Geometric Thinking of Prospective Mathematics Teachers: Assessing the Foundation Built by University Undergraduate Education in Ghana

Robert Armah
{"title":"Geometric Thinking of Prospective Mathematics Teachers: Assessing the Foundation Built by University Undergraduate Education in Ghana","authors":"Robert Armah","doi":"10.11648/j.tecs.20240902.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates the geometric thinking levels of final year prospective mathematics teachers in Ghana, utilizing the van Hiele model to evaluate their proficiency. The main purpose was to assess whether university undergraduate mathematics education provides a sufficiently strong foundation for teaching senior high school geometry. A descriptive survey design was employed, involving 1,255 prospective mathematics teachers from three universities: University of Education Winneba (UEW), University of Cape Coast (UCC), and Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AAMUSTED). The van Hiele Geometry Test (VHGT) was administered to measure participants’ levels of geometric thinking. The results revealed that 8.8% of participants attained van Hiele Level 1 (visualization), 30.0% reached Level 2 (analysis), and 32.4% achieved Level 3 (abstraction). However, only 15.9% and 12.9% of prospective teachers reached Levels 4 (deduction) and 5 (rigor), respectively. These findings indicate a significant gap between the current geometric thinking skills of prospective teachers and the expectations of the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum, which anticipates higher-order thinking skills. The study concludes that the current undergraduate mathematics education programs in Ghanaian universities may not be adequately preparing future teachers to teach senior high school geometry effectively. It is recommended that these programs be revised to include more focus on developing higher-order geometric thinking skills, with an emphasis on deductive reasoning, formal proof-based learning and rigor in geometry thinking. Enhancing the curriculum and teaching methods could narrow this gap and improve the overall quality of geometry education in Ghana.\n","PeriodicalId":417229,"journal":{"name":"Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies","volume":"120 26","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.tecs.20240902.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates the geometric thinking levels of final year prospective mathematics teachers in Ghana, utilizing the van Hiele model to evaluate their proficiency. The main purpose was to assess whether university undergraduate mathematics education provides a sufficiently strong foundation for teaching senior high school geometry. A descriptive survey design was employed, involving 1,255 prospective mathematics teachers from three universities: University of Education Winneba (UEW), University of Cape Coast (UCC), and Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AAMUSTED). The van Hiele Geometry Test (VHGT) was administered to measure participants’ levels of geometric thinking. The results revealed that 8.8% of participants attained van Hiele Level 1 (visualization), 30.0% reached Level 2 (analysis), and 32.4% achieved Level 3 (abstraction). However, only 15.9% and 12.9% of prospective teachers reached Levels 4 (deduction) and 5 (rigor), respectively. These findings indicate a significant gap between the current geometric thinking skills of prospective teachers and the expectations of the Ghanaian mathematics curriculum, which anticipates higher-order thinking skills. The study concludes that the current undergraduate mathematics education programs in Ghanaian universities may not be adequately preparing future teachers to teach senior high school geometry effectively. It is recommended that these programs be revised to include more focus on developing higher-order geometric thinking skills, with an emphasis on deductive reasoning, formal proof-based learning and rigor in geometry thinking. Enhancing the curriculum and teaching methods could narrow this gap and improve the overall quality of geometry education in Ghana.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
未来数学教师的几何思维:评估加纳大学本科教育打下的基础
本研究采用 van Hiele 模型对加纳最后一年准数学教师的几何思维水平进行评估。主要目的是评估大学本科数学教育是否为高中几何教学打下了足够坚实的基础。研究采用了描述性调查设计,涉及三所大学的 1,255 名准数学教师:调查对象包括来自温尼巴教育大学(UEW)、海岸角大学(UCC)和阿肯腾-阿皮亚-门卡技能培训与创业发展大学(AAMUSTED)的 1255 名准数学教师。对参与者进行了 van Hiele 几何测试 (VHGT),以测量他们的几何思维水平。结果显示,8.8% 的学员达到了 van Hiele 1 级(直观),30.0% 达到了 2 级(分析),32.4% 达到了 3 级(抽象)。然而,分别只有 15.9% 和 12.9% 的准教师达到了第 4 级(演绎)和第 5 级(严谨)。这些研究结果表明,目前准教师的几何思维能力与加纳数学课程的预期之间存在着巨大差距,而加纳数学课程预期的是高阶思维能力。研究得出结论,加纳大学目前的本科数学教育课程可能无法充分培养未来教师有效教授高中几何。建议对这些课程进行修订,更加注重培养高阶几何思维能力,强调演绎推理、基于正式证明的学习和几何思维的严谨性。加强课程和教学方法可以缩小这一差距,提高加纳几何教育的整体质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Geometric Thinking of Prospective Mathematics Teachers: Assessing the Foundation Built by University Undergraduate Education in Ghana Obstacles Facing Sport Education Teacher During Service in the Gaza Strip Governorates Relevancy of Modern Agriculture Education on Students’ Farming Practical Skills in Secondary Schools of Kabujogera Town Council, Kitagwenda District “It Makes Us Feel More Professional!” Stakeholders’ Perception of the Ghana Teacher Licensure Examination Teaching-Learning Grammar via Cooperative Language Learning: Kombolcha Secondary School in Focus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1