borang pengesahan status tesis€¦ · their result of mathematics in pmr and school 45 4.9 grading...
TRANSCRIPT
PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/97)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
CATATAN: * Potong yang tidak berkenaan.
** Jika tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak
berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh tesis
ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai SULIT atau TERHAD.
Tesis dimaksudkan sebagai tesis bagi Ijazah Doktor Falsafah dan Sarjana secara
penyelidikan, atau disertasi bagi pengajian secara kerja kursus dan penyelidikan,
atau Laporan Projek Sarjana Muda (PSM).
BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS
JUDUL: MASTERY LEVEL OF SOLID GEOMETRY AMONG FORM 4 STDUENTS
SESI PENGAJIAN: 2010/2011
Saya KUEK MENG LIE
(HURUF BESAR)
mengaku membenarkan tesis (PSM/Sarjana/Doktor Falsafah)* ini disimpan di Perpustakaan
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:
1. Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
2. Perpustakaan Universiti Teknologi Malaysia dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk tujuan
pengajian sahaja.
3. Perpustakaan dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara institusi
pengajian tinggi.
4. **Sila tandakan ( )
SULIT (Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau
kepentingan Malaysia seperti yang termaktub di dalam
AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972)
TERHAD (Mengandungi maklumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukan
oleh organisasi/badan di mana penyelidikan dijalankan)
√ TIDAK TERHAD
_______________________________
(TANDATANGAN PENULIS)
Disahkan oleh
(TANDATANGAN PENYELIA)
Alamat Tetap:
NO.113, EVERBRIGHT ESTATE,
JLN BATU KAWA,
93250 KUCHING,
SARAWAK.
DR. HEE JEE MEI
Nama Penyelia
Tarikh: 13 MEI 2011 Tarikh: 13 MEI 2011
I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion this thesis is sufficient
in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Science with
Education (Mathematics)
Signature :
Name of Supervisor : DR HEE JEE MEI
Date : 13-05-2011
MASTERY LEVEL OF SOLID GEOMETRY AMONG FORM 4 STUDENTS
KUEK MENG LIE
A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Science with Education (Mathematics)
Faculty of Education
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
APRIL 2011
ii
I declare that this thesis entitled “Mastery Level of Solid Geometry Among Form 4
Students” is the result of my own research except as cited in the references. The
thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in
candidature of any other degree.
Signature :
Name : KUEK MENG LIE
Date : 13-05-2011
iii
DEDICATION
All glory to the Almighty,
the lord who has guided me and lead me
who grant me wisdom and provides me.
To my beloved father and mother,
thank you for your continuous support
during my vital educational years.
I give thanks to Dr Hee Jee Mei,
whom, gave me guidance and resources
upon completing the thesis.
Your support and encouragement
are motivated throughout
the process of completing this thesis.
To all my friends, I am grateful that all of you
have shared and supported me throughout
this four years.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All glory and thanks to the Lord that by His grace, this thesis can be
completed on time.
In preparing this thesis, I was in contact with different people, including my
supervisor, lecturers, State Department of Education, school authority and students.
They have contributed towards the information and facts needed for this research. In
particular, firstly, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my dear supervisor,
Dr Hee Jee Mei, for her encouragement, guidance and critics. Without her continued
support and advices, this thesis would not be as how it is presented here.
I am also indebted to two secondary schools, where this research was
conducted, which are SMK Desa Skudai and SMK Mutiara Rini 1. The willingness
and acceptance, together with the permission given from the school principals and
staff had eased the burdens of collecting data from students. The students had
cooperated well, which is highly appreciated.
Last but not least, I would like to grab this opportunity to thank my family
members and fellow friends who supported me not only during the process of
completing this project but throughout the years we had been together. I pray that all
of them will be blessed abundantly.
v
ABSTRACT
This research was aimed to investigate the mastery level of Solid Geometry
among Form 4 students and the factors affecting their mastery level. The objectives
of the study were to determine the students’ actual mastery level of Solid Geometry
according to van Hiele Model, their self-evaluated mastery level on the same topic,
and their satisfaction towards teachers’ teaching strategies and Solid Geometry
contents in Mathematics textbook. The research sample consists of 134 students
from two secondary schools in Skudai. Test paper and questionnaire were used to
collect data and data was analyzed using Statistical Package For Social Science
(SPSS) software. The findings were presented in frequency, percentage and mean.
