Sex-related differences in the acquisition of the van Hiele levels and motivation in learning geometry

Asia Pacific Education Review

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 173-183

  Halat, Erdogan ^a  

^a AFYON KOCATEPE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Gender; Geometry; Middle school; Motivation; van Hiele levels; van Hiele theory based curriculum

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847134284     PISSN: 15981037     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03031541     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Alderman, K. M. (1999). Motivation for achievement. Possibilities for teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Armstrong, J. M. (1981). Achievement and participation of women in mathematics: Results of two national surveys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12(5), 356-372.
3. Becker, J. R. (1981). Differential treatment of females and males in mathematics classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 12(1), 40-53.
4. Billstein, R., & Williamson, J. (2003). Middle grades MATH Thematics: The STEM project. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula. What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 251-284). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: NJ.
5. Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17, 31-48.
6. Chappell, M.F. (2003). Keeping mathematics front and center: Reaction to middle-grades curriculum projects research. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula. What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 285-298). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: NJ.
7. Clements, D., & Battista, M. (1990). The effects of logo on children's conceptualizations of angle and polygons. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(5), 356-371.
8. Crowley, M. (1987). The van Hiele model of development of geometric thought. In M. M. Lindquist, (Ed.), Learning and teaching geometry, K-12 (pp.1-16). Reston, VA: NCTM.
9. Dev, P. C. (1998). Intrinsic motivation and the student with learning disability. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31(2), 98-108.
10. Duatepe, A. (2000). An investigation of the relationship between van Hiele geometric level of thinking and demographic variables for pre-service elementary school teachers. Unpublished Masters' Thesis, Middle East Technical University.
11. Driscoll, M.P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Publishers.
12. Ethington, C. A. (1992). Gender differences in a psychological model of mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 166-181.
13. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (1997). Gender differences in mathematics achievement: Findings from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Journal of Experimental Education, 65(3), 229-242.
14. Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. P. (1981). Sex-related differences in mathematics: Results from national assessment. The mathematics Teacher, 74(7), 554-559.
15. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1978). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement factors: A further study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 189-203.
16. Fennema, E., & Hart, L. E. (1994). Gender and the JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 648-659.
17. Forgasiz, H. (2005). Gender and mathematics: re-igniting the debate. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17 (1), 1-2.
18. Friedman, L. (1994). Visualization in mathematics: Spatial reasoning skill and gender differences. In D. Kirshner (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (Vol.1, pp.211-217). Baton Rouge, LU, USA.
19. Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The Van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education: Monograph Number 3.
20. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(l), 3-13.
21. Grossman,H., & Grossman, S. H. (1994). Gender issues in education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
22. Gutierrez, A., Jaime, A., & Fortuny, J. (1991). An alternative paradigm to evaluate the acquisition of the van Hiele levels. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 237-251.
23. Gutierrez, A., & Jaime, A. (1998). On the assessment of the van Hiele levels of reasoning. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20(2,3), 27-45.
24. Hanna, G., Kundiger, E., & Larouche, C. (1990). Mathematical achievement of grade 12 girls in fifteen countries. In L. Burton (Ed.), Gender and mathematics: An international perspective. London: Cassell Educational Ltd.
25. Hart, L. E. (1992). Two generations of feminist thinking [Review]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 79-83.
26. Hoffer, A. (1981). Geometry is more than proof. Mathematics Teacher, 74, 11-18.
27. Hoffer, A. (1986). Geometry and visual thinking. In T. R. Post (Ed.), Teaching mathematics in grades K-8: Research based methods (pp.233-261). Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
28. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139-155.
29. Jones, C. O. (1989). The mathematics report card- Are we measuring up? Trends and achievement based on the 1986 national assessment [Abstract]. In Carolyn A. M., Gerald A. G., & Robert B. D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting. North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (vol.2, pp.149). New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
30. Keller, J. M. (1999). The ARCS model. Designing motivating instruction. Tallahassee, FL: John Keller Associates.
31. Knight, K.C. (2006). An investigation into the change in the van hiele level of understanding geometry of pre-service elementary and secondary mathematics teachers. Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Main.
32. Lappan, G, Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S. N., & Phillips, E. D. (1996). Shapes and design. Two-dimensional geometry. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.
33. Lappan, R. T., B. J. Reys, D. E. Barnes, and R. E. Reys. (1998). Standards-based middle grade mathematics curricula: Impact on student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, San Diego.
34. Leder, G. (2005). Exploring the effects of gender on mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(3), 116-120.
35. Lloyd, J.E.V, Walsh, J & Yailagh, M.S. (2005). Sex differences in performance attributions, self-efficacy, and achievement in mathematics: if I'm so smart, why don't I know it? Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 384-408.
36. Lynn, M., & Hyde, J. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 14, 51-71.
37. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
38. Malpass, J.R., O'Neil, H. F & Hocevar, D. (1999). Self-regulation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, worry, and high-stakes math achievement for mathematically gifted high school students. Roeper Review, 21 (4), 281-228.
39. Mason, M. M. (1997). The van Hiele model of geometric understanding and mathematically talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21(1), 39-53.
40. Mayberry, J. (1983). The Van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 58-69.
41. McMillan, J. H. (2000). Educational Research. Fundamentals for the consumers (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley.
42. Messick, R. G., & Reynolds, K. E. (1992). Middle level curriculum in action. White Plains, NY: Longman.
43. Middleton, J. A. (1999). Curricular influences on the motivational beliefs and practice of two middle school mathematics teachers: A follow-up study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(3), 349-358.
44. Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings, generalizations, and criticisms of the recent research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 65-88.
45. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
46. Nicholls, J. G., Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1989). Students' criteria of and beliefs about the causes of success and mathematics [Abstract]. In Carolyn A. M., Gerald A. G., & Robert B. D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting. North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (Vol.2, pp.151). New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
47. Olkun, S., Toluk, Z. ve Durmuş, S. (2002). Sinif öǧretmenliǧi ve matematik öǧretmenliǧi öǧrencilerinin geometrik düşünme düzeyleri. Orta Doǧu Teknik Üniversitesi'nce düzenlenen 5. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik eǧitimi Kongresi'nde sunulmuş bildiri, 16-18 Eylül: ODTÜ, Ankara.
48. Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others: Nurturing inner motivational resources. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
49. Ryan, A.M., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). "Should I ask for help?" The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents' help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 329-341.
50. Senk, S. (1989). van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 309-321.
51. Serra, M. (1997). Discovering geometry: An inductive approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
52. Smith, S. E., & Walker, W. J. (1982). Sex differences on New York state regents examinations: support for the differential course-Otaking hypothesis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 81-85.
53. Stipek, D. (1998). Motivation to learn from theory to practice. (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon A Viacom Company.
54. Swafford, O. J., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1997). Increased knowledge in geometry and instructional practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(4), 467-483.
55. Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele Levels and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry. (Final report of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Project.) Chicago: University of Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED220288).
56. Young-Loveridge, J. (2005). The impact of mathematics education reform in New Zealand: Taking children's views into account. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, A. Roche (Eds), Proceedings of MERGA28. (Vol.1, pp. 18-33). Sydney, Australia.
57. Van Hiele, P.M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. New York: Academic Press.
58. Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Students motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411-419.
59. Wentzel, K.R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: the role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.
60. Wirszup, I. (1976). Breakthroughs in the psychology of learning and teaching geometry. In J. I. Martin and D. A. Bradbard (Eds.). Space and geometry: Papers from a Research Workshops. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Center for Science, Mathematics and Environment Education.