EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2025, 21(5), em2634

ISSN:1305-8223 (online)
OPEN ACCESS Research Paper https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16391

Student engagement, conceptual-understanding, and problem-solving ability

in learning plane geometry through an integrated instructional approach
Alemayehu Anbess Gebremeskel 1,2* , Mulugeta Atnafu Ayele 3 , Tadele Ejigu Wondimuneh 1
1 Bahir Dar University, ETHIOPIA
2 Hawassa College of Teacher Education, ETHIOPIA
3 Addis Ababa University, ETHIOPIA

Received 21 May 2024 ▪ Accepted 21 Apr 2025

Abstract
The study investigated the impact of the integrated instructional approach on plane geometry
learning using a mixed research method and quasi-experimental design on the three purposefully
selected secondary schools. The researcher collected data using pre-post-tests, engagement
Likert scale, observation, and interview and analyzed using ANCOVA, paired sample t-tests, and
regression analysis. The intervention resulted in significant pre-post-test mean differences in
experimental groups but not in the control group and showed significant differences between
groups’ post-intervention results. Experimental group I showed an improvement compared to the
two groups. After controlling the pre-test, the integrated approach contributed 13.1%, 14.8%, and
28.24% of the variability on concept understanding, problem-solving ability, and engagement,
respectively. Student engagement and conceptual understanding jointly predict problem-solving
ability in all groups, with the model explaining 63.1%, 54.4%, and 38% of the variance in
Experimental group I, Experimental Group II, the control group, respectively. The researcher
concluded the integrated instruction significantly improved plane geometry learning and
recommended its application for teachers and other stakeholders.
Keywords: problem solving ability, engagement, conceptual understanding, plane geometry, Van
Hiele group guided instructional approach, group guided discovery instructional approach

(Kumar, 2020). It requires data interpretation, planning,

INTRODUCTION outcome verification, and experimentation with
Mathematics significantly influences the different solutions (NCTM, 2000). In addition,
development of thinking abilities, including systematic, conceptual understanding refers to the understanding of
logical, and critical problem-solving abilities fundamental mathematical concepts, relationships, and
(Ramadhania et al., 2022). The National Council of operations, as well as the interconnected relationships
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) identifies five that give meaning to mathematical processes (Findell et
standard mathematical abilities among students. These al., 2001). It enhances retention, promotes fluency, and
standards are problem-solving, logical thinking, facilitates learning contents that helps to solve real
connection, effective communication, and problems.
representation (NCTM, 2000). To apply information, To solve real-world problems, it is crucial to integrate
develop new understanding, and participate in critical distinct mathematical components, each of which has
thinking, as well as to promote conceptual special advantages. Because of its deep human links and
understanding, the council highlights the importance of the fact that its concepts are essential for helping
problem-solving abilities in mathematics education. students handle challenges in their everyday lives,
Problem-solving ability is a mental process that involves geometry is one of the core mathematical components
finding, shaping, and reaching a final goal in any taught in school (Sinclair et al., 2016). Geometry
situation where there is an opportunity to improve instruction enhances students’ visual imagination,

© 2025 by the authors; licensee Modestum. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
[email protected] (*Correspondence) [email protected] [email protected]
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

Contribution to literature
• The researcher showed a practical teaching strategy to help secondary school students overcome
difficulties due to a lack of background knowledge despite the lack of experimental research on this topic.
• The study investigates secondary school students’ engagement and conceptual understanding in learning
plane geometry, focusing on how they apply this knowledge to solve home and societal problems through
this integrated instructional approach.
• According to the research, secondary school students enhanced synthesis and critically examine to solve
problems by developing a more global viewpoint.

deductive reasoning, logical argument, and proof skills, and higher education students are not interested in
enabling them to understand geometric shapes, learning mathematics, and they struggle with problem-
principles, and relationships (NCTM, 2000). It is also a solving, classroom engagement, and overall
crucial part of mathematics that helps students performance (Walde, 2019; Walelign, 2014). Students
understand more difficult topics in science, technology, face difficulties in mastering geometric concepts due to
and engineering by examining and evaluating the a lack of motivation, a perception of geometry’s
physical world (Zhang, 2017). Because of its strong insignificance, and inadequate reasoning skills (Atnafu,
human connection, geometry helps students solve 2016; Mirna, 2018).
problems in their daily lives (Jablonski & Ludwig, 2023; The Ethiopian Ministry of Education is actively
Singh & Kumar, 2022). working to improve education quality at all levels,
Maamin et al. (2021) emphasized how much student focusing on the availability of trained teachers and other
engagement in class activities affects their learning. essential inputs (Ministry of Education, 2009). However,
Engaged students show attentiveness, active the quality of mathematics education, as assessed
participation, and interest in study, leading to higher through national learning assessments, still posed
grades compared to disengaged students who exhibit challenges in conceptual understanding and problem-
boredom, passiveness, and low motivation (Bear et al., solving abilities (Bethell, 2016). Students’ insufficient
2018). Researchers labeled student engagement as conceptual understanding and problem-solving ability
cognitive, behavioral, affective, and social engagements in mathematics classes are attributed to lack of
(Wang et al., 2016). Cognitively engaged students are confidence, poor classroom engagement, and
dedicated to understanding content and focusing on inadequate background knowledge (Brezavšček et al.,
tasks, while behavioral engagement involves active 2020; Jetu, 2019). The education sector development
participation in instructions, including focus, interest, program V&VI in Ethiopia indicates that 10th and 12th
effort, task completion, and polite behavior. Affective grade students’ mathematics problem-solving
engagement refers to an individual’s attitudes, feelings, performance was poor and below the standard (Ministry
responses to academic content, and willingness to of Education, 2010, 2020). In Ethiopia, students’
participate in their interactions with classmates and participation in mathematics learning is decreasing, and
teachers. Social engagement refers to the regular they are facing difficulties in problem-solving (Belay et
interaction between students and their peers regarding al., 2017; Ministry of Education, 2018). Researchers
academic tasks. Students must understand plane expressed dissatisfaction with the students’ capacity in
geometry to effectively tackle everyday classroom understanding mathematical concepts, procedures, and
issues, as it is crucial for human understanding and problem-solving techniques and highlighted the need
problem-solving. Thus, studying geometry requires for improved education (Mengistie et al., 2020; Shishigu,
students to actively participate, which necessitates 2018).
timely work completion, focused attention, intelligent International studies show a student-centered
academic responses, and idea exchange. teaching approach to instruction greatly improves
students’ understanding of mathematical concepts
Statement of the Problem (Nurbavliyev et al., 2022; Silmi Juman et al., 2022).
Despite the importance of plane geometry, study However, most Ethiopian secondary school teachers
results show that students usually struggle to employ teacher-centered teaching strategies, which are
understand and apply geometric concepts (Mirna, 2018). insufficient in promoting student engagement (Begna,
The school’s geometry learning has not yet reached the 2017; Egne, 2022). Teacher-centered instruction can lead
necessary abilities (Widada et al., 2019; Yudianto et al., to students becoming frustrated, lacking self-confidence,
2018). Students often lack an understanding of geometric and becoming passive consumers of knowledge
concepts (Silmi Juman et al., 2022). Students start high (Niyukuri et al., 2020). Further, studies indicate that
school without attaining geometric thinking level I and students face difficulties in understanding geometry due
level II (Alex & Mammen, 2016). Ethiopian secondary to inadequate teaching methods that do not align with

2 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634

their current understanding (Saadati & Celis, 2023; Distinction: Language symbols and links vary by
Sulfiyah et al., 2020). The researcher, with extensive level.
experience in teaching mathematics from elementary to Intrinsic- extrinsic: Inherited elements from one level
college, observed that mathematics teachers utilize a becoming research topics at the next level.
teacher-centered teaching approach.
Mismatch: A teacher’s language and instruction
In Ethiopian mathematics education, the teacher- hinder a student’s learning growth if they are not
centered teaching method is mostly to blame for suitable for their current level (Vojkuvkova, 2012).
students’ poor conceptual understanding, disinterest in
Thirdly, Van Hiele developed a teaching method that
geometry classes, and difficulty solving problems.
employs appropriate characters to enhance students’
Consequently, a variety of factors influence the author’s
critical thinking skills through five phases.
intention to implement an intervention. The study aimed
to evaluate the effect of the Van Hiele group-guided 1. Inquiry: The teacher establishes context, helps
discovery instructional approach on students’ students grasp the subject matter, ascertains their
conceptual understanding, problem-solving abilities, past knowledge, and directs future inquiry via
and engagement in learning plane geometry. dialogue and questions.
2. Guided orientation: The teacher encourages
Theoretical Framework students to investigate the topic and complete
brief activities while using sequenced
The Van Hiele Group Guided Discovery Instructional
assignments to help them understand new ideas
Approach (VHGGDIA) is a modified active teaching
and look at latent linkages.
style utilizing Van Hiele, discovery learning, and
positive social interdependence learning theories. 3. Explanation: Students create a technical message,
learn new terms, and express their thoughts on the
Van Hiele theory connections they found in the second stage.

