A study of the van Hiele levels of the line symmetry concepts and its S-P chart analysis--take the fifth grade students' performance assessment as an example

• Main Authors: Pei-fen Hung, 洪珮芬
• Other Authors: 許天維
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/32289950949781955833

碩士 === 國立臺中教育大學 === 教育測驗統計研究所 === 98 === The main purpose of this study was to explore the learning condition of line symmetry concepts of fifth-grade students in the elementary school and further to provide a reference for teaching. First, the researcher developed a performance assessment of line symmetry concepts with reliability and validity according to the mathematics area in Grade 1-9 Curriculum and the van Hiele model of thinking in geometry as a test instrument. Secondly, the researcher tested 29 fifth graders in an elementary school in Taichung County by the performance assessment of line symmetry concepts. Thirdly, the researcher analyzed the van Hiele levels of the students and the data by S-P chart analysis . The findings of this study were summarized as follows: 1. The performance of the students in “distinguishing the line symmetry figures” was the best, in “finding out the axis of symmetry” second, and then followed by “comprehending the properties of line symmetry figure”, “indentifying the corresponding points, the corresponding sides, and the corresponding angles”, “according to the hints to draw out the line symmetry figure” and “completing the line symmetry figure”. The performance of the students in “applying the properties of the line symmetry figure to solve the geometric questions” was the worst. 2. 10.34% students did not reach level 1, 44.84% students belonged to level 1, 31.03% students belonged to level 2 and 13.79% students belonged to level 3, no students belonged to the concept jumper. 3. Students who belonged to level 3 performed the best in line symmetry concepts, students belonged to level 2 were second. Students who did not reach level 1 performed worse than those belonged to level 1 except in “C indentifying the corresponding points, the corresponding sides, and the corresponding angles”. 4. 15.38% of type A students were at level 1, 61.54% were at level 2, 23.08% were at level 3. Type A’ students achieved level 1, level 2, and level 3 respectively to account for 33.33%. 27.27% of type B students did not reach level 1, 72.73% were at level 1. Type C students were all at level 1. Finally, according to results of the study made several suggestions for teaching activities, course design and future related research.