values into an algebraic expression for area) or a
procedure (i.e., ruler and compass constructions). The only exception was in the
grade 8 text of series C. Here 24% of a mid-chapter test consisted of level 1
questions relating to properties of shapes. The end-of-chapter test contained about
5% level 1 questions, but in a diluted true-false format. No level 1 geometry
questions appeared in the end-of-book test.

One feature all of the grade K-6 texts share is the scarcity of questions that
require a sentence for an answer. Many questions require only a yes or no answer,
or identification of a figure (e.g., "List the letters of figures which show parallel
lines."). If students are asked to name a figure, there is very often a list of names
provided to choose from. This is especially true in the test questions. This
characteristic is related to the lack of level 1 thinking in the exercises, because
without explanation, it is often easy to make judgments "by eye," at level 0.
 169

Summary: Van Hiele Levels of Texts. In response to question (2)

concerningthe van Hiele level of geometrycurriculummaterials,it was found that
the text series examineddiffer somewhat,but sharea generalpattern. Thereis very
little level 2 thinkingexhibited in the texts, startingonly in grades 7-8. There is
some level 1 thinking,from grade3 on. However, averagestudentsdo not need to
think above level 0 for almost all of their geometryexperiencethroughgrade 8, if
one judges by the minimumlevel requiredto completeexercises and test questions
relatedto geometry.

As for the sequencingof geometrymaterialsby level of thinking(question(3)),

materialin the exposition of the texts is in general sequenced by level. But this
question is not relevantto considerationof exercises and tests as there is so little
progressionhere beyond level 0.

Question (4) concernedjumps across van Hiele levels. The most significant
jumpsfound were withina text page. Frequentlyexpositionis at a higherlevel than
exercises. If studentscan completeexercises and tests on a topic at level 0, even if
the exposition is at a higher level, it is increasingly likely as students progress
throughthe grades that there will be a significant jump in level from their own
previousexperiencein geometryto what is requiredin the text exposition. Students
will presumablyencounterdifficulty with a secondaryschool geometry course at
level 2 if they can successfullycompletegrade8 with level 0 thinking.

The next sections consider aspects of texts relevantto question (5)--whether

text presentationis consistentwith didacticprinciplesof the van Hieles.

Characteristics of Diagrams. Various characteristics of text diagrams

were noted in the study, including correctness,referenceto "realworld"models,
and suggestion of physical manipulation. It is especially appropriateto examine
these aspects of text presentation for students thinking at level 0, who are
particularlydependenton visual impressions, and it is apparentfrom the above
tablesthata greatdeal of elementaryschool instructioninvolves level 0 thinking.

Van Hiele emphasizesthe importanceof a "globalstructure,"the involvement

of studentsin theirsurroundingsin a way which helps them to form geometriccon-
cepts. All of the texts include illustrationswhich are meant to refer to common
objects. However,often objectsare takenout of context,or objects in the drawings
look distorted to show neat geometric shapes (e.g., trees which are equilateral
trianglesor circles). Sometimesthe artworkcould evoke many geometricconcepts,
but is not referredto in more thana trivialway in the exposition(e.g., a pictureof a
quilt with congruentand similar triangles, but with no reference to this aspect).
Therewas not much differenceamong the series: the averagepercentof lessons at
each grade level for which significantreal world images were noted was 24% for
series A, 17%for series B and 20% for series C. In many cases the teacher'sedi-
tions suggesteduse of the students'environmentfor developinggeometryconcepts.
 170

Occasionally the attempt to include visual references to the "real world"

backfires. For example, a lesson on symmetry in the grade 2 text of series B
concernedstudentsflying kites. Studentswere asked to identify symmetrickites.
One example drawnwas a kite made of a series of circlesjoined in parallelplanes,
certainlysymmetricin its usual flying position. However,the drawingshowed it in
a curvedposition,so the kite was identifiedas unsymmetric(which would surelybe
confusingto a studentwho had actuallyseen such a kite). The grade 8 text of this
series provided a similar example, in which the text identified a two dimensional
pictureof a cup as "unsymmetric," while a similarreal cup would have a plane of
symmetry. Such confusion between a three-dimensional object and the
two-dimensionaldrawingof an objectis a commondifficultywhen texts use visual
representationsof the real world.
In series B, there are also examples of the confusion of a concept with its
symbolic representation in a diagram. Third grade teachers are directed to
"emphasizethat a line has arrowsat both ends"(as opposed to discussing this as a
characteristicof the symbolfor a line). The accompanyinglesson, in which students
aretaughta four step procedureto make a line segment(marktwo points,label one,
label the other, use a ruler to connect the points), provides an example of an
extremelyproceduralapproachto a concept,ratherthanan intuitiveone. This type
of lesson might suggest reductionof level, where conceptformationis reducedto a
matterof makingandrecognizingmarkson paper.

The van Hieles also emphasizethe importanceof having studentsphysically

manipulategeometricmodels. Of course the printedpage cannotprovide a model
itself, but artworkor directionscan stronglysuggest physical manipulation.Series
A used such artworkor directionsmuch more frequentlythanthe othertwo series.
The averagepercentof lessons, acrossgradelevels, in which physicalmanipulation
was strongly suggested on the text page was 52%. For series B and C the figures
were 21%and 19%respectively. Howeverthe teacher'seditionwould often suggest
a manipulativematerialwhen the text page did not. (In both series, when these
suggestions were also counted, the above averages were closer to the figure for
series A.) The materialssuggested includedpaper (folding and cutting), mirrors,
rulers, geoboards, tracing paper, blocks and sand for volume measurement,
protractor, compass and straightedge. Seldom used were materials such as
geostrips,variousshapesof tiles, or collections of shapesto be sorted,which allow
studentsto explore, constructand arriveat their own discoveries of propertiesof
figuresor of classes of figures,thuspreparingfor level 1 thought.
The diagrams in level 0 lessons dealing with identification of shapes were
examinedwith regardto the inclusion of non-examplesas well as examples. (For
example, when rectanglesare first mentioned,can studentsassume that they need
only have "twolong sides and two shortsides,"or are any examples without right
angles identifiedas not being rectangles?) All threeseries have examples of such
lessons where misconceptions could easily be formed due to omission of
 171

non-examples; however, series C has more pages which include non-examples.

Sometimesstudentsareaskedto makedecisionsaboutexamplesin exerciseswithout
information being provided in the exposition. Lessons concerned with shape
identification were also examined with respect to the inclusion of multiple
orientationsor other variationsof a figure. Again, all series containedexamples
wheremisconceptionscould easily be formed. Series C containedthe most lessons
where multiple orientationswere introduced. Some common examples of lessons
lackingvariationson a conceptwere:
- squares(or rectangles,or triangles)whereone side is always horizontal;

- triangleswhich are alwaysacute,andhave no very small angles;

- rightangles or righttriangleswhere one side is always horizontal;

- parallel lines always representedby line segments of the same length, or

formingsides of a rectangle;
- polygons which are alwaysconvex;

- lines of symmetrywhich are always horizontalor vertical;

- prismsandpyramidswith bases alwayshorizontal;

- in applicationsof the area formulafor triangles,bases always horizontal,

altitudesdrawnin, vertically;

- trapezoidsalways drawnwith parallelsides horizontal.

In its clinical study,the Projectnotedexamplesof students'faultyformationof

conceptssuch as these,perhapsbasedon similartext presentations.
Formation of Properties and Relationships. In general, only one
instancewas discussed when a propertyor relationshipwas introduced,especially
in series B. This is a significantpoint in the considerationof a text in the light of van
Hiele level theory. To reach level 1, students must recognize properties as
characteristicsof classes of objects,ratherthanas attributesof a particularexample.
If a propertyis discussed in the context of one diagram,it is probablethat a gap in
communicationwill occur--thatis, the text authormight see the one example as a
general instance (at level 1 or even 2) but the studentmight see it as the object of
studyitself (at level 0).
For most importantproperties, the text states the property, and then asks
studentsto verify it in one, or frequentlymore,examples. Sometimesthe studentis
asked to fill in blanks relatedto a figure (e.g., for a rectangle:length, width, area),
and the text will then state the relationshipand then ask for application of the
 172

formula. The exceptions to this patterntend to be in the "recreational"

geometry
topics--thosewhich do not appearon tests, and which are labeled as optional (for
example, Euler'sformulafor polyhedra).
The K-8 text series examinedcontainedvery few examplesof level 2 thinking,
whetherexplicit or implicit. Therewere very few examplesof relationshipsamong
properties. Also therewere few examplesof methodsof presentationwherelevel 2
reasoningis possible implicitly.
The topic of rulerand compass constructionsis especially interestingin this
regard,because it can provide such a rich area for developing relationships. The
texts surveyedcompletely miss this potential,both in the studentpages and in the
teacher'sguide. The individualconstructionsare in generaltaughtas a sequenceof
stepsto follow, with no logical connections. Studentsarenot askedto considerwhat
line segmentsmustbe congruentas a resultof constructionby circles, andhence are
unlikely to recognize that certainshapes (isosceles triangles,rhombuses)underlie
the constructions, and that their properties are related to the results of the
construction. For example, the propertiesof the diagonalsof a rhombusrelate to
the constructions of perpendicularbisector of a segment, angle bisector, and
perpendicularto a line througha point. (Of course such propertiesof a rhombus
are not developed in the text series surveyed.) Seldom are constructionsrelated
even to other constructions. A mathematicallytalented student may form these
relationshipsindependently,but texts, even in the teacher'sguide, give little help.

