Elementary students' knowledge and teachers' pedagogical content knowledge(PCK) of 2D representations of 3D geometrical objects

By: Material type: TextTextPublication details: Beirut Université Libanaise - école doctorale des lettres 2015Description: 282 pagesSubject(s): Online resources: Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore students’ knowledge as well as teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of 2D representations of 3D geometric objects. Participants included students and their teachers from grades 4, 5 and 6 from two public and five private schools in Aley, Mount Lebanon. The total sample consisted of 96 students and 22 teachers (17 in-service and 6 pre-service). Students were given a questionnaire consisting of 65 items which reflected different abilities in 3D geometry (recognition, classification, comparison and construction), Van Hiele levels of reasoning (1, 2a, 2b and 3) and modes of representation (drawing, pictures and nets). Teachers were given a questionnaire comprised of 15 items in which more than 50% of the students had errors. In addition to solving the items, teachers were asked to predict and explain student misconceptions and propose strategies to deal with those misconceptions. Frequencies and percentages were used to analyze students’ and teachers’ responses. In addition, student responses were compared across grade level and achievement level while teacher responses were compared by teacher service type. Results showed that students performed best on the recognition of 3D objects represented in 2D and worst on the construction of nets. Moreover, students tended to perform at low Van Hiele levels, had the most difficulty in items pertaining to the nets representation and had the highest percentage of spatial visualization misconceptions. Grade level and achievement level differences were also evident. As for the teacher analysis, findings showed that while teachers were able to predict and explain a majority of students’ misconceptions they were unable to propose effective strategies to deal with them. Significant differences between in-service and pre-service teachers were also evident. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are discussed.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Log in to add tags.
Star ratings
    Average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
No physical items for this record

النوع : Thèse

The purpose of this study was to explore students’ knowledge as well as teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of 2D representations of 3D geometric objects. Participants included students and their teachers from grades 4, 5 and 6 from two public and five private schools in Aley, Mount Lebanon. The total sample consisted of 96 students and 22 teachers (17 in-service and 6 pre-service). Students were given a questionnaire consisting of 65 items which reflected different abilities in 3D geometry (recognition, classification, comparison and construction), Van Hiele levels of reasoning (1, 2a, 2b and 3) and modes of representation (drawing, pictures and nets). Teachers were given a questionnaire comprised of 15 items in which more than 50% of the students had errors. In addition to solving the items, teachers were asked to predict and explain student misconceptions and propose strategies to deal with those misconceptions. Frequencies and percentages were used to analyze students’ and teachers’ responses. In addition, student responses were compared across grade level and achievement level while teacher responses were compared by teacher service type. Results showed that students performed best on the recognition of 3D objects represented in 2D and worst on the construction of nets. Moreover, students tended to perform at low Van Hiele levels, had the most difficulty in items pertaining to the nets representation and had the highest percentage of spatial visualization misconceptions. Grade level and achievement level differences were also evident. As for the teacher analysis, findings showed that while teachers were able to predict and explain a majority of students’ misconceptions they were unable to propose effective strategies to deal with them. Significant differences between in-service and pre-service teachers were also evident. Recommendations for future research and implications for practice are discussed.

There are no comments on this title.

to post a comment.