The findings show that the students’ actual performance of students in Solid
Geometry is moderate while they highly evaluated their content mastery. Among the
5 levels in van Hiele Model, students achieved the highest in Visualization, which is
the minimum level. They moderately satisfied with teachers’ teaching and contents
of Solid Geometry in Mathematics textbooks. In order to improve students’ mastery
level in Solid Geometry, several suggestions were forwarded at the end of this
research such as diversification of teaching strategies and time to time evaluation.
vi
ABSTRAK
Kajian ini dijalankan untuk mengkaji tahap penguasaan Geometri Pepejal di
kalangan pelajar Tingkatan Empat dan faktor-faktor memepengaruhi penguasaan
mereka. Objektif-objektif kajian ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti tahap penguasaan
sebenar pelajar Tingkatan Empat dalam Geometri Pepejal berdasarkan Modal van
Hiele, tahap penguasaan topik yang sama berdasarkan penilaian kendiri, kepuasan
pelajar terhadap pengajaran guru dan kandungan Geometri Pepejal dalam buku teks
Matematik. Sampel kajian ini terdiri daripada 134 pelajar dari dua buah sekolah
menengah di Skudai. Kertas ujian dan soal selidik digunakan sebagai instrumen
kajian dan data dianalisis dengan menggunakan perisian Statistical Package For
Social Science (SPSS). Keputusan kajian yang dilaporkan dalam frekuensi, peratusan
dan min. Hasil kajian menunjukkan penguasaan Geometri Pepejal pelajar adalah
berada pada tahap sederhana manakala tahap penguasaan topik tersebut berdasarkan
penilaian kendiri adalah tinggi. Merujuk kepada lima tahap Modal van Hiele,
pencapaian pelajar paling tinggi pada tahap Visualisasi, iaitu aras yang paling
minimum. Tahap kepuasan pelajar terhadap pengajaran guru dan kandungan
Geometri Pepejal dalam buku teks Matematik adalah sederhana. Untuk
meningkatkan tahap penguasaan pelajar dalam Geometri Pepejal, beberapa cadangan
telah dikemukakan di akhir kajian ini, seperti kepelbagaian strategi pengajaran dan
penilaian dari semasa ke semasa.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv
LIST OF APPENDICES xvi
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 4
1.3 Research Objectives 7
1.4 Research Questions 7
1.5 Significance of study 8
1.6 Limitations of study 10
1.7 Definition of keywords 11
1.7.1 Solid Geometry 11
1.7.2 Van Hiele Model 11
1.7.3 Teaching 12
1.7.4 Learning 12
1.8 Conclusion 12
viii
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Van Hiele Model 13
2.2.1 Visualization 15
2.2.2 Descriptive/ Analytic 16
2.2.3 Abstract/ Informal Deduction 16
2.2.4 Formal Deduction 17
2.2.5 Rigor 17
2.3 Problems In Teaching And Learning Solid Geometry 18
2.3.1 Understanding In Geometry Knowledge 20
2.3.1.1 Geometry Language 21
2.3.1.2 Visualizing Abilities 21
2.3.2 Teaching Strategies Of Solid Geometry 22
2.3.3 Contents Of Solid Geometry In Mathematics
Textbook 25
2.4 Previous Research On Teaching And Learning
Solid Geometry 27
2.5 Conclusion 31
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction 33
3.2 Research Design 33
3.3 Research Site 34
3.4 Population And Sampling 34
3.5 Research Instrument 35
3.6 Pilot Test 38
3.7 Research Procedure 39
3.8 Conclusion 40
4 DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction 41
4.2 Analysis of Respondents’ Demographic 41
4.2.1 School 42
4.2.2 Class 42
ix
4.2.3 Gender 43
4.2.4 Race 44
4.2.5 PMR Mathematics Result 45
4.3 Analysis on Actual Mastery Level of Solid Geometry
among Students 46
4.3.1 Distribution of Respondents
According to Their Performance in
Solid Geometry Students in Solid Geometry 47
4.3.2 Mastery Level of Solid Geometry Based
on van Hiele Model among Students 48
4.4 Analysis on Self-Evaluated Mastery Level of
Solid Geometry among Students 49
4.5 Comparison Between Actual and Self-Evaluated
Mastery Level of Solid Geometry among Students 64
4.6 Satisfaction level with Teachers’ Teaching in Solid
Geometry among Students 59
4.7 Satisfaction Level with Contents in Mathematics
Textbook among Students 66
4.8 Summary 70
5 CONCLUSION, DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction 71
5.2 Summary of Research 71
5.3 Discussions 73
5.3.1 Mastery Level of Solid Geometry
Based on Van Hiele Model of Thinking in
Geometry 74
5.3.2 Self-Evaluated Mastery Level of
Solid Geometry among Students 74