Text Presentation of Three Content Strands,

as Related to van Hiele Didactics

One furtheraspectof the text analysiswas a detailedexaminationof the content

strandscorrespondingto the three instructionalmodules developedby the Project.
For each strand,the text presentationswere consideredin the light of the Project's
researchinto the van Hieles' own instructionalprocedures,and those developed in
the Project'smaterials. The threestrandswill be discussedseparatelybelow.

Properties and Relationships among Polygons

It is interestingto examinehow text series handlethe relationbetween squares
andrectangles,so often misunderstoodby upperelementaryschool students. Some
series scrupulouslyavoid situationswherethe issue arisesin earlygrades:if students
are asked to identify rectanglesin a Grade 1 text in series C, no squareswill be
shown. This continuesuntilthe text has presentedsquaresandrectanglesin termsof
properties(grades 3-4). Of course if squares are omitted from all examples of
rectangles, it is entirely naturalfor students to form the incorrect definition of
rectangleobservedso often in the clinical study;that is, rectanglesmust have "two
long sides and two short sides" in additionto the standardproperties. Series B is
 173

careless in this regard, providing situations where a square is definitely not

identifiedas a rectangle,as describedabove. In an activityin the grade2 text of this
series, studentsare directedto color a pictureso that all squaresare one color, all
rectanglesanother. In this case the artworkprecludesrecognitionof a squareas a
special type of rectangle,or even of a rectangleas being composedof two adjacent
squares (how should one color this?). For contrast, series C contains a similar
activity in the grade 2 text, but here only triangles,circles and rectanglesare used,
andso thereis no conflict.

Series C was the only one to attempta full andcorrectformationof the concept
of rectangle in Kindergarten,when in a story it is pointed out that squares are
indeedrectangles. But this approachis not followed in grades 1-3 in this series. By
grade7 all of the seriesexpect studentsto be able to identifysquaresas specialtypes
of rectangles. Yet, in general, studentsmay never have achieved level 1 thinking
aboutthese shapes, since they need never respondin exercises at a level above "it
looks like"(level 0) or by counting/measuring aspectsof an individualfigure.
The text treatmentof inclusion relations sometimes suggests that different
minds were at work producingdifferentaspectsof the series. An exampleof this is
providedby the Grade3 text of series B in materialconcerningthe relationbetween
squaresand rectangles. First, there are tests of Basic Skills in a multiple choice
formatat variouspartsof the text. One questionasks "Whichis a rectangle?"and a
squareincluded among the possible answers is markedincorrect. (A non-square
rectangleis also included.) In a laterlesson, studentsare askedto measureandcount
sides of a squareand rectangle,and the text states definitions. The accompanying
lesson plan instructsthe teacherto "besure studentsunderstandthatevery squareis
a rectanglebecauseit fits the definitionof a rectangle,"and, in addition,teachersare
told to writethis fact on the board. Howeverin the exercisesfor this lesson students
are asked to "writetriangle,rectangleor square"to identify given figures, and the
answers provided indicate that multiple answers are not intended. This lesson
suggests a reductionin level, for studentsmay memorizea sentencewhich they do
not really understand, and they are not expected to interpret or apply it in
subsequentexercises.

Development of Angle Measurement and Angle Relations for Polygons

The three series are consistent in providing some informal work with angle
(recognizingright angles "byeye" or superpositionof a squarecorer, comparing
angles with right angles) in the grade 4 texts, and in introducingmeasurementof
angle with a protractorin grade5. No series providesmany examples of congruent
angles which appearquite different (for example, in length of sides), and so one
might say that the level 0 developmentof this concept is lacking. (In fact in her
thesis, Dina van Hiele-Geldofsuggeststhat"angle"is a difficultabstractionto form
at level 0.) Use of a protractoris taughtby rote, and nowhere(in eithertext pages
or lessons suggestedby the teacher'seditions) are studentstold what a "degree"is,
 174

thatis, thereis no developmentof the conceptof a unit of measurefor angle.

SeriesA andC introducethe sum of anglesof a trianglein grade5, andSeriesB

does this in grade6. All developmentof this propertyis by experiment(except for
the grade8 treatmentin Series C), usuallyby one or both of the following methods:
measuringangles with a protractorand adding;or by cuttingout a triangle,tearing
off the corers, and arrangingthem on a straightline. (Since measurementof a
straightangle is omitted before this latter experiment,it is especially likely that
studentswill learn the propertyby rote.) Usually the experimentis performedno
more than twice, allowing little opportunityfor generalization. The objectives
given in the texts for the lessons concernedwith angle sum of trianglesare for the
most part"tofind a missing angle of a triangle"or "tomeasureangles of a triangle,"
andit is only these skills thatare tested. In all series,many opportunitiesare missed
for level 1 development,since the text usually formulatespropertiesand does not
requirethe studentto try a numberof examples. In grades7 and 8 of Series A, the
angle sum of a quadrilateral is developed by measuring and paper-tearing
experimentsimmediatelyafterthe correspondingfact for trianglesis reviewed,but
no logical connection is drawn. In grade 8 of both Series A and B, the lesson on
angle sums of polygons is placed before one on angle relationshipswhen parallel
lines are cut by a transversal,so no logical use can be made of these relationships.
Series B does require an advanced eighth grader to apply the procedure of
subdividinga polygon into trianglesto find angle sum of a decagon,but emphasisis
on the numericalaspects,andstudentsmay easily do this task while confusingangle
with areameasure(as was foundin severalclinical interviewswith ninthgraders).

Forthis contentstrand,series C offeredthe highestlevel of thinking. While the

is includedonly as an additionalactivityin the teacher's
angle sum of a quadrilateral
edition,the grade7 text does have some level 1 or 2 questionsfor advancedstudents
related to angle sum of a triangle. For example, "Can a right triangle be
equilateral?"The grade 8 text provides a level 2 exposition of the angle sum of a
triangleusing angle relationshipsfor parallellines and a transversal,and a level 1
activityof findinga patternafterfilling in a chartfor angle measuresof polygons of
variednumbersof sides. However,test questionsresemblethose in the otherseries,
namely,all level 0.
The developmentof this topic in the threetext series differs significantlyfrom
the developmentrecommendedby the van Hieles. First, the van Hieles propose
presentationof the materialin a structure--"When proof is given in the right way,
the result is first readfrom a structure;afterwardsproof is given by arrangingthe
elements of the structurein a logical way" (See Dina van Hiele-Geldofs thesis,
Chapter 14). An example of this is given in the technique used by Dina van
Hiele-Geldof, and in this Project'smodules, where triangles are presentedin the
structureof a grid, and the proof is readfrom the grid using the languageof "saws"
and "ladders."The experimentaltechniquesused to establishangle sum in the text
seriesprovideno such structure,and so the proof when finally given is not basedon
 175

priorimplicitexperience. The van Hieles explicitly recommendagainstthis heavy

relianceon measuringor cuttingandgluing as techniquesin learninggeometry.

Development of Measurement of Area

Measurementof area by counting square units is introducedby Series C in
Kindergarten,by series A in second grade,andby series B in thirdgrade. All series
continueto provideexamplesof findingareaby counting(for example, "howmany
little squarescover this shape?")in subsequentgrades. Grade5 is the standardtime
to intoduceformulasfor areaof a rectangleand righttriangle,and grade7 for area
of a parallelogram. The three series agree on the way of introducingthe area
formulas. After much experienceof countingnon-rectangularshapes made up of
squareunits, students count a few rectangles,and then are shown the formulato
summarizethe result. The meaning of multiplicationis not explicitly referredto;
ratherthe exposition jumps from a "fourrows of five" type of language to the
formula. (The resultsof the Project'sclinical study indicatethat some studentsdo
not relateareameasurementof a rectangleto a model for multiplication,and hence
do not really understandwhy they should multiply, beyond "it gives the right
answer.") Thereafter,exercises involve substitutingvalues into the formula.
The same patternis followed for area of a triangle and parallelogram. The
exposition may include a level 1 developmentof the formulas,but the exercises
involve only applicationof the formula. In most cases the altitudeof the triangleis
provided(with no excess numbersincluded--exceptfor four examples in grade8 of
series C) and so studentsneed never think of the meaningof altitude,and will be
likely to make errors in finding the altitude if it is not provided. The Project's
clinical study confirms this. Studentsare never asked to explain the formula,or
even a procedure for finding area. While the exposition may explain why the
formulas give the correct area, the exercises do not encourage thinking about
logical relationshipsbetween the formulas, nor are alternateways to derive the
formulasconsidered.

