Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Geometry knowledge test about triangles: evidence on validity and reliability

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the present study we aimed to develop a multidimensional test assessing high school students’ knowledge about triangles, and then to determine the validity evidence for it based on the internal structure and relations to another variable and its reliability. The test developed was administered to 557 tenth grade students. To assess the validity evidence based on the internal structure, the data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, inter-dimension correlations and two-way MANOVA across gender and school type. For validity evidence based on relations to another variable, the test scores were associated with previous semester geometry grades at the tenth grade level. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach alpha and item-total correlations to report internal consistency. The resulting instrument including 24 questions showed adequate validity evidence based on the internal structure and relations to another variable, as well as good reliability. This indicates that the results produced by the instrument are valid and reliable. So, the geometry knowledge test about triangles is well-suited for use in research and classrooms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 375–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (2015). Cognitive psychology and its implications (8th edn.). New York: Worth Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydın, U., & Ubuz, B. (2010). Structural model of metacognition and knowledge of geometry. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 436–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydın, U., & Ubuz, B. (2014). Predicting undergraduate students’ mathematical thinking about derivative concept: A multilevel analysis of personal and institutional factors. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and gender differences in high school geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batyra, A. (2017a). Türkiye’ de cinsiyete dayalı başarı farkı: 2015 Uluslararası Matematik ve Fen Eğilimleri Araştırması (TIMSS) bulguları [Gender gaps in student achievement in Turkey: Evidence from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2015]. Istanbul: Education Reform Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batyra, A. (2017b). Gender gaps in student achievement in Turkey: Evidence from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015. Istanbul: Education Reform Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaton, A. E., Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school tears: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill: Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biber, C., Tuna, A., & Korkmaz, S. (2013). The mistakes and the misconceptions of the eighth grade students on the subject of angles. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1, 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman, B. (1992). A comparison of quantitative questions in open-ended and multiple-choice formats. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(3), 253–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger, W. F., & Shaugnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1), 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S. K., & Seng, Q. K. (2001). Gender differences in TIMSS mathematics achievement of four Asian nations: A secondary analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(4), 331–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinnappan, M., Ekanayake, M. B., & Brown, C. (2012). Knowledge use in the construction of geometry proof by Sri Lankan students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), 865–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modem test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dindyal, J. (2008). An overview of the gender factor in mathematics in TIMSS-2003 for the Asia-Pacific region. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(6), 993–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duatepe-Paksu, A., & Ubuz, B. (2009). Effects of drama-based geometry instruction on student achievement, attitudes and thinking levels. Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 272–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval, R. (1988). Approche cognitive des problèmes de géométrie en termes de congruence. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 1, 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval, R. (1995). Geometrical pictures: Kinds of representation and specific processes. In R. Sutherland & J. Mason (Eds.), Exploiting mental imagery with computers in mathematical education (pp. 142–157). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning. Retrieved from ERIC ED, 466, 379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics with SPSS (2nd edn.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, T. (2012). Learners’ level of understanding of the inclusion of quadrilaterals and prototype phenomenon. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 60–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagatsis, A., et al. (2010). One way of assessing the understanding of a geometrical figure. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae Mathematics, 10, 35–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, A., & Jaime, A. (1998). On the assessment of the van Hiele levels of reasoning. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20(2–3), 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancerliogullari, A., & Alan, F. (2006). Geometri soru bankası [Geometry question bank]. Ankara: Tumay Yayınları [Tumay Publications].

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (1998). Students’ proof schemes: Results from exploratory studies. In J. A.Schoenfeld, Kaput & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in collegiate mathematics education III (pp. 234–282). Providence: American Mathematical Society.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P., & Brach, C. (2006). Proving and “doing proofs” in high school geometry classes: What is “it” that is going on for students and how do they make sense of it? Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 73–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, S. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyttälä, M., & Björn, P. M. (2010). Prior mathematics achievement, cognitive appraisals and anxiety as predictors of Finnish students’ later mathematics performance and career orientation. Educational Psychology, 30(4), 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, S. (1993). The conceptual framework for the development of a mathematics performance. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(2), 16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, R. A., & Mistele, J. M. (2012). The differences in scores and self-efficacy by students gender in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1163–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mariotti, M. A., & Fischbein, E. (1997). Defining in classroom activities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34(3), 219–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marrades, R., & Gutierrez, A. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 87–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report. Chestnut Hill: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The importance of knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 38(1–3), 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Instrument development in the affective domain. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mesquita, A. L. (1996). On the utilization of encoding procedures on the treatment of geometrical problems. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds), Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 399–406), Valencia: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. P., & Hudson, P. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative Knowledge. Learning Disabilities Practice, 22(1), 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) [Ministry of Education] (2006). Geometri dersi programı (10–11. sınıf) [Geometry course program (10–11 grades)]. http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr. Accessed 29 June 2007.

