African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences Vol.

8, 2010

The van Hiele levels of understanding of students entering

senior high school in Ghana

Baffoe8, E. & Mereku9, D. K.

Abstract
This study was an attempt to measure the Van Hiele levels of geometric thought attained by
SHS 1 students on entering Senior High School in Ghana. In all, 188 SHS Form 1 students
from two schools were involved in this study. These students were given the Van Hiele
Geometry Test adapted from the ‘Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary
School Geometry Test’ items and an aptitude test, both in the fourth week of their entry to
the SHS. The results showed that 59% of the students attained Van Hiele level 1. Out of
59%, 11% reached level 2 and only 1% reached level 3 by the theory. This indicates that the
Van Hiele level of understanding of (i.e. over 90%) Ghanaian students before entering SHS
is lower than that of their colleagues other countries.
Keywords van Hiele levels, geometric thinking, secondary school geometry

Introduction
There has been a great deal of concern about the level of students’ understanding of geometry
in Ghanaian schools. In 2003, Ghana participated in Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS) in order to find out how the performance of her eighth graders (JSS2)
in science and mathematics compared with those of other countries. The analysis of the
Ghanaian students’ performance in mathematics indicated that, Measurement, Geometry and
Algebra were the candidates’ weak content areas (Anamuah-Mensah et al, 2004).
In Ghana, mathematics is regarded as a cardinal factor in the nations’ scientific and
technological advancement because of its useful links to many other fields of human
endeavour (Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology (MEST), 2009). Students’
mathematical competencies have been closely linked to their levels of geometric
understanding (Van Hiele, 1986; French, 2004). My study focuses on the geometric thinking
levels of Ghanaian students in the context of the Ghanaian Curriculum. In Addition, the West
African Examination Council (WAEC) Chief Examiners annual reports for the SSSCE &
WASSCE from 2003 to 2006 observed that candidates were weak in Geometry of circles and
3-dimensional problems. According to their reports, most candidates avoided questions on 3-
dimensional problems, where they attempted geometry questions; only few of the candidates
showed a clear understanding of the problem in their working.
The teaching of high school geometry in many countries including Ghana was for a long
period of time based on the formal axiomatic geometry that Euclid created over 2000 years
ago ( Van Hiele ,1999; French, 2004). In his era, Euclid’s logical construction of geometry
with its axioms, postulates, definitions, theorems, and proofs was, indeed, an admirable

8
Emmanuel Baffoe is a mathematics instructor at the Winneba Senior High School. He is also a tutor at the
Centre for Distance Education, Institute for Educational Development and Extension, University of
Education, Winneba. E-mail: [email protected].
9
Prof. D. K. Mereku lectures at the Department of Mathematics Education, University of Education, Winneba.
Email: [email protected].