In summary,this topic provides many examples of reductionof level since

studentscan easily do all the exercises correctlyby memorizingsome facts thatthey
may not understand. Objectives related to area seem to be predominantly
applicationof formulas,and seldom includedevelopmentof the meaningof area,or
explanationof the formulasor relationshipsamongthem.

Implications
The considerationof levels of thinkingin the contextof geometrytext materials
is a timely one. Data from the Second InternationalMathematics
Study (a cross-
nationalanalysis) indicatethatthe performanceof Americanjunior and seniorhigh
school studentsin mathematicsis mediocre--slightlyabove averageon
computation,
 176

but "well below averagein answeringmore sophisticatedquestions, such as word

problems"(Reportedin The New YorkTimes, September23, 1984, page 30). This
suggests thatstudentslack higherorderthinkingskills, which may be relatedto the
van Hiele levels of thinking. The average Americanachievementin geometry is
"exceededby 75 percentof othercountries."Since the text is an importantinstruc-
tional tool in Americanclassrooms,this text analysis might have implicationsfor
ways in which to improvethis unsatisfactoryperformanceof Americanstudents.
The results of this text analysis have implicationsin three general areas:for
further research into curriculum materials, for the design of text and other
curriculummaterials,and for classroompractice.

Implications for Further Research into Curriculum Materials

This study focused on the geometry strand in the text series. It would be
interesting to find out if the characteristicsfound in this strand held for other
strandsin the mathematicstext series. In particular,is the level of thinkingabout
numericaltopics similarlylow, and is reductionof level as common?

This studywas limitedto threemajorcommercialtext series publishedin 1984.

Differences were found among the three series. Furtherresearchmight indicateif
the range of characteristicsof these series are typical for other commercialseries.
Have calls for changein texts in recentyearsproducedany changesin the aspectsof
texts examinedin this study? Are therenow any commonlyused text series which
involve more level 1 and 2 thinking,and which are more consistent with the van
Hiele model thanthe ones surveyed? In particular,it wouldbe interestingto look at
some of the more innovative,thoughless frequentlyused, Americantext series. It
would also be valuableto look beyond text materials,to the many other resources
for teaching geometry available to teachers, for example, sets of activity cards,
enrichment masters, teaching guides to accompany commercially available
geometry manipulativematerials. Foreign text series might also be examined.
Most interestingwould be to examine the texts writtenby Pierrevan Hiele himself
(availableonly in Dutch at present),and also Soviet texts which were revisedbased
on van Hiele principles.

Implications for Design of Text and Other Curriculum Materials

Perhapsthe most significantimplicationsof this study of text series lie in the

area of suggestions for design and revision of geometrytext materials. Textbook
authorsare, of course,undersevere restrictionswhen it comes to writinggeometry
material.Only a set numberof pages can be devotedto the geometrystrand,andthe
natureof the printedpage makes certain types of manipulativeexplorationsand
discoverylearing difficult. A text page can only suggest, but not dictate,use of a
manipulativematerial. Even if an authorwould like to have studentsdiscoverand
formulateproperties,thereis a need to have a text summarizeresults,and students
 177

may easily learnhow easy it is to look aheadfor the answerto a challenge. Perhaps
these considerationssuggest that teachersshould look beyond a text for geometry
instructionalmaterials,to activity cards,or sequencedworksheets. However, even
within the context of a textbook, this text analysis does provide suggestions for
textbook authors who wish to develop curriculum materials which are more
consistentwith the van Hiele model of thinkingin geometry.

First,the teacher'sguide might be more explicit in identifyingvan Hiele levels

of partsof the text, and in helpingteachersplan instructionto fill in levels and lead
to a higher level of thinking. Textbookauthorsmight considerusing the structure
of van Hiele's "phases"as a guide in planninginstruction.

More attention should be given to selection of visual examples in lessons

involving level 0 thought. In particular,care shouldbe takenthatstudentsnot form
incorrectconcepts (such as those listed on page 158) based on a too limitedrangeof
examples. Also more care could be takento build up and use the student'sglobal
structurein which these conceptsarise.

This text analysis noted a deficiency in level 1 thinking, especially in the

exercises and tests provided. More opportunityshould be providedfor studentsto
advance to and use level 1 thinking. In particular,students should be led to
formulatefor themselves, on the basis of many examples, propertiesof classes of
figures. Exercises and tests should reflect this type of activity, so that studentsdo
not become accustomed to reduction of the level of thinking, and so that they
develop a new view of whatthey arelearningabout(thatis, notjust namingfigures,
but observingand comparingcharacteristics,and looking for generalproperties).

When level 0 understandingof geometryis being developed, presentationcan

be designed in ways which incorporateimplicitlythe types of propertieswhich will
be developed by level 1 thinkersexplicitly. For example, level 0 thinkerscan be
asked to constructsquaresfrom a collection of sticks of variouslengths. While this
task can be done at level 0, purely "byeye," therealso arises implicitlythe basis of
propertiesof a square,since studentsmust select sticks of equal length, and must
adjustthe corers to make rightangles. (This sort of approachmight be contrasted
with one which dependson a student'sidentificationof a squarefroma set of figures
on the printedpage.) In the uppergrades,wheremorepotentialfor level 1 thinking
was evident in the text exposition (if not in the exercises), text writersmight look
ahead to the ultimate goal of level 2 thinking, in selecting geometry experiences
which incorporateimplicitly (for level 1 thinkers)relationshipswhich might be
formulatedexplicitly lateron (by level 2 thinkers). Examplesof how this might be
done for the topic of angle sum of a polygon are provided in Dina van Hiele-
Geldofs thesis, and were discussedhere in Chapter3.

The clinical study conductedby the Projectindicatedthat students'inabilityto

advancein level of thinkingmay be relatedto theirdeficienciesin language--bothin
 178

knowledge of geometryvocabulary,and abilityto use it precisely and consistently.

The text analysis indicates that studentsdo not receive much help in developing
languageability from theirtexts. A suggestionfor text writersmight be to include
more questions that requireuse of expressive language and spontaneousrecall of
geometryvocabulary(e.g., "describethe sides of this figure"ratherthan "identify
which sides are parallel"),and also questionsthat requireformulationof thoughts
into sentences(e.g., "explainwhy... ").

Text authorsare underpressurenot to exceed certainreadinglevels for each

grade. It is possible thatthe readinglevel criteriaappliedto texts rule out some of
the language structurerequired for higher level thought (for example, use of
quantifiers,and "if. . . then" constructions). If this is the case, a serious issue
arises--whetherreadinglevel criteriashouldbe allowed to so influencethe level of
thinking in geometry exhibited in the text. Text authorsmight consider ways in
which language can be modified to reducereadinglevel but not to reducelevel of
thinking.

Implications for Classroom Strategies

The resultsof this text analysishave importantimplicationsfor classroomuse
of textbooks. First,teachersshouldbecome awareof the potentialgaps in level in
partsof the text page, andof the low level of thinkingwith whichmost exercisesand
tests can be completed. They should be especially alert to the possibility of
reduction of level. If teachers have a choice of texts, they might consider the
alternativeswith these points in mind. But if there is no choice, teachers can
develop classroom strategies to help students to get as much as possible from
availablematerials. Some suggestedstrategiesaregiven below.

(a) Do not rely on a text to fill in the levels. Use texts as a follow-up to more
exploratoryactivitiesin geometry.

(b) Encourage students to talk about geometric concepts, and to develop

expressivelanguage. Thatis, ask themto describea figure,ratherthanjust
to select a namefor it froma list.

(c) To help studentsfill in level 0 understandingof geometric concepts, the

teacher should be alert to possible misconceptionsformed as a result of
limited visual examples. Textbookpresentationscan be supplementedby
manymanipulativemodels andexamplesin the environment.
(d) To help studentsprogressto level 1 thought,the teachercan supplementthe
one or few examplesin the text developmentof a propertyby encouraging
students to test many examples, with drawings or manipulatives, to
determineif propertiesare trueor false.
 179

(e) To help students progress to level 2 thought, the teacher can raise the level
required in many routine exercises by asking "Why?", or "Explain your
answer."

