An Introduction of a CIRGON Geoboard as a Manipulative for Teaching Geometry in K-12 Mathematics
Abstract
South African learners consistently underperform in mathematics, particularly in geometry, as shown by national and international assessments such as the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Euclidean geometry remains a major area of difficulty, with learners performing significantly worse than in other mathematical domains, signaling persistent challenges in teaching and learning. A key contributing factor is the mismatch between the reasoning required for Grade 12 geometry tasks (typically at Van Hiele level 3) and learners’ actual cognitive levels, which are often at Van Hiele level 1. This study adopts a practice-based research methodology to examine the effectiveness of the CIRGON Geoboard (CGG), a low-cost manipulative designed to support geometry instruction across the K–12 spectrum. Integrated into classroom practice and aligned with the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS), the CGG promotes active, hands-on learning and scaffolds learners’ progression through the Van Hiele levels of geometric reasoning. Findings from classroom-based interventions indicate that the CGG enhances learner engagement and conceptual understanding, helping to bridge the gap between curriculum demands and learner capabilities. The study concludes that the CGG shows promise for addressing persistent challenges in geometry education and recommends further research into its long-term impact on learners’ geometric reasoning and problem-solving skills.
Downloads
References
Abari, M. T., & Andrew, K. D. (2021). Effects of geoboard on the performance of junior secondary school students in geometry in Makurdi metropolis of Benue State. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM), 3(12), 225–228. https://doi.org/10.35629/5252-0312225228
Abdu-Raheem, B. O., & Oluwagbohunmi, M. F. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ problems of improvisation of instructional materials in social studies in Ekiti State University. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(3), 160–163. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2805011521
Abdullah, A. H., & Zakaria, E. (2013). Enhancing students' level of geometric thinking through Van Hiele's phased-based learning. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 6(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2013/v6i5.13
Acharya, B. J. (2017). Factors affecting difficulties in learning mathematics by mathematics learners. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeedu.20170602.11
Adelabu, F. M., Makgato, M., & Ramaligela, M. S. (2019). The importance of dynamic geometry computer software on learners’ performance in geometry. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 17(1), 52–63. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1870
Alex, J. K., & Mammen, K. J. (2016). Lessons learnt from employing Van Hiele theory-based instruction in senior secondary school geometry classrooms. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(8), 2223–2236. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1228a
Bowie, L. (2009). What is mathematics paper 3 for? Marang News, (5).
Branfield, J. R. (1970). Geoboard geometry. The Mathematical Gazette, 54(390), 359–361. https://doi.org/10.2307/3613853
Candy, L., Edmonds, E., & Vear, C. (2021). Practice-based research. In C. Vear (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of practice-based research (pp. 27–41). Routledge.
Carden, J., & Cline, T. (2015). Problem solving in mathematics: The significance of visualisation and related working memory. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1051660
Clements, D. H. (1999). Geometric and spatial thinking in young children. In J. V. Copley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years (pp. 66–79). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2020). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach (3rd ed.). Routledge.
De Villiers, M. D. (1996). The future of secondary school geometry. For the Learning of Mathematics, 16(1), 1–7. http://academic.sun.ac.za/mathed/malati/Files/future.pdf
Deborah, O., Ekwueme, C. O., & Ndioho, O. F. (2020). Geoboard application on geometry teaching and senior secondary school students’ academic performance in Degema Local Government Area, Rivers State. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), 6(3), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra2336
Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy statement: Further education and training phase grades 10–12 mathematics. Government Printers.
Department of Basic Education. (2022). Diagnostic report on the National Senior Certificate examination 2021: Mathematics. DBE.
Fujita, T., Kondo, Y., Kumakura, H., & Kunimune, S. (2017). Students’ geometric thinking with cube representations: Assessment framework and empirical evidence. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.03.001
Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Tischler, R. (1988). The van Hiele model of thinking in geometry among adolescents. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, 3. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED294770
Freire, F. A., Soares, R. F., Souza, A. M. R., Vanessa, S. M., Pires, G. D. D., & José Damião, V. (2018). The use of the geoboard in teaching geometry: Calculating area and perimeter. Multidisciplinary Core Scientific Journal of Knowledge, 6, 119–135. https://www.nucleodoconhecimento.com
Galleto, P. G., & Descallar, G. R. (2016). Exploring the application and effect of 5-in-1 strategies in teaching mathematics. Journal of Higher Education Research Disciplines, 1(2), 34–47. https://www.nmsc.edu.ph/ojs/index.php/jherd/article/view/54
Gattegno, C. (1971). Geoboard geometry. Educational Solutions Worldwide.