5.3.3 Comparison between Actual and
Self-Evaluated Mastery level of Solid Geometry
among Students 75
5.3.4 Satisfaction Level with Teachers’ teaching in
Solid Geometry among Students 76
5.3.5 Satisfaction Level of Students towards the
Contents of Solid Geometry in Mathematics
Textbook 77
5.4 Recommendations 78
x
5.5 Recommendations For Further Research 80
5.6 Summary 81
5.7 Conclusion 82
REFERENCES 84
APPENDICES A - H 89
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
2.1 Description of Van Hiele Model 15
2.2 The International Ranking in Geometry
Achievement in TIMSS 1999 18
2.3 The International Ranking in Geometry
Achievement in TIMSS 2003 19
2.4 The International Ranking in Geometry
Achievement in TIMSS 2007 19
3.1 Number of Sampling According to School 35
3.2 Test Specification Table of Test Paper Based
on Level of Van Hiele Model 36
3.3 5-Likert Scale for Self-Evaluated Mastery Level
of Students in Solid Geometry 37
3.4 5-Likert Scale for Satisfaction Level of Students
towards Teachers’ Teaching in Solid Geometry
and Contents of Solid Geometry in Mathematics
Textbook 38
4.1 Number of Respondents According to School 42
4.2 Number of Students According to Class in
Each School 42
4.3 Number of Respondents According to Gender 43
xii
4.4 Distribution of Respondents According to Gender
and School 43
4.5 Number of Students According to Their Race 44
4.6 Distribution of Respondents According to Their
Race and Gender 44
4.7 Number of Respondents According to Their Result
of Mathematics in PMR 45
4.8 Distribution of Number of Respondents According to
Their Result of Mathematics in PMR and School 45
4.9 Grading System 46
4.10 Distribution of Respondents According to Their
Performance in Solid Geometry 47
4.11 Mastery Level of Solid Geometry among Students 48
4.12 Mean Score and Percentage for Each level in Van
Hiele Model 50
4.13 Classification of Three Scales for Mastery Level of
Students in Solid Geometry 50
4.14 Scale Score for Three Points 51
4.15 Frequency, Percentage and Mean Score of Self-
Evaluated Mastery level of Students in Solid
Geometry 59
4.16 Mean Score and Percentage for Each Topic in Solid
Geometry 60
4.17 Summary of Average Mean Score of Students’
Self-Evaluated Mastery level for Each Topic in Solid
Geometry 62
4.18 Classification of Three Scales for Satisfaction Level
of Students in Solid Geometry 68
4.19 Frequency, Percentage and Mean Score for
Satisfaction Level of Students with Teachers’ Teaching
in Solid Geometry 68
xiii
4.20 Frequency, Percentahe and Mean Score for
Satisfaction Level on Mathematics Textbook 72
4.21 Summary of Mean Response of Students towards
Solid Geometry Mastery Level, Teachers’ Teaching
and Mathematics Textbook 76
4.22 Summary of Mastery Level of Students in Solid
Geometry According to Van Hiele Model 76
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE
3.1 Research Procedure 39
4.1 Number of Respondents According to Their
Result of Mathematics in PMR 46
4.2 Percentage for Each Category in Van Hiele Model 49
4.3 Self-Evaluated Mastery Level of Students in
Solid Geometry 58
4.4 Satisfaction Level of Students on Teachers’ Teaching
In Solid Geometry 65
4.5 Satisfaction Level of Students on Contents of
Solid Geometry in Mathematics Textbook 69
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
KBSM Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Menegah
MOE Ministry Of Education
PMR Penilaian Menengah Rendah
NCTM National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
UTM Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
EPRD The Education Planning And Research Department
JPN Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A Questionnaire 89
B Test Paper 96
C Answer Scheme for Test Paper 107
D Certification of Item of Questionnaire 111
E Certification of Item of Test Paper 113
F Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Approval Letter 115
G Approval Letter of State Department of Education 117
H Approval Letter of the Education Planning
and Research Department 119
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
Through the advancement of technology in the world, Malaysian
Mathematics curriculum in schools had undergone transformation from time to time,
in order to make the education in Malaysia be able to compete with other nations.