(f) The teacher can revise or supplement tests to reflect higher levels of
thinking.

The textbook is an important tool, and even a guide, especially for beginning
teachers. However the texts surveyed are lacking as instructional materials for
helping students develop higher levels of thinking. The teacher is the key to
effective classroom use of the text, and the teacher must supplement and modify
existing texts in order to help students fill in and progress through the levels.
 CHAPTER 10

IMPLICATIONS AND QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This Projectwas one of several undertakenduringthe early 1980's thatbroke

groundin the United Stateson researchrelatedto the van Hiele model. The Project
addressedsome general questions about the model but in turnraised many more
questions, as might be expected for an initial investigation of the model. This
chapter discusses implications of the study and presents questions for further
research. First, there are theoretical implications about the model itself, in
particular,the featuresof the levels, the Project'slevel descriptors,and the meaning
of "a student'slevel of thinking." Then, suggestionsare given for futureresearch,
some directlyrelatedto this studyandothersset in broaderresearchcontexts.

Implications about the Levels

This study examinedthe validity of the van Hiele model for characterizingthe
thinking in geometry of sixth and ninth graders. Results discussed in Chapter7
about students'levels of thinking and factors affecting their levels relate to this
generalissue. In addition,resultshave theoreticalimplicationsaboutthe fourmajor
characteristics of the levels: their hierarchial or fixed-sequence nature,
discontinuitybetweenlevels, languageaspectsof each level, and the implicit-explicit
natureof thinkingat adjacentlevels. Results supportthe fixed-sequenceaspect of
the levels, at least for levels 0, 1, and 2 with which this study dealt. Studentswho
performedsuccessfully at level 1 or 2 also performedsuccessfully at lower levels.
Similarsupportfor the hierarchialnatureof the levels has been evidencedfor K-12
students(Burger& Shaughnessy,1986), high school students(Denis, 1987;Usiskin,
1982), and pre-serviceelementaryteachers(Mayberry,1983).

Findingsof this study also bear on the questionof whethera student'slevel of

thinking is consistent across different topics. In general, the highest level of
thinkingattainedby a studenton one topic was also attainedon othertopics. This is
not to say, however,thata studentdidnot need to begin at level 0 or level 1for a new
topic after having performedat level 1 or above on other topics. In fact, many
students who entered Module 1 showing some level 1 thinking for some topics
needed to do instructionalbranchesin the modules on othertopics, filling in their
level 0 and 1 thinking. While these students'"entry"level of thinkingmay have
varied across topics, dependingmainly on theirprevious school experiences with
those topics, theirlevel of thinkingafterinstructionseemed to be consistentacross
topics. Similarresultsaboutvariationin "entry"level across topics were reported
by Mayberry(1983) for pre-serviceteacherson seven differenttopics andby Denis
(1987) who assessed PuertoRicanhigh school studentson four topics in interviews
using tests developedby Mayberry.Whetherthese differencesacrosstopics persist
afterinstructionwas not investigatedby Mayberryor Denis.
 181

The van Hieles claimedthatthereis discontinuitybetweenlevels. Resultsof this

studyaremixed on this point. Performancesof some studentsindicatethatthey are
at a plateau for a level and cannotprogressto the next level. For example, some
sixth graders(GroupI) appearedto be level 0 thinkerswho thought of shapes in
terms of their appearanceas a whole and were unable to analyze them in terms of
theirparts. Also some sixth and ninthgraders(GroupsII and IV) showedprogress
to level 1,but the jump to giving informalarguments(level 2) seemed beyond their
capabilites at that time. Some were unable to follow and give argumentsand,
perhapsmore importantly,did not see any need for such arguments.
Results for other studentssuggest that movementbetween levels proceeds in
small steps. Some sixth gradesseemed to be in transitionbetween levels 0 and 1,
dealing with familiarshapesin termsof propertiesbut then lapsing to level 0 when
confrontedwith unfamiliarshapes. Shaughnessyand Burger (1985) also found
studentsin transition. For severalstudents,"if conflict occurredbetweenthe visual
and the analytic levels of reasoning(levels 0 and 1), the visual usually won" (p.
423). Transitionin thinkingwas also observedby Lunkenbein(1980) in a teaching
experiment on polyhedra with 10 and 11 year-olds. Students' thinking about
geometricobjects "changedgraduallyfrom a more global perceptiondeterminedby
appearanceto a more and more detailedvisual descriptionin terms of properties"
(p. 174). Change seemed to take place throughan "oscillatingprocess"--invan
Hiele terms--betweenlevels 0 and 1 until objectsbecamebearersof properties.

Transitionwas also observed between levels 1 and 2 for some sixth graders
(GroupIII) and most ninth graders(GroupsV and VI). They dealt with shapes in
terms of properties and sometimes gave informal argumentsrelating properties
such as simple subclass inclusionsand chainingargumentsinvolving saws/ladders.
However, they did not consistently give deductive explanations;sometimes they
lapsed into explaining by examples. Also, some were able to follow or give
deductiveargumentsbut did so with little convictionabouttheirnecessity.

BurgerandShaughnessy(1986) also detected transitionbetweenlevels 1 and2.

Some students"oscillatedfromone level to anotheron the same taskunder
from the interviewer"(p. 45). Some showed "flashes of level 2 probing
reasoning ...
usuallyas a resultof probing... [but]left to theirown devices, seemed to preferthe
relativesafety of level 1 reasoningand tendedto avoid deduction,even
knew it was available"(p. 45). They also noted that observationsof though they
transitional
thinking may suggest that the levels are "more continuous in nature than their
discrete description would lead one to believe" (p. 45). However, these
observationsmay not reflect continuityin learningbut rathercontinuityin
teaching
(Hoffer, 1983).

Although the progress of subjects in this study appearsin some ways to be

continuous, it may in fact be discontinuous. That is, under guidance of the
interviewer, the students made incrementalprogress in learning and using new
 182

concepts and in makingjudgmentssuch as testing if propertiesapply to unfamiliar

shapes. But, at the same time, a gap still existed in their ability to initiate these
processes spontaneously. Understandingand self-initiation of higher levels of
thinkingmay come suddenly--inan "Aha,now I can see what I'm supposedto do
here"experience. Herethereseems to be a change in how studentsthinkaboutand
approach a problem in geometry--a change in their metacognition: their
understandingaboutthe natureof the task and theirbelief aboutwhatconstitutesan
appropriateresponse.
The assertionof the van Hieles thateach level has its own languageis supported
by this study. For example, "rectangle"meant different things to students on
differentlevels. For a few sixth graders,it meanta shapethatlooked like Oor ]
(level 0). Most studentswere able to speak descriptivelyaboutrectanglesin terms
of properties(level 1). Many (GroupsIII, V,VI) were able to fit rectangleinto a
logical context (level 2). For example,some explainedwhy a rectangleis a special
parallelogramor why the sum of the measuresof its angles is 360?. Shaughnessy
and Burger (1985) also noted the importanceof language at differentlevels. As
discussed in Chapter7, students encounteredvarious difficulties with language
(e.g., recalling geometric terminology, using expressive language) and had
misconceptions about geometric concepts. Their inability to use quantifiersand
logical language greatly limited their progresswithin a level or to a higher level.
However, the effectiveness of special techniques used in the interviews (e.g.,
vocabularyor propertycards,visual family trees representinglogical relationships)
suggestsinstructioncan be designedto overcomesome of these languagedifficulties
andto promotethinkingat higherlevels.

In additionto identifyingdifferencesin languageinvolving geometrycontent

and logical relationships, results suggest that students use language involving
metacognitionaboutthe qualityof thinkingand expectationsat variouslevels. At
level 1, such languagemight be "Oh,I see a pattern"or "Letme see if that always
works";for level 2, "I should prove this, right?"or "Ihave to clinch it." The van
Hieles do not make explicit referenceto such language, althoughthey indirectly
touch on metacognitive aspects of thinking. For example, at level 1, the student
"purposefullylooks for relations" or at level 2, "purposefuldeduction finally
becomes a habit of thinking"(van Hiele-Geldof, 1958/1984, p. 231). Findingsof
this study suggest that metacognitive language should be incorporatedmore
explicitly into the level descriptorsof the van Hiele model. (See discussion in a
subsequentsection).
A fourthcharacteristicof the model is thatlearningon a level involves making
explicit what was learned implicitly in the preceding level. This feature was
supportedduringthe interviews.For example, some studentscolored equal angles
in a grid using an angle tester to check for equal angles (level 0) and, in a later
activity,they quicklycheckedby eye, notingpatternsof equal angles (e.g., via saws
or ladders). Otherstudentsimplicitly learnedthatthe measuresof the angles of a
 183

trianglesum to 180? by using saws and laddersto color equal angles in a triangle
grid (level 1) and later by logically orderingpropertiesin a family tree, including
deductiveexplanationsfor the ordering(level 2). Of course,these resultsmay have
occurred simply because of the design of the modules which embodied this
implicit-explicit feature. That materials can lead students to experience topics
implicitly and then explicitly at a higher level is a noteworthy finding with
importantimplicationsfor designing curriculum. Accordingto findings from text
analyses (Chapter9), textbook materialsrarelyincorporatethis feature into their
presentationof geometry material. Moreover,at times, material is presentedin
ways thatcan impedeprogresstowarda higherlevel, in particularfrom level 1 to 2.
Schoenfeld (1986) contends that students develop an inappropriateseparationof
empiricalmathematicsanddeductionas a directresultof instruction."Thedialectic
interplayof induction and deduction"(p. 242) is lacking, or, in van Hiele terms,
level 1thinkingdoes not lead in a naturalway to level 2.

