Advertisement

THE EFFECT OF ORIGAMI-BASED INSTRUCTION ON SPATIAL VISUALIZATION, GEOMETRY ACHIEVEMENT, AND GEOMETRIC REASONING

  • Sevil Arıcı
  • Fatma Aslan-Tutak
Article

Abstract

This research study examined the effect of origami-based geometry instruction on spatial visualization, geometry achievement, and geometric reasoning of tenth-grade students in Turkey. The sample (n   =   184) was chosen from a tenth-grade population of a public high school in Turkey. It was a quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design. A control group (94 students) received regular instruction during a geometry unit in a tenth-grade classroom whereas an experimental group (90 students) received origami-based instruction for 4 weeks. The Spatial Visualization Test (SVT) was used to measure students’ spatial visualization ability in this study. The SVT consists of the Card Rotation Test, Cube Comparison Test, and the Paper Folding Test which were originally developed by Ekstrom, French, Harman & Derman (1976) and translated into Turkish by Delialioğlu (1996). Besides, Geometry Achievement Test and Geometric Reasoning Test were developed by the researcher to measure geometry achievement level and geometric reasoning level of participants in key aspects of triangles. All tests had versions of pretest and posttest, and these tests were administered to both groups. A repeated-measures Analysis of Variance was used on each test scores to analyze data. The results indicated that origami-based instruction had significant effect on all dependent variables (spatial visualization, geometry achievement, and geometric reasoning). This suggested that origami might be integrated into high school geometry lessons to make geometry learning more effective.