51
The van Hiele levels of understanding of students entering senior high school in Ghana Baffoe, E. & Mereku, D. K.

mathematical achievement (Van Hiele, 1999). However, Van Hiele (1999) expresses the view
that school geometry that is presented in the traditional Euclidean fashion assumes that
school children also think on a formal deductive level. Empirical evidence, however,
indicates that this is not the case, as many students experience difficulty with geometry when
it is presented in the Euclidean way (De Villiers, 1997; Hiele, 1999).
In response to many years of students’ experiencing problems with Euclidean formal
axiomatic geometry, many countries (e.g the U.S.A, the Netherlands and Russia) began to
advocate reform in approaches to school geometry in their mathematics curriculum (Atebe,
2008). The changes that were implemented reflected, for most part, changes in teaching in the
light of the research conducted in the late 1950s by two Dutch mathematics educators, Pierre
Van Hiele and his wife, Dina Van Hiele-Geldof. The van Hiele’s were experienced teachers
in a Montessori secondary school in the Netherlands who noticed with disappointment the
difficulties that their learners had with geometry, particularly in formal proofs. They therefore
conducted research on thought and concept development among their school children. Their
work was first reported in 1957 in companion doctoral dissertations at the University of
Utrecht. The Van Hiele model identifies five sequential levels of thinking that learners pass
through in geometry. According to the model, the learner, assisted by appropriate
instructional experiences, passes through these levels in a hierarchical order, beginning with
recognition of shapes as a whole (level 1), progressing to discovery of properties of shapes
and informal reasoning about these shapes and their properties (levels 2 and 3), and
culminating in a formal deductive and rigorous study of axiomatic geometry (levels 4 and 5)
(Van Hiele, 1986; Fuys et al., 1988).
In the years since 1957, the Van Hiele model has motivated considerable research which has
resulted in changes in geometry curricula in many developed countries. In Russia, for
example, results from the Van Hiele’s research have been applied to the school mathematics
curriculum, producing appreciable improvement in students’ understanding of school
geometry (Hoffer, 1983; Fuys et al., 1988). In the U.S., three similar federally-funded
investigations (the Oregon Project, the Brooklyn Project, and the Chicago Project) were
conducted in 1979-1982 (Hoffer, 1983). The purpose of the Oregon Project was to investigate
the extent to which the Van Hiele levels can serve as a model to access learners’
understanding of geometry. The Brooklyn Project aimed at determining whether the Van
Hiele model adequately describes how students learn geometry, and implemented four
instructional modules that were detailed in accordance with the Van Hiele levels and phases
(Fuys et al., 1988). In all these projects, the Van Hiele model proved to be a useful
framework for accessing and unraveling students’ difficulties with school geometry (Atebe &
Schafer, 2008).
Despite the widespread application of the Van Hiele theory to improve mathematics curricula
in many Western countries, only a few have utilized this model in an African context. My
literature research indicates that there has been little investigation involving the Van Hiele
model in Ghana. And as far as I have been able to ascertain, very few studies have applied the
Van Hiele theory to determine the level of geometric conceptualization of Ghanaian high
school students. Yet evidence abounds that many students in Ghana encounter severe
difficulties with school geometry. In acknowledging the difficulties by Ghanaian students
with geometry, and affirming the relevance of the Van Hiele model in ameliorating these
difficulties, De Villiers (1997) for example, asserted that “unless we embark on a major
revision of the primary school geometry curriculum along Van Hiele lines, it seems clear that
no amount of effort at the secondary school will be successful”.

52
 African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences Vol. 8, 2010

Purpose of the study and research question

Personal experience had shown that the conditions available for Ghanaian students at the
junior high school level does not allow them to explore geometric concepts and shapes
informally prior to their high school course in geometry. Therefore, in order to inform any
major revision of the junior high school curriculum, it would seem necessary first to
determine the van Hiele geometric thinking levels of students entering senior high school. In
this regard, the study sought to find out the stages of the Van Hiele levels of understanding
Ghanaian students reach in the study of geometry before entering senior high school (SHS).
In pursuance of this purpose, the following question was formulated to guide the study: -
Which stages of Van Hiele levels of understanding do Ghanaian students reach in the study
of geometry before entering senior high school (SHS)?

Methodology
The researcher used mainly the survey approach using test. The survey in this study was used
for descriptive purposes. The researcher aimed at getting an accurate description of the Van
Hiele level’s geometric understanding reached by Senior High School Students. The
population consists of students beginning Senior High School education in Ghana. The
Winneba Senior High School and Zion Girls were sampled for the study because students in
this municipality are posted from all over the ten regions of Ghana to these schools. This was
a “convenience” sample. McMillan (2000) defined a convenience sample as one where a
group of participants are selected because of availability. The students from the sample
schools have studied mathematics in Ghana at the basic level and have all passed the Basic
Education Certificate Examination (BECE) examination, which tests among other things their
ability in Geometry.
The sample comprised a total of 188 Senior High School learners with a mean age of 16
years. The ages of these learners ranged from 15 to 19, with majority of them between the
ages of 15 and 16. Of the 188 learners, 62 were drawn from a private Senior High School in
Winneba whilst the rest came from a government Senior High School in the Winneba
Municipality. In the government Senior High School, 3 classes were chosen out of 9 form 1
classes. In order of Science, Business and Arts representing all the courses run by the school.
This was done to ensure that all the major courses run by the school were represented. In the
private School only one class was selected out of four classes due to the fewer number of
streams.
Research instrument: Considering the nature of research questions being examined, the
instruments used in the data collection was the Van Hiele Geometric Test (VHGT). The Van
Hiele Geometric test items used in assessing Senior High School form one students’ Van
Hiele level was adapted from the Usikin (1982). The VHGT is designed to measure one’s
Van Hiele level in geometry. This is a well-known geometry test and it has been used in
several Masters and PhD Dissertation (Hoffer, 1981; Usiskin, 1982; Mayberry, 1983; Burger
& Shaughnessy, 1986; Fuys et al., 1988) since it was developed. The test involves 15 item
multiple-choice tests. The first five questions deal with identification, naming and comparing
of geometric shapes such as triangles, squares and rectangles. The next set of five questions
deal with recognizing and naming properties of geometric figures, whilst the last set deals
with questions that require students to logically order the properties of figures previously
identified, and begins to perceive the relationships between these properties.(Pegg, 1995).
Rubric for scoring the Van Hiele Geometric Test
First grading method: Each correct response to the 15-item multiple-choice test was assigned
1 point. Hence, each student’s score ranged from 0 – 15 marks. The percentage score was
calculated for each student and an item analysis of students’ responses was done using SPSS.
53
The van Hiele levels of understanding of students entering senior high school in Ghana Baffoe, E. & Mereku, D. K.

Second grading method: The second method of grading the Van Hiele geometric test (Part B)
was based on the “3 of 5 correct” success criterion suggested by Usiskin (1982,p33). By this
criterion, if a student answered correctly at least 3 out of the 5 items in any of the 3 subtests
within the Van Hiele Geometric Test, the student was considered to have mastered either
levels 1,2 or 3. Using this grading system developed by Usiskin (1982), the learners were
assigned weighted sum scores in the following manner:
− 1 point for meeting Van Hiele level 1 items 1 -5
− 2 points for meeting Van Hiele level 2 items 6 – 10
− 4 points for meeting Van Hiele level 3 items 11 – 15
Thus, the maximum point obtainable by any student was 1 + 2 + 4 = 7 points. The method of
calculating the weighted sum makes it possible for a person to determine upon which Van
Hiele levels the criterion has been met from the weighted sum alone. For example, a score of
3 indicates that the learner met the criterion at level 1 and 2. The second grading system
served the purpose of assigning the learners into various Van Hiele levels based on their
responses.
Data Analysis: This study aims to determine the Van Hiele geometric thinking levels of the
participating learners. Consistent with the practice and results of many earlier Van Hiele
researchers (e.g. Usikin, 1982; Mayberry, 1983, Atebe, 2008) their research generated mainly
quantitative numerical data in the form of the test from the participants. Therefore the use of
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was applied for the analysis of data. The data
for the VHGT and attitude test were coded and keyed into the SPSS for the statistical
analysis. In addition, given that this study is a survey, I also employed descriptive data
analysis in an attempt to understand, interpret and describe the experiences of the research
participants in terms of their levels of geometric conceptualization. In specific terms, various
descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution, charts, measures of central tendency, and
correlation coefficients were used to analyse, describe and compare separate sets of
quantitative data in this study.

Findings

Overall participants’ performance in the VHGT

Table 4.1 presents the overall participants’ performance on each item in the VHGT. As can
be seen in the table each level had five items with four multiple choice options. For each
item, the number in bold font represents the total number of students who answered that item
correctly. In this section the participants’ overall performance on the items in the three
subtest are discussed

Table 1 van Hiele geometry test: item analysis for each level per school

Level 1 Choice items 1 2 3 4 5

A 3 8 27 34 58
B 159 2 1 42 13
C 0 24 140 28 72
D 24 145 3 60 6
E 2 9 17 24 40

54
 African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences Vol. 8, 2010

Level 2 Choice items 6 7 8 9 10

A 19 40 36 21 29
B 17 9 27 18 34
C 108 27 46 108 46
D 38 22 33 10 37
E 6 90 46 31 42
Level 3 Choice items 11 12 13 14 15
A 31 47 15 17 55
B 33 62 14 16 34
C 40 21 10 54 35
D 21 17 4 18 17
E 63 40 145 83 47
NB: The figures in bold represent the total number of students who answered that item correctly.

Performance on Subtest 1: Van Hiele level 1

The students performed well only in the first three items of subtest 1. The table 1 shows that
159 (85%), 145 (77%), 140 (75%) of the students managed to answer items 1, 2 and 3 in that
order, compared to item 4 and 5, 42 (22%), and 40 (21%) which was not very encouraging. In
Box 1 is a sample items from Subtest 1. The correct answer for this item in the Box is choice
E. Table 4.1 shows that only 40 (21%) of the students in the subsample had this correct, that
is, knew that all the given quadrilaterals can be referred to as parallelograms.

Item 5 Which of these are parallelograms?

a. J only
b. L only J
c. J and M only M L
d. None of these are parallelograms
e. All are parallelograms
Box 1 Sample item in Subtest 1
This shows lack of knowledge about ‘class inclusion’ in 149 (79%) of the students who
participated in this research study.

55
The van Hiele levels of understanding of students entering senior high school in Ghana Baffoe, E. & Mereku, D. K.

Performance on Subtest 2: Van Hiele level 2

Students performed fairly well on items 7 and 9. Of the 188 students 91 (48%) and 108 (57%)
respectively answered items 7 and 9 correctly, while 97 (52%), and 80 (43%) of the students
were unable to answer the same items correctly. Students did not do well in items 6, 8 and 10.
Of the 188 students only 17(9%), 36 (19%) and 34 (18%) of the students were able to answer
questions on these items respectively.

Item 8 A rhombus is a 4- sided figure with all sides of the same length.
Here are three examples.

Which of (A) – (D) is not true in every rhombus?

a. The two diagonals have the same length.
b. Each diagonal bisects two angles of the rhombus.
c. The two diagonals are perpendicular.
d. The opposite angles have the same measure.
e. All of (A) – (D) are true in every rhombus.

Box 2 Sample item in Subtest 2

In Box 2 is a sample items from Subtest 2. Of the given choices for the item in the box,
choice E is the correct answer. Table 4.1 indicates that only 36 (19%) of the students who
attempted this question answered the item correctly. This means that 81% of the students
answered it wrongly. This reveals students’ lack of knowledge about the properties of a
rhombus.

Performance on Subtest 3: Van Hiele level 3

In general, the performance of the students for Subtest 3 was very poor. For items 11, 12, 13,
14 and 15, out of 188 students who took part in the test 40 (21%), 62 (33%), 15 (8%), 17
(9%) and 34 (18%) respectively answered the said item correctly. Subtest 3 is about students
knowing the properties of given figures and using these to place figures with common
properties in one class. Of the three items of the subtest, item 13 was extremely poorly
attempted by students. This item is presented in the Box 3.

56
 African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences Vol. 8, 2010

Item 13 Which of these can be called rectangles?

a. All can. P Q R
b. Q only
c. R only
d. P and Q only
e. Q and R only

Box 3 Sample item in subtest 3

In Box 3 correct choice is A. From Table 1 it can be seen that only 15 (8%) of students
correctly answered the item. This situation means that 82% students did not know that
rectangles have common properties with squares. This suggests that students have difficulties
in understanding ‘class inclusion’.
Van Hiele levels of understanding Ghanaian students reach in the study of geometry before
entering Senior High School
The first question raised in this study was to find out the stages of the Van Hiele levels of
understanding Ghanaian students reach in the study of geometry before entering Senior High
School (SHS). In Figure 1, the students overall performance in the VHGT was presented in a
bar chart.

Student reaching Van Hiele level 1& 3

Student reaching Van Hiele level 1,2 & 3

Student reaching Van Hiele level 1 & 2

Student reaching Van Hiele level 1

Not reaching any Van Hiele level

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Figure 1 A bar chart showing the overall performance in the VHGT

As shown in Figure 1, 59% of the students attained Van Hiele level 1, 13% attained Van
Hiele level 1 & 2. In addition, 1 % of the students attained Van Hiele levels 1, 2 & 3, whilst
another 1 % of the students attained Van Hiele level 1 & 3. 26% of this sample did not attain
any of the Van Hiele levels of intellectual development.
The Van Hiele Geometric Test (VHGT) was further analyzed by comparing the students’
achievement in one level to other levels. Table 2 shows the cross-tabulation of students
reaching Van Hiele level 2 by those reaching level 1.

