A new teaching method, Logo-Based Instruction (LBI), was applied for teaching basic geometric concepts: points, rays, lines, and line segments. The aim of LBI is to enable teachers and students to investigate and explore Logo integration into the geometry curriculum. Logo computer language was used for developing class activities and tutorial programs. The students used Logo to solve problems. The sample consisted of sixty-seven seventh and eighth graders (31 females and 36 males; 51 blacks and 16 whites). The regular classroom teacher taught both the experimental and the control groups using the treatment plan designed by the researcher. The results of the statistical analyses (applied to the scores of achievement tests, Likert Scales, Semantic Differential Scales, Interview Sheets; and the gain in van Hiele levels) were significant in favor of the experimental group at 0.05 level. These results are encouraging and support the use of LBI for teaching geometry.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PapertS., Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books, New York, 1980.
2.
DehnN. and SchankR., Artificial and Human Intelligence, in Handbook of Human Intelligence, SternbergR. J. (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 352–391, 1982.
3.
BattistaM. T. and ClementsD. H., A Case for a Logo-based Elementary School Geometry Curriculum, Arithmetic Teacher, 36: 3, pp. 11–17, 1988.
4.
TaylorR. P. (ed.), The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 177–196, 1980.
5.
HofferA., Geometry is More than Proof, Mathematics Teacher, 74: 1, pp. 11–18, 1981.
6.
BattistaM. T. and ClementsD. H., Using Logo Pseudoprimitives for Geometric Investigations, Mathematics Teacher, 81: 3, pp. 166–174, 1988.
7.
ShaughnessyJ. M. and BurgerW. F., Spadework Prior to Deduction in Geometry, Mathematics Teacher, 78: 6, pp. 419–428, 1985.
8.
BillingsK., Development of Mathematical Task Persistence and Problem-Solving Ability in 5th and 6th Grade Students through the Use of Logo and Heuristic Methodologies (Northern Arizona University, 1986), Dissertation Abstract International, 47: 7, p. 2433A, 1987.
9.
KlotzF. S., When is a Program Like a Function?Mathematics Teacher, 79: 8, pp. 648–651, 1987.
10.
RyotiD. E., Using Computer and Logo to Investigate Symmetry, Arithmetic Teacher, 34: 4, pp. 36–37, 1986.
11.
BattistaM. T., MATHSTUFF Logo Procedures: Bridging the Gap between Logo and School Geometry, Arithmetic Teacher, 35: 9, pp. 7–11, 1987.
12.
LehrerR.RandleL., and SancilioL., Learning Pre-proof Geometry with LOGO, Cognition and Instruction, 6: 2, pp. 159–184, 1989.
13.
OliveJ., Logo Programming and Geometric Understanding: An In-depth Study, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22: 2, pp. 90–111, 1991.
14.
ClementsD. H. and BattistaM. T., Learning of Geometric Concepts in a Logo Environment, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20: 5, pp. 450–467, 1989.
15.
ClementsD. H. and BattistaM. T., The Effects of Logo on Children's Conceptualization of Angle and Polygons, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21: 5, pp. 356–371, 1990.
16.
ClementsD. H., Enhancement of Creativity in Computer Environments, American Educational Research Journal, 28: 1, pp. 173–187, 1991.
17.
PalumboD. L. and PalumboD. B., A Comparison of the Effects of Lego TC Logo and Problem Solving Software on Elementary Students' Problem Solving Skills, Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 4: 3, pp. 307–323, 1993.
18.
DickinsonS., Logo Telecommunications: Crossing Boundaries and Opening Minds, Logo Update, The Logo Foundation Newsletter, 3: 2, pp. 1–2, Winter 1995.
19.
ThompsonC. S. and Van de WalleJ. V., Let's Do It: Patterns and Geometry with Logo, Arithmetic Teacher, 32: 7, pp. 6–13, 1985.
20.
NossR., Creating a Mathematical Environment through Logo, paper presented at a regional meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, San Antonio, Texas, 1985.
21.
FeurzeigW.PapertS.BloomM.GrantR., and SolomonC., Programming Language as a Conceptual Framework for Teaching Mathematics, BBN Report No. 1889, Bolt, Bernanek, and Newman, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969.
22.
FeurzigW.LukasG.FaflickP.GrantR.LukasJ.MorganR.WeinerW., and WexelblatP., Programming Language as a Conceptual Framework for Teaching Mathematics, BBN Report No. 2165, Bolt, Bernanek, and Newman, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.
23.
KenneyM. J. and BezuszkaS. J., A Square Share: Problem Solving with Squares, Mathematics Teacher, 77: 6, pp. 414–420, 1984.
24.