Indirectly, education has been a very important aspect in life. Schools function as
development center of knowledge and character building as what is mentioned in the
National Philosophy of Education:
"Education in Malaysia is an on-going effort towards further developing the
potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce
individuals who are intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced
and harmonic, based on a firm belief in and devotion to God. Such an effort is
designed to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable and competent, who
possess high moral standards and who are responsible and capable of achieving high
level of personal well-being as well as being able to contribute to the harmony and
betterment of the family, the society and the nation at large."
(Curriculum Development Centre, 2002)
Based on National Education Policy in Malaysia and the 2020 Vision, the
Mathematics Curriculum has been reviewed and revised to provide mathematical
knowledge and skills to students from various backgrounds and ability. The
120
Mathematics Curriculum for secondary school aims to develop individuals who are
able to think mathematically and apply mathematical knowledge effectively. The
curriculum at secondary level encompasses three main areas, namely Numbers,
Shapes and Spaces, and Relationships.
Shapes and Spaces is an important area in mathematics. Knowledge and
skills of this area is useful in daily life applications. Visual thinking and aesthetic
values can also be nurtured through Shapes and Spaces. In the Integrated
Curriculum for Secondary schools (KBSM) syllabus for Lower Secondary (Form1 –
Form3), the topic Solid Geometry is introduced under the scope of Shapes and
Spaces. Students learn about the types, nets, areas and volumes of different
geometric solids.
Geometry is recognized as a basic skill in mathematics (Hoffer & Hoffer,
1992; National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics, 1977; National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 2000) because it has important applications to topics
in basic mathematics. In view of its importance, the Ministry of Education places
even more emphasis on geometry in the revised Primary and Secondary School
Mathematics Curriculum (Malaysian Ministry of Education, 1998). In the past,
geometry was neglected at the primary school level in favour of teaching arithmetic
to allow development of computational skills among students.
In fact, learning geometry was only formally introduced in primary education
in Year 4 in the previous mathematics curriculum in which primary school pupils at
the age of 10 learned two- and three-dimensional shapes (Malaysian Ministry of
Education, 1998a). In contrast, the geometric concepts of two- and three-
dimensional shapes have been formally introduced in Year 1 (at the age of 7) in the
revised primary school mathematics curriculum (Malaysian Ministry of Education,
2002). At the secondary school level, the emphasis on geometry has also been
increased, where 28 out of the 61 chapters (approximately 46%) in the revised
secondary mathematics curriculum comprises geometry content as compared to 25
out of the 60 chapters (approximately 42%) previously (Malaysian Ministry of
Education, 1998).
121
Recognition of geometry as a basic skill in mathematics has resulted in an
increased emphasis on geometry in the revised mathematics curriculum by the
Malaysian Ministry of Education. Geometry plays an important role in primary and
secondary school mathematics curriculum in Malaysia and other countries. It is a
rich source of visualization for understanding arithmetical, algebraic, and statistical
concepts (Battista, 1999; Ben-Chairn, Lappan, & Houang, 1989; Drickey, 2001;
Lappan, 1993; Mathematical Sciences Education Board, 1990), whereby, it develops
spatial awareness and geometrical intuition.
