Hasil penelitian menunjukkan keefektifan LS-PBI menggunakan GSP untuk meningkatkan tahapan berpikir geometrik siswa dan tahapan GSP-TPACK guru. Kedua, level GSP-TPACK guru menengah berubah dari level 0 sebelum LS-PBI menggunakan GSP menjadi level 5 setelah LS-PBI menggunakan GSP. Sebelum intervensi, level awal GSP-TPACK guru berada di level 0 dan level 1.
The findings suggested the effectiveness of LS-PBI using GSP in improving both students' level of geometric thinking and teachers' level of GSP-TPACK.
Introduction
According to Serkoak (1996), once students understand geometric concepts, they will be able to learn geometry at a higher level without difficulty and have a good attitude towards learning geometry, which is a significant advantage over problem solving ability. in their real life and to understand and appreciate mathematics. Therefore, the importance of geometric thinking, which is the ability to think rationally in a geometric context (Van de Walle, 2004), is absolutely necessary. The ability to think geometrically will lead students to spatial visualization—an essential aspect of geometric thinking, geometric modeling, and spatial reasoning that will enable students to understand and interpret the physical environment and can be an important tool in problem solving (NCTM, 2000). ).
The Basic Curriculum (Ministry of Education of Thailand, 2008) states that geometry should be an important content standard in the curriculum for Thai students from primary to secondary school. Standard M 3.2: Ability to visualize, think spatially and use geometric models to solve problems. Studies in Thailand have shown that the level of geometric thinking of students who learned geometry through phased instruction increased (Chatbunyong, 2005; Chutkaew, 2006; Heamwatsadugit, 2002) and an.
This software allows drawing, measuring, calculating and writing geometric shapes and figures (Liu & Cummings, 2001). Integrating technology such as GSP into the teaching and learning of geometry is an integration of technology, pedagogy, and mathematical content. The Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework is designed under Shulman's description of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)—teaching knowledge that is.
Problem Statement
Chatbunyong (2005) investigated the problem of Thai students learning geometry and found that the main problem in learning geometry is that students do not know how to start proof, and other problems are students' lack of understanding in the properties of geometric shapes, they cannot give their reasoning when proof, cannot find the way in the proof, cannot connect the given information with what the questions ask, and cannot use the properties of the geometric shape to help in the proof. In addition, there are many students who cannot apply the concept of problem solving to some other similar problems in the same topic (Fongjangvang, 2008). Sawangsri (2002) investigated the geometric thinking of Thai students in Suphanburi province, Thailand using the geometric test developed by Usiskin (1982) and found that 75.28% of 90 students had geometric thinking at the level of 0, 24.72 % are at level 1 and none are above level 2 and above. In addition, geometry content in the Thai curriculum does not systematically prepare students to learn geometry at the high school or higher level because geometry is not included in the Thai high school curriculum.
Therefore, Thai students do not have the opportunity to learn geometry in high school, and this will be a problem for students who have to study geometry at university (Chamnankit,. It has been proven that the teaching and learning of geometry in Thailand is broken. At the "free orientation" stage of phase teaching, they will have students the opportunity to learn to find their own way in a network of problem-solving relationships through general tasks (van Hiele, 1986).
However, despite the availability of hardware and software in the technology-rich high school, a study by Norton et al. 2000) found that teachers rarely use computers in their teaching because they believe in their existing pedagogy; they are concerned about time constraints and their preference for some particular textual resources. Although it may seem that ICT is the important factor that makes students succeed in learning mathematics, the OECD (2010) mentioned in the PISA 2009 results that the use of ICT in the teaching and learning of mathematics does not have an effect on teaching and learning. moreover, the details showed that students who use ICT the most have minimum scores. Teachers need to also consider and improve their teaching because the needs and interests of children in today's world are very different from the children of past decades and the traditional approach may not respond to children's potential (Battista & Clement 1999; Garrity , 1998; Schoenfeld, 1983).
Objectives of the Study
Lesson study is one of the professional teacher development programs that many researchers have studied to develop teaching processes, and it clearly shows success in teaching and learning because it provides opportunities for teachers to work together, have a deep understanding of pedagogy, and cultivate the skills of observation, analysis and reflection of the teacher (Becker, Ghenciu, Horak, &. In addition, Stigler and Hiebert (1997) also stated in their book that the improvement of teaching and learning comes from how our educational system is able to find the way to use the lesson study to build the professional knowledge of teaching.For these reasons, this study aims to enhance secondary students' geometric thinking and teachers' GSP-TPACK through lesson study incorporating phase-based instruction (LS-PBI) using GSP in order to support effective teaching and learning in Thailand.