The Van Hiele theory, introduced in the 1950s, is a 4. Free orientation: Students independently tackle
geometry learning framework consisting of five phases challenging tasks, developing knowledge of
of instruction, five levels of thinking, and five features of content connections and problem-solving ability.
successful completion (Fuys et al., 1984). Howse and 5. Integration: Students review, summarize, and
Howse (2015) recommend that students should retain learning, while the teacher provides
complete each level of thinking in order. The visual level guidance, materials, and support, using
focuses on identifying geometric shapes based on their appropriate technical language and clear
outward appearance rather than their characteristics. relational structure (Machisi & Feza, 2021;
Analytical level: Students began analysing Vojkuvkova, 2012).
geometrical content but were still unaware of definitions Van Hiele suggests that a student’s mastery of a
and the relationship between figures. previous geometric thinking level influences their
Informal deduction level: Students are enhancing understanding of the next, and progress is accelerated
their understanding of forms, definitions, connections, through appropriate instructional methods
geometric figures, and logical maps and defending their (Vojkuvkova, 2012).
findings at the informal deduction level.
Discovery learning theory
Formal deduction level: Students are proficient in
using induction to manage implications and can Discovery learning theory, developed by Jerome
independently create proofs. Bruner in the 1960s, aims to improve learners’ capacity
to acquire new knowledge through hands-on
Rigor Level: Without physical models, students can
experiences (Bruner, 1960). Discovery learning involves
explore differences and compare systems using different
students creating new knowledge, assessing prior
axioms (Rahim, 2014; Vojkuvkova, 2012).
knowledge, blending new and old knowledge, and
Additionally, Van Hiele discovered common questioning, fostering risk-taking, problem-solving
characteristics across all geometric thought levels that abilities, and unique experiences (Bicknell-Holmes &
teachers should consider when selecting their teaching Seth Hoffman, 2000). By saving student’s time and
strategies. giving prompt feedback, teachers’ support during
A fixed sequence: Move through the phases in the exploration activities improves learning (Prasad, 2011).
correct order. In guided discovery, Achara and his team developed a
Advancement: The content and delivery techniques five-stage classroom instructional approach.
of training have a greater influence on level-to-level 1. Simulation: The teacher simulates students,
development than age. improves recall, and makes connections between
new and existing knowledge by using opening
questions.

3 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

2. Exploration: The teachers let the students work on Approach, abbreviated as VHGGDIA. It is a novel
their own. The teacher guides the group toward a teaching method that incorporates the Van Hiele
more fruitful way by listening, offering Instructional Model, guided discovery instructional
encouragement, and posing questions. model, and cooperative learning approach. Starting
3. Presentation: Students share with the class how instruction with the students’ existing knowledge,
they have solved the challenge. Group members focusing on student participation to learn new content
had to present and debate their responses for each under the teacher’s guidance, having them share what
task. they have learned with their peers, and holding a class
discussion to create a common understanding are
4. Warm-up: After presentation, the teacher leads a
important components of this approach. The five stages
warm-up exercise to confirm their understanding
of the VHGGDIA framework were created by combining
of the content, expand on ideas, and develop
the phases of the guided discovery learning with Van
generalized notions.
Hiele’s phases of teaching approach. Initially, to assess
5. Evaluation: The teacher assesses students’ the students’ current understanding, the teacher
conceptual understanding using a teacher-made establishes goals and gives tasks based on prerequisite
test, reviews their activity, and evaluates their knowledge. In the actual stage, students learn through
output (Achera et al., 2015). group discussions, share knowledge, summarize
presentations, collaborate to wrap up activities, and
Social interdependence theory receive teacher evaluations. Figure 2 illustrates the
Social interdependence refers to the stages of VHGGDIA and GGDIA in the classroom
interconnectedness of group members, where the actions instructional process.
of one member significantly influence the outcomes of Brainstorming Activity: (Think-Pair-Discuss-share)
the group (Johnson, 2003). Positive (cooperation) and Van Hiele emphasized the importance of teachers
negative (competition) are the two main categories of evaluating their students’ prior knowledge when
social interdependence. Positive interdependence is a introducing new content. Thus, to rehearse their prior
mindset where individuals believe their success depends knowledge, the instruction method involves students
on the achievement of their colleagues’ goals, fostering thinking independently, discussing their opinions with
mutual support and collaboration. Negative peers, debating predefined ideas in small groups, and
interdependence occurs when individuals believe their reporting the results to the class.
goals can only be achieved if their competitively linked
Introduction: Subsequently, the lecturer divides the
counterparts fail to achieve their goals, hindering each
class into small home groups, breaks the new topic down
other’s efforts. The social interdependence theory
into subtopics, and assigns them to each group member
explains how self-interest evolves into shared interest in
using the lottery approach. The instructor may assign a
cooperative settings, leading to the creation of new
subtopic to two group members. The teacher gives a
objectives (Johnson & Johnson, 2008). Figure 1 shows the
specific task to each home group member to ensure that
combination of both theoretical and conceptual
everyone has a solid understanding of the assigned
framework of the study.
subtopics.
The Integrated Instructional Approach Discussion: The teacher encourages students to form
additional expert groups by bringing together members
The Integrated Instructional Approach means the of home groups assigned to the same subtopics. The
Van Hiele Group Guided Discovery Instructional expert group then carefully explores the subtopics by

Figure 1. The theoretical and conceptual framework of the study (Bruner, 1960; Fuys et al., 1984; Johnsen, 2003)

4 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634

Figure 2. The framework of VHGGDIA and GGDIA (Achera et al.,2015; Vojkuvkova, 2012)

looking through various instructional resources and Baker, 2022). Moreover, students at various levels of
allocating sufficient time. understanding concepts show diverse degrees of
Presentation: The expert group members are problem-solving skills, with higher-level students
responsible for carefully studying and understanding exhibiting more sophisticated methods (Andira et al.,
subtopics, and each member is then tasked with 2022). Thus, the Van Hiele teaching model has been
presenting them to their home group members. Home found to enhance students’ understanding of geometric
group members actively participate by summarizing concepts.
ideas, understanding each other’s perspectives, and Mohammed and Zakariyya (2023) conducted a study
sharing their discussions through detailed using a quasi-experimental pre-post-test design with one
communication. experimental and one control group to examine how the
Reflection: Home groups engage in a reflective Van Hiele instructional model affected the academic
process by discussing a specific subtopic with the entire performance and geometry anxiety of secondary school
class, addressing concerns, and sharing knowledge. students studying the topic of circles. The study revealed
Finally, the teacher summarizes the conversation, and that students who were taught using the Van Hiele
each group explains its points while monitoring instructional approach performed better than those
participation and correcting misunderstandings at all taught using traditional techniques. Since
levels. comprehensive geometry covers a broad field that goes
beyond circles, its conclusion has limits.
Evaluation: The teacher conducts detailed
assessments of each student’s understanding using To see how the Van Hiele teaching method affected
required tasks and creative assignments, evaluating each students’ spatial skills in platonic solids, Pujawan et al.
student individually. (2020) used a quasi-experimental post-test only design.
Using eighth-grade junior high school students in the
LITERATURE REVIEW Seririt sub-district, the study found that children who
received instruction using the Van Hiele instructional
Different instructional methods significantly model fared better on spatial examinations than those
influence students’ conceptual understanding, problem- who received traditional teaching methods. The study
solving abilities, and enthusiasm for learning did not compare pre- and post-intervention results
mathematics (Alrajeh & Shindel, 2020; Lee & Paul, 2023). within each group.
The Van Hiele teaching model improves procedural Furthermore, Santos et al. (2022) conducted a study
knowledge and conceptual comprehension (Adeniji & on the Van Hiele phase-based learning model in teaching

5 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

mathematics to eighth-grade students at Cagting High However, no actual study demonstrates how combining
School in Bohol, Philippines. The results demonstrated these three interrelated teaching strategies affects
that both groups had established a significant mean gain students’ conceptual understanding, problem-solving
difference from pre-test to post-test. The experimental abilities, and engagement in learning geometry. Thus,
group that taught using the Van Hiele instructional the study investigates the impact of the Van Hiele group-
model performed better than the control group. The Van guided discovery instructional approach on secondary
Hiele instructional model is widely recommended for school students’ problem-solving abilities, conceptual
improving the teaching and learning of plane geometry understanding, and engagement in learning plane
worldwide (Machisi & Feza, 2021; Suglo et al., 2024; geometry.
Yalley et al., 2021). Third, the necessity of effective teaching strategies to
Similarly, research demonstrates that guided improve students’ comprehension of plane geometry is
discovery learning enhances students’ engagement, increasing. For instance, a problem-based learning
problem-solving abilities, and conceptual strategy enhances students’ problem-solving skills (Binri
understanding and reduces rote-learning behavior in & Hidayati, 2022; Suminar et al., 2024); a dynamic
geometric concepts when compared to conventional learning environment increases student engagement
teaching methods (Maarif & Soebagyo, 2024). This (Sariyasa, 2017); the integration of GeoGebra-assisted
strategy helps students understanding of geometry learning and contextualized teaching strategies has been
concepts more deeply with organized activities and proven to enhance students’ conceptual understanding
inspires them with presenting exercises (Maarif & (Gurmu et al., 2024; Saputra et al., 2022). However,
Soebagyo, 2024); improves students’ ability to solve previous studies have not explored the potential benefits
mathematical problems (Yusuf et al., 2023); enhances of a single teaching approach in enhancing student
performance in problem understanding, planning to engagement, conceptual understanding, and problem-
solve problems, and strategy implementation solving abilities in geometry learning. Therefore, the
(Rahmawati et al., 2020); and increases student problem- study proves VHGGDIA outperforms traditional
solving abilities as evidenced by positive attitudes teaching methods in enhancing students’ engagement,
among students (Yusuf et al., 2023). Cooperative group conceptual understanding, and problem-solving skills in
work in class discussion also positively influences plane geometry. This could improve the body of existing
student conceptual understanding through exchanging literature.
ideas (Johnson, 2003). Cooperative learning, which
prioritizes direct connection and positive Research Objective and Research Questions
interdependence, is also successful in promoting rapid
This study examines the effect of VHGGDIA on
and simple understanding of mathematical ideas
tenth-grade students in learning plane geometry to
(Tamara et al., 2020). Studies show that each of these
improve their engagement, concept understanding, and
teaching approaches independently has a major
problem-solving ability. Specifically, the researcher
influence on students’ learning. However, the researcher
designed the following research questions to provide the
could not discover any proof that combining these three
purpose:
active teaching strategies improves student learning.
RQ1 Is there a significant mean difference in
Rational of the Study students’ conceptual understanding,
engagement, and problem-solving ability in
First: The teacher-centered teaching approach in learning plane geometry within a group and
classrooms has little promise in enhancing student between the groups after the intervention?
engagement and academic performance (Niyukuri et al.,
RQ2 What is the contribution of a student’s
2020). Furthermore, the current traditional teaching
engagement and conceptual understanding to
method, which results in poor student interest in
problem solving ability in learning plane
mathematics (Egne, 2022) will generate a crisis in
geometry in the three groups?
science-based instruction. The current situation may
hinder the development of science and technology- RQ3 What are the challenges of implementing
literate citizens who possess critical thinking and VHGGDIA in learning plane geometry?
problem-solving abilities. As a math instructor, the
researchers have also seen this problem in their work RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN
life. The absence of intervention research at our study To understand students’ experiences and latent
locations led me to conduct this study. behavior in plane geometry learning with VHGGDIA,
Second, international studies show that Van Hiele the study used a mixed research strategy that included
theory-based instruction and guided discovery learning quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Creswell &
approaches significantly improve mathematics Creswell, 2018). The study investigated the impact of
instruction (Maarif & Soebagyo, 2024; Suglo et al., 2024). VHGGDIA on students’ problem-solving abilities,