Key words

geometric reasoning geometry achievement high school geometry instruction origami spatial visualization triangles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alias, M. B., Black, T. R. & Gray, D. E. (2002). Effect of instructions on spatial visualization ability in civil engineering students. International Education Journal, 3(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  2. Arici, S. (2012). The effect of origami-based instruction on spatial visualization, geometry achievement and geometric reasoning of tenth-grade students (Master’s thesis). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  3. Arici, S. & Tutak, F. A. (2013). Using origami to enhance geometric reasoning and achievement. Paper presented at the Eighth Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 8), Antalya, Turkey.Google Scholar
  4. Baki, A., Kosa, T. & Guven, B. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of using dynamic geometry software and physical manipulatives on the spatial visualization skills of pre-service mathematics teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayrak, M. E. (2008). Investigation of effect of visual treatment on elementary school student’s spatial ability and attitude toward spatial ability problems. M.S. thesis, Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  6. Boakes, N. J. (2006). The effects of origami lessons on students’ spatial visualization skills and achievement levels in a seventh-grade mathematics classroom. Ph.D. thesis, Temple University.Google Scholar
  7. Çakmak, S. (2009). An investigation of the effect of origami-based instruction on elementary students’ spatial ability in mathematics. M.S. thesis, Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  8. Cañadas, M., Molina, M., Gallardo, S., Martinez-Santaolalla, M. & Peñas, M. (2010). Let’s teach geometry. Mathematics Teaching, 218, 32–37.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, W. & Chang, W. (2011). Computer enhanced instruction: A case study of a series of creative math activities design. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(4), 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi-Koh, S. S. (1999). A student’s learning of geometry using the computer. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(5), 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, D. H. & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics (pp. 420–464). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  12. Coad, L. (2006). Paper folding in the middle school classroom and beyond. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 62(1), 6–13.Google Scholar
  13. Delialioğlu, Ö. (1996). Contribution of students’ logical thinking ability, mathematical skills and spatial ability on achievement in secondary school physics. M.S. thesis, Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  14. Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21 st century: An ICMI study (pp. 37–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W. & Harman, H. H. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  16. Franco, B. (1999). Unfolding mathematics with unit origami. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  17. Georgeson, J. (2011). Fold in origami and unfold math. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 16(6), 354–361.Google Scholar
  18. Gjǿvik, Ǿ. (2012). Flying high with the bird tetrahedron. Mathematics Teacher, 106(1), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hull, T. (2006). Project origami: Activities for exploring mathematics. Wellesley: A. K. Peters.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, H. R. (2003). Geometry: Seeing, doing, understanding (3rd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, A. (2010). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ views of manipulatives and their use in the classroom. M.A. thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
  22. Karaman, T. (2000). The relationship between gender, spatial visualization, spatial orientation, flexibility of closure abilities and the performances related to plane geometry subject of the sixth grade students. M.S. thesis, Bogazici University.Google Scholar
  23. Kavici, M. (2005). Gelişimsel origami eğitim programının okul öncesi dönem çocuklarının çok boyutlu gelişimlerine etkilerinin incelenmesi. M.S. thesis, Hacettepe University.Google Scholar
  24. Kayhan, E. B. (2005). Investigation of high school students’ spatial ability. M.S. thesis, Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  25. Miles, V. L. (2011). Modular origami: Moving beyond cubes. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 17(3), 180–187.Google Scholar
  26. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2010a). Ortaöğretim geometri dersi 9.-10. sınıflar öğretim programı.Google Scholar
  27. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2010b). Ortaöğretim geometri 10 ders kitabı. Ankara: Başak Yayınları.Google Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. [NCTM] (2009). Focus in high school mathematics: Reasoning and sense making. Reston, VA:NCTM.Google Scholar
  29. Newcombe, N. S. (2010). Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American Educator, 8, 29–43.Google Scholar
  30. Olkun, S. (2003). Making connections: Improving spatial abilities with engineering drawing activities. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1-10.Google Scholar
  31. Olson, A. T. (1975). Mathematics through paper folding. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  32. Panaoura, G., Gagatsis, A. & Lemonides, C. (2007). Spatial abilities in relation to performance in geometry tasks. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1062–1071). Cyprus: Larnaca.Google Scholar
  33. Pittalis, M., Mousoulides, N. & Christou, C. (2007). Spatial ability as a predictor of students’ performance in geometry. In D. Pitta-Pantazi & G. Philippou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1072–1081). Cyprus: Larnaca.Google Scholar
  34. Robichaux, R. R. & Rodrigue, P. R. (2003). Using origami to promote geometric communication. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(4), 223–229.Google Scholar
  35. Russell, R. A. (2011). Is there a best rectangle? Mathematics Teacher, 105(4), 255–260.Google Scholar
  36. Sağsöz, D. A. (2008). İlköğretim 6. sınıflardaki kesirler konusunun origami yardımıyla öğretimi. M.S. Thesis, Atatürk University.Google Scholar
  37. Sastry, S. (2012). Paper folding and the theorem of Pythagoras. At Right Angles, 1(1), 48–52.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, S. G. (2003). Paper folding and conic sections. Mathematics Teacher, 96(3), 202–207.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, R. C. (2010). A comparison of middle school students’ mathematical arguments in technological and non-technological environments. Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  40. Taşova, H. I., & Delice, A. (2011). An analysis of pre-service mathematics teachers’ performance in modelling tasks in terms of spatial visualization ability. In C. Smith (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 31(3), 1-6.Google Scholar
  41. Tekin, A. T. (2007). Dokuzuncu ve on birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin zihinde döndürme ve uzamsal görselleştirme yeteneklerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. M.S. thesis, Ankara University.Google Scholar
  42. Tuğrul, B. & Kavici, M. (2002). Kağıt katlama sanatı ve öğrenme. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(11), 1–17.Google Scholar
  43. Turgut, M. & Yılmaz, S. (2012). Relationships among preservice primary mathematics teachers’ gender, academic success and spatial ability. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
  44. Uttal, D. H. & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 147–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van de Walle, J. A. (2007). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  46. van Hiele, P.M. (1959/1985). The child’s thought and geometry. In D. Fuys, D. Geddes & R. Tischler (Eds.), English translation of selected writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele (pp. 243-252). Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College, School of Education.Google Scholar
  47. Wares, A. (2011). Using origami boxes to explore concepts of geometry and calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(2), 264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yolcu, B. & Kurtuluş, A. (2010). A study on developing sixth-grade students’ spatial visualization ability. Ilkogretim-Online, 9(1), 256–274.Google Scholar
  49. Yuzawa, M. & Bart, W. M. (2002). Young children’s learning of size comparison strategies: Effect of origami exercises. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(4), 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Bogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations