A study of the effectiveness of a teacher developed unit on proof in secondary school geometry
The purpose of this study was to design, implement and evaluate a unit on proof in geometry, incorporating a review of fundamental concepts, an organizational scheme called a "Dictionary" and some problem-solving strategies that could be applied to proof. Answers were sought to the followi...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Memorial University of Newfoundland
1981
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://research.library.mun.ca/7701/ https://research.library.mun.ca/7701/1/Connoly_LarryM.pdf https://research.library.mun.ca/7701/3/Connoly_LarryM.pdf |
| Summary: | The purpose of this study was to design, implement and evaluate a unit on proof in geometry, incorporating a review of fundamental concepts, an organizational scheme called a "Dictionary" and some problem-solving strategies that could be applied to proof. Answers were sought to the following questions: Does the use of the instructional unit result in significantly different achievement on an immediate and delayed posttest of concepts and skills? And, is the effect on achievement different for repeaters than for non-repeaters? -- This study was conducted using 54 Grade 10 matriculation geometry students from an all-male regional high school in urban Newfoundland. These students were assigned to one of two treatment conditions. The experimental group was taught a unit on proof using the instructional unit developed for this study, whereas the control group followed the program outlined in the Grade 10 geometry text used in Newfoundland when this study was carried out. Classes were held once a day for a total of 40 class sessions. -- To determine the students' achievement, two tests were administered. The first, the immediate posttest, was given at the end of eight weeks instruction and a 2-period review session. The second, the delayed posttest was given two months later. -- The data were collected and analyzed using a two-factor analysis of variance procedure. The major findings of the study were: (1) There were no significant differences in achievement on the immediate and delayed posttests between treatment groups; (2) non-repeaters scored significantly higher than repeaters on the immediate posttest but not on the delayed posttest; and (3) there was no significant interaction between treatment received and the grade status of students. -- On the basis of these findings, it was concluded that the experimental treatment was no more effective than the textbook approach in promoting higher achievement in geometry at the Grade 10 level. |
|---|