Golafshani, N. (2013). Teachers' beliefs and teaching mathematics with manipulatives. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(3), 137–159. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/download/955/1589/
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3
Haas, B., Lavicza, Z., Houghton, T., & Kreis, Y. (2023). Can you create? Visualising and modelling real-world mathematics with technologies in STEAM educational settings. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 52, 101297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101297
Hurst, C., & Linsell, C. (2020). Manipulatives and multiplicative thinking. European Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/5808
Kohen, Z., Amram, M., Dagan, M., & Miranda, T. (2022). Self-efficacy and problem-solving skills in mathematics: The effect of instruction-based dynamic versus static visualization. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 759–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1683588
Laski, E., Jordan, J., Daou, C., & Murray, A. (2015). What makes mathematics manipulatives effective? Lessons from cognitive science and Montessori education. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015589588
Makina, A. (2010). The role of visualisation in developing critical thinking in mathematics. Perspectives in Education, 28(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v28i1.8
Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2005). Developing mathematical thinking with the assistance of manipulatives. In The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project (pp. 144–147). https://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de/~paditz/AAAAProceedingsFinal4.pdf
Mason, M. (2009). The van Hiele levels of geometric understanding. Colección Digital Eudoxus, 1(2). https://www.fe.infn.it/u/mandreot/SSIS/DidMateModuloII/vanHiele%20levels.pdf
McClung, L. W. (1998). A study on the use of manipulatives and their effect on student achievement in a high school algebra class (Master’s thesis, Salem-Teikyo University). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED425077.pdf
Mogari, D., Kriek, J., Stols, G., & Iheanachor, O. (2009). Lesotho's learners' achievement in mathematics and their teachers’ background and professional development. Pythagoras, 70, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v0i70.33
Mosia, M., Matabane, M. E., & Moloi, T. J. (2023). Errors and misconceptions in Euclidean geometry problem solving questions: The case of Grade 12 learners. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 8(3), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2023.23
Moyer, P. S., & Jones, M. G. (2004). Controlling choice: Teachers, students and manipulatives in mathematics classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 104(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb17978.x
Mthethwa, M. Z. (2015). Application of GeoGebra on Euclidean geometry in rural high schools: Grade 11 learners (Master’s thesis, University of Zululand). https://hdl.handle.net/10530/1480
Mudaly, V., & Narriadoo, D. (2023). Solving word problems by visualising. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 27(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2023.2183612
Naidoo, J., & Kapofu, W. (2020). Exploring female learners’ perceptions of learning geometry in mathematics. South African Journal of Education, 40(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v40n1a1727
Naidoo, J., & Kapofu, W. (2021). Exploring learners’ understanding and misconceptions in Euclidean geometry: A case of Grade 11 mathematics learners. Journal of African Education, 2(3), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.31920/2633-2930/2021/v2n3a2
Ndioho, O. F., & Olajide, D. (2020). Senior secondary school students’ interest on geometry teaching using geoboard. International Journal of Computer & Organization Trends, 10(2), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.14445/22492593/IJCOT-V10I2P304
Patahuddin, S. M., Rokhmah, S., & Ramful, A. (2020). What does teaching of spatial visualisation skills incur: An exploration through the visualise–predict–check heuristic. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(2), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00321-2
Presmeg, N. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics: Emergence from psychology. In Á. Gutiérrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 205–235). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901127_009
Presmeg, N. C. (1986). Visualisation in high school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 6(3), 42–46. https://flm-journal.org/Articles/1917B083BE4534511A32616EED75A8.pdf
Rahmiati, M. (2016). The attempt to improve mathematics learning motivation using the geoboard (spiked board) among Grade II elementary school students. Global Journal of Business and Social Science Review, 4(3), 74–78. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002326
Reddy, V., Visser, M., Winnaar, L., Arends, F., Juan, A., Prinsloo, C., & Isdale, K. (2020). TIMSS 2019: Highlights of South African Grade 5 and 9 achievements. Human Sciences Research Council.
Rowan, T. E. (1990). Implementing the standards: The geometry standards in K–8 mathematics. The Arithmetic Teacher, 37(6), 24–28. https://doi.org/10.5951/AT.37.6.0024
Sani, S., & Salahudeen, B. (2016). Effects of geoboard and geographical globe on senior secondary school students’ performance in mathematics in Kaduna State. Journal of Science, Technology & Education, 4(1), 140–148. https://atbuftejoste.com/index.php/joste/article/view/206
Scandrett, H. (2008). Using geoboards in primary mathematics: Going… going… gone? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 13(2), 29–32. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.225955763471222
Sibiya, M. R. (2020). A reconsideration of the effectiveness of using geoboard in teaching Euclidean geometry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8360
Sibiya, M. R., & Mudaly, V. (2018). The effects of the geoboard on learner understanding of geometry theorems. Ponte: International Scientific Researches Journal, 74(11), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.21506/j.ponte.2018.11.8
Sriraman, B., & Pizzulli, M. (2005). Balancing mathematics education research and the NCTM standards. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 37, 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-005-0033-1
Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Geoboard. In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoboard
Yalley, E., Armah, G., & Ansah, R. K. (2021). Effect of the Van Hiele instructional model on students’ achievement in geometry. Education Research International, 2021, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6993668
Yi, M., Flores, R., & Wang, J. (2020). Examining the influence of Van Hiele theory-based instructional activities on elementary preservice teachers’ geometry knowledge for teaching 2-D shapes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, Article 103038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103038
Copyright (c) 2025 Studies in Learning and Teaching
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