6 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634

conceptual understanding, and engagement. The study to manage student problem-solving responses before
employed a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent control and after the intervention, following Polya’s four-step
group pre-post-test design in an intact classroom to strategy (Shirali, 2014).
avoid random assignment due to academic timetables in The qualitative part of the study utilizes observation
governmental schools (White & Sabarwal, 2014). and interviews to assess the effectiveness of the
intervention and identify any challenges it may face.
Data Collection Instruments Subban and Round’s (2015) approach served as the basis
The study used a modified 5-point Likert-type scale for the study’s observation checklist. Interview: The
engagement questionnaire to gauge students’ study conducted interviews with three teachers to assess
engagement in learning plane geometry (Fredricks & students’ understanding, participation, and challenges
Paris, 2016; Wang et al., 2016). The responses to positive post-intervention using five guided open-ended
questions ranged from strongly disagreed (1) to strongly questions.
agreed (5), while the opposite was true for negative The following steps outline the process of confirming
questions. The tools were initially developed in English the validity and reliability of the devices. First, the test
but later translated into the students’ native language to designer conducted extensive literature investigations to
facilitate participant interaction. Two English language develop the items. Second, the exam questions’
experts independently translated the same document, relevance and suitability for conceptual understanding
and a third expert confirmed that the translated and problem-solving abilities were assessed by my
materials were identical. advisor and secondary school teachers at the relevant
The study utilized two-tier, close-ended, multiple- grade levels. In response to reviewers’ feedback, the
choice questions with ten items each to assess students’ exams were adjusted to match the students’ academic
conceptual understanding in pre-test and post-test level and language proficiency. My advisor and
formats. Table 1 details four response patterns used to experienced college psychology instructor reviewed the
manually grade student responses to tests before and modified engagement rating scale questionnaire,
after the intervention. Each item took an average of three interview, and observation questions.
minutes to complete, and each result was converted into Moreover, the study rated the students’ subjective
hundreds for analysis purposes. Students who can list exam scores using the Angel Group Support Center in
facts, identify unknowns, and suggest the best course of Florida. Those with scores between 0.00 and 0.49 were
action will earn one point for reasoning. given a D, those with scores between 0.50 and 1.99 a C,
The study utilized six open-ended questions for each those with scores between 2.00 and 2.99 a B, and those
pre-test and post-test to assess students’ problem- with scores between 3.00 and 5.00 an A (Khan, 2015). To
solving abilities developed by the investigator, with each calculate the item difficulty index and discriminating
question worth five points. The study converted the total power, divided the students into high-ability (top 27%)
value to 100 for analysis. The pre- and post-tests are and low-ability (bottom 27%) groups. For problem-
similar but not identical, focusing on logical reasoning solving, “1” was substituted for an A grade and “0” for
for calculating routine and non-routine tasks with the others. Moreover, the multiple-choice item used ‘1’
varying difficulty levels. The average time to finish each for correct response and ‘0’ for the incorrect answer.
item is six minutes. The study utilized Table 2’s rubrics

Table 1. Two-tier, close-ended, multiple-choice items response pattern

Pattern Responses Mark Conclusion
00 Incorrect answer with incorrect reason 0 Lowest level of understanding
01 Incorrect answer with correct reason 1 Suggest guessing and low level of understanding
10 Correct answer with a wrong reason 2 Higher level of understanding
11 Correct answer and correct reason 3 Highest level of understanding
Source: Zhou et al., 2021; Xiao et al., 2018

Table 2. Problem solving item scoring Rubrics

Phase Checklist (expectations) Mark Cumulative Decision
0 Do not meet any expectations (0)
Understanding the Restate the problem in their own words 1 Meets only a few expectations (1)
problem Identify asked and given information
Developing the plan Organize the problem using model and diagram. 1 Meets an average expectations (2)
Select appropriate strategy to solve the problem
Executing the plan Compute the problem 2 Meets majority expectations (4)
Support and justify ideas were raised
Reflecting on the result Verify their answer and interpret the solution 1 Meets all the expectations (5)

7 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

Table 3. Reliability coefficient of engagement rating scale

Reliability Coefficients
Type of questionnaires Pilot study Main study
N Pre-test Post-test N Pre-test Post-test
Engagement 63 .911 - 166 .804 .885
Conceptual Understanding 63 .839 .822 166 .843 .819

Table 4. Item analysis of pre-conceptual understanding and problem-solving test items

Upper Lower IDI IDP
Variables Items Decision
Group Group Value Interpretation Value Interpretation
Conceptual Item #1 41 16 0.63 Moderate 0.56 Very Good Retain
understanding test Item #2 41 13 0.60 Moderate 0.62 Very Good Retain
items Item #3 42 7 0.54 Moderate 0.78 Very Good Retain
Item #4 42 8 0.56 Moderate 0.76 Very Good Retain
Item #5 36 5 0.46 Moderate 0.69 Very Good Retain
Item #6 35 5 0.44 Moderate 0.67 Very Good Retain
Item #7 38 13 0.57 Moderate 0.56 Very Good Retain
Item #8 42 15 0.63 Moderate 0.60 Very Good Retain
Item #9 37 13 0.56 Moderate 0.53 Very Good Retain
Item #10 36 7 0.48 Moderate 0.64 Very Good Retain
Problem solving Item #1 33 0 0.37 Moderate 0.70 Very Good Retain
test items Item #2 28 0 0.31 Moderate 0.62 Very Good Retain
Item #3 26 0 0.29 Difficult 0.58 Very Good Retain
Item #4 25 0 0.28 Difficult 0.56 Very Good Retain
Item #5 29 0 0.32 Moderate 0.64 Very Good Retain
Item #6 25 0 0.28 Difficult 0.56 Very Good Retain
Note. IDI: Item difficulty index & IDP: Item discriminating power

Table 3 displays the Cronbach’s alpha reliability and as a math teacher, the researcher’s personal
coefficient for the engagement rating scale questionnaire observations of students’ poor academic performance
in both pilot and main studies. In addition, by giving a and lack of enthusiasm for math classes. Furthermore,
score of 1 for high-level understanding and 0 for low- this grade level was chosen for the study because, in
level understanding, the KR-20 algorithm ensures the compliance with the nation’s national education policy,
internal consistency of multiple-choice questions (see a mathematics textbook for grade 10 should thoroughly
Table 1). Through a comprehensive item analysis, Table comprehend the concepts of plane geometry at this level
4 also further comfirmed the suitability of the two-tier and motivate students to learn how to apply them.
multiple-choice and problem solving ability test items,
the study was credible due to its group participation, Base line data collection
data collection from various sources, prioritizing
participant responses, and consultation with peers and Initially: The study was approved by the
academics (Taherdoost, 2022). The study assessed the mathematics department of Bahir Dar University in
information’s suitability for secondary school students, Ethiopia. The approval letter was sent to the secondary
identifying its limitations, suggesting further research, school administrators at the research location.
and emphasizing its diverse usage. To guarantee Second: The study surveyed eleven secondary
transferability, advisors and academics were given the schools in the city, focusing on their infrastructure
opportunity to further debate the emergent subject and (classroom settings, internet access, and a well-
analytical techniques. organized library) and stakeholder willingness to
implement an intervention, with four schools selected
Pre-Intervention Activities based on survey results.
Third: A pilot study was conducted on the fourth
Population and sampling techniques school, which has 63 students, located far from the other
The study conducted in Ethiopia Sidama region, three chosen schools.
Hawassa city administration, focusing on tenth-grade Fourth: Three math teachers from three schools were
students in government secondary schools during chosen based on their willingness, qualifications, and
2022/2023. Several factors led the study to select this experience, and three groups were randomly selected
location, including budgetary limitations, a lack of from their previous teaching groups. The three teachers
empirical studies on mathematics education in the city, provided written consent. The study intentionally

8 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634

selected the two nearest schools for intervention and the ANALYSIS
farthest school for control to ensure continuous
monitoring and minimize data contamination. Two The study analysed student engagement, conceptual
nearby schools were randomly assigned to Experimental understanding, and problem-solving abilities across
Group I and Experimental II to deliver VHGGDIA and groups using pre-test, post-test, observations, and
GGDIA, respectively. Moreover, the farthest school interview to discover issues.
implemented traditional teaching methods.
Students’ Engagement, Conceptual Understanding,
Fifth: Teacher training for experimental group I took and Problem-Solving Ability
place on the VHGGDIA stages, whereas teacher training
for experimental group II took place on the GGDIA For the first research question, RQ1, the study
stages. Both teachers introduced a new teaching strategy utilized statistical tests such as ANCOVA, paired sample
on trigonometric functions during regular sessions for a T-test, and regression analysis to compare groups, with
week before incorporating it into the intervention. initial assumptions outlined.
Sixth: The pre-intervention data was collected using 1) The observations are independent as the data
an engagement rating scale questionnaire and pre-tests scores of the individuals are consistent across
for conceptual understanding and problem-solving different schools.
ability. The study involved 166 students, with 44.64% 2) Levene’s test demonstrates that the variances of
male and 55.36% female, 56 from experimental group I, results of the variables are uniform across all
54 from experimental group II, and 56 from the control groups (p > .05).
group. 3) Since the skewness and kurtosis values in each of
the three groups range from -1 to 1, the dependent
During the intervention period variables are normally distributed (Demir, 2022).
Following the pre-intervention data collection, the 4) The researcher utilized Levene’s test and ensured
actual intervention period lasted for six weeks. Using homogeneity of variances in the dependent
material from a tenth-grade student mathematics variables by controlling the covariates.
textbook, the intervention focused on plane geometry
(theorems on triangles, special quadrilaterals, more on Analysis of engagement, conceptual understanding, and
circles, and regular polygons) (Ministry of Education, problem-solving ability between groups
2010). The instruction began with group discussions on
The study initially collected data from three groups
triangle theorems in the first week. The second week’s
and assessed the impact of the VHGGDIA intervention
first three days focused on activities related to theorems
after reducing confounding variables. Like time (giving
on triangles. Students discussed special quadrilaterals
equal time to all groups) and teacher influence
for the final two days of the second week. The third week
(assigning teachers with similar experience, the same
was devoted to discussing special quadrilaterals.
qualification, and similar involvement in teaching
Students worked on circle-related activities during the
mathematics). Supportive instructional material (All
fourth week, which carried over into the first three days
three groups used similar instructional materials), topic
of the fifth week. During the final two days, they talked
coverage (All groups covered the same topics), and
about polygons. In the sixth week, student project work
controlled pre-test effect using ANCOVA.
served as a summary for the discussion, and the teacher
concluded by summarizing the entire chapter. Table 5 shows pre-test mean score results for
experimental Group I, experimental Group II, and the
Post-Intervention Data Collection procedures control group. First, conceptual understanding was
43.93, 42.15, and 42.14, respectively. Second, problem-
The study administered a pre-intervention solving abilities were 29.00, 27.90, and 26.34,
engagement rating scale questionnaire for the second respectively. Third, engagement in learning plane
time and teacher interviews to gather information about geometry was 3.39, 3.49, and 3.65, respectively. The
the student progress and received data for the challenges study indicates that all groups exhibit comparable
of the intervention in learning plane geometry during behaviors across all three variables.
the seventh and eighth weeks. Likewise, the study
Table 6 displays the adjusted post-test mean scores
assessed students’ conceptual understanding and
for experimental group I, experimental group II, and the
problem-solving abilities using post-test items. The
control group after controlling the covariates pre-test.
experimental group I oversaw closely adhered to the
First, conceptual understanding was 67.09, 54.38, and
VHGGDIA five phases that were described in the
44.94, respectively. Second, problem-solving ability was
introduction session. The experimental group II teacher
40.13, 33.57, and 27.12, respectively. Third, student
followed Achara and his colleagues’ phases for GGDIA
engagement was 4.19, 3.88, and 3.66, respectively. The
implementation, while the control group teacher
finding shows that experimental group I outperforms as
continued conventionally.
compared to the other groups. This suggests that the

9 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

Table 5. Descriptive statistics

Mean
Variables Experimental group I Experimental group II Control group
N M SD N M SD N M SD
Pre-test CU 56 43.93 24.40 54 42.15 26.06 56 42.14 26.92
Pre-problem solving 56 29.00 16.158 54 27.90 16.156 56 26.34 14.083
Pre-Engagement 56 3.39 0.247 54 3.49 0.349 56 3.65 0.320
CU=Conceptual understanding, PSA=Problem solving ability, M=mean, SD=standard deviation

Table 6. CU, PSA, and engagement after intervention pre-test as a covariate

Unadjusted Adjusted
Variables Groups N
Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Error
Post-conceptual Experimental Group I 56 67.32 20.67 67.09 3.18
understanding Experimental Group II 54 54.26 25.59 54.38 3.24
Control Group 56 44.82 26.08 44.94 3.18
Post-problem Experimental Group I 56 40.48 13.48 40.13 1.729
solving Experimental Group II 54 33.61 13.93 33.57 1.759
Control group 56 26.73 13.352 27.12 1.730
Post-engagement Experimental Group I 56 4.19 0.37 4.19 0.047
Experimental Group II 54 3.88 0.38 3.88 0.047
Control Group 56 3.66 0.28 3.66 0.047

Table 7. The ANCOVA result on Engagement, PSA, and CU

Variables Sources df Mean square F Sig. Partial Eta squared
Post-conceptual Pretest 1 3941.126 6.964 0.009 0.041
understanding Groups 2 6911.392 12.213 0.000 0.131
Error 162 565.899
Post-problem Pretest 1 3013.038 18.033 0.000 0.100
solving Groups 2 2359.626 14.122 0.000 0.148
Error 162 172.588
Post-engagement Pretest 1 0.057 0.480 0.489 0.003
Groups 2 3.782 32.138 0.000 0.284
Error 162 0.118

Table 8. Tukey HSD test comparing groups on post-test result

95% confidence interval
Variables Group (I) Group (J) MD (I-J) Sig.
Lower bound Upper bound
Post-conceptual Exp. I Exp. II 13.06 .015 -9.55 13.11
understanding Control group 22.50 .000 -9.44 13.02
Exp. II Control group 9.44 .105 -11.33 11.34
Post-problem- Exp. I Exp. II 6.86 .024 0.74 12.99
solving ability Control group 13.75 .000 7.68 19.82
Exp. II Control group 6.89 .023 0.76 13.01
Post-engagement Exp. I Exp. II 0.311 .000 0.18 0.441
Control group 0.546 .000 0.41 0.681
Exp. II Control group 0.235 .001 0.10 0.367

VHGGDIA is more effective than the GGDIA and .284) with the partial eta-squared is 0.148. According to
traditional teaching methods in helping students acquire Cohen, all values fall into the small effect size (Cohen,
plane geometry. 1988). The result indicated that after controlling the
Further, Table 7 presented the significant difference covariates, the independent variables contributed 13.1%
between the groups in each variable. As First, conceptual to conceptual understanding, 14.8% to problem-solving
understanding was (F (2, 162) = 12.213, p < .001, η² = .131) ability, and 28.4% to engagement of the variability in
with the partial eta-squared being 0.131. Second, learning plane geometry.
problem-solving ability was (F (2, 162) = 14.122, p < .001, Student conceptual understanding in Table 8
η² = .148) with the partial eta-squared being 0.148. Third, revealed a significant mean difference between
student engagement (F (2, 162) = 32.138, p < .001, η² = Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II (p <
.05, d = .563) and between Experimental Group I and the

10 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634

Table 9. Paired sample T-test on engagement, CU, and PSA

Variable Group N MD SD SE t df Sig.
(Post – pre) Experimental Group I 56 23.39 30.05 4.02 5.826 55 .000
Conceptual Experimental Group II 54 12.11 37.64 5.12 2.365 53 .022
Understanding Control Group 56 2.68 32.10 4.29 .624 55 .535
(Post – pre) Experimental Group I 56 11.49 17.26 2.307 8.39 55 .000
Problem-solving Experimental Group II 54 5.71 14.11 1.920 2.44 53 .004
Control Group 56 0.39 19.32 2.582 1.36 55 .884
(Post – pre) Experimental Group I 56 0.79 0.41 0.055 14.54 55 .000
Engagement Experimental Group II 54 0.40 0.52 0.071 5.57 53 .000
Control Group 56 .012 0.41 0.055 0.218 55 .828
Note: MD = Mean difference, SD = Standard deviation, SE = Standared Error

control group (p < .001, d = .963). The experimental understanding (M = 54.38, SD = 25.59) and pre-
group II students showed no significant difference in conceptual understanding (M = 42.15, SD = 26.06)
student conceptual understanding test results compared improved by 12.11 points. The finding shows a
to the control group (p > .05). The student problem- significant mean increase from pre- to post-conceptual
solving ability showed a significant mean difference in understanding (t (54) = 2.37, p < .05). Second, post-
Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II (p < problem-solving ability (M = 33.61, SD = 13.93) and pre-
.05, d = 0.494), Experimental Group I and the control problem-solving ability (M = 27.90, SD = 16.16)
group (p < .05, d = 1.181), and Experimental Group II and improved by 5.71 points. The finding shows a significant
the control group (p < .05, d = 0.660). Similarly, the improvement from pre- to post-problem-solving ability
student engagement showed significant mean difference (t (54) = 2.44, p < .004). Third, post-engagement (M =
in Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II 3.88, SD = 0.38) and pre-engagement (M = 3.49, SD =
(p<.05, d = 1.086), Experimental Group I and control 0.35) improved by 0.40 points. The result showed a
group (p<.05, d = 2.073), and the experimental group II significant improvement from pre- to post-engagement
and control group (p<.05, d = 0.902). The finding shows (t (53) = 5.57, p < .001). However, the control group
the experimental group I significantly improved student students were non-significant in conceptual
conceptual understanding, engagement, and problem- understanding (p = .884 > .05), problem-solving ability
solving ability compared to the other two groups. The (p = .884 > .05), and engagement (p = 0.828 > 0.05).
VHGGDIA reveals a larger than typical effect size
compared to the traditional teaching method. Qualitative Responses
Teacher interview: The study coded the participant
Analysis of engagement, concept understanding and
teachers as TT1 from Experimental group I, AT from
problem-solving within a group
Experimental group II, and TT2 from control group. The
The study examined the shift in student engagement, study categorized interview responses as: students’
problem-solving ability, and conceptual understanding engagement, concept understanding, and problem-
from pre- to post-test in all three groups. solving ability.
Table 9 shows the improvement of the three variables
in experimental group I. First, post-conceptual Student engagement in classroom discussion
understanding (M = 67.32, SD = 20.67) and pre- “Do your students actively participate in geometry
conceptual understanding (M = 43.93, SD = 24.40) instruction? If not, why? If yes how?”
improved by 23.39 points. The study shows a significant
mean increase from pre- to post-conceptual TT1: Initially, due to poor prior knowledge,
understanding (t (55) = 5.83, p < .001). Second, post- students exhibited passive behavior, lack of
problem-solving ability (M = 40.48, SD = 13.48) and pre- participation, and disinterest in learning math.
problem-solving ability (M = 28.99, SD = 16.16) However, the intervention increased the
improved by 11.49 points. The study found a significant student’s active participation, completed
increase from pre- to post-problem-solving ability (t (55) tasks, explained solutions, analyzed diverse
= 8.39, p < .001). Third, post-engagement (M = 4.19, SD = perspectives, and improved their self-
0.36) and pre-engagement (M = 3.39, SD = 0.25) confidence (TT1, 25 May 2023, 2:30).
improved by 0.79 points. The study found a significant
increase from pre- to post-engagement (t (55) = 14.54, p AT: After the intervention, students’ classroom
< .001). participation improved significantly, and their
ability to apply learned ideas greatly enhanced
Similarly, the experimental group II demonstrated a
practical activities, and the group work
mean increase from pre- to post-intervention in the three
allowed students to concentrate and discuss
dependent variables. First, post-conceptual