In summary,results of this study supportthe four major features of the van

Hiele model and suggest, as indicatedabove, possible modificationof two features,
discontinuityandlanguage,to includeaspectsof metacognition. It shouldbe noted
that results also supportP. M. van Hiele's (1986, 1987) recent characterizationof
the model in terms of three levels: visual, descriptive,and theoretical. Here the
Projectcorrelateslevel 0 to the visual, level 1to the descriptive,andlevels 2-4 to the
theoretical,with level 2 involving informaldeductions,level 3 being axiomaticand
formal,and level 4 involving axiomaticsystems and logic. Discussions with Pierre
van Hiele in June, 1987 indicate that he agrees with this interpretation.That the
three-level model may not be as sufficiently refined to characterizethinking in
geometryas the originalfive-level model is supportedby this Project'sfindingsthat
students progressed toward level 2 (informal theoretical) but with no sign of
axiomaticthinkingandresultsfromBurgerandShaughnessy(1986) which revealed
some axiomaticthinkingof college-level students.

Implications for Project Level Descriptors and Their Use

The Project'slevel descriptors(see pages 58-71) are generally validated by
quotationsfrom van Hiele sources (see Chapter4), by discussions with Pierrevan
Hiele, and by the resultsof the clinical interviews. Furthersupportfor these level
descriptorscomes from comparingthemwith the 28 "level indicators"identifiedby
Burgerand Shaughnessy(1986) which closely matchor complementthose used in
this study. However,the Project'suse of the descriptorsto characterizethe levels of
students'responsesto variousassessmenttasks suggests thatsome descriptorsneed
to be modifiedandthatsome new ones shouldbe addedas discussedbelow.

In Module1 studentswereaskedto identifyangles in a picture. Most responded

at level 0 (descriptor0-lc) by simplypointingto or tracingsome angles. However,
one studentrapidlyidentifiedmanyangles, saying thatthereare lots of trianglesand
 184

each has threeangles--a responseusing propertiesof trianglesfor which therewas

no correspondinglevel 1 descriptor. This suggests that a modified version of
descriptor0-lc be added to level 1 such as "identifiesinstances of a shape using
propertiesof relatedfigures."

Responses of some students on class inclusion tasks were matched with

descriptor2-2b (gives informalarguments:ordersclasses of shapes). For example,
some studentsexplained that squareshad all the propertiesof parallelogramsand
some extra ones, so were "specialkinds of parallelograms."Othersbegan with an
informal definition of parallelogram and explained why squares had those
properties so "must be" parallelograms too. However, other students gave
responsesat levels 0 and1. One saidthatsquaresarekites becausehe saw one square
sortedin the kite collectionandso concludedthatsquaresarekites, with no appealto
properties(level 0). Several said that squareswere parallelogramsafter checking
thatcut-outsquareshad the propertieslisted beside a set of cut-outparallelograms.
This is level 1 thinkingbecauseit is based on empiricalobservations,not deduction.
Since descriptor2-2b did not cover these othercases, modifiedversions of it might
be added to the listing (e.g., 1-6c: establishes subclass inclusions by empirically
testingif examplesof a shapehave propertiesof anothershape).

"Orderingpropertiesof shapes"is usually associatedwith level 2 thinking,as

indicatedby descriptor2-2c. A studentwho used saws and laddersto explain why
opposite sides are equal for parallelogramswas judged to exhibit 2-2c thinking.
However,not all responsesto tasksinvolving orderingof propertieswere at level 2.
For example,some studentsdrewquadrilateralswith rightangles andobservedthat
opposite sides are equal and parallel. They did not deduce one propertyfrom
another(level 2), but ratherestablishedthe relationshipempiricially. This suggests
the need for addinga level 1 variationof descriptor2-2c.

Descriptor2-2e (gives informalarguments:interrelatesseveralpropertiesin a

family tree) was used when students made family trees where arrows meant
inferences (i.e., knowing A was true meant B must be true). However, other
students created trees where the arrow signified a time-sequence for steps in an
explanationor a visual summaryfor relationshipsbetween properties. This latter
use of a family tree calls for a new level 1 descriptor such as "to summarize
empiricallyestablishedrelationshipsbetweenpropertiesby a family tree."

Finally, student responses to tasks calling for informal deductive arguments

(descriptor2-3c) indicatedthatmodificationsof 2-3c are needed. Some responses
were not at level 2. For example, one studentexplained the area rule for a right
triangleby putting togetherpairs of congruentright triangles and observing that
"thetwo trianglesmake a rectangleso take half." This explanationwas interpreted
as a variationof descriptor1-5 (discoverspropertiesof a figure). Responseswith a
deductiveflavor (level 2) variedin detail andprecisionand indicatedthattherecan
be a range of explanations for descriptor2-3c, from informal ones that involve
 185

some deduction along with some explanation based on observations, to more

"technical"argumentsin which details are carefullydeduced,althoughaxiomatics
andformaldefinitions(level 3) arenot considered.

Analyses of students'comments about their thinking during the interviews

suggest thatsome metacognitivelevel descriptorsbe addedto the Project'scognitive
descriptors. It is clear thatthe van Hiele theory includesmetacognitiveaspects of
thinking (e.g., insight, purposefully looking for relations). In retrospect, the
Projectshouldhave includedexplicit level descriptorson metacognition.Two main
facets of metacognitionare the student'sknowledge of cognition (e.g., about the
nature of tasks or strategies) and regulation of cognition such as planning and
monitoring (Garofalo & Lester, 1985). A student'scomment to the interviewer
that"Oh,you probablywantme to see whathappenswithhexagons"(havingfound
angle sums for triangles, quads, and pentagons) suggests awareness of the
expectationto discoverpatternsor make generalizations(level 1). Dina van Hiele-
Geldof might have had in mind such awarenessof expectationon level 1 when she
wrote: "Pupilsare at the first level. Because of this they know they have to search
for relations"(1958/1984, p. 225). A student'scomment, "I need to clinch it,"
indicates level 2 metacognitionabout the goal of giving a careful explanationor
proof, which is akin to van Hiele-Geldofs "purposefuldeduction"(1958/1984, p.
231). Studentcomments aboutmonitoringtheir thinkingand planningwere also
observed (e.g., at level 2, "Oh, I need to prove this part and then I've got it.").
These types of descriptorscan be relatedto P. M. van Hiele's (1957, 1973, 1986)
notion of "insight." He states that "insightis recognized as such, if a person acts
adequatelyand intentionallyin a new situation"(1986, p. 159). To have insight,
Hofferwrites (1983), "studentsunderstandwhatthey are doing, why they are doing
it, and when to do it" (p. 205). As indicatedabove, additionof descriptorsat each
level to include aspects of metacognition seems warranted. Similar
recommendationshave been made for the inclusionof metacognitionin models of
mathematicalthinking,such as in problemsolving (Silver, 1985). The additionof
metacognitive descriptorsto the Project'scognitive level descriptorssupportsthe
contention that no process model of mathematicalthinking is complete unless it
makesexplicit provisionfor metacognitiveaspectsof thinking.