SilverS. B., Creativity through Play with Logo, Childhood Education, 64: 4, pp. 220–240, 1988.
25.
ErnestP., What's the Use of Logo?Mathematics in School, 17: 1, pp. 16–20, 1988.
26.
YusufM. M., Logo Mathematics Tutorial 1, unpublished manuscripts, University of Cincinnati, College of Education, Cincinnati, 1988.
27.
YusufM. M., Logo Based Instruction, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 325 498), University of Wisconsin-Parkside, School of Education, Teacher Education Department, Kenosha, Wisconsin, 1990.
28.
YusufM. M., Effects of Logo Based Instruction on the Learning of Selected Geometry Concepts at the Secondary School Level, (doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1990), University Microfilms International, Dissertation Information Service, Order No. 9108696, P.O. Box 1764, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, 1991. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 51A, 3660–3661, May 1991.)
29.
YusufM. M., Logo Based Instruction in Geometry, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 218), University of Wisconsin-Parkside, School of Education, Teacher Education Department, Kenosha, Wisconsin, 1991.
30.
YusufM. M., Logo Mathematics Tutorial 2, unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, School of Education, Teacher Education Department, Kenosha, Wisconsin, 1994.
31.
YusufM. M., Cognition of Fundamental Concepts in Geometry, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10: 4, pp. 349–371, 1994.
32.
BraceyG. W., Still a Storm Over Logo Research and Papert's Ideas, Electronic Learning, 7: 5, p. 14, 1988.
33.
KurtlandM. D.ClementK.MawbyR., and PeaR. D., Mapping the Cognitive Demands of Learning to Program, in Developmental Studies of Computer Programming Skills, KurtlandM. D. (ed.), (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 257 441), Bank Street College of Education, Center for Children and Technology, New York, 1984.
34.
PeaR. D. and KurtlandM. D., Logo Programming and the Development of Planning Skills, paper presented at the conference on Thinking, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.
35.
EmihovichC. and MillerG. E., Learning Logo: The Social Context of Cognition, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20: 1, pp. 57–701988.
36.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, NCTM, Reston, Virginia, 1989.
37.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics, NCTM, Reston, Virginia, 1991.
38.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), Computers in Mathematics Education: 1984 Yearbook, HansenV. P. and ZwengM. J. (eds.), NCTM, Reston, Virginia, 1984.
39.
Research Advisory Committee of NCTM, Mathematics Education Reform and Mathematics Education Research: Opportunities, Obstacles, and Obligations, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21: 4, pp. 287–292, 1990.
40.
LappanG. and WinterM. J., Technology and Critical Barriers, in Computers in Mathematics Education: 1984 Yearbook, HansenV. P. and ZwengM. J. (eds.), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, 1984.
41.
HativaN., Teacher-Student-Computer Interaction: An Application that Enhances Teacher Effectiveness, in Computers in Mathematics Education: 1984 Yearbook, HansenV. P. and ZwengM. J. (eds.), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp. 89–96, 1984.
42.
CarpenterT. P.CorbittM. K.KepnerH. S.Jr.LindquistM. M., and ReysR. E., Results from the Second Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, 1981.
43.
LindquistM. M. and KoubaV. L., Geometry, in Results from the Fourth Mathematics Assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, LindquistM. M. (ed.), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp. 44–54, 1989.
44.
CarpenterT. P.MatthewsW.LindquistM. M., and SilverE. A., Achievement in Mathematics: Results from the National Assessment, The Elementary School Journal, 84: 5, pp. 485–495, 1984.
45.
MayberryJ. W., An Investigation of the van Hiele Levels of Geometric Thought in Undergraduate Pre-service Teachers, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, 1981.
46.
BurgerW. F. and ShaughnessyJ. M., Characterizing the van Hiele Levels of Development in Geometry, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17: 1, pp. 31–48, 1986.
47.
BobangoJ. C., van Hiele Levels of Geometric Thought and Student Achievement in Standard Content and Proof Writing: The Effects of Phase-Based Instruction, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1987.
48.
CrowleyM. L., The van Hiele Model of the Development of Geometric Thought, in Learning and Teaching Geometry, K-12, 1987 Yearbook, LindquistM. M. and ShulteA. P. (eds.), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp. 1–16, 1987.
49.
OlsonA. T.KierenT. E., and LudwigS., Linking Logo Levels and Language in Mathematics, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18: 4, pp. 359–370, 1987.
50.
FuysD.GeddesD., and TischlerR., The van Hiele Model of Thinking in Geometry among Adolescents, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph #3, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, 1988.
51.
CampbellD. T. and StanleyJ. C., Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for Research, Rand McNally & Company, Chicago, 1966.