Geometric models are frequently used to help students understand
mathematical concepts. For example, the number line is helpful to illustrate various
number concepts and operations. Geometric regions and shapes are useful for
fractional numbers, equivalent fractions, ordering of fractions, computing with
fractions. Linear, area, and volume measurements are directly related with geometric
concepts. Geometric skills are also essential in art, design, graphics, animation,
recreational settings as well as construction work.
In daily life, geometry is the foundation of physics. A room, a car, a ball or
anything with physical things is geometrically formed. The goldfish tank water
needs to have a certain volume as well as surface area in order for the fish to thrive.
We calculate the volume and surface area using geometry. A sports car runs in a
circular path and it uses the concepts of geometry. On top of that, geometry is
specifically used in home building and construction projects. It is used to determine
the area of the floor of a house for carpet laying or tiles on a floor, for example.
Some other areas of the geometry can be applied include designs, architecture,
astronomy, coordination of location and so on.
According to Volderman (1998), geometry provides a more complete
appreciation of the world we live in. For example, geometry appears naturally in the
structure of the solar system, in geological formation, rocks and crystals, plants and
flowers, and even in animals. It is also a major part of our synthetic world such as
art, architecture, cars, machines, and virtually everything that humans create.
122
The study of geometry develops the skills of visualisation, critical thinking,
intuition, perspective, problem-solving, conjecturing, deductive reasoning, logical
argument and proof. Presenting geometry in a way that stimulates curiosity and
encourages discovery can enhance students’ interest and their attitudes towards
mathematics. Encouraging students to discuss problems in geometry articulate their
ideas and develop arguments to support their intuitions help to improve their
communication skills and skills of proofing. The contribution of mathematics to
student’s spiritual, moral, social and cultural development can be effectively realised
through geometry.
1.2 Problem Statement
Many times students do not aware that their life is actually the application of
what they learned in school. In another words, students today do not know the
application of their knowledge. Students attend school just to receive what is given
to them. Without a proper digestion of the knowledge, it would be very difficult for
them to have a good understanding. After some time, it will be gone from their mind.
There is no mean of remembering without using it.
In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 1999)
Report, the average geometry achievement of Malaysian students' performance was
lower than the international average. Malaysia was ranked sixteenth in geometry
achievement out of 38 participating countries (Ministry of Education, 2000).
Compared to other Asian countries, Malaysia is still far behind the top five countries
of Singapore, Korea, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong and Japan (Mullis, Martin,
Gonzalez, Gregory, Garden, O’Connor, Chrostowski & Smith, 2000). These
statistics showed that in the international arena, Malaysian students’ geometry
performance is still commendable. The low rankings in TIMSS 1999, 2003 and 2007
indirectly reflected that Malaysian students’ levels of geometric thinking are still far
from satisfactory. TIMSS-R findings also indicate that students’ geometry
123
performance can be improved if students participate actively in formulation and
understanding of mathematical ideas and concepts.
For most students at the lower secondary school level, learning geometry is
not easy and many of them are unable to develop an adequate understanding of
geometry concepts, geometry reasoning and geometry problem solving skills
((Battista, 1999; Mitche1more, 2002). This causes limitations in their interest and
desire in learning Geometry. Without a good foundation in geometry at the lower
secondary level this problem may worsen at the upper secondary school level where
students may face difficulty in mastering more complex geometry concepts such as
transformation and trigonometry. When students recall their geometry learning
experience, many of them recall it not only as an unpleasant experience, but they
often also recall difficulties that they experienced in learning geometry.
A number of factors explained why students are weak in the topic Solid
Geometry. When it is difficult to understand an area of study, students typically
resort to rote memorization (J.E. Schwartz, 2008) rather than exploring and
discovering the underlying properties (Strutchens, Harris and Martin, 2001). In this
case, it is much easier to memorise in order to cope with examinations rather than
wasting time understanding the concepts. The learning is limited and superficial.