11 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

ideas and prepare them for plane geometry TT2: My students have difficulty applying
concepts (AT, 25 May 2023, 2:30). classroom knowledge in real-world situations,
leading to difficulty in practical activities (TT2,
TT2: During my teaching, students often exhibited 26 May 2023, 8:30).
passive behavior, such as not writing notes,
instead of participating in the class, disrupting “Do you think the teaching strategy that you applied
class presentations, and struggling to apply contributed to greater concept understanding in plane
classroom knowledge in real-world situations. geometry instruction?”
Students’ insufficient prior knowledge was the
primary reason for their disruption in class TT1: The implemented active teaching strategy-
(TT2, 26 May 2023, 8:30) facilitated students’ in-depth knowledge
acquisition through collaborative discussions
“Do you think active practice in the classroom lesson with peers, thereby enhancing their
contributed to greater engagement in plane geometry understanding of the subject matter as needed
lesson compared to the same plane geometry content and increased their ability to solve problems
would traditionally taught?” (TT1, 25 May 2023, 8:30).

TT1: The strategy facilitated students’ knowledge AT: The implemented active teaching method
acquisition through collaborative work, reduced students’ dependence and increased
enhancing their understanding of solving real- their self-confidence, allowing them to reach
life problems using classroom concepts (TT1, their desired level independently, but it needs
25 May 2023, 2:30). enough time (AT, 25 May 2023, 2:30).

AT: The intervention greatly improved students’ TT2: Due to students’ weak background knowledge
engagement in class discussion and and shortage of time, I used the lecture
understanding of ideas to solve problems, but method, but this method is not satisfactory for
the duration was insufficient (AT, 25 May students to fully understand concepts (TT2, 26
2023, 8:30). May 2023, 8:30).

TT2: Due to time constraints and students limited Researcher Observation

prior knowledge, I used the lecture method,
resulting in less engagement in classroom The study categorized the observation results into
instruction and a lack of understanding of the themes such as teacher instruction, student’s reaction,
lesson. If students have enough prior student concept understanding, and problem-solving
knowledge, I believe an active teaching ability as shown in Table 10.
strategy is better than the traditional method
Teacher instruction in group discussion
(TT2, 26 May 2023, 2:30).
According to the initial observations, teachers in the
Students’ conceptual understanding and problem- two experimental groups first struggled with the new
solving ability teaching approach but later adapted successfully.
“How well do you believe that the students Throughout the intervention, the experimental Group I
understood the concepts of plane geometry during the teacher effectively helped students through the
lessons that required physical activity?” VHGGDIA five phases by asking hypothetical questions
and gave them plenty of chances to defend their answers
TT1: The intervention significantly improved in various ways. Additionally, if students are struggling
student engagement in plane geometry with an activity, the teacher asks them to demonstrate
instruction for practical application, despite how they completed it and offers advice on how to
most students lacking basic knowledge in attempt a different approach. Although the instructor of
primary school, which hinders their ability to experimental group II followed the GGDIA five phases
connect classroom knowledge to real-world in a similar manner, the students found it difficult to
contexts (TT1, 25 May 2023, 2:30). finish the assignment in each session, and the teacher
had difficulties controlling their tardy participation
AT: The intervention greatly enhanced students’ because of time constraints. Using a teacher-centered
practical activities, and the group work approach, the teacher in the control group reviewed
allowed students to concentrate on discussing previous content, introduced new topics, gave notes,
ideas and prepared them for plane geometry summarized lectures, and occasionally assigned
concepts (AT, 25 May 2023, 2:30). homework. These practices continued till the end of the
intervention.

12 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634

Table 10. Observation protocol

Observed
Major theme No. Items
Evidence-comments
Classroom 1 Attractiveness of the classroom
environment 2 Classroom resources that help to teach plane geometry
3 Availability of instructional media in plane geometry classes
Teacher and students contact for instructional process
Teacher activity
Teachers’ 4 Giving activities on appropriate difficulty level
instruction in 5 Inviting students to do activities in different ways
classroom 6 Relating the activities to day-to-day practice
discussion 7 Inviting students to do an activity independently by giving
responsibilities and sharing their ideas in a group
8 Inviting students who faced the challenge in doing an activity to try other
ways and ask others to receive a hint
Student activity
Engagement in 9 Tried to solve problems in different form
classroom lesson 10 Resilient to negative micro-feeling and instead using them as a signal or
change strategy
11 Tried to do an activity individually with full of confidence
12 Tried to communicate with others to understand concepts
13 Tried the problem using different techniques to get solution
Concept 14 Discussing concepts with peers to solve problems
understanding in 15 Relate learned idea to real situation to solve real problems.
classroom lesson 16 Connect geometric concepts to other fields
17 Clearly and neatly reflect their work to whole class
18 Respond to other students and listen attentively to others
Problem solving 19 Restate the problem in their own words
ability 20 Understand the problem by identifying given and unknown facts
21 Considers alternatives to answer divergent solutions
22 Develop appropriate strategies to solve a problem
23 Checked their work after completing the task

Student reaction in classroom lesson and were more willing to try any activity in a variety of
ways. Students often attempt to solve problems in
Based on the initial observations, students in all three
various ways, rather than giving up if they don’t receive
groups exhibited passive behavior during assignments,
the correct answers. Despite each student’s efforts to
poor communication, and a lack of curiosity about the
complete a task independently and confidently share it
teaching method, which hindered practice in both
with their peers, some students struggled with group
individual and group settings. However, a week later,
discussions. Students in experimental group II not only
students in the two experimental groups adapted to the
openly discussed the topic with group members but also
new teaching approach; they contributed to class
attempted to address it independently. Some students
discussions by completing exercises, explaining
struggle with innovative tasks and questioning, leading
solutions, and analyzing perspectives. Experimental
to inaccurate answers and unsuccessful attempts at
group I students became more comfortable asking their
alternative approaches. Figure 3 shows sample
teacher or peers questions that they were unsure about
Experimental groups student’s engagement in group

Figure 3. Experimental groups’ discussion: Group I (left); Group II (right) (Source: Field study)

13 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

Figure 4. Experimental groups’ works: Group I (left); Group II (right) (Source: Field study)

discussions. The control group students maintained Problem solving ability in classroom lesson
face-to-face seating arrangements throughout the
At first, there were no indications that any of the
intervention.
group members could solve problems. But as the session
The control group students remained silent in class progressed, the experimental group demonstrated
discussions, avoiding active participation and instead improvement in managing both routine and non-routine
focusing on the teacher’s presentation. Students did not tasks. Others finished the assignment by carefully
respond to the questions the teacher asked. Until the end examining the problem, restating the pertinent elements,
of the intervention, the students in the control group and using these concepts to develop a plan, solve
continued to follow this pattern during the teaching- problems, and then validate the results, while some
learning process. students struggled to understand the problems,
Student conceptual understanding in classroom lesson especially word problems. Although most of the
students in experimental group II struggled with these
Initial observations showed that students in three
tasks, they also demonstrated some improvement in
groups have lacks enough prior knowledge, which
their problem-solving abilities. The control group
makes it difficult for them to apply concepts, link ideas,
showed significant issues in improving students’
participate in group discussions, and present their work.
problem-solving abilities. For the question “Prove that
The experimental groups significantly enhanced their
the medians of a triangle are concurrent at a point two-
understanding of concepts through group discussions
thirds of the distance from each vertex to the midpoint
and their ability to apply them in real-world situations.
of the opposite side.” The sample group answer in the
By applying ideas to real-world circumstances,
two experimental groups was displayed in Figure 4. The
improving communication, making connections
teacher proved the statement on a chalkboard to the
between new and existing information, and giving
control group, who attentively listened.
concise explanations, the experimental group I greatly
increased their understanding of concepts. Similarly, the
Contribution of Conceptual Understanding and
students in experimental group II shared their
Engagement on Problem Solving Ability
knowledge with the other members. While some
students actively connected the contents to real-world To answer the second research question, RQ2, the
situations to address difficulties, others found it difficult study found a positive correlation between conceptual
to do so since they had not thoroughly practiced the understanding and engagement with a correlation
necessary information. Group members have talks, but coefficient < .70, indicating that the variables are not
they take longer to complete and need more help from multicollinearity relations.
the teacher. Since the teacher’s lecture takes up most of
the time, the control group won’t see any interaction.

14 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634

Table 11. Experimental group I regression analysis for PSA and component of variables
Problem-solving abilities (PSA)
Multiple R= .795 R2 = .631 Adj R2 = .617
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 6304.983 2 3152.492 45.37 .000
Residual 3682.623 53 69.483
Total 9987.606 55
Variables in the equation
Variables r B Std. Error  t Sig.
CU .790 .486 .062 .745 7.86 .000
Engagement .449 .175 .176 .095 0.998 .323

Table 12. Experimental group II regression analysis for PSA and component of variables
Problem-solving abilities (PSA)
Multiple R=0.737 R2=0.544 Adj R2 = .526
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 5593.210 2 2796.605 30.380 .000
Residual 4694.771 51 92.054
Total 10287.982 53
Variables in the equation
Variables r B Std. Error  t Sig.
CU .709 .351 .054 .644 6.478 .000
Engagement .410 .392 .184 .212 2.134 .038

Regression analysis for student problem solving ability II students’ problem-problem-solving F (2, 53) = 30.38, p
and mediating variables < .001). This variation’s substantial level indicates that
students’ problem-solving abilities significantly shaped
The study utilized multiple linear regression analysis
by their conceptual understanding (β = .644, t = 6.478, p
to investigate the influence of engagement and
< .001) and engagement (β = .212, t = 2.134, p = 0.038 <
conceptual understanding on problem-solving abilities.
0.05) taken together. The study revealed that GGDIA
VIF values below 10% and tolerance values above 10%,
significantly enhanced students’ problem-solving
indicating no multicollinearity influence between
abilities by enhancing their engagement and conceptual
predictive variables. There is no significant correlation
understanding.
between the independent and residual variables
(p=0.190>0.05), and the residual variable has a normal Table 13 shows that 38% of the variation in problem-
distribution. The scatter plot reveals no issues with the solving ability was jointly explained by the predictors (F
regression model’s heteroskedasticity, and the Durbin- (2, 53) = 16.223, p < .001). The study found that students
Watson test results show no correlation between had a significant level of conceptual understanding (β=
independent and residual variables, with a range of 1.5 .613, t = 5.642, p< .001), but their engagement in learning
to 2.5. plane geometry was non-significant (β=.024, t= .223,
p>0.05). The study exposed that the traditional method
Table 11 revealed that the combination of the two
improved students’ problem-solving ability by
independent variables significantly predicts student
improving their concept understanding.
problem-solving ability, with the model explaining
63.1% of the variance and F (2, 53) = 45.37, p < .001. The overall quantitative data finding shows that the
Furthermore, the coefficients determine the impact of VHGGDIA significantly improved students’
each factor on problem-solving ability. The results engagement, problem-solving abilities, and conceptual
revealed that students’ conceptual understanding understanding. Similarly, the GGDIA significantly
significantly predicts their problem-solving ability enhanced students’ problem-solving abilities and
(β=.745, t=7.86, p<.001). However, students’ engagement conceptual understanding of plane geometry. However,
had a non-significant impact on students’ problem- the traditional teaching approach did not significantly
solving ability (β = .095, t = .998, p = .323 > .05). The study impact students’ engagement, problem-solving abilities,
shows that by increasing students’ conceptual and conceptual understanding. Students who learned
understanding, the VHGGDIA significantly enhanced through VHGGDIA experienced greater benefits
their capacity for problem-solving. compared to those in other groups. The qualitative data
analysis shows improvement in experimental groups,
Table 12 revealed that together, the predictors
but control group students struggled to meet goals and
explained 54.4% of the variation in experimental group

15 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

Table 13. Control group regression analysis for PSA and component of variables
Problem-solving abilities (PSA)
Multiple R=0.616 R2=0.380 Adj R2 = .356
ANOVA Table
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Regression 3723.353 2 1861.677 16.223 .000
Residual 6081.849 53 114.752
Total 9805.202 55
Variables in the equation
Variables r B Std. Error  t p
CU .616 .222 .057 .613 5.648 .000
Engagement .085 .058 .259 .024 .223 .824

had no interest in plane geometry learning. The The interview responses also show students find this
quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed a positive teaching approach difficult since they believe it calls for
correlation. more difficult assignments.

Analysis of Challenges in Implementing VHGGDIA Interviewer: What challenges did you observe
during the intervention period?
During the implementation period, both teachers and
students faced challenges, raising the third research TT1: The students’ dislike of mathematics
question, RQ3. The study utilized observation and was preventing them from
teacher interviews to gather data, categorizing results participating in class discussions as
into classroom situations, student reactions, and we had hoped. In addition, students
teachers’ prospective. find it difficult to finish the assigned
topic in the allocated time periods
Classroom situations since the intervention is carried out
inside the mandated government
The initial section of the observation checklist
school schedule (TT1, 25 May 2023,
revealed some classroom issues. The initial observation
2:30).
indicates a significant resource shortage, many students,
and a lack of two-way communication, which hinders Interviewer: Can you add additional point to what
effective intervention. The method encourages active you are feeling?
participation and introspection through unstructured
group discussions, but a large group size restricts task TT1: The method helps students come up
sharing and reflection. The teaching method faces with their own solutions; it’s crucial to
challenges due to students’ lack of prior knowledge and observe how creative and critical they
the absence of active teacher-student interaction. The are. For them to focus on their task, a
teacher’s interview results also showed that numerous quiet and convenient environment is
classroom students obstructed the intervention. For necessary. Teaching a class of fifty or
example: more students is challenging as a
result (TT1, 25 May 2023, 2:30).
TT1: It was difficult to guide students in group
discussions because there are so many TT1: The new teaching strategy requires
students in a class. effective communication; however,
some students find it difficult to
Students’ reaction
express and synthesize their
The observation result shows since the students were experiences in both written and
accustomed to more conventional teaching methods, this spoken forms. This made the new
was a novel experience for them. The class faced strategy’s implementation
challenges due to fear among students and time challenging. (TT1, 25 May 2023, 2:30).
constraints, making it difficult to follow discussions on
novel topics requiring prior knowledge. Students Teachers prospective
struggled to engage in discussions about a new subject
Preparation of the instruction and excessive amount
due to their reluctance to transition from passive to
of teacher preparation for implementation was noted by
active learning.
the observer. Lesson planning was a challenge for the
teacher because thoughtful teachings support students
in understanding the links between each step. The

16 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634

teacher’s everyday obligations required them to prepare information since Van Hiele states that those who lack
ahead of time for the six-week experiment. sufficient background knowledge struggle to achieve the
Implementation: Teachers’ follow-up was crucial for desired outcome.
the success of the strategy, as students were disengaged The result shows that VHGGDIA significantly
and delayed task completion due to insufficient improved students’ conceptual understanding,
assistance. The finding indicates that the large class size engagement, and problem-solving ability in learning
poses a challenge for teachers to simultaneously address plane geometry. This teaching method blends the
every student’s issue. guided discovery instructional style with the Van Hiele
model. Instruction in plane geometry benefited from
TT1: Over the past 25 years, I have embraced a each of these teaching approaches. Various study results
teacher-centered approach, but I require supported this research finding (Machisi & Feza, 2021;
adequate training to effectively implement Mohammod & Zakariyya, 2023; Santos et al., 2022;
this strategy in my classroom. The group Yalley et al., 2021).
management faced challenges due to the
What makes this study different from previous
students who were sometimes talkative and
studies is that this study focuses on integrating strategies
disturbed the class. (TT1, 25 May 2023, 2:30)
for high school students who lack background
The students thoroughly enjoyed the activities, knowledge, helping them understand primary concepts
despite facing numerous challenges throughout the and complete grade-level competencies within time. The
intervention process. Most students found the model intervention in Experimental Group II also positively
stages to be an enjoyable method for learning plane impacted on student engagement, conceptual
geometry. The variety of activities they engaged in was understanding, and problem-solving ability compared
a significant factor that made it exciting. In summary, the to the control group, but not as significantly as
VHGGDIA is essential for teaching geometry, and some Experimental Group I.
difficulties may be avoided with careful preparation and In addition, the VHGGDIA showed a statistically
planning. significant change within the group, as evidenced by the
comparison of pre- and post-test results. The GGDIA
DISCUSSION also showed a significant change in pre- and post-test
results, but not as much as the VHGGDIA. The result of
This study investigated how VHGGDIA affected
this study was consistent with research led on
students’ problem-solving abilities, conceptual
elementary school mathematics instruction using the
understanding, and level of involvement when studying
Van Hiele phase-based learning approach (Santos et al.,
plane geometry.
2022).
Effect of the Van Hiele Group-guided Discovery In general, VHGGDIA significantly improves student
Instructional Approach engagement, conceptual understanding, and problem-
solving abilities compared to GGDIA and conventional
Effective learning environments connect students teaching methods. Additionally, students’ participation
and competencies, requiring careful design and in plane geometry lessons, conceptual comprehension,
implementation of activities aligned with teacher and practical problem-solving skills were all markedly
pedagogy to enhance their effectiveness (Kocagul, 2024). improved by using VHGGDIA.
The study examined the impact of VHGGDIA on
students’ engagement, conceptual understanding, and Contribution of Engagement and Concept
problem-solving abilities in learning plane geometry. Understanding on Problem Solving Ability
Further, the study investigated the influence of
engagement and conceptual understanding on students’ Moreover, the study found that students’ problem-
problem-solving abilities. solving abilities were significantly enhanced by the
combination of expected student engagement and
The intervention significantly improved student
conceptual understanding when trained using
engagement and conceptual understanding, with
VHGGDIA, GGDIA, and traditional teaching methods.
experimental group I students showing a larger than
Students treated with VHGGDIA demonstrated
typical effect size compared to the control group (see
improved conceptual understanding, leading to
Table 8). The method increases students’ interest in
improving their problem-solving abilities. The finding
studying plane geometry, helps them understand the
was supported by previous research findings (Al-
new concept, and eventually improves their problem-
Mutawah et al., 2019; Kholid et al., 2021). The study
solving abilities.
found that student engagement in plane geometry
This study’s findings are in line with the previous learning did not significantly enhance their problem-
findings (Silmi Juman et al., 2022). This study provides solving ability compared to conceptual understanding.
appropriate time for students to rehearse their previous However, the strategy significantly increased students’