A word of cautionshouldbe given aboutthe interpretation of level descriptors

and theiruse. First, descriptorscan be misinterpreted.The inclusion of examples
of studentperformancefor each descriptorcan preventmisinterpretation.
Crowley
(1987) used examples from this Projectand from Burger's(1982) to illustratevan
Hiele levels. Second, as illustrated throughout this section, use of the level
descriptorsto characterizea student'sthinkingfor a task requiresthatjudgmentbe
based on the quality of the student'sexplanation,not simply on the answer itself.
Many questions can be answeredcorrectlyon differentlevels, so researchersand
teachersshould be carefulto assess the "why"of a student'sresponse. Agreement
on interpretationand application of level descriptors is critical for cumulative
researchon the levels.
 186

Implications for Future Research

This section offers suggestions for further research on the model, some
growing directly from results of this study about students' levels of thinking,
methodologyfor assessingit, and instructionalapproachesto fosterhigherlevels of
thinking. Otherrecommendationsareproposedin more generalsettings.
Research on Students' Levels of Thinking

Several questions for future research arise from results of the clinical
interviews,both involving studentswho made little or no progress at level 0 and
those who made significantprogresswithin level 1 and even towardslevel 2. One
main recommendationis for replicationof the Project'sinterviewswith comparable
samplesof sixth andninth gradestudents. Questionsto be addressedinclude: Are
comparableresults obtainedfor studentsat the threelevels of achievement? Do
studentsthinkat a higherlevel in instructional/assessmentinterviewsthanindicated
by other studies such as those of Usiskin (1982) and Burger (1982)? What
characteristicsof the levels are supported?Do students'levels vary acrossdifferent
topics? Follow-up of studentsshould be done to assess permanencyof level on a
topic over a period of time. Usiskin (1982) exploredthe predictivevalidity of the
levels for geometryachievement. Additionalwork of this sort is needed involving
correlationof level of thinkingwith subsequentachievement. Assessmentof level
of thinkingmight also be done with youngerchildren(grades 1-5), in particular,to
explorethe originsand growthof thinkingat levels 0 and 1. Replicationmight also
be done with olderstudentsjust priorto theirstudyof geometry,perhapsto identify
"studentsat risk"with respectto level of thinkingneededfor tenthgradegeometry.

Findingsthata majorityof sixth andninthgraderswere able to attainlevel 1and

even make progresstowardlevel 2 suggestvarioustypes of furtherresearch. First,
reanalysesof videotapesin this studymight examinethe role of metacognitionin a
student'sprogress,especially duringstudent-interviewerinteractionson key tasks.
Did more directivesaboutexpectationsin tasks and more feedbackaboutthinking
result in greater progress in level of thinking? Another line of research is to
examinewhetherprogressto higherlevels for a topic can be fosteredin the natural
settingof a classroom(e.g., a whole-classteachingexperiment).Such a studymight
deal with one of the Project's modules or could evolve into a curriculum
development and evaluation project which would examine changes in levels of
thinking for several topics. This type of research parallels that in Dina van
Hiele-Geldofs doctoral dissertation. Grades seven and eight, which have been
targeted for development of activities that promote higher levels of thinking
(Shaughnessy& Burger, 1985; Prevost, 1985), are particularlysuited for such a
project. Follow-up of these studentsthroughhigh school geometry would be a
naturalextensionof this type of research.

Results of the clinical interviewsfor below-gradelevel sixth gradersshowed

 187

both low "entry"level and "potential"level of thinking. However, the modules

were not designedfor studentswith severe deficienciesin geometrybackgroundand
in language. The questionariseswhetherthese studentscan fill in thinkingat level 0
and progress toward level 1, given more time during interviews, different
instructionalmethods,andmodules thatgive greateremphasisto certainvan Hiele
phases. Results of this study indicatesome areasfor improvement:more extended
development of new topics, careful review between sessions, options in
communication (verbal and non-verbal) and aids to reduce memory demands
involving new termsduringPhase 3 (Explicitation),and more opportunityto apply
newly learned ideas duringPhase 5 (Integration). Researchmust not neglect the
slow learner.

Most researchon the van Hiele model has dealt with topics in plane geometry.
Further research might explore levels of thinking in arithmetic, algebra, or
three-dimensionalgeometry. Levels of thinkinghave been appliedin other subject
areassuch as economics andchemistry(ten Voorde, 1979). Van Hiele (1986, 1987)
discussedthe levels in relationto othermathematicstopics and other subjectareas.
His currentwork (see Foreword)focuses on applicationsof the levels in arithmetic,
physics and otherareas. Following van Hiele's lead, researchersmight investigate
the levels as a more generalmodel of thinking.

Research Related to Methodology

Methodologicalaspects of this study suggest the need for furtherdevelopment

of ways to assess students'levels of thinking. A significantcontributionto van Hiele
researchwould be the developmentof an easy-to-useinstrumentfor clinical assess-
ment of a student's"entry"level, perhapsbased on a synthesis and refinementof
some activitiesin this studyandin Burger's(1982). Such an "assessmentkit"should
include a key for scoringcommonresponsesat appropriatelevels which would aid
researchersin more reliablyanduniformlymeasuring"entry"level of thinking.

The feasibility of assessing level of thinkingby a paper-and-pencilinstrument

should also be explored. Constructionof items that can elicit responsesat various
levels and thatcan be scoredreliablywould be valuableto researchersas well as to
evaluators(e.g., state-leveltesting) and classroomteachers. This study'sreview of
test items in textbooksindicatedthatalmostall were at level 0 (or reductionof level,
recall). Availabilityof items for levels 1and 2 would supporttext-basedteachingat
those levels. Because students in this study often responded correctly but at
differentlevels to a question, it may be difficult to determinea student'slevel by
means of answersto multiple-choiceitems. Researchis needed to establishthat a
correctanswer to an item does in fact reflect a certainlevel hypothesizedfor that
item. Items that require students to explain "why" (by drawings or written
explanations)might accuratelyassess level. Initialwork on such open-endeditems
and on a level-related scoring schema has been done at the secondary level (De
Villiers & Njisane, 1987). However, in this Project's study younger students,
 188

especially those in grade 6, had difficulty talking about geometry, in particular,

"tellingwhy." Writingan explanationwould no doubtbe more difficult for them,
so that tests that demandwrittenexplanationsmay be inappropriatefor assessing
theirlevel of thinking.

The use of dynamicassessmentto determinea student's"potential" level merits

furtherresearch. Query:Is it possible to assess potentiallevel in less time thanthe
six to eight sessions in this study? Design and validationof assessmenttasks and
specification of the interviewer's role in them require substantive research.
However,effective measuresof "entry"level might correlatehighly with measures
of "potential"level and hence suffice for many researchand classroom practice
situations.Researchcorrelatingthe two types of assessmentsis needed.

Research on Curriculum and Instruction in Geometry

The van Hieles formulatedthe levels in response to analyses of their own

teachingof geometry. Thus,it is not surprisingthatresultsof researchon the levels
shouldhave implicationsfor researchon classroomteachingof geometry--namely,
curriculumand instruction. Findings in this study show that geometry was a
neglected partof the school mathematicsexperiencesof many students,and what
was taughtwas often taughtrotely or requiredminimalstudentexplanation. These
results combined with findings about the students' potential for level 1 and 2
thinkingand aboutthe paucity of textbookmaterialat those levels underscorethe
need for researchleading to improvedcurriculumand practice. Currenttextbook
series shouldbe analyzedaccordingto van Hiele levels. Researchon innovativetext
series might be undertakensuch as Joyce's (1984) study of a unified mathematics
program(grade 7) which was found to foster thinking that leads to level 2 and
whose sequence followed van Hiele phases. The level of thinking of geometry
curriculumin other countries also merits examination, in particular,the Soviet
Unionwhereduringthe 1960'sextensivechangebasedon van Hiele levels was made
in the geometrycurriculum(Pyshkalo,1968/1981;Wirszup,1976). An analysisof
some Soviet text materialon geometryfor grades 1-6 is in progressby one of this
Project'sstaff members.
Researchmight also examine samples of curriculummaterialsthat reflect the
van Hiele levels andprovideactivitiesfor apprenticeshipleading up to level 3. In
particular,the following materialsmightbe studied: Hoffer's(1979) geometrytext
DeVillier's (1985, 1986) material on Boolean algebra, the Geometric Supposer
software (Schwartz & Yerushalmy, 1985) and materials (Chakerian,Crabill, &
Stein, 1987; Yerushalmy,Chazan,& Gordon,1987). Materialsthatprovidea rich
basis for thinkingat levels 0 to 2 shouldalso be examined,such as non-traditional
text series and supplementarycurriculummaterials in the United States, Dutch
materialsof van Hiele (1976-79) and Goddijn(1980) and materialsby Del Grande
(1982). As discussed in Chapter9, there are other lines of van Hiele research
relatedto curriculumdevelopmentandevaluation.
 189

Researchon instructionin geometry can be built on successful methods and

materials in the Project'smodules. Researchmight explore the effectiveness of
specific techniquesfor fostering thinkingon a level such as finding shapes in the
environment(level 0), uncoveringclues (level 1), and building family trees (level
2). Such "instructionalmicro-strategies"(Van Patten, Chao, & Reigeluth, 1986)
might be incorporated into longer, unit-type "macro-strategies"such as in a
teachingexperimentbased on the van Hiele phases. Anotherdirectionfor research
is the examinationof the geometricthinkingin teacher-studentinteractionsduring
classroomlessons, perhapsusing an observationschedulebasedon level descriptors.
Identificationof characteristicsof "expert"teachersof geometry (i.e., those who
foster higher orderthinking)is anotherrelatedtopic for research. Findings about
the interviewer'srole in fostering a student'sthinkingin this study suggest that a
teacher'scognitive and metacognitiveteaching moves be examined in relationto
students'levels of thinking. As mentionedin Chapter8, thereare also possibilities
for relatedresearchin teachereducationsuch as examiningthe effects of preparing
teachersto identifythe level of a student'sthinkingor text material.