Students learn and memorize without understanding the concepts and terms in
geometry.
Geometry language is also one of the hindrances for students in learning
geometry. The vocabulary in geometry is specific and carries meaning, descriptions
and even properties (Noraini, 2004). Misuse of geometry terminology will lead to
misconceptions of geometric knowledge (Bishop, 1986; Lappan, 1999). Knowing a
geometric name like "triangles" and "squares" does not implies the student
understands their exact meanings or their properties involving angle sums, perimeter
or area. According to Noraini Idris (1999), some 13- and l4-year old Malaysian
students were unable to explain simple terms like "perimeter" and "triangle".
Therefore, the terminologies and the meanings of geometry are important in learning
geometry.
124
Another problem of geometry learning involves the ability to visualize. Ability
to visualize means visualizing a tri-dimensional object in a two-dimensional perspective.
Lappan (1999) describes visualization as "the mental understanding of visual
information". Hershkowitz (1989) claims that visualization is an essential tool in
geometry concepts. Many concepts in geometry require students to visually perceive the
objects and identify their properties by comparing them with previous experiences
involving similar objects. However, visualizing cross sections of solids is very
difficult for students who are lacking ample prior concrete experiences with solid
objects (Ben-Chaim et al., 1989). Thus students who are unable to extract geometric
information for three dimensional solid objects drawn on paper will face difficulty in
interpreting questions involving solid geometry (Lappan, Phillips, & Winter, 1984).
The teaching methods and strategies of teachers also affect the learning of
Solid Geometry among students. Traditional ways of teaching by using textbooks
and chalkboards does not help to achieve the outcomes intended by the designed
curriculum. In the Malaysian context, this concern is shown in the poor geometry
performance of students in public examinations (Ministry of Education, 1996; Yeo,
2000). Lack of emphasis that encourages thinking and reasoning skills causes them
unable to communicate mathematically and solve non routine problems, for example.
Some teachers prefer to stick to traditional teaching method, which students find it
uninteresting. Materials used in classroom and teaching approaches bring a large
impact in the learning process of students. Mathematics textbook is often the
teacher’s source of content, sequencing and instructional activities and ideas for
lessons (Johansson, 2006; Reys, Reys, & Chaves-Lopez, 2004; Woodward et al.,
1988). In fact, the content in textbook is very limited. Students have less chance to
explore more to expand their knowledge. Indirectly, this is concerned with the
school mathematics curriculum.
For students at the lower secondary school level, many of them fail to
develop an adequate understanding of geometry concepts, geometry reasoning and
geometry problem solving skills (Battista, 1999; Mitchelmore, 2002). Various
factors cause the lack of understanding in Solid Geometry among students. Based on
learning and understanding the topic of Solid Geometry and hence lost the interest
125
towards this topic. Therefore, it is important to find out the hindrances of this
phenomenon. Followed by that, actions should be taken to raise their interest and
performance in the topic Solid Geometry. Therefore, the research of performance of
students in geometry is needed in order to figure out their mastery level of geometry.
1.3 Research Objectives
Research objectives are as below:
i. Determine the mastery level of Solid Geometry based on van Hiele Model of
Thinking in Geometry among Form 4 students.
ii. Determine the self-evaluated mastery level of Solid Geometry among Form 4
students.
iii. Compare between actual mastery level with self-evaluated mastery level of
Solid Geometry among Form 4 students.
iv. Investigate the satisfaction level with teachers’ teaching strategies in Solid
Geometry among of Form 4 students.
v. Investigate the satisfaction level with the contents of Solid Geometry in
Mathematics textbook among Form 4 students.
1.4 Research Questions
Research problems are as the following:
i. Referring to Van Hiele Model, which level do Form 4 students master the
knowledge of Solid Geometry?
ii. Which level do the students evaluate their knowledge of Solid Geometry?
126
iii. Is there any difference between actual mastery level with self-evaluated
mastery level of Solid Geometry among the students?
iv. Do students satisfy with their teachers’ teaching strategies in Solid Geometry?
v. Do students satisfy with the contents of Solid Geometry in Mathematics
textbook?