A Comparison of U.S. and Chinese Geometry Standards through the Lens of van Hiele Levels

Autor/inn/en	Zhou, Lili; Liu, Jinqing; Lo, Jane-Jane
Titel	A Comparison of U.S. and Chinese Geometry Standards through the Lens of van Hiele Levels
Quelle	In: International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 10 (2022) 1, S.38-56 (20 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Zhou, Lili) ORCID (Liu, Jinqing) ORCID (Lo, Jane-Jane)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2147-611X
Schlagwörter	Comparative Education; Mathematics Instruction; Geometry; Teaching Methods; Mathematics Curriculum; Geometric Concepts; Difficulty Level; Academic Standards; Educational Change; Foreign Countries; Common Core State Standards; Elementary Secondary Education; China; United States + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft; Mathematics lessons; Mathematikunterricht; Geometrie; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Elementare Geometrie; Schwierigkeitsgrad; Bildungsreform; Ausland; Common core curriculum; Curriculum; Kerncurriculum; USA
Abstract	The present study aims to compare the geometry standards in U.S. Common Core State Standards of Mathematics (CCSSM) and Chinese Compulsory Education Mathematics Curriculum Standards (CMCS) through the lens of van Hiele levels. The study considered a standard unit as one or multiple learning expectation(s) and placed each learning expectation into van Hiele levels. By examining the van Hiele level distributions of the learning expectations and major topics, this study investigated how CCSSM and CMCS propose the students' development of geometric thoughts. The findings reveal different emphases in geometry learning expectations of CCSSM and CMCS. Specifically, (a) Geometry standards in CCSSM are more general, whereas geometry standards in CMCS are more specific; (b) CMCS shows a more consistent progression through grade bands than CCSSM; (c) CCSSM makes more connections between various aspects within a topic and across multiple topics than CMCS; (d) CCSSM highlights Dynamic Geometry Environments (DGEs), whereas CMCS underscores abstract and rigor at the upper level. Implications of this study and suggestions for future revisions for both standards are discussed. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. Necmettin Erbakan University, Ahmet Kelesoglu Education Faculty, Meram, Konya, 42090, Turkey. e-mail: ijermst@gmail.com; Web site: http://ijemst.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01