57
The van Hiele levels of understanding of students entering senior high school in Ghana Baffoe, E. & Mereku, D. K.

Table 2 Analysis of the VHGT according to the van Hiele Levels (Levels 1 &2)

Van Hiele level 2

van Hiele level 1 Not reached Reached
Not reached 95% 5%
Reached 81% 19%
From Table 2 it can be seen that fifty two (52) out fifty five (55) students representing 95%
who did not reach Van Hiele level 1 did not also reach Van Hiele level 2. Whilst, three (3)
students representing 5% of the students, who did not attain Van Hiele level 1 reached Van
Hiele level 2. In addition, out of a sample of one hundred and thirty three (133) students. One
hundred and eight (108) of this students, representing 81% of students who reached Van
Hiele level 1 did not also reach level 2 of Van Hiele level of intellectual development. Whilst
the remaining 25 representing 19% reached both Van Hiele level 1 and 2. This suggests that
only 11% of the students reached level 2 by the theory (i.e. 19% of the 59% reaching level 1).
Table 3 shows the cross-tabulation of students reaching Van Hiele levels 3 by those reaching
level 1.
Table 3 Analysis of the VHGT according to the van Hiele levels (levels 1 & 3)

van Hiele level 3

van Hiele level 1 Not reached Reached
Not reached 93% 7%
Reached 97% 3%
Furthermore from Table 3, students who did not reach Van Hiele level 1 were fifty one (51)
out of fifty five (55) representing 93% could not reach Van Hiele level 3. Only four (4) of
this number who did not reached Van Hiele level 1 also reached Van Hiele level 3
representing 7% of this students. Also out of one hundred and thirty two (132) students who
attained the Van Hiele level 1 of intellectual development, one hundred and twenty eight
(128) representing 97% of the students could not attain Van Hiele level 3, but four (4)
students representing 3% attained Van Hiele level 3.
Table 4 shows the cross-tabulation of students reaching Van Hiele levels 3 by those reaching
level 2.
Table 4 Analysis of the VHGT according to the Van Hiele Levels (Levels 2 &3)

van Hiele level 3

van Hiele level 2 Not reached Reached
Not reached 97% 3%
Reached 89% 11%

In addition, out of one hundred and fifty nine students (159) who took part in the VHGT test,
one hundred and fifty four (154) of these students who did not reach Van Hiele level 2 also
did not reach Van Hiele level 3 representing 97% of the student. Interestingly the remaining
five (5) students representing 3% of the students who did not reach Van Hiele level 2 reached
Van Hiele level 3. Finally out of twenty eight (28) students who took the test, twenty five
(25) of them representing 89% of the students who reached Van Hiele level 2 did not reach
Van Hiele level 3, the remaining three (3) students reached both level’s 2 & 3 representing 11
58
 African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences Vol. 8, 2010

% of the students who took part in the test. These results therefore show that 59% of the
students attained Van Hiele level 1 and from this proportion of students, 11% reached level 2
and only 1% reached level 3 by the theory

Discussion on Findings
The results of VGHT show that 59% of the students attained Van Hiele level 1. From this
proportion of students, 11% reached level 2 and only 1% reached level 3 by the theory. This
indicates the stage of the Van Hiele level of understanding reached by most (i.e. over 90%)
Ghanaian students before entering SHS is lower than what most students at this stage (or age)
reach in other countries in the study of geometry.
It clear from the results that 59% of the students attained Van Hiele level 1. From this
proportion of students, 11% reached level 2 and only 1% reached level 3 by the theory, whilst
29% did not attain any of the levels suggesting that most students were at pre-recognition
level of Van Hiele level 1 before beginning senior high school geometry. These findings
concur with those of the previous research studies (Usiskin, 1982; Burger & Shaughnessy,
1986; Senk, 1989; Pusey, 2003; Siyepu, 2005; Atebe & Schäfer, 2008). The findings of the
studies mentioned here, indicated that the majority of their students were found to be
operating at the pre-recognition level, and that a very small number of students operated at
Van Hiele levels 2. This is problematic, since in Ghana, level 3 skills are required to
successfully begin senior high school geometry. Teaching and learning in geometry is mainly
focused on Van Hiele levels 1 & 2, with a small amount of geometry work being done at
level 3. Since most students only operate at the pre-recognition level, level 1 and level 2, it is
quite clear that many students will be unsuccessful in doing high school geometry.

Conclusion
This study was an attempt to measure the Van Hiele levels of geometric thought among SHS
1 students in Ghana. It specifically sought to find out the stages of the Van Hiele levels of
understanding Ghanaian students reach in the study of geometry before entering Senior High
School (SHS). In all, 188 SHS Form 1 students from two schools were involved in this study.
These students were given the Van Hiele Geometry Test (VHGT) adapted from the
‘Cognitive Development and Achievement in Secondary School Geometry Test’ items. The
results show that the stage of the Van Hiele level of understanding reached by most (i.e. over
90%) Ghanaian students before entering SHS is lower than what most students at this stage
(or age) reach in other countries in the study of geometry.
A major caveat to the interpretation of the results of the study however was the use of only
two schools SHS in the Winneba Municipality in the country for the sample. Though this was
compensated for by the strategic location of the schools to attract students from several
regions of the country, it is still difficult to generalize the findings for the whole country.