  • Miyakawa, T. (2017). Comparative analysis on the nature of proof to be taught in geometry: The cases of French and Japanese lower secondary schools. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94, 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O’Connor, K. M., Chrostowski, S. J., & Smith, T. A. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report. Boston: International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otten, S., Gilbertson, N. J., Males, L. M., & Lee Clark, D. (2014). The mathematical nature of reasoning-and-proving opportunities in geometry textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1), 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pegg, J., & Davey, G. (1989). Clarifying level descriptors for children’s understanding of some basic 2-D geometry shapes. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1(1), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poon, K. K., & Wong, K. L. (2017). Pre-constructed dynamic geometry materials in the classroom—how do they facilitate the learning of ‘Similar Triangles’? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(5), 735–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, T. R., Medhanie, A., Harwell, M., Norman, K. W., Dupuis, D. N., Muchlinski, T., Andersen, E., & Monson, D. (2010). The impact of prior mathematics achievement on the relationship between high school mathematics curricula and postsecondary mathematics performance, course-taking, and persistence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(3), 274–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rios, J., & Wells, C. (2014). Validity evidence based on internal structure. Psicothema, 26(1), 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. New York: Barnes and Noble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (2009). The concept of mind (60th edn.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satlow, E., & Newcombe, N. S. (1998). When is a triangle not a triangle? Young children’s developing concepts of geometric shape. Cognitive Development, 13(4), 547–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senk, S. (1989). Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, M. (2014). Hypothetical learning trajectories in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 272–275). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd edn.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soury-Lavergne, S., & Maschietto, M. (2015). Articulation of spatial and geometrical knowledge in problem solving with technology at primary school. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3), 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TIMSS Repeat (1999). TIMSS 1999 mathematics items. Released set for eight grades. Retrieved from https://timss.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/t99math_items.pdf.

  • Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., & Levenson, E. (2008). Intuitive nonexamples: the case of triangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 81–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ubuz, B. (1999). 10. ve 11. sınıf öğrencilerinin temel geometri konularındaki hataları ve kavram yanılgıları [Misconceptions and errors of 10th and 11th graders in elementary geometry topics]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16–17, 95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubuz, B. (2017). Dörtgenler arasındaki ilişkiler: 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin kavram imajları [Relations among quadrilaterals: 7th grade students’ concept images]. Yaşadıkça Eğitim Dergisi, 31(1), 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubuz, B., & Erdogan, B. (2018). Effects of physical manipulative instructions with or without explicit metacognitive questions on geometrical knowledge acquisition. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9852-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubuz, B., & Ustun, I. (2004). Figural and conceptual aspects in defining and identifying polygons. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16, 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ufer, S., Heinze, A., & Reiss, K. (2008). Individual predictors of geometrical proof competence. Proceedings of PME 32 and PME-NA 30, 4, 401–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. (Final report of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Project.). Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K. (2005). Problem-solving, proving, and learning: the relationships between Problem-solving processes and learning opportunities in the activity of proof construction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandieh, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2010). Defining as a mathematical activity: A framework for characterizing progress from informal to more formal ways of reasoning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 29, 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Utkun Aydın

    Present address: The American University of the Middle East, Kuwait City, Kuwait

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Middle East Technical University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Behiye Ubuz & Utkun Aydın

Authors
  1. Behiye Ubuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Utkun Aydın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Behiye Ubuz.

Appendix

Appendix

Geometry knowledge test about triangles (GKT-T).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ubuz, B., Aydın, U. Geometry knowledge test about triangles: evidence on validity and reliability. ZDM Mathematics Education 50, 659–673 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0964-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0964-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation