Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSTRASSFELD, BRENDA CAROL
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Science and Technologyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-13T11:38:08Z
dc.date.available2013-09-13T11:38:08Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifierNOT AVAILABLEen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/1701
dc.description.abstract

There continues to exist a dilemma about how, why and when geometry should be taught. The aim of this study was to examine high school mathematics teachers' beliefs about geometry and its teaching with respect to its role in the curriculum, the uses of manipulatives and dynamic geometry software in the classroom, and the role of proofs. In this study belief is taken as subjective knowledge (Furinghetti and Pehkonen, 2002). Data were collected from 520 teachers using questionnaires that included both statements that required responses on a Likert scale and open-ended questions. Also an intervention case study was conducted with one teacher. A three factor solution emerged from the analysis that revealed a disposition towards activities, a disposition towards an appreciation of geometry and its applications and a disposition towards abstraction. These results enabled classification of teachers into one of eight groups depending on whether their scores were positive or negative on the three factors. Knowing the teacher typology allows for appropriate professional development activities to be undertaken. This was done in the case study where techniques for scaffolding proofs were used as an intervention for a teacher who had a positive disposition towards activities and appreciation of geometry and its applications but a negative disposition towards abstraction. The intervention enabled the teacher successfully to teach her students how to understand and construct proofs. The open-ended responses on the questionnaire were analysed to obtain a better understanding of the teachers' beliefs. Four themes, the formal, intuitive, utilitarian and the mathematical, emerged from the analysis, which support the modal arguments given by Gonzalez and Herbst (2006). The findings reveal a disconnect between some high school teachers' beliefs about why geometry is important to study and the current position of the Standards Movement; and between whether geometry should be taught as part of an integrated curriculum or as a one-year course.

en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Plymouthen_US
dc.titleAN INVESTIGATION ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS TEACHERS' BELIEFS ABOUT TEACHING GEOMETRYen_US
dc.typeDoctorateen_US
plymouth.versionFull versionen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
@mire NV