Abstraction level of van Hiele’s theory: Occurrence of side effects in GeoGebra integration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v11i1.26938Keywords:
geometric thinking, van Hiele model, hypothetical learning trajectory, epistemological obstacle, GeoGebraAbstract
One of the obstacles to teaching geometric transformation is the complex procedures that require a broad base of prerequisite knowledge. This complexity often leads students to focus on rote memorization and procedural calculations instead of understanding the underlying context. This study aims to overcome these challenges by developing a hypothetical learning trajectory (HLT) and using GeoGebra to enhance visualization and understanding. The case study involved ten university students in Indonesia who tackled the abstraction level in the Transformation, Isometries, and Reflection topics. The researchers analyzed students' worksheets, activity observations, and learning obstacle tests to extract their geometric thinking. Qualitative analysis of the data revealed that seven out of ten participants met three of the four abstraction level indicators. The use of GeoGebra in HLT helped overcome epistemological obstacles. However, integrating GeoGebra into the HLT introduced a new issue: a GeoGebra-centric habit characterized by an excessive dependence on GeoGebra in solving geometric transformation problems.
References
Bakker, A., & van Eerde, H. A. A. (2015). An introduction to design-based research with an example from statistics education. In L. D. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (3rd ed., pp.373-396). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_16
Brousseau, G. (2002). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Springer Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47211-2
Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/749317
Chang, C-Y & Bhagat, K. (2015). Incorporating GeoGebra into geometry learning - a lesson from India. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1307a
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 420-464). Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc.
Clements, D. & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0602_1
Confrey, J., Maloney, A. P., & Corley, A. (2014). Learning trajectories: A framework for connecting standards with curriculum. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(5), 719–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0598-7
CPRE Research Report (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519792.pdf
Garcia, A. (2023). Technology might be making education worse. Stanford Report. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2023/04/technology-might-be-making-education-worse
Gravemeijer, K., & Van Eerde, D. (2009). Design research as a means for building a knowledge base for teachers and teaching in mathematics education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 510–524. https://doi.org/10.1086/596999
Harel, G. (2008). What is mathematics? A Pedagogical answer to a philosophical question. In B. Gold & R. Simons (Eds.), Proof and Other Dilemmas: Mathematics and Philosophy (Mathematical Association of America (pp. 265-290)
Jones, K. (2005). Implications for the classroom: Research on the use of dynamic software. In J. Edwards & D. Wright (Eds.), Integrating ICT into The Mathematics Classroom. Association of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 27-29)
Jones, K. (2001), Learning geometrical concepts using dynamic geometry software. In K. Irwin (Eds.), Mathematics Education Research: A catalyst for change, (pp. 50-58). University of Auckland.
Juandi, D, Kusumah, Y. S., Tamur, M., Perbowo, K. S., Wijaya, T. T. (2021). A Meta-analysis of GeoGebra software decade of assisted mathematics learning: What to learn and where to go?. Heliyon, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06953
Kandaga, T., Rosjanuardi, R., & Juandi, D. (2022a). Epistemological obstacle in transformation geometry based on van Hiele’s Level. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11914
Kandaga, T. (2022b). Analisis proses berpikir geometri mahasiswa calon guru matematika dalam perspektif way of thinking dan way of understanding pada implementasi desain didaktis berbantuan software GeoGebra. [Analysis of the geometric thinking process of prospective mathematics teachers from the perspective of way of thinking and way of understanding in the implementation of a didactic design assisted by GeoGebra Software]. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Laborde, C. (2002). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 283-317. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013309728825
Martinez, M. V., Castro-Superfine, A., & Stoelinga, T. (2022). A Curriculum-based approach to learning trajectories in middle school algebra. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 11(1), 5-32, https://doi.org/10.17583/redimat.5539
Mendoza, D., Nieto-Sánchez, Z.C. & Vergel-Ortega, M. (2019). Technology and mathematics as a cognitive component technology and mathematics as a cognitive component. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, 1414(1), 012007. https://doi.com/10.1088/1742-6596/1414/1/012007
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M, & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis, a methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Molnár, P., & Lukac, S. (2015). Dynamic geometry systems in mathematics education: attitudes of teachers. ICTE Journal, 4(19), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijicte-2015-0017
Noto, M. S., Priatna, N., & Dahlan, J. A. (2019). The learning obstacles of pre-service mathematics teachers on transformation geometry. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.10.1.5379.117-126
Noto, M. S., Priatna, N., & Dahlan, J. A. (2018). Analysis of learning obstacles on transformation geometry. International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE 2018), Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 1157, 042100.
Owusu, R., Bonyah, E., & Arthur, Y. D. (2023). The effect of GeoGebra on university students’ understanding of polar coordinates. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2905-2927. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2177050
Pech, P. (2012). How integration of DGS and CAS helps to solve problems in geometry. 17th Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 16–20
Shadaan, P. & Leong, K. (2013). Effectiveness of using GeoGebra on students' understanding in learning circles. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1. 1-11.
Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.
Usiskin, Z. & Senk, S. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. The University of Chicago.
van Hiele-Geldof, D. & Van Hiele, P. M. (1984). English translation of selected writings of Dina van Hiele-geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele. In D. Fuys, D. Geddes, & R. Tischler, (Trans.), Monograph. Brooklyn College.
van Hiele-Geldof, D. (1957). De didaktiek van de meetkunde in de eersteklas vanhet V.H.M.O. [Didaktik geometri di sekolah dasar V.H.M.O.]. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation], University of Utrecht.
Wilson, P., Lee, H. & Hollebrands, K. (2011). Understanding prospective mathematics teachers' processes for making sense of students' work with technology. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 39-64. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.1. 0039
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Thesa Kandaga, Idha Novianti, Mazlini Adnan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with the Jurnal Elemen agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Jurnal Elemen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