Research in Other Settings

The van Hiele model might be investigatedin more generalresearchsettingsin

developmentalandcognitivepsychology. One directionis to explorethe model in a
Piagetiancontext. P. M. van Hiele (1959, 1986) statedthatan importantpartof "the
roots of his work"can be foundin the theoriesof Piaget,but he also notedthatthere
are many important"disagreements."The question whether the theories of van
Hiele and Piaget belong to the same "researchprogram"was addressedby Orton
(1987) who comparedassumptionsof theirtheories. Otherquestionsaboutthe two
theories arise quite naturally. For example, what is the relationship between
Piagetianstages and van Hiele levels? Exploringthis question,Denis (1987) found
that only 36% of studentswho had taken high school geometry had reachedthe
formal operationalstage, with most of them attainingonly level 2. She also found
significantdifferencesin van Hiele level betweenstudentsat the concreteandformal
operationalstages. Furtherresearchmight replicatethis study with studentsprior
to their study of geometry. Similar research might also be done with younger
pre-operationalandconcreteoperationalstudentsandat levels 0 and 1.
Anotherdirectionfor futureresearchon the van Hiele model is suggested by
Soviet researchwhich, duringthe 1950's and 1960's, was largely concernedwith
didactics, both specific and general. Clinical interviews and long-term "teaching
experiments"were contexts for investigatingmathematicalthinking, in particular
concept learning and problem solving in geometry (e.g., Zykova, 1969a, 1969b;
Yakimanskaya,1971)). A synthesisof this Soviet researchon geometryas it relates
to the van Hiele model could lead to a betterunderstandingof the van Hiele model.
Also, research on the model from a Vygotskian perspective is suggested by
correspondencesbetween notions of Vygotsky (1962) and aspects of the van Hiele
model. One correspondence is between Vygotsky's "zone of proximal
 190

development," and the Project's "potential" level of thinking. A second

correspondenceis between Vygotsky's approachfor assessing a student'szone--
namely within the influence of instructionand with die assistanceof an adult--and
the Project'sapproachfor assessing "potential"
level via its instructional-assessment
interviews.

Finally, various themes and ideas from cognitive psychology provide a rich
context for research related to the levels. One direction discussed previously
involves a student's metacognition and level of thinking, perhaps examined
systematicallywithin a theoreticalframeworksuch as that of Stemberg (1984).
Another direction is exemplified by the research of Lehrer, Guckenberg and
Sancilio (in press) who suggest how the van Hiele model can serve as a vehicle for
research involving constructs in cognitive psychology. Their currentteaching
experiment in a Logo-based instructional setting focuses on fourth graders'
developmentof declarative(e.g., a verbalproposition)andprocedural(e.g., a Logo
program)interpretationsof geometricconcepts and of their "pre-proof'thinkingat
levels 0, 1, and 2. Initial results illustratehow these interpretationsdevelop in a
dynamic, interrelated way through small-group work on "carefully crafted
activities"relatedto van Hiele levels. Findingsalso suggest parallelsbetween the
developmentof children'sorganizationof geometricknowledge from a cognitive
science perspective and the first three van Hiele levels. Research on using a
computer-basedintelligent tutoring system to teach students how to construct
geometryproofs (Anderson,Boyle, & Reiser, 1985) also uses a geometrycontext
for investigation of cognitive theory, in particular,Anderson'sACT* model for
cognition. In van Hiele terms this researchdeals with formal deductive thinking
(level 3) and suggests the possibility of futureresearchon similartutorialsto teach
cognitive skills at other levels. Future research might apply cognitive process
analysisto performanceof studentson key assessmenttasksused in this studyor in
Burger's (1982). This could lead to a more detailed cognitive process-based
description of thinking of each level, which in turn could be used to explain
characteristicsof the van Hiele model and to design instructionto foster higher
levels of thinking.

As suggestedabove, the van Hiele model is an appropriateobject of study in a

varietyof cognitiveresearchcontexts. On the one hand,featuresof the model (e.g.,
the levels and their characteristics, the interplay between instruction and
development) can be investigated from more general perspectives, further
clarifyingthe model. On the otherhand,the model itself can serve as a contextfor
research in an area, providing a source of content-specific verification of more
general theories. Evidence of both types of researchon the van Hiele model are
alreadyseen, for example at a 1987 Conferenceon the Learningand Teachingof
Geometry (Senk, in press) which brought together mathematics educators,
cognitive psychologists,teachers,geometers,and P. M. van Hiele himself to share
ideas aboutresearchon geometry,in particular,the van Hiele model.
 191

Duringthe pastten yearsthe van Hiele modelhas emergedas an importanttopic

for researchin mathematicseducation. However,researchon it is still limited. The
van Hieles developedthe model to impacton theirteaching. This Projectattempted
to shed light on the model andits usefulnessas a paradigmfor examiningthe level of
geometricthinkingof adolescents,of theirteachers,and of mathematicstextboook
materials. It is hoped thatthe Project'swork will stimulatefurtherresearchon the
van Hiele model by mathematicseducation "levelists,"by researchspecialists in
otherfields, and also by teams of these researcherswho throughcollaborationcan
bring their respective expertise to bear on questions of mutual interest. This
researchis needed since the model, with its emphasison developing successively
higher thought levels, appearsto signal directionand potential for improvingthe
teachingof mathematics.
 192

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, J. R., Boyle, C. F., & Reiser, B. J. (1985). Intelligent tutoring systems. Science,
228, 456-462.
Burger, W. F. (1982, March). Using the van Hiele model to describe reasoning processes in
geometrv. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans,LA.

Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of
developmentin geometry. Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation, 17, 31-48.
Chakerian, G. D., Crabill, C. D., & Stein, S. K. (1987). Geometry: A guided inquiry.
Pleasantville, NY: Sunburst.

Cilley, D. (1979). Qbjectives and assessment tasks related to van Hiele levels and phases.
Unpublishedmanuscript.

Crowley, M. L. (1987). The van Hiele model of development of geometric thought. In M. M.

Lindquist & A. Shulte (Eds.), Learningand teaching geometry: K-12 (pp. 6-13). Reston, VA:
NationalCouncil of Teachersof Mathematics.

Del Grande,J. (1982). North York geometry units K-6. City of North York, Ontario:The Board
of Educationof the City of North York.

Denis, L. (1987). Relationships between stage of cognitive development and van Hiele level of
geometric thought among Puerto Rican adolescents. (Doctoral dissertation,FordhamUniversi-
ty, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 859A. (University Microfilms No.
8715795).
DeVilliers, M. D. (1985). Boolean algebra at school (Vol. 1). Stellenbosch, South Africa:
ResearchUnit for MathematicsEducation,Universityof Stellenbosch.

DeVilliers, M. D. (1986). Teaching Boolean algebra along van Hiele lines and using
meta-mathematicalperspectives. Stellenbosch, South Africa: Research Unit for Mathematics
Education, University of Stellenbosch.

DeVilliers, M. D. & Njisane, R. M. (1987). The developmentof geometric thinkingamong Black

high school pupils in Kwazulz (Republic of South Africa). [Summary]. Proceedings of the
Eleventh InternationalConferencefor the Psychology of MathematicsEducation (pp. 116-123).
Montreal:Universityof Montreal.

Fisher, N. (1978). Visual influence of figure orientationon concept formationin geometry. In R.

Lesh (Ed.), Recent researchconcerningthe developmentof snatial and geometric concepts (pp.
307-321). Columbus, Ohio: ERIC.

Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (Eds.). (1984). English translationof selected writings of
Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele. Brooklyn: Brooklyn College. (ERIC
Document ReproductionService No. ED 287 697)

Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (Eds.) (1985). An investigation of the van Hiele model of
thinking in geometry: Final report. Brooklyn: Brooklyn College. (ERIC Document
ReproductionService No. not yet assigned.)
 193

Garofalo, J. & Lester, F. K. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring, and mathematical

performance. Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation, 16, 163-176.