1a) Is there a statistically significant difference in the levels of geometric thinking of group 1 students before and after LS-PBI using GSP?. 1b) Is there a statistically significant difference in the levels of geometric thinking of group 2 students before and after LS-PBI using GSP?. 1c) Is there a statistically significant difference in the levels of geometric thinking of group 3 students before and after LS-PBI using GSP?.
1d) Is there a statistically significant difference in the levels of geometric thinking among Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 students after LS-PBI using GSP?.
Null Hypotheses
Ho 1d: There is no statistically significant difference in the levels of geometric thinking between Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 students after LS-PBI using SAP.
Significance of the Study
From this perspective, the knowledge obtained from this study will be very useful for researchers and educators who have struggled to determine how to improve students' geometric thinking and teachers' GSP-TPACK with better design instruction. The findings will be important in validating the use of this teaching and learning process in teaching geometry content at the high school level. Curriculum developers can modify the curriculum according to the results of this study or suggest this teaching process at the high school level.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
The results are limited to this teaching and learning process as defined in this study.
Definition of Terms
The user can easily create, edit and manipulate accurate geometric constructions on the computer screen. Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK): the interconnection and intersection of three knowledge constructs of technology, pedagogy, and content (Niess et al., 2009; Mishra & Koehler 2006). TPACK's framework builds on Shulman's descriptions of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)—the knowledge about teaching that is applicable to teaching specific content—to describe the interaction between PCK and technology to produce effective instruction (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
The understanding of geometric concepts can be improved through well-designed teaching and learning processes and appropriate tools. This study is an attempt to improve high school students' geometric thinking and teachers' SAP-TPACK through lesson study incorporating stage-based instruction (LS-PBI) using SAP. GSP will be provided to facilitate teachers and students during this learning geometry teaching and learning process.
The study asked a quantitative method to answer the research question about the effectiveness of the use of LS-PBI using GSP on students' geometric thinking and teachers' GSP-TPACK in teaching and learning this geometric content by using pretest and posttest scores. In addition, there is a qualitative method to answer the research question about the role that LS-PBI using GSP plays on students' geometric thinking and teachers' GSP-TPACK. Finally, Chapter 5 will conclude and discuss the findings to provide recommendations for future study.
LITERATURE REVIEW LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter Overview
Teaching and Learning Geometry in the Secondary Level
Geometric figures and properties of one-dimensional geometric figures, visualization of geometric models, geometric theories and geometric transformation. Identify 2D geometric figures that are components of an object in the form of a 3D geometric figure. Construct 2D geometric figures using basic geometric constructions and explain construction steps without stressing evidence.
Create cubes, cylinders, cones, prisms and pyramids from meshes of 3D geometric shapes or 2D geometric shapes. Furthermore, this curriculum has mentioned about the students' quality in learning geometry that 3rd grade students must have knowledge and understanding of 2D and some 3D geometric figures, ie. triangle, square, circle, ellipse, cuboid, sphere and cylinder as well as point, line segment and angle, 6th grade students must have knowledge and understanding of the characteristics and properties of 2D and 3D geometric figures, i.e. triangles, squares, circles, cylinders, cones, prisms, pyramids, angles and parallel lines, 9th grade students will use the compass and straight edge to construct and explain stages of construction of 2D geometric figures; can explain the characteristics and properties of 3D geometric shapes, i.e. prisms, pyramids, cylinders, cones and spheres. In Thailand, it was found that Thai students have difficulties in learning 2D and 3D geometric content as stated in the Basic Education Core Curriculum 2008, such as students have misunderstandings in the properties of 2D and 3D geometric shape, cannot give their reasoning to prove, cannot use the properties of 2D and 3D geometric shapes to help prove them (Chatbunyong, 2005; Maneewong, 1999).
In addition, some students cannot apply the concepts of solving the problem of 2D and 3D geometric shapes to some other similar problems in the same topic (Fongjangvang, 2008). These show that students do not understand the relationship between 2D and 3D geometric shapes, resulting in a misconception about the properties of 2D and 3D geometric shapes. If students have a good understanding of the properties of 2D and 3D geometric shapes, they will be able to learn geometry effectively.
The van Hiele Theory
- The historical background of van Hiele theory and perspective of geometric thinking geometric thinking
