The goal of this study was to characterise how third-grade primary school students understand the concept of polygon as well as relationships between polygons. Following a teaching experiment, students answered a questionnaire on the recognition of polygons and relationships between polygons, providing information about how a polygon was understood as an example of a class. Dimensional deconstruction of shapes (Duval, 2017) and Statistical Implicative Analysis (Gras, Suzuki, Guillet, & Spagnolo, 2008) were used to analyse students’ answers. The findings indicated that students’ understanding of the polygon concept depended on how students recognised and modified the relevant attributes considered in the definition of polygon. These results suggest that a progressive complexity underlies the understanding of the concept of polygon. Evidence of this progressive complexity was found in the relationship between recognising a figure as a polygon and transforming a non-example of a polygon into a polygon. Furthermore, the ability to identify a polygon as an instance of a class depended on the attribute that defines the class. That is, the fact of identifying a class of polygons was linked to the non-relevant attribute considered. Instructional implications are finally drawn regarding the key role of dimensional deconstruction to understand polygons and relationships between polygons.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Battista, M. (2012). Cognition-based assessment & teaching of geometric shapes. Building on students’ reasoning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Battista, M. T. (2007). The development of geometric and spatial thinking. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 843–908). Reston, VA: NCTM-IAP.
Bernabeu, M., & Llinares, S. (2017). How do six to nine years-old children understand geometrical shapes. Educación Matemática, 29(2), 9–35. https://doi.org/10.24844/EM2902.01
Bernabeu, M., Moreno, M., & Llinares, S. (2018). Primary school children’s (9 years-old) understanding of quadrilaterals. In E. Bergqvist, M. Österholm, C. Granberg, & L. Sumpter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 2, pp. 155–162). Umeå: PME.
Clements, D., Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M., & Sarama, J. (1999). Young children’s concepts of shape. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/749610
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Couturier, R. (2008). CHIC: Cohesive Hierarchical Implicative Classification. In R. Gras, E. Suzuki, F. Guillet & F. Spagnolo (Eds.), Statistical implicative analysis (Vol. 127, pp. 41–53). Springer Berlin Heidelberg
De Villiers, M. (1994). The role and function of a hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 11–18.
Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processings. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematics education (pp. 142–157). Berlin: Springer.
Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting North American Chapter of the International Group of PME (pp. 3–26). Columbus, OH: ERIC/CSMEE.
Duval, R. (2017). Understanding the mathematical way of thinking – The registers of semiotic representations. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56910-9
Fischbein, E. (1993). The theory of figural concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24, 139–162.
Fujita, T. (2012). Learners’ level of understanding of the inclusion relations of quadrilaterals and prototype phenomenon. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 60–72.
Fujita, T., Doney, J., & Wegerif, R. (2019). Students’ collaborative decision-making processes in defining and classifying quadrilaterals: A semiotic/dialogic approach. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101, 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09892-9
Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2007). Learners’ understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classification of quadrilaterals: Towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education, 9(1, 2), 3–20.
Gagatsis, A., Monoyiou, A., Delilyianni, E., Elia, I., Michael, P., Kalogirou, P., … Philippou, A. (2010). One way of assessing the understanding of a geometrical figure. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae Mathematics, 10, 35–50.
Gagatsis, A., Sriraman, B., Elia, I., & Modestou, M. (2006). Exploring young children’s geometrical strategies. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 11(2), 23–50.
Gras, R., & Kuntz, P. (2008). An overview of the statistical implicative analysis (SIA) development. In R. Gras, E. Suzuki, F. Guillet, & F. Spagnolo (Eds.), Statistical implicative analysis (pp. 11–40). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Gras, R., Suzuki, E., Guillet, F., & Spagnolo, F. (2008). Statistical implicative analysis. Theory and applications. London, UK: Springer.
Halat, E., & Yesil-Dagli, U. (2016). Preschool students’ understanding of a geometric shape, the square. BOLEMA, 30(55), 830–848. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v30n55a25
Hershkowitz, R. (1989). Visualization in geometry: Two sides of the coin. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1), 61–76.
Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Mathematics and cognition (pp. 70–95). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Karpuz, Y., & Atasoy, E. (2019). Investigation of 9th grade students’ geometrical figure apprehension. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 285–300.
Kaur, H. (2015). Two aspects of young children’s thinking about different types of dynamic triangles: Prototypicality and inclusion. ZDM. Mathematics Education, 47, 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0658-z
Kozakli-Ulger, T., & Tapan-Broutin, M. S. (2017). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ understanding of quadrilaterals and the internal relationships between quadrilaterals: The case of parallelograms. European Journal of Educational Research, 6(3), 331–345.
Mesquita, A. L. (1998). On conceptual obstacles linked with external representations in geometry. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 183–195.
Michael, S., Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., Theoklitou, A., & Savva, A. (2006). Levels of understanding of patterns in multiple representations. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 4, pp. 161–168). Prague: PME.
Monaghan, F. (2000). What difference does it make? Children views of the difference between some quadrilaterals. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(2), 179–196.
Moreno, M., Bernabeu, M., Gagatsis, A., Llinares, S., & Panaoura, R. (2019). Changes in third-grade students’ understanding of polygons. In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A. Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 3, pp. 97–104). Pretoria, South-Africa: PME.
Pittalis, M., & Christou, C. (2013). Coding and decoding representations of 3D shapes. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 673–689.
Sinclair, N., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., de Villiers, M., Jones, K., Kortenkamp, U., Leung, A., & Owens, K. (2016). Recent research on geometry education: An ICME-13 survey team report. ZDM. Mathematics Education, 48(5), 691–719.
Sinclair, N., Cirillo, M., & de Villiers, M. (2017). The learning and teaching geometry. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 457–489). Reston, VA: NCTM.
Trigueros, M., & Escandón, C. (2008). Los conceptos relevantes en el aprendizaje de la graficación. Un análisis a través de la estadística implicativa. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 13(36), 59–85.
Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., & Levenson, E. (2008). Intuitive nonexamples: The case of triangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9133-5
Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Levenson, E., Barbakai, R., & Tabach, M. (2015). Early-years teachers’ concept images and concept definitions: Triangles, circles, and cylinders. ZDM. Mathematics Education, 47, 497–509.
Walcott, C., Mohr, D., & Kastberg, S. (2009). Making sense of shape: An analysis of children’s written responses. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2009.04.001
Wang, S., & Kinzel, M. (2014). How do they know it is a parallelogram? Analysing geometric discourse at van Hiele Level 3. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 288–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2014.933711
Yesil-Dagli, U., & Halat, E. (2016). Young children’s conceptual understanding of triangle. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1398a
We are pleased of the encouragement recived by Dr. Gagatsis and his research group of the University of Cyprus
This research was supported in part by the project Prometheus/2017/135 of the Generalitat Valenciana (Spain) and by the University of Alicante (FPU2017-014).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bernabeu, M., Moreno, M. & Llinares, S. Primary school students’ understanding of polygons and the relationships between polygons. Educ Stud Math 106, 251–270 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10012-1
- Concept of polygon
- Dimensional deconstruction
- Geometric thinking
- Implicative analysis
- Primary education