17 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

engagement in plane geometry learning. The study to participate in class discussions and express their
indicates that VHGGDIA can significantly improve thoughts to others. These unwanted feelings made it
students’ concept understanding, which is significantly difficult to implement VHGGDIA in the classroom
more predictive of their problem-solving abilities than discussion.
their level of engagement. Thirdly, because of the students’ lack of prior
The result shows that the VHGGDIA was an effective knowledge, the teacher finds it difficult to utilize this
strategy in attaining students’ conceptual understanding teaching style. The approach also requires careful
to improve their problem-solving ability. For each score preparation, starting with the background information
of student conceptual understanding, the student’s and working up to the new material that will be covered.
problem-solving ability increased by .75. In teaching The teacher’s patience becomes exhausted during the
plane geometry using the VHGGDIA, Van Hiele process.
instructional model has a considerable impact on
students’ conceptual understanding rather than CONCLUSION
engagement to improve their problem-solving abilities.
The study came up to the conclusion that the
However, engagement has weak and non-significant VHGGDIA is important for encouraging students’
influences on student problem-solving abilities. The abilities to solve problems. Thus, when creating and
result contradicts with the finding of Lein and his implementing instructional activities for the VHGGDIA,
colleagues (Lein et al., 2016). From the participants’ teachers need to take students’ developmental phases
responses, one of the reasons for this problem was the into account. Instructional activities are also appealing
large number of students in the classroom reduces components that enhance students’ conceptual
students’ engagement to actively participate in-group understanding and foster participation, which in turn
discussion. In experimental group II, students who improves their capacity for problem-solving. The results
engaged in learning plane geometry and gained a further emphasize how crucial teacher-student contact
conceptual understanding had good problem solvers. is. Accordingly, the research suggests that both
Different research study results supported this finding classroom and outside activities should foster effective
(Al-Mutawah et al., 2019; Kholid et al., 2021). Still, the communication between teachers and students for
more predictive value was the conceptual student success. During the intervention period,
understanding. The control group student conceptual challenges like unattractive classroom environment, lack
understanding is a good predictor of student problem- of supportive instructional materials, and time
solving abilities. constraints hindered the successful implementation of
Generally, the researcher concludes that the the VHGGDIA.
VHGGDIA considerably enhanced student engagement, The authors feel that teachers and individuals
conceptual understanding, and problem-solving looking for additional in-depth research might greatly
abilities. Additionally, by improving students’ benefit from the study’s findings. This research’s
conceptual understanding, the method was more primary limitations were due to school scheduling; the
successful in improving their problem-solving skills. intervention phase lasted just six weeks, so it would be
best to continue the therapy for a longer amount of time;
Challenges of VHGGDIA in Learning Plane
and the study primarily focused on one city due to
Geometry
resource constraints. As a result, the study suggestions:
Active teaching includes attractive classrooms, active The teacher should help the student overcome everyday
engagement, enough supportive materials, effective obstacles by combining classroom instruction with real-
teacher planning, and observation, significantly world activities outside of the classroom. Teachers
influence students’ performance (Malik, 2018; Pajarillo- should provide a relaxed learning atmosphere for
Aquino, 2019). The VHGGDIA encourages student knowledge sharing and begin the class using the
participation and communication between students and students’ existing knowledge. This activity promotes
teachers and emphasizes the significance of plane teamwork, helps students retain prior knowledge, and
geometry concepts in solving daily problems. gets them ready for future classes. Teachers should focus
First, the study shows that instructors’ use of on activities that enhance students’ engagement and
VHGGDIA in the classroom is hampered by lack of time, conceptual understanding, thereby improving their
resources, large student populations, and inconvenient problem-solving abilities.
sitting arrangements. This conclusion aligns with the Author contributions: AAG: conceptualization, design, data
research that Eison discovered (Eison, 2010). curation, formal analysis, investigation, project administration,
writing – original draft; MAA & TEW: writing – review & editing,
Second, some students are often unmotivated to learn supervision. All authors have agreed with the results and
mathematics, particularly plane geometry, since they conclusions.
perceive it as unimportant and dull. These negative Acknowledgment: The authors express gratitude to Tabor,
attitudes about mathematics make it harder for students Alamura, and Tulla Secondary Schools administration, students,

18 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634
and teachers for their support and cooperation during the study, Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 323-335.
and thanks the Ministry of Education, Bahir Dar University, and
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000273
Hawassa College of Teachers Education administrators for helping
me facilitate this study program. Begna, T. N. (2017). Classroom participation and
Funding: No funding source is reported for this study. development of student attitudes: A study of active
Ethical statement: The authors stated that the study was approved learning practices in Ethiopian primary education.
by the Mathematics Department of Bahir Dar University in International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and
Ethiopia on 06/04/2015 E.C (15/12/2022 G.C) with Ref:
Math/46/2015. Additionally, the participating instructors signed
Education, 4(3), 67-85.
an informed consent form. Belay, S., Atnafu, M., Michael, K., & Ermias, A. (2017).
Declaration of interest: The authors declare that there are no Strategic policy for national science, technology, and
conflicts of interest. mathematics education: Ethiopian ministry of Education
Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and (MOE) main document. Japan International
conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding
author. Cooperation agency (JICA).
Bethell, G. (2016). Mathematics education in Sub-Saharan
REFERENCES Africa: Status, challenges, and opportunities. World
Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/25289
Achera, L. J., Belecina, R. R., & Garvida, M. D. (2015). The
effect of group guided discovery approach on the Bicknell-Holmes, T., & Seth Hoffman, P. (2000). Elicit,
performance of students in geometry. International engage, experience, explore: Discovery learning in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Modern library instruction. Reference Services Review, 28(4),
Education, 1(2), 2454-6119. 313-322.
Adeniji, S. M., & Baker, P. (2022). Comparative Binri, H. S., & Hidayati, K. (2022). Developing a plane
effectiveness of example-based instruction and Van geometry learning kits by using problem based
Hiele teaching phases on mathematics learning. learning model oriented in problem-solving skills.
Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the In AIP Conference Proceedings, 2575(1). AIP
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0111369
(pp. 58-65). Launceston: MERGA. Brezavšček, A., Jerebic, J., Rus, G., & Žnidaršič, A. (2020).
Alex, J. K., & Mammen, K. J. (2016). Geometrical sense Factors influencing mathematics achievement of
making: Findings of analysis based on the university students of social sciences. Mathematics,
characteristics of the Van Hiele theory among a 8(12), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8122134
sample of South African grade 10 learners. Eurasia Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Harvard
Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology University Press.
Education, 12(2), 173-188. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral
Al-Mutawah, M. A., Thomas, R., Eid, A., Mahmoud, E. sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 112, Issue 1, pp. 155-159).
Y., & Fateel, M. J. (2019). Conceptual Department of Phycology, New York University,
understanding, procedural knowledge and New York.
problem-solving skills in mathematics: High school Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Mixed methods
graduates work analysis and standpoints. procedures. In Research Design: Qualitative,
International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
258-273.
Demir, S. (2022). Comparison of normality tests in terms
Alrajeh, T. S., & Shindel, B. W. (2020). Student of sample sizes under different skewness and
engagement and math teachers support. Journal on kurtosis coefficients. International Journal of
Mathematics Education, 11(2), 167-180. Assessment Tools in Education, 9(2), 397-409.
https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.10282.167-180 https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1101295
Andira, A., & Syam, H. (2022). Exploring of students’ Egne, R. M. (2022). Pedagogical science practices in
ability to solve geometry problems based on Van public higher education institutions of Ethiopia:
Hiele’s level of thinking. Indonesian Journal of Progress made but challenges remain. Athens
Research and Educational Review, 1(2), 192-200. Journal of Education, 9(2), 303-324.
https://doi.org/10.51574/ijrer.v1i2.181 https://doi.org/10.30958/AJE.9-2-7
Atnafu Ayele, M. (2016). Students’ beliefs about Eison, J. (2010). Using active learning instructional
mathematics learning and problem solving: The strategies to create excitement and enhance
case of grade eleven students in West Arsi Zone, learning. Jurnal Pendidikantentang Strategi
Ethiopia. Education Journal, 5(4), 62-70. Pembelajaran Aktif (Active Learning) Books, 2(1), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20160504.14
Findell, B., Swafford, J., & Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Adding it
Bear, G. G., Yang, C., Chen, D., He, X., Xie, J. S., & Huang, up: Helping children learn mathematics. National
X. (2018). Differences in school climate and student Academies Press.
engagement in China and the United States. School