Goddijn, A. (1980). Shadow and depth. Utrecht,The Netherlands:Vakgroep OW & OC.

Gregory, J. W., & Osborne, A. R. (1975). Logical reasoning ability and teacher verbal behavior
within the mathematicsclassroom. Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation,6, 26-36.

Hoffer, A. (1979). Geometry. Menlo Park,CA: Addison Wesley.

Hoffer, A. (1981). Geometry is more than proof. MathematicsTeacher, 74, 11-18.

Hoffer, A. (1983). Van Hiele-based research. In R. Lesh and M. Landau. (Eds.), Acquisition of
mathematicsconcepts and processes (pp. 205-228). New York: Academic Press.

Joyce, J. (1984). An analysis of geometrymaterialin the Unified MathematicsProgram(grade7)

according to van Hiele levels. Unpublishedmaster'sthesis, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY.
Lehrer, R., Guckenberg, T., & Sancilio, L. (in press). Influences of Logo on children's
intellectual development. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Teaching and learningcomputerprogramming:
Multiple researchperspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lunkenbein, D. (1980). Observations concerning the child's concept of space and its conse-
quences for the teaching of geometry to younger children. [Summary]. Proceedings of the
FourthInternationalCongress on MathematicalEducation (pp. 172-174). Boston: Birkhauser.

Mayberry, J. (1983). The van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduatepreservice

teachers. Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation, 14. 58-69.

Musser, G., & Burger, W. F. (1988). Mathematics for elementary teachers: A contemporary
approach. New York: Macmillan.
National Science Foundation. (1980). Science education databook. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
GovernmentPrintingOffice.

Orton, R. (1987, June). Do van Hiele levels and Piaget belong to the same research program?
Paper presented at the Conference on Learningand Teaching Geometry, Syracuse University,
Syracuse, NY.
Prevost, F. J. (1985). Geometry in the junior high school. MathematicsTeacher, 78, 411-418.

Pyshkalo, A.M. (1981). Geometry in grades 1-4 (Problems in the formation of geometric
conceptions in pupils in the primary grades). ( A. Hoffer (Ed.) and I. Wirszup, University of
Chicago (Trans.)). Chicago: University of Chicago. (Original document in Russian.
Geometriya v I-IV klassakh (Problemy formirovaniya geometricheskikh predstavienii a
mladshikh shkol' nikov). Moscow: Prosveshchenie Publishing House, 1968.)

Schoenfeld, A. (1986). On having and using geometric knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.),

Conceptualand proceduralknowledge (pp. 225-264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwartz, J., & Yerushalmy, M. (1985). Geometric Supposer software. Boston: Educational
Development Center.
Senk, S. (in press). Report on the Conference on Learning and Teaching Geometry: Issues for
Research and Practice. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
 194

Shaughnessy, J. M., & Burger, W. F. (1985). Spadework prior to deduction in geometry.

MathematicsTeacher, 17, 419-428.

Silver, E. A. (1985). Researchon teachingmathematicalproblem solving: Some underrepresented

themes and needed directions. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical
problem solving: Multiple researchperspectives (pp. 247-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stemberg, R. J. (1984). Mechanisms of cognitive development: A componential approach. In

R. J. Stemberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 163-186). New York: W.
H. Freeman.

ten Voorde, H. (1979). Verbalizing and understanding.[Summary]. EuropeanJournalof Science

Education, 1, 469-471. (Original document in Dutch, doctoral dissertation, University of
Amsterdam, 1977).

Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. (Final
reportof the Cognitive Development and Achievementin SecondarySchool GeometryProject.)
Chicago: University of Chicago. (ERICDocument ReproductionService No. ED 220 288).
van Hiele, P. M. (1957). De problematick van het inzicht gedmonstreed van het inzicht van
schodkindren in meetkundeleerstof. [The problem of insight in connection with school
children's insight into the subject matter of geometry.] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Utrecht, 1957).
van Hiele, P. M. (1959). Development and the learning process. Acta Paedogogica Ultrajectina
(pp. 1-31). Groningen: J. B. Wolters.
van Hiele, P. M. (1973). Begrip en inzicht. [Understanding and insight.] Purmerend, The
Netherlands:Muusses.

van Hiele, P. M. (1976, 1977, 1978, 1979). van a tot z. [From a to z.] (Text series for
secondary school students). Purmerend,The Netherlands:Muusses.
van Hiele, P. M. (1980, April). Levels of thinking, how to meet them. how to avoid them. Paper
presented at the presession meeting of the Special InterestGroup for Research in Mathematics
Education,National Council of Teachersof Mathematics,Seattle,WA.
van Hiele, P. M. (1981). Struktuur.[Structure.] Purmerend,The Netherlands:Muusses.

van Hiele, P. M. (1984). English summary. [The problem of insight in connection with school
children's insight into the subject matter of geometry.] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Utrecht, 1957) In D. Fuys, D. Geddes, & R. Tischler (Eds.), English translation
of selected writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and P. M. van Hiele (pp. 237-241). Brooklyn:
Brooklyn College.
van Hiele, P. M. (1984). A child's thought and geometry. In D. Fuys, D. Geddes, & R. Tischler
(Eds.), English translationof selected writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and P. M. van Hiele
(pp. 243-252). Brooklyn: Brooklyn College. (Original document in French. La pensee de
1'enfantet la geometrie, Bulletin de l'Association des Professeurs de Mathematiques de
l'EnseignmentPublic. 1959, 198, 199-205)

van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structureand insight. New York: Academic Press.

 195

van Hiele, P. M. (1987, June). Finding levels in geometry by using the levels in arithmetic.
Paper presented at the Conference on Learningand Teaching Geometry, Syracuse University,
Syracuse, NY.
van Hiele, P. M., & van Hiele-Geldof, D. (1958). A method of initiation into geometry at
secondary schools. In H. Freudenthal(Ed.), Reporton methods of initiationinto geometry (pp.
67-80). Groningen: J. B. Wolters.
van Hiele-Geldof, D. (1984). The didactics of geometry in the lowest class of secondary school.
In D. Fuys, D. Geddes, & R. Tischler, English translation of selected writings of Dina van
Hiele-Geldof and P. M. van Hiele (pp. 1-214). Brooklyn: Brooklyn College. (Original
document in Dutch. De didaktiek van de meetkunde in de eerste klas van het V. H. M. O.,
Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation,University of Utrecht, 1957).
van Hiele-Geldof, D. (1984). Didactics of geometry as a learning process for adults. In D. Fuys,
D. Geddes, & R. Tischler (Eds.), English translation of selected writings of Dina van
Hiele-Geldof and P. M. van Hiele (pp. 215-233). Brooklyn: Brooklyn College. (Original
documentin Dutch. De didaktiekvan de meetkundeals leerprocesvoor volwassenen. Antwerp:
Drukkerij"Excelsior"N.V., 1958)
Van Patten, J., Chao, C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1986). A review of strategies for sequencing and
synthesizing instruction. Review of EducationalResearch, 56, 437-471.
Vinner, S., & Herskowitz, R. (1980). Concept images and common paths in development of
some simple geometric concepts. [Summary]. Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 177-180). Berkeley, CA:
University of California.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge,MA: M. I. T. Press.

Wirszup, I. (1976). Breakthroughin the psychology of learning and teaching geometry. In J. L.

Martin (Ed.), Space and geometry: Papersfrom a researchworkshop (pp. 75-97). Columbus,
Ohio: ERIC/SMEAC.

Yakimanskaya, I. S. (1971). The development of spatial concepts and their role in mastery of
elementary geometric knowledge. In J. Kilpatrickand I. Wirszup (Eds.), Soviet studies in the
psychology of learning and teaching mathematics (Vol. I) (pp. 145-168). Palo Alto, CA:
School MathematicsStudy Group.

Yerushalmy, M., Chazan, D., & Gordon, M. (1987). Guided inquiry and technology: A year
long study of children and teachers using the Geometric Supposer: ECT final report. Boston:
EducationDevelopment Center.

Zykova, V. I. (1969a). The psychology of sixth-gradepupils' mastery of geometric concepts. In

J. Kilpatrick and I. Wirszup (Eds.), Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching
mathematics (Vol.I) (pp. 149-188). Palo Alto, CA: School MathematicsStudy Group.

Zykova, V. I. (1969b). Operating with concepts when solving geometric problems. In J.

Kilpatrick and I. Wirszup (Eds.), Soviet studies in the psychology of learning and teaching
mathematics(Vol. I) (pp. 93-148). Palo Alto, CA: School MathematicsStudy Group.
.

? \ I

Ai N

('I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

!? ~~~~~~~B~~~~iU~~