Recommendations
The following recommendations are made for the improvement of the junior high school
curriculum:
1. The teaching and learning of geometry should involve more hands-on activities that will
actively engage the students. This will enhance students’ conceptual understanding of
geometric concepts. When teaching about geometric concepts, teachers should ensure that
students understand and know the properties of all geometric shapes. By knowing the
properties of the geometric shapes, students will be able to establish class inclusion,
which according to this study is sorely lacking. Students can only recognize, describe and
distinguish geometric shapes from each other by knowing their properties.
59
The van Hiele levels of understanding of students entering senior high school in Ghana Baffoe, E. & Mereku, D. K.

2. When teaching about geometric shapes and concepts, teachers should ensure that the
proper geometric terminologies are used by both the teachers and students. This will
address language barriers in students who use English as a second language. This
involves correct spelling of the concepts, proper pronunciations and using the correct
names of the geometric shapes.

References

Anamuah-Mensah, J., & Mereku, D. K. (2005). Ghanaian JSS 2 Students' Abysmal

Mathematics Achievement in TIMSS-2003; A Consequence of the Basic School
Mathematics Curriculum. Mathematics Connection Volume 5 , 1-13.
Anamuah-Mensah, J., Mereku, D. K., & Asabere-Ameyaw, A. (2004). Ghanaian Junior
Secondary School Students' Achievement in Mathematics and Science: Results from
Ghana's participation in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science
study. Accra: Ministry of Education Youth and Sports.
Atebe, H. U. (2008). Students' Van Hiele levels of Geometric Thought and Conception in
Plane Geometry: A collective case study of Nigeria and South Africa. Unpublished
(Ph.D)Thesis.
Atebe, H. U., & Schafer, M. (2008). Van Hiele levels of geometric thinking of Nigerian and
South African mathematics learners. In M. C. Polaki, T. Mokulu, & T. Nyabanyala
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Southern Africa Association
for Research in Mathematics,Science and Technology. Maseru: SAARMSTE.
Burger, E. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Characterizing the van Hiele levels of
development in geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(1) ,
31–48.
De Villiers, M. D. (1997). The future of secondary school geometry. Pythagoras,44 , 37-54.
French, D. (2004). Teaching and learning geometry. London: Continuum.
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.Reston:NCTM .
Hoffer, A. (1983). Acquistion of mathematics concepts and processes. In A. Hoffer, Van
Hiele-based research. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds) (pp. 205-227). New York:
Academic Press.
Hoffer, A. (1983). Van Hiele based research. In R. Lesh, & M. Landau (Eds.), Acquistion of
mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 205-207). New York: Academic Press.
Hoffer, A. (1988). Geometry and visual thinking. In T. R. Post (Eds.), Teaching mathematics
in grades K-8: Research based methods (pp. 233-261). Newton,MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mayberry, J. (1983). The Van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate pre-service
teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(1) , 58-69.
Ministry of Environment Science and Technology(MEST). (2009, December 11). Ghana
Government Official Portal. Retrieved June 11, 2010, from Ghana Government
Official Web site: http://www.ghana.gov.gh

60
 African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences Vol. 8, 2010

Pegg, J. (1995). Learning and teaching geometry. In L. Grimison, & Pegg. L (Eds.), Teaching
secondary school mathematics (pp. 87-103). London: Harcourt Brace.
Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school
geometry:Cognitive development and achievement in secondary school geometry
project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Van Hiele, P. (1999). Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with play.
Teaching Children Mathemtics.
Van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Orlando:
Academic Press.
West Africa Examination Council. (2003). Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination,
Chief Examiners' Report. Accra: West African Examination Council.
West Africa Examination Council. (2004). Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination,
Chief Examiners' Report. Accra: West African Examination Council.
West Africa Examination Council. (2005). Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination,
Chief Examiners' Report. Accra: West African Examination Council.
West Africa Examination Council. (2006). Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination,
Chief Examiners' Report. Accra: West African Examination Council.

61