Mathematically talented middle grade students are traditionally served by beginning Algebra I (and the traditional pre-calculus sequence) in seventh, or even sixth, grade. They thus enroll in geometry early, with little attention paid to the fact that readiness for and success in algebra requires different skills and types of understanding than readiness for and success in geometry. Research about geometric understanding in regular and gifted students, as well as research predicting success in high school geometry classes, suggests that the decision to place mathematically talented students in geometry classes at a younger than typical age should be made on the basis of more information than the successful completion of Algebra I. This paper describes a procedure for assessing geometry readiness in mathematically able middle school students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenbowC. P. (1986). SMPY's model for teaching mathematically precocious students. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 1–26). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
2.
BurgerW.ShaughnessyJ. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of development in geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1), 31–48.
3.
ClementsD.BattistaM. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In GrouwsD. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). New York: Macmillan.
4.
CrowleyM. L. (1987). The van Hiele model of the development of geometric thought. In LindquistM. M.ShulteA. P. (Eds.), Learning and teaching geometry, K–12 (pp. 1–16). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
5.
FlandersJ. R. (1987). How much of the content in mathematics textbooks is new?. Arithmetic Teacher, 35(1), 18–23.
6.
FuysD.GeddesD.TischlerR. (1988). The van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 3.
7.
GutiérrezA.JaimeA. (1996). An alternative paradigm to evaluate the acquisition of the van Hiele levels. Manuscript submitted for publication.
8.
MasonM. (in press). The van Hiele model of geometric understanding and mathematically talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.
9.
MayberryJ. (1981). An investigation in the van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2008A. (University Microfilms No. 80–23078).
10.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
11.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
12.
OrleansJ. B.HannaG. S. (1989). Orleans-Hanna algebra prognosis test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
13.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1986). The enrichment triad/revolving door model: A school-wide plan for the development of creative productivity. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 216–266). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
14.
SenkS. (1989). Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 309–321.
15.
StanleyJ. C. (1978). SMPY's DT-PI model: Diagnostic testing followed by prescriptive instruction. ITYB, 4(10), 7–8.
16.
StanleyJ. C. (1979). How to use a fast-pacing math mentor. ITYB, 5(6), 1–2.
17.
UsiskinZ. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. (Final Report of the Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Project). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
18.
UsiskinZ.SenkS. (1990). Evaluating a test of van Hiele levels: A response to Crowley and Wilson. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(3), 242–245.
19.
van HieleP. (1984). The child's thought and geometry. In FuysD.GeddesD.TischlerR. (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. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED287 697).
20.
van HieleP. (1986). Structure and insight. Orlando: Academic Press.
21.
van Hiele-GeldofD. (1984). The didactics of geometry in the lowest class of secondary school. In FuysD.GeddesD.TischlerR. (Eds.), English translation of selected writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College, School of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED287 697).