19 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

Fredricks, J. A., & Paris, A. H. (2016). School outcomes in mathematics. Journal of Student
engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the Research, 12(3).
evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59- Lein, A. E., Jitendra, A. K., Starosta, K. M., Dupuis, D. N.,
109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 Hughes-Reid, C. L., & Star, J. R. (2016). Assessing
Fuys, D., Geddes, D., & Rosamond, T. (1984). English the relation between seventh-grade students’
translation of selected writings of Dina Van Hiele- engagement and mathematical problem solving
Geldof and Pierre M. Van Hiele. National Science performance. Preventing School Failure, 60(2), 117-
Foundation. 123.
Gurmu, F., Tuge, C., & Hunde, A. B. (2024). Effects of https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2015.1036392
GeoGebra-assisted instructional methods on Maamin, M., Maat, S. M., & Iksan, Z. H. (2021). Analysis
students’ conceptual understanding of geometry. of the factors that influence mathematics
Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2379745. achievement in the ASEAN countries. Cypriot
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2379745 Journal of Educational Sciences, 16(1), 371-389.
Howse, T. D., & Howse, M. E. (2015). Linking the Van https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i1.5535
Hiele theory to instruction. National Council of Maarif, S., & Soebagyo, J. (2024). Discovery learning in
Teachers of Mathematics, 21(5), 304-313. geometry class: The implementation of learning to
https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.21.5.0304 built pre-service teachers’ conceptual
Jablonski, S., & Ludwig, M. (2023). Teaching and understanding of geometry based on
learning of geometry. A literature review on sociomathematical norms. Indonesia Mathematics
current developments in theory and practice. Education, 7(1), 20-34.
Education Sciences, 13(7), Article 682. Machisi, E., & Feza, N. N. (2021). Van Hiele theory-based
Jetu, R. R. (2019). Identifying factors affecting students’ instruction and grade 11 students’ geometric proof
academic achievement in science and mathematics competencies. Contemporary Mathematics and
in primary schools of Hawassa city. Journal of Science Education, 2(1), Article ep21007.
Education and Practice. https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/9682
Johnson, D. W. (2003). Social interdependence: Malik, R. S. (2018). Educational challenges in 21st
Interrelationships among theory, research, and century and sustainable development. Journal of
practice. The American Psychologist, 58(11), 934-945. Sustainable Development Education and Research, 2(1),
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.11.934 9-20.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Social Mengistie, S., Tamiru, A. B., & Abebe, A. A. (2020).
interdependence theory and cooperative learning: Measuring quality as students’ problem solving
The teacher’s role. In The teacher’s role in skill development in mathematics: The case of
implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (pp. grades 9 and 10 students in Addis Kidame
9-37). Boston, MA: Springer US. secondary school, Amhara region, Ethiopia.
Integrity Journal of Education and Training, 4(2), 16-
Khan, G. (2015). Using item analysis on essay types
23.
questions given in summative examination of
medical college students: Facility value, Ministry of Education. (2009). Curriculum framework for
discrimination index. International Journal of Ethiopian education (KG – Grade 12). Federal
Research in Medical Sciences, 3(1). Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of
https://doi.org/10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20150131 Education.
Kholid, M. N., Imawati, A., Swastika, A., Maharani, S., & Ministry of Education. (2010). Mathematics grade ten
Pradana, L. N. (2021). How are students’ student textbook. Federal Democratic Republic of
conceptual understanding for solving Ethiopia, Ministry of Education.
mathematical problem? Journal of Physics: Ministry of Education. (2018). Education sector
Conference Series, 1776(1). development programme V (ESDP V). The Federal
Kocagul, M. (2024). Learning activity matters: Tips for Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
student engagement. Participatory Educational Ministry of Education. (2020). Education sector
Research, 11(1), 1-15. development programme VI (ESDP VI). The Federal
Kumar, M. (2020). A study of problem solving ability Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
and creativity among the higher secondary Mirna M. (2018). Errors analysis of students in
students. Shanlax International Journal of Education, mathematics department to learn plane geometry.
8(2), 30-34. IOP Conference Series.
Lee, J., & Paul, N. (2023). A review of pedagogical Mohammed, J. & Zakariyya, N. (2023). Effect of Van
approaches for improved engagement and learning Hiele's instructional model on students' academic

20 / 22
 EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2025, 21(5), em2634

performance and anxiety in geometry among Saputra, H., Maulina, S., Mirunnisa, M., & Razi, Z.
senior secondary school in Katsina State, Nigeria. (2022). The effect of contextual teaching and
GSJ, 11(8), 539-552. learning on students’ conceptual understanding of
NCTM (2000). Principles and standards for school geometry. Jurnal Sains Riset, 12(3), 719-724.
mathematics: A guide for mathematicians. Notices https://doi.org/10.47647/jsr.v12i3.986
of the American Mathematical Society, 47(8), 868-876. Sariyasa (2017). Creating dynamic learning environment
Niyukuri, F., Nzotungicimpaye, J., & Ntahomvukiye, C. to enhance students’ engagement in learning
(2020). Pre-service teachers’ secondary school geometry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 824,
experiences in learning geometry and their Article 012057. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
confidence to teach it. EURASIA Journal of 6596/824/1/012057
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(8). Shirali, S. A. (2014). George pólya & problem solving...
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8334 An appreciation. Resonance, 19(4), 310-322.
Nurbavliyev, O., Kaymak, S., & Sydykov, B. (2022). The https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-014-0037-7
effect of active learning method on students’ Shishigu, A. (2018). Mathematics anxiety and prevention
academic success, motivation and attitude towards strategy: An attempt to support students and
mathematics. Journal of Language and Linguistic strengthen mathematics education. Mathematics
Studies, 18(2), 701-713. Education Trends and Research, 2018(1), 1-11.
Pajarillo-Aquino, I. (2019). The effects of rewards and https://doi.org/10.5899/2018/metr-00096
punishments on the academic performance of Silmi Juman, Z. A. M., Mathavan, M., Ambegedara, A.
students of the college of teacher education. S., & Udagedara, I. G. K. (2022). Difficulties in
International Journal of Advanced Research in learning geometry component in mathematics and
Management and Social Sciences, 8(6), 245-253. active-based learning methods to overcome the
Prasad, K. S. (2011). Learning mathematics by discovery. difficulties. Shanlax International Journal of
Academic Voices: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 31-33. Education, 10(2), 41-58.
https://doi.org/10.3126/av.v1i0.5307 Sinclair, N., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., de Villiers, M., Jones,
Pujawan, I., Suryawan, I., & Prabawati, D. A. A. (2020). K., Kortenkamp, U., Leung, A., & Owens, K.
The effect of Van Hiele learning model on students’ (2016). Recent research on geometry education: An
spatial abilities. International Journal of Instruction, ICME-13 survey team report. ZDM, 48, 691-719.
13(3), 461-474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0796-6
Rahim, M. H. (2014). Research implications for teaching Singh, N. A., & Kumar, N. (2022). Geometry and its uses
and learning strategies in undergraduate in day to day life. International Research Journal of
mathematics. European Journal of Science and Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science,
Mathematics Education, 2, 122-130. https://doi.org/ 05, 2703-2709.
10.30935/scimath/9634 Subban, P. K., & Round, P. N. (2015). Differentiated
Rahmawati, T. D., Sulisworo, D., & Prasetyo, E. (2020). instruction at work. Reinforcing the art of
Enhancing students’ motivation and problem classroom observation through the creation of a
solving skills in mathematics using guided checklist for beginning and pre-service teachers.
discovery learning. Universal Journal of Educational Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 117-
Research, 8(12), 6783-6789. 131. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n5.7
Ramadhania, D., Prayitno, S., Subarinah, S., & Arjudin, Suglo, E. K., Aboagye, D., Aligi, I., Akuteye, E. A.,
A. (2022). Analysis of mathematics problem- Akanbang, S., & Dery, C. A. (2024). Noticing
solving ability on plane figure subject based on Van students’ geometry learning using Van Hiele’s
Hieles theory at junior high school. Jurnal Pijar geometry thinking model at the senior high school
Mipa, 17(4), 493-498. level in Builsa south district of Upper East Region.
East African Journal of Education Studies, 7(4), 515-
Saadati, F., & Celis, S. (2023). Student motivation in
527. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.7.4.2385
learning mathematics in technical and vocational
higher education: Development of an instrument. Sulfiyah, R., Baiduri, B., & Ismail, A. D. (2020). Analysis
International Journal of Education in Mathematics, of student’s conceptual understanding on
Science and Technology, 11(1), 156-178. visualization phase in learning geometry by using
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.2194 spinning wheel media. Mathematics Education
Journal, 3(2).
Santos, M. S. M. D., Sobretodo, M. L., & Hortillosa, A. D.
(2022). The Van Hiele model in teaching geometry. Suminar, R. R., Meiliasari, & Nurjannah (2024).
World Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Improving geometry problem solving abilities
4(1), 10-22. through spatial reasoning-based problem based

21 / 22
Gebremeskel et al. / Engagement, concept knowing, and problem solving ability

learning in elementary schools. Jurnal Elementaria students in understanding the concept of geometry.
Edukasia, 7(2), 2736-2749. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1318(1).
Taherdoost, H. (2022). Data collection methods and tools Xiao, Y., Han, J., Koenig, K., Xiong, J., & Bao, L. (2018).
for research; A step-by-step guide to choose data Multilevel Rasch modeling of two-tier multiple
collection technique for academic and business choice test: A case study using Lawson’s classroom
research projects. International Journal of Academic test of scientific reasoning. Physical Review Physics
Research in Management (IJARM), 10(1), 10-38. Education Research, 14(2), Article 020104.
Tamara, A., Maizora, S., & Hanifah, H. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14
Application of cooperative learning to improve the .020104
understanding of mathematical concepts in junior Yalley, E., Armah, G., & Ansah, R. K. (2021). Effect of the
high school. Bencoolen Journal of Science Education Van Hiele instructional model on students’
and Technology, 1(2), 38-46. achievement in geometry. Education Research
Vojkuvkova, I. (2012). The Van Hiele model of geometric International.
thinking. WDS’12 Proceedings of Contributed Papers, Yudianto, E., Sunardi, Sugiarti, T., Susanto, Suharto, &
1, 72-75. Trapsilasiwi, D. (2018). The identification of Van
Walde, G. S. (2019). The actual status of general Hiele level students on the topic of space analytic
secondary school mathematics teaching and geometry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
learning: The case of Ethiopia. Journal of Physics: 983(1).
Conference Series, 1176, Article 042097. Yusuf, Y., Yuliawati, L., & Gumelar, R. H. (2023).
Walelign, T. (2014). Assessment of students’ Application of guided discovery learning (Gdl)
mathematical competency, a case study in Dire- model in an effort to improve students’
Dawa University. Ethiopian Journal of Education and mathematical problem solving ability. Symmetry:
Sciences, 9(2). Pasundan Journal of Research in Mathematics Learning
and Education, 8(2), 255-264.
Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., &
https://doi.org/10.23969/symmetry.v8i2.10641
Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement
scales: Scale development, validation, and Zhang, D. (2017). Effects of visual working memory
psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, training and direct instruction on geometry
43, 16-26. problem solving in students with geometry
difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary
White, H., & Sabarwal, S. (2014). Quasi-experimental
Journal, 15(1), 117-138.
design and methods. Methodological Briefs: Impact
Evaluation, 8(2014). Zhou, S.-N., Liu, Q.-Y., Koenig, K., Xiao, Q. L.-Y., & Bao,
L. (2021). Analysis of two-tier question scoring
Widada, W., Agustina, A., Serlis, S., Dinata, B. M., &
methods: A case study on the Lawson’s classroom
Hasari, S. T. (2019). The abstraction ability of
test of scientific reasoning. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 20(1), 146-159.

https://www.ejmste.com

22 / 22