Analyzing Elementary School Students’ Geometry Comprehension Based on Van Hiel’s Theory
Keywords:
concept comprehension, Elementary school, learning geometry, mathematics communication, Van Hiel's learning theoryAbstract
Teaching geometry in elementary school sets out to build and develop students’ logical thinking skills. Comprehension of geometry topics is expected to develop the students’ skills to solve everyday problems. However, this learning objective has not been met as expected. In Indonesia, there are many elementary school students who still do not understand the basic concepts of geometry, such as shapes and planes. Based on this problem, the researcher conducted a study to examine students’ comprehension of geometric concepts. This study is of an experimental kind and involves two classes: an experimental class and a control class. To solve the problem of learning geometric topics, the researcher utilizes Van Hiel’s theory. Geometry learning in the first class is delivered using a learning approach based on the Van-Hielé theory (experimental group), while learning in the second class is delivered with the conventional approach (control group). This study comprised 150 students, drawn from primary five, representing two classifications of medium and low performance from the selected schools found in Banjarmasin. Before conducting the study, the researcher designed a learning scenario and research procedure to ensure the study went as expected. This study concludes that students’ comprehension of geometric concepts after Van-Hielé’s Theory-Based Geometry Learning belongs to the medium category, which is better than the students’ comprehension of geometric concepts after conventional learning, which is in the low category. Conclusively, Van Hiel’s geometry learning theory is found to be effective in teaching and learning mathematics.
References
Bae, J., Bentler, P. M., & Lee, Y. (2016). On the Role of Content in Writing Assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 302–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1246552.
Bae, J., & Lee, Y. (2011). Language Testing Assessment of Language Skills. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210382446.
Bitchener, J. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development: Current Knowledge and Future Research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.62.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The Value of Written Corrective Feedback for Migrant and International Students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005a). The Effect of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on ESL Students' Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001.
Chang, W., Liao, C., & Chan, T. (2019). Improving Children Textual Cohesion and Writing Attitude in a Game-based Writing Environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1671459.
Chen, Y., Aguirre-mendez, C., Terada, T., Chen, Y., & Aguirre-mendez, C. (2020). Argumentative Writing as a Tool to Develop Conceptual and Epistemic Knowledge in a College Chemistry Course Designed for Non-science Majors. International Journal of Science Education, 0(0), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1837990.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond Explicit Rule Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263197002040.
Ellis, N. C. (2011). Implicit and Explicit SLA and Their Interface.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The Effects of Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback in an English as a Foreign Language Context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001.
Evans, N. W., James Hartshorn, K., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The Efficacy of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback for University-Matriculated ESL Learners. System, 39(2), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.012.
Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., Eugenia, M., & Stine, A. (2011). Responding to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher Perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706.
Gao, C. Z., Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 372. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587964.
Gharehbagh, M. J., Stapa, S. H., & Darus, S. (2019). The Effects of Written Corrective Feedback Using Wikis among ESL Learners. 25(1), 1–10.
Hardman, W., & Bell, H. (2018). ‘More Fronted Adverbials than Ever Before’. Writing Feedback Practices and Grammatical Metalanguage in an English Primary School. Language and Education, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1488864.
Hosseiny, M. (2014). The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in Improving Iranian EFL Students’ Writing Skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.466.
Hsu, H., & Yuan, C. (2018). Using Wiki-mediated Collaboration to Foster L2 Writing Performance. 22(3), 103–123.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on Student Writing: Taking the Middle Path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90019-4.
Kim, Y. J., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2020). Task Repetition, Synchronous Written Corrective Feedback and The Learning of Korean Grammar: A Classroom-based Study. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354.
Kim, Youjin, & Choi, B. (2020). Comparing the Effects of Direct and Indirect Synchronous Written Corrective Feedback : Learning Outcomes and Students’ Perceptions. January. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443.
Kim, Youjin, & Emeliyanova, L. (2019). The Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on The Accuracy of L2 Writing: Comparing Collaborative and Individual Revision Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406.
Kim, Youjin, & Kim, B. (2020). Task Repetition, Synchronous Written Corrective Feedback and The Learning of Korean Grammar: A Classroom-based Study. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912354.
Lee, I. (2020). Utility of Focused/Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback Research for Authentic L2 Writing Classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49(May), 100734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734.
Mei, W. S. (2001). Investigating Raters ’ Use of Analytic Descriptors in Assessing Writing. 9(2), 69–104.
Nicolás–Conesa, F., Manchón, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Rewritten Texts and New Texts: Looking into Feedback for Accuracy and Feedback for Acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592.
Phillips, W. A., & Goodall, W. C. (2007). Lexical Writing can be Non-semantic and It can be Fluent Without Practice. March 2015, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299508251994.
Rouhi, A., & Azizian, E. (2013). Peer Review: Is Giving Corrective Feedback Better than Receiving it in L2 Writing? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1349–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.042.
Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering Accuracy in L2 Writing: Impact of Different Types of Corrective Feedback in an Experimental Blended Learning EFL Course. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners’ Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
1. Copyright of this journal is possession of Editorial Board and Journal Manager, by the knowledge of author, whilst the moral right of the publication belongs to the author.
2. Legal formal aspect of journal publication accessibility refers to Creative Commons Atribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA), implies that this license lets others remix, adapt, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to “copyleft” free and open source software licenses.
3. Every publications (printed/electronic) are open access for educational purposes, research, and library. Other that the aims mentioned above, editorial board is not responsible for copyright violation
